When the House adjourned yesterday, I was drawing the attention of the Minister of Railways to the growing dissatisfaction among the Railway officials. I referred the Minister to the time when he assumed responsibility as Minister of Railways and Harbours, and I think he himself will admit that he took over a Department of Railways in which there was the greatest goodwill towards him and contentment among the staff. At the beginning he found himself up against Spoorbond, and I remember how the Minister praised Spoorbond and how he enlarged upon the value of Spoorbond to him as a channel whereby the troubles among the staff could be brought to his notice in a proper manner. I remember how the Minister referred to the good relationship existing between Spoorbond and himself. Subsequently a conflict arose between the Minister and Spoorbond, because the Minister had lent his ears to an agitation from outside, the object of which was to kill Spoorbond. There has been an earnest debate in this House on the conflict between the Minister and Spoorbond. We warned him that so long as he paid attention to the agitation, and as long as he tried to suppress and destroy Spoorbond, and deprived it of the opportunity to continue its existence in the capacity in which it had existed, there would be dissatisfaction in Spoorbond and among a great proportion of the staff, upon whose obliging service the Minister and the Administration are dependent. There are only two ways in which he could restore the position of contentment, which he received as his heritage when he took over the Railways, and that is that he should retrace his steps and restore Spoorbond to the position it occupied before he took over, when there existed a healthy relationship between Spoorbond and himself. It is essential for a sound business undertaking desirous of doing business on a sound basis, that the staff should be well disposed and content and obliging. That is the primary requirement in a business undertaking, and it also is extremely necessary in a department of State. In order to carry on the Administration properly, and for the due exercise of control, it is necessary that there should be contentment and goodwill among the officials. I think the hon. Minister will agree that the tone of the debate thus far has indicated everything but contentment among the staff, but that much has been said about the discontent among the staff, and that if he does not look out, the discontent will eventually increase to breaking point, and it will not be possible to cope with it any longer. The Minister should restore the contentment, and he can only do so by retracing his steps and showing goodwill towards the staff association. I would once again emphasise that there is a good deal of dissatisfaction, not only as a result of his actions in regard to Spoorbond, but also as a result of the presently existing conditions of service. The dissatisfaction also is due to the fact that too much is being asked of the staff under the war pressure. Every hon. member here, with the possible exception of the Ministers, could testify to the manner in which the staff is being overburdened, and how impossible it is for them to comply with the tremendous demands. Reference has already been made to the manner in which almost all branches of the services are being overtaxed, the catering service, the staff at the various stations, etc. Impossible demands are being made of them. The hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander) has referred to the contribution made by the staff to the war effort, and stated that 13,000 men had enlisted and gone to war. We have no objection if people voluntarily wish to enlist instead of doing their duty in the Railways, but I say in an undertaking such as the Railways, where the Minister is dependent upon the contentment of the body of officials, and where in terms of the Constitution he has to exploit the Railways on sound business principles, the Minister should, in order to be able to provide the public with a good service, decide that, when people go to the battlefront, they should be replaced as far as possible by the employment of other people, to prevent too great demands being made on the people who are in the service today. That overtaxing of the people is in a large measure the cause of the growing discontent It is not unwillingness. The people want to do their duty and more even; they want to render good service, but they simply cannot do so. The hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) has quoted cases here of what is happening on the line at Koffiefontein. Incidentally it falls within my constituency and those conditions are being found not only on that line, but on the entire railway. Extensions have been made on that particular line, and instead of there being an increase in the staff to enable them to handle the increased traffic, this was not done, with the result that the people on the branch line from Springfontein to Koffiefontein are being completely overtaxed. With regard to the extension of the line to Koffiefontein, I should like to say this also, that it is impossible for the Minister to expect those people to be able to do what they have to do at present. The extension took place there, and he still has only the same number of employees there, although the work has been doubled and possibly trebled. There is considerable traffic on that line in connection with the concentration camp. The Minister knows about that. More goods have to be transported; hundreds of people who are employed there, have to be conveyed there. Then there is also the expansion of the work in connection with the irrigation scheme at Kraaipoort. All this has entailed more work, and yet the same staff has to do the work there. While I am referring to the expansion that has taken place as a result of the development at Kraaipoort, I should like to draw the Minister’s attention to this important matter. On another occasion I have suggested to the Minister in regard to the extension of a railway line, that such a proposed extension should be referred to the Railway Revision Commission. I take it the Minister now knows what the position is. But at that time he, together with the Minister of Finance, said there was nothing of the kind, and that I probably was referring to the Railway Board. I did not mean the Railway Board, but the Railway Revision Commission. That is a Commission appointed by the Minister’s predecessor, particularly for the purpose of investigating the various railway lines coming to a dead end in the Union. That Commission was specially instructed to report on where it was necessary to link up the dead ends with other lines, and where it was necessary to extend existing lines. The Minister will find all the information on that in his Department or in the office of the Railway Board, and it is not necessary for me to give it to him. I would just refer him to the fact that on the 14th June, 1939, shortly before the outbreak of war, I pleaded for the extension of the line from Koffiefontein, via Jacobsdal, to Modder River. That was one of the connections referred to this Railway Revision Commission. The Minister’s predecessor replied:

Here, therefore, the Minister has proof that the Railway Revision Commission did exist, and the Railway Revision Commission had to investigate this matter. On that occasion the Minister further said:

That was in June, 1939, and in September, 1939, the present Minister of Railways took over the Department. I should like to know from the Minister now, whether he has not yet given his attention to that report? Or has the report not reached him yet? Apparently he has not seen the report yet? otherwise he could not have told me there is no such thing and that I probably meant the Railway Board. He can make enquires from the Railway Board, and he will obtain all the particulars there. I think I have brought this matter quite clearly to the attention of the Minister. Now I should like to say this to him. In connection with these Estimates, reference has repeatedly been made to enormous surpluses. ’The surpluses are announced in spite of the fact, as hon. members opposite called it, that the Railways have contributed a very large payment to the war effort. That being the position—and it is said quite candidly by members opposite—is it not also the duty of the Railway Administration first of all to give attention to the development of the interior and to the needs of its personnel before making payments towards a war with which South Africa, according to our point of view, has no concern? It still is an open question whether the Railways were entitled to contribute those payments to the war effort. But where it is announced that the surplus is exceptionally large, and that exceptionally large payments are being contributed to the war, we on this side have every right to plead, as we have pleaded, and as we now plead, for an extension of the Railway service and for the extension of lines that are necessary, and to plead in addition for the provision, and actual and real needs of the Railway staff. I wish to associate myself with the other hon. members in pleading for the payment of increased remuneration to the staff in these war circumstances. As the cost of living allowances do not cover the gap between what the people receive for their work and what they require to be able to make a living—I think particularly of the low-paid workers on the Railways—we on this side of the House appeal to the Minister and the Railway Department to meet those people and to fill the gap. He should give those people satisfaction; he should provide them with an opportunity to make a decent living. If the Railways do not provide them with a proper living, the Minister has no right to expect good services. It is an essential requirement for good service that the people should at least receive a salary that is sufficient to enable them to live properly. That is our plea, and in addition we say that, in view of the announcement of these large surpluses the Minister should also give attention, to essential expansion. I wish to mention a case I have already referred to in this House on a previous occasion—the case referred to the Railway Revision Commission. It is the case of the connection between Koffiefontein and Modder River, via Jacobsdal. Hundreds of thousands of pounds have been expended by the Department of Irrigation at the Kraaipoort scheme. The traffic increases daily, and this line is one of the cases that appeared at the top of the list, one of the lines that should have been constructed. It is one of the cases that is so urgent that it justifies the Minister of Railways giving his attention to it immediately. It is not necessary for me to go further into all the particulars again. The Minister will find all the particulars at the Railway Board office. There are duly drafted memoranda in regard to the representations made to the Administration. Shortly before the Minister took over this portfolio, a large deputation, consisting of a dozen members, met the Railway Board. These members represented Railway interests from East London to Kimberley. The hon. member for Kimberley (Mr. Humphreys) and members from East London and others were members of that deputation. Strong representations were made to the Railway Board on the linking up of this line I have just referred to, and I should like to know from the Minister whether he has been advised of the representations that have been made to the Railway Board. A very strong case was set up for this connection. The development at Kraaipoort is just beginning, and this year, the first year, 10,000 bags of wheat have been won. It has never been won there before. Lucerne and things like that will still be coming too. The production will double itself every year, and we have to provide for transport facilities. In the circumstances I think it is necessary that the Minister should give attention to the matter, and that he should tell this House that he is prepared to make provision in cases where such a line is absolutely essential for an area that is developing, and that he is not going to discontinue all expansion simply because there is a war on. He cannot leave everything over until the war is over. The Department of Irrigation and other Departments as well are engaged on large settlements at the junction of the Modder River and the Riet River. Ground is being levelled, plots are being prepared, and houses are being built for a great State settlement. These are things that have to be faced. Those people must have transport facilities when the development takes place. For that reason it is essential that this connection between Koffiefontein and Modder River, via Jacobsdal, should be made as soon as possible. I do not wish to detain the House longer in connection with this matter, for I trust the Minister will give his attention to it, as well as to the few other matters I brought to his notice. I hope we shall have a definite indication from the Minister as to what he intends doing, if not in the course of this debate, then during the Session.

I think the Minister is is to be congratulated on receiving so little criticism in this debate—so far. But I don’t want to join in this mutual admiration society because I have a few criticisms to offer. He intimated in an interjection during the speech of the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) that he had not published a surplus at all. Of course, we all laughed—we read our monthly returns of the Railways and we know that there are tremendous surpluses every month. Now, we are aware of the fact that these are State Railways, they are the property of the State, and they are supposed to be run for the benefit of the State. Then why should we have all these huge profits and these surpluses accruing? I heard yesterday from members on both sides of the House pleas on behalf of the unskilled labourers, pleas on behalf of the station foremen, pleas for bridges here and there, and for extension of lines. But I want to put up a plea on behalf of the poor suffering public who have to use the Railways today. No one has tackled it and criticised from that angle at all.

You have not been listening then.

The Minister of Railways sits in his office and he does not know what is going on, but if he would only go down any morning either to the Cape Town station, the Johannesburg station or the Durban station, and see the crowds queued up just to reserve their seats, it would open his eyes. They stand there for hours. Well, the public are prepared to put up with these inconveniences. The public are travelling on trains which are overcrowded, they are using half towels, they are travelling six in a second class compartment and three in a second class coupe—they are putting up with all these inconveniences purely because the Minister has said that there is a war on, and because he has said: “Please don’t use the trains, we don’t want you to use them at all, because we have not got the rolling stock.” The long suffering public are putting up with this, but you cannot have even a glass to drink water out of on the train. Has the Minister ever thought of turning to the long suffering public and saying to them: “Well, today I am not using so much staff on the trains, I am not using so much laundry, I am running my Railways much more economically than before, so I am going to give you a reduction in fares.” I have never heard the Minister suggest that, but I feel that it is something which the public are entitled to particularly when they put up with all these inconveniences and discomforts. And let me suggest another point. I do not know whether on the coach which the Minister uses—whether on the trains to which his coach is attached the drivers are particularly careful, but I know that the majority of the drivers today give you a bump when you start your journey, they bump you all the way down until you arrive at your destination and then they give you another bump to let you know that you have arrived. I think that if the Minister wants to help the public he should have a proper school for these drivers.

You know that many of these drivers are away on active service.

Yes, I know that large numbers of drivers have left the Railways and have joined the Railways and Harbours Brigade, but I think it is a pity that a few were not left behind to help this long suffering public to have more comfortable journeys than they have today. Now, to come back to this large excess profit which we know the Railways are hoarding at the expense of the public. A State railway should be for the benefit of the State and there should be practically no profit at all; the whole profit should be handed back. The Minister of Finance is not here just now, but I wonder whether all these profits which the Railways are making should not be subject to excess profits duty.

That’s a new idea.

I am quite serious about this. I see my colleagues are laughing, but I think the public will be only too pleased. The Minister is a business man, and I put it to him as a business man myself—why should the Railways not set an example to the rest of the country? Let me put up another suggestion to the Minister, that this money should be donated to war funds—all this excess profit If the Minister cannot give it back to the public—to European and non-European sections of the public alike—it will be a very nice gesture on the part of the Railways to give it to war funds.

Very nice, indeed.

I commend these suggestions, and I ask the Minister to go and see for himself the inconvenience to which the public are being put today. Might I also mention this, the Minister advertised in the Press that he did not want the public to use the trains. The next thing was that we had a shortage of petrol, so we could not use our cars, and naturally after that the trains were more crowded than ever. The Minister then withdrew the concessions which allowed you to bring your own car down to the coast if you went on a holiday. Well, as I have said before, the public are prepared to put up with these inconveniences.

I thought you knew there was a war on.

Yes, who knows better than I, but does the Minister realise the extent of the inconvenience, and is it necessary to have all these discomforts to which the public are exposed today?

In my area the farmers make use of the buses on a large scale. There are routes which are regularly used by the buses. I might add that we have had a large wheat crop in that area this year; 300,000 bags of wheat have been won. The System Manager of East London met us and sent lorries. We are very grateful for that. But I should like to say something about the bus drivers. We have had a wet year, and those poor people were on the road day and night. Some of them have been on the road for two or three nights at a time, and other lorries have had to be sent to fetch them. They are not paid overtime. These people suffer great inconvenience, and I should like to urge upon the Minister to consider those people. He should take them into consideration, and see whether he cannot pay them overtime, for they really are of great service to the farmers in that area. That is my request, and I do hope the Minister will give his personal attention to the matter. There are one or two men who are temporary employees, in every bus. They are selected from the people of the town, and they are paid a daily wage. I think they receive about 5s. per day. They work very hard. They have to load and unload the bus. Many of them are not physically strong, and I do think they deserve at least 10s. per day. I do hope the Minister and the General Manager will give their personal attention to this matter also.

I want to support the plea of the hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth) in regard to the inconvience which the public have to put up with. Personally I don’t feel that I am able to add to the bouquets showered on the Minister of Railways. Like previous Ministers of Railways, he has so much money at the end of the financial year that he does not know what to do with it, and some of the suggestions of the hon. member for Rosettenville might well be acted on. I see no justification for these large queues which you see at the large stations in South Africa—queues of people waiting to see whether they can get a seat on the train a week or even a month ahead. Some simplification, some business method, should be adopted in certain sections of our Railways. I feel certain that some section of our Railways lack the business training necessary for such an undertaking. I cannot conceive of any business house allowing people to stand in queues in the way they are doing today—these people are waiting to hand their perfectly good money to the Railways to do business with them. Surely it should be possible to put up a notice board or get an extra attendant or two to attend to the people, to explain the difficulties and give some information. You might put up a board: “No seats can be booked for Johannesburg for the next week” It should be possible to eliminate this tremendous waste of time. The hon. member for Rosettenville also complained of the treatment meted out to the public on the trains at present. Some time ago the Minister of Railways introduced the system of girl stewards on the trains, and I feel certain that these girls were found to be very satisfactory indeed on the run between Johannesburg and Durban. I have had to use the train during the past few months more than I like to, but owing to the trouble Ministers give the public of South Africa in various departments it is necessary for members to rush up to Pretoria to see if something cannot be done to assist the long-suffering public. And using these trains and discussing matters with other people, I have come to the conclusion that it is very satisfactory to have lady stewards on the trains. But coming to Cape Town last month the attention on the train was nothing as good as it is on the trip from Johannesburg to Durban. We did not have girl stewards on the train. And I hope the Minister will see his way to extend that service of girl stewards on this line. I am told also that they are perfectly satisfied with the conditions under which they work, and I am sure it is really a woman’s job to wait at the table—it is not the job which a young fellow should do when there is a lot of other work offering. And we have a war on. Now I want to say something on the question of bilingualism. The Prime Minister replied to some questions I put to him last Session, when he said there was no victimisation on the Railways so far as bilingualism was concerned. He said that a man was not penalised because of his lack of knowledge of the second language. I want to bring to the attention of the Minister once more this particular question because it affects a considerable number of people in Natal, the Eastern Province, and all over the country, and the Prime Minister definitely stated on more than one occasion that where a man was sent to a particular area and a knowledge of the second language was not essential, that man would not be penalised.

Where did he say that?

It is perfectly true that the Prime Minister said that on several occasions. Let me just quote from the “Natal Mercury” what he said in reply to questions which I put to him.

The hon. member may not quote from reports or comments made in a newspaper during the same Session of Parliament.

Oh, this appeared in Hansard. This is a report of what appears in Hansard—

When was that?

It was in last year’s Hansard.

1. (1) whether the assurance given by him at a public meeting in Durban in 1933 that transfers of pre-Union unilingual Government servants would be permitted to centres where the duallanguage qualification was not essential has been, is being and will be carried into effect as opportunity offers;
2. (2) whether pre-Union unilingual officials are eligible for promotion upon giving satisfactory service; if so,
3. (3) what proportion approximately of those applying for or entitled to promotion have been granted promotion during the past three years;
4. (4) whether retired pre-Union unilingual servants are given the opportunity of temporary re-employment as opportunity offers during the war period; and
5. (5) whether, in the case of pre-Union unilingual servants who are debarred from promotion or re-employment in the Government services, solely by reason of their being unilingual, the Government will consider the advisability of withdrawing any such penalisation and re-instating at the earliest opportunity the position of those who have been adversely affected by such language penalty in the past.

1. (1) The statement attributed to me is broadly in consonance with the policy of the Government as enunciated by the Minister of the Interior at the time if the words “to posts in which” are substituted for the words “to centres where.” This policy continues to be pursued.
2. (2) Yes, if otherwise considered qualified for the particular positions to be filled.
3. (3) Save in the limited number of instances in which specific vacancies are advertised it is not necessary to apply for promotion, since it is standard practice for the relative claims of all eligible officers to be considered as vacancies arise — the process is selective and no official is entitled to promotion as of right.
4. (4) Yes.
5. (5) No. The Government can find no justification for compensating officials or ex-officials for lost opportunities of promotion directly due to lack of a qualification prescribed by statute—in this case section 15 (3) of Act No. 27 of 1923.

Now, particularly as there is a war on, the Railway Administration, who is the biggest culprit, should relax its very stringent test which they put in connection with bilingualism. I have here testimonials in respect of a man who has been on the Railways for almost 40 years, and I make bold to say that there are very few serving in the South African Railways who have rendered such excellent service.

Please don’t read them, they are very long.

Yes, they are very lengthy but they are from the public. These testimonials speak of the man’s fitness for his work. This is a man with 38 years’ service in the Railways, and he put in an application for a post, which was promotion to him, but he was turned down because of his lack of knowledge of the second language. It is almost impossible to imagine a thing like that from a Department which is supposed to be run as a business concern—and the Railways are a business concern. Now, when these men entered the Railway service before Union they entered on a definite understanding and contract. What has happened since? The conditions of their service have been totally changed. Afrikaans speaking members of the service have been compelled to learn English, and English speaking servants have been compelled to learn Afrikaans, and if they are not proficient in either language they are penalised The Government is breaking faith with these people.

They have had 30 years to learn the other language.

That may be so; I am sorry to have to raise this matter again, because I know how unreasonable the Opposition are on this matter. Now, I say this, that I have yet to learn from any Opposition members that they are prepared to get up here and advocate that we shall have dual medium schools. No, they say we must have single medium schools. We must put our children behind barbed wire fences, don’t let them come into contact with the other section because they may be contaminated, we only want them to learn the one language. They must not be allowed to learn the other child’s language and they must not be allowed to associate with the other child.

Of course you are talking nonsense.

No, I am not talking what you are always talking in this House.

You know that it is not true.

