I move—

I should like to ask a question in regard to this Bill.

There can be no discussion on a first reading.

I suppose I can ask a question.

The motion must be put without amendment or debate.

I will take another opportunity later then.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a first time ; second reading on 26th May.

I move—

seconded.

I rise once more to utter a word of protest against the procedure of the Government in coming forward in the last days of the session with a measure of this kind. We have not seen this Bill dealing with the amendment of the constitution of the Senate— we have not seen it, and the public have not seen it. Nobody in South Africa knows what is proposed. The Government cannot plead that this is a matter of extreme urgency which has been sprung upon them at the last moment, because last year they told us that they were going to deal with the powers of the Senate, and curb the powers of the Senate in regard to Bills which have been passed by this House. So that the Government have been for more than 12 months contemplating legislation of some kind or other. Not only in this House have threats been made continually against the Senate, but outside on public platforms, too. The Government had ample time to introduce a Bill of this kind at an earlier stage of the session. They wait until the last dying days of the session. We do not know what is proposed. We are dealing with a matter of very grave importance ; nobody can say that the constitution of this country is not a matter of importance. Everybody knows that in the National Convention the constitution of the Senate was one of the matters that gave us most trouble. We are asked now at this stage of the session to take up this matter. We have no time to consider these matters any more. We sit in the morning, we sit in the afternoon, and we sit at night, and on Bills of which the country has not been informed, and on which the public have not been consulted we are forced to sit until the early hours of the morning to the great discomfort of everybody. It is impossible in the circumstances to give serious and proper attention to these matters. I would ask the Prime Minister not to deal with this House or the country in this way. To me it seems to be nothing but contempt for public opinion. Are the public not interested in these matters? Have the public of South Africa not to know about these things? We are asked to deal with the constitution of this country, and the constitution of the Senate without any Bill having been published, and without anybody outside the circle of the Cabinet knowing what is in that Bill. I say that shows levity ; it shows contempt for public opinion; it shows that the Government do not want this House to give serious attention to these matters. I protest against our having to deal with these very difficult matters in this way. If the matter is important, as I have no doubt it is, let it stand over until next session, but do not let us at this stage, when we have no proper time or proper mind to attend to these things, deal with a subject so complex and so difficult and so important as this is. I protest against the way the Prime Minister and the Government are treating us. For a long time during this session our time has been taken up with Bills of a secondary or third-rate character, and now at the end we have flung before us contentious measures of first-rate importance. There is this Senate Bill, we are threatened with a Bill about shipping rings, we have the Fruit Export Control Bill, and I do not think we are treated fairly, or that the country is treated fairly by the procedure which the Government are adopting now. I cannot believe that in the Senate reform there can be such urgency that we should be called upon in the dying days of the session to deal with the matter, and I hope that at this late stage the Government will see that it is not the proper way to treat either this House or the country, and that the Prime Minister will see that if this matter is to be dealt with it should be published to the country. Let the public have an opportunity to form an opinion, and to express it, otherwise I can only come to the conclusion that this Bill is introduced in sheer contempt of public opinion in this country, like several other matters which the Government have introduced recently. I hope the Government will not go on with this measure.

I want to say in the first place that I think the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) will excuse me if I refer back to so many measures as he on investigation will see, though of far greater importance were passed by this Government from time to time when there was much less opportunity for discussion than is now the case.

Not at the end of the session.

I assure him that matters were passed here by his Government after only a few days’ notice. As for his chief argument, I want to ask whether he is not a little premature. The hon. member for Standerton does not know the contents. It will, therefore, be best for him first to wait and see what is in the Bill, and when we know what the contents are it will possibly be time for the House to say that the measure ought to stand over.

Why was such an important Bill not published ?

As I have just said, the hon. member does not know what the contents are. It will, of course, be printed and published. It is, however, possible that the provisions are of such a nature that the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) will not take longer than two hours to see precisely what the Bill aims at and what it embraces. That is, however, a matter which only concerns the Bill, and a discussion of it is appropriate at the second reading, when every member has the Bill before him and knows what it contains. Adequate time will be given, and, if necessary, we can sit longer. There is no necessity to stop within a definite time, but we think the work still ahead can be done within ten or twelve days.

Why was not such an important Bill published for the information of the public ? We represent the public. And how can we do justice to legislation when we sit from 10-30 in the morning until late in the night ?

In other places they sit much longer than we do. I think my answer to the hon. member for Standerton is complete, that he is too premature and must wait for the second reading. Then we can further discuss what should be done.

In answer to what the Prime Minister has said with reference to the conduct of the former Government, I must say that in all my parliamentary experience, there was not one session where members were asked during the last days of the session to deal with matters of the utmost importance to the people of South Africa. At the moment there are five outstanding Bills on the Order Paper, and the one for which leave to introduce is now being asked is one of the most important. There are, e.g., the South African Nationality and Flag Bill, the Regulation of the Perishable Products Export Control Bill, the Ocean Freights Control Bill, the Members of Parliament Salaries Bill, and this Bill to amend section 63 of the Constitution (the Senate Bill). Recently, when the Prime Minister asked us to sit additional hours every day, he promised the House that besides the Bills already on the Order Paper no Bills of a contentious nature would be introduced, but only formal and administrative Bills. Before that time the matter of a change in the Senate had been mentioned, and the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) asked the Prime Minister whether that Bill was going to be introduced. The Prime Minister replied—

When the Prime Minister asked for an extension of the sitting hours I was clearly under the impression that the Senate Bill and the other Bills now being introduced would not be forced upon the House during the last days of the session. Do hon. members know that we are here occupied with a matter which is one of the most important constitutional matters with which Parliament can dealt Some years ago I had the honour to act as chairman of a conference. I do not want to go into the merits of the Bill, but I want to tell the Prime Minister that his Government is beginning to tinker with a matter of the greatest importance to the people of South Africa during the last few days of the session. It was clear to us at the conference how difficult it was to alter one jot or one tittle of the Constitution as laid down by the National Convention. A report was made by the conference on the matter that I, as chairman, stated that I did not think it was a complete report and that it would meet with the approval of the people of South Africa.

It was, therefore, stillborn.

The press generally welcomed the report.

What press ?

Even the press which the Minister supports was in favour of it.

That was never the case.

I acknowledge that it was a very difficult matter, and I felt at the time that the report would not satisfy the people of South Africa. We, however, did our best in the circumstances. The representatives at the conference deeply felt the importance of the matter. Now this Bill, for purely party reasons, is thrust upon the House during the last days of the session, a Bill affecting the rights of the people. The people do not even know the contents of it.

The people want it.

Are the actual interests of the people being looked after in this way ? The Minister of Defence stated from a public platform on Friday night that the Government was going to take action in connection with the Senate because the Government wanted its legislation to go through. The Union of South Africa has now existed for sixteen years, and this is the first session during that time that there has been a conflict between the House of Assembly and the Senate.

Why.

It was a conflict on a matter of vital importance to South Africa, a matter which was specially entrusted to the Senate, because under the Constitution there are special representatives in the Senate to look after the interests of the natives. Because there was a conflict on that great problem we have in the last days of the session to alter the constitutional provisions in connection with the representation in the Senate, and that for purely party reasons. The Constitution makes provision for conflict between the House of Assembly and the Senate, and the Government recently called in the highest body under the Constitution, viz., the Joint Sitting, and the views of the Government prevailed. I ask if there is any reason for action to alter the Constitution in such a radical way without consulting the people ? I felt during the conference that if ever we wanted to alter the Constitution as regards the Senate in a satisfactory manner we could only do so by means of a National Convention. It became clear to me that the people of South Africa would not consent to the abolition of the second chamber. It became clear to me while studying the question at the time—and I went into it thoroughly —that all the European countries who have abolished the second chamber subsequently decided to re-establish it, because it was felt that a time comes in history when the people require a second chamber. Whatever the alteration by this Bill may be, it will be of a comprehensive kind, and it is meant for party purposes. The Prime Minister is a man who has great respect for the opinion of the people and he has a democratic party behind him—

That is true.

That is what they tell the people. If ever there was autocratic action against the rights of the people then it is now in the last days of the session when the Government is trying to violate the rights of the people by forcing legislation on the House. The people outside should be given a chance to judge and to express their views. In this case it is autocratic action and a violation of the rights of the people. I agree with the hon. member for Standerton that we can do no more to-day than to protest in the House against the attempt which is being made to interfere with the rights of the people.

I do not know what is in the Bill so cannot speak about the merits. That was done by the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige). He condemns the Bill without having seen it. The hon. member and his leader complained that the Cabinet alone know as yet what the Bill contains, yet the hon. member himself can already say that the Bill violates the rights of the people. He therefore knows more than his leader. How has the hon. member learned what the Bill contains?

From Moscow.

Your Moscow is the Labour Party.

With that kind of Moscow I would like to collaborate.

Listen to that.

Yes, that Moscow since the Pact between the Nationalists and the Labour party has done much more for the interests of the Africander people and of the farmers in particular, than the hon. member for Caledon and his friends, who oppose all measures the Government introduced. But to return to the point, the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and also the hon. member for Caledon pretend that the former Government was not accustomed to introduce contentious measures towards the end of the session of Parliament. Their memories are weak. One of my grievances against the previous Government was that year after year without exception they introduced contentious matters towards the end of the session.

Not a matter of six.

Six and more. It is complained that the Government introduces a contentious Bill twelve days before Parliament is expected to rise. I remember a case when the former Government introduced a Bill one day before Parliament was expected to rise, which was intended to give the Government the right to limit rents and to dictate to farmers what kind of produce they should grow. That was a Bill of vital importance, and a member of the South African party (Sir Henry Stockenstroom) was the first to refer to the dangers contained in such a measure. There was then hardly a quorum in the House. Most of the members had gone home. With such a past South African party members must not talk about late introduction of Bills. The hon. member for Caledon characterizes the action of the Government in amending the Constitution of the Senate as a violation of rights. If that is a violation why did the South African party Government itself, when in office, appoint a Commission to consider amendments with regard to the Senate ? The South African party was strongly represented on that Commission with the hon. member for Caledon himself as chairman, and they proposed quite a number of alterations. Was that action also a violation of rights ? The old Government took no action upon the recommendations made by the Commission. That is no reason why the present Government should any longer postpone the matter. I do not want to say that the attitude of the hon. member for Caledon is hypocrisy, but it is certainly camouflage.

Whatever the sins of the last Government were in the matter, they are far exceeded by the present Government. Where have the South African party introduced so many Bills at the tail end of the session as this present Government ? There are five Bills of very great importance brought in near the end of the session, and that when we are sitting morning, afternoon and night. Have we not had the assurance of the Prime Minister some time since that only Bills of administrative effect would be brought in?

And this Bill.

The real truth is, it is marvellous how hon. members do change their principles completely when they get into power. In the old Free State every projected Bill had to be published some months in advance before it was introduced into the Volksraad, and members bad to go to the country and explain it to their constituents. As the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) pointed out, there has been absolutely no publication of these Bills. There is the Bill to provide for the payment of members—I would like hon. members opposite to explain that to their constituents—the greatest part do not dare to do so. Telegrams have come down protesting against this Bill. The real truth is this, that the Government is spoilt by the obedience of the majority at their backs, and their heads have been turned, so that they have done things that they would not have done twelve months ago. I do not think there has been a Government which has had such an obedient majority as the Prime Minister has. There is not one who dares to vote against the Government. The Minister of Railways and Harbours has brought forward a Bill he would not have dreamed of introducing twelve months ago.

Why don’t you sack the Government ?

It is not for us, but for the people of the country. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence talk about their representing the people of the country, but do they know that the votes cast for the South African party at the last election totalled 151,000?

There have been a good many defections since.

Let us go to the country to-morrow and see what the result is—we take up the challenge. The votes cast for the National party were 113,000, and for the Labour party 42,000. We represent quite a respectable number of people in this country, and the Government is at present showing contempt for people in the country. The Minister of Railways and Harbours knows perfectly well that the majority of the fruit growers are against his Bill.

The hon. member must not discuss that Bill now.

The Government has also shown contempt for this Parliament. How does the Prime Minister expect us to study these Bills ? I do not mind confessing that I spent all day yesterday studying them. That is not right—how do you expect hon. members to study all these Bills when we have to meet at 10.30 in the morning, and we do not know when we may get away again in the night. The present Government must suffer as a result of this contempt, and the country must suffer, because of the rushing through of legislation at this late hour—especially in regard to Bills which are not necessary, in our opinion, at this stage of the session. Furthermore, there are several of these Bill which could very much be improved if they would be referred to a select committee. Is there a single Bill, with the exception of one or two big ones like the Companies Bill or the Insolvency Bill, which have not been considerably altered in select committee? You get the interests concerned to put up their views there and influence the select committee considerably. Take the Shipping Control Bill, that most assuredly, in the public interest and fair play, should go to a select committee to let us take the evidence of the people concerned, but we have not the time to do it. We are quite prepared to assist, but not assist in matters of that kind.

In listening to the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Jagger), I could not help thinking that he must have been reading the speeches of hon. members on the cross-benches in the past. But we deferred our protests until the measures went to another stage. The hon. member made that little mistake. Another thing we would like to thank the hon. member for is his testimonial to us, his admission of the entire futility of the Opposition to disengage support from the Government. We value this more particularly in this high-sounding board of Parliament, where the futility of sowing discord in our ranks will be apparent to the whole country. At this stage it is perfectly ridiculous for these protests to be raised. It is the custom of Parliament to regard the introduction of a Bill as a formal motion, and the protests can be raised at another stage. If they talk about the time of the House being taken up, we have already spent three-quarters-of-an-hour on a formal matter.

The hon. Minister who has just sat down does not seem to have improved the position of the House. If the Minister desires to save its time, why should he have got on his feet at all ? Any change affecting the constitution must be a matter of very great importance, and surely it is advisable that not only members of this House but the country should have a chance of seeing what is proposed to be done. As to the argument used, that in the time of the South African Party Government measures were brought before the House at a late stage of the session, I do not know, as I was not here, but the Minister of Defence has just reminded us that he used to oppose matters of that kind. He ought not therefore to support them now. His argument is of the weakest. As far as the argument of the amount of support the Government has is concerned, I think, whatever support the Government may have had in the past, the Minister of Defence and members of the cross-benches will find, after the proceedings of the last few days, that that support is not as great as they seem to think.

I rise to contradict certain figures quoted by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), in regard to his statement that the majority of votes were cast for the South African party as compared with the Nationalist party. If we consider that there were two South African party members contesting Tembuland, two South African party contesting King William’s Town, also an Independent South African party at Albany, and five other Independents, you will find that the figures are reversed, and that the Nationalist party have the confidence of the country, as shown in votes cast at the last election.

I am afraid if the hon. member who has just spoken follows his leader and they go to the country to-day, he will find the figures are very much less than those given. The hon. member for Piquet-berg (Mr. de Waal) has twitted the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) with talking about a matter he knows nothing about. Well, if we are to listen to the Minister of Defence, we certainly know that the intention is to manipulate the Senate so that the Government can get its work through. The leader of the Labour party tells us that we have proved the entire futility of this party to take away the support of the Government, but if rumour is correct the government have not got his support on a very important measure, and if he is so certain that they have the support of the country, let him try it. I remember when the Minister of the Interior gave notice of the introduction of this Bill and somebody dared say something, he threw out his chest and practically said: You do not know how bad it is, how important it is. If rumour is correct he has already run away from a very important Bill, and is he going to do the same with this Bill after we have seen it ? I would like to ask, are we to set any store by the promises or the words of the leader of this House ? There is no doubt about it that he gave us the impression that no important Bills were to be brought forward.

This Bill was specially mentioned.

I know at one stage the Prime Minister said there might be a measure bringing in some alteration in the Senate, but he slurred it over, and I for one never thought it was going to be a measure of this nature. When the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), asked him on a later occasion, he really strengthened that opinion in our minds, and said most distinctly that only minor measures and administrative matters were going to be brought forward.

He again specially mentioned it.

I think the Minister is wrong. Then take the Fruit Bill. Whoever expected a contentious matter like that to be brought forward ? And at such a late hour ? A thing like that has never been done in this House before. It seems to me the Government cannot get away from this charge that they are playing with the country and showing their contempt for the country and Parliament, and I would like to ask: Is that the Government’s reply to the position the Opposition has taken up ? And to the way in which the Opposition has assisted the Government—to get certain important measures through ; the Company Bill, for instance ? That is only one of many measures.

Do you object to the Salary Bill ?

Perhaps the Minister will tell us when the Government decided on the alteration of the Senate. If it was within the last week, I could understand their not publishing the Bill, but if it was decided a month ago they might have published the Bill and the country might have seen it. The hon. member for Standerton asked the Prime Minister, a month ago, what is the nature of the alteration ? Give us particulars so that we may know where we are. That shows the attitude of the Government right through. I want to warn the Government that we will take up that challenge. Is that the way they are going to treat us and the House ? Shut your eyes and open your mouth and trust what you are going to get into it. That is the attitude the Government wants us to take up, and the country to swallow, because they say they represent the country. Let them go to the country. There are so many Bills, I have not been able to read a quarter of the measures brought in during the last fortnight or so. Surely we have a right to read and consider a Bill before it is put through Parliament, and of seeing where we stand. The public must know. That is the party that has always stated you should publish all your measures before you start. We cannot allow this measure to go through like that.

If hon. members had not taken up the attitude they did we should have known an hour ago what the contents of the Bill were. I only want to say that the reformation of the Senate has been considered by the people both in and out of Cape Town for a whole year. I may not criticize the Senate here, but as regards my constituency and others they long for an alteration in the composition of the Senate. I think the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) is himself responsible for the alteration, because he put eight “pals” in the Senate. He appointed eight persons who only vote for him, and I want to ask the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) who talks about democracy where is the democracy in the appointment of those eight persons.

The hon. member cannot now discuss the composition of the Senate.

I just want to point out a great mistake the hon. member for Standerton has always made, viz., that he always went to the country when he could not get his way. The present House of Assembly was elected for five years, and I hope it will proclaim a general election when it thinks fit, but will not allow itself to be intimidated by hon. members opposite. If an election were to take place tomorrow they will fare still worse than in 1924.

The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux) has compained that a good deal of time has been wasted. After listening to him I think the House will agree with him because, so far as regards the last few minutes during which he was speaking, for when he was not breaking rules of order, his remarks might be said to be totally irrelevant. I would like to support the protest made by those on this side against this method of introducing legislation. We are supposed to be a deliberative assembly and have full time to consider measures that come before the House. What earthly chance has anybody of going into new contentious matters in a proper way when we are sitting morning and afternoon and at night to all hours. The Bill is apparently one to curb the powers of the Senate, but the circumstances under which this legislation is brought in really amounts to a method of curbing the powers of members of this honourable Assembly. It is obvious that this is a most improper time of the session to bring in this Bill. The Prime Minister says, “Wait and see,” but judging by other legislation which has come in during the session, the Prime Minister can take it that we are not prepared to wait and see. Every legislative measure ought to be made known to members before the first reading. It is quite impossible for us to give a blank cheque, as we are asked to do. This is a matter of the utmost importance. We have no earthly chance of knowing what line we are to take when measures are introduced in this way. The Government no doubt will use its majority.

How often has that been said ?

Unfortunately it does not seem to have percolated into the intelligence of some hon. members opposite, so it is necessary to repeat these things. If the Ministry chooses to use its majority as a juggernaut to crush all opposition they will find that this will recoil on them later on.

Hon. members opposite who have spoken have all acknowledged that they do not know the contents of the Bill. I must say that this exhibition of theirs has further convinced me of what I have always thought, that our friends there are at their best when they talk about a matter they know nothing about. When they talk about things they say they understand they are not nearly so good. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) made a great fuss about the Bill. We are accustomed to his doing that about matters when the occasion does not justify it. I believe that in connection with this matter he is only outdone by the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige). As I shall show in a moment none of the fuss which has been made is justified. The hon. member for Standerton told us that he did not understand what the necessity or hurry for this Bill was, and he asked why we cannot let it stand over. I believe that the hon. member for Standerton generally takes up the attitude that nothing that this Government proposes needs haste. All the important matters that are proposed he never regards as urgent. Everything can stand over simply because he would like this Government to do nothing, so that he can say to the country—

The most serious side of the matter, however, is not only that he regards nothing we propose as urgent, but that when he himself was in office he took up the same attitude with regard to the most important problems, and regarded them as of so little urgency that he simply allowed things to drift. The hon. member objects that this Bill was not published beforehand I am glad to see that he is being tortured by his own sin. I do not know whether he is trying to qualify to be Prime Minister again some day and for that purpose wants to convince the people that if he comes into office again he will behave better than formerly. If, however, there is one thing to which the people object, and with reason, then it is that when he was in office no prior notice was given to the people of the most important matters. The “Gazette” existed for other purposes than publishing Government measures beforehand.

You are following in his footsteps.

