I should like to ask the Minister for what reason the matters which have been proposed are being excluded. We felt in the select committee that it is necessary that, when a person leaves the circle, his resignation should be approved of by the remaining members. I notice here that this is being deleted.

No, it is put in.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Remaining amendments put and agreed to.

With reference to Paragraph V, the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) raised the matter the other day in the House of the number of petitions that were standing over and that could not be dealt with by the committee, with the result as set forth in these paragraphs that every year when Parliament reassembles it has hundreds of these petitions standing over from the previous year and cannot give proper attention to the petitions coming in. The Government is prepared to consider the matter and we shall probably adopt the suggestion to appoint a small commission out of the members of the present Pensions Committee to consider these petitions during the recess and to submit and report to Parliament next session, which report could then be referred for formal adoption to the committee. I am prepared to accept the recommendation with a view to taking action as indicated.

May I ask the Minister to bear in mind all the old petitions for pensions which are standing over. I think there are some petitions which are two years old. Are these also being referred to the Government ?

I will just say that the outstanding petitions are considered before new ones are dealt with. That occurs with few exceptions. All the petitions are included here.

I handed in a petition yesterday from Hester C. van Schalkwyk, which is not on the list. I want to ask for that petition to be included as well.

A new item cannot now be inserted.

But it was referred to the select committee.

It does not, however, appear in the report, and we are only dealing with the report.

Could my hon, friend not frame some regulation under which no petition could be presented more than once, because many of these petitions are presented year after year. It would reduce the work very much if after a petition has been examined and rejected it could not be brought forward again. It only leads to extra work.

In reply to the suggestion of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), I think that might cause great injustice, because we see, time after time, that petitions have been repeatedly presented and often, after they have not been recommended, fresh evidence has been brought out and the same petitions have been granted with absolute justice. I would deprecate anything of that drastic sort being done.

I cannot allow any more discussion ; it is not germane to this.

May I ask a question? I could not gather from the Minister’s reply whether he said this commission would go into these old accumulations of petitions, or only make recommendations as to how to deal with them.

The idea is that the commission would go into the minutes of these cases in the same way as the committee deals with them ; but, of course, they can only report to Parliament, and it would have to be formally considered and adopted by the standing committee before and action could be taken.

May I ask the Minister of Finance whether he is prepared to deal with petitions which may be handed in before the end of the, session, and not come before the select committee, in the same way as those that have been referred to the Government?

The petitions will, of course, be dealt with early next year, because the arrear petitions must be disposed of first.

My point is that the petitions which come in before the end of the session should be referred to the Government, Why should a certain date, such as yesterday, be fixed, and the cases after that be excluded ?

That can only be done if the hon. member introduces and the House passes a motion. The cases which have been referred to the Government by the House will be dealt with. It is not possible to deal with the petitions which come in during the whole session, and it is, therefore, necessary to fix a date.

Par, V, put and agreed to.

Remaining recommendations having been agreed to.

I would like some further explanation from the Minister as to this particular sum.

The position is that this amount is now voted to the rates equalization fund, and, of course, will be invested and earn interest. The intention is that this amount should remain in that fund until such time as Parliament again votes the amount out of that fund, so that control of that money is subject to Parliamentary approval. I cannot at the present moment say whether we will want this amount during the course of this year. We may, or we may not ; it depends upon the financial results of the current year ; but I give the undertaking that when the money is disposed of the House will be consulted and asked to deal with that money in the ordinary way. The reason why we contribute this amount to this fund is to create a reserve, so that in case there is a set-back as a result of a reduction in rates or a falling off in traffic or other reasons, we may then revert to this money, and in that way make up the deficit without resource to raising the rates or reducing the salaries of employees. I think that is what was in the mind of the Convention at the time when they framed the Act of Union and created this fund. Head put and agreed to. Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for Railways and Harbours to be reported, with-out amendment. Estimates on Capital and Betterment Works (Railways and Harbours) [U.G. 11—’26] On Head No. 1, £1,400,000, “Construction of Railways”,

May I ask the Minister what he proposes to do with this £3,000 for the Empangeni-Nkwaleni line ?

As the hon. member will see, we are providing this year £3,000 in order to make a complete survey. The survey will be made and the staking-out completed, so that when the money is available next year, as I hope it will be, we shall be in a position to proceed with the line.

I see there is another line from the Pongola River to the Swaziland border, £45,000. I have not seen any report by the Railway Board on this new line. Is it out yet ?

Yes.

I see an amount of £3,000 for this year for the line Naboomspruit-Zebediela. I should like to know from the Minister when a commencement will be made with the building of the line?

In answer to the hon. member, I may say that the amount of £3,000 is intended for an accurate survey of the line, so that next year, when the amount is made available to start building, we shall be ready.

I see there are two lines here, Martindale to Southwell, and Somerset East, for which there is no vote. Are they not to be proceeded with this year ?

The position in regard to Martindale and Somerset East is that nothing can be done this year.

I should like to ask the Minister why there are a number of lines which have not yet been started ? I see that nothing is being done in the case of half the lines. Parliament decided last year that the lines should be built, and there is a lot of boasting about all the Government is going to do, but now half of the lines are not yet being proceeded with.

The hon. member can ask a question, but not discuss the matter now.

I only Want to say that there are many people out of employment, and here the Government is not permitting the work to be gone on with.

If the hon. member will look through the brown book, he will himself find the answer. There are still quite a number of lines of the 1922 programme which we have still to complete, and on which large sums of money are to be spent. We have not sufficient funds this year to go on with all these lines, and the only thing we can do is to construct them gradually. If the Government were ready to spend more than £1,400,000, then there would still be the difficulty that a new staff would be required, and then we should be left with that staff the following year.

I see there is an increase of expenditure of £37,498 on the Matubatuba-Pongola River line ; why is that ? There was a statement in the paper within the last week of the enormous loss of life amongst the natives on the line, and that malaria is rampant. It is a serious position, and perhaps the Minister can give us some information.

As the result of the actual construction work, we found that the bridges had to be very much strengthened, as the rivers have come down in flood. That is one of the causes why the estimate has been exceeded. With regard to the natives, we took every step, in consultation with the Health Department, to provide for their health ; but, unfortunately, a loss of life did occur. It is not the fault of the Railway Administration. It is true, with regard to the contractors, that they did not take all the precautions which could have been taken, but I do not think the hon. member can blame the Railway Department for that. We provided all the necessary facilities in terms of the requirements of the Health Department. There is no further serious loss of life. We are now approaching the healthy season, and the position at the present time is, I understand, quite satisfactory.

I do not blame the railway department at all, but why has not the policy been altered to meet the position? Why not take natives from over the border, who are immune ?

Order. The hon. member cannot discuss that. The loss of life is different.

I want to say a few words in connection with the intention of the Minister to proceed this financial year with the building of the railway between Britz and Beestekraal. That is a sensible step, and I am glad it is being done, because there is at the moment a concentration of white labourers in that locality. As a result of the settlements under the Departments of Lands and Labour, much has already been done for the development of those parts, and I should like to express my appreciation of the step which the Minister has taken in connection with the building of this line.

Do I understand we cannot raise this question ?

I do not know what the hon. member is going to say, but he knows that policy cannot be discussed— only the spending of the money.

The spending of the money is concerned in it. While I admit the administration did what they could to prevent loss of life amongst their own employees, they cannot divest themselves of the responsibility of what happened, as has been pointed out by the medical officer of health. The natives died on the building of the administration’s line, and the building was at Government expense. The medical officer of health said that every malarial death represents from 2,000 to 4,000 days of sickness amongst the whole community.

This is money for the future. The hon. member is discussing money for the past.

It is for the future. This line will not be completed during the healthy season, and will be gone on with during the next malarial season. Construction will, therefore be under the same circumstances as in the past, and there will be the same waste of money.

The hon. member cannot discuss policy. The hon. member has mentioned policy, which is just what he cannot do. He could have done that on the Minister’s salary.

We are asked to vote money for the building of a line now in process of construction, and we have ascertained that in the process of construction which has gone on in the past certain evils have occurred. We may ask what precaution the Government proposes to take to prevent these evils recurring in the future.

Hon. members are quite within their rights to ask questions, so long as they do not go into the question of policy. I do not want to stop hon. members, but they should not enter into questions of policy.

I do not want to discuss a question of policy. The Minister is living under the shadow of Table Mountain, and does not know what malaria means, and what distress is caused both to Europeans and natives by the introduction of natives who are not immune, and who are infected with the disease and become carriers of the disease to others. The medical officer of health points out very clearly that the Administration’s hands are tied. I suggest to the Minister that he get his hands untied, and that he get labour into this area economically and under the best circumstances. There is no doubt that this line as far as the, labour is concerned, has cost the Government three times as much as if they had labour which was immune. The Minister is shaking his head—what does he know about it ? I am speaking from a thorough knowledge of all local conditions and with considerable experience of malaria. I am raising this matter, not as a quibble, and not to score a point against the Administration, but because it is a matter of considerable public importance. In the interests of economy and efficiency, the Minister should see whether some change cannot be brought about in the personnel of those who are constructing the line, that is, obtain native labour which has some degree of immunity.

I understood last session that the Minister stated that in the building of new lines he would give preference to what he called—

I see 13 new lines on eight of which money is to be spent for the first time, but I see no provision for a line authorized in 1906, and included in last year’s new construction programme, namely the Martindale—Southwell line, which is undoubtedly a “fruit and perishable products” line.

The hon. member will see that there is no money provided for this line, and he cannot discuss it.

How is it that the immediate construction of lines has been provided for which, with the greatest stretch of the imagination, cannot be called lines which are serving fruit areas ?

The hon. member cannot point that out—that is a matter of policy.

Why have these particular lines which appear here been picked out for consideration, and others left our which come into the class for which the Minister said preference would be given ? What is now the guiding principle ?

I would like to raise the question of sidings once more.

The hon. member cannot raise the question of sidings.

It is a siding to a particular line which is mentioned here.

I take it that these sidings are on a particular line?

I raised this matter last year. It is the Addo-Kirkwood line. The point is the amount charged for old railway material for these sidings. According to the regulations, the charge has been—

There are no current market rates for old railway material, except what the Administration chooses to set down. Rails for sidings are always old rails. The Railway Administration should not check enterprise on the part of people who want to put in sidings by making extra charges for materials. I do not see how 400 yards of material can cost £425.

I am thankful that the line Winters Rush—Koopmansfontein is included in the programme. May I urge the Minister to use as much civilized labour as possible. There are many poor people in that part and as the Minister knows the diggings are not far away.

Could the Minister give us an idea when it is estimated that the Pongola —Swaziland railway will be opened for traffic?

In answer to the hon. member I may say that what he asks is being done. The preference is being given to civilized labour.

†I am hoping that the Pongola line will be open by the end of this year, but if Parliament approves of the extension to the Swaziland border that will take longer time because the building of the bridge will take some considerable time. In reply to the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben), I do not remember that I ever said that I would confine the new programme of construction during this year to fruit lines only, although, as a fact, a large number of fruit lines are included. I regret it was not possible to include the line he refers to. The lines in the western Transvaal and the Free State were included mainly on the ground of giving employment. I am hoping next year to be able to give consideration to the line referred to. In reply to the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron), my impression is that we sell the second-hand material for private sidings at cost. The price of rails has been fixed for a few years, and is extremely low.

Did the Administration fix the cost ?

Undoubtedly.

What are we charging now ?

£4 7s. 6d. per ton. I do not think the hon. member can complain of excessive price. We want to encourage people to construct private sidings. I hold out no promise, but will go into the matter and see whether it is possible to do anything. New rails cost £11 landed here.

Will the Minister say when the Greytown-Rietvlei line will be taken in hand? I think the Minister forgot to reply to the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls), about this question of native labour. I have had correspondence with people in Zululand who feel the position very keenly, and it is a matter the department will have to take up very seriously.

When the list is considered next year the board will give consideration to the inclusion of the Greytown line on its merits. I cannot, of course, bind the board. In regard to native labour in Zululand, the whole matter was debated on the Native Affairs Vote. If hon. members say that natives ought to be admitted from Portuguese territory—

The hon. member cannot discuss that.

I think you ought to allow the Minister to reply.

I am going to allow the Minister to do it, but cannot allow any further debate.

This is a matter of policy which hon. members should raise with the Minister of Native Affairs, that is on the point of admitting natives from Portuguese territory. I cannot deal with that question.

Are natives still being recruited in Pondoland for this work in Zululand ?

Yes.

Then it appears that nothing has been done since we had the debate on the Native Affairs Vote.

It can be raised on the Prime Minister's vote.

That has been passed.

The hon. member cannot discuss that now.

What we would like the Minister to tell us is: Assuming that he cannot get Portuguese labour, does he feel justified, in view of the facts disclosed by the correspondence laid on the table, in continuing to build this line with labour imported from Griqualand, which has had such a severe mortality ? That I take it is a matter we can and should debate.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head 2, £2,651,772, “New Works on Open Lines ”,

I want to ask the Minister if the bridge over the Gouritz River is strong enough for trains to cross. There is a rumour in my district in connection with this bridge, and I think an engineer was sent down, and I should like to know what his report was.

In regard to the £4,200 under Item 3, and £24,000 under Item 4, will the Minister say which land is being acquired there? Is the Minister not aware that it is time that some further improvements were made at Monument station? The mail trains stop there, in both directions, and in anything like bad weather it is impossible for passengers to land with any comfort. There is no accommodation of any kind, and I think it a bad advertisement for our country that the first station at which oversea passengers alight is this shed, known as Monument station. In regard to Item 45, I see the Minister proposes to provide a siding in the grounds of the Castle. I hope it is not going to interfere with the old structure at the Castle. I see, in Item 155 and other items, the principle is adopted of voting out of capital funds for re-sleepering. I hope this is to be the principle in future, because we paid for the re-sleepering of the Free State line out of renewals. In regard to Item 588, page 34, Electrification of Railways, Cape Town-Suburban line, will the Minister tell us whether, in this instance, he is going to employ the Administration’s engineers and allow them to carry out the work, as we believe they can do, instead of having a repetition of what has happened in Natal?

I want to thank the Minister, because, on page 16, I notice a sum of money on the estimates for bringing the station nearer to Louis Trichardt. We should, however, like to have more information. I see that this year only £100 will be spent, and I want to ask the Minister if he will not allow the work to continue. The people there are thankful for what is being done, but they have long been waiting for better facilities which are much needed. It is not my constituency, but I have interests and am temporarily living there, and the hon. member who represents the constituency is, unfortunately, not in the House now. Why is only £100 being spent this year for the station at Louis Trichardt? Has it been decided where the station is to be put ? I know there is a difficulty in connection with the ground. I ask that the work may be done as soon as possible, so that there may be work for the unemployed. Then there is another item—£700 for a new house for the station-master. I want to ask the Minister if it will be built at the new station or at the present station ?

In regard to Item 593, elevators, I note the Minister estimates that the total cost will eventually reach a sum of nearly three millions, and under this item we have an increased expenditure this year of £223,000. As far as I understand, we have constructed the two main port elevators and the first line of the 34 elevators to feed them. Included in the original elevator project were smaller elevators to feed these elevators themselves. Where the scheme has broken down is that in most of the grain elevator districts the channel of the grain has been diverted to points which were never intended. Is it intended to continue with the 17 smaller elevators or with the 34 and the two? If it is the intention of the Government to continue on these smaller elevators, on what lines are they to be, and when can we expect them to be built?

I see on the estimates an amount of £223,000 for elevators, and shall be glad to know whether the intention of the Government is to build one or more new grain elevators this year ?

I am curious about the item of £690 for the provision of a siding in the grounds of the Castle, Cane Town. We don’t want that historical building to be interfered with in any way. A good deal has been done to improve the outside appearance of the old building, but I hope that nothing is going to be done detrimental to it. Is it intended to remove the signal cabins ? What are the hours of work of the men employed in these cabins? People have been very much concerned over the hours of labour in the big signal cabin just outside Cape Town station.

I would like to express my pleasure at seeing provision for the electric lighting of railway quarters at Sydenham, for that has long been asked for. The sum of £5,950 is put down for additional cartage equipment for Cape Town, but there is no similar provision for Port Elizabeth or East London, although there is to be a replacement of animals and cartage plant. At Port Elizabeth the cartage plant is inadequate, particularly during the wool season, when traffic is held up for want of waggons, and the Administration has to hire all sorts of vehicles for the conveyance of the wool. I trust the Minister will do something to increase the cartage equipment at Port Elizabeth.

Provision is made for the—

What is the difference between “acquisition” and the purchase of land ?

Provision is made for deviation and new bridge at Umfolosi River, £249,700, on the North Coast line, but only £7,600 is to be spent this year. Does that mean that the bridge is not to be erected this, year ?

What the hon. member has stated is correct. We are not able, unfortunately, to provide the whole of the money this year to erect a bridge over the Umfolosi River. The money for the acquisition of land is to cover expenditure on land already acquired. The cartage plant at Port Elizabeth is quite sufficient, I am informed, to deal with the traffic, and under the circumstances we are not adding to it, but just replacing where necessary. The automatic signalling does not mean a replacement of the staff. The hours of duty of the men engaged in the signalling cabins were very carefully investigated by the Hours of Duty Committee, and we have adopted the recommendation.

*The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) mentioned the matter of grain elevators, but there is a misunderstanding in the matter. I am sorry, but we are not able this year to give any additional money for the building of grain elevators. The amount of £223,398 appearing on the estimates is intended for the completion of the Durban grain elevator. No new grain elevators will be built this year in the outside districts. I am sorry, but there is no money available. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) mentioned the station at Louis Trichardt, and regretted that only £100 was being spent this year. That is a matter of lack of the necessary money, and the hon. member must be patient. I hope that next year we shall be able to get on with the actual building.

†The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) raised the question of the siding at the Castle. I am informed that that siding will, in no way, interfere with the Castle, and is constructed at the request of the Defence Department.

Will it leave the Castle grounds free ?

The siding will be put down in consultation with the Defence Department.

And I hope with the Historical Society.

It will be the duty of the Defence Department to consult them. In carrying out the electrification of the railways in the Cape Peninsula we are bound by the agreement with Messrs. Merz and McLellan, which covers the whole of our electrification, and we do not propose to depart from that, so that Messrs. Merz and McLellan will remain the consulting engineers for the administration in the carrying out of the work. In connection with the work on the Simonstown and Sea Point lines, we are not going to follow the same system as we did in Natal for obvious reasons. Here the power station will be built by the Electricity Commission, whereas in Natal we erected the power station. All the civil engineering work for these two lines will be done by the department. We are asking tenders for the overhead equipment and track bonding, and have requested the chief civil engineer to put in a tender. If his tender is satisfactory, it will be accepted. In reply to the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), I may say that in regard to the re-sleepering and re-ballasting, we are not asking for the full amount, but only for that portion which is to be taken from loan moneys. The improvements at Monument station, which, I admit, are very necessary, hang together with the whole of the improvements of Cape Town station, and the yard. With the purchase of Fort Knokke we are in a position to deal with the matter in a comprehensive manner, subject to the financial aspect.

