I move, as an unopposed motion—

As the Afrikaans version is not satisfactory, I prefer to withdraw the Bill for the present.

seconded.

Did not you write the text of the Bill in Afrikaans?

No.

You should have done. Motion put and agreed to.

I have an amendment on the Order Paper in connection with this Bill, but I understand that it is out of order in committee as the committee has no power to deal with it inasmuch as it would incorporate a new principle in the Bill. I therefore wish to propose that the Bill should be reported and that the committee should receive authority from the House to include the principle in the Bill.

I cannot permit the question of the Privy Council to be introduced especially as there will be a committee of the Imperial Conference (on which South Africa will also be represented), especially at the instance of the Irish Delegation to go into the matter, and to take steps with regard to it. I do not think we ought to anticipate the work of that committee.

I must confess to a certain disappointment at the reply which the Minister made yesterday to the criticisms which I and several other members of the House have made in regard to his proposal to establish a four-judge quorum in the Court of Appeal. So far as I can understand the Minister, he did not really attempt to justify his proposal except on the score of convenience. He said the judges had asked for it and that it certainly made for convenience because it was often very difficult to get a five-judge court. One appreciates the argument of convenience, that it is somewhat difficult occasionally to get an extra judge to make up the quorum; but what this committee has to consider is whether that inconvenience is paramount or whether the interests of litigants are paramount—which is right. Should we have to submit in this country to the inconvenience of the procedure which would be occasioned if the proposal were adopted or to what I submit is the far lesser inconvenience which now exists? The Minister cannot get away from the fact that under his proposal, if the appeal court is divided, the litigant will have incurred expenses in taking his appeal to the Appellate Division which will be quite useless because the judges are divided two and two. Not a lawyer in this House except the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) has defended that proposal. Even on the Minister’s side lawyers have spoken condemning the proposal. Let me give one instance. In Section 388 of the Criminal Procedure Code provision is made if one court gives judgment on a point of criminal law in one direction and another court gives judgment on the same point to a contrary effect, the Minister of Justice may take the matter before the Court of Appeal. The decision of the Court of Appeal is, of course, the final decision. What is going to happen if that is done and the matter is taken before a four-judge court? You may have two judges siding with one division and two siding with the other division, and the matter left as undecided as before. I venture to suggest to the Minister that his argument of inconvenience is somewhat exaggerated. We know, for instance, that the Judge-President of the Free State— not a particularly busy court—is appointed very largely with an eye to his extra work in the appeal court. We know that a judge of the Free State is engaged, if occasion requires it, as an extra judge of appeal. One does not take a junior judge and put him on the appeal court. Inconvenience does result, but I hold the opinion very strongly that whatever inconvenience does result is small compared with the feelings this proposal will arouse. As far as the profession has been articulate at all on this matter, it has definitely condemned this proposal. It has not had a fair opportunity of expressing its opinion because the matter has been rather rushed, and I should have thought that the Minister would at any rate have submitted this proposal to the various bar councils throughout South Africa. I am sorry the Minister comes at the beginning of the session and, without warning, introduces a proposal of this nature—a proposal, I think, which will be found quite unworkable. The hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson) said, what about a three-judge court? I disagree with that too. It is unsatisfactory to have an appeal from a bench of three judges to another bench of three judges. Seeing this is our final Court of Appeal, that appeals to the Privy Council are no longer allowed, we should insist that there should be a bench of five judges to hear all appeals from a bench of three judges. That is surely what this country can demand. It is not as if our judges of appeal are over-worked. They sit twice a year, and they have ample time to consider their judgments. Normally we have five judges of appeal, and normally these five judges will sit. If one is absent through leave or sickness, one or other of the judge-presidents can be obtained. I do think this is a retrograde step, and I think the Minister is making a mistake. I wish, therefore, to move the following amendment—

The Minister has agreed with me that the Bill will not meet the question of costs, but I have not seen any amendment yet on the paper. If my amendment is not accepted, then the Bill cannot stay as it is, and he will have to meet the position which his proviso creates.

I cannot of course accept this amendment. I wish to move an amendment at the end of sub-section (1)—

I am not quite certain whether it is really necessary to insert that clause, because I think the court will have discretion to deal with costs, but, to make it perfectly clear, I think it is, perhaps, best to insert that proviso. Now, with regard to the general point, it is not so easily dealt with by saying that you can get the Judge-President of the Orange Free State to sit in these cases. We had a great deal of trouble with it last year; we could not get the Judge-President, and we had to get judges from other parts. My hon. friend would be surprised if he knew how many judges were approached and how many could not leave their courts. There is great inconvenience to litigants where they are prepared on a certain day to have their case heard and something happens, like the sudden illness of a judge, and they cannot have their case heard. What clears up this difficulty is, if hon. members will take their minds away from the fact that this will be an ordinary thing—this is an exceptional case. I have enough confidence in the appeal court to say that when you have a very difficult case and an intricate matter, in all probability a postponement will take place if there is a court of four judges, and the case will be heard by a bench of five.

You have often three to two judgments.

The proportion is a very small one indeed. I am quite certain that the fullest convenience will be found along the lines that I am advocating here. I may say I have obtained a resolution from the Johannesburg bar, in which they say they do not like this section, and they suggest having an additional judge—six judges, with a quorum of five.

You appoint yourself a judge of appeal !

I have no appeal court ambitions !

We don’t want to lose you, but we think you ought to go.

I have no doubt my hon. friend wants me to go—for reasons one can easily understand. I think we have now sufficient judges in South Africa, and I have caused a letter to be written saying that I cannot hold out any hopes of having six judges of appeal. The Johannesburg bar feels, and we all feel, that a quorum of an odd number is better than one of an even number, but there is a difficulty in this, and I do not see how it can be overcome. We will have a more justifiable opposition to a quorum of three judges. I do submit that for the smooth functioning of this court it is very essential to have a provision of this nature for the convenience of all parties.

The more I listen to the discussion on this clause the more I am inclined to agree with the hon. member for Bezuiderihout (Mr. Blackwell) that this Bill should not have been introduced prior to publication in the “Gazette” in the ordinary way. The strongest argument for the four-judge court that appealed to me was that the Bill has been introduced, I understand, on the request of the judges themselves, but it does not follow that their lordships have considered the difficulties of a court so constituted. To me the proposition of a four-judge court is altogether objectionable. There is a quorum of three in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and what is more significant is that previously the quorum used to be four. It was by statute reduced to three. In the time at our disposal it has been impossible to ascertain why it was decided that it was essential that the number should be reduced from four to three, and I for the life of me cannot see why three judges should not be a sufficient quorum. In cases of the gravest importance there would be a full bench, and three or four judges would sit in cases not of such importance. We should get some finality in litigation, which is very desirable. The latest proposal of the Minister is to mulct one of these unfortunate litigants in costs. It would be wrong to mulct either of the litigants. Both parties have been successful, they have an equal number of judges on their side, and it seems to me that under those circumstances it would be wrong to mulct either of these parties in costs. I am going to move—

It seems to me that the Minister has brought this in without sufficiently digesting the possibilities attached to it, I want to refer to another matter. The Minister did not reply to my remarks yesterday with regard to the Privy Council, and I understand to-day that he is against abolition of appeal to the Privy Council. With regard to the commission which is proposed to be appointed in this connection, how is this commission to be appointed—is it to be an Imperial commission, or are the dominions to have representation; and if so, how is the representation going to be decided by this country? A large section of the community is deeply interested and wishes to know exactly how the commission is to be appointed. The Minister will be well advised to let the matter stand over.

