as chairman brought up a special report of the Select Committee on the subject of the Apportionment of Quitrent (Further Amendment) Bill) as follows—

Report considered and adopted.

as chairman, brought up a special report of the Select Committee on the Chartered Accountants Designation (Private) Bill, as follows—

such addition being necessary as Clause One of the Bill, though covered by the published notices of the objects of the Bill, is not covered by the preamble.

Report considered; leave granted to amend preamble in accordance with the report.

announced that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had appointed the following members to serve on the Select Committee on the Iron and Steel Industry Bill, viz.: The Minister of Defence, Mr. G. Brown, Col.-Cdt. Collins, Messrs. Giovanetti, Kentridge, le Roux, Nel, Sir Ernest Oppenheimer, Messrs. Stuttaford, Swart and te Water.

I would like to ask the Minister when are we going to get the Postmaster-General’s report. It was completed in August last.

Will the hon. member address that question to my colleague. I have not got the information.

Can the Prime Minister not put the date a little ahead? It interests the natives very largely.

I quite appreciate that, and that is why I suggested the 14th of March. I am quite prepared to have it postponed later on to a later date.

I move—

It will be sufficient for me to say that this is the usual provision we are asking for the next three months. We hope to have our estimates through by June. This will give supply for three months and under these circumstances I hope the House will agree to the amount asked for. I want to take this opportunity to make a short statement with regard to defective rails at Salt River and East London about which hon. members have questioned me on previous occasions. An order for 200 track miles of sixty section B.S.S. rails was placed with the Forge de la Providence, Belgium, by the High Commissioner in London in June, 1925, after calling for tenders. In January, 1926, an order for a further fifty track miles was placed with the same firm, both being sub-fulfilment of the contract. Tenders were received from Belgian, British and American manufacturers, but the details of the firms that tendered are not available in South Africa. The lowest tenders were from the firm I have just given—£5 7s. f.o.b. per long ton. The price landed here was £6 12s. per ton. The German tenders (adding freight to f.o.b.) were from £7 12s. 6d. to£8 7s. 6d. according to the quantity ordered, and the lowest British tender was £8 4s. 6d. The tender accepted was according to B.S.S. specification. The High Commissioner who had asked for the tenders in the first instance placed the order with this Belgian firm. Unfortunately I have not at the present time available the names of the other tenderers. As the House will know, orders for rails have always been placed by the High Commissioner after asking for tenders. The lowest American tender was for £7 19s., c.i.f. The fact that the rails shipped under these indents, 200 track miles and 50 track miles, were defective, was discovered at Cape Town and East London in October and November last, and arrangements were immediately made for the engineering officers of the Administration to visit the stores depots. The High Commissioner was also advised by cable of the position. The latest information discloses the fact that, while the inspection is not yet complete, of the consignment in question of 24,000rails, 3,355 rails have been rejected out of 12,640. The defects consist principally of cracks and flaws in the crown and flange of the rails. An analysis of the rails has not been made, but samples have been shipped to the High Commissioner for this to be done. I may say that the suppliers of the rails, on their own responsibility, are sending a representative to South Africa to go into the matter. I am afraid I cannot at this, stage carry the matter further, except to say that we hold the substantial amount of £10,500 in war bonds as security against this tender. The cost will be approximately £125,000.

Who passed the rails?

They were passed by an officer of the High Commissioner, who is usually deputed to do that, or a firm who give their services for this purpose.

Have you anything to say about the split rails?

The report of the consulting engineers has not yet been received. When it is received the whole matter will be gone into.

You have received a very important report on them already?

I have received reports by the chief civil engineer and chief mechanical engineer.

Is that available to the House?

I do not think I should do so until the report of the consulting engineers has been received, and some conclusion has been arrived at by the Administration. A decision has not yet been arrived at, and I think we should wait until that has been done.

How much has been paid on account?

