When I addressed this House on this subject before the adjournment of the debate I tried to emphasise the great facts and principles on which I believed a business concern should be run, knowing that the Minister responsible for the administration of this great concern was a business man inspired by those principles. The Minister in terms of the trade to-day should be called the managing diector of this great concern, the greatest business concern which this State owns for the welfare of South Africa. Not only is the Union of South Africa in the happy position that it owns both the Railways and the Harbours, but I do not think there are any other countries in the world which can boast of being in possession of such a concern. I do believe that the Minister will, when the time arrives, lay before this House a full statement of the affairs of this concern. His balance sheet will cover his business sales, and purchases, his losses and his profits, and it will show how he arrives at his returns, and it will show, I hope, whom he has been exploiting and whence his income arises, because this concern of ours gives service to every industry, and to every calling and profession in the land. And I go further and I say that this concern is experiencing an unprecedented time of prosperity. Therefore it behoves the Managing-Director of that concern to watch very carefully how he developes this concern. I have also known this same concern to be suffering from the direct depression and to make serious losses, and for those reasons I say that we should have a detailed statement when the time comes showing whence this great experience of prosperity which it is having arises. He is naturally aware of the fact that that prosperity arises from an extraordinary source. And from circumstances which we hope will never return to South Africa—that is the war. I realise that the Minister himself knows that that prosperity will not continue when the war ceases. That being so I want him to tell us what steps he is taking to safeguard the interests of the State when those circumstances do arise. Having entered into the war the Minister knows that the time will come when his sources of supply will be drained of all their wealth, and they will have to face the burden of taxation. The Railways are the largest employers of labour in this country. Many of its employees have signed on for service, and they had to be replaced. Many have also signed on but have not gone to the front, because they are keymen. And it is that factor which perturbs me most—the doings of these keymen. While every employer is asked to provide for the return of his employees who have gone on active service, and their places have to be kept open, the question is what is happening in the meantime? In order to keep the business running the keymen are doing everything possible to get others to sign on. We want an assurance from the Minister that in his Department he will not allow intimidation or victimisation. We know that these keymen are intimidating their subordinates, and the time may come when I shall lay on the table of this House the facts.

Why not do it now?

I shall do it when the time comes, but we want an assurance from the Government that there shall be no intimidation, victimisation will follow, although we do know that the Government is doing everything to victimise those who do not agree with their policy. With those few remarks I leave the matter in the hands of the Minister and the House. This Bill before us deals with an amount of £8,500,000. The Bill ends with a priviso that no services for which expenditure has not been duly althorised under the Appropriation Act during the year ending 31st March, 1941, and for which there is no statutory authority, shall be deemed to be authorised. That is, of course, the way all these Bills end. There are many facts which will be expounded and exposed here. Members of Parliament have many subjects which they want to bring forward. Members will criticise the ways in which money is recklessly squandered. I do not want the Minister of Railways to follow the examples set by others in spending the State’s money. We do not want the Minister to jeopardise the position in which he is. We want him to carry on the business on a sound basis.

At the outset I want to congratulate the Minister on the very satisfactory state of the Railway finances, and in doing so I might express the hope that the Minister will not overlook the claims of the Railway employees who have played a very important part in bringing about this satisfactory state of affairs.

That is what we have asked for.

During the past few years a number of schemes have been introduced designed for the purpose of bettering the lot of the Railway employees, and I am quite certain that it is the intention of the present Minister to give effect to all those schemes. More especially do I want to refer to the improved pay schedules, the scheme for improved housing, the scheme for improved working conditions, and improved travelling facilities for the Railway workmen. But more particularly would I like to refer just for a moment to the house ownership scheme. That is a scheme, as we all know, which was introduced for the purpose of enabling Railway employees to secure money on very favourable terms (3½ per cent. over an extended period), for the purpose of purchasing their own homes. The Administration is adequately protected under this scheme in that it has insured the life of the employee; it is also protected against fire, under its own fire insurance scheme; in fact, the property itself is vested in the Administration until the original loan is entirely liquidated. The popularity of the scheme is evidenced by the fact that during the year ending 31st March, 1939, no less an amount than £900,000 was authorised for this purpose, and for the year ending 31st March, 1940, I think the amount was in the vicinity of £877,000. That is clear evidence of the popularity of the scheme, and of the anxiety of the Railway employees to take advantage of the scheme, and in that way to secure their own homes. But the only fault I have to find with the scheme is that there is considerable delay in granting the various applications. I know of cases where Railwaymen have had to wait two years or more before their applications have been considered, and in this connection I would urge the Minister first of all to see to it that as far as possible an adequate sum is made available for the purpose of carrying out this scheme, and, secondly, that the machinery to investigate the various applications should be speeded up. Next would I like to congratulate the Minister on the splendid war effort of the Railway Administration, and in doing so I do not think it is necessary for me even to refer to the smooth transport of many thousands of troops over our South African Railways during the past few months, but more particularly would I refer to the splendid manufacture of war material that is taking place in our various Railway depots throughout the Union, and in that connection I should like to refer to one or two aspects. The first is that I feel it would be in the interest of the country if very careful attention were given to the questions of the various time schedules allocated for the various classes of war work carried out in our Railway workshops. I have no fault to find with any artisan who is earning a large salary to-day. Good luck to him if he gives the service to the Administration, but when you find, as you do, that artisans who are normally in receipt of a wage of between £30 and £40 are to-day drawing £80, £90 and sometimes £110 per month, it does indicate that these time schedules allocated for that particular work require very serious attention. The anomalous position has arisen that in some shops you find a foreman who is responsible for that particular work which is carried out under his supervision is still in receipt of his £500 or his £600 per year, and that he is in control of an artisan who is probably drawing from £1,000 to £1,200 per year.

There is no foreman in receipt of £500 on the Railways.

The supervisors are in that anomalous position that they are drawing far less than the artisans, but I think that that is a matter which we might perhaps well leave in the hands of the Minister and the supervising staff to attend to. Another aspect of the Railway’s war effort that I wish to refer to is the question of a more even distribution as far as possible of the war work between our various Railway workshops. I quite appreciate that centralisation in this matter is very essential, but there is certain war work being undertaken by the Administration which could well be distributed between all the Railway depots. We have depots at Uitenhage—where the best work is done

You think so?

We have the Pretoria depot, the Bloemfontein depot, the Maritzburg depot, East London and Durban depots, and I think all those depots are entitled to a fair share as far as possible of the war work that is being so very successfully undertaken by the Railway Administration. I very much regret that during the course of the debate the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) saw fit to introduce a racial issue.

You did not even know what he said.

He gave certain instances where Afrikaans Railway employees were subject to a certain amount of victimisation.

Hear, hear!

I think that the hon. member for Fordsburg should know at any rate that that is not entirely correct.

I have the proof; how can you say it is not entirely correct?

As a matter of fact, I feel and a great many others feel that the boot is on the other foot, but I have no intention of discussing that question at this stage. We feel, and always have felt, that owing to the very strict enforcement of the regulations dealing with the question of bilingualism on the Railways, the English-speaking section of the Railway employees have certainly been at a disadvantage. That, I think, is generally recognised. We know of many cases, and I have proof, where the English-speaking section of the Railway employees has been at a disadvantage, and I very much regret that the matter has been introduced. At any rate, the hon. member for Fordsburg will see for himself what a very excellent opportunity we have given to the Minister for his reply. The hon. member for Fordsburg asserts that the Afrikaans-speaking section are subject to a certain amount of victimisation. I have proof, on the other hand, that certain English-speaking employees of the Railway Administration …

Mention an example.

… are at a disadvantage. That being the case, the Minister has every right to assert that as a result of our arguments the policy of fifty-fifty is strictly adhered to.

That is the argument of a typical Englishman.

While on this matter, although I have no intention of initiating a discussion, I think that I have every justification in issuing a warning to the Minister, that he should keep a very watchful eye on a certain cultural organisation.

There you are.

Do you mean the Ossewa-Brandwag?

As far as the activities of the Railway Administration are concerned.

Do you mean the Sons of England?

The Minister has assured us in the course of a broadcast a month or two ago that he was satisfied in his own mind that there was no subversive activity so far as the Railway Administration was concerned.

Quite right, too.

I may say, however, that certain of us who know are forced to accept the statement of the Minister with a certain amount of reservation.

You know nothing.

Give us an example.

Klerksdorp.

It would be well if the Minister slept with one eye open, as it were, as far as the activities of that organisation are concerned. If not, the time may come when we shall find that that organisation will exert the same amount of influence over the Railway Administration as it exerts to-day over the mis-named re-United Party.

What a joke.

Might I make an appeal to the Minister on behalf of the non-European workers of the South African Railways. In 1939 it was felt that the non-European labourers on the Railways were not getting a square deal, and in that connection a Commission of Investigation was appointed to investigate the circumstances. The report of that Commission was drafted in the early part of last year. We certainly accept the statement of the Minister that in view of the fact that it was a departmental report it was not for publication, but I think we are entitled to ask the Minister to give us his assurance that as far as possible the various recommendations embodied in that report will be given effect to. That is what I plead with the Minister to do. Now, there is just one last matter I want to refer to. It might be deemed to be a domestic matter affecting my own constituency, but I can assure the House and the Minister that I refer to the matter, entirely in the interest of the Administration. As we all know, just at the moment very unfortunately the Port Elizabeth Municipality finds itself in a position that there is a shortage of water in Port Elizabeth, and one would not like to see that fact have any detrimental effect on the activities of the harbour at Port Elizabeth. The Uitenhage Municipality has offered an abundant supply, an almost unlimited supply of the purest water in the country, and possibly at the cheapest price, somewhere in the vicinity of 6d. per 1,000 gallons. At any rate, that offer is being made use of, but not to the extent we wish, by the Railway Administration, and it seems that the only way to overcome the difficulty would be the construction of a large service reservoir at the Port Elizabeth end of the pipe line which conveys water from Uitenhage to Port Elizabeth. Provision was made for that last year, but I do not think the work has been proceeded with. If it has not, then I would appeal to the Minister to issue the necessary instructions to have that service reservoir proceeded with immediately. In that way I think the possibility of shortage of water at Port Elizabeth in respect of the Railways and Harbours would be obviated. Once again I wish to congratulate the Minister not only on the sound financial position of the Railways, but very heartily to congratulate him on the very excellent war effort that is being made by the Railway Administration.

It has lately become the fashion on every possible occasion to make allegations of subversive propaganda. Not only has it become the fashion, but it has almost become a joke in the country. Now we have again had an instance of that kind from the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Dolley). He also comes along with general statements to the effect that the Minister must be warned, and that he should keep an eye on alleged subversive propoganda on the Railways. But where is the hon. member’s proof? Does he mention anything? As he has failed to mention any instances in this House, has he perhaps been to the Minister’s Department and brought special cases to their notice? No, he comes here without any evidence and he makes a general statement. I say it is nothing short of an insult to the Railway service to come here and say that there is subversive propaganda going on in the Railway service, and to do so, in spite of the fact that the Minister himself not so very long ago thought it necessary to make a special statement in this connection, in which he very clearly said not only that he had full confidence in the Railway service, but he went further than that, and so far as I can remember he added that no instance had occurred or no instance had been brought to his notice of any effort of sabotage or anything of the kind. Since the outbreak of war troops have been carried and war material has been carried over the Railways, and although a large number of engine drivers and of the other members of the staff are people who are members of the re-United Nationalist Party and of the Ossewa-Brandwag, not a single instance has been published in the Press or brought to the Minister’s notice of anything of the kind ever having happened. And now the hon. member for Uitenhage, who actually represents a Railway constituency, comes along here and insults the Railway workers by making-vague insinuations. If he knows anything let him mention facts, and let him go to the Minister and to the Department. It is unfair to the Railway service to come along with vague insinuations of that kind. I do not want to talk about the Railway position in general. I only wish to avail myself of the opportunity—perhaps I may not have the chance of doing so later— of mentioning one or two things which are of importance to the travelling public. First of all, I wish to refer to a matter regarding which I have already put a written question to the Minister. Members who travel down from the North know that there is a train which is known as No. 12; it is a train which is generally known as a fairly fast train. During the last six months, however, there has been a change, and that train suddenly has to go round via Stellenbosch and Eerste River. I fail to understand it. I made enquiries even at the office in Cape Town, and eventually I put a question on the Order Paper.

It goes past Stellenbosch to put me off there.

It may be that the hon. member and the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) have something to do with it, but I should like to know what is the reason. This train does not even stop at certain stations along the road. My constituents complain very bitterly that when they take that train it does not stop at certain stations—I am not speaking about sidings now. But when the train gets near Cape Town it goes 15 miles out of its way and goes via Stellenbosch. And what happens there? I have made a habit of it— and I use that train a lot—to look out at Stellenbosch and Eerste River, and I can sssure the House—and the Minister will not deny it—that only two or three people get out of the train and sometimes nobody gets out. There have been cases of not a single person having got out at Stellenbosch or Eerste River. Here we have a fast train which goes 15 miles out of its way for the convenience of two or three passengers, while the other 300 or 400 passengers— I do not know exactly how many passengers there are on such a train, but I take it that it is more or less that number—who have already spent a night and a couple of days on the train, have to put up with the inconvenience of going out of their way like that. I put a question to the Minister on this subject, and he has given me an answer. I asked him whether it was not a fact that, except at the time of the opening or closing of the schools and the University of Stellenbosch, very few passengers get off at Stellenbosch and Eerste River. He replied that that was so. I thereupon asked him whether it was not the policy of the Railway Administration to make the journey between Johannesburg and Cape Town as short as possible. He again answered in the affirmative. We know that the railway line is continually being relaid and there is even question of making a tunnel at Bain’s Kloof so as to expedite the Railway service. But in spite of all that we find that a fast train is this case has to make a detour of 15 miles. And now we get to the real reason. I asked why that was being done, and the reason adduced by the Minister was that the train had to make this detour on account of the heavy local traffic not making it possible for the train to arrive earlier in Cape Town. The people who have been on the train for a day and a night have to get to Cape Town later for the sake of the people living in the suburbs of Cape Town. I really cannot believe that the Minister intended that to be a valid reason. I cannot believe that he looks upon it as a valid reason for the train having to make a detour, and that he considers that the suburban traffic in Cape Town should have precedence. There is another aspect of the matter. This train carries people from De Aar and from south of De Aar who go to Cape Town to transact their business there. It is a convenient train because it arrives in Cape Town at 9.20 in the morning and it gives them the opportunity of leaving Cape Town again by the night train. A great many people make use of that train to come and do a day’s business in Cape Town. I want to express the hope that the Minister, for the sake of the large number of passengers who come a long distance, will consider the question of restoring this train to the old time-table, so that we shall not have the spectacle of a fast train having to make a detour of 15 miles. It is now stated that the train arrives here at the ordinary time. If they can make the journey in that time even with a detour which the train has now got to make, the train should arrive here still earlier if it did not have to make that detour, and it would suit us very well if the train could arrive here at 8.30 instead of 9.20. In addition, that train is often late. It is my own experience that it is late once every five times, and it is then impossible for people to get all their business done so that they are able again to leave by the night train. Then there is another small matter, and I believe other members have also discussed that. In the new passenger coaches there is a small square light for the bunks. Is is only a 15-watt light I believe, and nobody can possibly read by that light. I hope the Minister will look into that, and have a stronger light put there. Then there is another minor point I want to raise, and that is that latterly it has become practically impossible to get any service if one wants to get anything in one’s compartment. Not all of us want to go into the dining saloon in the mornings to take breakfast; I personally never take breakfast barring perhaps a cup of tea and some toast. But when I ask nowadays where the man is who has to look after the compartments I am told that he is wanted to serve in the dining saloon with the result that one has to choose to have breakfast which one does not want, or one has to go without. I want to express the hope that in that respect too the Minister will take into account the convenience of the public and that it will be possible to employ additional stewards so that the service in the compartments may be attended to.

I rise to deal rather with matters of policy than with details for the reason that, when the main budget comes before the House, there is very little time for anything like a debate worthy of the name in connection with this vast State industry. Looking at the General Manager’s report for the year ended March, 1940, and the figures issued since that time, there is one phrase that has been associated with the South African Railways and Harbours, and that is record-breaking. Previous figures of magnitude in this industry have been eclipsed with almost monotonous regularity. The best record is in respect of accidents, for we find that in the working of our railways no passenger was killed or injured as the result of accidents to trains, and that record is very remarkable, according to the statement in the Report which covers a period of 30 years. I feel I would be failing in my duty if I did not call attention to that fact, in view of the statements made in this House when in past years accidents happened here and there on the railways. Is is only right that tribute should be paid to the efficient working of the railway machine at a time of heavy traffic and when the system is being worked under the stress of our war effort. I wish, on this occasion, to lay emphasis on this record of efficiency, not only as a tribute to the South African Railway Administration, but also to the General Manager, who retires to-day after nearly 40 years of service, during the last eight of which he has held its highest office. The country, sir, owes a great deal to the permanent heads of its great departments, and to none more than the head of this vast State industry, employing as it does over 120,000 men. As an ex-railwayman I take this opportunity of paying my tribte to the work of Mr. Watermeyer as General Manager. He has controlled the system with distinction during very difficult times, and has proved himself a wise administrator, and an engineer of great ability. He has maintained the highest traditions of his important office. To revert to record-breaking, we find that not only during 1939-’40, but since then, the revenue has been consistently on the upgrade. It would, however, be dangerous to base any permanent policy upon figures that have been achieved during abnormal times. The present abnormal figures constitute no argument for a permanent change in the policy of the administration. Such changes, and there are many necessary, must be based on the new normal position which will arise in the post-war period. The buoyant revenue is, as the General Manager in his report indicates, largely due to the abnormal traffic brought about by the requirements of our large army and our great war effort. It is due, also, to the larger amount of money in circulation throughout the country, and the effect of that money upon industry in general and commerce in particular. In considering the financial position of the Administration, it is necessary to determine what proportion of this tremendous improvement in financial results can be regarded as permanent. I say this because it is necessary in the interests of the staff and the public generally, for the Administration to husband its financial resources for the benefit of the national postwar programme which this country must provide for, and which will not only have reference to the operation of the railways, but will also have a particular relation to the wages of the servants of the Administration. During this debate reference has been made to the large profits which have been made by the Railways, and there is every reason why we should examine the question of these surpluses. In the Minister’s budget speech last year he stated that, after making provision for appropriations from revenue in respect of betterment and other funds of that nature, he expected a surplus of £23,000. The latest published figures covering eight months from the 1st April to November 30th, indicate that, after provision has been made for the funds I have mentioned, there is already an approximate surplus of £1,900,000. So I take it the Minister will be in a position at the end of this financial year to declare a surplus of over £2,000,000. Therefore, sir, I trust the Minister will not only provide for a further contribution to the Rates Equalisation and Staff Stabilisation Fund, but also reserve a further amount for wage improvements for unskilled labourers in particular, whether European or non-European. After all, the thread running through discussions on practically every subject coming before this House should be the interests of the lowly paid workers in State or private industry. It may be taken for granted that one of the main post-war problems in this country will be the conditions under which the under-privileged will work when the war is over. The Minister is being criticised, I think unfairly, in regard to the non-publication of the Departmental Committee’s Report on the wages of the non-European labourers in the railway service. It seems to me, sir, that the Minister, when promising last year to go into the matter, need not have referred to the appointment of a departmental committee at all. He need only have said to this House that he was investigating this matter, and then have appointed a committee without mentioning it. It is almost a weekly practice in such a large industry for departmental committees to be appointed to investigate domestice problems. What we are more concerned about it not the publication of the report of the committee, which is after all a detail, but whether the Minister has adopted the recommendations of that committee, or whether he has even gone further than the committee has recommended. We had evidence of the Minister’s sincerity on this subject last year, when I think he told the House clearly that here was a case in which some improvement should be made. Every party in this House is out for the improvement of the position of the under-privileged workers of whatever colour or race. We all agree that the State employees should be paid a living wage, such a wage as would be an example for the whole of the industries of this country. To argue in such a case as to where the money is to come from, is to my mind to beg the main question. We must find the money where there is the need. The only thing for this House to do is to prove the need, and it is then encumbent upon the Government to find the money. We should be more concerned with where the money goes than where it comes from. One other point I wish to stress, and in connection with which I would like to mention the General Manager. For many years he has been stressing the importance of establishing a Ministry of Transport. Year after year this has been included in his annual report, and to my mind there is no more important question therein than the co-ordination of all these forms of transport under one Minister. The proposal of Mr. Watermeyer is contained very fully in the report for March, 1939. It is constructive, far-sighted, and the country is indebted to him for the suggestion. I think the House will agree with me that it is imperative, in a country of long-distances and very conflicting interests, for all forms of transport to be co-ordinated. Now is the time for co-ordination. We find it in most countries in the world who are passing through this period of stress. They are coordinating departments and eliminating waste, and surely now is the time for us to set the machinery in motion. We have the men, and we have the Minister. I hope the Minister will express his opinion on this important subject. He is responsible for the greatest transportation department and we have the right to expect him to stand up in this House and declare himself on this very important subject, which includes all forms of transport—road, rail, air and water. I suggest that we get this principle adopted now in war time, so that we may be able to reap the benefit during the post-war period. I have not devoted any of my time to individual complaints. Most individua l complaints and those of a domestic character I take to the head of the department, and I want to say that when these cases are brought to the notice of the General Manager, or the Minister, they are treated efficiently and generally to my satisfaction. It would be a very serious thing if, in connection with the point raised by the hon. members for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) and for Uitenhage (Mr. Dolley), a large concern like the Railways were made a fishing ground for politicians, and political parties. Let the Administration be saved from that. The railwayman’s motto is service first, and his idea is to show to the world that the South African Railways can be run as efficiently as any organisation of its kind in the world. I accept the word of the Minister in regard to the loyalty of the staff and men under him. He ought to know, and if he does not know then he is in the wrong place. I accept his statement, and I conclude with this remark: We have been passing through exceptional times, the Railways have been dealing with very heavy traffic, a record traffic, and I say the country has every reason to be proud of the Railways and Harbours Administration and its staff.