The hon. member cannot move the deletion of the clause. It will be put in the ordinary way, when he can vote against it.

I very much doubt whether the Minister’s amendment regarding costs will meet the position. Instances very often occur where the Court of Appeal makes no order as to costs and the Minister’s amendment would absolutely tie the hands of the Court of Appeal. I move—

But the judges may be divided.

That shows the tangle we are getting into. Very often a judgment is not a single one on a single issue. There may be four or five points and it may be that the Court of Appeal decides that the court below is wrong, say, on one, two and three points, but is divided on the fourth point. The trouble is that the Minister has introduced the Bill without first submitting it to the legal profession. I would suggest that progress be reported so that the matter can be further considered. I realise that objection may be taken to my amendment, but what about the Minister’s, which may inflict great hardship. The inconvenience which the Minister is seeking to mitigate is abnormal. Normally you have five judges of appeal and normally they all sit, and it only happens when one of the judges is on leave or is ill that the services of another judge have to be obtained.

The idea is to have a commission on which the Union will be represented. The exact form that representation will take has not yet been decided and the Prime Minister will make a statement later on with regard to the whole position. I cannot see the difficulties with regard to the clause that hon. members have raised. Supposing there are different issues and there are four different judgments, say, for sums of £50, £60 and £70. If two judges were at variance with the other two they would not change the judgment on those points, hut they could on the other points on which they were agreed because they are different judgments.

It does not say so here.

But it necessarily follows. If you press every case to its fullest limits you are bound to have hardships, but they will be very exceptional. I have no objection to withdrawing my amendment in regard to costs in favour of the amendment of my hon. friend. The clause has been introduced because the working of the court has been interfered with, and rather than report progress I would be prepared to withdraw the point. The points I wish to get through are two and three. Point 1 is very largely for the convenient working of the Court of Appeal and if there is considerable opposition I would prefer to withdraw it.

The point is whether the Court of Appeal has to agree or not. If it over-rules the court below on three points but supports it on another point, it can decide whether the appeal is to be allowed or not. The Minister’s proposal as to costs is too hard and fast and he might add the words—

It would follow that unless otherwise ordered the costs would be borne by the unsuccessful party. I think if the Minister will accept these words at the end of the amendment it will remove some of the objections.

I think the Minister’s suggestion is the better one. If you had a four-judge court, if it is considered to be essential, and you had an equal disagreement, then the four judges might refer the matter for further argument before a full bench.

That would mean two hearings and double cost.

The whole question of cost is decided by the appellate division. You must have some means whereby finality is reached.

I don’t agree with the suggestion of the hon. member. It would be against the litigant. I don’t often find myself in a position to disagree with the hon. the Minister. We on this side of the House are accustomed to rely upon his judgment in most things, but in this matter I am not persuaded that this change will be for the better. There are one or two points which illustrate the inadvisability of this change. An equal division of opinion would usually mean that the point at issue is difficult of decision, the very occasion when the appeal court’s decision is required. Also in the case of an equal division of opinion in a four-judge court, such a division of opinion would read as a judgment in favour of the respondent. Will that be considered to be the judgment of the appeal court, because, if so, it would be a precedent. It would be a precedent really established by the court below I must confess that up to this point the Minister has not persuaded me that the change will be for the better. I think he will be well-advised to accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) to report progress and get the opinion of the legal profession. There will be a great body of professional opinion against the change, and I think the majority of judges will be against the change.

I wish to point out to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that he has moved the deletion of the whole proviso. So he cannot now move an amendment to it.

I will withdraw mine sir, as I understand that the Minister will accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close). In any case, I under-stand, I am out of order.

I move that he accepts as an addition to the amendment moved by the Minister the words—

I am quite prepared to accept that addition, but I am not impressed by the arguments against the clause as it stands. I am not satisfied that it would be a precedent of the appeal court. I believe this is a necessary amendment, but I do not think the body of legal opinion in South Africa will assist me on the point, and rather than report progress, I would drop that part of the clause against which the objection is made. I don’t like to do it, because I think it is a necessary thing, but I do not intend to waste any further time. I withdraw the words from the word “and” in line 9 in Clause 1 to the word “stand” in line 17 of Clause 1.

You had better accept my amendment, otherwise you will have to put something else in. There is nothing there providing for a five-judge quorum.

That is provided for under the original Act.

But you repealed 110.

Yes, that is so.

Then I think you had better accept my amendment.

I move—

seconded.

As an amendment I beg to move—

I take the strongest possible exception to the procedure which the Minister is adopting in this matter. I think it must be almost unprecedented for a Minister to introduce a public Bill of this nature having so wide a scope, in which the majority of the population of this country are also vitally affected, and send it to a committee of his own choosing. The House will recollect that last session this Bill was sent to a Select Committee which sat practically every day of the session, took voluminous evidence, and was unable to report to the House because of that evidence. Subsequently, during the recess, the Minister appointed a commission to go through the evidence and make such suggestions as they thought fit in regard to the Bill. I have no objection to a commission being appointed to sift the evidence and come back to the House and tell us what they have done, and to a Select Committee similar to the last one being appointed to consider that report, but for the work which that committee did last year to be wasted in this manner is, I consider, a reflection on the House. Not only that, but it raises a big question as to where this kind of thing is going to end. If Ministers are to come forward with Bills and refer them to a Select Committee of their own choosing, it is going to open the door very wide indeed to all kinds of log-rolling. This motion is a contempt of Parliament. This action of the Minister in nominating a small committee to sit upon a particular matter in which he is interested—

I am not interested in it.

No, I am arguing it from the point of view of the dignity of this House. It must be obvious to everyone that a measure of this nature should not be submitted to merely three lawyers from Johannesburg. Surely three lawyers from Johannesburg are not competent to speak for the whole of South Africa in a matter of this kind. This procedure opens the door to packed committees of all kinds. I think if this House agrees to a motion of this nature, by whomsoever presented, it will be establishing a principle and setting a precedent which will degrade the authority of Parliament.

In seconding the amendment I should like to emphasize the fact that the proposed legislation is social legislation of a very important character. We have here legislation which is likely to affect everybody in every walk of life in South Africa and affect-very largely the future of this country. We know very well that the Minister has the strongest views on this question which he would like to translate into legislation and shackle round the necks of the future generation. We know of his attachment to the tot system which he is wishing to perpetrate and perpetuate through the proposed legislation, and we who come from a province which is entirely unrepresented on this Committee have the strongest possible objection to the Minister working—I will not say his wicked will—but working his will in this manner. I remonstrate with all the emphasis at my command against the procedure which has been adopted by the Minister. He appoints a committee during the recess—that committee has reported, and probably reported to the Minister’s satisfaction, and now he would like to get the approval of Parliament to the views of a committee which has reported beforehand and which, may I point out, is only a portion of a much larger committee that sat the whole of last session taking evidence on this important question and never deliberated at all. I hope the Minister will see the unwisdom of insisting upon having his way in this matter, and that he will agree to the Standing Rules and Orders Committee appointing the Select Committee on this important question.

If this were a matter of the Liquor Bill being brought forward for the first time, I think the protest which has been made would not only be justified, but that the House would insist upon the Select Committee being appointed in the ordinary way. Surely the hon. member must realize that extraordinary events took place after the Select Committee sat—

The Committee never deliberated at all.

