I move—

1. (a) full cream sweetened condensed milk, and
2. (b) maize in the grain

imported into the Union, namely—

1. (a) 15s. per 100 lb. provided for in item 32 (a) (i) of the Customs Tariff in respect of full cream sweetened condensed milk, with effect from the second day of February, 1945—vide Government Notice No. 66 of 19th January, 1945; and
2. (b) 2s. per 100 lb. provided for in item 15 (c) (i) of the Customs Tariff in respect of maize in the grain, with effect from the twenty-seventh day of April, 1945—vide Government Notice No. 624 of 13th April, 1945.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of Section 81 of the Customs Act passed last year, the Minister may, in the public interest, reduce temporarily or suspend a customs duty, but such a reduction or suspension comes to an end at the end of a Parliamentary Session if a resolution has not been adopted by both Houses of Parliament confirming it. There are two such suspensions in respect of which it is desired to amend the present position for a further period. One is in regard to condensed milk. As hon. members are aware, there has been a serious shortage of condensed milk mainly because of drought conditions, and it is improbable that by our own production we will be able to make up the decline in our resources which have resulted therefrom. Condensed milk is an important item of food to some of the poorer sections of the community, and when we had an opportunity of purchasing 80,000 cases of condensed milk from the United States of America we decided to accept it. It would, however, have been of very little benefit to the country to import this condensed milk if it had to come into the country carrying a duty which is a protective duty as laid down in the customs tariff. It is for that reason therefore that it was decided to suspend the duty. Shipments have commenced arriving but they are not completed, and it is therefore necessary if the suspension is to continue to be in operation, to pass this resolution. A similar position has developed in regard to maize, also as a consequence of drought conditions. There we have found it possible to purchase 35,000 tons from Kenya. In this case the duty is not necessary from the point of view of protection and therefore it has been decided to suspend the duty also in regard to this maize. The importation is not yet completed either and therefore the adoption of a resolution of this kind is necessary to make it possible to go on importing this maize without duty.

I second.

I do not want to go into the merits of the case. Probably other hon. members will do so. There are two responsibilities facing the Minister in this respect. The first is that according to the strict letter of the law he has to be guided by public interests. Now there is no shadow of doubt that these two parts of the motion relate to aspects of our home production which is of the utmost interest to the people as such. For that reason I want to emphasise that point pefore putting a second question. The Minister must be guided by the public interest, but in the same section he is empowered not only to reduce or to suspend, but he can also do so for a given period. In view of the information he has given, the question arises whether the Minister cannot say for what period the suspension will be enforced. If it is not limited to the import on which a decision has already been taken, then the resultant actions may easily be contrary to the provisions of the Act, namely that such importation must be in the public interest. For that reason, in view of the protection of our home industries, we would like to know what the position is.

I do not want to oppose this motion, but we would like to have more information from the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Agriculture as to the quantity he intends to import and for how long such importations will continue. We contend, as was stated before, that with a little encouragement of the dairy industry, it would not have been necessary to import such quantities. But in view of the fact that it has been done and is necessary today, we do not want to oppose this measure. We would like to know, however, how much is going to be imported and whether, quite apart from the quantity already imported and in respect of which customs duties are being written off, further quantities will be imported.

The quantity for which an order has been placed, and of which the balance has still to arrive, is 5,000,000 tins and it is being imported, as I have stated already, to provide for the existing needs. I want to give the assurance that there is no intention to import further quantities of condensed milk. The day before yesterday I already intimated that we should try through the Dairy Control Board to provide more fresh milk for the factories manufacturing condensed milk. Another point which arises is that we are still waiting for the final report of the Marketing Board dealing with the whole milk problem. I think the hon. member can rest assured that as far as the future is concerned, no further quantities of condensed milk will be imported.

As the milk apparently is required, we do not want to oppose this motion, but on the other hand we cannot refrain from pointing out that here again we are dealing with what amounts to an emergency measure, and we are entitled to point out to the Government that all this would not have been necessary if the Government during the past few years had looked after the interests of South Africa instead of exporting our produce. We have the strange position that according to the information supplied by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, some time ago, a few million tins of condensed milk were exported, and now because of that, it has become essential as an emergency measure to import milk. We had the same position in regard to meat. Thousands of tons were exported and subsequently we had to import from Australia. We have to object to such an unwise policy as that followed by the Government during the past few years.

We on this side are of opinion that the Government adopts an attitude of indifference as regards the interests of the people. In order to supply other people the country is deprived of provisions and other people are provided with what they require. Then the Minister comes along with an emergency measure at a time when we are gradually attaining stability, and it is now necessary to import what we exported some time ago. We cannot protest too strongly against the maladministration in the past. The dairy farmers and Dairy Board are busy putting their house in order. Isn’t the importation of milk once more going to create chaos and disturb the plans in regard to the dairy industry? I feel that we should rather suffer a little, instead of encouraging the importation of these products. I cannot give my consent. We have the milk in the country and I personally am opposed to any kind of import which is not necessary. I would rather we go short for a while and see that we should endeavour to increase our own production. I definitely disapprove of this kind of procedure.

The Minister of Agriculture and Forestry has already replied to the questions which have been put. It is not our intention to extend the proclamation for a longer period than necessary. It is not our intention to import further consignments of condensed milk, but it is not possible to stipulate the time when this proclamation will be repealed, because we do not know how long it will take for further consignments which have already been ordered to reach us. According to the latest information in my possession, approximately one-third of the consignments have arrived. We do not know when the rest will reach us, and for that reason no date can be laid down, but I want to add my assurance to that of the Minister of Agriculture that there is no intention to purchase further quantities. I do not want to go into the responsibility in regard to the necessity of these importations again. As I have stated already it is mainly the result of drought conditions and surely the Government cannot be held responsible for the drought.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

I second.

In a few words I would like to protest against the actions of the Minister of Lands, firstly because of the fact that the time of this House is taken up with legislation of this nature. Very urgent legislation has to be postponed as a result of the actions of the Minister. I think he owes it to the country not to put forward such legislation when so many important measures should be taken. Secondly it has been proved over and over again that there is no actual need for such a reserve. The actions of the Minister in regard to this matter are quite impracticable, his intention is very unpopular with the people in the whole constituency, and now contrary to the interests of the country, the time of this House is taken up with this measure. I want to appeal to the Minister even at this late stage to drop the matter and no longer to take up the time of the House with this kind of legislation.

When the Bill was before the House we on this side of the House, in view of the very scanty information supplied to us, asked for the appointment of a Select Committee to go into the matter. It now appears that we were fully justified in demanding a Select Committee, because this Select Committee has been sitting for weeks and weeks and according to our information the defence has only started giving evidence now. I told the Minister at the time that a pamphlet had been published containing certain facts which he would have to controvert. Now it appears that it was necessary for the Department itself to call in a large number of witnesses and to take up much time in order to endeavour to justify its case. For that reason one feels that it is of importance that before the Minister moots such legislation of expropriation, he should acquaint himself better with the facts and that before coming to such a measure, it should be carefully considered, so that when he comes to the House, he can lay full facts before the House. Now most of the time in Select Committee is taken up in order to make out a case for the Minister. In the course of this Session the Minister of Lands has introduced three Bills aiming at expropriation. It is very well for the Government having the money, to bring forward such legislation and to commence a process of expropriation, and then to expect that the people apposed to it, have to give evidence before the Select Committee and to defend their case. But it involves a lot of expenditure. I wonder what expenditure has already been incurred by these innocent farmers who are now to be deprived of their property by the Government. Possibly they will run up considerable accounts, because they have to come here for the defence, and they have to remain in Cape Town for days and days in connection with the case. I rose particularly to stress the question of cost. It is very unfair to involve private individuals in costs where the State desires to expropriate property. You cannot expect in fairness that these people should bear the cost to come and defend their rights. I think that every hon. member of this House realises the danger we are faced with recently in that the State more and more interferes with the rights of private individuals, who then have to come here to defend their rights. I hope the Minister of Finance in the recess will consider the matter in that light. He must ask his Ministers what expropriation legislation they intend to bring forward, and then he should make provision in the estimates and should obtain the approval of the House to make provision to cover the expenses of these people. Surely it is going too far to involve these people in such expenditure, and I want to urge the hon. the Acting Prime Minister to consider the questions of costs in connection with such hybrid Bills so that parties in future will not be involved in such expenditure. I have raised this matter on two previous occasions in the course of this Session, and I want to press that point once more. It is felt by the whole country that this is not correct. Sometimes the Government appoints a commission, as for instance, the Kakamas Commission, and then the same position arises. People are involved in very heavy expenditure. We feel that this is a question which should be gone into during the recess. I do not want to object to this motion, because evidence has already been tendered and large expenditure has been incurred, but we are obliged to emphasise the point of costs. As, far as we learn a lot of information has been placed before the Select Committee showing that the Minister was under a false impression. I do not want to say that he was purposely brought under a false impression, but the Minister possibly had the idea that this Bill would be passed by the House without much trouble. Now he has found out that there is strong opposition, that vested rights are involved, that vested interests have to be taken into account, not only the rights of the farmers in the Dongola area itself, but also of farmers adjoining the Dongola area. The Minister also knows the opinion of the Departments on this matter, and I think that if the Minister reads the evidence in the recess, he will act wisely if he drops the matter, in any case for the time being. I think he will come to the conclusion that a prima facie case has been made out against the establishment of the reserve, and I appeal to the Minister seriously to consider in the recess to drop the Bill, but I particularly appeal to the Minister of Finance in regard to the expenditure incurred by these people. I want to ask him to go into the matter during the recess.

As the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) has referred to me in regard to the question of expense, I want to clear up one point. In the Standing Rules and Orders provision has been made to deal with such cases. In the Standing Rules and Orders dealing with private Bills, it has been laid down that in certain instances a Select Committee dealing with such a Bill, can with a two-thirds majority of its members decide that where a petitioner against a Bill has been unreasonably or vexatiously subjected to expense in defending any right belonging to him and proposed to be interfered with by such Bill, such petitioner shall be entitled to recover from the promoters of that Bill all reasonable costs incurred by him in the defence of such right. The Standing Orders also provide that where a promoter of a Bill had been vexatiously subjected to expense in the promotion thereof by a petitioner, such promoter shall be entitled to recover from such petitioner all costs incurred by him in consequence of such opposition.

That applies to private Bills. We are now dealing with a hybrid Bill.

That falls under the same rules, and therefore the hon. member will understand that in view of the fact that the Standing Rules make provision, it is not possible for the Government as such to do anything in the matter.

Because some of my constituents were involved in one of the Bills which was dealt with during this Session and under which private rights were interfered with, I rise to say a few words on the question of expense where expropriation is involved. I want to identify myself with what has been said by the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie). The Government introduces measures aiming at expropriation and then the people who are going to be expropriated are subject to heavy expense. Now the Minister comes and says that there is a provision in the Standing Rules and Orders that a two-thirds majority of a Select Committee may decide to grant compensation. I must say that this is one of the most unreasonable proposals in connection with this House. It is left to the will and whim of the Select Committee to determine whether a two-thirds majority is in favour of compensating the people who are going to be expropriated.

That is in accordance with the Standing Rules.

I should be glad if the Minister will undertake in the recess to go into the matter. In the case mentioned by me some of my constituents were the sufferers, and now the people who have interests in the Dongola area are the second group in connection with whom this matter is being raised during this Session. It now appears how expensive the process is and how the people are involved in expense, and if I am not mistaken, in the second case, that of Dongola, nothing either has been done in regard to the expenses. The people have to come here to defend their case before the Select Committee and the Select Committee has done nothing for them. It is most unreasonable, and there I want to appeal to the Government to go into this question during the recess, so as to prevent that people have to incur high expenditure when the Government is intent on expropriation.

It is still a question whether they on their part have not unnecessarily delayed the matter.

The Government side has been leading evidence for weeks and weeks.

It is all very well for the Government. The Government appoints an advocate. It is not the Minister of Lands paying out of his own pocket, and it is right and proper that the Government should bear the expenses, but the State is in a position to obtain the best legal advice, and to see to it that all possible evidence in its favour is led. But the other side has to incur heavy expenses, and in view of the fact that my constituents were involved in one case and engaged an advecate, I am particularly concerned about this question.

Those constituents obtained compensation.

They obtained compensation in regard to their losses, but not in regard to the expenditure involved when they had to stay in the town for days on end in connection with the case. I sincerely hope that the Minister of Finance will go into the matter. Then another point in connection with Dongola. In the Press this morning I read an item which seems strange to me. I take it to be correct. It refers to an expedition going north to investigate the Schwartz scheme. In the first place I want to ask whether possibly they are also going to inspect the Dongola area.

No, that has nothing to do with it.

Then it is of importance to know who the ten members of the House of Assembly are who are going to accompany him. I take it that the State will bear the expenses in connection with the expedition.

The hon. member cannot discuss that here.

Actually we are not in order to say anything in regard to the merits of the case at this moment, but as the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) supported by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) raised certain aspects in regard to this matter, I feel that a short explanation in regard to it can be expected from me. The Select Committee did all in its power to expedite the business, but we were faced with a difficulty arising out of a shortage of short-hand-writers. I want to say here that the shorthand-writers available did their utmost, but it was humanly impossible to expect them to do more than they did. That is definitely a serious defect and I feel that it is my duty as chairman of the Select Committee to point out that the machinery of the House is suffering because a sufficient number of shorthand-writers are not available to meet our requirements. It is not their fault. They have done their best. One of the shorthand-writer’s health broke down under the strain. They did what was possible, but if we had had the necessary shorthand-writers, we would possibly have completed our deliberations within the available time. Now, however, we were only able to sit for a few hours a day. I think this matter should receive attention.

What is your attitude in regard to expenses?

I cannot discuss that because it is left to the discretion of the Select Committee, and as was pointed out by the Acting Prime Minister, the Select Committee can by a two-thirds majority decide to grant compensation. The hon. member must remember that expenditure cannot only be granted to opponents to a Bill but also to the other side. The hon. member for Moorreesburg referred to the Bill dealing with Saldanha Bay and I regret that he did so.

That question is not under discussion now.

I only want to say that the shortage of shorthand-writers should receive attention, because it is a defect which should be removed.

As I understand the position, the report of the Select Committee has not yet been completed. Therefore one feels that this step of the Minister was not justified. If the report had been completed and submitted to us, obviously the Minister could have made such a proposal. But it is very unfair, in view of the fact that a report has not yet been completed and in view of the fact that the Minister does not know what the decision is going to be, that he should now ask for a certain measure of protection, compelling us to go on with this Bill, and to resume the discussions from the stage which it has reached now. It is difficult to remain calm in regard to this matter. It is unjust. The Minister comes along and nothing can make him see the error of his ways. We admire a man who is steadfast in his principles, but on the other hand we feel that the Minister should have realised by now that it is not in the interests of the country to try and force this matter. It is psychologically wrong and impracticable, and moreover we are of the opinion that the Dongola scheme ….

The hon. member must not go into the merits of the case.

I want to obey your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but we feel that as his own congress has not asked for anything of the kind and in view of the fact that there is no public body which realises the necessities for such a step, the Minister should have taken the matter to his own congress first of all, and consulted his own people. Where the Minister now seeks protection, I feel that he will have trouble with his own people and his own congress.

That has nothing to do with the question before the House, and the hon. member should confine himself to the question before the House.

I feel that this emergency protection measure of the Minister is not justified. There is no necessity for it. We have not yet received the report of the Select Committee and therefore I feel that it is uncalled for on the part of the Minister to come to the House at this juncture with this motion. The Minister does not possess enough patience to wait for the findings of the Select Committee, and before the matter has been settled, the Minister seeks protection for himself. Even if the congress of his Party has nothing to do with it, surely members on the other side are concerned, and from what I hear in the lobby, not a small percentage of the members on the other side feel with us on this matter and are opposed to it. The country is up in arms. I can give the Minister that assurance. There is a deep sense of disappointment.

I must ask the hon. member once more to confine himself to the motion.

We will oppose this measure to the utmost. If Mr. Speaker would not restrict us to such an extent, we would fight it the whole day. We are very strongly opposed to this proposal, because it is unfair and unjust. The Minister does not show any greatness in this matter. To the contrary, he is on the run. The Minister proves that he is afraid to face public opinion, and therefore he seeks protection.

The hon. member has already repeated that argument a few times, and he is not allowed to do so.

Then I want to congratulate the Minister that he is one of the Ministers who in the most unjust and unfair manner disregards the interests of the country and the platteland in general.

I don’t feel at liberty to support this motion by the Minister. I want to appeal to the Minister of Lands to reconsider this matter in the light of the evidence before the Select Committee. Many points in connection with this matter have been brought to light on both sides in the Select Committee and in the light of the evidence which both sides have had before them we should all take the matter into reconsideration. I am the more reluctant to support this motion for the reason that it is a measure for which there is no need. That matter has been emphasised so often that I do not want to devote more time to it. I would just like to point out that many important matters had to stand over because this measure was being considered. For instance, there is the Railway Estimates, which have not yet been laid before the House, whereas this matter has repeatedly received the attention of the House. I really feel that the Minister will be justified and will act fairly if he will reconsider the matter during the recess in the light of the evidence as to whether he should not proceed with it during the next Session. As regards the expenses, the chairman of the Select Committee has revealed that the expenses have increased as a result of a shortage of staff. That is so much the more reason that consideration should be given to this aspect of the matter. The costs of both sides have been increased in connection with something for which there is no public demand and additional work is now offloaded on the shoulders of the staff who are already weighed down with the heavy burden of essential duties they have to perform and the costs are enormously increased for the various parties as a result of a shortage of staff. I want to appeal to the Minister of Lands to leave this matter in abeyance for the present, and if on another occasion he should feel that the public is in need of it, i.e., that there is a public demand for it, he can again bring it before the House.

A few days ago I had the privilege of seeing a film of the famous or infamous Dongola. It is a film which had been produced by the farmers who came here to give evidence, and to me it was a revelation to see what grows there and how magnificent the veld is.

That has nothing to do with the motion before the House.

But we are now expected to decide whether we are to continue with this Bill from the stage it has reached, and my idea is that we should again commence with this measure from the beginning, to enable the Minister to submit all this information to the Select Committee and the House. The Minister said that there were parts in Dongola where no rain had fallen for a period of three years. I asked these people to show us those parts also. They told us there were no such places. We now expect the Minister to show us a film of those parts which are so dry and barren, to enable members to satisfy themselves, since a film like that cannot lie.

The hon. member is now dealing with the merits of the case, and that is not before the House.

I want to have more information submitted to us to enable the House to come to a decision and with that object in mind I am not in favour of a resumption of the Bill from the stage it has now reached, but that it should again commence from the start. I consider that we did not have enough light on the subject, and the whole question should be reconsidered. We cannot now decide to resume the matter from the point it has already reached. When the Minister goes up North during the recess he can decide to obtain that information and present it to us.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

But we do not know what the amendments are. We have no objection against considering the amendments immediately, but we would like to know what they are.

I shall supply the information.

Motion put and agreed to.

Amendments considered.

Amendment in Clause 1 (Afrikaans) put and agreed to.

Amendment in Clause 2 put,

This amendment involves the deletion of a new sub-paragraph (w) which was moved by the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Russell) as an additional sub-paragraph to enable the Housing Commission in laying out a scheme under the Act to make adequate provision for playing fields. The hon. member for Woodstock also moved what he considered a consequential amendment in the definition of “scheme”. That consequential amendment is in the Bill. The law advisers found, however, that not only was it unnecessary but that it might give rise to some ambiguity. The hon. member for Woodstock was consulted and he is satisfied that the deletion of (w) would be in order.

Would you still be able to provide playing fields?

Yes, the law advisers inform me that is clear; but there might be some doubt whether we could expropriate land for playing fields if this amendment stands.

Amendment agreed to.

The Committee will consider the Estimates of Expenditure from Railways and Harbours Funds.

In view of the fact we have before us the estimates for supplementary expenditure to be considered with the estimates we have just passed, would it not be preferable to complete such supplementary estimates before we go on to the Railways?

I understand that taking the Railway Estimates now will meet the convenience of the Committee.

May we test that by a vote? There are many important matters embodied in the two supplementary estimates.

This is a matter which is entirely in the discretion of the Chairman.

May I explain that the Minister of Finance has had to go to the Senate. I also understand that it suits the Opposition that we should take the Railway Vote. It is in these circumstances that this arrangement has been agreed to by the Chairman.

Under this head I should like to raise a matter of supreme importance, the question of the Wanderers Grounds, Johannesburg, better known as Paul Kruger Park. This is a very delicate subject and one that requires careful and considered action. It cannot be denied that public opinion is extremely divided on the question and on a conservative estimate it would be divided on a 50-50 basis. It is not a division between those who defend the abolition of the ground and those who do not, but between those who advocate abolition, that is the officials of the South African Railways, and those who have no great interest. If a referendum was taken I have no doubt the proposal for abolition would be rejected. The subject has been widely discussed between the Johannesburg City Council and the railway officials. We have in our possession a White Paper prepared by the Minister of Railways, giving the facts in an unbiassed way. It is clear the Minister is forcing the issue by giving the Wanderers notice to quit. There are two aspects of that question I want to deal with. The first is that in my humble opinion the Minister’s action in forcing the issue is contrary to the basic principles of democratic government, and savours of autocracy and despotism, things we have been fighting against in the war from which we have just emerged. In this matter we have a Minister of the Crown going a little too far. It is my humble duty to warn the Minister that his action has aroused grave opposition. If he goes on with this question let him not forget that members of his own Party have warned him. What is the urgency? The only allusions to urgency I can find are (1) a passage in a speech by the Minister in which he says that main line trains have to be brought into Johannesburg at awkward hours; and (2) that there has been an enormous increase in native suburban traffic. Let us examine the position. Is it fair to ask Johannesburg which owing to bad planning is short of open spaces, to sacrifice the open space provided by Paul Kruger Park for the convenience of a few main line passengers who have to turn out in the early morning? Is not this sort of inconvenience shared by passengers at stations throughout the country? Why then should Johannesburg have to make this sacrifice for the benefit of a small percentage of the travelling public? Not only is it an open space Johannesburg is asked to sacrfice, but it is an open space that was presented to the people of Johannesburg by a man whose memory is revered by all sections in South Africa, namely the late President Kruger. The land was presented by him to Johannesburg in perpetuity. In my submission it was granted under an Act of the old Volksraad, and that consequently an Act of Parliament would be required to cancel it If my legal contention is not correct that the same thing applies here as in the case of the land given to the Malays at Vrededorp I warn the Minister that the position is not such as to warrant this Government or departmental action. The voice of the people should be heeded in this House, and we are the mouthpiece of the people. Under these circumstances we must appeal to the Minister not to be in a hurry in this matter. In any event with the present shortage of housing what justification would he have for using the large quantities of material that would be required for building a new station? The second aspect of the question is referred to on page 21 of the White Paper in the Council’s reply to the hon. Minister. It is asked there—

The Szlumper report never dealt with that aspect. It just said it was undesirable. That is most important against the background of three important factors: (1) To what extent will the Minister of Transport construct macadamised national roads, and what will the effect of that be on passenger transport? Not so long ago we saw an advertisement displayed on our railway stations depicting a man with the railways on his back, stating: “If you do not allow them to carry you, you will have to carry them”. Then (2), to what extent will the abnormal rise in native passenger traffic be affected by the new town planning in Johannesburg aiming at the complete concentration of industries between Johannesburg and Vereeniging; and (3), the establishment of separate facilities for non-Europeans between Johannesburg and Potchefstroom. To what extent will the area provided by the Wanderers be sufficient to satisfy Johannesburg’s needs for the next 50 years?