Can’t you start the main line trains from Cape Town station instead of the Monument?

The Union express starts from the docks, but if it departed from Cape Town station delay would be involved, as it would have to be taken into the station and brought back again. We want to save time, that is why this train starts from Monument station.

*The hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) asked about the bridge over the Gouritz River. The bridge is quite safe, and he can assure the public that there is no danger.

I want to plead once more for an overhead passenger bridge at Dohne.

The hon. member cannot plead for something that is not on the estimates.

Then I will ask if it is not necessary to provide such a bridge. Dohne is a very dangerous station. Very large stock fairs are held there, and with the large amount of shunting that takes place I am afraid that one day the Minister will have to face a big bill for compensation for injury or loss of life, and that expense will be far greater than the cost of erecting a bridge. On the question of bridges I would like to ask the Minister what he is going to do in regard to the road rail bridge over the Buffalo River near the harbour mouth. That bridge is used for both ordinary traffic and rail traffic. I would like to call the Minister's attention to two items—No. 152, Cape Town-Simonstown ; relaying and strengthening 32 miles, 52 chains of track, total cost £160,285, and No. 588; electrification of railways, Cape Town suburban line, £428,062. I take it that Item 152 refers to relaying and strengthening to be done in connection with the electrification scheme, and I do not see why these two items should not be grouped together. It seems to me that Parliament has not an opportunity of conveniently ascertaining what the cost of the Cape Town suburban electrification will be. It would appear that these two items ought to be added together.

I would like to put a question to the Minister in reference to Items 2, 3 and 4, expropriation and acquisition of land, whether the land to be acquired with this money is in connection with the establishment of workshops, which is such a burning question. The Minister will know that the Workshops Commission recommended Northern Natal.

As one of the places.

The Minister has already said that economic considerations alone will not govern the decision to be come to in connection with these workshops. Surely economic considerations alone should govern the question, because we must get the best value we can for our money.

I am afraid the hon. member (Sir Thomas Watt) cannot discuss that.

There is one question I want to put to the Minister. He has said that economic considerations alone would not govern the question, but that national questions would govern it. What is the national question? Does it happen to be a political question ?

The hon. member cannot discuss that.

I want to know whether any of these items has anything to do with the workshops question. Perhaps the Minister will say what national considerations are. On page 34 appears the amount of money which we are asked to vote for the completion of the electrification of the Natal line. I think the Minister might take the opportunity of taking the committee into his confidence about the re suits which have so far been achieved in connection with electrification. I was very strongly in favour of the electrification of that line, but I have been hearing different rumours that very serious accidents are happening and that the working of the line is not coming up to expectation, namely that the amount of traffic which was expected to be carried—

I do not want to interrupt the hon. member. This is quite a new thing which we have before us ; Parliament has not had it before it in this particular way. We can only discuss the future, not the past.

Surely, if we are asked to vote £296,740 for the future in regard to the Pietermaritzburg-Glencoe line we have a right to ask what has been the result in regard to the past. I am hoping for the best. I believe that the electrification is going to be a great success. This is an important question and I would like the Minister to take the committee into his confidence in regard to the results which have so far been achieved from the electrification of this line.

Here we have a line on which up to March 31st last an amount of £4,090,594 has been spent and on which, we are now asked to vote a further £296,740. Surely we are entitled to ask for information as to how this scheme is going.

The hon. member knows I don’t pull up members unnecessarily.

I am told that it does not carry the full amount. According to the estimate of Messrs. Merz & McLellan this line was to carry 30,000 tons a day. My information is that it will not carry that amount of traffic normally and I would like to know from the Minister whether the line can deal with 30,000 tons a day. Then I see under Item 594, construction of one standard grain elevator, £2,000 spent, £16,000 to be voted, total estimate cost, £18,000. The Minister said last night that no extra elevators were being erected. Perhaps my hon. friend will explain this item. Then we have Item 595, research and experimental work, £5,000. I would like to know how that money is going to be spent. Under Item 257, we have a very heavy amount, £249,700, North Coast line; deviation and new bridge (Umfolosi River). I think we ought to have some information in regard to that item. Under Item 292 we have an estimated cost of £36,767 to provide new power-worked signal cabin, Cape Town, and under Item 293 an estimated cost of £42,405 for installation of automatic signalling, Cape Town-Wynberg, that is £79,000 for signalling that we are spending on eight miles of line. That is not all the expenditure on that line, for under Item 360 we have an amount of £53,000 to be spent on the substitution of subways for foot bridges at stations on the Cape suburban line, of which we are now asked to vote £18,360. There is also Item 152 as well—Cape Town-Simonstown: relaying and strengthening 32 miles, 52 chains of track, total estimated cost, £160,285. It is only fair to say at once that my hon. friend is not responsible for this. I am only mentioning these matters to show the enormous amount of money that we are spending on the Wynberg line. If you tot up the capital expenditure on the Wynberg line, I doubt whether it pays to-day, even with all the traffic that there is on it.

I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to Item 103, Glencoe Junction: alterations to yard and deviations and alterations to Daimana yard. Could the Minister give me any idea as to the nature of the alterations to be carried out at the Daimana yard? According to my information what is needed at Daimana is an extension of the existing electric locomotive sheds. Apparently no provision is made for that on the estimates, although provision is made for deviations and alterations to the yard. I would like to refer to Item 593, construction of grain elevators, and to ask the Minister whether the administration’s construction programme in regard to elevators has yet been settled and, if so, what is the proportion of elevators to go to Natal which has been so badly served in the past.

That is a question of policy. The hon. member cannot discuss that.

Did I understand the Minister to say that there is a prospect of the electrical portion of the work on the Simonstown line being undertaken by our own engineers? If so, I wish to congratulate him, as there is no doubt that we should make far more use of our own engineering staff than we have hitherto done and after the experience gained on the Natal electrification scheme it should only be necessary to employ consulting engineers in future.

The hon. member is now discussing policy.

In connection with the question asked by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) on Item 257, the North Coast line, I notice a little lower down you have Item 259, and then on page 14 hon. members will notice that Items 222 and 223 again relate to the North Coast line, amounting to over £150,000. I would like to know from the Minister how much is being spent altogether on this line, and why he is spending so much, and whether he is going to bring it up to a first class line.

The hon. member will remember that the north coast line will now form part of the extended line, and consequently we have been re-ballasting this line in order that it can carry the increased tonnage. There has been great development in Zululand and those parts. Let me point out to the hon. member that, unless the line is of a particular type and standard, we cannot run heavy engines on it, which means, of course, loss in working. The hon. member has asked me about the alterations at Daimana. This work is nearing completion. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) have asked me about our experience now that the electrification is in working order, and what the results are. As the hon. member knows, the full system has only been in operation for about a month, and the results up to the present are very satisfactory indeed. He has asked whether the system will take 30,000 tons. I have not the least doubt it will. It has taken up to 27,000 tons a day. Our difficulty is not the question of carrying it, but that there is not sufficient traffic. The line will take all the traffic that Natal is offering at the present time.

Are you open right down to Pietermaritzburg?

Yes. The hon. member has shown that the cost is now about £4,000,000, but he has evidently overlooked the fact that £2,800,000 is the cost of the power station, and will be taken over by the Electricity Commission, so that has to be deducted. Another hon. member has asked me about research work. It is experimental work on the whole system with a view to improvements. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has also raised what he calls the “extraordinary expenditure on the Wynberg and Simon’s Town line.” Let me point out that that has nothing to do with the question of electrification. Corrosion has taken place in the rails, and the re-ballasting necessary is quite apart from electrification. We must keep that line up to first-class standard, because the traffic is particularly heavy and always increasing. I admit that automatic signalling is expensive, but I think the additional safety it gives justifies the expenditure. Much of the expenditure on re-ballasting and re-sleepering is financed from the renewals fund. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) has asked me about an overhead bridge at Zuney. If we were to build these at small stations and sidings, there would be no end to our expenditure. Hon. members must realize that if we are to provide overhead bridges at small stations our capital expenditure would be out of all bounds. I am not prepared to face expenditure of that kind. It is just as well that the public outside should know that and that they should exercise care, when they cross the line. The question has been asked about the bridge at Buffalo River. If the municipal council at East London will undertake their share of the responsibility—it is a question of negotiation—we are prepared to discuss the matter with them, but they will have to undertake their share. The hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) has asked me whether the expenditure under heads 3 and 4 has anything to do with the establishment of the central workshops. It has not. If a central workshop is erected in the Cape Peninsula, sufficient ground to meet the needs in that regard is available.

I see on item 345 on page 21 that an amount of £75,000 has been put there for the commencement of the new railway station at Johannesburg, and I see the total amount to be spent is £250,000. Would the Minister make a statement on that, and explain whether he thinks he can give Johannesburg a station adequate to its need, both present and future, for that sum.

If the hon. member had looked at the item he would have seen that the £250,000 is the first instalment of the whole scheme.

Tell us your policy in regard to the station.

The position at the present moment is that we are not prepared to commit ourselves to expend more than £250,000. That is largely for the layout of the station.

But you won’t begin the lay-out without the complete scheme before you?

I can only say that, we shall provide Johannesburg with a station in all respects worthy of Johannesburg, and in keeping with its dignity and its importance. At present we are not prepared to commit ourselves to more than £250,000.

Can you give us the total estimated cost ?

At present that is under consideration.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head 3, £1,962,700, “Rolling Stock ”.

I would like to ask the Minister about items 606, 607, 608. These are large amounts—£40,120, £122,016 and £58,800 out of the Renewals Fund for electric locomotives. Steam locomotives have to be taken off this line, and are replaced by electric locomotives, and the former are being used elsewhere and not scrapped. Why, then, have these large amounts to be taken out of the Renewals Fund?

I wish to ask the Minister what progress has been made with the improved design of new electric locomotives in Natal, and how long will it be before we get one of these improved locomotives on the road ?

I should like the Minister to enlighten the House about the trucks for fruit traffic. I corresponded with the Minister about it recently and he satisfied me to a certain extent. I should now like to know whether the carriage of fruit during the next season in cold storage trucks will be quite satisfactory. I represent quite a number of persons who export fruit and last year some of the fruit was spoilt. Those people would like to know definitely whether during the coming season cold storage trucks will be used for the carriage of fruit to the coast.

Is it not possible even at this stage not to go on with the electrification of the Cape Town—Sea Point line?

The hon. member cannot discuss that.

Then I can discuss the 17 electric locomotives for Natal. As to the 78 engines, the Minister should not worry his head, but as to the 17 new engines they should come out of capital fund.

On a point of order, can the hon. member refer to anything which happened in the select committee ?

The chairman of the railway committee should not refer to anything that happened in the select committee.

I am not doing so. It is a well-known fact and general knowledge that these 17 engines have been placed on order.

I am in the hands of hon. members. They know what has happened in the select committee.

Do I understand you to say, Mr. Chairman, that we cannot refer to anything in a report laid before the House?

It must be printed, as the hon. member knows.

The purchase of these engines has been decided on long ago.

I want to ask the Minister, with regard to items 645 and 664, whether tenders were called in South Africa for this work, and with what result ? I understand there are engineering firms which are prepared to increase their works if they can be assured of some of this railway work being given them. Do the tenders received from South African firms receive the sympathetic treatment that they deserve ?

The hon. member cannot discuss that.

Has the Minister considered, in connection with this wagon stock that has been ordered, a more suitable type of truck for sugar cane? We use a considerable number of trucks, and they are built, not for that particular traffic, but for the coal traffic, and are very ill adapted for the sugar cane traffic. The administration require these trucks to be loaded with a minimum tonnage of cane, and penalize the planter if that tonnage is not obtained. Yet the trucks were never meant for this purpose, and the administration places a severe handicap on the industry. Here we have all manner of trucks being made for different purposes, but the sugar industry’s needs are not attended to.

Does item 616—self-contained railmotor vehicle for service on branch lines— include motors for the Sea Point line, and if so, is it not too late for the Minister to reconsider the matter of electrifying that line? Electrification spoils the whole of the sea front. The traffic that is necessary there can easily be carried by electric or motor ’buses.

Order. The hon. member is now getting round my ruling.

I hope the Minister will make it quite clear what is going to be the cost of these electrification schemes. We have items 607 and 608, electric locomotives, costing £180,000. Hon. members will see that this has been charged to renewals fund. I do not see by what stretch of imagination he can charge additional locomotives to renewals fund. We have the report here from the Auditor-General that the assistant general manager had recommended, in view of the traffic expected, that 17 electric locomotives be purchased. These surely are properly chargeable to capital cost. As in the case of the Cape Town-Simonstown line, it would seem that the full cost of electrification of these lines is being concealed from us. As an illustration, it cannot possibly cost £5,000 a mile to relay and re-sleeper the Cape Town-Simonstown line. Why this sum of £180,000, which is clearly for additional locomotives and not to replace locomotives? I think the country wants a clear explanation of this, and I hope, in framing future estimates, the Minister will not adopt this style, which is open to serious objection. I think we have a right to object if the figures are not clearly put before us.

I think it is most unfortunate that the hon. member should confuse this question and make the charge of concealment. How can there be any question of concealment when these items are all clearly set out, and all hon. members have to do is a small sum in addition. I repudiate the suggestion of concealment.

Why don’t you add the amount ?

Because, in one case the amount is taken from loan funds, and in the other case from the renewals fund. The hon. member has no justification for his charge about concealment. Let me say to the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) that I am in this case following the precedent laid down by my predecessor, with which I agree, because if it is possible for us to take money legitimately from the renewals fund, rather than burdening loan expenditure on which the users of the railway will have to pay interest, I think it is all to the good that we should do so. I submit, further, that this can be fully justified in this case, because, as the hon. member knows, there has been depreciation on rolling stock which has not been made up, to the extent of £2,000,000, which has not yet been made good ; we are doing what is right, and I am prepared to defend it. In regard to the Sea Point line, I have gone carefully into the matter, and it is not possible or desirable at this stage to scrap the electrification of the line as suggested by the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser). In reply to the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. G. Brown), the position is that tenders are asked in South Africa, and I am surprised to hear that local manufacturers have not received sympathetic treatment. If they bring me any specific case, I will go into it.

Were any tenders received ?

So far as I know, no tenders were received. Item 616, Self-contained Rail Motor Vehicles, has no reference to the Sea Point line. In reply to the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls), we cannot have trucks specially constructed for cane traffic, because the traffic is intermittent. We have, however, fitted up a number of trucks for that particular kind of traffic.

*The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) enquired about the carriage of fruit. I may say that we are taking all necessary steps to make provision for the carriage of fruit.

In regard to these locomotives which have been charged to renewals fund, I am responsible for that ; I gave instructions when I was in office that these should be charged to renewals fund. It was my policy, which I strongly support to-day, to keep down the capital account on the railways. We are spending over six millions out of borrowed money this year. Anything that could be reasonably, by little stretch, charged to the renewals fund, and we had the money, we did it. Otherwise, you pile up capital expenditure and have to pay interest on it. Then I don’t want the Minister to be subject to the temptation of having a large amount in the renewals fund and then, when he is in a tight corner, take some of it, as I was compelled to do.

In the case of a farmer desiring to send away a truck load of maize, how long is the truck placed at the farmer’s disposal for loading purposes?

With regard to the 17 electric locomotives, I am still unconvinced, and the Minister’s indignation over the word “concealment” leaves me unrepentant. How is it that his engineers cannot make closer estimates of new works? You may reckon that any estimated work will cost anything up to 20 per cent, more than the original estimate. These 17 locomotives are a case in point. They were estimated to cost £144,000, and that was after the experience of purchasing the 78 locomotives ; and now we are asked to vote £180,000. I think something ought to be done to induce those responsible officials to make closer estimates of expenditure. Not a year comes along but we have to vote large sums for expenditure incurred over and above the original estimates.

It is on account of that very temptation that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) referred to that we want to get away from the present system. The Minister is wrong when he thinks we object to the money being spent out of renewals. If you have the money there is no objection. Our point is that the estimates should be put before Parliament and Parliament should be asked to vote the money.

I see that Items 617-575 provide for the acquisition of a considerable amount of new rolling stock—coaches and wagons. I should like to know whether due consideration is being given to the building of coaches in this country. Am I to understand that the bogie fruit wagons ; hopper wagons and drop-sided wagons for which provision is made are merely being put together in South Africa or actually being built here ? There appears to be an unduly large proportion of imported vehicles in comparison with the number being constructed here.

May I repeat my question as to the prospects of obtaining the new type of electric engines for Natal? It is highly desirable that the improved type should be placed on the road as soon as possible, as in the opinion of many persons the present type is in many respects obsolete.

I have one grievance against the consulting engineers in regard to these electric locomotives used in Natal. It appears that an electric engine may be composed of one, two or three units, each of which costs about £12,000, so that a complete engine would cost £36,000. I do not consider myself that the consulting engineers made that clear at the time we were considering the question of electrifying the Natal line—certainly I never grasped that position. The consulting engineers, in their report on the introduction of electric traction, stated—

Any layman would have taken that to refer to one unit. I consider we were not quite frankly and candidly treated in regard to this point. I was astonished when I heard that it required three units to draw a heavy train. I never understood that an engine to draw these trains would cost £36,000.

The general manager informs me he and his officers were never under any misapprehension in regard to the point mentioned by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). They knew perfectly well what the position was.

I am sorry I did not know myself.

In reply to the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) I may state that the farmers have 12 hours in which to load wagons. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) should look at Item 607 “import and erect 12 additional electrical locomotives £144,000” the additional amount required being £11,520.

The Auditor-General fell into the same trap.

I am referring to the new electric motors for which we are asking authority now. The position is that 95 electric units replace 130 steam engines. I have dealt with the question of building coaches in South Africa. We are building all we can here, and ordering the rest from overseas. We are continually improving the design of the electric motors but the type remains the same. As improvements are introduced we adapt them to our electric locomotives.

The department is asking the farmers to do impossibilities.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head 4: Harbours, lighthouses, etc., £921,588.

I see that £75,000 are down for the construction of the south breakwater at Algoa Bay. That is a smaller sum than has been voted in recent years. I do not know whether there is something to be spent in addition. I would like to hear that there is no intention of slackening the work and that £75,000 will cover the full extent of the work that the engineers think can be done during the year. I notice that the total estimated cost of the detailed survey of the harbour at Algoa Bay is £5,526, but only £4,500 are to be voted this year. This detailed survey, of course, is preliminary to carrying on the big harbour scheme, and I hope we can take it that this means that the scheme is to be gone on with. It appears, however, that the survey is going to take more than a year, thus it will be another year before it will be possible to obtain a vote to carry on the complete scheme. I hope the survey will be finished this year so that we shall have the full report when Parliament meets again.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.15 p.m.