That is quite true, but the matter which the hon. member complains of has already taken place. These gentlemen have been sitting and working and have gone through the Bill. The only effect of this amendment to the Minister’s motion will be that that work will be entirely scrapped. The whole of the work of the commission during the recess will be scrapped.

No.

The Committee will have to start de novo. The Select Committee took an enormous amount of evidence, a bulky blue book was published, and the committee were unable to deliberate, but, in order to prevent this particular Bill from being shelved for another year, the Minister appointed a commission to finish the work, because it was impossible for the Select Committee under the rules of the House to sit in the recess. He selected three members of that committee for the commission. I presume they were selected from one locality, because it would be easier to get them together. I do not know what the motive of the Minister was in appointing that commission, but I know that the report which it has produced is a very voluminous document, which occupies about 48 pages of closely-typed foolscap matter, and suggests all sorts of amendments in regard to the Bill. If the amendment is carried, it seems to me that necessarily the work will be scrapped and the Select Committee will have to do over again the work these three men have done during the recess. That means this session will be lost with regard to liquor legislation. It is only fair to say that these are exceptional circumstances; they are exceptional also in this respect, that when the Minister moved for a select committee he said he was not going on that committee, and that is an unusual thing. He indicated that he wanted to have a perfectly free hand to deal as he thought right with any amendments that came along. I take the proposal of the Minister to mean nothing more than this: That the commission will incorporate their amendments into the Bill, and the Bill will be reprinted, and hon. members will be in a position to know exactly what are the amendments proposed by the commission appointed during the recess. Taking all these exceptional circumstances into consideration, I do not think we should be justified in voting for the amendment.

Perhaps I should have explained the circumstances at the start. The mover of the amendment is wrong in saying that this is unprecedented. There is a precedent for it. My feeling was very strongly to take the committee stage of the Bill as it stands, and to introduce such amendments as I accept, but I was advised that this would be an inconvenient procedure so far as the House is concerned, and that to assist the House it would be better if the same committee were appointed a Select Committee of the House, and the commission’s report would be incorporated in the Bill placed before the House.

Why was the commission not more representative of South Africa?

I regarded the commission as being a very representative body at the time it was appointed. They are not three lawyers from Johannesburg; that is also one of the wild statements made over there. I claim one of the members as a lawyer from Pretoria—and that is a very material difference. I have the greatest confidence in the three members, not because they are appointed to express my views—because my views differ very largely from those of my hon. friend over there and other members of the committee. In two large respects I will have to consider their recommendations, and I will mention those respects now. I am entirely against the commission’s report in regard to treating. My whole habit of mind is against their view on that point. I am also against the commission’s report with regard to those rent clauses. This is also a matter I will have to take into consideration. My hon. friend is wrong in assuming that I have first gone through the commission’s report, found it was a report I could agree with and then asked them to do the work in this way. In the first place there was a precedent for it, and in the second place I was advised this would be a convenient course for the House to see what the recommendations of the commission were. As my motives are so suspect, perhaps the best thing I can do is to withdraw my proposal entirely, and go into the committee stage of the Bill. I cannot allow the matter to go to a large Select Committee which would fritter away the time, and we should have temperance cranks wasting months and months of time. The House might, of course, dispose of the matter by saying they must merely report and not take evidence, but I am not certain how long that is going to take. This is a matter of some urgency. When we get the Bill hammered into final shape—it is not yet in final shape—I believe it is going to do a world of good, and there are provisions in the Bill which are overdue and should be passed as soon as possible. If I refer it to a select committee even for report you are not going to proceed with this Bill this session. That is the position. It seems to me it is one of two ways. Either for convenience sake to allow this committee I am suggesting, or else allow me to continue in committee of the Whole House, which would be a very inconvenient proceeding.

Question put: That all the words after “report”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—59.

Alexander. M.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Barlow. A. G.

Basson, P. N.

Bates, F. T.

Boshoff, L. J.

Brown, G.

Buirski, E.

Christie, J.

Cilliers. A. A.

Conradie, D. G.

Conroy, E. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Waal, J. H. H.

De Wet. S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fordham, A. C.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Hay, G. A.

Hugo, D.

Jagger, J. W.

Keyter, J. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, M. L.

Mostert, J. P.

Mullineux, J.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. (Tom)

Nieuwenhuize. J.

Oost, H.

Pearce, C.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Stals, A. J.

Steytler. L. J.

Swart, C. R.

Terblanche, P. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Visser, T. C.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wessels, J. B.

Tellers: Sampson, H. W.: Vermooten, O. S.

Noes—29.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin. F. D. P.

Close, R. W.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Henderson, J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Macintosh. W.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

O’Brien, W. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz. D.

Richards. G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Rockey, W.

Smuts, J. C.

Struben. R. H.

Watt. T.

Tellers: De Jager, A. L.; Marwick, J. S.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mr. Nicholls, negatived.

Original motion then put and agreed to.

Report of Liquor Commission, laid upon the Table on 2nd February, 1927, referred to Select Committee.

Under this vote the Minister is asking for ail additional grant of £876,000; that is to say, he asks for £920,000 additional to be voted, but there is a saving of £44,000, hence the nett amount of £876,000 to be voted, of which £801,000 is for main services, that is, the maintenance of rolling stock, running and traffic expenses. Now in the notes attached to the votes it is found that the increased grant is wanted for the main part owing to increased traffic and traffic expenses—all tending or leading the House to think that it is required for increased traffic carried during the past nine months. I failed to find, and I have been going into it pretty carefully, such increased traffic set forth in the report of the General Manager’s bulletin. In his bulletin No. 107, issued in January, he states that the railway earnings from April 1st to October 31st last totalled £13,000,905—an increase of £21,000, or, as he points out, .015 per cent.—no big increase of traffic as far as that is concerned. That is in comparison with the traffic last year. The working expenditure is £11,189,000, an increase of £438,000, or 4 per cent. There is a substantial increase! Or, if you take the accounts last published at the end of November, in the “Gazette” for January 14th, they show an increase in the eight months of expenditure in the current financial year over the corresponding period of the last financial year of £815,000, an increase in revenue of £40,000, on sums running into millions, into eight figures. These figures at the end of November show a deficit. Of course, it may be said that traffic has increased since. We have had the months of December and January, and of course there is usually a large passenger traffic; in fact, if I recollect rightly, the Minister said he had a surplus of £150,000 in December.

About. I said it had not been definitely ascertained.