First of all I would like to raise a matter which I regard as of urgent importance. I want to bring to the notice of the Minister that we are only now dealing with the Railway Estimates on what is probably the last day of the Session. It is true that it is not altogether unusual. It has already happened in a previous Session but I think the Minister will realise that to bring the Railway Estimates before the House on the last day is anything but a fair and equitable arrangement. We are concerned with the interests of a personnel of approximately 143,000. We are concerned with a current expenditure of quite £61.000,000. In addition to that there are incidental capital investments amounting to £14,000,000. In view of these interests affecting the personnel, the interests of the State as such and the interests of the taxpayer, I think we should urgently appeal to the Minister to make an arrangement with his colleagues to have this important vote presented to us earlier in the year. We have here a depleted House, a House which, psychologically, is by no means surrounded with a good atmosphere to approve of a prolonged discussion. For that reason I want to appeal to the Minister seriously that he should in future try to have this important vote brought before the House earlier in the Session. The second matter I would like to raise is the publication of a report of the Railway Board. I do not know who is responsible for the report but without intending to be insulting I must say that it is such a ridiculous little thing that it is hardly worth while publishing the report of the Railway Board this year. The board itself felt so ashamed of its publication that it put it inside a double cover so that it should at least have some body. The whole report takes up ten small pages. I have before me the report for 1939, a report which at least imparts a lot of information. It is hardly worth while reading this year’s report. A lot of data we would have liked to have had, has not been made available. The report either has value, or it has no value, and the Minister should do either of two things. The report should disappear altogether if it is no longer of any value, or it should at least approach the contents of the 1939 report. There is some information we require every year. It does not appear in this report and we now have to search for it. The previous report contained a statement regarding the stores which the Railway Administration has at its disposal. This year we could not find it. It is something every businessman wants to know. We would like to know what supplies the largest organisation which the Government is today administering, an organisation in which more than £200,000,000 has been invested, has at its disposal. Either the Railway Board is acting on the assumption that the report should not be read, or it amounts to contempt of this House to compile a report like this. I would like to make a few remarks with regard to the policy of the Railway Administration. I am sorry that the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. Haywood) is unable to be present. I feel sure the House sympathises with him in his absence on account of illness. I want to say a few words in connection with the economic policy of the Minister. During the past five years the Minister has had, if I may put it that way, a period of the highest conjuncture, where everything contributed to put money freely into circulation and to effect such a change in the psychological outlook of man that he does not mind paying what he is asked to pay. Moreover, the Minister has had a period of absolute monopoly. It is admitted on all sides that the Minister has a monopoly in South Africa, but that monopoly was not as absolute before the war as it has been during the last years the war was on. We feel that under the circumstances under which the railways operated —and operated successfully—during the past five years, we have arrived at a time in our economic life when the Minister should give some indication that he at least realises the change of conjuncture which is ahead. The past five years have been a period of speculation. Money was plentiful and nobody could obtain petrol for travelling. Railwaytransport was the only means of conveyance.On account of that the Minister was ableto increase his revenue from railway trafficvery considerably. I notice that during thepast year it amounted to £14,000,000. Itis a surprisingly high figure. In view ofthe fact that the Railway Administrationhas had a peak period and in view of thefact that the railways will have to revertto normal with a decrease in the circula-tion of money on account of the decreasein the expenditure of the Government, unlessthe Minister can rely on internal industrialdevelopment to an extent where it wouldimplement the contribution of the Govern-ment towards the circulation of money, itis important for us—and it is a duty theMinister owes the House—that he shouldindicate along what lines he is prepared toadapt himself to impending changes. Wedo not know whether the shrinkage willcommence tomorrow or a year or two hence, but under the circumstances we have towarn the Minister to be prepared, on theground of past experience, to administer thisgreat organisation for which he is responsibleto this House with less expenditure. Fromthe estimates we have before us there isno indication that the Minister realises inany way that we are now in a period oftransition. On the contrary, his estimatesthis year provide for a considerable increaseand I would just like to say a few wordsin connection with his proposed increaseof approximately £7,000,000. Most importantamong these increases is the item to pro-vide for the special cost of living allow-ances. No member of this House can objectto provision being made in order to’ assistthe personnel of the administration at leastto be in no worse a position in times ofprosperity than in normal times. On thecontrary, I take it that in spite of thehigh contributions there is nevertheless a.lesser purchasing power as a result of thetremendous increase in the prices of generalessential commodities. But apart from thatthere are also further considerable increases.In view of these increases in this year’sestimates I think it is very necessary thatthe Minister should give us all an indication as to the line he is prepared to take inview of the anticipated shrinkage, otherwisehe would be failing in his duty towards theHouse. Every business man and everyhouseholder realises that he should preparehimself for the conditions which lie ahead.I would like to direct attention to some otheraspects of the Minister’s policy. In hisestimates this year and even during the pastfew years the Minister placed before theHouse a big programme of expansion onwhich he is engaged for its establishmentof considerable dévelopment works. It wouldbe unreasonable for us to criticise anydevelopment as such, and for that reasonI am not prepared to do so, neither am I criticising his programme of development. [Time limit.]

I would like to protest to this Committee against the fact that this important vote involving over £61,000,000 is brought before this depleted House. There we see the boy standing on the burning deck, the Minister is all alone. How can anyone talk to the House when everyone is anxious to get home? The whole thing is a scandal. The public will talk to the Government about this. This Government thinks they are so strong and so clever and so able that they can just turn round and say everything to Parliament. They cannot, and I want the Minister—the Minister is getting rather pompous—to explain to the country why on the last day of the Session, he has brought this enormous vote before this Committee when as a rule in the olden days, I have seen this vote take four days.

The members should stay here.

My hon. member says the members should stay here. He lives in Cape Town. He does not know how anxious the other members are to get away from Cape Town at this time of the year. He does not know; he is one of the clever members of the House. The Minister has given me an enormous amount of trouble because I happen to be the member representing the area in which the Wanderers Grounds are situated. Why has the Minister rushed this matter? I do not know whether the Minister is right in taking the Wanderers away from the people of Johannesburg, but I do know that I have never seen anything done in a more tactless way than the Minister is doing this. When those Ministers have finished their conference, I can carry on. I should have thought they would consult each other outside the House. The Minister knows full well that he cannot build a station on the Wanderers Ground for two years. He knows that as well as I do, but he gives notice to the Wanderers people that they must leave in August or September. Is the Minister prepared to extend that notice for a longer time? He has upset sporting people of Johannesburg. The cricket season will be coming on soon. Where are they going to get cricket fields? I do not know whether the Minister has ever played cricket—I doubt it—but he will know that a cricket field cannot be made in five months. There was no need to take all this ground. They need only have taken a strip of the ground. I believe that the plans have not even been touched. Nothing has been done. Still; here comes strong man Sturrock—that is what they call him in the “Rand Daily Mail” like strong man Strauss … I cannot go on because there is an indaba being held here by the hon. member for Milnerton ….

Cape Flats.

I thought there was something flat about him. I do not know why he speaks. He has no intelligence of his own. Why does he not allow people with intelligence to speak. Is the Minister going to help the sporting people in Johannesburg? I am not finished with the Minister, I am waiting for his answer. I am going to keep him here until tomorrow if he does not satisfy me. I want to know what part the Minister had in the Union-Castle Agreement. Did he make the Union-Castle Agreement? He sat tight while we discussed it. It could not have been made by the other Ministers, because we have never seen a more terrible state of affairs. The Minister need not worry, I am not out of order. I have the right to ask the Minister whether he had anything to do with that Agreement. Another point I want to ask the Minister is this. The railways have laid down the principle for many years, that no member of the railways shall join a board. Why did the Minister allow the Assistant General Manager, Mr. White, to be appointed as a director of Iscor? He may turn round and say that Mr. White is going to be retired in September. The fact remains that no civil servant has the right to be a member of a board like Iscor particularly. Iscor is selling goods in the shape of steel to the railways. I am not saying anything about the integrity of Mr. White; I am not saying anything against his character, I am discussing the principle. He is a director of Iscor and as Assistant General Manager, he has to deal with Iscor. Can the Minister tell me what he is going to do about the present General Manager? Is he going to allow the present General Manager to retire or is he going to appoint him again for a year? There is a feeling in the Committee that Mr. Hoffe should be kept on. I can assure the House that the Minister will not keep Mr. Hoffe on. I do not know why, but he won’t. I do not know whether Mr. Hoffe wants to stay. That is another question. Parliament would like to see Mr. Hoffe kept on. Then I want to ask whether it is a fact that the graving dock in Cape Town is going to be called the Sturrock Dock? If so, why? The Minister has had nothing to do with the for eshore scheme. Surely it could be named after some man in Cape Town, or perhaps it could be named after some member of the staff. If anybody is entitled to have the dock named after him, it is Mr. Pirow. I am frightened of this Minister. This Minister, as far as I can see, is spending an enormous amount of money in the country and not worrying about the interest that has to be paid by this country when things get bad. I have been through the mill before in this House. I have seen it happen. We now see in the newspapers that a big home is going to be built for Transport in Pretoria—Transport House or some sort of house. It will probably be as big as the Union Buildings. Why did the Minister not come to Parliament first? Who is he going to put into that building? Himself, three members of the Railway Board and a few conductors of transport, and we are going to spend large sums of money on it. I am warning the Committee and I am warning the country. We cannot throw away all these millions. Even the new station in Johannesburg is not wanted for many years to come. We cannot discuss today either the policy or the administration or the expenditure of the railways, and there is not a man sitting in this House who, if he puts his hand over his heart, can say that this House is being given a fair opportunity to discuss this vote. I am going to sit down now. I am waiting for the Minister, and I am going to talk to him later. What is his policy about this terrible amount of capital expenditure we are getting in South Africa? Nobody in this House gets an opportunity to discuss these things. The Minister publishes things in the newspapers without coming to this House. [Time limit.]

I think I might take the opportunity of replying to two matters which have been raised.

We cannot hear you.

First of all, I would like to deal with the last speaker and I would like to deal with the last point he made. He complains about my publishing things in the newspapers without coming to this House. If the hon. member knew his job, if he studied these things, he would have seen that this House has already voted £225,000 for the new Ministry of Transport building in Pretoria. Then he accused me of not coming to this House. I may say that I have nothing whatever to do with the publication of a drawing or anything else in any newspaper so far. The plans are now being drawn up on the instructions of this House, but let me say this. The Ministry of Transport office is also going to be the new System Manager’s Office in Pretoria. It may interest the House to know that the Pretoria system has grown to such an extent that there is simply no room for the staff in the present offices. Therefore we propose to include the System Manager’s office which will take the biggest section of the building. In addition to that there will be the Railway Board, the National Roads Board, the Transportation Board offices and various other subsidiary offices, including the Railways Services Commission, and the Government Garages, so the hon. member need not regard that as being altogether a waste. I would like to explain that so far as the Iscor directorate is concerned, that is a Government appointment and it is not on all fours with ordinary appointments. It is according to precedent, because Government servants have been appointed to the Iscor Board before, and in any case the time was so short that it was considered advisable to make the appointment now.

Is Mr. White covering the two positions at once?

He is covering the two positions but not retaining the salary of the Iscor job. That must be paid into railway revenue.

Is that advisable?

When was it done previously?

I think it was done in the case of Mr. E. P. Smith.

He was not a member of the Railway Department buying from Iscor: he was Secretary for Commerce. They bought nothing from Iscor.

Is the suggestion that we will get favourable treatment out of Iscor as a result of White’s being there? If that is so, it will benefit the State.

I think that is a poor reply.

I think it is a poor suggestion to make that it will make any difference in the relationship between the railways and Iscor—the fact that we have appointed a director on to the board. In regard to the question of the General Manager, no decision has been come to in this regard, and no decision will probably be come to until such time as the Prime Minister comes back. I would like to emphasise the point that the General Managership is a Cabinet appointment. It is not an appointment made by the Minister, like other appointments and the matter will have to go to the Cabinet for its consideration. So far the Cabinet has not considered it at all.

Who advises the Cabinet— the office boy or the Minister?

Naturally the Minister advises the Cabinet, but if the hon. member had even been in a Cabinet he would know that frequently the Minister’s advice is turned down by the Cabinet. He wanted to know if I took part in the negotiations for the mail contract. I did take part; I presided over the meeting, but it was not my function to sign the contract or particularly to reply to any points unless it was on any matter in respect of which the Ministers were not capable of replying themselves. The hon. member accused me of being pompous, but I rather think that this House, having heard his performance this morning, will realise that the pomposity is on his side and not on mine. I have never heard anything so pompous; he threatened me with all sorts of things.

We will have a good debate today.

It seems a happy family.

I would like next to come on to the question of the Wanderers, in which the hon. member is also interested. I have been accused, as hon. members have heard, of being a dictator. I am ordering the Wanderers out of the grounds. When the question of extending the railway station was first mooted, it was quite obvious that something had to be done about it, since even before the war, in 1939, the railway station in Johannesburg was hopelessly overloaded. Owing to the outbreak of the war nothing very much was done until 1942 and then I saw the Wanderers, and I saw the city council and I had talks with them, and I put my problem to them, and they offered to co-operate with me in solving my problems. Well, as a result of our first meeting it was agreed that we would appoint a joint technical committee to see if there was any other alternative. I expressed the view that if any other alternative to taking Wanderers could be found, I would be very pleased indeed. The committee met; it had on it various officers of the city council. Dr. Hamlin, Mr. Marks and Mr. Holmes, the City Treasurer, were members of the committee. They brought in a unanimous report and that unanimous report says the only thing to do is to take Wanderers over and that is the only way of solving the station problem.

That was not my point.

I am not dealing with the hon. member. The hon. member is being pompous again. I am dealing with the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy).

I beg your pardon. I thought you were replying to me.

You are starting a civil war this morning.

We can surely differ without having a war.

Is it a private fight or can we all join in?

I am only giving the House a very brief history. In 1914 the Wanderers Club offered the whole Wanderers Ground to the railways for £100,000.

They had no right to do it, it does not belong to them.

It was rather interesting that when they did that the Wanderers Club explained their decision to cede their rights by stating that the club’s continued occupation of the ground had become inimical to the town’s requirements as a whole. That was what Wanderers thought in 1914. In 1925 they sold the present ground we took over for £33,000 without any difficulty at all. It was only when I came along this time wanting to take more ground in because of the continued expansion of the railways, that we have this difficulty. As I was explaining that committee gave a unanimous report— my officers and the city council officers. But did the city council accept it? No. At the first meeting I had with them they said that Dr. Hamlin had changed his mind about it and they could not support it and after a good deal of discussion they said they wanted an outside expert. Well, I was disappointed. I thought I was reasonable with them and that they were reasonable, but they wanted an outside expert. Mr. Fotheringham, Mr. Corlett, Mr. T. P. Gray and Mr. Victor Kent all said that they would like an outside expert. The Minister, I may say, rather discouraged the idea and said that the experience of outside experts was, that very often they gave reports that nobody took any notice of, but notwithstanding my discouragement, they insisted upon an outside expert. They delayed the matter nearly two years because, as hon. members will appreciate, to get an outside expert in the middle of the war, was a very difficult thing to do. We got the outside expert. He was agreed to by the city council who knew what I was doing. I repeat the city council agreed to his appointment. I wrote them a letter in which I included these terms of reference and in every way they were a party to the! appointment of this outside expert. This outside expert, however, comes along and makes a report and it indicates a situation which is worse than it was considered to be, and that the railways needed more ground than we were asking for. The only solution is that we have to take over the Wanderers. That was the second report. The first report was arrived at by agreement with the City Council of Johannesburg, but they went back on it. They wanted it done in this way, and they were a party to it but now they do not want to accept that report. If you accept the position which is essential, and the Railway Administration are probably the best judges of that, you can see there is no other alternative but to accept this report. The City Council of Johannesburg now want to involve me in the town-planning of Johannesburg. Let me say at once, Mr. Chairman, that I am perfectly prepared to do that and I am perfectly prepared to adjust the station plan to meet their wishes in that connection if it can possibly be done. The town-planning feature has only come up now at this late hour. The situation is such that we have got to extend the Johannesburg railway station. Mr. Chairman, we have to take this problem seriously and it is not only a matter for the City Council of Johannesburg but also for the South African Railways and Harbours. It is a national undertaking. It does not affect Johannesburg only. It affects the whole Transvaal railway system. I get complaints from time to time that farmers’ products do not get to Johannesburg quickly enough. Why are those delays caused; all because of Johannesburg station. I get complaints that the trains are held up for three-quarters of an hour at Germiston station. Why is that, because Johannesburg station is a bottleneck which affects the Railways and Harbours system for hundreds of miles around and that is why this problem has to be settled, and it has to be settled on the lines of the Szlumper report. The Szlumper report was arrived at in order to meet the wishes of the City Council of Johannesburg. Now, in order that people may realise that I am in earnest about this matter I have given notice to the occupants of the Wanderers.

Very short notice.

Six months notice. That is not very short notice. A great deal has been made about this ground being a gift of President Kruger to the citizens of Johannesburg, and no-one would be more prepared to carry out the wishes of President Kruger in that regard than I.

But he did not give it for dog-racing.

I am coming to that point. It is not suggested that President Kruger said it was to be used for dog-racing. I am quite sure he did not. I am going to open ft, up for the benefit of the citizens of Johannesburg. I shall not require more than half of the ground for railway purposes and the rest will be converted into parks surrounding the station, and that will be for the benefit of the citizens of Johannesburg. One of the reasons why I want to give notice is that until such time as certain parts of the Wanderers are required by me I will make it available to the citizens of Johannesburg.

But you will not allow dog-racing.

As a landowner, not in my official capacity, if I am not accused of being pompous, I should like to say that I do not like dog-racing. I have not got anything against dog-racing but I do not want my personal feelings to come into the matter. If I am approached by anybody and they can prove to me that it affects them, and they can suggest an alternative proposition, and I can do anything, without sacrificing the public interest, I will be quite prepared to do it.

I am not interested in it from the point of view of dog-racing.

My statement does not apply to dog-racing.

I am talking of the Wanderers Ground.

I repeat, my statement does not apply to dog-racing. It applies to everybody. I hope it meets the point the hon. member raised. I am quite prepared to meet those people and if I can I will be only too pleased to help them over their difficulty. I do not want to make it difficult for anybody. I want them to take me seriously and I do not think I am playing the fool by what I am doing. Now, the accusation was made both by the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) and the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) that it is a shame that the railway estimates should come up at this eleventh hour. I agree with them entirely.

What are you doing about it?

It is due to the fact that my estimate are dealt with after all the Central Government estimates have been disposed of. I should like to point out that a special debate is held on the Railways Part Appropriation Bill, and at that particular stage railway policy is examined and discussed in great detail. There is only one way of overcoming this question of the railway estimate being discussed at this late stage. It must be remembered that some vote has to be rushed if we continue with this practice of always proroguing Parliament the moment the estimates are completed. I repeat some vote has to be taken last.

Why pick on the railway estimates; why not on Dongola?

I have no objection to your picking on Dongola. It is not me, it is Parliament itself.

It is your Cabinet.

The moment the estimates are through there is a tendency for members to want to rush home. It is all very well for local hon. members to prolong the sitting of the House. If they want to stay on for a month after my votes are passed I have no objection at all.

Have you no influence with the Minister of Finance?

How can he alter it?

By taking some of the less important legislation later on.

We cannot begin our estimates until after the end of the previous financial year. We cannot get through the financial business with the machinery provided by Parliament, any sooner than we do, and if we shut up Parliament the moment the estimates are completed it stands to reason that some vote must be taken at this late stage.

Why not take the estimates earlier?

It is a matter for the House itself to arrange and I will be quite prepared to fall in with any suggestion that can be made in that regard. I do not want to be the last Minister to deal with the estimates.

Have you ever protested against that to the Leader of the House?

I have frequently discussed the matter with him but I would not say that I have protested. I am prepared, however, to protest if the hon. member thinks it will help. It must be borne in mind, however, that it is a matter which has been going on since the days of Union.

It is quite apparent that your discussion does not draw any results.

Mr. Speaker, let me say that I am in no hurry to get away. I am prepared to sit for another week if necessary.

But your people are in a hurry to get away.

Let me repeat I am not rushing the estimates. I am quite prepared to sit another week.

But your staff have arranged to go away tonight.

If the Session is to be prolonged for a period in excess of the time we have already been sitting Parliament will have to move to Pretoria, because it is extremely awkward for Ministers to carry on with their normal functions when they are so far away from their headquarters. In regard to the Railway Board reports let me say that I am perfectly prepared to go into the matter. The fact is that the Railway Board’s report was duplicating a great deal of information which was already contained in the General Manager’s report and I suggested that there should not be two reports covering the same grounds and containing the same information. It was much better to have only matters not dealt with in the General Manager’s report dealt with in the Railway Board report. That, however, was not done, which led to a great deal of duplication. If hon. members, however, want a Railway Board report and not a General Manager’s report I will be quite prepared to carry out that suggestion.

The dignity of the Board is at stake.

I am quite prepared to see whether the matter cannot be adjusted in a satisfactory manner. All I want to do is to avoid duplication. There were pages and pages of information contained in the General Manager’s report that was duplicated in the report of the Railway Board, and that is what I want to avoid. Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. Haywood), who I am sorry to say is unable to be in his place today. I do realise only too well that the railways are in a transition period. I am watching the position very carefully every week and let me remind the hon. member that I have put aside a considerable reserve to meet any contingency that may arise during any period of re-adjustment. I well remember the experience of the aftermath of the last war when we had no reserve at that time. As I pointed out, had we had £7,000,000 in the Rates Equalisation Fund we would not have had to retrench anybody or had to resort to increasing rates and fares and we would have been able to go right through the depression. Today I have £10,000,000 available in the Rates Equalisation Fund and the balances standing to the credit of the Betterment and Renewals Fund accounts are also very high. That is not deliberate but it is due to the fact that I have not been able to spend that money. I repeat the railways are in a strong financial position and will be able to meet any period of adjustment without causing any hardship to be inflicted on anybody. That is my constant aim and object. Mr. Speaker I think I have now dealt with all the points that have been raised by hon. members.

We have listened attentively to the hon. Minister and what he had to say in connection with the presentation of his vote during the last moments of the Session, but I cannot say that he has convinced us. He allows his colleagues to present Bills of minor importance to the House and to crowd out his important estimates. Capital to the extent of approximately £200,000,000 is invested in the railways and the Railway Estimates amount to £60,000,000 but the Minister makes room for all sorts of measures of minor importance which are being presented by his colleagues and on which the time of the House has been wasted for days and weeks. And now at the end of the Session, we hastily have to discuss and dispose of this great undertaking which is of national importance. Moreover, the Minister’s personal staff have reserved their seats and arrangements have been made to depart this evening. The Minister does not know how long the House will be in Session, but arrangements are being made on the assumption that our ranks will be so depleted and that members will be so fatigued and in such a mood that this important matter would soon be disposed of. It strikes me that this Railways debate has been postponed intentionally to this late stage so as to avoid the deep dissatisfaction in connection with it from being brought to light. We do not want to employ threats but we would ask the Minister very seriously to take steps to ensure that this will be the last occasion on which we will be confronted with the position of having to conduct a debate on a department which covers such a large field and which is of so much importance, within the space of an hour, and that on the last day of the Session. It is not right and proper that the Railway debate should be conducted in the mood in which the House finds itself today. This has been happening year after year and every year this most important matter is being kept back until the last day of the Session. We are obliged to make use of the opportunity we have, but it is very unsatisfactory. The Minister has pointed out that we debated Railway matters at some length on the supplementary estimates. We could not do otherwise, but on that occasion we did not have the facts and figures which we now have before us. Now we cannot study these figures properly and express an opinion on Railway matters. The Minister’s functions have developed to such an extent and his portfolio has become so important that he is now Minister of Transport. He covers a much wider field, i.e., the field covered by his Votes is becoming larger and larger, but we are getting less of an opportunity for discussing these important matters. On these Votes we are also limited to two half-hours and for the rest we have to satisfy ourselves with ten-minute speeches. I must admit the Minister is very dexterous. He is very suave and always puts the blame on his colleagues. He says he has discussed the matter with the Acting Prime Minister and has objected to the debate being conducted in the House at the last moment before the House rises, but nevertheless the Minister allows it to happen. He holds one of the most important portfolios in the Cabinet, but he allows his colleagues to push him aside and to wipe him off the table. He allows his important Vote to be treated as though it is of no consequence and he does so intentionally because he knows that on the last day of the Session there are very few members in the House and that only those who are bitterly dissatisfied and have very serious grievances remain behind, and by means of this longwinded process he tries to exhaust the House and in that way to get his estimates through at the last moment. I think we should seriously object to that. It is only necessary to mention one case, to prove in what position we are placed. The Railway Administration finds itself in the position that three of its most important heads are retiring simultaneously, namely the General Manager and the Assistant General Manager and the Assistant General Manager (Technical), and, moreover, the Assistant General Manager (Commerce and Staff) has for some considerable time not occupied his post. We have been complaining about this state of affairs for some years and we drew attention to it in the supplementary estimates, and also last year. We pointed out in what a difficult position the Railway Administration would be if of its highest officials four were no longer available, if three retire and one is employed on other activities. He has been away for months and the position is extremely unsatisfactory. He has been away from his post for six months now. We are dealing here with an undertaking in which £200,000,000 State capital has been invested, and the position in which we now find ourselves is that during the next six months the Department will be without its present General Manager, without the Assistant General Manager, without the Assistant General Manager (Technical) and also without its Assistant General Manager (Commerce and Staff). If the Minister is also taken away it would have no head at all. I expected the Minister would at least have submitted it to the Cabinet and to the Prime Minister before he left for San Francisco, and that the Minister would have been in a position to make a statement to the House. It would have been no more than fair to the staff and to the country. But now we are confronted with the position I have outlined. The salary of the General Manager is higher than that of the Prime Minister; I think he receives £500 more than the Prime Minister, and now he is retiring and the other heads are retiring and we in this House should have had the opportunity of discussing the appointment of the General Manager. But what does the Minister do? He takes care that this vote is brought up on the last day of the Session and he places the House and his colleagues in the Cabinet and the Administration in such a position that the Minister will now have a free hand to appoint whoever he wishes after the Session and next Session we will be confronted with a fait accompli. We can already predict what will happen and what is going on in the mind of the Minister, and I can only say that if he carries that into effect great dissatisfaction will attend the appointment which he apparently intends making. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to detain the House for any length of time but I should like to make a few remarks in connection with the removal of the Wanderers ground as it affects the East Rand. The hon. the Minister is quite aware that from Boksburg East right out towards Nigel there is a European population of over 100,000 people and many thousands of those people are particularly interested in sport, and more particularly in matches of an international character. The custom up to the present, over a period of 40 or 50 years, has been for the people to catch the train at Springs, travel to Park Station and then go over to the Wanderers ground. I said catch the train at Springs, but that is not always so easy. Thousands of these people are situated on outlying mines, a matter of eight or ten miles from the Springs station, and it has been very convenient for them to have the Witwatersrand sporting centre so close to Park Station. I do not know what the plans are of the hon. the Minister and his Administration, but I sincerely trust that wherever this new ground will be situated there will be no lack of provision whatever in regard to railway facilities from these outlying areas. If a person is working on a mine like Daggafontein East he has to travel nine miles to Springs from where he has to take the train to Johannesburg, and if he then has to bus or taxi it to some place on the outskirts of Johannesburg, it is going to occasion the greatest amount of inconvenience, and if the Railway Administration do not ensure that adequate railway facilities will be available from those outlying centres to wherever the new sporting centre is going to be, they will be guilty of gross neglect and it will cause dissatisfaction and hardship to a large section of the population. I repeat thousands of people make use of those facilities when sporting events are held, and I sincerely trust that their interests are not going to be overlooked in this matter.

