as chairman, brought up the first report of the Select Committee on Irrigation Matters.

Report and evidence to be printed, and considered to-morrow.

as chairman, brought up the second report of the Select Committee on Irrigation Matters, reporting the Irrigation Districts Adjustments Bill with amendments.

House to go into Committee on the Bill tomorrow.

laid upon the Table—

intimated that a letter had to-day been received from Lady Gladstone acknowledging the resolution adopted by this House on the 7th March, 1930, on the death of her husband and conveying her deep appreciation of the terms of the resolution and the sympathy expressed by the House.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he will be good enough to tell us if the Dairy Bill is to be gone on with this session. There is a great deal of anxiety in the country as to its possible fate.

Yes, I am going on with that.

Thank you very much.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I would like to ask the Minister, in view of the fact that at the end of the session this most important Bill is introduced, whether he would not consider in future introducing such a Bill earlier. This is an omnibus Bill, and some of the clauses may be most important. We are all anxious to expedite the business this week, and not inclined to go in for any obstruction.

I quite appreciate the point of the hon. member, but he will appreciate it is generally impossible to introduce this Bill earlier. Some clauses arise out of the work of the select committees which sit during the session, and the Bill must be hung up until they have concluded.

We have not seen the Bill.

Yes, you will see it to-morrow.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a first time; second reading to-morrow.

I would just like to make clear that the intention is to send this Bill to a select committee before second reading, and treat it as a non-party matter.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill brought up and read a first time; second reading to-morrow.

Here again we are dealing with one of the most important Acts of Parliament, placed on our statute book in 1917, and I think there are over 100 clauses in it. Are we serious or are we not? Will the hon. gentleman tell us that he does not intend to go on with the Bill this session.

No.

Second reading on 28th May.

I move—

I am sorry that at this stage I must occupy the time of the House. I should, however, be neglecting my duty if I did not take this opportunity of speaking briefly on an important matter. The standing Rules and Orders place private members in a very difficult position. I learn that there would be a specific item on the loan estimates. It was, however, not on them, and, according to the rules of the House, I had no opportunity of speaking about it. The result is that I must now try to get information about it, because otherwise I shall be in an awkward position when my constituents want information from me. It refers to agricultural education in the Free State. At the time when agricultural education was taken over by the central government from the provincial administration, we wanted very much to know what would be done in connection with the extension of agricultural education. The Free State is dependent on agriculture and stock-breeding. We do not have large industrial towns like the other provinces. Our sons and daughters have to stop on the land or go to other provinces. We, therefore, expected that the Free State would receive certain concessions in that matter. Let me quote a few figures to show what has been done in the other provinces in connection with agricultural education, only with respect to the erection of buildings. At Oakdale £8,800 was spent, and about £17,000 at Marlowe. In the Transvaal £7,700 was spent, so that altogether about £31,000 was spent on buildings in the other provinces. This year alone almost £18,000 is being spent in another province. I am not now speaking of places where buildings already existed. In the Free State we find that not a single penny was spent on new buildings, like Augsburg in the Cape Province and Delagersdrift in the Transvaal where considerable sums have already been spent on agricultural education. All places which after the central government has taken over agricultural education from the provincial administrations commencement has been made with agricultural education. I therefore think that it is my duty to ask the Minister what the position is, so that I can give information about this matter to my constituents. We are not concerned with the crisis in this connection. The loan estimates provide for an increased expenditure of £200,000. The work is therefore going on in the ordinary way, and I think that the Government is acting wisely in not curtailing the work, but why have we got nothing in the Free State? Have we not done our duty? I am sorry that the Minister responsible for education is not here. I want to say that we have actually done our duty. Just before agricultural education was placed under the central government, the provincial council intended establishing a similar agricultural school at Boshof to the one at Tweespruit which would make the second in the Free State. When the present Government took over agricultural education I at once felt that it was my duty to see that there was an agricultural school at Boshof. The Minister visited the constituency, but said that he could make no promise, because there were other places that had also made representations to him, and he would like to have a proper investigation made first of all. He did so, and in the meantime Boshof gratuitously gave a thousand morgen of the best municipal ground for the purposes of such an agricultural school. We did what we could. The investigation was made a year after. Then two places were recommended. The first was Boshof for the north-western portion, and Frankfort for the north-eastern portion. We waited two years, and each year I asked a question about the matter in this House. I went to see the Minister in Pretoria, and was then informed that there were yet other places that had made representations to the Minister and that he had to make further enquiries. I told the Minister at that time that if those places had not yet made representations to him, then they would either be unsuitable for agricultural schools, or they did not want them. I also asked why we, and other places, had to wait for them. We notified our dissatisfaction, but we had to submit to a further enquiry. After that was made I tried again to find out what the position was and to-get more information. The result of the enquiry was that Boshof was again placed first, and Frankfort second, as suitable for an agricultural school. I was assured that he would make a start because the enquiry had shown that his officials had once more recommended Boshof. After having waited for two years no start has been made as yet. The Minister concerned is not here, but I hope the Minister of Finance will give me the information. I think that I have every right in the circumstances of saying on behalf of my constituency that an injustice is being done to Boshof and the whole of the Free State. In the other provinces about £31,000 has been spent on new buildings for agricultural education, and why do we not get a single penny in the Free State? I can assure the Minister that this a great grievance in Boshof. It is an acknowledged fact that the western Free State has been neglected in the past. I exerted all my energies to bring Boshof prominently to the notice of the Government. Nearly every Minister has already been there, and they have got a different impression of Boshof. I need not enlarge on Boshof. The place is suitable and so is the situation, in addition we have the material there. The Boshof school is first in the Free State, and it has attracted the attention of the whole Union. There are about 600 to 700 children in that school, and they are all children from the countryside, who have ultimately to take up agriculture. We, therefore, have the material there, and we are entitled to such an agricultural school. We have the necessary institution there, and inasmuch as Boshof was recommended, after the institution of an enquiry, I think I am entitled to say that we have a grievance in that, after four years, nothing has yet been done. I hope the Minister will give his attention to the matter, and I shall be glad to learn why money has been given to other parts while Boshof gets nothing.

It is not my object to delay the second reading of the Bill, but I should like to bring a matter of importance to the notice of the Government, and, if possible, get information from them. Last week there was an important deputation here of maize farmers from the north to approach the Government and ask what they were prepared to do to assist the maize farmers, and I would like to know what happened. Statements were made in the press which suggest that the important deputation returned with nothing at all effected, and they were not in a good humour because the Government had not given a more favourable hearing to the request addressed to them. It is a matter of great importance. If there is one matter which has been recently brought to the attention of the Government, which is of far-reaching importance, then it is the position of the maize industry, and the possibilities of the industry. Without doubt that industry is the most important one in the interior. The maize industry is possibly, with the exception of the wool and sheep industry, the most important of all one agricultural industries. In the interior there are thousands and tens of thousands of farmers who are dependent on maize growing, and, owing to the drop in the world prices, and over-production, the position to-day is extremely bad, especially in the north. If I am to judge by the reports and complaints that have reached me, then I feel very anxious about the seasons, and the months that are coming as far as our maize farmers are concerned. I thought that the Government would, in the circumstances, give more favourable hearing to the deputation, but from the newspapers we all notice, with disappointment, I think, that the Government shrugged their shoulders and can do nothing. I hope that it is not true. It is said that the deputation went to the Conference Shipping Lines to negotiate with them, and that the shipping companies went out of their way to assist the people, and that they conceded a reduction in respect of export maize during the coming months. This will assist, to a great extent, but the question arises what the Government is prepared to do, seeing the private companies are prepared to assist the people. There is no doubt that, as things are going today, there are hundreds of farmers who are not in a good position, who must get into difficulties and will possibly later have to be supported by the Government. While there is still time to save these people by putting out a helping hand without possibly giving too much assistance, it is the duty of the Government to help.

Will you support a grant?

It is not a question of a grant.

Yes, it is.

Well, if there is no other way it will possibly be necessary, but that is not the point on which the deputation, as I understood after an interview with them, had chiefly insisted. Their desire was that, just as the Conference Lines had met them in connection with the overseas freight, the railway rates should also be reduced a little for them. Years ago the export rate was 10s. a ton, today it is 15s. a ton.

It is still 10s. for unbagged maize.

But with the cost of the elevators added it still comes to 15s. I know that the rate for unbagged maize is 10s. a ton, but 5s. has to be added to that for the cost of the elevators, and the total result is that years ago when the maize industry was in a good position the rate was 10s.; to-day, when the industry is in a terribly bad way, it has gone up to 15s. The railways will, of course, say that they are, themselves, in a difficult position, and cannot possibly reduce the rates, but the position in the interior is very bad, extremely bad, and whether the assistance comes from the treasury, or by way of a reduction of the railway rates for export, makes no difference, but I think help is required to-day, because the price of maize in the world market does not pay unless a great change is brought about. Every maize farmer in this House will agree with me that the world price makes it impossible to exist. I know that the Government is prepared to assist seeing that such a great issue is at stake, but I do not know whether the Government is convinced of the urgency of the position. I have no doubt about it, and in my opinion the industry is entitled to claim assistance from the Government. I hope the answer the Government give to the deputation was not final, and that they will reconsider the matter, because I am afraid if nothing is done the Government will next year not only have tod provide for the people who have for a number of years been a burden on the State, but for new respectable families, who may possibly be ruined under the existing conditions.

What about the wool and fruit farmers?

No, the hon. member knows quite well that the wool farmers will get through. The price of wool has dropped, but it has not dropped so much as to ruin the wool farmers. The same applies to the fruit farmers. With regard to the maize farmers, however, the position is practically impossible, if they have to sell their maize at 6s. or 7s.

What about the tobacco farmers?

I am asking for information about the deputation that came here, and in connection with which there are rumours that they received an unsatisfactory reply. The hon. member is at liberty to plead for the tobacco farmers if he wishes to. I only want to point out the serious position of the maize industry, and to ask the Government for information about the reply the deputation received.

I understand that the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has been referring to the mealie position. While I agree with him bringing it up as a matter of serious importance, for there is no doubt about it that the deputation got rather short shrift from the Minister of Agriculture, judging from the reports in the press, I do think that both sides of this House do not seem able to cope with this position at all. Everybody seems afraid to deal with the thing properly. I urge again that the Government in power will get our assistance, and they should get the assistance of the Opposition, as to so increase our home market that you will have less and less to look to exports to get rid of your own produce. I think not only South Africa, but the whole world, is rapidly coming to the same conclusion as has been preached on these benches for many years. You are looking anywhere beyond the borders of your own country in the hope that you might find a market, send your goods to the coast, stick them on a privately owned steamship, say goodbye to them, and you have no control over the market price, or the distribution, and all you do is to set up a grumble, a whine, and a groan when you find that you cannot get the prices to pay the producer. Instead of that you should turn your attention seriously to your own country, and raise your spending power and make your own market in your own country. What is a market? A market is only a collection of people using the spending power of that particular community.

Who pays for the spending power?

Who pays for the spending power? It is spent by those who earn it, or it should be. Here we have the Government to-day steadily diminishing the spending power of South Africa, by example, by action, by precept, and by practical lack of sympathy in approaching the situation and by calls for constant restriction on their own part and on the part of every other person in the country. Naturally the spending power is diminished. I do not want to spread myself on this question, and I am only dealing with the matter because the right hon. member for Standerton brought it up. It is inevitable, so far as I am concerned, that I must point the way, and show the moral to those people who are not cognizant of it. I am sorry that the Minister of Labour has gone out of the House, for I want to deal with a matter which I brought up on Friday night. I was out of order then, but I am entirely in order now, and it is a matter which I think should be ventilated in this House, and replied to by the Government, particularly by the Minister of Labour. It is a matter of vital concern to the whole of the Union, and particularly of vital concern to trades unionism in the Union, trades unionism which is supposed to look up to the Minister of Labout for protection and adequate control. I wish to speak on a matter which is concerned with the furniture squabble in Johannesburg. I do not know whether the House has been sufficiently interested to observe it, but in Johannesburg there has been great trouble between employers and employees in the furniture manufacturing trade, with the result that most of the employees up there came out on strike. I received a telegram from Mr. Andrews, the secretary of the Trades Union Congress, the representative Trades Union of the Rand. I think it will hear repetition, although I read it the other night, because on that occasion the attention of the House was not concentrated upon the matter. I hope hon. members over there will keep up their pretence of interest in the Labour point of view that they have shown during the session. The wire I have received reads as follows—

The majority of hon. members, knowing Mr. Andrews very well indeed, are aware that he never puts his hand to paper unless he is convinced of the truth of the statements which he signs. He is a very careful man and does not say something which is not true and which he does not know to be true.

He belongs to the communist party.

Yes, just as my hon. friend is a decadent, but that does not prevent him being in the House of Assembly. Whether Mr. Andrews is a communist or not only shows that he is more advanced than the hon. gentleman who interjected. I think all parties are pretty well agreed that trade unionism must be fostered yet at a time like this, and on the face of that telegram, which I am certain is true, we find a Government which has two Labour members not only conniving at the employment of scab labour, but it is deliberately supplying that scab labour and is paying the fares of that scab labour to Johannesburg.

And giving it police protection !

I myself should say that lads of that description should be looked after, but where the police come in is in molesting, pushing about and abusing strike pickets. It reminds me of 20 years ago when we had the same sort of thing. The telegram has been reinforced and we now have much fuller information. We find that the drafting of these Knysna lads to Johannesburg was arranged between the employers and the principal of the trades school by telegram. I do not know whether the Minister of Labour was concerned with the matter at all; from what we have learnt of his relationship with the Cabinet I do not suppose he was, but he ought to have been. The principal of that school sent up these eight lads to scab on the Johannesburg furniture workers —a wicked thing to do—to start your boys who were being trained under State aegis in their crafts—to start them off and to deliberately send them at the beginning of their careers and to teach them how to scab. I say that the mere fact that they were sent to take the place of strikers is a complete and utter condemnation of our Government—a Government which includes two Labour members. It is an interesting commentary and shows how the principal of a Government trades school could automatically say to himself: “I am not likely to be hauled over the coals, and what I am doing is in perfect accord with the settled policy of the Government.” He must have done so or he would not have sent the boys forward. After he sends them forward, he gets into communication with the employers at Johannesburg and asks them whether they can provide board and lodging for the lads, who are getting from £2 to £3 per week which is less than half the trade union wage. I am informed that one lad who was to receive £3 per week had been four-and-a-half years in the trades school and that his proper wage should be £6 6s. per week. He goes up there to stand against men of our own flesh and blood who, presumably, voted for the Government at the last general election, but they will be foolish if they do so next time. I don’t know what the Minister of Labour will say about this matter. I hope he will make it look a little better than it appears to be to me, but it will be very difficult for him to transcend the facts and to show how such an intervention on the part of a Government department—for the trades school is a Government department and comes under the Minister of Education—can be held as warranted in arranging this strike-breaking escapade on the part of pupils trained by the State. It is not a provincial school, for these trade schools now come under the central Government. It is a most interesting commentary on the outlook of these Government servants that the principal of the Knysna trade school did not think it worth his while to consult with the Minister of Labour on the subject, for I feel perfectly certain that if the Minister had been consulted he would not have consented. Knysna is in the constituency of the Minister of Railways and Harbours.

What has that to do with it?

A lot—it is an association of ideas.

Sit down.

The hon. member for sparse and barren places, and whose mental capacity accords with his constituency, need not worry. That interjection supplies another interesting commentary on the material which sits behind the Minister of Labour as it shows how they look upon these matters. I remember an occasion when the House discussed these things several years ago and hon. members opposite were then with the Labour members in urging the fostering of trades unionism. And the hon. member who sits there, says, shut up. I can forgive him for his interjection, because it once again sends a searchlight amongst the material which sits behind the Minister of Labour, who are supposed to be interested in the working classes of South Africa. Whether they are English or Dutch, the principle is the same—you are teaching them to scab, and they seem to have your enthusiastic support.

I should like to refer to this matter. This telegram was on Friday; the first thing this morning I had inquiries made. It appears to have been done by some other organization. I can assure the hon. member that kind of action is not the policy of the Government. My view with regard to such matters is that that kind of intrusion into these matters is not the way to bring about industrial conciliation, and it is a most evil principle to introduce.

What happened?

I am trying to find out how it did happen. It is not a Ministerial action at all. I can only assure the hon. member that I am as much against that sort of thing as he is.

With reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), I just want to give a little information. If, then, the hon. member wants to continue the debate he will be quite entitled to do so, because the Bill is one introduced by the Minister of Finance. I want to say at once that the Government is fully aware of the seriousness of the position of the maize farmers. It is not a small matter when such an important industry, as the maize production, receives a blow such as is now the case, in a drop of the world price of the product, on which the producers depend to a great extent. In dealing with the subject the Government have constantly borne in mind of what great importance the matter is to the maize producers, and to the numbers of people who are interested with them in that industry. Let me now go into details. The deputation that approached the Government first of all made a proposal. I must say that from the commencement they realised that the rates to-day charged on export maize are put on the lowest possible basis, little or no profit is made on it, and it is therefore practically a sub-economic rate. They ask for the reduction of the export rate on maize by 1s. It will therefore mean that the railways will have to carry the maize at a loss. Afterwards they suggested a reduction of 6d., and suggested that the loss which would be suffered on export maize should be put on the locally used product. The Government went seriously into the proposal, but came to the conclusion that such an arrangement was unfair. It would, as a matter of fact, punish the consumer of this country, and it would eventually affect every producer, especially the farmers. The wool farmer, and all the producers have to be satisfied with a lower sale price, so it would be unreasonable towards them. A subsequent proposal which they made was that the 6d. should, for this year, be taken off export maize, and that by permission of the farmers it should be put next year on the new harvest. We also went into that, but we had to point out that this proposal also was subject to many new difficulties. Who can say that there would be a satisfactory harvest next year. And further there are this year a group of producers who want to export their maize, and next year there will be new producers, and will they be prepared to pay for the assistance granted the previous year? In the third place, who can say whether the market next year will not be just as unfavourable, or even still worse. We referred to these points, and apparently the deputation saw the force of them. They then proposed to put section 131 of the Act of Union into operation. That section lays down that when the railways are asked to do work at a non-economic rate, then an account certified by the auditor-general shall be submitted to the central government, and the government can approve of it, and pay from central funds. Now I want to ask the hon. member for Standerton whether we are to understand that he is in favour, when such a position arises, as has now arisen with reference to maize, of putting section 131 into operation. This means a subsidy by the Government to that particular industry, at the cost of the taxpayer. I want to ask him whether he is prepared to do so, and, if we do it for the maize farmer, will the hon. member agree to our also doing it for other farmers, as, e.g., the wool farmers? The wool farmers are already saying that they are in difficulties, owing to their having bought land at high prices in consequence of the good price of wool, and that they cannot come out on the present prices. They are also constantly asking for lower rates. Will the hon. member agree to our accepting the principle of doing the same for the wool farmers, the tobacco farmers, and the cotton farmers? I want to put the hon. member a concrete question. Our export of oranges was even more than a million boxes last year, in view of the development that is taking place it is clear that in some years we shall be able to export five million boxes. Suppose now that the world market in oranges is overstocked, and we cannot export all our oranges, are we then going to adopt the principle of subsidising them? Are we going to permit the citrus farmers, the deciduous fruit farmers, and any producers who get into difficulties to come and get a subsidy at the expense of the consolidated revenue fund. If we adopt this principle we shall eventually have to subsidise each of those industries. If we have to do that then the population of South Africa will have to face the fact that higher taxation will have to be imposed to subsidise every branch of farming in South Africa. Not only is this true in respect of farming, but also in respect of the other industries in our country that I could mention, but need not do so now. I think that in connection with this matter we must give serious attention to what the effect will be to the country, as a whole, on the measures which we suggest. We handle the maize of the maize farmers in the elevators at 5s. a ton, and this causes a great loss, but I have not yet thought of raising the tariff. Our intention was that it should be a part of the service which the railway administration renders to the maize farmers of the country. If, however, we are to regard the matter on business principles we shall be obliged to increase the rate. We have not done so, and we do not intend to do so. As I have said, we have gone into the economic side of the matter, and it is impossible to grant a reduction as asked for, if we do not want to drop down to a sub-economic basis. Hon. members must not forget that the railway board is in existence, and that the hoard will not permit a sub-economic rate.

The railway board?

Yes, hon. members opposite so often accuse the railway board of not making itself heard. The hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) will therefore be glad to learn that the railway board has actually made its voice heard in this respect, and refused to grant the lower rate unless the loss is made up by the treasury, and, as I have already said, this will amount to a subsidy. The Government appreciates what has been done by the Conference Lines, but we cannot put the concession of the Conference Lines on the same footing as the reduction of rates which is demanded of the Government.

They have, anyhow, reduced their freights.

Yes, they have, but their freights rested on a profitable basis. We must remember that they carry a very small portion of our maize. They simply use it as ballast to fill up the empty hold accommodation. They carry wool, fruit, etc., and use the maize to fill up space.

And the other maize?

The chartered vessels carry it.

At a higher freight?

No, agreements are entered into at 12s. 6d., but the price, of course, depends on the shipping position in the rest of the world. Fortunately for our maize farmers there is a very serious depression in shipping business. Many ships are lying in harbour without being able to get freight, and there is no reason for thinking that the chartered vessels will not carry the greatest portion of our maize. I think that I have now dealt with all the points raised by the hon. member. I hope that in view of the considerable amount of disappointment, which is quite to be understood, among the maize farmers that they and we shall not lose our heads, that we shall not only regard the matter from our own point of view, but from the general point of view, as a matter in which not merely one section of the public concerned.

We, of course, feel that this is a very difficult matter, and no one wants to speak irresponsibly about it, but it remains a fact that if the people are not assisted, a large number of the maize farmers will be ruined. The Minister of Finance asks whether we are prepared to vote for a subsidy, and the Minister of Railways also speaks on the same lines. I say that we ought rather to give a subsidy than subsequently to grant a subsidy in connection with relief works. I take the responsibility for what I am saying here. The financial position of the farmers in the Transvaal, and the Free State—I mean the maize farmers—is such that if they can get a reasonable price for their maize they will be able to tide over the world depression. It seems to me that their position is more serious than that of other farmers. As for the railways, I imagine that if the railways were owned by a private company, that company would say, “my customers are being ruined if I do not do something, and lose money in order to keep them on their legs, in order to keep them on the land, and to support them in their business, otherwise I shall not get their business next year.” I am convinced that hundreds of the maize farmers will grow no maize next year, and that we shall have no maize to export, and, therefore, I say that I would be prepared to vote in favour of having the maize carried at a sub-economic rate if it was necessary. I feel that we must assist the people now, and, if we do not do so now it will cost the State more money later, and I think the Government ought to look at the matter in this way. Maize farming is a side issue with me, but the people throughout the countryside, even in the small villages, feel that if the farmers are kept on their feet they will directly profit by it. If, however, the farmers are ruined all business disappears. The Minister’s argument that he is not going to punish the consumer of maize leaves me cold, because if a consumer gets a bag of mealies for 10s. that is enough value. We must admit that it is a very difficult matter, but I think the Government must reconsider the matter, and even, if necessary, should think about a subsidy. The Minister of Railways says that other farmers, like fruit and tobacco farmers, will then also apply. Let us wait until that happens, and then decide about it. Do not let us say that we cannot assist because other people also may possibly later need assistance. I certainly think that the deputation was very much disappointed, and that the maize farmers of the Transvaal and the Free State have also been tremendously disappointed, and, to a certain extent, justly so.

I think the Minister is adopting a wrong attitude when he asks the Opposition whether we are satisfied with this or the other thing. In connection with this matter the Government must take its responsibility.

We have done so.

The Government has always had fine weather, and it was easy to govern, but now the most difficult days have come, and the Government must go through its test, and the public expects that the Government will make clear and effective proposals for practically assisting the people. If the Opposition were to-day on the Government benches it would do its duty towards the country. When I think back to the years that are past, the difficult years with regard to wool and other things, then I remember how the Government tried to find markets for the wool farmers, etc. I do not, however, now want to go into the matter. The Government cannot shuffle off its responsibility by asking certain questions of the Opposition. When this matter was waived a few days ago, for the first time, the Minister of Agriculture said that he admitted that the maize farmers, and farmers in general, in South Africa were in difficulties, but he wanted to console us with the fact that the Australian farmers were in still greater trouble. That is not much comfort to us. Australia naturally has many attendant troubles, but that does not comfort us. The Minister further said that the farmers must co-operate. As we are faced by the fact that the prices of the world market are non-economic to the farmers, I want to know what practical advantage the farmers can get out of cooperation at once, unless the Government really does assist? The Government talks about a subsidy as if it was something new and impracticable. That same Australia, about which the Minister of Agriculture spoke, practises it regularly, and assists the wine farmers, the fruit farmers, etc., in that way. I learn that the sea freights have been altered until the end of August. We expect that there will be 12,000,000 bags of maize ready for export. Does the Minister think that it is possible in the two and a half or three months up to the end of August to handle 5,000,000 bags of the surplus? Never. How much will the farmers be assisted by that reduction which amounts to 3d. a bag, I hear? We are thankful for it, but, on the other hand, I say that the farmers have the right to expect practical sympathy to be shown by the State in their difficulties. Take our oat farmers; our surplus is only 300,000 bags. Is it impossible for the State to take steps to dispose of the comparatively small surplus? The farmers cannot get more than 5s. 3d. or 5s. 6d. for their oats, which is entirely unpayable for the grain farmers. The same applies in the case of barley. Will the Government tell me whether they have got to an end of the inquiry in connection with means of finding a way out? Will they say that they are not able to draw up a scheme to assist the oat and barley farmers? I do not want to inconvenience the Government unnecessarily, but we must face difficulties. The farmers are asking for real help in their difficulties.

I am very thankful that this matter has again been brought to the notice of the House so that the Government has an opportunity of saying what it has done and what can be done. It struck me that during the presence of the deputation that met the members of the Government, those of us, on this side, who also take an interest in the position of the maize farmers, and who also represent constituencies in which the maize industry is of very great importance, were never in the least considered, or consulted, or invited to attend the conference. We had to wander about in the dark, and get our information out of what was common talk, and what was said in the newspapers, but in the meantime we daily get letters from our constituencies and other parts in the north of the country urging us that the Government should do something to save the maize farmers. The answer which, as a rule, I gave to them was that I was convinced that the Government would not treat the matter contemptuously, and that the Government would consider the matter. I advised them to await the decision of the Government. We have to-day, at any rate, heard from the Minister of Railways what his attitude is on the proposals submitted to him, but I think the Minister of Railways and Harbours would be the first to admit that the whole of his reply amounts to nothing else but suppositions. No one would dare to deny that the maize farmers are in a very terrible position, but the Government dare not help them, owing to the fear that the cotton, fruit, tobacco, and other farmers will eventually get into the same position. It will not satisfy the people to learn from the Government that that is their reason why they cannot assist. That is the only statement we have heard this afternoon that the Government cannot assist, because subsequently other farmers may also apply for assistance. What then is a government for, but to help people when they are in difficulty? Now the Minister asks whether the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) will do this or the other. Why did he not ask before, if he would support a definite proposal made by the Government? Hon. members opposite who represent maize districts, such as my district, and that of the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) and the hon. member for Standerton, will be able to testify with me that the position is terrible; that if the Government does not arrange to grant assistance many maize farmers will have to face complete ruin, which will cost the State much more than any support they would have to give to the maize farmers to-day. I want to ask the Government, not only on behalf of the electors I represent, but also on behalf of those who have written to me, not to consider the matter as disposed of, but to consider, once more, whether some means or other cannot possibly be found to alleviate the disastrous state of affairs to a certain extent, because if no assistance is given I fear all the smaller maize farmers will be ruined, and that will make the position much worse. I do not want to reproach any hon. member, or the Government, but I make a respectful appeal, more particularly to the Minister of Agriculture, to use all his influence to explore every possible avenue in order to see what can be done to prevent the ruin of a large section of the maize farmers.

I am quite sure that every one of us who has heard not only what has been said to-day, but what has been said in the last day or two in regard to the maize farmers, will realise that it is a very serious position indeed. The maize farmer should have practical assistance from this House and the Government. We cannot blame the maize farmer for the unfortunate position in which he finds himself to-day, and in which he will find himself at the end of next season. I congratulate the Minister of Finance on the fact that ho did bring in that Bill which alters the Reserve Bank to the extent that the maize farmers are not now between three difficulties, namely, the question of the co-operative movement, the Land Bank and the private commercial bank. Between those three courses, the maize farmer finds himself in a serious predicament. It is only those who have lived carefully and know what is going on ahead who will see this through. The lesson will, I have no doubt, be learned by the maize farmer and I hope by the co-operative associations. In regard to that, one does not want to go much further into it, except to say that, for the future, it is to be hoped there will be, so far as the maize farmers are concerned, only one method of financing them, and that will be on a solid basis from the Reserve Bank which will be in the position of giving them facilities in the future. I want to bring the House back to what I think is equally serious and more immediately pressing. That is the question raised by the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) with reference to those eight boys sent up from Knysna school to Johannesburg. Before I go into the merits of it, I want to say that the information I have had since the hon. member spoke has rather complicated the position. I am sorry that the Minister of Labour is not here, but perhaps one of his colleagues will take a note of the fact. Not only have the Government, through their officials, been responsible for making scabs of these boys, but they have also made some of these boys strikers. That complicates the position. The Government sets out to send eight scabs to Johannesburg to work in the furniture trade. When the boys get to Johannesburg the strike pickets try to get hold of them to explain the position to them. They got hold of three of them and explained the position to them, but the other five were taken charge of by the police. The pickets put the position to three of them. The three boys immediately said “We cannot become scabs,” and they became strikers. Is not that a deplorable state of affairs? Here you have a Government institution training boys in their trades in the hope of sending them forward at a time when they will become useful citizens. Before they have a chance to do that, and to decide for themselves, they are sent to Johannesburg in the position of being scabs and some of them are now strikers. I say that is wrong, and I do not think that the explanation of the Minister of Labour that he has no information, is justified. I should like to have it conveyed to the Minister of Labour in regard to this school and to ask him if he has any information from the principal of the Knysna trade school on this matter. I put this to the House. Surely when the Minister of Labour heard on Friday night that such an allegation had been made, it should have been the correct procedure for him on Saturday morning, irrespective of the fact that it was a holiday, to have got in touch with Johannesburg, either by telephone or telegraph, in order to verify the statement made in the telegram which was read on Friday night. In trying to verify it, he could have taken a further step of stopping it, if the telegram is correct. Not only do we find no repudiation of the telegram, but we find, from Johannesburg papers, that the statements in the telegram are confirmed. I do not believe it is desired that this intervention of these lads should continue, and all the Minister has to do is to wire to Johannesburg and Knysna to say that anything true in connection with the lads’ intervention in this strike must be stopped at once. I cannot blame the Minister of Railways for the warrant for the conveyance of the lads to Johannesburg which was issued in the ordinary way, so he is not to blame, but now we know that three departments are concerned, the Ministerial heads of those departments should take strong steps to put an end to this most undesirable situation. The Minister of Labour should see to it that the matter is stopped at Johannesburg. The Minister of Education should see that the boys are sent back to Knysna, and the principal of the Knysna Trade Schools should be told not to make such a foolish mistake again. The boys should be kept long enough at Knysna not only to enable them to get over their unfortunate experience, but to enable them to receive lessons in the ethics of trade unionism, and to see the evil of what they did unwittingly. Fortunately it could not have happened in Cape Town, the reason being that in Johannesburg we have not a wage board, but an industrial council, but I understand there is a wage board in Cape Town. It is useless for the Minister of Labour to preach conservatism to both sides of the House and to talk about the advantages of industrial councils and wage boards, while there is a possibility of a State-trained youth unwittingly becoming the means of endangering the very principles the Minister preaches in this House. Let the Minister of Labour consider the advisability of having the boys in all these training schools taught the ethics of trade unionism, fair play and decency to their fellow workers, when they have to fight their way in the battle of life. I am sorry the Minister of Labour is not present to hear this. This incident at Johannesburg is a great lesson to us, for we believed that although we disagreed on many matters, we had, at any rate, arrived at such a stage that such regrettable incidents could not occur.

I would like to say a few words about the maize farmers. I notice that the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) brought it up, and I assume that he was serious, because I fully appreciate that the position is very serious to the farmers, and there are possibly many of them who will be ruined in the circumstances, but I must say at once that this is not the first time that the maize farmers have suffered. It has also happened before, and then the hon. member for Standerton did very little. Instead of assisting the maize farmers he stopped the export, and Rhodesia sent maize here with the result that the maize farmers suffered great loss.

What were we getting then for our maize?

That makes no difference. The fact is that we lost a great deal in consequence. As a maize farmer, I should like the Government to do more to assist the industry, but as a responsible man, I must, nevertheless, realise that the Government is in a difficult position, and must also bear in mind the interests of the rest of the country. I feel convinced that the Government would do all in its power on behalf of the maize farmers. Our maize farmers do not want to be spoonfed. We only want assistance if it is possible. The hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) said that the Government did not treat the deputations sympathetically. He was on one of the deputations, and they suggested, as I understand, that the Government should buy up the maize. How can the Government buy the produce of the farmers? I was on one of the deputations. The Government received us with the greatest consideration, and arranged for the representatives of the shipping companies to meet us. They agreed to keep the freight at 15s. a ton. I see now that the private shipping companies carry the maize at 12s. 6d. a ton, and that it will possibly, shortly, be carried at 10s. a ton. This will also give great relief. The maize market is no longer so weak in Europe as it was.

They are now quoting at 23s. 6d.

Yes, at the moment, but later on they will be higher, because the harvests in the Argentine and in the Balkan* were not so large as expected.

Where did you find that?

I have it here.

Do not let us fish in troubled waters, let us all try to solve the difficulty, those of us who sympathise with the maize farmers. I have every hope that the maize market will still improve, although it will not be as high as it was before.

I feel the emergency in which the mealie-grower finds himself must be our reason for further considering the position as not much hope of relief has been held out to him, the Minister’s reply really consisting of excuses for doing nothing. He said that if the Government helped the mealie-grower, it would also have to come to the assistance of the wool, cotton, fruit growers, and so on, but I submit that you must judge each case on its merits in an emergency such as this. To-day the position of the cotton and fruit farmers is not critical, whereas the plight of the mealie-grower is critical in the extreme. Cash has been very hard to obtain, in fact, mealie-growers have found it almost impossible to get money. Many farmers turned to mealies in order to secure cash returns, and have cultivated much larger acreages than usual at great expense and having had to buy large quantities of fertilizer, which they hoped to pay for out of the crop, the cost of which is now a millstone around their necks. Stalk-borer and the drought have contributed to the mealie growers’ difficulties, so we are not going to have the tremendous crop originally expected, although we shall have a surplus of about 10,000,000 bags available for export. Unfortunately, every bag has cost more to raise than it would have in a normal year. There are big maize growers like my hon. friend opposite—

I am not a big grower.

It is the small grower who is so adversely affected to-day. You are going to have thousands of these men going under unless something is done. The price they can hope to get is somewhere about 6s. 9d. per bag, which is going to show an actual loss as it falls below cost of production. I would ask of this Government what has been asked of other governments, who have faced the crisis the mealie grower faces now. Rhodesia is as sisting her mealie farmer, who is in exactly the same position as the Union mealie grower— faced with disaster unless he is helped. Rhodesia is assisting him to the tune of 1s. a bag. Surely we ought to feel it is up to us to take similar steps to prevent a catastrophe happening. It is very easy to put men under in this world, but very hard to lift them up again. Once the smaller men have been driven off the land you are not going to get them back again, and they are going to swell the ranks of the unemployed and the poor whites. Money spent to-day to keep these men on their feet is going to be of infinite benefit to the country, because if you keep them on their feet as producers they will make good in this country again. There are large numbers of businesses depending on the farmers, and these will be dragged down with the farmers. I will not stress the point of the railway rates, which has been stressed. The mealie farmers say, “Give us a chance to help ourselves.” They ask for a levy on their own products, and to stabilize the prices. They have never had a chance. They say that the Minister will not even give them the necessary legislation to help themselves, and that is where they blame the Minister. At least you can give them the opportunity of helping themselves. Is it too late now to give these men a chance of organizing? You have done it in other cases; for instance, in the case of sugar— the chance to stand on its own feet and to stabilize local prices. Give the mealie growers the same. If they fail, at least you have done your duty and you will not then have to shoulder the blame. This is not a political question, or one of recrimination with either side of the House, but it is for the Government to take its courage in both hands, face the taxpayer, if necessary, and give these mealie growers a helping hand, to enable them to stand on their own feet.