I am not going to bind the Minister down to the last sixpence. On referring again to the General Manager’s bulletin, he says that the railway earnings for the first four weeks ending December 18th, 1926, the very best weeks of the month—just before Christmas—were £2,036.000, a decrease of £18,939 on the corresponding period of the previous year. The earnings from goods traffic reflected a decrease of £58,270. I ask you whether this is evidence of the vast increase of traffic requiring an extra grant of over £800,000? No; as far as I can make out, it appears to me that it is this extra windfall that is coming in, and the Minister has not disclosed all the circumstances of the financial position of the railways as they stand at the present time. I see in the “Cape Times” this morning that there is a hint that there is something extra that has not come out—the payment by the electricity commission of something like a quarter of a million for the carriage of their rails. If there is any truth in that, why was it not made clear to the House that certain abnormal payments were coming in which tended to balance things? But not a word was said about these things. To go further, if we have to make up this extra grant there must be several other abnormal things to come in. Why could not the Minister have made a full and clear statement to the House as to the exact position, as he should have done? Taking the public reports—the weekly reports— and that is all we can go on, from April 1st to January 29th, the receipts have been £20,112,000, an increase on the estimates of £326,000. Now we have been asked for an increased grant of £876,000, which we are left to understand—and I have no doubt quite bona fide by the Minister—would be covered by the receipts at the end of the financial year; and he expects to balance revenue and expenditure. If that is the case, from January 29th to March 31st, or in two months and a couple of days, he will have to find extra revenue to the amount of £550,000. The Minister may have something else up his sleeve, but it seems to be highly improbable, and if he does not have it he will come out with a deficit. That is the position as far as the present year. I want to take the opportunity now of calling the attention of this House and of the country to the rapidly increasing expenditure of the railways and harbours at the present, and while this Government has been in office. In 1923-’24, the last year the Smuts’ Government was in office, the expenditure of railways was £22,979,000, and there was a surplus of £1,450,000. In 1924-’25, the expenditure was £24,120,000, and in 1925-’26 £27,010,000, an increase of £2,890,000; let me say at once that was a bumper year for the mealie crop, but in the present year, notwithstanding that we have a big increase of expenditure on that of last year, and this current year the Minister expects to spend £28,953,000, it is not a year of bumper traffic. As far as I can see by the public figures, the traffic is just about holding its own, and doing remarkably well, because it is not a bumper year for mealies—but the traffic does not go further. So that this year, including the grant made, we are going to spend more than last year by £1,943,000, or close on £2,000,000 a total increase in expenditure on railways from 1923-’24, when the Smuts’ Government went out of office, to the current year of no less than £5,974,000, or close on £6,000,000.

Have not the lines increased a good deal?

About 1,000 miles.

And rolling stock?

That comes out of the renewals fund and loan fund. The reason for this increased expenditure is that the Government has been out popularity hunting. Ministers go about telling the country how many extra men they have employed—about 14,000; this is held up as a great achievement, and Ministers say how much better the railways are managed than they were under the Jagger regime. But £6,000,000 is rather a long price to pay for the maintenance of the popularity of the Government.

And they have not even got the popularity.

This system has led to extravagance, and there has been a lack of control over expenditure. Unfortunately, we have not come to the end of it yet. As far as we can judge from the published figures, there does not seem to be very much extra traffic. For the eight months ended November last, the extra traffic was only £40,000: I am well aware that new lines—about 1,000 miles of branch lines—have been opened. But does that account for an increased expenditure of £6,000,000? This enormous increase demonstrates that the Government has been out popularity hunting. Ministers go about the country saying how many extra men have been engaged and the amount of additional pay they are given—

Your party is against the extra pay.

No. The Ministers say how much more blessed the men are than they were under the Jagger regime; two Ministers went out of their way the other day to pump that into the country. One thing, however, is absolutely clear, and that is that the time is past when the country can look for any reduction in railway rates or fares; in fact, if we go on at this rate, we shall very soon have to have increases. What will hon. members opposite representing farming constituencies say to that? I reduced the rates by £4,000,000 when I was in office; notwithstanding that we had to contend with deficits, we were able to reduce rates to the extent of £4,000,000, that is, sacrificing revenue to that amount. These reductions gave that impetus to production and trade of which the railways have been reaping the benefit during the last three years. The present Government has been enjoying prosperous times for the past three years, but it has reduced rates only by a million.

What about the superannuation fund contribution?

How many millions did that run away with? No, the whole thing is popularity hunting. Even at Uitenhage people are beginning to see that this policy cannot be continued indefinitely, but that there must be a stop to this reckless expenditure. In a country of long distances like this, you are bound to have railway rates as low as possible if you are going to encourage production. That was the settled policy of the Smuts’ Government. Nothing gave that Government more satisfaction than to be able to announce a reduction of rates. Reduced railway rates means increased production, and increased production means increased employment. Some people seem to have the idea that employment is a fixed quantity. Nothing of the kind. It just depends entirely on production, and that fact is amply proved by the position of the United States to-day. In the United States there is very little unemployment, but enormous production largely through the use of machinery. The policy of the late Government tended in the direction of increased production, and of doing away with unemployment, which is far better than giving doles. If the present policy is continued, we shall have to face increased railway rates, but we have to be thankful that the taxpayer cannot be called upon to pay railway deficits.

What are your suggestions?

The Minister in office must make the suggestions. If you increase railway rates, you not only increase unemployment, but drive more people off the land, for if you charge the farmers more for carrying their produce, the less they will be able to grow at a profit, owing to the fact that high railway rates mean high transportation costs.

It is always very difficult to speak after the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), especially on financial matters, for he leaves those who follow him very little to say. Nothing is left to the imagination. I would, however, like to refer to the Minister’s remark that there has been a great increase in traffic. I think he meant a great increase in train mileage.

I said so.

I think you said both.

I gave you the percentage increase in the train mileage.

Yes, and the Minister also referred to the great increase in traffic. If there was great increase in train mileage that was only because the system has extended. The point I wish to impress on the Minister is that the ratio of increase in the expenditure compared to the increase in income has gone up enormously. There was a deficit up to the end of November of £300,000. It is, of course, quite impossible for the Minister to say definitely what the position will be at the end of the financial year, but he told us that he thought the accounts would balance and he claimed that this was proof that the Government was acting in the terms of the South Africa Act. I cannot find anywhere in the South Africa Act a clause requiring that the railways accounts must balance, but that Act does lay it down that the railways, ports and harbours shall be administered on business principles, due regard being given to the agricultural and industrial development of the Union. That means that the railways should be administered so as to increase the development of our agricultural and industrial undertakings, but they cannot possibly expand if the railway rates are maintained at their present very high level. Unless the railway rates can be very considerably reduced, we cannot expect to find industries progressing. We know, of course, that at the present time it is necessary to claim every honour possible. The Minister is an adept at making propaganda at all times, and at the present time we forgive him for trying to get the country to believe that his interpretation is the only interpretation of the South Africa Act. The Minister gave us very little information with regard to this increased vote. Take Heads 3, 4, and 5 of the Additional Estimates laid on the Table. We find an amount of £801,652 overspent. The only explanation is that it is spent on works on which the Minister has already received votes. That is somewhat misleading. We are told nothing, for example, of what has been spent in repairs in regard to the innumerable accidents on the railways which have happened lately in this country. There is hardly a week passes without some train accident. The Minister ought to take this House into his full confidence. Many valuable lives have been lost and valuable stock has been lost, and much of the rolling stock has been destroyed and damaged.

What is your suggestion about that?

The country are entitled to know something of the extra amount spent in connection with these accidents.

What information do you want?

The Minister had a chance yesterday of giving us the information of what these accidents cost the country. He is asking for a large extra vote and he should have told us to what extent this money was required in connection with these accidents. The country is anxious to know what it has cost and the Minister is silent. He is in a position to tell us about these matters. He has all the facts and tells us nothing. Many of those new engines which came out lately are, I understand, in the workshops. We should have been told what this has cost the country. They were brought from overseas, dumped here, worked for a while, and the information I have received is that many of these high priced engines have cost the country a lot of money within a few months of the commencement of running. If it is not so I should be glad to know it, and we are entitled to hear of it from the Minister. He has told us nothing about the overtime referred to in the Estimates. £69,978 is paid for overtime. We are entitled to information about this extra amount paid. We cannot be expected to accept the mere statement. There has been no abnormal rush recently and there has been no great extra amount of traffic. The Minister tells us he has made up all arrears since the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) went out of office.

