laid upon the Table—

Papers relating to:

1. (22) Proposed sale out of hand of Lot 509, Retreat, Cape.
2. (23) Proposed sale out of hand of portion of farm “Witcyfer”, Calvinia.
3. (24) Proposed sale of Lot 40, Herschel.
4. (25) Proposed grant for cemetery purposes of portion of Ashton or Roodewal Outspan, Montagu.
5. (26) Proposed grant of Bolo dipping tank site, Stutterheim.
6. (27) Proposed sale of mineral rights attached to portion “A” of “Tarantaalrand”, Pietersburg.
7. (28) Proposed sale Mowbray Outspan, Albany.

Papers referred to Select Committee on Crown Lands.

I move—

1. (1) That the House suspend business at six o’clock p.m. to-day and resume at eight o’clock p.m.
2. (2) That, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Standing Orders, if at five minutes to six o’clock p.m. to-day the business under consideration by the House be that of which a private member has charge, Mr. Speaker shall interrupt such business, and dilatory motions, if any, shall lapse without question put. If there be no motion as to the day upon which such interrupted business shall be set down for resumption, or if debate arises upon such a motion, Mr. Speaker shall direct such business to be set down for the next sitting day of this House.
3. (3) That Government business have precedence on the resumption of business at eight o’clock p.m. to-day.

I want to move the motion standing in my name and just to bring to the notice of the House that the financial measures standing as numbers 1 and 2 on the Orders for the day have to be completed not later than Wednesday, that is to-morrow. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) will understand why this is necessary, viz., because these measures, i.a., must still be approved by the hon. Senate; that is the reason why the motion stands on the Order Paper. I think during the last week we have had a fairly long discussion, and I should like to appeal to hon. members to help us to get the Bill through the House. There are still subjects and difficulties which must be discussed, but for that there will shortly be plenty of opportunity, because, if I mistake not, we shall, within 14 days, at any rate before Easter, come to the discussion of the main Estimates. I hope that hon. members will meet us in seeing that these measures go through the House as quickly as possible, as they have still to be approved by the Senate, and in my opinion we should be asking much of the other place to deal with measures in a day or two which we have possibly taken a week, two weeks, or even a month to complete. With this appeal to hon. members, I beg to move the motion.

seconded.

We on this side will gladly meet the appeal of the hon. the Prime Minister. We know that it is necessary to pass the measure as quickly as possible before the end of the financial year, and we will do everything that is possible to expedite matters. Comparatively much has already been said about one of these Bills, and I do not think that it will be necessary to say much about the other Bill which stands first on to-day’s Order Paper, and I hope that as far as this side of the House is concerned it will be possible to dispose of the matters before Thursday.

The motion was agreed to.

I move, as an unopposed motion and pursuant to notice—

seconded.

Agreed to.

stated that the petition [No, 20—’24] was upon the Table.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move, as an unopposed motion and pursuant to notice—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

The subject matter of this motion has been introduced by me for a considerable number of years. I cannot say that my efforts have met with success except that it has been varying in degree, but I am hopeful that the circumstances haying considerably changed and the outlook towards public affairs having altered very considerably, I trust my motion may have a more favourable reception to-day than it has had in the past. I would like to acquaint the House of the fortunes this motion has had. The party to which I have the honour to belong has had it on its platform as a matter of vital importance to South Africa ever since Union. I remember the first time it was introduced the mere enunciation of the proposal was received with loud laughter and not a few jeers. On the next occasion it was received almost with silence. On a further occasion the House allowed itself to be counted out. Later it was incontinently dismissed by an overwhelming vote. Since then there has been a determination on the part of members of that side of the House to have nothing whatever to do with State shipping. I quite respect the prejudice of members now in Opposition because they are not by any means unallied with the financial forces which control the great transport systems of the whole world. They must perforce jump to the pulling of the strings for those people who control finance. I quite understand their unfailing opposition to our efforts to secure the public interest. I find no fault with them. They are doing their job as they are expected to do it and according to their ability they do it quite well. So, through the years—fifteen of them—to-day, I have repeated, and I again repeat, the hope that this House, having a different outlook upon what constitutes public interest and what is the real interest of South Africa, realizing at last that the people have to count and the security of the people has to be attained, and the welfare of the people pushed forward at every and any opportunity, realizing that, I hope to get more favourable treatment for this motion to-day. This side of the House regards this motion as of supreme importance. It is the clashing on more equal terms to-day of the two big interests involved; that of big finance on the one hand and that of the people on the other. I can understand that just as it is of vast importance to the people, it is equally of importance to those who control the transport system on the sea. It is of vital importance to the people of South Africa. The whole world is faced with the menance of a mercenary marine monopoly. The whole world. If hon. members do not regard it in that light, they have been but ill students of the course of public affairs in the world during the last few years. I said we are faced with the menace of a mercenary marine monopoly. But that does not quite reach the mark because that monopoly already has the whole world in its grip. It is more than a menace. It is an actuality. I suppose hon. members have seen an octopus either in the flesh, or the fish, or in pictures at any rate. Well, I want hon. members to vitualize an octopus with its body situated in one or other of the financial centres of the world.

Is that the octopus who had his heel on our necks?

The hon. member is not unlike one. Well, I want the House to visualize that octopus with its tentacles and remarkably adhesive suckers stretched out over all the countries of the world. I want hon. members to visualize that because it gives a true picture of the actual position in the shipping world as it is to-day. Those tentacles do not reach only to the ports of the country. They lie across the hinterlands of those countries.

What about Russia?

We have tried to break it down in Russia.

Who is the “we”?

Yes, we—those who have the same point of view as I, that you have to destroy these financial monopolies which control the destinies of the world. You have to destroy them in the interests of the people of the world. We are out to do it despite the amusing interjections of hon. members opposite. That is why I say these tentacles, these arms, these enwrapping organs, extend over the hinterland of the various countries. There is no knowing just where their operations actually ramify and I say they are having their effect upon the internal portions of the countries concerned. Take the operation of the Union-Castle Co. in this country. We know very well they control two collieries in Natal. I am not grumbling about this; I am not blaming financial interests for doing this sort of thing. They must inevitably develop in that direction and must go on from strength to strength, unfortunately getting the peoples of the world in their grip. We do not know how far they are interested in the diamond mines or in the cold storages, and if they are not, we have sufficient intelligence to realize that if they thought it worth while they would obtain tomorrow the control of the cold storages of the country. Therefore I say that the shadow of this monopoly rests over the whole world, land as well as sea. I heard one or two members laugh when I said this monopoly was becoming world-wide, but I ask them to look particularly at a country which has made timid efforts in the past to deal with the shipping interests, namely, Canada. Canada is one of those countries held up by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), together with France and Australia, as one of the reasons why we should not embark on a policy of State shipping. Canada is practically on all fours with South Africa, inasmuch as it has become a large exporter of primary products while we are developing in that direction. It was on that account that the Canadian Government found it necessary to inquire into the shipping question, which was a very big sprag in the wheel of Canada. Canada is not a socialistic country; it has not a coalition Ministry, which includes a socialistic party. Their Government is very much like what ours has been, so that you cannot say it has been actuated by a Bolshevik element. As the result of their experience of the retarding effect of the shipping monopoly, they found it necessary to inquire most closely into it, and appointed a commissioner, Mr. W. T. R. Preston, in whom they evidently repose some confidence and trust. With the press we have to-day we find it practically impossible to get authentic information about anything that tells against finance, and in our own country we find ourselves heavily handicapped in that respect, so we have only extracts.

What is the date of that report?

It is quite recent, and is re-printed in the “Boere Koerant” of March 20th, 1925. Mr. Preston says—

Delay in shipment is not unknown in this country. Incidentally, it is worthy of note that we find in our boxes to-day certain literature dealing with this question—a paper, the “Commercial Bulletin of South Africa”— which is the official organ of the Chamber of Commerce. This contains a speech by Mr. Sturrock, of Johannesburg, in which he laid it down that the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs was guilty of an almost heinous offence in that he did not consult the commercial community. The reason why he should have consulted the commercial community was that they would be able to give him most valuable advice, and he anticipated the sort of advice they would give him by declaring that everything the Union-Castle Co. suggested was right from the commercial man’s point of view. Of course that contention loses some of its value in the light of Mr. Preston’s report, because these commercial men are very small fry when they come to bump up against such a fish as the Union-Castle Co., which develops into a shoal of fishes in the conference lines. Mr. Preston says their interest are inextricably bound up with the interests of the Union-Castle Company, because the company can bring pressure to bear in all sorts of directions, notably increases in freight or delay in shipments, and that is a wonderfully effective weapon in the way of bringing commercial people to heel. But it must not be forgotten that freight increases are not borne by the commercial men themselves, for they pass it on to the public which buys the commodities which the ships carry. Therefore, the evidence of the commercial men of South Africa is somewhat tainted and may be taken no notice of. Mr. Preston further reported that the North Atlantic Steam Combine was a menace to the export trade of Canada. Can you find a more damning report by a man who, so far as we are able to gather, is by no means a Bolshevik? Mr. Preston has found that a shipping monopoly exists and that it is operating against the public interest, and he has also discovered that it is operating against the national advancement of the Canadian people. If we had Mr. Preston investigating the problem we are facing in South Africa, I feel perfectly confident that he would report on exactly similar lines. The same conditions that obtain in Canada are obtaining here; therefore I say that the Canadian and South African shipping monopolies only form part of a great monopoly which extends over the whole world. It has been urged that a State shipping line would not pay South Africa. I suppose we shall have hon. members getting up and pointing to Australia. They will say that Australia started its State shipping line under the most promising conditions when freights were high and ships were scarce, and they had a monopoly of carrying certain lines. From an analogy between that and South Africa it will be maintained that a South African line will not pay. But that is not true. I do not accept the evidence as regarding the Australian position as indicated to us by newspaper reports and the people interested.

Why not?

Because they are interested in presenting the other side. All they can point to, as a matter of fact, is that Australia has decided to sell its fleet. The fact, however, that Australia is selling its fleet only points to a great betrayal of the Australian nation by the party in power there. If you are intelligent men—and only if-you are considering the question in the light of your own experience of public affairs and the action of big finance. How often since the inception of the Australian State line did the Commonwealth not receive attractive offers for its purchase? Whilst the Labour party were in power in Australia these offers were refused without any consideration. In order to give them an excuse for selling the ships these betrayers of the Australian people have manufactured the position of the fleet not paying.

I want to point out to the hon. member that he must not make remarks of that nature with regard to the Government of a friendly country.

May I consider that remark as expunged from the record. I agree that it was hardly fair for me to have said what I did and I will, therefore, withdraw it unreservedly, but the effect of their action has been to betray the people of Australia. They may be honest—I believe they are—they are giving effect to the point of view they always held whilst in opposition, when they were constantly pin-pricking this State shipping enterprise in the hope that they would make it a failure.

What were the profits of these boats?

The last official figures I had shown that they had paid off two-thirds of their cost that they built five 20,000 ton liners out of profits and were showing a profit of over £1,000,000—all within four years. Now the Australian Government is determined to make the fleet a failure. I want to remove the impression that has been raised in certain hon. members minds with regard to the facts of the position. America, Canada and France have never had a State fleet. Take the case of these shipping companies with big subsidies. We subsidize the Union Castle Co. for services rendered but we cannot in any respect call this an intrusion into shipping or State enterprise. These fleets are privately owned and are run for private profits. The subsidy has been so much profit to them. In answer to my friend down there may I develop this point? Does it matter whether state shipping lines pay intrinsically or not? I am going to demonstrate that it does pay even if it does not pay in the ledger, it pays the country handsomely and enormously in the long run. Every business and productive enterprise pays every citizen in the country if it is being run at a loss of hundreds of thousands of pounds per annum. The argument no doubt will be raised that we have not the money for the enterprise. I think the House has arrived at the stage of intelligence when it knows that if it pays the country to embark upon anything, it can raise the money. The credit of the country is good; it is better than it has ever been before, and even big financiers will lend us money. You must therefore dismiss the old cry that you cannot raise money necessary for enterprises of this description. The hon. Minister for Posts and Telegraphs together with his colleague the hon. Minister for Railways and Harbours until recently have been in negotiation with the Union Castle Co. for a renewal of their mail contract. We find they wanted something like £225,000 per annum as a subsidy. It was not a subsidy for carrying on the line but payment for services rendered—the payment for carriage of our mails. Have the hon. members realized the way in which the State can borrow money—I don’t advocate that mind you—I would finance State enterprises in another manner—but I am prepared to consider it from the point of view of borrowing the money. What is £225,000? Make it £250,000 for easy computation. I understand the State can borrow at 5 per cent, and £250.000 is interest on £5,000,000. We have a former Minister of Posts and Telegraphs telling us that we could have bought a fleet at one time, thoroughly equipped, when the cost per ton were high, with refrigerating plant, wireless installation, first second and third passenger accommodation, and ample cargo space of 15 ships, for just over £3,000,000. If you have got £5,000,000 and you are meeting the interest with the subsidy and you are carrying your own mails you are going a long way towards finding the necessary money. It seems to me to be remarkably illogical. Here you have State railways, I suppose the cheapest most highly organized, and most efficient railways in the world. There are few railways in the world that can compete on these three points with the railways of South Africa. We have our own harbours and port, state owned harbours and port equipage, we carry the goods of the people of the country to the ports, and then after taking all that trouble hand them over to private enterprise to take them where they will; how they will, by what ships they will, and at what freights they will, and the country loses touch with it at our own port. Private enterprise in the form of the Canadian Pacific Railway and the London and South Eastern Railway in England found it necessary in order to carry their operations to their logical conclusion and for the benefit of their shareholders, and to be financially sound, instituted their own lines of steamers, realizing they as railway companies could not stop their carrying operations at the port when they reached it. Even the South Eastern in England took their passenger service to Calais in order to land the passengers further and keep control of the cargo a little longer. If it is good for private enterprise it must be equally good for the State and I make bold to assert that it is vital to the State that you should keep a grip on the carriage of your commodities as long as you can. Somebody talked about a loss on the ships. Last year we had an accumulated deficit upon the railways amounting to over £2,000,000. We grumbled in this House and tried to devise ways and means of reducing or wiping out that deficit, but did anybody in this House say that because we had a loss on the railways we should hand them over to private enterprise? Not one. This year we are faced with a surplus all round in our primary products and it is just as well that we should recognize the fact that we are increasing the number, variety and volume of our products and that we must become an exporting country of no little moment in the world, and that we shall have to get and make markets for our exports. I say that we would be very unwise indeed if we continued much longer a system which throws the whole lot out of gear immediately we hand our goods over to private enterprise to be transported across the sea. What did the negotiations between the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and the Minister of Railways and Harbours on the one hand and the Union Castle Co. on the other break down upon? On the subsidy? Certainly not. If the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs had said to the company that, in view of the enormous advantages which they were getting out of South Africa, they ought to carry our mails free, but at the same time they would be given free control over the freights on South African produce, I believe the Union Castle Co. would have accepted that with acclamation. The amount of the subsidy had very little to do with the breakdown of the negotiations; the point on which the negotiations broke down was when the Minister tried to lay down emphatically and definitely that the company had to carry the primary products of South Africa on satisfactory terms and at a cheap rate. It is a most dangerous thing to leave the carriage of your primary products overseas in the hands of people whose only outlook is to make as much money as they can out of it. With regard to the Union’s three ships, I want to remind the House that these steamers are not running as a State monopoly. I confess I am distinctly in favour of a State monopoly in shipping, so that it may be sound from a public point of view and meet the requirements of the public. But the three ships that we have had running have been employed not as a State monopoly but in competition with other steamers and other steamship lines, and the fact that it has proved a paying concern should, I consider, weigh with those who object that a State line of steamers will not pay. The general manager of railways, in his report for the year ended March 31st, 1924, describes the service on which the Union steamers had been engaged, and points out that the export coal trade has been considerably assisted by the utilization of the administration’s steamers to India and the East. He mentions that in the 1923 export maize season they came to the relief of the mealie grower and carried 130,000 bags of maize to Irish and other European ports. The key clause of his report reads—