When the committee adjourned I had asked the Minister about two items connected with Algoa Bay, Nos. 713 and 714. I would ask the committee’s attention to page 42, items 737-8-9, provision of lighters. The first item there is four steel lighters to replace four wooden lighters. That, of course, does not provide for any extra traffic. The next item makes provision for four refrigerator lighters, that is for fruit traffic only. Then there is item 739, four additional lighters, which are to be completed this year, and for which £7,100 is being voted. Apparently those are the four lighters which have already been begun, and on which I see there is an expenditure of £6,000 up to 31st March, 1926. These will be the four, I take it, that the Minister promised and arranged to be built on his visit. On that occasion a request was made for 12 lighters, and I cannot understand how it is that the Administration seem to be never prepared to trust the men on the spot. They have the Harbour Advisory Board to advise to the best of their capacity, they have their own officials there, but whatever is put forward is always whittled down, or turned down altogether, and that particularly applies in regard to the case of Algoa Bay. Once again, I would like to refer to the estimates of revenue of the different harbours, and the estimates on the other side for services and interest. You will find that Cape Town is estimated to have a profit of £99,000; Durban, £117,000; East London, £4,000; and Algoa Bay £140,000. That is the Minister’s own estimate of what he is going to get from Algoa Bay, and yet when it comes to a mere question of getting a few lighters, the whole 12 of which would cost about £40,000, it is like extracting a double tooth without gas. To get any money for equipment for this port, which gives the best net return of any port, year after year there is the greatest difficulty. The Minister must know that the work is at the present time being hampered for want of lighters and want of stock. It is not only the present Administration, but it was the same thing before under the previous Administration. If one looks through this book, apparently at Durban, for instance, money can be poured out like water, at Table Bay there is not a little being poured out, but at Algoa Bay there is the greatest difficulty in getting any expenditure for the traffic that is offering.

I would like to call the Minister’s attention to Item 727, Table Bay: Modified Southern Scheme. I see that the Minister only, asks for £5,000 this year on behalf of the modified southern scheme. I would like him to explain why we are going so slowly in this matter. Here is a scheme estimated to cost over £2,000,000, and yet we are only to spend £5,000 on it this year. Then, in Item 728, widening south arm, Table Bay, we have the old principle of going to the Renewals Fund, in this case for £42,000, and I see we are also buying two new steel lighters, £9,000, out of the Renewals Fund. For the strengthening of No. 1 jetty and removal of decking, there is no vote on these estimates. Is that because we are spending the money out of Renewals Fund ? I would like to refer to item 750, one 60-ton non-propelling electric floating crane, £50,000. Here we have a floating crane. The difficulty of Table Bay is in regard to the dry dock. No heavy weights can be taken out of that dry dock, except special appliances are erected. I take it that this floating crane would be useless there. We have been crying out at Table Bay for years past for a heavier crane. I would also like an explanation in regard to Item 748, purchase of one new steam tug, Table Bay. I see that the estimated cost of this is £68,000, and there is only £1,800 on the vote.

In reply to the hon. member (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), I may say that the £1,800 is retention money. The hon. member has also referred to the item of £5,000 on the modified southern scheme, Table Bay. That is only the beginning of the scheme, which will take five years to complete.

It is only a small sum.

It is a small sum because we have not more money available. I am really surprised to hear the hon. member’s remarks on Item 750. I thought I had met the Cape Town people very handsomely by providing this 60-ton electric crane.

You cannot use a floating crane in the dry dock.

I know, but you have got this for all purposes in regard to unloading any freight. I must say I went out of my way to assist the Cape Town people in this matter, and I would have thought that the hon. member would appreciate it.

It was promised for years!

Yes, it was promised years ago, and now it has been given. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) has pointed out that, of the £5,500 which the survey of Algoa Bay harbour is expected to cost, we are only providing £4,500. That is because we are not working a full year. If at all possible, the work will be completed this financial year. We shall push on with it as fast as we can. The hon. member also asked me about the provision of only £75,000 for the outer works, while last year we spent about £100,000. This year, unfortunately, we have been very much pressed for money. The amount which has been placed at the disposal of the department is Only £6,000,000 from the Treasury and, with the very big works going on at the present time, we have found it very difficult indeed to meet all needs. I trust the hon. member will realize that we are in earnest in regard to that work. I do not think it will be necessary to discharge any men. I thought I gave those eight additional lighters with very good grace. If the hon. member will look again he will see, under Item 737, that there are four steel lighters to replace four wooden lighters, while Item 738 provides for four refrigerator lighters, and 739 provides for four additional steel lighters. The request of the Chamber of Commerce was for 12.

Refrigerator lighters do not help ordinary trade.

They may be able to use them for that when they are not used for fruit. I take it that there will be no difficulty in using them for ordinary trade. I do not want to bind myself on that point, but I think it would be possible. The technical advice I received was that the additional lighters, with the refrigerator lighters, would be sufficient.

With regard to Item 736— Walvis Bay Harbour Improvements—I do not quite understand this. Then there is Item 445 on page 26. Is this £47,000 for the water supply ? We have spent a pot of money on that water supply already. There is also a further item of £613,000. I suppose that is for general works. I would like to ask how these works are getting on. When will they be ready ? Then there is item 749 for Table Bay floating dock, 450 tons displacement. That is for fishing craft I take it. I understood this had arrived. Has is not come yet ? Then, on the next page, 43, there is Item 754, Durban Coal Storage. I am rather surprised this is not ready before now. When is it going to be ready? It has been on hand for a considerable time. Then there is another point there. The Minister is going to spend a large amount on extending the South Pier at Durban. What are you doing in regard to the North Pier? Is that being taken away, or is it being straightened out ? It is Item 722 on page 41. It is an additional grant of £39,000.

The progress of the construction of the breakwater at Port Elizabeth has been most disappointing. We have always heard that there was to be no delay. One looks at the figures given here and finds that the estimated expenditure during subsequent years is £838,000. That would mean at the pace of £75,000 a year it would be eleven years before that breakwater would be finished. Some of us want to live to see the breakwater finished. The Minister has given the assurance in Port Elizabeth and in this House that whatever might be the position about the harbour as a whole there would be no slacking in the building of the breakwater. Now it has slackened down to £75,000 a year. It is a preposterous way of leaving the thing.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has asked me when the works at Walvis Bay will be completed. We hops to have them completed in September of this year. The work is progressing very favourably. The cost of the water scheme is included in that amount. Then in regard to Item 749, the floating dock is for the repair of fishing boats.

When do you expect it?

It will be received during the course of this year. It is on order now. He has also asked me about the north pier at Durban. It was a recommendation of Messrs. Wilson and Nicholson that there should be an extension of the south pier and a removal of the north pier. The board have fully considered the matter, and we have decided not to touch the north pier at the present moment. We are going to see the effect of lengthening the south pier before we touch the north pier. I am sorry the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) is disappointed, but we must cut our cloth according to the material we have on hand. Unfortunately, I am not in the position of providing more money than I have in hand. Every step will be taken to see that the whole of this amount is spent

On Item 736, in regard to the Rooibank water supply, I would like to ask the Minister whether there is a prospect of a genuine water supply at Walvis Bay. I would also like to ask him whether there was not a bad typhoid epidemic last year, and whether this was due to the water supply.

I cannot say what the cause of the epidemic was, but the present water supply is a permanent one and eminently satisfactory.

Only recently the Minister of Finance passed a law putting a heavy embargo on Ruberoid tiles with the idea of preventing their use here, and yet, when I looked out of my hotel window at St. James, I saw that the Railway Administration were putting up a building with these very tiles. It seems to me very unfair, and I hope the Minister will give it his attention.

Head put and agreed to.

Head 5, £136,108, “Working Capital ”, put and agreed to.

On Head 6, £150,000, “Unforeseen Works ”,

On the next page, page 45, there is a statement of unforeseen works, and it is a very big list. The total is £336,237. I know the difficulties of the Minister, but I think he ought to set his face against this. Just imagine a few of these works—three pages of them. I have not the remotest shadow of doubt that before these estimates have been passed a week you will have similar things brought up by the officials. I would advise my hon. friend to do his best to resist these propositions. These have not been sanctioned by Parliament. To spend £330,000 is a very big amount indeed. I think it is a wrong policy and the administration should discourage it.

I do not quite understand how it is that the total of unforeseen works given here during the last calendar year is £336,237, but we are only asked to vote £150,000. Is that for next year? What has happened to those included in this schedule ? When were they authorized by Parliament?

Whatever amount is not expended is carried forward into these estimates.

But these are unforeseen works unprovided for. What is happening about them? If the total is £336,237, it seems to me that those not carried out ought to have been put into this vote.

Perhaps the Minister can tell us what kind of unforseen work this is—£55,000 compensation and settlement of claim Otavi M. & R. Company.

I am glad the hon. member has mentioned that, because it is responsible for a large portion of the £330,000. We took over certain assets when the occupation took place, and the Otavi Mining and Railway Company claimed against the Administration for a very large amount. The select committee upstairs dealt with it some years ago, but the whole matter was still outstanding at the time I took office. After full investigation we came to the conclusion that a payment of £55,000 would meet the whole case and personally I think the settlement is satisfactory. I think it was only just that we should have made them a payment and I think the transaction is a sound one. In reply to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) he will understand that while the total expenditure is £336,000, that does not mean that we have actually spent more than £150,000 in cash. Whatever remains appears in the Estimates this year as a carryover for completion during this year. As regards the warning the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has given I appreciate that and shall hear it in mind.

Is that why some items seem to be duplicates of items which appear in the vote ?

Yes, that is the explanation. Many are carried over because they have not been finished.

It is a funny way of doing business.

On page 46, I see Pietermaritzburg improvements to cooking arrangements, £522. What is all that about ? On page 45 there is £2,000 Swakopmund, contractors’ claim.

The first item is in connection with the native compound. We feed them very well.

Contractors scheme. £2,000. Swakopmund, what is all that about ? I see £1,090 is paid out.

I understand this is in connection with a contract for the construction of a pier.

What is the use of giving us a long schedule like this containing items which are also included under different heads on the Vote? Surely if Parliament is making provision for them under different heads they ought not to come under unforeseen expenditure.

The list at the back of the brown book refers to unforeseen expenditure undertaken during last year, but we actually spent only £150,000 on these works, which leaves a balance unprovided for, and these items are now carried forward to the brown book, and cash provision for this amount is made. Any provision for unforeseen expenditure this year will be in next year’s brown book. We provide this list at the request of the select committee, and personally I think it is sound.

I take it that some of the money expended on unforeseen works is spent on contract work—work left to contractors. When tenders are called for by the railway Administration and one tender is accepted, the other tenderers are not aware of the amount of the accepted tender. In the Public Works Department they are furnished with a list of the tenderers and the accepted tender.

The hon. member cannot now go into the policy of the department.

I submit I am not dealing with policy, but with a matter of administrative practice. May I ask the Minister whether the administration will take into consideration the acquainting of all tenderers with the result of the award ?

Yes, we are prepared to give consideration.

Head put and agreed to.

Estimates of Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works, Railways and Harbours, to be reported without amendment.

We have just voted £7,000,000 and why the difference?

This is only the amount the treasury is going to vote from loan funds. They have other loan moneys available.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote B, “Public Works,” £600,000.

Take the dairy, £4,700, at Grootfontein. I called attention to this last year. Why they should want to spend this on a dairy beats me entirely. I have built a dairy myself, and it did not cost me anything like this. Then there is, Bloemfontein Appeal Court, £97,000. I want to draw attention to this—I am astonished.

That was voted last year.

That does not make it any better.

But the House agreed to it.

Possibly they did, but they have had the time to think over it since.

What are you worrying about ?

It is a waste of public money ; that is what I am worrying about. The judges do not sit there long, by any manner of means. I notice further down, Cape Town office of Labour Department, £35,000; what is the reason for that? What rent are you getting for the Trades Hall in Church Square? It is Government property, and why that should not be the office for the Labour Department I do not quite understand. Then there is, Cape Town Barracks and Cells, £130,000, which seems a very large amount to have to spend. I notice also, Native Affairs, Johannesburg, reception depot, £23,000, and the same at Pretoria, £17,500. These are also large sums. Then there is the Cape Town G.P.O. annexe, £150,000; stores and garage. £69,700: Kimberley, addition to the post office, £38,000 ; Johannesburg, awaiting trial cells, £38,000 ; a general revote, Durban public offices. £105,000. What offices are these? Then there is, Cape Town, offices for various departments, £33,000—where is that going to be spent?

That is too much for Cape Town.

Possibly it is.

It should go to Bethlehem!

Although the amount for the appeal court is a revote, and although it came before the House last year, it is not too late to reconsider it. If ever there was a piece of public expenditure which could be called a ramp, it is this.

What do you mean by a ramp ?

I will not be deterred from making my criticism by anything that the pocket patriotism of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) may say. I know that court, and have practised in it, and that court sits in Bloemfontein for two months out of the twelve. It is adequately housed in the Raadsaal, and so far as I know the judges of the court have expressed the opinion that they are adequately and sufficiently housed there. It is a court half the size of this chamber. The accommodation of the bench and counsel is quite adequate, handsome and dignified. If ever there was an item of unnecessary expenditure in our loan estimates, it is this particular item ; and one can see it is not dictated by the necessity for building an appeal court, but out of consideration to giving a sop to Bloemfontein, and to secure by this vote the anchoring of this court in Bloemfontein. I am always prepared to keep this court in Bloemfontein, and I will not be a party to whittling that away, but it is not necessary to do so at a cost of £97,000 of public money.

You are prepared to spend a quarter of a million on Johannesburg station.

I should say so! Seeing that for a quarter of a century the public revenue has come mainly from the Rand, I should say so. The magistrates’ courts at Johannesburg are in a state comparable to the Caledon Square courts that existed in Cape Town until they were rebuilt a few years ago. These courts are used twelve months out of the twelve months by tens of thousands of people, and yet this white elephant, for I may call it so, is to be built out of public money. I can tell the Minister a very much more needed and wiser way of spending that money, and that is in providing for a suitable law library attached to the appeal court. There is a private library for the judges, but the appellate court has no library, and the practice is to take your books with you when you argue a case.

The hon. member who has just spoken spoke of the dignity of the building in which the appeal court is housed at Bloemfontein, but he has been most undignified in this matter ; because he has not put before the committee the truth. He has not told this committee that this appeal court will not only house the appeal court but the Master of the Supreme Court of the Free State and the library—you lawyers always want cheap books. But he also has not told the committee that the Government have made a contract with the Bloemfontein town council and the latter have spent £10,000 on a piece of ground which was bought from Sir John Fraser. They have demolished some houses and people have been turned out of their homes. The piece of ground is worth £16,000 and it has been given to the State, He talks about its being a ramp. I do not know what that word means. It is certainly not an English word. It is a vulgar word and vulgar words come out of the mouths of little vulgar boys. He does not mean it from a military point of view. Bloemfontein has only had a few crumbs up to now. We have got the appeal court under the Act of Union. If we talk about moving Parliament the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) goes off like a pop-gun. The judges do not live in Bloemfontein except one. They break the spirit of the Act and live in Cape Town but they won’t be able to do that very much longer. When the appeal court sits at Bloemfontein the street has to be blocked up and traffic has to be turned round another way and certain people have their business cut off. I also think that the Government should build those magistrates’ courts in Johannesburg, but you must carry out your contract with the Free State. Whenever anything is done for the Free State the S.A.P. attack it.

No.

Why is it? Because the Free State is a clean place to-day without any S.A.P. people in it. If we were to go mad and turn S.A.P. to-morrow you would give us the appeal court.

I wish to support the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) in regard to the appeal court at Bloemfontein. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) talks about a contract. Will the Minister, of Finance lay on the Table particulars of that contract ? I support what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said in regard to spending a substantial part of the money on a decent library for the use of the judges and those who have to practise in the appeal court; for the library is a perfect scandal. If you want to appear in the appeal court, you either have to take a cartload of books there with you, or you have to go to the offices of the High Court, where there is a scanty library. In regard to item 7, in connection with art gallery, Cape Town, when I raised the question on the general estimates, the Minister gave me a reply which certainly soothed me down, because I gathered from him, when he said “Wait and see what is on the loan estimates,” that there would be a considerable sum down. There is an item of £500. I suppose that is for clearing the weeds off the foundations. The appeal court at Bloemfontein is not in the same position as the art gallery, because the latter is an absolute debt to the public of Cape Town. The Minister of Public Works knows perfectly well that his predecessor met a deputation, and admitted that an obligation rested on the Government in this connection. I hope the Minister is going to give us something tangible in connection with this. Regarding the item on page 7 third line, Cape Town Parliament House, alterations, a rumour has been going about which I trust is unfounded, that included in that is a fund for the making of a bowling green in connection with this House. I hope that neither a bowling green, tennis court nor a golf course is to be erected in connection with the House ; because that would be the absolute limit.

As far as I am concerned at all events, it is a fixed and definite thing that we shall have an appeal court building in Bloemfontein. There was no contract of any kind with the Bloemfontein municipality. I found a good site, and I asked the Bloemfontein municipality to place that site at our disposal, gratis. They purchased a site, which cost something like £8,100, and their example is a very useful one for other large places to follow. As far as the necessity for this new building is concerned, I should not imagine that any lawyer would have any objection to the highest court in the land being suitably housed, and it is not suitably housed to-day.

Have the judges said that they were not properly housed?

The proposal did not come from the judges, but it is not for the judges to decide what buildings are to be erected. I am glad that the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) mentioned another reason for having a proper building, and that is a suitable law library. I am recommending the purchase of one of the best law libraries—that of Mr. Justice Kotze—to be housed in the new appeal court at Bloemfontein, where there will be proper accommodation for the books. We require other buildings in Bloemfontein for other Government purposes. The Master and the Registrar have not sufficient accommodation, and one of the ways in which we shall utilize parts of the space in the new court is for officials who require additional office accommodation. You could, of course, give that additional accommodation without the expense we are going to incur if we did not also require an appeal court building. The money for the appeal court has been voted by the House, and I cannot understand why the House should revert to the matter, as nothing new has happened in connection with it, except that since last session one of the appeal court judges has gone to live in Bloemfontein. Nothing, however, has happened to make what was right last year wrong this year. It is not fair to reopen old controversies without any new grounds. It is necessary to house the highest court of the land properly in Bloemfontein, and I hope it will have the effect of enabling us to dispose of our appeals rapidly, and will not make it necessary for judges to work at very high pressure, as they do to-day. They have been very anxious to go back to places where they have big libraries and better court accommodation than they have at Bloemfontein. With the new buildings, I do not think we shall have the very large number of reserved judgments that we have to-day. We shall give the judges so much comfort that it will be possible for them to do all their work in Bloemfontein, and not to rush off to their homes, and try to work out judgments by correspondence, which seems to me to be the very worst way of working out a judgment. My idea is that as soon as we have that proper accommodation at Bloemfontein, we should have legislation laying down what the sessions are to be, and giving parties the right to place their cases on the roll, in exactly the same way as they do in the courts of first instance. All that I hope to be able to put straight, but the first step is to obtain a propel building. The only argument against this proposal is that the present state of affairs is merely temporary, and that the House is of opinion that the appeal court should not stay at Bloemfontein. That argument I can understand, and if that argument should prevail I may start an argument of my own with regard to other matters. At the present moment, it is a good deal safer for everybody to Stick to the position as it is.