When did I make that statement?

All over the country, and members of the Government have made the same statement all over the country. Then take the position in Natal. The position there is unsatisfactory, in that a large number of rails have had to be taken up and replaced. The newspapers have been full of it for months past. It has been discussed for a long time in the Administrative department. If the Minister looks at the Select Committee reports of last year he will find that they paid a lot of attention to the electrification of the railways in Natal. There was evidence that the engines were not of the proper type. Is it a fact that the rails got into this condition because the engines are not of a proper type?! The country should have some explanation. We should be told what has been spent on the engines in Natal to alter their construction in such a way as to save the permanent way. I think it is probable the extra amount becomes necessary due to the things I have mentioned and I think the Minister should make up his mind to give us the fullest information and not be satisfied to table these figures with just a few little notes which themselves require a lot of explanation. I have not the slightest doubt the Minister is anxious to get away. I suppose he is anxious to pay one of those periodical visits he is so fond of making to some of his employees at convenient centres at convenient times. There is an election pending, and the Minister is anxious. But the country is entitled to ask for an explanation of these matters. When he asks for £1,000,000 extra he should give us a full explanation. Take wages alone. Under the three heads we find under maintenance, in I925-’26 the wages paid were £1,615,000, and the wages paid last year were £1,645,000. Under head 4, running expenses, the wages for 1925-’26 were £2,807,000 and for 1926-’27, £2,954,000. Under head 5, traffic expense, strangely enough, but due no doubt to the increased traffic referred to by the Minister, the wages have gone down by £60,000. The three heads altogether for 1925-’26 amount to £8,243,000 in wages and this last year £8,369,000 is to be spent in wages. The ratio of increase in wages to total increase in expenditure is 1 to 4. That is a large increase, and we are entitled to fuller information than we have received up to the present. May I suggest the increases are due to his new policy, which the Minister does not like to discuss in this House. The civilized labour policy is leading to this big increase. Not a word is said this year with regard to that. The Minister last year threatened that he would not give us the figures of the increased cost of civilized labour. We are entitled to ask him now in his reply to give us the full information. On the 31st March last year we find the number of European employees was 10,161, of whom 2,856 were youths. The cost of wages was £905,157 and the added cost to the Administration was £191,000 per annum. Besides this there was the cost of erecting quarters, which I see, according to the Auditor-General’s report, was £270,799. This year we have no such information and the whole has been lumped into one. We do not know, therefore, what it is costing the country for this new policy or what it means to agriculture or to industry in the country. With this constant increase in wages there is no possibility of getting lower tariffs. Although the Minister goes through outlying parts, and makes election speeches, and says there is an actual saving as the labour is more efficient, we are entitled to question it, and I don’t do it alone on my own authority, but on the authority of those whose opinion this House will not question. On page 212 of the Report of the Select Committee on Railways last year we find a résumé given of questions and answers before the Finance Committee of the House in regard to evidence by the Director of Irrigation. He in no way agrees with the Minister that the employment of so-called civilized labour is a benefit to the public or that it is cheaper than other labour. On a public platform the Minister said a few evenings ago that the extra cost of civilised labour given in Parliament by him was misleading. We agree with him. He went on to say—

If that is so I would like to know who the senior officers are, because the General Manager in his evidence before the Economic Commission said—

That is the most senior of the senior officers. See what a few others of these senior officers say. On page 193 of the Select Committee’s Report it is recorded that the General Manager, at the request of the Minister, asked for a report on the result of the working of this so-called civilized labour and he received. I think, something like 23 replies. The actual number I cannot now give. I will give you a few. This is what the Auditor-General says—

I do not think the hon. member is entitled to discuss the general policy on this occasion. He must confine himself to the items on the Estimates. The question of policy was discussed last year.

We are in a very awkward position. We do not know what the money was spent upon.

The hon. member is discussing general policy, which is more suitable to be discussed on the general Estimates. He may ask for information on this motion, but he must not discuss the question of general policy.

I am sorry I cannot give the House the information that I intended to. No doubt I shall have another opportunity and I shall have to take that opportunity early, because the Minister has challenged what I am saying.

Perhaps in justice to the hon. member, I may be allowed to say that in these Estimates provision is made for civilised labour.

The hon. member would be entitled to ask the Minister for information as to the specific items and discuss those items, but he cannot discuss the general policy on this motion.

In regard to this large amount of extra wages which apparently are due to the civilized labour policy, I would like to know whether it is not a fact that at the Cape Town docks he is employing white men who have been for more than nine months in the service at 3s. 6d. a day, and that they are having no privileges of any kind? I would also like to know from the Minister whether, as he is always upholding the rights of the white man over the native, there is any native in the docks who is only getting 3s. 6d. a day. Another question is, what is the difference between casual and temporary labourers? We want to know if a man can be a temporary and casual labourer at one and the same time and whether white men who have been in the employ of the Administration for three years, and some longer, are still getting 6s. a day and are classed as casual labourers, and whether that is the Minister’s new civilized policy?

I am glad to have the opportunity to say something about the carriage of poor sheep in my constituency.

Is it a vote which appears on the Additional Estimates? The hon. member can only discuss the matter if it is included.

What is your opinion? Is it included?

I do not know.

I think that certain expenditure is being incurred in the running of special trains for the carriage of poor sheep. There are certain items for that purpose in the Additional Estimates.

The hon. member must confine himself to the item, but I think it is better to wait for a subsequent opportunity.

Like the hon. members who have spoken before me, I was really interested in hearing from the Minister that he expects to come out on the year without any deficit. For the sake of the country, I am very pleased to hear that, but I have had experience of a good many balance sheets— good, bad and doubtful—and when a balance sheet is put before me on which things are brought out exactly equal, I always have my suspicions. It means that the first draft of that balance sheet has shown a deficit and that by some particular writing off or by what, in some circles is called “wangling,” things have been made to square. Of course, it is only when the Minister delivers his budget speech that we shall be able to know, but in the meantime I am left with an uncomfortable feeling that there must be something that has been unpleasantly called “wangling,” to account for it, I hope, however, it will not be so. Then the Minister took credit that if things were going to be exactly equal he was following exactly the terms of the South Africa Act. I know that there are men who are credited with getting a little both ways. It seems to me that the Minister wishes to get something three ways—if there is a surplus that is all to his credit, if it comes out equal that is also to his credit, but if there should be a deficit that would be also to his credit, because the deficit would be occasioned by his having reduced the rates to the people and saved the money of the people. But the Controller and Auditor-General does not quite agree with him. He gives us a very interesting table in his report this year of the rates that are charged for certain goods and for passengers before the war and since the war, showing a very big discrepancy still to be made up. On page 19 of his report the Auditor-General refers to quite a lot of items showing that the percentage increase still remains, notwithstanding that reductions were made by my hon. friend on my right (Mr. Jagger). On groceries railed to Pretoria, for instance, there is an increase of 42 per cent, over pre-war rates, sugar 54 per cent., drapery 48 per cent. and boots and shoes 81 per cent. I have mentioned those items because they are things of everyday use that touch the cost of living of the people daily, and the cumulative effect of which is very considerable and it is in those ways really that the railways touch the people of the country. One feels that the Minister, in his anxiety to be fair, and even more than fair, to be generous to the employees of the railway, is apt to lose sight of the interests of the users of the railway, who, after all, are the people who are to be considered in these matters quite as much as the employees have to be considered. Like the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), I would complain of the character of the information that is given. The Minister’s speech really consisted of reading out the notes below the statement which has been supplied, but why should not the figures showing number of staff also appear in the Additional Estimates, and then we could see whether this additional expenditure was accounted for by taking more men on to the staff or by paying extra overtime. I know it has not been done before, but there is no reason why a man, acclaimed by his party as the best of all Ministers the railways have had, should not do it. We cannot see whether the extra expenditure is due to the employment of more men or to an increase of pay; no information of that sort is given to us. It is a curious thing—and it applies to former Ministers as well —that Ministers, when they sat on this side, who were most avid for information, are the most, sparing of information when they get over there. One would like that information about the staff, because then one would know whether it means a permanent addition to the cost of running the railways. I would like to make some remarks on the figures of additional expenditure out of capital and betterment funds. These figures gave me something of a shock. I come from a part of the country where it is extremely difficult to get any money for capital expenditure. The day I left Algoa Bay there were five steamers waiting their turn because they could not get attention for want of equipment. We have been pegging away for years for more equipment. The figures show that the best nett return on tonnage in any harbour is in the harbour of Algoa Bay.