I should like to associate myself with the complaints which have been voiced here in regard to the attitude of certain hon. members who are making an attempt, perhaps unconsciously, to drag racial questions into the Railway Administration. This is most unfortunate, because as the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) said I do not think that the slightest evidence can be produced to show that any preference is being given to Afrikaansspeaking people. I also feel that there is no reason for what the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Dolley) has said here, namely that the Ossewa-Brandwag is having such detrimental effects on the Railway Administration. I fail to understand why people latterly are so scared of the Ossewa-Brandwag. From what I know of the organisation I can assure hon. members that they have no cause for fear, because that organisation will do nothing which need give them sleepless nights. I also wish to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Beaufort West regarding the peculiar attitude adopted by the Railway Administration to let train No. 12 between Johannesburg and Cape Town take a detour via Stellenbosch. The hon. member showed clearly what the situation is and all of us who heard the Minister’s reply felt that the position was even more ridiculous now than it was before we had his reply. The only reason which the Minister gave was that the suburban traffic near Cape Town did not make it possible for that train to run to time. We cannot take that reason seriously. What then was the position before that time? The Railway Administration introduced this change only a short while ago, and in all probability the suburban traffic was just about as heavy before that time. In those days apparently there were no difficulties, and it is only now that the Railway Administration has come to the conclusion that the train has to take a detour. No, the Minister should try with an eye to the convenience of the travelling public to put an end to that alteration and to restore the old conditions. I should also like to say a few words about the treatment which Pretoria is receiving from the Railway Administration. This matter was raised last year by several members representing Pretoria in this House, and they urged the Minister that an improvement should be made. I want to admit that in certain respects there have been improvements, but let me say this at once—there is one important matter in respect of which the public of Pretoria have a serious grievance, and to which I think the Minister should immediately give his attention. This is the position. If people travel on certain trains which run through the Free State to Cape Town, they have to change at Germiston. Women often travel with small children and then they have to change at Germiston. They leave Pretoria at 8 o’clock in the evening and at 10 o’clock they have to change at Germiston. To say the least of it I say it is a scandal. Pretoria is not a suburb of Johannesburg. It is the Administrative Capital of the Union of South Africa, and we have every right to expect the Railway Administration to extend to Pretoria that consideration which it is entitled to as the Administrative Capital of the Union. And what aggravates the position is this, the Railway coaches which are supplied from Pretoria have no compartments, or rather suburban coaches are often used. The result is that people who want to travel from Pretoria to Cape Town—often women with small children—have to put their luggage on the seats or in the corridors between the seats. They have to go to a lot of trouble to find proper accommodation for their luggage. I feel that the House will admit that, to say the least of it, is a scandalous way of treating Pretoria, and I hope the Minister will give the matter his attention. The least we can expect is that there will be a through train so that people will not have to change. In the course of this debate a great deal of praise was quite rightly given to the Minister in regard to the Railway profits which have been made. The hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) told us that instead of having a surplus of £25,000 the Railway would at the end of the financial year have a surplus of about £2,000,000. Let me say at once that we must congratulate the Minister on that position on the railways, but I want to add that the Minister should be very careful as that surplus may easily create a false impression. The prosperity of the Railways is not a normal prosperity. We must take into account the question how much of the Railways revenue consists of book entries from other departments of State, and I should be very pleased if the Minister would inform us how much the Railway Department gets for carrying material or troops of the Defence Department. I take it that the amount of money paid over by the Defence Department to the Railway Department in the past year must have been a huge one. In the long run we cannot regard that money as normal revenue, because it means that money is taken out of the one pocket of the State and is put into another pocket, and as soon as the very heavy traffic of the Defence Department and also of other Departments comes down again, it will be found that the position of the Railways undoubtedly will not be as rosy as superficially it would appear to be at the moment. Then there is another minor point which I wish to bring to the Minister’s notice. I raised this matter on a previous occasion. In view of the flourishing financial position of the Railways I want to ask the Minister whether it will not be possible to consider the question of reducing the rates on coal for agricultural purposes. The rates, I admit it at once, are comparatively low, but during the past year in my constituency for instance comparatively large quantities of coal were used for the drying of tobacco in drying ovens, and although the Railway rate is a fairly low one, the total amount which some of the farmers have to pay is still fairly large. Agricultural societies and individual farmers give me the assurance that as a result of the cost, the consumption of coal is being greatly curtailed. They say that the Railway would probably benefit considerably if the tariff were reduced because the consumption of coal would then go up very greatly.

The Minister is asking this House to vote a sum of £8,500,000 for Railway and Harbour work. I have no doubt that part of that sum is to be used for work on the Cape Town Harbour. It is on this subject that I want to say a few words to the Minister and to this House. I notice that there is a controversy going on between the Municipality, certain public bodies and the Administration, whether or not Cape Town should have a graving dock. I notice, too, that Port Elizabeth is laying claim to have a graving dock constructed at that port. I consider that this is a matter of great national importance, and I think it is a subject which is worthy of the earnest consideration of the Department and the Government. Coming from Durban, as I do, a town which has its graving dock, and a floating dock as well, I think I am in a position to take an impartial view of this very important subject. I look upon it purely from the national point of view. To me it is not a case of which port should have a graving dock; what I am concerned with is that the graving dock should be put in the right place, that the right port should have the graving dock.

Durban.

It has been stated that the Durban graving dock has suffered losses year by year. That is quite true, but there are many undertakings which the Government is obliged to go in for which are not paying concerns.

The war, for instance.

Such as aeroplanes and armoured cars, battleships, grain elevators and so on. These are all non-paying undertakings, but because they are non-paying undertakings it does not follow that the Government should not go in for them. Although the graving dock has been run at a loss for many years, I must say this, that since the war commenced the Durban graving dock has been working at full capacity for 24 hours per day, and it has been of incalculable benefit to the defence of South Africa and the Empire. Now, so long as we have aggressive nations and avaricious dictators, it will be necessary for this Government and for other governments to go in for non-paying undertakings. They are national necessities. And now I am coming to the point of my remarks. I consider the question of the construction of a graving dock should be taken in conjunction with the defence of the country. By reason of the vulnerability of the Mediterranean and the Red Sea routes, I consider that the Cape Peninsula has become one of the world’s most important strategic points, and I fully believe that in due course the Peninsula will become the Gibraltar of the Southern Hemisphere. If my reasoning is correct, if the Cape Peninsula is of such great importance, if it is going to be fortified and turned into a Gibraltar, then I say that Cape Town is the place which should have a graving dock. That is the point I wish to make.

What about Durban?

Durban already has its graving dock. I do not wish to take up the time of the House. I hope I have made my point clear, and I hope the Government will see that consultation takes place with the Defence Department in regard to the port where this graving dock should be constructed.

I also wish to add my congratulations to those of other members, and I particularly wish to congratulate the Minister on the fact that he was strong enough not to introduce the red oath in his Administration so far. In any case, I still want to point out to the Minister that there is a tendency, perhaps without his knowledge, in an indirect manner to assist the Government’s war effort. In Pretoria, for instance, according to reports I have received women are to-day being employed in the delivery service, and married men, in some cases with large families, are being paid off. I shall be pleased if the Minister will go into that question, because I am convinced that it is not being done with his cognisance. Then I also want to congratulate the Minister that, in spite of the little time he has at his disposal, he has done his best to learn Afrikaans. We feel that it must be difficult for him at his age to learn Afrikaans, but we appreciate it that when we speak Afrikaans he at least is able to follow what we are saying. I only hope that the Minister, who sets a good example to some of his colleagues, will use his influence with some of his colleagues, even if they are older than he is, and that he will induce them also to learn Afrikaans. I want to ask the Minister why he is not providing for higher wages, especially so far as the Railway labourers are concerned. It is necessary that something should be done at at time like the present, when the cost of living has gone up very considerably. I have in mind such items as house rents, clothes, boots and other necessaries of life. The Railway worker will be very grateful to the Minister if at a time like the present, with the cost of living as high as it is, he will remember them, especially in view of the fact that the Railways are looking forward to such an extraordinarily large surplus at the end of the financial year. Then there is another question I want to put to the Minister: we recently read in the Press that the State had presented a number of minesweepers to Great Britain to go and sweep mines away somewhere. Who pays for the wages and salaries of the men on those ships? Did Great Britain buy those ships from us, or are we paying the expense? I further want to refer the Minister to the report of the Controller and Auditor-General this last year. On page 5, sub-paragraph (7), he reports that the Administration has ordered two steam tugs from Europe, and that those two boats are now, with the consent of the Railway Board, and probably of the Minister, being used in Europe in connection with the war effort. The Controller and Auditor-General said that there are no conditions attaching to the transfer of those ships. We, that is to say the Railway Administration, have to pay an amount of £167,300 for those ships on delivery, but as they are now being used in England a reduction in the amount of a little more than £4,000 has been made, so that there is £162,000 left which the Administration has to pay. An amount of £145,000 has already been paid, so that there is a small amount of a little over £16,000 which still has to be paid. I should like to know why those boats have been handed over to the British Government, and under what conditions. There is something peculiar in the reply which the General Manager of Railways gave in that respect. He said that exemption was granted for the one boat, but that so far as the other boat was concerned they had not yet come to a decision. The British Government had agreed to let one off and to deliver it at the expense of the Minister of Shipping, who would also be responsible for any change or repairs, and for the payment of all expenses and interest in connection with the use of those boats, and in connection with repairs, etc. What does that mean? Does it mean that those boats will be used, and that they will then be sent to us when the war is over, and that we are then to be paid a small amount of interest on our capital investment? In other words, that those boats will then be put in order and sent to us? We shall then get second-hand boats at first-class prices. I should like to know from the Minister how much still has to be paid, because the report only goes up to the 31st March, 1940. I want to know how much we owe on those boats, and whether we have as yet received anything from the British Government in compensation for the boats which are being used for them? The Auditor-General says—

It appears to be an impractical way of doing business. Two boats are handed over without any arrangements being made about payment. Now there is something else in connection with the Auditor-General’s report which I wish to bring to the Minister’s notice. The Railways Board decided to appoint two town planning advisers at Cape Town in connection with that part which has now been reclaimed in Table Bay. Now I notice that one of those people has been appointed at a salary of £2,000 per year, plus a travelling allowance of £25 per month. He has been imported from abroad. Then a South African professor of architecture has also been appointed. He only gets £1,250, which includes all his expenses. First of all I want to know why the Minister did not appoint somebody from this country?

Surely you know why?

I want to know it from the horse’s mouth—from the Minister himself; and then I also want to know why the South African only gets £1,250, while the imported man gets £2,000 plus £25 as a travelling allowance. There is another small matter which I want to bring to the Minister’s notice, and that is why he has stopped the training school at Voortrekkerhoogte so that the Railway Administration has suffered a loss there of £205; altogether the loss was £396, but it is argued that the Administration derived certain benefits from the work which the firm did in regard to the quantity survey, and that only £205 was lost. I shall be pleased if the Minister will give us information on that point as well. Then I have noticed that our air service latterly has been particularly quiet. Recently an air service was again introduced from the Rand via Kimberley to Cape Town, and another one via Durban, but I seem to remember that we voted £500,000 some time ago in regard to that matter, and if we read our papers it would appear that the air service is only being used to fly Col. Reitz to the Congo, and Gen. Smuts to the North to go and meet Anthony Eden or Haile Selassie, while the public of South Africa derive no benefit from it. My final request to the Minister is that, seeing that he was good enough last year to contribute £400,000 by way of tariff reductions in respect of the farmers’ primary products, and in respect of agricultural machinery, he should not allow himself to be persuaded this year to change that position. I feel that the State, which contributes two-thirds of the reductions, is already getting its reward by reduced rates so far as the soldiers is concerned, and by reason of the fact that the Department of Defence is also being assisted on a large scale in connection with the transportation of soldiers.

This Part Appropriation Bill offers one an opportunity of ventilating a subject which is of considerable importance, not only to one’s own constituency, but to a large number of the public, and may I say to the dairy producers of this country, and that is the subject which I wish to speak on this afternoon. Yesterday I addressed two questions to the Minister to the following effect:

1. (1) Whether the Queenstown Farmers’ Association had made representations in connection with the damage caused to milk and cream cans through careless handling by the Railways, and
2. (2) what steps have been taken to prevent such damage in view of the increased cost of cans and difficulty of replacement owing to the war?

To this the Minister replied that representations had been made recently by the Queenstown Farmers’ Association to the Station Master at Queenstown and that special instructions had been issued to all staff concerned to handle milk and cream cans with the greatest possible care. I am very grateful to the Minister for his reply to the second question. I appreciate very much that the special instructions have been given and I hope they will be carried out. Now this question looks like one of minor importance, but there are very much more important issues at stake. This is not the first occasion that I have raised this question. Some years ago I raised the same question and I got exactly the same reply. Complaints have come again recently from my local Farmers’ Association, but these complaints have been continuous for years from dairy farmers in the Eastern Province of the Cape, and I wish to point out what is underlying these complaints in regard to the harm that is being done to the dairy industry. The question of the handling of the cream and milk cans by the Railway Administration is one of considerable importance to the dairy producers of the country, and I would not like the Minister to get the impression that this is a trivial matter, and of small importance. It affects the whole of the dairy industry. During the past ten years the dairy industry has developed to an enormous extent. We are now producing millions of lbs. of butter, enabling us to meet all our local demands, and also to export very large quantities. We have every reason to be proud of the quality or grade of our butter. To secure that it has taken many years of preparation and instruction to our farmers. Scrupulous cleanliness has had to be observed from the time of milking in the kraal to the delivery of the cream to the creamery. In this connection the cream-can and its cleanliness are absolutely imperative. When the cream-can has been battered about and damaged it is a well known fact that it is not so readily and perfectly cleaned and scoured as the undamaged cream-can, and it is also well-known that the presence of any foreign matter in a cream-can may very easily contaminate the contents and reduce the grade from first grade to second or even third grade, and a reduction in the price paid by the Creamery. This is the main reason why farmers are constantly complaining about the rough usage of their cream-cans by the Railway Department, not overlooking the fact that owing to the war these cans have increased in price and are not so readily replaced. I therefore welcome the reply that special instructions have been issued to all staff concerned to handle milk and creamcans with the greatest possible care. But I want to go still further. I want the Railways to take particular care that when cream is entrusted to them for transportation to the creamery that there is no danger of contamination of the cream by the presence of any strong smelling article in the same room or vehicle. Let me give the Minister an illustration of what I mean and he will see what I am getting at. A near relative of mine could not understand why her cream was graded second grade by the creamery, notwithstanding every precaution taken by her. One Sunday afternoon she took her cream personally to the station and actually saw the can placed in the cool room specially provided for that purpose on the station platform. As she looked into this cool room she found that some fish packed in ice which had melted was stored in the same room. There was naturally a very strong smell of fish and that was sufficient to contaminate the cream. I want the Minister therefore not only to give his instructions about creamcans, but also that every precaution should be taken against contamination of cream entrusted to the Railways for transportation. It is an important matter because, as I have pointed out, the reduction in the grade of cream means a reduction in the price of that particular cream, and not only does it mean a reduction in the price of the cream but also in the quality of the butter. We are anxious to produce the best possible butter, and as far as the Railway Department is concerned, we hope that the efforts which the farmer has made right up to the moment he has delivered his cream, that the same care will be taken of the farmer’s product until it is delivered to the creamery.

The hon. Senator Fourie, who was Minister of Railways in the previous Government, came to the assistance of the lucerne growers at the time by reducing the railage on lucerne, but the present Minister had hardly taken office before the reduction in rate was abolished and the ordinary railage is again being charged. I believe that the same happened in regard to wool. I wish, however to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that lucerne farmers have to pay a great deal more to-day for the materials they require for the pressing of lucerne, than was the case before the war. Their expenses have gone up, their costs of labour have gone up, but in spite of all these facts this concession has been taken away from them. I want to ask the Minister to take this question into review again. I also want to draw the Minister’s attention to the type of fruit which is served on the trains. We find to-day that fruit farmers cannot export their fruit, but in spite of this we get the poorest type of fruit imaginable on the trains. The fruit served on the trains is really of the poorest quality. I wonder whether the Minister could not go into this and see that the fruit served is of a better quality. Recently, on a very hot day, I travelled through the Karroo and I did not feel inclined to eat anything but fruit, and I could not get anything except a few withered bananas. I also want to point out that we in the North-west are being fobbed off very badly in connection with Railway coaches, especially those coaches which run between Upington and De Aar. I am not now referring so much to the fast train between Windhoek and De Aar, but to the other trains between Upington and De Aar. They are scandalous in a word. I recently travelled on one of those trains. I was not the only passenger; there were about twenty of us on the train, and all the coaches were second-class coaches. People who had first-class tickets had to travel in second-class coaches, and we found those coaches to be dirty and unhygenic: there were no towels and there was no service. I also wish to draw attention to anothher need which has been badly felt, especially in those parts where there is an increase in the production of our factories, especially on the platteland. I have in mind for instance a factory which was started at Ashton to handle farmers’ products. One finds that those people are suffering severe setbacks in their competition with others on account of the fact that the Railway rates are too high so far as they are concerned. They are asking for a reduction in rates on goods manufactured on the platteland. As the Minister heard the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) stated that at the end of the financial year there will in all likelihood be a surplus of £2,000,000. The Minister has also heard the requests made here by members, requests which quite possibly may involve an increase in expenditure. I want to remind the Minister of the fact that after the war we shall again be faced with a time when we are going to suffer hardships, and when the Minister, instead of having a surplus of £2,000,000, may perhaps have a deficit of a couple of million pounds. I want to ask the Minister to keep his eyes on the future and to see that there is a nest egg provided to help him over those times. If he has a surplus of £2,000,000 this year, let him put aside £1,000,000 so that when the time comes, when we shall be least able to pay the increasess in rates, there will be something for him to draw on. I notice that the Minister of Finance smiles. I think it is a very sound principle to put something aside for the future, for the time of trouble. That was our experience during the world war. We also had large surpluses before that, but after the war there was a tremendous depression. Hundreds of Railway officials were dismissed and salaries were retrenched. All as a result of the liberality which went hand in hand with war conditions. Hon. members opposite will come and ask for larger salaries for highly-paid officials. They will come and ask for larger pensions, but I think the country will be grateful if the Minister watches the future and if he sees to it that there is a nest egg when those difficult times arrive.