The financial statement is that the ships showed a profit, after paying interest, etc., of £4,273, but from that an amount of £299 falls to be deducted, so that the net result was something like £4,000 profit, although we carried the bulk of our cargoes, which consisted of sleepers, at rates which were below the ordinary rates charged by the competing lines. I notice that the system of accountancy has been altered to suit a point to which I drew attention during the late regime. It will be remembered that I called attention to the fact that 5 per cent, was charged for depreciation, 5 per cent, for renewals and 5 per cent, for interest. It may be sound finance, but I have yet to learn that you can depreciate a thing out of existence and renew a thing into existence again within 20 years. That system has been departed from and we have only got 5 per cent. depreciation. That is perfectly sound, except that it is a very conservative estimate, because you do not expect a ship to depreciate completely out of existence within 20 years. I do not propose to enlarge any further on these other points, but I want to turn for a few moments to another aspect of the question. We were speaking of the question of paying or not paying, and I want to say, as a sort of summing up, that it will not pay South Africa not to do it, in this way, that it will leave the whole of the people in complete independence of the throttling grip of big finance as evidenced and displayed in the transportation system overseas. But there is this other aspect to consider. I know of no single enterprise which the State could start upon which would be more advantageous than a State shipping line. Just imagine its direct effect on the industries of the country? The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) becomes interested surely? He came along, and with a great flourish of trumpets, or informed us privately—and I joy with him— that certain financial arrangements had been made in Newcastle whereby the iron and steel industry was likely to go ahead. If we institute a State shipping line, even although we buy the ships in the first place, the inevitable development will be that we shall build our future requirements. Those other companies— the Amalgamation Lines—have built nearly all their steamships out of profits from South Africa. All these gigantic ships that have been built have been built out of profits. If we start to build our ships we will be engaged in the iron and steel industry, right from the mining of the ore. Is not that an attractive proposition? Think of the employment which would arise from the making of the steel plates for the steamships alone. We will inspire a tremendous forward impetus to the industry of tree-growing or afforestation. You will want a tremendous quantity of wood. I wish it to be remembered that my ultimate object is to build our ships here by our own people to our own advantage. The general manager of railways has drawn attention to the fact that if you transport these other articles by private lines, very little of the money would be spent in South Africa. By transporting them by State lines, by people domiciled in South Africa, practically all the money you spend in freightage would be spent in this country itself, and this will have a ten to one effect in liberating the commodities of the country and cause them to flow from one person to another and make the whole country prosperous. You have your steel industry, the growing of timber, etc., and finally it will be of great advantage to this country. Then what about the employment of our own South Africans in our own ships? I see from the Estimates that we have been spending thousands of pounds per annum on a preparatory seamen’s school, the training ship “General Botha.” I suppose most members have visited the ship and realized that it is a magnificent training institution. What happens to-day? We are spending these thousands of ponds, and I do not suppose one or two per cent. of those being turned out as trained or partially-trained seamen are being utilized in the service of the South African State in any capacity whatsoever. A few have been placed on coast-wise ships as an act of courtesy and as a sop to the people of South Africa, but the whole recruitment of the crews of steamship lines trading to and from South Africa is carried out in other parts of the world, particularly in England, and we are faced with this anomalous and foolish position, that we are spending thousands of pounds to train South Africans just to lose them entirely ultimately, because they have to go across the seas to some other country to enlist in this or that steamship line, and South Africa loses them for all time. This is a ridiculous thing to do. Under the system I propose, these lads will be trained by us, for us, and utilized in the service of the South African State, and a large portion of the money paid to them will circulate in the Union. We are fast becoming an export nation of primary importance. I hope, that will develop and that we shall become an industrial nation of primary importance. We have to face that probable development. As the export business is bound up with the transportation system, not only on land but on sea, if my deduction is correct, the whole future of this South Africa of ours is bound up in the problem of land and sea transportation, and we would be failing in our duty if we let go one big side of it. I commend this motion to the House. I believe its fate is bound up with the future of South Africa. I leave it in the hands of hon. members: it is for them to do as they will.

I second the motion.

I think it is desirable that I should say a few words in regard to this motion, but before I do that, I think it will interest the House if I give the actual position with regard to the three ships belonging to the administration. As hon. members know, we have three ships of 8,300 tons each, more or less, and we are using them to transport railway slepers from Western Australia, while they take, on the outward voyage, South African coal to eastern ports and India. I may say that our ships have rendered very valuable service in the export of coal in this connection. It is very highly appreciated, and we have never had any difficulty in filling our ships with coal for India and the East. There is a steady demand for the ships. In 1923 our ships rendered very valuable service in the conveyance of part of our maize crop. We had a very heavy crop in 1923 and two of the ships conveyed a complete cargo to Europe. It will also interest hon. members to know that in making our disbursements we spend practically all our money in South Africa. We buy our provisions and stores here, and a large part of our coal for bunkering, and our repairs are done in South Africa. It should be emphasized that the working of these ships is to the very great interest of South Africa. It must also be realized that if we had to charter other ships the money would be spent outside South Africa. Also the crews of all three vessels are recruited largely in South Africa. In that connection the boys trained on the “General Botha” are very valuable to us, and I hope the time is not far off when all the deck ratings will be recruited from the “Botha.” We have had to charter three additional ships for the conveyance of sleepers, the trade having grown to such an extent.

What is the financial result?

It has been quite satisfactory up to last year, and I hope to make a statement as to last year shortly.

If you had no sleepers to load would they pay?

That is rather a hypothetical point.

What would you have done if you had had no steam?

With regard to the motion itself, I rather regret the hon. member should have brought it before the House at this time, in view of the very important negotiations which have been taking place between the Government and the conference lines. As hon. members will have seen from the report which was laid on the Table of the House, the door has not been closed to future negotiations. The Government would regret anything being said at this stage which gave the impression that we wished to close the door. This is entirely a matter which is in the hands of the conference lines. If the lines wish to reopen the negotiations we shall be quite prepared to do so, and if they do so, the Government will not be unreasonable. The Government has played with open cards with the conference lines. We have placed the interest of South Africa before them and have asked them to act reasonably. If the lines desire to reopen negotiations, the Government will be prepared in the interests of the people of South Africa to consider their proposals. The Government will pay due regard to the interests of the producers and consumers. There is one possibility where it may become necessary for the Government to take steps in order to safeguard the position of South Africa, and that has been clearly indicated to the conference lines. If the interests of the people of South Africa are attacked, the Government will not hesitate to act. When the interests of the people are being threatened by the conference lines, the Government will take steps to protect those interests. We will not allow the people of South Africa to be bled white by the conference lines or by any other combination of any sort. With regard to the motion itself, the method indicated by the hon. member is only one method of dealing with this problem. There are other methods by which the Government could deal with the position. That being so, and while the hon. member in his motion simply asks the Government for further investigation of this very important matter, the Government is prepared to accept the motion. I may say that the Government, before the hon. member had put this motion on the paper, realized that it was necessary to have the fullest possible information with regard to this question of shipping. A new department has been created, a shipping department, in charge of a very able officer, Mr. Smith, under the general manager of railways. I think hon. members will agree that the Government has taken the tight step in creating this depart-men to co-ordinate information on this very important subject. We are now investigating the whole position with regard to shipping, and the Government, without committing itself to the principle advocated by the hon. member, is prepared to accept this motion.

I must say I am distinctly disappointed at the attitude of the Minister. We as a party on the platforms outside have again and again definitely agreed to the principle of state shipping. We have felt we can only become economically independent by controlling such industries as shipping, so that our primary products are not in the hands of foreign companies and big combines. We have advocated this policy inside and outside this House, on our platforms and in our executives. I can realize the position of the hon. Minister, and I agree that we ought not to do anything to create a difficulty or put anything in the way of successful negotiations between the Government and the Union-Castle Company. I cannot see, however, why the Government should not commit itself to the principle of this motion without in any way hampering those negotiaitons. Let us see what it means. A few years ago we welcomed with open arms the advent of a new shipping line which was to compete with other companies. We went to see the ships, there were big articles in the press and the venture was praised by our statesmen. We were told that in view of this competition there was no need to go in for state shipping, as the effect of the competition would be to reduce rates; but a few years later this company was swallowed up by a combine, and so it will be with each succeeding company. The only solution is that we should have our own ships, and apparently the Minister agrees to that, but says the Government are accepting the motion, but will not agree to the principle. I think the hon. Minister himself advocated in this House that we should build our own ships in order to protect this country. There is one other matter. I think the attitude of the Union-Castle Company has been helped out or actuated by the belief that an ultra-conservative party like the Nationalist party will never go in for such a socialistic venture as state control of shipping; and because they think that they think they can bludgeon the Government into any agreement. But it is not so. The Nationalist party has for years and years advocated state shipping, and I do not think there is a single Nationalist member who does not agree that shipping should be undertaken in the interests of our primary producers. The mail contract is so small a matter as compared with the big interests involved, seeing that these shipping combines are able to threaten our industries in the course of years, that I would urge upon the Government to accept this motion as far as the principle is concerned, and let the world know that this is our policy—that we want to be independent and that we can take our products to the markets of the world and control them all the way.

The motion was agreed to.

I move—

In this matter I am asking the House for a vote on account of £11,500,000—that is for four months’ supplies. The estimated working expenditure is £25,000,000, and the capital expenditure £8,000,000. That is a total of £33,000,000, and one-third of that equals about £11,000,000. That is the usual amount which we ask, and I need not point out that the money will only be spent in accordance with the Estimates which have been laid on the Table. I move the second reading.

I think this is an appropriate time to draw attention to the injustice which the collieries of Natal are suffering. We know that the railway rates have been increased much beyond those in operation in 1914, owing to the great rise in the cost of living and materials. It is a pity, when rates are being increased, that certain industries are being discriminated against. I understand that, speaking generally, the average rate of increase in railway rates as compared with 1914, is 40 per cent., but the rates on bunker coal have been increased 125 per cent. I refer more particularly to Durban; what the conditions are at Cape Town and Delagoa Bay I am not so well acquainted with. In 1914 the administration charged 6s. 8d. a ton for the conveyance of coal for ships’ bunkers from Hatting Spruit to Durban. In 1925 the rate is 15s. I think that is out of all proportion to the increase which other industries have had to bear in connection with their railway rates, and it is also out of all proportion to the price which the collieries are getting for their coal. The collieries have to pay increased wages and higher prices for their supplies, but they have not been able to get anything like the same heavy return as the administration have. In 1914 the average price for bunker coal at the pit’s mouth was 10s. 4d., whereas the price today is 12s. 6d., an increase of only 21 per cent., as against the additional 125 per cent obtained by Government for the conveyance of the coal. The charges made by the railways for the conveyance of export coal have also been increased. The present rate for export coal is 6s. 4d. per ton, or 8d. a ton more than pre-war figures, whereas at the pit’s mouth export coal is generally below pre-war price. Here we have a very important industry severely handicapped by the very heavy rates charged by the Government; in fact the bunker trade has not really increased in Natal. The figures on the face of them seem to indicate an increase, but when examined more closely they do not bear that construction. In 1914 the total quantity of coal hauled as bunkers was 1,056,378 tons, and in 1924 it was 1,080,097 tons, an increase of about 23,700 tons, but a large quantity of this coal which was sold in 1924 was taken by vessels which carried away the export coal to be used in their own bunkers —over 150,000 tons; so actually if you deduct this from our coal, coal for bunkers decreased very considerably—a decrease of 126,000 tons, as compared with 1914, although coal exported has increased. These heavy rates are preventing the development of the coal industry in South Africa. We have a large number of mines which are not working full time, while there are undeveloped coal measures which could be opened up and more men would be employed if the industry were doing better. I am quite sure that if the railway rates on coal were reduced there would be a greater tendency for ships to call here for coal. I urge the Minister to go into this matter very seriously indeed, for it is not right that a very important industry should be singled out for this differential treatment. In addition to the existing coal mines there are, within 200 and 300 miles of Durban, many thousand acres of coal-bearing land which could be opened up if the industry were placed on a better footing. As far as the captains of industry are concerned, they are doing all they possibly can to increase the output, but the rates which are charged for the conveyance of the coal are retarding progress. In the interest of the working classes it is desirable to make it as easy as possible for fresh fields to be opened up. I am told that a large number of miners are out of work, one reason being that the coal industry is practically standing still. Considering the demand there is for coal throughout the world, our progress in coal mining has been slow during recent years, and I would ask the Minister to approach the subject in a sympathetic manner and to give the coal mines some much-needed relief.

I would like to take this opportunity of making a few remarks in reference to railway rates. I was not satisfied with what the Minister said a few days ago in reference to further reductions in regard to rates and fares, nor will the country be satisfied with the action of the Minister when it knows what the position is. The Minister has made a reduction, from about January 1st last, in rates and fares totalling something like £500,000, half being reductions in rates and half reductions in fares. I tried, when we were discussing this matter last time, to show the Minister that he was in a position to go much further, and that he could have well afforded to reduce rates and fares to the extent of one million pounds. The Minister then stated that he was not prepared to go any further with the reductions. I think this just shows the difference between the policy of the late and the present Governments. During the period of office of the late Government, from 1921 onwards, we had hanging over us a heavy deficit. We had also to contend during at least two years with a severe depression in trade. And yet, Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding these two facts, the depression in trade and the heavy deficit, we reduced the rates from 1921 to the time we left office by something like £4,000,000. That, I think, is the estimate, as far as I can recollect. These reductions were spread over, first and foremost, agricultural products, livestock, fertilizers, etc. We also gave reductions to South African manufactures, coal, building material and the like, and the total aggregate, as far as I can recollect, is estimated at £4,000,000. Whilst making these reductions we reduced the deficit by one and a quarter millions, exclusive of the two millions that came from the renewal fund. Now, Sir, those were the difficulties we had to contend with. We left our successors with £770,000 deficit on the railways, but with increasing returns when we left office. My hon. friend, in the short time he has been in office, has wiped that deficit off entirely, and for the nine months working, as well as paying off the deficit he has a surplus of £166,000. The position re railways on the 31st December was that, after paying all working expenses, interest on money etc., he had a surplus of £937,000 altogether. These are my friend’s own figures. I estimate that the surplus on March 31st of the current year will be £1,200,000. He will have this surplus after working expenses, interest and depreciation of stores stock. Of course, he has had to take £770,000 to pay the deficit, but after paying that he will have a surplus of £430,000. This is as I see the position from my hon. friend’s speech and on the bulletin of the general manager. It will be admitted that this is a very satisfactory state for the railway, and yet notwithstanding this good financial position, my hon. friend has only seen his way to reduce rates and fares by half a million of money, and he declines to go further at the present moment. In my opinion the department can well afford to make further reductions. From the financial position they are in they could reduce rates and fares by another half million, making one million altogether. I do unhesitatingly say that had the late Government been in office at the present moment they would undoubtedly have made that reduction. I think we should have been justified in reducing the rates by fully one million of money. That was our policy in regard to rates and fares. We lost no opportunity of doing so for the simple reason that we knew that with reduced rates came increased production, and increased production brought increased traffic. It has always been our policy to encourage producers and increase the production of the country. Between 1921, when we came into office, until the time we left office, as far as I can recollect the estimate of the department, we made a total of £4,000,000 reduction. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, and the House, that that policy of reduction has been completely justified, as the present position of the Railway Department shows. The railways are in a good financial position, carrying increasing traffic in goods and passengers, and this has enabled the department to give increased employment. They could not have given this increased employment if they had not carried more traffic. The hon. Minister has increased his staff. On page 28 of the grand summary of the staff he estimates the expenditure next year on an increase of 3,668 in the staff. Had it not been for the increase in the traffic and the business that could not have been done. This increase in traffic is a very important point to consider in these matters. The hon. Minister refuses to make further reductions on the ground that expenditure for next year is largely increased or proposed to be increased. This estimate provides for an increase of £1,399,000. I don’t want, at this particular moment, to express my opinion on the merits of this expenditure. But I want to point out that a lot of this provision is based upon an increase in traffic. On page of the Estimates, in the remarks which the hon. Minister signs, he states “The increase is due to provision made for additional staff to cope with the anticipated increase of traffic. Take Table No. 5 where the increase is £199,000 for casual labour to cope with the increased bunkers and increases of a general character, increases due to increased haulage and carters carriage and increased payment to cartage contractors. All this means increase of traffic and that means increase of revenue must follow. If my hon. friend is making provision here for extra expenditure for increase of traffic, that increase should be returned in the shape of increased revenue. Apart from this I would like to remind the Minister that if he makes a reduction of £1,000,000 it would give a further impetus to trade and production in the country and instead of losing the full million that increase in production and trade would mean that he would probably only lose three-quarters of a million. He must venture something in these matters otherwise the railways could not go forward. It has been our policy to decrease rates and fares and to increase traffic. This—as I have often said, and you realize it more in the Railway Department— this is a country of long distances. If you are to assist production and increase it, you want the cheapest transportation you can get in the country. We laid down as an axiom, which my hon. friend does not follow. I say —and I want to seriously call the attention of the Minister to this—that the Government now has a magnificent opportunity of further reducing rates, as most emphatically the late Government, had they remained in office, would have done. We never had as good an opportunity as my hon. friend the Minister has of making a reduction in rates, and I hope the country will take note of the position, because I am certain that the extra money which the department is going to take out of the pockets of the people through having unnecessarily high rates and fares—and I say they are unnecessarily high in the present financial position of the railways—is going to be frittered away, whereas, as I have said and I cannot repeat too often, it was the policy on which the late Government acted throughout in their railway administration that reduced rates will increase production and improve the trade of the country and give increased employment to the people of the country. I hope my hon. friend the Minister will really consider the matter of the reduction of rates, as that is most urgently called, for.