I hope our maize farmers will not allow themselves to be misled by the pious talk we have had here this afternoon. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) said this afternoon that the Government ought not to ask the Opposition what should be done, and that they would have known what to do if they had been in office. I think the maize farmers, particularly, have already had a little taste of what the S.A.P. Government has done for them. In 1921 the S.A.P. prohibited the farmers from exporting their maize. The price was then 25s. to 30s. on the continent of Europe. Subsequently, when the permit system was withdrawn, the previous Government took thorough care that there was no traffic available over the railways to get maize on to the market, with the result that the farmers had to sell at from 5s. to 8s. instead of from 25s. to 30s. The maize farmer suffered a loss of £3,000,000 in that one year. Now hon. members say that we must not debate the matter on party lines, but they are constantly doing so. This is a political discussion. I respect the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). He said in Johannesburg that he knew that the farmers were having a bad time, and that the Government could not be blamed for the low prices that the people were getting. I felt that that was right, but now hon. members say that the Government is doing nothing to assist the maize farmers. Let me say what has already been indicated by the Minister of Railways, that the maize farmers came with certain proposals, and the hon. member for Standerton asked me what we were going to do, and suggested three things—the same thing that the deputation suggested—the first was that we should try to get better advances from the Land Bank for the maize farmers. Now I want to ask whether there is anyone in the House who will say that the Land Bank has not gone out of its way in assisting our maize farmers when it has agreed to loans of 6s. 3d. a bag. Have hon. members calculated what that means on to-day’s basis? Now hon. members say, “What is the use of cooperation?” Is it not giving assistance to the people for them to be able to get an advance of 6s. 3d. on their maize? I think the Land Bank has done what ft ought to have done in respect of the maize farmers, and I am convinced that thousands will be satisfied at the action of the Land Bank. The hon. member for Standerton further said that it was desirable for the Government to approach the Conference Lines to get a reduction of freight. We have done so. I personally entered into negotiations with the Minister of Railways and the deputation, with the result that the freight has been reduced to 15s. for July and August. It has already been pointed out that chartered vessels will do it for 12s. 6d. Now I come to the third point of the hon. member, viz., the railway rates. The Minister of Railways and Harbours has already pointed out that maize is not carried at an economic rate, as the railways ought to do. The hon. member for Standerton now says that we charge 15s. instead of 10s., but that 5s. is the extra expense which is caused by the maize going through the elevator and being graded. Therefore, if the Government is reproached for the price being 15s. now, we do not deserve it. The Government keeps a watchful eye over every section of the farming industry, accordingly over the interests of the maize farmers as well. The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) asked why we allow the maize farmers to look after themselves by a levy on maize, but how many farmers have asked for it?

Give them a chance.

The hon. member knows the farmers very badly if he thinks that they want a levy. It will, In any case, be very easy for the hon. member to try to introduce such a levy, because the hon. member can make a proposal whereby maize will be subject to a levy. Why then does the hon. member not introduce a motion? I know that it is impossible and I am convinced that the majority of the maize farmers are not in favour of it. But if a levy is imposed, what then are we going to do about the 6,000,000 natives who also plant maize and have a fairly large over-production? The hon. member may possibly suggest that the natives should also be made to pay the levy, but is it possible? What machinery would be required to get hold of all of them in the manner the hon. member for Griqualand desires? That suggestion therefore is not possible of being carried out, but if members come forward with practicable propositions, we shall always be prepared to consider them. The hon. member for Bethal (Mr. Jooste) asked why the Government did not consult him in respect of the deputation which was here. I would have had no objection if the hon. member had desired to express his opinion, because the deputation consisted of representatives of both parties. I have great sympathy with maize farmers, and I plant maize myself. I greatly deplore the position, and I deplore the fact that the price of mealies is lower than it has been for years, but allow me to say that I still have hopes that the price will go up somewhat even if it is not much. I learn that, according to advices received, there is a great deal less in the way of importation of maize into foreign ports, and that the production of the Argentine even is less than was expected. Therefore, if there is a smaller production in the world, I do not doubt but that there is a possibility of prices improving. I trust that people will in the meantime not become discouraged, but that they will stand together and avail themselves of the advances. Then we can see next month what the position is

What objection have you got to the subsidy?

You will never vote for it.

What then is the objection to it?

The hon. member knows that we have always adopted the attitude not to do it; if we make a start in subsidising one or other branch of the agricultural industry, where is it going to end?

What about Rhodesia— they do it there?

Yes, but their maize production is about one-eighth of what it is in this country. I feel that they will not continue very long to give subsidies to the farmers, because otherwise all the other industries will also come to ask for subsidies. That is the difficulty; if you start giving subsidies to one industry, it does not stop at that industry. As I have said, I hope that the price of maize in Europe will improve in the not distant future. In any case, the Government is there to watch the various conditions prevailing among our population, and the Government will have to face matters in order to ascertain what has to be done now and in the future. I have already indicated what allowances have been made and we shall naturally have to look into matters to see what can be done in the future in order to give as much relief as possible. Where, however, subsidies are spoken of, I want to say at once that this cannot be done. Nor do I think that those people who suggest this are sincere in their intentions. I usually speak straight out in this House, and I wish to say that those who speak in this manner do so with political motives. It is useless, however, for them to do so, because the maize farmers have learned their lesson in regard to the party on the other side of the House. Not only were they not helped, but the Government of the day took a great deal of money out of their pockets. But now that it appears as though there might be an opportunity of catching a few votes, now they come and raise the dust here and now they plead for the maize farmers, and they do so in a hypocritical manner. They all tell us that they are not animated by party political motives but that they are only out to foster the real interests of the maize farmers. How many maize farmers are there in the constituency of the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson)? There are a few, but they represent merely a drop in the bucket. In the same way as the Government has acted in other directions in order to assist the various industries, so it will also do its best to support the maize industry. But to come here and talk of a levy and of a subsidy will not be of any use, to my way of thinking. The Minister of Railways has dealt with the question of freights. If he should decide to grant a reduction, we shall find that it will be members on the other side of the House who will come here next year to attack the Government for having done so. The boards will then be changed. I trust that we shall not spend any more time on this question now.

It is to be regretted that the Minister of Agriculture should accuse this side of the House of insincerity in regard to bringing this matter forward. I can assure him that we have as much sympathy for the mealie farmers on this side of the House as members do on the opposite benches, and to prove that I may say that while this debate was in progress there were only 13 members on the other side. I associate myself with my leader and others on this side who have spoken on this question. This question is a very serious one. We need only go to the Free State to see the parlous condition of the farmers. Many of them will go into the bankruptcy court if they do not get assistance. We are going to have an output estimated at about 25,000,000 bags. Assuming that we use half of it for our own consumption, what is to become of the other 12,000,000 bags? The other 12,000,000 must be exported.

Stored.

If the Minister of Agriculture suggests that we should store mealies, let me tell him that you cannot do so until the new season comes in, and stored mealies are invariably rotten with weevil. The position to-day through storing is that there are thousands and thousands of bags of mealies in this country eaten up with weevil. The other day, when the Minister of Railways and Harbours spoke he said that he had done a very fine thing for us. He said he had got the steamship companies to extend delivery until August, two months. Two months in which to deal with 12,000,000 bags! Is it possible to assume you are going to get the freight for these 12,000.000 bags during two months. Can the railways handle 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 bags in the two months? That does not count much with me. If we could have got an extension until December that would alter the position because usually the contracts are made from June to December. In the first place, buyers overseas are not anxious to buy mealies for July and August because they still have a certain moisture content which does not tend to keep the commodity when it arrives on the other side. We have had railage down to 10s. a ton for export. At the moment we are paying 15s. a ton for bags. Why not make the bag stuff the same—10s. per ton?

What will become of the elevators?

Make a corresponding allowance even if the difference causes the railways to lose money. The sum of 5s. a ton would mean 6d. a bag. I noticed in the Argus the other evening an interview with two of the members on the other side of the House referring to the fact that mealies are 8s. 3d. I have bought mealies only to-day at 6s. 6d. ex elevator. That means a difference of at least 1s. I am selling at a profit of 2s. 6d. a ton. That is a very good profit. We have often done it at 1s. 6d. a ton and it has been done for the exchange between London and South Africa. There is no profiteering in regard to the export of maize. We have to meet competition in all parts of the world. To-day the Danube and the Argentine are serious competitors and will remain so. A difference of 1s. or 1s. 6d. a ton means a great deal. I suggest that the railway rates for bagged stuff should come down to 10s. per ton and the elevators correspondingly. I do not think sufficient efforts are being made by the Government to get freight. A lot of Government stores and supplies needed here could be bought in London and shipped here at a certain rate of freight and we would get down to what we have had before, freight at 10s. a ton. The goods we require should naturally be bought in a market where the freight is arranged in order to get return cargo. I must admit that the arrangement made with the Land Bank or Reserve Bank of 6s. 6d. per bag is a very liberal advance on the price to-day. There I commend the Government for what it has done. Whether it is a business proposition is another matter. Some months ago I made a suggestion to the Minister of Railways and Harbours in regard to oats from Caledon. I think if the rates were reduced to a minimum, it would serve to get rid of the produce and get some money into the country. The rates are not formulated on an economic basis. If money is to come into the country you must assist the farmer by giving him the best possible price and the lowest possible rail and freight rates.

If hon. members opposite really speak with conviction and are really sincere in their statements that they wish to help the country and the maize farmers, then we must applaud their speeches. But what is so extraordinary to me is that members opposite who have spoken on this matter do not represent maize farmers. This makes us suspicious that there is something going on behind the scenes in regard to the pleadings which have been made here. If there is one party in the country which should keep away from the sphere of the maize farmers, it is the party which sits on the other side of the House. Let them go back to what took place in the year 1921. When the maize farmers had the opportunity of getting 30s. per bag for their maize, that party stopped the export of mealies. When it was 8s. per bag again, they allowed export once more. Do they imagine that the maize farmers will lightly forget this? No, it does not become hon. members opposite to criticize the present Government on these matters. I, myself, am convinced that the Government should help the maize farmers. If the Minister of Railways allows a reduction in rates of 6d. per bag, and if he comes here next year with a deficit of £250,000 in consequence of such reduction, there will be no need whatever for him to be ashamed. He can go further and argue as follows to justify the loss of £250,000. He can point out that the previous Government drove £3,000,000 out of the pockets of the maize farmers, and that the taxpayers as a whole profited to the extent of £1,000,000 because maize farmers had been obliged to sell their maize for 8s. per bag instead of for 30s. The rest of the population, therefore, still owes the maize farmers £1,000,000, and the £250,000 is only a portion of that which is now paid back by the rest of the taxpayers to the maize farmers. If the Minister of Finance has to pay this amount out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the railways because the railways contend that they have suffered to that extent through the reduction in rates, then he need not be ashamed of facing the rest of the taxpayers. He can point out that the previous Government did a great injustice to the maize farmers. The maize farmers still suffer from that injustice, and now that they are in difficulties it is our duty to help them out. As I have said, it does not become the Opposition to attack the Government on this matter; I trust, however, that it will be possible for the Government to reduce railway rates on maize by 6d. per bag.

It is a very shallow mind that will treat the mealie question in this House as a party question. No graver national problem has presented itself to the country recently than this. I am amazed at the indifference exhibited by hon. members opposite, and especially the mealie farmers. The Ministers are doing nothing. They are merely expressing pious hopes that markets will improve, but they know there is a lower tendency. Contrast that with the Union-Castle Company. They have offered practical help, and they have agreed to a 15s. rate, which means 6d. per bag on the sea freight. Why have they done this? They have done it because they are far-seeing people. They are not so narrow-minded and insular such as the present Government is. The Union-Castle Company have realized the position is only temporary, and they have the gratitude of every mealie-grower in South Africa to-day for the practical manner in which they have come forward and agreed to carry maize at 6d. per bag for the time stipulated. I have no doubt that they will continue. The Union-Castle Company realizes that this depression is merely temporary. This industry is too big to right at this juncture. It is an industry in South Africa which employs more men than the gold-mining industry. They realize that when this depression has gone, and stable times come back, there will be a big freightage in South Africa, and they will then get normal prices. That is the proper way to look at it. The Government themselves, this farmers’ Government, in regard to this burning question, have slurred it over. Nothing is more callous than the way in which the Government have referred to this question. The Minister of Railways estimates to get £750,000 out of rates. What are they offering in regard to alleviation here? Not one single penny-piece. The Minister of Finance smugly sits on millions of carats of diamonds, from Namaqualand, and tells us of the money he is going to spend on irrigation, on schemes that will last only for 40 years. We are spending hundreds of thousands of pounds for the future, but here is something for the present. These mealie-growers have got their fertilizer bill to pay, their machinery, bags etc. They have to prepare for a prospective price of from 6s. 9d. to 7s. What help the Government could give if they followed the example of the Union-Castle Company and gave a concession of 6d. a bag in elevator charges! If they do not do that, what is going to happen is that this promising industry will have its repercussions in unemployment. The mealie farmers must buy their machinery annually, and, if they are going to lose this season, it is only natural to suppose that they will not continue to plant the area which they have planted in the past. The industry will then go downhill, and commerce and employment will suffer. Hundreds of men on the railways are employed seasonally to deal with the big crops we have had, and these are less in comparison with the crop that they will reap this year. I understand that from 14,000,000 to 15,000,000 in bags will be reaped this year. Surely the Government can do something better than express hopes. They have sent the deputation which waited upon them, empty away. They have turned a deaf ear to them. Surely they have no foresight. They do not care a hang for one of the greatest agricultural industries which is being built up in this country. Look at the growth of the industry during the last five years, and yet you will be putting a wet blanket on it if you do not come to its assistance. The Rhodesian Government have realized the growth of the industry there, and are helping the industry to continue there. If they only have one-eighth of the crop that we have, then we shall be eight times more prosperous than they are when normal times come again. This industry is passing through a period of depression, but it is nothing to be afraid of. The Government can reduce that depression, and there is nothing that will lower the depth of that depression than by the Government helping in regard to the mealie farmer to insure that fresh capital will come into the country. This will come in to the extent of £6,000.000 or £7,000,000. That money goes into circulation, and everybody gets something out of it. I hope that the Government are not so absolutely dead to the interests of agriculture that they will not follow the splendid example of the Union-Castle Company and assist the farmers to the extent of at least 6d. per bag. They should do that. They are sitting upon millions of carats of diamonds in Cape Town, and how better can they meet the shortfall than by taking something from the diamonds and balancing up? What subsidy is given, I hope that we shall have some definite statement from the Government to the effect that they will follow the example of the Union-Castle Company.

I cannot help feeling a certain amount of sympathy with the Government in their present predicament, for I am sure they feel the position in which they find themselves very keenly indeed. Hon. members may remember the debate which took place a few years ago on imperial trade, particularly as affecting the mealie export trade. We then warned the Government that if they followed a certain line of action, which they seemed bent on, they would eventually land the country in exactly the position in which they have placed it to-day. In 1924, 1925 and 1926 we were doing an increasingly profitable mealie export trade with Australia under the imperial tariff. We had preferential treatment as a result of which, and we were obtaining from Australian buyers 18d. a bag more for our maize than we could obtain for it in any other part of the world. The Government, unfortunately, played about with the imperial tariff system, cancelled the mutual 3 per cent, preference despite our warning that it would likely lead to reprisals. The Government, however, persisted in their policy. They were new at their job and inexperienced—I must make that excuse for them —and they took away the 3 per cent, preference. Almost immediately the Australian Government retaliated by raising the tariff on our maize to 7s. 6d. a bag, thus destroying our Australian market in one night. Before the Government tinkered with the tariff we exported 500,000 bags of mealies to Australia in one year, but the next year, when the Union Government took away the 3 per cent, preference, we did not send a single bag of mealies to Australia. Now we have this extraordinary position, that, notwithstanding the Australian duty of 7s. 6d. a bag, Australia is actually buying maize in South Africa to-day, thus showing what a tremendous demand there would have been but for the regrettable step taken by the Government. But for that, I am told, we should now be selling to Australia over a million bags of maize a year. As it is, we have been landed in the soup by the Government. To-day every maize farmer is turning to the Government in his distress, which unhappily has come at a time when we are suffering from a general depression, and least able to bear it. In my opinion, this turning to the Government for assistance to enable us to place our surplus maize in the European markets is approaching the matter at an entirely wrong angle. Assuming the Government assist the farmer to export his maize, he would still send it to the continent, which has more maize than it knows what to do with, and so little would be achieved as the maize would have to be sold at the world’s price. As the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) has pointed out, the alternative is to look to some other ways of utilizing this maize. Why not send it abroad in the form in which it is required? The world’s markets are crying out for beef, there is a world shortage of this and we have a plethora. And there is also a steady demand for good bacon and hams. There is our difficulty. We have a surplus of beef and maize, but we are being held back simply because the Government will not come to a decision to enable our stock farmers to export the type of animal required abroad, and thus to get into foreign markets. It is the most unique opportunity, probably, that South Africa has ever had. The United States does not know where to turn for beef. It has consumed all the surplus beef of Canada and New Zealand, and is now using up all the surplus beef of Australia. England consumed 300,000 of its beef population in two years, and the price of meat in that country has risen 19½ per cent, in one year. On the other hand, we out here have a surplus of beef, and if the Government could assist the farmers to export it, there are plenty of farmers who are prepared to fatten animals for the export trade—if there is an assured market, and become purchasers of much of our surplus maize. I have to-day received an account sale of my last sale of pure bred Devon cattle, which would have fetched from £30 to £40 a head in London. In South Africa their price is £7 to £8 10s. a head. Alas, we cannot get the Minister of Agriculture to take the slightest interest in the matter. On the other hand he has the experience of the past, for when he took office, there was an export bounty of a half-penny a lb. on all meat sent abroad, and that market was a growing one. But just as the Government destroyed the maize market by taking away the 3 per cent, preference, they destroyed the meat export trade by removing the bounty, and this trade has never recovered from the blow. However, it can be regained by the same means as that by which we lost it. The Government is faced with a national problem. The income of the South African farmers has dropped by about £35,000,000 a year, our farms are over-stocked with cattle, sheep and grain, and yet no practical suggestion has arisen from the ministerial benches as to how they are going to deal with the situation. It is, indeed, a most deplorable condition of affairs.