If that is so, then it does not become the member for Standerton to make objection, and the hon. member for Caledon and other members made more fuss about the matter than the occasion justified. The reason is that the Bill only consists of two clauses. They may be important, I believe they are; but this Bill will not take hon. members longer than two minutes to read and understand.

And the country?

The people in general are more clever than hon. members opposite. The reformation of the Senate, certain alteration in the constitution of the Senate, is something about which the people and hon. members on this side of the House, as well as the Opposition, have been thinking since last year. When the Senate last year rejected an important Bill from the House of Assembly for reasons of party politics because the caucus of the South African party had pulled the strings in the other place, then I personally, and the Prime Minister also, clearly said that steps would have to be taken if things went on in that way to see that the will of the people as expressed at the general election should prevail. We can in no case tolerate a position if the people at an election has clearly expressed its will, that the party which has been defeated and is put out of office by the people should be in a position to defeat the will of the people. Such a position cannot possibly continue. We have had proof that that was the case and certain alterations must be made. It was said last year and it was said on all platforms during the recess and made known that this Government considers it necessary to introduce legislation of this kind. The hon. member for Caledon made a speech here not about the Bill, because he knows nothing about it, but about the report of a Commission, a small National Convention, which considered the reformation of the Senate. His whole speech had nothing to do with the Bill. He only said that they had seen how difficult it was to alter the popular representation as regards the Senate. We do not wish to alter the popular representation in the Senate. What we do wish to alter under the Bill is the position under which persons who do not represent the people—or do not directly represent them—are enabled to defeat the will of the people. The validation of the will of the people is more than the matter of popular representation in one of the two Houses of Parliament. The general principle on which we introduce the change is that we do not want to go to work radically. There is considerable legislation in connection with the Senate which is possible desirable and necessary, but it is being left to a later stage or left over for legislation idler. What is proposed here is only the minimum with which this House and the people of South Africa will be satisfied. Because that is the minimum and because the whole Bill only consists of two clauses, I say again that the fuss which is being made is not justified by the occasion.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill brought up and read a first time ; second reading on 26th May.

I move—

Hon. members will recollect that this matter was before the House last session. By an agreement, dated May 9th, 1913, the Government granted to the Meyer and Charlton Company the exclusive rights to mine certain bewaarplaatsen and certain mining rights. The condition was in respect of the bewaarplaatsen, that a percentage of the profits of the company, namely, 10,8668, should be paid to the Government from August 1st, 1909, and in respect of water rights ; also an amount equal to the claim licences as from August 1st, 1909. There was a clause in the agreement also stating that in the event of the company purchasing any further mining property, while that was forming a portion of its property, the company should be entitled to claim a revision of the percentage in the agreement. Thereafter the company acquired from the City Deep the right to mine an area which formerly belonged to the defunct City and Suburban Mine, and thereby became entitled under the agreement to a revision of the percentage payable to the Government. The company notified the Government in March, 1924, its intention to ask for this revision. The Government mining engineer assessed the share of the profits payable to the company at £42,363, in an endeavour to arrive at a lump sum payment that should be made and further payment of this percentage should be abandoned. The company tendered £36,601, but agreed to this larger estimate under protest. The Mining Leases Board then investigated the application, and recommended the conversion of this percentage into a lump sum payment for the following reason: Owing to the fact that the workings of the City and Suburban Mine have been worked out for many years, and have fallen in, it is impossible to examine them thoroughly for the purpose of determining the quality and value of the ore, or to keep its accounts separately from the area leased. The Minister of Mines approved of this on March 18th, 1925. Section 13 (4) of the Transvaal Mining Leases and Mineral Law Amendment Act, 1918, lays down that no amendment of any share of profits payable to the Government shall be valid, unless the amendment has been approved by both Houses of Parliament. The proposed amendment of this agreement would, therefore, require the approval of both Houses of Parliament. On the 10th June, 1925, a copy of the proposed agreement was laid before the House with all the relevant documents, and on the 24th June I moved that the proposed amending agreement be referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts for consideration and report, and the House ordered this on the 29th June last. In the fifth report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, dated 17th July, 1925, the committee reported as follows—

In conformity with the first part of the committee’s recommendation, the Government mining engineer again went into the figures, and the net result is a balance in favour of the Government as compared with the sum discussed last year of £2,800—an increase of £2,800.

An increase on the £42,000?

Yes, on the £42,363. The second part of the committee’s recommendation, which was to the effect that the Minister be authorized to conclude such an agreement on the terms which he may consider to be in the best interests of the Government without further reference to Parliament, was clearly ultra vires, and that is why I am troubling the House again. I am now submitting the new agreement which was laid before this House on the 12th April, 1926, for approval, and I, therefore, now move the motion standing in my name.

Do the company agree?

Oh, yes. I think it is fair to the company now that this matter should be concluded.

seconded the motion.

I shall be glad if the Minister will allow the matter to stand over, say, until to-morrow. I have just had the opportunity of seeing the “Cape Times” of the 22nd of May containing the annual report of the Meyer and Charlton Gold Mining Company, Limited. If one compares the figures given there with the data—the estimated figures —which were laid before us in the select committee, then you will find that the actual profit is better than that which was anticipated. We knew the profit for 1924, but the estimated profit for 1925 was calculated at £121,671. Now we find, according to the report in the “Cape Times ”—

Accordingly, one sees the astonishingly great difference between £272,536 and £121,671. If we get ten per cent, on £272,536 then we shall this year alone get much more than under the agreement by which the percentage of profit to the Government is replaced by the payment of a round figure, and we must also think of the future, because in the future we can also get ten per cent. If one takes the figures as published then the State gets 10 per cent., about £27,200, thus according to the data of the company the State for this year will already get £4,000 more. Then there is further the future to be considered. I shall, therefore, be glad if the Minister can let the matter stand over till a later date, say till to-morrow, so that we can go further into the matter. I move—

seconded.

I just want to say that the figures to which (he hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. Tom Naudé) has referred have surprised me a little. I am not acquainted with them, and, of course, I must, in the nature of things, rely on my technical advisers. We have the Mining Leases Board, and we have the Government Mining Engineer. We have the fact that over a whole year the difference is only £2,800. The figures of my hon. friend I cannot appreciate at the moment, but I hope that when the matter comes up again it will not take up much time. I am not opposed to granting the postponement, and will at once telegraph to Johannesburg for explanation of the figures. I hope the hon. member will also come to me, so that we can go into the matter. It seems to me significant that over the whole year the practical working of the mine only shows the insignificant difference of £2,800. Of course, from the commencement, as I said last year, the matter could be precisely calculated. It is not a mathematical problem. The reason for that is fully shown by the Government mining engineer, and it is also given in the report of the Mining Leases Board which was laid on the table in April last.

If the Minister is going to adjourn the debate, is not the better course to refer this again to the Public Accounts Committee? Other members of the House ought to have the information before them that the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. Tom Naudé) has quoted, and it seems to me that, if the Minister is going to accept the motion for the adjournment of the debate, he had better refer the matter to the Public Accounts Committee.

I think that is a good suggestion.

With leave of the House motion withdrawn.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Original motion, as amended, put and agreed to, as follows—

I see here that three native areas are defined for the purpose of native councils in the Kingwilliamstown district. I am glad to see this, but what I want to know is when these areas were scheduled as native areas, and by whom. Some of them I know have not been scheduled by the Beaumont Commission, and I should like some information about this. Can anyone tell me whether they have been scheduled as native areas ?

I shall just quote what the commission says about it—

That is the history of the whole matter. There are certain farms on which natives are living and they have to come under the Native Council, that cannot be done without a resolution of Parliament.

I want to know what the position is as regards European owners of ground within these areas. In regard to areas scheduled by the Beaumont Commission it was laid down that ground owned by Europeans should be sold to natives only. I want to know whether European owners can sell to natives or whether they can also sell to Europeans.

For the information of the hon. member I want to say that these do not become native areas in the proper sense of the word ; they are only included for the purposes of the Act of 1920. This Act says that under certain conditions the Government may establish native councils. The same thing happened under the previous Government, in the Transvaal.

So that European owners of land within these areas will be able to dispose of it to either Europeans or natives ?

Yes.

I should like a little further information in regard to these councils. I would like to know how these councils are going to be financed. Under section 10 of the Act it lays down that each local council may levy a rate not exceeding £1. The Government has now put on a poll tax of 20s. and here the local council rating powers are limited to 20s., which can be rebated. How is it proposed, then, to finance these councils ?

Under the Act we passed last year a tax of 10s. was levied as a poll tax. In addition, 10s. was proposed as a hut tax. That hut tax goes to the funds for the native councils. The poll tax of 10s. comes into the revenue of the Government.

I think it would be more interesting and assuring to the committee, in the absence of the Minister of Native Affairs, if the Minister of Finance could explain what the financial position is.

I submit this discussion is altogether out of order. What the Committee has to decide is whether these areas should be set aside for these councils. The question of financing is not under discussion now. The only information I can give is that the local tax is for local purposes and one-fifth of the poll tax is also available for native development. That is a matter decided by the Minister of Native Affairs in consultation with the Native Affairs Commission. They fix the estimates in regard to the particular localities on which the tax shall be spent.

I want to point out that there is some mistake in the explanation given by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. van Niekerk). What we are doing here is to set aside native areas. Native areas can only be set aside by Parliament. The other matter, that of proclaiming an area council, is done by the Government on the recommendation of the Native Affairs Commission. I just want to read the article under which we are purporting to act, that is Article 5 of the Act of 1920—

So what we are doing here to-day is not to establish a native council, or an area for a native council. We are establishing a native area. We are adding three new areas to the list already existing under the Act of 1913. There are two things you must have, a native area which is declared by Parliament and a native council which is declared by the Government.

This is a council area for the specific purpose only.

Yes, but with that Parliament has nothing to do. The area for a council is declared by the Government. Parliament has nothing to do with that. There are two questions, the establishment of a native area and the establishment of an area for native councils. We have only to do here with the establishment of a native area, and I am very much afraid that the intervention of Parliament here means that we are dealing with a new native area. I am dealing with the Act of 1920. The clause of the Act says that Parliament sets aside a native area and the Government establishes an area for councils by proclamation. I think there is some confusion. We must be sure that we are not establishing a native area.

If the right hon. member will move that we report progress

Yes, I think that will be better. We do not want confusion.

On the motion of Gen. Smuts it was agreed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed :

Progress reported ; House to resume in committee to-morrow.

I move, pursuant to notice—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendment in Item 317 put and agreed to.

May I raise a point of order? I would like to ask the Minister to explain an apparent alteration in Tariff Item 318. When we had it in committee it passed without amendment, and now in the Bill it seems to have been altered. As passed in the committee it reads—

In the Bill it reads—

It seems to me that the Minister or the department has inserted more matter into this than it contained in committee, and I want to know whether I am right in making the statement, and if so, whether the Minister is right in inserting matter into the item not agreed to in the committee. It is an involved business.

The hon. member is quite right. It is an involved business, but that is the only way to amend these things. This class to which the hon. member refers for wrapping round water pipes was formerly free and we are not touching it. It will remain free. It is in the existing tariff.

Is it to be in rolls, or not to be in rolls ?

For water pipes it need not be in rolls.

May I draw the Minister's attention to how it will read ? There is something wrong somewhere.

Of course the wording here must be read In conjunction with the original Act.

In rolls it is free; not in rolls for building purposes it pays 20 per cent. In rolls for building purposes and mapping water pipes it will be free.

I will not argue the point, but I will lay a wager that if this is put into force there will be trouble.

I would like to point out that the question you, Mr. Speaker, have to decide is whether the incidence of the tax as passed by the committee of Ways and Means is the same as in the Bill. If you are satisfied with this there is no question.

It is a reduction.

I understand it is merely an alteration of the wording, and that the incidence is not changed.

It remains so.

If that is so, it is in order.

On Item 143, the proposed duty on sugar, it is proposed to put this increase on on certain conditions. Unfortunately, there is nothing said in the Bill itself about the conditions.

I am introducing a Bill to that effect.

Another Bill still?

It arises out of this—it is a financial Bill.

Still they come!

Bill, as amended, adopted; third reading tomorrow.

I move—

This little Bill seeks to give effect to the rates of income tax already adopted in Committee of Ways and Means. Provision is made here in connection with the raising of the exemption from £300 to £400, in terms of the statements which I made during the budget debate, and which was adopted later in Committee of Ways and Means. Another variation in regard to the rates applies to life insurance companies. Under the legislation passed last year, we made the special rate of 1s. 6d. applicable to life insurance companies whose principal business was life insurance. We now extend that to all life insurance companies, but only to that part of the income which relates to life insurance. That is the variation in the incidence of the tax on companies. A few other amendments are introduced into the existing Income Tax Act. We make provision for exempting the employees of the railways and harbours service that reside in South-West Africa. Under our legislation, in view of the fact that they draw their salaries from Union funds, although they are doing their work in another territory, they would be liable, because they drew their income from Union sources. That is not the case with the public servants in South-West Africa, because they are paid from the territory funds. Hon. members will therefore see that this creates an anomaly, and it would give rise to dissatisfaction if the Treasury sought to collect tax from railway service employees in that territory, merely because they are technically paid from Union funds. We therefore propose to exempt them, and to make that retrospective to the last tax year, because we have not collected during that tax year. Then we make provision for exempting holders of Union stocks, that are resident abroad, from the payment of this tax. It has been the custom for a number of years to raise our foreign loans subject to the condition that they will not be liable to income tax, but that dropped out of last year’s Income Tax Bill, and we are putting it back. Otherwise, it would probably militate against the raising of loans overseas if we made the foreign investors liable to our taxation. So far our prospectuses have definitely stated that they would not be liable for that tax. That is in Clause 5 (1). In the previous clause we make provision for making liable to this tax Union residents who invest in overseas or foreign stocks, if these investments are not subject to income tax in the foreign country by reason of the fact that the people are domiciled in that country. This is put in in order to prevent capital leaving this country for investment in other countries, through this capital not being made subject to income tax in such other country. It happened last year, when our friends in Rhodesia asked subscriptions for a loan, that the money was subscribed in the Union within a few hours, and I think that loan was really so exceedingly popular mainly owing to the fact that it was not subject to income tax there, and, of course, as our legislation stands, would not be subject to income tax here. We therefore make provision that such income shall be liable to income tax. We propose to repeal section 18 of the Income Tax Act of last year. That was the section where we sought to make liable to tax foreign principals who do business in this country through agents. That is a provision which existed last year in the New Zealand legislation, and I think also in the Canadian. We found it impossible to collect the money.

We told you so!

Yes, but the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) pleaded for the imposition of this tax, and thought we should collect it, but the department found it practically impossible to collect the tax, owing to the fact that these principals had no funds in this country, and that they were not subject to the jurisdiction of our courts. I do not know the experience in New Zealand and Canada. I noticed some time ago it was suggested that this should be discussed at the imperial conference, and that people had been complaining of the legislation there, but these dominions have apparently up to now refused to exempt such foreign principals.

It is the English law.

The income tax department found it not possible to collect the tax, and the revenue concerned was really very small. Another section has been put in to make it quite clear that the Government gold mining areas shall not be subject to normal, but only to supertax. As the law stood, it was doubtful whether they should not come under the normal tax.

The hon. Minister has made a fundamental change in the incidence of this tax. It has always been the principle of income tax in this country that it has been on the income derived in the Union from Union sources.

It was put in in 1917, and was there until 1925. It only dropped out last year.

Yes, but the Minister has gone further now. He also insists on taxing those people who reside overseas.

That only applies to Union residents.

Take section 5.

That is an exemption.

That is quite a new departure. That is revenue derived from the Union, and up to now we have always held the principle that all such revenue must pay.

It was only dropped last year. All our loans have been raised on this condition.

Suppose a private concern has private capital here from overseas. They have to pay, I presume. My hon. friend has exempted any man who invests in South African Government stocks and resides in Great Britain, but suppose he has money invested in a private concern here on which he gets interest. Why not treat them all the same ? He only gets interest in the same way as he gets it on his stocks. They are both from sources in the Union. You differentiate between the two.

We deliberately do that, to encourage investment in our stocks overseas.

I think the Minister is wise in repealing section 18, and he might have saved a great deal of trouble and inconvenience if he had accepted the advice tendered to him last year from this side of the House. The reason why he has eliminated section 18 seems to me to be an additional reason why he should make an alteration in section 4 of the Bill now before us. I imagine that the best reason for the Minister deciding to repeal the section is that in effect he was imposing double taxation. The manufacturer in England was liable to taxation, and the Act provided, in respect of that portion of his income derived from sales here, he should also be taxed through his agent here. This new section 4, which must have been prompted entirely by the successful issue of the Southern Rhodesian loan last year, should not have a retrospective effect. That loan was floated at a time when it was possible for those who issued it to say that there would be no income tax payable in respect thereof, except in Rhodesia or in the Union. That was an attraction to subscribers who might ordinarily pay supertax in the Union. The loan having proved successful, the Minister is not now entitled to single that stock out, and to say that the holders should be liable to pay income tax on their holdings. It is perfectly competent for investors to invest in a non-Government security, in either Rhodesia or South-West Africa, and still be exempt from income tax. Why should a particular class of investor, i.e., those holding Government stocks, be penalized in this way ? There are industrial securities in South-West Africa which are very largely held in the Union, and these will continue to be exempt from the payment of income tax. Where is the logic in saying that if an investor buys Rhodesian stock he shall be liable to pay income tax in the Union, but if he chooses to invest his money in non-Government security in Rhodesia or South-West Africa he shall be exempt? This new departure will have an unsettling effect on the investment market in the Union. At any rate, the least the Minister can do is to make the tax non-retrospective in the sense that he exempts Government issues since July, 1925, up to the date of the coming into effect of this Bill. The Minister is like a tax-farmer; he discovers a particular class of investor who is lucky enough to benefit by reason of the Minister’s own declared policy, and immediately pounces upon him. We have a growing class of investor which is not only supporting the Union Government loans, but is searching for sound governmental and industrial securities. It is not right that the Minister should make this impost merely because there has been a successful issue of a Southern Rhodesian loan.

That is not the reason. I merely gave it as an instance.

Why should the Minister prevent Southern Rhodesia borrowing money in the Union ? Surely facilities for the borrowing of money by Rhodesia is a friendly act towards a neighbour.

There is no reason why our people should invest in other States and take the money out of the Union just to escape income tax.

By making this apply to all stocks issued before the Act comes into force, will be to bring uncertainty into the investment market which is entirely unnecessary. The Minister stated that he has an amendment to sub-section (k) of section 10 in order to remove a doubt whether dividends that may be declared by the Government Areas Gold Mining Company, Limited, should be free from normal tax.

Business suspended at 12.45 pm., and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

When the House suspended business I was dealing with the position of those companies which derive profits from mining, which pronts were exempted from taxation under the Transvaal Act of 1908. I would ask the Minister of Finance why this exemption, which he recognizes, should stop short at normal tax, and why he imposes supertax on the profits of mining. From section 46 of the Act of 1908 it is quite clear that the undertaking upon which certain of these areas were leased was that no taxation would be imposed on the profits earned therefrom. Reverting to clause 4, I would like to say to the Minister that I hope he will not persist in the illogical amendment of the law whereby he picks out a particular class of investor to be taxed in respect of Government holdings in countries such as Rhodesia and others, and, if he does persist in regarding that as logical, I hope that it will not be made to affect stock which was issued before July 1st, 1926.

I would like to ask the Minister why a change has been made in the income tax appeal courts. I undestand that the existing courts in the various provinces have been abolished and that one income tax court has now been established. Would the Minister state what the extra cost of that is going to be and also whether the presidents of the existing courts, some of whom have done very excellent work indeed and whose experience in the administration of this particular branch of income tax law has been of great help, were given opportunities of becoming members of the new court of review ?

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to a certain point of administration. Last year the House gave the Minister authority to go a number of years back into the business affairs of individuals and other concerns. This new power which the Minister has got is being applied in a most merciless manner. We have cases where the income tax authorities have approved of the particulars rendered to them, people have been assessed about nine years ago, and since then their books have been again ransacked by the authorities and, although at that time all the particulars supplied were approved and considered satisfactory, these taxpayers have now been re-assessed. From a business point of view that is most unsatisfactory and I would like the Minister to see that no unnecessary hardship is caused to business men who have squared their whole business from assessments made years ago, which completely satisfied the authorities, who, alter reinvestigation, now take an entirely different view.

I do not know exactly what the hon. member (Mr. Krige) is complaining of. It seems that he objects to the income tax department in certain cases inspecting books with a view to reassessing any particular taxpayer, and where the department has reason to believe that the returns were not correctly rendered.

I am complaining about going back 8 or 9 years.