I wish to make use of the half-hour rule. I do not intend taking part in the civil war between the Minister of Transport and the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow), but I wish to associate myself with the protests of the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) and the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) against the fact that this important vote has to be dealt with every year towards the end of the Session. I know that the Minister of Transport agrees that it is an undesirable state of affairs, and I wish to suggest that he should use his influence with the Acting Prime Minister in order to bring about a change in the matter. Every year we have the same position that this Budget vote is brought up towards the end of the Session, and I am afraid that many hon. members have no conception at all of the importance of the Department of Railways to South Africa. Our national debt is about £530,000,000 and the capital invested in the railways amounts to £205,000,000. This shows what an important position that industry occupies in South Africa. If we look at the interest that the Department of Railways has to pay on debts, we find that it is an amount of over £5,700,000. In the Department of Railways and Harbours 145,000 people are employed, of whom 83,000 are Europeans and 61,000 non-Europeans, and if at a conservative estimate we calculate that of the 83,000 Europeans 60,000 are married and have families with an average of two children each, you find that 240,000 people are dependent on the railways for a living, and if we add the other 20,000, we have more than a quarter of a million people making a living out of the railways, or one eighth of the European population of South Africa. The Minister’s argument is that we get a reasonable chance to discuss matters on the partial Budget, but then the full figures are not available. They have only been made available to us this morning, and we now have to deal with them quickly. I wish to urge the Minister to see to it next year that this important vote does not come up for discussion on the last day of the Session. The railways of South Africa have during the last five years passed through an important period. They were the five war years and five years in which the country was in a prosperous state. What has the Minister done? He has harnessed the railways before the chariot of war. Anyone with common sense would expect that after five good years the railways would be in a good financial position. But is it the case? What is the position? The rolling stock of the railways are in a critical state. The Minister has harnessed the railways before the chariot of war, and he has assisted the Minister of Finance in taxing the railways in conflict with the opinion even of the General Manager and of the Board. He has made of it a source of income to cover the war costs. To the Department of Defence he gave a rebate, and although the General Manager states that he cannot give the correct figures, he said on a certain occasion that the rebates probably amount to at least £10,000,000 for the five years. In the fourth year of the war the Department of Railways got out of hand to such an extent that in April, May, June and July of last year there was a deficit of about £400,000, and last October the Minister had to come and again impose an extra tax of 10 per cent. It is true that it was partly for an improvement in the working conditions of the staff and increase of salary, but apart from that it was to cover the deficit. Is it surprising that we are not too easy in mind? I know that the Minister of Railways is no longer so assured about the state of affairs. We have now come to the end of five good years and we find that the rolling stock of the railways is in a hopeless state. The hon. the Minister told the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) that he is not much worried about the whole state of the railways, because his funds stand very high. He says that he has not the slightest reason to be anxious, but just let us go into those funds. In the year 1939, when the present Minister came into power, the Renewal Fund stood at £2,784,000. The Minister has brought it up so that it now stands at £15,667,000. But I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact—this is a fund from which money is drawn for wastage and depreciation in value—that before the war in the year 1939 an amount of £3,895,000 was spent out of the Renewal Fund. That is nearly £4 million. Today we find the position that the rolling stock of the railways has depreciated much faster in value, and yet we find that the Minister spent only £1,703,000 in the year 1944 as compared with that amount of almost £4 million in the year 1939. The Renewal Fund, therefore, is there, but the state of the railways is such that the Minister cannot feel at ease. I shall indicate what the conditions of the rolling stock is. It is true that the Improvement Fund stands at £3,500,000. In 1939 the Tariff Reserve Fund was £3,000,000, and it now stands at nearly £10,000,000. But if we see to what extent the railways have expanded then a Tariff Reserve Fund of £10,000,000 is not at all reassuring. It would not be adequate if We have to meet a depression such as in the years 1930 to 1933. We shall require at least £20,000,000. There is still another consideration. The prosperity and high income of the railways were due to war conditions. People were driven to the railways, motor cars were scarce and tyres and petrol were difficult to obtain. People could do nothing else but make use of the railways. But as conditions again become normal this forced income of the railways will become something of the past. But the Minister is in the fortunate position that while the war with Japan is still in progress he will have a transitional period in which the railways can adapt themselves to postwar times. In view of this I wish to say a few words to the Minister in connection with the adaptation of the railways to that post-war period. If we wish to have railways serving the transport needs of the country, then there are three facts or considerations that should be taken into account: (1) the transport must be economical; (2) the transport must comfortable; (3) and the transport must be efficient. In connection with the consideration that the railways should be economical I have already said that the Minister has loaned the railways to the Minister of Finance. He has imposed a tax of 15 per cent. on passenger tickets, and I wish to urge the Minister of Transport very strongly that he must withdrawn that tax on the railways so that the transport of passengers may be more economical and so that people may not, when they again have motor transport at their disposal, make use of their motor cars because the railway transport is uneconomical to them. I wish to suggest that excursion rates for shows and for passengers travelling in groups be put into operation again. When I say that the transport must also be comfortable, I am referring especially to passenger transport. I wish to give the Minister a personal example of what I experienced on a branch line last week. Itravelled in a first-class coupé over a distance of about 260 miles. I entrained in the evening; when I got up the next morning and wished to wash, there was no towel and soap. I wished to shave, and there was no mirror. Where the mirror should have been there was a square piece of wood. That was in a first-class coach. In the bathroom there was no toilet-paper. We all know how convenient the bunk lights used to be. There were none. Formerly there still used to be a little switch that gave one some comfort, but now there in a piece of wood. I mention these few things. These are things the Minister will have to go into if he wishes to make the railways comfortable again. He must provide for those things if he wishes people to make use of the railways in normal times again. There were times when the Minister advertised that people should not make use, of the railways, and when people stood in queues in order to obtain tickets. Those times pass as normal times return. Then I come to meals. Please let us return to the system of a menu. I have a very soft spot in my heart for the railway staff, but I must say that the cooks we have today no longer maintain the pre-war standard. In the report of the General Manager in one of the bulletins we see that he advertised for cooks and that he did not receive a single application. To what is this to be ascribed? Something must be wrong with the wages. We who knew the railways before the war, know that the standard of the cooks can no longer be the same today, and I should like the Minister to go into this matter during the recess. The catering service is a very good source of income. It used to be a paying industry and it was very attractive. In the past we used to look forward on the train to the pleasant afternoon and evening meals and overseas travellers praised our meals on the trains. We were supplied with good and tasty food, with nice fresh fruit and a well-prepared sweet. But today it is not pleasant for anybody who is something of a connoisseur. A cracked cup with tea or coffee is placed before us. It runs out into the saucer. It is almost impossible to drink out of it and it is certainly no pleasure. I repeat that as soon as motor transport is available, people will not be satisfied with these discomforts, and it is the Minister’s duty to see to it that these things are put in order during this transitional period; and then, and then only, can he expect to restore the railways in a place of honour as far as passenger traffic is concerned. I have already spoken about the condition of the rolling stock. The Minister has made an estimate that he is going to order steam locomotives, electric locomotive units, passenger coaches, trucks, etc., to a provisional amount of £42,888,106. Of that amount £5 million is made available in 1945 and a further £5 million for the year 1945-’46. In this connection I wish to draw the attention of members of this House to the actual condition of the rolling stock at present. We have approximately 2,200 steam locomotives and electric locomotives on the South African Railways. The General Manager says in his report that of these 2,200 locomotives 600 should be thrown on the scrapheap and that if it were not for war conditions they would no longer have been in service. They are still being repaired and kept in service, and any person with commonsense knows that you have the same trouble with old machinery as with an old motor car. You repair it and you get along, but the repair expenses are uneconomical. According to the estimate of the Minister, 407 locomotives will be purchased, nearly one fifth of the total number. The first order placed is for 190 steam locomotives in England, but the Minister has no idea when they will arrive. These 190 locomotives will cost £4,800,000. Then we come to passenger coaches. The total number on the railways is 4,982. The estimated purchase over the long-term system is 1,068. This shows clearly what a large percentage has to be replaced. The total number of trucks in the railway service is 58,310. The Minister estimates that 34,980 will have to be purchased. I have said that the position of the rolling material is hopeless. I think that these large orders prove this automatically, if any further proof is still necessary after it has been clearly stated in every report of the General Manager. But now, where these locomotives, coaches and trucks are ordered I should like to know why we have to get them from overseas only. I wish to put this point to the Minister this morning. Last year we made an amount of £6,927,000 available for new workshops and for improvement of workshops, to adapt them to the new conditions. The Minister must tell us where the new workshops will be erected. We welcomed it. But now I wish to point out this side of the matter. Where the Minister allowed his workshops to be used during the war for the manufacture of dolls and such things for cavalcades we have already pointed out that this was one of the most foolish things that he could have done. But the war is now over and we have at least found out during the war that we can ourselves make trucks here, that we can manufacture passenger coaches and parts of locomotives. That is why I want the Minister to make a statement today that it will be his policy as far as possible to have the required material manufactured in our own workshops. We made no objection to the nearly £7 million that he asked for the workshops, but now we ask that the right use should also be made of the workshops in connection with this material that is required. I also wish to bring it to the Minister’s notice that the position in the workshops is not very bright, and I wish to quote an example of it because this is something that I simply cannot understand. The following times of repair work refer to major repairs. In the year 1942-’43 the average time for major repairs to steam locomotives was 30.4 days. In 1943-’44 it was fully four days more, namely 34.4 days. Repairs to electric locomotives were 5.2 days in 1942-’43 and 6.2 days in 1943-’44. Passenger coaches were 44.6 days in 1942-’43 and 47.6 days in 1943-’44. For some reason or other, whether it is because the Minister loaned out his best men for other work I do not know, but for some reason or other it appears to me that the workshops were no longer so efficient. We see that there was an average increase of three or four days in the time that was necessary for major repairs. I want the Minister to give an explanation for this. It cannot be that as the material became older the repairs took longer. Then it is an accusation against the Minister himself that he loaned out his workshops. I hope that as far as railway material and shipping repairs are concerned the Minister will make our workshops so good that they can compare with those of any country in the world, so that we can make our requirements here ourselves and that it will not be necessary for us to spend millions of pounds every year in overseas countries. This will also assist the Minister in the post-war period to find jobs for many people who need work. I wish to proceed to something else. This is the policy in connection with the laying down of railway lines. Apparently the policy is to lay down no more railway lines. It is done only if those interested can give a guarantee that the line can be worked over a definite period with financial success. This cannot be done in connection with development in the sphere of agriculture. That is why I am glad to see that in a report of the Railways and Harbours Board it is stated that where lines cannot be built there should be an extension of Road Motor Services. Our Road Motor Services have also expanded. The train route miles are 13,300, and against that we find that the route miles of the Road Motor Services are 17,587. That is, therefore, about 4.000 route miles more than the railway line. The Road Motor Services play an important part in the development of the country, and I should like to read an extract from the report of the Railways and Harbours Board—

I am glad that the Railway Board has laid down this policy and that it feels that in parts of the country where it would not pay to build new railway lines there should be an extension of the Road Motor Services. But I am glad that it also mentions the fact that we must get better vehicles and that it says that we must provide for the construction of better roads. This is a point that I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister. In the past the Road Motor Services of the Administration covered 17,587 route miles, and we find that the Administration made £25,000 available in respect of roads which it could in its discretion divide among the various divisional councils. I wish to put it to the Minister this morning that it is not fair to the divisional councils that they should bear the cost of the maintenance of roads covered by the Motor Services. If it is the policy of the Railway Board that it is not justifiable to build railway lines in those parts and that Road Motor Services should be instituted there, then it should also bear that side of the matter in mind. I think, for example, of parts such as Vryburg and Kuruman. It is the main responsibility of the Railway Department there also to provide for the roads even if it has to build an asphalt road from Vryburg up to the Malopo, or from Upington to Askamp. The South Africa Act says that railways must be built not only where it is economical to do so, but also with a view to the development of agriculture and industry, and I wish to urge the Minister to change his policy and not, for example, to pay such a meagre amount in respect of the road from Klaver to Calvinia. 1,262 vehicles are used for the Road Motor Services. According to his estimate the Minister is going to buy 562 new vehicles. This is almost equal to the capital that has already been invested in the Road Motor Services. I welcome this step. I do not know whether members realise sufficiently what these Road Motor Services mean to South Africa in the sphere of agriculture. If you will allow me I shall mention just a few examples. [Time limit.]

I want to point out to the Minister that the war in Europe is now over, and now that the war in Europe is over the world and also South African is gradually returning to normal conditions. We find that all business undertakings are making provision, in view of the gradual return to normal, for the reconstruction of their business undertakings and for adjustment to the new conditions. Since the South African Railways and Harbours is the greatest business undertaking in our country, we expect those who are responsible for it, namely, the Minister, the Railway Board’ and the chief officials, at this stage to look to the futlre and to take the necessary steps to enable the railways to meet the demands which will be made on it in future. I fully realise that the railways, like other business undertakings, still have difficulties to contend with in these times and that, although the war is over, we still have a lack of materials. But there will be an improvement in that, perhaps sooner than is generally realised. In the past the Minister of Transport had a tendency, like other Ministers, to come with the excuse whenever we complained here: "There is a war on”. They will now be inclined to come with the excuse that although the war in Europe is over, we still have war conditions. But according to Press reports which we are receiving, it is the expectation, not only in the United States of, America, but also in England, that reconstruction will come sooner than was expected. We see for instance that the automobile industry in Britain is to manufacture 200,000 vehicles within a limited time. The other business undertakings and industries are looking to the future and are making the necessary provision, and the Minister and the Railway Board’ should do likewise and we hope that in the course of this debate he will give the Committee an indication as to what his plans are. We would like to know what the plans of his Department are in connection with future general expansion. One of the matters the Minister must bear in mind is that to which the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) has already referred, viz., that just as in the case of any other business undertaking, the railways depend on the support of the general public. The Minister of Transport should not lose sight of that factor. Just as in the case of other business concerns, he should now begin to win back the confidence of the public, and if the Minister of Transport were not to take the necessary steps now in order to regain the support and confidence of the public, the railways are going to suffer great losses in future. He should not forfeit the sympathy of the public. In that connection the Minister should particularly bear in mind the greatest potential competitor of the railways, viz., the motor car.

Business suspended at 1.0 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

When business was suspended I was just pointing out to the hon. Minister of Transport that as conditions change from war-time to peace-time conditions, he should gradually adapt his policy in accordance with such conditions, in view of the fact that the public are customers of the railways. That factor should determine the attitude of the Minister of Transport; his whole policy should be determined by that and he should as far as possible try to regain the confidence and the support of the public, regard being had to the fact that the greatest potential competitor of the railways is the motor car. The Minister should adopt the attitude of the shopkeeper in the yarn I recently saw portrayed by the cartoonist, Leyden; I think it appeared in the “Natal Daily News”, where the shopkeeper speaks to his shop assistant, a lady who stands there with a very sour expression on her face, and addresses her as follows: “Miss Jones, with the changeover from war to peace conditions you may now again smile at the customers”. Well, I want to suggest that the Minister of Transport should now say “that he can also smile at the customers”.

That is what I intend doing.

But when I say that he should adopt a friendlier attitude towards the customers, I mean that he should not only encourage them to travel by rail again, but that he should make conditions as agreeable for passengers as possible so that they need not have cause for complaint about the facilities which are offered them. When business was suspended I was pointing out the competition which the American railways had experienced. When I was in America, a well known railway such as the Chicago and North-Western was practically going insolvent. I think it did go insolvent eventually, and it was mainly due to the competition of the motor car. I notice the Bulletin of the Department for March also speaks of critical years to come—

I think it is a good thing that the Minister’s own Bulletin anticipates the possibility of strong competition in future. That is why I say that he should smile more, as the shopkeeper told his assistant. There are a number of matters I would like to mention. Take for instance the price of railway tickets. These have twice been increased; on one occasion by way of taxation, and on another occasion by the railways. The Minister’s estimates have shown that although he did not have a large surplus, he nevertheless came up on the right side, and I want to suggest that he should display the smile to the public in the form of a restoration of the old railway tariffs, especially the passenger tariffs, which were in operation before the war. And now I come to the question of facilities for passengers. It is quite true that as a result of war conditions the railways were not in a position to make available to the public all the facilities which they enjoyed in the past, but again I say that the time has arrived for the Minister gradually to regain the confidence and support of the public. Take for instance the condition of his passenger coaches. I am going to confine myself more particularly to passenger traffic. The Minister knows that the passenger coaches are in a very bad condition. Anybody who travels in them— and I travelled home practically every weekend during the Session—knows that they are in a very bad condition. Many of the doors and windows cannot be closed and he should now have those coaches repaired even though he might perhaps not be able to supply new coaches. [Time limit.]

Earlier this Session I raised the question of expenditure on the railways and the vast amount that had been accumulated in the different funds for capital purposes. I then referred to certain expenditure which had taken place with regard to the railway deficit during the last twelve months. Reference has been made today to the fact that this vote comes on very late in the Session, and that it gives us very little opportunity to discuss matters. Ever since I have been in Parliament— some sixteen or seventeen years—we have had that complaint every year. It is a very justifiable complaint, but so far no one has ever devised any means of overcoming a procedure which is very unsatisfactory, and I remember in the days when the Minister was in the Opposition, he also criticised this procedure. I do think that we should endeavour to arrive at some procedure which would enable us to discuss some of these matters earlier in the Session. It is perfectly true that we had an opportunity in the Part Appropriation Bill to discuss some of these matters, and we did discuss some of the matters to which the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) has referred, but my complaint is that so often when we do discuss these matters, no serious notice is taken of the criticisms made. I want to say that I realise, as everyone must, the very difficult time which the railways have passed through during the war period. The condition of the railways has been criticised. We know perfectly well that the reason has been that it has been quite impossible for the railways to get material to replace the very serious deficiencies which have taken place, and I can remember that a year or two ago, we endeavoured to get certain additional trucks in England and they point-blank refused to help us. They wanted the trucks for themselves, so it is not altogether fair to blame the Minister. On the other hand, I think great credit is due to the railways for being able to carry on as they have done during the last few years, with the great difficulty of getting supplies. What I want to deal with now is the question of the revenue of the railways and what I think has been rather a blot on the Administration. The Minister this morning in answer to the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) referred to the fact that these funds that he has created during the last few years, the Railways Renewals Fund and the Rates Equalisation Fund, have been the result of wise policy and that they were built up for the purpose of seeing that no cuts were made in the emoluments of railwaymen or to prevent the necessity of increasing the railway rates. Now, Sir, I have a very vivid recollection of what happened during the past twelve months. One of the most serious mistakes that the hon. the Minister of Transport has made during the last year was that when after a matter of a month or two there was a fall in railway revenue, he increased the railway rates in this country by 10 per cent. I say that it was a most unfortunate circumstance that with all the surplus revenue we had been accumulating and with all the various funds we had been building up during the previous years—because of a temporary shortfall in railway revenue—railway rates were increased by 10 per cent. I want to say that nothing had a more serious effect on living conditions and cost of living than that. I also want to say that in the opinion of many people this increase was not justified and I think the hon. the Minister should give a full statement to the House today of what is the real position with regard to the income and expenditure of the railways and how the Railway Administration is going to come out during the coming twelve months.

Why don’t you rather ask the Minister to relieve us from the 15 per cent. war tax?

The 15 per cent. which the hon. member refers to is a question of taxation.

But it is not going into the pockets of the railway people.

This 15 per cent. plus the 10 per cent. increase in railway rates generally imposes an additional burden on a certain section of the community of approximately 26¼ per cent. I say it is a very serious state of affairs and I think that instead of imposing that additional burden on the people of this country the hon. the Minister should have considered using some of the surpluses they have been accumulating in the past to wipe out that temporary deficit. There is another point I wish to refer to. The Railway Administration has been held out to be efficiently managed and it has also been held out as a State service, socialised, and that it is run on sound economic lines. I will not say it is not run on sound economic lines but there is one thing about it that I should like to draw attention to, and that is that if any private institution had made the profit which the railways have made in the last five years they would have been held up as profiteers. If you take the ordinary railways in Great Britain you will find that they have only been making their interest charges of 2½, 2¾ to 3 per cent. per annum, and they are considered to be very lucky indeed.

That is a private company.

. They are a private company but that is their rate of profit. In this country the railways do not only make that rate of profit which works out, according to the report of the Auditor-General, at 3.647 per cent., but in addition to that, as I pointed out earlier in the Session, that during the last five years they had in addition been paying interest amounting to something like six million pounds per annum, which in the last five years has amounted to £30,000,000, they have also in addition paid out of their revenue a sum of nearly 53 million pounds in respect of the Renewals Fund, the Betterment Fund, the Rates Equalisation Fund and depreciation.

Profiteers!

That is not profit.

It is perfectly true it is not profit in the sense here that the £18,000,000 is depreciation. I agree it is certainly not profit, and that it is a justifiable charge.

We cannot write off our capital.

But that is not the only provision which the hon. the Minister has made. During the last five years you have written off an amount of nearly £19,000,000 in respect of depreciation. That is a statutory amount. In addition to that you have been accumulating renewals to the extent of nearly £21,000,000, Betterment Fund, £6,000,000 and Rates Equalisation Fund which today stands at £11,000,000, of which £7,000,000 was accumulated during the last five years. It is perfectly true it is not profit but I want to point out that it has all been built up out of revenue and that if the railways had been a private institution you would not have been allowed to show this amount as profit. You would not have been allowed to accumulate that to meet your capital expenditure. If the railways had been a private institution that would have been treated as profit and I say that if you are going to compare any private institution with the way your railways is run, you must treat your income and expenditure in exactly the same way as it would be treated in connection with income tax purposes. No income tax authorities would ever allow you to show those sums which you have accumulated during the last five years if you had been a private institution except as taxable income. I do not say you were necessarily wrong in accumulating these funds but I do not think we should get away with the idea that we are running the railway cheaply. We are running them in a fairly expensive manner. You say they are being run fairly efficiently, but we are undoubtedly paying for it, and I think one of the worst things the railways could have done in these extraordinary times, when we are doing our level best to bring down costs, where every step we take we have to see that our cost structure is not in any way increased, that our cost of manufacture is not increased—one of the most unfortunate things to my mind was for the Minister to choose that particular time to increase the general rate by 10 per cent. I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister to take this matter into consideration again and to see whether he cannot immediately relieve the country of this ten per cent. general increase in railway rates. It may not be so easy for him to relieve us of the 15 per cent. because that was a tax which was passed as one of the Minister of Finance’s taxation proposals last year, but I do feel in regard to this other matter that the country is entitled to ask that the Minister should relieve us of this additional burden. If that is done I think it will help industry in this country considerably, and that it will also be of benefit to the country in general.