I also would like to say one or two kind words on this occasion concerning the Minister and his colleagues, who no doubt have been chosen for their beauty and personal charm as well as their knowledge of their respective departments. In regard to the Minister of Railways, I have felt most comfortable in taking difficulties of one kind or another to him. I have always found that he is very ready to hear one, and when I, as a private member of Parliament, have been to him, and have been in conference with him, I have felt almost as important as an average human being. This is a great tribute to a Minister, the greatest, at any rate, that I am able to pay. Now, by way of following up this little bit of sugar for the birds, I have three or four points I want to mention. I believe my friend, the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) reminded the Minister of many skilled artisans in the railway shops in Durban who want to get away to take part with our armies in the field. That is so, and of course it is very much to their credit, but I want to suggest to the Minister that there are other men who have already gone from his department, and who, to the advantage of his railway system, might very well be got back again. These men are in northern camps, and are doing little or nothing but shifting wood and iron buildings from one part of the camp to another, digging holes for refuse, and generally occupied in tasks that natives could be employed upon much more economically and with equal efficiency. There are numbers of highly-qualified engineers and fitters who have left the railways and who are more than ready to come back, and particularly this is so when they have been taken from A category and graded down for one reason or another to category C. These men are practically useless to the army. I have a letter here dated the 5th of this month, which I should like to read—

The difficulty is that we have men in Durban who want to go on service, and there are men in the camps in the North who want to come back because they feel they can do better work if they return to civil life. Then there is the point with regard to free passes on the railways for soldiers, and officers too. At first men on any kind of leave had to pay their own fares for the journey to and from their homes. Then officers and men on sick leave were allowed to travel without payment. Now it has been arranged that N.C.O.’s and men shall have free passes, on leave of whatever kind, to and from their home towns, and I suggest that that privilege should be extended to all members of our army. In England it was done, although the railways there are privately owned, and the Government had actually to pay for every man or officer who got into a railway compartment. I suggest that all officers or men going on any kind of leave should be provided with a free warrant. Many of them cannot afford to go home otherwise. I don’t think Ministers or members of the House apprehend this fact, that a lieutenant in the South African army is actually no better off than the staffsergeant. He has actually greater responsibilities, but his actual monetary reward is no better. And I therefore plead for a free warrant for officers as well as men when they proceed on leave. And talking of riding in trains, I have slept with considerable discomfort in various odd parts of the world, notably in Flanders fields, where the poppies grow and all that, but I have never been more acutely tormented than I have been at times on our South African Railways, where they have a peculiarly thick blanket which reduces me at any rate, to the boil, and then invariably slips off and reduces me to the condition of ice cream, and I scream. That is certainly a shocking pun. I have often wondered where they succeed in finding men who can make beds so badly. I have thought that they must comb the earth to find people with such perverted ingenuity in arranging blankets. But when I made enquiries of the culprits themselves, I found out that the reason we don’t get efficiency is that we do not pay the men sufficient. I hear that these men get £4 per month, and over a period of years it is slowly raised to £7. I submit that it is not fair that passengers on the railways should have to pay tips in order to make the job into one on which the men can live. From the passenger’s point of view is is objectionable, and I don’t see any reason why the men themselves should depend on public charity in that way. The men are coloured, and so I come to the last point that I make, which is that the plight of a very large number of coloured men employed on our railways is just reason for complaining. Complaints on this subject were made by me in this House in full detail two years ago, and so far as I know conditions are precisely to-day as they were then. There is an army of more than 28,000 coloured men in the employment of our railways, and I have it on the authority of no less a person than Bishop Lavis of Cape Town that their average wage is 12s. 8d. per week. I make it 15s. 6d. The monthly wage bill is £87,000, and by process of long division it appears to me the weekly wage of each man is 15s. 6d. But quite probably the Bishop can divide better than I can. Let us hope, however, in this instance he is wrong. Suppose it is 15s. 6d., it is an utter impossibility for any man to keep a wife and a child or two on any such terrible wage as that. We have heard from the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) about a surplus of £1,900,000 already made by the railways during the current year. We give vast credit for this to the Minister and all his officials, and the men who run the railways, but we suggest, at the same time, that one of those millions might very well be bestowed on these lower-paid workers, starting right at the bottom. You could double the present wages of every one of the 28,000, and still have one of those two millions left, and I suggest, with deference, that it should be done.

I feel that if the Minister comes to this House and asks for an amount of £8,000,000 and we look at the empty benches in this House, the fact of those benches being empty constitutes the best evidence of the need for a New Order. I think you will have noticed, Mr. Speaker, that Government members when criticising never produce anything definite, but always make underhand attacks on one or other official. The hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Dolley) got up here and made an attack on Railway workers, an attack devoid of all facts; he did not mention anything, he only made insinuations to the effect that there might be Railway officials who were members of the Ossewa-Brandwag. In this respect I want to congratulate the Minister on the fact that he, as an English-speaking individual, still has a sense of right and justice, and that he states outright that he was not aware of any subversive work, of any underhand work started by people in his department, even though they might be members of the Ossewa-Brandwag. I admire it in him as an English-speaking South African that he said this. On the other hand I am bitterly disappointed that members on the other side of the House get up here and do not say a word about what has taken place, do not mention a single fact, but simply make vague insinuations. There is something I am anxious to bring to the notice of the Minister, and I hope he will take it in the spirit in which I like to raise a matter of this kind with a man whom I respect, seeing that he has adopted the attitude he has done towards the Afrikaans movement. I am doing this without making any insinuations or any attacks. There is no doubt that considerable damage is being done by the soldiers who travel in our Railway coaches. I was in a train on two occasions when soldiers smashed windows and doors. Now I want to know from the Minister whether he has taken any special steps with a view to preventing the smashing of doors and windows. I should also like to ask the Minister whether he is aware of the fact that it is practically impossible for anyone to go and have a meal in a dining saloon. The language which people use there, especially during dinner in the evenings, when individuals are under the influence of liquor, is such that one cannot take a lady there. I discussed this matter with the chief stewards and they tell me that they have already complained about it, but that nothing is being done to stop it. I have been trying to think what one might do so as to prevent this kind of thing. When ladies are sitting in their compartments they are addressed by soldiers who simply walk in. I am not saying that they are addressed in any objectionable way, but none the less they are spoken to by people who do not know them. Parents feel that they cannot let their young daughters travel on those trains. I want to make a suggestion to the Minister. Could he not put special coaches for the soldiers at the back of goods trains? If necessary these could be first class coaches which would be there specially for soldiers going on leave. I am making this suggestion not with any intention whatsoever of reflecting on the soldiers, but the Minister in his responsible position has heard all these things and he must be aware of the fact that there is grave dissatisfaction at the way in which soldiers are carrying on on our trains. Cannot the Minister see his way to put a stop to the sale of liquor on the trains? We all like a joke in the right place, and even if one is slightly under the influence of liquor one can still make a good joke. But on the trains things are becoming very serious, and I want to ask the Minister whether it would not be possible for him to stop the sale of liquor on the trains. As a rule all the trouble starts on the train when the soldier gets under the influence of liquor and it is then that doors and windows are smashed.

Don’t civilians ever get drunk?

If the hon. member were to drink too much and if he started smashing doors and windows I would say that he should not have any drink either. I should like to know from the Minister whether he cannot see to it that drink shall not be sold to the soldiers on the trains. Then I want to get to another point. The former Minister of Railways made us a promise when the United party was still in power that he would go into the position of the Railway service at Mossel Bay. We pointed out to him at the time that Mossel Bay was situated on the side of a steep koppie, and the cheaper type of houses were high up on the side of the hill with the result that the people living there when they finished their work in the evenings had to climb that steep hill when going home. They cannot afford to take the more expensive houses which are nearer to their work. The then Minister gave me to understand that he was sympathetically inclined towards those people and that he would do his best to help us. So far, however, nothing has as yet been done to meet their position. Then I also want to bring a matter to the Minister’s notice when the Minister without Portfolio has already discussed with him. The train leaving Mossel Bay and arriving here in Cape Town at 2.50 has no dining saloon attached. From Mossel Bay to Worcester one cannot even get a cup of tea or a cup of coffee at any of the stations. At Riversdale arrangements have been made for the train to stop twenty minutes, and a motor car would be available to take the passengers to a hotel where they would be able to get something to eat or to drink. We tried this on several occasions, but what happened? One gets the motor car at the station but by the time one gets to the hotel it is too early to get anything to eat so that one has to return to the train without having had anything, or otherwise if one waits one gets back too late. I understand that there is a man at Heidelberg who is prepared at his own expense to start a business to sell refreshments to the public travelling by train. He is prepared to supply tea, coffee, sandwiches and also biscuits. People travelling on that train, strangers coming from Mossel Bay, have to wait all day long and the next morning as well, and at 5 o’clock they can get coffee at Worcester. Then they have to get up if they want to get anything. I am not going into the merits of the case because I know that you will prevent me, Mr. Speaker, discussing that question now, Mr. Speaker, but if we go on with that train and arrive at Wellington we may perhaps want to buy something. Well, there are many of us who feel that we would like to buy from our own people and that is why we feel that we do not want to buy at Wellington. The result is that we have to wait until we get to Cape Town before we can get anything. I feel that the reason mentioned by the Minister’s Department why they cannot allow a refreshment saloon to be opened on the stations between Mossel Bay and Worcester is that the dining saloon service there does not pay. Well, trains carrying dining saloons also pass Paarl and Wellington, but, in spite of that, there are refreshment stalls there. I have no doubt that the Minister without Portfolio has discussed this matter with the Minister of Railways, and we should greatly appreciate it if his Department would allow people to sell refreshments to the travellingpublic, say, for instance, at Heidelberg. Then there is another matter I wish to mention, and it is something which really grieves me, and in respect of which I have already approached the Minister’s Department. At Mossel Bay there is a locomotive shed, and I find now that men who have been working there for a long time have been put off. I do not know that the Minister knew about this, because I am convinced that if he had known anything about it he would not have allowed it. Eight white Afrikaners have been put off their work there, and they have been told that there is not sufficient work for them at the moment to keep them employed. They were given that information by the man who came to discharge them.

But what was so peculiar was that while those eight white people were put off because their services were no longer required, other people were appointed in their stead. The day after they were put off eight coloured men were appointed in their place— eight coloured men were taken on in the place of eight Afrikaners. Those workers naturally went along and asked that they should get their work back. They were told that they could get work at Oudtshoorn. Some of them went there at their own expense, but when they arrived at Oudtshoorn they were told that they could not be given regular employment, and that they would only get work when there was any available. We can realise that by that time those people were a long way from their homes, with the result that their expenses were very much heavier. They had to return to Mossel Bay at their own expense. That in itself is a sad state of affairs, but what makes it even worse is this: I went to discuss the matter with the boss, and he told me that he had received instructions to discharge those people, as they were fit for war service. I was unable to find out from him whom he got those instructions from, and I am therefore unable to say that it was the Minister who gave those instructions, or who it was. But this is what I was told— that this boss had received instructions to dismiss those people because they were fit for war service. It is also striking that the people who were appointed in their stead were not fit for war service. One of the members congratulated the Minister, and said that he was glad that the Minister did not insist on railway officials taking the red tab oath. But here we were given an instance where the boss said that he had received instructions to dismiss those people because they were fit for war service. He said: “I had to come and do the dirty work”; and, what is more, the people appointed in their stead are not fit for war service, and the one man of the eight who was taken back is absolutely unfit for military service. If that is going to be the Government’s policy, then I want to warn the Minister that he must not drive the people any further than he is doing now. If that is not the Government’s policy, then I want the Minister to take those seven men back into the Railway Service. I am sorry the hon. member for Hottentots Holland (Mr. Faure) is not here, because the matter which I want to raise also concerns him. If the Minister would ask the Superintendent of Railways, he would find that there are complaints about the fast train service between Somerset West or the Strand and Cape Town. That service was introduced in the days of Mr. Charlie Malan. The train first stopped at the Strand and Somerset West, and went straight through to Cape Town. A request was subsequently received from Stellenbosch that it should also stop at Eerste River. Mr. Charlie Malan granted that request, but there were a series of objections raised by the people of Somerset West and the Strand, with the result that he promised that he would see to it that the fast train would only stop at Somerset West and Eerste River, and at no other stations. For a long time that was the practice, but, peculiarly enough, the train now stops at one of the smaller stations between Somerset West and Cape Town. It is a station from which very little revenue is derived. I do not think the Minister could mention a solitary station throughout the country from which he gets less revenue than from Faure Station.

Who lives close to that station?

This train passes a few fairly large stations, but it stops at Faure. There is dissatisfaction on account of the fact that this train arrives so late in Cape Town, and I want to ask the Minister to carry out that promise that that train would not stop at any other stations except those which Mr. Charlie Malan promised. I want to say a little more in regard to Faure. Deputations have waited on the Minister, and I was a member of one of those deputations which went to the Minister to ask him to do something in regard to the station building at Somerset West. We were given the Minister’s answer that nothing could be done to that station on account of the fact that the revenue derived from it was not sufficient. I do not know what the Minister is going to say to me now, and I do not even know whether he can answer me at all, but I am anxious to get a reply from the Minister to this question, whether he can tell us how much money has been spent on the new station at Faure, how long the building has been there, how much it has cost the Administration, and what the amount of revenue is derived from that station. I do not know whether the Minister is aware of the fact that there is a good deal of suspicion in regard to the question as to how that station building caught fire. I should like to know from the Minister whether he will have an investigation made into the question of how that station caught fire. It was a small building, but it was adequate for the amount of money which was taken there. The receipts in respect of goods at that station were certainly not more than 5s. per month, and the amount taken in respect of passengers’ fare was also very small. Somerset West and the Strand are unable to get decent stations, but at Faure to-day they have a magnificent building, and when the train gets there one only sees two faces there, only people who board the train, and those two people are not entirely unknown in this House of Parliament. I should like the Minister to give me a reply, and to tell me how much money has been spent over the past two years on the station building at Faure, how much money has been spent on the station building at Somerset West, and what the revenue is in respect of goods and passengers at these two stations. I further want to draw the Minister’s attention to the position at Somerset West. Trains cross there, and if one wants to buy a ticket one has to cross the railway line so as to get to the ticket office. If one wants to catch the fast train and it rains, one has to stand on a very little bit of platform. One has to stand there and wait in the rain until the train arrives, and when one gets back from Cape Town in the evening one has to get off the train there. The platform is a very small one, and the result is that old people, like my mother, for instance, have to go on to the Strand on account of the fact that the platform is so small and conditions are most uncomfortable. I feel that the Minister, before doing anything in regard to the Railways, should not take the word of only certain people, but that he should also consult others to find out what is actually taking place. The Minister will agree with me that the Railways are there for the public, and not for the convenience of only certain people, and this halt at Faure is not doing us any good. It keeps people away who like to stay at Somerset West, but who find it impossible to get to Cape Town by train at a particular time. I hope the Minister is not going to give us a reply that the school train has to pass there. Those trains always used to pass Eerste River, and the Minister should not use that as an excuse.

When one listens to the criticism of the Opposition on an appropriation of £8,000,000, I think the Minister is very heartily to be congratulated on the fact that nothing serious has been raised, no serious point of criticism regarding Railway policy or administration. The type of complaint and criticism one hears is that a member complains that he can only get “verlepte pisangs” on the trains.

You are a “verlepte pisang yourself.

And another member complains about a “perron” not being quote satisfactory—and other equally trivial complaints. I think the Minister is to be congratulated that this is the only kind of criticism he has to contend with. But there is one short word I want to say to the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Noerop), who, having made his contribution has run out of the House. That hon. member suggested that we should apply the segregation principle to soldiers travelling on the railways—he suggested that our soldiers, the great majority of whom are Afrikaans-speaking Africans like himself, should be segregated in coaches behind the van. My only reply to that suggestion is that we take it from whence it comes. Now I have a rather serious complaint which has been made here for a number of years. It is a complaint regarding the non-payment of cuts in wages of non-European labourers.

As serious as that of the “pisangs”?

When the wage cuts were made there were complaints and demands from all sides of the House that they should be restored as soon as conditions warranted it. And gradually we found that the European railway cuts were restored and that men got back their normal working benefits. That, however, did not apply to non-Europeans. But when the Minister took over office and when repeated requests had been made to him by members on this side of the House, he set up a departmental committee to investigate the matter, and as a result about 15,000 nonEuropean workers have benefited—but only 15,000 out of a total of 53,000. In other words, 37,000 of these men have benefited in no way as a result of the investigation or of the recommendations of that departmental committee. And we who raise this matter are somewhat disappointed that none of the findings of that committee had been made public. I understand quite well that it was a departmental committee and that normally the finding of such committees are not made public, but when public interest is roused to such an extent as was the case in this particular matter, I think the Minister should have given some indication of the findings of that committee, and whether or not those findings have been carried out. And if they are not carried out, or if the findings are not what we hoped and expected them to be, then I hope the Government will shortly appoint a commission to go into the matter. If one section of the people has been hard hit by war conditions it is the non-European worker whose cuts have not been restored. The cost of living has gone up, and although the cost of living allowance is paid, at the same time that allowance is not sufficient to enable the coloured community and the native people to live up to the standard which they are entitled to do. Even in normal peace times the amount of poverty that existed among those people was extremely heavy, and while it was computed that no decent coloured man could live under a wage of 8s. per day, not one single coloured man received anything like that. The hon. member for Durban North (the Rev. Miles-Cadman) referred to the wages received by the non-European workers on the Railways. I have the figures. The native labourers outside the Cape Peninsula in other centres of the Cape earn a maximum of 2s. per day, while the coloured people earn between 3s. 6d. and 4s. But in the Peninsula itself the highest wage is 5s. per day for natives and 5s. 6d. for coloured people. That wage is not a wage on which a coloured man or a native can be expected to give good service to his country.

What do you pay the Europeans on the road?

If the hon. member who has just interjected would only realise that if we gave the coloured and native people decent wages, we would automatically raise the wages of the Europeans as well.

First pay the European a better wage.

I hope the hon. member will realise that I still hope that he will support me in my plea. I would appeal just as much on behalf of the European workers.

But you never do.

There are so very few in this House who ever take an interest in the non-European worker that I feel it my duty to make an appeal on their behalf.

Why do you not sometimes appeal for the European worker?

The casual labourers are grateful for the privilege which has been granted them of obtaining quarter-fare railway rates provided they obtain at least 15 days’ work per month. It sounds very nice, but unfortunately only a few of these casual labourers benefit owing to the fact that very few of them ever get 15 days’ work per month. The normal number of working days is more often ten and twelve and not fifteen. That is another point which I hope the Minister will consider and where, I trust, he will make it possible for these poorly-paid casual workers to obtain this concession irrespective of the number of days they are actually employed. Just one more point, that is in regard to the graving dock which has been mentioned by other members. The matter has been discussed to a very great extent in the Press by various bodies in Cape Town and in this House. And there is a general feeling that as soon ase circumstances permit there is no doubt that such a graving dock is an absolute necessity as far as Cape Town is concerned. But we also understand as the Minister has said that it would be unwise at this stage to proceed with that undertaking, and I think we can accept it that the Minister is sympathetic towards the project, and that the Government will proceed with it at the first available opportunity.

I want to bring to the Minister’s notice a matter which particularly affects my constituency—it is a matter in connection with the bus service to Vryburg via Broedersputte and linking up with the Railway line at Delarey. I have being trying for a long time, and the public have also been trying for a long time, to get a service established which will be useful to the public between those two railway lines, with Vryburg on the one side and Delarey on the other side, as the nearest points. The character of the country in those parts where people are farming is such that they can do best by producing cream for marketing purposes. But people lived so far away from the station that it did not pay them to go in for the production of ceram. The previous Minister of Railways thereupon was kind enough to establish a bus service so that the people were able to produce cream and get it to the market. Now we have been told that that bus service is to be stopped. When that information was received I personally wrote to the Divisional Manager at Kimberley and I pleaded with him not to suspend the service. The reply I received was that the Divisional Manager had considered the matter and had decided to try the service out for a further three months. Now I want to point out to the Minister that he should bear in mind the fact that if a bus service is introduced for a certain area the public served by that bus service necessarily so arranges its farming as to be able to make the best and the greatest use of the bus. I can assure the Minister that the farmers in that neighbourhood will be very hard hit if this bus service is to be stopped, and it will handicap them very severely. For that reason I want to ask the Minister to give those people a chance. They are poor people and it is quite impossible for them, on the very day that the Minister introduces his bus service, convert their cows into a better breed of animal. They have to breed, and instead of producing stock for meat, they have to keep cows for dairy purposes. For those reasons I am making this very earnest request to the Minister not to stop the bus service between Vryburg and Delarey but to come to the assistance of the people there and to keep the service going. I also want to ask him not to have a letter written to those people every three months telling them that the service is going to be stopped, because how can one equip oneself to make the best use of a service if one is continually being threatened that the service is going to be stopped. That is the position. I represent a constituency which for years has been treated in a stepmotherly fashion by the Department of Railways. We are on a branch line, and on the larger stations where the State every month has revenue running into thousands of pounds one practically does not get the benefits which one gets at a station like Faure—as the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) has explained— a station from which the State will never derive any revenue. I really feel that a great injustice is being done to the far distant parts of the country. The Minister knows that I do not come and bother him every day with all kinds of requests, but I do ask him not to stop this bus route between Vryburg and Delarey. I earnestly ask the Minister to keep that service going. I also want to ask the Minister that so far as bus services are concerned he should not take up the attitude that the question at issue is whether a bus service gives a good return or does not give a good return just at the moment. The bus services are there for development purposes. They are the pioneers, and parts of the country are being opened up with the aid of those services. If one does not have bus services in certain parts of the country it will be impossible for farming to be developed on a normal basis, and the Minister should watch out lest he take too much amount to the momentary revenue derived from particular services. He should also take into consideration the fact that a service of that kind may be to the benefit of the country as a whole. I particularly want to bring this special service to the Minister’s notice, and I do hope that he will see to it that the farmers are not deprived of this benefit.