It is perfectly true. Anyhow, there is not a motion on the Order Paper for dual medium schools.

Did you go to a dual medium school?

The hon. member does not want the children to be at school together so that they can learn to understand each other. This is a weapon which is put into the hands of a certain section and they are using it. The time is overdue—the Railway Department and other Government departments should seriously consider relaxing on this question of bilingualism in the way it affects pre-Union men. Those are the only people I am making a plea for, the men who went into the Service on certain conditions. I can tell you about a case in another part of the British Empire where conditions of service were altered as I maintain they were altered here, and that particular Government had to pay out an enormous amount of money in pensions. Those members of the Service had to be paid out because their conditions of service had been altered in a similar way to what is being done here. That was the position in Ceylon. I hope hon. members of the Opposition will support me, because I am just as much concerned if an Afrikaans speaking man is penalised as if an English speaking person is penalised.

Why should not they all learn both languages?

Whatever a man’s nationality may be he should not be subject to certain regulations and then suddenly have his conditions of service altered. Of course, the man who joins the service today joins with his eyes open. I say that people who enter the Service today, if they are Afrikaners, should be prepared to learn the English language, and if they are not prepared they must stay where they are, and I say the same to the English speaking man. The man who joins the service today knows perfectly well that he cannot get promotion unless he learns the other language. I have nothing to say about those people. Natal is predominantly English speaking, and it will be realised that it is very difficult for the people in Natal to learn the second language.

The hon. member must confine himself to the subject matter before the House.

We have made our schools dual medium so that the people can learn the second language. What I have said does not only apply to Natal, but there are most distressing cases in the Eastern Province, in Johannesburg and in various other parts of the Union, and I do hope the Minister will be able to tell us that he will take a stand on this matter, and that he will say: “I am prepared even now to see that our pre-Union men will not be penalised.” These pre-Union men have joined under certain conditions and the Government has no right to change those conditions. But so far as the men who have joined since Union are concerned, the position is entirely different. Now, let me say this: “You have no right to force this question on your pre-Union men because you not only affect these men, you make racialists of them, you also affect their wives and children.” The children will say: “My father would have got so much pension but unfortunately he could not speak English, so his pension is only half of what it should have been.” That is turning the child into a racialist. I say it is time we had done with these things. I know the Minister has difficulties, but let us be human, let us say we stand by what is fair, what is just and what is right.

Hear, hear!

Yes, if I enter into a contract I shall see to it that I keep it. But, of course, the men who joined after Union must look after themselves. It is most unfortunate that such a state of affairs should exist in the country; it is not right, it is not fair, it is not just. I make no apology for having raised this question again, but I hope the Minister will give us a definite reply and will be able to say that he will see to it that justice is done to these pre-Union men. I also want to make a plea on behalf of the artisans in the Railways. It is all very well for the Minister to come here year after year with his wonderful surpluses. The hon. member for Rosettenville was quite right, and I say that the Minister of Finance should be on his track, and the Minister of Labour too. We find the Minister of Labour poking his nose very effectively into commerce and industry.

Did you say “very effectively”?

We find that representation has only to be made to the Minister of Labour that any industry is making a little excess profit, and the Minister is soon snooping around and bringing in his wage determination. “It is no use telling me,” so the Minister says, “that the industry cannot pay these wages. I know that you have been making big profits in the past, so you can pay these wages.” The Minister of Labour is quite justified, but I don’t know whether he is aware that the Minister of Railways is making excess profits, and I wonder whether he is prepared to institute an investigation into the labour conditions on the Railways and see whether he cannot do something to alleviate the distress that exists among our Railway workers. The artisan staff has been most loyal to the Administration. They have in most cases refused to accept jobs outside where they could have got almost double the wages they are getting today. True, they are getting certain privileges, but they do not get all the privileges which other officials get. Had the artisan staff walked out the Minister of Railways and his concern would have been completely crippled, and the majority of them could do so. In these days when the demand for labour is so acute surely the Minister of Railways should appreciate the position and should take into consideration the rates of pay outside. The Minister will probably reply and say that they are getting a cost of living allowance. That may be, but I maintain that the cost of living allowance is not commensurate with the rise in the cost of living, and if outside bodies can afford to pay their artisans almost double what the State Railways are paying, surely there is something wrong, and that something is what I want the Minister to look into. The artisan section are the only section which have not received an increase. They are in receipt of the cost of living allowance. These men have to work excessive hours of overtime and they are endangering their health, and what is going to happen if the cost of living allowance disappears? It is only a question of time.

Prices will go down.

Prices have the unhappy knack of staying up, and you must remember that when you are dealing with the cost of living you are dealing with the farmers—they are the people who control the cost of living. The Government is not prepared to say that the farmers shall receive what is fair, and no more. If it is necessary that the Railways should show these surpluses, I think the hon. Minister will agree with me that the men who produce these surpluses are the very individuals who should participate in that, and the hon. Minister has no right to allow these surpluses to accumulate at the expense of the artisans who are running the Railways. Without the artisans the Railways would come to a standstill. I am convinced that they have had a very raw deal indeed, and it is up to the Administration to do something for these artisans now. I hope the Minister’s reply to me will be something to this effect: “We are now prepared to look into it and give them the necessary increase that will justify them in carrying on.” I believe the artisans are not the only section of the Railway servants who are at present dissatisfied. The artisans are however, the main people concerned. They are, to my mind, the people directly responsible for running the Railways, and they are more necessary than any other section. As a small employer of labour at the present moment, I would never allow a man to be in my employ if he is dissatisfied. It is my job to keep him satisfied, because a dissatisfied man in any concern is a useless individual to that concern. While the Railways are seething with discontent owing to the artisans having had such a raw deal, it is up to the Minister to adjust these wrongs so that he will have that contented service that is so necessary for efficiency in our Railways. I do not want to prolong this debate, but I do want to impress upon the hon. Minister the necessity of doing something in connection with these artisans as soon as possible. It is no use saying that a committee or a commission might be appointed to go into the matter. We do not require a commission to tell us that the artisans have had a raw deal. This Government is becoming known as the Government of Commissions. The artisans are becoming dissatisfied with their own union, as they are represented today. That is another important matter, and I do hope that the Minister will go into these two important questions, that is, the enforcement of bilingualism and the question of artisans’ pay. If we can improve conditions in such a way that we will have satisfied Railway servants, we will have greater efficiency. I hope the Minister is satisfied that there is something wrong, and that he will be prepared to adjust this matter to the satisfaction of the employees concerned.

I am surprised at the hon. member for Greyville (Mr. Derbyshire), who, 33 years after Union, still comes forward and pleads for unilingual officials, of whatever nationality they may be. I should like to know from him in what country of the world a unilingual South African will obtain employment? The hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth) attacked drivers. I am sorry that he did so. They cannot defend themselves here. The hon. member complains that they cause a person to be shaken up a little too much. I wonder whether he has forgotten that he sleeps peacefully while the overworked drivers have to spend much overtime on the engines to transport him, and I wonder whether he realises that the engines and coaches are no longer in such a good condition owing to wear and tear hear and there. I don’t think it was fair of the hon. member to launch an attack on the drivers who cannot defend themselves. I have here a circular letter I have received from the artisans at Kroonstad. They feel that they are not being treated quite properly. I shall give the letter to the Minister, and I hope he will go into it, and will reply as to what he intends doing. I do not know whether the facts are as stated in the letter. I received the letter yesterday only. But I hope the Minister will see what he can do. There is another matter of great importance. The Minister of Railways says he should travel by rail as little as possible, owing to lack of coaches and engines, I suppose. But there is one case I should like to call attention to. I have already submitted it to the Department, and the General Manager said he would go into the matter. It is of great importance to farmers who have to transport their stock from drought-stricken areas to other parts. The farmers are very grateful that the Railway Department and the Department of Agriculture have made these facilities available to them to convey stock at one-quarter of the usual tariff, from drought-stricken areas. But what happens is this: A farmer sends his stock four or five hundred miles away, where there is good grazing. The cattle or sheep become fat there. But now he cannot sell his cattle or sheep, but that he forfeits the benefit of the cheap tariff. He has to bring back his stock to his district. I should like the Minister to go into that matter. When a man sends 300 or 400 head of cattle or sheep from a drought-stricken area to another area, and he has an opportunity of selling, say, 50 or 100 of the animals, we should like him to have the opportunity to do so, on condition that the animals are not brought nearer to the market on the cheap transport tariff. As things are at present, a farmer cannot obtain the rebate on the animals if he sells some of them. The result is that they first have to bring the animals back and then send them away to the market. I know of an instance where a farmer sent his stock from Kroonstad to Vryburg. He was not permitted to sell his cattle there, or to send them from there to Johannesburg. He first had to have his cattle conveyed three hundred miles by rail, by a roundabout route, in order to get them to Johannesburg, via Kroonstad. Otherwise he could not receive the rebate. The Railways, that are so overtaxed, had to transport the cattle 300 miles by a round-about way at a loss. I think the farmers can be met in that respect. Let them pay their just share, but do not prohibit them from selling their cattle elsewhere under such circumstances. At the present time the Railways have a shortage of trucks and engines, and it will benefit the Railways if they meet the farmers to some extent in this respect. I may mention another case. A farmer in the Karoo sent sheep to Fauresmith. After they were in a fat condition, he had to take them back to the Karoo in order to receive the rebate, and from there again to Johannesburg. There was a considerable waste of time and unnecessary use of trucks, and the animals lost condition. In the first case, the farmer received £1 per ox less on account of the long way the animals had to travel to get to the market. I hope the Department will go into the matter.

My participation in this debate will be very brief, but I wish to refer to the contribution by the Railways to the upkeep of roads used by Railway buses. The Railway Administration has, during the last year at any rate, made a contribution to the different provinces for the upkeep of roads used by Railway buses. In the Cape we have the divisional council system, and according to that system the money goes to the Provincial Administration, who, in turn, allocates it to the various divisional councils. Unfortunately, sir, the amount is very small, and I have no information with regard to the system of the distribution thereof by the Provincial Administration. I desire, however, to compliment the Minister on the gesture he has made in giving this money for that particular purpose, but I do feel that in consequence of the huge surplus which he has he should make a far bigger contribution towards the upkeep of these roads. The Railway buses serve a very useful purpose in conveying goods from parts of the country which lie away from the Railway line. Still, at the same time, these Railway buses have to use the roads, and in the Cape Province, where the main burden of the upkeep of the roads has to be borne by the local taxpayer, that is the taxpayer in that particular area, the Railway buses do a considerable amount of damage to these roads, and the upkeep of these roads costs considerably more than is generally realised. Although, as I have said, we appreciate the gesture on the part of the Minister, we do feel that a larger contribution should be made, because in the Cape many of the divisional councils in whose areas the Railway buses are extensively used, either get very little, and in some cases do not get a penny allocated to them, and there is thus a general feeling of dissatisfaction with the allocation made. I am not blaming the Minister or his department, but I do say that if there is a larger contribution there will be a better and larger distribution thereof. I hope the hon. Minister will realise that it is due to the country, or at any rate to the Cape Province, where the taxpayer bears this burden, that the Railways should pay a bigger contribution towards the upkeep of these roads used by Railway buses. I think, in doing that, the Minister will not only do justice to the public which these buses serve, but he will be doing justice to the divisional councils concerned.

I propose to deal briefly with the payment of the lower paid employees on the railways. When you travel up and down the railways, you see that the housing accommodation for European railway workers has of late years improved very considerably. Very nice cottages have been put up for Europeans, but in so far as the coloured people are concerned, the conditions under which they have to live are, to say the least of it, very deplorable. In the majority of cases they have to live in shacks made of old sleepers. These sleepers are only 6 ft. 6 in. in length, and if you consider that a portion of that length has to be dug into the ground and a mud roof put over it, you realise that they have less than 6 ft. from the roof to the floor, and with very small windows. I know it is a fact that tuberculosis is rife under these conditions, and the best suggestion I can offer to the department and to the Minister is to burn down all these shacks and to put up some decent dwellings for the coloured people. I say that tuberculosis is rife, and that is due firstly to the unhealthy conditions under which they have to live, and secondly, due to the fact that the pay they receive, although considerable improvement has been made, does not allow of the coloured people living in such a way that they can be comfortable and at the same time happy. I have before me a schedule of the wages of the coloured people, and I am sorry to see that differentiation has been made between Cape Town and Port Elizabeth. In so far as the coloured people in Cape Town are concerned, the minimum wage was 4s. in 1939, with a maximum of 5s. Now this has been increased since last year to a minimum of 5s. 3d. for the married coloured person, with a maximum of 6s. 3d. As regards Port Elizabeth, the minimum for the married person was 4s., with a maximum of 5s. 3d., a difference of 1s. 3d. in the case of married men, and the same difference in the case of single coloured people. I am very grateful that the maximum of the coloured people in Cape Town has been increased, but I do feel that there is no reason why there should be this differentiation between Cape Town and Port Elizabeth, and I hope that the Minister and his department will go into this matter and at least put Port Elizabeth on the same footing as Cape Town is today. The figures I have quoted are with regard to the self-fed coloured people. When you come to the departmentally fed coloured people, you find that their maximum is 4s. per day, with this statement that the value of the rations supplied to non-Europeans is assessed by the department at 6d. a day, and in addition to that a cost of living allowance at a prescribed scale is paid. It is quite impossible for the coloured man to keep his family at home and to care for himself at the rate of pay that is applicable in these instances, and I would most strongly urge the Minister to go into this matter in due course. Coming to European railway workers, we are glad to see that their rate has been increased by 1s. a day practically all round. I do not say that a maximum of 9s. 6d. is sufficient for a European, but I do feel that in the case of the unskilled Europeans, especially in so far as the juniors are concerned, they work under conditions today where they have every opportunity of becoming skilled artisans, and although they are taken on at this low rate of pay, it is just a starting point for them, and under present conditions they will be enabled to improve their positions and become skilled artisans. But in the case of the coloured artisan, he is absolutely at a dead end, and he has no chances of betterment. He has no chance of being considered for any of these higher paid positions. Previously the coloured man was in a position to earn up to 10s. and 12s. a day, but unfortunately it was reduced under the present conditions, and he is allowed a maximum of only 6s. 3d. today. Certainly grouses have been heard here with regard to the treatment on the railways. I may just say that in the course of all my travelling on the railways, I have had the best possible treatment. I feel that a very great deal depends on the way you treat these people. I feel that if you treat them with the courtesy that is due to them, you will never have any ground for complaint yourself. It is remarkable to me that travelling down from Johannesburg there have been up to five sittings in the dining saloons. In spite of the fact that there are five sittings, you find when you go in for the fourth or fifth sitting, that you still get supplied with good food. Then I would like to say this with regard to the reservation of seats. When children of seven years and under travel by train, no reservation is made for them, because they travel free. Perhaps this matter can be gone into, so that people who have to travel long distances, will perhaps be met in this regard. In so far as the surplus is concerned, we know that the railways have a very big surplus today. I maintain that this surplus is very largely due to the war conditions, and I feel that under these circumstances, this surplus should be used towards paying for our war effort.

Before the hon. Minister replies, I just want to touch on two or three points very briefly, but before doing so I would like to say that I think the public generally in South Africa are justified in congratulating the Minister and the Railway Department on the fact that with a very depleted staff, with very poor rolling stock, they have been able not only to carry on the railways, but they have also been able to make very substantial contributions to the war effort of this country. But having said that, I would like to stress a point which was made here yesterday, and that is the practice which appears to be prevailing, under which railwaymen who have been interned and who are therefore disloyal as far as the country is concerned, have their service suspended, with the result that those who have gone to the front and who come back after the war, will find themselves having to serve under those who have proved disloyal to the country. It is not only bad policy, but it is inexpedient and is apt to create a great deal of dissatisfaction. There is another point in that connection that I would like to mention, and that is the question of houses. I understand that in connection with the railway housing scheme, a practice has been carried out by which, if a railwayman is interned, he is treated in a way which is bound to create dissatisfaction, because his family is allowed to remain in that house, and the Government does away for the period of internment, with the payment that would normally have to be made to the railways in reduction of the amount he owes to the railways, as well as freeing him from the payment of interest. At the same time, while the family of this internee is allowed to remain in this cottage, we find that there are large numbers of men who are on the waiting list and who cannot get a house.

Surely you do not want to kick out the women.

I feel that the Government must differentiate between those who are loyal and those who are disloyal.

Loyal to what?

To South Africa.

You mean to Russia.

Let me tell that hon. member that South Africa would be in a very bad state if the war had not been going on, and if Germany had been allowed to carry on as she pleased. I say that it is unfair to those who are giving service to the State to allow the families of internees to occupy railway houses, while other railway employees cannot get houses at all, and I hope the Minister will consider altering that situation and giving preference to those who are loyal, as opposed to those who are disloyal. Then I would like to refer to the pay of the non-European section of the railway workers. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) dealt with this question yesterday, and she has received general support on this side of the House, and I think the hon. Minister should appreciate that it is not only the representatives of the natives in this House, but also members on this side of the House who feel very strongly that there should be an improvement in the conditions of pay of these non-Europeans. We are faced with two facts, first the Prime Minister and the Government is claiming, and I think with justice, that we must raise the general standard of life, more particularly of the lower-paid section of the people. Secondly, we are faced with the position that public bodies have, as an excuse for not carrying out wage increases, the precedent of the railways not paying on the same basis as private enterprise, and I think it is essential that the railways should not only get up to the standard of private enterprise, but that the railways and any other Government departments should set an example to private enterprise, and not create a state of affairs where people can say that the railways and the Government are forcing certain conditions on private enterprise, while failing to observe those conditions themselves. I hope the Minister will realise that this is a matter which has not only been put up by the representatives of the natives of this country, but it is a matter on which all the members who support the Government are feeling very strongly, and that he will take steps as a matter of policy and as a matter of expediency, to raise the wages of the nonEuropeans on the railways.