Arising from the remarks addressed by the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) to the Minister, I merely again want to direct his attention to the position which he tried to put this morning, namely, that he had the revenue during the past five years to do the things he wanted to do. But if he referred to the benefits which he enjoyed he should see them in the light of the circumstances which prevailed during the period in which he was able to do those things. He must not assume that he will again have such a good period of five years which will enable him to do such things. I this morning asked the Minister to take into consideration such concessions to consumers as were possible without laying himself open to losses. I do not want specifically to support the proposal made by the hon. member for Sunnyside, viz. that the 10 per cent. should be abolished. This matter should be considered in connection with the problem as a whole. I know that the argument advanced by the Minister last year was that the 10 per cent. taxation was necessary to meet the staff in respect of wages and to provide certain relief to them. I also approached him in connection with payment for overtime and the position of persons who work long hours. In that respect certain concessions were made during the past year involving an amount of £2,000,000. Therefore I do not want specifically to support the hon. member for Sunnyside. It is an aspect of the whole problem, without the staff who have for years been unfairly overloaded being detrimentally affected. I would like to put that very clearly. But there is a second aspect in connection with the remarks made by the hon. member for Sunnyside. The hon. member for Sunnyside also spoke about rolling stock and in defence of the Minister he advanced the argument that there was a time in which it was impossible to order the stock, from overseas. I think it should be granted that the Minister did not during the war period have the facilities which exist under normal circumstances to import requirements. But I have here the report in respect of 1939 and on page 21 of the report I find the following—

Then details are given of quite a number of classes of trucks and passenger coaches which were built. It was good proof of the capacity of the Administration in such a large measure to supply its own needs and to have been in a position to build 176 passenger coaches. It is further stated that 1,965 trucks also were built during the year in workshops. Then follows a long list of wooden and steel trucks, more than 1,200 steel trucks involving an amount of approximately £2,000,000 were built. Where we realise that the import from overseas is not continuing in the normal way, we nevertheless want to make known the capacity of the Administration to supplement the shortage from our own timber and steel. There is no doubt that our rolling stock at present is in a condition of which our people cannot be proud. I specifically as a representative of the people these days feel ashamed to stand near a train and to notice the condition of the rolling stock. I can only see the matter from the outside and I do not know what is taking place underneath but it is actually a humiliating position with which we cannot be satisfied. But apart from rolling stock there is another matter which has disillusioned me; it relates to the manufacture of locomotive boilers in South Africa. During that year 28 were manufactured. Then mention is made of the use of South African timber and the vast possibilities for repairs. We are not expecting the impossible from the Minister but what we do expect is that he will to the utmost of his ability employ the services of men already in the service for executing our own South African railway work. He should not always have an eye overseas. In any case I shall be glad if the Minister will make a statement as to why there is such a shortage while we have materials in the country, and in 1939 were able to manufacture so much material ourselves. I want to add a few more remarks to what I said this morning when I stated that the Minister was facing a serious time. From the longterm programme announced by the Minister, involving approximately £120,500,000, approximately from £92,000,000 to £93,000,000 of the programme remains still to be carried out. That is to say, there is another longterm programme for which provision must be made in the estimates of this year and the estimates for the following years to an amount of £93,000,000. This additional capital for those works will largely have to be found either by way of loan funds or by way of renewal funds or by way of betterment funds or by way of sale of existing assets. He has no other assets. On the basis of new loans in respect of the current year at least three-sevenths of the £93,000,000 will have to be borrowed. In other words, for the carrying out of his programme he will still have to borrow £40,000,000 in new capital on the basis of the current year’s allocation. I have also come to the conclusion that if the Minister continues as he is doing at present, where he is utilising a considerable part of the estimates for nonproductive matters, and on the ground of our experience of the previous five years, there is one thing about which we should be seriously concerned. The Minister proposes in the estimates at three places to expend approximately £2,000,000 on station buildings. I do not want to enter into details, the time is short. He has spent a large amount on harbour works and in that respect we are not so much disappointed that we are able to do without it, but that it is not more profitable. Consequently the railway service as such will gradually become more unpopular. At the moment its competitors are handicapped because the shortage of motor vehicles and petrol has eliminated competition, but if matters continue like this and sufficient petrol is available the Minister will lose a large number of his supporters whom he had during the past five years, and only for the most urgent needs will the railways be used. It is a serious position. In 1939 the total investment in our railways, excluding harbours, amounted to approximately £167,000,000. In 1944, five years later, it was approximately £180,500,000, and during the period of five years—I am not referring to harbours—the interest-bearing liability has increased by £14,000,000. But during the same period the Minister had to increase revenue from railways by approximately £16,000,000. During five years, on an investment of £14,000,000 in new capital, our revenue has been increased by £16,000,000. If that has taken place under favourable conditions then it causes concern what the position will be in the near future when the Minister will no longer have a monopoly.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the hon. member when he stated that we should try and get as much of our railway stock and railway requirements built in South Africa as possible. I think every section of the House agrees with him in that respect, but I do not think that the railways have been backward in carrying out that policy., Perhaps the hon. the Minister will be able to tell us what they are doing, but so far as I understand, the position is this, that the railways have lost no opportunity in manufacturing any part of their railway requirements or railway stock wherever they could do so. At times, however, they could not get the necessary material. For years the policy of the Department has been to manufacture in South Africa as much of the railway stock as possible. Some of the beautiful railway saloons in which we are travelling today have been manufactured in South Africa, and, as far as I can see, in time we will be able to turn out everything which we require in that regard. The Minister, however, will be able to tell us what the position has been during the war years.

Our general complaint is that the railways were using the railway workshops for carrying out war work.

That is a matter on which we on this side of the House differ with the Opposition. The railway workshops had to give preference to war work. It was priority number one. If that is the reason why hon. members complain they have no cause for complaint at all, because the majority of the people in this country gave the Government the distinct mandate to make the war priority number one and war requirements priority number one. When the war is over, however, the railways will no doubt be able to manufacture more than they have done in the past. I also want to draw the attention of the Minister to something which I have already raised during this Session, and that is the excessive charges on our airways. On the previous occasion when I raised this matter the Minister replied to me, but I do not think it was a satisfactory reply either to the House or to the public in general, because in comparison with what is charged in other parts of the world for similar journeys our charges are very excessive. At that time the hon. the Minister told us that the planes had room for twelve passengers and that they were always fully booked up. I am informed now however that in the winter season which we are just commencing, that very often the planes are not full, and that the planes recently had generally been taking eight passengers instead of twelve. There are therefore always four vacancies. If that is the position why does not the Minister concede this, that there should be season charges. In other words, in the busy season, i.e. during the summer and the spring, if he wants to maintain his charge of £20 for the journey between Cape Town and Johannesburg, let him keep it at that figure, but then there should be a lesser charge in the off-season when the planes are not fully booked up, and when the planes go away pretty well every day with four empty seats. Now, Mr. Chairman, there are one or two matters affecting a non-European union that I want to draw the Minister’s attention to again. I have recently received a letter from the secretary of the nonEuropean union, drawing my attention to certain of their grievances and I hope that the Minister will go into those grievances.

What non-European union are you referring to?

The South African Railway and Harbour non-European Union. Mr. Wallin is their secretary. Their offices are here in Cape Town. They sent me a copy of a letter dated the 14th May, protesting against the formation of what they call a company union being carried on by the senior officials of the railways, and that their union is not recognised and entirely disregarded. They are a registered union according to law, but according to their letter they have no right to approach the Department. Their letters are simply ignored and the Railway Administration has not recognised their union at all. In their letter they refer to one or two grievances they want to bring to the notice of the Minister, but they have no opportunity of doing so because their correspondence is not recognised, and therefore their correspondence is taken no notice of. In this letter they point out that men are constantly booked off ill and when they are booked on again they suffer loss of pay. They may be booked off because of illness and when they are booked on again they find they have to suffer very serious loss of pay. In one particular case they mention they say a man was in receipt of a wage of 5s. 3d. per day when he was transferred, and he had to start at 3s. 6d. per day. In my opinion there seems to be something seriously wrong about it. They mention another case of a man who after having worked for nine years was transferred and then they said he was a native, and took off 6d. per day from his wages. That is another thing they wanted me to draw the Minister’s attention to. I hope therefore that the Minister will look into this question of transfers. They also say that a man sometimes finds there is a vacancy in another department for which he is qualified but he is forced to resign in order to take up that position, and when he starts off in the new department he finds he suffers loss of pay, which is a very serious matter so far as he is concerned, considering the low wages they receive. This particular individual who had been working for nine years, to whom I referred just now, and who had been considered to be a coloured man all that time, was on transfer said to be a native, although he had been travelling on a second-class pass for a number of years, and when he got this transfer he found he suffered a consequent loss of status which he held as a coloured man by being classed as a native. Why, and on what evidence he was classed as a native, I am not aware of. They also complain that they cannot get their P.T.O.’s excessed any more although they have had long service and that they cannot take their wives and children in a better class by paying an excess on their P.T.O.’s as they have had done in the past. Another point they draw my attention to is that men working in gangs along the line are not allowed to leave their homes from the time they knock off work on Saturday midday until they they resume on Monday, notwithstanding the fact that they are not paid for those weekends off. They quote the case of a single man working at Tunnel and living with his parents at Touws River and that he was not allowed to leave his home during the weekend. They say that the Railway Administration ought to permit such a person to leave his home provided he lets the Railway Administration know where he is in case he may be required. They say that they do not think it is fair to keep this man at a particular place after he ceases work on Saturday until he resumes on Monday. As I stated he does not receive any pay during the week-end. I do not know whether these facts are correct but these are the facts which have been represented to me. Mr. Chairman, I do think it will save a great deal of the time of this House if the hon. the Minister was not to take up the attitude that this organisation does not exist. It does exist and it has a very large membership. Why does not the Minister allow them to make their representations to him in the ordinary way? It is after all only a fair thing to ask, and one result would be that many of these little grievances—I say little grievances, but they are important to the men concerned, because otherwise they would not have asked me to raise the matter on the floor of the House—would be removed from the House. The Minister should recognise the organisation and give them an opportunity of making representations on behalf of their members and in that way he will remove something which will otherwise take up a lot of the time of the House.

I wish to invite the attention of the Minister of Transport to a very grave statement that was made by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister soon after he formed the present Government. This statement constitutes a very grave reflection on the state of affairs existing at that time in the Railways and Harbours Administration, and in particular in the ports of the Union of South Africa. This statement was published for the first time, I understand, on the 12th of last month, the 12th May, 1945. The leading article of the “Cape Argus” contained this reference to the matter. It was referring to the services of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister during this time of crisis. The paper said—

Now, Mr. Chairman, the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister deals with that serious situation and it is a very grave reflection upon the Administration of the Railways and Harbours that had existed up to the time at which the present Government came into power. That shows the gravest conditions were present, that it appeared—as Gen. Smuts said here—we were so weakened internally that all attempts at active defence of our ports would have been in vain. The general public, especially those who live in the ports, have been far from satisfied with the administration that has taken place since that time. There have been cases where men charged with the most serious offences that can be committed in wartime were dealt with with a most surprising leniency. Instead of being charged before the Special Court—presided over by Mr. Justice Schreiner, with great ability and impartiality—they were treated with a most blameworthy leniency in Durban. There is the well-known case of a marine signalman who was giving advance information about shipping, in one case in relation to the “Llandaff Castle” that was sunk, and since the war ended we have heard of the tragic sequel of the loss of life and the desperate scenes that occurred when that boat was torpedoed. We have other cases in which similar serious charges were made against other officials of the Railways and Harbours. There is the case in which a man was suspended for divulging shipping information relative to three ships—the “Cameronian”, which he stated, days in advance, was leaving for a particular destination, and in regard to its cargo, passengers and troops; the “Nieuw Amsterdam”, now returning with our prisoners-of-war, had the time of her departure and destination divulged by this official days before the departure, also the fact that she had on board over 1,000 evacuees going to England. He also divulged the impending arrival of the “Chinese Prince” and informed numerous people of the arrival of convoys day in advance.

Was that at Durban?

Yes. He was tried as his colleague was tried—not by a proper court but by a disciplinary board, and a fine of £5 inflicted; and he was allowed to return to the same post that he filled when he gave the information.

Was he found guilty of the charge?

He was found guilty by the disciplinary board and a penalty of £5 imposed on him. Everybody wishes to know why these things were permitted to occur in view of the grave warnings uttered by Gen. Smuts immediately after taking over the Government of the country, not for publication at the time, but as a means of solemnising the minds of the people who were permitted to hear the statement on the condition of affairs in the country. Nobody can comprehend how the Minister of Transport allowed these people to get away with the commission of such serious crimes and then retained them in the service; and as far as my information goes they are still retained in the service notwithstanding the gravity of the situation that existed at the time. Personally, I think a most searching enquiry should be held into this matter with a view to the establishing of the facts. It will be remembered at the time of the Great War a rebellion occurred in South Africa. Did the government of the day simply close their eyes to the rebellion or the circumstances under which it had happened? They did not; they appointed a committee or commission of investigation, and I remember our late Governor-General was one of the members of that commission. A most searching enquiry was made by a body constituted of the best men available, and they reported their conclusions after the hearing of evidence. I submit with all respect that this chapter of history cannot be closed until there has been ah enquiry as to how this state of affairs was permitted to come about, when the public at large were under the impression—an impression I did not share at the time—though a feeling of complacency existed, that under the administration of the then Minister of Railways (who I think was also Minister of Defence), we could place implicit confidence in his high-mindedness, his integrity and the loyalty and security which he assured us existed. [Time limit.]

When I came to a stop before the lunch adjournment I was discussing the position in regard to the senior officials in the railway service. I pointed out that three of the four highest officials in the service are now on the point of leaving the service and we doubt whether one of them will again return to the service. The four highest officials in the service can practically be left out of account.

That brings us to the fifth highest. He is an official who receives a salary of something like £500 per annum more than the next official. In seniority he is far above all the other officials in the service. Well, the Minister has announced the policy of appointing the best man to the post. I want to be fair to the official. He has tried out no one with a view to ascertaining who would be the best general manager. There was no one he could try out beforehand to ascertain who would be the best general manager. He has to make a blind choice. This official who draws £2,500 is the general traffic manager and he has rendered striking services to the Administration over a long period. The Minister is aware of the fact and he has said so repeatedly in this House. He still said so this year, when he wanted to use this official to cover up a certain action. An injustice was done this official on a previous occasion in that the Assistant General Manager (Commerce) was promoted above him. I think he agrees with me that it was an unfortunate choice and I think that if he could make another choice, he would not repeat what he did on the previous occasion. We warned him and we hope that he will in all fairness take that warning to heart in a friendly spirit. The highest remaining official, is the General Traffic Manager. He has a very long record of remarkable service in the Railway Administration. We trust that before the Minister does that official an injustice for the second time, he will seriously consider the matter. We are now in a period of transition and change. This is a transport post. On previous occasions the Minister has, to a certain extent, appointed persons with technical qualifications as general managers of this mighty organisation. But we want him to consider that this undertaking, being chiefly a transport undertaking, he should appoint someone as general manager who has had a thorough training in transport matters. He would have to go far to get a better man than the general traffic manager, who, in the first instance, has to do with traffic matters, which is his special post on the railways. That is his particular work, but he was also at one time chief accountant. We have not only a period of changing conditions ahead of us but also a period of economic disruption and we shall require a man at the head of the Railway Administration who will be capable of managing the finances of the railways properly. We have a man who is not only being trained according to the Minister’s own requirements for railway traffic, but also, one who was appointed chief of the accounting department by the Minister himself. In appointing him chief accountant the Minister acknowledged the services which he performed so efficiently, and appointed him general traffic manager. That is also the man who stands head and shoulders in seniority above the others, and we want the Minister to consider this matter very carefully. This person has a third qualification. At one time he was also chief stores superintendent and the head of the stores section has a tremendous amount to do with the maintenance of these assets in which the country has invested no less than £200,000,000. The Minister will admit that these assets have depreciated during the war. The permanent way has deteriorated; rolling stock has deteriorated, and the locomotive power has deteriorated. We realise that to a great extent this was inevitable and I think that is also the reply to the hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) (Mr. Pocock) with regard to the extent to which railway funds have been set aside and the extent to which the greater part of it will be employed not for replacement purposes but for the maintenance of what we already have. The Minister will require every penny of these funds which have been set aside in order to restore these assets to their pre-war standard. That is why we should have at the head of the railways someone who has knowledge of the maintenance of the permanent way and rolling stock, of locomotive power and other rolling material. We do not want to make the task of the Minister of Transport unduly difficult, but we want him to consider that an enormous amount depends on the appointment of the general manager. On that depends to a very large extent the degree in which his task will be facilitated and the extent to which he will have to contend with criticism in this House. We want to promise the Minister all our support as far as the handling of this matter is concerned, because it is a national asset and one of the most valuable we have. We are proud of the railways and we are proud of the railway staff. We want to ask him to appoint someone as general manager who has climbed all the various steps in the railway, from one branch to another, from one grade to another, from below to the very top. We want someone who has been promoted through all those grades in virtue of his ability, and not someone who, because he happens to be a technician and has distinguished himself here and there in virtue of the technical application of his knowledge, has been appointed on the ground of his technical knowledge and that we should then consider him to be in a position to manage this mighty concern where he would have such a large number of people under him. It does not follow that because he has technical ability, he must necessarily be capable of properly managing and guiding the 80,000 people under his control. For these reasons we would suggest to the Minister that he should appoint someone with as wide a knowledge as possible of the various branches of the service and one who has risen from one step to another in the railway service, from below to the very top. Then I still want to mention this point. The Minister should remember that at the end of this year every senior official will be a new man in a new post, since all the officials will have to be promoted in consequence of this appointment. He has for instance a new chief of police, and all his system managers will be new men in new posts. [Time limit.]

Now that we seem to have gone round the circle and to have come back to the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper), I think I might answer some of the queries. I might make it clear to the hon. member that the railway staff are not finally booked home tonight; it is only a provisional booking and it is certain they will be able to avail themselves of it. As the hon. member knows, I have nothing to do with arranging the Order Paper, and, as I have already indicated, it is not my fault that the railway debate comes on in the last days of the Session. The hon. member has put forward claims on behalf of a certain officer, whose name I think I know—although he was somewhat mysterious in his references to it—and I should like to assure him the claims of that officer will be meticulously considered in connection with any appointments that will have to be made. The appointments that have to be made among the senior officers are important appointments and the claims of all officers near the highest positions will have to be carefully weighed and considered. I should like to tell the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter) that I am prepared if a new stadium is built in Johannesburg; and if it is built somewhere near the railways, I shall do what I can to give it a railway connection, that is provided they do not put it somewhere right out of touch with the railways.

We have your original promise to help us to get such a stadium.

If you will refer me to my original promise I will look into the matter. The hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) rather objected to me meeting the needs of the war, but the railways have to meet the needs of the State whether they arise from war or peace. As to the fact that the rolling stock is being worn out, well after all that is all it is there for. The quicker I can wear out my rolling stock, so long as it is earning, the better I shall be pleased. There is rather an exaggerated idea about our wearing out rolling stock. It is quite true it has not got the paint it once had and that the passenger coaches are somewhat shabbier; but the essential parts and the equipment of the coaches are maintained at their absolute correct level.

Including the electric lights.

The trouble about the electric lights is due to the absence of globes. Now they are forthcoming we shall be able to rectify that, with the exception of the small bunk lights. Several speakers, including the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) complained about the 10 per cent. on railway charges. The hon. member for Sunnyside is a businessman and I ask him if there is a single service he is running today that is not 10 per cent. higher than it was before the war.

You said you would resort to the Rates Equalisation Fund.

The Rates Equalisation Fund is not there to meet a permanent increase in working expenditure, but it is designed to tide the country over a period of depression; it is a reserve fund. If you are going to wipe out your reserve fund to meet a permanent increase in expenditure it will obviously disappear in a couple of years. That fund is there to safeguard the railway worker and the railway user in the period of depression he will inevitably have to face after the war. In regard to the rebate given for Defence traffic, I want to make it clear that this is not a rebate in the ordinary sense of the term. One of the difficulties about this traffic is that we were transporting large numbers of items that had no place in the tariff book at all; we had no provision in our tariff book, for instance, for tanks and tank parts. As the hon. member knows, when there is no provision in the tariff book the article is charged at the highest rate. So it became a question whether we should go through every Defence item and determine the rate to charge, a difficult task that would have involved enormous labour and to which there would have been no finality. We decided rather than do that we would nominally charge full rates and then give a rebate of 50 per cent. It is very difficult to say whether if one had regular tariff charges worked out for these Defence items the amount ultimately paid by them would have represented any rebate at all.

That does not hold good for passenger traffic.

It iS quite true we gave the soldier quarter-fare, but that was a concession to a very deserving section.

The war is over now.

The hon. member was quoting a figure of £10,000,000; I do not know where he got that sum from; I think that is rather excessive, and that figure did not refer only to passengers. I was sorry to hear about the hon. member’s troubles as a passenger, but I hope now that as the shortages of materials and other things can be overtaken, conditions will improve. In regard to the question of chefs. We are certainly in short supply there, but I hope when we get the men back from the North that opportunities will be forthcoming for obtaining suitable men to train in this work. As I have remarked before, the South African makes a good chef when he takes up the job seriously. In regard to rolling stock, which was referred to by several members, it has been my policy right through to increase in every way the making of our rolling stock locally. Unfortunately during the war I had no opportunity to carry out the policy because the workshops have been fully occupied in maintaining existing rolling stock, and then they only did that with difficulty. I have not been able to get any material because material has always been wanted for something more pressing than new rolling stock. But, as I explained, we have made 1,045 trucks in our workshops over the last one or two years and we had a delivery of 200 by a private contractor against an order for 1,000, and the remainder are being built. I think our available resources in the workshops will be so heavily taxed over the next two or three years in bringing our stock up to pre-war standard and it will be very difficult for us to produce all the rolling stock that we need and therefore inevitably we shall have to place some orders overseas for no other purpose than to relieve the present shortage of rolling stock. As the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) remarked, the war is at an end, and one must now get busy to get rolling stock from overseas as quickly as possible to meet urgent demands.

To what extent have you converted workshops from war-time production to peace-time production?

I think the hon. member exaggerates here; the railway workshops had been doing a great deal of war work, but in relation to all our workshops it has been by no means excessive. Our programme has gone on without a stop.

Have none of your workshops been diverted to war work?

Sections of them which could be spared, but where it was a question of rolling stock that always took priority, that has been priority No. 1.

Including passenger rolling stock?

Including passenger rolling stock. As a matter of fact most of the coaching works have not been suitable for war work; it is only the brass finishing shops that could be turned over, and they could be spared because we were not building new rolling stock for passenger use. I do not want hon. members to think that we turned the whole of the workshops into war work. We regarded the production of rolling stock as war priority No. 1, because without it our war effort would have been seriously affected. I agree in a large measure with what the hon. member said with regard to better roads and better vehicles, and there again although I have no say in regard to most roads, I am all for getting better vehicles. I hope when I do get better vehicles, the road authorities will build better roads for them to run on. In regard to the question of extra taxation, I am pointing out that I am paying the same as any other user of the road, and if they want more from me it is only fair that they should tax the users of the road more heavily as well. I pay the same as if I were an ordinary user of the road. That being so, I do not see why I should pay more unless they raise the rates of other people. There are other contractors who also use large vehicles on the road.

What do you intend doing about the 15 per cent. passenger tax?

I am afraid I shall have to discuss that with my colleague, the hon. Minister of Finance. Parliament has passed that and I have no opportunity but to accept it but I have no doubt that once the Session is over my colleague and I will discuss it and see what can be done about it.

But you must have a personal opinion and that is what we want to know.