I am now referring to the rails which are split. It is alleged that the rails have split as a result of the electric units. With regard to the 23 American locomotives, about which some discussion took place on a previous occasion, I wish to inform the House that we find, as the result of close examination of the whole matter, that the position is not as serious as we anticipated. I am glad to say that the trouble has been located. It has been found that the castings of these engines were not satisfactory; and in some cases were broken when the engines were received. It will cost, I am informed by the chief mechanical engineer, in the neighbourhood of £100 per engine to put in the best castings, and some of these engines have already been adjusted and are back in service, and are giving every satisfaction. The American Locomotive Company admit their responsibility, and will make good the cost of these extra castings.

I think when the Minister moves for a large vote of £9,000,000 on account, and we know from the estimates that the expenses are to be greatly increased during the coming year, we are entitled to have a little information on the matter. The only information the Minister has deigned to give us is with regard to questions which have been put—with regard to the rails at Salt River and Natal, and the American engines. Not a word is said about the coming expenditure.

Surely you do not expect me to disclose my Budget statement now?

In the past, when the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) was Minister of Railways and Harbours, we had a full statement on every occasion. I think it is due to the country at least that we should know something about the position. The country ought to be told something with regard to the present position. Let us go back to the year 1924 when the present Minister took over, when the earnings were £24,885,220 and the expenditure was £24,120,061. In 1925-’26 the earnings were £27,780,048 and the expenditure £27,010,357. There were increased earnings of £2,894,828, but an increased expenditure of £2,890,196. It is quite true, and we admit, that on the items of increased expenditure were included Betterment Fund, £250,000, contributions to deficiency in pensions and super-annuations £262,000. and reduction of interest-bearing capital £250,000. Even if we make provision for these items the Estimates show an increase in revenue of .15 per cent., and in expenditure of 4.08 per cent. Let us take the financial year 1926-’27. The expenditure on railways was £25,799,254. harbours £1,281,307, steamships £230.011. Added to that is the additional nett appropriation of £876,134, making a total of £28,186,706. According to the latest “Bulletin,”, the official organ of the Railway Department, November showed a deficit of £315,111. This deficit is without, in any way, taking into consideration the expenditure in respect to the items previously mentioned—betterment, reduction interest-bearing capital or pensions and superannuation funds—and we find that while the earnings increased by .076 per cent., the expenditure increased by 3.77 per cent. The Minister told us that he hopes to have a balance by the end of the year, and that in December there was a very large surplus. Turning, however, to the “Bulletin,” we find that this surplus is likely to be mythical, as for the four weeks ended January 15th, which included part of the heavy December traffic, the increase over the corresponding period of the previous twelve months was only £4,235, and the note to the report reads—

What abnormal increase in traffic will the Minister he able to expect for December, January, February and March? We have yet two and a half months’ returns to come. Certainly there is not going to be a very great improvement in goods traffic, and December is the heaviest month in the year for passenger traffic. Where does the Minister expect to get his abnormal increase from? Perhaps he is going to include in his profits the sum which he is likely to obtain from the Electricity Commission, but that cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be considered as profit; and how can it be classed as increased traffic? If he takes that into consideration it would be on a par with his method of calculation as disclosed by a note of his in which he claims that special contributions towards assets written out of capital account for one year represents a saving in working expenses in another year, even though there are no further assets to be written off; or that the promised annual contributions towards Rates Equalization Fund, if not paid in that year, is a saving in working expenses for that year. Let us take the Estimates for the coming year. The railway expenditure is estimated at £27,194,312, harbours £1,359,130, and steamships £174,953, total £28,728,395, or if we do not include the extra million which I am pretty certain will be asked for before the end of the financial year, then there will be an increase in expenditure of £541,589. But here again we must remember that the increased expenditure this year is without taking account of two large sums included in last year’s Estimates—assets written off £292,662, and contribution to rates equalization £450,000. If these are taken into account the actual increase will be £1,284,257, or, if we take into consideration the million which is very likely to be asked for, there will be an increased expenditure on the railways for the coming year of £2,250,000. In other words, in the three years since the Minister has been in charge of railways and harbours the expenditure has increased by£6,500,000, and with the added appropriation I of a million, which will be asked for as surely as the sun rises, the expenditure will have grown by £7,500,000; or at the rate of just on £2,000,000 a year. The Minister glories in telling us, when we call attention to the increased expenditure—