We have just had a fine example from the opposite side of the House of what we have always said. There is a man, a foreigner, so far as my knowledge goes, a person from Russia, who has come to our country, and now wants to tell us who is loyal and who is not. There is a great difference of opinion on the point of loyalty. I know only South Africa. We here do not know Russia or any other country. We do not want the Bolshevists here, but here you have a person who, in my opinion, is nothing but a foreigner, and he comes forward and wants to tell us how we should treat our women in this country. I object. He is, I believe, a person who has also walked about with a gun. That is as far as he has come to doing his duty to South Africa. For the rest he has hidden his body behind the sons of our country. We have a lot of them. I do not wish to label all those on the opposite side with the same tag, but when we have this type, who want to come and tell us what patriotism is, and what we should do with our women and children, we lose our patience. We do not want the Russians here. We shall never tolerate Communists here. If he wants Russia here, let him rather return to Russia. South Africa for the South Africans. I should like to ask the Minister a question or two on the transport of cattle fodder on our Railways. I am very sorry the Minister has not yet made some alteration in that respect, for the position today is that a product which is not a pure maize product is being carried at a much higher tariff. You have the Industrial Corporation, for instance, which is doing very good work. They are manufacturing, a balanced ration fodder for cattle, but unfortunately, because there is a little lucerne or bonemeal added to render the ration balanced, they are not getting the rebate they should be getting. Where cattle fodder is very scarce, I hope the Minister will consider allowing the same tariff for cattle fodder as, e.g., for the carriage of maize. Then there are a few grievances we have in my constituency. Take the Cradock station, for instance. I have brought the matter to the notice of the Minister on a previous occasion already. There is an old bridge, very high, of the type that people, and especially school children, cannot cross on their bicycles, but they have to pass underneath the bridge with their bicycles. Now we ask for the construction of a foot bridge. It will not cost much, but then all the children living on the other side of the station will be able to cross over in greater safety and with greater ease to attend school. The drainage system should also be improved. I hope the Minister will give attention to it. Then also victimisation is taking place of late. One of our shunters, for instance, has been sent in the direction of Rhodesia because it is alleged that he participates in politics. That is not so. We hope the Minister will not exercise victimisation, but lately we have been having instances of it, and the people are becoming uneasy. In this case the man has a lot of children in the school. They were just about to sit for the matriculation examination, and just because some loyal Dutchman reported him, he had to be transferred to another place. You can imagine what expense and what grief it would have entailed had the children to remain in the school. I am thankful that the Minister has permitted the man to remain there until the children have written the matriculation examination, but I wish to ask the Minister, when people are being transferred, to take the circumstances into consideration, and not to send them away from their own people. It is very difficult for the children to be educated if they are transferred from a region in which they attended an Afrikaans medium school to a region where they have to attend an English medium school. Then I should like to ask the Minister further to give attention to the line from Cookhouse to Naauwpoort, as regards diversion and grading. We are glad that the Minister has done something about it, but enough has not yet been done to straighten the line and to improve the grade. Another point I should like to raise and to which reference has already been made by other speakers, is the very long hours people have to be on duty. I do not believe the people could be held responsible should something go wrong when they have too much work to do. Here, on the suburban line, there are people who have told me—I met such a person the other day who told me that he went to bed a twelve o’clock and had to rise again at five in the morning. He says he cannot stand it any longer. I hope the Minister will take these people into consideration also. Whether they agree with the Government or not, as regards the war, they are also South Africans. And if a man is not exactly in favour of the war, yet is prepared to do his duty in the public service, he should be treated like other officials. There should be no victimisation. The Minister of Railways and Harbours had a good name in the past but lately he is spoiling his reputation. He is one of the right type of Englishmen we want here. We do not want Russians here, but that type of Englishman. But if he comes to our country, to live with us here, we expect him to be fair to all. I have always found him very reasonable, and I hope he will not bring discredit on his name now.

There is just one question to which I would like to draw the attention of the hon. Minister. I should like to ask the Minister to agree to have a revision of tariffs. Section 127 of the South Africa Act states—

Our rates at the moment are somewhat out of date, and I think it will be of great advantage to the country, and, at the same time, the Minister will be carrying out the Act of Union if he has these rates revised. We want to see industrial development in the platteland. I am not going to repeat what I said last year about the great advantages of that, because I think the House and the whole country agrees that it is essential that we should distribute our industries, and not have all our industries concentrated in one or two centres. The railway rates at the moment rather tend towards our concentrating our industries in the larger centres, the centres where the markets are immediately available. Just to quote one small example. It is very much cheaper to carry a tree from the forest where it is grown to a large centre than it is to put up a mill where the tree is grown and to cut it up there, and only transport a portion of the tree. The moment an article is manufactured it costs more to convey, and I feel that it should not cost more to convey the finished article than it does to carry all the raw materials, plus the waste matter, to large centres.

If the Minister’s vote is delayed longer than he expected, he should thank his friend, the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) for it. I just wish to say that I listened with contempt almost to what he said in connection with men who today unfortunately are in the internment camp, and their wives, whom he apparently wants to throw onto the streets, to deprive them of their homes. Let me tell the member, who today is a front-bencher on the Government side, and whose advice is therefore more appreciated than the advice from this side, that we over here do not take the slightest notice of him. He talks the language of a man who does not know the history and traditions of our people. There are many innocent people in the internment camps today, and the worst of all is that there are many people of his kind who have put them there, though they are innocent and the hon. member knows they have been confined to the internment camps, although innocent. Now he comes here and has the brutality—I almost want to say the barbarity—to urge the Minister to deal with those people, who have never been summonsed before the Court, and who have never had an opportunity to defend themselves and to prove their innocence, in such a manner that their wives and children should be thrown on the streets. That is a member who occupies a front bench on the opposite side, and his advice will possibly carry much weight with the Government. What we on this side say, will carry much less weight But let me tell the hon. member this: He should remember that the type of speech he has made here today will be remembered, and when one day we come into power, we shall purge the country of that type of person and those ideas which are like a curse on our national life, and we shall see to it that that type of person disappears from here. The ideas the hon. member is preaching are the cause of there being hardly any prospect of co-operation in our country, and are the cause of the bitterness existing in the country. I shall leave him now. I have just received a letter I should like to read—[Translation]—

The Government is today appealing to the farmers to produce and produce more. Years ago I exerted myself to procure this service, which the Government today wants to discontinue, for the people. I struggled for many years and I was very thankful when eventually we procured the service for the people. Today the Minister comes along and suspends it. I think they could in any case have told me something about it when they considered doing so. We might have been able to furnish them with some data, or we might have tried to obtain more support for the service, but of a sudden the service has been discontinued. It is a service that has been built up over a period of a couple of years, and it is taken away now simply by writing a small letter. It is not fair and right to the people there and to me. Let me put it so: When eventually we succeeded in getting the road motor service for those parts, the people converted their farmingsystems in order to adapt it to such a road motor service. It is a part of the country which cannot go in for sowing or argriculture on a large scale, but a part which can only breed cattle, and to a certain extent produce fodder for cattle. It was their future to keep cows and to produce fodder, and they were developing in that direction. Now they receive this setback all of a sudden. The farmers converted their husbandry in view of the service. They could now get perishable products to the market, and they went in for poultry and dairy farming, which necessitates your being able to get your product to the market expeditiously. Now the Minister comes along and suspends the service.

When business was suspended, I was talking about the bus service between Broedersput and Bothasrust. I was putting forward the argument to the Minister, to which I hope the Minister has paid particular attention, that in my opinion that part of the country—and this was one of the great reasons I put forward—was founded specially for such a purpose, and that the type of farming carried on there, can only be continued if the farmers have such a bus service at their disposal. Unless they have such a bus service, we shall have to tell the Minister of Finance that he will have to provide more money in order to grant new loans to those people, and that he will have to write-off further sums when those loans cannot be repaid. The Minister of Native Affairs is in his seat here. He is a practical farmer, and I know he will support me in this argument that in certain parts of the country you can only go in for certain types of farming, and if the Minister of Railways does not make such a service available to those people, or if he discontinues that service at a moment’s notice, he can realise the loss and the catastrophe his action really means to that section of the farming community. Well, I do not think the Minister of Railways is able to realise that. But as I have said, the Minister of Native Affairs will realise it. The second point is, that as a result of the service instituted by the Government, those farmers have been persuaded to change their farming methods, and to adjust themselves to the types of farming that would be most profitable, and which could only be continued if they have such a transport service at their disposal. It is discontinued at a moment’s notice, with the result that they are left with their poultry farming and dairy farming on their hands because they have no means of transport. I would make an earnest appeal to the Minister to reconsider this matter. If I can be of assistance to him in this matter, I should be glad to place my services at his disposal, but I should like to ask the Minister to meet us and I wish also to voice a protest that the Minister once again is following the old practice with which we have been acquainted in this country for such a long time already, that when too much is wasted elsewhere, economy is effected on the other hand by curtailing the services of the farmers. There in the remote areas, there where people are dependent on a road motor service, there curtailment is effected. You may go whereever you like today, and you will see large capital expenditure made by the Minister of Railways. On every station along the main line, beautiful buildings of fine brick are being erected, while the old buildings would have been good enough for the purpose for a long time yet. But here in this letter the Minister informs me that the curtailment is taking place—

He wants to save petrol at the cost of my constituents—

He wants to conserve all this at the cost of my constituency, and then he came along the hay before yesterday and asked for large sums of money for the construction of railway lines elsewhere. Is that fair and reasonable? The people who are furthest away, and who are most deprived of all privileges, they are thrown to the wolves. I want to protest against that. I hope I have succeeded in impressing upon the Minister the urgency of the matter, in order that he may realise what it will really mean if at this stage he is going to take the step of refusing to make that bus service available to the farmers any longer.

After listening to the debate which has gone on for a considerable time and having heard the representations made by all parts of the House, coming not only from these benches, but also from the other side, I presume on behalf of their constituents, I do not think it is out of place if I advance a plea on behalf of the people in my constituency, a plea which I have already made some years ago. And I want to say here that we are grateful to the ex-Minister of Railways, who made a small concession in the direction advocated by us. My plea is on behalf of the underground workers, and I regret to say that the present Minister has up to now done nothing for these most deserving people — the mineworkers, and particularly the underground workers, who from early morning to late at night, have to work 8,000 feet underground on six days of the week. I think if any body of workers deserves consideration it is this body of underground mine-workers. In view of the surplus of the Railways, I think we have a strong case. I am going to intimate to the Minister what the position of these people is. Usually mine-workers get a holiday once a year and in the past they were enjoying excursion facilities when going on leave. Now all that has been done away with. There are no longer concessions for mine-workers, or others for that matter, when travelling on our Railways. I know of one instance where one of these unfortunate mine-workers a few weeks ago went to the Johannesburg booking office as early as 5 o’clock on a Sunday morning and by the time he had his ticket it was 10 o’clock. That is what people in Johannesburg have to put up with. Where the Railways have these surpluses some consideration is due, particularly to the underground mineworkers. It is to a large extent due to their efforts that the country finds itself in the sound financial position we are in. Can the Minister visualise what would happen if these men, who are responsible for this wealth, were to cease working in the mines? The Railways would not be able to make ends meet. I also want to avail myself of this opportunity of drawing attention to a matter of public importance to Johannesburg, and that is the acquirement by the Administration of another piece of the Wanderers’ ground, I mention this because some years ago, when the Railways were trying to acquire a piece of the Wanderers’ ground, there was strong opposition to this transaction in Johannesburg. There were public meetings galore in opposition to this move, so much so that a deputation was sent to Cape Town to interview the then Minister of Railways, Mr. C. W. Malan. I was one of the deputation on which there were representatives of the Municipality of Johannesburg, viz., the then Mayor of Johannesburg and members of the Provincial Council, and many prominent people from Johannesburg. And I want to remind the Minister and officers of the Railway Department of the agreement come to on that occasion. The deputation came to the understanding with the Minister that if the particular piece of ground were to be taken over by the Railways, there would be no further encroachment on the Wanderers. And when I knew that the Railway Administration had again taken up the attitude that they wanted to get more of the Wanderers’ Ground it seemed like a breach of faith, a breach of the understanding which was previously come to, and I want to ask the Minister in view of that understanding to drop all efforts to secure further ground from the Wanderers.

To begin with I want to say a word or two to the Minister in connection with what I can only call the very unsympathetic attitude displayed by his Administration towards those Railway men who are being discharged from the Army. That attitude is in direct conflict with the statements made by the Minister himself and by the General Manager of Railways. We found some time ago that a call was made to the Railway to supply an additional number—to supply hundreds of additional men to make up the losses we have suffered at Tobruk. The Minister is also congratulating the Railway men on the response they made to the appeal of their country, and yet when we find that these men, after having rendered considerable and gallant service up North, are discharged, the Department seems to be adopting an attitude which I can only describe as unsympathetic. I do not know what is the reason. I know as far as Durban is concerned the Administration generally far from extending the same sympathy to these men who are discharged, seem to go out of their way to put obstacles in the way of their proper re-employment. Let me quote a few cases. One of my best personal friends, after having served 18 months up North, and in the desert itself, was sent back to the Union and discharged—or at least he was not discharged, he was released, classified C. 3. When he went back to his job on the Railways—he had been certified as suffering from some skin disease—the foreman told him that he could not go back to his job on account of this skin disease and the Railway Department then offered him a job at £15 per month—they degraded him from an artisan’s job to £15 per month. Naturally he refused to accept it. The doctor certified that he was fit to resume his job but that for some months he would have to be put on light work. That so far has not been done, and no efforts whatever are apparently being made to fit this man into light work. Now here is another case. It is the case of a man when he joined the army was stationed at Port Shepstone. It is understood that these Railway men have to take a certain amount of duty in outside centres. But this particular man had already done two years at Port Shepstone although his home and connections are in Durban. He felt when he was discharged that he ought to be retained in Durban. But the Railway Administration did not see eye to eye with him so he is back at Port Shepstone. These are typical cases, and I can quote other cases where men, discharged from the army, on going back to the Railways have subsequently taken their discharge from the Railways because the point which arose was this. If a man is classified as C. 3 in the Army there is something the matter with him. That man has either contracted some kind of disease, he has either been injured or his health is affected by the conditions of Desert warfare, and therefore he is not a fully fit man, and he deserves more consideration from the Railway Department. They cannot expect that a man who is classified as C. 3 or discharged can come back to a peacetime job—and it does seem to me that the Government should go out of its way to give sympathetic consideration to these men. They don’t do it, and it seems high time that the Government went into the question of these men who have been discharged receiving special consideration. They should lay it down as a general policy that these men should receive sympathetic consideration and that where the doctor says that they should be given light work, light work must be found because that is what the Government are expecting the private employers to do. Now, I want to ask the Minister what he proposes to do in the line of finding employment for men discharged from the army. We have a Civil Re-employment Board under the Chairmanship of our newly appointed Minister of Native Affairs. From time to time we see statements in the Press about the work of that Board. I noticed in the recruiting office this morning that Maj. Piet van der Bijl’s speech in regard to the work of the Board is actually being published in pamphlet form, and is now available for intending recruits. And, oh, yes; it reads very well, but in actual practice it is not so very well at all. What do we find in the Railway Department? Here is the Civil Re-employment Board saying to Municipalities that they must be prepared after the war to put into operation certain municipal contracts, so as to give these men employment. They say to other employers: “You must be prepared to take on other men”; but the Civil Re-employment Board does not say to the Railways: “You must make provision to take on a certain number of men coming back from the war”; the Railways don’t do it. And apparently they have no intention of doing so. If you have a returned soldier who has no job, and you send him to the Railways, the Railways say: “Yes, we will give you a job, but you must start at 8s. per day”, and that is the tribute paid by the Railways to these men who have fought so valiantly. Oh, yes, the men are told that they can get a job—I don’t believe the Railways are turning these men away—but they are told that they must start at a wage of 8s. per day. Yes, it is a shocking state of affairs. I feel that, faced as we are going to be with this unemployment problem after the war, faced as we are today with the certain measure of unemployment insofar as men being discharged from the army are concerned, a lead should be given by the Government itself. And what I say about the Railways applies to the Government generally, with reference to the Civil Service. But this is a Railway debate, and I am confining my remarks to the Railway service. The Minister’s reply, of course, will be: “We are in a different position”. “Our Railway Service and the Civil Service is a service which is run by annual increments and promotion over a number of years, and if we are asked to absorb returned soldiers into the Railway Administration, we are going to be faced with this vexed question of promotion,” to which I reply that in effect the Government by adopting that attitude is determined to see that a large number of their employees who were opposed to the war, many of whom were members of the Ossewa-Brandwag, are going to be protected and put into more favourable positions than the men who were prepared to shoulder the rifle and fight for their country. Oh, yes, that is the attitude which the Minister is taking up, and that is the attitude which is disturbing a large proportion of the population of South Africa. I don’t want to drag into a Railway debate all these questions of pro and anti-war, but it is a very burning question in the country, and, just as in many instances the loyal section of the population was, that section which was prepared to fight for South Africa, objected to the Governor-General’s Fund on the ground that only one section of the country would pay for it, so they objected today to the policy of the Government in regard to the soldier returning from the war. We should remember that a large section of our army is composed of men between 19 and 25 years of age. It is the youth of the country who have joined the army; it is the youth of the country who by reason of their physical fitness form a large proportion of the forces sent to the North, and in many instances these men have joined the army at the age of 19, before they have embarked on any kind of career at all, before they have had any training or occupation. These men are coming back now; they are 22 or 23 years of age, and they will continue to come back, and they come back as men who have no trade or profession. The Railway Administration is the biggest single employer of labour in the Union of South Africa, and we must look primarily to the biggest employer of labour in the Union as the avenue where we can absorb a certain proportion of the men in our army. We have been training men now insofar as making them mechanics, in the Air Force and elsewhere—I don’t know whether they are fully qualified mechanics—and they have been given to understand by the Military Authorities, and also indirectly by the silence of the Government, that when they are discharged from the army they will be given the status of mechanics. Well, where are they going to be absorbed? Is the Railway Administration going to do its duty to the country in this regard? I know that there are political consequences attached to a plea such as I am making, I know that if the Minister embarks on a policy of absorbing men into the Railway Service, not in the kind of jobs such as those I have been referring to, but in decent jobs, I know he is immediately going to be assailed by our friends opposite on this vexed question of promotion, but when the country was in danger the Government had to depend on these people, when it was necessary to fight for South Africa, political considerations did not come in and these men were asked to go and fight, and to their eternal credit they responded in large numbers and they were given the promise that the end of this war would not be like the end of the last war, but that the returned soldier would be looked after. Well, sir, so far these promises have not been implemented.

And they never will be.

Speeches by the Minister of Native Affairs do not impress me. I want to see some practical actuality attached to all these promises, and we are not getting it. It is not going to be too difficult for the Railways to work out a scheme whereby they say: “We shall absorb so many men.” It is going to be difficult to work out some reasonable scheme, but even if the Opposition does object—well, we don’t worry much about that.

No, but you will worry when the elections come.

The majority of the people of this country will be wholeheartedly in favour of such a scheme, and when one looks at the Railway Service one sees so many varied occupations which make the Railway Service one of the key points in any scheme of rehabilitation after the war, and such a scheme should be started now. Instead of their absorbing men, what is happening? I don’t say in large numbers, but men who are coming back from the army to their Railway jobs are leaving the Railways because the pay is too small to keep them alive. I know of instances where men after a few years up North came back to their jobs in Durban but found the pay so small that they threw up their jobs and they are now driving taxis. Which brings me to the question of Railway pay. The hon. member for Kimberley (Mr. Humphreys) found satisfaction in the fact that once again the Minister of Railways is going to have a large surplus. To me a surplus in the Railways almost amounts to an act of criminality. I do not think that these business principles on which the Railways have to be run should be carried to the extent of building up surpluses of millions of pounds — for the Minister to stick these millions of pounds away in all these clever little funds which he has. We know, and it has happened before in this country, that the money stuck away in certain funds for specific purposes has been purloined by various Governments for other purposes.

For election purposes.