That is not a new right which I took last year ; it is a right which the income tax department always had. The department has its inspectors, and in cases where it has reason to believe that correct returns have not been rendered, it is the right of the department to inspect the books, and when we find that the returns which have been rendered are incorrect, reassessments are made. I do not think the House would object to that. There are many cases in which false returns have been rendered, and the department has been obliged, not only to re-assess, but to inflict severe penalties upon taxpayers. It is not a right which is exercised in a harsh or unreasonable manner.

Does the Minister think it right to go back nine years ?

The country is entitled to the taxation legally levied by Parliament, even though we have to go back nine years. The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) has raised two points. One is in regard to this principle which we are introducing, viz. of taxing Union residents who invest in stocks outside the country. I have already pointed out that, generally speaking, the principle of our income tax legislation is that we tax income derived from assets within the Union, and on that basis our legislation last year was framed. We find now, as we found last year, as a result of that, that Union residents have gone and invested in stocks outside the country. Obviously, if we allowed that to continue we would be encouraging investments of that nature where we, from time to time, issue local loans in this country. For instance, when our friends from Rhodesia tried to raise a loan in this country last year, we gave them every facility. I informed the Treasurer for Rhodesia that the Government would view such an attempt in the Union sympathetically, but that is no reason why we should allow our own nationals to escape taxation on income derived in this way. If we were to allow this legislation to stand as it is now, we would be putting a premium on investments outside the Union, to the detriment of our loans which we raise locally ourselves.

Why do you put it on that particular class of investment There are other investments which are not taxed.

Generally speaking, we find that as far as other investments are concerned, taxation outside the Union is heavier than it is in the Union. For that reason it is not necessary to make such provision. In cases where there is either no income tax in an outside territory or where they deliberately exempt any investment of that nature from taxation, it is necessary for us to have a provision like this, unless we want, to encourage that kind of investment to the detriment of investments in this country. Then the hon. member (Mr. Coulter) makes the point that this should not be retrospective. But it is not retrospective. When any individual, during the past year made a particular investment, we never gave them a guarantee in our previous legislation that we would not alter our income tax legislation when the time came to do so. Consequently, I regret that I cannot accede to the request made by the hon. member, that, even if we introduce this principle, we should not make it applicable to investments made during last year. The hon. member mentioned the case of the dividends of the Modderfontein Gold Mining Areas, which we now seek to exempt from normal tax. He says—

There is no reason why the shareholders should not fall under the supertax provisions. The position of the shareholders liable to supertax is quite different to that of the company itself. It is a difference which runs right through our legislation, that is, we regard the company as a separate entity. We treat the company in one way for taxation purposes, and the shareholder in another. There is no increased taxation upon the company as such over and above what has existed for a number of years, but that is no reason why we should exempt the shareholders from supertax. I may-in form my hon. friend that that position has existed for a number of years. In regard to the question raised by the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) I wish to say that we have, in terms of the Act passed last year, made a change in regard to the existing income tax courts. Up to the present we have had four courts operating—separate courts sitting in the four provinces. The department has found that that has been most unsatisfactory. In the first place, appeals have not been dealt with very expeditiously. In some important cases we have had different judgments on various points of law. We are now doing away with the four separate courts, and appointing one central court for the Union, with an official as the permanent president of the court. We are appointing a whole time president of this court, and there will be a sitting in the various provinces from time to time. The president, with two members drawn from the existing panel, will be selected from time to time. The work of this court has increased considerably. Very important matters are now coming before the court, and we thought fit to have a court which would have the confidence of the whole country, and whereby we would do away with the conflicting decisions we have had in the past owing to the fact that there have been four different courts in the various provinces.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read, a second time ; that the House go into committee on the Bill to-morrow.

with leave, laid upon the Table:

I move—

objected.

I move—

On a previous occasion we discussed the question as to the adequacy of the existing arrangements in regard to the redemption of debt, and I then informed the House that I intended later on to submit to the House certain proposals in regard to the matter. As hon. members know, the whole question was also considered by the Select Committee on Public Accounts, and certain recommendations were made to the House. I have also tabled with the Bill a memorandum in regard to the proposals contained in the Bill, and I trust that hon. members have, studied that memorandum because, if they have done so, they will be in a better position to grasp the meaning of the proposals contained in the present Bill.

We have not read it.

It is very unfortunate, although it is not my fault. The memorandum has been in the boxes of hon. members for five or six days. If hon. members prefer it, I would rather move the adjournment of the debate. I want them to consider the memorandum ; it is an important matter.

On the motion of the Minister of Finance, debate adjourned ; to be resumed on 26th May.

Where is the Minister?

He will be here in a minute. He is in the other place.

I want to make rather an important suggestion to the Minister. As things are at present, the general manager of railways is responsible, not only for the management of the railways, but also for the expenditure of the railways. The railway mileage in the last few years has grown enormously, and now extends to over 12,000 miles altogether. In my opinion it is too big for one man to manage. I know of only two systems in the world which exceed it in mileage, and those are the Canadian National system and the German State system. This system has now grown to such an extent in South Africa that it is too much for one man to manage both the operating side of the system and also the financial side of the system. It is not done, as far as I am aware, in any big American concern. As a rule there is a president, and then there are various vice presidents, one of whom has charge of expenditure. It is in connection with the expenditure side that the general manager attends meetings upstairs—a preposterous idea, in my opinion. Many people would call it waste of time to spend weeks and weeks at these meetings upstairs. That is the position to-day. It cannot continue, in my opinion. The general manager should, in my view, have more important matters to attend to. There should be another official, who should have charge of the financial side of the matter. I will admit straight away that I do not see how you could make any change while the present general manager is in office. What I want to suggest now is that all men come to an end ; and the general manager is within two years of the retiring age, and the reason for raising the position now is that I want the Minister to give some thought to this matter. The opportunity for re-organization and putting matters on a better footing will come when the general manager retires, and that will probably be in two years from now, as far as age is concerned. It is absolutely necessary when that event takes place that there should be one manager for the operating side of the business, and then have another official of high standing to simply look after the expenditure of money. Both of, them naturally would be responsible to the Minister and to the Railway Board. The opportunity will probably come in the near future, and I urge the Minister strongly in the meantime to turn the matter over in his mind—the Railway Board also— and then they will be in a position to make suggestions to the House and the Government as to what changes could take place for better and more adequate reorganization. It cannot continue. Things have got too big. As far as my information goes, this is the third biggest national line in the world, and one man cannot properly manage this concern. It is just about time we had a change. It is to the advantage of the country and the department.

I move—

In doing so, I want to point out that I am not imbued with motives of economy, nor do I wish the Minister to work for less than the trade union rate of pay, but I do so to challenge the Minister’s policy with regard to the administration of the railway service. For some time it has been apparent that matters in the railway service have not been working as smoothly as they ought, and that something was wrong with the present state of affairs. Recently, as hon. members will remember, we had serious difficulties with regard to the grain elevator at Durban, and it is quite clear that a good deal of trouble could have been obviated and a huge amount of money saved if there had been closer co-operation between the various heads of the Railway Department. In the auditor-general’s report of this year we see certain references to the graving dock at Durban, and if that report be correct there was a want of faith and confidence in our engineers, and because of that, we nearly landed this country into an extra cost of over three-quarters of a million. The auditor-general said—

Under what Minister?

Who is now the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger).

When they have finished their fun I will speak. As a matter of fact, I was not the Minister. When that contract was given out I was out of office.

i am sorry I gave him the credit of saving over £750,000, but it was the other South African Party Minister, if you want to know. We also see from this report that there has been very serious friction with regard to electrification in Natal, and again the want of faith in our engineers has cost this country a good deal of money. But as this question has been fully dealt with by the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours, I do not propose to elaborate it now. I think it was the hon, member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) who said there was no real cooperation in the railway service, and with that I quite agree. I go further and say that the whole service, especially in the higher grades, is seething with discontent. Many of those who have given the best part of their lives to the service say they will welcome the day when they are to be pensioned, and everywhere you see signs that that cordial relationship between officials which is so essential is altogether wanting, and unfortunately that is spreading to every branch of the service. Those in the mechanical department say it is wise for the Government to pay attention to the workshops, and agree that if the workshops are brought up to date an immense saving will result, and then it will be unnecessary to spend a large sum on one central workshop for manufacturing purposes. They are most anxious that the lay-out of the various workshops should receive attention and in this connection I hope the views of the local officers will receive consideration, and I suggest to the Minister that at every workshop centre a workshops improvement committee be instituted so as to enlist the sympathy, goodwill and help of the men, without which no scheme can be made a success. I stress this point, because I know how the officials and the men are “fed-up” with the treatment they get from headquarters. This, I know, the Minister will not credit, but to illustrate my point I would like to quote from the Workshops Commission report. In mentioning the Workshops Commission I think it would be advisable to review the composition of that body. Mr. van der Horst was chairman and the other members were Mr. Elston, who was connected with private engineering firms, Col. Collins, who is chief mechanical engineer, and Mr. Marshall, who is one of the general manager’s financial advisers. Mr. Shaw, a clerk in Col. Collins office, was secretary. The other member of the committee was Mr. Wheatley, who was mechanical engineer in charge at Salt River for some years and who was kept on for a considerable period after he had reached the age limit, during which period the age limit was strictly applied to other railway officials, and concerning whom, in 1924, the Auditor-General wrote that in 1923 Mr. Wheatley was retired on account of having reached the age limit, but he was appointed to investigate the piecework and general conditions in the mechanical workshops and was paid the difference between his pension and the total emoluments drawn by him prior to retirement, plus £1 per diem to cover travelling and other expenses. The Auditor-General reports that it seems stultifying the principle of having an age limit, where a senior officer can be kept on for a considerable number of years at the same pay he drew before reaching the age limit, viz.: £1,520 per annum. This is the sort of thing that causes discontent in the service, and I am sorry to say the Minister is not altogether blameless in the matter. Mr. Wheatley reached the retiring age in September, 1922, and drew £1,520 per annum plus £1 per day travelling expenses, etc., until the 4th May, 1925, for nearly two years after the present Minister took office, when his services were terminated.

One year.

Nearly two years. I would like the Minister to compare this case with another to which I drew his notice when an official after serving 24 years as a mechanic and 11 years as foreman was refused to be allowed to remain one day longer in the service to qualify for the new pension fund. I hope the Minister will give the committee the assurance that this favouritism will not be allowed in the future. The workshops committee was composed of Mr. van der Horst as chairman— an independent chairman—one gentleman who was not connected with the railways, three railway officials, and the secretary was the chief mechanical engineer’s personal clerk. From the department’s point of view this can be called a well-balanced commission. They say—

They go on to state that the building was originally designed for a different purpose ; that it is 50 years old ; that the roof is supported by rails and posts which impede the handling of the material used, and that the building is a grave source of danger to the health of the men, the lower parts being under water in the winter; also that 4,000 tons of rails, 1,000 tons of steel plate, 50 to 60 thousand iron castings, and 20,000 forgings have to be loaded and unloaded every year. Yet the foreman in charge, has pointed out in his annual reports since 1916 that the first essential to decreasing the cost of manufacture is a new shop on a suitable site to reduce the handling of heavy material, and has stated that there are machines in the shop in comparison with machines which are now available, which do not pay for the cost of driving them. Drawings for the new shops were prepared as far back as 1920. It took four years to get the drawings, and after 10 years’ constant representation nothing has been accomplished.

That was under the old S.A.P. Government.

I hope for once the Minister will recognize that he holds a responsible position and that he is no longer chief election agent for the National party. I do not stand here to criticize these matters for party’s sake, but for the country’s sake. Let the country come before party on one occasion. The commission say they mention this case without any intention of blaming the railway administration for the delay. Of course, the administration is not to blame. It is a mere bagatelle that the building is a grave source of danger to the health of the men. Just imagine working in a shop partly under water, and you know how it rains at Salt River during the winter. No doubt the general manager is proud of it. He thinks the organization of the S.A.R. is accepted by the world. That is typical of many cases. Year after year recommendations are made, and no notice whatsoever is taken. Thousands of pounds are wasted, and the staff are forced to the conclusion that it is useless to worry about such affairs, and in consequence matters are allowed to drift and the men are compelled to take up the attitude of “Come day go day, God send us pay day.” To show how our business methods hamper the service, I will give the Minister only one illustration, although I could give him many. Recently, when saloons were urgently needed, several of them were held up because certain brass work ordered from overseas had not arrived. After waiting about two months, permission was obtained to manufacture these parts locally. The job was finished, and in a few days the saloons were in commission. The earnings of these saloons were lost for about two months. I suppose the coaches in question would have earned in one day 100 times more than the difference in cost between the local and the imported article. The great object of the railway should be to keep every engine, coach and truck fully occupied, and good management instils into every employee that all vehicles must be kept moving. What is the use of the men striving to do this when the administration holds them up in the manner I have described ? I wish to point out how the differentiation in pay is hampering the service, and to ask the Minister if he really thinks it is true economy to continue this injustice. Does he imagine that the South African mechanic is content to receive 2s. a day less than his fellow-workman ? If the Minister is of that opinion, some day he will receive a rude shock, and find that these matters do not always work out as they are supposed to do. Does the Minister know the cost of the various conferences held between the administration and the men ? I was told on reliable authority that a recent conference cost nearly £8,000.

What conference was that?

The conference between the boilermakers and the administration. Does the Minister know why so many conferences are necessary? If you were treating the men fairly you would not need so many conferences. Is the Minister so Hind he cannot see what is the root of this matter ? Let me quote from an article which appeared in the “Contemporary Review.” “Goodwill is founded on justice. Injustice breeds every kind of evil. Can there be justice where the management is inefficient? Could there be justice when the management was ignorant of what should be the output, and fixed the rates without a detailed study of the work being done, and prevented the worker from earning all he might by ineffective arrangements for the running of machines and the providing of material?”

Are you against the holding of conferences with the employees ?

No, but I am against the waste of public money. I am out to get justice for the employees, and if they get that they will see that the administration also gets justice.

Did they get justice before ?

I was not here before. The hon. member was. Why did he not see that they got justice? I cannot understand hon. members. Everything is party. Can’t we get away from party for once in our life ?

You should get away from that party.

This is the little good that is going to leaven up this party. They will find this, that I will never vote against my convictions, even if it is a flag that is in question. I would like to point out another way in which the administration is being penalized by the differentiation in rates of pay. Recently I enquired from a very competent South African mechanic, who happens to be a personal friend of the Minister, when he was to be made a chargeman. He said, “Not for me. I am receiving 3½d. per hour more than any new chargeman would get. Why take on extra responsibility for less money?” I can assure the Minister that the differentiation in pay is proving very costly in all branches of the service, and we will get what we deserve— a sullen, silent, discontented, uninterested staff. Another matter I wish to discuss is the appeal to the Railway Board. We know that the Minister is anxious, and rightly so, that all complaints in the service should go through the proper channels as laid down by the regulations, and that those in the service should take full advantage of their rights to appeal to the Ministerial Board. The regulations provide that an employee may appeal to the local head of his department ; then to the chief of his department, and if he is not satisfied he may place his case before the general manager, and he then has the final appeal to the Railway Board, either in person or in writing. At first sight, this arrangement seems to be all that could be desired, but when we examine the results we find that in nine cases out of ten an appeal to the board is a hopeless proposition. The procedure adopted is that if the appellant appeals in person he is asked to state his case, the general manager or his representative being present.

Why not?

I am not against that. Questions are asked, and the appellant is told that the result of the appeal will be notified to him in writing in a few days, and invariably he gets the stereotyped reply: Your appeal has been dismissed. He has not had an opportunity of debating the case put up by the administration, or of cross-examining the representative of the administration. He states his case, is questioned, and is asked to leave whilst the administration or its representative remains behind with the board and the Minister to decide the verdict. By all means let both sides be heard, and let both have the right to ask questions, and, above all, let both leave together and allow the Minister and the board to decide on the evidence placed before them. Under these circumstances, is it possible for justice to be done? And is it any wonder that nearly all those who have appealed call it an absolute farce ? It is impossible to get at the merits of the case under the present system, and I can assure the Minister that very few railwaymen have any faith in an appeal to the board. They do not blame the Minister or the board, in whom they have every faith, but that they say that in view of the system, it is useless to appeal. I would also like to refer to the question of promotion in the higher grades of the service. But before I do so, I must congratulate the Minister and the board on the appointment of Mr. Watermeyer as one of our assistant general managers. Mr. Watermeyer is a thoroughly tried and competent South African engineer, and an official who will go far in the service, and I hope that this promotion shows that at last the claims of our highly qualified technical staff are to be recognized in regard to senior appointments. There is also another branch of the service, the claims of which must no longer be forgotten, and whose members ever since Union have not had an opportunity of promotion to an administrative position. I refer to the mechanical engineers who are trained and qualified officials, who know the engineering side of the railways in every detail, and who are accustomed to handle large bodies of men, yet they have never been considered when senior appointments have to be filled. This is a matter which is undermining the best traditions of the service, and the Minister will understand that highly qualified officials feel that it is unfair for them to be placed in subordinate positions to someone whose only claim is that at some lime they were clerks at headquarters.

What was the position of Mr. More, the assistant general manager at Durban, before he was promoted ?

He was divisional superintendent of Port Elizabeth, and was then transferred to Durban.

What is his profession ?

A civil engineer. But I am talking about mechanical engineers. I see on the Estimates that a certain engineer is to be appointed for electrification at £1,200 a year. I would like the Minister to bear in mind that the mechanical engineer at Uitenhage is not receiving £1,000 a year, yet a new man is to be brought in at £1,200 per annum. In conclusion, I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister the views of the artizan staff in regard to civilized labour, and the following letter, which I have received from Mr. R. B. Place, hon. sec of the workshop stewards at Uitenhage, clearly indicates their opinion on this matter. Mr. Place writes—

I have brought these matters to the notice of the Minister in the hope that he will realize that I am keenly interested in the question, and that I am anxious that the railway service shall be a happy, contented and creditable one.

I would like to call attention to the way in which the coal industry is being handicapped by the high rates on bunker coal, which is quite separate from coal carried as cargo. I am not complaining of the rates which are charged on coal which is exported in the ordinary way. Export coal is now charged at the rate of 6s. 3½d. a ton, which is an increase of 11 per cent, over the charge made in 1913. Bunker coal, however, has to pay 15s. a ton, as against 6s. 8d. a ton before the war—an increase of 125 per cent. These figures are from the main centres in Natal, which is the principal producer of bunker coal. The coal industry is a very important one, producing railway rates of over £4,000,000 per annum, and it is strange that, although railway rates and fares generally have been lowered, the charges on bunker coal have not been reduced since 1923 and are higher in proportion, than any other rate imposed by the department. Railway rates on goods are now from 35 per cent, to 40 per cent, higher than they were in 1913. Compare that with the rate on bunker coal, which is 125 per cent, in excess of what it was in 1913. This naturally handicaps the development of the coal industry, and there is no doubt that there are thousands of acres of coal lying undeveloped partly because of the high railway rates. Will the Minister kindly tell us why the rates on bunker coal are so high as compared with other rates ? He should look into this matter seriously, and endeavour to meet what is a very fair demand on the part of the coal owners that they should have the same treatment as other people who are developing this country receive. The coal industry is of vital importance. It brings large sums of money into the country, employs a considerable number of people, and the railway revenue profits very handsomely from it. Only a short time ago it was announced that it was intended to surrender another half-a-million through a reduction of railway rates, but the coal industry has not shared in that reduction. This is not a party question, but one closely affecting the development of the country. The Natal coal industry is’contributing £250,000 a year more ire railway rates than it ought to do, if the rate stood at 10s. a ton, i.e., an increase of 50 percent. over 1913. I understand that the rate on coal carried to Cape Town is not quite so high in proportion as that to Durban, and my remarks apply more particularly to the Durban traffic. I understand that the rates to Delagoa Bay are also very much higher in proportion than they were in 1913. Sea freights depend almost entirely on the cost of running vessels, and if the Government put up the charges for the conveyance of bunker coal, that additional impost must have an appreciable influence on the sea freight on goods.

Have we had the benefit in the shape of lower sea freights of any reduction made in coal rates in the past?

No reduction has been made in the coal rate. Seeing that the Minister has a flourishing revenue, he might, at any rate, take the first step and say to the shipping companies: “We will help to reduce sea freights by lowering the railway rates on bunker coal.” The railway revenue has improved very much, the prosperity of the country has increased, and the Minister has been neglectful in not meeting the frequent appeals that have been made to him to look into the question. I urged the matter last year, but the Minister brushed it airily aside, evidently thinking that the coal industry was in a good way. It is not. Many companies barely pay their way, and I am told that one or two of them are finding it very difficult to sell coal, owing to the falling off of the markets. If we can reduce these rates to a reasonable figure, it will mean that steamers will come out of their way to get coal here, especially during the strike. This strike is going to affect the coal industry of the world very largely, and I think the Minister might seize this as a favourable opportunity to reduce these rates, and help the coal industry as much as possible. I can assure him, from what I have heard from the men who are managing the coal industry, that they are working along in many cases making a bare profit, not 2 or 3 per cent, on their capital, in other cases they are working at a loss, and there are two mines which were mentioned to me recently as likely to close down. I would also like the Minister, when replying, to give some indication as to what the result has been of the electrification of portion of the Natal main line. We have been hearing somewhat conflicting accounts regarding the result of working the railway by electricity. I hope, after the somewhat alarming rumours which I have heard. [Time limit.]