I do not wish to detain the House but I cannot let the opportunity slip of addressing a few words to the Minister. From Worcester to the proximity of Mossel Bay we have the N.C.C.R. and this private railway has already on many occasions been brought to the notice of the House. Members are doubtless weary of it. The twentieth deputation has already gone to the Government. Recently another deputation went to the Minister, representative of all the south-western districts from Worcester to Mossel Bay. The Minister said that the time for sympathy was now passed and that the Government appreciated the desirability of taking over the line. The Government knows how the farmers are situated. I only wish to ask the Minister if he cannot now make a statement as to how far matters have progressed.

It has been said in this House that the Ministers’ visit to Natal did a lot to counterblast the bad impression created by the Natal members. Well, it has had an opposite effect. I want to cite the case of a change in the name of a station in Natal. I see the Minister of Railways and Harbours smiles.

I do.

I wonder whether he will smile when I give the House the facts. I could never believe that a Government could adopt the policy and methods that this Government has adopted in regard to the change of the name of a station in Natal. If ever there was a flagrant violation of the spirit of the Act of Union this was an instance and he went out of his way to insult—

Order. The hon. member must restrain his language somewhat.

I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but the Minister went out of his way to wound the feelings of a large section of the people of Natal. They feel this very deeply. The facts of the case are as follows: Blackridge is an important residential suburb of Pietermaritzburg, and it has two railway lines running through it. This district has a welfare association of 71 members. A Pact supporter with a Russian name recently went to live in this district—I mean within the last 15 months—and this gentleman has a big influence with the only Dutch paper in Natal, the “Afrikaner”; in fact, he is responsible for many articles of a racial nature in that paper, and for that reason he is intensely unpopular. When the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Railways and Harbours visited Natal, this gentleman extracted a promise from them that the name of the station would be changed from Blackridge to Swartkopskloof. In due course a letter was received by this gentleman from the Secretary of the Minister of Railways confirming that promise, and when that letter was received it was publicly exhibited and a good deal of bragging was indulged in by this individual amongst the natives and the Europeans to show the influence he had with the Government, and he said, among other things, that the station would never again be changed back to the name of Blackridge. Now where the deep offence created by the Minister comes in is that he went through the farce of a referendum. The station master had a document there to call upon the residents to express their wishes, and 93 per cent. signed “no change,” yet in face of that, the Minister changed the name of the station at the request of an irresponsible individual. Those most interested in a suburban railway station are the people who use it, and when they have gone through the farce of a referendum it is adding injury to a very great extent. The injury which has been created is widespread throughout Natal. The people at Blackridge are a responsible lot of people, who have formed themselves into a welfare association, and they feel that they have been ridden over roughshod in a manner which they are not entitled to. I would like to read a letter from this association which was directed to the Minister. It says—

To that the following reply was received from the secretary to the Minister of Railways and Harbours—

A further letter was sent to the Minister, in which the people said they failed to see the object of taking a referendum when the views of 93 per cent. of the houses were to be flouted, as had been the case. They asked what historical interest attached to the word Zwartkop. The old inhabitants knew of none in connection with the locality, but many had cherished sentiments attaching to the soil where families had been brought up and many pupils of the Uplands school had been connected educationally with the place. They concluded that the Minister had allowed himself to be swayed by the one signature. This was of a man who was a comparative stranger to the neighbourhood and had proved himself to be entirely out of sympathy with the majority of the residents. I wish to say in connection with the statement that this change of name was made on historical grounds, that there are five stations in this valley and that this station is on a ridge, so how can it be correctly termed a kloof? During this debate the Minister asked a question in regard to racial actions in Natal—

The hon. member is not entitled to refer to this matter.

If such a question had been asked in this House here is my reply: “My worst enemy cannot accuse me of having any particle of racialism in my constitution.” I realize that if we are to be a strong united South African nation, we have to suppress racialism on every possible occasion, but I ask hon. members, in view of the facts I have presented here, what name can you give this act? What other name can you give it but racialism? Here is the Minister who brings about a farcical referendum, hurting people’s feelings, and at the same time not having any intention of abiding by it. I never thought any Government in South Africa would resort to a thing of this sort, which is hurting the people of Natal. Is it any wonder that with actions like this Natal is thinking and speaking secession? What has Natal done? It has played the game on every occasion and acted up to the spirit of Union, and here is this top-dog policy being rubbed in unmercifully. Surely hon. members must sympathize with me in this matter. Is it right that Natal should be treated in this manner? In regard to the previous name of this station, it was called after a mountain close by, Zwartkop. It was changed from that to Blackridge to avoid confusion with other stations of a similar name in the Cape Province. As to the Minister’s statement that it has been changed now for historical reasons, let us hear what the residents have to say in reply to that. They say: “How can a beautiful valley of some seven or eight miles in length and three to four miles in width, with ranging hillsides of from twelve to fifteen hundred feet in height, and containing as many as five railway stations and two distinct lines of railway, even with the elastic facility of the African language be termed a kloof? Zwartkopskloof, the name upon which the Minister lays such stress, from an historical point of view, has therefore no foundation in history nor in fact.” Before bringing this matter up, I went to see the Minister and endeavoured to reason with him, and pointed out to him the great injustice he was doing a peaceful law-abiding community. The Minister would not listen. After all my arguments, he said that the change was being made upon historical grounds. The explanation he gave me might be satisfactory to him or to the office boy, but it is not to Natal, and as long as this station is named as it is, so long will this contempt and ill-feeling prevail in Natal. Is it worth it? Why should one individual be able to override seventy people, and that one an irresponsible person and a new resident in the district? Surely the Government want goodwill and want to build up the spirit of Union in South Africa. Is this the way to do it? I hope that having ventilated these facts, the Government will see reason, and will change the name of that station to what it was originally, thereby giving these people what they are entitled to. I am sorry the Minister of Agriculture is not in his place, but I wanted to give him the full meed of praise he is entitled to in regard to his dealing with the locusts.

Order, order.

I hope the Minister, with that courtesy which invariably governs his actions, will realize in connection with this matter brought forward by the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane), that he has made a mistake, because he has listened to the vapourings of a few mischief makers and has acted in defiance of the feelings of a vast number of people who wish him nothing but well in his job. There is no desire on the part of these people to quarrel with the Minister, but they do realize that this man who cleverly baited the hook which the Minister has so rapidly swallowed is now teaching these Natalians that they have a new master. That is the thing that is really doing the damage. The Minister has allowed himself to play up to one bitter-minded individual, and he scores no points by it. No advantage is gained by it, but he has affronted a large number of people because they say that here again is an instance that wherever the interests of Natal come up for consideration, the scales are weighted against them. I would remind the Minister how differently he acted in similar circumstances, but in a different sphere, viz., the Transvaal and about the same time. The Minister was anxious to acquire a certain piece of ground, as I have just said, in the Transvaal for the purpose of erecting a railway station. The Minister will no doubt remember the case. The land he required was the property of a resident in England who owned all the ground in that area. The request was put to him through his South African agent, and in due course the reply came saying that the Minister was welcome to the ground he required free of charge, but that the owner would take it as a compliment if the Minister would give to the station the name of the owner’s old home in England. The Minister at once acquiesced in this very reasonable request, but of course it was not made a condition of the bargain. It was a courteous request and it was equally courteously agreed to. But no sooner was it known to the people in the neighbourhood that the station was to receive an English name than many of the local residents said they would not tolerate it and demanded an Afrikaans name, which was promptly given by the Minister. Now I do not blame the Minister in bowing to the wishes of the people—he had secured his land practically unconditionally —but I am pointing out how different is the attitude taken by him towards the people of Natal when they make a similar request. The Government’s general attitude in all matters concerning the people of Natal is one of very marked differentiation. May I give another illustration? In a district known as Muden there is a large number of settlers who have embarked their all in growing oranges. It is admittedly one of the most successful settlement schemes in South Africa. The Minister has visited it, the Railway Board, the Land Board and the late Prime Minister have visited it and all have been impressed by the wonderful work done by these people and the amount of capital and energy they have expended. But they are faced with an almost insuperable difficulty. They have no form of transport. They are 19 miles from the neatest railway station, Greytown, and unless they get some form of transport, their position is almost hopeless.

Is the hon. member advocating a new line?

No, Mr. Speaker, I am simply talking about the general attitude of the Administration towards the people of Natal, and a Branch Railway is the one thing on this occasion I am not discussing. Up to now these people have been able to shift for themselves with ox waggons, donkey wagons and so on, and recently they have added to that a Foden tractor. But to-day it is no longer sufficient, for their output is increasing and they will not be able to get their oranges, their cotton and their other produce to market this season without the assistance of the Government. It is 19 miles from the Railway. If I have brought the requirements of these people to the attention of the Government on one occasion, I must have done so at least forty or fifty times, till on the last occasion the Minister asked me not to send him any more information as he has all the requisite data and knew all about it. I naturally thought that meant that he was convinced of the reasonableness of these peoples claim. The officials of the department were appointed to enquire into the possibilities of supplying some form of mechanical transport over those 19 miles.

What is the value of the output?

£30,000 to £40,000 of oranges this year alone. These people, including company expenditure in development have invested something between one-quarter and one-half million of money. Now hitherto they have been accustomed to pay about 10s. a ton for cartage of their oranges from Newtown to Grey-town. The railway officials reported that it was impossible for the department to do it at that price and the lowest they can do it at is 15s. a ton. That is a rise of 50 per cent, above what they have been paying. They asked the Government to modify their terms and offer to pay 12s. 6d. outwards and 10s. per ton back. I submitted that to the Government thinking it was a satisfactory solution. After turning it over in their minds for weeks, they replied asking—and note this is a condition which has never been demanded of any other section in South Africa—are these people willing to give a written guarantee that they will use no other form of transport if we place these motors on the road for their convenience? The answer was “We are perfectly willing to give that guarantee, though we think it is an outrageous thing to demand, and that you would never have demanded it from any other part of the Union; but we realize that we are at your mercy. We however put this to you: we are in possession of a heavy tractor which has cost us about £1,000. If we agree to these exacting conditions we ask that we shall be allowed to use this tractor two days a week only, or that if you prefer that you will take it off our hands at a reasonable valuation.” But the Minister, or his department, then made another difficulty. They said “We are not prepared to take your oranges at all.” That apparently is now found to be too big a matter for the South African Government, and these people are left to do it themselves. The roads are too heavy. The department, however, offered to provide light transport for cream and similar small commodities, which was of no real consequence to these people, and they added:— “Before we undertake to place this light transport at your disposal, you must get the Provincial Council to place that road in a proper state of macadamized repair.” Now it is quite impossible for the Provincial Council to spend money to any large extent on such an object and they simply have not got it and the Government have taken care that they shall not get it. Then as regards the question of taking over the heavy tractor and dealing with the heavy goods the department has finally turned that down, and these people are to get nothing. That is, I say, a fair illustration of the way the people of Natal are always treated, and that is why we are sore, and we constantly realize that unless something is done quickly the whole of this community will be faced with ruin. It does not end even there, because these people have been informed by the provincial authorities that they will not be allowed to use their heavy tractor on the road. So that the position now is that the Government will do nothing for them and the provincial authorities will not permit them to help themselves.

The Provincial Council is S.A.P. is it not?

In six weeks the fruit from these orchards will be ready for shipment to England, and what is to happen? I cannot think the hon. Minister of Railways thoroughly realizes what he is doing and the unfairness with which these people have been treated, and I doubt whether the Prime Minister himself, who is now in his seat, can believe that any section of the community can have such conditions imposed on them and then when accepted, immediately withdrawn. There is a feeling on the part of the Railway Department that the only form of mechanical transport is wheeled transport, but that has been pushed out of the realm of practical politics in countries which do not possess suitable roads and have such a climate as we have. If we are to wait for first-class roads in this country we are never going to see the results of our labours. The problem has been solved by the British army by the development of the caterpillar-tractor, which not only passes over any road or any mud, but actually improves the road which it goes over. But there seems to be a prejudice in the Railway Department against considering such a proposition as this. I ask the Minister to consider whether this is his final answer, and whether he cannot take up a more sympathetic attitude and also at the same time consider whether a caterpillar form of tractor is not a far more suitable form of mechanical transport for a country such as South Africa.

There are one or two matters in connection with my constituency which I wish to bring to the notice of the hon. Minister. One is in connection with a very deserving body of men employed by his department—the lightermen at Algoa Bay. These men remain in the employ of the administration ten, twenty or thirty years, and they are guaranteed at least ten days’ work in the month, because their work requires some special knowledge. They are, apart from that, however, treated in every way as casuals. Now, whereas the natives working on the jetty are after one year’s service entitled to a free pass, these men, with their long service, do not receive this privilege. They consider that an undertaking was given to them about a year ago that they should receive it, but, although it is not denied that this concession was promised, they have not yet received it. They also claim that they should be allowed to contribute to the superannuation fund, even if it is only on the basis of the guaranteed term of their service. Hitherto the department has been sympathetic towards old retired men and they have been helped out of the charitable fund. But that assistance only lasts for a few months, and there have been cases of hardship. I assure the Minister this is a matter worth looking into. I would like to ask the Minister, who is a Midland man, to look into what we regard as the general neglect of the Cape Midlands. I will give an instance of the lack of facilities in the matter of railway communication between Port Elizabeth and Kimberley. Port Elizabeth is the nearest port to Kimberley, and the chief trade is done between these two places. A passenger leaving Port Elizabeth for Kimberley at 8.45 p.m. would get to Naauwpoort at 12.45 next afternoon, and would be hung up there until 3.10, eventually reaching De Aar at 5.4, and being detained at De Aar for another four hours. With luck he will eventually reach Kimberley at 6 o’clock the following morning, but if he wishes to proceed further north he must wait until 8.45 p.m. Kimberley is a very nice place and has charming people, but if a man is in a hurry he does not wish to remain there for a day when he is travelling further on. The same thing applies to the Western Transvaal, so people from Port Elizabeth who wish to visit Potchefstroom go via Johannesburg. These inconveniences would not exist if we had a proper railway service. The Minister will probably reply that the passenger traffic does not warrant an improved service, but that is not the way in which to develop traffic. We know what a difference a decent train service works. With these irritating delays in train travelling Port Elizabeth obtains no visitors from Kimberley. With regard to the general neglect of the Cape Midlands there is the question of giving facilities for the export of fruit. Fruit growing is making great strides in the Midlands, particularly the Gamtoos River and Sundays River Valleys. So far the fruit has been largely citrus, but latterly there has been a big development in the growing of deciduous fruit. Extensive orchards have been planted at Long Hope and places of that sort and along the Kat River, but unless facilities are given to Algoa Bay for cold storage the fruit will have to be brought all the way round to Cape Town by rail. It is not fair to ask producers who live within 25 miles of Port Elizabeth to send their export fruit all the way up to De Aar and then down to Cape Town. I hope the Minister will be able to give me the assurance that the claims of the Midlands will have his consideration, and I hope that the facilities we need will be granted.