No, not for election purposes, you cannot do that—not yet. The Minister tells us about these various funds. Well, I believe him when he says that this money in the Rates Equalisation Fund will ultimately be used for the purpose for which the Fund is there, but I do not know what will be the Minister’s outlook after the war—should he still be Minister of Railways, which God forbid — if it is found that there is a serious financial position in the Railways. I wonder whether he will still use these funds then for the purpose for which they are collected? I know that when Ministers are faced with a deficit and there is a nice sum lying in various funds, the temptation to use that money often proves too strong, and in any case these surpluses are accruing, and I want to say this deliberately—these surpluses are accruing because of the sweated conditions under which the majority of our South African Railway workers have to work. Our Railway workers are not paid enough. The Government in its talk about social security, the Government in many of its efforts to raise the standard of living of the people of this country—my hon. friend, the Minister of Labour, in his effort for wage determination to raise the standard of living—all those efforts are suggestions to the people of this country that they should try to raise the general standard of living, but in all these matters the Government itself sets the worst example. The rates of wages paid in many skilled and semi-skilled occupations in the Railways today are not only scandalous, but are almost a crime when these rates are compared with the mounting annual surplus earned by the Railway Department. When the Railways were in some trouble some years ago—and one year we had a deficit of £1,030,000—that deficit was made up by taking the money deliberately out of the pockets of the employees of the Railways. The employees had to pay from their own pockets when the Railways showed a deficit. Surely now that the Railways show these ever-mounting surpluses it is right that the workers should gain something from these surpluses. Now, the hon. member for Kimberley tells us that the artisans are on velvet. Well, it is a pretty sandpapered kind of velvet, and when the artisans of the Railways are compared with the artisans outside, then there is a different story to be told. Despite all the figures produced as to the rise in the cost of living there has been in almost everything you want to buy in the Union of South Africa a very considerable increase. I feel that the cost of living has gone up a great deal more than the figures produced by the Government tend to show. It certainly costs a great deal more to live today than before the war, and the basic rate of the Railway artisan has not been increased at all. Admittedly he shares in the cost of living allowance, but when that is compared with the increase in wages given to artisans outside the Railways it will be seen that the artisans in the Railways are far from being on velvet. They are getting the worst part of the deal, and that becomes more and more of an anomaly when you find, as you will find in the Coastal towns, such as Cape Town and Durban, that a certain amount of work such as ship repair work is done in the Railway workshops by artisans paid at specific rates of pay, and then when these jobs—as is often the case—are handed over to other concerns and when the work is done by artisans outside, those artisans get anything from 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. more in wages. So I think the hon. member for Kimberley went out of his way unnecessarily to suggest that the artisans are on velvet. I can only gather that he feels he is entitled to say that in any consideration of wage increases the artisans should not be included. But I think that that is wrong. When I make an appeal to the Minister for an increase in Railway wages, because the money is there, I do so for the whole of the Railway staff, and I feel that we would be doing an injustice if we allowed the hon. member for Kimberley to lead us to the view that whatever increases are given, the artisans should not participate. Let me say this. The artisans in the Railways are actually the backbone of the Railways. They are the most important men employed. And the artisan is the man who has done most insofar as South Africa’s war effort is concerned. Most of the Railway and Harbour brigade has been formed from artisans, because it was necessary to have these men up North to repair tanks and do engineering work which only artisans could do. So, although these men may not have been actually in the front line, by far the greatest portion of our war effort has been done by the artisan class. The chief portion possibly of the war effort at home has been done by the artisan class, and in any consideration of an increase in wages I feel that the artisans are as much entitled to an increase as the others. The artisan in Durban has applied to the Minister on several occasions for consideration. After having put their requests through the usual channels, they felt that the Minister was far from sympathetic to their just claims, and they have now got to the stage where they are getting a little bit tired even of their own Unions. That was something I could foresee. The Railway Unions, while I could not call them just contact Unions, have a considerable suggestion of that in their formation, and they do not always manage to act in a way which expresses clearly to the Minister the views of the men concerned. I am not making any threats, but I want to tell the Minister that unless the Railways adopt an attitude which is a little more sympathetic towards the claims of the artisans, at least in the Durban area, he will find himself one day face to face with a serious position. These men are not of the type who wish to interfere with the war effort, but there is a growing feeling in the country in connection with the Railways and in connection with a great many other things, that from time to time the Government and the powers that be, make a little bit too much out of the war effort. Whatever happens in the Union there is a tendency for Government spokesmen to say: “That is all very well, but let us get on with the war first.” Well, that, too is all very well. But we must not let the war be made an excuse for leaving undone things which should be done, and in this particular case of representations by the Railway workers, I feel it is up to the Minister to pay a little more attention than he has so far done. These I think are all the points I want to place before the Minister and just in concluding I want to come back to the point I made in starting, that I feel—not due to the Minister’s decision, but I feel that the men returning to the Railways from the army, are not as sympathetically treated as they might be, and I feel as a matter of fact that the time has arrived when the Minister should make some specific investigation and should lay dow some specific policy which should be an instruction to all heads of departments that when men are discharged or are released from the army in the C. 3 category, after having done considerable service up North, every effort should be made to fit these men in the lightest form of job available, and everything should be done to fit these men into a job which they can do, and in no circumstances should a man who has been discharged from the army and who comes back to the Railways be offered a job at a lower rate of wage than he was receiving when he joined.

I should like to say a few words in regard to the Minister’s policy of curtailing the road motor services. I hope we shall be able to persuade the Minister to abandon the policy of curtailing those services in view of necessity of saving all round. I hope the Minister understands that the farmers are not working under normal conditions today. The Government has already seriously curtailed their petrol supplies, as well as other supplies which affect transport. Under these circumstances the Minister now comes along and wants to curtail the road motor services. Whilst in normal circumstances the farmers might be able to make arrangements among themselves, they cannot do so at present owing to the scarcity of petrol, etc. When these motor services are curtailed or cancelled, the farmers will find themselves in the greatest difficulties. After they first got the road motor services, the farmers arranged their farming activities in such a way that they could also produce perishable products, like eggs and milk, which they could despatch to the markets by railway bus. If the necessity for such a service was apparent in normal time, how much greater must the necessity for it be in the present circumstances, where the farmers cannot use their motor cars as they would like to. In the remote parts of the country terrible conditions will shortly prevail if the Minister continues with his policy. The people there will not be able to continue their farming operations, and they will be left stranded with their farm products which will perish and be lost. I hope that the Minister will give a clear explanation of his policy, before he continues applying it, and I want to move the following amendment—

I should like to give my hearty support to the amendment of the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel). We know the Government and the country are experiencing difficult times, but if those road motor services are suspended, you will be severing the main arteries of a large section of the people. The road motor services have become such an important factor in the economical life of the country, and especially that of the farming community, that it would be a definite injustice to the population of this country, especially in those areas where the farmers have to rely upon these services, if the Minister were to continue his policy of curtailing those services from time to time. During past years, the Railways have from time to time announced that they were not prepared to consider the extension of railways, as they concentrated their policy on providing all those parts in which it was justified, with road motor transport services. And now, as the hon. member for Christiana has indicated, it seems that when the shoe begins to pinch, the policy is to effect economy in the road motor services first, and that is an unforgivable injustice which we cannot permit to pass without protest, and, what is more, the Minister’s Department should rather consider whether it is not possible to extend those services rather than to curtail them. Moreover, those road motor services have thus far been too expensive, as regards tariffs. We feel that, in view of the fact that the Minister has at his disposal such a large equalisation fund, as regards his tariffs, he should apply a portion of it to the extension of the road motor services as well as to rendering it less expensive. For that reason I gladly support this amendment. Then I should like to point out also that there are definite dead ends on our Railways, which the Railway Administration should tackle and extend now. In the Western Free State we are scantily provided with railway services, and there are deadlocks which are crying for solution. There is a large area in the South which has to struggle along without road motor services and without railways; and in view of the large sums of money the Minister has available today, I think those parts may rightly claim a portion of that surplus which has been vaunted here by members opposite. This is an important matter, and I hope that in view of the comprehensive investigation on the part of the Department, in view of the comprehensive investigation on the part of the Railway Department and of other interested parties, and, in view of the influential representations made on the part of commerce, this matter will now receive the Minister’s attention.

With me as a practical man it is not always surpluses that show an advantage for my household. I can, for instance, keep my household under the breadline, and I can give them surpluses, and I can yield great profits. It is the same with governments and departments. Here a great surplus is being yielded on the Railways, but where are the workmen’s wages? Some of them must live under the breadline. I know I am always on dangerous ground, but I am of opinion that as soon as a father brings his children under the breadline, then it is suicide towards his children, and as soon as the Minister brings his workers under the breadline then it is suicide towards his workers. That is what is being done. I believe honestly and genuinely that the dignity of this House must be sustained, but I believe honestly and genuinely that we as representatives of the people must represent the people honestly and genuinely, and if we do not do this, and we suppress them, then it is not worth-while sustaining the dignity of this House. Now take this amendment that the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) has proposed in connection with the curtailment of Road Motor Services. I say it is murder against the Afrikaner people on the platteland to curtail the Road Motor Services. Of late we have always transported our products by lorries. Today we are rationed in respect of petrol. If, for instance, I have to transport my mealies, then I cannot get the necessary quantity of petrol to do so. The only help that we can get is from the Road Motor Services, and now those services are being curtailed. Now I ask, how can we farmers deliver our products if those services are curtailed? In other words, this means that I must now put my oxen on the road and repair my wagons to deliver my products. I want to put this to you: Is that Government consistent? The farmers are asked to produce and as soon as they produce then their transport facilities are curtailed in that way, and for that reason I am glad to be able to support the amendment of the hon. member for Christiana. I have sat in this House for ten years, and I do not think that there ever was a Minister who has had so much criticism as this Minister. But why does he get that criticism? When I was a Fusionist I looked upon him as a protagonist of equal rights. But since he has departed from the 50-50 policy, and since he has given us Afrikaners no more than 25, things have gone wrong. I do not want you to call me to order, but I do want to say this: There is an old saying, “Honesty is the best policy.” But there must not be words alone, there must also be deeds. The first injustice that the Minister has committed against us Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaners was to touch Spoorbond. The first knife he took to plunge into the hearts of us Afrikaners, was on that occasion. I as an Afrikaner feel that as soon as a man snatches at the heart of the Afrikaansspeaking Afrikaners, then I can destroy that man. There are various things. I speak from practical experience. I arrived here in Cape Town on Monday, I departed from Klerksdorp on Sunday. I want to say a few words in support of the criticism of hon. members on this side, where they said that the dining-room staff are overworked. When I came here, I had not received my cup of coffee at nine o’clock in the morning at Kimberley. I do not blame the Railway staff, but I blame the Minister because he puts people there who cannot cope with the work, because they are overtaxed. Why does the Minister do this? I as a practical farmer also have work on my farm sometimes without having the necessary labour for it, but as soon as I demand more from my workers, even if they are coloured or natives, then I remunerate them for it. Does the Minister give these people any extra remuneration? I believe in it that we in this House should give a lead to people outside, and if we do not give a lead to our people outside, then we cannot expect them to obey our laws. Millions of pounds are earned in profits. But do those workers get a portion of it? Do you know what my policy is? I would like the Minister to follow that policy of mine. I believe in giving my worker a salary, but when surplus profits are made then it is only fair towards such a worker, who has worked for those profits, to receive from me a portion of those profits. Why does the Minister not give a portion of the profits to his workers? If you want loyal service, then your workers expect from you honesty and genuineness. I do not want to say for a moment that the Minister was not honest, but do his workers receive any consideration? No. We must not lay down that sort of policy outside. I hope that when my party comes into power one day, and it will come into power …

You will have to wait a long time.

Then we shall say: That is your wage, and if there are surpluses, then the state and the workers divide them among each other. That is my policy as a practical farmer on my farm, and I believe that my party will accept this policy. I hope the Minister will alter his policy in that connection. By the sweat of your brow you will earn your bread. Do you know what a steward told me? He went to bed at 12 o’clock at night, and he had to get up at 4 o’clock in the morning. He had to work 20 hours out of the 24. When I travelled here, we arrived at 10 o’clock and that same afternoon the railway staff had to take that same train and depart. Then they speak of an 8-hour working day. That is a 20-hour working day that those people have. I say it is nothing but slavery. Have we worked 20 hours a day in this House? Yes, we have worked more than 20 hours, but then we lay here on the benches, and we need not have to run around from one place to the other. I just want to say to the Minister: Revert to the old ways you followed; you are in a bad environment.

In bad company.

Yes, a bad environment is bad company. You ill-treat your workers and you will get your reward. I have practical experience; if I demand too much from my people and I do not remunerate them, then I must know they will neglect my work. Now take for instance this case. We should have arrived in Cape Town at 9 o’clock, but we were delayed for half an hour outside the station. We had to sit and wait outside the station for half an hour. I would like to know what the reason for this is. Formerly the train from Johannesburg just went right through to Cape Town. Hon. members on this side have told how they had to wait an hour outside the station. Why is this? I will give you the reason. I say it is because the Minister demands too much from those people. They are overworked. If the Minister gives them greater remuneration, they will sacrifice more. But they do not get extra remuneration. Then it would also appear that there is a boycott on the Railways. You know me. You know that I try to act according to the Government’s regulations. They must also do it. But as soon as I do not do so, I am put in gaol.

Their time will come.

I have already said in this House on previous occasions that there are certain persons whom I would not have as swine-herds. My custom is this. On Fridays my pigs are weighed. I then telephone the station, and I order my trucks. I have my telephone in my house and it has happened to me—and how many more times will it not happen to less privileged persons—that I load my lorry with my pigs and I send them to Makokskraal, and when they arrive there there is no truck for them. Then the pigs must come back the whole distance. I say, if this happens to me, how often does it not happen with my electors in my constituency? You know that one has to get petrol coupons. I must send my pigs back fifteen miles; there and back it is 30 miles. That means that three gallons of petrol have been wasted. Why? I have my own telephone in my house and they could just have telephoned me to tell me that there is no truck. I ordered the trucks on Friday for Tuesday, and surely the officials could have phoned me before Tuesday. That shows you how unfair it is. It has not happened to me once. If it had happened only once, I would excuse it. One can make a mistake once, but surely not twice. If my workers make a mistake, I give them a warning the first time, but the second time I fine them. I would like to know what steps the Minister has taken. I have lodged complaints personally with the department and all I received was a promise that they would investigate the matter later. “Later” is never. Then I just want to mention this personal experience of mine—and I say again that if this is done to me, who is representing my people, how much more does it not happen towards my electors.

It happens to all of us.

Does it happen to you also? And why do you not roar? But that hon. member is confined to slavery. No, such a party man I am certainly not. If my party tramples on my voters, then my party tramples on me, and I can tell you this, that I put my people and my country above my party, but according to that interjection it seems to me that the hon. member puts his party and his people above his country. Mr. Speaker, I am very careful of your rulings. You have often called me to order; I think you are right. But if there is something in my heart, something that seethes in my Afrikaner heart, that in my estimation is an injustice, you will allow me to express it. It seems to me that this House is here only to give protection to one colleague against another colleague, but not to protect the people before the colleague. I hope and trust that the Minister of Railways will come back to the old course, and that he will again show the honesty and uprightness that he formerly showed towards us Afrikaans-speaking population. I hope that he will come back to the old course, and I am convinced that if he comes back to the old course, we shall protect him. We are not here to suppress and to bleed white the English-speaking on the Railways, we stand for right and justice. That is all the Afrikaner wants. Our Afrikaners on the Railways are being persecuted as a result of gossip, and the hon. Minister should be above gossip; he was always above gossip, but it appears to me that since the war started he is no longer above gossip; the war effort has upset him and he now sees in only one direction, and that is in the direction of the race to which he belongs. I do not mind him giving that race authority, but I will not be in favour of it that he gives other races, who are not Christains, preference. How many people are there not in the country who would very much like to go to the coast to enjoy their holidays; but as the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) has said, the half of the people in the trains belong to that race who are not Christains, and the other half, or less than half, are Christains. They are only 6 or 8 per cent. of the total population of this country, but as soon as there is any say, then they have 50 or 80 per cent. authority, and we on the other side object to that. I want to ask the Minister to see to it, in view of the fact that the Jews are only 6 per cent. of the population, that they do not take up more than 6 per cent. of the bookings. You know what my policy is in connection with Africa’s household. My people’s little children and mothers must stand in the passages while that race sits in the compartments. Your heart as an impartial man will bleed, as mine bleeds, if you had to see what happens in the trains. I hope and trust that the Minister of Railways will take that matter into review. I feel that in this time in which we are living some of us are abnormal. But there is one thing I believe, that inside you is a feeling of right and righteousness, and in your innermost self you can decide what is right or what is wrong. The Minister must surely know these things cannot be right. In conclusion I want to repeat that I support this amendment of the hon. member for Christiana. My area has asked for lorries to transport their mealies to Makokskraal, and they could not get them. I do not believe in hitting a man in his back; I do not want to threaten, but I want to say to the Minister that if we do not get these things he will have to suffer the results.

Mr. Speaker, owing to the tendency for the second reading debate on the Part Appropriation Bill to develop into something of a Railway Budget debate, the unfortunate Minister finds himself at this stage with something like 61 questions to answer for members opposite. I think the House will appreciate that to attempt to do that briefly would be an impossible task, and once more, therefore, I shall ask any member whose question may be only of local importance, and not of general importance, to await a reply in regard to any information he wants until such time as it can be sent to him by post. For a railway debate this debate this year has been quite a prolonged one; I am not quite sure that we have not established a record in the time taken over my Part Appropriation Bill, but a very great deal of it dealt with only very minor points. The Minister is always sorry to hear that a member has had a case of fruit arriving at his house with some of the fruit bad, but if anything tangible is to be done about that, it would be much better for members to take the matter up with the management rather than to keep it in their minds until Parliament meets, and take up the time of this august assembly with questions of this kind. Many hon. members have said in twenty minutes what they usually could have said in five. In Railway circles we have a little rhyme which is often used against the Minister, but I think it would be quite appropriate were I in turn to use it against some of my critics, not against all of my critics but some of them. And that rhyme is as follows:

Quite so.

Whom does that apply to?

Let me say, however, that on the whole the criticism has been very fair. I don’t take exception to any of the criticism I have received and I should like now to deal with some of the charges that have been levelled against me.

The wheel now starts to turn.

Now, the first points that I want to deal with are the difficulties in the catering service. I propose to reply to these points very briefly. We all realise that very full trains have to be handled today—when you have four people in first-class compartments and two in coupes there must be difficulties, but I think a wrong impression would be created by the chorus of complaints from the other side unless the facts were properly understood. In every dining saloon the usual complement of stewards is carried. Cars on the main line have one chief and five stewards. The smaller cars have one chief steward and four stewards. The large diners in Natal have one chief steward and seven waitresses. The difficulty, of course, is to get experienced men, and for that reason sometimes difficulties arise, but I was impressed with what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, District (Mr. Hayward) said when he pointed out that his experience was that if you only look for reasonable assistance in these days, if you make allowances for the difficulties of stewards and stewardesses, you have no difficulty at all—it is only those people who go on board looking for trouble who usually succeed in finding it.

Oh, that’s nonsense.

That state of affairs is not confined to the Railway dining room.

We are complaining of the long hours.

I shall deal with hours in a moment.

Don’t whistle too much, get the wheels going.

Those people who are prepared to meet the Railway, not half way but some little bit of the way today, have very little cause to complain, having regard to all the facts of the situation. A suggestion was made that we should employ university students on this work, but I think the suggestion is hardly practicable; for one thing they would only be available for a very short time, and before they were trained they would be going off again. It might also help to broaden their education, but I am afraid it would not help us in our difficulty. I can now assure hon. members, however, that everything is being done by the Railway Administration to make the best of our very difficult times. The same kind of complaint arises out of the reservation of seats for passengers. The real trouble here, of course, again is that, although we have not got the trains, passengers insist on travelling in ever-increasing numbers. Our passenger traffic is continually on the increase. It is, I think, a striking tribute to the value of advertising that for the last 18 months the South African Railways have been employing the best advertising brains in the country asking people not to travel, and yet every week our passenger returns have gone up. I hope my publicity department will take a lesson as to this apparently successful way of securing passenger traffic at such time when we may be looking for it. But hon. members are never very consistent. Many of them we hear clamouring for excursion tickets—they clamour for all the year round excursion tickets, they ask for reduced fares, and so on. But I think it will be appreciated that any concessions of that sort at this time would only make the difficulty very much worse. It was suggested that special trains should be run for soldiers, because soldiers’ reservations do a great deal to congest the civilian trains. That suggestion, of course, is quite impracticable. We do run, of course, quite a large number of specials for soldiers, but only when they are travelling in great numbers. It would be quite impracticable to segregate soldiers into one train and civilians in another. Let me say that if ever it should come about that it is impossible for soldiers and civilians to mix in our trains, then it will be the civilian traffic that will be curtailed. I was recently in England, and in England today there are no reservations allowed at all. I say no reservations, but there are one or two exceptions.