The Minister of Railways and Harbours informed the House that the deputation of maize farmers put forward three propositions. The first was that the Minister should raise the rate for the carriage of maize for consumption in South Africa, and that he should reduce the rate for maize intended for export. The Minister stated that he could not accept those proposals, because it would mean that the big farmers in the Cape and in other parts of the country, who consume maize, would have to pay more for maize. The second proposal was that the rates should be reduced, and that the Minister should secure a certificate from the Governor-General in accordance with Clause 131 of the Act of Union to the effect that Parliament agrees to the payment of a subsidy for that purpose, the subsidy to be paid out of general revenue. The Minister would not agree to that either. The third proposal was to help farmers in some other way by means of a subsidy. That the Minister would not agree to either. His excuse was that if he should help mealie farmers in that way, he would also have to help other farmers in the same manner. But I want to ask whether the Government did not help the wheat farmers and the sugar growers? I contend that the maize industry is of far greater importance than the two other industries. I further maintain that the Government has helped the boot industry by extending greater protection to it when the boot manufacturers approached them. Assistance was immediately granted. The same happened in regard to the manufacturers of ready-made clothing. They also got protection. The maize farmers in the country find themselves in a percarious position. We must get help now. It does not help us to hear the Minister of Agriculture say that there is a chance of the position improving. It does not help our maize farmers at all. Many farmers are in a precarious position, and unless we get help, or unless the position suddenly improves, a great many of the maize farmers, who are not possessed of capital, will go under. Who is going to consume our 12,000,000 bags of maize if we do not export them? The Minister says that we must store it in expectation of better prices. Where must we store it? The grain elevators are not big enough, and we have no opportunity of storing it. And what will be the position if the prices do not improve and we hold on to our maize? Great losses will be suffered then. My experience so far has been that we must take the market as it is, and that we must sell, because, generally speaking, prices will go down instead of going up if one waits for better prices. In a small country like Rhodesia, which is only starting now, which is not on its legs yet, which is still a child, the Government has made a subsidy of 1s. per bag, on condition that the export price shall not be more than 11s. 6d. per bag. If it is less, the farmers get a subsidy of 1s. per bag. The Minister of Agriculture states that the maize production of Rhodesia is only one-eighth of what it is here in the Union, but we in South Africa have twenty times the population of Rhodesia. If the Government of Rhodesia can help the maize farmers, it should be possible for our Government to do so as well. On Friday last the Minister of Irrigation told us that the two-and-a-half million which would be spent on irrigation schemes would be an economic expenditure. He acknowledged that. I say that we should rather help the maize farmers, and we would achieve a great deal more. I am convinced that the position will improve, and I hope that this improvement may take place next year even. This year, however, the position is precarious, and unless help is extended to the mealie farmers hundreds and thousands of them will go under. We are grateful that the maize farmers can get 6s. 3d. in advances from the Land Bank, but that will not greatly improve the position. The co-operative societies will have to pay that, and eventually the farmer himself. We must help by means of reduced railway rates or by means of a subsidy, and this side of the House will support the Government in any reasonable proposal to help the mealie farmers. This is not a party question, it is a national question. The Minister of Agriculture wants to accuse us of making it a party question, but the fact of the matter is that we cannot complain of anything without being accused of trying to make party capital. It is our duty to bring those conditions to the notice of the Government. We say that the Government must now help the farmers. The Minister of Finance has told us that we as farmers must rather write off our losses. I want to ask him whether he thinks that the maize farmers to-day can write off their losses? If they have to do so, 50 per cent, of them will drown, because the majority of them are in such a position that they cannot write off. We expect the Government to take steps to help us over these difficult times, and I trust that the Minister of Finance will take account of these difficult times. I do not know whether the Minister is a maize farmer himself, but he need only come and have a look to realize that help is needed.

I wish to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Greyville (Maj. Richards), but do not propose traversing that again. It is evident the chickens are coming home to roost, and the Government, and the Minister of Agriculture in particular, are feeling the consequences. The point I wish to dwell on for a moment is one which is in the nature of a constructive suggestion, and if the Minister will act on it, it will contribute largely towards helping the mealie farmers. The one necessity is to find a market, and the Government can do so. I venture to suggest that no Prime Minister has ever had such an opportunity as the Prime Minister of the Union to-day, when he goes home to England.

Whose home?

It is not my home. This is my home.

It does not seem so.

But it is. What I wish to say is that when the Prime Minister goes to the imperial conference he has an opportunity such as no other Prime Minister has had before to do a really good turn to the mealie farmers of this country. My recollection goes back to the time when the late Sir Frederick Moor, a Prime Minister of Natal before Union, went oversea and arranged a market for mealies at a minimum price of 10s. a bag; I recollect the relief and joy that gave to the mealie growers of Natal. What the Prime Minister should do when he goes over to London is to create a maize pool within the empire. Why should the empire buy Argentine maize? He could secure a preference for South African maize of 2s. to 3s. a bag, and why should it not be done? I say emphatically it can be done. It has been done for sugar, and if it is done for the mealie farmer it will put him on an entirely different basis, and the Prime Minister would render a national service which would go down into history as the finest thing he has ever done. I submit it is an important point. I hope the Prime Minister will concentrate on empire economics when he goes there, to the exclusion of high politics.

This is the kind of economic wisdom which we shall hear during the course of the next few months in regard to the maize market. It is a good opportunity for hon. members opposite to fish in troubled waters by availing themselves of the economic difficulties of the maize farmers. They contend that it is not a party question, but I say that it is a party question I have sat in this House long enough to know what the real economic opinion of hon. members opposite is. It is peculiar that we have not heard the opinion of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) or the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson) or of the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Pocock) about this matter—those friends of the consumer, whose hearts bleed in the interests of the consumer in this country. Imagine, that party comes here and pleads for a subsidy for the producers. Really, it is not a matter for laughing; it is a matter for crying. It is the South African party which pleads that we should tax the consumer in the country in order that we may give a subsidy to the farmer for his products. My hon. friends must excuse me if I say that we cannot take them seriously. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) asks why we do not help the maize farmers in the same way as we have helped the wheat farmers and the sugar growers? “Why do not you help the maize farmers in the same way as you have helped the tailors?” I am prepared to do for the maize farmers what I have done for the sugar growers, the wheat farmers and the tailors. I am prepared to do even more for them. I am prepared to keep out the local market only for the maize farmers by means of a protective tariff. That is what they have to-day. That is more than what we have done for the sugar growers. We have not given any subsidy to the sugar planters to enable them to dump their sugar abroad. We have given protection in order to keep sugar out of the local market. In regard to the tailors, I did not even do that; but I am prepared to do that in regard to the primary products of our country, as we have done in regard to the wheat farmers. We have not gone so far as to pay a subsidy on articles which have to compete in the markets of the world, so that they can be sold there at a lower price. That would be a most important question, and I should be pleased if, when we speak of such matters, we should be a little serious and watch where we are going. Let us be honest and do not let us play with the interests of the people concerned. We are dealing here with a state of affairs which does not merely affect the maize farmers. We are face to face here with a position in the world’s market such as I cannot remember having seen before. We are face to face with a position which does not merely affect the maize farmers of South Africa. It concerns the whole world, and it concerns every product. The wool farmer has suffered just as severely. The wool farmer is heavily capitalized by having purchased expensive land, and his product is the only product, if we take account of its quality, which is lower in price than it was before the war. That is the position and, in spite of that, we are now asked to pursue a policy in connection with our agricultural products which is new to our country. It is a policy which Australia adopted. Australia started to pay export premiums on agricultural products, and the detrimental effect of that policy has made itself felt. Do my hon. friends think that we did not realize what a glorious chance we gave them to secure the sympathy of the mealie farmers when we refused to follow that policy? It would be an easy thing to hearken to the appeal which is being made to us, but the Government realized that it was responsible to the whole country. It is not a question concerning merely the maize farmers, and it is not a question of votes. We have to look at the interests of the population as a whole, and we could not accept that principle, knowing as we did what the logical consequences must be for the whole country. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) has told us that it is our responsibility, and that we must not ask the Opposition what we should do. We are not afraid of taking the responsibility. I have assumed my responsibility, but I should like to know from the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), as leader of the Opposition, whether he is in favour of that new policy. He has said “yes”, But I doubt whether in regard to this matter he speaks on behalf of his party. If the Government had adopted that policy, we would have seen something very different in this House here to-day, and we would have seen something very different in that party. At the moment it is not for the Government to do what hon. members opposite want us to do. We on this side of the House bear the responsibility, and we have not the right to go and give subsidies to maize farmers and to refuse them to wheat and oat farmers.

Yes, the oat farmers.

Yes, there we have it. What right would we have to refuse the wool, the tobacco and the sugar farmers if they should come to us for subsidies? The tobacco farmers were obliged to sell millions of pounds of tobacco at uneconomic prices, and what right would we have to refuse premiums to them? If we wish to do this, if we wish to pay an export premium on agricultural products, we shall have to increase the income tax by 50 or even 100 per cent. We shall not render a service to the farmers of this country by doing that. I have been attacked here and also in the press for having said that the mealie farmers must cut their losses. What I tried to do was to make it clear to the mealie farmers that it was a dangerous policy to hold on to their products while they had no assurance whatever that there was going to be an improvement in the world prices. I pointed out to them that possibly the position later on might be no better, and if they had another crop on top of the present one, their position might become fatal. I added that there were economic factors which the Government could not deal with, and that it was often better to take one’s loss now. I regard this as sound advice to them.

But the Minister of Agriculture speaks differently.

He has stated that there are good advices, and we all hope that there will be an improvement. But does my hon. friend see that we are dealing with a tendency on the part of the farmer to ask that we should amend the whole of the constitution of the Land Bank, so that the bank would be able to make advances of 7s.? I said that we are not justified to do so. It means practically that we must buy those products. If we have to do so, then it will be much better to take up the attitude that we must now make the best of the market. But I want to say this: that I consider that we do not render a service to the farmers by making them believe that we can now solve their difficulties by paying them a premium. It is not practically possible to carry that out. I want to see what Government will be strong enough to tax the people in order to find a few millions so as to help the maize farmers. It is impossible, and we should not mislead the people by saying that we adopt a proposal which will solve the difficulties. I do not believe that the hon. member for Standerton has rendered a service to the country. I do not know whether he spoke on behalf of his party. If he did so, then I do not consider that he rendered a service to the country by suggesting that policy. The Government has considered the matter, and has come to the definite decision that it is not prepared to give a subsidy, because that is what the proposal amounts to. It has been argued that the railway rates should be reduced. It is possible to do so in circumstances when a profit is being made, but if the tariff is uneconomic already, and if the House should come later on and say, as it would be justified in doing, that I must make up the deficit, then it is a subsidy, and nothing else. I do not believe that it would be in the best interests of the farming population. The hon. member for Greyville (Maj. Richards) has said that the reason why farmers get less is that we have been interfering with imperial preference so far as Australia is concerned. He himself stated, however, that Australia still buys our maize, while we are also buying Australian wheat. We do not buy it because Australia gives us a preference, nor does Australia buy our maize in view of the preference given, but because this is the best market for them. We know what the position is. One year Australia had enough maize and did not buy from us, the next year, owing to drought, etc., they had to buy maize, and they bought in the cheapest market. The hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Borlase) considers that the question will be solved when the Prime Minister goes to England. He considers that it will be easy then to get a minimum of 10s. per bag. On what basis? On a preferential basis? Let me tell the hon. member that all Governments in England have so far refused to tax the foodstuffs of the English people in order to create a market for the dominions. I do not know, therefore, whether it will be as easy as it seems. If, however, the matter is discussed, and if they should be prepared to give us preference in exchange for other concessions, on our part, we shall be quite prepared to discuss matters. I am afraid, however, that the hon. member has not taken sufficiently into account the fact that the British Government has always refused to adopt a policy by which foodstuffs are taxed.

Motion put and agreed to.

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

I move—

Motion put and agreed to; House to go into committee now.

I move—

After the debate which took place when I first moved the second reading of the Bill, before I moved that it be referred to a select committee, I do not think that it is necessary to take up the time of the House by debating the cause that led up to the Bill. As appears from the report of the select committee, which has been laid on the Table, together with the Bill, the discussion by the select committee was very useful, and especially so for this reason in that it showed that there was a grievance between both parties about the necessity of control and co-ordination. I just want to discuss a few aspects of the Bill as now amended. In the first place, I want to call attention to what there was in the old Bill, and has now been left out of the amended Bill. The chief part that has been left out is certainly the regulations in the old Clause 20. Hon. members will remember that in Clause 20 the power was given to the Governor-General to issue regulations about the dimensions, competency of managers, speed, number of passengers, etc., of motor vehicles. Hon. members know that strong objection was taken to this clause by provincial authorities, and they pointed out that an inter-provincial conference had been held on this matter, and that they intended to take action soon. In view of this statement by the provinces, the select committee felt that we could leave those provisions out. I hope the provinces will take action in this matter, but I must say that it is a very important matter, and if the provinces, contrary to my expectations, do not tackle the matter, then we shall still have to come to this House to ask for these powers, because they are matters which must be regulated in the interests of the public. The Bill, therefore, now practically becomes a proposal to establish machinery by which the number of vehicles in a certain area is fixed. As for the further alterations, I want to refer to a few points. A clearer definition has been given of the duties of the central and the local transportation boards respectively. Another aspect that hon. members will find in that alteration is the greater elasticity in the powers of the local boards, e.g., in connection with motor vehicles used for certain purposes, such as picnics. If I have rightly followed the discussions in the select committee, then there is only one big point of difference between hon. members opposite and ourselves. By that I do not mean to say that there are no minor differences, which will probably appear in the committee, but there is one big point on which we differ, viz., the competition of the motor transportation board as laid down in Clause 2. In the select committee hon. members of the Opposition made the proposal to create four transportation boards for each of the four provinces, and one central board, which, however, would also practically be a provincial board in the sense that the members thereof would once more be nominated from members of the provincial transportation board. I hope that I am not doing an injustice to the mover of that proposal when I call that central board a provincial transportation board. I must say at once that the Government cannot approve such a system of provincial transportation boards. To hand over the control of the traffic to the provinces by means of those boards would, in my opinion, be an absolutely wrong step. There are two reasons why, as hon. members will see at once, that proposal is impossible. In the first place, the transportation question is not a provincial problem, but a Union problem, and as soon as we handed over the transportation to the provinces we should have separate action in the four provinces, so that there would no longer be any co-ordination. The experience of other countries in the world shows that not only control, but also co-ordination is required. The fact that the railway system is a Union one shows clearly that the proposal made in the select committee is absolutely unpractical. But there is another objection to that proposal, it would be the end of parliamentary control over our transportation system. The Minister, true, would appoint two members, but those members of the central transportation board, that hon. members have proposed would also have to be members of the provincial transportation board. The result would be that the Minister, in answer to any question, would shrug his shoulders, and say that he did not appoint the board. In that way the Government, and the representatives of the people in this House, would be deprived of the opportunity of watching over the transportation system.

What about the fruit board?

Do you mean the fruit export control board? That is not a provincial institution, but a Union board, and just because it was a Union board it was such a success.

Where then is this parliamentary control?

There is parliamentary control under this Bill, because there are members who are appointed by the Minister. When questions are asked, then the Minister cannot evade responsibility. The railways will have to find the salaries of three of the members, and this will enable this House to ask questions. The transportation board will have to bear very great responsibility, and apparently hon. members opposite have, themselves, realized that such a Union board is desirable. On the last day of the sitting of the committee our hon. friends opposite proposed that leave should be asked from the House to go back to Clause 2. I, and my supporters, voted against that proposal, not because we were against it, but because we did not want to delay the House any longer. With regard to the proposal of the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock), I have no objection in principle. My two objections to provincial transportation boards do not apply here. Under his proposal Parliament will retain its responsibility and control, and there will be Union control. I therefore have no objection to it in principle. But I would like to mention a few other objections, which, in my opinion, ought to be considered by the House in case such an amendment is moved. The first is that a board of three members is large enough. A board of five members is very large and awkward. The second is that such a large board will be very expensive. I want to emphasize here so that there can be no misunderstanding that, although the revenue and expenditure in connection with the board will appear on the railway estimates, we do not intend to burden the railway funds with the expenditure of the board.

Will the cost be greater?

The more members of the board there are, the higher will be the cost. The members of the board must be prominent people.

On what budget will the estimates be placed?

On the railway estimates. The board will have to obtain the right to fix fees, etc., so that the railways will not be burdened with the costs connected with the motor services. The transportation services will have to bear the expense, and is it wise, in the circumstances, to have a board of five? From a purely selfish point of view, I would say that there might be a large board, because the motor services must pay for it, but I want to look at the matter from the point of view of the transportation service as a whole.

The board in respect of fruit consists of five members.

Yes, but two are appointed by the industry itself, and they bear the cost of those members. The Government appoints three members. My third objection is also not one of principle, but I just want to suggest it for consideration. The hon. member for Turffontein proposes that there should be an independent chairman of the board, that then the commercial community should select two members, and the other two should represent agriculture. Such a provision would make group interests very strong on the board. Instead of getting an independent board, which will act in the interests of the transportation questions as a whole, we shall have a board where group interests will be very strong, and that would be an unsound state of affairs. I repeat that in principle I have no objection to the motion, and if hon. members feel strongly about it, and if it is proposed here, I shall make no serious objection to it. I want to make another remark. Much has been made in the country of the argument that it would be a political board, and that the Minister would abuse his power to make a political body of the board. If my hon. friends wish to do so, they can move to include in the Bill that the board must be free of politics. I think, however, that it will be ridiculous to do such a thing. Ultimately this House is the only body that can decide whether the Government is doing its duty or not. It is this House that has to decide whether the Government has abused its powers in appointing thé board. A pious resolution in the Act will not effect as much as sound criticism and observations in this House. The attention of this House is the best guarantee against abuse of power by the Minister. A Minister of Railways, who is so foolish as to appoint a board on a political basis, would not be a friend of the transportation system of our country. If the Minister nominates people who are only and always there to look after the interests of the railways, and not to pay any attention to the motor services, then the House will not tolerate it, and if this House did nothing in the matter, then the country would make its voice heard. I now move the second reading. We had a full debate on this measure on a previous occasion in this House. It has also been dealt with in a select committee, and I therefore appeal to the House not to have a very long debate on it again.