It is only right that the Minister of Railways and Harbours should be told that when the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) states that the renaming of this particular station in Natal is agitating the minds of the whole people, and that Natal is seething with discontent in consequence, the Minister should know that the hon. member is making a provincial mountain out of a parochial molehill. Nevertheless, the people of this pretty suburb near Martizburg are considerably dissatisfied because of this change of name. They do not understand why the name of the station Blackridge, which was evidently suitable and acceptable to them all, should be changed to Zwartkopskloof; in fact it has been suggested that name should be a test of a man’s sobriety after a night out. My only excuse for intervening at all, however, is the fact that yesterday I received a communication from the town clerk of Pietermaritzburg requesting me to take the matter up with the Government, with a view to the name Blackridge being restored. The town clerk adds that the explanation given by the Minister is not considered satisfactory by the town council. I also understand that the Minister’s explanation is not satisfactory to the residents of Zwartkopskloof. If there is really no good reason why the Minister and the Railway Board should insist that Blackridge should continue to be known as Zwartkopskloof perhaps it is possible that the name will be changed. I am not going into the question as to whether this re-naming of a railway station is forcing the Dutch language on Natal, as has been suggested by the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane), but there is no question about it that the residents would, feel grateful if the Minister would reconsider the matter and give them back the name of Blackridge.

I want to return to a little matter we have raised on previous occasions, and I trust that on this occasion the Minister will explain the position rather than catechize us, and that is the question of the civilized labour policy of the Government. The Minister has given his definition of civilzed labour, and I think everybody will agree with that definition, but if we ask what his practice is we find that it is not in agreement with the definition, nor is it in agreement with the utterances of other hon. Ministers. The position to-day is not that of a civilized labour policy but a white labour policy. In every case, under the cloak of a civilized labour policy, white labour gets the preference. White labourers get fixed payment which is more than the coloured labourers; they are on the permanent graded staff and the coloured labourers are treated as casual labourers. Does he know that there are several native labourers in the Railway Department who have served the department for many years? Is it not correct that the Civil Service Commission recommended several years ago that native labour that had served for more than 10 years should be put on the permanent graded staff. Native and coloured labourers on the railway have none of the advantages other labourers have and receive none of the privileges, and really should, according to the Minister’s method, be classed as uncivilized, more particularly so if they are to be subjected to the conditions of service they are now undergoing at the docks and elsewhere. He should make this perfectly clear. When we were on the other side of the House and the Minister was on this side he was often asked what he would do, and he said: “Put me on the Government benches and I will tell you.”

That’s where you would like to be.

That is where I am going to be, and I am coming back there very soon again. I want to ask why the work at the docks is progressing so slowly. We know that trade has increased and that there are increased demands for facilities. The demand is increasing daily, and yet the work is not progressing in proportion to the requirements. For years we have urged that the breakwater extension must be proceeded with without delay. The Minister is extending the South Arm, but he must know from the reports of his own officials that the extension of the South Arm is useless unless the breakwater is extended. Even to-day there is not one single block laid in the breakwater extension which is so necessary and has been advised by expert after expert employed there. Sir George Buchanan advised, agreeing with the experts here, that the work should be proceeded with without delay. Nothing has been done. Unless we are careful we shall find our export trade will have increased to an extent that we shall be unable to cope with it at the docks. The size of ships coming in is greatly increasing, and to add to the difficulty the chief deep water berth available has been rendered useless owing to the shed on the pier having been demolished. The fruit trade is increasing every year. Every year now we expect an increase in maize and citrus and other exportable goods are increasing, yet the only two available deep water berths are fully occupied with the fruit export alone. The cargo sheds of the East Pier have been demolished. I should like to know from the Minister whether this work of demolition was taken in hand after consultation. I am informed that the merchants of Cape Town were not consulted and the Railway Advisory Board was not consulted. All the men who carry on the work at the doctor and who know the requirements are ignored. Why was this work done when there was no other adequate accommodation there? The other day we had a distinguished visitor here who went through the country preaching the doctrine of co-operation. We want to spread the doctrine and the spirit of co-operation, but what is the good if the facilities for export are inadequate? There are 1,300 tons of fruit lying at the docks and vast amounts are coming forward, and provision must be made to cope with it. We are 18 days, behind already in the fruit export trade. We want more space, and instead of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs haggling with the shipping company in a useless attempt to cut down freights we ought to have space at almost any price, and the accommodation necessary to carry away the exports of the country. We require it urgently, otherwise we shall stop all development and the export trade will suffer seriously. I want to know why, when the fruit exports of the country— exports which are becoming so very important— when such an important industry requires serious handling and regulating, why the Minister of Agriculture has not taken into consideration the report by the commission which he himself appointed. Our fruit export is going to be one of our greatest problems. We know that members on that side of the House and members at the back of me, have in season and out of season preached against monopolies, yet unless we carry out the recommendations of that commission there is going to be created in this country one of the greatest monopolies we have ever seen, and apparently no attempt is made to guard against it. Without the aid of a board of control one or two men will get the whole of the trade in their hands and will make the farmers of the country, and more especially the small farmers, suffer.

I hardly see what this has to do with railways.

Hardly perhaps, but we have a recommendation by a commission appointed by the Minister in regard to the export of fruit and to enable us to keep up with the export, we are asking the hon. Minister of Railways to make proper provision, so that the accommodation at the docks will be sufficient and also that shipping accommodation will be sufficient. I will leave that for the moment. I am very much concerned in regard to this matter, because I was one of those who, in the first instance, arranged for the fruit export trade in the country, and as one of the originators—a member of a society which offered prizes and other inducements for exporting fruit—I want to see that nothing is put in the way of the proper carrying on of the fruit export. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the report of a Royal Commission held in New South Wales last year. It was an important commission, one which went into the whole question of the state railways, and I suggest that the hon. Minister reads the report, because I think the remarks then made are very applicable to this country as well. There apparently they experience the same difficulty which we have experienced in this country, namely, the difficulty of running their railways without political or outside interference. The commission found that “the railway system of New South Wales is a great and valuable asset, whether regarded as a revenue producing machine or as the principal agency in the rapid development of the country. It is capable, under good administration, of producing large net revenues and of providing cheap, speedy and adequate transport throughout the state. On the other hand, in the absence of the immediate necessary and far-seeing system of finance, it may easily become ineffective as a developmental agency as well as a serious burden upon the state.” That may be taken as a description of the position in this country. Hon. members will recall the appeals which were made by the present Minister of Railways and Harbours when he sat in Opposition for a reduction of railway rates, and let me say to him if only he would now follow in the footsteps of his predecessor, I am sure that his position would be very greatly enhanced. Personally, I cannot understand why he has done away with the idea of reducing railway rates, and why he does not uphold that policy which he so frequently advocated while he sat on these benches. We have a splendid system, one which reflects the greatest credit on all who assisted in bringing it to its present proud position, not the least of whom is the ex-Minister of Railways. We had hoped from all his criticisms and from his great advocacy in the past of reforms chiefly in regard to the reduction of rates, that the Minister would follow in the footsteps of his predecessor, whom he so frequently complimented. His present position is quite un-understandable; certainly it is not in conformity with the principles so vehemently enunciated by him in the past. The commission went on further to urge that the chief commissioner in New South Wales, who is in the same position, practically, as the general manager here, should be allowed to select his own colleagues in order that every vestige of political and outside intreference may be removed from the administration of this great state asset. I do not suggest that the general manager of our railways should have the sole say in the appointment of the whole of the staff, but I would urge the Minister so to act that, at least in regard to our great state asset, there may be no vestige of a suspicion of political or outside influence.

Why do you say that? Have you any reason to say that?

The Minister must allow me to finish what I have got to say. As I have said before, it is not for him to question me. If he does not agree, then he can reply to my argument.

There is no argument, but there is insinuation.

There is no insinuation. If you look for insinuations you will always find them. The commission goes further and discusses the control of the finances. I am not going deeply into this point now, but I would suggest that the Minister should read this report very carefully and consider the suggestions of the commission. Two of the findings I would like to recommend to him. One is that the railways should be so worked and managed that the gross receipts shall not be more than sufficient to cover the working expenses, reserves and interest on capital, including sinking fund. In the event of any surplus, it is to be devoted to reductions of rates and fares, and in the case of a deficit, rates and fares should be increased. This commission, after going into matters very carefully, deliberately came to the conclusion that the proper way to use any profits on a state railway is by reducing rates and fares and if there is any loss on the railways, then again increase the rates and fares. Another point to which I would draw attention is the matter of accountancy. The commission suggested that the chief accountant alone should be responsible and that his responsibilities should be enlarged, so that he has the whole of the accountancy work in the railways under his sole charge. I may be wrong, but I am not satisfied that to-day the accountant of our railways is an officer who has an absolutely free hand in regard to his work. I would draw attention to the necessity of a merchant shipping act in this country. This is a matter which I brought up first many years ago, and have annually since pressed the Government to proceed with.

The hon. member cannot discuss new legislation.

May I not ask what is the Minister’s policy in regard to this matter?

The hon. member can ask a question, but he cannot discuss the matter.

I wish to ask the Minister what the policy of the Government is in regard to the question? There is a very great need of having a proper merchant shipping board here to regulate matters at our coast. We know that through the want of a properly constituted marine board, shipping very often is unsafe. Craft put to sea in an unseaworthy condition. Neither the crew nor the public has any protection. Cheap indentured labour is employed in many cases while our own qualified men are walking the streets, and what is more serious still, a splendid opening for our young men, and hundreds of young engineers are qualifying annually, is rendered valueless. The Government should tell us what their policy is and should establish a marine board at the earliest possible moment.

I am aware of the urgency of passing this measure, in view of the date we have now reached in March. There are, however, a few matters to which I would direct the Minister’s attention. Some are matters of considerable policy on which I shall not expect a full answer at present, and which may be dealt with further when the main estimates are considered. I would add my representation to those of previous speakers as to the absolute necessity for a reduction of rates and fares. I think it is not sufficiently realized that, generally speaking, the freights on all agricultural produce are paid by the farmer every time. Then, again, I do not see how the Minister can get away from the very definite and distinct terms of the Act of Union. It would be just as well if the Minister would reread article 127 of the Act of Union, where his duty is laid down very clearly. There he is enjoined to run his railways on business principles, and he is specially entrusted to have due regard to the industrial and agricultural development of the country by means of cheap transport. This is emphasized. Again, he is bound to see that the total earnings shall not be more than sufficient to meet the necessary outlay for working, maintenance, betterment, depreciation and interest on capital, and the Minister, if he has any temptations that way— to quote the words of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger): “To fritter away his surplus”—he will be breaking the law, because he must know that if he sticks strictly to the Act of Union, he must not use a penny more than is necessary for the purposes so clearly laid down here. Nothing tends to develop a country more than cheap rates and passenger fares. The great trouble with this country is that few South Africans know it. Every time I take a trip, something new and unexpectedly good is brought to my notice. How many members can state that they know the whole of South Africa? I am sure it would be greatly to the benefit of the country if there were better and cheaper communication between the inhabitants of the different parts of it and if outsiders were encouraged by low fares to tour this country and see its beauties. But to come back to my own constituency, we do feel that the port of East London is being very badly treated. The rival ports, if I may call them so, of Durban and Cape Town have been equipped at enormous expense with grain elevators, and I venture to prophesy now, and not for the first time, that in the future these elevators will barely pay their working expenses, let alone the interest on the capital expended on them. The Minister may say he is not responsible for that, but I mention that for this reason: This port of East London is entitled to fair treatment as compared with the other ports, and is not getting it. As the Minister knows, we pay on traffic to and from that port a higher mileage rate than, say, on the Midland line, and this is due, I understand to the heavy grades and curves on the Eastern system. The growing need of East London is a re-grading of the Eastern line. My constituents would much prefer that to the expenditure of a large sum on a grain elevator. A grain elevator was projected for East London at one time, but it fell through. We shall not discuss the reason, but we have a moral claim to some equivalent expenditure for the development of our port. East London, as the Minister knows, is the largest wool exporting port in the Union. There is a great traffic in this commodity. The wool farmer pays the heavy rates every time, and if the Minister were able to devote a sum out of his surplus to the reduction of rates on that line, and perhaps he could make up his mind to go in for the regrading of the line, he would have the satisfaction of knowing, in the latter case, that it would be a wise and useful expenditure a remunerative expenditure—and the working expenses would be so much reduced. Many anomalies would be rectified by that policy. If the Minister will go to East London, as I hope he will before long, he will then discover, if he does not know already, that it is unsurpassed as a holiday resort in the Union, but it is being kept back by these high rates. East London has one of the finest sea fronts in the Dominions. It is capable of great developments and will attract visitors, but visitors like to be carried at a reasonable speed and at reasonable rates; but that is not the position so long as the present grading and severe curves remain. Again we find it is unfavourably treated, or some of the portions of my constituency are, with regard to special holiday ticket rates. I referred particularly to the Kei mouth, one of the most beautiful spots in the Union and a favourite place for holiday-makers. It has not got the benefit of the special rates at holiday times which apply to other ports. Let me give an illustration. The port of St. John benefits by having special rates to Umtata, which is 60 miles distant. The Kei Mouth which is not half that distance from Komgha, does not get the benefit. In view of the number of visitors, actual and prospective, to the Kei, that has got to be remedied. One of the most important grievances of all is the inadequate provision of cold storage at the port of East London. I find from a recent report of a Commission of Enquiry at that port that there is actual accommodation for 3,700 cases of fruit. This means that it can only accommodate, approximately, the produce of 1,000 trees in full bearing which can be grown on 10 acres. In the hinterland of East London there are large tracts which have been developed and which are in process of development in connection with the fruit business, and surely it is desirable that by the time these trees come into bearing there should be adequate facilities at the port for storing the fruit before shipment. I will not go into the tempting fields of adventure as to the possibilities of cold storage for meat which can be produced in large quantities in the Eastern Province, and might be exported from East London. This is a matter for the future; but the Minister will not go far wrong if he decides that this matter requires looking into and that cold storage provision should be made at a very early date. I endorse what has been said by previous speakers as to the immense possibilities of our fruit export which must be handled by the railways and by our harbours but as I am told there will be another opportunity of going into this question—and I intend to avail myself of it—I will only now direct attention to the matters I have touched upon. I hope, at all events with regard to the smaller matters, that the Minister will be able to give an immediate reply. I am generous enough to allow him further time for the consideration of the larger matter of policy on which I have touched.