I would like to deal in a few words with the rather amazing speech which we heard from the hon, member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates) a few moments ago, in which he sought to take exception to the administration of the present Minister, and moved a reduction of the Minister’s salary. I take it that the hon. member’s intention was to draw attention to the mal-administration of the Minister. After telling us that he is the leaven of the South African party, he proceeds to criticize the Minister, and draws attention to four or five different questions in regard to which he criticized the administration of the Minister. Eventually, when the Minister turned upon the hon. member, he (Mr. Bates) said the Minister had to remember that he was a responsible Minister. I proceed now to give the reasons why the Minister very justly objected to the criticism. The first point which the hon. member drew attention to was the Durban graving dock, and he averred that the Minister might have lost three-quarters of a million to the country.

I never said a word.

What was the object then of the hon. member in drawing attention to this ?

He was giving an example of what the local engineers could do.

And yet the hon. member for Uitenhage moved a reduction of the Minister’s salary, not on the department, but on the Minister’s administration. The whole administration in regard to the Durban graving dock fell, not under the present Minister’s administration, but his predecessor’s, the administration of the South African party.

And was very successful.

I cannot help feeling that it was an absurd example to give on a motion for the reduction of the Minister’s salary. The next point the hon. member (Mr. Bates) makes against the administration of the present Minister is in connection with electrification. Electrification is the baby of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and many of the mistakes that have taken place in regard to electrification are due to the administration of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central).

You are wrong there.

Those of us, who sat on the select committee dealing with this question, know now where to apportion the blame.

The hon. member cannot discuss what happened in select committee.

I will not discuss that further. The hon. member for Uitenhage draws attention to a third point, that is the composition of the Workshops Commission. He particularly draws attention there again to the fact that a Mr. Wheatley was kept on until the age of 62 and the hon. member draws attention to certain strictures passed by the auditor-general upon this officer being kept on after he had passed the retiring age. Mr. Wheatley, I understand, was kept on by the late Minister past his retiring age, very probably for excellent reasons, but why criticize the present Minister for only continuing the policy of the hon. member’s own Minister ? Another point made by the hon. member was to call attention to the absurdity of the administration holding conferences with the men, and he made this statement—

That was an extraordinary and amazing statement to make. I take it that the suggestion underlying it was that you must so deal with your men that there will be no need for conferences.

Not so many conferences. They are too numerous.

I cannot conceive a better method of keeping your men satisfied than to hold conferences with them on their points of grievance. Does the hon. member (Mr. Bates) expect that a huge concern like the railways can be run without having conferences with the men ? The statement is an absurd one. I quite agree that there was a crop of conferences immediately after we took office. There was so much dissatisfaction, there were so many grievances under the old Government that the men came to this Government to see whether they could not remove them. As the years pass we are removing them one after the other. The railways are being run extremely efficiently by the present Minister, as efficiently and more efficiently than under the efficient administration of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central). The final point that the hon. member for Uitenhage touched upon was the civilized labour policy of this Government. The hon. member’s chief point was to show that the charge of this civilized labour should not be borne out of railway revenue, but out of the revenue of the central Government. I do not Know what object the hon. member had in drawing attention to that point at the present moment. Does he wish to have a full-dress debate on that point again? If he does, he will find that this particular policy is recommended in the minority report of the Economic and Wage Commission, where these gentlemen say it will probably prove an economic success. It has been shown in the Postal Department that the same policy has proved absolutely successful there. [Time limit.!

One is interested to hear the arguments from the South African party side in connection with the condition of workshops and matters of that sort. What we want to know is precisely who is responsible—what party is responsible. It cannot be the Pact Government because they have only just taken office. It is entirely due to the policy of the South African party Government. The hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates) should have moved a reduction in the numbers of the South African party, because most of his speech condemned the policy of the South African party as far as the administration of the railways is concerned. I want to refer to a paragraph in the railway board’s report for the year ending 31st December, 1921. The Minister of Railways and Harbours at that time was the hon. member for Cape Town Central) (Mr. Jagger and here is a paragraph which proves what party and what Minister is responsible. At that time the general manager of railways was not allowed to manage the railways; the Minister was managing the railways. We had two managers; there is no doubt about that at all. This paragraph shows what the Minister’s policy was. It states—

That was the policy carried out by the Minister of the day. Whatever dissatisfaction there is to-day on the railways it is the inevitable result of the policy carried out by him. The hon. member has denied that he dismissed 12,000 men. Technically he is correct, but no new appointments were made. What was the result? The reductions effected were as follows: in the white staffs a decrease of 3,952 men ; in the coloured staff a decrease of 6,367 men ; in the casual staff a decrease of 2,129 men. At the end of the year there were 12,448 fewer men in the railway service than there were at the beginning of the year. The present Minister is not responsible for that. The hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates) is attacking (he wrong Minister. It is certainly very much out of place to move a reduction in the Minister’s salary when he is not the Minister who is to blame. Although we agree there is still a lot of things to be done in the railway service, the present Minister has effected a very great improvement in the service. I think the Government are entitled to a lot of credit for tackling long outstanding grievances. In regard to this question of conferences, I am very much surprised to hear the hon. member for Uitenhage, who is an old workshop man, complaining of too many being held. To-day a new spirit prevails. The Minister sees that the more you confer with your staff the better for all concerned. I want to give the Minister credit for arranging these conferences, and I want to compliment him on the general improvement in railway conditions. What defects there are are due to the policy of the South African party, and in time they will disappear.

I think that the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. te Water) seems to have missed the point. He seems to assume, quite incorrectly, that if any member on this side moves a reduction in the Minister’s salary he is attempting to move a vote of no confidence.

You misconstrued the rule.

The hon. member for Uitenhage moved that in order to obtain the necessary time to elaborate his argument. If he did not take that particular form in addressing the House he would have been told to sit down in ten minutes’ time. There was no attack on the Minister, but the Minister interjected replies to the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates) and that naturally drew a response. The hon. member drew attention to the necessities of the department, and that is within the duty of every member of the House, and no one is more competent to ask that than he (Mr. Bates). The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) charged the hon. member for Uitenhage with having cast aspersions on the white labour policy of the Government, but he did nothing of the kind. He himself is in favour of it.

Why did he read the letter ?

I was asked to do so by my constituents.

In addition to this I never heard a more amazing statement in the House than that made by the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) who, with a full knowledge of all he knows as a member of the select committee, with this House also having a knowledge of the report, charges the late Minister of Railways and Harbours with being responsible for all the blunders in connection with electrification works in Natal.

On a point of explanation ; I never said that the hon, member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) was responsible for all the mistakes. I said that the hon. member was responsible for a great number of the mistakes.

That is a most unfortunate explanation, and only aggravates ‘the offence, for knowing the facts as the hon. member knows them, and the evidence which has been led before the select committee and now in the possession of the House, he says the bon member for Cape Town (Central) is responsible for a great number of the blunders which have taken place. I am amazed. He knows full well that in the report he will be unable to find one tittle of evidence or one suggestion that the late Minister of Railways and Harbours is responsible.

Who is responsible for (hanging the scheme to what it is to-day?

If there is one thing I pride myself upon, as a member of that committee, it is the way we dealt with a matter of national importance in the most fair, unbiassed, impartial and non-party spirit. I do not think there has been a more searching enquiry made probably in the history of this Parliament. And for any member of that committee to get up at this stage and introduce charges such as a member of this committee has done is an offence that ought not to be condoned. I do think it will be a great pity if the Minister of Railways and Harbours takes any criticism from this side in a hostile spirit. One is not attacking the Minister, but the system, nor does one blame the Minister for that abuse. One appreciates that he inherited the system, for which no one, in particular, is responsible ; and the late Minister inherited a similar system. But it is a system which to-day has outgrown itself. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) has put his finger on the spot, and has told the committee—and I think it is the opinion of every man in Parliament, and of every man acquainted with the railways outside—that we have imposed on the general manager a responsibility which is too great for any man to hear. There is a limit to the capacity of the endurance of any man, intellectually and physically, no matter how able or how physically strong. One does not wish to condemn anyone for that—but the system has outgrown itself. We should draw this to the attention of the Minister, because during the next eighteen months there is a liability of change in management and when the next re-organization of the railways conies into consideration these are points to which the Minister has to give most serious consideration. As the hon, member for Cape Town (Central) says, there must be at least two responsible heads ; one the general manager, responsible for policy and general administration, and another, a deputy-general manager, not an assistant general manager, who has his own department and is responsible for the technical services and finance. It has been the lack of that very organization which has been responsible, very largely, for the trouble which has existed in connection with electrification in Natal. I am bound to say, with the greatest regret—one does not want to say anything to hurt the feelings of the Minister or anyone else—that we are satisfied that the state of affairs that exists at the top of the tree cannot go on, and should not go on, for another six months. There is unquestionably a great lack of harmony between the management and the civil engineering staff.

The hon, member must not discuss anything that came up in the select committee until it is printed. Do I understand the hon, member? The Hon. member may proceed. His time is not up.

No. I draw the Minister’s attention to this lack of harmony. Something must be done quickly to reintroduce into the supreme command of the railway a better state of feeling, and confidence between the senior officers, than exists at present ; because if it is allowed to go on, it will gradually permeate the whole system from the top of the tree to the bottom, and it is not in the interests of the railway that that state of affairs should continue, and it would be folly, knowing this, to take no action to improve matters.

A greater indictment against the last Government than was made by the hon, member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates), I have not heard. In regard to the remarks of file hon, member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), there is a good deal to be said for the separating of the control of the general manager, and having one on the financial side alone. But I do not see how you can divorce a man like the general manager altogether from financial control. How is he to be in a position to advise the Minister or the Railway Board or carry out a policy, if he does not know the financial position of the department? It may be advisable, but I do not see how it is practicable. But in view of the change that is likely to take place in the next few years, I think the next man who is to fill such an important position as that of general manager should get some tips as to the control and administration of our railways. There should be a deputy general manager, not an assistant general manager ; somebody the Minister has in mind who eventually may have to take the place of the general manager ; who could get a thorough grasp of all this enormous business ; because I am sure hon. members who have not been on the railway select committee have no idea of the enormous business that falls on one man. I would not have the position of the general manager for £5,000 a year. I have been on the select committee for six years, and I marvel at the thorough grasp which the present general manager has of this business. He is au fait with everything. I suppose it is because in the last 30 years he has grown up with the railways and made them as they are to-day. All the more credit is due to him, but in view of the general manager reaching the retiring age in a few years, it is desirable to have a deputy. In regard to the remarks made about the electrification in Natal, the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) attacked my friend at the back for what he said about the late Minister of Railways. I have no doubt that whoever was responsible at that time is the cause of most of the trouble we have had. The switching off of the scheme originally prepared by the railways, from Durban to Maritzburg, to Maritzburg Glencoe, has been the cause of most of the trouble we are in, and whether it is the late Minister of Railways or the late Prime Minister—

Is the hon. member now discussing the select committee’s report?

No; simply the remarks that have fallen from hon. members.

I called hon. members to order.

Well, hon. members who read the evidence will be able to allocate the blame. In regard to our railway officials in genera], we have a set of servants who are more satisfied to-day than ever, and they should be. The Superannuation Act passed last year has been one of the most gracious Acts that any Government ever brought in. I remember the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) said that through this Act the railway servants were spoon-fed.

No, I said they were a privileged lot.

That was my recollection of what the hon. member said. A man drawing £500 who retired to-day, under the old scheme would draw £215 per annum ; whereas under the new scheme, a man drawing £500 would draw not less than £358 pension. There has been an increase of not less than 66 per cent, in the pension a mail draws. I want to congratulate the Minister in his tenacity in carrying out his white labour policy. He is quite able to defend himself in that regard. This Workshops Commission’s report has been an eye-opener to me. I find a clause in that report which states that the tradesmen in the railway administration are paid a higher wage than corresponding tradesmen in private employment. I was pleased from a railway point of view that we could afford to pay these wages. In regard to medical services, when I spoke last on that subject the Minister of Railways said he would go into the matter, but he has not yet spoken to me about it, and I hope he will not forget the suggestion I made to him about the medical department ns it exists in the different large towns.

I should like to support the remarks which have been passed regarding the employment of the staff to carry out big undertakings. We have ignored in recent years the fact that we have in South Africa men quite capable of undertaking some of these large works. A very retiring engineer was sent to Durban to construct one of the largest graving docks in the world, which he did to the department’s entire satisfaction. Not only was the dock completed for £700,000 less than the price quoted by Sir John Jackson, Ltd., but at a saving of £57,000 on our own engineer’s estimate. If the Government had decided to commence electrification by electrifying the line from Cape Town to Simonstown, our own engineers would thereby have gained experience before starting to electrify the line between Maritzburg and Glencoe. If they had been able to gain experience by electrifying the Cape Town suburban line they would probably have saved the country a good deal of money. I again wish to draw attention to the shortage of trucks for the conveyance of Natal coal. I am reliably informed that there are plenty of trucks, but not sufficient engines. The position in Natal is most unfortunate. I am connected with a company which has been forced to go into liquidation. Last year the mine was idle for from 70 to 80 days because of a lack of trucks. This meant an enormous loss to the mine, which had to pay a large number of men although they were not able to do any work. [No quorum.] The excuse for the shortage of trucks is that they are constantly held up at Durban. I quite admit that that has happened, but I think the administration should deal with the difficulty. It is all very well to say “you must pool your coal,” but unless you have a proper system of coaling difficulties will be experienced. I do not see why because certain mines hold up trucks the rest of the industry should be penalized. This is a very serious matter indeed to the coal industry. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us what he intends to do in regard to coal rates, for hunker rates are something like 125 per cent, higher than they were before the war. The coal industry is losing regular orders because of the high railway rates to the coast. I should like to put in a word for the railway servants who still consider it a very great injustice that the Graham report has not been put into operation. These men were promised that when times improved they would get the increase recommended in that report. We are often told here that times have improved and we see week by week the railway revenue showing considerable increases over the estimates. You must remember that the railway servant who is to-day clamouring for the fifth report to be put into operation notes these constant increases over the anticipated revenue, and it is high time that the administration took into serious consideration the bringing into effect of the recommendations in that report. [Time limit.]

The speech delivered this afternoon by the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates) was a splendid effort, but his criticism would have been more to the point a matter of two years ago. All he said could have been far more appropriately directed towards the last Minister of Railways and the last Government than against the present Minister of Railways and the present Government. The hon. member knows perfectly well that the Minister is doing his very utmost to improve the conditions of railway men. The hon. member himself admitted, when the Superannuation Fund Bill went through the House last year, that a better piece of legislation had never been framed. Up to now not a word has been said in connection with the report of the Hours of Duty Committee. If there is any dissatisfaction in the railway service to-day, the dissatisfaction exists regarding the method in which this report has been applied. I am going to ask the Minister if he is not prepared, together with the Railway Board, to somewhat extend the concessions. It is true the committee recommended that no overtime be paid until the completion of 96 hours, so far as drivers and firemen are concerned, and until the completion of 108 hours in the case of ticket examiners and guards. That hours worked in addition to the eight hours of any day should go into the 96 or 108 hours’ pool at straight rates. I submit do the Minister it would be a concession that would be appreciated very much indeed were he to agree that any hours worked over eight on any one day should be put into the pool at overtime rates—time-and-a-quarter. The other day a Russian baker of Caledon Street, Cape Town, was fined £10 Under the provisions of the Industrial Conciliation Act. He was found guilty of failing to pay an employee overtime at the rate of not less than time-and-a-quarter for 17 hours’ overtime. He admitted his offence, and he also admitted eight previous convictions. The peculiar thing about this is that the prosecution of a private employer can be conducted for not paying overtime at the rate of time-and-a-quarter, while the Government, which enacts the law, commits the same offence without its being any offence at all in the eyes of the law. What an anomaly. If the Minister granted the concession suggested, it would go a long way to secure a more contented staff.

It would be difficult to appreciate exactly what some hon. members mean. It was emphasized by the last speaker that the Minister is doing all that is humanly possible. That was the first part of his speech. The rest of the speech was in condemnation of the Minister’s action. I do not think we need say much more about that. I want to say a word in reference to my hon. friend opposite (Dr. Visser). I was not present when he spoke, but I am told he said that the whole reason of the trouble in connection with the electrification scheme in Natal is due to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) changing over the scheme from Maritzburg Durban to Maritzburg-Glencoe.

I did not say the whole of it.

Well, let us accept it that he said a great part of it. If that is his true view, it is impossible for me to appreciate why the hon. member signed the report which he laid on the table on Friday last. In that report—

I am sorry, but the hon. member is not permitted to refer to the report now.

I am not referring to the report. I am referring to the action of the chairman of the committee who comes here and makes a statement against an hon. member and who has not the pluck to put that statement into his own report. I think we need not pursue that further.

How do you know it is not in the report ?

Because I am a party to that report. It was drafted by the chairman. I wish now to speak to the Minister about a local matter which is becoming of rather more than local interest. It is the foghorn. A little while ago I presented to the Minister a petition signed by a large number of persons. On the 5th of May I received a letter from the secretary to the department, stating that the matter was receiving consideration. I do not know whether the Minister is still considering it ; we have heard nothing further. The position is that we do not ask that you deprive the shipping people of any safety. We wish shipping to be protected as far as possible, but we know that in no other part of the world, right in the middle of a closely populated area, has there been installed such a monstrosity as is installed at Green Point. The people there feel very hurt in regard to the action of the Government in installing such a foghorn. I have enquired from several mariners, and they assure me that quite a different instrument could be installed —one which would be a protection to shipping and, at the same time, no nuisance to anybody. They go further, and they say that the foghorn at Robben Island should be sufficient protection for all careful mariners. I do not know whether the Minister has gone into that. Apparently he has not, because the noise does not seem to disturb him in the least. Many of us are not disturbed, but there are persons built otherwise, and I can assure him it is really a serious menace to the inhabitants of that part. We have a large hospital in that district; we have several nursing homes, and all people therein are being seriously inconvenienced, and many are suffering. I want to put it to the Minister that it is quite easy to arrange some instrument which is not quite so great a nuisance. If that instrument is to be kept there you are going to drive people away from that suburb ; there is no doubt about it. We never have an opportunity of discussing in the House the reports of the select committee ; year by year we are refused any opportunity. We make definite recommendations, and after waiting a year, we get some reply, mostly non-committal. Is it worth while for men to spend their mornings in committee throughout the session and then find that no indication is given as to whether the report is accepted or rejected ? If we do not get an opportunity of discussing the report the Minister must not object if we, when his estimates come before the House, take up a little time in discussing these points. There are many points that want discussing, and I trust that at 11 o’clock he will not turn on me and say I am obstructing. I wish to touch upon the ratio of expenditure compared with earnings. We find from the estimates that the revenue estimated for 1926-’27 is £27,224,791. The revised estimates for 1925-’26 show a revenue of £27,766,269, representing a decrease in revenue for 1926-’27 of well over half a million. On the other hand, take the estimated expenditure. For 1926-’27 it is £27,310,572, as compared with the revised estimated expenditure for 1925-’26 of £27,093,283, indicating an increased estimated expenditure over 1925-’26 of £217,290; that is, whereas for the present year we have a decreased revenue estimated at over half a million, we have an estimated increased expenditure of a quarter of a million. [Time limit.]

I am glad the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) has raised the question of the foghorn. That terrible foghorn is spoiling what is, perhaps, one of the most beautiful suburbs in the whole of the Peninsula. Every prospect pleases except that foghorn. The Minister lives there himself and sleeps through all that noise. When there is a fog, and the foghorn is going, I certainly cannot sleep, and hundreds of other people cannot. We are probably built differently from the Minister. It is certainly going to spoil that suburb. Surely something can be done. There is another point. Is it not possible for him to arrange that the coloured people and the white people are divided in the railway carriages at Sea Point ? In the case of natives particularly you will find six or seven natives travelling from Sea Point to Cape Town and they are travelling one in each carriage—done deliberately to keep the white people out. I know that the coloured people of Cape Town are a very respectable crowd, but cannot something be done? I admit that the Minister has done an enormous amount for the railways, but he has not done enough. He has to do more with regard to the eight hours’ day, and the differential rates of pay. I was sorry to hear the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates) making an attack on the officials. I do not mind an attack on the Minister. That is what the Minister is there for. The hon. member said he did not attack the Minister, but the system, that is, the system of the officials. It is the worst thing to attack the civil servants, no matter by what party it is done. He has attacked the general manager. We have one of the most competent general managers in the British commonwealth of nations, and we pay him nearly nothing—the lowest salary that could probably be paid a man of his railway attainments ; and here, at the end of a long and tiresome journey, he is attacked by the Opposition, whom he has served so well for so many years. A man who stands so high in the railway world is attacked by the hon. member for Uitenhage, and by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger).