Well, I have considered these and find, in 1923, the open mileage was 11,113, and, in 1926, 12,052, so, whereas the mileage has increased by 10 per cent., the expenditure has increased by more than 33 per cent. What hope is there, under these circumstances, of our obtaining even a reasonable reduction in rates and fares? During the past three years, while income has gone up by over £7,000,000, rates and fares have been reduced by only £1,000,000, whereas, under the previous Government, although the income was actually decreasing, the rates and fares were reduced by over £4,000,000. Undoubtedly high rates do restrict production, and particularly in a country like this, where we have vast distances, and where the cost of transport plays a very important part in the development of the country, it is a matter of very great importance that rates and fares should be reduced wherever possible. This point was very greatly stressed by the general manager in his evidence before the Economic Commission, when he said that in a country like this, unless we can reduce rates to the lowest possible level, we cannot possibly hope to expand. Let us take the position from a purely railway point of view It is better to have a large tonnage of traffic at a low tariff than to deal with small business at high rates. On the former basis the country will develop, and there will be an increase in the spending power of the people; people will prosper and, indirectly, the railways must benefit. A reduction of rates, however, is only possible if we run the railways on economic lines. Besides reducing rates and developing the country, we must remember that by carrying traffic at a lower rate, agricultural interests and industries generally alone have any hope of advancing. It is no good to establish these industries and then to have them find that they are not able to send their goods to the markets. We must give our industries increased facilities, not through the customs, but by means of cheaper railway transport. We should also have cheap suburban transport. That will enable the people to spread out, and, by that means, we shall do more to avert the growing slum menace than by any other. It will also tend to cheapen the cost of living and improve public health. We are told that a large sum of something like £50,000 a year is spent on local allowances at Durban alone, and the reason given is that this amount has to be spent annually, as the people must live in the borough, and rents are high. If the people had cheap transport, they could live outside, and it would save the department at least this sum of money at Durban alone. Millions are spent to keep people on the land, hut we are also, by high rates, keeping their products on the land. Our first aim should be to see that they are reasonably able to send their products to the nearest market. We are putting on the people a burden of taxation which I am certain, if the items had been considered in the House, would never have been passed. The people in the inland provinces are taxed by the railway rates to the extent of 42 per cent. for groceries, 54 per cent. for sugar, 48 per cent. for drapery, 84 per cent. for wool, 27 to 42 per cent. for coal, and 50 per cent. for maize above the figures for 1914. They are burdens laid on the people without the House having a single word to say in regard to their imposition. Take boots; we have a swinging import duty on boots, but I find the railway has put on another duty of 81 per cent., by means of rates, a matter which would never have been agreed to by the House. Take passenger fares. There is a burden of additional taxation of from 10 to 30 per cent. above 1914. For the coming year, without any additional appropriation, the expenses are £379,832 above the highest year we have ever had in South Africa, and that Highest year was at a time when everything was against us, when the aftermath of war was having its fullest effect; when the eight-hour day about which so great a song and so many promises were made by the Pact was in full working order. And this is the Government which, when in opposition, so vehemently upheld economy. Either they have forgotten their pledges, or they have proved themselves unable to redeem them. They have failed to check the growth of expenditure, and have put policies before us that must act detrimentally to the interests of the people of this country. It is interesting to note that whilst the increased expenditure for the whole of the service is £541,589, the increased cost to the service, by Way of wages and salaries, is £771,253, or £129,664 more than the whole of the increased vote. Take salaries and wages. The figures were in 1923-’24, £12,545,614; 1924-’25, £13,204,493; 1925-’26, £14,664,146. For 1926-’27, it was estimated that wages and salaries would be £14,654,137, but we find for the nine months past they have already spent under these heads £11,661,019, which means the estimated amount for the nine months is exceeded by £670,417, of an excess for the year of £813,021. The staff has increased, 1923-’24, 86,181; 1924-’25, 89,757; 1925-’26, 95,527; and if we take