I think everyone will agree with some of the remarks of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), namely, that at the earliest possible moment there should be a considerable reduction of the railway rates. I think the Minister would say so too. But there are other considerations the Minister should pay attention to. The hon. member emphasized that we were paying a million pounds more this year than before, but he did not say what the expenditure was for. I entirely agree that the railways should be run principally for the development of the country, but there is also the human side, and the position of the workmen to be considered. The whole pensions scheme of the railways at the present time wants revising. There are men who have given the best part of their lives to the service and are going out, some of them, with a pension of only £2 a month, some of them £4, some of them £6, and others with £8 a month. That is not enough to pay men who have given the best years of their lives to your service. There are other causes of increased expenditure. We have £105,000 extra expenditure on the mechanical side. We have overtime employment which I should like to see the Minister do away with. It is due to the fact that the previous Minister pursued the wrong policy in putting the men on short time and cutting down work.

It was not that.

It is a fact that the railway stock was cut down during the hon. member’s term in office. I have been in every workshop in the country connected with the railways, and I know it is a fact. That is why to-day we have the systematic overtime accounting for an increase of £105,000 in the mechanical department. The method the hon. member adopted in balancing his Budget, unbalanced the whole railway system as far as rolling-stock was concerned. I would ask the Minister to see if he cannot possibly do away with that systematic overtime. It does not pay when a man has completed his eight hours a day to employ him for another four hours in the evening. His vitality is exhausted and the evening work is not economical. It would pay the Minister better to employ men in the day time when they can give a decent day’s work for their pay. There is another matter. That is, the question of the men who were victimized in connection with the strike of 1922. I may say that the Minister’s subordinates are not carrying out the spirit of the statement the Minister made in this House last session. There are men who, simply because they went on strike, have been listed. There is to-day a list of these men who are being kept out of employment because they went on strike. They are told that as soon as a vacancy occurs they will be employed, but all the time the Administration is employing new men. I got a letter on that subject this morning, in which the writer says that after applying for work he was told that on account of his having gone on strike he could not be re-employed on the railways. He goes on to say that the charge-hand under whom he worked is particularly anxious to have him back. I want the Minister to see that these men should get the first opportunity and that no new men should be employed until these men are re-employed. I know it was the policy of the past Government which was responsible for the unfortunate period in 1922, but it should now be the desire and aim of every member of this House to blot out that time and start afresh. Then I would like the Minister to make a statement as to the re-introduction of the eight hours’ day. There is today more contentment on the railways than there was under the last Minister, but there are still a few things agitating the minds of the men. One of them is this question of the re-introduction of the eight hours. They want to know when it is going to be brought about. I agree with the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) when he wants a reduction of the railway rates and the development of the country. But I also wish to see the human side attended to, and I hope the Minister will give his reply on the points I have raised.

I hope I may be allowed to support my hon. friend in regard to their plea for the reversion to the name of Blackridge station. I do so on behalf of many friends in the district, which is entirely inhabited by English-speaking people. In doing so, I should like to say that, as an Englishman, I pinned my faith to Gen. Botha at the time of Union and supported him in his policy of bringing the two races together. In regard to this Additional Appropriation, the Minister anticipates a very considerable surplus revenue over expenditure. He is quite right, in my opinion, in seeking to have a contented service, because I believe if you have a contented service you are going to run your railways and other departments successfully. But while that is one of the first things to be seen to, I think it is absolutely right to reduce railway rates, because you thereby encourage traffic, you encourage people to settle on the land, and you will find employment for many who are unemployed to-day, I do not know whether I shall be in order in referring to the board of control for the fruit export trade. This is a matter intimately connected with the traffic on the railways. I am sorry the Minister of Agriculture is not in favour of this board of control, which, to my mind, is essential for the export of fruit, which is growing to such enormous dimensions. It should be the object of a board of control to see that the fruit industry does not get into the hands of any monopoly.

Does the board of control fall under the railways?

I wish to refer to it, because the railways—

The hon. member may refer to it incidentally, but must not discuss the board.

On a point of order, may I point out that the question of the board of control is intimately associated with the harbour cold storage, which is under the administration of the Minister of Railways, and it would be very difficult to discuss the position in regard to the harbour cold storage, and the developments which are being carried out by the railway department, apart from discussing the shipping board of control.

Perhaps I might be allowed to make a statement, and that is that the Government has decided that the Railway Administration should deal with this whole subject.

Well, the hon. member can proceed.

The board would control freights and arrange the space which is allocated on steamers week after week. To-day, I understand, that, owing to circumstances over which the Government had no control, a large number of fruit growers have had their fruit sold by public auction, whereby they suffer serious loss. There is another point I hope the Minister will consider, and that is the question of coal rates. Natal particularly has built up an enormous trade in coal. It is a huge industry, in which a large amount of money has been invested, and unless coal rates are reduced to such a figure as to enable South Africa to compete in the world’s markets, I am afraid a large percentage of the trade will be lost.

I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister the fact that in almost every other country in the world wages are paid weekly, but in this country we seem to be committed to a system of monthly payment. I think that, as the Railway Department is probably the largest employer of labour, a start might very well be made by that department in instituting the weekly payment of emoluments below a certain amount. I think the system of monthly payments tends to encourage men to spend more in luxuries and unnecessaries than would be the case if they were paid weekly. Moreover it would be a benefit to the storekeeper, who under the present system, contracts a number of bad debts, and he would also not require so much capital. The credit system is one of the great disadvantages of our system and the monthly payment of wages tends to support that system, if the small buyers were in a position to settle his accounts weekly he would probably save 10 per cent. on his outlay and it would assist him to keep out of debt.

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

When the House rose I was discussing the advisability of the weekly instead of the monthly payment of wages. I am aware that certain of the staff are paid weekly, but if these weekly payments could be extended throughout the various branches of the railway, and if this system were adopted in every other Government department, I believe that great benefits would accrue. Last week I had a copy of the Durban weekly paper, “The Latest,” and its report of a race meeting there it said—

That shows how the monthly cheque is dissipated. The average working man, if he were paid weekly instead of monthly, would get more value for his money, and his family would feel the benefit.

I think the Union is to be congratulated on the satisfactory state of its railway finances, but in conveying our congratulations we have to be fair. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) is to be congratulated on the sound business methods he displayed when he filled the post of Minister of Railways and Harbours, and the present occupant of that position is also to be complimented. The country appreciates the reductions in rates and fares made by these two gentlemen, and the country would be still more grateful if further reductions could be carried into effect. We find a surplus of £400,000; there is no denying the fact that the development of the country is through the railways and the low rate charged thereon. The farmer who produces is the backbone of the country and should be encouraged by having very low rates. Not only should we encourage the farmers but there should be low rates for building materials such as cement and other articles, and for people participating in seeing the country low railway fares should be encouraged. This is now the opportunity of the Minister to display the right spirit by running the railways on good business lines irrespective of making a profit. We should be satisfied at the end of the year if the accounts balance as long as we get low rates. There is another matter I should like to refer to, it is almost becoming a hardy annual, that is, the New Cape Central Railway. A few weeks ago a large and influential deputation waited on the Minister. We received a lot of sympathy. Sympathy without relief is like mustard without beef. We have had so much sympathy, we now want relief. I ask the hon. Minister to make a definite announcement with regard to the negotiations on the Cape Central Railway. Our district is being hampered, and I am sure the Minister himself, who has visited our district often, particularly in election times, will recognize that our district requires more than sympathy. I am getting daily letters from my constituents and the neighbouring districts imploring me to get a definite announcement from the Minister. I hope the people I represent are going to be satisfied with a favourable report from the hon. Minister. At one time I thought of tabling a motion asking the hon. Minister to lay on the Table the negotiations up to the present. I feel certain, however, he is going to meet us this time. If I look at his genial face I feel that the matter is already, ipso facto, arranged. I hope we are going to have a favourable reply from the Minister very soon. I urge on him to use his efforts to utilize some of this large surplus of £400,000 for the relief of this district.

I would like to bring a matter which is of great importance to the countryside to the notice of the hon. Minister. It is in connection with the so-called delivery service. At certain stations contracts are given to certain persons to transport goods from the station to the village. When an account is rendered to the people, it happens that the charges for delivery are included, but it also frequently happens that farmers come from outside and take delivery themselves at the station and yet have to pay the delivery charge appearing in the account. I understand that a provision exists that a portion of the money will be refunded, but how many farmers know of the existence of this regulation, and how many people avail themselves of it? Take, e.g., a farmer—I know of such a case—who fetches a ton of goods from the station. He has to pay 3s. 9d. for delivery charges. He goes home and puts up with the loss. My point is that the department, that the Minister, should see to it that when a man takes delivery personally the charge for delivery is not paid, but only the freight for carriage to the station. I am thankful to the hon. Minister for the answer he gave me in reply to a written question put by me. It was a special case as Clocolan, but it is not enough. We have here to do with something that is general, and I hope the hon. Minister will see to it that persons will only pay for the value they have received. There is another point in connection with the delivery service. It is also of general importance, but I only want to mention an example also from Clocolan. The contract there is that the contractor gets 3s. 6d. per ton of 2,000 lbs. To this is added another 3d., which has to be paid to the Government for alleged clerical work, thus 3s. 9d. per ton is paid in all. But then a provision exists with reference to the railway tariff that where freight is calculated per 100 lbs. and there are fractions in the calculation of the freights, they shall be rounded off to a penny in the upward direction. At that place it works out at 2¼d. per 100 lbs., but then 3d. is brought into account in accordance with the provision. The consequence is that while the contractor only gets 3s. 6d. for his work, the public has to pay 5s. per ton. The administration puts 1s. 6d. into its pocket for which nothing is done. If the contractor should get this one could understand it, but the contractor only gets 3s. 6d. Three pence is brought into account for alleged clerical services by the department and the remaining 1s. 3d. the Government puts into its pocket without doing anything for it. This works out high in cases where people have to take hundreds of tons monthly from the station. Then it becomes a large sum. I hope the hon. Minister will go into the matter of the delivery service. I can give him the assurance that it is something that constantly causes irritation in the countryside, and causes trouble with the station-masters, who can do nothing. They must keep to the regulations. Then just another point. It is in connection with the appointment of persons in the clerical service of the railways. I have here a letter from a young lad in Bloemfontein who has taken his junior certificate. He is at present doing ordinary labourer’s work on the railways. I don’t object to this. The same thing happens in my own constituency, and if they come to me and say that they don’t wish to undertake the work, but only want to do clerical work, I tell them they must take the work, because there is no such thing as kaffir work, that at the same time, of course, if they later on got anything better they should accept it. But to that lad it has been said that he cannot get clerical work on the railways unless he passes the matriculation examination. The Minister, whom I have seen personally about the matter, has told me that it is not so. I then wrote again, but gather that he has again been told that he is required to pass the matriculation examination. I shall be glad if the hon. Minister will state that this is not so.

The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) should join the ranks of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). I was very much impressed with what the hon. member has said, and I agree with him in pointing out to the Minister the necessity of reducing charges. You cannot reduce charges unless you go in for a reasonable policy of economy, and under these circumstances I feel certain that the hon. member (Mr. Swart) will support very strongly the claims which have been put forward by my hon. friend (Mr. Jagger), who, in his administration of the railways, brought them to such a pitch of efficiency that it is possible to reduce such charges as the hon. member refers to, besides having himself reduced railway rates by nearly £4,000,000. I would say to the hon. member (Mr. Swart), if the policy of the Minister is to be carried out, it will be utterly impossible to do what the hon. member asks him to do. I am sorry that the Minister, in asking the House to vote £11,500,000 for the services of the railways for one-third of the financial year, has introduced a Bill of this importance without a word of explanation of what his policy is going to be in connection with railway administration in future. I had expected he would have told the House that, having met obligations amounting to £770,000 which will not have to be met next year, he would have gone even a little further than the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) suggested and told us that he was going to reduce the rates by more than £1,000,000, and not by £500,000, as he told the House the other day. Speaking as a farmer, I say that if one thing is more necessary than another in regard to encouraging the development of our agricultural resources in this country, it is that railway rates for agricultural produce should be made as low as possible, in order that our farmers may be placed in a better position to meet competition in the overseas market. Under the circumstances it seems to me to behave the Minister to go into the question again with his advisers and see whether he cannot spring the other £500,000. I would like the Minister in his reply to give some information to the House as to what the real position of the cold storage at the docks is, and when we can expect the new cold storage chambers that are now being constructed on the East Pier to be sufficiently advanced to be able to deal with our fruit. Owing to the cold storage congestion, the fruit farmers of this country, especially this year, have been very heavy losers indeed. I am one of those small producers who have participated in that loss, and I am only sorry that there was a certain amount of delay in increasing the cold storage power in the existing Government cold storage chambers at the docks. Though those chambers were constructed for the purpose of dealing with 900 tons of fruit, owing to the investigations that Mr. Griffiths carried out when I was in office it became abundantly clear that those chambers were only able to deal effectively with 450 tons. I would be glad if the Minister would tell us what the position is in connection with the scientific investigations which were being carried out by Mr. Griffiths, in conjunction with the Agricultural Department and the Railways authorities. I do not think there is anything of more importance to the development of what, I believe, is destined to be a great industry in this country, the fruit industry, than the most careful investigations into the theories which have been brought forward in regard to the gaseous effects that one fruit had upon another. I was glad to hear from the Minister this afternoon that the question of rediscussion of the Mail Contract is not a closed book, and I would only say, in connection with getting extra space, that it is extremely advisable to go into the question not only of insulated accommodation, but also of having a system of air-circulation whereby all these noxious gases can be removed out of the storage chambers. Where Mr. Griffiths is wandering now I do not know.

He is across the road.

I do not think that is nearly as suitable as the other place was, because when I went into the question of the other building the argument I was able to use in connection with handing over a valuable building like that was that owing to the stone foundation it was admirably suited for experimental purposes in the keeping of different fruits at different degrees of temperature to find out in what condition it should be shipped. I hope the Minister will give the assurance tonight that every possible effort will be made to see that we do not have another year like 1925. It has been disastrous to a great many of the fruit farmers, especially the young farmers who are just starting. Their trees are just coming into bearing and they have not the experience of the older men, and it is disastrous and depressing to find that their fruit, after having the Government brand when it turns up on the other side is said to be in a waste or almost waste condition. I think this is not altogether the fault of the shippers. I feel that when there was any failure in the cold storage here the farmers who had their fruit stored in the cold storage chambers were not informed of the impossibility of keeping down the temperature and were allowed to ship that fruit with very serious losses. The Minister knows that except you can get your temperature down in the cooling chambers to about 34 degrees it is very difficult for the shippers to carry that fruit properly. I wish in a friendly manner again to call the attention of the officials of the railways to the manner in which the fruit is handled as it is taken from the farmers’ wagons and put into the trucks. I know in many cases this is done without doing any damage but I will give you an example. Some months ago I was at a railway station where I saw cases of citrus fruits labelled for the Wembley exhibition, where we desired to put our fruit on the market in the best possible condition. The boxes were bundled out on to the platform and the boxes were then packed in the trucks in the same way as deciduous fruits. After transshipment and going a long distance what will be the condition of that fruit when it gets to Wembley—not a credit to the producers of South Africa. These are things which I hope the Minister will continue to urge upon the railway officials, stationmasters etc., all over the country and do everything possible to see that the fruit is handled in the most careful manner. I daresay in the cold storage it is packed properly, but whether that is the case in the ships I do not know. To pack it properly in the ships you must have a certain amount of air passing through your cases. I believe we are arriving at a stage where with the assistance of Mr. Griffiths, the attention of the railway department, and the assistance which the scientific officers are giving, many of these defects will be done away with, but until we have cold storage not only at Cape Town but at Durban and other ports, so that the fruit can be properly pre-cooled before shipment, we shall never have success.

State cold storages.

No I think it would be better to have other cold storages if they could make arrangements to deal with the fruit. If they did it at exactly the same price as the Government it would be inadvisable for the Government to put up extra places—because they would be using capital in a country like this which needs it so much that could be used to better advantage—so long as they had control of the prices charged.