How so ?

In the cheers that went up from the front benches. You cannot have it both ways. Did you not agree with his speech ? The hon, member wants it both ways. The hon. member for Uitenhage made a Jong speech, containing quotations from newspapers, and a rather nasty attack upon the general manager. Is this the way the nation appreciates the work done by Sir William Hoy? We have fought him in the Labour party many a time, but not as the general manager. I have always stood up for the officials in this House, no matter who the officials are. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) attacked the officials two or three years ago. I can give him chapter and verse.

Do it now.

I am not going to do it now. I am not going to repeat what he said about the officials. I attacked the hon. member, on the speech he made about the, officials, in this House. Unfortunately, the Minister to-day has to reap the jaggerian crop of thistles. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) sowed the thistles—not the general manager—and in reaping them, naturally it hurts his hands and the hands of his party. If anybody is to blame it is the South African party. When the Pact came into office, they had to put everything right, and if the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) had been there longer, there would have been no railways. He supplanted the general manager, and tried to run the details. He failed hopelessly. He tried to do what the experts should do. There were two Turks in one village—Sir William Hoy and the Hon. J. W. Jagger—and a smash had to come. The hon. member did a lot to hurt the railways. A large number of railwayman— political supporters of the right hon. the member for Standerton Gen. Smuts), a good many of them—have told me that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) did far more harm to the railways than he did good. If the right hon. member for Standerton ever came back to power again, he would take jolly good care that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) was not his railway Minister. Anybody knows that. He who runs may read. When my hon. friend attacks the system, and not the Minister, he knows he is only attacking something done by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central), who is to blame for all the trouble we have in South Africa with regard to the railways. He is well-meaning ; a more honest man never trod shoe-leather. The Labour party respects the hon. member for Cape Town (Central). He puts his cards on the table—not like others, who put their ace under the candlestick. This Parliament can express its thanks to Sir William Hoy for all he has done. He came here as a young man, and he could have got a better job in any other part of the world. [Time limit.]

Reference has been made to me by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Mai. G. B. van Zyl) in relation to something in the report. I do not want to discuss the report ; but when they get the report, hon. members will find that what I stated was correct.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) referred to a very difficult question, viz., the question of those travelling on the railway. The Act under which the railway regulations are framed is the Act of 1916, and it is the South African party Government which is responsible, both for the Act and for the regulations, which were framed in 1918. Those regulations have not been, and could not be, carried out. We hear the point of view of the Europeans, but not the point of view of the non-Europeans, who use the railway and pay for their accommodation the same as the European. These regulations will not be carried out until you can provide equal accommodation for Europeans and for non-Europeans, and give the latter the same value for their money as you give the Europeans. If you are going, by your regulations, to compel a non-European to travel in a special compartment, he is entitled to the same consideration as a European, and I suppose it will be a long time before you have the necessary rolling stock to be able to do that. Until you can give a non-European the same value for his money as the European, it does not seem to me to be fair to press the matter of these regulations. I have not had any representations from natives ; but I have from coloured persons, e.g., ministers, who feel very much the way in which they are treated when they travel on the railways. At present, you cannot do equal justice to both, and therefore you have to carry on without these regulations which were passed in 1918.

I do not wish to join in any attack on the Minister, or to apportion any blame to any party, but I want to look at the bigger question. The system has grown up, and we have been trying to run the railways with old Cape or Natal or Transvaal methods, with the result that a good many of the evils have been perpetuated. It is quite true that the select committees since Union have drawn attention to the anomalies that exist, and have tried to get the Government of the day to better the administration of the railways ; and the select committees have always approached this in a non-party spirit.

Except the last two resolutions.

I won’t speak about that, but in the past you will find that under the S.A.P. Government, reports of the Railway Select Committee were signed by Mr. Havenga as acting chairman. I hope the Minister will go into these matters during the recess, of the renewals fund, free passes, and so on. It would not be so bad if the whole country were carrying the cost of running the railways, but the fact remains that the users of the railways pay for the cost of these privileges. Various members have been asking for lower rates on coal to the coast. That always means increased rates for other users, and it is not fair for the other sections to bear the cost. Could the Minister not consider whether the Act of Union, could not be amended to make the whole of the consolidated revenue bear any losses ?

Which losses?

Take the losses on the carriage of coal to Cape Town, for instance. Then there is the question of renewals. The Minister knows my attitude on that. The Auditor-General, I think, agrees with the majority of the committee. Take also the question of free passes. The railway is loaded with matters which do not concern them, such as the transport of hon. members. Then there was the Prince of Wales’ trip, which should have been borne by the central Government, but was borne by the railways, and the trip of the Empire Parliamentary Association. That cost £8,000, and was a charge on the railway users. Then there is the question of civilized labour. If the Minister will take into consideration the extra benefits these men receive in the way of sick pay and leave, it is costing about a million a year for our civilized labour policy.

Is that the extra cost?

The cost of the civilized labour policy to the railway is £200,000, but you have to take the extra cost of the benefits they receive which should be borne by the central administration. There is a great deal of dissatisfaction in the staff regarding the grading of various officials. A man in the third grade may arrive at the top of the grade after about nine years’ service, namely, £310, and may remain there for 15 or 20 years before getting any promotion. The Minister might give that his consideration. There are men holding very responsible positions on a pay of £25 per month. Then there is the question of promotion, which is a very burning one. The Minister might appoint some sort of promotion board on which officials could be appointed. There is quite a lot of dissatisfaction there. I hope the Minister will give these matters his consideration.

I would like to support the appeal that has been made on behalf of the third-grade clerks. There is a feeling of hopelessness among those who have reached the top of that grade, for they do not even receive a living wage. They have served a long time on the railways, and have nothing to look forward to. Something should be done to improve their position. The report of the Hours of Duty Committee is still a burning question. The hours of the firemen, ticket collectors and guards should be reduced to eight hours daily. A vital principle is at stake, for the trades unions have fought that an eight hour day should be recognized, each day standing by itself. The short trips are proving irritating to the men, but the adoption of the Hours of Duty report would remove dissatisfaction.

I was saying, when I sat down, that there was a decrease in the estimated revenue of half-a-million, and an increase in the estimated expenditure of a quarter-of-a-million, making a total of three-quarters of a million, as compared with the previous year. The increased expenditure is out of all proportion to the increased revenue. This is partly explained by the higher cost of civilized labour, which is stated for 1925-’26 as £260,000, and for 1926-’27 as £160,553, or a total increase, compared with 1924-’25, of £320,563. This is the increased cost. Besides that there are indirect charges. We have a large sum to pay in interest on the cost of capital provision for housing, etc. Then there is the additional cost involved in the pension provisions for white labourers and all the other privileges. Another factor is the opening up of branch lines. We are told that the additional cost for staff on those lines represents an outlay of £98,000. These branch lines are almost invariably non-paying, certainly in the first years of their existence. The Minister stated in his budget speech that the new construction programme of 1922 is practically completed. He also referred to the results of the working of these branch lines. While stating that the results were encouraging, he also stated that the approximate loss on the working of branch lines for December had been reduced to £14,000, but he gave no details.

I gave the figures for the whole year.

But not the detailed information. The Minister should keep the House well informed in regard to each branch line. We used to have that information. I wish to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) with reference to the general manager. We cannot give him too much praise for the work he has done. At the same time, I feel that the system has grown so enormously that the time has arrived when we should relieve him of at least the financial side of the work. It is too much for him or any other man to do properly. Does the Minister see the general manager’s report before it is printed ? No matter how good a man the general manager may be, I deprecate his passing remarks, such as he has done in his annual report, on his previous Minister of Railways. At least the present Minister should have seen that the following passage was excised from the general manager’s report—

I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that a year after the hon. member left office, a departmental workshops commission was appointed, and in their report they definitely state that they could not obtain the information which would have given the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) an opportunity of judging whether or no any change should be made. Let us turn to the report. At page 18 the commission state—

That is from the report in regard to the very workshops for which the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) has been blamed. The commission, at page 22, further state—

At page 27 the commission state—

On page 29 the following appears—

I ask how any man has a right, supported by his present Minister, to criticize his previous Minister when a year after that he was not able to supply to the commission the very figures necessary to guide his previous Minister? I could go further and give the committee many more extracts, but I think I have quoted sufficient to show that that part of the report certainly should never have been written. [Time limit.]

I should like to know from the Minister of Railways and Harbours what the actual relation is between him and the Railway Board. This year there is only a small bit of railway being constructed in Natal. Last year we had a programme and may expect another next year. We, however, require definitely to know what the relation is between the Minister and the Railway Board so that we know who is responsible for the building of new lines, the Government or the Railway Board ? The other day the Minister stated here that the last year’s programme was not the programme of the Government, but of the Railway Board, and he made it appear as if the lines were being built on the recommendation of the Railway Board. Now I find that the report of the Railway Board containing the recommendations was accompanied by a letter from the chairman of the Railway Board in which he expressly says that the programme contained the recommendations of the Railway Board regarding lines which the Minister of Railways had asked the Railway Board to report on. In other words the Minister asked the Railway Board to report on certain lines. I find in the report of the board after the names a series of figures which give the numbers of the various routes. The Minister therefore gave instructions to the board to investigate certain routes and to make a report on them, and the Railway Board did not have a choice of recommending what they wished. The Minister indicated the lines about which a report was required. Where then is the choice of the Railway Board ? The Minister wanted to prevent me from making an attack the other day on the Railway Board.

You said that the lines included in the programme were twenty-five political lines.

Yes, the figures show that. There are twenty-six lines contained in the programme.

Twenty-seven.

Twenty-seven but one is in South-West. Of the other twenty-six, sixteen are in constituencies represented by Nationalists and six in constituencies represented by Saps, while two are in constituencies of Saps, and Nationalists. Is that impartiality ? And what do the figures involved say ? In all, the lines are estimated to cost £4,451,000, or on deducting £384,000 for South-West £4,100,000. The districts represented by members of the South African party get £1,000,000 and those by Nationalists £3,050,000. If we further consider the losses anticipated on the lines then we find that a profit is only expected on two lines and they are both in districts represented by Saps. According to the recommendations there will be a loss on all the other lines. The loss in unproductive capital expenditure in one year is estimated at £182,000, of which £144,000 is on lines through Nationalist constituencies.

The hon. member is criticizing resolutions of Parliament, which he is not entitled to do.

I submit, but I want the Minister to tell us what the relation is between, him and the Railway Board. The Minister apparently wants us not to criticize him in any way. The other day when I was criticizing the Minister he said that I was making an attack on the Railway Board and on a dead man.

Does the hon. member wish to suggest

I had not the least idea of doing that. I only want to say that the Minister said that I was attacking the Railway Board, yet it now appears that the board has not a free choice. I did not intend to criticize the personnel of the Railway Board. I want to know when railway lines are built whether it is on the responsibility of the Government or of the Railway Board. When I look at the distribution of the lines I cannot help thinking that there is party politics behind it. Moreover, how was the Bill received by the Nationalist party? Even the hon. member for Ficksburg (Mr. Keyter) opened champagne bottles. That says sufficient.

I hope the Minister will take advantage of this Vote to tell us what the Government is going to do with regard to the Port Elizabeth Harbour works.

I have done so.

I listened to a statement from the Minister, some time ago, but my impression was that he was doing an elaborate egg dance on the subject. My impression was that up to now both he and the Government have carefully evaded stating their opinion on the report of their own commission. When we attended the Railway Board on the subject, and asked them what they thought of this report, they said—

The Minister said—

I am asking the Government whether they are going to proceed with these works, and in any case what is their opinion of their commission’s report. I think we are entitled to a reply. We are between the upper and the nether millstone.

Nonsense.

That is the position. Up to now, we have been unable to get an opinion from either side. I do strongly urge the Government to proceed with these works.

I thought you were against them.

I have never been against them—at least not of recent years. It may fairly be asked why, holding these views, the previous Government did not build this harbour. My answer is that the Government sanctioned the breakwater, which is the foundation upon which the whole harbour is to be built. It was sanctioned, I take it, as the first instalment of the completed harbour. That is my first answer. In the second place, evidence as to the necessity of a harbour is cumulative. I fully admit that four years ago I stated I had not yet that evidence before me to justify an opinion that the harbour should be built. Since then what has happened ? We had Sir Robert Buchanan’s report. Since then, the present Government has appointed their own commission, and asked them to report whether or not this harbour should be built. That is the cardinal difference. When we appointed an engineer of international repute we did not get a sufficiently strong recommendation from him to justify our proceeding, but now the Pact Government has appointed a strong commission to report. They handed in a most valuable report and a very instructive one. This report is very strongly in favour of proceeding immediately with this harbour scheme, and so I think we are justified in asking the Government to tell us in unequivocal terms whether or no they agree with this report. What does this commission report? I have here a few extracts. Hon. members know the present position is that a breakwater is being built which is going to Cost £1,600,000, for the purpose of securing calm water, in order to be able to proceed with the other works. The commission says—

More than three years ago I stated to my constituents that insufficient evidence had been produced to me. Since then we have got an accumulation of this important evidence. I have never called the lightering system anything but antiquated. They have done wonderful work with lightering, but the system is antiquated nevertheless. This report goes on to say—

Whatever happened, the commission was strongly of opinion that at any rate a modified scheme of harbour construction should be proceeded with at once, simultaneously with the building of the breakwater. The commission goes on to discuss why there is this urgency for building this harbour. They say that Port Elizabeth has a wide hinterland for harbour purposes, and show that no less than 23 per cent, of the import trade goes through Port Elizabeth, and the export trade is probably greater. They point out that it is fortunate that in the past the principal exports were wool and skins, articles not easily damaged in handling, but fruit is different. It was essential to the successful development of the port as a fruit exporting centre that fruit carrying vessels he moored alongside the quays. The commission is of opinion that the prospects of the fruit export trade formed a decisive factor in judging whether to have a protected or other harbour. The prospects created by huge irrigation schemes in the Port Elizabeth hinterland are striking—five of the eight schemes being in that hinterland. The total citrus export by 1935 was expected to be from two to three million boxes. [Time limit.]

I would like to ask the Minister if he would give the committee a statement with regard to the reports that have been appearing in the press that a large number of engines and rolling stock have been ordered in Belgium, Germany and the United States of America ; whether the manufacturers in Great Britain had an opportunity of tendering for these orders, and if so, if he would inform the committee what the reasons were that actuated the department in placing these orders with foreign firms. I assume the Minister knows and recognizes that practically the whole of the railway debt has been advanced at lower rates of interest than it could have been got from other parts of the world than Great Britain. Is the Minister bearing these things in mind and taking them into consideration when giving out contracts ? I think the American contract was for from 23 to 30 engines. More especially I should like to know whether the manufacturers of Great Britain had exactly the same opportunities of tendering.

Of course!

What were the reasons why their tenders were not accepted ?

Their tenders were higher.

I was told that last year certain Mountain and Pacific types of engines were ordered from New York, and were reported to be better engines than Great Britain could supply.

I did not say that.

There were star trips with the engines when they came out, and photographs were published. I do not know who organized it. The whole object was to show that they were engines really superior to all those that had come out from Great Britain. I would like my hon. friend to tell us whether these engines did the star trips that they were reported to have carried out-in two stages from Cape Town to Johannesburg? Has it not been proved in practice that some of the English engines of a lighter character were able to do equally good work ? Has he the opinion of his locomotive technical advisers of the workmanship of the British engines which have been working in this country for many years, as compared with the workmanship of the Belgian, American and other foreign engines ?

I would like the Minister to be very careful about spending money at Port Elizabeth. The late Government made a large number of investigations, and decided that it was inadvisable to spend money there. Can this country pay for the upkeep and development of a large number of harbours ? Is it not better to concentrate on Cape Town and Durban, and fit those harbours up with the latest appliances ? I would like the Minister to go carefully into this matter, and he will come to the conclusion that it is inadvisable to spend a large amount at Port Elizabeth. I would like the Minister to tell us when replying to the hon. member for Fort Beaufort the value of orders placed in Great Britain, compared with the orders placed on the continent. I think we have placed in Great Britain orders very favourable in comparison with the late Government. I believe the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) was very partial to placing orders on the Continent, and I object to the suggestion in the queries addressed to the present Government, that we are not trading with Great Britain.

The hon. member who has just sat down made the statement that the late Government made enquiries into the state of affairs at Port Elizabeth. Will he kindly name the report and give the date. For that is just one of the complaints we have at Port Elizabeth, that the late Government did nothing. The recent commission unanimously came to the conclusion that Port Elizabeth requires what it is asking for. Another thing he said was that in this country we should direct all our energies to Cape Town and Durban. Surely no one would suggest that a great country like this could be served by two ports, both at the shank end of the continent. Can the hon. member name a country that does that sort of thing. This great continent can only expand by having more gateways and harbours. We want Cape Town and Durban to succeed, but surely the hon. member has not heard the history of the great expansion of the Sundays and Fish Rivers and of the Eastern Province generally. In Port Elizabeth alone there is an increase in the European population in the last five years of 33 per cent, and also an increase in the other population. It seems to me that there is a weakness in the atmosphere of Cape Town. It has been said of an hon. member that he could never see beyond Table Mountain. I am afraid that the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) is not able to see beyond the foot of Table Mountain. I agree with every word uttered by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz). The Minister, I know, is in full sympathy with this. In this report a good deal is made of the reclaiming of that spare ground and that might be worth considering. I understand from the mayor of Port Elizabeth that they are prepared to hand over the ground. There is a place called Sydenham, and they want an artificial light. It is so dark that the fog horn might usefully be transferred from Green Point to Sydenham. It is very dark in the railway cottages and I hope the Minister will take these people away from the days of paraffin oil and candles. In regard to the question of the eight-hour day, I feel it would be justice to the men to take their eight-hour day on a principle other than the present one. I do not know where the Minister got the idea, or who had the brain wave to make it 96 hours at a stretch. I can understand some difficulty in making every day stand by itself, but might I suggest to the Minister to make it one week. It would cost more but it would give some satisfaction to the staff. He must not imagine that all the sympathy for the men is to be found down in this corner. I would appeal to the Minister, as an act of justice, to investigate it, and as soon as possible to put the men on a 48 hours’ week, which would be more equitable and just. It would not take so much money, after all, to do it, and many of the things they are given free might be done away with, and very few would demand a reduction of railway rates at the expense of the men who are running the railways. There is no trace of this present system in any other place in the world. With regard to promotion, you cannot help favouritism under certain circumstances, for instance, when men come into the limelight. Promotion should not be taken out of the hands of the responsible officials, but there should be a committee to make recommendations of men suitable for vacancies, and in this way suitable men—of whose abilities the superior officers might be unaware—would be given a chance. The railway is the property of the nation, and the first consideration should be efficient service to the public, and the second that the men who render those services should be properly treated, the “labourer being worthy of his hire.” [Time limit.]

I wish to reply to the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), who has again been making the flesh of the British public in this country-creep by instancing what he considers Nationalist preference for buying from Germany. I deprecate that type of speech. We don’t deal with Germany because that country happens to be Germany. The railway administration is a business concern, and therefore, buys in the cheapest market. Perhaps the right hon. member does not know that the Government of which he was a member purchased electric locomotives, costing close on £1,000,000 from a well-known British firm in England which in turn sub-let 50 per cent, of the contract to a German firm in Switzerland. I cannot help feeling that the right hon. gentleman in making that kind of speech is trying to raise the racial issue even on matters like this. It is his chief stock-in-trade. We have had enough of it.

I have a few questions to ask regarding the harbour at East London. I understand the East Pier there has been completed. It is high time that a definite statement was made regarding the provision of a basin in which steamers could turn round and thus leave the port bow first. East London occupies a very distinguished position with regard to exports. It is still the premier port for the export of wool, 171,584 bales having been exported from East London last year, as compared with 152,668 from Port Elizabeth, 129,500 from Durban, 36,204 from Table Bay, and 3,647 from Mossel Bay. Of the 616 ships that called at East London last year only 455 entered the harbour, and it seems practically certain that a greater number would have crossed the bar had the harbour possessed a basin in which they could turn.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.6 p.m.

Since last I had the pleasure of addressing you, sir, the Brown Book has been put on the Table, and I note with some satisfaction that there is an item of—

for which the magnificent sum of £200 is set down. I hope this is an earnest of a much larger expenditure. I am sorry to notice that there is no reference in the Brown Book or anywhere else, as far as I can see, of the installation of temporary appliances for the loading of grain at East London. I hope that this will be remedied, too. East London is the natural port for the export of the bulk of the grain produced in the Union. It has not been given a grain elevator, like Cape Town and Durban ; but, pending the decision of the question of the export of grain, I hope that these temporary appliances, which I am informed cost a comparative trifle, will be installed at East London. Then there is another long-felt want there, and that is a new bridge over the Buffalo River. I do not know whether the Minister is delaying construction of this bridge in order to connect with the proposed Peddie railway or not, but I hope he will not delay until that line is in course of construction, but that he will take steps to replace the present bridge by a more stable structure, and one that is more adequate to the needs of this rising port.