I think it would be a little unwise to start expressing opinions. If I please the Minister of Finance, I should probably not please the hon. member and if I please the hon. member I should displease the Minister of Finance, and I do not want to displease either of these parties. The hon. member raised the question of returning to normal conditions. That is what we would like to do. I may say that the South African Railways have foreseen the time of peace for two or three years. We have been prepared. I have locomotives on order against the time of delivery and the moment peace came we immediately set afoot enquiries to see what probabilities were of getting delivery. At the moment I am working on certain specifications with regard to steel coaching stock.

What about the Road Motor Services, as far as buses are concerned?

We are, of course, doing all we can to get new buses. The Union has actually got a representative in London at the present time looking into that.

What are the prospects?

He is looking into it. I see these remarks in the newspaper as to what the manufacturers can do, but I invariably find that there is a big discrepancy between what the manufacturer says he can do and what his Government allows him to do.

How many bodies are you building in South Africa?

I cannot give the hon. member the exact figure.

To what extent are you building bodies.

The South African Railways build all their own bodies. All our vehicles have our own bodies. There is a workshop in Johannesburg building these bodies. Regarding the question of motor competition, I would like to stress that whilst it did cause trouble in certain railways, actually so far as the South African Railways’ experience is concerned, we have found that we make more profit out of a good development of the motor trade than the carrying of passengers. That does not apply to the carrying of passengers the way we have been doing it during the last year or two. But in 1939 when there was an enormous increase in motors, there was also a large increase in passenger traffic and we were making more profit out of the conveyance of motor cars and motor equipment than we have ever done out of passengers, so that although we may lose on the one side we gain on the other side. What is required as far as the railways are concerted, is a healthy development of all our resources. I can assure the hon. member that the moment I can handle more passengers, I shall be as polite to them as possible. I shall treat them very much as I treat the Opposition when I try to get my estimates through. I am afraid a return to the old tariff is not possible yet. My costs seem to have gone up permanently. If they do come down, we will only be too glad to reduce the tariffs. Now I come to the points made by the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals). I found it a little difficult to get the point the hon. member was trying to make, but as far as I could gather it was that he required that the additional capital invested should produce a return on the basis of capital previously invested. That is not an argument that can be applied in the case of our State railways because all capital earns an interest which is paid over to the central Governmnet, so that whatever happens we at any rate meet our capital charges. Anything that we do beyond that would be profit. It is inevitable that in the case of stations we may be spending money on new stations and we cannot say that those stations are going to produce any more traffic than the old station were producing. But in some cases it is necessary to have new stations. All that can be said is that the old station has out-worn its efficiency, that it is too small to cope with the traffic, but it would be difficult to say that the new station is productive of more revenue. On the other hand, these things have got to be done if we are going to keep our railways up to the standard to which they should be kept.

I was trying to compare the results of your past investments with the investments in the post-war years.

But when you are looking ahead you have also to take into consideration the increments that fall due to Renewal Fund, which is interest-free capital. You have to allow not only for new capital, but you have to allow for the other capital as well, and this is interest-free so that when you balance it up you will find that although you appear to be adding very considerably to your capital, actually the interest charges are only a fraction of what they appear to be. The hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) raised several points which I shall look into. I am sure he does not expect me to give replies to the detailed cases which he mentioned, but each one will be investigated. In regard to the question of our planes being patronised, I can assure the hon. member that our planes are very well patronised, and until we get more planes I do not think it is possible to make any substantial reductions in the fares. The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) raised the matters which I have already dealt with in general terms, and I need not go into them again. On the one hand I am often accused of being unduly harsh with railway servants and on the other hand I am accused of not being harsh enough. In this case I am being accused of not being harsh enough. But unfortunately it is a matter for the officer concerned to decide on the merits of the case after he has heard all the evidence, what is a fit and proper punishment to give, and as the hon. member knows there is no law which can be applied in the case of anyone talking about ships and shipping beyond the provisions of the Emergency Act, and where we discipline any of our officers for doing that, that does not in any way interfere with any process that there may be for the law acting itself. We merely punish them from the disciplinary point of view as railway servants, but if the law also has the right to punish them, it can be done in terms of the law. It is a matter for the Department of Justice, and not for me.

Why did you not charge them before the proper court?

We would, first of all, take disciplinary proceedings against a man and not necessarily take him to court at all. It is really for the Department of Justice to enforce the Emergency Regulations, not for us. I think I have now disposed of all the points which have been raised up to date.

I only have a few points I wish to raise. I want to come back to the explanation given by the Minister with regard to the tax of 10 per cent. I want to say that we accept that wholeheartedly. We understand that it is in connection with increased wages for railway workers, but we would be very glad if the Minister would go into the matter of the 15 per cent. tax. This tax of 15 per cent. was levied on first and second class passenger tickets above 10s. and this tax was a special war tax. I want to emphasise that. It is a special war tax. Well, the war is over. Is the Minister not of the opinion that he would be making a good gesture to both sides of the House, if he made the statement, now that the war is over, that he was immediately removing this war tax on first and second class railway tickets. I think that it would be a very kind gesture on the part of the Minister. The travelling public really needs that concession; but I leave it to the Minister. The second point is with regard to temporary appointments made during the war, young men and women who relieved railway servants to enable them to go to the North. What is the policy of the Minister with regard to these temporary appointments? These servants are coming back; a large number of them have been in the North. They are now coming back and we feel that it will only be fair that these officials should get their positions back. We have not the least objection to that, but at the same time we sympathise with these young men and women who came forward during that period and took up these temporary appointments. They have also participated in the war. Had they not come forward and filled these temporary appointments, then the railway officials would have been unable to go on active service. What is the policy of the Minister? Is he going to dismiss these persons who held temporary appointments or is he going to see to it that they are again appointed in some or other manner without their careers being hampered thereby? We cannot simply push out these young people who helped us temporarily. I would be very pleased if the Minister would tell us what his policy is.

I will do so.

Then we also want to know what the policy of the Minister is with regard to the rates on building material. I have already mentioned that point. Would it not be desirable to transport building material for the rural areas at the same rates as agricultural implements? Agricultural implements are transported at a reasonable rate, but the farmer also needs a house. He does not only need agricultural implements with which to cultivate the soil. I would like to know whether the Minister would not give favourable consideration to the transportation of building material to the rural areas at the same rates as agricultural implements. The last point I would like to mention is this. I see that the Administration intends extending the electric railway line as far as Beaufort West. I would very much like to know what the policy of the Minister is in that connection. We feel that that is not necessary yet. Beaufort West is far away in the Karroo, sparsely inhabited. Beaufort West looks just like the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) himself.

You would like it to be extended to Namaqualand

Yes if the Administration is thinking of extending the electric trains to Namaqualand, I would support that wholeheartedly. It is necessary to extend the electric railway line as far as Worcester, which is densely populated, but to go any further would be a waste of money, especially if we keep in mind that there are parts which still have no railway facilities. It is necessary that the Minister should give his favourable consideration to the construction of connecting lines between Bitterfontein and Karasburg and between Klaver and Calvlnia. The people in these rural areas are looking forward to essential railway facilities. This extension of the electric line to Beaufort West will be a considerable expenditure. It will require a double line either through the Hex River or otherwise. There are other parts of the country who have been treated in a stepmotherly fashion and they should first of all be provided with facilities which they really need.

I hope the hon. Minister will give my friend a railway line. Nobody deserves it more. I Would like to ask the Minister some very pertinent questions. The Minister only replied by saying that I was pompous.

You said he was pompous.

That is what I said.

So it is mutual.

Now the Minister has told us that he is only going to take over a very small portion of Wanderers and the rest is going to be turned into a park. Johannesburg won’t like that. Am I right in what I said? I understood the Minister to say that he was going to take a small portion of Wanderers and that the rest would be turned into a beautiful park.

“Open space” is the term I used.

Well, an open space then. If that is so, why does the Minister take Wanderers. Wanderers is attached to Johannesburg and the people of Johannesburg are very attached to Wanderers, and as the Minister and his colleagues will discover one day, this taking away of the Wanderers, is going to make them very unpopular in Johannesburg. The Minister talks about appointing a director on the Iscor Board, and he says it is a good thing for the Railways to have a director on the Board. I do not know whether the Acting Prime Minister agrees, that the Assistant General Manager of Railways should be on the Board of Iscor. Has it ever been done before? It is the first time it has been done. Mr. E. P. Smith was Secretary for Commerce. Has not the time come for this House to lay down the principle that even an ex-civil servant should not be appointed to these boards? There is a good deal of talk about ex-civil servants going to the top and then being appointed to various boards. Has not the time come when we should lay down the principle that no ex-civil servant should go on any board with which he had dealings when he was a civil servant? Then I want to know why the Minister did not tell the country that he drew up the Union-Castle Agreement. It was not fair to the House and it was not fair to the country, because the Union-Castle Agreement is very unpopular. Here we had the voice of Charles and the hand of Claude. The country does not like the agreement and the country would have been far more satisfied had the Minister openly got up on the floor of the House and said he was the devil behind the machine. The Minister answered the question and he said he had a good deal to do with the drawing up of the agreement, and he never told the House about it until I raised the matter. Now I come to the Railway Board. For some years now, all Governments of South Africa, whether it is the government of the Nationalist Party or of the United Party, have taken it upon themselves to make the appointments to the Railway Board as jobs for pals. What is the result? What is the Minister doing with the Railway Board? With an active Minister and an able Minister as we have, what on earth is the use of the Railway Board to him except to send them down to country places to see what is happening to the milk cans. That is what the late Charlie Malan used to do. He used to send them to the farmers to go into their troubles about milk tins. Is it fair that a member of the Railway Board should get £2,000 per year, looking after trained men, and then you have these little politicians to take the last appointments. Take Senator Teichman. He may be a very good politician, but what does he know about the Railways? I think it is time this Government put a stop to that once and for all. I hope our friend, the Acting Prime Minister, when he becomes Prime Minister will put down his foot on those jobs for pals. I am old enough to know all about the Union Government and I was in very close touch as a political reporter with the Union Convention. There they said that we were going to have the Railways run on business lines, and so that they shall be run on business lines, we are going to have three great experts to control the policy. One could understand if the Minister took a man from his Department, the General Manager or Mr. White or anybody else, but there is no justification for making a young senator a member of the Railway Board. There is no man in this House who, if he takes a conscientious look at the matter, will disagree with me when I say that Senator Teichman should not have been appointed as a member of the Railway Board. It was a political job. I say this practice should be stopped and I hope our party is going to stop it, I asked the Minister about the Sturrock Dock. The country wants that dock to be called the Field-Marshal Smuts Dock. If General Hertzog had been alive I would have said it could be called the General Hertzog Dock.

Why not General Hertzog?

I do not mind, but why the Sturrock Dock? I do not like having to say these things but they have got to be said because the country is talking about them. I want to ask the Minister what his position is? Is he a sailor or is he a soldier, because the Minister knows as well as I do that he went up to inspect the Sixth Division as Mr. Sturrock, and he took the salute as a sailor, and the Sixth Division does not like it. This is not a personal thing; I am putting it before the Minister. The Minister is waving his hands, I am the only man in the House who would tell him this. It is the truth and he does not like it. Is the Minister taking part in this war as an admiral or not? The Minister has read Gilbert and Sullivan. He has read about Sir Joseph Porter, K.C.B. Let me read these verses about Sir Joseph Porter, K.C.B. I would just quote two verses. See if it fits the Minister—

That is Gilbert of Gilbert and Sullivan. It is rather harsh, but that is what the people of South Africa are thinking. The Minister laughs, but that is what the people of South Africa are thinking today. I am told that when the Minister went up to the front as an admiral, one of the Italians said: “Where shall I put the uniform, General?” These are stories that are coming to us from the Sixth Division.

I do not think the hon. member should discuss the Minister’s visit to Italy. He went there in his capacity as Minister of Defence, and not as Minister of Transport.

I am not discussing the Minister’s visit to Italy as Acting Minister of Defence. I am discussing the uniform he wore in Italy.

That is circumventing my ruling. The hon. Minister went there as Acting Minister of Defence.

I have said all I want to say on this question. It had to be said because the country wants it said and I have said it. I ask the Minister please—as the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. S. A. Cilliers) always says “asseblief tog”—take that uniform and hang it in a museum. The country does not want it. This is a democratic country and the people do not want it. They want their Minister of Transport to be Minister of Transport and to attend to the affairs of the Railways and not play soldiers. [Time limit.]

There is just one serious matter I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister and the House and that is the question of separateness on the railways. The policy which the Government is pursuing in respect of the application of segregation on our railways appears to be very weak. I am referring particularly to the state of affairs on the suburban railway service here in Cape Town. The position today is of such a nature that, particularly in recent times, it has become extremely unsatisfactory and unpleasant for Europeans to make use of the suburban service. Let me say quite frankly that there is any number of respectable non-Europeans, but we must not lose sight of the fact that a large proportion of the non-Europeans, especially those who have entered the urban areas in recent times, are not people who are properly educated or who have acquainted themselves with the rules of decency, etc., with the result that we get a position which is extremely unpleasant. The other day, for instance, I saw how a native got into the train. He was presumably one of the criminal type and he was in a very drunken condition. He went and sat down next to a European woman on the same seat. When the European woman got up and went to sit elsewhere, he also got up and went to sit on another seat next to another European woman. That is the sort of thing we find and I want to emphasise very strongly that the Minister should introduce a policy of separateness. If these is one place where we should enforce segregation very firmly but also judicially, it is on the railways. People are usually very susceptible to irritation. Cautious but firm action should be taken. I want to make a serious appeal to the Minister and the Administration to pursue a firm policy of segregation. I am not saying that the non-Europeans should get inferior coaches. Give them value for their money, but give them separate coaches. Then we will have the least trouble. The fact is that as the position is today, it causes much unpleasantness and it will lead to more and more friction with extremely undesirable repercussions in the country. In this connection I also want to mention the question of proper separateness on the stations. The Minister has an opportunity such as no other Minister has had before. A new station is going to be built in Cape Town and I appeal to the Minister to keep in mind provision for separate facilities for Europeans and non-Europeans. He would be doing the country a great service. But also on the Johannesburg station where considerable alterations are being made, the Minister has the opportunity of carrying out this principle. The conditions on the large stations especially have got out of hand and have deteriorated. Take, for instance, the Cape Town station on a busy day. The position is such that one cannot move there. It is extremely unpleasant. Let the Minister avail himself of the opportunity of providing for proper facilities for Europeans and separately for non-Europeans. Under those conditions, there will be least friction. The Minister has the opportunity now and in that manner he could prevent friction between Europeans and non-Europeans. I may just refer to the unpleasant incident on the station the other day when a European woman was approached by a non-European who tried to embrace her. That was one case which the police happened to take into hand but there are many such cases. It is the duty of the Government to keep separate these non-Europeans who may not have cultivated the excellent principle of self-control, in order that all trouble may be avoided. We have the example of America from which we can learn valuable lessons. I have here, for instance, the opinion of a certain Gregory in his book, “The Menace of Colour,” in which he says on page 55—

This is a person who has made an objective study of the question. I want to make an appeal to the Minister. There was, for instance, the case of the Indians who were admitted to the European coaches. That was a very short-sighted policy and we see what effect it has on the non-Europeans. The coloured people are dissatisfied and educated natives are dissatisfied because the Indians are given this privilege, and not they. That is a direct cause of dissatisfaction and creates trouble between Europeans and non-Europeans. The policy of our party in this matter is that we want to give the non-Europeans their full privileges, value for their money, but there must be separateness. That is recognised in practise, but why is it not carried out on the railways? Also on the stations we want to treat the non-European well, but separately from the Europeans. That is a sound policy and a policy which holds promise of satisfaction for the future of South Africa. That is the only policy which can be enforced without having friction between Europeans and nonEuropeans.

At this stage I would like to deal with a matter of great importance, namely, the matter of disciplinary action and boards of appeal, including the Railway Board which is the ultimate board of appeal. I would like to draw attention to the necessity for having a revision of the position as regards the Railway Service, and I want to direct attention especially to Act No. 23 of 1925. I may say, incidentally, that this Act was not adopted by this Government. My objection against the procedure which this Act provides for is based on seven grounds. The first is that an ordinary clerk in the South African Railways acts as chairman whenever an enquiry is held in connection with disciplinary charges. I feel that such a clerk cannot possibly act impartially. The second reason is that an employee receives no pay while the charge against him is pending, and that is the very time when he has considerable expenses, since he has to instruct representatives to present his case. I am merely referring in passing to sub-section (7) of Section 10 of this Act. My third reason is in regard to Sections 15 to 27 of the Act, where provision is made for a board of appeal. The procedure is that the commission institutes an enquiry, then it goes to the System Manager, and finally to the board of appeal if necessary. It is true that there is a judicial officer on the board of appeal, a magistrate, but he is also paid by the Railways, and he likewise would find it very difficult to be impartial. But the most serious objection is that the magistrate may give judgment but then the System Manager may turn round after the case has been dealt with by the board of appeal and the board of appeal has upheld the appeal, and then the System Manager can turn round and reject it. That is a bit thick, and in this connection I may also refer to the reply given by the Minister to the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) on 13th March, 1945, because it would appear from that that there is a gradual increase in the number of rejected appeals, viz., 10 in 1940, 14 in 1941, and it has now increased to as many as 33 in one year. These are cases where a verdict had been brought out but where the System Manager said that he would pay no heed to it and that he did not accept the decision of the board of appeal. It is an unheard of state of affairs and it requires to be remedied. Something is wrong. That was my third and fourth reason. I now come to the fifth reason and I confine myself to the penalties which are imposed. My fifth reason is not only that penalties are imposed for an indefinite period but also perpetually. In this connection I want to refer to sub-section 2 (b) of Section 19 of the Act. A person is convicted. He is demoted from the first grade to the second grade. During his whole lifetime he suffers for it. I think it is a principle at common law that when once a man has been punished, that puts an end to it, but in this case a perpetual punishment is imposed. My sixth reason is that the Railway Administration assumes the right to punish a person for the second time and to interfere in the man’s private life. If something were to happen to a Railway official outside the Service in his own spare time, if he should violate the common law, a traffic regulation, or some law in his private capacity, and he is punished in the magistrate’s court or in the supreme court, he can again be punished by the Railway. That is an extremely unsound principle and I do not believe it would be tolerated anywhere else in the world that a man should be punished twice for the same offence. I feel that the procedure should be revised. Then, my seventh and last complaint is that investigations in connection with disciplinary action last altogether too long before the man knows where he stands. It sometimes happens that they are held up for nine months, three months, six months and nine months. What happens? All this while the man is losing his salary, and he has tremendous expenses, and he has to maintain his wife and children. I want to appeal to the Minister seriously. The Minister should bear in mind that it affects 70,000 people and the matter definitely deserves to be investigated. I do not want the Minister to accept my word as correct, but I want to ask him to have a proper departmental investigation made. Let this be done by representatives of the Federal Advisory Committee which represents all the people in the Railway Service. Let such an investigation be made by an augmented federal advisory board with three or four officials of the department, or perhaps one or two members appointed from among members of Parliament. I want to tell the Minister that the Railway staff appreciates what has been done for them during the last few years as far as an increase of salaries is concerned, but they will appreciate it even more if this matter could be placed in order. I hope the Minister will consider the advisability of havng such an investigation made. It is very essential. There are cases of persons who have gone insolvent as a result of the present procedure, and their wives and children have suffered. He have had system managers who have abused their power for political ends. But there is no time to go further into that. I would just like to express the hope that the Minister will have the matter investigated.

I just want to raise a few points and I shall be satisfied if the Minister will send me a written reply. We want to thank the Minister for his visit to the Northern Transvaal. We knew we would convince him of the need for new station buildings at Pietersburg and Potgietersrust. I notice that provision has been made on the estimates for Potgietersrust, but we were disappointed as regards Pietersburg. Very little provision has been made under Items 625 and 626. I just want to suggest something in connection with the whole layout, that the Minister should make a statement as to when they will continue with the scheme, and then I want to point out to the Minister the buildings which are within a mile or two of the station and which belong to the Department of Defence. They are very effective and can be used for railway purposes. These buildings are no longer required by the Department of Defence, because the Air Training School has been closed down and the railwaymen at Pietersburg are in urgent need of housing facilities. Many of these people still have their homes in Pretoria, but live at Pietersburg in order to carry on their work. We will appreciate it if the Minister will go into the matter.

Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to the hon. the Minister for the publication of the history of the negotiations in connection with the question of the Wanderers. I think, Sir, that this publication will serve a very useful purpose indeed, and the concluding remarks of Major-General Szlumper when he says—

should urge the Administration not to delay the matter any longer. I think the time that has been taken up in regard to this matter has been well spent and I hope that the people of Johannesburg will realise that the scheme will not only be of benefit to the Railway Administration and the country as a whole, but that it will also in its completion enchance that part of Johannesburg. Now, Sir, reference has also been made to the unique position of the Railway Administration in regard to the retiring of three or four of its principal officers, including the General Manager during this year, and I do not want this opportunity to pass without, as an ex-railwayman, paying a tribute to the officers concerned and particularly to the General Manager. He, as the head of a group of experts and heads of departments, has directed South Africa’s vital transport instrument during at least four years of our war effort. He has with his group of leading officers been associated with the splendid record of the railway and harbour services as a whole. The administrative section of the Department is without doubt worthy of its highest tradition and of the Public Service in this country. Mr. Chairman, we shall now pass through a very difficult and important period —the transition period from war to peace conditions, and the Administration has to consider many important developments and extensions. In some respects these works are in the process of planning and construction— therefore the retirement of all these officers, if given effect to, during this very important transition period woud be unwise and as an ex-railwayman, I feel at any rate that one of them and particularly the General Manager, should be asked to consider remaining on in the service of the Administration for at least a further twelve months. I say that because there should be that contact between the drafting and the carrying out of proposals, very important proposals, for the post-war period, especially during the preliminary stages. That seems to me to be a business precaution and in the best interests of Soutth Africa. Mr. Chairman, in dealing with the General Manager I would like to pay tribute to the great work he has done in the South African Railways and Harbours Administration. I realise that the General Manager plays an important part in framing recommendtions in connection with the staff, and his close association with the staff work of the Administration, has enabled him to see a good many of these problems from the human point of view. The fact that he was largely instrumental in bringing about a matter such as the housing rebate, a benefit or concession which so largely affects the lower wage earners of the Railways and Harbours Administration, is worthy of note. He himself. I know, faced a great deal of criticism but through his forcefulness and enthusiasm for the cause of the worker I think he played a great part in bringing about the introduction of that benefit. One has only to realise that during the war period the Administration has advanced the emoluments and improved the conditions of the railway workers to the extent of £8,500,000 altogether excluding the cost of living allowance, that that constitutes a tribute not only to the Minister but to all of those who advise him from time to time, and I take this opportunity of paying that tribute now. There is one other point which is perhaps of more consequence at the moment and that is the matter of housing. It is the matter of housing of the railway staff. I read in the Minister’s budget speech that he was getting together material for 302 European houses— I do want to put this matter very emphatically to the Minister—and 1,100 houses for nonEuropeans. Now I should like to have assurance from the hon. the Minister today, if he will give it to me that the question of the housing of the railway staff as outlined in his budget speech, will receive prior consideration. We regard housing as number one priority and the housing of the railway staff must be included in that priority according to our view, and I trust that the hon. the Minister will give this matter his serious consideration because every house built by him will, of course, assist the general housing position in South Africa.

I said that the Minister should satisfy the public and I referred to the condition of passenger coaches. Now I want to say to the Minister that I do not complain because new coaches are not being built. I believe that it is difficult. But my complaint is that the necessary repairs are not carried out to the coaches. The failure to do so is not attributable to the war condition. There are doors and windows which cannot be closed, and they remain like that. It seems to me that when the coaches arrive in Cape Town or Johannesburg or Durban they are not examined regularly, and that minor repairs which are required are not carried out. It causes much inconvenience to passengers. Another matter about which the public are complaining is that trains run late. The Minister cannot say that it is due to a shortage of material. There may be cases where something goes wrong with the engine, but from personal experience I am in a position to say, especially in connection with train No. 12 from Johannesburg via Kimberley to Cape Town, that it consistently leaves De Doorns on time and nevertheless arrives late in Cape Town. I have put questions to the Minister and he replied that the train arrived late 58 times during the past three months, that is to say on almost 20 out of 30 days the train arrived late in Cape Town. What particularly strikes me is that the train waits outside Wellington station time and again or outside the Cape Town station and is unable to pull in. It seems to me that there is something wrong, that the Minister should thoroughly go into the consistent late running of trains, because it is not a compliment to our railways system. He will later find the position which one had in Italy. When Mussolini came to power there it was said that he would in any case have trains run to time! The Minister should take care that we do not find the position in South Africa that when we have a new Minister of Railways people will also say that he did succeed in having trains run to time. It appears to me that the difficulty lies with the crossings. In my opinion there is unnecessary delay at stations. I think the time has also arrived to review the whole timetable. To use an English expression, “it is long overdue”. Then with regard to the serving of meals. It is a matter which I raised recently. I know that if there is one section of the staff which works hard it is table stewards. Even last week when I travelled there were five sittings. They work hard. It is due to the new system. I discussed the matter with the Chief Stewards. They informed me that it was due to the system of not being allowed to serve before the dining saloon was full. The result is that there usually are still four or five vacant seats, and all the people have to sit and wait for the three or four persons playing cards and who later on come in at their leisure. There is only one way to put the matter right, and the stewards agree with me, and that is to allow passengers say five minutes grace after the fixed time, and if they enter later they should start with the course which is being served to the whole saloon, even though they should sacrifice their soup or fish or whatever it may be.