I want to deal very briefly also with this question of coloured wages. I am taking up the cudgels on their behalf not because I am not equally interested in the wages of the white workers, but as my hon. friend, the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. R. J. du Toit) has said, there are so few members in this House who fight on their behalf. In a constituency like mine—naturally it does not affect my constituents, but I am convinced that this is a national matter. It has reached that stage where it has become a national matter. The Minister knows all the arguments—they are frequently put to him by the members representing the natives —and I do not want to go over any of the old arguments again—but I do want to put a point of view which always interests me and that is the point of view of social conditions in this country. I feel very strongly indeed on this matter. The repercussions that this consistent struggle to get a living wage will have on these people and on their children are often neglected. These things have a very far-reaching effect indeed. Now, if I might just sum up these facts briefly. First of all, there is a lack of self respect and a lack of assurance that they can live their lives in decency which comes from this frequent struggle. I have no doubt in my mind that it has this social effect upon them —it creates a feeling of distrust for the white, it creates a feeling on antagonism towards the white people of this country, which undoubtedly has its repercussions in their actions towards the white people in this country. It creates a feeling of antagonism which from time to time bursts out in acts against women in this country. Then there is this aspect also, which I would like to stress, the lack of security they have and the poverty which sets the stage for delinquency, not only grown up delinquency but juvenile delinquency. I lived in the Cape a great many of my younger days, and I know intimately the conditions especially which occur in the domestic service of this country, and I am convinced that a great many of these people could not live at all were it not for the fact that habitually they take provisions from the homes in which they work to keep their children alive. I know that that is done because I am fully acquainted with the problem as it appears in the Cape itself. Then another point which appeals to me is this: the effect upon the health of the coloured community must be very serious indeed, and it is, of course, recognised by all people who are thoughtful in these matters, it is recognised certainly by the medical profession that the repercussion of the health of our non-European population upon white health is very great indeed. It seems to me so sensless to have to spend great sums of money on the prevention of tuberculosis and upon the curing of tuberculosis which has been caused by another department through its low scale of wages. The question of poverty and disease interact so much that one may say that one of the major causes in this country why tuberculosis is so rife among the coloured population is the lowness of wages. I know the Minister has to run his department on business lines, but I contend he is not running it on business lines if he is running it at the expense of other departments such as the Department of Public Health and Social Welfare. If these two departments did not assist through their services to make good the low wages which he pays, he would have to face up to the problem. Then there is this other repercussion in the family life of these people, and when I speak of their family life I do so not only out of justice and pity to themselves, but also I am firmly convinced of the social repercussions upon the whites of this country. One of the main outcomes of a very low wage is to drive the mother of the family out to work. Everyone knows these things but we sit still and hope for the best. No family can survive if, where there are young children, there is no one at home during the major part of the day to care for these children. I wish you would look at the figures of juveniue delinquency among the coloured community and compare them with the figures of the white community. The high prevalence of juvenile delinquency among the coloured children is very tragic indeed and I am quite sure that it is not necessarily the failure or lack of character of the coloured children themselves, but it is largely due to the conditions under which they are forced to live owing to the low wage rate. For these social reasons I strongly urge that the Minister may consider whether it is not possible to give them a squarer deal. There are many other arguments which are also valid and yet they are disregarded. There is the argument put up again and again as to the effect upon industries, and upon agriculture, in this country, of the low wages paid. We are setting up large industries in this country, and we surely in the future will have to be the main consumers of the goods and the produce which these industries give out, and it is impossible where the main mass of your labourers are receiving a wage on which they can scarcely feed their children—it is impossible that our industries and our farming industry can get the best out of the consumption which this country can rise to if the common labourer is not given an adequate wage. It seems to me that the wage given to the coloured labourer cannot be very much in excess of the old age pension which he is entitled to when old. The old age pension is given at an age when the man or woman has no family to look after, and I cannot help in comparing these figures coming to the conclusion that all is not right with regard to our wage system for the coloured and native people. They look to us for a square deal and I feel very strongly that it is the Government’s duty to set an example in this respect. And finally I would say this, that it is very bad for the reputation of this country and the view that other countries have of us, the international view of this country, if the outside world take cognisance of the extremely low rate of wage paid to our coloured labourer, and finally, surely from the point of view of the efficiency of the Railways itself it cannot be a good policy to pay your labourer such a rate that they can scarcely exist on it. So, as I said before, I believe that the wages of our coloured labourers and of our native labourers have reached that point, and are creating that position when it has become a national matter, when it will have serious repercussions on the position of the country, and I do appeal to the Minister go give it his consideration.

I want to acknowledge what the Minister and his Department have done, and to congratulate them. We realise that we are dealing here with the largest and the most important Administration in the country. This Administration is in touch with every section of the community in South Africa, small and large, rich and poor, old and young, with every class and every race, and everyone has to be satisfied. It is for that reason that I say this is the most important and most essential Department in the country. I admire the way in which it is administered. We find that in the Railway Service one gets courtesy and loyalty from the officials, and we can really say that the motto of our Railways to-day is: “Safety, security, speed and service.” It is because of that that I want to pay tribute to the Minister, but, furthermore, I also want to speak in terms of praise of the disciplined and loyal service rendered by the staff, who are mostly members of the Ossewa-Brandwag. May the other Departments emulate the good example of the Minister, and compel their members to join the Ossewa-Brandwag, so that they will also get that safety, security, and sense of duty in their service. May I draw the Minister’s attention to a few essential things, particularly in connection with the Railway from Cape Town to Bitterfontein? This unquestionably is one of the best paying railway lines in the country. If the Minister looks into it he will be able to convince himself that that is a paying line, and not a charitable line. In spite of that, we have a great many causes for complaint, and I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to certain things which causue a lot of inconvenience along that line. For instance, there are our Railway houses. From the Piquetberg side we have not a single decent Railway station. They are all corrugated iron hovels, very hot in summer and very cold in winter. It is unjust towards the officials who render loyal service and who are unable to do their work properly in those hot hovels. Then the Railway carriages are very miserable, and they are definitely becoming dangerous. I really want to say, Mr. Speaker, that the first class passenger coaches are equal to the third class passenger coaches on the main lines. That is unjust; we pay the same prices; when one buys a ticket there is no difference whatsoever. We have to pay exactly the same as on the main line, and in spite of that we are humiliated by having to travel in those coaches. If a man comes from a decent home and he drives about in a clean motor car, and he gets to a Railway station and has to get into a dirty old train which is in a miserable condition—so much so that it is degrading for one to use it— nobody can be surprised at the fact that he prefers to use his own motor car. The Minister is not conversant with conditions in those areas, and I should like him to come and visit us there, but do not let him come by himself, nor should he come in his special coach. Let him bring his wife with him, if he has a wife, and if, after he has visited us, he still approves of the conditions prevailing there, then I am convinced that his wife will protest against the way in which the trains and the passenger coaches are kept. He will take one trip there, but I am quite convinced that he will order his motor to take him back. I am very anxious that the Minister should personally come and see the railway line along the northwest coast, and I am anxious that he should personally make himself familiar with conditions prevailing there. We have no waiting rooms there; there is a great deal of discomfort, and we have to contend with a lot of difficulties. Yet I want to repeat that it is a paying line which we have there. Why, then, should all this injustice and discomfort be imposed upon us? Why should the profits made on that line be taken in order to provide other railway lines with comforts, and in order to build magnificent station buildings at small halts or sidings? We get very little for our money—others derive the benefit. There is one final point to which I wish to draw the Minister’s attention, and that is that our farmers are suffering considerable inconvenience owing to a tremendous shortage of trucks. I do not know whether this has anything to do with the fact that 100 trucks are missing which cannot be accounted for. But we have to wait for trucks all the time. The farmers fall over each other. Sometimes a couple of hundred trucks are required, and only 50 or 60 are available. This is a poor part of the country, and the people have to live from hand to mouth. Hon. members will therefore realise the inconvenience they have to put up with if it is impossible for them to send their products away without delay. Along the Oliphants River thousands of bags of oats are produced, which have to wait for trucks, and thousands of bales of lucerne are accumulated on account of the shortage of trucks. I particularly want to draw the Minister’s attention to these facts, and I want to appeal to him to have trucks sent to us more regularly. At times when we do not require them there are plenty of trucks available, but when we do need them our products are kept waiting, they accumulate, and we cannot get them moved by train. This is a very urgent matter, and I hope the Minister will have an enquiry instituted into the few points I have mentioned—I hope he will first of all have the question of the station buildings and waiting rooms looked into, and that next he will enquire into the passenger coaches which are in use, and, finally, I ask him to look into the question of the truck shortage.

I desire to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Dolley). Living in a Railway centre as I do, I have the opportunity of seeing and hearing about the loyalty of the employees of the Railways during these troublous times. I know for a fact that in every Railway centre they are doing their utmost in order to prosecute the war. Now there are two questions I want to put to the Minister, and the first is a question which is exercising the minds of merchants, that is, the question of shipping. I know that during these days shipping is under the control of the Admiralty, but I have been asked to put before the Minister whether, owing to the congestion at Durban and Cape Town, a few ships could not be diverted to East London and Port Elizabeth, especially for the export trade. A peculiar position has arisen at East London. A day or two ago I received a letter which showed very clearly what had happened. I think I should be giving the House some useful information if I read the main contents of that letter. The writer is a merchant doing a very fair amount of business, and what he writes applies not only to himself, but other merchants in the town dealing with the same commodity. He draws my attention to the fact that years ago East London was the principal port for wool export, and it used to be an important port for the shipment of hides and skins. Then he goes on to say what is happening to-day. He says that to-day 90 per cent. of the hides and skins have been sent to Port Elizabeth by train and shipped at Port Elizabeth, and he goes on to ask why we should not be able to ship those hides and skins from East London without sending them a distance of 150 miles to Port Elizabeth to be shipped. Then he has some very pertinent remarks about matters which he considers an absolute fraud. He says while he was in England the tanners there expressed disgust with the methods of South African shippers, and asked him if he would not try and stop some of them. “What,” he says, “am I to write and tell them when our Government seems to shut their eyes to this kind of thing? East London is one of the best ports in South Africa, and look at the revenue it is losing. Upwards of 180,000 lbs. was sent by one small firm in East London during October.” Here my correspondent has sent me the figures, and, speaking for myself, I was rather amazed at the quantity of skins and hides sent from East London, but not shipped from East London. For the week ending 2nd October, 10,900 lbs.; the next week 6,660 lbs.; the next, 4,000 lbs.; the next 3,900 lbs. I think it makes a total for the whole month of weight of hides and skins of 82,580 lbs. All they ask is whether ships cannot be diverted to East London instead of having to pay railage to Port Elizabeth and have the hides and skins shipped there. They look upon this question as a very serious one, and I hope the Minister will take this into consideration. The other point I want to raise is the position of employees of the South African Railway Administration under the Act of 1920. It has been represented to me by a number of railwaymen that there are a number of employees who served in the Great War, and they have asked me to state that they have not been dealt with under the same conditions as those of the men who went into rebellion in 1914, and were reinstated. I have the Act here before me, the Railways and Harbours Service Act of 1925. In that Act, clause 28 deals with certain periods of employment, and it is provided here that a servant who was discharged from the service on account of the rebellion in 1914, and was readmitted to the service, is entitled to have his service before the rebellion taken into account for all purposes of promotion. These men who served in the Great War asked to be treated in the same manner as is laid down here for those who went into rebellion.

On behalf of my constituents I want to express disappointment at the attitude adopted by the Minister in regard to the Road Motor agent at Hendrina. The Minister ordered an investigation. There is a certain man named Chami who is the motor road agent there. I am sorry that the Minister should leave the House now and I hope he will give his attention to this matter. This Chami is an Assyrian and he has occupied this post for a number of years. It is stated that irregularities have taken place and that this man thereupon joined the army. The result is that those irregularities cannot be enquired into. He cannot be sued because he is a member of His Majesty’s Forces. In the meantime this agent has very quietly handed over his agency to another Assyrian. I brought the matter to the Minister’s notice who sent a Commission of two people to Hendrina. It was a whitewashing Commission—one might just as well have brought a charge against the Devil before Statan. The Minister, however, has not seen his way to appoint a proper agent for the road motor service at that place. The position therefore is that Chami is a lieutenant in the Army and simultaneously he is the road motor service agent. The Minister will probably find out at some future date that the post occupied by this official is a very important one. May I be allowed to mention just a few facts. The area round about Hendrina is entirely dependent for its transport on the road motor service, and that road motor service to-day carries about a quarter of a million bags of mealies every year in addition to quantities of butter, eggs, potatoes and other products which are grown there. And then I am not even mentioning articles which are taken back from the stations, such as bags, salt, mealies meal, etc. Now, what is the position? That agent on the quiet appointed another Assyrian as agent—he appointed a fellow countryman. In other words, he put a substitute there and the Railways are content with that condition of affairs. The man is serving in the army and that is the reason why these alleged irregularities cannot be investigated. I have made complaints and the Minister has replied that he cannot see his way to take that man’s living away from him, and he is now keeping the position open for him when he returns from the war. As I have already said a large number of commodities and goods are convoyed by that road motor service. It is a responsible position and I hope that the appeal which I am making here will not be ignored but that that portion of my constituency which is dependent on that road motor service will be considered and that the position will be met by the appointment of a proper agent. Now, there is another point which I should like to bring to the Minister’s notice. It is really not necessary for me to tell the Minister this —he knows it better than I do—and that is that Springs has the worst and dirtiest railway station anywhere in the Union. Whether it is because of that that the most stupid railway clerk has been appointed there I do not know. On the 1st December I asked for a railway ticket to South-West Africa and my request was refused because the clerk told me that I could not go there without a permit. I knew, of course, that foreigners or people from other countries required permits if they wanted to go to South-West Africa, Rhodesia or Mozambique, but I was not aware of the fact that a Union citizen had to have a perimt if he wanted to go to South-West Africa by rail. I argued with this man but he told me that he knew his work, and he defintely refused to give me the ticket, so that I had to go to Johannesburg to buy a ticket there. He referred me to the Railway Police which would be able to give me the information. When I arrived at Johannesburg station I went to the Railway Police and I was very much put out to find that they were unable to tell me what the position was. They rang up head office and at head office a wretched fellow by the name of Abrahamson stated that I had to have a permit, that I had to postpone my journey, and that I could come and get a permit at their office the next morning. I mention this because this affair caused me a lot of inconvenience and I felt that I should bring these matters to the notice of the Minister of Railways.

I suppose from a business point of view the Minister can fairly argue that bounding revenues and bounding profits are matters for congratulation, and I agree with him if a strictly business interpretation is to be given to the administration of the system. But as one who lives in the interior, while I regard bounding revenue with a great deal of satisfaction, I do not regard bounding profits with any satisfaction at all. I feel that the vast proportion of the revenue of the railways is paid for by the interior, and I would like to see some of the profits which the railways are earning returned to those who produce them. Last year when the Minister estimated for a gross surplus of £2,910,000 and procedeed to allocate that surplus, nothing of it was allowed to go back to the people who pay the piper, who pay the freights and the passenger fares on the railways. I would appeal to the Minister that if he is now going to produce an additional surplus over that which he estimated, he will consider the question of reducing freights, especially on foodstuffs, building materials and all those items which go to increase the cost of living in the interior. I would also ask him to consider the amelioration of the condition of the worst paid members of his staff. That is a matter which has been referred to by a number of members, and it is not necessary for me to go into it. But I feel it would be a most unsatisfactory state of affairs if the Minister again produces a large surplus and does not allocate some of it in the direction of reducing freights, and trying to cut down, as far as possible, the cost of living in the interior. In this connection I would like to say that the Minister should make a special effort to reduce excursion fares from the interior to the coast. Excursion fares many years ago were very much cheaper than they are today. They were raised when it was found that the railways were hardly paying their way. The position to-day is that they are more than paying their way, and it would be a proper gesture on the part of the Minister if he were to make a substantial reduction as far as excursion fares are concerned. One other matter I would like to refer to. Last year I asked a question of the Minister in these terms—

And the answer was that the rents of departmental houses are based on rates of from ½d. to 1d. per square foot of floor area, according to the class of material of which the houses are constructed, the maximum not to exceed one-sixth of the substantive pay of the occupant. Then I asked him whether any difference is made between old houses and new, and the answer to that was “No.” It seems to me that that is a very unfair position. In Pretoria we have a railway reserve, many of the houses of which are more than 40 years old, they are brick and iron houses and they are very often in a dilapidated condition. They stand wall to wall, and are quite unsuited to the conditions of this country. The Minister has put up a number of new houses, and it seems to me unfair to the occupants of the old houses that they should be charged on exactly the same basis simply because the material used is the same in the new houses as in the old. I would ask the Minister to seriously consider whether some reduction should not be made in the rents of the old houses. I am not suggesting that he should put up the rent of the new houses, but that some progressive reduction should be made in the rent of the old houses. I think that that is a fair claim as far as the tenants are concerned, and a claim the satisfaction of which is overdue.

According to official returns appearing in the Government Gazette and the other information I obtained, it appears that for the past nine months there already is a surplus of £1,500,000 on the working of the Railways. On that basis I think that we are on safe ground if we say that at the end of this financial year there will be a surplus of at least £2,000,000. If we are going to have such a huge surplus then I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Pretoria City (Mr. Davis) stated, namely, that the Minister of Railways and Harbours should consider the question, in view of the fact that such a large surplus was coming out of the pockets of the public, of returning part of that surplus to that section of the public from whom it comes. I also want to associate myself with the hon. member where he stated that this amount was paid to a large extent by the people in the interior, and that it is no more than right that those people livingin the interior of this country who are producing this great revenue should have part of that surplus returned to them. I therefore want to repeat what I have said in the past on several occasions, and for which I have repeatedly pleaded, namely, that the time has arrived for the Minister of Railways and Harbours seriously to consider the question of a reduction of railway rates in order to help the farming population in that way. The hon. member for Pretoria City drew attention to the fact that railway excursion rates should be reduced. I can only repeat what I have also stated on previous occasions, namely, that the price of railway tickets in 1914 was very much lower than it is now, and I would have expected rates for long journeys, especially for journeys between Cape Town and Kimberley and Cape Town and Johannesburg, to have been less than they were in the past. Those railway fares are exceptionally high, and of course the travelling public has to pay these high fares, and it would be no more than reasonable if the Minister were to take steps to come to the assistance of the public in that respect. The Act of Union lays it down that the railways are to be run on business principles, and I do feel that everybody will agree that it is no more than fair that those who pay and are responsible for the large surplus of revenue over expenditure should be taken into consideration, and that in the circumstances they should get relief where relief is due. I want to make a special appeal to the Minister to come to the aid of people in those far-flung areas which are served by the road motor services. We in those parts of the country have asked for railway lines, and when we are given road motor services instead of railways we were told that we should support those services, and that in doing so we would assist the Government towards reducing the rates so that they would be on a level with the rates paid over the railways. We were promised that our road motor service rates would be more or less the same as those paid on the Railways. Anyone making a comparison will at once agree that the rates for road motor services are much higher than ordinary railway rates, and as we have a large surplus now, which I have shown, I want to express the hope that the Minister will avail himself of the opportunity to reduce the rates which are charged to-day on the road motor services. In this connection I want to refer the Minister to page 43 of the Auditor-General’s report dealing with Railway accounts. If he looks at that he will see that, according to the Auditor-General’s report, there is a profit on road motor services which in the past were always run at a loss, and that loss has always been held up by the Railway Department as an argument against reducing rates. We were told that we would have to wait until the road motor services showed a surplus before we could expect a reduction in rates. We find that, according to paragraph 25 on page 45 of the statement of accounts, there has been a profit of £12,525 on the running of road motor services for the year. I am confining my remarks now to road motor services. The expenditure, inclusive of interest and capital, amounted to £722,168, while the receipts amounts to £804,693, thus giving a profit of £12,525 for the year in comparison with a loss of £28,470 for the previous year. That means therefore that the loss of £28,470 for the previous year has been turned into a profit of £12,252. That being so, I, as a member representing those areas where we have to be served by road motor buses, think that we are entitled to ask the Minister to consider the question of reducing the rates for the sake of those people and those farmers who have to avail themselves of those particular services. I hope the Minister will consider the matter. Now I particularly want to ask this question: We find here— other hon. members have put forward the same complaint as the House will remember— that instead of expanding the necessary services, those services are being either curtailed or suspended. I do not think it is right to do that sort of thing. I have a letter here from the Department of Railways in which I am told that on instructions from the Minister of Railways I am to be informed that in view of the fact that the Black Ridge Asbestos Mine has been closed down, it has been decided to discontinue the road motor service between Volop and Black Ridge. That road motor service had been established not so much for the purpose of helping the mine, as for the purpose of helping the farmers in the neighbourhood, and now we find that the department is more concerned with the interest of the mine than it is with the interest of the farmers in the area, and because the mine has been shut down for some reason or another—I do not know what the reason may be—the department suddenly comes to the conclusion that the motor service must also be terminated, although the department is expecting a surplus at the end of the financial year. I want to emphasise that that sort of thing is unfair, and I hope the Minister will again consider the question of reinstituting the service and thus satisfying the people there.