There is no competition.

Surely the Government harbour rates should set the basis of competition. The Minister of Railways and Harbours has the competition in his own hands. He has the cold storage to store 900 tons of fruit in Cape Town. The Government are putting up a new cold storage. That I am very much in favour of because it is exactly at the waterside. It is not because it is exactly at the storage. I differ from hon. members who think the State should do everything. I think private individuals and private industry very often do them as well and very often cheaper than the State. That is the general experience of everybody except my hon. friend the member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley). I am sorry for my hon. friend after the cold douche he received this afternoon.

Don’t worry, old chap.

I do hope that when the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, no doubt in conjunction with the Railway Department, goes into the question of the mail contract, he will see that every possible endeavour is made to secure as far as possible the space which will be necessary to deal with the export fruit from this country. I do not think the mail steamers are going to carry it all. I think we should make arrangements for the Australian lines to take some of it. I think the Minister said he was going into the report of the Fruit Commission. I think it is not alone my view, but the view of every fruit producer in this country, that if you are not going to have chaos and great loss in the export of your fruit you must have a statutory board of control who will receive the fruit from the railway at the various harbours and will have full power to arrange its shipment and destination. If you do not do that the fruit growers and the shipping people themselves say there is nothing before you but chaos and disaster, and I think under the circumstances, and as my hon. friend says that the shipping of the fruit is now coming under his consideration, I would like, the House would like, and the fruit farmers would like, to hear from the Minister what his views are on that question.

The shipping companies must state definitely what space they have.

Yes, I agree. But when even the Australian companies put that space at our disposal we should set our minds in every possible way, by every possible step, to see that that space does not fall into the hands of speculators but is put into the hands of a board of control, so that no matter how small a man is he will have the opportunity of circulating his fruit. I am glad to have something in common with my hon. friend over there. It may interest my hon. friends to hear that when the fruit exchange, in which I took a great interest, was established, I attended a meeting of the farmers interested in starting that exchange. In the articles of association it was laid down that the voting went by tonnage. I said that if they wanted my assistance that article must be altered because it would mean that those large fruit companies springing up in this country would have the vote because of tonnage, and they would have the whole tonnage of the exchange. The article was altered to make the voting go by individuals.

The hon. member is travelling rather far afield.

I am sorry. I was very pleased to see that after the exhaustive enquiry of this fruit commission, they have justified the existence of the Co-operative Fruit Exchange. They have gone so far as to say that the fruit exchange has rendered great service to the fruit growing industry in this country, and that is why I would impress on my hon. friend to see whether the board is enlarged or not; whether he adopts the proposals of the reports or not, that there should be added a member of the Agricultural Department and a representative of the railways, not as members of the board, but as advisors, because I believe that the board of control should be a body representing the producers themselves. You already have a shipping officer, Mr. Hopson, who I am sorry to hear was indisposed. He is also a young South African gentleman who has rendered admirable services to the fruit industry. It is a doubtful point whether you should have attached to that board of control any representative of the people who are non-co-operators. I am strongly in favour of only representing co-operators. I notice that the Australian Government had a representative of the non-co-operators as well as of the co-operators on their selling board in connection with the shipment of wheat. The federated farmers overseas got 50 per cent. of the Australian wheat sent away by the Government and their representative of the non-co-operators got the other 50 per cent. I know there are certain fruit farmers who in their own interests have an agent in London, Southampton, or Hull, and they want to say on their boxes that the fruit ought to be shipped to London, Southampton, or Hull, or to the Continent, as the case might be, but that also will lead to chaos. Because it would mean double or treble handling in the cold storage. The best way is that it should go forward by priority of receipt at the cold storage chambers. That is the principle which ought to be adopted.

All grades?

That is a very reasonable question. There is a great deal to be said for it. It often happens now that fruit is kept back. I am one of those who believe that, although we have a great market in London and on the Continent at present, it can only serve the people who require special quality. You should be able to ship not only the extra selected fruit, but fruit of a good, sound quality such as that the ordinary people of England have used for generations. If it was plucked sound, while it was green, and you had cold storage, we could send large quantities of such fruit and develop our trade just as Sir Henry Jones opened up the Indian banana trade. So I am asking the Minister to see that every possible provision is made for getting this extra space. Unless that is done, in a couple of years’ time you will have a chaos in our fruit trade worse than that of 1908. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) was a good man struggling with adversity to get rid of this incubus of the railway deficit and give my hon. friend opposite this nest-egg to play with. Now that so many people are coming out to South Africa as a result of the publicity work to be undertaken by the Publicity Association, let me say one of the best places in which you can advertise our fruit is in the dining-saloons of our trains. Anyone who travels on those trains and sees the nature of the fruit supply and the quality of the fruit put upon the table, will see that the South African fruit industry is by no means encouraged as it ought to be. The sort of fruit given to people is not likely to be an advertisement of the finest quality of fruit South Africa produces. In the railway refreshment rooms and the refreshment room of the House of Assembly—of which the head caterer is the Minister of Railways and Harbours—I hope special attention will be given to the fruit supply, so that strangers coming here will carry away with them an example of the best fruit South Africa can give. They will not always carry away a good impression if they see some of the fruit. We constantly hear that fruit cannot be secured, but fruit of the best character can be obtained for local consumption if people will pay an adequate price. I hope the hon. Minister will pay particular attention to that, because not only in fruit, but also in wine, he can render assistance in his refreshment cars and refreshment rooms. I would suggest that his department should encourage the American habit of eating fruit at breakfast and other meals without extra charge. If he does that and appoints a shipping board of control which represents the growers, with scientific assistance if necessary, and even assistance from the shipping companies, I am perfectly convinced the shipping companies and fruit growers will welcome it, and the Minister will do a great deal to encourage fruit-growing, not only in the Western Province, but in the citrus-growing areas in other parts of the Union.

I have been very pleased to listen to the eloquent speech of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, but I only wish he had carried out the ideas he has expounded when he was on this side of the House.

Well, I did it.

The present Government has only been in office for eight months, and it could not do a great deal in that time. The hon. member pointed out that there was a tremendous shortage of cold storage, but who is to blame for that but the hon. member himself and his colleagues? His speech practically amounted to Satan rebuking sin. The hon. member says we must have been asleep, but he must have been chloroformed or else he would have knowledge of what his Government did while in office; because I never saw such a calm, sedate lot of men following a Government as they were when sitting on this side of the House.

Sitting there now?

We have done a great deal and we are going to do more. After 15 years of administration by the late Government there is very little improvement in the Union in regard to cold storage accommodation, and yet the hon. member lectures others when his own party have neglected to carry out the doctrines they now advocate. It is true, it is better late than never, and when I heard the hon. member speak just now I thought there was some hope for him; there was not when he sat on the Government benches. I should like, as one who has always advocated the improvement of the railways and harbours and cold storages, to recommend the Minister to go a step further, and put the railways on real business lines; not the business lines of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). For instance, the people should be in a position to know exactly what the railways pay, how they pay, and how many free services they render. We have listened to the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) advocating the reduction of rates for citrus fruit exports. I do not object to that, but I object to the people not knowing what it costs the railways to carry those goods. I suggest that the Minister should keep count of the different losses by providing tariff forms showing in one column the economic rate, including running expenses, redemption charges, and so on; a second column giving the rate charged, and a third column showing the taxpayer of this country the losses on the different lines and the loss or profit on each commodity. We know we are losing on the carriage of almost every commodity produced by the mines and farmers. I do not say that that is wrong, but I say that the people should know how much the railways are making, and what they are losing. If it is to the advantage of the State that we should carry agricultural produce at a low rate, we should by all means do so, but at any rate we should know the amount of the loss thus incurred, and the losses should be debited either to the agricultural or mining department, or other department of the State. Obviously, in the development of a country of such a vast area as South Africa, it is inevitable that some of the railways which must be built will not pay, and that some of the commodities required for development cannot be made to bear a high rate, but if people knew exactly what was lost in this way a lot of the dissatisfaction which is rampant in this country would be removed. In some parts of the country farmers are at a disadvantage in growing mealies or wheat, and they should be given the benefit of low rates for the conveyance of their produce, but the country should know exactly what the department loses over these transactions. We cannot expect miracles, but we do expect the Act of Union to be carried out and the railway run on business lines. Another matter which I would like the Minister to take into serious consideration is the further development of the country in regard to railway extension. Railways enrich the country, and make the land through which they pass more valuable. Some system should, therefore, be evolved by which the owners of the land, the value of which is enhanced by railway construction, should contribute to the cost of the construction of the line which proves of such benefit to them. I believe that a large railway was built in Canada at no cost to the persons who constructed it, because every 20 miles or so they built a station and leased building sites, the money thus obtained being sufficient to pay interest on amount raised for the construction of the railway. Under our system people are out to get rich as quickly as they can, and when the State builds a railway it helps some of these gentlemen on the road they wish to go. In the Cape Province buildings and lands are valued separately, and although it is not feasible to recover the whole cost of railways by the leasing of land by the Government, it is feasible to obtain from the provincial authorities the increased amount paid in rates as the result of the enhanced valuation of land brought about by the construction of railways. If the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) will kindly refrain from making silly interruptions, I shall be greatly obliged. I would like the Minister of Railways and Harbours to consider the suggestions that I have thrown out. I want the railway run on true business lines, and that it should not make profits from the flesh and blood of the worker.

I should like to emphasize the remarks made by the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) with regard to the present disastrous state of affairs at the docks in connection with the storage and shipment of fruit. The commercial community of Cape Town has been anxious about the position for the last six years. As far back as 1918 they brought to the notice of the then Minister of Railways the necessity of the immediate development of the facilities at the docks, particularly emphasizing the likelihood of a very big additional trade in fruit, both deciduous and citrus. In 1921 they again approached the Minister, and he promised to put some money on the Estimates in order to extend the breakwater. In 1922 we did not get very much further, and at that time the Railway Department considered that there was not very much necessity for going ahead quickly with the improvement of facilities at the docks. Between 1922 and 1924, however, we successfully persuaded the then Minister of Railways and Harbours of the urgent necessity of getting on with this work, and before he left office he made arrangements for the extension of the breakwater, the widening of the South Arm, and a very big change indeed in the whole aspect of affairs then took place, including the provision of pre-cooling facilities at the docks. Before the hon. gentleman left office he arranged for a pre-cooling warehouse to be put on the east pier. Now I want to address the present Minister of Railways. Our experience is that he will have to ginger up the department seriously and not allow them to delay one minute in getting to work and developing the docks. It is going to be increasingly difficult to get the necessary wharfage for the ships that will come in for the fruit. At present we have only two deep water wharves, and it will be impossible to develop the port until we have on the South Arm two or three more deep water berths. The problem of this fruit we have created ourselves, and we can get rid of the problem easily if we don’t waste time, but prepare the necessary equipment for handling it. Our port is increasing more rapidly than the general public of South Africa appreciate. I have the figures for 1921-’22-’23 of shipping tonnage cleared. It was in 1921 3,108,000 tons, in 1922 3,349,000 tons, and in 1923 4,029,000 tons. The tonnage therefore in 1923 of over 4,000,000 is a larger tonnage than in 1912-’13, pre-war years. We have got back to the position that we are increasing on pre-war years and we must have the facilities to handle that big tonnage of ships coming and leaving the port every year. We appreciated that it would not be long before we had a disaster in the deciduous fruit industry, and that disaster has arrived this year. The loss this year has amounted to between £50,000 and £100,000. The main trouble was, of course, that the precooling arrangements at the Imperial Cold Storage broke down absolutely between the 6th February and the 16th March, with the result that in some of the ships the fruit arrived in such a condition that it had to be thrown overboard when it arrived in the Thames. We don’t want cold storage for fruit, we don’t want to store it. We want to pre-cool the fruit here and get it away as quickly as possible. To get it away in the best condition it should be despatched at something in the neighbourhood of 33 to 35 degrees fahrenheit. The “Diogenes,” which carried a large consignment of fruit a few weeks ago received the fruit at 60 degrees fahrenheit, and it was obvious that the fruit would arrive in an uneatable condition on the other side. As I say, the essence of the problem is that you must get the stuff moved quickly from whatever port you use. Fruit is arriving here to-day at the rate of 150 to 200 tons a day, and it cannot be moved during the same period in the same proportion, and consequently you are getting a banking up of fruit on this side, and that affects the whole of the fruit going over. It is going over half-cooked instead of being fresh. You must, therefore, increase the shipping capacity for your fruit. I want to urge on the Minister to-day that he should make arrangements for the deciduous fruit of 1926. It is no good waiting. If you want to get more cool chambers on the ships you must urge this upon them now. You are in the same position every year. When we arrive at the season we have not anything like the shipping accommodation necessary. I should like to make one or two remarks on the question of the board of control. To my mind it is more a board of organization you want than a board of control. What we want is a methodical organization for the shipment of fruit when it arrives here.

The full control of it.

Yes. It is only for fruit export that the board of organization need come in at all. I must say I heartily endorse what was said by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt). For goodness sake keep the board of control or organization in the hands of the producers. If they are the men who are going to have control, they will be the men to blame if they run it badly. Let them have the organization themselves.

With advisers, if they like.

I have no objection to advisers. You can have as many advisers as you like. There is then the difficult question of ports. I recognize that this board of organization, or whatever you call it, must have a representative at each of the shipping ports. I am perfectly clear in my mind that the function of the board is not to worry at what port the stuff is to go through. Its functions are to send it to the port that suits the industry best. The fruit industry is not made for the port, but the port is made for the fruit industry. That is an essential thing. It must be that the port which is going to be used must be that which suits the industry best. In the development of this industry, the facilities of every port in the country will have to be used to meet the demand, in fact, would even then be overstrained. I notice in the committee’s report laid on the Table the other day the mention of objections to the board of control, which has been put forward by some of the big interests. Now I need not suggest to the Minister that one or two lines of this committee’s report want very careful noting. If this board is not instituted very quickly, before long you are going to get the cold storage shipping space in the hands of what my hon. friends on the cross-benches call the “big interests.” I feel certain we can ask their aid in seeing that there is no opportunity given to the “big interests” in the question of export shipping space. If they get control, they will control all the shipping space, and the small farmer will not have to pay a freight charge to the shipping company, but will have to pay a profit to the “big interests” on the freight charged to them. As I am reminded, he may be put in the position that, if he wants to get his fruit to the other side, he will have to sell it to the “big interests” on this side. I do urge the Minister to be very careful of this pitfall and see that there is no opportunity whatever for anybody to make a “ring” in cold storage shipping space. Before sitting down, I would like to appeal to the Minister on the question of passenger fares. We know that there is a surplus on the railways. The question of the reduction of goods rates has been very ably argued by other members, but I would like to add my voice in regard to the reduction of passenger fares, including the passenger fares to people who have to earn their living in the neighbourhood of big towns. In the case of suburban lines, passenger fares have been reduced, but it does seem to me that, with this surplus, there is an opportunity for the Minister to get those passenger fares, and more particularly the season ticket rates, back to the pre-war rates. In that connection I would like the Minister to look into the question of scholars’ concession fares. The ordinary scholar gets a concession fare on the railways representing a very considerable reduction, but that does not apply to scholars in commercial schools, and it seems to me only fair that a scholar who is in a school where he is learning to do something to earn his living should have a concession in the same way that the ordinary scholar of the general public and the well-to-do has.

Your Government refused it.

Unfortunately, I am not autocratic enough to own a Government— I wish I did—but I am now talking about the present Government, and I would suggest that my hon. friend might induce what I suppose he calls his Minister of Railways to grant this concession to the commercial scholars. I hope to hear from the Minister, now that he is revelling in a heavy surplus, that he will, at any rate, think of the poor commercial scholar.

Members on these benches have for years past impressed upon this House the necessity of Government-owned cold storage. Hitherto our advice in that direction has been ignored, but we are very pleased to know that a change is coming over our friends on the other side, and—

There is no change at all.