I wish to draw attention to the fact that a deputation came here in the early part of the session to urge the Government to erect public buildings in the city of Jamestown, where they are very sorely needed.

The hon. member must not plead for new buildings at this stage.

I congratulate those who have the ear of the Government, both at Bloemfontein and Cape Town. While we are very glad to see an art gallery for Cape Town, it should wake up to get the balance required to complete the building according to plan. The city must provide for itself very much more than it does. Johannesburg built an art gallery for £60,000 out of its rates.

This gallery is to be built with our own money.

Yes, partly. You have the Michaelis Gallery, and, indeed, don’t know how much has been done for you. With regard to the expenditure of £90,000 on a palace of justice at Bloemfontein, which will be used only about three times a year, and then for only short periods, I would prefer to see the money spent on the provision of hospitals rather than law courts. We are spending heaps of money on the drawing-room, but leaving the kitchen out of consideration almost altogether. We are not attending to real interests of the country, but providing ornaments and fringes. Coming from the Transvaal, which provides most of the revenues, I shall probably receive very little attention from the Minister, or the House in the matter I wish to mention. There is an item on page 10, loans to provinces for capital expenditure.

This is Loan Vote “B.” We cannot now discuss Loan Vote “F.”

I listened with some care to the statements of the Minister of Justice, but it seems to me that his arguments were a complete non sequitur. He said that he looked forward to the time when the judges would sit together in Bloemfontein and confer about their judgments, instead of writing to each other, as they do to-day. I agree with him on that point. Then he said that this happy consummation would depend on building a new appeal court at Bloemfontein. The argument is that they have nowhere to sit today to confer about their judgments, that they have no sort of accommodation in which they can properly do their work. A more ridiculous statement has never been heard in this House. The judges are as well accommodated in the present building in Bloemfontein as Cabinet Ministers are in this House. The court in which arguments are conducted is, for all practical purposes, as good and adequate a court as exists in the Union to-day. I say that the suggestion that all these reforms in the procedure and sitting of the appeal court are necessary, but must be postponed until a new building is put up, is an absolutely laughable argument.

They need not be postponed.

The suggestion was that when the new building was finished, the Minister would feel that he had sufficient moral courage to bring about these reforms. The proposals have nothing to do with each other. If the judges lived in Bloemfontein, then this association together and discussion of their judgments would be possible. I want to say a word to that “perfect gentil knight,” the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow), who has given this House a lesson in courtesy and good manners and told them what words they may use in their vocabulary and what words they may not. I wonder that the Minister of Justice himself did not come under the lash of the hon. member (Mr. Barlow) when he spoke of the municipality of Bloemfontein “coming up to the scratch.”

It is virile language.

I may be permitted to express my amazement at this committee being read a lesson in gentleness and courtesy by the hon. member for Bloemfontein ( North.) If there is an hon. member who is entitled to read the committee that lecture, it is not the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North). I think if this House and the outside world were asked the last place in which they would look for refinement, it would be in the bench occupied by the hon. gentleman himself. I think I may now leave the hon. member, who is simply out on what I may term a vote-catching expedition. This vote is to provide a building for a court which sits two months out of the twelve, which has two sessions per year, each lasting one month only. It is for a court which at the moment is adequately housed. I do not suggest that no improvements are ever to be made without a report from the judges, but I do suggest that where in the past there has been a bad court building, the judges themselves have been very insistent in their complaints as to the inadequacy of the accommodation provided. So far from there being any complaint from our learned Judges of Appeal in regard to the accommodation in that court, they have, I believe, expressed themselves as being perfectly satisfied. If that is so, what in the world are we spending £97,000 for ? Why are we spending this money practically as a sop to Bloemfontein? I say, as a lawyer myself, that this expenditure is not justified. There are a large number of places in the Union which are waiting for proper courts and have not got them. I would say to the Minister that I for one would be no party to trying to upset the compromise which was arrived at by which the appeal court sits in Bloemfontein, The suggestion has been made that this agitation against the court for Bloemfontein is due to some of us, possibly members in the Cape or others, wishing to remove the court to Cape Town or to Pretoria. There is nothing of that sort in my mind or in the mind of anyone else who has objected to this expenditure.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) gets intoxicated ; with his own eloquence. He gets swollen headed. I do not take any notice of the hon. gentleman. The only thing I regret is that I brought him into politics. Leaving the hon. member where he is and where he should be, I want to go a little bit further and say that I believe that the time has come, not to build the appeal court in Bloemfontein, but to concentrate at Pretoria. I believe that and I believe that the Government, if they took that in their hands, would get the support of the whole of the Free State. I think that we would be satisfied and I think the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) and the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) would be satisfied with us. I may be wrong, though I do not think I am, but I have never known Cape Town yet come to this Government and say—

When the present Minister of Labour, who has done more for Cape Town than all the Cape Town members, wanted to put up a big post office here, what did these Cape Town people do ? They made him pay £65,000 for a small piece of the parade ground.

Shame.

They wanted £100,000, the Shylocks, for a small piece of ground to build this particular post office on. And that is the great mother city, represented by the hon. member for Rondebosch, the patriot of the patriots! They made the Government of this country pay £65,000 for that small piece of ground. We do not do those things in the Free State. No, we give the ground, although we have got to pay for it. That is what Natal does, too. These great patriots here, these great Capetonians, these wonderful people who —well, never mind. What, about my hon. friend (Mr. Blackwell) ? They wanted to build a station at Johannesburg. What did the Wanderers do? They got the ground for nothing from the Government and then they want £65,000—represented by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). We, in the Free State and Natal, have helped the Government in every way possible. If the judges in South Africa had their way—with the exception of Mr. de Villiers—there would be no appeal court in Bloemfontein at all. Let us carry out the spirit of the convention. The appeal court has outgrown the home it is in. It is wanted for the provincial council of the Free State. Then to say it is a political ramp! Would we worry about the appeal, court just to catch votes ? Are we the type of people to do that? We have all the votes we want without going out of our way to catch them. We want a decent building for the highest court in the land. It should be properly housed. I think it is very wrong for the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to come and put forward the view he has. He does it because he is a South African party man. The South African party men in this House always do whatever they can against the Free State.

I would just like to say that I think it is a most regrettable thing that we should have the names of judges dragged before the House in this way. I do not propose to go into that question, but when the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) talked a lot about little boys, one could not help thinking of little Jack Horner. When he stands up in that corner of the House and has the effrontery to appeal to the House in the spirit of the convention after what we have heard from him—well, we have heard something from him the last few days which illustrates how the spirit of the convention appeals to him.

He does not know what he is talking about.

Yes, it is most amusing to listen to these attempts of the Minister of Dedence who has a good deal to account for. I am glad to hear the Minister of Justice say what he did about the library at Bloemfontein, because that is a long-felt want. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) in his omniscience talks about every subject under the sun in this House and lectures everybody. If ever Satan required a lecture—well, we will leave it at that! When he lectured Cape Town on the question of the provision of land for the Art Gallery and the duty of the municipality to provide funds, he is either entirely ignorant or recklessly regardless of the fact that this is a debt due to Cape Town. The Government took over from the old art trustees in New Street the building which was there. Since that date the Government has owed that as a debt. I quite recognize that in the past it has been impossible for the Government to redeem that debt, but I say now that the time has come for the debt to be paid. That is all we are asking. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) simply does not know what he is talking about when he talks like that.

I only want to know what the position is with regard to the public buildings at Sterkstroom. Last year there was a sum of £1,100 on the Estimates for public buildings, but nothing was done. The public have been suffering great inconvenience for years and it does not assist them a bit to put £1,100 on the Estimates and to do nothing. I want to know why the buildings have not yet been erected, and if he will give immediate instructions for that to be done.

I am disappointed to find no provision in the Estimates for a police station for Greenwood Park and Red Hill districts.

There is no such item on the Estimates, and the hon. member cannot discuss it.

The Minister of Justice when in Durban last October was good enough to tour the district with me, and he then realized the necessity for this status.

May I ask the hon. member not to continue pleading for something which is not on this vote.

I am surprised to see that such a law-abiding place as Stamford Hill should require a police station. I have already told the hon. gentleman that if it is within my power, next year he will get his police station and he will be able to hold out a bunch of carrots to his constituency.

Withdraw!

I did not intend to hurt the hon. member’s feelings.

I do not like it.

Then I withdraw it. I do not want to give offence, but I was not sensible of having given it. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) was perfectly correct in his history of the art gallery in Cape Town. I would like to remind the hon. member for Pretoria West (Mr. Hay) that it is not only an undertaking, but a legal undertaking, to build that gallery, and it is a quid pro quo for the housing of the art treasures which has never been met. It is rather interesting that it now comes to the turn of the “unfortunate” Pact Government, after so many years of silence on the part of the hon. gentleman, to do this.

They could not do it.

Of course, they could never do anything at all. It is left to this Pact Government, which was said to be going to be “such a failure,” to redeem the promises of the previous Government.

You are right in calling it “unfortunate.”

It is unfortunate in having the displeasure of the hight hon. gentleman. It seems to be the fashion to use language in this committee which is not quite, shall I say, dainty.

You set the example!

I will try, but it is not in me. I have not let my hon. friend (Mr. Close) down, or misrepresented the position at all. You will notice that the amount of money we are asking for does not amount to the amount of revotes in other years, and the amount we could have asked the House to revote this year exceeds the amount we are actually asking for by £79,000. We have to revote £679,000, and we are asking for £600,000 ; so my hon. friend will appreciate the great difficulty we have experienced in apportioning this money. We took the question of the art gallery seriously into consideration, but there are other circumstances quite apart from the provision of the money. It is an intricate thing ; it is different from the ordinary architecture and design. A good deal of consultation is neceessary, and we have not quite concluded this consultation, but we are getting going about the end of September. We are going to start the work, and the revote of £30 000 is outstanding, which I hope the House will agree to next year, and at long last my hon, friend will get his art gallery.

We will wait and see.

If the hon. member waits, he will see. The hon. member seems to be very much concerned about the addition of a bowling green, but if he is against it, he will find himself in a small minority. Many members will agree to it. It is not a matter for me, but for the House itself, and for the Internal Arrangements Committee —they can say yes or no as the case may be.

Where is the bowling green to be ?

It is not in the air! If the House desires and asks for it, we have to give it.

How does the House ask for it ?

The Internal Arrangements Committee deals with it, I understand.

But I want to know whether your department, having the plans for alterations and additions, these include expenditure on a bowling green ?

Yes, we have the plans of the alterations, and there has been a tentative addition of a bowling green—it has been marked off on the squares.

The House has not had an opportunity of discussing it.

Exactly ; that is why the whole thing is premature. It can just as easily be cut out as put in. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has raised many points. One was a dairy in connection with the Agricultural Department. He spoke about his own dairy not costing as much, but the hon. member’s dairy, I am assuming, was merely considered from the commercial point of view, and this dairy is for training, and he must confess that the costs are a little bit more when you have all the appliances for training. I need not deal with the question of the appeal court, which has been dealt with already. With regard to the Labour Department’s offices in Barrack Square, the hon. member must know by this time—he has been in office, although not closely associated with labour—that office accommodation is in a parlous condition, and there is lack of office accommodation in Pretoria, but particularly in Cape Town. The district engineer of the Public Works Department is nearly run off his head endeavouring to fix up office accommodation. The labour offices must be together, and although both the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and I dislike spending money, I would like to see Cape Town very much improved by the activities of the Public Works Department. The Trades Hall is entirely unsuitable. Even as a Trades Hall it does not foot the Bill. A rent of £16 is being paid, and I think it is £8 too much, You have the site space, but no facilities and no accommodation. To get to the offices you have to go through the main hall, and there may be a meeting in progress. We are endeavouring to arrange for a site to be placed at the disposal of the trades unions in Cape Town, and they can erect their own building. It will be little enough, and a recognition of the real claims, in the economy of the state of trade unions. I am not going to ask for it to-day.

Nor ever, I hope.

Yes, and I hope the hon. member will not oppose if he cannot actually support. He raised the question of the Cape Town police barracks. The present barracks certainly are an eyesore, and they have got to come down, and we have to provide alternative accommodation. We have the site also on the barracks square. It will be a big building. Reception depots for natives are an essential part of the scheme of things. It is realized that the natives have to be looked after ; fed when they arrive as strangers, housed, medically examined, and so forth. The hon. member has also raised the question of the post office annexe, £130,000, total cost, plus garage, stores, and that sort of thing. We are at present hiring accommodation at a very high rental, something over £2,000 a year for stores accommodation, garage, etc. We have a piece of ground in Prestwich Street, and it is proposed to house the whole of it there. Just now we have the mechanicians’ shops at the top of the post office building, and are in fear of fire day by day. The Kimberley post office due to expansion, we have to alter. In regard to the waiting-trial cells in Johannesburg, unfortunately, we do require these. In regard to Durban general offices, any representative here from Durban will agree that it is a most wasteful and inefficient way in which we are conducting our public business in Durban, owing to the offices being scattered. This is overdue. In regard to Cape Town offices, we have a piece of ground in Lelie Street, at the back of Marks’ Buildings, where we propose to make a first instalment of our reconstruction of office accommodation for the Government. That is where the start is going to be made. [No quorum.] There is just one other point, Sterkstroom public offices, £1,100. The hon. member feared that because the amount was passed last year, and the building not proceeded with that there may be some danger of its not being proceeded with this year. I may say that the contract is already let, and the building is about to proceed.

T understood the Minister said in connection with the alterations of the Parliament building, and the provision of a bowling green in its vicinity, that it was a matter for the House to decide. I have always understood that, in dealing with matters of expenditure, this was a matter for the Government to decide. I think the Minister of Finance would subscribe to that doctrine, and acknowledge that I am correct in saying that more than once reports on alterations in the Parliamentary buildings have come before this House, and even if the House agreed, the Government have not always put the work on the estimates. Is it included in this amount of £20,000, additions and alterations, Parliament House, for which we are asked to vote £19,000.

No.

Then when is the House going to get an opportunity of deciding? Will he give the committee this assurance, that unless a specific vote for this purpose is passed, the Government will not go on with the bowling green. In connection with Parliament buildings, to provide, by the money of the taxpayers, a bowling green for members of this House, would be nothing short of scandalous. We have billiard rooms run at the expense of the State in which members spend, to my mind, a great deal too much time. If we are going to have a bowling green to meet the convenience of hon. members opposite so that they can dodge out of the House, it would not add to the dignity of Parliament. If hon. members want to play bowls or any other game, for heaven’s sake let them do so, but let them put their hands in their own pockets and provide the necessary money. There are many other matters of much more importance which the Minister tells us that the country’s finances will not allow him to make provision for. I hope the Minister will give the assurance that work of that character will not be gone on with without the House having a full opportunity of expressing its opinions thereon.

In the absence of a direct vote by the House, the Government will have to take the responsibility for this expenditure. I fail to appreciate that outlook on purity demonstrated by the right hon. gentleman, for in his patriotic fervour he has not carried his memory back to that famous game of bowls on Plymouth Hoe.

They paid for that themselves.

How can the right hon. gentleman square his attitude towards a bowling green and his continued acquiescence in the existence of a billiard room in Parliament? Who pays for the billiard room ? What on earth objection can he possibly have to bowls, which is a refreshing and healthful game? Some hon. members, I believe, approach championship form in that game. They are constantly being invited to play bowls, but they cannot arrange for return fixtures as they have no green. What are they going to do when they wish to return the hospitality of Peninsula bowling clubs? When hon. members also plead for the abolition of billiard rooms, smoking rooms, and bar in Parliament, and various other conveniences in connection with the House I shall consider there is some consistency in their attitude.

If hon. members enjoy bowls and partake of the hospitality of other clubs in the Peninsula, it is perfectly open to them to subscribe the necessary funds to hire a local green in order that they may return the hospitality shown to them. I object to hon. members who play bowls as their recreation coming to the taxpayers to provide a green for them to enable them to return hospitality. I am not raising this from a party point of view, as I have no doubt that members of all parties play bowls, but it is not right to spend the taxpayers’ money on laying out a green. I object to it in the strongest possible manner.

Is the provision of a bowling green included in this vote of £19,000?

No, sir.

Then this discussion is out of order.

The only thing arising out of this discussion is that we must withdraw the plans for the extension of the Parliamentary building. To be consistent we must stop extensions which include an additional billiard room.

I don’t think you want an additional billiard room.

I am prepared to withdraw the full amount. I am only too anxious to do so. Let an hon. member move the deletion of the amount, and I will accept it.

May I point out the attitude which the Government adopted when this matter was raised last year ? I think the hon. member for Paarl (Dr. de Jager) took a very prominent part, and urged the necessity for improvements to the Parliament buildings. Of course the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), when he says the ultimate responsibility is the Government’s is right, but in matters affecting the convenience of members of Parliament the Government will be guided very largely by the House itself. I do not know anything about a bowling green or a billiard room, but I presume that all these things, if the Government ultimately goes in for a scheme of this nature, will only be the result of the deliberate and decided opinion of a committee of the House.

The House wants to express its opinion.

The committee’s reports are always considered. I consider the whole discussion out of place.

I would like to congratulate Benoni, which is going to get £3,000 for a new post office and £13,455 for public offices. I hope the Minister will not forget to make provision for a new post office at Johannesburg, which is the hub of South Africa. I would like to refer to the alterations of the old supreme court in Cape Town.

The Cape Town municipality is paying for that.

It is interfering with a building which belongs to the Government.

Yes.

There is no item on the vote in regard to that building.

I ask you for your ruling. As the money is being expended upon the alteration of a building which belongs to the public, may I be allowed to say a few words ?

No, the hon. member may not.

I want to ask the Minister of Finance when the members of this House will have an opportunity of expressing their opinion on the proposed alterations to this building. Here is the money being asked for now, and we are nearing the end of the session. I understood that some of the alterations would be made during the recess. If that is so, how can we have an opportunity of expressing our opinion on the alterations which are to be made if that opportunity is not given us before the end of the session ?

I understand that it is the same report that we considered last year and fully discussed, and which my hon. friend, the then Minister of Public Works, partly accepted.