I also want to ask the Minister of Railways whether he would be gracious enough—it might make some slight difference to the Estimates, but on the other hand it would be received by many people with great satisfaction—to allow the sailors and soldiers in uniform to travel free on the Cape Town-Simon’s Town Railways. Many of these men get very small pay. The amenities of Simon’s Town are very few, and there is very little for a sailor to do when he comes ashore in a place like Simon’s Town, whereas Cape Town has many attractions which will enable that man to have some relief from the monotony of the sea. After all, these sailors are keeping the seas open for ourships and our goods, and they are risking their lives so as to make it possible for our ships to travel safely over the seas. It would be a small thing to allow them to travel free just as the Municipality of Cape Town and the Tramway Company allowing sailors and soldiers to travel free on their conveyances. It would be a gracious thing for the Government to do and grant the sailors and soldiers that privilege. After all the railway line to Simon’s Town is only a glorified bus drive. Another point I want to touch upon which was touched upon earlier on by an hon. member representing a Natal constituency, is in regard to the Graving Dock, and he emphasised the strategic importance of having a graving dock at Cape Town. Although this war will not last for ever there will always be a risk of war. The fleets of the world may be engaged near the Cape, and you want a big graving dock here, big enough to take the biggest ships where they can be repaired in the event of their suffering damage. If these ships are flying our own flag or the flag of our Allies, it will be very necessary to have such a graving dock so as to enable them to resume the work on which they are engaged. I hope the Minister will give me a favourable reply on this point.

It struck me very forcibly that we had requests made from the other side of the House for an increase in the wages of coloured people, for a free ticket for soldiers and sailors and all the rest of it, but so far as I have been able to follow the debate nobody on the other side of the House put up a plea in the interest of the farming population. I cannot help it, but as attention has been drawn to individual cases where bus services have been terminated, I want to say a few words on the national aspect of the matter. I am sorry that I did not put my questions to the Minister in this regard sooner, but I hope he will now be able to tell me this:

1. (1) How many bus services have already been discontinued during the past year,
2. (2) In regard to how many has notice been given that they will be discontinued?

We have heard during this debate of cases where bus services have been discontinued or are being discontinued, but I want to ask now why so many of these services have been discontinued during the past year. It seems to me that the argument is that bus services are being discontinued because the buses are almost empty nowadays, but how is it that they are now so suddenly discontinuing those services? But before I pursue that point I want to ask the Minister of Railways whether he knows that before he took office as Minister of Railways there had been a tremendous expansion in connection with bus services, especially under the Fusion Government. Those bus services were not instituted without certain conditions having been laid down. There was a definite demand that no bus service was to be established unless a good road had been laid down. As the Minister knows we have divisional councils in the Cape which impose taxes on local bodies in order to obtain the necessary funds for the construction of various roads, and if a road is not a proclaimed road the farmers have to make the road and pay for it out of their own pockets. Consequently, numbers of farmers bought machinery for the construction of roads and they had to pay the expense out of their own pockets, and very often the cost was high. As I have already explained to the Railway Board in correspondence, and as I have also personally explained to members of the Board, the farmers and the Divisional Councils incurred this expense on the express understanding that they would either get these road motor services, or that they would keep them. In many instances the service had been running for as long as nine months and longer when complaints were received that a particular road was not good. After that those bodies incurred additional expense in order to keep their bus services. But what is happening to-day? Throughout the country bus services have been discontinued, as a result of which considerable damage has been done to farmers. I am personally conversant with cases where farmers have supported the bus services to such an extent that they have sold their lorries because, they argued, if they had a bus service and a lorry it meant their being disloyal to one or the other. Consequently the farmers sold their lorries because they looked upon lorries as being redundant, and they made up their minds to use the bus services. To-day the farmers are left high and dry. The bus service has been discontinued, and they have sold their lorries. I was told that it was the policy of the Department that where there was a depot the question of profit or loss on a specific service was not specially taken into account, but the bus services of that depot in general were taken into account, and at the end of the year there might possibly be a loss on one route and a profit on another one, and the profit and loss were put up against each other, so that the services could be maintained for that particular area. But now the policy has been changed. If a particular service is not showing a profit, it is discontinued, and one can make as much fuss as one likes and put the whole position before the Railway Board and point out the trouble which will ensue if the service is discontinued—nothing can be done. I must tell the Minister that the policy is knocking us silly. The Minister apparently forgets that the bus services are the veins which feed the main lines and support the main lines. Consequently, if there is a loss on the bus service, the Minister must take into account the value of the service as feeders to the Railways. Assuming for a moment that the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs were to introduce a policy similar to that of the Minister of Railways, namely, to do away with telephone lines which did not pay, what would be the result? The principle is entirely wrong. And not only that, but one should always look at the progress and the development of the country, and not only at a temporary loss at a branch line. So far as I know, the principle is being applied that 10 per cent. of the revenue on main lines is placed to the credit of the branch lines, because the branch lines of the Railways act as feeders to the main lines. These bus services are nothing but branch lines, and I want to ask the Minister whether he will not be prepared to place part of the profit on the main lines to the credit of the bus services. If that were done he might perhaps not be disposed to discontinue them in the way he has done in the past. We understand that there is going to be a large surplus at the end of the year so far as the working of the Railways is concerned. If that is so, are we going to get a reduction of rates, or otherwise, if the rates are to remain as they are, will the Minister use portion of his surplus to keep going the bus services which are not paying? That will not only help the farmers, but it will promote the progress of the country as a whole. I have a letter here which I received in reply to a request I made on the subject of a bus service which was to be discontinued. I pointed to various reasons why the bus service should not be discontinued, and I suggested that if it did not pay to run a bus every week, they should run a bus every fortnight, and if that did not pay, every month. What was the answer? That my suggestion was impracticable from the point of view of enabling the farmers to carry their goods, their farming and domestic requirements by a monthly bus service. My suggestion was that a bus would run on a certain day every month, so that the farmers would make a note of that and be able to have their goods, their coal, their salt and their skins, etc., transported regularly once a month. The reply from the Department was that a service like that would not be practicable, and that very few, if any, farmers would place their orders on a specific date and thus enable such a bus to carry those goods every month. What right has the Minister to say that? Can he prove by means of facts that similar services have been introduced in the past which have not given good results? I am thoroughly convinced that if my suggestion is agreed to that bus will not have room on that specific day of the month for all the stuff that has to be carried. As a matter of fact, I know of bus services which even to-day are not able to carry all the products which the farmers want to be transported. I do not want to drag politics into this, but it does seem to me that the Railways want to hide their great surplus in order to use it for the continuation of the war, and in order to foster war purposes. There are a few other matters which I wish to bring to the Minister’s notice. First of all, I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) said in regard to the train which does not arrive here in time. If one has to attend a meeting in Cape Town, such a meeting is usually called for nine o’clock or half past nine, but one can do what one likes, yet one is always half an hour or so late, and for the convenience of one or two passengers only the train has to take a detour via Stellenbosch. This sort of thing causes great inconvenience, and I think the Railways must be losing money by it, because if one has to be in Cape Town at a particular time one takes a motor car. The policy of the Railways in the past used to be to convey passengers as fast as possible, and if they have to make this detour of 15 miles one feels that the Railways are now deliberately slowing down the speed of the trains, which should not be done. The Minister, I believe, replied that at nine o’clock there is no accommodation for trains to enter the station if those trains come from other parts of the country. I would ask him whether there are no other trains from the interior which come into Cape Town Station round about nine o’clock. I believe that the train from the South-Western districts arrives here at 9.10. Why, then, cannot the trains from Johannesburg arrive here at that time? In my constituency there are a fairly large number of Railway workers, and I am ge tting complaints that a large quantity of cutlery is thrown out of the windows by soldiers, and that the Railway staff is held responsible and has to pay if any of the cutlery is lost. If that is so, I want to ask the Minister whether he considers it fair that those people should be held responsible for things of that kind over which they have no control. I have personally seen that it is impossible for them to have control. Why then should they be held responsible? The hon. member for Cape Town Flats (Mr. R. J. du Toit), who unfortunately is not here at the moment, made a remark which was rather small, namely, that we were mentioning trifling matters, and he spoke of two bananas. If the hon. member had had the intelligence, he would have known that the hon. member who mentioned this incident mentioned it for the good of the fruit farmers as such. If one cannot get fruit on the train, and that was what the hon. member was complaining about, then it is a matter of the greatest concern to the fruit farmers. I should also like to draw the Minister’s attention to another matter, and that is that on the suburban trains more and more coloured people are travelling in first class compartments. It struck me that there has been a decided increase in the number of coloured men and women travelling first class this year as compared with the past. I know the Minister will say that he cannot introduce a colour bar, and that he cannot prohibit coloured people from travelling in first class compartments. If that is so, I want to ask him why a Bill has been passed to introduce a colour bar relating to several parts of this country. The Minister of Lands, at the request of this side of the House, approved of the introduction of a colour bar at bathing resorts along the coast. The Minister must have seen from the Press that there has been a case in court in this connection. Why, then, cannot coloured people be stopped from travelling in the same compartment as white people? I am afraid that this matter is assuming serious proportions for the future. I understand that coloured people from Kimberley travel North in first and second class coaches; will they be content to travel third class on their return to the Union? I am afraid we are creating great difficulties for the future, and I want to warn the Government that 90 per cent. of their English supporters support the coloured policy which this side of the House stands for. There may be a few members opposite who are dependent on the coloured vote and who plead the cause of the coloured people, but even the Government’s English-speaking supporters feel that one cannot mix whites and coloureds. Otherwise, we will get the same position which we already have on the buses in Cape Town, where coloured people take the seats and ladies have to stand. For these reasons I want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible for him at least to introduce a dividing line. I do not think the Minister is anxious to have the same position on the Railways as we have on the buses to-day. But that is the position which is developing on the suburban line. Only yesterday in a shelter reserved for first class passengers on one of the suburban stations, I found that the benches were taken up by coloured people, and there was no room for whites. If the Minister does not stop this, he will have a lot of trouble in the future. I only want to thank the Minister now for what he has done for us in regard to Railway houses at Williston. I only want to say to the Minister that not only should those Railway houses be changed into stone houses, but that climatic conditions there make it necessary for the railway station to be changed. Furthermore, we should get a new station at Britstown. It should have been built long ago.

I only wish to draw the Minister’s attention to the very high railway rate charged on the carriage of onions. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that there is no poorer section than the vegetable farmers, and the railway rate on onions is particularly high. I have a goods delivery note here for 100 bags of onions sent from Tulbagh to Johannesburg. The weight of the 100 bags was 13,653 lbs., and the railway rate was £11 14s. 5d. In addition to that, one has the market fees, and as the man only gets a low price for his onions, 8s. and so on, the Minister will see that the rate hits him very hard. I want to ask the Minister to go into this question and to meet the position of those farmers.

I move—

Mr. FRIEND seconded.

Agreed to.

Debate adjourned: to be resumed on 13th February.

I move—

The hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. N. J. Schoeman) had an amendment which could have had the very opposite effect. It would have meant that the owner would have had to pay. As the amendment reads now we effect what he wanted.

Mr. FRIEND seconded.

Amendment put and agreed to.

In Clause 7,

Mr. SPEAKER put the amendment in line 60 of Clause 7, which was agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER put the amendment in lines 63 to 68 of Clause 7, which was negatived.

I move—

I made a promise to the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) that I would enquire whether the amendment would affect what was intended by it. After having gone into the matter it was found that the wording which I am now proposing is the right wording. I may say that I saw the hon. member for George and that he agreed with this amendment.

Mr. FRIEND seconded.

Amendment put and agreed to.

In Clause 12,

Before you take the next amendment I should like to ask the indulgence of the House to move another amendment to Clause 12. I would like to move it as an unopposed motion. It is an amendment which was brought to me by the Chamber of Commerce to allow certain publication. It seems a fair amendment and I do not think it is contentious. I move—

1. (3) Before the publication of a proclamation under sub-section (1) the Minister shall cause to be published in the “Gazette” a notice setting forth the purport of the proposed proclamation and calling upon all interested persons who have any objections to lodge them in writing with the Director of Forestry within thirty days of the date of publication thereof.

It is really to give notice of intention to publish certain regulations.

Mr. MUSHET seconded.

Amendment put and agreed to.

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

I move as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

I move—

I hope that the Minister will not insist on the third reading being taken now. We made amendments in the text of the Bill at the report stage, and we would like to check those amendments. I must therefore object to the third reading being taken now.

Third reading on 13th February.

I move—

This is the Bill which is usually introduced at this time of the year. The object of it is to make provision for the carrying on of the ordinary services until such time as the main Appropriation Bill has been passed for the next financial year. As hon. members know, it is not to be expected that that will be able to take place before the 31st March, and therefore financial provision will have to be made for the first part of the financial year. This Bill is intended to make that provision on a sufficient scale to carry us over until the time when the main Appropriation Bill will be passed according to expectation. It is not customary for the Minister of Finance to make a speech on the introduction of this Bill. The estimates will be laid on the Table shortly, and there will be ample opportunity to debate the financial position of which I will then make proper use. It is expected that the estimates will be ready for laying on the Table on the 12th March. I mention that date provisionally, but in all probability the budget speech will be made on the 12th March, and the budget debate will then commence on the following Monday, 17th March. As I have said, this Bill makes provision for the carrying on of the ordinary services, and only on the basis of the Appropriation Acts which were passed during the last financial year. It therefore does not give the Government the right to start any new services. We can only do that after the principal Appropriation Act has been passed.

I would like, in the first place, strongly to object to the way in which the Minister of Finance is treating this House in connection with this matter. The Minister of Finance comes here to-night and he asks that the amount of £25,000,000 shall be given them to carry on the administration of the country during the new financial year. It is a large amount. It is twice as much as what is usually asked for, and I think we are entitled to expect, Parliament is entitled at least even at this stage to get, some detail from the Minister in connection with the state of the finances of the country, and of our prospects in the future. I think that the House is entitled to that. But the Minister has told us absolutely nothing. He says that we must wait until he introduces the main budget. In the second place there is another aspect of the matter, to which I want to make special objection, and it is to the effect that the Minister of Finance is here deviating from what I can only describe as a fixed rule, which has been followed up to the present in connection with part appropriation Bills, the rule, to wit, that the Minister of Finance shall first of all have laid the estimates of expenditure for the new year on the Table of the House before he asks for the advance. I may say here that that is a fixed rule in the House. I have taken a great deal of trouble to ascertain what the practice is which has been followed by this House during the past 20 years. I find that since 1923 over an unbroken period of eleven years, from 1923 till 1933, there was not a single departure from that rule that the Minister of Finance should first of all lay his estimates of expenditure on the Table before he asked for an advance. During that period between 1923 and 1933 we had two elections. We had one in 1921, and we had another one in 1929. In an election year it is usually sufficient excuse for a Minister of Finance not to follow the admitted rule, because usually the session before the election is a short session. That is usually sufficient excuse for not laying the estimates on the Table before applying for the advance, but even those election years were no exception. The estimates of expenditure were laid on the Table before the Minister asked for his advance. From 1923 to 1940 there were only three departures from it. One departure took place in 1938, and because the Leader of the Opposition at that time was afraid that a dangerous precedent would be created, he thought that it would be necessary for him personally to make a serious protest against it. We have had a fixed rule here, but the Minister of Finance simply evades it without making the slightest excuse or apology to the House. I just want to say this, that if there was reason in the past why the estimates of expenditure should be laid on the Table before the Minister asked for the advance, then there is a hundred times more reason for it to-day. If there ever was a time in the history of South Africa, and I can say if there ever was a time in the history of this House, when the House could not blindly vote money, that the House should clearly know what it was being asked to do before it took a step, and that the House should count the cost step by step before taking that course, if there ever was a time for that, then it is to-day. No hon. member will deny that we are living in a time when expenditure has risen in an alarming manner. Our expenditure has been doubled in one year. In 1939-’40 our expenditure from revenue account and from loan account was something over £60,000,000. This year it will be something over £120,000,000. In one year the expenditure has risen from £60,000,000 to £120,000,000.

But this is an abnormal war period.

There you are, Mr. Speaker. That is all the more reason why this side of the House cannot blindly vote the money. It appears from everything that hon. members opposite do, that they have the war on their brain and that they are war-mad.

And yet on the other side you voted £14,000,000 without a debate.

We noted a protest at every stage of that Bill. I say that we are living in a time of an alarming increase in expenditure. In the second place we have the attitude of hon. members opposite that any war expenditure is justified, an attitude which is of such a kind that it is all the more necessary for this side to take up a very strong and determined attitude. It is clear from everything hon. members opposite do, and I want to emphasise this, that it looks as if they have lost all financial conscience with regard to war expenditure.

And yet you voted £14,000,000 for the war without debating it.

It looks as if hon. members opposite, from the Minister of Finance down to the most humble back-bencher, have lost all financial conscience with regard to war expenditure. They are not concerned about the rise of expenditure. This appears even from what the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) said. He says that he is not concerned about it, but that he welcomes it. The Government is increasing its influence amongst my hon. friends opposite in proportion to the extra amounts it spends on the war. My hon. friends on the crossbenches are in their element, so far as the Government is concerned, because they spent £60,000,000 on the war last year, and because there is a prospect that they are going to spend £72,000,000 during the coming year. I say again that hon. members opposite have lost all financial conscience in regard to war expenditure. I can only say, Mr. Speaker, that this side of the House feels that the brake should be applied. We on our side are not prepared blindly to give the Minister £25,000,000. I would like, at this stage, to make some comment on what the Minister said. He referred to the Bill, and said, and that was sufficient for my hon. friends opposite, that he was not able to create new services. I admit that. But that is not the danger. The danger is not of the Government creating new services during the next few months, but the actual danger is that the Government will spend more money on a particular service, and that too little will be left for the other services. One service is over-provided for, and the others are starved. We on this side of the House are not prepared to allow the Minister to do that.

If you were in favour of the war, what expenditure would you have cut out?

In the first place, I say that the expenditure has gone up alarmingly in one year. I do not believe that there is anyone who seriously thinks over the position who does not feel that South Africa cannot go on in this way. In the second place, hon. members opposite have shown that they are war mad—the more the Government spends on the war the more satisfied they are—and in the third place, we have no guarantee that the Minister of Finance will maintain the equilibrium and will continue to hold it equal between the different services, and not spend too much on the war and too little on the other services. Our only guarantee would still have been if we had the estimates before us. Then we should at any rate have known broadly how the Minister was going to spend the money. Because he has not done so, we are obliged to demand certain guarantees by way of amendment, and therefore I would like to move an amendment to the motion of the Minister—

1. (a) immediately to suspend all expenditure under the heading “Defence” which is not strictly in accordance with the Defence Act and not within the limits thereof;
2. (b) to make better provision for essential social services and for combating unemployment;
3. (c) to pay an adequate cost of living allowance to all persons in the service of the Government;
4. (d) to develop and strengthen, according to an effectively formulated scheme, the permanent sources of national prosperity, viz., the farming and the secondary industries; and
5. (e) to spread the burden of taxation more evenly and equitably over the various classes of the population.