We are not in England.

I should like to tell the House what these exceptions are, so that members need not be without hope if we should apply the English system. These exceptions are (1) members of the Forces travelling on duty; (2) Prisoners of war, (3) Judges of the Supreme Court, (4) High Government officials, (5) Cabinet Ministers and (6) Lunatics. Now, if there are any of these categories in which members fall there is still a hope that under the rigid English system we shall be able to make provision for them. This is, of course, a very difficult question. It is quite impracticable for the Railways themselves to select the passengers. How can the Railways, booking passengers by the thousand every day, all over the country, in every centre, possibly decide whether a passenger wants to travel for business or pleasure. It is impossible. If any hon. member can give me a practical scheme for controlling reservations I shall be only too glad to look into it, but it is quite impossible. I do not know of any way in which it can be done, and in the circumstances the only thing we can do is to appeal to the public conscience and if that does not work, keep on cutting down the trains until people cannot travel at all.

Have a controller of reservations.

I think there are a lot of other things in this country, which want controlling before that. Now we come to the next matter in respect of which complaints were raised in this debate—excessive hours of working. Let me say at once that unfortunately I agree with everything that has been said by hon. members opposite as to the very unsatisfactory situation in regard to hours worked by Railway men today.

Then why don’t you alter it.

No one is more painfully conscious of the fact than I am and than my Administration is, that we are compelled today to work men far too long. In 1925 we had an Hours of Duty Committee, which went into the whole basis of our hours of working and that, technically, still is supposed to be the standard upon which we are opearting. I know, of course, it is no longer the standard. What did occur to me some time ago was that the conditions in 1925 were so different from what they are today that it was high time, even if we could not altogether apply it in these times, it was high time that we had a revision of our hours of duty policy and to that end I have appointed a Committee to go into this whole question of the hours of duty of all sections of our Railway workers. I don’t think they have started their enquiry yet, but the matter is in hand. It was put in hand some months ago. And no time will be lost in getting a better basis for the men.

Is the working man represented on that Committee?

Yes, it will include representatives — of the staff associations anyhow. That is what we are doing to bring about a new basis for the hours of work on the Railways, but I can assure hon. members again, notwithstanding the fact that we have difficulties, we shall continue to do all we can to help our workers on this very difficult question. I can do no more and again I admit that there is a good deal of justification for the criticism from all sides of the House. I have been fully conscious of the fact, but anything I can do to remedy the situation will be done. Questions of pay in the different categories of our workers were raised but I do not propose to deal with these in any detail now. These are matters which are primarily discussed and settled in conjunction with the Staff Associations. I would remind hon. members, however, that there have been substantial improvements in a variety of grades in the Railway Service, more especially among our lower paid staffs. I know, of course, that when it, comes to a big question like pay we can never quite satisfy any opposition. The Opposition can always outbid even the most generous Minister. They have only to talk about increased wages, whereas the Minister unfortunately has to pay them.

He has to pay, has he?

So I do not set anything by the hope that I shall ever quite satisfy the Oppostion, but having regard to the comparatively mild nature of the criticism, I do not think they feel very strongly on these questions of pay. I am very averse and the Staff Associations know my view—I am very averse to any undue inflation of wages at present. Inflated wages take with them inflated prices, and they produce no ultimate benefit. At a time when the earnings of railwaymen on the whole are very good, I think it is better to lay aside all surplus funds we have against the time when earnings will not be so good, and then we can face up to giving perhaps some enhancement in wages in order to make up such shortfall in earnings. In that way we can keep earnings on an even level and equalise wages. We do not want to do as we did in the last war, inflate wages enormously and then inflict Jagger cuts—although Mr. Jagger had very little to do with them. I do not want it to be the duty of the present Minister of Railways to have to inflict anything in the nature of Sturrock cuts after this war—in the unfortunate but not unlikely event of my remaining Minister. This brings me to the Rates Equalisation Fund about which there is a good deal of confusion of thought. One of my predecessors was responsible for the division of this Fund into a Rates Equalisation Fund as to 50 per cent. and a Wages Equalisation Fund as to the other 50 per cent. It has never been quite clear to me what was intended by that, and I have given instructions that that arbitrary division is now to cease. What actually is meant by a Wage Equalisation Fund I don’t know. I don’t know how it was dealt with. I take it in this way, that on Friday night I would reduce wages and on Saturday morning I would increase them again out of the Wages Equalisation Fund by the amount I had reduced them. But that seems rather unnecessary to me. I use the funds to make up a deficit. But what is the Rates Equalisation Fund for? Why have a Wages Equalisation Fund? Why divide it?

Call it a Reserve Fund.

The purpose of the Rates Equalisation Fund is to maintain Railway rates and consequently Railway revenue at a uniform level in bad times. All our revenue comes from our rates. Therefore if we can maintain our revenue why should we reduce wages? So that the maintenance of our revenue is obviously the straightforward and proper way of maintaining our wages and it is unnecessary to divide that revenue maintenance fund into any categories. So the Rates Equalisation Fund is in fact a Wages Equalisation Fund. So for that reason I do not see any need for a Wage Equalisation Fund to exist as a separate fund. But it will be appreciated by this House that in a time like this, when the future is so uncertain, when we are facing a similar experience to that which we had to face in the last war, there is a great deal to be said for maintaining that fund in the strongest possible position. Had the Rates Equalisation Fund in the last war stood at £7,000,000 it would not have been necessary to have increased a single rate or to have reduced a single wage during the depression after the war. Then, again, members asked about the cost of living allowance on pensions. Quite recently in company with my colleague, the Minister of Finance, I met a deputation consisting of Cape Town members who made representations to us on this difficult question. And the matter is now under consideration by my colleague in conjunction with myself. I would like, however, to point out that so far as the Railways are concerned, where we have a pensioner whose case is really a hard one, who is so near the bread line, we make a contribution to that pensioner out of Railway funds. It is done as an act of grace, it is done after consideration of the special circumstances, and, of course, it is only done in respect of really hard cases.

Only when their pension is less than £100 per annum.

Yes, I think that is the figure, more or less. That may be a method of meeting this very difficult position, but we have done that for quite some time now, and we shall certaintly continue it so far as the South African Railways are concerned. While on this subject, I want to deal with the criticism of the hon. member for Kimberley (Mr. Humphreys) in regard to our Rent Rebate schemes. This scheme works very well on the whole. It is true there are a few anomalies. Such anomalies are inevitable in the operation of a scheme like this which covers such a diversity of cases, but on the whole it works well. The great bulk of the payments go to the lower paid workers and I can assure the hon. member that there is not a single case of any officer earning £1,000 or over drawing a rent rebate. Some hon. members have referred to the new staff arrangements. I should like to explain that these have worked remarkably well, so well indeed that they have exceeded the expectations I had of them. There has during the past year in the Railway Service been a complete absence of strife as between man and man and group and group. There has been a complete absence of racial feeling among the staff; there has been an atmosphere of peace, such as has not existed in the Railway Service as between members of the staff over the last eight or ten years.

What about Spoorbond?

I went over the difficulties which faced us last year and I do not want to repeat my remarks now. Let me say this, too, that the staff not only agree that these things which I have indicated have happened, but they agree that as a result of this change their own interests are better looked after. The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) raised the question of Spoorbond. I don’t want to discuss that at any length now, beyond saying that I personally have not, nor have I ever had anything against Spoorbond. I asked them to co-operate in this new staff arrangement, but unfortunately and regrettably they declined. I have comparatively recently had a talk with the Committee of Spoorbond, and even yet I would be glad if I could secure their co-operation; but as I say the position is difficult now. We now have our staff associations and it is a little difficult to cut across any of the work which we have built up, and which has proved so satisfactory. I should like to say at this point to those hon. members who represent Native interests—and I am sorry the hon. member for Cape, Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger), is not in her seat, that I am taking steps to introduce similar arrangements in respect of my Native staffs. I say similar, but I should say as nearly similar as the particular circumstances of the non-European case will permit. I was rather astonished at the charge levelled at me by the hon. member for Cape Eastern. She accused me of doing nothing about this matter, she told me that I was going to be too late and various other things, whereas the hon. member for Cape Eastern knows that twelve months ago I was discussing this very question with her and she knows what I have done since, and I cannot understand why she should charge me with having done nothing. I was also charged in rather violent language by the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) because of my neglect of native interests. I have been rather surprised at the almost intemperate language used by the representatives of native interests against me after what I have in fact done for the natives on the South African Railways. I am inclined to think that possibly these members feel like other members, that they must always outbid the Minister—they must always be a little ahead of the Minister. But in this case I have gone so far ahead that they can only get ahead of me by going to extremes, and therefore I think I can take their language as a tribute to what I have done on behalf of the natives. We had the usual crop of requests for branch lines. I do not propose to deal with them individually. I can, however, say to them all that I can hold out no hope for them. And I want to say this too, that not only can we not build branch lines now, but in regard to promises made in the past for branch lines, these promises must now be revised in the light of the success of our Motor Road Transport Scheme. It is clear that it is unwise to build branch lines now to meet the needs of the farmer. The Road Motor Services are much more elastic, much better able to tackle seasonal variations, they are much cheaper in the long run, and in most cases they are much quicker.

Then why do you take them away?

If the hon. member will wait I shall deal with that too. Therefore, I can hold out no hope for branch lines, but I hope that as soon as conditions permit the Railways will develop their Road Motor Services on very generous lines. I realise that Road Motor Services do a great deal to develop the country, and so long as I am Minister of Railways at any rate I shall take no niggardly view about this expansion into any part of the country which believes it can develop, and I am prepared to give it every chance by giving it a resonable service and giving it such service for a sufficient period to prove its possibilities.

Are you going to build any lines at all?

No branch lines in the ordinary way. We must build a railway line which is required for heavy traffic.

Where you have dead ends.

We have quite a number of dead ends—some ends are very dead.

So are the Cabinet, only they don’t know it.

I have also received quite a number of usual kind of requests for railway stations, which will of course be very carefully considered. (Laughter). Hon. members do not seem to take me very seriously on this question. I would like to say we are always building stations, and we build them according to the most urgent needs. The hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen) indicated that all we needed for stations was cement, and as cement is plentiful, why do we not go on building stations. I would like to assure him that a great deal more than cement is needed for stations, signalling apparatus and many other things are needed. I have statioins very nearly completed that cannot be opened, because we cannot get the essential signalling and other apparatus. In regard to the question of cost of living allowance, which was also dealt with, we pay on the Railways, as every hon. member knows, according to a table which was drawn up by railway servants in conjunction with servants in the public service. It is entirely the work of the servants themselves, and we pay on that scale without modification, without amendment, and without reduction at all. And when it comes to be a question as to whether we are paying enough, after all there must be a yard stick somewhere whereby we can measure this increased cost of living, and I suggest that the only yard stick we can really use is the yard stick of the Census Department, which is a scientifically assessed figure, and is issued monthly.

It is too scientific.

If we were to depart from that, I see nothing else that we can put in its place, beyond a lot of rather airy opinions expressed by individuals as to what their experience is. Some members asked me if there was an embargo upon the employment of fit men, and many of them based considerable arguments on that point, the hon. member for Namaqualand even became a little bit humorous on it. There is no embargo on the Railways in regard to the employment of fit men, we do take on fit men, physically fit men. What has given rise to this idea that we do not take on physically fit men is the fact that where a man goes off on active service, we do the best we can to see that we do not take another fit man in his place, and for such replacements as this, we try to get a man who is medically unfit, because we do feel that to merely let one soldier go and take another in his place is a waste of effort. We would prefer to send the one who wanted a job rather than to let the experienced man go. As far as I know, that is the only embargo.

In other words, you do take on fit men?

If the hon. member can give me any case where a fit man is not taken on merely for the reason that he is fit, I would be glad to hear of it. Then in regard to housing schemes, housing schemes are being pushed forward as hard as present-day conditions permit. The Railways are tackling this question of housing in a very big way. We are designing our housing schemes so that we shall be able to help every class and grade of workers from the highest grade of clerks who want to own their own houses, right down to rail workers. We are building at the present time some of the houses experiementally on a sub-economic basis, so as to enable the rail worker to purchase his own house. The hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier), I think, raised the question that we are making these houses too small. He has already made representations on that subject, and the matter is being investigated. Where it is a question of sub-economic housing, of course we cannot allow ourselves to go too far, otherwise the cost is out of reach of the very people we are building the houses for. On that matter I am quite prepared to be guided by experts. On the whole, we are doing as much as it is possible for us to do at the moment, and I hope to push on with this work.

Will you do it in the country too?

Yes, everywhere where we employ people. I propose to introduce sub-economic housing for my white workers, and at the present time I have the administration at work revising a scheme, a financial scheme, which will render us as independent of municipalities and other public corporations. I have endeavoured for some time to be included within the sub-economic Housing Act as a public corporation, but there appear to be difficulties, so I am prepared, if it does not cost too much, to face the responsibility myself as Minister of Railways, and see what can be done to supply sub-economic housing for our workers. One or two members, Mr. Speaker, referred to our shipping programme. As the House knows, we have a commission at the present time sitting on this question as to what our policy is to be in future in regard to the running of ships, it has nothing to do with ship building. The Government is fully conscious of the necessity for the development by South Africa of a transport policy on pan-African lines. We realise that with our growing industrialism it will be necessary for us to have every facility to reach any possible markets in any other parts of the African continent, and I think to achieve this result we will, after the war, take any necessary steps to secure that connection. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson) can be assured that we will co-ordinate our transport developments with our industrial expansion. On the subject of internees, the Railways carry out the Government policy. We make no allowance to internees’ dependants. I believe I have discretion to do so, but so far I have not done it. Railway employees, of course, do come under the provisions of the Social Welfare Department, and they may give some help to railway employees. That I do not know, but the only discretion that I have exercised at all is to allow one dependant of an internee to continue in occupation of her house during the war. The hon. member for Jeppe (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) called attention to the need for developing more social welfare work in the Railway service. I do not know whether the hon. member knows at all what we are doing in this direction. If the hon. member is interested I shall be glad to have the whole position placed before her, because I think she would be rather impressed if she knew what is being done in regard to social welfare in our service. We have social workers of all kinds now, health visitors and others looking after employees and their families in the Railway service. In that connection I would like to pay tribute to Dr. Booker who is the very active head of that department. Some members have complained of the working of the Road Transport Board. I would like to say that a matter of three weeks ago I ordered a complete enquiry into the whole machinery of the Board. Owing to the variety of causes there has been a breakdown in different centres, and it is quite clear we will have to revise the whole machinery of these Boards. I have an enquiry on foot now. The hon. member for Bloemfontein, District (Mr. Haywood) who, in his criticism, was as usual fair and reasonable, asked me regarding station foremen acting as station masters without the pay of a station master. No man in our service that I know of acts in a higher grade without getting higher grade pay. I do not know whether there are one or two anomalies, but if there are such cases, they must be very few and far between. If the hon. member knows of such cases, I shall be glad if he will advise me, and I shall have the matter looked into. The normal procedure is that the moment an officer acts in higher grades, he gets the acting higher grade allowance which brings his pay up to the level for the new grade. If there is any exception to that rule I shall be glad to know it. With regard to the complaint that £2,000 was granted to war funds out of railway institute funds, I would like to make it quite clear that that £2,000 was paid out of the institute fund, which is a fund appropriated by Parliament to the use of the institutes, and it was given for the benefit of prisoners of war. I think this House will agree that when many railwaymen are now prisoners of war and quite unable to use their institute, it is not unreasonable that we should take £2,000 of the institute’s fund and spend it for their benefit. That is all that has been done in this case. Then the hon. member objected to the concessions that I am making to the Defence Department. He justified his criticism on the ground that we are supposed to run the Railways on business principles. That rather surprised me, because if there is one justification for doing what we are doing, it can be based upon business principles. Surely it is a very sound business principle when you have a great volume of traffic, to give it special consideration. The greater the turnover the lower the rate you can afford to charge, and on business principles this reduction to the Defence Department traffic is entirely justified. There is a further consideration as far as the Railways are concerned. The Railways are, after all, a very large part of South Africa, our capital debt is, I believe, almost as large as the national debt of the country, and we have therefore as much at stake in the country as the Treasury has, as my colleague the Minister of Finance has. Ten per cent. of the white people of this country are directly dependent upon the Railways for their livelihood. I do not know how many are indirectly dependent, but 10 per cent. are directly dependent on the Railways, and I think you will agree that an organisation like that has a very big interest in the defence of the country in which it operates. It is perhaps not entitled, owing to our Parliamentary usage to make a direct contribution to defence expenditure, but it very definitely is entitled to assist the Defence Department in every way possible under the rules of Parliament. For that reason I am prepared not only to give the Defence Department favourable rates, but to improve those rates I am giving them now, if the necessity should arise. There was a question about gambling machines, and I just want to say that I think that this was a reference to two machines which the Railways have got for use at a fete when we were trying to raise funds for Railways and other purposes. If there is any element of gambling in regard to those machines, no more is involved than is customary at fetes and bazaars. As to the allegation that we are turning away European labourers, that rather surprised me, and once again I would welcome details. I know that at the present time we are trying to get 200 extra policemen for the Railway service, and we are giving preference to men from the Re-employment Board, but so far we have not succeeded in getting the men we want, which is rather an interesting commentary on all these allegations that the Railways are not employing Europeans.

Yes, you want A.l. men.

I would like now to touch on this question of the road motor service. We were accused of stopping these services, and this accusation apparently arises out of the statement by the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne) that we had stopped the service in his area. I am going to tell the House why this service was stopped, and if the House feels that I was unreasonable in the matter, I shall be glad to hear about it. Here is the report about the particular service which the hon. member complains that we have withdrawn—

I suggest that on the strength of that report I was wise in terminating that service.

Why not tell the whole story? You have killed that service by cutting off the connection of this line to Delarey, a distance of 25 miles.

It still runs some distance. Because I have cut that service, it is said that I am stopping road motor services. I am not stopping these, and I give the House this assurance, that almost every kind of service on the road will be stopped before the Road Services are stopped. We know too well how many people depend upon our road motor service; we know that areas in this country have been developed by this service, and they cannot now be allowed to starve because of a temporary shortage of petrol, oil and tyres. Under these circumstances, I give this House the assurance that as long as there are motor cars, petrol and tyres, our service will be maintained wherever that service is justified. The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) brought up the case of Mr. Ackermann. My friend is fond of bringing up individual cases, but I do not think he has a good case in the case of Mr. Ackermann. Mr. Ackermann was not dismissed because he was a member of the Nationalist Party. We did not know what his party affiliations were; he was dismissed because he was a very unsatisfactory employee, and I can only express the hope that he is a better member of the Nationalist Party than he was of my service.

You never gave any reasons for that.