I would like to explain that the recommendation of the Internal Arrangements Committee at that time was for a scheme costing something like £40,000. It was divided into two portions, one portion to be for the complete remodelling of this chamber, and the other portion to be used for providing additional accommodation for the Hansard staff and the reporters, and for the convenience of members of the House. The Government accepted that portion which provided additional accommodation for the Hansard reporters, for the press and for the convenience of members, which included the transfer of the billiard room from its present place, and the utilization of the present billiard room for other purposes, and the erection of a new billiard room at the far end of this new building. Those plans were submitted to the committee, and the members opposite wanted us to go in for the whole scheme, but we did not do so. We went in for what we thought was the most urgent. That cut the expenditure down to £20,000. The plans were then submitted to Mr. Speaker, to the officials of this House, and to the various parties interested. Mr. Speaker and the officials had to have a say as to what would be most convenient arrangements for the conduct of the business of the House, and those plans were eventually approved of by Mr, Speaker and the officials, in co-operation with the chief architect of the Public Works Department, the secretary of the Public Works Department, and myself. As far as I know, those plans have not been altered, and all this controversy has arisen on account of some rumour. It is absolute news to me that any provision is made for a bowling green, and I do not think that hon. members should prejudice the whole scheme on account of a possibility of something like that happening, which could very easily be avoided if suitable steps are taken. Here we propose providing accommodation for the convenience of the members and officials, and, in order to make what appears to be a cheap party score, hon. members are getting up and jeopardizing the whole scheme.

I do not know whether the Minister of Labour was here all the time when this point was being discussed. I was not referring to the Minister, one of the champion bowlers of Parliament ; I was not associating him with it. What I was saying was this, that, while everybody recognized that it was necessary for members and officials and the press that you should have some extension of this building, we should have a distinct understanding from the Government that no money of the State would be utilized for providing a bowling green in the vicinity of Parliament House without Parliament having an opportunity of expressing its opinion, because I considered that it was not a right thing to use the taxpayers’ money of this country for the purpose of enabling any section of the people to play a game of bowls, if they wished to do so. So long as the Minister has given me that assurance, I do not want to proceed any further.

In order that there may be no misunderstanding, I propose now to hold over any further proceedings in the matter of the development of the House until next year. Then the House will have a full opportunity of expressing its opinion on the question.

Allow me to say something in regard to this matter, because I think that the position which the Minister of Public Works now takes up is one of extreme petulance.

I am not a bowler.

I am not discussing the question of bowling. I was a member of the select committee on this matter of the extension of parliament buildings. There is an absolute necessity for improving this chamber. It has been described as a “death-trap.” I served on the committee which decided the whole question. We eventually submitted a plan to this House for an expenditure of something like £43,000. That included the entire rearrangement of this chamber as a debating chamber, with the galleries, and in addition to that extensions not merely for the convenience of members and the press, but also for the convenience of Parliament. One of the greatest needs of this establishment is that there should be additional committee rooms. Then there is a large accumulation of documents and papers which require to be housed.

Who pays for the billiard room to-day ? The taxpayers.

I am not discussing the billiard room. The whole matter was dealt with and reported to this House. Last year the present Minister of Labour, then Minister of Public Works, intimated that he was going to adopt a part of the plan. I asked him then to state what part of the plan—a question which he did not answer.

I did.

The Minister said— Certain parts of the plan.

He adopted only the part of the plan which related to the extension. I subsequently consulted Mr. Speaker as to certain alterations to be made there, but I could see that what the Minister was going to put through was not the plan which the committee had recommended, but only a portion of it. At present we have another Minister of Public Works who is proceeding I do not know on whose plan.

The same plan.

Yes, leaving some things out and adding others. The position therefore is this, that if the Minister has adopted the plan, either partly or wholly, which the commission submitted to the House, well, he should abide by it. If he is adopting any variation from that, the House ought to be consulted, surely. I do not think it is either fair or correct, nor does it show any real desire for improvement for the convenience of members, nor the spirit in which a responsible Minister of Public Works should view the requirements of Parliament. The Minister should certainly not indulge in petulance. Something has appeared, or has been rumoured, as an addition to these plans in the form of a bowling green. There was never any mention of a bowling green on this plan. Well, let him tell us he is not going to have a bowling green. It was not in the commission’s report, and it has not been recommended by Mr. Speaker, I am sure, so why now threaten to withdraw the whole plan and the absolute requirements of the House on the mere question to tell us where the bowling green suggestion comes from. Why threaten to withdraw the whole of the improvements to the House? The Minister must recognize that Parliament does require proper housing. We must have these extra rooms as committee rooms ; Hansard must be provided for and the press must have proper accommodation. All the Minister need tell us if there is a rumour about a bowling green is that he does not intend to carry out that rumour. All he need tell us is that he will go on with the extension, or as much as possible of it, as recommended by the commission, and there will be perfect satisfaction.

I do not want a rumpus; I did not start the game at all.

You did.

Well, I never! It is the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) who as usual goes into superlatives, who looks upon this as such a serious matter. The possible provision of a bowling green and the raising of it to a serious height rests entirely on his shoulders; it is not I. I did not introduce it at all. All I said was that this was a matter that had to be done in consultation with the House. When hon. members make a matter of first-class importance of it and get up and, as it were, chastise me on this question, naturally I have the right to look upon it as of equal importance and to retaliate in exactly the same way.

Like a schoolboy.

My hon. friend puts on the white gown: he ;s a Simon Pure and says why should the taxpayer have to pay for the recreation of members of Parliament. If so, why does he not raise his voice against that part of the extension which includes a billiard-room? You are putting in a second billiard-room.

They want some roundabouts, too!

Why not take the present billiard-room for more accommodation and have one room less in the rest of it. Is it not logical? I want to say this, that rightly or wrongly, I hold the opinion that members have the right to look to the State for some means of recreation in the time when they are carrying on the business of the State, and if the House does not agree with that point of view, then let the House be perfectly logical and cut the whole lot of it out. If we are going to consider the question of the provision of a bowling green we have to do it in relation to the whole plan.

You said it was not on the plan.

It was not on the plan. I made a sketch, which did not involve any expenditure. The point is this, that if you are doing the one thing you have to do the other if you are going to do it. In view of that fact and in view of the intensely serious nature of the objection of the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) I think that in order that we might get the opinion of the House on the question we should defer it for a year, then we can consider it properly in the cool calm of the upstairs and decide whether or not we shall have a bowling green as part of the general plan.

All members of Parliament are agreed that the House of Assembly needs more accommodation in rooms. We are all agreed that the £19,000 which the Government proposes to spend is not too much for the purposes the money is intended for. We all know now that no part of the money will be spent on a bowling green. Why should the Minister then, just because of what the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) has so unwisely introduced into the debate, threaten to postpone the work which is so generally admitted to be necessary, for another year ? It has already been postponed a year. By taking his revenge in that way the Minister would exhibit a pettiness which is not worthy of him. It would suit the book of the members from the north who have no time for the Cape. They will be only too glad if no improvement whatsoever, however necessary, was made to the Houses of Parliament, because they do not want the Parliament here. Bui that desire would be no excuse for the Minister. The Minister should also remember that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort is not a Capetonian. He represents a constituency in the Eastern Province. No, it would make a very bad impression if the Minister fulfilled his threat and certainly such action would be unjustifiable.

I do not want to look at this question from the Cape Town point of view, but from the point of view of the necessities of Parliament. The Minister knows what trouble we took to get the question so far as we have got it now. After we had discussed the plans here, the Minister (Mr. Boydell) was good enough to meet us in the committee room upstairs, and we accepted his amended plans. I understand that the Minister now in charge is prepared to carry it out, and I am certain that he is not going beyond that plan. I cannot see how Mr. Speaker, being responsible for the good government of Parliament, can go on in the way we have been going on in the past. These additional rooms are essentially necessary. It is the first time I have heard about the bowling green, and if the Minister has such an idea in his mind, let it stand over until next session. Do not let us try to wreck this question. I would ask hon. members for the good and harmonious working of the Assembly, and for the convenience of hon. members, to agree to pass this vote. The vast majority of members will be gravely disappointed if we depart from the plans as fixed by the Minister of Labour. By passing it we shall be doing a good day’s work,

I am delighted to hear that it is the intention to lay out a bowling green—if that is the intention—for the convenience of members of Parliament. We require some recreation to get away from some of the dreary speeches we hear in this House. There is not sufficient room for a rifle range, or the Minister of Defence might consider that. I am a regular attendant in this House, and have been away for only two days during the session; but if the Minister would see that a bowling green was laid out, I will promise him faithfully that I would not be away for one day.

I am sorry that I cannot agree with hon. members opposite. It is quite clear that the enlargement of Parliament House is a matter on which the House is much divided. The majority of us do not know what the new plans embrace.

The plan was on the Table, and you could have looked at it.

The Minister said that he would allow the matter to stand over until next year as a result of the agitation on the part of the Opposition. I propose that it be completely rejected. What surprises me most is the fact that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), who is probably one of the oldest members in the House, and ought to know its procedure, has admitted, together with his colleagues around him, that there were only street rumours that the Minister intended to build a bowling green. Yet he comes—probably the leader of the Opposition— and makes a tremendous fuss in the House, although he knows that there is no such intention. The Minister of Public Works and of Posts and Telegraphs gave the assurance that there was no bowling green on the plan. Yet several hon. members opposite, and now and again the member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) have mentioned the bowling green. As it is clear that the House is quite divided about the matter, I think the Minister will do well not only to let the matter stand over till next year, but to completely delete the item. I understand that provision is made for two billiard rooms.

No, that is not the ease.

Then for one, and we already have one.

The old billiard room is being given up for another purpose.

I hope the Minister will completely delete the amount for the purpose. Hon. members opposite who commenced the agitation must have known that they were taking a dangerous course. We who come from the north are absolutely opposed to a further £20,000 being spent on Parliament House. We are quite satisfied with the building as it is, and I move—

I am inclined to support the motion of the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy), not that I do not think that this House requires extension—it requires it very seriously, as the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) has just said ; but I am going to support the amendment on the ground that we must not be treated in this House like schoolboys, and when we criticize an item the Minister gets up and says—

It is a very great pity that this discussion has taken place over nothing. The time we have already spent on this is worth more than £300. The Minister is quite right—if a bowling green is wrong, the billiard room is wrong. I never knew there was a card room in the place. The Minister knows that his duty is to pilot his Estimates through, and not, when he sees a rock ahead, to steam back, but to go on into port. This carping criticism is beside the point. I understand the place where the Chairman sits is in a continual draught, and hon. members who sit in the House are never out of a draught. That is why Mr. Merriman shifted from the front to a back seat. I appeal to the Minister to take up a high, dignified position. There is no greater critic than he when he was in opposition. I only hope he will get the bowling green and will be present to open it. I do not play myself.

I am sorry that this should be made a party question, and that the Estimates are being held up. So far as I know, the contract has already been given out for the alteration to these buildings. Bad as the accommodation is for members, it is much worse for the staff. The alterations are necessary and urgent, and should be proceeded with at once.

I think there has been too much fuss made about this altogether. I am afraid I put the germ of the idea into the Minister’s mind. I visited Australia four years ago, and they had four tennis courts, two bowling greens and a cricket pitch at Parliament House, Melbourne. Hon. members shut their eyes to other things that go on. The ground would only be used in the mornings. Members would not use it in the afternoon. In the design of the buildings, a portion of the ground would have to be laid out either as a garden or a lawn, and very little extra expense would be necessary to make a bowling green of it.

That is the whole point. The cause of the trouble was not so much the hon. member for Rondeboseh (Mr. Close), who put the question. He had his opinion, and did not think it should be there. I hold the contrary view, but the right hon. gentleman—joint leader of the South African party—who should be setting the tone, makes it a matter of international importance. He viewed it so seriously, and the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) expected that I should not treat it on the same level. Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. He made a whole county of a bowling green. He said—

What position am I placed in? In order to get such an expression, I have to postpone the Estimates.

You are trying to threaten us.

I do not want to go against the expressed wishes of the House, but I want a bowling green there, and think it is right it should be there. If the right hon. gentleman will depart from what my friend describes as carping criticism, then we need have no more fuss made about the matter at all. Leave me to do what I think is in the best interests of Parliament and the country.

One hardly expects the Minister to behave like a peevish little boy, and a smacked one at that.

Are you persisting ?

What I object to is that when one asks the Minister for information—

No.

I asked the Minister if that £19,000 included any provision for a bowling green and the Minister has pretended he did not know anything about a bowling green.

No.

Now he acknowledges he does. The Minister of Railways and Harbours said it was the first he had heard of it.

It is quite true.

Am I not entitled to ask the Minister of Public Works: If this money is voted, win ne go on with the construction of the bowling green, without giving the members an opportunity of saying whether they agree with that or not ? It has nothing to do with the extension of the parliamentary buildings, which was agreed to last session. A bowling green has nothing to do with the provision of the necessary accommodation for members.

I raised the question of the bowling green because I feel very strongly on the matter. All we want is to have an opportunity of debating it, to see whose opinion shall prevail—those who favour a bowling green or those who are against it. I understand that the scheme of alterations which has been approved does not include a bowling green, that being an entirely independent matter. I am doing this largely in the interest of the Government, for during the last few weeks when most important matters have been discussed, it has been left to this side of the House to constitute a quorum on most days. Heaven help the Ministers when they want to get on with business if three-quarters of their men are playing bowls and trying to remember whit Drake did when the Armada was sighted.

As there is such an immense objection to the bowling green, I would suggest to the Minister that he should not commit himself to it, but instead should have a nice well-rolled, carefully-kept grass lawn at the back of the House, as he but a flower garden in front.

I will have a well-kept lawn just the size of a bowling green.

Amendment put and negatived.

Vote, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote C, “Telegraphs and Telephones ”, £500,000,

I see here an amount of £186,638 for telephone lines to farms. I am glad to see such a large amount on the estimates, but I am under the impression that the money is not being spent on farmers’ lines, when I notice how little has been done in this respect in my district during the last two years. I have been trying for a long time to get a line built, and I should like to be assured by the Minister that the line will be built.

The hon. member cannot now discuss this special line.

There is a round sum on the estimates, and my question to the Minister is whether the line he knows all about is going to be built ?

The requirements of the country are being taken into consideration as a whole. In addition to £186,638 for farmers’ telephone lines, which will mean a further 5,000 miles, giving us a total of over 18,000 miles of these lines, there is the sum of £86,157 for new telephone trunk routes and extension of existing trunk routes. The requirements of those parts of the country whose needs are the greatest will be met first. I will do my best to meet the hon. gentleman and see if his suggestion fits in with the general programme.

The answer is entirely unsatisfactory. I should just like to tell the House that the Minister’s predecessor gave me a firm promise that the line would be built. It was surveyed and everything is in order. It is unfair. I told the people that the line would be built, and now it apparently will not be. I hope the Minister will review the matter and will promise that the line will be built.

I am sorry my hon. friend (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) is rather dissatisfied with the answer that I have given him. The point is that I did not definitely promise him that line. If I definitely promised the line, I will give it.

Your predecessor did.

In that case my hon. friend can count upon it, because I am carrying out the programme from the point at which my predecessor left it. If my predecessor promised him a line, he will get it.

I do not suppose the Minister will withdraw the item of £38,866 if I ask him a question about it. My hon. member, the member for Newlands, not being here, I will endeavour, in my mild way, to ask one or two questions in regard to a subject which I know he has very much at heart. It is the question of an automatic exchange. I take it this item is for the provision of a telephone exchange in the new buildings in Cape Town.

No, it is for extension.

I was going to ask the Minister, after the discussion the other night, during which my hon. friend (Mr. Stuttaford) adduced very able arguments that seemed to have some impression on the Minister, whether he has reconsidered the position and whether, when my hon. friend comes back, I will be able to give him an assurance that the Minister-after all has been able to see light, and is willing to follow the most up-to-date and scientific method of dealing with telephones.

I would like to ask the Minister whether his attention has been called to the unsuitability of the material which is used in the building of rural telephone lines, particularly the uprights. There is no question about it that the posts which are being used in parts of Natal are not sufficiently heavy to withstand normal weather conditions, and that a heavier type of pole is necessary. The way these posts are erected is most unsatisfactory ; they are not properly anchored, with the result that they are easily displayed, and are to be seen in places facing north, south, east and west, some broken and others bent. I shall be glad if the Minister will make enquiries into this matter.

Very strong representations have been made from Robertson to the Minister and the department in regard to linking up farmers’ lines with the towns. I refer more particularly to Klaas Voogds, where it is most inconvenient to have your party lines switched on to the telephone exchange. There is often no one in attendance there, and the subscribers can make very little use of that line. They have asked that they should be joined up to the Robertson exchange, and I wish to ask the Minister if he is making provision here for joining up those and other subscribers, to the Robertson exchange.

I can dispose of my hon. friend the member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) in a few minutes. I agree with him that the arguments brought forward by the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) were extremely able, but they are unconvincing, and I am still of the same mind as I was on that occasion. With regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson), that is the first I have heard of the unsuitability of poles and material for our telephone lines. He says they are too light. I can assure him that we will go into the matter very carefully, because we do claim to be one of the finest engineering branches of the service in South Africa; and, in fact, the whole world. The hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) has brought up the question of the junction of farmers’ party lines with towns, notably the Robertson farmers. That, of course, is a big question affecting not only Robertson, but various parts of the Union. We are going into the whole question and, where it is possible, my hon. friend can rely upon it that it will be done.

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote D, “Lands and Settlements ”,

£860,000, put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote E, “Irrigation ”, £228,000,

I just want to remind the Minister that it is absolutely necessary to put a large sum on the estimates for inland dams. In the past this was much neglected, and it will be a great pity if the farmers have to suffer in consequence of there not being a sufficient sum placed on the estimates for the purpose.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote G, “Land and Agricultural Bank ”, £1,095,000,

I see here an amount of £115,000 for the ostrich feather industry. I should like to know in what manner the money will be spent, and if there is adequate security.

The Government gives the ostrich farmers advances on the co-operative basis, and when the feathers are sold the Government get their money back. It is not a loan.

It seems to me this estimate is too small. The Land Bank is being starved. If the Minister will look at the bank’s fourteenth yearly report, section 68, the board estimated that £1,250,000 would be required to enable it to give full effect to their requirements during the financial year. As a fact, only £850,000 was provided, and only £670,000 was available out of the 1925 vote. The Land Bank costs the State nothing, and these loans are more urgently necessary than ever. We have just gone through a terrible season of drought. Then if the bank costs the State nothing, why should not these unfortunate farmers have the full use of it ? Up to now the bank has been responsible for keeping a large number of men upon the land who would otherwise have had to sell their land and gravitate to the towns. That is a policy we must avoid at all costs. The position to-day, because the bank is not financed as it should be, is that these farmers have to go to ordinary commercial banks and pay 7 per cent, on overdrafts. It is bleeding them. I ask the Minister to consider this vote according to the recommendation made by the Land Bank Board. We are very fortunate in having an efficient Land Bank Board of directors, and the least we can do is to carry out their recommendations.