I would like to say a few words on each of these points in my amendment. The first is very important, because it states the Nationalist attitude plainly in regard to the war. All expenditure on defence must immediately be stopped, when it is not being incurred under the Defence Act and within the four corners of the Defence Act. Now there can be no misunderstanding in the future about the attitude of this side of the House.

This is the first time in history that this has happened.

Therefore we say clearly in our amendment that we on this side of the House want to have nothing to do with an aggressive war, and we are not prepared to vote a penny for it. It is a thing which gradually fills people with aversion. When on the 4th September we were asked to declare war, the present Government did its best to persuade the people that our only role in this was going to be defensive action. Accordingly we had the stipulation in the motion of the Prime Minister that we were going to send no troops overseas. The impression that had to be created was that we were going to act on the defensive. We were not going to do what was done during the previous war and send troops out of the country. Even when the Government decided to send troops to Kenya they always tried to preserve the appearance that our country was going to act on the defensive in this war. Further attempts were also made to preserve that appearance, because the argument which they used was that the modern way of conducting war was such that you could not wait until the enemy was on your borders, but you must go and meet him. The appearance was preserved. Now finally the appearance has disappeared. The mask fell the other day from the face of the Prime Minister when he said, in reply to our request for information as to what we were fighting for, that they were fighting to get the Italians out of Africa. We are now going to chase the Italians out of Abyssinia and Northern Africa. I just want to say on behalf of this side of the House that South Africa has no interest in the matter of reinstating a negro state in Abyssinia, she has no interest in reinstating Haile Selassie as negro emperor of Abyssinia. That may be in the interests of England, but it is most certainly not in the interests of South Africa. We are not prepared to spend £16,000,000 a year for that purpose, and so far as the Italians in Northern Africa are concerned, we say that we are not interested in the Italians being driven out. That may also be in the interests of England, but South Africa is not concerned in the matter. May I ask you what the position will be if France were to-morrow to come into the war on the side of the Axis Powers? We are asked to-day to drive the Italians out of Northern Africa, to-morrow we shall probably be asked to drive the French out, and the day after to assist in driving the Spaniards out of Northern Africa. We want to have nothing to do with this aggressive war, and we are not prepared to spend a penny on it. We stand by the Defence Act of the country, and we want South Africa to be capable of defence, but not that we should prosecute an aggressive war. The second point is that we ask for ample provision to be made for the supply of the necessary social services, and for the combating of unemployment. In the course of the financial year, the year which has not yet been ended, the Minister of Finance found that he suddenly needed more money for prosecuting the war than what had already been provided. Then, in order to get more money, he commenced to make use of retrenchment, he commenced to save on existing services. In August last year, when Parliament was suddenly summoned, the Minister said that in order to get more money for the war, he intended to save an amount of £7,000,000, £1,000,000 on revenue account and £6,000,000 on loan account. Now in January the Minister mentioned with a feeling of pride that he had actually succeeded in saving more than £7,000,000. What the precise amount was we do not yet know, and the Minister has not deigned this evening to tell us. One thing we know, and that is that in consequence of this saving by the Minister, by cutting the necessary services, the Minister has throughout the country created a problem of unemployment, and there are many places in our country, not merely so far as George is concerned, where there is a serious problem of unemployment, as serious as we have had for years. The official figures of the Minister do not in any way reflect the position. According to the Minister’s figures, there are altogether 700 unemployed in the country. The charitable associations on the Rand jointly published the fact that on the Rand alone there were 6,000 unemployed. I can testify that in my consttiuency there is more unemployment than there has been for years. Young people are begging and praying for work, and cannot get it, and the only impression we get is that the Government has created unemployment to force the people to join up.

And those, forsooth, are the volunteers!

Thank God, there are still people in South Africa who are prepared to starve rather than to go and fight for the Empire. The Minister has saved on this occasion, has saved a large amount on his loan programme by cutting out a part of the loan programme, but—and this is the charge which we have brought against the Minister and bring again—the Minister has economised on necessary services, and the worst of all is that the Minister, in the course of this year, has actually cut down the old age pensions and the invalidity grants to obtain money for the war.

That is not true.

It is true.

Since I made that statement in this House, and since it has appeared in the newspapers that the Minister said it was untrue, that the Minister had denied it. I have day after day received letters from people who had actually been affected by the economy measures of the Minister.

How many?

I have a few here which I have selected in order to quote to the Minister. Here I have one from Cradock. The name of the man is Rossouw. He says that he read in the newspapers that I accused the Minister of having economised on the old age pensions, and that the Minister had denied it. Rossouw declares that up to two months ago he received an old age pension of £3 10s., but since then it has been reduced to £3. The next is an old lady, Mrs. Ehlers, of Grootbrak River. She says that she always got £2 a month, and her husband £3, in all £5; suddenly they received notice that the husband’s pension was reduced to £2. These pool old people have to contribute £1 for the carrying on of the war. Here is a certain Crafford, of De Rust, Oudtshoorn. He says that he always received £2 5s. a month, but now it is suddenly reduced to £1 a month. There is another, a Mrs. Geere, a widow. She says that she always received £3, but now she has suddenly received notice that her pension has been reduced to £1 12s. 4d., about half. That is the experience of every member of Parliament, and that is the reproach which we are making against the Minister. It is cruel to retrench these small amounts out of the small grants which the old people are getting, for the purpose of finding money to carry on the war. I am going to tell you that my impression is that the Government, on the other hand, has lost all perspective. What did we read in the newspapers the other day? When a coloured person suddenly decides to drive a motor lorry for the Department of Defence—he need not go to the North and fight, but he can decide to drive a lorry in South Africa—then his wife at home will get, even if she is absolutely alone, and allowance of £7 10s. a month. But if a white man works throughout his entire life for the Department of Defence, and loses his health in the service of the Department, and is unfit for further service, then he gets a maintenance grant for himself and the whole of his family of £3 10s., and, from that, 10s. is being deducted now. The coloured man’s wife gets £7 10s. If the coloured man to-day decides to drive a lorry for the Department of Defence, then his wife gets a £7 10s. allowance, but when a white man has spent the whole of his life in the service of the Department, he gets an allowance of £3 10s. if he loses his health, and, because there is not enough money for the war, and not enough to pay the allowances of the coloured wives, his allowance is reduced from £3 10s. to £3. The third point on which we lay emphasis is that adequate cost of living allowances must be paid to every person in the service of the State. I want to say that I appreciate that the Minister, when he decided to pay a cost of living allowance, thought in the first instance of the low-paid men, and I understand, and I should be glad if it proves to be so, that the lowest-paid men in the service of the State are also going to receive the cost of living allowance. I hope I am right in that connection, and that the plantation workers, for instance, the daily paid men who get 5s. 6d. a day, will get the allowance first of all. We appreciate that, but what I think no one in South Africa can understand is what the basis of calculation of the Minister is. How does the Minister arrive at the fact that the cost of living to-day has only risen by four or five or six per cent.? Nobody can understand it. I do not believe that there is a single housewife in the country who understands it. We know this, that the women’s societies throughout the country have tried from their experience— they are dealing with the matter day after day—to make a calculation in the rise of the cost of living, and their calculation was that the cost of living has gone up 10 per cent. more than what the Department says. The women are doing this not for political reasons, and they are not looking for party advantage. They know from their own experience that the cost of living has risen far more than the Minister says. But what is particularly interesting is—and this will particularly interest my hon. friends in the Labour Party—that the workers of South Africa feel so bitter, the organised workers, about the question of the cost of living, that they have decided to convene a conference on Easter Monday, and this is the motion on which they are going to come to a decision—

It has not yet been passed.

No, but the conference of organised workers has been specially convened to pass it. The thing is that I do not believe….

Is that the motion by Sachs?

The point is that no housewife in the country will agree in regard to the basis of calculation of the Government. The charitable organisations have tried by virtue of their experience, to fix the amount of the rise in the cost of living. Their calculation is at least 10 per cent. higher than that given by the Government, and now the workers themselves come along and they also believe that the basis of calculation of the Government is quite out of proportion with the actual facts. We ask that an adequate allowance in respect of the cost of living shall be paid to all persons in the service of the state. The next thing we ask for, and this is of importance, is that the Government will not devote all its attention to waging war, but that it is high time that it is now the time, for the Government to give its attention to the question of strengthening and developing the permanent sources of the prosperity of the people in our country. I do not want to say much to-day about the farming industry. Other speakers will do that. But I think that the feeling with us here generally is that there is to-day a conspiracy against the farmer to prevent his getting any benefit out of the war. That is the feeling which we all have, a conspiracy on the part of all the vested interests in the country, commencing with the Government, to prevent the farmer from getting the least advantage out of the war conditions. Every business has a margin as to the profit which it can make, but not the farmer. That of the farmer is controlled from morning till night. Let me give an example of the distinction between the farming industry and the Chamber of Mines. The Chamber of Mines is guaranteed against any rise in working expenses. The Minister admitted that. If there is a rise then it is deducted before the tax comes into operation. But if the wheat farmer’s costs go up, then if an increase is allowed in the price of his product of 2s., then he has to pay 1s. out of his own pocket. That is the difference.

I hope hon. members will not go into that and anticipate a motion which is on the Order Paper in connection with it.

No, Mr. Speaker. I just want to draw attention to the fact that we feel that there is a conspiracy against the farmers. A fence has been erected round the farmers, the farmers are not able to move. All the industries in the country get an advantage out of the state of war except the farmer. The farmer cannot make an extra penny of profit to-day. Hon. members on the other side, amongst others I am thinking of the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) said that the position of the farmer could not be too bad, because one notices how the farmers are paying off their debts to the Land Bank. I just want to cell him that the farmer, when he pays off his mortgage bond to-day, does not do so from the luxury of over-supply, but he does it because he has learnt the bitter lesson in the past that after the war there will be a terrible depression, and he is trying to strengthen his position. But what we do ask is that what is done for others should also be done for the farmer— not at the expense of the public, but we ask that the farmer shall get the same benefit as the other industries in the country. Now I want to say a few words in connection with our secondary industries. Every time the Minister of Finance gets up he refers to the flourishing condition of our industries. I do not wish to deny that there are some of our industries that are flourishing to-day, but I want to say that the industries which are specially flourishing are those which supply the needs for carrying on the war, and the danger exists that the indsutries are developing too fast, and that South Africa will have to pay the price when the war is over. The attitude on this side is that we feel that this is the time when the Government, even if they have to take the initiative themselves, should see to it that key industries are built up in South Africa. I just want to remind hon. members opposite of the point that when the Nationalist Party came forward in regard to the establishment of Iscor, the iron and steel industry, there was a tremendous opposition on the part of hon. members on the other side. To-day Iscor is not only a success but it has led to the establishment of other factories in connection with the iron and steel industry. The establishment of that key industry was the cause of that great indsutrial development, and similarly we would like other key industries to be established to-day.

As, for example?

When I speak of key industries then I mean industries which are established to work up our surplus produce in South Africa. They are not industries for which there is only a need to-day, but which will no longer be necessary after the war is over. But in connection with that, the Government is doing absolutely nothing. Requests have been made here from both sides that the Government should, for instance, try to establish our own shipyards, to build our own commercial ships—not big ships but in the first instance small ships for the coastal service. The whole of Africa is calling for trade, the Belgian Congo is situated at our doorstep, and wants to carry on trade, but the shipping facilities are lacking. All the Government has done was to buy a motor boat for £150. That is their contribution. I am thinking of an industry like the tinned meat factory for the working up of our surplus meat. I am thinking of a petrol industry for the use of our surplus mealies in South Africa. If a few of those factories were established, and the war ended, and the world was in the depths of despair, then we would be better able to stand our own ground. But the Government is blind to other interests. They have the war on the brain, and in the meantime splendid chances are being lost to South Africa. Just a last word about the burden of taxation. Here I would like to say a word directly to the Minister of Finance, and also to the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell). We know that the Minister needs more money for the war, and the trouble is that he—the danger exists—will again impose new taxation and again put his hands deeply into the pockets of the taxpayers. We would like to have the assurance of the Minister that if there are any new taxes to be imposed, he on this occasion will not give a special privilege to certain industries in South Africa and lay the burden only on a certain section of the community. The Minister did that last year. And here I would like to find fault with the Minister as well as with the hon. member for Kensington, because when the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) complained that the Government had twice running this year taxed the income taxpayers in our country by first repealing the 30% rebate and then increasing the income tax by 20%, then the hon. member for Piquetberg added that it worked out at an increase of 71%. The point is that the ordinary taxpayer is made to pay an extra tax twice in the course of the year, while the gold mining industry is only taxed once, and that for a negligible amount. [Time extended.] I just want to say this, that the abolition of the rebate with regard to the income taxpayers, meant an amount of £1,800,000, and that the increase of the income tax by 20% in the case of persons and companies, also represents £1,800,000 that is a total of £3,600,000. And our charge against the Government is that inasmuch as it has twice put its hand into the pocket of the taxpayer, the gold mining industry, the richest industry which we have in South Africa, the one industry which is having a time of prosperity to-day, such as it has never had before, the gold mining industry is only taxed once in the course of the year, and that to the insignificant extent of £850,000. The hon. member for Kensington wants to make out that the tax which was imposed by Mr. Havenga was a war tax. Not only was the tax imposed before the war, but it moreover had nothing to do with the war.

This is splitting hairs.

It is not splitting hairs. A Havenga tax cannot be a war tax. The tax would have been imposed even if no war had come about. I hope that that is the last that we shall hear of that. We would like the Government to be honest. If the Government is afraid to tax the mines, let them say so openly, then the whole country will know it. But to be afraid to tax and then to throw out a smoke screen is not honest, but it is misleading propaganda, and we want to ask the Minister, in the new year, if taxation has to be imposed, to allow the gold mines to contribute their share to the war burdens and the war expenditure. We are constantly reproached with not being positive with being negative. We are positive, not negative. We sound a clear note on every point, and if our policy is followed, millions would not be spent in ammunition to satisfy the war monster, from which South Africa can gain nothing, but the amounts would be used to strengthen the defence of South Africa, and also in making the country strong economically and financially. I move the amendment which I have read out.

I second the amendment. I am going to confine myself to that part of the amendment which deals with the social aspect of the Government’s internal policy. On November 20th last the Rotarians of Johannesburg had at their weekly luncheon a member of the Cabinet as a guest. Not to be outdone by Herr Hitler, the right hon. the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow), this particular member of the Cabinet informed the assembled Rotarians that he had a new order for South Africa. That new order was the elimination of the private control of capital and the disciplining of the people. That particular member of the Cabinet was the hon. the Minister of Labour. He informed a startled audience that he had a new order, which included the disciplining of the people. Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Labour only a short while before very effectively disciplined a number of half-starved women tobacco workers at Rustenburg by means of tear gas bombs and batons. Fresh from that victory, he told the Rotarians in Johannesburg that his new order was disciplining the people, and the elimination of the private control of capital. I have said that he disciplined a number of half-starved women tobacco workers by means of tear gas bombs and batons. Now, what are the facts, sir? On August 15th, 1938, the Tobacco Workers’ Union applied to the then Minister of Labour for a reference to the Wage Board, an investigation of the conditions in the industry, and a report; that is to say, an enquiry into the wages and conditions of employment in the tobacco industry. That reference to the board was only issued two years later, on September 20th, 1940, mark you, twelve months after the present holder of the portfolio assumed office, and two years after the first application was made. In addition to asking for a wage determination, the union also approached the Employers’ Association and requested them to establish an industrial council. This was refused. In July, 1940, the union applied for a conciliation board. That was not granted. Eventually the workers approached the employers for an immediate increase of 5s. a week to meet the rise in the cost of living. This, too, was refused. It must be realised, sir, that many of these tobacco workers had dependents, and they were asking that their mere pittance of 30s. a week should be increased by 5s. It was refused, and in the end they resorted to the only weapon that they had, namely, a strike, to enforce their demands. What happened then? Did the hon. Minister hasten to Rustenburg to intervene in this dispute? Oh, no. He was such an apt pupil of his master, the right hon. the Prime Minister, that he immediately concurred in the mobilisation of all the forces of the state, and the placing of those forces at the disposal not of the workers but of the employers, the United Tobacco Company. By means of tear gas bombs and batons they endeavoured to quell these women workers, who were trying to enforce these demands for a rise of 5s. per week. In addition to that, sir, the hon. gentleman allowed railway lorries to be utilised for the purpose of conveying strike breakers. I wonder if the House realises the gravity of the charge I am making against this hon. gentleman. If it had been any other member of the Cabinet, one could have expected it, but not from a representative of Labour. He actually concurred in the strike being broken by means of tear gas bombs and batons, and motor lorries being used to convey strike breakers, and said not a word in protest. My mind goes back to 1922, when the hon. gentleman was still endeavouring to represent Labour, and when he was so concerned about the action of his master, the right hon. the Prime Minister, that he addressed a meeting of English-speaking members in Brakpan, which passed a unanimous resolution in favour of declaring a republic in South Africa. In 1922 he was so concerned about the rights of the workers that even he, the most loyal member that we have in this House, was prepared to proclaim a republic in South Africa.

Why don’t you make sure of your facts?

It shows to what depths the hon. member for Benoni has sunk when the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) has to defend him. I think the stomach of the Minister of Labour would turn if the hon. member for Kensington had to rise and defend him.

No, I don’t rise.

The hon. gentleman over there said it was cheap. I agree, it is cheap. I think the hon. Minister’s attitude and actions in regard to this strike were very much worse than cheap. The Minister of Labour attended a Labour Party conference on December 29th, in Johannesburg. He there admitted that tear gas bombs had been used against these women strikers, and there, with his hand on his heart, he declared, as reported in the Press, that never again would the authorities use tear gas bombs against workers or allow railway buses to be used for carrying strike breakers. With his hand on his heart he declared that never again would the authorities allow that. Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of whether the authorities will allow it again, the question is why the hon. Minister allowed it in the first instance, why did the hon. gentleman allow police with tear gas bombs and batons to break the strike of women workers at Rustenburg? Does the hon. gentleman think that his mere assurance that it will never happen again will be sufficient to redeem him in the eyes of the workers of this country? Mr. Speaker, I don’t think the blot on the hon. gentleman’s record will ever be erased.

Nothing will ever erase your speech at Bloemfontein.

I don’t think that anybody will ever erase anything from the mind of the hon. member for Kensington.

From the minds of South Africa generally.

I do not want to digress. It has been stated before that the real patriot in South Africa is not the born South African, but he who comes from other places. Mr. Speaker, a few days ago the Minister of Labour had the impertinance to stand up in this House and declaim that the workers of South Africa are satisfied with this Government, and that the conditions of the workers in South Africa were better than they had ever been before. He asserted that the Minister of Labour and his Government had done so much for the workers in South Africa that they were completely satisfied with the conditions they are working under at present. He boasted about what the Government had done, sir. He told a startled House that he was going to introduce two industrial measures during the present session, a new Workmen’s Compensation Bill, and a new Factories Act, but he did not tell the House what he had already done, that he had made two attempts to introduce two industrial measures during the last session, that they reached the second reading stage and were never heard of again—these measures are the Apprenticeship Bill and the Unemployment Benefit Bill. He did not tell the House that after eighteen months in office his legislative record was the introduction of two measures, very necessary measures, which reached the second reading stage, and have not been heard of since. He has not even given notice of his intention to re-introduce them. The hon. gentleman now says he is going to introduce a new Workmen’s Compensation Bill and a new Factories Act. Well, sir, he has not given notice of the introduction of those measures yet. I wonder if his capitalist masters will ever allow the Workmen’s Compensation Bill to be passed? If they do allow it to be passed it will probably be a bribe to retain the support of that fragment of the Labour Party. I am, however, still waiting to see if the other two measures will be introduced again. Is he not going to re-introduce the Apprenticeship Bill and the Unemployment Benefit Bill? Evidently not, sir. He found after they were introduced that they were so half-baked, they were in such a mess, they were so inadequate, that he left them completely alone. Well, sir, that is his legislative record in this House. He introduced two measures, attempted to have them passed, then allowed them to lapse. I charge the hon. Minister with having done nothing for the workers of South Africa. I repeat that charge, and what is more it has been echoed by his Labour Party Conference. What did they say? One delegate declared that the Government was prepared to send workers to the front, and to use them for the dirty work, but was quite unwilling to give the workers their due, and did not even express its gratitude towards them. So far from the Government doing anything for the workers, the delegate complains that the Government does not even express its gratitude to them. Instead of expressing gratitude, I see by the Press that they are going to mobilise labour. In other words, the dictatorship which they fear so much is going to be introduced in regard to the labour of South Africa. Another delegate said that the Government does not appreciate the co-operation of the Labour Party, they do not give the workers their due, and this delegate stated that the party should sever its connection with the Government and go into opposition. And that, sir, comes from the Labour Party Conference, a demand that the party should sever its connection with this capitalist Government and go into opposition. Not one single word of praise of this Government was uttered by any delegate at that particular conference. All that they did express was disappointment and dissatisfaction. At that very same conference the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) declared, and this should carry weight if not in this House then with his own party, he declared that since the outbreak of war the United Party is making use of the Labour Party co-operation to weaken the Labour Party. I should say here in parentheses that it is impossible to weaken the Labour Party. Mr. Speaker, is there a Labour Party? Time was once when there was a Labour Party. The hon. member said also that the Labour Party had been placed in a most difficult position by co-operation with the greatest capitalist Government South Africa has ever seen. The hon. gentleman admits that this is the greatest capitalist Government South Africa has ever known. A few days ago, when a motion was before the House to approve of the Government’s internal policy, what did my hon. friend do? He had not the courage of those members over there—the native representatives—who refused to vote for that motion. No, Mr. Speaker, the Labour Party’s material comforts have been looked after very well, three captains and a minister, and I don’t think one of the four knows which end of a rifle should be fired out of. At their conference the eventual extinction of the Labour Party was prophesied by its own delegates. The opposition to co-operation by the Labour Party with this Government was so strong that the hon. Minister of Labour was compelled to demand a vote of confidence from that conference.