We very rarely give reasons, but I can give the hon. member reasons in private if he wishes. In regard to the checker’s bonus, which he said had been discontinued because of the depression, that is inaccurate: that bonus was not a depression cut, that bonus was discontinued because, after careful consideration, it was no longer justified. Then with regard to the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren), who, I am sorry to see, is not in his place, he made some very strong remarks about Railway difficulties that he had experienced. I notice that in the case of the hon. member the strength of his language varies in inverse ratio to the strength of his case. I need not now trouble to reply, since he is not in his place, beyond saying this which may be of general public interest: that it is quite true members of the public are sometimes inconvenienced by getting inaccurate information from railway officers. I have several complaints of that from different parts, and I can assure the House that when we get these complaints, we do everything we can to see that they do not recur, and we try and impress upon all our staff the necessity for giving accurate information. In regard to the complaint about the doctor only visiting the line once a year, I should like details of this. It is usual for the doctors to visit the line once a week. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) referred to the question of pilfering on the Railway, and seemed to blame the railway worker. I think he is doing a grave injustice to the railwaymen, because I think our men have a good record. It is not always the railway workers who are to blame, and I make these remarks because of what may appear to be an unjust aspersion on our railworkers. As a result of the complaints of the hon. member, the police have been instructed to give special attention to the South Coast. Regarding the plea made by the hon. member for Greyville (Mr. Derbyshire) in respect of the unilingual worker, I would like to say this, I have said it before, that so far as I myself and my predecessors are concerned, we have always tried to show, as far as we can, as full a measure of sympathy for the more elderly workers in our service as it is possible to show. That is a policy which I venture to say hon. members opposite approve. There is no desire to victimise a man bordering on 60 years of age if we can possibly help it, but hon. members do not help the situation when they make such remarks as have been made—I refer particularly to the hon. member for Greyville—it does not help us when we try to help these particular cases. He asked me to be very definite in my reply, and I will be definite. I will do nothing so long as I am Minister to undermine in any way the bilingual principle adopted for the Railway service, and at the same time, I will do everything I can to meet any hard case which calls for special consideration. The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) raises one or two questions, and the first is in connection with the publication of advertisements in country newspapers. He suggested that these were distributed for political reasons. I would say that for many years—the practice was in vogue long before my time—we have contributed £4,500 a year, and I believe the Central Government also contributes the same amount, to assist some country newspapers with advertisements. I do not think they give any return, but it is one of those little services to the country as a whole, which we are only too glad to perform. These advertisements are distributed on the advice of the Newspaper Press Union, which I understand represents newspapers of all political opinion; they are not distributed under my control at all, and therefore the allegation that any political influence is being-used is inaccurate. If the hon. member, or if this House objects to this policy, I for one will be quite pleased to stop it; I have no particular interest in it. But I think it does help some of these smaller country newspapers, and I am sure the country, as a whole, will be glad to have these newspapers continuing to function.

It is a waste of money.

I am sorry I misled the hon. member in reply to a question he asked. He asked me whether it was the case that large numbers of railway servants had had to wait for years before they could get leave. I answered that question, quite properly, in the negative, because large numbers have not had to wait. Now the hon. member comes forward and says that he knows of individual cases, and that, of course, is quite another matter. If the hon. member knows of individual cases, and will give them to me—

You are quoting my question wrongly. I said: “A number of cases,” I did not say: “A large number.”

Well, I will accept your correction. In any case an incorrect impression may have been conveyed, but I agree that there is not much in it in the light of what the hon. member now says. However, let me say that if he does know of individual cases, I shall be glad to have them and look into them. With regard to to the marshalling of the trains which he referred to, that will be looked into, but I rather imagine the reason for it is that the coaches at one end are going to a different destination to coaches at the other, and it is very difficult, in these circumstances, to arrange it otherwise. With regard to uniforms and clothing, I have a statement here which I will not weary the House by reading now, but I shall see that the hon. member is supplied with a copy. The hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. Fouche) wishes for a more effective way of advising farmers regarding the trucks available for livestock. I do not know what particular case he has in mind when he made his complaint, but sometimes it is very difficult to advise farmers, particularly if they are not on the telephone. But if there is any difficulty, and he can make any suggestion as to what the Railways can do to meet the difficulty, I shall be only too glad. Then an hon. member complained of the want of attention at station post offices. I should like to say that this complaint should really be addressed to the Postmaster-General. The Railways only open post offices on station premises for the convenience of local people, and if the business develops to a point beyond the capacity of such office, it is a question for the post office.

But the Railways run the post offices, sir.

By arrangement with the Post Office Department. If the post office business gets too much, then the post office must make other arrangements. We do not employ special servants for post office work. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Tothill) asked me for a copy of an enquiry which he alleged was being made on the question of seat reservation, but I cannot discover what enquiry he referred to. The hon. member for Kingwilliamstown (Mr. C. M. Warren) wanted to know what the position was about grass fires. I hope later on in this Session to bring in a Bill which will deal with that question. The question raised by the hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) in regard to applications for motor services, will be dealt with by correspondence. In regard to his question about the blanket contract, I would like to make it quite clear that these blankets were ordered after tenders were called. It is quite true that the price, after investigation, appeared very high. Still, tenders were called for and one of them was accepted. As the result of the enquiry which was instituted, the position will be very carefully watched in future. Then the question of aeroplanes has been referred to. All I have to say as to that is that at the outbreak of war we were unable to continue running these planes. And it would have been very unwise to have put these planes into cold storage even if they had not been urgently needed by the Defence Department. It is much better to have them used for Defence now because by the end of the war they will be out of date. Let the Defence Department have them, and afterwards replace them by more modern machines. I think it was an excellent arrangement by the Railways. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad referred to the case of Miss Linders, whose services were dispensed with by the Perishable Control Board. I have looked into this case myself. The lady unfortunately was a stout and truculent pro-German, and as she was working in an office where very accurate and complete information is available as to the movements of important ships, if was found undesirable to continue her services in that office. I shall look into the various matters, raised by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Egeland) and by the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. P. M. K. le Roux) in regard to his siding charges. On the question of sidings generally raised by one or two hon. members, I want to explain that sidings cost a lot of money. The allegation was made that a farmer gives land for his siding, and then we come along and we charge heavily for rails and laying. Then we come along later and insist on more sleepers, and we charge for that, and then we put new lines down and charge for that. Well, that is probably true. The position is that we dare not allow our locomotives to go on to a siding which is not in good condition. It will cost a great deal more than the cost of sleepers or the cost of a bit of line if we let an engine run off the rails.

But it is all to your benefit.

The hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. Klopper) spoke about accommodation in the Docks for trawlers and other ships. I think the hon. member is painting an unduly gloomy picture. It is true that at present there is no accommodation at Cape Town Docks, but I imagine that once the war is over and we are freed of so many naval vessels, there will be plenty of accommodation. If the hon. member means the accommodation for the manufacture of fishing products, well, that is another matter.

That’s what I mean.

The hon. member should not aim at taking up quay spaces in expensive docks for these factories. I think it was the same hon. member who asked me whether I could not do something to prevent goods being dispatched to markets where good prices were available for certain commodities. He was referring to eggs. I think it would be looking for trouble if I did that, but if the Food Controller requires me at any time to assist him I shall always do my best to help. In regard to better class work which the hon. member for Cape, Western (Mr. Molteno), asked me to define, I think I have already done so. If he has not had that definition I shall be only too glad to supply him with it. I have it here, “Better class work is that which requires the exercise of a degree of skill or the possession of knowledge not normally expected of a labourer employed on purely manual labour, and for which the increased remuneration referred to is authorised.” I hope that is quite clear to the hon. member. The other points which he raised will be dealt directly by correspondence. Now I do not think that there is much more that I have to speak about, but before concluding I should like to say this, that I find in the English of the “Reports and Proceedings” the words “large numbers” are used, in connection with the question which the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) dealt with. But it is not, I admit, in the Afrikaans. It is in the English. I took exception to his referring to large numbers. He said he did not refer to large numbers, and quoted in English, the Afrikaans. Had he quoted the English in English he would have seen that the words “large numbers” were there. Anyway, my remarks as far as the English proceedings are concerned, are justified. I should like just to give the assurance to the hon. member for Beaufort West in connection with any recruiting efforts on the part of the Railways, the spirit of the Prime Minister’s declaration will be strictly adhered to. That is to say we shall not bring any undue pressure to bear on any railway servant. The spirit of the undertaking given by the Prime Minister will be strictly adhered to by the Railways. I just want in conclusion to associate myself with the remarks made by many speakers in this debate, mostly on this side of the House, regarding the magnificent work that is done by all sections of railway workers during these strenuous and difficult times. Our critic said that the Railways were in a muddle. It was the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) I think. I think the House will agree, as a result of this debate, that the only muddle evident is in the minds of our critics, and not in our railway service. I say, and I say deliberately, that having regard to the circumstances of the war, to the great development of traffic, to the strain put on the staff, owing to their shortage, the Railways have stood up to the test in these testing times, in a way that calls for the greatest admiration. It reflects credit on every railway servant from the General Manager down to the most humble of our workers.

When I proposed the adjournment of this House last Friday, I had thought that it would be a good thing to get this important debate away from the war debate which we have had, so that we can discuss this matter in calmer circumstances. I agree with the hon. seconder of the second amendment where he said that it is necessary that we should treat this matter quite outside politics. It is in that spirit, then, that I would like to say a few words about this Bill. This interest subsidy law, as we all know, had its origin in an emergency state of affairs before 1933, an emergency position in the farming industry in those days. We know also that it was a position over which the farmers did not have the least control; moreover the Government of the day did not exercise the least control over those circumstances. Thus in 1933, when this interest subsidy law was introduced for the first time, it was done to extend help to farmers who contracted bonds in the abnormal years after the last world war. We also know that in that time prior to the depression, as I have already said, there was practically no price control, with the result that the prices of products in that year soared to a height, that was in turn a direct cause of the rise in land prices to unprecedented heights. Bonds were contracted in those years that agriculture could not bear, with the subsequent collapse of practically all markets for agriculture. Agriculture became involved in a serious position, and, as we all know, the unfortunate gold standard policy of that time also contributed largely to the situation. Whatever may be the criticism today or even in the past, as regards that law, the fact remains that through the interest subsidy paid out by the State in the past ten years, hundreds, or I should say thousands, of farmers have undoubtedly been kept on their land. We know that the object of that law was to provide for those unfortunate farmers who had become involved in the prevailing conditions, brought about by the abnormal price increases in products, to remain on their land, and there is not the least doubt that thousands of farmers were thereby kept on their land. Whether it was a 100 per cent. success, is another question. We know that one of the weak links in that law was that Parliament had to approve it year after year, a consideration that undoubtedly contributed to the fact that some farmers who were thereby assited did not always use it to their best advantage. The uncertainty that prevailed, in that law had to be approved every year by Parliament, resulted in the fact that farmers did not always use the subsidy to the best advantage. For that reason I want to say here with emphasis that the farming communty outside Parliament will welcome this law introduced by the Minister of Finance very cordially. I want to give the Minister the assurance that agriculture will appreciate it, and where I say that agriculture will appreciate it, I mean in the first place those farmers who need the help and who still need the help today, and will now continue to receive it for another eight years, and even the farming community who does not need the help will particularly appreciate it that the Minister has come forward with such a fair termination of that help, and shall I say a fair termination and an advantageous termination for those who needed that help, particularly in view of the measure of stability that the measure will give in that direction, in that the help will now stretch over a period of eight years. It is not only an important improvement on the old law, but it will now do the further necessary reconstruction work. The farmers in general did not expect this interest subsidy to continue forever. Thus we must admit that this law with its three alternatives will give a splendid and, for the farmer, an advantageous rounding-off of the law. Of the three alternatives put. I am glad that two will undoubtedly serve to encourage farmers to bring about a reduction in their mortgage burdens. I say an encouragement, because that is precisely what we are looking for, to give the farmers courage; it is circumstances that permit them to reduce their bond indebtedness. I have not the least doubt that those farmers who were struck by misfortune in those depression years will, with this further eight-year help, be able to rehabilitate themselves completely. I want to express the hope that the farmers who are assisted by the law under the immediate value payment clause of this Bill, will make as little use of it as possible so that at the end of the eight years all will have a reduced bond indebtedness. It has been said here that as the law is drafted, it assists only the rich man. I want to say here that that is in no sense the case. It has been alleged that only people who can today pay their 5 per cent. interest will have the advantage of the redemtion. It is not only the rich man who can today pay the 5 per cent.; it is the circumstances in which agriculture finds itself today and the advantageous circumstances prevailing, that places the farmer in a position to be able to pay that 5 per cent. Consequently we cannot say that is is only the rich man. No, I am certain that this rounding-off of this law over the next eight years, is as generous as few farmers outside this House ever expected. I want to ask the hon. Minister to consider the extension of that choice of six months; for instance if there is still a single person who is perhaps obliged to choose the cash basis, if he is in the position for instance after two or three years to choose the other clause for the redemption of his bond, that he then should have that right. Then I want to remind the Minister of his promise to the executive of the South African Agricultural Union when we last met him, where he promised us that we could come to see him again on a later occasion in connection with the general bond question. We accepted that this law is only a rounding-off, as I have already said, of the Interest Subsidy Act that came into being as a result of the last depression. Just a few thoughts on the amendment. When we consider the amendment, then we find that it boils down to this; a redemption scheme in respect of all bonds with a substantial contribution by the State in connection with redemption as well as the provision of cheap money for farm bonds also through the State, is a proposal that is very popular and attractive on paper, and a proposal that is not new. Particularly of recent years we have had that proposal before us, not only in this House but also at agricultural congresses. One thing is very clear in connection with that proposal—one thing lacks in that proposal to make it in any way practicable—and that is two provions that constitute the two stings in that scheme. We know that any scheme of general bond redemption undertaken by the State, to which the State contributes as well as makes available the funds, whether at 3½ per cent. or 1 per cent., has but the same results. We know that a scheme of this nature in which the State contributes, is only practicable with this proviso, viz. that the State will prohibit the farmer to contract any further debt and will also fix the price of land. In other words, agriculture in that event will have to become the hewer of wood and the drawer of water of the State. The fact remains that any scheme—and hon. supporters of this amendment know it as well as I do, that no State funds can be used to pay my debts without the Government placing a restriction on the farmer about the contraction of debts in future. It is the same with cheap money. We know that the cheaper money is, without a fixation of land prices, the greater is the rise in land prices, and the farmer will again be where he was before. No, if you go to the farmer of our land, I know that he will refuse decisively to accept that humiliating position. Moreover, it is not in the least necessary today to propose to the farmer of this country to make himself so subsidiary to the State that he will virtually have to farm under the rules of the State for the future, a measure that even Communist Russia has departed from for at least the past ten years. I will admit that there are deficiencies today in respect of our agriculture. I do not want to allege that the farming industry as a whole is rosy, but I want to say here with emphasis, that the circumstances of agriculture are such today that it is not in the least necessary for agriculture to bind itself to the State in this way. Rehabilitation schemes for agriculture have become household words in recent years. To my mind there is only one way to rehabilitate the farmer when he needs rehabilitation. I may give him a reasonable and stabilised price level, particularly as regards his staple products, and he will rehabilitate himself without subjecting himself to the State. That is what we as agriculturists have the right to ask from the Government; an effective marketing and distribution system for our products with stabilised price arrangements, as we already have in connection with certain products, and as already successfully applied by the Department of Agriculture. As I already said, money at 3½ per cent. for farm bonds sounds very nice. And as I have said, history will repeat itself. We have had examples of this in the past. Without the fixation of land values it will avail nothing, and I again put the question: Is it necessary to do it today? When the general agricultural question comes under discussion, other measures will undoubtedly be mentioned, whereby it can be proved that it is not necessary today, and that it will not be necessary even in the distant future, for agriculture to bind itself to the State as proposed in the first amendment. As regards the second amendment—that is, for further investigation—I want to say that further investigation can bring us no further than we are today as regards the cases with which this law deals. Investigations have already been conducted. The Minister has been negotiating throughout the year with the agricultural unions on this matter, and I am convinced that a further investigation will yield us nothing new. The result of it will probably be merely a further extension of uncertainties. I want to repeat, therefore, that this Bill before us today is the best termination of a position that we had in our farming as a result of those depression years, and whatever may be the criticism, the agriculturists will be grateful to the Minister where he comes with this Bill to give stability to the assistance that has been given for ten years on a very unstable basis.

We have just listened to the speech of the hon. member for Hottentots Holland (Mr. Carinus) in which he tried to explain this Bill, and in which he also said that the old law regarding interest subsidy was a measure that had resulted in thousands of farmers remaining on their land; that it had helped thousands of farmers to retain their farms. It has helped farmers to retain their farms, even though those farms were over-capitalised, because the rent subsidy meant that they paid less interest, and the practical result was that over-capitalisation was reduced for them, although the capital burden on the farm remained the same. The fact is that they paid less interest, and the pressure of the over-capitalised part was thus removed for them. If we take away the 1½ per cent. interest subsidy from those farmers who were in difficulties, then they are just as over-capitalised as they were. It is clear to me in connection with this matter that there is truth in the motto: “Aanhouer wen.”

The farmer must also learn that.

For years we on this side of the House, as also the agriculture unions, have pleaded for a proper state-aided bondredemption scheme. It was stigmatised by some people as something approaching idiocy, when we first commenced to do so. Now the Minister of Finance has in any case come forward with a bond redemption scheme. Unfortunately, when I read through this Bill, I cannot help feeling that the hon. Minister has come with this plan not so much because it is a matter on which he feels seriously, but, because as the hon. member for Hottentots Holland has said here, that something should actually be given in exchange for the interest subsidy. He has said here that it is a very nice rounding-off of the interest subsidy that the farmers have hitherto received, that is incorporated in this Bill. No, I really feel that this interest subsidy has become a very troublesome matter to the hon. Minister, and he did not have the courage to say to the people and to the agricultural community that he is going to put a stop to it. Now he comes with this Bill in order—if I may put it so—to throw a bone to a very troublesome dog. Any Bill in the world should have an object in view; every Bill should surely conform to a certain general scheme, is that not so? We on this side of the House have long pleaded for bond redemption, not because we want to enrich the farmer thereby, not because we want to give the farming community money as a present, but because we have a decided object in view. We plead for a bond redemption scheme because we want to remove the debt burden of the over-capitalised section of the farmers, and to help them to get rid of it, and thus to give the farmer the opportunity to produce economically. The Minister has come forward with a debt redemption scheme; he has accepted the idea, but he has come merely with a caricature of what should be a redemption system, and we cannot accept this Bill as it is now before us. It is clear that the agricultural community is one of the foundation stones on which we shall have to build for many years to provide a sound national life in South Africa. When you create a bond-redemption scheme it is clear that you go out from the standpoint that the most assistance should be given where the most help is needed. That is a principle that every right-thinking person will accept, that the most help should be given where the most help is required. But this Bill does not conform to any of those two principles. The Minister comes forward with two plans. According to the first plan, he gives 1½ per cent. redemption until the year 1951. Why the Minister has fastened on the year 1951, I cannot understand. Does he expect the millenium to operate from then? I can see no reason why the Minister should have chosen just that year. The whole question is this. The Minister comes and determines a fixed time—1951. Then the redemption scheme must treminate. How the Minister has arrived at 1951 and at 12 per cent., that we still have to learn. If it is a dark secret to us why he has chosen 1951, then it is an equally dark secret as to why precisely he chose 12 per cent. Is 12 per cent. then the finest percentage of all the percentages he can mention? We want to hear clearly from the Minister what the idea is in connection with the fixation of the year 1951 and of the percentage at 12. We get so confused about dates and percentages in this Bill that it seems like suffering from nightmare.

You will still suffer from that.