those upon the open mileage of railway, we find the increase is from 6.3 in 1924 to 6.8 in 1926. This year provision is made for a further increase of 2,921 persons on the railways alone. In the general manager’s department the increase is 95, maintenance 909, running staff 545, traffic by 521, and in the civil engineer’s department there is a decrease of six. That seems very strange if we remember the construction and development going on in the country. We find that the civil engineer’s staff is busy with the construction of 15 lines of railways, the building of seven bridges, the carrying out of harbour extension in every port of the Union—they have taken over the construction of the grain elevators and completing the grain elevator at Durban, and they have taken over the electrification of the suburban line; no mean programme, yet the technical staff is reduced. Although it shows they have a tremendous amount of increased work, the department is able to reduce the staff by six. This is as it should be it at lesser staff is able to do the work satisfactorily; but we are faced with this position, that one branch with increased Work carries on most successfully with reduced staff, while another branch, also carrying on successfully no doubt, but increases staff when increased cost is out of all proportion to increased eanings, and that notwithstanding that the general manager, in his evidence before the Economic Commission, claimed that if there is decreased traffic you are not always able to decrease the staff in proportion. We find here that whereas there is increased traffic, the staff is increasing out of all proportion, and surely there must be some grave cause for that. I think the cause is our new policy of civilized labour. Take the permanent way. A sum of £128,323 less is to be spent, and we are told the reason is because there is less provision necessary for sleepers, rails and ballast. If this is so, the Minister might explain why he found it necessary to enter into a contract for an extra 1,000,000 sleepers per annum for a period over ten years. It is true the contract failed, but that is not to the credit of the Government. We have had no adequate explanation for this extraordinary action. They entered into a contract which seemed very stranger, seeing at the time they had an expert of their own able to carry out the purchasing of all their requirements in the Argentine who could do the purchasing of these sleepers without the further cost of third party profits. Yet they entered into a contract for the supply of these sleepers, and the Minister, on being asked for an explanation, tells us as much as he wants and nothing more. It is his duty to give a full and frank statement of the reasons which prompted him to enter into a contract doomed to failure from the beginning. We have the matter of the defective rails in Natal. The Minister has given some explanation of the rails lying at Salt River, but as regards Natal the matter is very different. I have been told —I may be wrong—that the report from Merz and McLellan has actually arrived in this country. It is a report in reply to the report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the position of these fails. I say that if this report of Merz and McLellan is here, we are entitled to have it. If that report is not here, we are still entitled to have what the commission have to say to the Minister. We should not be required to wait until all parties have decided what the position is, and the Minister has decided how much of that information he is going to give us. We should be told what our experts find in regard to these rails. A very serious position has arisen here, and I do feel that the country should be taken into the Minister’s confidence now and be told exactly what the cause of all this trouble in Natal is. We have already paid for the electrification of the Natal line—besides for work incidental to electrification and vast amounts for engines—no less than £1,068,344 in excess of the original estimate, and we are asked this year for a further sum of £100,000.When we are asked to vote such enormous sums, we are entitled to, and we should have, the fullest possible information on every point asked for. I wish to congratulate the Minister on one point. We had no opportunity of discussing that very long and important report made to us last year on the electrification of railways an Natal, but I am glad to see that the Minister has accepted at least one of the recommendations of that committee, and that is that the suburban line is managed and worked by his own departmental officials. We have some of the finest engineers in the world, they are able to do this work, they have taken over the grain elevator work very satisfactorily, they have, by their advice, enabled many difficulties to be remedied on the Natal line, and now that they have taken charge of this line here I am certain that we are going to have a better finished proposition than we would have had if it had been left to advisers from overseas. In regard to this matter of steel, it seems to me that the position of this country is—