The Minister has just explained to us the changes made in the Bill in the select committee, and it is quite clear, both from his explanation and from the Bill we have now before us, that its essential features remain unaltered: certain details only have been altered and amended in the committee. I would point out the difficulty in which we find ourselves. We are in the last few days of the session, and we have before us not only an important Bill—its importance is admitted— it is one of the most important Bills we have had before us this session. It is also a complicated measure which, in its administration, will lead to very great difficulties indeed; and the House, in the last few days of the session, is asked to give this its attention. It has been before a select committee, it is true, but that committee was limited in its scope and activities; it could not call evidence; and it had been preceded by a commission, which went more into the general question and not into the specific points of the Bill. The principles of the Bill have not been inquired into. No evidence has been taken on them, and we are now, in the last few days of the dying session, asked to deal with this important measure. I say it is not the right way to deal with an important Bill. It cannot receive our proper attention, and every clause requires attention. There is no doubt that in the actual working of this Bill, very great difficulties will crop up, and the Bill ought to be considered carefully, not only in its principles, but in its details. We are asked to do this in a hurry. Very grave issues are raised by this Bill. The Minister says that the question of transport is a problem for the Union. In saying that, he cannot be referring to the roads of this country. I admit that railway transport and air transport are problems of the Union, but the South Africa Act lays down that the care and the use of the roads is a matter for the provinces. There is no question about it. We are dealing here with the matter of the use and control of the roads, which beyond any manner of doubt, is a subject falling within the purview of the provinces. But we are gaily stepping in, and we are going to deal with the matter in this House. In the majority of the provinces, protests have been published in the press against the Government stepping in and dealing with the matter, but the Minister now says that this is a Union matter. There is no doubt that we are dealing with a provincial matter, and it is in view of that that the amendment was put forward by the South African party members of the select committee, a scheme for the constitution both of the central board and the subordinate boards. They wanted to keep as closely as possible to the terms of the constitution, and give to the provinces the say which they are entitled to under the constitution, and so this proposal was made that the boards under this Bill should be provincial boards, so that the provinces might have their say The Government would appoint the chairman, but the other members would be nominated by the provincial administrations, and the central board eventually would be constituted from these provincial boards. An organization on those lines would certainly be far more in accord with the spirit of the constitution than this riding roughshod over the principles of the constitution which we have in this Bill. The Minister declined in select committee to look at our proposal. He has stated his two reasons. I have dealt with the first reason, which was that transport is a Union matter. I have shown that that is no reason at all. There is not the least scintilla of substance in that objection. His other objection is that if these were constituted it would be the end of parliamentary control. He has not explained to us why there should be an end of parliamentary control in this case when there was no end of parliamentary control in the case of the Fruit Export Bill, where also you have some members of the board nominated by the Government. I may say here, in passing, Parliament should have full control. We can lay down that the board is responsible to Parliament, and make its reports to Parliament, so that Parliament can deal with its activities and they are under the fullest control. I do not think there Is any substance in either of the objections raised by the Minister. The Minister has waived aside our amendment in the select committee. I do not want to go back to it. I admit it would be futile for us to try to fight through an amendment already vetoed by the Government in select committee, taking days in discussing the matter, and getting no further. In view of the futility of such a discussion, I am not prepared to come forward again with this amendment which was moved by us in committee. My principal difficulty is the attitude of the Minister and his whole point of view in regard to this Bill. When he introduced the Bill at the second reading some weeks ago he based his case almost entirely on the dangerous position into which the railways were drifting, the menace which this motor competition was constituting, and the overwhelming interest which we must have in the railways in view of their value as a national asset. That is a wrong point of view, I admit that the country is justified in protecting railway interests both financially and otherwise. The railways will continue to be a most potent means of development in this country. But what the Minister here proposes is that where the railways get a competitive interest, the railways shall control that interest—that the railways shall be a judge in its own cause—that a board shall be constituted, appointed by the Minister of Railways, the effect of which must inevitably be to subordinate this growing motor system to the railway interest. I think that is a grave mistake and a fundamental mistake. Motor transport is coming in this country, and nothing will stop it. Let us make up our minds that this young service will continue to grow, and all that we can do is to co-ordinate it with the railway service. But to protect the railways by crushing transport is a vain task which is bound to fail, and cannot be to the benefit of the country. The railways seem to be under the impression that this is illegitimate competition. A board is to be appointed by the Minister which will carry out his policy—the policy in view here—and a grave attempt is being made to put motor transport in its place and see that it does not compete with the railways. I do not think, if the railways are properly run, that they need in any way fear motor competition. There is room for both. For certain kinds of traffic over short distances the motor will probably prove a more useful means of transport than the railways. That has been the experience of other countries, and it is becoming more and more our experience. But there will be a very large place left for the railways, and there should be a place also for this growing service which will be more helpful to the country. I think that it would be a very great mistake to look upon this as a case of illegitimate competition which must be done away with. It will do the railways good, as it has done the railways good, to have a certain amount of competition, and I think it would be a mistake at this stage to try and stereotype the position. I put it to the House in this way. We are dealing here with a growing service in this motor transport. The position is still entirely experimental. We do not know what in the end will do more service in the development of South Africa under special conditions, the railways or the motor service. The whole position is fluid and experimental. It would be a great mistake for us to strangle the motor transport, which might prove to be a power in our development, at its birth, to strangle it in its early stages and reserve unlimited scope to the railway service. That undoubtedly is the tendency. This Bill is a permanent measure. Far-reaching powers are taken here. In this Bill the board can do almost anything. If that board is going to be a subordinate railway board, an organ of the Railway Department and the Railway Administration, there is only one thing to be expected, that’ is, that motor transport will be strangled and a great and growing interest in this country will be jeopardized, and it may seriously hinder the development of this country. The crux of the position is the board. We may object and say that too wide and far-reaching powers are given to this board. I admit that it is very difficult, however much we may object, to make this a perfect Bill. It is rather the fundamental idea of the controlling body which is the important feature. The crux of the whole Bill is the central board. Now, on that we have the guidance of the commission. The commission enquired carefully into the whole position, took evidence widely and was not obsessed with the idea which the Minister has, that it is to be a subordinate railway board. The commission did not have that point of view. They recommended that the board should be an independent board, not the board which the Minister is asking for, but an independent board, a board largely representative of all interests and a board which will be free from political control. That was the finding of the commission after careful enquiry, and the report was published and received a wide measure of support all over this country. There was a sigh of relief when this report was published from all the interests who thought this would be a fair system, and this would be a fair body to administer it. There was a large consensus of opinion behind this report and the board which the commission had recommended. Now we have a board here which goes in every detail directly against the board as recommended by the commission.

The commission was divided.

The commission was divided on the National Road Board, which is a different point. I am not arguing on that.

When the House suspended business I was dealing with the character of the board, and I was pointing out that the board which the Minister proposes to set up under the Bill does not correspond with the board recommended in the commission’s report. That report recommended in Section 95 that a real transportation board independent in character, representative of diverse interests, and free from political control, be created to exercise the various functions. I think there can be no doubt that the board which the Minister has in view, and for which he has contended, is a body of a different character. It would be a political board. It would be responsible to the Minister and it would, in effect, be a subsidiary body of the Railway Administration. I think that is the crucial point in the whole business. Very wide powers are to be given—very sweeping, far-reaching powers—and the body to exercise them is to be at the beck and call of the Minister. It is not to be independent in character and not representative of outside interests. Thus it may be a very aggressive and a very dangerous power. It may destroy competition and in the end it may seriously militate against the interests of the country. I think that we should have a board more in correspondence with the recommendations of the commission. It should be a body representative also of different interests. It should be, in a measure, independent of the Minister and the Government, and it should not be a purely political concern. When we get into committee, we shall move for the constitution of such a board. I am just indicating in general the gist of our coming amendment. A board of five consisting of a chairman appointed by the Government, a member representative of railway interests, who will be nominated by the Railway Board, and another member who will be nominated jointly by the four provincial administrations. In this way, touch will be got with the provincial administrations, which is absolutely necessary in view of the fact that the board deals with functions almost entirely of a provincial character. One member will be nominated by the agricultural union so as to represent the agricultural industry, and the fifth will be nominated jointly by the chambers of commerce and the chamber of industries, the two great central bodies for the whole of the Union, and representing very large interests.

And the motor industry?

I think that would be sufficiently represented by the Chamber of Industries, on which the motor industry is adequately represented. I think that would be all that was necessary, and a board of this character would be in harmony with the recommendation of the commission.

[Inaudible.]

The Minister is making a mistake in his reading the report. It deals in the first place with the Road Transportation Board, and in Section 95 makes the recommendation unanimously which I read. Later on, the commissioners come to consider the larger policy than that which was submitted to them, and they deal with the larger question of national roads. The Minister will see they deal with that subject on page 50, and from that page on they deal, not with the transportation board, but a national road board. It is when they come to the latter that there is a difference of opinion. In Section 196, on page 50, they deal with that national board, and there was a difference of opinion as to how it should be constituted. The majority recommended it should consist of seven members—a full-time chairman, appointed by the Governor-General, and part-time members nominated by agriculture, commerce, industry, the four provincial councils, the automobile interests, and the railways and harbours administration. The minority were of opinion that the board should consist of not less than three and not more than five members including the chairman. I would advise the Minister very strongly to take a board of the kind I have indicated; it would be largely independent, but the Government would be very strongly represented. The member nominated by the four provincial administrations is likely to be in accord with the policy the two other Government nominees would carry out. I would submit to the Minister that it is in every way in his own interest and that of the Government to have a board which is not merely their instrument. There is no doubt that this Act is going to prove a hornet’s nest; it is full of 3nags and difficulties, and in its administration it is going to prove a most unpopular measure for the Government to administer; you cannot administer it without coming to a clash with big interests and local interests too. The administration of roads within a municipal area is vested in a municipal body. How is this local board going to work in with the local authority already existing and administering the roads? I foresee clashes, and I think it would be a wise thing for the Government not to assume authority where it is not necessary, but to have a board which is somewhat independent in character and representative of these various interests. If that were done public opinion would be satisfied—because public opinion so far has supported the recommendations of the commission. The result will be that this Bill, if it passes, with such a board, will have a fair start. I look upon this legislation as experimental. It is very difficult for us to say how it is going to pan out. It may meet with success, or with such difficulties that it is bound to be a failure. I also think it would be a mistake to place this board under the Minister of Railways and Harbours. I would far rather see some other department responsible for this board; but if the Minister insists on its working in conjunction with his department, we will have to swallow that. It would be far better to take away the appearance of this board being merely subsidiary to the Railway Department. There is the difficulty to which the Minister has referred—that a board constituted under these lines would not be under parliamentary control. I submit there is no substance whatever in this. We can make that board subject to parliamentary control and amenable to our control. They may be made to report to Parliament, which may thus be able to discuss their work, just as it discusses the work of the other boards. I think the difficulty which the Minister has mentioned is one of his own creation. By parliamentary control he means Government control, and what is more, he means railway control. A board may be under parliamentary control, without being under the Minister’s control, and that is what the amendment intends to effect, and it is in accord with the recommendations which we have before us in this commission. I think a board constituted on those lines would probably be satisfactory. I am not going into other features of this Bill, because to my mind all depends on the central feature, the constitution and the powers of the board, and if a board is given on these lines then, so far as I am concerned, no objection will be taken to most of the provisions of this Bill.

It is gratifying to learn that the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has now finally come to the conclusion also that a certain amount of control over our traffic is necessary. When the Government gave notice of the introduction of a Bill to control the motor transportation, the hon. member expressed himself absolutely opposed to it, and said that he would prevent any control of motor competition.

When did he say that?

The hon. member asked when he said that and I will just quote what the hon. member for Standerton said at Riversdale according to the South African party newspaper, Op die Hoogte—

The hon. member was thus, from the very beginning, opposed to any control, and the hon. members who sat on the select committee, at the very commencement, proposed not to proceed with the Bill, while, from our side, we moved to accept the Bill as the basis of our legislation. Accordingly we are glad now that the hon. member for Standerton agrees with us, but we can understand his original unwillingness to agree to it, and his attempts to water it down as much as possible. The hon. members spoke about the drastic Bill which is laid before us during the last days of the session, but the matter has been well considered and enquired into by a commission which sat for months, and the matter has already been debated in the House, and has been considered by a select committee. The only question about which we are not now in agreement is the composition of the board. Why then is the fact complained about that the Bill is now brought before the House, and why does the hon. member suggest that it should stand over? But the hon. member also said that it interfered with the rights of the provincial councils. I want to ask him what rights the Bill encroaches upon in the form in which it has come out of the select committee. Those provisions against which hon. members protested, and possibly rightly, have been deleted. They were the provisions that the Governor-General could make all sorts of regulations which really ought to be made by the provincial councils. These provisions have now, however, been taken out of the Bill. I do not think it ever was the intention ever to give the provincial councils the full control of our transportation system. It is true that they have the control over roads, but when we come to the great transportation problem, I do not believe that it was the intention of the constitution, especially when the traffic has developed to such an extent as at present, to give the provincial councils the control. We are prepared to give them the right of laying down various regulations for the traffic, but when we come to the great problems of transportation, we think the central government ought to have the control. The provincial councils cannot complain, because there are always the local councils left, who can investigate questions of a local nature, while the big questions of the control of transportation are left in the hands of a committee which is responsible to the central parliament. Then the hon. member says that it was the intention to “crush” private motor competitions. There is no such intention, and that clearly appears from the Bill. The intention merely is to have control over the transportation, and I do not think there will be any government that would follow the foolish policy of crushing private competition. The hon. member said that proper control of the railways would make this Bill unnecessary, and he said that other countries have had the same experience. The hon. member, and my hon. friends who make that charge against the railways, forget, however, that other countries, years ago, had to take steps to see that there was proper control of the road motor competition. Italy, e.g., took steps by which motors that fed the railways got special privileges, while those that competed with the railways were heavily taxed. Other countries also have thought it necessary to take steps against this unfair competition. We do not want to crush lawful motor competition, but only to restrict unreasonable and unfair competition in the interests of the public. The report of the Road Motor Competition Commission clearly shows that this unhampered and uncontrolled motor competition is not in the interests of the public, and we must protect the public. We know that cases have occurred in South Africa where people thought that they would get better service from the motors, but they found out the contrary to their loss. There was, e.g., the case where a man despatched his wool by motor carrier, the lorry fell with the wool into the river, and the owner found out that he could not get any compensation at all. As I have said, the hon. member for Standerton is prepared to agree to this Bill provided an alteration is made in the composition of the board. He relies on the report of the commission. The commission did suggest such a board where it discusses road control, but he forgets that when the commission discussed the general question of transportation it gave other advice. On this point the commission expresses itself as follows on page 53 of the Afrikaans report—

The report goes further—

Here they very clearly stated that there must be parliamentary control, and the hon. member for Standerton went further and said, suppose, e.g., that this board appointed by the Government did various things that were detrimental to the country, he said that they might possibly take a decision against the interests of the country, and which would crush motor competition. But suppose the board that he proposes should act in that way, in what position should we then be as representatives of the people? That body which he proposes would consist only of two persons appointed by the Minister of Railways, and the other three members would not be responsible to Parliament. If they adopted a policy which directly conflicted with that which we wanted to follow, what are we going to do? Hon. members would attack the Minister and the Government, and the Minister would say that he accepted no responsibility, because no Minister will accept responsibility for the acts of a body that he does not appoint, and over which he has no control. We cannot expect him to bear the blame for what this board has done. We feel that we should have control as a Parliament, in case the board does anything wrong, or the railways, or the motor carrier services, we shall have the right to hold the Government responsible and to ask the Minister for an explanation. But if we are to pass a proposal such as that which the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) originally introduced, and which has now again been introduced by the hon. member for Standerton, then we shall not have that responsibility on the Government, and we do not possess the right to hold this board responsible in the interests of the country, that is to hold the board responsible through the Government. I feel very strongly on that point, and I think that hon. members on this side of the House also feel strongly about it. The matter we are concerned with is our national transportation system, and in connection with this we must not shift our responsibility. We must not create a sort of colourless board that can do what it wishes at any time, and we shall have no right to control them. The hon. member for Standerton further said that the proposed board must represent various interests as follows: there will be two representatives who will be appointed by the Minister and the Railway Board, one of whom will be the chairman, then there is one person that will want to show the provincial administrations a favour, then I think that it is very poor comfort if the four provincial administrations only appoint one representative. It may be that the interests of the provinces are directly in conflict with each other. They only have one representative, and how they are going to agree with each other is a riddle to me. To whom will the representative be responsible? The Free State and the Transvaal may possibly approve what he does, but Natal and the Cape Province will disapprove. The result will be that such a person will be responsible to no one, and he will be able to do what he pleases. If there is a conflict of interests, I should like to see what he would do and what the result would be. I see great difficulties in such an arrangement. The hon. member for Sea Point originally proposed that each provincial administration should appoint a representative. That might be acceptable, but I certainly do not think that one representative for all four provinces will give satisfaction. Then there is one person to be nominated by the Agricultural Union. Another representative is chosen by the Chambers of Commerce, and the Chamber of Industries. Well, if there is one industry that has a right to a representative then it especially is the motor traders. They, however, are not consulted in connection with this matter. They must be satisfied with the person nominated by the Chamber of Commerce, and the Chamber of Industries in the four provinces. This will mean that those representatives will have to be accountable to eight separate bodies who appoint them. The result is that he also has no direct responsibility. We, therefore, get a board composed of two persons who are held responsible, and of three others who practically represent no one. In my opinion, such a board will not be able to work well. The board will possibly make an effort to satisfy certain interests, but it will hopelessly fail in its endeavours. I, for my part, cannot see how the respective bodies—the provincial councils and others—can be satisfied with that the House will not accept the suggestion tive which practically means nothing. I hope that the House will not accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Standerton, especially as it entirely departs from the ministerial responsibility and parliamentary control. Notwithstanding the attitude of the hon. member for Standerton, we hope the Bill will pass. I want to take advantage of the opportunity to file a telegram which our railway officials have sent me in connection with this matter. They are decidedly worried about the position, and feel that if an end is not put to this kind of thing that the position will then become a serious one for them. The telegram which was sent to me as chairman of the select committee is as follows—

It comes from the chairman of the Salaried Staff Association. I do not say any more about it, but it was sent to me. Then I have here a further resolution coming from Cape Town, also from the salaried staff—

The same from all centres.