I wish to point out to the hon. member that as regards farmers having to pay 7 per cent, for over-drafts, that sort of thing was not part of the business of the Land Bank, to advance money to farmers on overdrafts, but during this session we have passed the Agricultural Credits Bill to enable the bank to supply that certain class of short time credit, and for that purpose we are making a special grant to the bank. We do not anticipate that the Bill will be in full working during this financial year. Probably, in a few years, we shall have to supply a larger amount. As far as the bank’s ordinary operations are concerned, the hon. member is right when he says it appears from the report that they require a much larger sum. But, as in the case of other loan votes, we have not been able to give the full amounts required by various departments for development. If we acceded to that instead of asking the House to vote £13,500,000 we would have to vote £17,500,000. It is absolutely impossible. We cannot go on voting capital moneys at the rate we are doing. In addition the bank will have over a million pounds available this year in capital, so that the amount available to the bank for advances will be over £2,000,000. Under these circumstances I do not think it can be said that we are not making fairly liberal provision for the bank to enable it to function in the way Parliament intended. I do not think the hon. member is right when he says we are starving the bank. For instance, the capital has grown to over £10,000,000 with this grant, and I have informed the general manager that he will have to curtail his operations to a certain extent. We will not be able in future years to go on voting these large amounts we have been voting in past years. Last year and this year the amount we have been voting has been swollen in connection with certain special grants, but the time will come soon when the bank will have to rely more upon its own resources. We cannot go on at this rate. We hope the bank will continue in future to be operated on sound business lines, but still I think we are coming to the time when we shall have to consider the position that we cannot go on increasing the bank’s capital by £1,000,000.

I see here on the Loan Estimates there is an item, tenant farmers £30,000. I should like the Minister to say how the money is to be spent.

It is an amount which will be used by the Land Bank to give advances to bywoners on farms to enable them to buy small stock where the owners of the farms have the necessary land.

I would like to ask the Minister if he can tell us, in regard to the vote for the ostrich feather industry, if this money has already been advanced and what the position is, and whether it has improved the position of the industry.

The scheme has only recently come into operation and the amount was only advanced the other day. They are now going on and getting in the feathers and selling from time to time as the market warrants. The idea is to enable them to hold up the product and sell it when there is a reasonable market. We cannot say at this moment whether the scheme is going to be an absolute success, but the producers think this is a means by which they will be able to save their industry so as not to put the whole of the product on the market in a haphazard way, but to feed the market as it requires.

Are they going to pool the feathers? The will all have to go into this co-operative society. What is this £30,000 for tenant farmers ? I see we granted under the labour vote subsidies to tenant farmers £20,000. Now we have put down another £30,000 here.

As the Minister of Labour explained, his department is dealing with the men who are absolutely down and out in the towns and get them on various undertakings'. Some of them they put with farmers on the tenant farmers’ scheme. Here we are trying to keep people from actually drifting from the land. This will enable small grants from £50 to £60 to be made to enable them to get the necessary trek oxen or draught animals. We are trying to deal with the persons who do not go to the Labour Department, and before they slip off the land.

It does seem to me that the position is getting confusion worse confounded. There are three different votes apparently dealing with the same type of man. This is circumlocution, and it is difficult for the tenant farmer to know what department he has to deal with. These different systems should be co-ordinated, and put under one head. It seems to give rise to cross-booking and confusion.

This has been placed under the Land Bank for the sake of economy. The Minister of Lands deals with land settlement—this is not land settlement. The Labour Department deals with quite another class of person. It will not entail extra expense, as they have their inspectors.

Is that not provided for by a previous vote?

This is the class of man that will not come under that. We thought first of all that the agricultural credit scheme would meet this case. The bank will not advance money to these people unless they form a society. This is to deal with the class of case where you have bywoners on a farm, and a farmer is willing to take a bywoner. This is to supply the necessary implements and draught cattle.

I hope this will be successful.

I think that the Minister must be very careful, and possibly give the Department of Labour a little advice. There is a class of farmer to-day on the countryside who if they were to get the same privileges as the tenant farmers to-day would be independent men. Men are now being put on the lands who have first to work with pick and shovel on the streets and roads and are then put on the land. There is no success with the scheme. The people who are already on the farms should be assisted.

That is exactly what we want to do now.

Then I am satisfied.

That is the very thing we want to attain. The people when once in the towns are given work in industries as much as possible, on the railways and on relief works. Some of them also go back again to farmers. Here, however, we are trying to assist the people who are still on the land, still with the farmers on the farms. We want by a little help to assist them to make a living on the countryside. The class with which the Minister of Labour is dealing is another class.

It seems to me that people are now getting advances from three departments.

That is not so.

I should like to have further information from the Minister about the conditions under which advances are made to bywoners. What security have they to give?

It will be settled by the Land Bank and it will be more or less on the same basis as under the old Transvaal Government. The property which is bought by means of the loan will remain as security. Only stock (for draught and breeding purposes) and agricultural implements can be bought with the money.

But if the man has no landed property ?

The loans are specially intended for a man who is not a landowner, but who can get ground from a farmer. The landowner is assisted under the Agricultural Credits Act, because they can form credit associations and be assisted.

I should like the Minister to inform me if this is a new thing or something that has existed before ?

It is being commenced this year.

I wanted to know because the tenant farmers’ scheme, as I know it, was very unfortunate.

Is the system limited to one province or shall we in the Cape Province also be able to make use of it?

If the same conditions prevail in the other provinces, there is nothing to prevent people in other provinces from being assisted as well, but probably it will chiefly be made use of in certain districts of the Transvaal where the bywoner system is in force.

I should like to ask the Minister what sort of supervision is going to be maintained. The Land Bank report remarks on the possibility of loss where inspection is not regular and frequent, and it does seem to me from this vote that we are having two different systems of tenant farmers. One tenant farmer is apparently under the Labour Department. I have from time to time asked the Labour Department whether they would assist desirable men who had not gone through the relief works, but they refused to touch them, and said they must go through the relief works.

This scheme will obviate that.

Is the Minister going to exercise supervision ?

That was my reply to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz).

Could not the labour scheme policy come under the Agricultural or Lands Department, because it is very loosely administered at present ?

Do not Jet us confuse this with the labour scheme. This will be complementary to the other things. We do not want to extend the thing too much, but will see how it goes on. I agree with the hon. member that this sort of inspection is necessary and because the Land Bank has the machinery, it has been placed under the Land Bank.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote H, “Forestry ”, £221,000,

In regard to the item, purchase of land, £25,000, where is this land being purchased ? I would also like to know whether a copy is being made of the afforestation at Elgin. Out of that unpromising land, I had the pleasure of seeing the finest afforestation it is possible to see, and I believe the credit is due to the late Minister of Agriculture. I hope the present Government are copying that.

It has not been decided where the ground is to be bought. That depends on the recommendation of the department.

What grant are the railway making in connection with the railway forest plantations ? How much are the railway department giving to the forest the present financial year ?

The railway is giving £31,000 this year.

What acreage do you propose to put under afforestation during the present financial year ?

15,297 acres.

This is the most satisfactory vote on the estimates. I believe this department is doing very good work and building up a great asset for the future. I only wish there were more votes like this.

I agree with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) that this is one of the most important and the best votes on the estimates. I should like to have a little information in connection with afforestation. Is ground purchased at places where trees thrive the best? I have seen parts of the country where trees do not grow so well and yet afforestation is gone in for. I hope the Minister will select places like Zoutpansberg where trees grow well for afforestation. The distance between the trees ought to be made as large as possible.

I should be glad if the Minister can give us information about the snout beetle which does so much damage.

I just want to assure the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) that I will not allow ground to be bought which is not suitable for afforestation. I mentioned the districts of Zoutpansberg, Barberton and the coast of the Cape Province and Natal where there are regular rainfalls. It would be a waste of money to purchase unsuitable ground. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) asked for information about the snout beetle which does so much damage in the eucalyptus trees. Within a few weeks a member of my department is going to Australia to study what can be done to combat this plague.

To which description of eucalyptus does this borer devote the most of its attention? The ordinary blue gum is very severely attacked.

I am prepared to get that information and let the department put it in the papers for information of the public.

Can the Minister give the committee some information about the conditions of employment of the workers in the Weza Plantation near Harding, page 13, £18,000? I have had complaints that the task allotted to these workers is a very heavy one and that some of them only stay for about a month at a time. It costs nearly £30 to get them there and it is proving a very expensive way of absorbing the unemployed. I should like the Minister to investigate the conditions. Is the task not too heavy for those just arriving ? When they were first established at Weza they were paid at so much per day for the clearing of weeds and undergrowth, which at that time were easily cleared, but the task is now much heavier as the weeds have grown. If there is a chance of showing the workers consideration I feel it would be appreciated and tend to the greater success of the settlement.

This is one of the settlements and if we are going to increase the pay of one settlement we will have to increase the pay of all these settlements. These settlements are costing too much money. Our trees are costing us more than any other country in the world. If we increase the pay of the people I am afraid we will not be able to go on with the settlement. I hope the time will soon arrive when the Minister of Labour will be able to provide other occupation for these people and then we will be able to carry on afforestation much cheaper than we are able to do at present.

Coloured labour?

We can get all the white labour that we require far cheaper than what we are paying now on the settlement system.

Can the Minister tell us how the villages in the settlements are progressing; how many families are there and what number of children attend school? Have any attempts been made to provide more suitable accommodation ? How much are the men, doing piecework, able to make in a month ? Some of the very energetic ones used to make up to £21 a month.

There are 1,014 men working on these settlements making, with women and children, a total of about 3,000. The number is not increasing. I cannot say how many children are as school, but I can obtain the information. No material change has been made. The men receive 6s. 4d. a day, but we rather encourage piecework and some of the men make 8s., 9s. or 10s. a day. Most of the people are satisfied. Here and there you have some little difficulty, but generally speaking the affairs of the settlements are progressing very well.

How about the children on these settlements ; take a place like La Motte— is provision made for teaching the children?

As soon as the children are eighteen years of age they have to leave the settlement.

Do you teach them to become agricultural labourers, for instance ? They should be taught something by which they can earn a living.

At each settlement there is a welfare officer, who looks after the children as far as he can, and numbers of them have been placed with farmers.

Do they get agricultural or mechanical training?

Not on the settlements but at La Motte the welfare officer teaches the boys carpentry, and his wife instructs the girls in domestic science.

Vote put and agreed to.

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

Evening Sitting.

Loan Vote J, “Native Affairs ”, £2,000, put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote K, “Agriculture ”, £22,000,

I see here an item of £10,000, advances for establishing a sugar experiment station in Natal. There was also £10,000 down last year.

It is a re-vote.

Then I see that you have an item of advances for establishing tobacco warehouses, £7,000. I would like to know where that money is going to be spent.

The vote of £7,000 is in respect of a loan granted to the tobacco people of Oudtshoorn for the purpose of erecting a tobacco building there. They have formed a co-operative association and the Government has granted them this loan.

Have you got any security ?

We have the buildings and ground and the members of the association.

In reference to this item of £7,000 for establishing tobacco warehouses, the Minister may recollect that a few years ago a policy was enunciated with a view of building tobacco warehouses in certain portions of the country where there was sufficient tobacco grown to justify putting up a warehouse for the purpose of having the product properly treated. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how far that policy has advanced, and how many of these warehouses have been built.

The Oudtshoorn people, as I have stated, have formed a co-operative association in connection with the tobacco industry, but they have not got a warehouse. The Government has agreed to give them a loan of £7,000, but they are paying interest on that loan. We are not going to give advances without interest.

I am entirely in favour of the policy. I think Piet Retief was one of the districts which was singled out it that time in reference to the matter.

We have granted loans to Rustenburg and Vredefort, and now Oudtshoorn has come along.

Piet Retief has never applied ? Seymour was also mentioned at the time.

No, these places have not applied.

Perhaps the Minister would tell us what the position is in regard to the seed wheat advances. I see that there is an amount on the estimates of £5,000 for advances tor districts which have been impoverished through the drought. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what the position is in regard to the outstandings.

As the right hon, gentleman knows, the farmers have been getting advances from year to year. I believe that policy was started in 1910. Last year we granted £28,000 to the wheat farmers. They had a very good year last year, and several payments have been made. We are pressing to get as much of that money in as possible. This year we have put down an amount of £5,000 on the Estimates, but I am hoping that, after the good year which the farmers have had, it will not be necessary to spend the whole amount. The arrear amounts are being paid up very satisfactorily. We have had to give extensions to some districts, but I am confident that we shall get most of the money in.

I suppose the sugar people pay interest on the £10,000 you are going to advance to them ?

That was an amount granted by the previous Government free of interest for five years.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote L, “Electricity Supply Commission,” £1,600,000.

My hon. friend made a certain statement this afternoon in regard to this matter. Perhaps he will make it more in detail now. I understand that the commission are taking over the Colenso station on June 1st. How about the Durban station? Has that started yet? Cape Town, I know, has started. How about Witbank ? I understood that was going to be put up by the Victoria Falls Power Company and then taken over by the commission. There is also one at Sabie.

This is really a matter that comes under the Mines Department. The Treasury is only concerned as far as the provision of the money is concerned. Under the Act which was passed by Parliament, this Electricity Supply Commission can either go into the open market and borrow the money themselves, or they can borrow through the Treasury. They have no assets really of a tangible nature at present. It is difficult for them to get the money in the open market, and, therefore, we agreed to finance them. This year we are providing £1,600,000, that is, £887,000 for Cape Town, £200,000 for Durban, £400,000 for Witbank, £25,000 for Colenso, £68,000 for Sabie, and £30,000 for general administration. The total scheme will ultimately cost £5,700,000, that is, £2,500,000 for Colenso (a charge or debit which we are taking over from the railways), £1,130,000 for Cape Town, £530,000 for Durban, £80,000 for Sabie, £1,420,000 for Witbank, and contingencies £40,000. In the case of Sabie, that is a station to promote and encourage mining development. Therefore, the Government is advancing the interest in the first few years until such time as they are able to make this payment. As far as the payments are concerned, on which we are advancing this money, they will have to be redeemed after a number of years. They will be paying the same interest as the Treasury is paying, plus cost of raising the money, etc.

I understand that as regards the Electricity Supply Commission, provision is made for auditing the accounts in accordance with the Act, but I would like to ask the Minister if it is correct that the Auditor-General of the Union has no power to check or interfere in any way whatever with the accounts of the Electricity Supply Commission, although its transactions may involve the expenditure of many millions of public money.

That is the position under the Act of Parliament, but the Treasury has at present under consideration, in view of the fact that they are interested to such a large extent in providing the money, the advisability of bringing forward legislation later to provide for the auditing of these accounts.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote M, “Labour ”, £175,000,

I see these advances to tenant farmers are going up tremendously— £100,000. Perhaps the Minister will give us some information about that. Then as regards unemployment, there was a statement in this morning’s paper that the position is worse than before. I would like some information in regard to the position. I do not think it is the case in Cape Town, but it seems to be the case on the Rand as far as I can judge from the paper.

The hon. member is quite right, there is a considerable amount of unemployment on the Rand. A large number of the men unemployed have been employed on railway construction works, and as these have been completed so they have lost their employment. They are now waiting for new railway construction to start. Unfortunately, some of the proposals have not been advanced far enough to give immediate relief. We could have placed more had it not been for the severe drought in the Western Transvaal districts, which caused acute distress and unemployment there. Certain road works in the provincial council also came to an end, and we had to make provision not only for men from Johannesburg, but for some who were suffering in consequence of the drought and others who had been employed on road construction. I am hoping that the railway proposals, practically almost ready to start, will provide openings for some of these men on the Reef. I am in close touch with the Minister of Railways and Harbours. I am also in collaboration with the Administrator of the Transvaal with a view to seeing if we cannot employ numbers on road work, on the piecework system, under proper supervision and organization, so that we can get the best possible results ; my idea is not merely to offer subsidies and leave matters at that, but to pick suitable men and place them so that they can earn sufficient to live on ; and to ask the province to share the difference in cost with my department if it comes out more expensive than it would have been had native labour been employed. I am glad to say, in regard to certain road work in the Potchefstroom district done by white men earning fair wages, that I have a satisfactory report from the road engineer

With regard to the advances to tenant farmers, £100,000, there is an optimistic note, “recoverable from crops sold,” and I would like to hear from the Minister what he finds from past experience the tenant farmers are repaying.

As far as that is concerned, the purchase of stock and implements is secured because they are nearly always given to the owner, and so we have got security. The Land Rank informs us that, as far as that part is concerned, it is quite satisfactory. With regard to the maintenance allowances, under the ordinary tenant farmer scheme we do not get back these subsidies, but under this extension scheme the tenant farmers have not only to repay the cost of the implements, but also the maintenance allowances which they get during such time as the crops mature. In this regard we have had good recoveries, but there have been cases, through no fault of their own, through drought or pest or other causes, where we have not been able to recover. This scheme has hardly been in operation for 12 months, but I hope to be able to give more information in regard to recoveries and losses next year.

After all, these implements get worn out, and what security is there apart from the implements themselves? I would like the Minister to take particular care in reference to men who are working for other farmers under this system. After all, the landlords would be able to secure the portion of the Government advances ; the landlord who gets the benefit of the tenant farmer ought to stand good for that amount.

He does ; we recover it from him.

What part of this £100,000 is to be expended on tenant farmers on the Doornkop estate ?

A portion will be included for that.

Do I understand these advances are worked through the Land Bank ?

Yes, we send applications to the Land Bank, which advances money on our recommendation, and takes the necessary steps to recover that money, and we pay the Land Bank for their services.

I am very glad to hear that. I would like to ask about this Item 2, Expenditure on Development Works, including purchase of land. I do not like that. So, perhaps, the Minister will give us a little information as to how he is going to spend this £50,000.

The development work being mainly road construction, that amount is really in order to enable the Labour Department to bear a share of the increased cost, if any, in cases where the Province undertakes to employ white labour under proper supervision. I am still negotiating with a view to coming to an arrangement with the Provincial Administration and the municipalities, whereby the men could he classified and organized, so that we can get the best results. In regard to the purchase of land, we already have a training farm at Hartebeestpoort and this provision is to enable the department to start another training farm somewhere else if found necessary, or if we wanted to extend the tenant farmers extension scheme. It would all be done through the Land Department.

I would like to know whether the item, advances for purchase of stock, etc., applies also to the tenants referred to under the previous vote or whether it only applies to those who were engaged on relief works.

No, the vote just passed deals with the bywoner class of tenant farmer. The advances referred to in this vote apply only to tenant farmers who were engaged on relief works.