But that member will not, for a dead brain cannot get nightmare. What I would like to emphasise, is that I cannot realise why the Minister comes with a debt redemption plan and then says that that bond redemption plan will terminate in 1951 and that he will not redeem more than 12 per cent. of the farmers’ capital debt. I can form no realisation of what the Minister’s idea was when he arrived at that year and that percentage. There is nothing in it. The Minister is an able man. The Minister has an able department, and I cannot believe that they will come forward with such a farce and believe that they have really attained an object. According to plan No. 2, 1½ per cent. interest subsidy is paid in the first year, and then the interest subsidy decreases according to a decreasing scale until the miracle year of 1951. Then it will mean that the farmer has redeemed a little over 5 per cent. of his bond debt. What is now the practical result we find here? Assuming we have two farmers under plan No. 1. One of them is not over-capitalised. His farming is 100 per cent. strong and sound. He does not require help. The other one is 100 per cent. over-capitalised. He is a man who finds himself in trouble. Under plan No. 1 the first person’s sound bond is redeemed to an extent of 12 per cent. That will enhance his credit by 12 per cent., while the man in trouble remains with an over-capitalisation of 98 per cent. The man who does not choose the first plan, but who chooses the second plan and who receives interest subsidy on the decreasing scale, will find that at the end of the miracle year 1951 that his bond burden has been decreased by merely 5 per cent. The farmer who does not require the assistance, has his debt burden decreased by 12 per cent., while the man who urgently needs the help has his bond burden decreased by only 5 per cent. Is there any reason in a plan such as this? I cannot understand what the Minister’s idea is in grappling with a bond redemption scheme in this way, and we cannot accept that it is the best the Minister can do to place farming on a sound basis. Will this redemption scheme of the Minister remove the burden of that over-capitalised section of farmers? Before me here I have the plan that the agricultural unions have put forward. They say this on the subject—

That is the clear standpoint of the Agricultural Union, that the bonds must be redeemed on to a definitely sound basis. You cannot commence with a redemption plan and then leave it in the blue. We must go to a sound basis, and I really feel that this Bill, as it is now before us, has no definite object in view. It goes on merely for a number of years, and then ends abruptly. According to plan No. 1 the bond burden is decreased by 12 per cent., and the Minister with all his wisdom cannot tell me that when he has reduced the burden by 12 per cent. he has achieved something definite thereby. Nor can he say that 5 per cent. according to plan No. 2 can achieve anything definite. Because we feel that in the matter of the redemption of the bond burden of the farmer we should have a definite object in view, namely, to relieve the farmer of over-capitalisation, we have proposed our amendment from this side of the House. In part 1 of the amendment we ask that an effective scheme for the redemption of farm bonds, those contracted after 1933 as well as those contracted before that date, should be called into being. I know, and everyone on this side knows, that a very strong case can be made out as to why the year 1933 has been taken. Those facts are known to all of us. But this question of bond redemption is a matter that has never come to finality. For four years there has been squabbling about it here in Parliament and in the Agricultural Union, and because the matter has never come to finality, I believe that when we grapple with the matter we must help those people who bought land after 1933 and who competed with those who received interest subsidies in the same spirit. There are young men who bought land, and that is why we plead that when the matter has been tackled with finality, according to the scheme we propose, that those people should also be taken into consideration. We go further, and in Section 2 of our amendment we ask that sufficient money shall be given to the Land Bank so that the Land Bank can take over farm bonds at 3½ per cent. interest. Objection was taken to that today, and it was said that this would make the farmer a slave of the Government. Is there anyone in this House who will allege that because the farmer in the past paid 3½ per cent. and got an interest subsidy of 1½ per cent., that this made him a slave of the State? No, that argument holds no water. I do not believe that anyone will allege that a farmer becomes a slave of the State if he pays 3½ per cent. interest. No, we cannot come forward with an argument like that, because we know that the Government can lend money—it can lend millions at 3 per cent. and something more than 3 per cent., and the Government surely does not want to lend money to the farmer at 1½ per cent. more than it pays for it, and then again pay 1½ per cent. interest subsidy to the farmer. That would simply mean that nothing has been done for the farmer. We ask the Minister of Finance that he must take into consideration whether it is not possible, in view of the difficult days that lie ahead for the farming community, to do something in that direction. I do not think there is one man here in this House who does not believe that a tremendously difficult time awaits the farming community after this war. We know that just after the last war there was a boom period. As circumstances are now developing, we must expect a tremenodus setback directly after this war. When we read the report of the Economic Planning Council, then we see that they expect a setback immediately after this war, and not a boom as in the last war. In view of those difficult times that lie ahead for the primary producer, we ask the Minister of Finance, since it is now the appropriate time and the Minister has the funds to lend, why he does not do it and why he does not make an attempt to meet the farmer. The Minister of Finance says perpetually that there is plentiful capital in the country and that the State must borrow this capital to obviate inflation. He tells us every day that there is too much capital in the country, and we ask him to borrow that capital and to make it available to the farming community at 3½ per cent. interest. Further we say in our amendment very clearly that we expect the debt burden of the agriculturist to be brought down, by State aid, until it reaches 60 per cent. of the value of the farming proposition. We place it at that, because that is the basis that agriculture looks upon as a safe basis for any farming proposition. I do not want to tarry longer at that point. It is clear why we have chosen 60 per cent.; it is because we want to make the farming community economically strong enough to remain standing when difficult times arrive after the war. In paragraph (c) we ask exemption from income tax of that part of the income of the farmer that is used to reduce existing farm bonds, to a maximum sum of £3,000. I do not think it is necessary for us to say much about the last part of the amendment. It is so fair. Where we perpetually emphasise that bonds must be redeemed, I hope that the Minister will agree to the request that comes from this side. It is quite clear to us that the farming community has a reasonable existence at the moment. That we admit. But for a long period the farmer in South Africa has had to produce, over the greatest portion of the country, at below production costs. The farmers in South Africa find themselves with an accumulated shortage, and where an opportunity now arises because there will be a good wheat crop, and in some parts a good mealie crop, then we ask that in these circumstances the Minister should consider meeting those farmers—not the rich man possessing thousands of morgen of land and big capital—but the small man, who wants to redeem his bond burden, so that the £3,000 he uses for that purpose shall be exempted from income tax. I have before me here a Hansard report from which I would like to quote something to the Minister—

Who said that?

It is the present Prime Minister who said that some years ago. Then he went further—

The Prime Minister proceeded from the standpoint, therefore, that farmers should pay absolutely no income tax. We on this side do not plead for that. We merely plead that money paid off on bonds must be exempted from income tax, and that to a maximum amount of £3,000. But it was not only the Prime Minister who at that time felt so strongly for the farmers.

When was that?

It was probably before a general election.

Give us the date.

Now listen to this—

It is the present Minister of Agriculture who used these words, a year after the Prime Minister had spoken his words in Parliament. It is quite clear that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture, and those people who supported them, pleaded hard in those years that the farming community should not pay income tax. Now we come forward and say that in view of the difficult years that lie ahead, the Minister must help the farmers by exempting from income tax that part of their incomes devoted to the redemption of their bonds. The Prime Minister also said in those days that the Minister of Finance was in the position to obtain the money, and that tomorrow or the day after that opportunity may no longer be there. We say just the same to the present Minister of Finance, that he now has the opportunity of obtaining that money, and that tomorrow or the day after the opportunity may no longer be there. I want to plead to him to take advantage of the position and to help the farming community in view of the difficult position that awaits them.

I want to make use of this opportunity to congratulate the member for Hottentots Holland (Mr. Carinus) on the suitable and well-chosen subject on which he made his first speech in this House. I also want to compliment him on the fundamentally sound doctrine which he put before the House in that speech.

What was fundamentally sound about it?

This matter of an interest subsidy to which I have had to listen during all the time that I have sat in this House as a representative, year after year, is an extraordinarily painful matter to me. It is a painful matter because it puts the farmers in a humiliating position.

What is humiliating about it?

When that hon. member read quotations here, I asked him three times in what year they were made, but he would not say.

Do you deny it?

It depends upon when and in what circumstances it was said.

It was naturally in a time when the Prime Minister knew that he himself could not do what he asked someone else to do.

Was it not in the time when the farmers were being choked to death by the Gold Standard? It is clear to me that there are certain people sitting in this House who have twinges of conscience and who feel that they were responsible for the conditions in this country that made it necessary to grant an interest subsidy, and for this reason, they love that ugly little boy whom I deplore so much in our country. I say it is a painful matter to me because it places the farmer in a humiliating position. No one wants to be in a position where he, as an independent individual, must continually run to the Government for consideration and help, and unfortunately the farmers have been placed in that unenviable position, because they have been forced to do so by conditions over which they have no control. When the farmers were forced under those circumstances to ask for an interest subsidy, something which was a temporary measure, and something which was resorted to in extraordinary and abnormal circumstances, and as a result of which had to be renewed year after year—when the farmers were placed in this position, how many dozens, hundreds and even thousands of others, who were not farmers, were placed in the same position by abnormal conditions. We must be reasonable and admit that while the farmers in those abnormal times were forced to receive help in this way, there were also others who were just as much entitled to receive assistance. Do we want the farmers always to be placed in a position where they must be regarded as a section of the people that is spoon-fed in spite of the others who live in just as critical circumstances, and who do not receive the same help? The mother of this interest subsidy may have been the depression of 1929—’33, but the father is undoubtedly the Gold Standard which we had at the same time. The child of the interest subsidy must be laid at the feet of the Gold Standard.

What did the Minister of Finance say at that time? He was an exponent of the Gold Standard.

I deplore the interest subsidy because it creates a wrong impression among the general public in respect of the farming population, because it undoubtedly creates prejudice and jealousy towards the farmer which they have not earned. It places the farmers in a despicable position, it robs him of his dignity, his feeling of independence and gives him an inferiority complex which he himself deplores and has definitely not earned. Seeing that the sickness which made this remedy necessary, exists today, seeing that it exists today in the financial sphere amongst our farming population, seeing that the symptoms of the sickness were such that something had to be done immediately in the circumstances to save the farming community, we admit with gratitude that it had a good result. It saved thousands of farmers and helped them to remain on their feet and hold their heads above water, but it did not take away the root cause of the sickness in any way. It saved a great section of the landed population from definite ruination. There is no doubt about it, and we are thankful, and admit this, but it does not take away the cause and it does not remedy the malady. It is necessary to go to the root of the trouble. The root of the trouble which caused the sickness, must be removed. Now I want to ask what the position is of agriculturists in other countries in the world. In countries like Argentina, Australia, New Zealand, the United States of America and other countries, for instance.

What do you know about that now?

What were the results of the depression in those countries: Did similar conditions to those in our country arise as a result of the depression, and have investigations yet been made to see what methods were adopted in other countries and what remedies were adopted to meet similar conditions? And if they have discovered those remedies, is it not possible to apply them in South Africa to make the financial position of the landed population healthy? No person can enjoy happiness when he is continually being kept alive artifically, and the keeping alive in the financial sphere by artificial means of a great section of our population is certainly not in the interest of our country. It causes despondency and creates melancholy among the people. It is obvious that no person can continually be kept alive by artificial means without his becoming despondent and melancholy and without his eventually throwing in the sponge. It will yet happen to a greater extent unless the cause of the trouble is removed. It is a continual uphill struggle against nature and the laws of nature, and we know that the law of nature is the survival of the fittest. It reminds me of someone who played a very important part in the administration of our country with whom I once discussed the matter. His reply to me was: “Whenever the laws of nature are disturbed, you get unhealthy conditions.” What did he mean? He meant that a man who could not keep himself, should go under. I was surprised to hear this from this person, because under the abnormal conditions under which the interest subsidy was introduced, at least two-thirds of the landed population would have been wrecked and gone into bankruptcy, if it had not been for this measure. You could not let the laws of nature take their course, but you had to save what still could be saved. Investment in property, in land in the rural areas, is one of the greatest financial investments in South Africa. In addition one of the greatest sections of the population derives its existence therefrom, if not directly, then undoubtedly indirectly, because not only the farmer who has land, but also the people who are dependent on him, make an existence on the land, and in many cases it is over-capitalised land. It forms such an important economic factor in our economic structure, that it must necessarily adversely affect the whole population, if that over-capitalisation is not remedied. The trouble which exists must be remedied if the soul of the landed population is to be made healthy. I realise fully that conditions have changed enormously since the introduction of the Interest Subsidy Act. It was an emergency measure introduced temporarily and as proof of its temporary character we know that it had to be renewed from year to year. Conditions have changed so much since that time that the Interest Subsidy Act no longer fulfils the aim for which it was introduced at the time.

Now you are beginning to twist again.

There are people in this House who alone want their say and when someone else speaks, they do not want to give him the right to express his opinion and they try to shout him down. I will not allow myself to be shouted down by them and I will not allow them to put an opinion into my mouth. There are deserving cases who purchased ground after the date of the introduction of this Act and who find themselves in the same position as other people who come under the Act found themselves when the interest subsidy was introduced. The other people receive the subsidy but they do not. But that is not all. There are sections of the population today who have money in the bank, or who have even taken mortgages on other farms, but who still draw the interest subsidy. It is obvious that under the changed circumstances you are forced to revise the Act and to introduce something that is more effective and which will better answer the cause. This we must surely all admit; that the stage has arrived when under the changed circumstances, we must review the matter. This change which is now proposed in this law is ideal in its aim. I cannot do otherwise than congratulate the Minister with the ideal aim envisaged in the Bill, but in my opinion the Bill does not go far enough. It still does not go to the root of the trouble. I accept that it will serve as a test on which better legislation can be introduced at a later date. But if in the past we have had to do with an Interest Subsidy Law which had to be renewed from year to year, then at least we have in this Act something stable on which we can build for a number of years. Rather, however, would I like to see paying prices and stable markets of which the hon. member for Hottentots Holland (Mr. Carinus) spoke for agricultural products than a subsidy in one or other form.

And potatoes are 2s. 6d. a bag.

Just as it is necessary to have better security after the war for other sections of the population, so it is necessary to have security in the case of the farmers. They also deserve more certain prices and better markets than they have had in the past. If you talk of social security, then it must be social security for all sections of the people. We have here to do with a section of the population who is just as much entitled to social security in the future as any other section. The farming population have heavy burdens to bear, they are choking under the burdens which they have to bear and they also have a right to social security. I want to urge the Minister to help to create healthy agricultural conditions. Then many of the things for which a subsidy is necessary, will disappear automatically. If the agricultural section of the population is financially healthy, then many of our problems will be solved automatically. As a result of stability the farming population will be able to maintain themselves on the land. But through this House I wish to make an appeal today to my friends, to those who take a leading part in our country, people who are looked up to for leadership, and tell them that there also rests a sacred duty on everyone, and that is to advise our people to be more thrifty. There is no doubt that a great section of the population are doing all they can to economise and save but there is also no doubt that there is a great section who do not economise.

Especially the Government.

On us as people who are looked up to, rests the duty to advise people to be thrifty, especially in these days in which we are living. There is no doubt that there are farmers who are making money and who instead of saving, are purchasing more land and who are carrying on in an unthrifty manner as you sometimes get with people, especially young people who have not yet had the necessary experience. We must advise them to be thrifty. There are people who regard the matter seriously and who do save, but in general a lot more can be saved than is the case at present. There are farmers who are making money and we must advise them to pay off their mortgage bonds to reduce their mortgage burdens, instead of making other expenditure which swallows up money. But while it is the case that some farmers are making money, this cannot be said of the whole farming population. There are farmers who are not making money, as for example the wheat farmers. (Laughter.) The hon. members who laugh know as little of farming as my foot. Create for the farmers better conditions, stability and better prices, then you have created a better basis. People in other spheres also have more stability in normal times than the farmer. It applies to almost any other section of the people that as far as their position is concerned, there is greater stability. The people in any profession know more or less what their income for the year will be. So also is the case with people in business. They can prepare their budget on the strength of it and endeavour to keep their expenditure within its limits. The salaried man also has a fixed income whether big or small, and must endeavour to live on it. But with the farmers it is otherwise. Apart from the uncertain climatic conditions, apart from all the uncertainty with which the farmer has to cope, he has also still to do with the uncertainty of prices and the constant fluctuation of markets, something over which he has not the least control. If you want a wealthy landed population, you must endeavour to do everything in your power to keep prices stable. The prices must, to a certain extent, give them certainty, and in this direction something is already being done by the Government to-day. Although the fixed prices in these times are perhaps not adequate in all respects, although the prices are open to serious criticism and strong exception as far as some of the fixed prices are concerned, there is no doubt that the certainty of the fixing of prices helps to assure a healthy and more stable condition on the platteland. The expenses of the farmer are enormous. He must make capital investments and continually has expenditure notwithstanding the uncertainty with which he has to cope, so that all too often he finds that he comes out at the wrong side at the end of the year. To ease this situation I want to urge the Minister to go carefully into a few aspects of the case to see what is being done in other countries to assist the financial condition of the farmers; where there are similar conditions as exist in our country, to examine them and see what has been done to make the position more healthy and stable. Try then to do what has been done to a certain extent during the war, namely to introduce a more certain price so that everyone will know that if he produces a product, he can depend on a fixed price. If this is done, there can be no doubt that the farming population will be placed on a more stable and healthy basis and will be rehabilitated by the greater stability.

I sincerely hope that the Minister of Finance will accept the amendment of this side of the House to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. There are definitely certain anomalies connected with the Bill which the hon. Minister has proposed. As has already been emphasised over and over the legislation originated in a time of collapse when the whole country and the whole population of the country were worried about the continued existence of a healthy farming population in this country. We know what conditions were when the Bill was accepted at that time. I do not wish to go into the matter again. But one thing is very clear, namely that the legislation to a certain extent afforded assistance to farmers whom you can classify in three groups. There was in the first place a percentage of farmers who did not require assistance and who could still quite easily pay their interest; secondly, there was the class who could pay their interest only with great difficulty and a great struggle; thirdly, there was the class who could not pay at all. The situation has not yet changed altogether, but still exists. There is a great percentage of farmers who will be thankful for the three alternative proposals in this Bill of the Minister, but there is a second group who will only be mildly enthusiastic and there is certainly a third class who will have just the same anxiety as the people had in 1933, and it is this third class that the Minister should take into consideration. He should remember that with vicissitudes of nature our country so far has not enjoyed universal prosperity. There are parts where farmers have made good progress but there are other sections of the farming population who are still struggling as a result of the adversities of nature and who still cannot come through. You find that after all they are in a position where they will apparently have to fall back eventually to the position of 1933. They will again be placed in the position where the mortgage holder will be able to say: Look, so far I have asked for five per cent. under the legislation of 1933 but now I want 10 per cent. or 12 per cent. because it does not appear to me as if the Bill of the Minister has made provision to keep mortgage interest at 5 per cent. I speak under correction, but I see nothing in the Bill that fixes it a 5 per cent. It appears to me that after the eight years have expired the mortgage holder will again be in the position that existed before 1933, and that his interest will be able to be pushed up. Then the weaklings who have been kept on the land by this legislation, will have no alternative but to be deprived of their land. The Minister must also remember that that third class of people are the people who receive practically 100 per cent. assistance because there are cases where the State provided 100 per cent. of a man’s capital to keep him on the land. This legislation is closely linked up with the Farmers’ Assistance Act of 1935 but the position is not quite clear. Will the facilities under the Farmers’ Assistance Act of 1933 to a certain extent also be taken away by this legislation? It is not clear to me. You see, there are so many aspects of this matter that in my opinion this measure should be the subject of a very careful investigation by a Select Committee. The Farmers’ Assistance Act of 1935 is so closely connected with the Interest Subsidy Act, that you can hardly separate the two. There are many cases in my constituency where assistance was given to farmers to repurchase their land, but the relief was given merely because the Interest Subsidy Act existed and the question arises now that if the facilities of this Act disappear, will the people have sufficient captial strength to maintain themselves on their land without the facilities of the old Acts. This is a point about which I feel very worried, and it is certainly a point that demands careful attention. The Opposition has moved an extensive amendment. There are points in it to which I can subscribe, but also points which are popular but which might be very dangerous for the farmers. This has already been referred to by the Government side and it is also a point about which I feel worried, namely that if the assistance embodied in the amendment of the Opposition is granted, it will simply mean that the farmer will have to act on his land as the agent of the Government. That will be the result of certain of the proposals of the Opposition. His credit will fly to the moon. I am not prepared to support such a measure. I ask hon. members to bear this in mind. You must not help a man in such a way that his credit is totally destroyed. I want again to make an appeal to the Minister in view of the countless anomalies to subject the matter to an impartial enquiry by a Select Committee, representative of all sections of this House—and I hope that we shall be able to consider the matter on a non-party basis.