I do not think this is an occasion for the hon. member to deal with what should be done at Port Elizabeth. He must deal with the figures before the House.

I was just making a comparison; I am coming to the figures. I was going on to say that the answer always is that there are no funds available, and yet here we have this million and a half of money that can be provided for railway traffic. I would like the Minister to explain an item which appeared in the General Manager’s bulletin for last December, where a statement is made which seems to go far beyond any statement that ought to be made without the authority of Parliament. In the bulletin there is a question of the development of Table Bay harbour, and the statement is made there that during August, 1926, approval was given to an expenditure of £2,507,373 for the remainder of the works comprising the scheme. I would like to know how it is possible for the General Manager’s bulletin to say that approval has been given for this expenditure on Table Bay harbour in August, 1926, when Parliament was not sitting, and there was no authority from which such a statement could be made. We have been looking for great things from the Minister, but this looks rather as if he has been confining himself to the triangle—Cape Town, Johannesburg, Durban. We like his smile, but we want something solid behind it, and I hope we get it.

It was delightful to hear the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) on the subject of wangling. Let me assure the hon. member that when the accounts are finally closed he will see that so far from any wangling of the accounts, I gave the House the best information at my disposal, but may I suggest to my hon. friend that if he wants some information about wangling accounts that he addresses himself to my predecessor, the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger).

How is that?

I will tell my hon. friend. When my hon. friend was Minister of Railways be wangled the accounts in this way, that he took £2,000,000 from renewals fund—

What was the wangling there? That was done with the consent of the House. Nonsense. The House knew all about it. There was no wangling or attempt to hide information.

Surely the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) does not suggest that I am guilty of any attempt to hide information from the House?

No, but I do. Why haven’t you given the information about the receipts in January and December?

Does the hon. member suggest that information is at my disposal?

Of course I do.

Surely the hon. member knows that the accounts are only closed, and the information given to the Minister a full month after the closing of the accounts for the previous month. He knows that the final results for January will only be in my hands at the end of February. For the hon. member to come here and talk about wangling and hiding facts is unworthy of the hon. member.

There is no bigger sinner in the Cabinet than you are.

Well, I can only say that if the hon. member can lay his hand on particular sins of commission on my part, I will be only too pleased to stand at the bar of this House; but let me deal at once with what the hon. member has said. He tells the House that he has seen in the “Cape Times” that in December I received close on a quarter of a million pounds in connection with the Colenso power station. Does the hon. member mean to tell the House that he is not aware of the fact that the power station was to be handed over to the Electricity Supply Commission, and that it was contemplated that when the handing over took place the Electricity Commission would make a refund to the Railway Administration of the railage paid on behalf of the Commission?

That is part of the business.

Why, then, does the hon. member talk about hiding facts from the House? I gave the House the information that on January 15th of this year the Colenso power station had been taken over by the Electricity Commission. When that was done, the Railway Administration received credit for railage, which had been paid. For the hon. member to come and make loose, irresponsible statements, I say it is unworthy of the hon. member.

They are correct, though.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) has also dealt with pre-war rates on certain products. Does he suggest that we should go back to pre-war rates? No, because he knows that we are not on pre-war wages and the pre-war prices for material; he knows this perfectly well. Is this raised as a smoke-screen in connection with the Provincial Council elections? We have heard about smoke-screens from hon. members opposite. The hon. member knows we are paying higher wages, and that the costs of exploitation have gone up—

Why did you not say the same thing in 1923?

What has that to do with the action of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South)?

Pre-war.

The hon. member knows we cannot get back to pre-war rates unless we reduce expenditure. Does he suggest that we should make a further cut in wages? If he does, why does he not say so? Then we would know where we are.

That is begging the question.

I am not begging the question, I am facing the position because I am shouldering the responsibility. False issues have been raised, and the issue has been clouded. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) and the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj G. B. van Zyl) have asked for more information. Do they desire that we should have a full-dress debate which we will have on the main estimates? You, Mr. Speaker, have just ruled that the discussion is confined to these items contained in these estimates. Within the next fourteen days, or shorter period, the House will be in possession of the main estimates. I ask hon. members to be fair in their criticism, and not to raise a smokescreen in connection with this question. My hon. friend (Sir William Macintosh) has asked a question about the Cape Town Docks, and complained that Parliament was not sitting at the time the Minister and Board gave authority for certain work to proceed. Surely he knows that when Parliament has actually voted the money for a particular work, the matter must come up before the Board and Minister for final authority for the work to begin, and that is all that was done. I had hoped that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South), with his long experience of public affairs, would have appreciated that small point. As to capital expenditure at Port Elizabeth, why does he not possess his soul in patience? When the estimates are laid on the Table, it will be seen what provision can be made for work at Algoa Bay. I now come to my gallant friend, the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), who is very much alarmed because I have not given the information with regard to accidents and expenditure connected therewith.

was the allegation made by him. Does he suggest that we have had, on an average, more accidents than we have had before?

I certainly think so.

That is very different from the statement made by the hon. member that we have had “innumerable accidents.”

Yon have had innumerable accidents.

The hon. member “thinks”; but, as so often happens, he thinks wrongly.

What is the position exactly?

If the hon. member will ask me what the unfortunate Salt River accident cost —

The impression is that there are many more accidents than usual.

That does not rest on a sound basis.

Give us the facts and figures. Salt River is only one accident.

What facts does the hon. member want? Let the hon. member put a question on the paper if he wants information. When information has been asked for, I have always placed it before the House. Does the hon. member not realize when he makes this statement—an irresponsible statement, I say—that he is reflecting on those who are employed by the State as railwayman? Further, does he suggest that the Minister and Board are responsible for these accidents?

To some extent, undoubtedly.

Well, we shall be glad if the hon. member will take the House into his confidence, on that point. We have had a big change during the last years in the nature of the goods carried by the railways. Formerly we carried very large quantities of imported goods which paid high rates, but at present 90 per cent, of the goods traffic consists of South African products.

That has been the case for several years.

Our rates on South African produce are lower than similar rates in other countries. I am referring to the products of this country.

Not for coal.