Dining saloons fall under Head 9 and the hon. member should rather discuss this matter under that head.

I think that we save time by discussing everything under this heading. I am pleased because more lights are being put in compartments. However, I want to suggest to the Minister to have separate switches installed for corridors and compartments. The bedding boys switch off the light at 6 o’clock in the morning and when passengers get up later it is sometimes still too dark to be able to shave. With regard to bedding, I want to object to the type of young bedding boys who are now being taken into the service. The old bedding boys complain about them. They are not the same decent class we had previously. The Minister informed us that bedding is regularly cleaned hygienically. I want to give him my personal experience. When the bedding boy recently opened the so-called clean bedding—it was properly sealed—a dirty handkerchief belonging to the person who previously used the bedding dropped out. People suffering from tuberculosis and other ailments travel on our trains, and if there is one matter in respect of which the Minister should take care it is this that the bedding should be cleaned hygenically when it has been used once. With regard to bedding boys older bedding boys complain that they do not receive the same treatment as is given to the younger boys. I raised the matter in a letter addressed to the Minister and I now also want to raise it here. We have some of the older bedding boys with 25 or more years’ service and while the younger bedding boys are receiving more favourable treatment I do feel that there is something to be said for the better treatment of the older bedding boys. In conclusion just this. The Minister made a statement that it was his policy to electrify the railways. I want to suggest to the Minister not to stop at Touws River but to carry on as far as Beaufort West. It is obvious that big power stations will also have to be erected. The Minister will agree that if the whole line is electrified as far as Kimberley he should have a large power station half-way, and Beaufort West is half-way between Cape Town and Kimberley. I trust that the Minister will not dawdle over the electrification, that he will proceed as far as Beaufort West and that he will see his way clear to erect a power station at Beaufort West.

I merely want to put a few questions to the Minister. The first question is whether he will consider as soon as possible to reduce the fares for air journeys within the Union. Only a wealthy man could pay £20 for a journey from Cape Town to Johannesburg. Át present the air service is only available to the wealthy man. The Minister does not hear the criticism which we hear outside, but I want to assure him that it amounts to this that aeroplanes are only for the wealthy people. Another question is whether it is not possible to have night journeys by air between Cape Town and Johannesburg. It could easily be from half past five to half past ten. Businessmen especially are interested in this because it will facilitate the matter much for them. I want to point out to the Minister that the circuit route between Souh Africa and London will not fit in because the Minister would then have to provide sleeping facilities on the aeroplanes, and his present aeroplanes are not so provided. With the existing aeroplanes, however, he could introduce such a night service, and I can give him the assurance that such a service will be used extensively. The next matter relates to our own shipping code. We have discussed this matter for quite a few years and I want to know from the Minister whether it is not possible to introduce legislation in that regard next year.

Up to now my Department has dealt with it and it will be introduced next year.

I am glad to hear that. The next point relates to the Blue Train. It was a very convenient train and I want to know from the Minister whether he cannot now again introduce that service.

Next year.

I am glad to hear that there is a prospect. I want to remind the Minister, as other hon. members have already done, that if he does not improve the railways he will have a hard struggle with motor-car competition. Another question relates to the building of ships. At present we are paying a subsidy of approximately £30,000 for the additional transport of our mail from Cape Town to Durban. In a Press interview it was said that it would cost approximately £20,000,000 to build all the ships required for the company to fulfil its contract. If we take the subsidy for two years paid on the service between Cape Town and Durban, it amounts to £60,000 which will cover the interest on the capital cost of one ship. All the ships are not going to cost £2,500,000. If we have a ship built for £1,750,000 then already we have the interest on the amount which is now being paid for the service between these two ports. I want to give it to the serious consideration of the Minister that South Africa should do as Canada, Australia and New Zealand are doing, and that we should not lag behind those countries. At present we are able to obtain money cheaply and we could use our own funds to build those ships. After the war we will be in a position to have ships built fairly cheaply. Then there is another matter which I am hesitant to raise. Those of us who travel by rail suspect that a considerable amount of money is being lost to the railways on account of stewards not giving receipts. A friend of mine and myself recently counted six persons at one table to whom receipts were not given and according to the liquor consumed there it amounted to approximately £6. I do not for a moment want to say that the steward did not pay over the money. It is a matter which does not concern me and I know nothing about it. I assume that he did pay over the money. Travellers are so struck by it that I have decided to raise it here. I am not a detective and I want to persecute nobody. But judging from my journeys on trains if the nonfurnishing of receipts discloses what happens generally I can quite appreciate the catering service on trains and at other places showing a loss. I have no recommendation to make. I do not know how the matter should be tackled. I do not want people to be persecuted. Parhaps there should be an inspection service. We are all interested in the railways as taxpayers and this is taking place on such a large scale that I was simply surprised. I do not want to say that the officials cheat. Perhaps they pay over the money but here some loophole is left for cheating and that is why I have raised the matter.

In connection with the mixed travelling on trains I wish to say that up to the present this has occurred mainly in the Cape Province. Recently we have had the experience that it is now also happening outside the Cape that Cape Coloureds go and travel in those parts of the train reserved for Europeans, that they go and sit in the same dining-saloon or dining-room to eat with the Europeans, and that they also drink together there. The Europeans raised strong objections to this, but the railway authorities took no steps to put the matter right. I am prepared to supply the Minister with the details. This has given rise to a great deal of unpleasantness. It is no longer a matter that is confined to the Cape Province, but it is now going beyond the borders of the Cape, where the non-Europeans are taking the liberty of travelling in parts of the trans reserved for Europeans, and I repeat what I said last year: They sleep on the same bedding. There is no separate bedding for them. They sleep on the same bedding as the Europeans and they eat in the same saloons, and they also drink there. Then there is another matter that hits the lower income groups especially. I should like to know from the Minister when he intends restoring the excursion facilities to the public. This is a very important matter. The war is over. We expected that the Minister would make a statement here telling the public what the position is in connection with excursion facilties, and also as regards the various travelling concessions. The Minister knows to what I am referring. We shall be glad to have a statement from him today. Between the time that the Minister made his budget speech and now, peace has come, but has probably made no difference in his budget. On the budget I see an amount of £950,000 for settling the difference between the military pay and railway pay. Six weeks after the budget speech, or rather after the commencement of the financial year, peace was made. We must assume that the great majority of that staff will be back in service before the end of the year, so that it will no longer be necessary for the Minister to pay the difference between military pay and the ordinary official pay. Will this not affect that amount? I think the Minister should make a statement about this. If it were a small amount one could overlook it, but nearly a million pounds is involved. Then we see on the budget an amount of £25,000 that is being paid to the National Roads Board. We should like to have an explanation from the Minister about this. In this connection I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the harbours showed a deficit last years and that a deficit of half a million pounds is expected this year. This has to be compensated by the Railways. Air services show a deficit, the road motor services also show a deficit, and the Railways are charged with the deficits on all these services. This also applies to many other supplementary services. We must not place too heavy a load on the wagon. Now another £25,000 is being given to the National Roads Board. An amount of £25,000 is also being paid to the Provincial Councils in connection with the maintenance of roads. All this is debited to the Railways. Another matter I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister is the problem of staff representation. Barely 60 per cent. of the officials belong to staff organisations, in spite of the fact that the Minister has granted every facility to recognised staff organisations to enroll railway employees as members. The reason for this is to a great extent due to the fact that many officials do not wish to belong to any other organisation but the Spoorbond. It is the policy of the Minister and his administration to do everything in their power to kill the Spoorbond. In spite of all their efforts the Spoorbond is not dead, and in spite of the difficult period through which it has passed it has gained a new lease of life. I wish to ask the Minister whether he will not during the recess again go into the whole matter of staff representation from the beginning. Spoorbond is not dead and it will not die, however long the Minister may keep up the fight. It was born from the will of the staff, and that staff wishes to be organised by Spoorbond only. I wish to submit it for consideration that the question of the recognition of staff associations be again considered during the recess, and that the Minister should go into the matter to what extent he can meet the Spoorbond organisation.

In connection with transport I would like to bring two aspects of transport by sea to the attention of the Minister. In the short space of ten minutes at my disposal I cannot do justice to the matter. I would like to devote attention to coastal traffic apart from shipping traffic to the rest of the world. A year or more ago the Minister, as far as I can remember, made a statement here that he would be in favour of the development of our own shipping. He then went along and appointed a commission to investigate the development of coastal shipping and shipping as far as South Africa was concerned. After the recent development in connection with the ocean mail contract and the freight shipping contract this matter has again come to the attention of producers and consumers. After the statement by the Minister that he was the chairman when those negotiations took place our interest in the matter has become more pronounced and the Minister must expect severe criticism as a result of the implications of those two contracts. There can be no doubt that Union Nationals should by way of private initiative or by way of a State undertaking get an interest in coastal shipping either immediately or gradually. The Minister himself had that possibility in mind when he spoke about the possibility of the State undertaking coastal shipping. The matter was open to difference of opinion whether the State or private initiative should provide the service. As regards the principle whether we should provide it there can be no doubt and even though the cost would be slightly more, we already have the principle of protection which we are applying in connection with our industries and trade. There was an opportunity for the development of our coastal shipping when these two contracts were entered into, mainly with one overseas line, and that possibility has now been eliminated altogether. In the past overseas lines were free to take part in our coastal traffic. I thought that when these two contracts were entered into a natural opportunity arose for again opening the question of coastal traffic. It has been neglected and now that the Minister has stated that he acted as chairman at those negotiations I think that we may again expect him to devote attention to that matter. There can be no doubt of every justification existing for us to develop such a service either gradually or immediately. The commission appointed by the Minister has shown that in 1942 traffic between Union ports amounted to approximately 360,000 tons. The railways transported another quantity of approximately 100,000 tons under the shipping competitive tariffs. The Minister therefore has approximately half a million tons of traffic available, and I think it is our duty as a State to devote attention to the development of a coastal shipping service for that traffic. We cannot be satisfied with this matter being smothered by the interference on the part of overseas lines. I want to raise another aspect of the matter. The time has definitely come for the Union to be interested in the transport of its imports and exports. It was also an instruction to the commission of enquiry to devote attention to the financial side of the matter. In spite of the findings of the commission I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to certain data collected at the beginning of the report. The Union had three ships and although they had very little space and a low speed of nine knots, and although maintenance charges were high, those ships in the period from 1919 to 1942 showed a clear profit of £437,000. That profit was not made on the basis of competitive freight rates. Initially the ships operated on commercial rates but in due course there was so much profit that they reduced the freight. I say in view of all these facts that South Africa cannot be satisfied with the fact that we do not devote our full attention and make use of every opportunity at our disposal to develop our shipping. We know what happened to these two ships, viz., their routes were considerably restricted. Their right to sail on certain routes was doubted by overseas lines and to the eternal shame of the Union Government it gave in to those lines and our ships were taken off two routes, the route to the east and the route to Western Europe. In view of this action by overseas interestes, probably the same overseas interests with whom we have concluded these two humiliating contracts, the Minister should in our own interests again devote attention to this matter of building up our own coastal shipping. Shortly a considerable number of ships will probably be offered for sale. The transport between South Africa and Europe will probably be controlled by a certain company. For that reason it is necessary for the Union Government, in view of the implications of our independence and proper shipping in the near future, and where experience has taught us that it was profitable, and where it is imperatively necessary for us to develop such a service, that it should devote attention to this matter, and the Government should adopt the point of view that we do not want to surrender our independence to overseas companies and expose our interests to a dictatorship of one single company. In view of the large amount which we are paying out every year for our export and import trade with overseas countries, in view of the millions of pounds which we are paying for shipping to foreign shins and foreign lines, and in view of the fact that we are paying a subsidy of £300,000 to one line, it is necessary that the Government avail itself of the opportunity at our disposal to develop our own shipping. It is a matter which should not be postponed. It would be unfair on the part of the Government to be satisfied with the reasoning of overseas lines in connection with our coastal shipping. [Time limit.]

I would like to remind the Minister of a promise which he made at De Aar, as a result of the deputation which met him, in connection with the station. The Minister put an amount on the estimates. It was 18 months ago. Now I notice that an amount of only £1,000 for that purpose has been put on the estimates for the next year. The Minister announces so many schemes. He says that he has not the men nor the materials to carry out those schemes. Now I want to ask the Minister this afternoon why he does not concentrate on a few schemes and continue with them. He makes promises over the whole country, with the result that he is being pestered from all sides, as I am pestering him this afternoon. Then I would like to ask the Minister whether he intends erecting the model township in connection with the regrading on the North-East Cape line to Burghersdorp. And when does he expect that they will arrive there along the Cape Eastern line to East London via Springfontein. In connection with the retirement of the General Manager, I do not want to comment on his work, whether it was good or bad. But I proceed from the pronciple that when a man has reached the retiring age it is not fair towards the others whose promotion he is preventing if he continues in service. It is the way of life that one has to retire at a certain age and I do not think that he should continually depart from that principle. Another matter in respect of which the Minister is a sinner is the appointment of people from outside to the railway service. Recently he appointed a press officer from outside, a chief adviser on non-European labour. The press officer has a salary which is equal to that of a system manager at Windhoek or Kimberley. The chief adviser on non-European labour is a person who is less than 30 years old and the post carries a salary of £840. Then there is the head of the Central Training Centre at Eslin Park with a maximum salary of £1,200. Why should people from outside be appointed?/The hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. H. S. Erasmus) asked me before he left to bring another matter to the attention of the Minister and it is a serious matter. He asked the hon. Minister whether the Minister would have an investigation made if a shunter at Henneman acted as organising secretary to the United Party during the general election in 1943 and whether he wrote a letter of a political nature in the “Vrystater” of the 29th June, 1943, and signed it as Secretary of the United Party. The Minister replied that he would not have the matter investigated, that an investigation was not considered necessary. The hon. member for Hoopstad further asked whether the railway disciplinary regulations will be applied in this case. To that the Minister replied briefly “no”. I do not know the person and I do not know how far he took part in the election in 1943, but permit me just to say what he did. He noticed that the question of the hon. member for Hoopstad was published in the “Volksblad” and he then wrote to the “Volksblad” on the 3rd June, 1945, in connection with the question put by the hon. member for Hoopstad here in Parliament, inter alia, as follows—

Shortly before the election in 1943 a special circular was sent out in connection with the disciplinary regulations and it was defined in what respects railway officials should not take part in politics. He should not propose a candidate nor act as chairman. Here we have to deal with an official whom openly wrote in the Press that he took part in politics. But I want to remind the Minister of the case in my own constituency when a driver from Coligny got on to the platform along with my opponent, Mr. Louis de Jager, at De Aar and Burghersdorp and held political meetings. He was a railway official and got on to a political platform. At present rumours are floating about in my constituency that such a person will stand as candidate. They give his name. In this connection there is another point. It was decided that it was unlawful to hold political meetings on railway ground but when my opponent did that I thought that I would do the same. We both did something unlawful. I asked the Minister whether he intended applying the disciplinary regulations in the case which I mentioned. He said that he would have an investigation made. I did not find out what further steps were taken by him but I want to urge upon the Minister not to discriminate. If the Minister wants to apply the disciplinary regulations he should apply them to Nationalists as well as to supporters of his party. It is something which causes great dissatisfaction amongt railway staff, that men belonging to my party should act warily but that a railway official could get on to a platform along with the candidate of the United Party and hold meetings. The Minister should desist from discrimination between political parties. If railway regulations must be applied they must be applied to both sides. The Minister, however, refuses to investigate the matter. He said that he would not apply the disciplinary regulations in the case. As far as I know the Minister personally I expect him to give equal treatment to all. I would expect something like that from the Minister of Lands but not from the Minister of Railways. I trust that the Minister will make a statement so that the railway staff would be assured that no favouritism would be shown in the political field.

I would just like to remind the Minister of Transport that he said some time ago that he realised that the present system of representation left much to be desired. (That is to say staff representation) and that he would introduce a proper system of representation for European staff and that he had appointed Lt.-Col. Fyfe King in connection with non-European staff. I would now like to put a few questions to the Minister in that regard. Is Mr. Fyfe King now engaged amongst the natives? I believe that in a paid position he is organising natives in the railway service into a trade union organisation. How far has he succeeded? Secondly I learn that the staff addressed railwaymen during working hours and that he inter alia remarked: “In the past you suffered in silence”. That is what he said to the natives. They should now join the trade union. They should wake up. It is a kind of incitement which is taking place in railway hours. In this connection I would further like to ask whether it is a fact that natives who become members of the trade union do not pay subscription fees but that the establishment and maintenance of the society is financed from railway funds? Is that a fact? I would specially like to know it in view of the remarks made by the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) in connection with Spoorbond. We hear that Spoorbond may not even collect subscription fees on railway ground. Such fees may not be paid there to the secretdry. The use of railway halls are refused Spoorbond for meetings. But natives are organised with funds of the Deparment. It is something which alarms us and we would like to know clearly from the Minister what his policy is. Then in connection with the new station in Cape Town, will it be so arranged that Europeans and natives and coloured persons are kept separate. This is a good oportunity for the Minister to carry separation into effect. We Transvalers and Free Staters who are not used to mixing of coloureds will welcome it very much and if the Minister does it Free Staters and Transvalers will surely later on erect a small monument to him. I was disappointed with the Minister’s reply that he was not going to carry into effect in the Cape Peninsula the principle of separation because it was not being done by the Municipality of Cape Town. But surely a State department is a higher body that a municipality. Let him set the example and the municipality will follow it. Let the Minister set a good example and it will be applied also on municipal buses. We feel strongly about it and I want to request seriously the Minister to do it. Then I also want to ask him to consider the position of Spoorbond. Apparently it must now be destroyed and uprooted. It was a very strong and healthy body and did good work. Where the Minister is now introducing a movement for natives let him also think a little about the Europeans so that they may be well organised. Spoorbond is desirous of co-operating with the Minister in the interests of railway workers. It is not a political body.

Mr. Chairman, I think that as this debate seems to be continuing it may be as well for me at this stage to reply to a few questions that have been asked. In regard to the hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen) I should like to tell him that so far as the temporary men are concerned, I do not anticipate dispensing with the services of any of them owing to the fact that other men will be returning in due course. We are still so short of men on the railways that we can absorb all the men who are away without retrenching anybody at present in the service, and I therefore think the hon. member’s fears are unnecessary in that respect. That is certainly my policy and I recognise the services of those men who have assisted to carry on the railways during the absence on war service of other railway employees. This, however, does not necessarily apply to pensioners. If any people are to be retrenched some pensioners will have to go, because it was never understood that they would be retained in permaneht employment. The question of a lower tariff for building material and agricultural products is a matter which I am always giving my attention to, and if there is a chance of reducing those tariffs the hon. member can be assured that the chance of doing so will not be missed. With regard to the desirability of building more branch lines without building main lines, I want to point out that you cannot build any more branch lines unless you increase the capacity of the main lines, and therefore before we can build any branch lines in these parts it will be necessary to electrify the main line and therefore in the electrification of these lines we are helping to forward the desire of the hon. member for having more branch lines built. The one however depends largely on the other. I now come to the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel) who dealt with the question of segregation, a matter which was also dealt with by hon. members, and I would like to say that so far as our stations are concerned it is part of our scheme so to design these stations that there will be segregation as between Europeans and natives and coloureds. There will be natural segregation.

You said you had no legal power.

I made enquiries about what has happened in regard to the obtaining of a legal opinion and I find that I have not received it yet. It is however a matter which is being looked into. Unfortunately during a Parliamentary Session the law advisers have no time to attend to such matters but I can assure hon. members that the matter will not be overlooked, and will be referred to the law advisers.

Remind them of the Appeal Court case.

We have the record of the case and of the discussioins relating to that case. I can therefore assure the hon. member that if I can get a satisfactory solution of the difficulty I will be only too pleased. It is, as hon. members know, a very difficult social problem and it is not something you can solve by merely taking drastic action unless you are quite sure that you have got the power to do it. So far as the statements are concerned it is a problem which is a comparatively new one. We are however designing our stations, both here in Cape Town and in Johannesburg, and elsewhere in such a way that in respect of the coloured population and the native population there will be natural segregation. Native trains will leave from native platforms only. There will be separate conveyances for the various races so far as we can manage it. In Cape Town we cannot of course do it as effectively as we can do it in the north.

Will that also apply to Cape Town station?

Yes.

Why I asked you is because you did not say “non-Europeans”.

I mean natives and coloureds. In regard to Cape Town I am naturally dealing with the coloureds. The native problem down here has not been such a very serious one up to the present. I am dealing with the actual segregation so far as it can possibly be carried out. I may say that so far as the native population is concerned that the native traffic is increasing to such an extent that we will have to run separate trains for natives only and that will also help to improve the situation.

What is the position of the Indians?

They are not such a big problem. I heard about an Indian that went into the dining saloon.

Coloured people go into the dining room.

I heard it was an Inian. It was an Indian officer who was on his way from Port Elizabeth to Cape Town and he was allowed into the dining saloon at the last sitting. He sat right at the back of the coach and that was apparently objected to. It was an Indian officer and in my opinion no harm was done.

I have travelled with two Chinese in the dining room and I have been told of a case where three coloured people were admitted to the dining saloon.

If you give me the particulars in regard to the case of the coloured men you refer to I will look into the matter. Anyhow, I want to assure hon. members that if there is any way in which I can solve this difficult problem, I will do all I can, and I may say that I am working along those lines at the present time. In reply to the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy) I should like to say that there have been flaws in the appeal machinery, but I think they are sometimes exaggerated. I think that on the whole the appeal machinery of the South African Railways and Harbours Administration has worked very well indeed. I have been discussing various aspects of this question with the Consultative Committee of the staff associations, and these matters are still under consideration, but anything we can do to hasten disciplinary appeals so that they can be handled more expeditiously we are naturally trying to carry out. That is a matter I have been working on for some time and that is to speed up our appeal machinery.

Will you consider taking away the power of the System Manager to overrule the Appeal Board?

I would like to point out to the hon. member that frequently the General Manager and the Railway Board itself have actually found in favour of the railway servant against the recommendation of the Appeal Board.

I quite agree with that, but it costs the unfortunate employee a great deal of money to reach the Appeal Board.

It is because of the long time it takes, but I said just now in that respect we are trying to see whether we cannot improve the machinery.

Why not revise the whole machinery?

It does not need revision in toto. The Consultative Committee has agreed that it does not need revision as a whole, and we are trying to speed up appeals and naturally as far as we can we will try to carry it out. I may say that we have several cases where a man has been punished and there has been appeal machinery and he has later on been promoted. While he has been punished for the offence the machinery is such that it is not held up against him.

What about those employees who won their appeals and who have still not been reinstated?

Give me cases of that and I will go into the matter.

We can give you 300 cases over the past four years.

The Administration will be only too glad to get them and we will investigate them.

I gave them to you.

If you have given them to me you must have had a reply. If you gave me those cases then you would have been informed about them by now. Mr. Chairman, as I stated I am only too glad to get details of anything that is not working well. Obviously we cannot deal with those cases until we have seen the details and if the hon. members will give us those details we will be only too glad to give consideration to them. I would like in connection with what the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) said, to associate myself with the remarks he made about the General Manager of Railways. No-one appreciates more than the Minister what the General Manager is and does, and I can assure this House that the General Manager’s record of service with the South African Railways and Harbours Administration has been outstanding. Unfortunately the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) is not here at the moment and therefore I cannot reply to the points raised by him. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) referred to the question of air fares and let me say that so far as air fares are concerned the Administration will, immediately we get more planes, go into the question of whether air fares cannot be reduced to some extent.