I hope that hon. members who were recently so concerned about the railway officials will pay attention to it. Resolutions have been passed throughout the country.

Would you take notice of a body like that if they asked for an increase of salary?

Hon. members there are the people who take so much notice of resolutions of the railway workers, and I am only asking them to be consistent in this case. As appears from the minutes of the committee, an amendment by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock) was debated on the last day. We voted against it, but made it very clear that we did not vote against the principle, but that we had voted against it, not to delay the work, and because we would prefer to report immediately when the matter could be brought up again in this House. The proposal of the hon. member was to have a board of control of five members, but responsible to the Minister and under parliamentary control. There then you have the principle of parliamentary responsibility accepted by hon. members opposite. They said that they did not want three members, but would like to make it five, two with knowledge of provincial council matters, and two with knowledge of agriculture and commerce. Those four persons, however, would be appointed by the Government. We said that we would be prepared to deal with the matter again in the House, and speaking on behalf of myself and other members of the select committee, I say that we are willing, if it will lead to an agreement, to accept the proposal of the hon. member for Turffontein and his colleague, because the principle of parliamentary control is thereby approved. I am, therefore, sorry that the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has moved a different amendment, which departs from the principle already accepted by members of his party in the select committee. If they moved that amendment, I do not believe one of us would vote against it if it led to an agreement, but if they want to put the amendment of the hon. member for Standerton, which directly conflicts with the amendment which his own follower moved in the select committee, then we would prefer to stand by the original proposal in the Bill. I do not understand why the hon. member for Standerton has moved that amendment. I hope hon. members will abandon that fresh amendment and stick to their old amendment as moved in the select committee. We nearly came to agreement in the committee, and agreement can still be attained if hon. members will stand by the amendment they moved in that committee. I still hope, therefore, that the hon. member for Standerton and his followers will meet us. If they do not want to move that amendment of the five members, then I want to urge the Minister to stick to the three members, because, as the Minister has clearly indicated, the cost of the five members will fall on the people interested in the matter, and it certainly is not in their financial interests to have five members. We are, therefore, still holding out the olive branch, and if hon. members will stick to the original amendment in the select committee, as moved by them, I think we can still come to agreement.

The hon. member (Mr. Swart) might have been a little clearer in his explanation of what took place in the select committee. The last amendment put forward by our side was so put forward purely as a compromise, and it was clearly understood that we remained free to move any further amendment.

I quite admit that.

But the hon. member said that we were against the Bill, and he read a resolution proposed by a member of our side of the House. It is perfectly clear, however, that we were against the form of control, but not against the Bill. The motion to which I referred just now reads—

We were purely against the board as suggested by the Minister. If the hon. member is not prepared to accept that we acted in the best spirit in the committee room, I am prepared to go into the matter fully. Our object was to come to some agreement.

That is common cause.

But the hon. member (Mr. Swart) must not make misleading suggestions. He refers to these strangely-worded telegrams from all these railway centres supporting the Bill, but it is a pity he did not mention that we had innumerable letters and telegrams from people against the Bill.

From every little garage.

But in no two cases were they the same.

They were not dictated by the Minister.

Do you suggest that I dictated the railwaymen’s telegrams?

They came from somewhere near the Minister.

Before receiving these telegrams we were warned by a highly-placed official that there were 80,000 railway employees against us. Two members of Parliament—members on that side of the House— attended a meeting of railway employees at Salt River the night before the Minister of the Interior moved for the appointment of the select committee to consider alleged breach of privilege. The Minister, on the second occasion the Bill was before the House, desired it to be a non-party measure, and that we should deal with the subject as of national, and not merely of secondary, importance. Of course, we criticize the measure, and tried very hard to make it a workable measure, and the Minister will admit that we used every effort to come to some agreement.

I quite agree with that.

We have, of course, different outlooks, but that is no reason for saying that we were in any way against the principle of regulating road motor transport. We also feel that the Bill, as it stands, will not solve the problem; there are many points which should receive further consideration; in the first place, we require far fuller information. The Minister, for good reasons perhaps, refused to allow the select committee to take evidence. We think that, had evidence been taken, we should have been able to clear up many points. We suggested to the Minister that there should be careful consideration of the advisability of making all motor vehicle owners common carriers, and we referred to the following paragraph from page 28 of the report of the Road Motor Competition Commission—

We tried to develop this principle. Strangely enough, the only reason one of the members of the commission could give us for not further considering the principle of making them common carriers was that they might be required to convey manure and cream in the same van. He could give no other reason, and that shows that they had not fully considered the position. We then made other suggestions, including the principle of building up to the central board rather than down to the local boards, and it was suggested that instead of having these innumerable local boards proposed by the Minister, there should be four provincial boards. We suggested that as to the provincial boards in each province, one member of this board should be appointed by the Minister and two members by the provincial executive, and when any local area was under consideration, the local authority should appoint a fourth member, which would be changeable according to the local area. Thus, when they met in Cape Town, the Cape Town municipality would appoint a fourth, and when they met in Port Elizabeth, the Port Elizabeth municipality would do so. We suggested a central board which would be appointed by the Minister, and over which he would have full control. He would have appointed the chairman, and of the four other members, one would, from those nominated on the provincial boards by the provincial executive in each province. He could have his choice. He has his choice of two in other cases, such as in the case of the fruit control board, and he has his own chairman. I really do not know what he wants more than that. Where the central board has to deal with any matter, they would have at least one of the members of the board which dealt with the matter in the first instance, and he would have first-hand knowledge and know exactly what was required for that particular area. The Minister refused to consider this. He made a very strong point of it that, although in the first instance, the provincial executives have met, and were entirely against the Bill, the Free State administration later on withdrew their objection. The resolution passed by these administrative bodies reads—

The Cape Administrator explained that he had no executive, and, therefore, could not give any vote on this matter. The Free State executive voted for this. Later on they intimated that they had seen the Minister and desired to withdraw; but the Transvaal provincial council passed a resolution condemning this Bill, and the Free State provincial administration wrote to the Minister in the clearest possible terms stating their position. They demonstrated clearly that they were nervous about the provisions of the Bill and stated—

vince. … The operation of public motor transportation vehicles will not only increase the cost of the maintenance of the roads, but will also, in many cases, entail special expenditure in development and construction. For these reasons the executive committee considers that provision for a substantial annual contribution to the cost of these services should be made in the Union’s annual estimates.

These are the clear conditions on which they agreed to the Minister’s Bill. I maintain that the parties who contribute to the cost of the roads, should have representation. In each case we felt that the Minister was not quite as keen in coming to a settlement on our terms as we were to come to a fair compromise. But the Minister had a majority on the select committee and carried his supporters on the committee with him. On page 1 of the commission’s report, we see the terms of reference [terms of reference read]. The commission, in their report, say they were rather circumscribed, and were told to report only in terms of that submission, and they felt it would be quite impossible to give any report of any value were they to approach the problem on these terms, and frankly, they had to go beyond those terms. They thought and stated quite clearly that transportation generally should be considered as in the interests of the community and not merely of a section and of the Railway Administration alone. They say very definitely on page 5 that they found it difficult to gauge the intended scope of the enquiry, but notwithstanding that they are very definite that they were strictly against a monopoly. They were unanimously against any unreasonable control, very clearly against any political board and against any differentiation being made in the regulations with regard to motors belonging to the Railway Department and those belonging to outside interests. They were also against the Railway Administration bearing all the costs. The Minister makes a great claim that there are 12,000 open miles of railways; but there are over 71,000 miles of roads in the Union, built at very great cost to the several provincial administrations and local bodies, and the free use of these roads is given to the Railway Department, which does not pay a single penny towards their upkeep. Take the Minister’s own motor transport, he has an open road mileage of over 10,000 and carries a considerable number of passengers and quantities of goods; last year 1,100,000 passengers and 83,000 tons of goods, and other things as well. But what he is doing with his buses is infinitesimal to what is done by private people with their buses, yet he wants to say that the latter are in such strong competition with him that he cannot make headway. We are not against a reasonable form of regulation. We want to support the Minister if only he would make that central board more representative of the people. The commission examined the witnesses and saw them. The select committee have not seen the witnesses, and we can only form our own opinion on what was put before us. We have had no time to fully discuss and consider the quesiton of these boards. The commission comes to some very interesting conclusions. If we turn to page 17 we find that they say—

On page 20 they say that the motor passenger vehicle has stimulated travel, and plays an important part in the social life of the community. The motor goods vehicle has stimulated progress in industrial and commercial development and by providing transport in districts not served by the railways, it is playing a very important part in agricultural expansion. That is the statement of the commission, but we are not likely to lose much of the benefit of that aid to expansion if we are to have a board which will not be reasonable in regard to outside interests. They go on to say that it was urged by a few witnesses that as the country’s railway system is state-owned and state-operated, it would be logical to confer a monopoly on the state, but the commission found that the evidence against such a proposal was overwhelmingly strong, in fact, almost unanimous. It is further stated as significant that as far as the commission ascertained no state monopoly of road transport exists in any part of the world. Moreover, they were satisfied that a measure of competition in public transport is healthy and desirable, and has been shown to be instrumental in bringing about or hastening various improvements in the railway service, a point conceded by certain officers of the railway in giving evidence before the commission. That, to my mind, is very significant. They go on to say that the matter is one that should be placed on a national plane, and viewed from a wide national perspective. They also draw attention to the weight of evidence given. They say that the evidence throughout the country was most emphatic, that the appointments to the transportation or national road board should not be made on the lines followed in the making of appointments to the Railway Board. The evidence also clearly indicated that the boards should be representative of the various interests throughout the country, and that the members of the board should be nominated by the respective organizations. This is said by the commission in the only paragraph out of Section 196, which the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) did not read. In the opinion of the commission, a board such as the one recommended would be under the same financial control as any other Government department, and, in this opinion, the commission again differs, from the Minister. If the position of the railway is unsatisfactory to-day, is not the Railway Administration to be blamed? We have it very clearly demonstrated that the railway is not run on up-to-date lines. The evidence given by officials shows that many improvements have been effected, and that whatever improvements have been made the Administration have been practically forced to make through road competition. According to the commission the transport of goods, especially in small consignments, should be improved, and protracted transport has led consignees to take advantage of road transport. The commission also refers to the traiffs which the Minister has already had reports of, and they also refer to the native traffic. They say that the native traffic is of considerable magnitude, and that it has been suggested that the Administration servants are not sufficiently alive to its importance. On this commission it was shown that the Railway Department has not all they could have done, and that the little they have done to improve matters has been largely influenced by the competition of the motor services. We feel, and the commission felt, that anything in the nature of a railway board—and this board of the Minister’s is no different—would be detrimental to the interests of the country. I hope the Minister is going to consider very carefully making his central board one for the benefit of the country and not for the benefit of the Railway Department only. The Minister complains that the Railway Department has been hard hit by the depression. I have already given him some reasons why they are hard hit; but he, himself, is somewhat to blame. Why should he take the financial responsibility for the Fruit Control Board? That board is for the benefit of the Agricultural Department to a great extent. He pays all the cost also of the Shipping Board, which is not for the benefit of the Railway alone, and which should be paid for by the central Government. I could show the Minister many instances where the railways are bearing an undue burden. The users of the railways are paying a very large sum which should be paid by the central Government, or, in other words, by the general taxpayers. We have the work done by the Railway Department for the central Government, and attention has been called to this by the Select Committee on Railways for several years. We have goods carried for the central Government at 15 and 20 per cent, less than other goods, and passengers carried at half the ordinary rate. It seems to me that either our fares and rates are too high, or an undue advantage is being given to the central Government. The passenger traffic for the central Government’s benefit means a surrender by the railways of £128,000 a year, and by goods £58,000 a year, a total of £178,000. Free passes are given to members of Parliament, members of the provincial councils, to administrators and through the issue of gold badges at a cost of £78,396 per annum to the railway users. We give Government servants and Government teachers facilities and at a conservative cost to the railways of £59,200 a year. Concession to scholars and students cost another £111,000. On these services alone it is estimated by the Minister’s own employees that the railways are bearing a burden of £427,000 per annum. Then take the Civilized Labour Policy, a policy of the Government, but one which has been assumed by the Minister himself. At a conservative estimate the railways are bearing a burden of £160,000 a year in this regard. Then we have free passes, photographers’ passes, press passes, etc., none of which are used for the benefit of the railways. Then we have facilities given farmers suffering from the ravages of drought. Although formerly all outstandings in regard to promissory notes were paid by the Agricultural Department —and quite rightly so—since 1927, I think, the Minister took upon himself to pay half the amount of losses on these promissory notes, and by the end of March, 1929, there was owing to the railways £75,000. Some of this may have been recovered. There are several other items such as those I have mentioned, and on a conservative basis I have estimated it is costing the Railway Administration very close on £1,000,000 a year for all these services for the benefit of others than the railway users. If the Minister had not this burden to carry, he would not have the same keen desire now to cut out all competition to enable the railways to make a little more than they are making at present. The several clauses have, to some extent, been improved by the select committee. Under the new Bill the employer is no longer criminally liable for the acts of his employees. It is no longer possible to override every other law as was at first suggested. There is no longer the attempt made to take away all the rights and privileges which the provincial councils enjoyed. So there are certain improvements in the Bill, but I want to impress on the Minister that there are many clauses still which are very technical. We have not had an opportunity to consider them fully and get technical advice about them. There is not the slightest doubt these clauses will lead to very serious trouble in the future. The Minister speaks of the great benefit he is conferring by giving wide powers to his local boards. There is sub-section (2) to Clause 6, which takes away all the privileges from these local boards. Sub-section (2) reads—

That means that whatever the local board decides, anyone can appeal to the Minister’s Central Board and get everything upset—for instance, consider the Cape Town to Simon’s Town route. No matter what the local board may decide as between two rival companies, the central board can still upset their decision and not only say we do not say: “We will not find any fault with your decision, but as the Railway Administration now comes on the scene and appeals, we decide that there shall be no transport on that route except by the railways.” No matter how well local boards are constituted, with the powers given to the central board, they will not help the people in any way. Unless the Minister is prepared to change the system of appointing the central board, he will never give satisfaction. We want the Bill made a workable Bill. I hope the Minister will see that there is strong reason that these powers should be changed and that the views expressed by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), our leader, should be accepted by the Minister, which will go a long way to satisfy the people and strengthen the hands of the local board as well.

I must say I was rather disappointed because I thought we were going to hear the secrets of the committee. I am keen on knowing the secrets of that committee as I am on hearing the secrets of any committee, because, being out of the inner circle, we, on these benches, have little opportunity unless somebody, so to speak, blows the gaff, of hearing what little arrangements are made. It only goes to show that we all ought to have a finger in this little pie. I want the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) not to misunderstand my interjection a little while ago. I have not the slightest objection to the Government taking notice of the resolutions passed by meetings of railwaymen. On the contrary I want the Minister of Railways and Harbours and the Government generally not only to take notice of meetings of railwaymen, but of all meetings of workmen in all walks of life. It will do them good to pay attention to such meetings especially in regard to conditions. But whilst I quite agree with that we must be fair in a thing like this and ascribe the right value to resolutions passed by a meeting of this kind. If I got the hon. member correctly, he read out a resolution by a body of men representing 20,000 railwaymen. Why, we might just as well have a meeting of Mr. J. R. More passing resolutions unanimously and representing 85,000 railwaymen. Let us keep a sense of proportion. Say a mass meeting of railwaymen passed this resolution and give it its true value. That is by the way. I listened with interest to the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and he seems to have crystallized the whole outlook of the Opposition on this question. They do not mind the Bill. They do not object to regulation or even control but be careful who does the controlling. The right hon. gentleman does not want the board appointed by the Governor-General. He does not want a board, in effect, which is nominated by the Minister of Railways. He wants a composite board nominated by various people throughout the country. Might I ask the right hon. gentleman and his followers why, in referring to all these bodies such as the chambers of commerce, the chambers of industry, etc., upon which he was good enough to tell us the motor industry is represented, why he did not see fit to include representatives of trade unions? If you are going to have all the interests involved represented on a board like this, I know of nobody, no association, no organization in the whole country, which is more clamant and more rightfully clamant, for the right to be represented on such a board as this, than the trade unions of the country. You have no body of men more crystallized, so to speak, than the trade unionists, because they are repeatedly urging that stage where you should have a central organization, representing, in the main, not policy, and so forth, and general outlook, but the whole trade union movement in South Africa. I urge upon the right hon. the member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and his supporters, if they are successful in wresting the nomination of this board from the control of the Minister of Railways, to substitute for it a board upon which, at all events, the trade unionists are rightly represented in proportion to their numbers, influence and their effect upon the prosperity of the country. Well, the board seems to be the bone of contention. The hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) concentrated upon that. I want to know, as a member of this House who has not had the privilege of sitting upon the select committee, and who has never had the privilege or the inestimable value of the representations of the arguments made by hon. members on that committee, why this side of the House objects to having a board controlling the motor industry generally, and road motor transport particularly, throughout this country, a board appointed by the Railway Minister. Why do they object to it?

It is appointed by the Minister.

I agree there is always that danger, but we are dealing here with the principle of who shall nominate. The idea is in the minds of hon. members that it is unthinkable that you should allow a department of state to control something which has hitherto been in the hands of a private industry. That is the gravamen of their charge. That is their objection. I have no qualms about that at all. Whilst I frankly concede that this Minister has not been altogether successful in his choice of personnel, of individual members, I do say that the principle is thoroughly sound. In other respects this Bill is very weak indeed. I see no evidence in the Bill, and I have been very carefully through it, to enable me to discover that the Minister has conceded another very important recommendation by this board, this commission, when they inquired into the whole position, that is, that he should take power to run motor buses and motor lorries wherever he wishes. [Interruption.] If that is the case, all my worry and objection on that score fall to the ground, and the Minister finds me a much more earnest supporter than before.

He is afraid that he cannot compete with the others.

No, no. I was going to join issue with the Minister on the ground that he has no right, to say, “You, Mr. A., X. or Z., shall not run motors along here, either as passenger motors, or as lorries, without the Minister being prepared to substitute something else for them.”

Increased taxation.