Perhaps the Minister will tell us about how many tenant farmers there are under the Government scheme and, perhaps, he could also tell us proportionately what is the percentage of those in whose cases it is found that the assistance has not been profitably taken advantage of.

The number of tenant farmers we have with private farmers is, I think, 352. Apart from that we have got about 100 placed on Government land. I am very sorry to say that there is a larger number not making the headway that I would like to see. I have called a halt and am getting a report on each individual, and am giving close attention to the matter, because I can see that this scheme, while good in itself, is a rather difficult and delicate one to handle, because you have to get three elements to be satisfactory, first the satisfactory farmer, then the satisfactory tenant and then suitable land. I have given instructions now that all the papers and evidence and magistrate’s records, and so on have to come to me before placings are sanctioned. J should say, however, that 50 per cent, are making good, but where we find that a man is not getting on well, sometimes we transfer him to another farm or put him back on to road work. Everything depends on administration. The scheme is sound if we can get the elements right. If I can get the failures reduced to 20 per cent. I shall be satisfied. At present we have more than that. I am doing my best to make the scheme successful, and I think we will succeed. I am satisfied that the scheme is fundamentally sound.

If 50 per cent, are making a success of it, I think the Minister ought to be fairly well satisfied. I am pleased to hear that. Do the reports of the officers point to the fact that the men under Government supervision are likely to do better than the men on their own ? The maintenance allowance of £23,000, I understand, is the amount given for the maintenance of families that go on the farms to do farm work.

That maintenance provision is for the subsidy which we give to the tenant farmers whom we place on Government land, and which we get back from them. If a tenant farmer is placed on private land that subsidy is lost. We pay it in both cases. It cannot be more than £5 7s. 6d. a month for a man and his family, which is for the bare necessities of life, and to tide them over while their crops are growing. The right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) has raised a point which I am glad he has raised, viz., that we are getting a far higher percentage of successes with the tenant farmers under direct Government supervision, because they are under proper discipline, and we make them pay back everything we advance them. They are put on their mettle, and their successes are far higher on our own land, and that is why I want to concentrate more particularly on what we call our—

because the results are eminently satisfactory, and more so than when these people are placed on private land.

Our friends here seem to be almost entirely concerned with the tenant farmers.

We are farmers—we want to help the Minister.

I would like to ask the Minister whether part of this expenditure is also for the proposed scheme whereby young South Africans, who desire to become farmer boys, will be put into touch with farmers who may be requiring white boys. It is intended to carry out that scheme, and what are the details in connection with it ?

I would like to understand from the Minister the reference to this tenant system as regards private farmers. I understand the tenant receives from the Government a certain sum of money for maintenance. What are the terms between the landlord and the tenant? How does he pay for the land—is it on a system of sharing crops?

Half.

Then the Government is assisting to raise half the crops for the landlord. I do not think that is a satisfactory system. I quite approve of the system of farmers’ boys for young men who wish to learn farming being taken on by farmers—I think this is the one solution for the future of the land—get them on the land, when young, and not as tenant farmers.

Order. The hon. member may ask a question, but he must not enter into the general question of policy now.

I bow to your decision, sir. Will the hon. Minister not entertain the question of making provision for farmers’ boys ?

I observe from the report of the Land Bank that their control of the funds that are issued for tenant farmers under the scheme of the Minister is confined merely to bookkeeping, and though cattle and implements may have been bought, the Land Bank inspectors do not visit the persons to whom these cattle and implements have been issued, and it is no further concern of the Land Bank what happens to this property when once purchased. Has the Minister any means of supervising this property? I quite understand the Minister has his welfare officers, but their work has to do more with the welfare and the social side of the work, and not so much with the business side. The Land Bank report shows that the sum issued to tenant farmers up to 31st December was £33,845, of which only £753 has been repaid. Surely this is a very small return for such a heavy expenditure. Can the Minister tell us anything to lead us to hope that a better result will be given at a later date ? As to the Doornkop estate, has Mr. Schlesinger an interest in that estate, and is Mr. Rosenberg now the representative of Mr. Schlesinger.

I quite agree with the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) that no tenant farmer can farm successfully when he has to give the farmer half his crops. Any farmer who gets tenants on those terms is doing very well indeed. I would like to ask the Minister whether he knows that that is so— can a tenant ever succeed by growing maize on the half-share system ?—and whether the Minister will give it his immediate attention to this, otherwise his tenants will never succeed.

In reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), Mr. Schlesinger has not, according to my knowledge, anything to do with the company. I have not heard his name mentioned. As to the recoveries of the Land Bank being so small, most of these people have been placed within the last twelve months, and there has hardly been sufficient time. Next year, I hope to be in a far better position to gauge how the money is coming in. In reply to the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat), the subsidy does not go on indefinitely. It cannot go on for a longer period than fifteen months—the first nine months at the full rate, and the next six months half the amount. I agree with the hon. member that for a tenant farmer to give half his proceeds away for the mere use of the land is a very big price to pay for the right to farm. If many of us had to pay half our earnings for the rent of a house we could not make a success of our business. We are settling 150 on Government leased land. The tenant gets everything he produces. We, of course, deduct costs of administration and what it costs to place him—subsidies and supervision.

He gets his land free ?

He pays interest on it. We have to pay for the farm— that will be shared out pro rata, and these people will pay the interest, in the form of rent. If everything goes well we lose nothing at all. As to the other and very important point raised by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) and the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) in connection with the apprenticeship scheme, I may say that some time ago the department took up the question of apprenticing boys to farmers for a period of two years, under certain conditions, and the papers were placed before me. I saw that if the scheme was to be a success it had to cater, not merely for the town boys, but also for the country boys. The machinery that we had at our disposal did not make that possible, because the department was working through the Juvenile Affairs Boards, which are confined mainly to the large towns, and ail the applications that came to these boards were from town boys. Without the farmers’ support and co-operation the scheme would fall through. In the Free State we have converted the Juvenile Affairs Board of Bloemfontein into a Board for the Free State, thanks to the help we have received from the Schoolteachers’ Association in the Free State. They have been keen and active and have co-operated with us and sent their representatives through the different districts of the Free State. I dissolved the Town Board and formed a new board, which will tap the districts as well as the towns. Each local centre has a representative. A move has been made recently in Paarl to form a Juvenile Affairs Board to tap that district, and we are also contemplating such a board at Potchefstroom to tap the Western Transvaal. I feel that we must have machinery in order to keep us in touch with the country boy, and I have suggested that we should work through the different school boards ; my department has sent a circular letter to the various school boards, telling them that we propose to go in for this apprentice scheme for placing lads with farmers and to ask for their assistance. I have asked the department to let me know the result. I did not launch the scheme formally until we had got the necessary machinery. I should mention that the department is at present administering that farm bureau scheme which the “Sunday Times” started some time last year. The “Sunday Times” called for applications, and asked for farmers who were willing to take the boys and brought the two together, and the officer, who has been detached to supervise this farm apprentice-work, is now, at my request, interviewing a number of the farmers who have these “Sunday Times” boys, and finding out how far they are successful, to enable us to profit by any mistakes of the past, so that we can proceed on as sound lines as possible. Of course, a proper agreement will have to be drawn up between the farmers and the boys or their parents. We have the forms ready, but we are not satisfied with them, and I have asked the official to go round and see what variations are necessary. The farmer will engage the boy for a period and then be asked whether he will retain the boy in his service. There is the question whether the boys should live with the farmer ; the question of pocket money, and who is to clothe them, and a lot of details, which we are working out before we eventually say, that is what we have decided ; now we shall make our appeal. When we have this machinery ready, we will make the appeal, being satisfied that we have done everything possible to make the scheme a success. May I make an appeal to the farmers on both sides of the House, not only to help us themselves if they can, but also to use their influence in their districts to get other farmers also to do so. It is appalling the number of boys who have been brought up on farms who do not understand farming, just for the lack of proper attention and training. We will do a big thing for South Africa if this scheme succeeds. Why should not a boy be apprenticed to a farmer, as well as to anyone else ? It is good to take a boy away from his home and put him with somebody who will undertake to train him and look after him properly. Another point arises out of this: Commissioner Lamb of the Salvation Army, who is their representative, travelling round the world on this very scheme, in connection with which thousands of boys have been placed on farms in the dominions, says that experience has shown that it is almost essential, before a boy starts his training, that you give him pre-apprenticeship training, at some place where he will learn the right end of the horse and how to approach animals—the rudiments ; especially a town boy.

Certain questions have been put, to which the Minister has replied. He is now going into the general policy, and it might be difficult for me to stop him.

I am so enthusiastic over this scheme, that I ask the indulgence of the House. I am keen that this should be a success, because it is one of the most important tasks we have undertaken for the boys and the farmers of South Africa. However, I think hon. members will know that I am giving it my best attention.

I would like to ask the Minister whether the man who is to be his supervisor on this tenant farmers’ scheme is a man who is a successful farmer, or a man who is a broken-down farmer? You usually find that a successful farmer will not take on a job like that. I would like the Minister to look for a man who has made a fair success of farming to train these young fellows. If a tenant farmer takes a full-grown orchard, or vines, in our Western Province, he cannot nay half of his income back to the owner, and when he goes in for cereal sowing, he cannot give more than a third, otherwise he goes broke. I would like the Minister not to settle any man unless these are the terms arranged.

I raised a question a few days ago when the debate on Doornkop Estate Settlement took place, to which the Minister has not replied. There is a sum of £75,000 set aside under vote M for the purchase of stock and implements. I take it that of this sum £15,000 will be expended on the Doornkop Estate of which a large portion will go in improvements such as buildings. What is the position of the Government in regard to these improvements. Are they secured in respect of the money advanced. What I want to ask the Minister is, in the event of the Doornkop company going into liquidation, will the Government rank as a secured creditor, or merely an ordinary creditor ranking concurrently with the other creditors?

Does the Minister get periodical reports in regard to the boys he has spoken of, who are placed with farmers? I took on 10 of these youths. Three made good and are really getting on, but seven were dismal failures. Their mentality was low and they had little ambition to advance themselves. After a few months, for instance, one was so unsatisfactory that he was told to leave, but he had no home to go to ; because his father was in goal and his mother had eloped. We must have some stuff to build on, the bulk of that offered is too poor and hopeless.

The boys referred to by the last speaker were placed under the “Sunday Times” scheme, and we are doing our best to prevent a repetition of the mistakes which have been made. In reply to the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson), this £15,000 will be mainly spent on implements and cattle and small houses. The implements and cattle will belong to us, so we are secured to that extent. For anything else we rank concurrently with other creditors.

There are a few points about which I want information from the Minister. What is the largest number of tenant farmers which can be placed with a farmer ? Then I should also like to know whether some of the tenant farmers are placed with the farmers on a third share. The hon. members for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) and Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) said that the tenant farmers could not exist if they worked on the half, and I want to ask the Minister if it is not the case that on certain farms they have to work for a third share ? I also want to ask the Minister if it is not his experience that some of the tenant farmers leave the farmers as soon as the subsidy after the first six months is no longer paid ? Then I also want to know whether a mistake is not being made to call these people tenant farmers instead of bywoners. It is something which is due to the previous Minister of Labour. He looked with a kind of contempt on bywoners, and therefore called them tenant farmers. I should like the Minister to inform me on these points.

I think we are all very interested in the Minister’s tenant farmer scheme and wish it every success, but if it is to be the success it should be, naturally the co-operation of the farmers is required and the Minister must realize that the farmers are not aware, as they should be, of the idea. There have been no steps taken, so far as I know, to acquaint the farmers with the Minister’s ideas in the matter. I would suggest to the Minister that he should set out the scheme in pamphlet form and send copies to secretaries of farmers’ associations for distribution. We know absolutely nothing of the scheme in our district.

I would like to call the attention of the Minister of Finance to the other side of the story. The amount outstanding exclusive of advances to the Land Bank, but including land settlement, irrigation, and so forth totals £21,500,000. Last year we advanced £3,700,000, and were repaid only £783,000.

The Minister indicated the other day that he was in consultation with the four provincial administrations as to the incidence of expenditure in connection with the utilization of the unemployed. Has he any information he can give us on thatpoint? I understand that he recently held a conference with representatives of the different provincial administrations in regard to the employment of civilized labour on road construction. I quite agree with the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) that to lend a large sum of money to the Doornkop Estates was absolutely unbusinesslike, as the Government has no security and there is no liability on the company to make good any loss. The landlord of an ordinary individual tenant farmer has to guarantee him and in the event of the cattle being lost or dying, the landlord is responsible, and Mr. Rosenberg should not be placed in a more favourable position ?

Vote put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote N, “Defence ”, £187,000.

Can the Minister give us any details of the estimated expenditure to March 31. 1926, which is put down at £1,535,500.

I would like some information, particularly for the enlightenment of the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin), who referred the other day to the “gift” to the Union of scrap stores by the Imperial Government. This vote provides £108,000 in connection with naval store and workshops accommodation at Simon’s Town. The Auditor-General says that we have paid for oil tanks £4,000 and have undertaken to keep them supplied with oil for the benefit of the Imperial Government at a cost of £84,000. Will the expense of keeping the oil tanks full continue? As far as our own naval requirements are concerned we are called upon to pay for repairs to the Union navy which was given to us by the British Government.

It is extremely good of the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) to give us all this information on behalf of the Minister, but the fact remains that he has not given us any reliable information at all. The point I want to make is this. We received from the Imperial Government material, which oil the Estimates furnished by the Minister amounted to about £5,329,000. We paid against that £150,000, leaving a balance of £5,179,000. We have also sold property, land and buildings which formed part of the gift, the sales realizing £473,000. I quite admit that the property has been administered in accordance with the Act which was passed when we accepted the gift, and I do not question the fact that this material was handed over as a free gift, and I do not think there was any particular condition attached to it, except what is set out in the Act. At the same time, the point arises, what are we doing in return for this gift ? It is quite evident, from the fact that the Auditor-General has referred to the “gifts” that we are making to the Imperial Government, that the point is not clear, for if the Auditor-General could make a slip like that, members of the public can also misunderstand the position, and they do not realize that we are doing a certain amount in the provision of oil tanks in connection with defence. It is only reasonable that we should do that, considering we have received gifts valued at over £5,000,000, which at 5 per cent, interest is worth to us about £250,000 a year. I do not say for a moment that there is anything wrong, but I am merely asking for information, and the hon. member for Vredefort will pardon me if I think the Minister of Defence is better qualified to reply than he is.

The position is perfectly simple. In 1921 the Imperial Government handed over to us stores, etc., as a free gift, and a very munificent gift it was. I would be the very last to minimize it for a moment. At the same time an engagement was entered into by us to carry out certain works at Simonstown, the object of which was to improve the accommodation for the Admiralty, and leave the western part for the more exclusive use of the Union navy, if we can dignify our few little ships by such a title. We have been carrying that undertaking out. Part of the undertaking was that we should put up oil tanks and fill them and hand them over to the British navy full, after which they would keep them full. They advance the money, and we have to repay the amount within four years. Then our obligation finishes. This explains the item, provision of oil fuel, £80,000. With regard to lands and building, either my arithmetic or that of the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) is wrong, as I make the amount £2,252,000 for artillery stores, etc., and £2,110,000 for lands and buildings.

In addition, there was permanent way material valued at £500,000, which formed part of the gift.

Oh, I see. I thought the hon. member referred to defence assets. As against that we paid over £150,000 in cash for buildings and land which had nothing to do with defence. There was an honourable obligation that the land—or its value if we sold it—should be used for defence purposes, and we are carrying that out. I am particularly glad that the hon. member for South Peninsula is so clear on this obligation, as there is a certain piece of very valuable land at Muizenberg—the sports ground—which we shall very shortly have to sell, and I am relying on his good offices to put a stop to any popular clamour there may arise over that matter. In regard to the question asked by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) as to the £113,000 for this purpose, that is a long-standing matter, but, as I told the House on a previous occasion, we wish to provide for putting into the field a force of 25,000 men, if required. Putting that force into the field is not merely a matter of rifles and bandoliers. There is all the various equipment of war which you must have. We cut that down to the very lowest amount. We make the allowance for all those things which we can get locally in the country, but I found an estimate considerably more than that when I came into office ; but I feel it only right that we should be in that position, and there is this increase in the standard stock which we must face.

I wish to ask the Minister if he is not providing anything in the way of defence for Port Natal. I think the Minister recognizes the necessity of something being done in connection with the defence of the most important and the most valuable port of the Union.

Is the hon. member discussing a report now ?

No, I am discussing this question of permanent defence works under (d), provision for urgent works.

Then the hon. member is on the next vote.

I hope the Minister will take this opportunity of saying something on the matter

I have already told the hon. member that I am not prepared to deal with that matter. The Imperial Defence Committee are at present giving their attention to other parts. The question of coast defence is something which the hon. member knows is a matter of some considerable discussion as to the form it should take.

You will see that Port Natal is not overlooked?

Port Natal could not possibly be overlooked by any Minister of Defence. It is not only the most valuable port in the Union, but for every consideration Natal will never be overlooked.

The Minister will remember that on the naval vote I referred to the fact that we are only voting £71,000 in connection with naval defence. I pointed out that that was a very small contribution compared with our trade. My hon. friend then said that there would be a considerable vote on the Loan Estimates in regard to naval defence, but I find there is a vote on the Loan Estimates of £187,000 for the carrying out of works at Simonstown and in the vicinity of the naval dockyard. I would point out to him that that is not a vote of this country, but it is devoting portion of the £5,000,000 that was given by the Imperial Government to the Union of South Africa.

That is the next vote.

I was not quite certain from the Minister’s reply whether the item under 2 (b) is for workshops intended for the use of our local navy.

That is entirely work we are doing for the Admiralty dockyard. It will be handed over to the Admiralty entirely. I have no doubt that if we want to use it, we have only got to ask for it. There is never the faintest difficulty in any matter of that sort.

Vote put and agreed to.

On “Defence Endowment Account,” £177,000,

Perhaps the Minister will reply on this vote to the question I raised just now. My point is that the £177,000 which the House is now voting is money of which the Government has really had the equivalent in property and material that the Imperial Government handed over in 1921 when the adjustment of the account had taken place between them, with the understanding that was made with the then Minister of Defence that that money should really be earmarked by the Treasury for the purpose of carrying out defence works in this country. Really we are now out of our own money, only giving £71,000 a year towards the upkeep of the navy that protects the whole of our trade and commerce.

What I was alluding to was the amount of interest that has to be borne by us on the whole of the works. If we had to defend all our goods on the high seas, we should not be able to defend them for that amount.

It would cost you some millions of cash.

I dare say, but, after all, the goods travel in British bottoms. I do not think the British taxpayer keeps up the navy purely for the purpose of protecting our goods. I do not say we do not get first-class protection, but the British taxpayer primarily keeps up his navy to protect goods carried in British bottoms.