What about evening trips?

We need faster planes than we have got at the moment to do what is known as an evening service. The hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) raised the question with regard to building ships. I would like to assure the hon. gentleman that there is no more enthuiastic exponent in South Africa so far as shipbuilding is concerned than myself, and I have indicated that I am going to start off with four ships with something like 8,500 tons capacity each for general traffic and in addition have two coasting vessels. Surely you would not expect me to start off with mailboats. We naturally have to walk before we can run. I do however propose to build these ships as railway ships, and from the experience we gain from them we will be able to build up our traffic. Mr. Chairman, I repeat there is no-one who needs less persuasion than I do to go in for State shipping. I am all for it so far as we can properly do it, and I want to use these ships systematically in order to make a profit. Whether these ships make money does not really matter so long as the railways get that money. So long as we develop the economic welfare of the country we are doing something which will bring about good returns. Now, with regard to the question of staff leakages, I can assure hon. members that there is an inspection staff which is supposed to checck any improper practices. If hon. members can give specific particulars with regard to malpractices I will be only to glad to follow them up. The hon. member for Beaufort West was out when I came to his point but I would like to say that one of the things I am determined to do when the time is opportune, when we have the necessary facilities, and we have the necessary equipment, and incidentally have the new Johannesburg station, is to see that our trains run to time. The question of late trains is something which we should not tolerate as a general practice, but the Johannesburg and Cape Town stations are in such a state of congestion that we cannot get all the trains in, and that is why in nine out of ten cases the trains from Wellington to Cape Town are held up until the Cape Town station is clear again.

Will you consider the question of the revision of the timetable?

That will also be done at the same time.

You will also go into the question of the train service from Cape Town to Port Elizabeth?

I have that in mind and I am doing my best to get that done. With regard to the question of training coloured men I may say that the proposal to start a school where our coloured men wil be trained for this work before they are put into the service is a good one. I agree that the present method of recruiting coloured men is not satisfactory. The hon. member for Beaufort West also suggested we should build a power station at Beaufort West. If they will only get a better water supply at Beaufort West we will perhaps build a power station there.

Do not put up a power station at Hutchinson.

At any rate you will have a good water supply there, and let me say, good water at that.

I would just like to say in regard to the question of staff associations, the recognition of Spoorbond, that that is an old question. There are matters which depend more upon the wishes of my staff associations than upon myself. I do not interfere with the staff associations in any way and as hon. members are aware we decided to establish staff unions, but I do not think the interest taken in them has been special, and they might object now to the recognition of another body which would overlap them. That is the difficulty at the present time so far as Spoorbond is concerned. Spoorbond is at liberty to carry on. I do not interfere with it and I have not suppressed it.

But your Administration is actually suppressing it.

I know nothing about that. Mr. Chairman, all that I can say is that I do not interfere with any organisation providing they are not breaking the regulations of the Railway Administration. That is the only point so far as I am concerned. With regard to De Aar station I would like to assure the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) that I myself was surprised to find that we had reduced the amount for the De Aar Station. An instruction has however gone out from the Minister’s office that nothing is to be left undone to get on with this work. I have been informed that they are still amending the plans and that those plans are at present being considered by the headquarters technical staff. If they are approved, the work will naturally be proceeded with. I can assure the hon. member that regardless of what money is on the estimate we will push on the job everywhere in every way. We will be able to spend money from the Renewals Fund although it is not voted in this particular manner. With regard to the employing of outside men I would like to say that the cases of Mr. Lyle and Captain Havemann are rather special. The Administration did not have a native expert in its service so we went outside för one, and we did not have a principal of a college available, so we also went outside for one.

Are they any better than the men you have in the service?

They are much better for the particular type of work which they will perform They are specialists. That is the reason why we employed outside people. As far as I can I give railwaymen the first opportunity, but there was nothing to prevent any railwaymen from applying for these jobs, but these were the best men offering. I think all the questions have now been answered.

What about those people who address political meetings?

With regard to the Henneman case, I have quite a lot of notes here, but is would be quite impossible for me to make head or tail out of them in the time at my disposal. I do not like to interfere in the politics of railway servants, but I do take a strong line when railway servants bring politics into the Service. They should not address public meetings and that sort of thing and I undertake to look into this case personally and see what it is all about. Just at the moment it is not clear to me. I am entirely with the hon. member in his desire to keep politics out of the Railways. In regard to Col. Fyfe King, he is not doing anything in connection with railway natives. He made an original report to me on the question of how to contact our native workers better than we do. Since that we have been moving in other directions and the natives are now organising themselves into staff unions more or less on the same basis as the white people, except that they divide themselves into systems. But so far as native staff unions are concerned, the Administration pays them nothing. They finance themselves entirely. We do not pay anything. They have to make their own subscriptions, because it would obviously be improper for the Minister to finance staff unions which look after the interests of any particular section of the staff. Col. Fyfe King has nothing whatever to do with it.

In connection with railway officials who take part in politics I just want to make a few remarks to supplement the remarks made by the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman). I just want to direct the attention of the Minister to two cases of which I know in which railway officials addressed political meetings in public, moreover, in the capital city of the country.

Please give me the names after the House has adjourned if you want to.

The point I want to make here is this. It is the duty of the senior officials of the Minister to bring these matters to his notice. They know when an official of theirs acts as chairman at a meeting of the United Party. I had a case where a railway official drove a hundred miles to propose a candidate. I have another case where a railway official was the only speaker on the platform for the United Party. I had another case where he addressed a political meeting in the capital in the presence of senior officials of the Department. It is the duty of those senior officials to bring these matters to the notice of the Minister. Why should I act as spy for the Minister? If such an official acts at a meeting of the Nationalist Party he will soon be taken to task but when he acts at a meeting of the United Party nobody knows anything about it, and that is the discrimination to which the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg referred. I trust that when a new General Manager is in due course appointed the Railway Administration will not be used as a political machine to make propaganda for one political party. The Railway Administration should not be a political machine for any party. Then there are a few minor matters which I would like to raise. The Chief of Police has been appointed on probation for 12 months. The custom is that any official on promotion is appointed for a probationary period of three months, whether it be the General Manager or a system manager or a superintendent or a clerk. They are appointed on a probationary period of three months, but for some inexplicable reason the Chief of Police has been appointed on a probationary period of 12 months. It has come to the notice of the staff. It has come to the notice of the public and the explanation given by the public and the staff is that the Minister with the General Manager is not quite certain whether the official will be able to do the work satisfactorily. Why did they not want to appoint him on a probationary period of three months. They showed lack of confidence in him before he started his work. For six months and longer he performed his work satisfactorily. For six months he acted in the position, now he has been appointed on a probationary period of 12 months. An exception was made in his case. I do not know of another case where anybody was appointed on a probationary period of 12 months. Why has he been appointed on a probationary period of 12 months? He will be nervous when he takes over the position because the fact that he was appointed on a probationary period of 12 months would be to him clear proof that neither the Minister nor the General Manager has complete confidence in him. If they had complete confidence in him they would not have appointed him on a probationary period of 12 months, but a probationary period of three months. The second mistake which the Minister made in connection with police appointments was this. He went along and appointed one of the junior men as acting assistant. Were you satisfied that he was the right person? Are you satisfied that he will be a potential successor to the Chief of Police? The Minister put himself in a very difficult position. That was a case I brought to his notice specially and I want to ask him during the recess to devote attention to that case. I feel that it is unfair to appoint the Chief of Police who is the head of the department on a probationary period of 12 months. Then there is the case of the station foreman Venter who was stationed at Arlington. He was the grade representative of station foremen. Station foremen in the Free State and in a large part of the country were not satisfied with the manner in which the report of the Service Hours Commission was applied and there was some alarm amongst station foremen. This grade representative acted on behalf of the men in his grade and he sent circulars to his supporters in different parts of the country. He unfortunately sent those circulars by rail. He was charged under the disciplinary regulations and the penalty imposed was so severe that he was removed from the grade of station foreman and made a checker. If that was a sin which he alone committed I would be able to follow it, but I want to tell you that the practice of railway officials to send letters by rail is a practice which is followed fairly generally. I myself have received letters from the General Manager when I was in the railway service which I had to send by rail. I myself have received telegrams from senior officials requesting me to despatch private letters and the private letters were enclosed in railway envelopes and addressed to me to be delivered. That is the practice and the staff know about it, and in this case a grade representative who occupied a recognised post on the railways was punished severely because he sent circulars by rail. Railway time is given to grade representatives for submitting their case to heads of the Administration. It is a recognised position on the railways. The only mistake which the man made was that he made use of railway transport for conveying letters and I shall be glad if the Minister will go into the case. I feel that Venter has been treated very unfairly. Then I again want to raise the case of the driver who was fined £25 merely because he was supposed to have said something about the policy of the Government when he was off duty. The man was off duty. He was not on duty. He did nothing otherwise than just to criticise the policy of the Government and it was a very feeble criticism which he exercised. He criticised the policy of the Government when he was off duty. Four months later his head charged him under the disciplinary regulations; he found him guilty and fined him £25. Surely that is an inhuman fine. It is very doubtful whether he had the right to charge the man under the disciplinary regulations but it was going very far indeed to fine him £25 for criticising the S.A.P. Government. They rather should have paid him £25. What is more he was ordered to pay the fine of £25 in a lump sum and I think it was scandalous. Men in the railway service are perhaps fined £1 and then they sometimes even get four months’ time to pay the £1. Here a man was fined £25 and he has to pay the whole amount at once. Not only was it unfair it was scandalous. Then I just want to refer to the case of a lady who was paid £700 because she was scalded by tea. The Minister knows of many cases in the railway service where men lost their lives where the dependants did not receive £700. Here a lady travels by train; she is scalded by tea; she is not disfigured; the burns are nowhere noticeable and she received £700 compensation for being scalded by tea. She did not call in the assistance of anybody when she was burnt; she was not in need of medical assistance. She was burnt in the vicinity of Kimberley. She was first treated here in the Cape. No head of the railways was called in to see the burns; no railway surgeon was called in to see her; first aid was not summoned. She travelled confortably; she arrived here, went to private people, was nursed privately, returned to Johannesburg and was nursed privately and she lodged a claim for and obtained £700 compensation and £52 in attorney’s fees, and that was paid to her. [Time limit.]

I feel somewhat shocked at the manner in which the Minister acted at Zeerust sation. Some time ago the Minister informed me that he would take steps to improve the goods shed at Zeerust. Now I receive a letter from him to the effect that after making an investigation he found that the cost would be too high and that he intended erecting a new shed there. I would like to know from the Minister when the new shed will be erected there. We find it very inconvenient in the goods shed. I would like to know whether the Minister will immediately take steps as soon as possible to have the goods shed improved because as I say there is much inconvenience. Then I would like to know whether the Minister will not take steps for extending the railway connection between Lichtenburg, Zeerust and the northern part of the Bushveld. Much revenue can be derived from those parts and the connection could link up the line from Rhodesia wherever the Minister finds it expedient. I feel that there should be no more delay in the erection of a new goods shed and I think the whole environment would appreciate it very much if the Minister would have a commencement made immediately with the erection of a new shed, if he feels that a new shed should be built, instead of improving the existing shed. Then I want to raise just one small matter. I have raised this matter previously but I believe the position is still unaltered. Natives are conveyed by bus and they sit on top of foodstuffs conveyed by the people. Steps should be taken so to arrange the transport that there is separation so that natives do not find seats on top of foodstuffs. The Minister has promised to take steps in the matter but I believe the position is still unchanged.

I would just like to say that I will look into the matter which the hon. member for Marico (Mr. Grobler) has just raised. I will make enquiries about the goods shed and also about the other matters that he has brought to my notice. I am afraid that just at the moment it is not possible for me to say what stage these things have reached. With regard to the three or four cases which the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) brought to my notice, I will go into them and give him a written reply.

Head No. 1, as printed, put and agreed to.

Head No. 2.—“Maintenance of Permanent Way and Works”, £5,937,229, put and agreed to.

Head No. 3.—“Maintenance of Rolling Stock”, £6,444,680, put and agreed to.

Head No. 4.—“Running Expenses”. £9,498,378, put and agreed to.

Head No. 5.—“Traffic Expenses”, £9,031,247, put and agreed to.

Head No. 6.—“Superannuation”, £1,178,950, put and agreed to.

Head No. 7.—“Cartage Services”, £892,098, put and agreed to.

Head No. 8.—“Depreciation”, £3,892,161, put and agreed to.

Head No. 9.—“Catering and Bedding Services”, £1,659,939, put and agreed to.

Head No. 10.—Publicity, Bookstalls, Advertising and Automatic Machines”, £434,650, put and agreed to.

Head No. 11.—“Grain Elevators”, £224,667, put and agreed to.

Head No. 12—“Road Motor Services”, £1,734,983, put and agreed to.

Head No. 13.—“Tourist Service”, £134,600, put and agreed to.

Head No. 14.—“Interest on Capital”, £5,513,282, put and agreed to.

Head No. 15.—“Interest on Superannuation and other Funds”, £1,852,268, put and agreed to.

Head No. 16.—“Charges in respect of Lines Leased”, £13,500, put and agreed to.

Head No. 17.—“Miscellaneous Expenditure”, £6,832,757, put and agreed to. Harbours:

Head No. 18.—“Maintenance of Assets”, £544,922, put and agreed to.

Head No. 19.—“Operating Expenses”, £704,384, put and agreed to.

Head No. 20.—“General Charges”, £55,015, put and agreed to.

Head No. 21.—“Superannuation”, £29,314, put and agreed to.

Head No. 22.—“Depreciation”, £209,879, put and agreed to.

On Head No. 23.—“Lighthouses, Beacons, Bells and Signal Stations”, £81,521.

I would like to know the position in connection with lighthouse fees which have been suspended during the war. Is the Minister in a position to tell us whether lighthouse fees were suspended for the war period. Are the fees being charged?

Yes.

On what basis?

The standard basis.

Head No. 23, as printed, put and agreed to.

Head No. 24.—“Interest on Capital”, £758,428, put and agreed to.

Head No. 25.—“Miscellaneous Expenditure”, £290,537, put and agreed to.

Steamships:

Head No. 26.—“Working and, Maintenance”, £989,000, put and agreed to.

Head No. 27.—“Miscellaneous Expenditure”, £3,000, put and agreed to.

Airways:

Head No. 28.—“Working and Maintenance”, £244,353, put and agreed to.

Head No. 29.—“Interest on Capital”, £12,887, put and agreed to.

Head No. 30.—“Miscellaneous Expenditure”, £30,760, put and agreed to.

Aerodromes:

Head No. 31.—“Working and Maintenance”, £5,429, put and agreed to.

Head No. 32.—“Interest on Capital”, £3,521, put and agreed to.

Head No. 33.—“Miscellaneous Expenditure”, £1,050, put and agreed to.

Net Revenue Appropriation Account:

Head No. 34.—“Betterment Fund”, £500,000, put and agreed to.

Head No. 35.—“Deficiency in Pension and Superannuation Funds”, £487,000, put and agreed to.

The Committee proceeded to consider the Estimates of Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works on the South African Railways and Harbours, Head No. 1.—“Construction of Railways”, £453,059, put and agreed to.

On Head No. 2.—“New Works on Open Lines”, £4.324,332,

On page 11 certain work which is being done on the Beaufort West-De Aar section is referred to. I usually do not come to the House with local matters. I rather discuss them with the Department. I have time and again raised a certain matter with the System Manager, the General Manager, and also with the Minister. But as no progress has been made in the matter, I now feel myself compelled to mention it here. I am referring to a matter which has been under discussion for years and years. When I was at Beaufort West years ago complaints were made about the impossible position in respect of the bridge where one has to cross eight or nine lines to go from one part of the town to the other. I believe certain plans have already been drafted. The plans have been shown to me by the System Manager. They are beautiful blueprint plans. They are very pretty but no progress has been made beyond the plans. I would now like to know what is going to happen? Beaufort West is one of the biggest railway centres on the western section. Is the Minister in a position to give me any indication whether the work is being continued? The people at Beaufort West are very impatient and the position existing there is unhealthy.

I will go into the matter. At the moment I know nothing about it.

On page 3 provision is made for an amount of £1,200 in connection with the prevention of drift sand on the railway line to Saldanha. I just want to say that I am very glad that the railways are now giving attention to this difficulty. Trains are often delayed for hours because the staff have to remove the sand from the line with spades. How do they now intend keeping the sand from the line? Will it be done as in South-West Africa where in places tunnels of zinc are built over the line or in what manner will drift sands be prevented from coming on the line?

It is the idea to avoid delay by preventing drift sands to get onto the line.

How do you intend preventing it?

Trees may be planted and there are several other ways of preventing drift sand getting on to the line.

I have just now handed in a letter relating to Vryburg. My constituency adjoins Vryburg. The hon. member for Vryburg (Mr, De Kock) is not present and that is why I take the liberty of raising this matter. It is felt that the goods shed is too small and goods frequently have to lie in the rain. I notice that provision is made here for station buildings. I wonder whether sheds are included? I do not want a reply now to this matter; I merely would like the Minister to go into the matter.

I notice that several items are given here—take for example item number 48 on page 9—where the estimate is given in connection with expenditure on work but before any expenditure is incurred an additional amount is shown. One finds it throughout the book. What is the reason therefor? In some cases the additional amount is practically as large as the original estimate? Have the estimates not been properly drafted or what is the cause? There are for example items numbers 48 51, 54, 56, 58, 64, 81 and 118. One finds it in all these cases.

I would just like to say that very largely the increase in this particular case is due tö increased traffic requirements. The traffic has increased beyond the point visualised in the original estimate. A certain amount is also due to certain relay work.

In connection with item 327 on page 43 “long distance wireless stations” will the Minister just inform us what is intended? Where does he intend erecting wireless stations and what will be their range? The Minister will also find it under items 346 and 334.

This is in connection with providing alternative means of communication. The additional amount is due to increased cost of labour and materials, not included in the original estimates. It is for various wireless stations. In regard to Bloemfontein, that is also to provide for means of communication in the case of a break-down of the ordinary telegraph service.

May I again just ask the Minister whether he is in a position to inform me when a start will be made with the model township at Burghersdorp?

An announcement will be made during the current financial year, and it is estimated it will be complete in three years.

Head No. 2 put and agreed to.

On Head No. 3 — “Rolling Stock”, £472,420,

Reference is here made to two orders for locomotives. The one relates to 137 locomotives and the other to 290. The amount involved is approximately £8½ million. The relative cost per locomotive is much higher and we would like to know from the Minister how many of those locomotives have been built here and from what countries they are being imported.

We cannot build locomotives complete in this country yet. These are all locomotives to be imported with the exception of the 12 shunting locomotives at the bottom. Generally speaking, we are desperately short of locomotives and have to get them as quickly as possible.

In what countries are the orders being placed?

In Great Britain.

What about America?

America was not interested and referred us to Great Britain.

Could they not have been obtained in one of the continental countries?

Suggest one. There is only scrap iron there at the moment.

Head No. 3 put and agreed to.

Head No. 4.—“Road Motor Services”, £12,000, put and agreed to.

Head No. 5.—“Harbours”, £1,704,322, put and agreed to.

Head No. 7.—“Airways”, £5,000, put and agreed to.

Head No. 8.—“Aerodromes”, £605,000, put and agreed to.

Head No. 9.—“Working Capital”, £22,900, put and agreed to.

Head No. 10.—“Unforeseen Works”, £250,000, put and agreed to.

The Committee proceeded to consider the Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure from Revenue Funds.

Expenditure from Revenue Funds:

On Vote No. 4. — “Prime Minister and External Affairs”, £500,000,

At this late hour and at the end of the Session I do not want to repeat our remarks on this matter made in a previous discussion. But it is nevertheless necessary before this vote is agreed to, to point out to the Minister that he has not given sufficient information to us in connection with Unrra. We want to ask the Minister to keep in mind the objections raised by us so that in the future, if he is still in power next year, he may give us more information when this matter is again raised. From our side there is no objection to relief of distress but we want to know how the money is spent. In regard to the expending of the money we want to point out to the Minister that a little while ago in a speech in the City Hall at Cape Town on a Sunday afternoon he emphasised that tolerance should be cultivated in the world.

I warned against malice.

Against malice and lust for revenge. We ask him to use his influence towards the utilisation of these funds for relief of distress in all the stricken countries of Europe, including Germany, especially for the civilian population, and that all such countries receive their share.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 17.—“Union Education”, £50,500, put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 20.—“Transport”, £59,000,

In regard to the purchase of motor cars I would suggest something should be done about buying new cars standing in this country. A number of new cars were bought from dealers in America, and the local dealers refused to allow them to sell their cars which had been standing here for two or three years. They feel that if the Government wants cars they should buy the new cars being held in the country rather than pay full price for these cars imported from overseas. I understand a considerable number of cars have to be held for official purposes. This means a certain number of dealers have these new cars and cannot dispose of them, and there has been a definite grievance.

As far as this money is concerned, I am only concerned with the pool. Once they are disposed of they have nothing to do with me. I am told there are no new cars in the hands of any dealers and they are all in the pool.

Is that really correct, is that within the last month or so? If so I am satisfied.

My information twice during the Session was that there were no new cars in the hands of dealers in this country.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 28.—“Social Welfare”, £78,500,

May the Committee have some information as to the item of £500, Legal Aid Bureau? Where does that institute exist?

The position is certain assistance in respect of legal aid has been provided by certain organisations which have received a subsidy from the Social Welfare Department. During last year I had discussions with the law societies of the four provinces, and it was decided that in future they would undertake this work. Committees would be formed representative of all interested in this work and a subsidy would be given to each provincial law society. Last year the amount we had on the estimates was £2,000. The Treasury has increased that amount by £500. There is also an amount of £250 made available to the Durban Legal Aid Association which has not been spent, and there is another amount of £250 unspent. We shall have £3,000 available for the four law societies of the Union for the coming year.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 31.—“Mines”, £10,000, put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 41.—“Native Affairs”, £14,750,

An amount of £2,750 is appropriated here as a grant to the City Council of Cape Town for a reception depot for natives. Is the Minister in a position to tell us where it is being provided?

The hon. member will remember that the City Council of Cape Town undertook to make temporary arrangements for a reception depot for natives by using the huts of the Defence Department. It is being provided at Langa. It is done on a basis of sub-economic housing and we contribute to the costs thereof. The amount is £8,000 and our share of it is £2,750. It is only a temporary provision which is being made. Later on they will make permanent provision in respect of which an amount of £130,000 will be spent. The ground abuts railway land and the matter is still being discussed.

In regard to Item “K” I imagine this was budgeted for before the report of Dr. Latsky on his visit to the Ciskei. I wonder whether the Minister has had occasion to alter the amount put down here.

This naturally does not cover the period of the last report. Originally only £3,000 was put on the main estimates, and in view of the fact that the South Ciskeian areas had a long drought it was found necessary to provide an extra amount. If it is found necessary, in view of the continued drought to find more money, I am certain the Minister of Finance will find the extra funds to see that no starvation takes place.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 42.—“Commerce and Industries”, £51,700,

I notice that an amount of £40,000 is here appropriated as part of an amount of £100,000 which will be used for the building of a research ship to take the place of the “Africana”. I shall be pleased if the Minister will give us more information in that regard.

This was intended to replace the old “Africana”, which was taken over by the Defence Department six years ago. She will be considerably bigger and she will be fully equipped with laboratory equipment, and she will be engined and designed to allow her to stay at sea for considerably longer periods than the old ship. Her tonnage will be about 1,400 tons. The total cost will be about £100,000, but it is not expected that building will commence before the third quarter of this year, so we will not be expected to find more than £40,000 before the end of the financial year.

Will it be built in the Union?

No, not in the Union.

In connection with this £40,000 as part of the amount of £100,000 for a new research ship to take the place of the “Africana”, it is of course something in respect of which we would not like the costs to be cut down. Our coastline is so long that it is impossible for one research ship to carry out all the work within a reasonable time. The Africana was unable to do it and even though this ship will be more effective it will not with its officials be able to cover the whole area. South Africa has large supplies of fish along its coast and the need for research is so great that we feel that the Government should take steps to obtain more ships to do this work.

In connection with item O, “House-building Research Institute”, £8,000, I want to point out that we passed legislation during this Session in connection with a Scientific Research Council. Is there no overlapping?

No, the Scientific Research Council is the coordinating body.

Does the Fuel Research Institute fall under it? It is not clear what the position is.