Before the adjournment I was asking the Minister whether the Government were going to give us a statement as to how they looked on the commission’s report in regard to Port Elizabeth harbour, and whether or not they were proceeding with these works. I mentioned that the commission appointed by the present Government stated that no less than five-eights of the major irrigation works in this country are in the immediate hinterland of Port Elizabeth, and they also stated in their report that it is quite possible that the total, citrus export through Port Elizabeth in 1935 will be two to three million boxes, and that, from 10 to 15 years hence, fruit will constitute the most important export commodity through Algoa Bay, tut they add and emphasize —

They state that at present the conditions at Port Elizabeth are such that it would be unwise to base calculations on the assumption of direct export. Only on Friday we had a statement from the Minister of Railways on behalf of the Government expressing their great anxiety to further the interests of the fruit industry in this country, and now we have it on record, not only from the Irrigation Commission, but from this ad hoc commission that the fruit industry of the Eastern Province is going to be one of the biggest industries of the country, subject to harbour facilities at Port Elizabeth being provided. The commission says that it is impossible to ship Eastern Province fruit through Cape Town, and also states—

I would like to emphasize that this question of a Port Elizabeth harbour is not, as the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) tried to make out, an inter-port dispute between Cape Town and Port Elizabeth. I am quite sure that the merchants and citizens of Cape Town are generous enough and big enough to realize that this is not a parochial matter. It is a matter of national importance. Port Elizabeth is the manufacturing centre of South Africa. Some of the biggest firms in the world have recently started activities at Port Elizabeth. Now that this commission has reported so exhaustively and so enthusiastically about the need for a harbour at Port Elizabeth, it seems to me that the time has come when we are entitled to a definite statement from the Minister, and I sincerely hope that, in replying, he will state whether or not the Government intends proceeding with these works, and I think we are also entitled to know how the Government look upon this report. Up to now the Minister has carefully refrained from telling us how the Government view this report.

Before the adjournment the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) was quoting from the report of the Workshops Commission, and he seemed to indicate that when the question was raised the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) did not know the state of the workshops. I remember that last year the Minister quoted the actual document which had reached the Railway Board, informing the then Minister of the state of the workshops. I hope that, when the Minister replies, he will deal with the point raised by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour), because, since the present Minister took over, a good deal of extra expenditure has been necessitated which would have been avoided had the previous administration not allowed the workshops to get into disrepair. I believe that, when we are dealing with estimates, the Minister and the Government should be criticized, but I hold that the criticism should be fair. The hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates) gave the Minister a thorough “dressing down,” and said, in his energetic way—

The injustices that the Minister is now trying to remedy are the injustices imposed on the workmen during the last regime, during the time that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) was Minister of Railways. I do not think there is a member of this House whom we respect more than the hon. member for Cape Town (Central), but his ideas of the administration of the railways were antiquated ideas, and may have suited the conditions of 25 or 30 years ago, but they do not suit the present-day position. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) then took a step which violated a definite understanding that existed between the trade unions and the railway administration. In 1923, when the dual rate of pay was introduced, it was introduced in violation of an agreement that was entered into between the trade unions and Mr. Burton, the then Minister of Railways, that whatever they fixed by negotiation with the trade unions would not be disturbed without the trades unions being notified, and without notifying the trade unions, the body that had entered into these agreements, the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) brought about changes from which the railway-men are suffering to-day, and the present Minister is gradually wearing down those injustices. Conferences are not only necessary, but they are very beneficial. Conferences between the trade unions and the administration very often clear the ground. I was astonished at the attitude of the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates), who ought to have known better, because he himself was an artizan on the railways. He knows perfectly well that at that time injustices were imposed on the men which are going to take the present Minister a long time to straighten out. They are being straightened out gradually, and there is more contentment on the railways to-day than ever before. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) does not admit he violated the agreement. Well, I have the actual document in my hand setting forth that it should not be disturbed without due notice being given. I hope the Minister will make up his mind to get this injustice removed as soon as he possbily can. In criticizing the Minister, I want us to criticize him a little more on the adoption of the eight-hour principle on the railways. There is a world of difference between a 96-hour fort night and a 48-hour week. The Minister has got to face the position squarely. I hope he will see that the 48-hour principle is carried out. Another thing which is causing great dissatisfaction is this short time. When the committee’s report was adopted by the Railway Board, examiners were not given an eight-hour day ; they were give a nine-hour day. If an examiner works four hours he gets half a day, but if he works four hours and ten minutes he only gets four hours and ten minutes. Not only have there been errors made in this matter, but there are subordinate officers who are carrying out these recommendations in a way that is causing the utmost friction among the men. I hope the Minister will see that this is rectified. Another point is the concession tickets to men who get annual leave who are not employed by the railway. There are hundreds of men who are deprived of seeing the coast simply because their holiday does not fall at the right time, within the excursion ticket period. There should be no difficulty in having certificates printed, to be filled in by an employer certifying that the man was a bona fide employee on annual leave, so that when a man gets his annual leave he would be entitled to the excursion fare. It would do a tremendous lot of good, and would not cost the Administration much. In connection with the civilized labour policy, this extra money is not the cost as between white labour and native labour ; it is the cost of a change of policy. No matter what policy you pursue, a change is going to cost you money. It is going to mean tnis—hon. members laugh because they have not gone into the thing—that gradually, year by year, you will find it is going to wear the cost down, and we are going to be on a more economic basis by employing higher skilled labour at a higher wage.

On page 3 of the Estimates of expenditure, I notice there is an item of £200,000 for the construction of the line between Klerksdorp and Maquassi. I am, however, sorry to say that the railway will not be started from Klerksdorp to Maquassi, but from Maquassi to Klerksdorp. I am sure that the construction should be commenced from Klerksdorp, because there is great need for a railway between Klerksdorp and Ottosdal. I hope that the line will be completed for getting in next season’s mealie harvest, and I hope the Minister and those assisting him will do their best to complete the line by then. If these expectations are realized, then there will be a large mealie harvest next season, and it is more necessary to have a railway between Klerksdorp and Ottosdal than between Ottosdal and Maquassi. I hope that the construction will, if possible, be commenced from Klerksdorp, so that the farmers will have the railway for the transport of the mealie harvest, which is expected to be larger than that of last season. Last year great loss was suffered on account of lack of transport facilities, and the farmers were, in consequence, obliged to put their cattle into the kafir corn. The difficulties during the coming season will be still greater than during the last one, because there is more ground under cultivation. I therefore hope the Minister and the Railway Board will give their attention to this matter.

I want to ask the Minister what is happening about our old friend the Johannesburg station. Last time I mentioned it to the Minister, he assumed an air of righteous indignation, and said—

He indicated that the only matter that stood between him and putting a large sum on the Estimates was the settlement of the question with the Wanderers’ Club over the ground that was required. I understood from what took place at a deputation that a satisfactory solution had been found. Consequently, I opened this Brown Book with very great expectations, but I cannot find a word about Johannesburg station. It is there, is it?

Yes ; £75,000.

Then I have nothing more to say on that point. I can only congratulate the Minister on having got to work so successfully. There is one other question I want to ask him. We have heard something to-night about the policy of civilized labour. I have always held that the Railway Department, like any other employer, ought to pay a civilized wage to a man who is employed and who has to live in civilized surroundings. I think that is part of the ordinary cost and charges of carrying on any business. Therefore, I do not see why it should not be paid out of railway revenue. I want to know why the Minister has made such an enormous increase in the number of employees during the last year or so. The figures he gave me show that from the 31st March, 1924, to the 31st December, 1925, the number of European employees increased by over 12,000. I want to know what the Minister employs them on. It is not a question of replacing non-Europeans by Europeans, because if you look at the non-Europeans you find they have also gone up.

More mileage.

Yes, I know there is more mileage ; but an increase of over 12,000 Europeans surely requires some explanation, and I would be glad to know from the Minister what these people are doing. If he is turning the railways into a sort of relief works, then I think the extra cost of that ought to go on to general revenue.

I would like to endorse what the hon. members have said about the administration going into a real 48-hours week or eight-hours day instead of an imaginary one. There will be no real satisfaction or justice done to these men until the department is able to inaugurate a real eight-hours day. Another point is why there is this differentiation in regard to concessions. Students attending a certain branch of the university receive concession tickets ; others attending another branch do not. Take the School of Art. Students attending there are not allowed concessions ; students attending the ordinary university course get concessions. A third matter I want to ask about is with regard to the system adopted now in connection with bringing coal down. I am told that in 1922 there was a reduction of railway rates, and in 1923 the extraordinary system was adopted by the late administration-and carried on by the present administration, by which trucks are painted up. For instance, a truck which has a capacity for only 30,000 lbs. is painted up as having a capacity for 32,000 lbs. A 22,400 lbs. capacity truck is painted as if it contains 24,000 lbs. The result is, when it arrives at its destination, if loaded full at the outset, a large amount of coal disappears, and the shortage may be as much as one, three or four tons. You have to pay for the capacity of the truck, and that is all right if the figures painted on the truck are accurate. I am informed that if a big consignee makes a row about this, and says he is going to pay only on what has arrived, a cheque is taken by the Railway Department for what has been actually received, but the small consignee who has no weighbridge has to pay up, and for more coal than is actually received by him. I will give you three instances. Truck No. 8,011 recently arrived, full of coal, to the extent of 38,000 lbs., but, according to the official mark, the load was 46,000; truck No. 8,987 had a full load of 34,720 lbs., but was marked as 46,000 lbs. ; truck No. 27,836 had a full load of 25,760 lbs., but was marked as 32,000 lbs. It is a species of business which, if done by a private individual, would land him in the courts of the country, because it would be a breach of the Weights and Measures Act. You cannot alter the capacity of a truck because you use the paint brush. Obviously, it is most unfair to ask men to pay for coal they never receive. The only thing the Government can do is to construct more trucks. We have the men in South Africa to make them.

I would like to ask the Minister whether he has come to a decision about a question I put to him last year, viz., gatekeepers who do duty in signal cabins ? There is the case, for instance, of the men at the Belmont Road crossing—they are called gatekeepers, but they are really signal porters. I understand they work in a cabin, operate levers, and control trains. These men work from 6 a.m. to 4 p.m., which is a very long day ; and that is a serious risk to passengers who travel by train. As signal porters, they would be entitled to a higher rate of wage. Then I would like to know what is being done about the numerous level crossings on the suburban line. It is a perennial question, which has become more acute with the increasing traffic, and will become even more acute with the approaching electrification of the line. The Belmont Road crossing is dangerous, and there is an enormous waste of time while the gates are shut. There are crossings in a similar position at Observatory station and between Newlands and Claremont, where there is also a waste of time. Will the Minister tell us when the electrification of the suburban line is likely to be completed ? Of course, the Minister has the most competent advisers, but it seems to me that the new work makes the platforms rather dangerous ; for instance, at Newlands, where there are enormous crowds after football and cricket matches, the entrance to the subways on the platforms seems to me to narrow the platform a great deal, and to revert to the position of some years ago, before the platforms were widened. As to Rondebosch station itself, the station and the platform accommodation are very inadequate. The university is going up apace on the slopes of Devil’s Peak, above Rondebosch station, and great crowds will in future have to go to the station, which is entirely inadequate for the prospective requirements of the very near future.

I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to a matter to which I have previously drawn his attention, that is, to the serious competition of outside carriers with the railway in short distance heavy traffic. If you go from Bellville to Worcester and beyond, and from Stellenbosch to Elgin, you would find that, so to say, all the wine carried to the distilleries is being conveyed by motor lorries. I do not view it as a good thing, as my hon. friend behind me says. It is a matter the railway has to take into serious consideration, for I would like the railway to secure all the traffic it can, so that it can lower its rates on the other traffic. What largely influenced them to carry these products by lorry is the high charges which the railway makes on empties to be filled and the return of the wines. I do not wish the Railway Department to handicap the outside carriers in any other way than by reducing its rates, and thus to attract that traffic which to-day is being carried by the lorries. I wish, also, to emphasize what other speakers have said with regard to your white labour policy. I have no objection in the least to the Railway Department using white labourers in place of others, but it should not be done at the expense of the users of the railway—the extra cost should be provided out of the consolidated revenue.

Consult the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan)!

This extra expenditure will eventually react on your railway employees, because, if you have a falling off in traffic and you have increased your expenditure and you are burdening the railway with it, it will be bound to react on those employees. I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to a few matters for which he has not provided, one of which is the installation of electric light in the railway cottages at Worcester. The Worcester municipality has any amount of power, which will be supplied to the railway administration at a reasonable rate. The employees want this very much. They are cut off from the town, as there is no telephone communication, and I hope the Minister will give this matter his attention. I put a question to the Minister a little while ago in regard to the construction of more railway cottages at Worcester. Your employees there find great difficulty in securing accommodation in the town at a reasonable cost. You have sufficient ground to erect these cottages. I hope the Minister will give that matter his attention also. I hope the extension of the fruit platform at De Dooms, which has been provided for, will be taken in hand as soon as possible, as, unless it is completed before the end of January, the work in progress at that time will interfere with the loading of the fruit. I am glad the Minister has taken in hand the work at Orchard siding, and will complete that soon.

I did not intend to speak, but after the speech of the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) I cannot but say a few words. He says that the extra expenditure through the use of white labour should not be paid by the Department of Railways. It is surprising to me that notwithstanding the use of white men, we have succeeded to reduce the railway rates by £1,000,000, and we had a surplus, while the Opposition when they were in power struggled along with deficits. This shows that the previous Administration was not right. The hon. member for Worcester wants to make people believe that it is not quite right to employ white labour. No, let the Minister use as many whites on the railways as possible even if we have to pay a few pennies more.

I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) on the applause he has just had. I may say we are all delighted with the result so far obtained in respect of the New Cape Central Railway, but we are to-day suffering great inconvenience at stations and sidings, particularly because of lack of comfort for travellers. In almost every station we have miserable waiting-rooms which are absolutely a disgrace to any white man to enter, and I particularly ask the Minister to direct his attention to that. At Bonnievale we have a large traffic in vegetables and other perishable goods, which are likely to be spoilt if stored or kept at the station. I would like the Minister to assist us there by building, if possible, a suitable store where articles of that nature can be stored. Then we find that the trains are nearly always 2 or 3 hours late. There is no reason why there should be this delay to trains in ordinary times, and in connection with this delay a large number of people are inconvenienced by the inadequate waiting-room accommodation. We would ask the Minister to endeavour to obtain for us suitable stores along the line. He knows there will be a considerable amount of traffic in the grain season, and we are having great difficulty in getting the storage. I am not permitted to speak at present on the provision that is being made in the capital and betterment works, but I am glad that a large amount has been applied to the New Cape Central section. At present I do not know how it will be allocated. It may be for those things I have just referred to.

I want to bring the conditions at the Braamfontein depot in my constituency to the Minister’s notice. The former Government housed some of the returned soldiers there, and now I want to ask the Minister if he knows the condition the houses are in. They have been built on piles and closed underneath with corrugated iron. They are so draughty that in the summer they are unbearably not and in the winter unbearably cold. When the wind blows a candle cannot be kept alight. Requests have repeatedly been made to close the houses underneath by stone, but nothing has been done all these years. Then there is another matter in this connection. The former Minister of Railways increased the house rent. The houses were measured and the rent was increased according to the inches or feet. The occupants who receive low wages have therefore to pay more than formerly. The matter has been repeatedly referred to and I have myself brought it to the notice of the former Minister that the people were paying more rent than the houses were worth. I hope the Minister will give his attention to it. What surprises me is the fact that hon. members opposite—such as the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie)—say that the extra expenditure involved in the policy of civilized labour must be paid out of the consolidated revenue of the country. The railways are a business standing by themselves and why should the taxpayer pay it ? Under the former Minister of Railways 12,000 white men were discharged and natives taken in their place on the railways. This Government has altered matters and re-employed the 12,000 whites. Are hon. members opposite content that thousands of white men should wander about without work with their wives and children minus food ? The Government is doing its best to help the people out of their troubles. Hon. members opposite say that extra expenditure is caused. The white men do work on the railways and earn the higher wages they receive because it has been proved over and over again that a white man does more than three natives. When this Government came into power the Braamfontein railway area was full of natives who lay about smoking their pipes, but a change was made, the natives were discharged and white men put in their place. The profit on the railways for the last financial year was £670,000, but the former Minister of Railways ran them at a loss. It was not seen to that the railway expenditure was covered, and wives and children had to suffer on account of the deficits there were. As a result of the deficits, railwaymen were discharged. The whole people of South Africa thank the Minister and the Government that the white men have again been enabled to earn a living. I cannot understand how the Opposition harp on the question of civilized labour. The Government has done great work in this respect and the people are thankful to him, but I want to ask the Minister whether he will not consider the payment of 9d. more per day to the railway labourers. They receive 6s. 9d. a day now, but I am convinced that they cannot come out on that. The increase of 9d. a day will not mean a large amount. The former Government paid the white labourers 7s. 6d. a day. I want to ask the Minister and the Railway Board to consider this and then the men will come out better. It is useless for the Opposition to find fault with the policy of civilized labour and to say that the extra cost involved must be paid from the Treasury. All the people are thankful to the Government and are satisfied with its policy. The position in the country is much improved to-day and I hope the profit on the railways which is now £670,000 will exceed £1,000,000. The railways are now being managed properly.

If the words just uttered by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. J. S. F. Pretorius) were to go out to the world it would be a real shame. He harps on the fact that the Opposition almost allowed the people to die when we were in power.

That is absolutely correct. Will you deny it ?

The hon. member himself complains to the Minister that the men are only getting 6s. 9d. and that they got 7s. 5d. under the old Government. The hon. member is again trying to catch votes. I should myself like to see white men employed on the railways, but I want it done in accordance with law. The Constitution says that the railways must be run on business principles. I say let the Government take as many white men into the service as possible, but it must not all be debited to the railways. Let the general taxpayer also bear his share. The hon. member for Fordsburg can easily talk. He stops in Fordsburg and consigns nothing by train from one year’s end to the other. The hon. member for Riversdale spoke so much about the increase of revenue and the reduction of rates. I just want to say with regard to white labour that I am glad that our poor white people are being assisted. The Department has assisted me personally very much in my attempts to get white men appointed to the service. The Department was very well disposed and I am thankful. But where I differ from the hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) is that I think the extra expendtiure for civilized labour should be covered from the general fund. The rates have been reduced by a million sterling, the member for Riversdale said. I am glad and thankful. The Government have had a particularly favourable year, but the hon. member for Riversdale will do me great pleasure if in connection with the civilized labour policy he also tells his constituents that it costs £160,000 more than if coloured men were used.

I add that.

Let us try to put things right. The last Government paid 7s. 6d. and the people cannot come out on 6s. 9d. The hon. member for Fordsburg so severely attacked the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) with regard to his acts as Minister of Railways and Harbours, etc., but the present Minister has done no better.

This Government is putting things right.

But in a wrong way. Then I want to refer to the bad conditions as regards railway facilities in the Zoutpansberg district. I complained last year about the irregular train service. An enquiry took place and I am thankful to say that there has been improvement. But at Schoemansdal, e.g., a half in Zoutpansberg the condition as regards facilities is more than scandalous. I measured the little hut there. It is 6 foot by 14 foot. We live in a warm country and if the trains are three or four hours late then the women have to sit in the hut and wait together with the natives. Last year the department sent somebody there and we hoped that an improvement would be made, but then there was no money. I have not yet had an opportunity of seeing whether there is money on the Loan Estimates for an improvement, but in any case I want to appeal to the Minister to see that the far-off parts of the country are provided with proper facilities.

I do not know whether the Minister remembers the subject on which I touched before I sat down on the last occasion. It was in connection with the general manager’s report.

I am going to deal with that in my reply.