Did he get it?

He received it, yes, but only for one reason, those poor deluded people were so filled up with war propaganda and listening to what everyone else has been telling them about winning the war, that in spite of their treatment by the Government they decided to give him a vote of confidence. If, after eighteen months in office he is compelled to demand a vote of confidence from his own conferences, it is a rather clear indication of the amount of confidence the workers of South Africa have in him. But, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman said that the workers are in a better position, and that working conditions have been improved. The Prime Minister, however, does not admit that. He told the world a few months ago that any good government would have to see that they had a system so altered and improved, and with its actions so speeded up, that wage questions could be settled quickly and provision made for every worker to get a proper and fail’ wage for the work he did. He said that that should be done, and not that it had been done. He also said that if that were done and he thought it could be done, there would be a great change for the better in the social and economic position. Is that not a reflection on the competence of the Minister of Labour, when after eighteen months the Prime Minister admits that the condition of the workers is not what it should be, and that nothing has been done?

Your Gen. Hertzog had fifteen years in which to do something.

We are dealing with the Labour Party’s co-operation with the present Government. The Prime Minister went further and said that the conditions existing to-day demanded attention, and what they wanted was more employment; there must be work for everyone willing to work. In other words he admits that there is not sufficient work for everyone, and admits that there is unemployment. The Prime Minister said they must see that all their workers receive decent wages. Is that the new order of the Prime Minister? The Prime Minister also said there was no doubt that a large population of unskilled workers had drifted into the towns from the country districts and were living on wages which were not up to the white man’s standard. Could a more serious charge be made against his own Government and against the Minister of Labour, who is supposed to be representative of the wage earners? The right hon. gentleman goes further and says that that is not right, and that there were opportunities for exploitation. Will the hon. gentleman dare to stand up in this House and say that there are only opportunities for exploitation, and that no exploitation is actually taking place? I contend that the Government is the biggest exploiter of all. They are exploiting the workers. The right hon. gentleman said that both these questions would have to be dealt with by any decent and good government which looked after the people. Mr. Speaker, I should have read that first, and then it would have been unnecessary to read the rest. The Prime Minister admits that these conditions can only be improved by a decent government, and will anybody have the temerity to say that this is a decent Government? This country will have a good government very shortly, but I don’t think anybody in South Africa in their wildest dreams will say that this a good Government. Last session I charged the hon. gentleman with having done nothing for the workers of South Africa. The Prime Minister has stated what must be done and what is wrong, he probably will continue on those lines, and continue to tell the country what must be done, what is wrong, and what should be done. What is the position at present? The Labour exchanges register approximately 700 unemployed, but the benevolent societies in Johannesburg alone were furnishing relief to over 6,000 families during December. Is that an indication of prosperous conditions, is that an indication of workers receiving a fair wage, of having work and being able to support their families? He said the conditions of the workers had been improved, but I want to ask the hon. gentleman how many thousands of workers in this country, European workers, apart from natives and coloured, are still working for 5s. a day and have to support a wife and children on that miserable pittance, and how many thousands of workers, European workers, are working for 3s. 6d. a day, and can the hon. gentleman tell this House and the country that any of these workers have received even a sixpenny increase since he took over the portfolio of Labour? It is a fundamental socialist principle that it is the labourer and not the capitalist who is the real producer of the country’s wealth. Has that labour ever received a proper share of the wealth that it produces? For very many years the hon. gentleman used to proclaim to the world: “A fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work, a living wage for all.” Do we still hear him say that, does he still talk about a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work, and does he still talk about a living wage? I want to quote some of the determinations of the Wage Board to show what he and his Government consider a fair day’s wage, what they consider a living wage. The wage determination in brush and broom manufacturing industry allows for certain semi-skilled work the princely wage, for the first six months, of £1 per week, and for the second six months £1 10s. per week. The semi-skilled European worker receives £6 per month. Does the hon. gentleman contend that a European can support his wife and family on £6 per month? Here is another determination for the meat trade. The blockman’s assistant and the slaughterman’s assistant, for a period of six months from the date of the determination receives the princely wage of £1 5s. per week, and thereafter £1 10s. per week. Will the hon. gentleman say that that is an adequate wage, will he tell the House and the country that a European can support a wife and family on £6 a month? Mr. Speaker, he dare not stand up in this House or in the country and justify a wage such as that. The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) dealt shortly with the rise in the cost of living. This Government has at long last decided to grant the civil servants a cost of living allowance when the cost of living rises by 4 per cent. Up to now it has not yet been granted, because the Government denies, on every conceivable occasion, that the cost of living has risen at all. During the last session my hon. friend, the Minister of Labour, replying to a question, stated that there had been no rise in the cost of living at all. Now they have decided to grant a cost of living allowance when the cost of living rises by 4 per cent. I want the hon. gentleman to inform the House whether he contends that the cost of living has not risen by 4 per cent. I can supply proof to the contrary. I can submit proof that the cost of living has risen by approximately 14 per cent. in very many centres. And what is this cost of living allowance that they have decided to grant? They have decided to grant to wage-earners receiving up to £100 per annum £6 per year, or 10s. per month. When it rises by 6 per cent., he will receive a bit more. I contend that the cost of living has long ago risen by 4 per cent., and that it is at present more than 4 per cent. The housewives have investigated this matter, and I think, as a result of that investigation, it is said that there has been a rise of 14 per cent., but the Government maintains that it has only risen by 3½ per cent. I do not suppose the hon. Minister finds the cost of living has risen much under his present circumstances. On a previous occasion the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) demanded to know what the economic policy of my party is. Well, sir, that policy will be enunciated in full at the appropriate time. But let me, however, say this—the Labour policy of the party that I represent is based upon the following fundamental principles: (1) to eliminate poverty; (2) to see that the real producers of the country’s wealth receive a larger share of that country’s wealth; (3) to ensure for every citizen of this country work at a living wage, not as a privilege, but as a right. Those are the fundamental principles on which our labour policy is based, and that policy will be enunciated in full at the proper time.

What about the coloured people?

Shut up!

That hon. gentleman (Col. Wares) is completely colour blind, and he never thinks of anything but colour. In conclusion, I want to say a few words to those hon. members who once thought that they represented the workers, who still claim that they represent the workers, and who still call themselves the Labour Party. I want to say to those hon. gentlemen that they have prostituted all the tenets of socialism.

Do you know what that means?

They have destroyed the party which they represent, they have repudiated everything they have stood for in the past. I want to give them this advice.

I do not think we need it.

I want to ask them to get out of that party while there is still time. Support the Government’s war policy if you must, but do it as honourable men from the Opposition benches; don’t sell your souls for the office which you occupy. Get out while there is still time. You might then regain a small measure of your self-respect, and in time to come you might again regain some confidence of the workers of South Africa.

One is very deeply and sincerely touched by the last exhortation of the hon. member (Mr. B. J. Schoeman). But I do want to say through my tears which have been induced by the emotion caused by the hon. member’s appeal to me, “in vain is the net spread in sight of the bird.” I am afraid, touching as the request is, eloquent as are the terms in which that request has been made, we are not falling to the blandishments of the hon. member. We are here on this side of the House with one major object in view, a major object to which those hon. members on that side of the House are in diammetrical opposition, and that is to carry this war to a successful issue—and we are going to stick to our posts.

Of course you will.

Now we have had two very good speeches, one from the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) and the other from the hon. member who has just sat down, the hon. member for Fordsburg. And may I here, before I proceed any further, express once again my appreciation to the hon. member for Fordsburg, first of all because he has done what he has done on two or three occasions, given me an indication beforehand that he proposes to attack me, and, secondly, he has out of the kindness of his heart spoken in the language which I can thoroughly understand, and consequently placed me in possession of the facts expressed by him. But that does not mean that I approve of anything he has said. But may I couple those two members together again in saying that once again they have built up their case upon complete misrepresentation and half truths. And I regret to say—and one always regrets to say these things in the House—done so deliberately.

Order! The hon. the Minister is not entitled to say that hon. members make deliberate misrepresentations.

I leave the misrepresentation out then.

Order!

Very well, I withdraw that, and I will say that they have built up their case on a series of half truths, and they have known that they are half truths. Now let me take the first charge. He again in this House makes the accusation which I have already denied and denied emphatically, that we have reduced our social services. And particularly untrue is the accusation that we have reduced our invalidity grants. I think he again repeated that to-night—that is definitely untrue. On the contrary, we have increased our invalidity grants.

It does not matter; he does not understand figures.

Well, if his method of dealing with figures results in that answer to the problem—one of those indeterminate equations which result in all sorts of answers, from plus to minus infinity —if that is his method of dealing with figures, then God help the party which has put him up as their expert, and as a man who is likely to conduct the budgetary proposals of that party should a misguided electorate ever decide on returning them to power. We are spending £20,000 more this year during this last year of office of this combined party than was done the year before.

On what work?

On invalidity grants. That is what he was referring to. In the last financial year we spent £179,000; at the end of this financial year we shall have spent £199,000—and these are figures which my hon. friend can verify— they are not mere guesses or suggestions, or assumptions, nor are they presumptions. They are facts as appearing in our records, and so far from our decreasing the number of beneficiaries we have increased those too, despite the letters which my hon. friend has or may have received to the contrary. But one thing in addition to that. Even if we were not spending more, even if we were spending less, he has to take into account on the credit side of the ledger other aspects, rehabilitation aspects, which are vastly more important than just doling out invalidity allowances. Unfortunately, I did not know my hon. friend was going to attack me on that score, or I would have had the records here, but I have in my possession a memorial signed by every head of a family on the Hereford Rehabilitation Settlement in which they express their extreme gratitude not only for the opportunity of living there, but for having been given the opportunity of rehabilitating themselves, which must eventually place them in a position of complete independence. But you must take into consideration and estimate the position at its true value.

Your predecessor did that.

I am telling my hon. friend this, that whatever my predecessor may have done, whatever plans he may have had, we are now giving complete practical expression to it, and with the result that it has been brought right home to the people concerned. So much for that. I understand that my hon. friend drew attention to certain letters, but I want to assure him, though I do not want to take credit for this, and I am not using it as a knock-down blow because it is only transferred from one department to another, but all the cases referred to are old age pension cases. My hon. friend admits that.

It is all at the expense of old age pensioners.

I have only got forty minutes, and I have a lot to answer—but in verbiage and not in justified accusation. My hon. friend, like his colleague, is very sympathetically concerned about the welfare of myself and my colleagues, and he goes so far as to say that organised labour feels so strongly this question of the increased cost of living that a conference—I do not know what he refers to—a somewhat problematic shadowy conference is going to meet, and it is expected to pass a resolution.

It is an annual conference.

My hon. friend has a remarkable prescience—just like his Leader. He anticipates things, and he anticipates things which he wants to come to pass.

A case of wishful thinking.

And supposing they do pass a resolution saying that they are not satisfied with either our departmental figures on the one hand, or our method of meeting these increased costs— I want to tell my friend this, that there to-day exists what never existed under the regime which my hon. friend supported on a former occasion, the closest co-operation, consultation and discussion with the organised bodies concerned—and when they, as they frequently do, show that they are right, then we at once accede to their propositions, and when this resolution comes forward, it will have the most serious and sympathetic consideration by the Government, by the Prime Minister and myself particularly, including the Minister of Finance, and in all probability effect will be given to their requirements. An all-round increase in the wages specifically to meet the rise in the cost of living is about to be announced. What that will be depends on the figures. And my hon. friend thumps the Government as a whole, and me in particular, because, forsooth, he is charged with the responsibility, and he has discovered that the rise in the cost of living is on a percentage basis different from the one which the Government advisers have found —and therefore we are the most dastardly people unhung. Now what would he do if he happened to be in power? Would he go and sit down and work out the cost of living himself? Certainly not; he would have to depend on the examination by experts. When, as a result of practical experience, those figures may be questioned, there is ground then for further consideration of an increase in wages to meet the position. But may I say this: what is happening to-day has never happened before. When he asks me what the Labour Party has ever accomplished, and he speaks of the late Labour Party, may I tell him that the Labour Party has succeeded in getting a very great deal done. It has succeeded in getting the ear of the Government. We find that this Government are ready listeners.

Oh!

Yes, you don’t like that, do you? We have succeeded in getting a great many improvements, more so than I ever experienced when I was in a former Government associated with these very people—much more so, and the speech of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister at the Bloemfontein conference of the United Party was not just a matter of talking to push the thing off—he did not have to say what he did say—it was not necessary—it was the result of deep-rooted conviction that all had not been well as the result of their sitxeen years of Government, and that it was up to us, and we are going to seize the opportunity with both hands; it was up to us, up to this combination, to reverse this bad old order of things, and to improve the lot of the people whom that hon. gentleman over there pretends to be speaking for to-night.

Will you tell us what wage increase has taken place?

Yes, I can tell you, and I am going to tell you a thing which has never taken place before. I shall come to the wage determinations later on. But all Industrial Council agreements are based on the assumption that there must inevitably be a rise in the cost of living—and incidentally let me drive this point home— a point which never emerged in their outlook of policy in similar circumstances: we are keeping down the cost of living, which you never attempted to do.

But surely the Government does not take credit for this Industrial Council Agreement?

Whom are you pointing to? The attack was made against me, and I am going to tell my friend that I have invariably insisted in all these agreements that account shall be given to this unquestioned increase in the cost of living which must inevitably ensue. So much for that charge. And those increases have also been given in the basic rates. Now let me come to this Rustenburg business. My hon. friend for Fordsburg knows quite well that he is misrepresenting the position.

Order! I must ask the hon. the Minister ….

I did not say deliberately.

The Minister says deliberately misrepresents ….

Well, he knows it is not the truth.

Order! The Minister should withdraw that.

In order not to wound your susceptibilities, I withdraw it.

Order! The Minister must not withdraw by reason of the Speaker’s susceptibilities but because of the rules of the House.

Very well, I withdraw because of the rules of the House.

For decency’s sake.

You should withdraw from the Government.

You will notice that the hon. member at once interjected “that is according to my information” and he knows that that information is wrong.

I do not.

Oh yes, you do.

Order! I must ask the hon. the Minister not to continue in that line.

Withdraw.

Oh, come on. Now, what are the facts? The hon. member says that I caused tear gas and batons to be used.

I said that you concurred.

It does not matter. I shall accept the hon. member’s amendment because he did charge me with having done it.

No, I said you concurred.

The hon. member charged me with having done it and now he sees the falsity of his position so he hedges.

The Minister of Justice was responsible for giving the order.

You knew that, but you tried to misrepresent the position.

Order! I really must ask the Hon. the Minister not to continue in that way.

Then I am accepting it on the basis of a concurrence. Now, the hon. member accuses me of having concurred in the use of tear gas bombs and batons, and he knows that that is not correct. In point of fact immediately I knew about it I at once saw the necessary authorities….

On a point of order, is the Hon. the Minister entitled to say that the hon. member for Fordsburg used certain words which he knew to be untrue?

I think the hon. member is right. The Hon. the Minister now states that the hon. member for Fordsburg knew that what he said was incorrect, and that is not allowable in debates in this House. This is the last time I shall ask the Minister to comply with the rules of the House.

Very well, he accused me of having concurred in the use of these bombs. He knows that I did not concur in it. On the contrary I at once saw the necessary authorities and had it stopped.

On a point of order ….

Oh, shut up.

Order.

The Hon. the Minister objects to the hon. member for Fordsburg having said that he concurred, and he says that the hon. member knows that he did not concur.

You can’t take it.

The Minister can continue, but I warn him.

I have said nothing now.

May I point out that the Hon. the Minister has repeatedly suggested and also stated that the hon. member for Fordsburg has made statements which he knew to be incorrect. That is not allowable under the rules of the House.

I did not say that this time.

The hon. the Minister did, and he must not continue in that line.

I must establish my position there. What did I say to the hon. member? That he knows I would not do it—I would not do a thing like that. Is not that what I said?

As I understood the Hon. the Minister he said this, that the hon. member for Fordsburg made a statement which he knew was not correct.

All right, I do not want to waste time arguing on this point. I merely make this assertion, that I did nothing of the sort. I neither caused tear bombs and bators to be used, nor did I concur; on the contrary I execrated it immediately I knew about it.

It is the principle.

The Minister may continue.

And my hon. friend, if he goes to the same source of information from which he has drawn that, will find that that information has since been repudiated by the very people upon whom he is relying for his facts. And those people have apologised to me.

You said that bombs had not been used.

I did not say that; I told my hon. friend that I execrated it.

Afterwards.

How could I do it before? I am not so anticipatory as my hon. friends on that side are.

How can I know what you said to the Minister of Justice.

And with regard to the Railway buses, that was stopped immediately—as soon as I knew about it. And I was thanked by the very people about whom he is talking—thanks to the action I took. The accusation is made against me that I am supine if nothing else, that I am not trying to give effect in my position in this Government, as Minister of Labour, to the tenets, to the principles and policy which I have held all through the years. I can say this to my friend—my record will balance very well with his—very well indeed, and I have not switched about the countryside politically as my hon. friend has, and it ill becomes that hon. member to read me homilies on my Labour Party record. He now says—he also said—that they were demanding 5s. and it was refused. By whom?

By the employers.

Of course it was, but he neglected to tell the House that as a result of my personal intervention both with the employers and the employees, they both agreed to arbitration on the point, and the consummation which was very much to be desired, and in which I was largely helped by my hon. friend, the member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie), was a very desirable one. That hon. member was a very fine emissary indeed to both parties, and the arbitrators went down and made a finding and they all accepted that finding. The hon. member did not tell the House that, so he only told half the truth. I suppose, Mr. Speaker, I am right in saying that. Now, what about the Industrial Council. He says that was refused. The hon. member is not doing the persons concerned very much good by his intervention here tonight because the negotiations on that question are in a very delicate position. I have every hope—it has been a very difficult task, believe me. I have had to give up a tremendous amount of time and it has given me a good many headaches in trying to bring about agreement between the various tobacco employers and the organisations of workers, and I am within a measure of reaching agreement. When we have that Industrial Council, they will sit round the table and all your machinations will have very little avail in trying to drive us apart. He says I hastened to Rustenburg. You see the suggestion underlying that? That I went there—the hon. member with great gusto built again on a very flimsy foundation. He said that I went to Rustenburg and he told the House in effect that I took part on the side of the employers. I never went near Rustenburg.

He never said it.

I said “Did you go?”

No, you didn’t. You said “the Minister went to Rustenburg.”

I shall prove that in Hansard.

Does my friend give me his assurance that he does not correct his Hansard? Now the hon. member says this, he asks what has the Minister of Labour done in the 18 months he has occupied his office. Can he show me a sixpenny increase? I can show thousands of sixpenny increases.

Oh, is that so?