As explained in my second reading speech the Scientific Research Institute is the coordinating body.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 43. — “Agriculture”, £12,000, put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 45.—“Agriculture (General)”, £1,010,900,

In connection with the item relating to the importation of mealies I would like to know from the Minister whether mealies will be imported and what will be the price. Then I would also like to know whether compensation will be paid for the mealies which were destroyed last year on stations.

That was the previous year. We are importing 25,000 tons of mealies from Kenya. The price will probably be a little higher than our price. We are paying a subsidy of 2s. 6d. in the Union. We must also pay importation costs.

Are you expecting a short crop?

Our crop will be short. We have curtailed as far as possible and we must as far as possible import to supplement the shortage.

Are you also importing from the Argentine?

As to the Argentine we must to a large degree use our shipping space for the importation of wheat. We have to import nearly a million bags from Canada and the Argentine. We endeavour in the first instance to obtain our mealies nearer to us.

Would the Minister indicate to what extent he may be able to meet the pressure that was brought to bear upon him by the dairy industry representatives who waited upon him recently, from Natal, the Free State and the Transvaal, in regard to the subsidies proposed here.

This is only a subsidy on imported condensed milk.

I should like to know whether the Minister would not endeavour to husband his own dairy industry by doing more for them and so avoid this expensive importation.

I gave a full reply to the question raised by my hon. friend on Saturday in the course of the debate. I think I replied in Afrikaans, and it was not fully reported. The whole position with regard to our local production is that the Government has on two occasions given an increase in the price of factory milk, including condensed milk, and the whole matter has been further investigated through the Marketing Council. I expect a final report next month, and when it is available the whole position of the prices of factory milk will be gone into. We are most anxious to conserve our own supplies and to stimulate them as much as possible. I also indicated to the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) that I had asked the Dairy Board to go into this question to find out to what extent it might be possible to divert milk for industrial purposes to increase the supply of fresh milk. I sympathise with the hon. member, and we are going fully into the matter to see what steps we can take to improve the position.

Is it not true that it is cheaper to import mealies from the Argentine than from Kenya?

No, the cost is very much higher in respect of the Argentine.

Then I also want to know from the Minister, in connection with the importation of mealies, whether thorough steps will be taken to ensure that weeds are not imported with the mealies. Will steps be taken to ensure that we do not import tropical weeds?

We shall keep a good eye on it.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 47. — “Adjustment of Salaries, Wages and Allowances”, £1,440,000 put and agreed to.

I think I should say just a word about this. The provision here made is for the purpose of making it possible to pay a special sessional allowance of £150 to members of the Senate who are not Ministers, and on the next Vote similar provision is proposed in respect of the House of Assembly. Hon. members are aware that more than once during the Session the question has been raised of the allowances payable to members of Parliament. Similar questions, I may say, have been raised in other countries. Two main proposals have been made at various times; one proposal was that special provision should be made to assist in meeting the additional costs incurred by members in these abnormal times, having regard to the fact such provision has been made in respect of our public servants, for instance. The other proposals that have been made from time to time were of a more permanent nature. At the present moment the allowance is fixed at £700 a year, and proposals have been made that the law should be changed so that it should be fixed at a higher figure. In that connection the question has also been raised in regard to the payment of income tax on members’ allowances. The Government has considered these matters, and has come to the conclusion that at the present moment it is not opportune to deal with these permanent questions, and that for the present we should make provision on the lines I have indicated here, leaving open the permanent matters for subsequent consideration. What we propose, therefore, in respect of this current Session of Parliament, is that there shall be paid this special sessional allowance. I do not think, Mr. Chairman, I need state the case in detail for this proposal. I think it is generally recognised that costs have gone up against members of Parliament as against other people, and it is reasonable that provision should be made therefor. In determining the amount of the provision, we have been guided by what has been done in the case of public servants who draw a comparable amount from the Exchequer. We have just passed a vote providing for the adjustment in the case of public servants. That is in terms of the Centlivres Interim Report. A public servant who is in receipt of a salary of £700 today receives £98 by way of cost of living allowance and £50 by way of special war allowance. In other words he receives £148 in all per annum. We have merely rounded off that figure at £150 and have chosen that as the appropriate amount to pay members of Parliament in respect of the current Session. I think perhaps I should refer to the fact that this will not cover Ministers. Minister’s salaries are not voted either on the Senate or the House of Assembly votes. They are voted on the individual votes. The Government felt that provision should not be made for Ministers in this way, but that, Mr. Chairman, does not exclude the possibility of the position of Ministers in respect of their emoluments being considered in conjunction with any consideration of a permanent change so far as Members of Parliament are concerned. Hon. members are probably aware that originally in 1910, at the time of Union, the salary of the Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa was fixed at £4,000 per annum and the salaries of Ministers of the Crown at £3,000. In 1914, during the last great war, it was agreed to reduce these salaries by £500 per annum in each case. There has never, Mr. Chairman, been a restoration of that amount. I have myself, when I was not a Minister, expressed the view that there is something inequitable about the position in that regard, but in any case if that aspect of the matter is considered I think that the right time to consider it would be in conjunction with a proposal of placing the temporary increase in the emoluments of members of Parliament on a permanent basis.

At this stage, Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to indicate the grounds of my opposition to this item, but I shall vote against it. I think it more fitting and perhaps less open to objection that whatever views I may have to express in regard to the inopportunness of the proposed grant to members of both Houses of Parliament, I should state them on a vote which refers to the House of which I am a member. I do not want to be accused of referring to this matter in relation to the Other Place of which I am not a member. May I mention that the point referred to by the hon. the Acting Prime Minister of the temporary character of the increase is one that received the consideration of the Senate as far back as 1920 when a similar temporary increase was proposed. It was first of all ruled to be in conflict with Section 56 of the South Africa Act which provides for the fixing of the salary of members of Parliament at a definite amount. The point was ultimately overcome by the allowance being made clearly a temporary one. The same provision for a temporary allowance has been made now in the present instance. It is said that this is a special sessional allowance for the 1945 Session but I want to point out, Sir, that when that matter was debated in the Senate in 1920 attention was drawn to the fact that unless the amount was revoted at another Session it ceased to have effect. The ruling given was in the following terms. The allowance provided under Section 56 of the South Africa Act was permanent and could only be varied by amending legislation and unless the temporary allowance was revoted the next Session and ratified by the Annual Appropriation Act it would lapse, but as long as it was voted every year and was ratified, the provisions of the South Africa Act were ipso facto modified. It seems clear from that that this vote may not be repeated every year, for if that occurred it would be a modification of the South Africa Act. Mr. Chairman, I wish to say nothing more at this stage, but when the next vote is under consideration I shall give my reasons for voting against it.

Vote put and a division called.

As fewer than ten members (viz.: Messrs. Christopher and Marwick) voted against the Vote, the Chairman declared it agreed to.

On Vote No. 3.—“House of Assembly”, £21,300,

Mr. Chairman, my principal reason for opposing this item is that I consider the present time inopportune for the voting of any amount towards the allowance of hon. members whether that addition be temporary or permanent. At the last General Election we were asked to support a measure of social security, and most of us gave a pledge at the election to the principle of social security. At this very moment there are two items on the Order Paper which are to stand down for the present Session and which are of considerable importance in providing at least one instalment of social security for afflicted persons. Mr. Chairman, item No. 4 deals with the old Age Pension Amendment Bill and item No. 5 with the Blind Persons Amendment Bill. We have been led to understand that both of these measures were intended to implement the social security promises or pledges that were made in the Budget in respect of these afflicted classes of persons. Now, Sir, in so far as another class is concerned, during the present Session we were told that there are 594 widows of the present war in South Africa who lost their husbands whilst their husbands were serving in the army but who receive no pension whatsoever. Now, in additioin to this, we have to bear in mind those parents, widows and other dependants who were included among the “rejected death claims up to 1944”. I asked the question last year in how many cases was no award made by the Military Pensions Board under Section 17 of the War Pensions Act in respect of husband, wife, son or daughter who was killed or died whilst serving in the army, and the reply was 885 rejected death claims. I take it, Sir, that the number of 594 widows will fall to be subtracted from the 885 death claims. 594 are widows and the difference will be in respect of parents or other relatives. Now, Sir, my view is that these matters are of the greatest possible urgency, that if a grant or award is to be made towards the cost of living and the necessitous circumstances of persons, these people whom I have just referred to stand far ahead of the hon. members of this House. When I deal with that matter I wish to make no reflection upon any hon. member of this House. I look upon the question in this way that this matter is one which primarily concerns a member and his constituents. His constituents send him to this House to represent their views and in the ultimate end they are among the taxpayers who pay his remuneration. As a member with some considerable experience of constituents I want to say that one’s constituents are usually easy taskmasters. They are not exacting in regard to what is done for them, but in relation to the question of pay, as paymasters, they treat the matter as a comparative one. They say: “What is right, fitting and sufficient for a member of Parliament?” and in arriving at their decision they consider the many classes who are around them who possibly have served the country in the time of its greatest need but who suffer acutely, and I venture to say at this stage in view of the suffering people such as the widows and the other persons who have lost relatives, and who receive no pensions, the pensioners who have received insufficient awards, and all the blind persons and the old-age pensioners, my constituents would dissapprove of increased Parliamentary allowance. I consider therefore that in those circumstances it is preferable that this vote should stand over and I shall vote accordingly.

Vote put and a division called.

As fewer than ten members (viz.: Messrs. Christopher and Marwick) voted against the Vote, the Chairman declared it agreed to.

A small amount is added here to a large amount which was already voted last year. An amount of £1,750,000 was voted previously, but it was hot spent, but now the question arises why there was such a delay and why the work which had been approved of, was not carried out. Is it due to a shortage of material or personnel or what?

The reason was that as building controller I had to stop some of these Government works in order to get on with private building. That is the reason. On the present estimates we have over £2,000,000 which we intended to spend, revotes amount to £1,700,000 and new works £259,000, which represent an additional expenditure in future years of 2½ million. All this work is essential, but whether we will be able to get on with it to the extent we would like to depends upon circumstances such as the supply of labour and of material.

These proposals seem to be essential.

They are all essential. That is why they have been placed on the estimates.

It is a local matter I want to raise, but it is of the utmost importance. On page 13 I find an amount for a new Post Office at Upington. Last year the Minister informed us that it would appear in the estimates, but nothing has been done up to now. The position is very unsatisfactory. The officials have to work in that climate under very strenuous conditions, and I hope that the Minister can now give me the assurance that a start will be made shortly with the building of the Post Office.

. I happen to know all about Upington. I visited the place myself and I hope to get on with the work as speedily as possible.

On page 5 under “Prisons” an amount is being asked for my village. The new gaol will be much bigger than the old one. Is it the intention to lodge a larger number of prisoners there? It is of importance to our village, because convict labour is much in demand.

The hon. member cannot discuss the question of convict labour. He can only discuss prisons.

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote C. — “Telegraphs and Telephones”, £1,750,000, put and agreed to.

Loan Vote D. — “Lands and Settlements”, £1,000,000, put and agreed to.

On loan vote E,—“Irrigation”, £1,100,000.

I notice an amount of nearly £6,000,000 here which is going to be spent on Government irrigation works, and I would like to have some information, but there is not the slightest hope of my obtaining the information, because the Minister of Lands and Irrigation has severed diplomatic relations with me. We are at war. He does not reply to me. Well whether we are at war or not, I do not see any amount on this vote for the Seekoei River scheme. That is a scheme which the Minister promised in 1943, just prior to the election. Then he said—

That was just prior to the 1943 election. This year I asked the Minister once more what progress he has made with the scheme. He said that a survey had been undertaken. I asked him further when he intended to make a start with the scheme. Then he informed me that a decision had not been taken as to the date of commencement. I asked a second question, because two of the Minister’s officials had been there. I asked the Minister whether two officials had met the people, the riparian owners on the Seekoei River recently, and whether an agreement had been arrived at as between the Department of Irrigation and the people there. I then asked the Minister wether he would be prepared to make a start with the building of the scheme, and if not, why not. The reply was: I want to refer the hon. member to my reply to the debate on the Lands Vote. What was the reply he gave? Remember I had put two questions to him also concerning the Riet River scheme, where the Minister has four hundred morgen irrigable land under the scheme. When I disclosed this at the time, the Minister told me that I should withdraw my allegation against him, otherwise he would not reply to me. He further stated that if I wanted further information, I could ask for it and he would write to me from his office. I subsequently wrote to the Department of Irrigation to supply me with the necessary information, and the Minister refused. He prevented the Department of Irrigation from replying to me. I want to say this afternoon in fairness towards the Department of Irrigation and the Director of Irrigation and his personnel and the Department of Lands that those Departments have always treated me with every courtesy, and I want to state emphatically that I do not want to cast any reflection on them. Why is the Minister not prepared to reply to me? Because last year he stated that 50 morgen irrigable land was sufficient for one farmer, and he has 400 morgen. He came here and told us that he has 8 farms with 50 morgen irrigable land each, but he cound only mention seven. When I referred to a concrete furrow which has been built from one of his farms and when I put a further question, he refused to reply in this House, and the Department is also not allowed to reply to me to this question—

I also asked what labour had been employed and what the expenditure was and who the owner or owners of the farm or farms are. That is what he wants to keep a secret. My point today is that under the Riet River scheme an amount of £31,000 is going to be spent next year again. If a concrete furrow has already been built on the Minister’s farm and other people make application and cannot get the same privilege, how do I know how the £31,000 is going to be spent? Do you realise how undesirable it is that a Minister should hold so much land under an irrigation scheme? But that is not all. I made mention of the way the Minister came into possession of that land. I said that the farm Bloubank was he property of a certain Mr. Coetzee, but a Mr. Krige had a hire purchase option on the farm. The Minister at the time took over the option and I said that he had paid £500 for the option. The Minister subsequently discussed the matter and according to the Hansard report he stated—

Do you know what the Minister told the House? He said that he had to pay £100 for the option, but after stating that, he goes and changes the £100 to, £250 in the Hansard report. I can bring the hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig) as a witness and he is prepared to make a sworn statement to the effect that the Minister mentioned £100. But I can also bring witnesses from his own side. The hon. member for North East Rand (Mr. Heyns) said that I had told a lie. The Chairman called him to order and the hon. member for North East Rand then gave an explanation why he thought I had been telling a lie. He said—

The hon. member rose and accused me that I told a lie because I mentioned an amount of £500, whilst the Minister had stated that he only paid £100. Then the Minister went and changed the Hansard report from £100 to £250. Can that be permitted? As I understand the rules of the House facts cannot be changed. Verbal alterations are allowed, but facts cannot be altered. But I do not care tuppence whether the Minister is prepared to reply to me or not. He has his own way of retreating. Let him do as he likes. I am standing here in the interests of my constituents in regard to the Seekoei River scheme, and most of them are supporters of the Government. I am advocating their interests. The Minister can reply or can refuse to reply, and I leave it to my constituents to judge the Minister’s actions.

On page 24 I notice an amount of £8,000 on the estimates for the “Leeubosdam”, Rietfontein, Gordonia. The Minister promised that dam some years ago and last year an amount was placed on the estimates. Last year there was an amount of £7,000 on the estimates. I would like to know whether the work has been taken in hand. Last year in November, according to my information, the material arrived there, but the work had not been commenced at the time.

They are busy there now.

I am glad to hear that from the Minister. The general impression is that the Department is very slow. The coloured settlers are also dissatisfied because the understanding was that they would receive preference when this work was undertaken.

They receive preference.

In order to remove a misunderstanding, I think the Minister should make a statement in regard to the dam near that settlement.

The cost of that dam is estimated at £15,000. First an amount of £5,000 was made available and now we are asking for an additional £8,000. The coloured settlers receive preferencce. Quite an amount of work has been done, but then the water came down very strongly and a lot of damage occurred.

And they said that there was no water. Is it an earthen wall which is being made?

Yes, but the engineers advise that it will hold out.

I want to ask the Minister to visit my constituency and to have a look at the flood damage there.

Under what item is the hon. member raising this matter?

Irrigation works.

The hon. member must speak on a specific item.

There is an item “Vaal River Development”. A fortnight ago the Minister stated that he was awaiting legal advice. Can he now tell us what the position is?

No, the hon. member cannot go into that question now.

I do not want to take part in the dispute between the hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) and the Minister of Lands. I want to point out however that the hon. member is speaking here on behalf of his constituency, and I think the hon. the Minister cannot refuse to reply when a member is speaking on behalf of his constituency. It is not fair towards the constituents. I should like the hon. the Minister to reconsider his position. The hon. member does not put a question as Boltman vs. Conroy, but he approaches the Minister of the Crown as a representative of a constituency.

If the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) puts those questions, I am prepared to reply. It is quite correct that a survey has been under-, taken of the dam near the Seekoei River and that a suitable spot for the dam has been found. But the land is not sufficient. There are only bits and pieces. The Irrigation Commission went to Hanover and discussed the matter with the people interested in the scheme, and have convinced them that it is impossible to build the dam there. The hon. member for Albert-Colesberg instead of being there to look after the interests of his people, was busy rummaging in the rubbish heap. The people are quite satisfied. We have informed them that we are prepared to investigate the feasibility of erecting pumping installations on the river to irrigate these small bits and pieces of land.

I object to the remarks of the hon. the Minister. In the absence of the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) he says that the hon. member was rummaging in the rubbish heap. Apparently the hon. the Minister of Lands has an obsession to call people names. He rose to reply in an underhand way, but that is not the way of an honest man of courage to pass remarks concerning an hon. member in that way.

I do not want to lecture, and I do not want to take part in the private dispute between the hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) and the Minister of Lands. Accusations are flung across the floor by the Minister against a member representing a constituency, and the matter has now taken a turn affecting the honour of this House. It seems to me that the Chairman should take notice. If the statement of the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg is correct, he wrote to the Minister’s Department for information, and the Minister has prohibited his officials to supply the information. That is a serious restriction on the rights of members. How is a member to do his work for the people he represents? If that procedure is to be followed, it will have serious repercussions on the rights of members of this House.

I am quite prepared to tell the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) what the position actually is. When my vote was under discussion, the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) made certain allegations concerning seven farms. He went so far as to mention the names of the farms, and I told him that I have the water of eight farms. Seven of the farms belong to me. I added that I had bought Grootkoppieskraal and Kleinkoppieskraal and that I also had the water rights of another farm which had been sold without water rights. The hon. member accused me of obtaining the water rights in an unjust way. I made an explanation to the House and I said that the hon. member’s accusations were without foundation. He went further and said that I was the only män along the river who has a concrete canal to his farm, in other words, that I had built the canal at Government expense, and that I was the only farmer who had such a furrow. I told him that this accusation was as baseless as the other accusations he had made in regard to the seven farms. I then stated that I refused to go any further into the matter until the hon. member had apologised to me for the false statements he had made, and that if he wanted information, he could write to my office. He did so. He wrote a letter to the Director of Irrigation asking for further information in regard to the concrete canal in connection with which matter I had already told him that his accusations were false and baseless, and in connection with which I had refused to reply. Now he states that I refuse to supply him with information. If a member is out to throw dirt at me, then I refuse to reply. I refuse to reply because I referred him to the reply I had given to the House.

What about the £250?

The hon. member also stated that I had paid £500 for the option on Bloubank. I replied that I had paid £100 for the option. I was under the impression that I had paid £100. Next morning I found that I had paid £250 and I gave instructions to my private secretary to correct the Hansard report to £250. Anybody has the right to correct his speech and in view of the fact that I had given a wrong figure I corrected same.

As far as my recollection goes there was a ruling in connection with the previous member for Bethal, who desired to remove certain things from his speech and was not allowed to do so, because there were members who were prepared to state under oath that he had said what he subsequently wanted to remove from his speech. Here I am accused of telling a lie, and I want to know whether the Minister has the right to alter such an important item. If I had not noticed this by accident, what would have been my position? Now the Minister is again running away from the question of the concrete furrow. I want to repeat that he is the only owner who has a concrete furrow to his farm.

That is wrong.

The main canal may be of concrete in certain places, but we are now referring to the furrow to the land under irrigation. The position is that during the discussions the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) wanted to intimate that I had supplied false information. He asked whether I had stated that the Minister had his concrete furrows made at the expense of the State. Does the Minister deny that the concrete furrow was made at the expense of the State? I do not suggest that it was irregular, but why does he want to deny that the concrete furrow was built at Government expense? For a full year there was a long row of tents there when the furrow was being constructed. The concrete furrow was built to the additional 50 morgen. If one has a clean case and a clean conscience, one does not hesitate to come forward with the true facts. The fact that the Minister does not want to reply to me, will confirm the opinion held by the people outside.

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote F.—“Local Works and Loans”, £6,787,000, put and agreed to.

Loan Vote G.—“Land and Agricultural Bank”, £50,000, put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote H.—“Forestry”, £1,125,000,

Provision is made here for afforestation. A lot of damage was suffered as a result of mountain fires and I want to know from the Minister what has been done to restore the position.

The fires observed by the hon. member, were not all fires in our plantations. Here near Cape Town for instance the greatest amount of damage did not occur in our plantations. We are doing our utmost to go on with the afforestation where we can and all possible precautions against mountain fires are taken.

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote J.—“Agriculture”, £250,000 put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote K.—“Labour”, £50,000,

I notice that the Minister of Labour is present. Dr. Bennet was in our country and we realise now the great importance of ante-soil erosion. Notwithstanding that, we observe that there is a decrease of £8,000 on this vote in regard to anti-soil erosion. We have to come to grips with this problem. The Minister has given us the assurance that there are no unemployed in the country. Apparently this subsidy is in regard to unemployment and we would like to have an explanation.

My hon. friend is anxious to know about this decrease in wage subsidies in respect of anti-soil erosion works. As my hon. friend knows, these subsidies are given to farmers; the farmers decide their soil erosion works, and we subsidise the labour for them. If they increase their efforts in that direction we will increase the subsidy.

I want to ask the Minister whether my information is correct that Mr. Van Rensburg who was touring the country showing a film dealing with soil erosion is no longer travelling round and that that work has been put a stop to. I would like to know from the Minister whether my information is correct and whether that is the case.

I have already replied to that question when I was replying to the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren). I also issued a full statement to the Press. I will send my reply to the hon. member. The position is that we have not discontinued propaganda work in connection with soil erosion, but we intend to effect a change in the propaganda. We want to make it more of a positive nature. We are now in a transition period to a new phase.

Are you going to employ Mr. Van Rensburg again, because he has been doing good work?

I do not say that he has not done good work. I have nothing against his work, and his position will be considered in relation to the whole campaign.

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote L. — “Assistance to Farmers”, £250,000, put and agreed to.

On Loan vote M.—“Defence”, £37,125,000,

It is not necessary for me to tell the House where we as an Opposition stand in regard to this amount. It is part of war expenditure in the current financial year. Part of it is found from ordinary income, and the balance on loan account. I want to avail myself of the opportunity to state formally on behalf of the Opposition that we are definitely opposed to this loan expenditure for war expense, in accordance with the policy followed by us ever since 1939.

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote N.—“Commerce and Industries”, £388,600, put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote O. — “Public Health”, £5,060,000,

I notice that the Minister is absent, but here we are asked to vote a huge amount for housing, namely £5,000,000. In the previous year an amount of £1,250,000 was voted and now an increase of £3,250,000 is bugeted for. The explanation reads that this is an amount for housing loans, special advances under Acts 35 of 1920 and 68 of 1934. Are these loans for national houses which are now going to be built? Then there is another amount of £23,000,000 to which the Minister referred in his speech. Is that for housing loans for which municipal councils have to apply?

Yes.

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote P. — “South African Mint”, £28,500, put and agreed to.

Loan Vote Q.—“Native Affairs”, £186,000, put and agreed to.

Loan Vote R. — “Governor-General’s National War Fund”, £850,000, put and agreed to.

Loan Vote S.—“Transport”, £400,000, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The Committee has agreed to the Estimates of Expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund without amendment, the Estimates of Expenditure from Railway and Harbour Funds without amendment, the Estimates of Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works, South African Railways and Harbours without amendment, the Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure from Revenue Funds without amendment, the Second Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure from Revenue Funds without amendment and the Estimates of Expenditure from Loan Funds without amendment.

Report considered, and the Estimates of Expenditure [U.G. 1—’45; U.G. 5—’45; U.G. 6—’45; U.G. 25—’45; U.G. 27—’45; U.G. 16—’45], adopted without amendment.

Mr. SPEAKER appointed the Minister of Finance and the Chairman of Committees a Committee to bring up the necessary Bill or Bills in accordance with the Estimates of Expenditure adopted by the House.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE brought up the Report of the Committee, submitting two Bills.