We know, and I think most people who know anything about steel work know, that the only real sound market is that of Great Britain. We have had experience from other parts of the world, and we have never yet been successful. We have had a striking report in regard to files made from British steel, showing that the supply of files had to be stopped because all the steel available was used and the Continental steel was valueless. When you find that Continental steel is not good enough for files, then to the layman it seems strange that we should go to the Continent to buy our rails, an article which is subjected to a very much greater test in its use than a mere file. We have also had the painful position in regard to the engines. The Minister explains that the engines are now entirely satisfactory. I feel with the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), when he stated the other day that we have had sufficient experience in the past to prevent our going outside Great Britain for steam engines in future, except there is an enormous difference in the cost. In 1911 several steam engines were imported from America. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) told us that they had had the experience of these engines, and he would not order any more from America. All that information must have been before the present Minister of Railways when these last engines were ordered. I find that out of seven engines which were converted between 1923 and 1925, and converted so as to make them of value to the Administration, one engine was able to carry on for two years and nine months only, doing less than 50 per cent. of the usual mileage; another for one year eight months, again doing far less than 50 per cent. of requirements; another one year two months, doing about 20 per cent. less; another one year, doing about 40 per cent.; another ten months, doing about one-quarter of requirements, and so forth. Take one particular engine; it underwent heavy repairs in October, 1925, and within three months it was again necessary to send it to the workshops for further heavy repairs. In face of this record in regard to American-steam engines, the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) decided that there should be no more American engines for our railways. The present Minister must have had the same information. As a matter of fact, he has had three years longer to consider the matter, and yet he lays aside all the firms that had successfully and faithfully contracted for us in the past, and goes back to America to get some of the same sort of engines which we had before, and which proved most expensive. It is the inevitable position that the first cost is perhaps the least cost, that extensive and costly repairs are to be faced, that loss of traffic occurs, and that expenses are out of all proportion to income. I think the Minister had had all the previous experience required, and he must take the blame for all that has happened in regard to these engines. The point I particularly wish to make is that the vast increase of expenditure is mainly due to the present policy of civilized labour advocated by the Minister. We had a departmental commission a little while ago. Last year the Minister promised us that this departmental commission would go fully into the whole matter of civilized labour. The commission sat during the recess. The Minister has laid on the Table only a part of the report, the part dealing with juveniles, which is of no real value to us. We want the other part of the report. Let us consider the position. In March, 1926, according to the Auditor-General’s report, 10,161 of these civilized labourers were employed, of whom 2,856 were youths, as compared with 7,484 labourers, of whom 2,181 were youths at March 31st, 1925. The cost in wages and local allowance in 1924-’25 was £535,697, and in 1925-’26 £905,157. The additional cost of the policy of the Administration from its inception, in June, 1924, to March, 1925, was £39,281, and it is estimated that since then the additional cost is at the rate of £191,000 for the financial year 1925-’26. Besides the actual wages, the Government has had to expend large sums on the erection of quarters for European labourers, and up to last year the expenditure on this account was £270,799. We are waiting for that promised report. I would be very glad to see what that report is, because, no doubt, the officials have gone into the matter very carefully, and I would like to see wherein they differ from what was said in 1926. The Minister tells us that they are absolutely at one with him, and that they say that the work is more efficient and cheaper. Let me tell the Minister what some of his officials said as stated in evidence before the select committee last year. One said—