And they are now coming forward and swallowing all our doctrines of past years and saying: “For goodness sake, give us cold storage, so that we can deal with our own business.” We have just heard a great deal in the way of pleas for the fruit growers. I would like to say something on behalf of the workers, the men who are responsible for carrying out the arrangements of which we have heard so much to-day. In my constituency there are about 600 railway workers and, therefore, I think I am in a position to speak as to what they require. One of the things which I would strongly impress upon the Minister is the suggestion made by the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) and that is to introduce weekly payment of wages. At the present time, speaking more particularly in regard to the lower grade workers on the Rand, the majority of them, owing to monthly pay, are forced to deal on credit. The result is that they get into debt, have recourse to moneylenders, and their condition becomes worse and worse. My contention is that if they had weekly pay they would certainly be able to buy the necessaries of life 10 per cent. cheaper than they can today and, helped in this way, they would manage to keep out of debt and be happy and contented citizens. I am prepared to hear it said that this is going to cost a lot of money, but my argument is that the little extra amount that would be involved will be easily compensated for by the possession of a staff not harassed by financial troubles. I would also impress upon the Minister the necessity of putting the railway pension scheme on a more satisfactory basis. It has been stated that all our pension schemes are practically insolvent. If that is the case, all the more necessity for the Government taking these schemes in hand and putting them on a proper basis at once. Another matter which is creating a lot of discontent is the absence of an eight hours’ working day. I know the argument may be used that if we have the eight hours’ day in the workshops the Minister will employ a large number of men, and he may have to retrench them if work falls off. That does not seem to me to be the correct attitude for a Minister in this country. I have sufficient confidence in the country and its future to say that we are going to advance, that we are not going to go backward, and that there will be plenty of work for everybody to do. The rolling stock on the railways is to-day in a very lamentable condition indeed, and much work will have to be done before it can be considered in a satisfactory state. The men on the running staff, the guards, etc., have to work 10 hours a day and frequently more. They have irregular hours and irregular meals and, owing to the manner in which they work, there is a lot of sickness. The Minister is aware that there are still a lot of men unemployed, and instead of having the men in the service working long hours, it would be better to recruit some other men, and run the service on decent lines. Another point that bears pretty hardly on the workmen is the question of rent of quarters. Before the last election everybody connected with railway affairs was very indignant at the last Minister of Railways and Harbours for raising the rents. When the rents were raised, I said it was an iniquituous thing, and I also consider it is iniquituous for the present Minister to continue the scheme of his predecessor. In Germiston there are a lot of railway houses which were built certainly thirty years ago, and must have been paid for over and over again. In face of that, the late Minister came along less than a year ago and raised the rents. I would not mind so much if they were worth it, but when you compare those houses with houses in Germiston you can get far better value off the railway property than on. The Minister had taken advantage of the fact that these men had to stay on railway quarters and had raised the rents. It is pretty well twelve months since this iniquity was brought about, and it is time we took action to bring down the rents to at least the old level. Then in regard to railway rates, as we all know these are regulated by the Act of Union, based on payability, having in view the development of the country. In this regard I urged on the Minister last session that he should reduce the rate on pig-iron on account of the shortage of scrap-iron and as pig-iron was becoming an essential to the mines and the iron works on the Rand. I am pleased to say that the Minister, during the recess, accepted the suggestion and I congratulate him on reducing the rate on pig-iron from Durban to Johannesburg by £2 a ton. One of the leading men in the iron industry on the Rand said he was a strong South African party man, but that by this one act the present Government had done more for the industry than the late Government did in fifteen years. The late Government was always telling the Rand industries that it was anxious to help them, but when it had the opportunity of doing it, advantage was not taken of the opportunity. I think this country and the big industry I have spoken of owes a lot to the Minister, but he didn’t go far enough. Although the rate on pig-iron was reduced by £2 a ton, I think, speaking from memory, it still remains at £2 10s. a ton from Durban to Johannesburg. When you compare that with the carriage on coal, carried the same distance for something like 10s., it is altogether unfair, and if you carry coal for the development of the coalfields at 10s. a ton, you ought to be able to carry pig-iron for the development of our industries at much less than £2 10s. Therefore I suggest to the Minister that he should review this rate. We are thankful for what he has done, but he ought to go further.

Is that carrying it at a loss?

Ask the Minister, I do not think so. We have been told by the other side that the Minister should further reduce the rates. As far as I am concerned I have no objection to the reduced rates provided he does not reduce them, as has often been suggested, by making the workers pay for the reduction. The men who are running the railway have no voice in the policy. They are not asked whether they are in favour of constructing unpayable lines. They are not consulted about matters of that sort, and it is unfair, if there is any deficiency, that the money should be taken out of their pockets. There is a very much better feeling among the railway men to-day than there has been in the past, because they feel they have the sympathy of the Minister. At the present time the Minister has the confidence of the men, but at the same time, no one can live on sympathy alone, and the Minister must not tire of well-doing. There are various ways in which the Minister can improve the men’s position in addition to those outlined. It is largely due to the railway men’s vote that there has been a change of Government, and I hope the Minister will do all he can by practical assistance to retain the confidence of the railway men he at present enjoys.

I hope the Minister has listened carefully to the speeches of the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) and his colleague who sits next to him and who has just spoken. His slogan is that if a railway is built in the future the land should be taxed to pay for the line.

He is not yet a Minister.

Yes but he keeps the Minister in the saddle. I only wish to say this to the Minister and I want to warn him against that kind of doctrine which is being preached by his supporters. I hope the Minister will give him a rap over the knuckles. I only wish to say this that I am disappointed that the Minister has not agreed to a further reduction of the railway rates. The Minister has a splendid opportunity therefor. The financial position of the railways is so sound at the moment that the Minister could take half a million off the railway rates without the slightest hesitation. Before the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) left the Ministry he reduced the rates by half a million and then he still had an accumulated deficit. That deficit has been wiped out and for a long time a deficit cannot recur. The Minister has no difficulties in his way and I therefore say that if the former Minister with the deficit on his hands could take off half a million the present Minister can take off at least half a million seeing he has no deficit. If the Minister does not do it what is he going to do with the surplus which he has ? We shall see that expenditure will be increased in all kinds of ways. I am convinced that if the Minister does not help the country and its industries in this way then the surplus will in any case disappear for various objects from which the country cannot obtain the same advantages. The spirit and provisions of the constitution are that the railways shall be so managed that they shall really be of use in the development of agricultural industries of South Africa. I know that the Minister has a large sympathy for the doctrine of the constitution. When he sat here there was no one who was more anxious than he, and who was more properly anxious than he, to have the rates made as low as possible. When I had the honour of sitting in the Speaker’s chair I listened daily to the eloquence with which the Minister advocated that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central), then the Minister, should be so humane as to make provision for the necessities of the country by lowering the railway rates. His position was sound, and the same sound doctrine is just as necessary to-day as then, when the Minister made his speeches. Our industries and agriculture have urgent need of it. I only wish to bring a few examples to the notice of the Minister. Take my constituency, where there are wine farmers. Take Elgin, 40 miles from Cape Town, and does the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. van Niekerk) know that the wine farmer has to pay £1 per leaguer for carriage for his wine? I acknowledge that a leaguer of wine takes up much room and that it falls under a higher class of traffic. I think that that is fair, but I also think that the Minister will show great consideration to the wine farmers if he gives his attention to this matter. Viticulture is an industry which is subject to periods of ups and downs. The wine farmer is a man who always has difficulties, and if there is one who should be assisted, then it is he. I also wish to say to the Minister that there is a strong feeling in the country, and it had already become evident under the regime of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central), that the town councils who require large supplies of material for the installation of electric light and for better water supplies, and the administration of the towns and villages should come specially under the notice of the Minister with a view to concessions, so that if possible—and he will be doing a good deed—a special rate over the railways may be granted to them. Take, e.g., affairs in my constituency. Waterworks will be built at a cost of between £20,000 and £30,000. The carriage of the necessary material means a heavy burden upon the urban areas concerned, and the town councils are surely only a portion of the Government of the country, because the divisional council, the town councils and the provincial councils, and the Government at the head, are all connected together as the Government of the country. I can give the Minister the assurance that it is very necessary that he should take into consideration the speeches of town councillors in this connection. Look at the tremendous number of pipes that are necessary; take the case of electric light and the heavy transport of coal that is necessary. Town councils should get special assistance so that they may be in a position to properly look after the interests of the town. I want to speak about another matter of which the Minister has special knowledge, and one which lies near to his heart. He knows the Western Province just as well as I do. The Minister knows that the fruit industry in the last few years has made astonishing progress. It is almost indescribable with what strides fruit farming has gone ahead. In my district the farmers commenced eight years ago, and in Elgin and Villiersdorp there are now about a quarter of a million trees in full bearing or just about to bear. In Paarl and Stellenbosch on this side of the mountains the population is thicker and there are many more trees, so that the fruit interest is of tremendous importance for the western portion, not to speak of the rest of South Africa. I am glad to see that the Minister shortly after he came into office gave his attention to the cold storage in the docks. The hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin) has said that we are Socialists if we talk about the building of cold storage chambers. I know the Minister is opposed to Socialism, even if he does defer to the members on the cross benches a little. I am glad to see that he is dealing seriously with the matter. There is not sufficient cold storage in the docks. The Imperial Cold Storage has accommodation, but it is not sufficient by a long way, especially in view of the great expansion of fruit farming. I am going to ask the Minister not only to supply cold storage space in the docks, but he must also try to obtain more cold storage space on the ships. It is especially there where due provision ought to be made. I hope the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs will also understand that it is of the utmost importance for fruit cultivation to conclude a satisfactory shipping contract. It unfortunately occurred this year that great damage was caused in the docks. It is wonderful that when fruit lies for three weeks in the docks, and is then exported from the cold storage, the people in London know in what condition the fruit is, so that the people there know whether the fruit will be good or bad when it arrives. It might arrive there with a bad name. More cold storage room is therefore highly necessary in the harbours and in the ships. I think South Africa is greatly indebted to the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) that he imported Mr. Griffiths as expert to advise us, and I think his advice has done much to put the industry on a better basis. I wish to ask the Minister to consider the urgent necessity for the creation of a board of control for the export of fruit. I understand he is acting for the Minister of Agriculture. There ought to be proper control, and we will continue to urge it because a committee of practical men appointed by the Government has made a report urging that course. I think that the recommendations of the committee will have the support of all the fruit farmers in South Africa. I hope therefore, that the Minister will consider it as one of the first steps that are necessary. I will not detain the House any longer, but I hope that the points I have mentioned will receive due attention from the Minister.

I also should like to congratulate the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) on his splendid speech in regard to the fruit export trade, which will be read with great interest by thousands of young fruit growers all over the country. I hope the hon. Minister will see his way to adopt some of the suggestions the right hon. gentleman has made this evening. I should also like to congratulate the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) on his splendid speech in regard to high finance as far as the railways are concerned. I hope the hon. Minister will take note of some of his suggestions, which will be of the greatest use to the Select Committee on Railways, and I trust the Minister will also consider, when the next vacancy occurs on the Railway Board, of putting some financial exponent in that position. To come to matters which affect the great bulk of the South African people, I should like to add my voice to those who are trying to persuade the Minister to reduce all railway rates, both for passengers and for goods. Passenger fares to-day are about 20 per cent, above the pre-war level, and that is too high. I hope the Minister will consider the advisability of reducing both the suburban and long-distance fares. Cheap suburban railway transport will be a big inducement for people to live out in the country and get away from the congested cities. It will cheapen the cost of living, abolish slums, and improve the health of the general community. Another matter we must take into consideration in regard to suburban fares is the question of motor-bus competition. In many places motor-buses are competing very successfully with the railways, and if you give people a cheap and quick suburban service this competition will be eliminated. The rates on parcels are altogether too high. A small despatch case which was sent to me here cost over 4s., and I am certain that the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs would have taken that by his air service for about the same amount. The rates on agricultural produce must be very much reduced if we are going to encourage production in this country. Millions of pounds have been spent on irrigation schemes, and if we are to assist in keeping these people on the land we must give them every facility to place their produce on the markets by cheap railway rates. A case has been brought to my notice in which a Uitenhage agriculturist sent a consignment of produce to East London. The consignment realized £12, and £10 of that went in railway rates. We know that many agriculturists are afraid to send produce up-country owing to the railway rates, although the people up-country cannot obtain vegetables for love or money. I would also remind the Minister that if you want to be successful in agriculture you have to grow a tremendous amount of produce, send it away by the wagon-load over long distances, and the price of railway carriage is out of all proportion to what the grower receives for his produce. I should like to say a few words in regard to the workshops. I appreciate the fact that the Minister has recently instituted a Railway Workshop Commission. In the past very little, comparatively speaking, has been spent on the workshops. Millions can be found for electrification and other schemes, but no real effort has been made to put the workshops on a sound basis. Lack of proper machinery, want of accommodation, the absence of mechanical facilities, and general re-arrangements must be gone into before we can expect to get good results from our shops. I was very sorry indeed to see that the Minister was a little worse than his predecessor in regard to the ordering of rolling stock from overseas. I think it was the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs who was reported to have said that the policy of the Government was to manufacture in this country all railway requirements that could be made here, and he added: “We are out to deliver the goods.” But he forgot to say that we are going to deliver the goods from overseas.

Try again, Bates.

Last session I mentioned that we were very short of rolling stock; we still are, and in spite of orders placed abroad we shall still be short of rolling stock even after those orders have been executed. In spite of this, however, no comprehensive building scheme has been undertaken, although our carriage shops are crying out for work. To-day we are so short of rolling stock that at excursion times every vehicle is ordered out of the shops, and in consequence of that I have seen splendid tradesmen, equal to any in the world, doing odd jobs that any labourer could do. Does the Minister think this true economy, and does he not think it would be better for these men to be employed on their legitimate business of building rolling stock? This cannot pay the Government and it does not please the men. All our shops require are proper accommodation, adequate up-to-date machinery and standardization of rolling stock. Unless we get standardization we shall never make a success of building rolling stock in this country. Instead of giving a comprehensive order extending over a period, we give the workshops orders in what is called “penny-numbers,” and until the Minister realizes that to get the best out of the shops and the employees he must give comprehensive orders we shall not be able to compete with overseas. There is just one other matter I should like to draw the Minister’s attention to, arid that is the question or railway orphanages. The railwaymen have established orphanages in various parts of the Union for the children of deceased railwaymen. At present there are 216 children in these homes. This is really a State matter, but to the everlasting credit of the railwaymen they have assumed the liability and they are liable for the cost. The revenue necessary for the upkeep of these homes is practically entirely derived from contributions from the staff. These contributions are collected through the pay-sheets every month, and for that service the Railway Department charges a commission which amounts to £300 or £400 a year. This the men feel is an injustice, and I would like to point out to the Minister that the contributions on behalf of the sick fund are collected by the department free of charge. I hope the Minister will see his way to waive this charge against such a deserving and philanthropic institution.

It is somewhat difficult tonight to speak to empty benches. We members of the Opposition are here filling our benches on a night which we have regarded as our own. We have come here because we think it is our duty to the people we represent. When I look round and see only two Ministers in the House and only a few members on the ministerial benches, and remember that we are discussing the greatest revenue earning machinery we have in the Union, one would have thought it would have been of sufficient interest to members of the Government side to be in their places to-night. One asks where is the hon. Minister of Defence and where is the hon. Minister of Agriculture? Perhaps they have heard the call of the pibroch that the Campbells are coming. I hope they have and that the pibroch call is going to come true. The atmosphere has been electrical these last few days—

Perhaps the hon. member will come to the subject of the debate?