The export coal rates are on a very low basis, and my predecessor will be the first to admit that the rates for export and bunker coal are not high.

Bunker rates are high.

No, we are charging a very fair rate for bunker coal.

What about pig iron?

Those rates have been adjusted and have given great satisfaction to the company concerned. As we are carrying more South African grown produce, our revenue does not correspondingly increase, because South African grown produce is carried at a low rate. The country must frankly face the position that while we are carrying more goods, the revenue will not correspondingly increase while the working costs go up. If you handle a bale of silk you obtain a very high revenue from it, but the case is different with, say, maize.

That position existed when I was in office.

The hon. member makes the mistake of thinking that the country stopped developing when he left office. The position is just the reverse. It was when the country got rid of the Smuts’ Government that South Africa started fresh development.

There is conceit for you.

Confidence returned, people became more progressive, and the country has gone ahead. That is the cardinal mistake my hon. friend makes. He has stood still from 1924. Fortunately, the country has forged ahead.

As far as expenditure is concerned, the Railway Department is forging ahead.

I know how disappointed he is. The leader of the Opposition has gone about saying that the present Ministry is bringing rack and ruin to the whole Railway Administration. Mr. Burton has told the country with a very solemn face that the whole of the Railway Administration is going to the dogs. What do we find? I quite appreciate the disappointment of hon. members opposite, but as an actual fact the railways are being economically run.

There is conceit for you.

While these hon. gentlemen, led by their leader, have been telling the country that we are going to have a big deficit, the position is quite the reverse.

Owing to a windfall.

My hon. friend will not wait. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) has raised the question of the splitting of the rails in Natal. That is a most important matter, as he knows these electrical locomotives were designed by our consulting engineers. When the splitting of the rails took place a very close investigation was made by the Chief Civil Engineer and the Chief Mechanical Engineer. They have come to certain tentative conclusions, but we have had to send their reports to the consulting engineers who have their head office in London. Unfortunately, the report of Messrs. Merz and McClelland has not yet come to hand, and it would not be fair to them to make any statement at this stage, but I hope to be in a position very shortly to make a very full statement to the House on the matter. Mr. Speaker has ruled that a discussion as to civilized labour policy is not in order at this time, and I shall not deal with the matter except to reply to the question whether Europeans were employed at the Docks at 3s. 6d. per day. We start European labourers under seventeen years of age at 3s. 6d. per day, and that is increased by 6d. per day for every additional year up to 5s., when they reach the age of 21. It is quite possible that a man may be employed at the Docks at 3s. 6d. per day.

He is old enough to be married.

If he is married he would not be receiving that. Does the hon. member want me seriously to explain the difference between casual and temporary labourers? One day the Docks may be full of ships, but thereafter they may be empty, so that the number of men engaged per day may fall from 1.300 to 200. It is most unfortunate that men should be taken on one day and put off the next, but that is the position of dock labourers all over the world.

Sometimes the men are employed as casual labourers and sometimes as temporary labourers.

If the hon. member will bring the facts to my notice I will go into them, but no government could adopt any other policy. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has raised the question of the growth of expenditure. The South African party are very anxious to take the credit for the working of the railways during the financial year 1924-’25, but in that year there also was a large growth in expenditure.

I started with the financial year 1923-’24.

My hon. friend was also guilty of increasing expenditure. I am not blaming my hon. friend for that. As long as the country develops there is bound to be an increase in expenditure from year to year, and if we do not authorize it we would have to turn away business. Does the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) seriously suggest that we should not take every possible step to cope with the increasing business? If our rates are reasonable and our railways are economically run on sound business principles, then the growth of expenditure, as long as our revenue keeps pace with it, need not alarm the country. I do not share the fear of my hon. friend, which he seems to hold very strongly. It is quite impossible for us to stand still with regard to railway development. We are bound to expand. Where the hon. member refers to this increase of expenditure it would have been fairer of him to refer at the same time to two specific items— one, the contribution of £250.000 to non-interest bearing capital. The hon. member knows that is an additional expenditure from revenue with which he fully agrees. Surely he should have referred to that. My hon. friend neglected the superannuation and pension funds. He probably had good reasons, owing to financial stringency, but we have had to contribute extra from revenue—£262,000—towards those funds. These have meant increased expenditure to the railways, and it is only fair that this should be admitted. During the month of December the deficit which had accumulated was reduced as a result of a large surplus on working. We made a profit of £162,000. In January we expect a substantial surplus which will wipe out the deficit, and I expect February and March will be run on an even keel, so that we may very well end the year with a small surplus. One word now with regard to the question of the lack of financial control. My hon. friend had made the accusation that there is no longer the necessary and strict control of expenditure. The way he controlled expenditure may have had its merits, but it also had its demerits. He starved essential services. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) said that I had claimed to have made up the leeway in rolling stock. Well, you can scour the whole press and you will not find that I made such a statement. We are still making up leeway on account of the lack of progress in this respect under my hon. friend. I know him to be a fair-minded man and, in these matters, he should not be unfair. Control at the present time, both with staff and expenditure, is very close, and expenditure is scrutinized very seriously. We cannot agree to a large number of requests made to us. If this big state service is to be run for the real benefit of the people, we must see that the expenditure does not outgrow the revenue. I assure the House that expenditure is being strictly controlled. The position of the railways, harbours and steamships at the present time is on a sound basis, notwithstanding anything said by the Leader of the Opposition during the recess. The country may rest satisfied that we are getting the best services out of the employees.