In the first place I want to congratulate the Minister heartily, and to thank him for this Bill. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) has had a lot to say about the measure, but I think that even he is convinced in his soul that it is still the best thing that has been done in this connection. I regret that he is not here, but I cannot refrain from dealing with a few of the remarks he has made. He has made many allegations. He said in the first place that the Minster has no heart for the farmers; he said that the farmers are being rapidly dispossessed of their land as a result of the Government’s policy; he ultimately called out in despair that if this measure is adopted it will be a nail in the coffin of the farmers. I have seldom heard more irresponsible allegations in this country, and the hon. member himself knows that he is irresponsible. I do not want to reply to his accusation that the Minister is heartless towards the farmers. I think the Minister is man enough to answer that himself, in any case his deeds show that the reverse is the truth. But as a practical farmer I protest against this sort of talk employed by the hon. member for Swellendam, who brings the general public under the impression that the farmers are a group of people who are too stupid to take care of their own business; that they perpetually get into debt by taking up mortgages and that the Government must then again save them at the cost of the taxpayers. That was the standpoint of the hon. member; that is certainly not the truth, and I reject the allegation against the farming community with scorn. We know that there are farmers who get into difficulty from time to time through circumstances beyond their control. We know how droughts and haildamage are often the cause of farmers going under, but where the farmers have needed help, the Minister has always been prepared to see them through. Where a general catastrophe strikes the farmers as did the depression of 1929 and as a result of the gold standard policy of the Nationalist Party Government, there the United Party Government has shown that it is not only willing but also prepared to assist the farmers by the adoption of the law of 1933, and the previous Minister of Finance (Mr. Havenga) will enjoy gratitude from the farming community for years to come for that legislation. That Act provided at the time for the payment of a 1½ per cent. interest subsidy; in other words the State undertook to bear 30 per cent. of the debt interest, and that has continued until today, a total amount of £5,500,000 having been involved. The present Minister now goes further. He not merely wants to stabilise the interest subsidy for eight years, which is a great step forward, but he also wants to assist farmers who desire to avail themselves of redemption of their bonds, to do so immediately. He wants to help the farmers to redeem 20 per cent. of their mortgage bonds immediately in this way. Such a far-reaching step has never before been taken in this country in respect of mortgage redemption. Do hon. members on the other side now want to mislead the people against their better judgment?

Where do you get the 20 per cent.?

Ten per cent. is contributed by the Government and 10 per cent. by the farmer. If the hon. member will only use his common-sense, he will be able to calculate it for himself. The hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. Fouche) has laid much emphasis on the amendment proposed here to extend the mortgage redemption scheme to debts contracted after 1933. I want to ask him where he is going to stop. Does he want to include all the bonds contracted after that time? And what about those that will still be contracted? Then he will get the position that farmers will no longer be able to contract mortgages, unless the Government approves them; in other words, the farmer will become the slave of the State, and those are the people who always speak about freedom. The hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. J. H. Viljoen) has already referred to this. The proposal of the Opposition may be popular and people may be caught by it, but the day will come when they themselves will be caught in the trap and then they will blame the members of the Opposition for the position. It will result in this, that the farmers will find themselves in everlasting serfdom. I decline with thanks. The hon. member for Hoopstad has touched on a very important point, namely, that we should get the assurance that after 1951 the rate of interest shall remain limited to 5 per cent. There is a lot in that plea, because we cannot then leave the farmers over to the mercy of the financial wolves. I would like the Minister to enlighten us on that point.

Certain allegations have been made here that the farmer should be the agent of the State. Let us first examine that point. If that is so, then we are already the slaves of the State because there are many farmers who today have mortage bonds with the Land Bank. The Land Bank calculates 60 per cent. of a farm and we want to take that as a comparison. We admit altogether that the first point that you want is to get proper prices for your products, but now I ask the hon. Minister whether he and the hon. Minister of Agriculture ensures that the farmers get decent prices. If we can get decent prices for our products, proper control, proper storage facilities, proper distribution of your products, then we can begin to think about abolishing the interest subsidy; but at this stage when the farmer has never had a decent year, it definitely means the death of the farmer to abolish the interest subsidy. The Minister said here that in 1929 we were on a healthy basis. I admit that this was so if you take the index figure. In 1929 it was 100, but since that time it has never again reached 100. Two years ago, so far as wool is concerned, it was not even 100, and today it is considerably cheaper. Hon. friends on the other side made this point that we would become the agent of the State. It is put in two manners; the one in a redemption scheme and the other in a proper marketing scheme. The farmer must know what the price of his products are before he can work out what the price of his land is, and that is the basis on which we work—and not to become the slaves of the State. I hope hon. friends will understand this point well. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) sometimes blew hot and sometimes blew cold. We did not know whether he was warm or cold. The one moment he was in the clouds and the following moment he was in the ash. He tells us on the one hand how the farmer is making money and then he talks about the poor wheat farmer. How can we understand a man who blows hot the one moment and blows cold the other? We thought that at least we would get a lead from the hon. member. The hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) came and told the House that the farmer received 20 per cent. in redemption according to the scheme.

I never said that.

But it comes out of the farmer’s own pocket. Work it out now. In 1951 your debts will have been brought down by 10 per cent. This is again only a patched up scheme. The Minister himself admitted beforehand that it was patchwork, and that it was assistance only for a certain period. What is the Minister’s aim? It is the Minister’s aim to do away with the interest subsidy. His friends behind him say the farmer is getting too much assistance. This is a scheme which tries to abolish the interest subsidy. But I say the farmer must first be given a chance to rehabilitate himself. First give us proper marketing facilities; first give us a proper price fixation; we have pleaded in this House for the fixing of minimum prices; give us those minimum prices and give the farmer a chance before you touch the interest subsidy. I want to give a warning to the Minister in this respect. Hon. members in this House have said that the Agricultural Union welcomed this proposal. I want to tell the Minister that there might be a few who welcome this scheme, but I want to give him the assurance that the farmers as a whole do not accept it, and that the wool producers in South Africa do not accept it. I will tell you what the attitude is of the wool producers. Their idea is this; that the Land Bank has given us a direction in connection with the values of a first mortgage bond on land. The Land Bank fixed it at 60 per cent. We do not wish to assist those people in a redemption scheme which has less than 60 per cent.; we want to help the man who is capitalised more than 60 per cent. There we want that a State scheme should be introduced to bring that farmer back to 60 per cent. If the State does this then it will be something of great value. We would like the Minister to work in the direction to which the wool growers have pointed. Our point of view is that we should not help the man who can help himself; we say that the State should help to place farming generally on a healthy basis. Help the man who is capitalised more than 60 per cent. to come back to 60 per cent. We hear here that the Interest Subsidy Act is being abolished, but how can that be done if potatoes are sold for 2s. 6d? There is no control. Then I ask you; how can the farmer work out what his position is if he does not know what his products are worth. The Minister in this case should continue the 1½ per cent. subsidy for many years until he sees that the farmers’ products are fixed in such a way that he knows what they are worth; until he can see what the value is of his land, and then he can go over to a redemption scheme. There is one aspect in connection with which I can congratulate the Minister. This is the first time that anyone on that side has accepted the principle of a redemption scheme. The alternatives under this scheme are impossible for the farmer. Under the one scheme the farmer will benefit 12 per cent.; under the other scheme he will benefit 10 per cent., and in the third case the poor farmer will benefit by five per cent. over a period of nine years. Long before those nine years have expired, the Minister will again have to give assistance to the farmers. There is as depression before us. Why is the Minister in such a hurry to do away with that Interest Subsidy Act? We hope that the Minister will be careful there, and not go through with that proposal. If the Minister gives the right to people to make investments in the Post Office to the extent of £3,000 for war purposes, why can he not give the farmer the same opportunity, where he wants to reduce his obligations by at least using that £3,000 in the same way that he is now doing in the Post Office. For so long as the war continues let him reduce his debts by that redemption. There is very little that the hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. Fouche) has not said and I want to congratulate him with his speech. The hon. member for Hottentots-Holland (Mr. Carinus) I do not want to criticise, but I just want to say this, that as soon as you see him and hear him speak, then you immediately feel on which side he sits. He sits on the side of the people who have no feeling for the farmers.

When I look at you, I think of a blow-fly.

Yes, and you remind me of an Imperial blow-fly. I feel that as soon as you touch farming matters, you raise all kinds of difficulties on the other side. I want to ask the hon. Minister to examine the telegrams that have come to certain members on the other side of the House and to see whether the farmers are satisfied with the prices they are receiving today. I can tell you that the conditions on the market are rotten; there is no policy. Give us a chance; give us a policy, before you tamper with this 1½ per cent. subsidy. Absolutely nothing has been done to remedy farming conditions. Recently the dairy farmers sent us a telegram and said: You must do away with your Minister of Agriculture; you must do away with certain departmental heads. If the Minister is so certain that the conditions of farmers are good, why do these telegrams come? Here is something that comes from the English newspapers of Natal. I come now to the meat position. There is chaos in so far as the meat position is concerned. The Minister has had an opportunity for six or seven years to introduce a proper meat scheme for us. Today, however, there is chaos. If the Minister does not introduce proper schemes in respect of the agricultural industry, what is going to happen to the farmers? Unless you fix prices today, including minimum prices, the position of the farmers is going to be wretched. How can you fix minimum prices if you first let your prices fall, as is the case now? Now is the time to fix minimum prices. I do not believe it is necessary for me to say much; this scheme of the Minister is absolutely impracticable. The farmers will not accept it and I want to warn the Minister that the man who tampers with this 1½ per cent. subsidy in the platteland will show the farming industry a disservice. No sound arguments have been used by the other side, aimed at the improvement of the condition of the farmer. There has been a chattering in the clouds and then again in the ash, but nothing of a practical nature has been proposed. The hon. members on the other side say: You must be careful not to feed the farmers; you must make the farmer absolutely independent of the State. But I want to put this to those hon. members: The farmers have no control over the droughts in the country; they have no control over the hail in the country; they have no control over the frost in the country. South Africa is a changeable country as far as agriculture is concerned, and if you compare it with conditions which exist in other countries. In view of this it is to be expected that the farmer cannot look after himself As a matter of fact, it is remarkable how the farmer so far has looked after himself. The Minister of Finance tells us how the farmer in recent times has paid off his debts, but he forgets that the farmer has been paying off for years already, and that therefore it is no criticism to say that £2,000,000 have been paid off and that farming conditions are therefore in a flourishing condition. Some of those farmers today can get money from private people at a lower rate of interest than they can get from the Land Bank. They get money from private moneylenders and pay it in at the Land Bank, and then we are told that the farmers have paid off this huge amount because they are in a flourishing position. That is not so. Look at the position of the farmer in America. The Government has to help him. In Australia the Government also has to help the farmer. The position of the farmer in Australia is definitely better. Why? His position is better because a proper marketing system has been introduced, because there is a proper export system, because there is an effective internal system, and because the parasites have been eliminated, and because over-trading has been eliminated; that is why the condition of the farmer in Australia is better. But in Australia the people are not so worried about the gold mines. In this country the Government is more concerned about the gold mines and it thinks that the farmers can be neglected. I predict that in South Africa the same thing will happen as in Australia. When Australia produced gold, they also did not think of the interests of the farming population, but when the gold had been worked out, then they had to go back to the land, and today it is agriculture and not gold that gives them a decent existence. Today you have here a Minister who is unwilling to do anything.

He says he can do nothing.

He has the power and if he can do nothing, it is due to weakness on his own part. Now is the time for him to see to it that the marketing system in South Africa is placed on an absolutely healthy basis; now is the time to give us a proper distribution system in this country.

I think the honourable member is now wandering a little away from the subject.

I am sorry if I wandered away a little, but I am just trying to convince the Minister that as soon as we have those things, then he can begin talking about taking away the interest subsidy, and then we will help him, when we are on a healthy basis, to bring about his new idea of abolishing the Interest Subsidy Act. We do not always want to eat out of the Government’s hand, but the Government must see to it that the farmers are placed on a healthy basis. If this Government is unable to do it, then it must make way for another Government who will be prepared to do so.

As usual, some of the members on the other side of the House have tried to spoil a good case by all kinds of attending matters that have very little to do with the case. They forget that the position of the farming community has improved considerably since those destitute circumstances of 1933. You cannot get away from the fact that once again for the umpteenth time there are people who are trying to catch fish in troubled waters in view of the coming election, but this side of the House bears the responsibility and what is said here must be converted into deeds. Uneconomic mortgage bonds have decreased since those conditions of destitution existed. Committees were appointed to examine the position of farmers. I served on one of those committees and I can tell the House that many farmers reduced their mortgage bonds by 30 and even 40 per cent. Now the Minister comes after all the improvements, and especially in view of the prices of our farm products, with a scheme which will help the farmer in a gradual manner so that he will be freed from those difficulties. I am just worried about one remark which one member on the other side made, and that was when he spoke about telegrams which are being sent to this side of the House. It appears to me that an agitation has been set afoot to force us to make propaganda against this legislation.

Are the telegrams not true?

I did not receive any telegram. I do not know whether other members on this side have perhaps received telegrams. One of the hon. members who spoke on the other side said that telegrams are arriving; it looks almost as if they know about telegrams that will be sent. The proposal of the Minister is that the interest subsidy will come to an end over a period of eight years in the case of farmers who are not in a position to pay their full 5 per cent., so that their mortgage bonds can be reduced by 1½ per cent. I feel that when the farmers realise that they will receive only 1½ per cent. of that 5 per cent., they will put their shoulders to the wheel so that they will be able to get that 12 per cent. reduction after eight years. But to go further on this point. The machinery still exists, and if a farmer gets into difficulties, then the machinery for the State to be of assistance to him is still there.

Of what machinery are you talking?

There is still the Land Bank and the Relief Boards. The member knows that just as well as I do. The farmer who will pay the full five per cent., has a redemption of 1½ per cent. every year. He gets 3½ per cent. on the money that is deposited. I say that the conditions of the farmers have improved to such an extent that the Minister is justified in all respects in introducing this Bill in the House and more so after consulting all the agricultural unions. I remember that in 1938 I met one of the members of the Opposition in Cape Town. I asked him what he was doing here and his answer was that he had come to get higher prices for the farmers’ wool. In that year we got 8d. and his idea of an adequate price was 10d. The price we get today is an average of 13½d. to 14d. That is the average price for three clips. Then take the price we get for our vegetables, our wheat and our tobacco—the tobacco farmer especially, gets very good prices for his crop—and the price of wheat was so high that the Control Board had to take steps to control the price. Let me now pause for a moment at the amendment of the Opposition. Is it reasonable now to expect that the Government must again come to the assistance of farmers who got into difficulties in 1933 and who again purchased land at an uneconomic price; is it reasonable now to come again to the Government for aid? I know of cases where land was purchased at uneconomic prices and where the persons concerned said that they would now be compelled to get the Government to extend the Interest Subsidy Act further. They know well enough that they purchased on an uneconomic basis, but they simply take up the attitude that the Government will extend the Interest Subsidy Act and help them out of their difficulties. If we carry on like this, the farmer will for ever be sitting on the neck of the taxpayer and I think it is not fair to the other taxpayers. The second proposal of the Opposition reads as follows:

Here they come with a proposal that asks the Treasury to save the farmer from everything. They do not propose that anything should be expected of the farmer. I honestly do not think that they want to do the farmer a service when they come with such a proposal, not to encourage him to create something for himself. In the depression years many of our widows who were dependent on interest on money which they invested in farm mortgage bonds, had to give up a portion of their income because the mortgage bonds were taken away from them. I am thinking now of the widow who makes a meagre living out of the interest which she gets on farm mortgage bonds. Now we ask that these mortgage bonds should be taken away from these people and that they must seek other investment for their money. Just to prove that this side of the House is always ready to fulfil its promises, I have only to mention the fact that we have already in the case of the Oudstryders made provision for their pensions while from the old Nationalist Party we received only words and not deeds. I do not believe it is necessary for me to mention more of these instances. I just want to point out that in one year the farmers met their obligations to the Land Bank and to the State Recoveries Office to the extent of £2,600,000. The position of the farmers has so improved that it is expected that the amount that will be paid in this year, will be considerably more than £3,000,000. £3,600,000 are expected. I think the country should be thankful to the Minister of Finance for the legislation which he has brought forward and I am of the opinion that if this legislation is regarded calmly, and separate from politics, it will be welcomed generally.

I want to say that it is very difficult to understand the arguments of members on the other side of the House. One really does not know whether they are for this Bill or whether they are against it. The last speaker claimed that if this Act fell away then there is always machinery to help the farmers under the Relief Board and the Land Bank. But we know that the Relief Board is the last refuge to which the farmer can go when he is on his last legs. Now must we practically wait until the farmers are on their last legs and then they can take refuge in the Relief Board and then to be saved there. Then there was also this argument on the other side; that farmers are now so well off, and that the price of their products is so high that the Government and the Controllers had to take steps to keep those prices lower. Unfortunately that control does not stabilise the price of those products. There are certainly times when there is too little produce on the market and there is a rise in the price; at that stage they control the price and they fix a maximum price, but there is certainly not a minimum price. Our experience is that where prices are fixed, they are maximum prices and we have had the experience that the prices of the products come down immediately, and within a few weeks those prices are so low that the farmers cannot make a profit. We listened with interest to the honourable member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet). Just like other members on that side, he put forward all the arguments he could, and at the end we did not know whether he was in favour of the Bill or whether he was against it. One thing that he said is very true, and that is that when the farmer is well off many of the problems and difficulties which we have today, disappear. One thing for which we plead is this: Assure the farmer of a reasonable price for his produce, and then all the difficulties fall away. There the same arguments obtain that I used to answer the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Mr. Hayward). But this question now occurs to us. If the Government in the first instance had accepted the recommendations of this part of the House; if in the first case they had taken action with a mortgage redemption plan, would our position today not have been immeasurably better than what it is now; would it not have been unnecessary to introduce this Bill? We must take into account that when we come to the end of this period the interest subsidy will have been paid to farmers for 20 years, and will those farmers be better off in any way? Here we find now that after the interest subsidy has been paid for ten years, the Minister of Finance is compelled to come to the House with this Bill to make provision for a further eight or nine years. Naturally we welcome any help given by the Government. We do not wish to say that we do not welcome the assistance which the Government gives to farmers. I think the farmers are thankful for all assistance. The argument has been used, and we admit it, that the interest subsidy has saved many farmers. I admit that the interest subsidy saved the farmers from immediate ruination. But did the interest subsidy save them from the burdens that rest upon them, from the millstone that hangs around their neck? No, that was not done. Last year the Minister appointed a Commission to investigate this matter. I want to say candidly that the men who served on this Commission were men in whom I had the greatest confidence. They were men who have worked in these matters since the Farmers’ Assistance Board was established, and the interest subsidy brought into being. They had experience in this matter, and what were the findings of that Commission? They laid their report on the Table last year and that report was that, although the interest subsidy had been in operation for so many years, they found that the farmers could not yet manage without the interest subsidy and that they were still in the same position. What does the Minister now propose? Is he now really proposing a redemption scheme, something which will save those farmers from the burden which hangs from their neck like a millstone? No, he does not propose that. He proposes practically the same scheme that has been in operation for ten years; to extend it for another eight years, but only in a different form, and he will find that when that time comes, the farmers will not be able to manage without an interest subsidy. May I now move the adjournment of the debate?

Yes, do so.

Then I move—