Then I shall say no more on that subject for the present. Last year the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours recommended that all lands purchased, irrespective of the amount involved, should figure in the administration’s permanent capital records. The administration replied that the maximum amount in respect of new minor works charged to working as from the 1st April, 1926, would be reduced from £250 to £100 and that the maximum amount chargeable to working in respect of land purchases would be similarly reduced from £250 to £100, but in the case of the purchase of land where the cost did not exceed £100 they could not depart from the old practice. I cannot appreciate that argument, for whenever the administration purchases land, no matter what its value may be, it should not be paid for out of profits. The proper policy would be that all land purchases should figure in capital expenditure, for whether the amount is £100 or £100,000 the principle is exactly the same. Then I wish to ask about an advance of £3,000 to a senior officer for the purchase of a house at Pretoria, the excuse for the making of the advance being that there was no dwelling house available. After a very short interval, however, the officer left the house and it is now occupied, so I am informed, by the Secretary for Native Affairs. The central Government, under no circumstances advances money for such purposes. Why should this one particular railway servant be favoured? Next I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to last year’s report of the committee, recommending that the amounts paid to the administration as commission, should be credited as revenue. The administration objected that such a practice would be to inflate both the revenue and expenditure by amounts which do not properly apply to the administration’s services. In regard to the postal department, however, the very thing we recommend is done, all the work paid for by the Government to the post office going into revenue. As far back as 1905 the committee reported on this subject, but nothing has been done. In future we should have an opportunity of discussing the select committee’s report in the House. I wish to call attention to a case in which the administration accepted £1,400 towards he construction of a siding but failed to pay the amount into revenue. The money was paid by the Clair-wood Turf Club of Durban, and the Auditor-General refers to the matter in paragraph 2, page 2, of his report. By this practice by the administration, Parliament is deprived of having a say in certain expenditure, as owing to the change over the amount is not submitted to Parliament. Strangely enough the administration accepted the committee’s recommendation. Then I wish to emphasize the matter brought up by the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti) that railway passes issued to members of Parliament and provincial councils should not be at the expense of the railway administration. This is borne by the Administration. Year after year we have reported upon this matter also and in the fourth report last year we recommended very strongly once more that it should be dealt with. Will the Minister tell us what is being done ? The provincial people certainly should pay for their own passes and I think the Central Government should pay for the passes of members of Parliament. Besides those I find that other passes are given. Passes were given to two officers of the Central Government. The position, I understand from the Auditor-General’s report, is that passes were given to two members of the printing department of the Government. These were given, not because they did anything extraordinary, but simply because they managed to assist the department in speeding up the work. Why should they receive free passes on the railway for doing no more than they are required to do ? It has been established that the constitutional principle is that all money appropriated by Parliament in an appropriation Act must previously be voted in Committee of Supply. In 1924-’25 on the main estimates a sum of £5,861,000 was appropriated by Act 40 of 1924. We only voted in regard to that, £62,521 in Committee of Supply and £6,000,000 odd in the Appropriation Act. The rules of the House require that any supply of this nature must be first voted in Committee of Supply. I shall however bring up this matter in concrete form when we get to the Appropriation Bill.

On a point of order, I want to ask the hon. member if all the questions which he is putting here now come out in a certain report which was laid on the Table a few days ago. I do not know whether he is in order in bringing up these matters.

In the first instance, the hon. member laid the report on the Table, but if I am not allowed to refer to the report, every statement I have made will be found in the Auditor-General’s report.

The hon. member (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) may proceed, but do not let him refer to the report.

I am not referring to the report. I am repeating what the Auditor-General said and nothing else. The next matter which I wish to bring to the Minister’s attention is the over-borrowing by the Administration. There have been large sums borrowed by the Administration at 5 per cent, and when they have borrowed they have put the balance with the Public Debt Commissioners and have received for that only 3 per cent. The amounts vary and it will be found that the actual difference to the Administration in the matter of interest alone amounts to something like £14,000 a year. The objection I take to it is that the Administration over-borrows and by that very fact of over-borrowing they are losing to the users of the railway a sum of not less than £14,000 a year. The Auditor-General has recommended very strongly that they should lessen these borrowings and I think the Minister should go carefully into this matter. I wish to ask the Minister a question on the matter of £3,000 contributed to the Railways and Harbours Employees Fund, I think it is called. It is an old fund. Many of the men down at the docks particularly contributed to it. As far back as 20th May, 1925, a letter was addressed to the Minister and in reply on 5th June, 1925, the secretary stated that the matter would be inquired into. On the 20th August of that year the Minister was again written to calling his attention to the fact that no definite reply had been received and on the 27th August a formal acknowledgement was again given. No further communication has been received by these people and I would urge upon the Minister to go into this matter now and let these people have a reply. I want to touch now upon the voting and appropriating of expenditure for Renewals Fund. I feel that if one went into this question a little more fully perhaps the Minister would see the necessity of endeavouring to satisfy us. Up to the present we have not been satisfied. Parliament annually votes and appropriates a contribution of one and a half to one and three quarter millions from the Revenue to the Renewals Fund, but the expenditure from that fund is absolutely not controlled by Parliament at all. The control is in the hands of the Administration and the Administration alone. Last year the Administration spent £2,057,000 from that fund. From 1912-13 to 1924-’25 not less than £14,025,000, chiefly on new rolling stock, was spent. This renewals expenditure is very closely allied to ordinary maintenance of working expenses and in some instances it is very difficult to decide from which fund the amount has been paid or from which fund it should be paid. For instance, we have the relaying and re-sleepering of the whole of the line in the Free State, we have moneys expended on large maintenance works in many cases, we have extensive renewals of tracks and in all these cases the amounts have been charged to the ordinary maintenance renewals. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager) accused the Government and the Minister this afternoon of the last railway programme having been a political one. The accusation has been made before by hon. members opposite, but it is the first time this afternoon that the hon. member has tried to prove it. The hon. member for Paarl said, in order to corroborate his statement that, of the twenty-four lines proposed, sixteen went through districts represented by Nationalists, while eight lines were being built through constituencies represented by South African party men. From that the hon. member concludes that the Government is favouring the Nationalists. He forgets that the last railway programme was, in the first instance, an agricultural programme, and intended to assist the rural population. We are thankful to the Government for it. The hon. member forgets that the countryside is represented by hon. members on this side of the House. Because the Government is busy on an agricultural programme it is natural that more lines should be built through constituencies represented by Nationalists. More than once hon. members opposite have stated that this side of the House does not represent the countryside. If one looks at a list of members of this House, you will find that on this side there are 57 members representing country constituencies, while there are only 29 opposite. That means that the old allegation that there are no farmers’ representatives on this side is without foundation. It is not necessary to go further to prove that. One can conclude from it that this side of the House represents the countryside and we thank the Minister in showing the countryside a service by the railway programme. Hon. members opposite can continue with the accusation that the Government does not represent the countryside. Now I want to bring something to the Minister’s notice which, I think, is generally felt. It is that better facilities should be given to travellers to make use of the garden route. There are many travellers who go from north to south, and from south to north who would very much like to go via the garden route, but they do not wish to make the long journey twice. I think it will be convenient to the travellers to go that way on the forward or return journey. The Minister will render a service to the travelling public if he instructs the Railway Administration that travellers are to be allowed to go that route in one direction or the other. Everybody knows that Oudtshoorn, Mossel Bay and George form one of the most important parts of the country, and if the alteration is made, I think it will not only be to the advantage of those parts, but also of the railways, because more persons will use the railway in that case. There is another matter I want to bring to the Minister’s notice, i.e., in connection with the railway between Calitzdorp and Oudtshoorn. The Minister knows that the people between Calitzdorp and Oudtshoorn do not have all the facilities they need. The Minister will remember that I have already brought to his notice that the stations and halts do not give the necessary facilities, and I hope he will give his attention, to the matter. The people there are thankful for the railway, but it was built some time ago, and is very much used. It is a nuisance when lucerne is being consigned that there are no platforms. I hope the Minister will see that better facilities are provided. When the railway was built the engineer requested the farmers along the line to give certain facilities for stations and halts at the Middleput Halt, the owner gave four morgen gratis to the Administration on condition that at that halt there should be a siding. When the line was completed, however, no siding was provided, and the engineer in charge said that, in the circumstances, it was not possible to give the siding, but that it would be provided later. The owner of the farm tells me that it was a condition that if he gave the ground gratis he would be given a siding. I think that if the Minister will go into it, he will find that there has been a breach of contract. I do not say it has been done intentionally, but if there was an agreement, then I trust the Minister will see that it is complied with.

I want to support the arguments used by my friend on the Labour benches in regard to the eight-hour day. I can assure the Minister that no trade union in the world would have given way on such an important principle as each day standing by itself as the Hours of Duty Committee did. There is no doubt whatever that this is a very sore point with the staff, and I hope the Minister will give attention to it. There is this question of the looking-off time. I hope the Minister will be able to revert to the old practice with regard to guards and examiners. It was hardly worth while, and it was very mean, to come along and take away the 15 minutes from them. I want to call the Minister’s attention to a point in the auditor-general’s report which, I think, involves a very important principle. It deals with the Central News Agency’s contract for overseas publications, and it goes on to say—

This paragraph reveals the fact that the Central News Agency has practically a monopoly in this country for overseas publications. That means they can charge and deliver whatever they like, and I think such a position should not exist in this country. I want the Minister to see that this matter is referred to the Board of Trade and Industries, in order to see whether it does not constitute a monopoly and restriction of trade. Steps should be taken to see that the Railway Administration, with its big publicity department, should be able to purchase its periodicals where it thinks fit. Then there is this question of the manufacture of rolling stock. I give every credit to the Minister for what has been done in this respect, and for the time being we have still to import engines, but I hope it will not be many years before we manufacture our own. We now call for tenders, and they are sent in from various parts of the world, but it seems that no provision is made for a fair wage clause, the same as we have in our own public works contracts, and the result is that, in many cases, German firms secure these contracts because they are able to tender at ridiculously low prices, compared with old-established firms in Britain and America, which I think is a scandal. No one can accuse me of being a flag-wagger, but it is unfair to old-established British and American firms, like the North British Locomotive Works and the Baldwin Locomotive Co. to be handicapped like this, and to be prevented from securing contracts, because they pay fair wages ; as the other firms cut prices and secure the contracts. I am told on very good authority that some of the coaches we have imported from Germany are very badly made and shoddily constructed, and will not give that service which better constructed coaches made in this country and in other countries I have mentioned have given. The test of rolling stock is how long it is going to last. Cheapness is not the only consideration. When we call for tenders in other directions we put in—

It has also happened that a so-called British firm gets the contract, but it has not followed that British workmen do the work ; for instance, I am informed that half the electrical work on certain locomotives for which a tender from a British firm was accepted, was done in Switzerland at low wages, the contract having been sub-let to a firm there. That is grossly unfair to the older-established firms and to first-class workmen, wherever they are employed. [Time limit.]

Last session I raised the question of the housing shortage at Diamona Junction, near Ladysmith, when I urged that further accommodation should be provided. At the present time the men are occupying houses at the lower end of Ladysmith itself. I am told that work of erecting houses is about to commence in the immediate vicinity of Diamona, but when I left Ladysmith a few months ago it had not commenced. Will the Minister please state if work has now commenced ? Less than two years ago, there was a serious flood, and many railway men living in Ladysmith had their furniture and other belongings damaged. This is the third time I have brought this matter up. I believe money was placed on the Estimates for these houses, but was diverted to other purposes which were regarded as more urgent. I do not wish to bring this matter up as a hardy annual. I would also like to ask the Minister to reconsider his decision, and to restore to Natal railwaymen the privilege they used to enjoy before Union of being allowed the free use of the railways when travelling to and from their duties, and the concession hitherto enjoyed by their families. I want to say a few words regarding the report of the general manager of railways dealing with the report of the Workshops Commission. Paragraph 104 of the general manager’s report reads as follows—

This seems to presuppose that the proposed workshops are to be erected where there is at present no town or settlement, in which case I think the Minister should announce the fact, and set the minds of the many local authorities who aspire to obtaining the workshops at rest. Then, in paragraph 112, the general manager again emphasizes the high cost of establishing a central manufacturing workshop in northern Natal, but it is difficult to understand why he singles out northern Natal. The cost will be equally high, if not higher, if the workshops are to be erected in any other part of the Union where there is no town or other settlement, and one wonders why he makes this invidious distinction in the case of northern Natal. There is another small matter. Some railway employees desire an explanation why the rate of pay of carriage examiners has been brought down to the level of that of carriage and wagon repairers. It appears that prior to 1924 the examiner was in a higher grade, and received better pay, but amended staff regulations have placed the two classes on the same footing. Perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to write me a few lines in regard to this if he is not in a position to offer an explanation at once.

I hope I won’t be out of order in alluding to a numerous and deserving class whose claims have received little attention so far. I mean the customers of the railway, the people who find all the money for the, Government’s various excursions into new and rather expensive policies. I would like to remind the Minister of what the position is now, apart from that rather unfortunate decision in the customers’ interest in regard to the £13,000,000 which was taken from railway revenue and added to railway capital, and compelled to pay interest at the rate of £495,000 per annum, which means that the rates are increased by that amount, or rather have not been reduced, as would have been possible, by that sum. And when we consider that since Union the sum paid by the consumers over and above what they ought to have paid amounts to no less than £7,000,000, the amount is enormous, and almost staggers belief. I find the civilized labour policy is also costing, not the Government, but the customers, £300,000 per annum, and we find that the modified eight-hours day is costing £240,000 per annum, and if the full eight-hours day is carried into operation I understand the figure will amount to a million per annum all told. Leaving that out, but adding this item which, according to another paper which has been laid on the Table, the equalization of rates, means another £450,000 ; these three items amount to £990,000 per annum, from which the customers of the railway cannot expect any relief, and if the Minister, in pursuance of the requests made to him, and perhaps of his own policy, introduces the additional eight-hours day, this will cost £760,000 more per annum, or thereabout. [No quorum.] Sometimes it is useful to summarize these figures. I would emphasize that at the moment these three items are costing£990,000 per annum extra to the people who pay the present railway rates, and if the full eight-hours day is given, the total will be £1,750,000. These figures are enormous when we consider that a large portion of that amount might have been applied to the reduction of rates on the railways. Is it any wonder that to this day, as I understand, the average rates on the railway are between 30 and 40 per cent, over the pre-war figure, and when it is realized that once you have got freight on the train, the actual cost of the haulage is only one-hundredth of a 1d. a ton per mile—you can haul 100 tons of freight for one mile for 1d., or one ton 100 miles for 1d.—it shows there is room for very careful consideration of the whole question. It is not the actual technical operating expenses that keep the rates up, but the direction of money to other and somewhat questionable sources of expense. It is a very serious matter indeed, and, but for the fact that the customers of the railway are not organized, they would not have stood this as long as they have. That is-the crux of the whole matter. I hope the Minister will be able to announce that this matter of reduction of rates is going to receive his most serious attention, and at the earliest possible moment.

I wish to draw attention to the item—

The hon, member cannot refer to items in the Brown Book.

I should like to know if the reason large tenders recently went to the Continent was because, owing to the threatened strike, British tenderers could not give a definite date of delivery ? Could the Minister tell us if it is a fact that the driving staff have reported very favourably indeed on the older type of British locomotives, against the large American locomotives which were “boosted” about a year ago ?

I should like to know when the Minister intends to introduce main line rates instead of branch line rates on the New Cape Central Railway, and also when he will take steps to make a change in the circumstances on the staff.

I wish to call attention to the anomaly which exists between the rates on wool and cotton, wool paying six times as much as cotton. I could have understood that if cotton-growing had been regarded as being in its imaney, but it has passed the development stage and therefore we can look upon the railway rate on cotton as being a fixed one. It does seem a tremendous handicap on sheep farmers that they should have to pay six times as much for the conveyance of their wool as is paid for cotton. If the cotton rate is to be regarded as permanent the rate on wool should be reduced.

The farmers along the Utrecht line complain that last year they suffered very great inconvenience owing to the short time allowed them in which to load railway trucks. They were given only one hour and if loading was not completed within that time 24 hours demurrage was charged. [No quorum.] That seems very unreasonable. Strong resolutions were passed on the subject by the Newcastle, farmers. A little time ago a very strong deputation from Natal put the case for the reduction in the rates on bunkering coal very clearly before the Minister, but up to the present we have had no favourable news from him on the subject. The Natal coal trade is not in a very flourishing condition, and the Minister must realize that to a very large extent the surplus he had this year was largely due to the revenue the department received from the coal industry. I submit that the coal industry is entitled to some consideration at the hands of the Minister. The coal industry is a most important industry so far as the railways are concerned and represents practically two-thirds of the total traffic carried by the railways. None of the coal mines are making big profits. Many are not paying any dividend at all. I hope that the Minister will, after considering the matter, allow some relief to this industry. One coal company alone in my district pays the railway nearly £800 a day in railway rates. Then I desire to support what has been said by the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson). A little time ago a statement was made by the “Volkblad,” which, I take it, is a Government paper or is inspired by the Government, that it learnt from a thoroughly reliable source that the central railway workshops would in all probability be erected in Bloemfontein. I would like to know from the Minister whether there is any truth in that statement. Naturally, Natal is interested in statements being circulated of that sort. The statement made in the White Paper by the General Manager is not one that fairly states the position. He says in this report that it will cost considerably more if the central railway workshops are erected in Northern Natal. [Time limit.]

I notice that the Estimates of capital expenditure have been placed on the Table.

The hon. member cannot quote from the Brown Book. It has not been referred to the committee yet.

I am pleased to say from information I have received that the matter I was raising is going to be attended to, for which I thank the Minister. The Minister knows the North End of Port Elizabeth pretty well. In Broad Street the traffic is exceptionally heavy, and I would like him to do something towards providing a subway or a bridge there, for the safety of human life. The question of the eight-hours day is one that must receive attention in some form or other and something should be done to grant relief in that direction. One recognizes the difficulty in connection with wayside stations where trains are only dealt with at long intervals, but in the great centres where the work is continuous something certainly should be done to alleviate the position.

I only want to bring a few small matters to the notice of the Minister. In the first place there is a railway regulation that when goods are delivered for carriage the weight must be given. It is often difficult for people to know the weight. On the other hand they are fined if the weight they give does not tally with that ascertained by the Railway Department at the destination station. The farmer is therefore between the devil and the deep blue sea. If he does not give the weight the goods are not accepted, and if he gives the wrong weight (perhaps the difference is only-a few pounds) he is fined. I should like an alteration to be made in this respect and for the goods to be weighed at the station. Then a few words about the treatment of our fruit on the railways. From time to time complaints have been made in this House that the fruit during conveyance is roughly handled. I must say that especially at the far-off places the fruit is received in a condition which is not to the credit of the department. In the third place I want to bring a letter to the Minister’s notice which actually concerns the Western Province more, and that is with regard to the carriage of Karoo dung. The farmers are not permitted by the department to off-load the dung on arrival alongside the truck. They must take it direct from the truck which has to be emptied within twelve hours. A farmer possibly receives advice at 9 or 10 o’clock that the manure is at the station and that the truck must be emptied by that evening. He cannot with his own transport carry it and he is obliged to hire a motor lorry or other transport. If it were ordinary stable manure I could understand the objection because its smell is strong but with reference to Karoo dung I cannot understand it. I hope the Minister will meet the people.

This afternoon I was just about to refer to the position of railway servants in Natal, particularly Durban. These men, for the last 40 years, have enjoyed certain privileges held out to them, which was an inducement to join the service. Many of these men have been encouraged to build their homes out of the towns in country places in order to enjoy these travelling privileges. I expect the Minister to make a statement in reply which will satisfy these men that the Government will not interfere with those privileges. I do not wish to poach on the preserves of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), when the “Garth Castle” was in dry dock, I went down to look at the ship to see what damage was sustained. I went to the floor of the dock, and I was astonished to find that sheets were being lowered by hand rope. I was surprised you had not a crane for lowering these heavy weights. There has been a good deal of discussion about grain elevators and electrification. I feel certain that whoever conceived the idea of the grain elevator system and the electrification system in South Africa, will one day receive a great deal of praise, because I believe these two systems are going to serve a great purpose in this country.

I just want to corroborate what my colleague has said about the pre-Union privileges of the men on the railways in Natal, and I hope the Minister will see that justice is done to them. If he cannot see his way to continue these privileges to all the railway servants, I hope he will continue them to those who have enjoyed them up to Union. I would like also to corroborate what the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) has said in regard to coal rates. I have just been reminded of the position by receiving a letter to-day which says that at least two of the Natal collieries are closed down for want of employment and want of orders, and also through the expenses connected with the delay in trucks, and that two others, at least, are in a very bad way. The Minister has been under the impression, apparently, that the Natal collieries have been making great profits. I can assure the Minister it is a fact that some are not paying at all, and very few are paying any dividend. It is just because the Minister and his department—I must say the previous Minister was not a bit better—will not reduce the railway rates on coal, although he knows that they are 125 per cent, higher than they were in 1914-15. It is a fact that the industry in Natal is suffering severely on account of these high rates. If he can reduce the rates on coal to 10s. a ton he will have a large volume of business, and the railway will still make a profit. The hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. D. M. Brown) has told the Minister to keep an eye on the North End crossing at Port Elizabeth, and I want him to keep an eye on the West Street crossing in Durban, which has been a sore point for many years. The railway administration has been asked to take away this eyesore and dangerous crossing. A tremendous traffic goes up and down the street and is delayed for a considerable time at the crossing. If he and his department could evolve some scheme to do away with that crossing it would be a great advantage to Durban, and the corporation would assist him. I see he is extending the south breakwater of the harbour at Port Natal on the recommendation of his engineers, but has he heard Mr. Cathcart Methven’s opinion on the subject? He is not at all sure that that is the best policy to pursue, and he is afraid that by and by they may find that they have made a mistake by carrying out that breakwater too far. If the Minister has not read that report I will hand him a copy, and he will find in it some valuable suggestions from a man who knew the Natal harbour better than any other man.