I will do so. I am addressing the Minister of Railways as the only one present. I want to say that I cannot help thinking they have left two of the ablest Ministers on the other side of the House for which we feel gratified, the rest have gone to take a rest cure. They need it. I don’t think it would be a great catastrophe if they remained away a long time. I got up to-night to speak more particularly about a large portion of the population of the Union of South Africa who have been signally neglected in the past. We people in the northern district can never have the privilege of having the Minister of Railways and Harbours as a member of our community. I rise to put in a plea for the people of the North. It is all very well to talk about the reduction of freights which we certainly need and the country needs, but I want to talk about the reduction of human freight which would mean so much to the people of the North who cannot get to the coast at reasonable rates. Perhaps the railways can make arrangements so that having got to the coast the railway company will see that they can live without being fleeced. To-day the railways have arranged wonderful trips to Victoria Falls and to the Northern Transvaal which have been appreciated by everybody and I want to ask if it is possible for the Minister of Railways and Harbours to make arrangements for whole families to come from the north for moderate fares and to see that when they get to the coast ports they will be looked after and cared for, at Muizenberg, Port Elizabeth, East London and other places and if it would not be too much to ask that the railway management and the Minister of Railways make such arrangement— if they cannot build rondavels for them—to see that arrangements are made for camping grounds so that they can live cheaply. I want to come to another question and that is the matter of roads. It is all very well to talk about the extension of railways all over the country. In the first days of the session here we have petitions from every side of the House for railway extensions in various parts, but we know perfectly well that that is not the proper way to make progress in this country. Our real need is good roads.

I wish to point out to the hon. member that the question of roads has been discussed and disposed of, and that he cannot refer to it now.

I do not want to trespass on the indulgence of the House, but I do say this: If you are going to have a great railway system you must feed it by means of good roads. It is no use talking about the amount of produce which we can produce if you cannot get that produce to the railhead. The days of branch railways as such have gone. Motor traffic is coming on by leaps and bounds, and given good roads, there is no earthly reason why this country should not vie with the Argentine or any of the great grain-producing countries in the supply of corn to the markets. We are discussing what, after all, which is of more importance than gold mines, diamond mines or platinum mines; we are speaking about the natural wealth of this country, and the natural wealth of this country is the soil. All the other things will disappear. There is only one way of solving the poor white question and the labour question in this country. In spite of everything, I am satisfied that if we all stick together we can make this country a big success. Here we are. We differ and fight over little things often, but on the big things of this country we ought to be united, and I believe we are united, only the fault of all Parliaments of this country—and I speak with an experience of fifteen years, allowing for a short break—is that we have frittered away the time of this country on things that do not matter, and given so little attention to the things that really do matter. When he Government awakens to the fact that there are other things to be talked about and done, the time of this country will not be wasted, and when we can make the members of this Parliament realize that they are sent here by the people, and that they have a position of honour, they will be in their seats and not outside.

There is a little grievance that I would like to bring to the notice of the hon. Minister, and it is in connection with a branch line from Sterkstroom via Dordrecht to Maclear. Grievances exist in connection with the carriage of goods over this branch line. At the moment the position is such that goods for the branch line must be loaded in Queenstown. The goods first pass Sterkstroom to Queenstown, a distance of 36 miles, and are there transhipped into other trucks and come back to Sterkstroom and so on to the branch line. To give an instance: If someone in Dordrecht wants a few bags of wheat ground in Sterkstroom, then the wheat must first go to Queenstown to be there loaded into another truck and, I think that, when the wheat comes back it must first go to Queenstown and then back again to Sterkstroom. It is possible that the circumstances in the past did not permit of arranging it otherwise, but I would urge upon the hon. Minister that he should make an alteration in the grading of the station at Sterkstroom. It is now becoming an important junction, and if he will permit that the transhipping of goods which takes place in Queenstown to-day shall occur in the future at Sterkstroom, much time will be saved, and the unnecessary forward and return journeys from Sterkstroom to Queenstown will be avoided. I hope that the hon. Minister will give his attention to this.

I would also like to take advantage of the opportunity to bring a matter of local importance to the attention of the Minister. I think the matter has already been brought before him, but so far unsuccessfully. It is the request for a station at Hendriksdal on the railway line between Nelspruit and Sabie. At the moment there is not a single station between Nelspruit and Sabie. In the neignbourhood of the place there is a mine that produces about £4,000 in gold per month, or about £50,000 per annum. Further, there are large wattle plantations in the neighbourhood, and every year hundreds and thousands of tons of bark are carried by rail from that place. It is at the moment simply a railway halt, a “siding,” and no station, and it is well known how difficult it is to send anything from or to receive anything at a halt, and what objections, and especially as far as passengers are concerned, exist. In connection with the great importance of the place in so far as wattle plantations are concerned and the large farms that exist there in consequence, together with the fact that during the winter a large number of sheep trek into the neighbourhood, it can be understood that a large number of passengers join the train there and leave it, therefore provision should be made. I might perhaps have mentioned what revenue was made on the line, but unhappily the Minister last year stopped the publication of the income, expenditure and profits or losses on branch lines in the monthly reports. I do not quite understand why this was done. It is true that the returns often show losses on the branch lines, but that will do no harm, especially if they refer to agricultural lines. In fact, provision has been made in the constitution that agricultural lines at the commencement, for the first few years, can work at a loss, and why the Minister no longer publishes the returns in the monthly reports I cannot quite grasp. I know that every one of us look at the monthly report immediately with care to see what the revenue, expenditure and losses of the branch lines were, and it was useful to anyone who took an interest in the development of the railway. I know also that it is often a spur to a district to produce more to bring about an extension of the railway system. Much has been said about rates. I must say that a large improvement has been made in the rates for agricultural produce, but for machinery the rates are still amazingly high. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) has already mentioned that owing to the high rates the laving of water pipes in villages, e.g., is made difficult, as the transport of pipes is so costly. To give an instance that I have myself experienced. Some time ago I ordered from Johannesburg for my own use on the farm some pipes. They had to come a distance of 190 miles. The value of the pipes was about £80 and the railway freight £22. Thus I had to pay 25 per cent. of the value in railway freight. On another occasion I ordered some railway rails for use in my farm for certain purposes. The value was £35 and the freight £13. Everyone will understand that if the Minister can see an opportunity to reduce the railway rates, especially on produce and machinery for use by farmers, he will render a great service to the farming population, who will be thankful to him for it.

I understand this matter of changing the name of Blackridge has been brought up again to-day, and I must say I am rather sorry. No doubt a number of people in that part of Natal have taken umbrage, and I would ask the Minister to reconsider the matter, and comply with the wishes of the people. I want to refer to this question of the white labour policy as it affects the natives. I understood the Minister to say that no displacement of natives was taking place as a result of this policy, but that when natives had completed their term of service they were not taken on again, their place being taken by white workers. That is a form of displacement, I think, which is bearing very hardly upon the natives. It was said by the Minister of Labour some time ago that there was no unemployment among the natives, but I do not think that is so. I know from my experience as a large employer of labour that there is a class of native who never goes to Johannesburg. He is usually married, and he prefers to get employment in the vicinity of his kraal, and so he obtains, if possible, work on the railways in the district in which he lives, thus enabling him to spend his week-ends with his family. These men are being ousted from the work they have been accustomed to do for very many years past, and the closing of this avenue of employment to them is a hardship, and I fail to see that any alternative avenue of employment is being found for them. While the Government is pursuing this policy of employing white labour on the railways, it should have another policy running concurrently which should provide work for displaced natives who prefer not to go to Johannesburg, in some other direction. Unfortunately, however, this is not being done, and the Government is creating a certain amount of unemployment amongst the natives, and that position will be accentuated as time goes on. The object of this white labour policy is to uplift the people, but I should like to ask the Minister how paying men 3s. a day and putting them to live in miserable hovels formerly occupied by natives is uplifting them. I have been told that these people are living in filthy, verminous-infested barracks under conditions which for Europeans are really deplorable. I should like to ask the hon. Minister to make enquiries into that. These people feel very bitterly being compelled to live under the conditions described. I should like to ask the hon. Minister a question regarding the Bergville railway. I have had interviews with the general manager and assistant general manager and a good deal of correspondence has passed regarding disabilities under which the people of Bergville district are suffering. Shortly after the Railway line to Bergville was opened it was found that it was not a paying proposition and the daily service from Winterton to Bergville was reduced to a tri-weekly service. The Bergville district is a most progressive maize and dairy centre and the tri-weekly service is the source of so much inconvenience and loss to the people who want a daily service. I have had a letter from the assistant general manager in which he reports that the railmotor which he proposes to put on that line had proved unsuitable that he is endeavouring to find some more suitable car of that type. I would suggest however that the Minister should consider the restoration of a daily steam service, seeing that there is no longer the excuse that the railways do not pay. I think he might find that, as this is a growing district, the line would now pay. I should like to draw attention also to the housing of railway employees at Ladysmith. The town has within the last fortnight had two very serious floods affecting the portion of the town occupied largely by railway employees. Attention was called to the unfortunate position of the railway men in questions put by me a few days ago. This is a matter which I have had occasion to bring to the notice of the assistant general manager and there is no question that housing accommodation is very much needed. A great deal of work is being done at Daimana at the electric locomotive shed. Many of the men who work there live in Lisle Street, Ladysmith, 1½miles from the electric locomotive sheds. The men find it is inconvenient to go that distance to and fro. There are no trams, and they have to walk. It is a great inconvenience to them having to walk to their work. In addition, we have the fact that the flooded area is the area where the railwaymen mostly live, and the sooner they get away from it the better. I enquired before I came to Cape Town regarding building sites for railway houses in the vicinity of the electric locomotive sheds, and I find that the Government already possess a large tract of land adjacent to the sheds and the Diamana station, which would make excellent building sites, and I ask the hon. Minister to give this matter of housing of railwaymen in Ladysmith his most serious consideration. A man well fed and well housed will prove to be a more valuable man and will repay the administration in good time by the more efficient work he will do, and I have no doubt whatever from my experience of the hon. Minister, who has always given every attention to my request, that he will look into the matter and endeavour to remedy it at the earliest possible moment.

The hon. members during this debate have covered a very large field. I do not propose to deal with all those points. If there are points which I do not deal with, hon. members may rest assured that careful note has been taken of them, the fullest investigation will be made and a reply sent in due course. I propose dealing with the outstanding question raised during the debate. The first point I want to deal with is the reduction of rates. I want to repeat that whilst the Government do not intend at the present time to reduce the rates that does not mean that we are committed to a policy of not reducing rates further. I have indicated what the position is with regard to the additional expenditure We have to provide for. There are other outstanding matters which have to be faced, and in view of that I think the policy of the Government is a wise one to take careful stock of the whole position. I ask hon. members to await the statement I hope to make on the Budget. I am bound to take the House into the confidence of the Government as to what we intend to do with the surplus and the question can then be raised when the House knew what we intend doing with the surplus. I do not propose, therefore, dealing with the arguments which have been adduced. I agree with the hon. members that at the earliest possible date a further reduction should take place. At the same time the Government is committed to the policy of doing justice to the employees of the railway administration. The superannuation fund is one of the greatest importance. There is one outstanding question agitating the minds of our employees at the present time—it is the question of the superannuation fund. I have indicated on a former occasion that, unfortunately, the report of the two actuaries discloses a deficit of £1,962.000. The Government has given careful consideration to that deficit and I want to inform the House that the Government has come to the conclusion that in the interests of the Administration of the country and our employees. The Government should take full responsibility for that deficit. In the proposals which I hope to lay before the House shortly dealing with this question, provision will be made for two big principles. One is that the Government will take full responsibility for this deficit, which has, unforunately, accrude, and the other that the Government will give consideration to the claim for increased pensions. The employees understand that if larger pension benefits are to be given to them, their contributions will have to be increased. Of course, it is going to cost the Administration more money, but I think it is due to our employees, who have given loyal service to the Administration and to the country, that we should face this question squarely. I regret that the question was not faced in 1919. I recognize, of course, that my predecessor had his own difficulties at the time, but at the same time there is no question that our superannuation fund has come to such an unfortunate state when we must immediately, as a country and as a Parliament, face the position in justice to our men.

But the State has always been a guarantee, even if the fund itself was not solvent.

Never; it always rested with Parliament to make up any deficiency there might be, but Parliament could at any time have said “We are not responsible.” I am, however, glad to hear that interruption by my hon. friend, because it indicates that he is in agreement with the steps that are to be taken. Another point is the question of cold storage at the Docks. There is no man more than myself who gives every credit to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) for the good work which he has done, but I want to point out to the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) that he is quite wrong if he credits the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) or the late Government for the steps which have been taken at the Docks in Connection with the cold storage chambers. This Government took steps to deal with the whole position there and bring the matter to a definite conclusion. It is true that the members of the late Government talked about the position, but there are so many questions about which they talked and never took definite action. The people responsible for the losses which our fruit-growers are suffering in this regard at the present time sit on the other side of the House. It is not fair for the hon. member to say that the Railway Administration officials should be “gingered up” in connection with this.

When we get into Committee I shall tell the Minister about the interviews I had as Minister owing to the delay.

We had to prepare plans and call for tenders. I want to assure the House that the Administration and the officials are taking every step possible in order to have the cold storage on the quayside ready by next season. I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) say that the Harbour Advisory Board and the business community in Cape Town had not been consulted.

I asked you whether they had been consulted.

The hon. member surely ought to know that they have been consulted. He should get correct information. If he had only taken the trouble to ask the Chairman of the Advisory Board he would have been told that that they had been consulted at every stage.

He is the member for the Harbour.

In name.

The Minister is wrongly informed.

Well I have had personal discussion with the members of the Advisory Board and I can give the hon. member the minutes of the conferences which have been held from time to time from which he will see that the members of the Advisory Board were present at these conferences.

In regard to the demolition of the shed?

Certainly. He represents that the whole shed at the East Pier has been pulled down. We are only utilizing one half of the East Pier at the present time for cold storage purposes and we do not propose displacing the other half of the shed on the East Pier (now used for general cargo) unless we are forced by our additional requirements for increased cold storage accommodation in the future. Surely the hon. member knows we have only taken one half of the East Pier. If not, he should go to the Docks to-morrow and ascertain the facts.

That is correct.

Although the hon. member represents Newlands he is better informed on harbour matters than the hon. member representing the Harbour Division. I do not want again to deal with this question of civilized labour, but I must congratulate the hon. member for Harbour on having so far recovered himself, that he has again entered the field. I think the country will be glad to know and more especially his constituents, what his attitude is in regard to this question. He has not given a direct answer to my questions and I never expected that; but his indirect answer is clear by the fact that during all the years he sat with the late Government he never attacked them in their policy of employing natives at the Docks and now attacks this Government because they substitute coloured for native labour.

The Minister knows I attacked him for paying 4s. 6d. a day.

Although the hon. member has not the courage to make a statement the coloured people will form their own conclusions in this matter.

Tell us something about the control of the fruit.

The hon. member is very premature with regard to this matter. I indicated to the House this afternoon that the Government has decided to introduce legislation dealing with the report of the fruit commission. Surely he does not expect me to say at this stage what that legislation is.

This is the first time we have heard it.

I do not blame hon. members for being interested.

Surely it is the right thing to ask whether the Minister is going to consider the proposal in regard to the Board of Control.

I have stated that the Government has considered the report and will introduce legislation dealing with the whole question.

In that direction?

Undoubtedly. Legislation will be introduced on those lines, but I am not prepared to indicate what those lines will be.

So long as it is controlled I do not want you to say anything further.

I was very much interested in regard to the suggestions of the hon. member in regard to that board. I think the hon. gentleman has given useful information with regard to the question. I hope hon. members will forgive me if I do not cover the wide field they have traversed, but there are reasons why we should come to a vote to-night. With regard to the point raised by the hon. members for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) and Swellendam (Mr. Buirski) in connection with the new Cape Central Railway, I propose making a statement on that subject on the third reading of the Bill. I move the second reading of the Bill.

The motion was agreed to.

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