I move—

After the lively discussion on the motion of the Minister of Railways and Harbours, I am introducing a dry and technical subject, but yet it is very necessary. Hon. members will remember that most of the statutes dealing with settlement since 1910 have been consolidated, but in this matter of the survey of farms, which is particularly important to the farming population, nothing has yet been done. The position is that the Cape Province and Natal have no statute, while the Free State and the Transvaal have. My predecessor convened a conference in 1921 of surveyors-general to discuss the matter, and they went into it and made certain recommendations which form the basis of this Bill. I convened another conference of surveyors-general, the directors of the Trigonometrical Survey and representatives of the Institute of Surveyors. Every province has a Surveyors’ Institute, and each one of these institutes sent representatives, who went into and altered and amended the Bill, finally approving of it in its present form, except that the surveyors of the Cape Province objected to two points. I met them as far as possible, but on one point their objections have not been completely removed. The first objection was that the Bill provides that surveyors should send in to the Surveyor-General their field books, and in general the data which they used in their survey in the field, so that he could judge whether the diagram was correct. The objection of the surveyors was that surveys done before the coming into force of the Bill would also be included. Therefore, it has been provided that it shall only apply to surveys after the coming into force of the Act. Another objection was the provision that surveyors should co-ordinate their survey with the secondary trigonometrical survey. Hon. members possibly know that by that system diagrams have to be absolutely correct, but so far trigonometrical surveys have only taken place in the Witwatersrand, Calitzdorp, the Cape Peninsula and one or two other places, and as regards the Cape Province, on account of weather conditions, they would often have great difficulty to make that co-ordination. I have therefore agreed that only connection with the trigonometrical survey shall be obligatory where there is a tertiary trigonometrical survey, and with that they are now satisfied. There are, however, still some of them who are not quite satisfied on the point that the field books shall be sent in to the Surveyor-General, but I cannot meet them any further in that. If hon. members look at the Bill, they will see that it has been drawn with great care, and in the first place aims at unification, and secondly to give greater security of title. There are no actual survey Acts in the Cape Province and the Transvaal, there are only regulations which are not based on statutes. The surveyors can therefore do just as they wish, except that there is, of course, a nominal, control by the Minister of Lands of such a technical department, and the object is to obtain a uniform condition in all provinces. The first step in this direction is the forming of a Survey Board who will advise the Minister technically. It was recommended that a director of survey should be appointed, but pending this appointment the Survey Board will do the work. The Survey Board will consist of four surveyors-general and the director of the trigonometrical survey. Another important alteration as regards the survey of land is that there shall be a survey regulation board to draw up regulations. It will consist of the same persons, i.e., the four surveyors-general and the director of the trigonometrical survey, and in addition a member of the registration board and a land surveyor from each province who will be nominated by his institute. This is actually the first time that the surveyors are given a chance to take part in the regulation of matters in which they are concerned. As regards greater security of title, hon. members will admit that it is a very important matter. It can be obtained firstly by a high standard in the surveyors’ examination, and further, by methods which they use in their work, such as trigonometry, careful draughtsmanship, and giving all data concerning their survey, the correction of wrong surveys in the past, and better protection of beacons. Surveys in the past have often been done in a rather careless manner with cheap instruments and in a primitive way, with the result that erroneous surveys often took place, especially in the Cape Province. In future erroneous surveys will be corrected. The system of registration will also be much simplified. The granting of title was very involved. Sixty days’ notice had to be given, then one had to go to the court and go back to an attorney (I am injuring them a bit, but it cannot be helped). That system of wasting time and money is being abolished. It was often found in the past that the diagrams were quite wrong. A piece of ground shown as 500 morgen was only 400 morgen, or in another case was 700 morgen. The surveyors met as long ago as 1879 to consider steps to correct the diagrams and decided to show the actual survey by red lines on the old diagram. The diagrams are now in such a state that ordinary laymen can make nothing of them. The position is unsatisfactory. It would possibly have remained so if fencing on a large scale had not been commenced. For fencing purposes land was surveyed, and it often appeared that the old surveys were wrong. If the original survey was wrong, the subsequent sub-division of a piece of ground into smaller portions made that of the smaller portions all wrong as well. In all these matters an improvement is being effected, and in such cases, in the event of disputes, the Surveyor-General can appoint arbitrators (competent surveyors) who will institute enquiry and will then make corrections in the old deeds (generally no new deed will be required). This will be much cheaper and better, and many difficulties will be removed. Of course, one can only expect that the position will be entirely satisfactory when the trigonometrical survey of the whole Union has been completed. Last year I put £2,000 extra on the estimates for trigonometrical survey, and the position is gradually being improved, but we are still far removed from ideal conditions. Hon. members will agree that an improvement of diagrams and title deeds is desirable. We have, of course, every respect for our courts, but hon. members will understand that it is very difficult for the courts to judge in technical matters, such as survey disputes. Apart from the expense, it is therefore much better if technical people under the Surveyor-General can make recommendations in cases of dispute, and the Surveyor-General can give a ruling in the matter of the survey. Another point is the protection of beacons. It is provided that people who have beacons on their land may not in jure or remove them, and they must see that they are kept in order. This will all contribute a great deal to improving the security of title which is much desired. If a person wants to borrow money, it often happens that difficulties arise about the survey. If people could attach more confidence in the accuracy of the survey, they would be more prepared to advance money on land. The Land Bank repeatedly has instances where there are difficulties regarding the survey, and these can now easily be got over. It raises the credit of the landowners, and will also bring about that the interest on borrowed money should not be raised or the amount advanced reduced, on account of doubt.

I am glad to have the opportunity of saying a few words about the attitude of the profession towards this measure. For years past—not now, I am glad to say— there was a good deal of misunderstanding and friction. As far as I am able to ascertain, the present Bill is more or less an agreed Bill, and the conferences which have taken place between the Minister and representatives of the Institutes of Surveyors in the various provinces have resulted in a Bill more or less by agreement being arrived at, but there are some points I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to. The Survey Commission of 1921 recommended uniformity in the way that all survey work should be done under one control, namely, under the Director-General of Survey. I would like to ask the Minister, however, whether there are not in the clauses of this Bill provisions which are going to make for dual control and for a good deal of confusion, as well as causing a great deal of work to overlap, and rendering also a certain amount of work useless. Clause 3, subsection 1 (h) gives the Surveyor-General power to conduct a general triangulation and topographical survey of any portion of the Union. Section 5 (a) gives the Director of Trigonometrical Survey the same right. That seems to be in conflict with the recommendation of the Survey Commission, because here you are going to have dual control. Members of the profession strongly recommend that there should be no interference in any way by the Surveyor-General; it is not his job at all. I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to the provision in Section 13—this was one of the bones of contention in the past—whereby the Government practically compels surveyors to deposit the private documents of their profession with the Government. It also provides that they must be permanently filed. There was a lot of friction before they finally arrived at an agreement with the Minister to do this, provided they are allowed to keep either the original and file a copy, or file the original and keep a copy. The Minister at the conference agreed that they should be paid for the work done in making copies. I understand that the Government intend, by Section 9 (1) (a), to deal with this matter, and proper scales of fees will be laid down. Another important thing they draw my attention to is Section 13, sub-section 2—

They rely upon the Minister’s promise to see that this examination is made as soon as possible. All will depend upon the way in which the Minister carries out the words—

I hope the Minister will give the assurance that it will not be long delayed. There is one difficulty that the Minister has already pointed to, and that is with regard to the state of the survey. As the Minister has pointed out, the state of affairs in the country is very bad; one finds that the diagram and the state of the land itself do not correspond. Consolidation of the law is absolutely essential to give farmers and others security and, in that respect, I think the Bill will meet a long-felt requirement. With regard to the surveyors’ fees, the Minister gives the Survey Regulation Board power to make regulations. What arrangement has he made under the Bill for the taxation of fees? At present the arrangement is that the various institutes throughout the Union tax the fees themselves. I do not find any provision made in the Bill with regard to who is going to tax these fees. The surveyors are quite content for the present system to be continued, or they would be quite willing that it should be done by Government officials; they point out that a guinea for each taxation, which is the fee now paid, would be quite sufficient to pay the salary of an official in each of the provinces.

If the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) would look at the Bill again he will see that the functions of the Surveyor-General and of the Director of Trigonometrical Survey are quite different. Let him read Clause 3, and then Clause 5.

Look at Clause 3 (1) (h).

It is for the registration of land, while the trigonometrical survey is quite a different thing again. I know Clause 13 was a difficulty. There will be a survey regulation board, and regulations will be framed with my approval. The question of examination is an important one, and I agree with the desirability of having this examination of records, prior to approval of diagrams, as soon as possible. But the Surveyor-General would require a very much larger staff to do this examination at once, and there is the difficulty of meeting the expenditure, which is always mounting up. If I ask my friend, the Minister of Finance, for a few thousands more, he will tell me that I will have to be satisfied with the same money as I have been getting in the past, and if I get more my friend opposite (Mr. Jagger) is upon me. I have not the necessary staff at present to do what is requested, but if nothing untoward happens, I hope that a little later on it may be possible to provide for the extra men required. As to the question of taxation of surveyors’ accounts, that is also a matter for the Regulations Board. Surveyors are themselves represented on that board, and I will see that no injustice is done to them nor anything which is against their interests.