I think hon. members have now had enough time to refer to matters, and I hope they will permit me to reply. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Buirski) asked when the rates on the late New Cape Central Railway would be revised. We want first of all to have a year’s experience of the working of the railway and then the Administration will be prepared to go into the question. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. Ie Roux) said that the Garden Route should be made more copular. His hint would be considered. This also aplies in the case of the facilities on the Oudtshoorn-Calitzdorp railway. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) spoke of facilities at certain stations in the northern Transvaal and this also will be considered. The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. J. S. F. Pretorius) spoke about facilities at the Braamfontein depot and he asked that the railway houses there should receive attention, especially those taken over from the military. The matter will be investigated. The hon. member also spoke about the high house rent and that the railway labourers could not pay it. What the hon. member overlooked is that in no case more than one-sixth of the wages is paid for house rent. The hon. member also asked that the wages should be increased above 6s. 9d. per day. The ordinary wage is 5s. a day, and in addition the labourer receives 1s. 9d. house allowance. I am sorry that the hon. member’s request cannot be granted. The hon. member forgets that the railway labourers in addition to their wages enjoy quite a number of privileges, e.g., medical aid in time of sickness, railway tickets and other privileges. Including those privileges the labourers receive more than the 6s. 9d. mentioned by the hon. member. The hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. P. C. de Villiers) who is not now in the House, spoke about the construction of the line between Klerksdorp and Maquassi, but I am sorry that it cannot be commenced at the Klerksdorp end. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. van Niekerk) mentioned a grievance in connection with this constituency, and it will receive the attention of the Administration. The hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager) criticised the railway programme. Let me ask the hon. member in future to go into the matter before he asks questions in connection with it. If the hon. member will take the trouble to read Section 130 of the Constitution he will see what the position is in connection with the building of lines.

I know what the position is.

Why then does the hon. member ask the question if he knows what the position is ? The section reads—

That is the position. Let me tell the hon. member that I am doing what my predecessors did and what every sensible Minister would do. When the Government decides to introduce a programme, the railway board is asked to make recommendations. Let the hon. member for the Paarl clearly understand that the Government ultimately takes responsibility for the selection. There the hon. member is right, but he must nevertheless understand that when he says that the twenty-seven lines which the Government selected from the programme are political lines, then he throws blame on the members of the railway board. The Government is not able to include a particular railway if the railway board do not recommend it, because if the Government did that then the expenses involved must come out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. My colleague, the Minister of Finance, will see that that does not happen. If the hon. member goes into the position he will see that what he said at the South African party congress at Bloemfontein, viz.: that the railway programme was a political one, was an injustice towards the members of the railway board and an injustice which I deeply regret. Let the hon. member get up honestly and say that he made a mistake. If the hon. member for Paarl asks my predecessor about this, the latter will agree that the attack he has made on the railway board is not to his credit, because Messrs. Rissik and Orr who are no longer members of the board approved of the programme. The hon. member ought to know better than to talk of more lines being built in Nationalist than in S.A.P. constituencies. The fact is that the Nationalists on this side of the House represent the greater majority of the constituencies on the countryside. Whether the hon. member of the Paarl likes it or not it is a fact.

The railway board recommended twenty-eight lines, and the Government selected twenty-five.

When the hon. member says that he shows how ignorant he is. When the railway board recommends a particular line it goes minutely into it.

Read the secretary's letter.

The hon. member read it this afternoon. The Government select the lines, but the railway board must approve of them.

The Government chooses the lines which suit its policy.

Cannot the hon. member see that a particular line cannot be included if the railway board does not approve of it? Take, e.g., the Fort Beaufort line. The hon. member has stated that it was included because an independent candidate had stood for Parliament. Did he ask the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) what his opinion was ? If he did that he would know that the line was included by my predecessor in 1922. The hon. member for Paarl is so ignorant and yet he wants to show his wisdom. I would recommend the hon. member to go into the matter a little more seriously and when he is aware of the fact he will not make such a statement.

†The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Buirski) has asked me about the condition of the station buildings and goods sheds on the late N.C.C.R. As I have indicated previously, the Government and the Railway Administration are not prepared to spend large sums on station buildings on that line. We are now concentrating on the relaying of the track. The trains are overloaded ; we must use a light type of engine, and until such time as the whole track has been relaid with heavy rails and new sleepers we will not be able to eliminate the delays on the line. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) has referred to the question of a turning basin in Buffalo Harbour. We are taking the necessary soundings for that. I don’t at this stage commit the Administration to the construction of the basin, but £200 has been provided for making the necessary investigations and a decision will be taken later. As regards the bridge, across the Buffalo River the position is that until such time as the municipality of East London is prepared to shoulder its share of responsibility, I am afraid the bridge will not be built, but I am hoping that the municipality will realize that it has a duty to perform and when it does so I am quite prepared further to consider the position. The question of the appliances for the export of mealies is at present under consideration. The hon. member has referred to the question of the £13,000,000, but I am not going to be drawn into a discussion on that. With regard to the rates equalization fund the hon. member is wrong when he states that this means a burden on the unfortunate customers of the railways. That amount is being put to reserve, so that if there is a deficit we can draw upon it to make up that deficit and not to increase rates. When the hon. member talks about wasteful or questionable expenditure it would be interesting to know whether he considers expenditure on civilized labour and the introduction of the eight-hour day—is wasteful or questionable?

We have no party politics in railway matters.

That is most interesting. Why, then, did the hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager) make that unfounded allegation against the railway board at the South African party Congress ?

Well founded.

Are you prepared to burden the railways with £1,000,000 for the introduction of an eight-hour day?

Does the hon. member think that I am going to follow the methods of Mr. Burton ? I am certainly not going to follow the stupid methods of the South African party. The hon. member says the railway rates are very much higher than they were before the war. Of course they are. Does he recognize that material, salaries and wages are also very much higher ? These are loose allegations, and when they are tested, the hon. member runs away from them. The Administration will consider the question of the reduction of rates from time to time on its merits, but I am not going to reduce rates to the detriment of the fixity of tenure of our railway service. The hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) has discussed the question of road motor competition. At the present moment the whole matter is under consideration. I am afraid it will not be possible to legislate this year. I had hoped to be able to do so, but after listening to the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) I am afraid we shall have to give up the idea of dealing with that question this year. The hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) also raised other questions regarding electric light and housing. This matter will continue to receive attention. As regards the platform at De Dooms, I have taken a note of the hon, member’s remarks. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) has asked a question regarding the tenders for engines, not going to Great Britain, and as to whether the strike had anything to do with that. It was simply a question of world-wide tenders having been asked and, unfortunately, the British tenders were very much higher than those of the Continental and American firms. I continued the business principles of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) by purchasing in the cheapest market. My predecessor carried the matter rather further than that. He purchased in the cheapest market at the cost of South Africa. We are giving preference to South Africa in that regard. The hon. member for Rondebosch has raised a point as to the position of the gatekeepers at Rondebosch, who are really signal porters. That matter is at the present time under consideration. He has also referred to the question of level crossings. As I stated last year, if my hon. friend will get the Municipal Council to act in this matter, and come forward with a definite proposition on the fifty-fifty basis, we are prepared to consider it. As regards electrification and the probable date of its completion in the Peninsula, we hope to have it completed in 18 months’ time. The question of the construction of platforms will be looked into. The Rondebosch Station buildings will have to stand over for consideration till next year. The privileges of railway servants is a matter which, at the present moment, is under the consideration of the Railway Board and myself, and I would prefer hon. members to allow this matter to stand over till a later stage, The hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) has referred to the question of the northern Natal site for central workshops. I am not prepared to add anything at present to my budget statement, in regard to the question of central workshops. The hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. D. M. Brown) has raised the question of an overhead bridge at Broad Street crossing, Port Elizabeth. That matter will be considered as indicated before. The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) asked me about a difference in the rates for wool and cotton. The principle there followed is the capacity of the particular product to carry a heavier rate, and I do not think the hon. member will question that wool is in a position to carry a heavier rate than cotton. He must not forget that our wool industry is a long established one, while in the case of cotton it is only partly developed. I hope the time is not far distant when we will be able to raise the rate on cotton. The question was raised by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) with regard to the increased staff. The reply is the one I gave in my budget statement, namely, that the increased mileage, the increased traffic and the abnormal maize traffic were responsible for the increase in the number of the staff. I am glad to hear from him—and I commend it to hon. members on the other side—the very sound opinion that the railways should bear the costs of civilized labour. I am glad I also have my predecessor with me on that point. Let me say at this stage that I am considering at the present time whether it would not be wise to cut out from our revenue estimates all reference to civilized labour and to look at the matter purely from an economic point of view. The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. G. Brown) has raised the question of the excursion fares to employees in private firms. I regret I can only repeat what I said last year, that it is not possible to grant this. I am afraid he does not realize that it would be quite impossible to keep control. It would be open to abuse. I am in agreement with the hon. member for Germiston, and I do not agree with the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates! when he says the conferences by the Administration with the employees have been overdone. It seems to me that these conferences have done much good, and will continue to do good. I do not know that I have authorized more conferences than my predecessor, who held quite sufficient of them. But I do not blame him, because I think it is sound. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) has raised the question of a real 8-hour day, and he has joined hands with the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) and others who have asked whether it is not possible to consider a further concession with regard to this question of calculating overtime in the pool at time-and-a-quarter? The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) and others have also raised the question of again guaranteeing the three-quarter day. Both these matters, which are of great importance, are at present being considered by the board and myself, and I hope, during this debate, to give hon. members an indication of the policy which will be followed in that regard. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) has also referred to the question of coal trucks suddenly increasing in regard to their capacity to carry coal. This change is based on the actual capacity of the truck to take more coal, but in view of the rather serious statements he made, I shall have the matter further looked into. He has referred to the question of concessions to art students, but I am afraid I cannot concede that, because many of these are not permanently at school during the whole of the day, and it would be open to abuse. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) and other hon. members on the cross benches have raised the question of third grade clerks, and have asked that some relief should be granted to them. I am sorry that that cannot be done. The bottle neck at the maximum of grade three becomes more narrow. While I have sympathy with them, I am afraid that I can do nothing to assist. We cannot create more second grade positions than the service justifies, as expenses would go up. The third grade clerk should concentrate on efficiency, in order to justify his promotion when there is a suitable vacancy. The bottle neck becomes very thin indeed the higher the clerk rises in the service, but that cannot be helped. It is so in other services, including private services. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) has raised the question of guards and examiners, and the reduction of their booking off time from 30 to 15 minutes. I am sorry I cannot go back on the decision which has been taken. With regard to his remarks on the contract with the Central News Agency, I want to assure him that the whole matter has been referred to the Board of Trade and Industries, and we are getting their assistance. With regard to the fair wage clause in contracts overseas, I have no information, but I will give him the information at a later stage. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) and the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. D. M. Brown) have pressed the claims of the Port Elizabeth harbour. I can only repeat that I am not prepared to add anything I said on the budget statement. The Government has authorized the necessary survey of the harbour, and provision is made for that in the Loan Estimates. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) has raised the question of the segregation of Europeans and natives on the Sea Point line, and I was glad to hear in that regard the statement of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) when he stated that provided the same value is given to the coloured man and the native, and they receive the same treatment with regard to the class of accommodation, he in principle would not think it unfair and unreasonable to segregate the coloured man and the native. I welcome that statement, especially coming from the hon. member, whom the House and I know has the interest of the non-European community at heart. When I am able to carry out that policy, I hope the political aspect will not be raised, but that there shall be co-operation between all parties. If the European has first, second and third-class accommodation, and the coloured man has the same privileges granted to him, there should be segregation between the coloured and the European. The position on the Sea Point line is most unsatisfactory. I feel confident that the coloured people will agree that it is in their interest that segregation should take place, but it should be coupled with segregation between the coloured people and the native. The coloured man has a perfect right to say that because his standard of living is higher than that of the native, he should he segregated from the native I am hoping that as soon as electrification is effected, and our rolling stock increased, we will be able to carry that policy into effect. I know it can only be done with tact, and I depend on all sections of the House to stand by the administration when we carry out that policy in the interests of all sections of the community.

Do you intend to have three sets of classes ?

Yes. That is the only solution. I know that there are difficulties in actual working, but, with the coaching stock used with electrification, I believe it can be done. The hon. member for Durban (Stamford Hill) (Mr. Lennox) has said that we have capable engineers in this country who could undertake the work which we require to be done in this country. I agree, except that, as far as electrification is concerned, it was right that my predecessor should have gone oversea for the necessary consulting engineers. Certainly the Durban graving dock gave evidence of the capacity of our engineers to carry out work of this nature, and to do it economically. The hon. member has raised a bitter complaint about the shortage of trucks for coal. I admit that, more especially during the height of the maize season, there was a shortage. Rut the hon. member and his friends will, I think, agree that pooling is one solution. The Transvaal Collieries have done that. Until such time as the Natal Collieries are prepared to pool, I am afraid we will not be able to deal with this position, as there always is a large number of trucks under load at Durban. The other solution is storage binns, and these are now in course of construction. As soon as these are completed, I hope we will be able to deal with this question more satisfactorily. In the Loan Estimates we have a large additional number of trucks and engines on order, and when these arrive, which they will in the course of this financial year, the position in regard to trucks will be very much relieved. The administration realizes and appreciates the position of the collieries, and will assist as far as possible. If my predecessor had just looked ahead a little more, we would not have been placed in the position we are in, but I am not here to blame my hon. friend, because he had his own difficulties at that time. The hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) has raised the question of rates on bunker coal, and so have the hon. members for Newcastle (Mr. Nel), Durban (Berea) (Mr. Henderson), and others. I should have thought that by this time hon. members representing these constituencies would agree with me that not only must the railway consider this question, but the collieries should also consider a reduction of their pit mouth price.

They have.

But nothing has been forthcoming.

They cannot do it.

I have my doubts as to whether they cannot make some reduction. At the present moment it is not possible to reduce railway rates on coal.

The coal companies are not paying dividends and are closing down. What can they do?

It seems to me that the administration is right in saying that if there is going to be a reduction in coal rates, that reduction should be shared by the collieries and the shipping companies. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) has rais. I the question of land purchases under £100. If all these small purchases were to be debited to capital account, that, it seems to me, would unnecessarily burden that account. My predecessor set the example, and I agree with him, that these small amounts can very well come out of revenue. The Auditor-General reports on them if he thinks there is any case which demands special attention. The hon. member has also referred to a large number of questions which really come up on the report of the select committee. He has raised the question of a house purchased at Pretoria for a senior officer. That was done by my predecessor.

I am responsible.

Does the hon. member want us to dispose of the house at a loss ? We are doing the best we can with it under the circumstances, but I do not propose to do anything of that sort in the future.

Hear, hear.

With regard to commissions on premiums, etc., it should be borne in mind that the work of collecting premiums involves extra cost to the chief accountant’s staff. With reference to free passes, it was agreed at the time of Union that the railways should give free passes to members of Parliament and provincial councils. I do not propose to re-open the question at the present time, and I have very grave doubts whether the Minister of Finance will agree to a revision. The hon. member said that we borrow money at 5 per cent, and re-invest it at 5 per cent. That does sometimes happen, but we endeavour not to over-borrow. I have no information regarding the Harbour Benevolent Fund, but will have the matter looked into. I am not going to discuss the question of the renewals fund beyond saying that strong pressure has been brought to bear that the money should be revoted by Parliament. Once Parliament has voted the money to the renewal fund that fund should be operated on in terms of the regulations.

I did not have an opportunity of finishing my argument.

When the contribution from revenue is voted, Parliament has full opportunity of discussing the whole policy. I am sure my hon. friend will have no support from my predecessor on this point. A word now in regard to the foghorn of my hon. friend. I can only say that I have every sympathy, more especially with patients and sufferers. I am quite prepared to accept that sick people suffer as a result of the foghorns, but then, what is the solution? The department consulted Trinity House in England, and took the very best advice on this point, and that advice was to establish these foghorns. Would the hon. member suggest that we should scrap them ? The captain of a mailboat who has come in during a fog on a Monday morning has told me personally that he found that he could come in with perfect safety. I can only assure my hon. friend that my department has taken every step to get the very best advice, and these foghorns have been installed as a result of that advice. There is one point more, and that is that these mists do not last more than two or three months in the year. My colleague who lives in that particular area reminds me that, after all, one ultimately gets used to these foghorns. My hon. friend has again said that the ratio of expenditure has gone up in too high a measure as compared with our revenue. I would refer my hon. friend to my budget statement in which I clearly indicated to the House that there had been a saving on ordinary expenditure, but items such as hours of duty, superannuation, interest charges and civilized labour were responsible for the increased cost. The hon. member has also asked me about branch line statistics. As I have told the House on previous occasions, I attach very little value to them from a public point of view while it is very valuable from the departmental point of view. The hon. member made rather a veiled reference to certain branch lines. I am afraid I do not follow his meaning. If the hon. member will say clearly what he intended, I shall deal with the point. We have got nothing to hide in regard to branch line statistics. He has also alluded to the general manager’s report last year and the reference to the dispute which the general manager had with my predecessor. He has asked me whether I saw the report before it appeared in print. Yes. That particular portion was submitted to me by the general manager. The hon. member asks me whether I think that was justified. I can only repeat what I said last year, that on the 6th of November, 1922, the general manager reported to my predecessor very fully the unsatisfactory position in our workshops. Let me read one clause—

I find on the records of the department that these reports have been submitted to the board. The Minister at that time made the following note on this minute—

He never raised the matter again. The condition of the workshops had been brought to his notice and he decided that the matter should stand over. While I agree that it is only under very extraordinary circumstances that the general manager would be justified in referring in his annual report to the work of the previous Minister, I submit that where the previous Minister in Parliament attacks the general manager and other senior officers and states that the general manager and senior officers did not acquaint him with the facts, then the general manager in his annual report is perfectly entitled to deal with the facts arid to state these for public information. The general manager was informed by Col. Collins and Mr. Wheatley that there was need for economy and re-organization. That was the whole position. My hon. friend should have said “Here is a prima facie case. I must have this investigated.” That was done by myself and a commission was appointed to investigate the matter. The whole point is this that when these facts were brought to the notice of my predecessor he did not consider it necessary to have a further investigation. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has questioned me with regard to the division of responsibility, and has asked me when the new general manager is appointed to go into this matter. I shall consider it in the light of the experience of other countries. At the same time he is wrong in thinking that there is not a division of work, because the assistant general managers look after the operating work. The general manager co-ordinates the work of the assistant general managers and deals with the financial position. I think we shall have to take very careful note of the practice in other parts of the world before we depart from what, to my mind, is the sound principle of holding the general manager responsible for the whole system, including finance.

He cannot do it.

The hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates) has been very fully replied to by the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. te Water) so that I do not propose to deal with his questions at great length. I regret, I must say, the veiled attack, which was clear from practically the whole of his speech, against the general manager. He said that the higher grades of the service teem with discontent. That is not so. The officers and personnel in the mechanical department, he said, are “fed up” with headquarters. That is not true. What proof has the hon. member given for a statement of that sort?

Some of them.

He is a responsible member of this House, and should not make loose statements like that without giving proofs. He has reflected on the general manager, on the officers, and also on the heads of the mechanical department, and unless he is prepared to come forward and give definite proof of his statements, I say he should not make these veiled attacks. Of course, there are differences of opinion between different officers, but does the hon. member suggest that in a big department like ours there should not be a rubbing up of shoulders ? I absolutely deny that there has been a loss of efficiency in the conduct of the department. I have not been responsible for the retention of Mr. Wheatley. Mr. Wheatley was a member of the Workshops Commission, and as soon as the work of that commission was finished he was retired on pension. I cannot understand what the hon. member’s grievance about Mr. Wheatley is. During the short time I came into contact with him I found him a most excellent officer, and I can quite understand why my predecessor took the step he did to place him on the work of piece work coordination. Then the hon. member has referred to the promotion of mechanical engineers. A mechanical engineer usually has no knowledge of transportation.

What about mechanical engineers being advisers to superintendents ?

The mechanical engineer is an officer who is generally confined to the workshops. I do not say that under no circumstances should a mechanical engineer be transferred, but generally a mechanical engineer should remain in the mechanical department. They can progress to a very high position in that department. I think I have dealt with all the points raised, and I trust the House will be prepared to pass this vote.

The hon. Minister promised to move the adjournment.

If there are further questions, of course, I shall move to report progress and ask leave to sit again, but I thought that if hon. members were satisfied, I need not do so.

On the motion of the Minister of Railways and Harbours, it was agreed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed :

Progress reported ; House to resume in committee to-morrow.