Perhaps the Minister will be good enough to explain the item, alterations and additions, Artillery Barracks, Pretoria, £48,000. It is not quite clear, in view of the drastic reduction made in the permanent force, why there should be alterations and additions made there. I see also an item of £50,000 for accommodation for field artillery.

Alterations and additions to artillery barracks are not alterations and additions to barracks for artillery. The hon. member is not aware of the local customary name. Artillery Barracks is the name of what used to be artillery barracks, but which now are to be the defence headquarters which were voted last year. They have been offices, I think, ever since the Anglo-Boer war. The other item is consequent, of course, upon the programme, upon which he and I differ so much, of putting the artillery in detachments in several places in the country. You have to provide accommodation.

I see you have Cape Peninsula road construction £3,000. What is that?

That is for making the road up to Lions Battery so that heavy guns can pass over it.

I hope the Minister will now tell us where he is going to accommodate these batteries.

One will be divided between Bloemfontein and Bethlehem. One, of course, will be at Roberts Heights, and the other battery will be distributed between Piet Retief and I think, Ladysmith. Ladysmith, as far as my information goes, seems to be the most suitable place in Natal in the circumstances.

Vote put and agreed to.

Estimates of Expenditure from Loan Funds (including the Defence Endowment Account) to be reported without amendment.

I am very sorry that the hon. the Senate has thought fit to delete Clause 87, which was inserted by this House. I hope and trust that this House will not accept that deletion. We find that in the gold mining industry in this country, there is something akin to the coal industry of Great Britain. In 1914-1915, when there was a prospect of a great upheaval, the Government appointed a commission to investigate that industry. They did so, and from the statistics given acknowledged the the workers had a grievance so they subsidized the wages to prevent the upheaval, on behalf of the workers interested in that industry. In 1921 the Government of Great Britain considered the advisability to cease giving that subsidy. The coal mining interests were able to prove that, unless the subsidy were given, it would be impossible for them to pay a decent living wage, and at the same time a dividend to the shareholders. A large percentage of the companies had increased or watered their capital to such an extent, that these industries were unable to pay a living wage to the workers and at the same time a dividend to the shareholders. The watering and inflation amounted, in some instances, to 493 per cent. We are living under a system under which shareholders are entitled to a fair dividend. What we object to is the re-construction of companies and the watering or inflation of their capital, so that it is impossible to pay a fair living wage and at the same time a fair dividend. I believe the time will come when the gold mining industry of South Africa will be under the same conditions, and we ask that at least the Government of this country should know exactly the financial conditions of these companies, and should be able to assist, in time of strife, either the companies, if they are in the right, or the workers, if they are demanding what is just. There is no doubt about it, when the strike arrives, which ultimately it will, the State will have to step in, either to assist the gold mining industry, or to contribute to the wages of the workers in that industry. Under those conditions, the clause should be re-inserted in the Companies Bill so that at least the State should know the exact conditions which exist. I believe also that there are a large number of companies in this country getting indirect or direct assistance from the State. We have heard statements made in this House proving that in the sugar milling industry there is inflated capital, and that they already hold such power of regulating prices, that it has become a menace to the sugar planters. I believe the Government are assisting the planters; but are we justified in assisting anyone unless we know exactly the conditions which exist? Are we justified in assisting these industries unless we have all the cards on the table? We must know not only what cash has been put in, but what originally was the capital. Large numbers of the gold mines have their capital watered to the extent of 200 to 300 per cent. How is it that the millionaires have been created ? It has been by the manipulation of shares. It was proved in the Gold Mining Commission’s report of 1908, that the gold mining industry was paying only slightly over 3 per cent. That information was given in reply to a question. It was also stated in reply to another question that on real capital they were paying 32.96 percent. I am an out-and-out protectionist, I believe there are numerous claims made to this Government for assistance, if this clause was inserted in the Companies Bill we would know exactly the cause of their needing financial assistance. We would be in a position to refuse them unless it was on a sound basis. I am sorry that this Bill is re-introduced at the end of the session, I do beseech hon. members to consider not only the present conditions of South Africa, but that we have to legislate for the future. We must take a lesson from what has happened in Great Britain and America. I will not weary the House with the records of other countries at this stage—I believe every hon. member knows what has happened in other countries. But we should consider and realize that the time will come when we will have a similar crisis in South Africa, because the big industry of South Africa cannot carry on for many years longer and pay a living wage to the workers employed in it, and a dividend to the shareholders. Let us take a broad view of the matter, realizing that we are the guardians of the people of South Africa, not of company promoters, and persons who manipulate shares in order to enrich themselves, leaving behind the poor widows who have invested their money, and leaving the State to legislate for their assistance in future. I believe this clause was a just one and one in the interests of the people of South Africa. During the previous debate, it was stated that this clause was ridiculous ; because the information it asks for can be got by inspection at company’s office. I have been unable, in the interim, to find anyone who does not acknowledge that it is impossible to get information. I know of instances of shareholders asking for information at the annual meeting, when the chairman has refused to grant the same, it is surely, therefore, impossible for an ordinary person to find the information. If the information was shown on the balance sheet, and persons purchased the shares, they would know exactly what they were buying. Also in the case of a future crisis in South Africa, the people of South Africa would be able to judge, not as they were, in England during the crisis, unable to judge whether the coal industry was correct or not in stating they must reduce wages.

Probably the majority of the House would agree with the view of the hon. member who has just spoken, but the trouble is that the Senate is bitterly opposed to this section. I suggested a via media by trying to throw away a portion of the section to enable the rest to be passed but notwithstanding that attempt, was unsuccessful, and I am certain there is no chance whatever of passing this clause through the Senate. Of course, all of us desire to see this Act passed ; because I think it is going to improve the condition of affairs in South Africa, and I hope we will not press the restoration of this clause, because I am very much afraid, if we do so, the Senate will again reject this clause. I take it that politics is really the science of doing what is possible. We cannot always obtain what is ideal, and as we cannot do that we must do the best we can with the material at our disposal. I very strongly impress on the House to accept this amendment, whether we are in favour of it or not, to preserve the Bill. The view in another place is very strong that we can obtain this information in other parts of this Bill, but I admit probably by a very roundabout road, and probably one that will not often be traversed by people who want information. With the best will in the world, I cannot see how we can replace this clause. I would strongly ask the hon. member to allow his objection to drop, in order to pass a very useful bit of work, the foundation of which was laid years ago. On that account, if this is pressed to a division, I will be compelled to vote against any restoration of this section. I cannot possibly be a party to wrecking this Bill.

Question that the clause proposed to be omitted stand part of the Bill, put and negatived.

Remaining amendments put and agreed to.

I hope the House will not accept the Senate’s amendment which deletes the sentence limiting the operation of the Act to loans not exceeding £500. The first proposal in this House was that the Bill should not apply to loans over £300. A Usury Act is for the benefit of the poorer classes of people. A man who is able to borrow £500 can make his own arrangements with a bank to obtain the money. The first proposition was £300, but the amount was raised to £500 here as a compromise.

I hope the Minister will see his way clear to stand by the original clause. If he went back to the other place and stated that after consideration this House had decided to adhere to the original draft, I think that would be considered sufficient to justify the withdrawal of the Senate’s amendment. The exemption that the Senate has deleted was borrowed from the law of Canada, which was passed to protect the poorer people from the rapacity of moneylenders who profited by the distress of the poor. It was found there that the line along which the matter should be approached was to cause as little inconvenience to trade and commerce generally as possible. That is an argument which should appeal to the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, when I remind him that in very influential labour quarters it has been pointed out that one of the most vital things for the success of labour is the maintenance of trade and commerce. The Bill deals with small people to whom loans are a necessity—not money to be used in commerce or adventure to enable the borrower to reap if he can a big return. One of the arguments put before the select committee by the moneylenders was that merchants were entitled to turn over their stock three or four times a year at 10 per cent, on each turnover, thus making a total of 30 or 40 per cent, per annum, and it was argued that moneylenders should be enabled to do the same. At first sight this is a very plausible argument, but the distinction is that in the case of the merchant the transaction is a productive one, but in the other instance a man has to borrow through sheer necessity. Nearly every civilized country in the world today recognizes that the exploiter of mere necessity is a man whose methods of business are to be discouraged. Where a man is able to borrow £500 or more he obviously would not belong to that particular class which it is desired to protect. Therefore, if there is no need for his protection then the purpose the Bill will serve has no application to him. You find yourself faced with a further argument that the less you interfere with business generally, particularly banking business and business done with people outside our own borders, the easier you make that business flow through the normal channels of commercial intercourse. We should not bind upon our commerce more shackles than are necessary. We should not interfere with our foreign trade more than is absolutely necessary. You may create uncertainty and difficulty and that all reacts against the smooth working of commerce. Consequently, I do ask the Minister to stand by the findings of his committee. It was a representative committtee and he will agree with me that this point was very fully considered. I believe that if he went back and represented that point of view more fully to another place and put these reasons before them and said that this Bill was evolved as a result of the work of all parties in this House and that it was entirely non-contentious and non-partisan and pointed out the importance of abiding by a considered decision of this kind, it would be sufficient to convince the members in another place that it was inadvisable to break down such an important principle of the Bill. I entreat the Minister to stand by this considered deliberation on the part of the members of the committee.

It must be remembered, of course, on the other hand, that for an amount of this description the, interest chargeable is 12 per cent. I made all the points in the Senate that the hon. member (Mr. Coulter) speaks about, for instance the large amount of work that was done by this committee. The opposition to this clause started with Senator Kerr, and it was practically unanimous. My powers with them are not so great, perhaps, as with the Government side of the House. If we have this amount of £500 and upwards and interest at 12 per cent, is allowed, I think that interest is sufficient. Where the House took out the proviso that this Bill only refers to debts below £500, and the other House has made, the Bill apply to amounts over £500, we must take into account the fact that interest is allowed of 12 per cent. I do not think that it makes very much difference to our Bill whether we delete these words or not. As to the other point raised by the hon. member, even with these shackling provisions you would still have a perfectly fair mortgage bond allowing an amount of 12 per cent, interest to be charged and also allowing these further amounts to be charged under section 2. I think it would be a perfectly fair transaction, if it is a transaction that is not of a risky nature. I think we must not make provision for the more risky transactions, the transactions in which your capital is in danger. We make provision for the transaction in which we take it your capital is not in danger. These privileges apply generally, and naturally your man who lends money of £500 and up-wards will see he gets his full 12 per cent, where he knows of the shackling provisions of this Bill, and I take it he would know about them very soon indeed. I think this Bill is a Bill which we should see through this House, and I do not want us to do anything to put the Bill in danger. I do not think it is going to make very much difference in the ordinary case, and, after all, we are legislating for the ordinary case. The Senate has taken the view that for all amounts above £500, your maximum interest must be 12 per cent. I do not think we are likely to dissent from that view. I must appeal to the House to enable the Bill to be passed, because I think it is a useful Bill. I do not anticipate that we will put an end to the evils of usury, or to evasion of this Bill ; we are going to have usury and evasion of the Bill, but in a smaller degree than before the Bill was passed. The effect of the Cape Act has been very satisfactory, although the arguments which could be employed against that could be employed against this Bill.

But this is going to be more far-reaching.

Yes, I admit that, but I think the less that is paid in interest on loans the more there will be for other purposes. I have no doubt it is the right thing to work for more ordinary commercial business and less usury, less interest. This House has raised in this Bill the slogan—

and I think all the Senate has done is to carry that slogan a little further, so they have really bettered their masters on that point, and I hope the House will accept that. Very largely the Senate was influenced by the fact that in their experience they have seen a great number of cases in which men, often farmers, without any great knowledge of business, have borrowed money, even above £500, at very excessive rates of interest, and they wish to place these farmers in the position of people borrowing below £500. I trust this House will accept the amendment. I do not think it will do much harm, and it may even do good, but at all events, I can assure the House that the Senate was practically unanious in their view upon this point.

Question put: That paragraph (a) of subsection (2), proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Bill ; and Mr. Coulter called for a division.

Upon which the House divided

If nobody wishes to discuss the matter, this is that point making an exception in the case of women, in section 2, with regard to the examination of body marks. I explained to the Senate that the members of the Opposition were very hard hearted in regard to this amendment and they said if we brought it back the Opposition would not insist on deleting the amendment. I think we might show on all sections, our soft heartedness as far as the feminine section of the population is concerned. I sincerely hope we will not put an affront on the Senate by insisting on the deletion of this amendment. They did not intend any indignity by using the word “insist” because that is the usual word that is used in such circumstances. I hope the hon. member will not attach too much importance to the somewhat peremptory wording, for that is only the ordinary form. I sincerely trust, especially now it is half-past-ten, that we shall be prepared to accept the Senate’s amendment. I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

read the following message—

The House of Assembly, having considered these amendments, has now concurred in them, and has made endorsement accordingly in the copy herewith sent.

The House of Assembly further transmits a fair copy of the said Bill, passed by the hon. the Senate, and which has now also been agreed to by the House of Assembly ; and desires that the hon. the Senate will cause the same to be certified as correct, and will return it so certified to the House of Assembly.

The Minister has made a very grave mistake, although I do not see how it is going to be altered. A similar clause to this was in the Income Tax Act of 1919 and remained there until last year, when it was dropped. This clause compels anyone resident in South Africa to pay tax on any income he may draw from the securities of other countries. Last year that clause was taken out and in consequence of that large investments were made in the Southern Rhodesian loan, which was issued subsequently. The reintroduction of the clause is looked upon as rather a breach of faith, although I do not think the Minister intended that, and it will have the effect of sending down the price of the Southern Rhodesian loan very considerably. Investors in that stock in the Union regard this as a very considerable grievance, although I do not see how the Minister can alter the position.

The reason why it dropped out of last year’s Act was because the general principle that we laid down and the House accepted, was that, as a general rule, we wanted to tax incomes from a source within the Union. That is the basis of our legislation. It was only afterwards, when we saw in this connection that it would have this unfortunate effect that we decided to discourage the deliberate investment of money by Union residents outside the country. If people do invest outside the Union there is no reason why they should be exempted from taxation. This is one of the cases where we had to depart from the principle of our Acts; which is only to tax incomes from sources within the Union.

It does seem to me that there are very good reasons why the Minister should agree to accept the view that has been pressed upon him in this matter. I regard one of the strongest arguments in favour of our objection to be that which the Minister has himself just used. In the law of 1917, it is true we had a provision to this effect, and so far as the investment world was concerned, it would understand that all investments made from South Africa, and which were exempted from taxation abroad, should be taxed within the Union. But in 1925 the Minister deliberately abandoned that policy. After all, to the people who have to attend to the investment of money, and who follow legislative changes of this kind very closely, it would appear to be part of the deliberate policy of the Government that, having for a number of years decided that that class of investment should be taxed so far as income tax is concerned within the Union, it would in future be exempted from taxation. I take it that the Minister did not bring about that change of the law inadvertently. In consequence, he has led a number of people spread through all walks of life into the belief that if they supported investments which might be available to them outside the Union, they would not be taxed in respect of those investments by him through the income tax. The second ground of objection to it is that it is so illogical. For the sake of illustration, let me confine my remarks to Rhodesia. The Minister still recognizes that where investments are held in Rhodesia, which do not take the form of issues of Government stock, the income from those investments should not be taxed within the Union, but quite illogically, apparently having in mind this recent issue of Rhodesian stock, he singles out in this clause 2 of the Bill “stocks or securities issued by the Imperial Government or by the Government of any other state, including other Dominions or any British Colony or Possession.” If his principle were sound—and he relies absolutely upon that principle—he should make this wider. He recognizes that that would be unjust. He evidently recognizes that it is desirable to encourage investments, certainly at any rate as far as private investments are concerned, in Rhodesia or in the mandated territory of South-West Africa. It would be an act of courtesy, an act of comity, if the Minister realized that in a sense we are also responsible for the development of those territories on our borders. What does seem to me to be so harsh is to pass this law, so as to deprive investors of the benefits that they were to secure under this prospectus of the Rhodesian Government. Investors were given to understand that the loan would be free from Union tax and income tax in Rhodesia. Upon the strength of that assurance a million pounds was found, very largely in the investment market in Cape Town. I believe that the persons responsible for the issue of that prospectus had authority for the statements they made. I can tell the Minister it is a fact that the inducement was held out to investors that the loan would be free from taxation. I would like to ask him if he will not make an exception in the case of a British colony or mandated territory in southern Africa. I do not wish him to go beyond that, but I do ask him to realize that uncertainty of this kind, created by Acts of Parliament which in effect are retrospective, will react upon his own investment market when he comes into the market with a loan, as he must in the immediate future. There should be an absolute guarantee that when once a prospectus of a loan is issued there will be no interference with its terms. The Minister may say he gave no guarantee. That may be so, but now we have ascertained that the Minister was consulted, it is reasonable to assume that he was told that this inducement would be held out to Union investors. I do wish to stress the importance of keeping faith with those investors ; I say deliberately that a circumstance of this kind is not one which he should view with equanimity, because it is bound to react on the investment market in the future. We have been endeavouring to build up a market for investment in Union loans. I therefore desire to move—

The principle of my amendment is to make it clear that we do not take up an attitude of selfish isolation.

I want very strongly to support the suggestion of the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter), which I think is a very sound proposition. Our own interests and the interests of Rhodesia are bound up together ; anything that conduces to her prosperity conduces to ours. So I think we might stretch a point. I do not think it is necessary to bring in the mandated territories, but it would be, I think, sound policy in regard to our interests to get as much interest in Rhodesia as possible. It is a perfectly fair proposition.

In the first place let me tell the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) that before the Rhodesian loan prospectus was issued the treasurer did approach us and ask us whether the flotation of such a loan within the Union would be regarded sympathetically. I at once said yes, but the Rhodesian Government did not say in their prospectus that the loan would not be subject to Union income tax. I certainly never gave any guarantee to Union investors that investments in this thing would not be liable to taxation. The hon. member will see that if we did not make a provision of this nature we would be putting a premium on investments outside the Union. The hon. member says, why don’t you make that applicable to all investments outside the Union ? Generally they are liable to taxation, and in most cases higher than in the Union.

How about the exception ?

I am coming to that. The Rhodesian loan may not matter so very much, but there are other investments of this nature where it is absolutely necessary to have this provision.

Rhodesia ? I am not worrying about the others. Rhodesia is a part of South Africa, the same as ourselves. Our interests are their interests, and theirs are ours.

I am inclined to agree that if the House is prepared to accept the general principle we may make an exception of the Rhodesian loan that was floated.

I think you should exempt Rhodesia altogether. Their requirements should not be more than a few hundred thousand pounds, which we could afford to lend them, and there is a bigger demand for our products and the like. Simply bring in Rhodesia, not these other places like Nyasaland, and so on.

I will consider the matter and see how far I can go.

With leave of committee, amendment withdrawn.

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