He takes power to do that. I discover that the Minister takes power to pay the sum which he thinks fit. I do not think he will think fit to do anything less than justice. He is very careful to lay down that, under these circumstances, he will not do more than a private company would pay. I suggest to the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) when he talks about these people who have built the roads, and may reasonably expect some return by way of taxation from the state departments, and that they have the right to call the tune, because they built the roads, that, in the ultimate, they must come back to the central authority to meet, any deficit. Your financial legisation teems with items or no small amount of contributions by the central authority to the provincial authority. Are the provincial authorities not part of the public? Is not the Minister of Railways, in his capacity as Minister of Railways, himself representing the whole of the public of whom the provincial council represent only a part? I say in those circumstances, the state is represented by the Minister of Railways, and has the right to say that, in order “that we shall make the public service pay, whether railways or motor transport, if, in order to do that we must refuse some of our contributions to taxation”, I say that they have the right to do it, because, in the ultimate, they have to make up any deficit. I am glad the Minister is taking power to run his own bus and lorry service whenever and wherever necessary, for it is no use tinkering with the job. Under these circumstances, and in view of the fact that the Minister is prepared to contribute to taxation, there should be no objection from the motor traders. I have had a telegram from the South African Motor Traders’ Association saying that they are very strongly against amendment of the proviso which prevents the railway motor services, except those running to and from the stations, unless the state pays the ordinary motor taxes, but the Minister is required to do that under the Bill. All the members who have spoken on the question are very anxious that a state monopoly should not be granted, but I presume that they have no objection at all to a private monopoly.

We do not want a monopoly.

That is the inevitable result—

Of this Bill.

You see the tendency in this country for motor services to become a monopoly, even although motor road transport is in its infancy. Despite the fact that you have so many little private bus services in Cape Town, they are gradually being swept off the road, and by and by you will find the Tramway Company will run the whole of the bus services of Cape Town. It must never be forgotten that the inevitable result of not giving the Minister the powers he seeks under this Bill will be to restrict the state to the old-fashioned transport, which is immobile and tied to a route, as compared with bus services, which are mobile and are not tied to any particular route. The British railways, which are privately owned, endeavoured to gather into their maw the whole of the British transportation system. I want a monopoly of motor transport in South Africa for the benefit of the people of the Union, and not for the benefit of the people who will bleed the public. The British railways introduced legislation into the British House of Commons to enable them to get a grip on the road motor services, but fortunately they were beaten, although they were given permission to run motor services. Hon. members on this side of the House alarm people as to the dangers confronting the country should the South African party return to Parliament. All hon. members on this side object to the Minister’s civilized labour policy.

No.

The hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) said the use of civilized labour cost the railway users £160,000 a year. The argument is that we would save considerably more if we employed all native officials on the railways. But where would you stop? If it is logical to say that your unskilled labour must be native getting 2s. or 3s. a day it is equally logical to say that the station masters, porters and mechanics should also be natives. Fortunately, the policy of the present Government is in the direction of having all our work done by civilized labour or, in other words, well paid labour.

But is it well paid?

No, but it is paid better than when the South African party was in power. There is one other matter I wish to refer to. If the Bill becomes law as I hope it will, I trust that some other Minister than the present Minister of Railways will administer it. I am very nervous of the Minister, and fear whether he will run the motor road transportation system properly, for I have a very keen recollection of the Minister running buses to Camps Bay and Bakoven as feeders to the Sea Point railway. Upon protest by the Camps Bay Tramway Company, not unknown as a monopoly, he withdrew that service. I found out afterwards—it may be a coincidence—that De Beers happened to be the debenture holders, but the ostensible reason why he withdraw that service was the argument that if he ran it they could see nothing else but closing down the Camps Bay Tramway Company, and that would be a terrible thing for the public. He withdrew his buses; the tramway company ran their own buses and closed down the trams. He is anxious to do the right thing, but in the hands of these people he is as a child—as he was in the hands of the Union-Castle people and these shipping companies. I would rather have another Minister of Railways and Harbours—a Labour Minister who would fearlessly carry these things out. Under the circumstances I can assure the Minister of my own support, that of my colleagues, and of that section of thought throughout the country which is of opinion that where the state finds itself in danger at the hands of unfair private competition, the state itself should step in and do its own carrying trade.

That was a very interesting speech to which we just now listened, the gist of which was nationalise everything and let the other fellow pay. I think the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) indicated that the objections to this Bill had come almost entirely from the motor industry, is not correct. It is perfectly true that about 150 objections came from those engaged in the industry, but in addition to this there was hardly a municipality or a local board which did not write to the Minister and various hon. members to protest against the passing of this Act in the hurried manner in which it is proposed to do and in this they were warmly supported by provincial executives. The reason was because the Bill had been brought in before very few people had had the opportunity of considering it. The Minister said that if there was one thing that came out of the committee it was the opinion that the time had arrived when the control of motor transport on the roads should be duly regulated, this is true. The public for some time past has been calling out for this, on the grounds of public safety. The railways were crying out for it because they were suffering from an unfair competition in many directions and felt very strongly that this should be restricted. Municipalities have also been calling out for it because they felt that an elaboration of their own powers was necessary, and their own undertakings should be safeguarded. Municipalities had the same feelings perhaps for municipal tramway systems into which they had invested large sums of money as the railways. The provincial authorities—the supreme authority in the provinces, however, recognized that they were the proper authorities to take this matter up and deal with it, and they accordingly took action. On the 15th August, 1928, when the regulation of road transport had become an insistent matter, the provincial councils of the various provinces called a combined meeting in Pretoria at which were present all the four executives and administrators, and after discussing the matter very fully came to the decision that the right thing to do was to appoint an inter-provincial committee of four selected men who would go into the matter and report to the executives. That committee was appointed, and was at work for nearly fourteen months. Only on the 28th October, 1929, were they able to settle the details of the draft ordinance which is now before us, and which was adopted by the four provincial executives, but held back to be finally dealt with by the new provincial councils after the election now in progress. In the meantime, the Government, realizing that the provincial councils were on the verge of taking action, jumped in with a proposal of their own, and appointed the Roads Competition Commission on the 21st January, 1929, which travelled throughout the length and breadth of the Union, took most voluminous evidence and reported on the 13th December, 1929. The main points which they emphasised in that report and on which this Bill is supposed really to be based, were, first of all, the necessity for legislation; then they laid it down as an axiom that here must be no monopoly of public transport on the roads, and emphasised that competition on the roads was not only healthy but desirable I that competition should be reasonable and regulated, and in order to obtain this they suggested as a practical means the appointment of a national road board, now referred to as the central transportation board. In addition there should be provincial boards. The duty of the national board is to deal with questions of appeal and of co-ordination when transport goes from one area to another, and he duty of the subordinate board is to deal with transportation in its own area. As a last condition they emphasized the fact that the national board should be independent in character, and should be representative of the various interests concerned, and should be free from political control. This Bill shows how the recommendations of the Minister’s own commission have been given effect to. This is where this House has every reason to complain. Although this commission of the Minister reported after nearly a year’s work, very nearly six months ago, we have this most important Bill held back until within a few days of the prorogation of Parliament. No one saw this Bill a fortnight ago, and yet here we are within a few days of the prorogation of Parliament asked to pass this Bill. Bearing in mind the large number of petitions that have been presented against the measure, including about 40 from provincial councils and municipalities and other bodies, and that the Bill is a highly contentious one, it is hardly reasonable to have it brought on at the tail-end of the session. I suppose the Minister considers that he was doing a great thing by agreeing to send the Bill to a select committee before the second reading. That one cannot take exception to, that was right and proper, but when he sent it to the select committee with the condition that the committee were debarred from taking evidence or calling for papers, he made the task of that committee almost an impossible one. A more unfair responsibility has never before been thrown upon a committee than the Minister threw upon that committee. Not only was it unfair to the committee as a whole, but it was particularly unfair to the members of the Opposition on that committee, because the responsibility would naturally fall upon the members of the Opposition. One could hardly expect that he would get any assistance from his own side in amending his own Bill. We had no opportunity of getting the opinions of interested people. We were even debarred from calling the General Manager of Railways to give evidence, and the Bill had only been in our hands a few days. But we had something to go on. We had this to go on, that the moment the provincial executives of the four provinces heard that this Bill had been published, and was about to be passed into law, they met in Cape Town, and they passed resolutions unanimously at that meeting. I will read them.

That has already been done by the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl).

Not all.

[Resolutions passed by executive read.] Hereby hangs a tale and a very interesting tale, and if I have repeated anything said by the hon. member for Sea Point, it does not stand to reason that because the hon. member for Sea Point has already said it that it is not perfectly true. However, they say in these resolutions that the action contemplated in the Bill is contrary to the South Africa Act, and they ask the Minister to pause before taking so serious a step as he proposes. Then they had an interview with the Minister, and the Minister turned their request down without any hesitation. He said that he was going on with the Bill. I think he added “if you have anything more to say with regard to the matter you can let me know”. They went away, and met again and reaffirmed their resolution, with the exception that in the meantime something happened. Something mysterious had taken place, and although the Natal, Cape and Transvaal representatives were there, the Orange Free State representatives had disappeared into thin air. A message was received from the Orange Free State representatives saying that something had happened between them and the Minister of a private and confidential nature, in consequence of which they were no longer parties to the motion.

You are quite wrong.

Not at all, for the fact is the Free Staters backed out. Having gone back on their colleagues with whom they had been working for 12 months, they rejected the decision of their province as represented on that provincial committee, turned their back on their own ordinance, and all after only five minutes’ conversation with the Minister. They were quite satisfied that the Minister should take the matter out of their hands. But later they seemed to have had some qualms about it, and so when they went home they wrote a letter to the Minister, and they said in this letter that although they had withdrawn from the support of their colleagues of the other provincial councils, they did so on the distinct undertaking and emphatic assurance of the Minister—these are their own words—that there would be no interference with, or encroachment on, the existing rights, powers and privileges of provincial councils as regards road matters. That was a condition of their withdrawal. I do not know whether the Minister accepts that condition, or whether he repudiates it. Perhaps he will tell us when he replies, and also if he considers that this Bill is no encroachment on the existing rights and privileges of the provincial councils. Anybody who reads the Bill and studies the Act of Union and compares the rights of the provincial councils with the duties to be exercized by this central hoard, cannot but come to the conclusion that this is a violation of the rights of provincial councils. It is proposed to go into each province and lay down conditions as to the form of transport and quantity of transport, which shall pass over their roads. This is undoubtedly an attack on provincial councils by means of a side-issue. It strikes at the fundamental basis of their constitution. They are responsible for roads, hospitals and education, and road construction, maintenance and control are their especial duty. Now a board established by the Minister is to step in and override those responsibilities. The provincial councils are protesting, and rightly. We, on the committee, have done our utmost to safeguard by the resolutions submitted to the committee, the rights of provincial councils, and also to meet the Minister in every other direction, to safeguard the interests of the railways, but they have been turned down. In the Minister’s commission’s own report, they lay down that the central body shall be non-political and independent. This Bill shows that it is neither the one nor the other, and, although the Bill is a vast improvement on the original Bill, this central committee falls far short of what the country wants. No one is going to be satisfied. Those most directly concerned have been given no opportunity to express their views before it is finally committed to law. Having failed most regrettably to maintain the provincial council system, we urge the Minister to accept this central board on the lines indicated by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), we feel that we have every justification for demanding this. In proposing the formation of the board, the commission especially drew the Minister’s attention to the evidence. The Minister would do well to pay some attention to that evidence and to the advice given by the hon. member for Standerton, and to particularly note that the commission appointed by the Minister told him that throughout the country the evidence was overwhelmingly against the appointment of a Board similar to the Railway Board.

There has been very general agreement on the necessity for regulation and control of motor transport throughout the country. The evidence taken all proved that where we join issue with the Government is on the composition of the central board. That is the crux of the whole Bill. The Minister has shown that in many other countries it has been necessary to institute a measure of control, but in nearly every other country where that exists, it has been placed in the hands of a board or local authority, and never in the hands of the authority which is controlling the main transport system of the country. That is, I think, in itself proof that other countries which have considered this problem, realize that it is absolutely necessary to have the control placed in the hands of an independent board. Great Britain has been quoted. There they have a Ministry of Transport, which is absolutely independent of the railways, and independent of motor transport, and, therefore, can take a dispassionate view of the whole situation. In Australia and many other countries, the same system prevails, of appointing a board from persons not connected with the principal transport system of the country. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) said that he could see no objection to the system of the board as appointed by the Minister. I wanted to ask him whether he would be content with the appointment to a wage board by employers with an employer as chairman. Would be prepared to accept the ruling and determinations of such a board? We know he would not. The same applies to the objection to this board raised by the Minister. A board of this kind must of necessity be under the control of the Minister himself. The Minister appoints the chairman for three or five years, or indefinitely. I put it to the Minister, suppose the board takes a quite independent view, and acts in a manner which he considers in conflict with the interests of the railways. What will happen to the board when the time expires? Will they be re-appointed? They know they will not be. The Minister, being responsible for the railway transport system of the country, will exercise an enormous influence on that board. The principal issue between ourselves and the Minister is, he wants the rule of autocracy, we want that of democracy. It is very significant that the attitude of Ministers all through this session has been the demand of various Ministers for autocratic powers in their various departments. We have had this from the Ministers of Justice, Finance, Agriculture, Lands and now Railways. The Government desires to have autocratic control over any measure they have anything to do with. As, the right hon. the member for Standerton has pointed out, the Minister wants to set up a tribunal which will really be the judge in its own case. Although they have made certain concessions with regard to the composition of the local board, one of the most important sections in the Bill is the clause dealing with the right of appeal. Under that clause, Section 6 (2), the central board can override, on appeal, any decision made by that local board, and they will have the power to substitute and make, of course, any decision that they like, and impose it upon that area. That is a power which, in effect, destroys the usefulness, or the independence rather of the local boards. It is a power which may be used, and must of necessity be used, if an appeal is made by the railway to the central board, and having the interests of the railway primarily at heart, their decision will be largely influenced by the view put forward by the Railway Department. There is another portion of this Bill which, I think, also wants very careful consideration. Many of us have received strong protests about it. That is the effect it will have upon the municipalities throughout the country. The municipalities, after all, are responsible for the transport in their own local areas. In future, under this board, they will only have one-third representation on the board which is to control the transport in these local areas. That is a grave infringement on the rights of local authorities. There is no question about it, and as has been pointed out by previous speakers, it does detract from and infringe on the rights of local bodies given to them under provincial ordinances. What I think proves that there is general impression throughout the country that the Minister is assuming arbitrary power under this board, is the fact that the railway servants throughout the country have been organized to set up protests against any opposition to this Bill. It is perfectly futile to say that such opposition has not been carefully worked up. I do not say that the Minister is responsible himself, but there is no question about it that the railway workers have been influenced by some responsible officials, anyway, to pass these resolutions which have been placed before us. It seems to me that we are entering upon a phase which is likely to have serious import right throughout the country. If the railway servants, through a mistaken idea of the position which exists, are to organize opposition to a measure, which I am perfectly certain is not fully appreciated by them, if that is to be organized because it is explained that, if the Bill is not passed, there will be wholesale retrenchment, then I say that the true position should be placed before them in regard to the financial aspect of this problem. The railway rates committee which went into this question reported very shortly to this effect. They stated that “many people have stated that the effect of road motor competition throughout the country has had a very detrimental effect on railway rates, particularly on high rated traffic.” They show that far from that being the case, the high rated traffic which was supposed to be so badly affected by motor transport in this country has actually increased by 55.2 per cent., whereas the low rater traffic, Classes 7 to 9, only increased by 14.9 per cent, That is to say that the high rated traffic during period of five years increased over double that if the low rated traffic. They say—

There is a fear that, if this Bill is not passed, the country will be flooded with motor traffic. They point out the necessity for some form of control, which we are quite prepared to agree to. Traffic within municipal areas should be left to the municipal authorities to control, and in any case a central organization should control traffic only through a provincial organization. By the proposal of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) you will eliminate any fear of a monopoly or undue restriction being imposed by the Minister. We feel perfectly sure that if the Government accepted our proposals to widen the scope of the board and also its membership, increased confidence would be given throughout the country to all sections engaged in motor transportation and thereby would help to solve a very pressing and important problem.