Yes, on the wages which your Government gave them. And then he speaks about wage determination. And he says, “Look at the wage determinations which he has given.” “Look at the broom industry.” The hon. member had better tell this House, quite apart from any responsibility which I may have in the matter, and which I repudiate—that the lowness of that standard laid down by the Wage Board is due entirely to the opposition of the small broom industries in the country. And I am attempting with all the energy I possess to try and educate the workers in the countryside to organise and demand better conditions, better wages and a better life. But why is it? What is the fundamental reason underlying these low wage determinations? And let me say that those low wage determinations are made very much against my wishes, but the Wage Board under the Act passed against my wishes— and in the face of my opposition—has to take into consideration the ability of an industry to pay, and I want to say this for the information of my hon. friend and of hon. members in this House, that a new spirit is abroad in regard to that matter, and in estimating the ability of an industry to pay a lot of things put against the debit side of the workers, have now to be removed, such as interest on capital, borrowed and otherwise, plus profit, plus drawings. I am not allowing all that. They have either to take straight profit or straight interest— one or the other. And though that will not make a tremendous difference at the moment, I am convinced of this, that the improvement will certainly be marked, and when we find the necessary opportunity I can assure my hon. friend that the Wage Board Act will be so amended as to make it possible for the Wage Board to give that very standard which the hon. member sneered at and which he is not himself prepared to grant—that is the standard of 10s. per day. My hon. friend proceeded to outline their economic policy. They are going to eliminate poverty. What do you write down as poverty. Item 1. They are going to give a larger share, so say these gentlemen, to the worker who produces the goods. What larger share?

£600 per year.

All these things are comparative. And when the hon. member was dealing with that point there was an interjection thrown across the floor of the House, “Does that apply to the coloured people as well as to the Europeans?” And what did the hon. member say?—what does the hon. member say about that? There is another of those extraordinary pieces of mental gymnastics to which the hon. gentleman is prone. I don’t know what this was said for, except to discredit me. He said that I had gone to Brakpan, I presume in 1922, to declare a republic.

No.

What really did you say? Mr. Speaker, he is repudiating everything.

I said that you addressed a meeting which adopted a resolution in favour of a republic.

My hon. friend’s memory is at fault. Surely we have the right to expect that what he said five minutes ago he will remember now. I was not at the meeting. I knew nothing at all about it, and it was not in Brakpan but in Johannesburg. My hon. friend’s geography is at fault, his facts are wrong, and his chronology is wrong, and there is no good at all in the hon. member when he comes to make his assertions. Now then, sir, he says that I said the workers are entirely satisfied. (To Mr. Schoeman): Do you deny that before I start to deal with it?

[Inaudible.]

Then I will take it as right that according to him I said the workers were perfectly satisfied. When did I say that? The workers are not satisfied, they are a little bit more satisfied than they were under your regime.

Why don’t you improve the position?

We are doing so, that is just it. We are doing it. The hon. member has given me so many knock-down blows that he has covered me with bruises. He says that during eighteen months I have introduced an Apprenticeship Bill and an Unemployment Benefit Bill, and that they have departed into the limbo. He did not use that expression, but that is the effect of it. He wants to know when I am going to re-introduce them. And he says that I do not, in fact, care a hang about these two Bills. Let me tell my hon. friend that there are many things that are more urgently required than these two Bills, and I will let you decide for yourself the relative importance. Tell me, do you think the Workmen’s Compensation Bill, with a State fund, is more important than either of the two Bills he mentions? Where do you stand in regard to that query? Is a new Factories Bill more important than either of these two?

You have not given notice of that.

Come on now, where do you stand? Can I count on your support for these two Bills when I bring them in? Let me ask you this. Don’t try and deal in ambiguities, and don’t base your arguments on misconceptions, I won’t say misrepresentation, and when I tell my hon. friend that the law advisers are at present dealing with both these Bills, will he accept my word? Thank you. The only reason why they are not introduced now is that I have not got them from the law advisers.

The question is whether they will be passed.

I think I told the House on a former occasion what we were going to do. You never would have got them passed under your Government. Let me tell my hon. friend that the Apprenticeship Bill is an amendment of the existing Bill, so we are not without an Apprenticeship Act. Therefore this is not so necessary.

You have not given us instances of wage increases. You promised do do so.

Every industry in the country has had wages increased. Did I not pass anything of any value in the Rents Bill?

Very little.

My hon. friend thinks it is of very little importance. Well, we differ in our points of view, but I would like my hon. friend to get the judgment of the citizens of this country on that point. I am satisfied that he will find that I am right. Of course, the Labour Party conference was just a little bit of leg-pulling, and my hon. friend knows it. I would like to have out in the light of day all that transpired at his conference. We were not afraid, and we are not afraid to have the thing right in the public view. Just one other thing. The hon. gentleman—I do not know whether it was he or the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth)—but it was one of them who said that there was more unemployment in the country to-day than ever before. Is that correct?

No, I stated that there was a good deal more unemployment than there has been during the last few years.

That is untrue. The hon. member is by no means sure of his facts. Any man who wants to work can get work, and not in the army.

[inaudible].

There is another of these hon. members who make an assertion not knowing whether it is correct and making it in a loud tone, and waving his hands. In the early days of this war effort, when we were trying to find employment for an exceptionally large number of unemployed, what did we find? When we offered men in Johannesburg jobs practically on their very doorsteps at wages they had never received before, owing to the influence of hon. members like the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw), they refused to go, and then they sent along processions of the so-called unemployed to interview me and to browbeat me. Thank God we broke that down and scotched all that subversive effort on the part of hon. members. And now I want to make bold to assert that there is not one man in the country who requires work and who is able to work, who cannot get it. (Interruptions.) I say that in spite of the interjections of hon. members over there. I feel that I have abundantly disposed of the half-truths and charges that have been made by hon. members on that side of the House. Though I am not satisfied, nor is my right hon. friend the Prime Minister satisfied, still we are doing something. It is inevitable that we should have to take time, and the process of improvement must be gradual. But we are improving, and improving rapidly, on the state of affairs that obtained under the regime of the people who sit on the other side of the House.

I listened attentively to what the Minister of Labour said here this afternoon, and one thing which the Minister has admitted to-night it is this, to use his own words, that he admits that the workers in the country are very much dissatisfied. I listened attentively to hear what the Minister has done since he came: into the Cabinet on the 4th September, and the Minister could not mention a single thing that he has done for the workers as such. All the Minister said that he had done was that he had introduced two Bills during the session of last year. Those Bills reached a certain stage, but they could not go through, and now the Minister considers those Bills of so little importance that he is not trying to introduce them again. He gave us to understand that he was going to introduce two new Bills this session. We hope that he will succeed better in that, and that his colleagues will assist him more than they have assisted him in the past, to get those measures through. The Minister came here to-night and told us that any man who wanted work in South Africa could get it. He did not say whether the man had to be fit or whether he could be unfit. The Minister said that any man who wanted work could get work. A letter has now been brought to my notice which the Department of Agriculture and Forestry wrote in connection with a lad who had had technical training, and who wanted work in the Department of Forestry. The letter was addressed to the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) and it is in connection with Mr. S. S. Terreblanche. The letter reads as follows—

And then the Minister of Labour comes before us here and says that every man who wants work can get it. I quite believe that he will get work if he will take the red oath and wear red tabs. Now what is the position on the countryside? The latest figures that we can get in connection with unemployment in the towns and on the countryside are contained in the report of the Department of Labour for the period ending 31st December, 1939. In that report the following figures are given. They say that during the past six years the average urban unemployment was 7,325. But towards the end of 1939 there were only 788 unemployed persons in the towns. Now what is the position on the countryside? During the last six years the average number of unemployed was 6,565, but at the end of 1939 it was 3,963. The Minister may possibly now say that during the last year they took all those persons into employment. Of course, all who were prepared to wear the red tabs. I shall be glad if the Minister can finish the conversation he is carrying on, because I would like to bring a few things to his notice. I want to go into the figures.

Why did you not mention these matters before?

The Minister knows what I am coming to, and that is why he is making the interjection. He made the statement here that every man who wanted to work could get work. Is that the position? I mentioned the figure for unemployment on the countryside generally, and I now want to come to unemployment in my own constituency. I have spoken on three or four occasions to the Minister and to his Department about unemployment in my constituency, and I pointed out to them the persons who had been working on the erosion works, and who are now still without work, although there are many approved erosion works which still remain to be completed. When I was at Pretoria last time the Minister told me that I should bring the names of those people to him, or rather it was Mr. Walker who said that he did not believe it, and that I should bring the names. I have those names here, I can give them to him to-night. There are eight of these people at Burghersdorp, most of them are semi-fit, but there are also fit men amongst them, and they cannot get work. The Minister promised that he would open up works at Burghersdorp and Phillipstown, where these people could go and work. Did he do so at Burghersdorp? No. And then the Minister comes here and says that every man who wants work can get it. And what about Phillipstown? I rang up Phillipstown on the telephone this afternoon—

Those are individual cases.

The Minister says that I am now referring to individual cases. He said a moment ago here that there is not a single man who wanted work who could not get work. I can give him nine names in Burghersdorp who stopped working last month. I went to Pretoria. Are those individual cases, if there are nine of them at Burghersdorp? What does the Minister intend to do with those unfortunate erosion workers? They are people whom he, for the sake of the money that he needs for the war, is putting on to the streets. If I was ever disappointed with a Minister, then I am disappointed with the Minister of Labour. I really thought that when he became Minister of Labour that now we had a man with a good heart for the poor man and the workers, and that we would come to him to get work for people who were unemployed. He is simply powerless in that capitalistic Cabinet. He has stopped the erosion works, and I think that the Minister knows that he has made a mistake. But what is the reason now why the Minister cannot start those erosion works once more? He has repeatedly promised that he would bring the matter before the Cabinet in order to get work for those unfortunate fellows, as he called them He promised that to me, and I think that he has made the same promises to other hon. members. He made it to the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen), and we would like to know from the Minister why he cannot manage to go on with those works. The Minister may think that he still has the right to represent the labouring classes. He is trying to represent those people in the trade unions. But he takes no further interest in the actual labourers on the countryside. Is there no work for those men now? Yes, there is. There are 1,186 erosion works which were approved of, and which are not being proceeded with. The work is there, but the Minister wants the money to carry on the war with it. When I was in Pretoria I asked the Minister: What am I to do with the unemployed? He said that he would try to open a work for those who had not had work for six months, in order to give him a chance. I then asked the Minister whether he wanted to starve these people in turn. Six who have been starving for six months get an opportunity of working for six months, and then they have to go hungry again for six months when the other six get work. That is a Minister of Labour for you! That is the man who always said he represents the labourers, and who always fought for the “underdog,” as he calls it.

I wish that you had really taken an interest in the workers.

The Minister tells me that he hopes that I am really interested in the workers. Allow me to tell the Minister this, that those people come and knock at my door every day and ask where their children were to get food, and then he still comes here and asks whether I am still interested in the workers. It seems to me that the Minister is more interested in the few Labour members behind him who each get an allowance of 17s. 6d. a day. It seems to me that the Minister is interested in that to-day, and no longer in the workers in the country. I now want to ask the Minister whether he cannot do anything. He says that he hopes that I am interested in the workers. I am really interested in the workers, and I hope he will take my word for that. Seeing that it is hopeless for the Minister to induce the Cabinet to start up more erosion works, is it not possible for the Minister to give the semi-fit men work in the municipalities? There is a scheme of the kind that semi-fit men can be employed by the municipalities, and then the Government pays 65 per cent. of the wages. But then such a municipality must have a certain number of white men in its service, because it can employ some of these semi-fit workers pro rata to the number of white workers. As we have those unfortunate people in our villages, is it not possible for the municipalities to be able to get the subsidy of 65 per cent., so that these people can make a living? The Minister told us that he would employ some of the semi-fit men on the irrigation works. Up to the present that has not been done. I want to ask him whether it has been done. The Minister gives no answer. It was nothing but promises that we received. Then there is another thing, to give those people—the younger people on the countryside—a living. There are the technical training courses in the defence forces. The Minister directly asked me whether I considered them as war work. I told him that I wanted to be honest. If people ask me whether they should join up, I told them they must decide for themselves, because I was not going to take the Government’s word that they would not be sent to the front later on. He then said to me: There it is again. I asked him why did those men have to take the red oath if they went in for technical training. His answer to me was this: But do you think, if you were Minister, you would accept persons to give them technical training in connection with the machinery if they were hostile? I want to tell the Minister if he thinks that he needs to have well-disposed persons there, people who take the red oath, because he is afraid that people who are not well disposed may intentionally commit sabotage to the machinery of the Defence Force, that that is just the man who goes there wilfully to damage the machinery, the one who is prepared to take the red oath. He will wear the red tabs in order to have a chance of doing harm. It is the honest man who roundly says that he is opposed to the war, and who refuses to take the red oath, is the one who will not do any harm. If there is one thing which I will not lightly forgive the Minister for, then it is that he has robbed the countryside boy, as it were, of that unique opportunity of getting vocational training by going through that course, and as we realise that the country is on the eve of great industrial revival, I will not lightly forgive the Minister for having deprived the rural boy of that privilege by forcing the red oath on to him. I will never forgive him that. I cannot see any justification for such action. I say that this was a unique opportunity for our boys on the countryside, and also for the boys in my constituency; it was a unique opportunity of getting a living. The Minister introduced the Apprenticeship Amendment Bill last year, but he does not consider that Bill of sufficient importance to introduce it again this year. We have not seen anything of it yet. We have before us the interesting report of the Rural Industries Commission, and what do they say in connection with vocational training and technical training in the rural areas? This commission is much concerned with the countryside boy who cannot get technical and vocational training. On page 38 of their report they say, inter alia—

They say that there have been more registrations than there is an opportunity of providing training for. There is not enough accommodation. They also call attention to another shortcoming in regard to technical and vocational training. They say that there is no co-ordination between the training institutions. There should, for instance, be more co-ordination between the department of Commerce and Indsutries and the Department of Labour. They further suggest that the Apprenticeship Act should be amended. But we heard from the Minister to-night that he does not consider that bill of much importance, and we have not yet heard whether he is going to introduce it again. Then the commission further says that more board and lodging bursaries should be given for countryside boys, and they stress something which we also stressed here last year, and it is—

The Minister of Labour would not hear of that trade school training being recognised for apprenticeship purposes. Last year in connection with the Apprenticeship Act Amendment Bill, he said: No, experience is the best means. And this makes it impossible for the rural boy to get an opportunity of being apprenticed. Another point on which the report lays stress is that it should be brought to the notice of the children at the right time, those who have passed Standard 6, or who have gone through the high school or matric. Now the Minister says, and the report also says so here, that this is a serious state of affairs, and that the boy in the country does not have the privileges of the boy in the towns. But the Minister says that that is not of much importance. I do not want to say much more, but I only hope that the Minister will give me a reply to the following question: I have now been to Pretoria twice. There are unemployed people at Burghersdorp, apart from wat the Minister may have stated to-night in his—I had almost said in his frivolousness. There you have my people unemployed at Phillipstown, at Petrusville and at Hanover, and I ask for the umpteenth time how he is going to provide work for the semi-fit? Is there nothing for them but to take the red oath? What work is he going to give them, except that they must take the red oath? What work is there for them? Let him tell me, let him mention one job which there is for the semifit. The Minister is powerless in the clutches of the capitalistic Government.

This is another of the untrue statements.

After all the promises which the Minister made, and after my having asked him repeatedly, and after I had also had a good opinion of the Minister, I have decided that I am not going to ask him for any more, but I can say this about him, that he no longer represents the labourers. He is hopelessly in the clutches of the capitalistic Government. He has now adopted the slogan: “The Empire first, then the workers.” He wants first of all to look after himself and his labour members of Parliament and then the workers’. That is why the workers in the country will not send any labour members again to Parliament at the next election.

The Minister of Labour, in his answer to the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) stated very clearly at the beginning of his speech: “We have now put our feet on the warpath and we are determined to stick to that path.” The Minister was very honest when he said that, and it was a very clear statement to me of the things which would otherwise be inexplicable in the attitude of the Minister, and of the other members who are trying to represent the Labour Party or pretend to be representing. It is an explanation why they had taken up that strange attitude. “We have set our feet on the road of the war, and we intend to keep to it.” In other words, “the Empire over all, the interests of the Empire first. The interests of the worker come later.” I will come back to that later, and point out the dangers which are connected with a policy of that kind, to take a course of supporting the war effort, apart from what is happening to the workers. I now want to say here, in company with other hon. members, that the workers at the present moment are suffering owing to the war conditions. You have in our country the position that there is unemployment in consequence of the war, whether the Minister will admit it or not, whether he knows about it or not. To my mind it is very clear that if he says here that every man in our country is able to get work if he wants it, that the Minister of Labour is at least not aware of the conditions that are actually prevailing. If what he has just said were to be true, namely that he is not responsible for the individual workers, well then he does not deserve to be Minister of Labour, and to represent the labourers, and I can give him the assurance that notwithstanding all the statements which he has made, I can confirm what the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) said, and which he supported by letters. In my constituency also there are people who, in consequence of the war, who in consequence of the stopping of certain work are unemployed to-day. To my mind there is never a more difficult moment than when a man, who often has a wife and children, comes and asks for work, and I cannot provide him with work unless he will do military service. I cannot do otherwise than come to the conclusion that things are being forced in that direction intentionally, so that men should become unemployed, whereby they will then be obliged to come and sign on for military service as so-called volunteers. We have the class of people, however, who do not want to take part in the war, and they are unemployed. But then there are also people left who are even prepared to do military service but who, owing to circumstances, conditions of health, cannot perform it. These people are really unemployed, and they have not the necessary food for their home and children. If the Minister of Labour is not prepared to concern himself a little about individual cases, then the time will come when the individual cases and the group cases will, in turn, not bother themselves about the Minister. But if the present position is serious, then the position after the war will be still worse; in other words, the time of depression which will come after the war. Whatever precautions may be taken the day will come again after the war when there will be a shortage and even greater shortage of work than is the case to-day. I just want to refer the Minister to the report of the Secretary for Social Welfare in connection with the conditions which prevailed after the last war. He writes in this clause—

Forestry settlements had to be established to put an end to unemployment as far as possible. In other words the Minister of Labour is engaged, for the sake of his “see the war through” policy, to increase the number of poor whites, and to increase the unemployment. We have the statement here of what the position was after the last war, and it will be the same after this war. The Minister of Labour even holds the portfolio of social welfare as well, and I am quoting here from the report of the Secretary for Social Welfare in regard to the work which should be provided on settlements for people who were in poor consequence of the war. This is what he says—

These men who in consequence of the “see the war through” policy have become workers in the forests, have involuntarily after a very short while of from eight to ten years, become unfit for life, and are candidates for an invalidity grant. These are the people who are dependent on the point of view which the Minister takes, the point of view “I have set my foot on the warpath, and I will not take it off.” He is engaged in forcing our best people into beggary by taking up this attitude. What is happening now to these people? Then the man gets on the street, and then they come and live in the villages, because they can no longer live on the forestry settlements. Then they come into the villages, and at best they only get support then, a grant of 4/- to 6/- a day, if they are so fortunate enough to get it, and if they happen on a municipality where the subsidy is given by the Government. Have you ever for one moment gone a little into the position of the people who live in those villages and towns? Let us now look for a moment at the conditions under which these people have to live there. They get 4/- a day, the fixed amount. That is to say they earn £1 a week, and they probably have a wife and children. The very commonest little house costs at least 10/- a week. And he then has 10/- left for himself and his family to live on. If you will allow me to make a comparison, then I want to make the comparison that the farm labourer, who is regarded as the very cheapest in the country, the coloured labourer, gets 2/6 a day, plus free quarters, plus privileges on the farm. In other words, at the end of the week the coloured labourer has 12/6 at his disposal while the white labourer in the village or town has 10/- at his disposal. It that not a terrible state of affairs? And what are the further consequences of that? The Minister of Labour, with his “see the war through policy,” has driven the white labourer to the position that he has to look for a home in the slums of the big towns and villages, in the mixed residential area, and in course of time he not only becomes a poor white but a demoralised white man, who is useless to civilisation and white society. I can hardly imagine anything more distressing than that anyone in a responsible position should laugh about the matter and be able to be satisfied with directly being the cause of driving the people into the terrible position as I have just been describing. The Minister of Labour laughs. I want to tell him that he has committed a great blunder, and that he should adopt a different course. He certainly no longer deserves the confidence of the workers in the country, and he, least of all, deserves the confidence of the individual worker in this country.

I move—

Mr. FRIEND seconded.

Agreed to.

Debate adjourned; to be resumed on 13th February.