It would appear to me that the Opposition has somewhat changed its ground of attack. When last we discussed this Bill, before it was sent to the select committee, they did not so much object to the board which was going to be appointed, but they objected to the principle of the Bill. I remember that hon. member opposite stated on that occasion that we were again face to face with a case of “socialism in our day,” and they objected to the socialistic principles contained in the Bill. I also remember well that the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) told the leader of the Opposition that they must not forget if they were opposed to the Bill that they would be harming the railway workers. This fell like a small bomb into the ranks of the Opposition. Now their attitude is represented as if they are not opposed to the principle, but to the board, and I maintain that this is merely a hidden change of front, because in principle it is the same. The only question is who will have the administration of the Act. Will the railways have the administration, or the other three persons who are added and who will constitute a majority? The first question which arises in my mind is whether the Bill is necessary. If we are convinced that something in that direction is necessary, then we shall have covered a great deal of our course. If we take into consideration the unequal competition of freight motors, then we must immediately come to the conclusion that it is essential that something should be done. The position is that they take the transport of goods on which huge profits can be made, while the other traffic on which no such huge profits can be made is left to the railways. If the weather is fine, they drive about with their motors, but when it rains and the roads are bad, they stay at home, while in addition they fix their own prices. If we see that we come to the conclusion that the competition is not fair. But there is something more. The railway administration has already, as a result of that competition, been compelled to close down certain branch lines. One has been closed down and another is on the point of closing down, while the construction of other new lines, which had been provided for, has been suspended. If we see how the railways are handicapped by that unfair competition, while the majority of branch lines, with the exception of three, do not pay and are further handicapped by the competition of private motor services, I say that it proves the necessity for this Bill. The position has become so serious that it can no longer go on. There is no man who will continue to carry on a business when he sees that it cannot possibly pay. If nothing is done to improve the position, there can be no alternative but to reduce the service. Branch lines will then have to be closed, with the natural result that labourers will have to be dismissed. I know that a great deal has been said by members of the Opposition to the effect, for instance, that it is a socialistic Bill. I warned someone the other day that the South African party would talk of socialistic legislation, nor do I deny that this is a socialistic measure, but our State railways are nothing but socialism. Our railways are socialism as pure as one could wish to see it. That is an existing fact and unless we wish to abolish our railways we must try and make a success of them. And now I come to my second question, whether that which is proposed in the Bill is just? As we know the railways are a State enterprise, and being a State enterprise we all have a share in them. Those private motor enterprises are not ours, but they belong to a few individuals. The State railways belong to the whole of the population of the country and they cost us millions of pounds. Those private motor buses and motor cars do not belong to us and they are not made by us, but they are made by certain of the members of the Chambers of Commerce or they are imported by them and certain companies run them for the sake of profit. When I was a child and learned the rudiments of arithmetic, one thing I learned was that the whole is greater than any of its component parts. No proof is required of this doctrine. The whole is greater than its component parts, and I say therefore that the interests of the greater whole are greater than the interests of the component parts. We must protect the interest of the greater whole over the interest of the small parts. When we look at the interests of the private owners as against the interests of the greater whole, there is no difficulty in my mind as to how I should choose. I and all the citizens of the State have a share in the railways, but we have nothing to do with those other enterprises. The stronger those private combinations become, the greater their danger to the country as a whole. The country suffers damage as those combinations become stronger and they go further and work directly in conflict with the interests of the State, because the railways are nothing but a State interest. That being so it is perfectly clear that steps must be taken to see that we do not carry on as we are doing at present. A great deal is spoken here about the composition of the board. I have said that this is merely a hidden change of attack. Do you know what it is? The Opposition has now found out that they dare not go directly in opposition to the Bill. It would be dangerous for them to do so, because it affects the railway workers and they are lately intent on making the railway workers believe that they are their great champions. Consequently they had to have a change of tactics and it is for that reason that they are now attacking the composition of the board. If their proposal should be adopted, it would mean that the railways would get two representatives on the board; the representative of the provincial councils we may leave out of our consideration. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) makes a great deal of him, but anyone who bears in mind the provincial circumstances does not take that seriously. The railway administration therefore has two representatives. Then we get three more. The one who represents the provincial administrations, one who represents the chambers of commerce, and the third who is a councilite, as I understand the hon. member. Let that be as it may. We therefore get three members representing private interests, which interests are comparatively small and which are a component part of the whole, while we only have two members representing the great interest of the State. They consider that the interests of the smaller part are much greater and more important than the interests of the State. Give us a board such as they ask for, and we shall know that they will have everything. Those three men will do as they please and our two men will have to sit and listen to them. This whole change is meant merely to throw dust into our eyes. Hon. members opposite are afraid of one thing. They are afraid that people will boycott buses, companies and combinations who carry on that sort of business. Those are the people they represent. They can see from the resolutions passed by railway workers what those people want, This evening I notice in the paper that a resolution has been passed by the people of Ladysmith in favour of this Bill, and they go so far as to say that they will boycott those people who do business with the buses. These resolutions are not the outcome of propaganda carried on by members of Parliament. But the railway workers see what it is leading to, and they realise that if the board is appointed as asked for by members opposite, the country in the first place will suffer, and in the second place the hundred thousand railway workers suffer, and those hundred thousand railway workers are worth a great deal more to me than those people who are represented by the chambers of commerce, etc. For that reason I give my hearty support to this Bill.

After listening to the hon. member for Colesberg (Dr. Lamprecht) I think we are justified in concluding that there is very good ground for suspicion that this is not a Bill to control motor traffic, but a Bill to suppress it. That is the feeling which prevails throughout the country. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) supported the Bill, because he desired the creation of a State monopoly. I do not think that the Minister, anxious as he is to pass this Bill, will agree entirely with the reasons for the support accorded by the hon. member for Benoni. The report of the Road Motor Competition. Commission was welcomed with open arms by all the interests concerned, including the press, commerce, trade, the motor industry and agriculture. It was recognized that the commission had done particularly good work, and that, although they had made investigations as to the conditions prevailing in other countries like the United States, Great Britain, Australia and Canada, they never forgot that South African conditions had to be dealt with and never lost sight of that aspect of the matter. The report contains undoubtedly two cardinal principles. The one is the regulation and control of motor traffic, but another most integral portion of the report—which has not received much consideration—is that it advocated very strongly a national road policy. The Government has not thought fit to accept that portion of the report dealing with a national road policy probably because they would have seriously interfered with the prerogative and functions of our provincial councils as laid down in the Act of Union. When this Bill was referred to the select committee on which I had the honour to serve, we had to accept the position that our whole road system is under the jurisdiction of the provincial councils. It was a pleasure to serve on that select committee and negotiations were most harmonious. But it was a little unfair for the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) to make capital out of the proposition made by the hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Maj. Richards) when he proposed that in the opinion of this comimttee, the necessity for the form of control contained in the Bill has not been established and further investigation be made in the direction of considering the proposals submitted by the Provincial Administration and in conference with them. We had been discussing the proposals of the provincial councils on this matter, as contained in the report of the Inter-Provincial Committee on Uniform Motor Legislation which actually deals with the whole question of regulating and controlling motor traffic. Chapter IV of that report, paragraph 39 states—

This is practically on all fours with the draft Bill submitted. The whole crux of the proposed Bill immediately was centered round the composition of the membership of this central board, and we tried to find a via media by which it would be possible to work with the provincial councils which deals with the construction and maintenance of bridges and roads. I saw a certain anomaly there because if the Bill went through in its present form, you night have an invidious position that the Union legislates for the traffic along the roads, but the provincial councils under its powers may close or deviate a route prescribed as a transport route, and sooner or later must inevitably lead to a clash of interests. Why proclaim them as transport routes while the provincial councils may deviate or close them under their powers. I would like to call the attention of the House to the recommendations of the Road Motor Competition Commission. They point out the disabilties suffered by the provincial councils and divisional councils in the Cape Province. On page 48, par. 181, of the report, dealing with road policy, they state— We are satisfied that the time has arrived when a well-considered, defined and progressive national road policy should be formulated and carried out. A new form of transport has developed and roadways are becoming increasingly important in the national interest. Par. 182: Many roads have never been properly constructed. Some are below the requisite standard for modern traffic requirements while others are deteriorating, and it appears to be beyond the financial resources of the provincial administrations and of the divisional councils in the Cape Province to carry out the necessary reconstruction and betterment or efficiently to maintain all the roads.

The report goes on to state what the practice is in the various provinces, viz.—

In par. 184 it is pointed out that—

In paragraph 185 the commission reports—

It will be observed that in the proposed Bill no attention is paid to these recommendations of the commission. The whole idea of transportation to-day is no longer confined to a district or to a province. It is not only to the district, but to the province, and sometimes to several provinces. So in the Cape it seems manifestly unfair that the local taxpayers should be called upon to build roads and bridges for motor lorries coming from the Free State and the Transvaal. Representations have been made over and over again to the Minister of Railways and Harbours by the divisional councils for some contribution towards the maintenance of these roads. Unfortunately, he has always turned a deaf ear to those representations. The committee tried to find a via media and work into this Bill the present position occupied by the provincial councils. The idea was that the provincial councils should have in each province its own board constituted of one nominee from the Minister, two from the provincial council, and one co-opted member to represent the local authority in the local area. That would represent all the local authorities in that area who are contributing towards the construction of those roads. It would represent the whole province responsible for the maintenance of roads and bridges in that area. From those four boards one proposal was that they could build up a central board, taking one representative from each province, and the chairman nominated by the Minister. Naturally the chairman appointed by the Minister would represent the railway interests, and each provincial road authority would be represented by a nominee of such provincial administration All these negotiations were, as I said, done with the idea of trying to work in our present system. That was not acceptable to the Minister. He rejected it because he felt there was not sufficient control and as far as responsibility to Parliament was concerned. I wish to point out that when this Bill was published it did not meet with the same favourable reception as the commission’s report. The objection very soon concentrated round the one chief reason, that is the constitution of the members of this central board. It is felt right through the country that the board, as suggested by the Minister in this Bill, did not comply with the recommendations of the commission. The commission’s report received personal approbation, but it was felt that the board, as suggested by the Minister, did not represent the recommendations of the commission. That is the reason why a good deal of suspicion is in the minds of the public to-day about this matter that the Board is not independent in character. I do feel this, that anything in the nature of an embargo or legislation upon natural development on such an important matter as transportation, the very life blood of the country, should receive very careful scrutiny before being translated into legislation. Therefore it is to be regretted that such an important matter should be brought forward at this late hour. There is a danger of the Bill not receiving full and adequate consideration, and there is the risk of it antagonising the provinces, the local authorities and the municipalities which are very deply interested. Over 200 representations by wire and letter were made to the select committee, very largely from motor associations, and in addition, there were resolutions from provincial administrations and municipalities. The people who are vitally interested are raising their voices in protest against the Bill. It would have been far better to delay matters, for the measure—although altered— is still the same old railway “baby” and it is felt right throughout the country that its object is solely and simply to bolster up the railway administration, for it is in the power of the board as constituted to smother and stifle all competition. It has been suggested that we on this side of the House who are opposing the Bill are unmindful of the £143,000,000 sunk in our railways and of the tens of thousands of railway employees. But we are just as mindful of the capital sunk in the railways and of the great part the railways played in our development and or the interests of everyone in the railways service, from the general manager to the lowest ganger, as are the staunchest supporters of the measure. But we must remember that many years age a fight took place between wagon transport and the railways. There was deep resentment at the time against the railways which, in their turn, are now confronted with an even more modern competitor, the motor. It is a serious competitor, and as the ox-wagon is still filling a part in transportation in its natural sphere so the railway must be content to play a part in its own natural sphere, and the railway administration must not introduce legislation which will retard the hands of progress or attempt to smother fair competition. The motor has come to stay. By its flexibility it is able to cater for traffic which the railways cannot hope to secure, in the same way that the tramways are running the risk of disappearing from the transportation arena. I am going to make a final appeal to the Minister to take into consideration the appeal made right throughout the country, that the central board he proposes to appoint should be as recommended by the commission and not under the influence of the railway administration, because if that impression gets abroad, that it is merely a railway board, he is going to find antagonism against the railways, antagonism in the provinces, and in many people who would other wise support the railway administration. I do ask the Minister to take seriously into consideration to have an independent board and if he does, I am sure he will find very little opposition to this measure, and he will ultimately secure a co-operation of all interest in such an important matter as transportation the very life-blood of a country.

As the hour is now getting very late, as a good deal of what would have liked to say has already been said as I will have an opportunity of expressing m; views in the committee stage, and as we are not at all anxious, on this side, to obstruct the Government in its business, I will refrain from inflicting on the House the copious notes that I have made. There are, however, one or two points I should like to make. The Minister made the claim that he had met the Opposition to a considerable extent. He did not meet us however on the three essential points, viz., rushing this Bill through at the end of a long session, the constitution of the central board, and, lastly, whether he was going to pay a fair share of road taxation. Our leader has already pointed out how unfortunate it is that we are called upon to deal with a measure of this kind, which cuts across municipal and provincial rights, and certainly makes serious inroads on the rights of important private interests, at such a late stage as this. As a member of the select committee on the Bill, I would like to make it perfectly clear that the same rush tactics were adopted there. We sat for three days discussing the Bill as it was presented in the House, and, as the result of our criticisms, and the weight of evidence which slowly accumulated against his proposals, the Minister decided to tear it up, and we got a new draft: we were allowed two sittings to go right through this new draft. Members of the South African party could do no more than draw attention to one or two anomalies and injustices in his proposals. In regard to the position of the railway workers in this matter I would like to give them the emphatic assurance that no hon. member on this side will do anything to jeopardize the employment of a single man on the South African railways. I would like to tell the railway workers that if they consider us unduly critical of this measure, it is not because we do not appreciate their interests in the matter, but because we see that by persevering along the lines the Minister is taking, it will not only mean disaster for the country and for the country’s trade but also for the employees of the railway. It is, however, interesting to note that while the railway workers were urging this House to pass the Bill, the Minister himself was busy tearing it up. The Bill the railway workers urged us to pass was the Bill first introduced, and not the second one, and I think the fact that the Minister tore up that Bill indicates that our criticism was sound. I am not satisfied that this second Bill is going to provide a satisfactory or permanent settlement of the problem. I am convinced that the interests of the railway department are not going to be furthered by wiping out private enterprize. What is really needed to make this Bill a success, is a strong central board. That board will not only have the function of concrolling motor transport, but it will have the function of advising the railway on all matters relating to motor transport. It will in a word carry on the work of the Road Motor Commission. I hope the Minister will consider the desirability of strengthening this central board. He has made a point about the cost of the board. I understand that he does not propose to make the railway department pay that cost. He is going to make the motor transport itself bay that cost. I do not know how he is going to do it. With regard to the strengthening of the board, if that means an additional £1,200 a year what is such an amount if we are going to do something that will solve this problem. For these reasons I hope the Minister will reconsider the question. With regard to the Bill there will be many amendments moved in committee. It was run through committee in such haste that we could hardly keep pace with the Minister. There are several important amendments. In clause 5 the board is given the right to delegate certain of its functions to a local board. Amongst the functions which it can delegate are the control of the volume of traffic and the granting of motor transport certificates. Clause 6 provides for right of appeal against a decision by the local board to the central board. This right of appeal is vested in the central board. Clause 5 (1) (f), sub-section (2) of clause 6 gives any person affected by a decision of a local board the right to appeal, but what becomes of the right of appeal where functions are delegated. It cannot consider an appeal against one of its own decisions. In clause 7 there is a point in regard to the identification of a particular vehicle. I suggest to the Minister that he adds to that the amendment I have placed on the paper. I also propose another amendment with respect to the delivery of goods by private wagon. In select committee I visualised myself as a merchant delivering my own goods, but I forgot I was also a farmer and to meet my position in the latter capacity I Have also noted an amendment. I think the Minister will appreciate that reason for this amendment. It is usual for a farmer to convey goods by his own motor car to the market, and it is equally usual when he is in town for him to take delivery of goods himself. Clause 10 goes further, I think, than was intended. It says—

That is any kind of a vehicle, whether privately-owned or otherwise. I do not think it is the intention to compel privately owned vehicles to be certificated. I shall therefore move later for the deletion of all the words after the word " vehicle” in line 68 to the word “vehicle” in line 70, and to insert the words “required to be certified under this Act.” I hope the Minister will see his way to accept that alteration. We are also going, not I think with any great hope of success, to bring in an amendment in respect of clause 17. I feel that it is necessary that you should say, even as a matter of book-keeping, how each service stands. I think the Minister should pay out of the Railways and Harbours Fund all impositions for his motor vehicles that he would have to pay if he were a private person. I shall propose an amendment to that effect. I shall also propose to delete the last two and a half lines of clause 19 (2). I do not think there is any need for me to say more at this stage. I ask the Minister to consider carefully the question of strengthening the central hoard. It would give a measure of confidence to the country that this Bill will be fairly administered. That is the one thing I notice in this Bill that all criticism has been concentrated on.

We must remember that the control of transportation carries with it the principle right through of national control. It also carries with it the responsibility of the making and maintenance of national roads, and it will not be long before the Minister will have to lace that responsibility, so that, instead of being simply Minister of Railways, he will find that to do justice to transportation in the future, his title will have to be changed from the Minister of Railways to the Minister of Transportation, and not only his title but also his duties. I am entirely in favour of our having a national outlook for transportation, but there is a danger of the Minister paying more attention to that type of transportation most closely connected with his own department. It is not likely that he will forget his responsibility for the £143,000,000 worth of railway capital. The question of tramways and buses should not affect the principle of the Bill, for equal facilities should be given to all types of transport, and the Bill should not result in suppressing a better and more up-to-date system of transport. The Bill provides that the transportation board shall he appointed with the full approval of the Minister while the local boards are to be appointed after consultation with local bodies. In other words, control will still be vested in the Minister himself. The road transport board shall lay a report annually on the Table of the House, and unless you have some control such as this, the hoard is responsible to the Minister. We would be able to dissect the working of the hoard and also of the subsidiary boards, and keep them up to scratch as we believe they should be. What I fear is that the Minister and his hoard may he so obsessed in certain directions that they may miss development of motor transport in other places; in other words, as far as private enterprise is concerned, it may be found it is desirous of meeting the wants of a community, and the local or the central board may not any conditions, and the railway section may give them an opportunity of running under not want to give these facilities either. As far as the constitution of the board is concerned, apart from that, I do not accept the position as put forward by some other hon. members. We must recognize that under our Parliamentary system, it must come to the Government in power and local administrators and authorities. The most democratic board cannot go far wrong as to what the House has intended by this measure. While I welcome the Bill, and recognize the great advantages which can be obtained from it, I can also see that, under certain circumstances, there may be a holding hack of progress by the way the measure is administered. We are out to help the Minister all we can, but not in the sense that Opposition members are afraid of; modern transport must be fully and clearly helped forward by this Board.

It is noticeable in this discussion that the establishment of the board is not being objected to. What members have in their minds is an objection to the Minister having anything to do with the appointment of the members of the board. The commission has reported that the board should be composed of representatives of commerce, trade, agriculture and the motor industry. Where is that going to lead us? It will lead us into difficulties, because the commission reports that many of the companies competing with the railways to-day are underpaying their employees and working them excessive hours? What is to hinder the trade unions from coming in? They are very much interested. Then the provincial councils and the municipalities will come forward and say that they must be represented. Before you know where you are you will have an unwieldy board which will accomplish no work at all. The only other alternative is that the Government should appoint a board. I agree with that. It is clear that nothing must influence the Minister but the selection of men who are suitable for the position. There are one or two things in this Bill which are puzzling. I refer to the local boards, and I hope that in the committee stage the Minister will be prepared to accept amendments. The functions of the local board are almost identical with those of the central board. I suggest that the duties of the local board should be advisory. They should make all the necessary investigations, but should not issue a transportation certificate. That should be in the hands of the central board. Otherwise you are going to have dual control. The commission strongly recommended that there should be co-ordination between all the motor services and the railway service, but that will be impossible if you have several boards carrying out the same duties. If you are going to give these local boards power to issue certificates for transportation services, machinery will be created wherever a local board is appointed. A staff will be necessary, and records will have to be kept in every centre. I hope the Minister will agree to amendments in committee, along the lines I have suggested. Otherwise a Bill of this kind is necessary and if properly administered after it becomes law, it will help to control industry.

Motion put and agreed to.

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