Another said—

and that is very important, because in a country like this, where it is becoming the habit to find jobs for pals, this should be carefully considered—

Take the views of another official—

This officer added—

Then another said—

I find it very difficult to understand how the Minister can claim that these men are supporting him, or how they could tell him that they are not only getting more intelligent work, but that it is more economical. Here is another opinion—

Here is another—

I will quote one more—

[Time limit.]

The Auditor-General in his report for 1924-’25 drew the attention of Parliament to what appeared to him to be a waste of public money in connection with the electrification of a portion of the main line in Natal. As a result of that the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours sat practically the whole of last session making a very close investigation into the whole matter, and their report was only presented to the House just at the end of the session, so that there has been no opportunity until to-day to discuss the report in this House. It runs, I may say, into something like 700 pages; over 4,000 questions were asked and answered, and it is extremely unlikely that there are many members who have had the time or inclination to read it through. I feel, however, that it would be a great mistake on the part of this House and not in the interests of public efficiency if they were to pass over so important a report without even a passing reference. That there has been blundering is beyond all doubt, and that money has been uselessly wasted is proved beyond all question. Among those not acquainted with the facts there are many who are inclined to attach the blame for this to the late Government. There are others also not cognizant of the whole story who are under the impression that the present Government are responsible for the mistakes that were made. As a matter of fact the evidence makes it clear that no responsibility can be attached to either the late or present Governments. But at the risk of wearying the House I think it is necessary to go briefly into the history of the events which led up to the decision to electrify a portion of the main line in Natal. In point of mileage Natal has less mileage than any province in the Union. She has not had a single yard of branch line added to her system since she went into Union, with the sole exception of the short branch line Dalton to Fawn Leas, and she is the only province in the Union which has not had that. If there have been other additions they have been so small that they have escaped my observation. In addition to this Natal has always been subjected to the effect of the flat rate system, and the result of that is that a good deal of traffic which would otherwise follow its natural course and pass over the Natal lines, is diverted elsewhere. Further, it is notorious that she has been subjected to a shortage of trucks for years, which has very materially handicapped her in the development of her mines and has reduced the output of coal. Notwithstanding these disabilities—and they are not the only ones because she is not even represented on the Railway Board and has very meagre representation in the Government—Natal carries over her short lines a tonnage which is from 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. of the total tonnage drawn by the whole of the railways in South Africa. Now that is a very remarkable thing. Over that system she is responsible for handling the in and out tonnage from the harbour of Durban, which is equal to, and sometimes exceeds, the total tonnage of all other ports put together. It is still more remarkable that notwithstanding the disabilities under which the system has been worked the tonnage over the Natal railways has doubled itself every ten years. It was that fact which induced the Government of the day to come to their decision that something should be done to prevent what was likely to be a complete breakdown. It was useless waiting until the crisis arrived, and so about ten years ago the Government of the day took into consultation their experts and advisers and discussed the question of increasing the carrying capacity of the Natal railways. Now how was it to be done, and what was the best way to set about it? Certain advisers said that the best way of putting Natal in a safe position was to double the main line right through. Others again said that similar results could be obtained by electrification and that with this system there would also be a considerable constant reduction in running costs. I may say in passing that public opinion supported the view which went in the direction of doubling the main line, but public opinion is not always to be depended upon. We know how wrong it went at the last general election. So the matter was referred to experts, and I believe the late Government selected the most experienced men they could get at the time. And so it came about that in 1917 Merz and McLellan were appointed to report on the electrification of suitable sections of the South African railways. In 1920 Merz and McLellan’s proposals as set out in their report were accepted in principle by the Government and plans were provided for the electrification of the Durban to Maritzburg main line, commencing at the Durban end, and the Cape Town to Simons Town suburban line. It became then necessary to consider the question of appointing consulting engineers, and the advisory engineers, Merz and McLellan, were appointed consulting engineers. In 1921 it was decided to electrify the Maritzburg-Glencoe section instead of the two sections advised by Merz and McLellan. Now how did this fundamental change come about? Fortunately at that time we had a wise and most far-seeing Minister of Railways, and it was his personal intervention that saved this country deliberately wasting over a million of money. It is all very well, of course, to stand up here and make assertions, but it is necessary that assertions made should be proved. The experts had advised us to electrify the line from Durban to Maritzburg, and that would have gone on but as I say for the personal intervention of the then Minister of Railways and Harbours (Mr. Jagger). Before the contract was signed, he went to Durban and saw that the line from Maritzburg to Durban was down grade. Further, that approximately for every ton that goes uphill nearly five tons go down. It is chiefly an export, down traffic trade. A few miles outside Pietermaritzburg is Cato Ridge and from there you can almost give a train a kick off, and it will coast down to Durban on its brakes. This section was also in process of being doubled, and actually the country was being advized by the experts to spend something like three millions on electrifying a line on which the traffic could go down on its brakes. The Minister (Mr. Jagger), quite rightly, said this was a preposterous suggestion, and that the expenditure could never be justified. He asked, how was it going to increase the carrying capacity of the Natal main line, when the carrying capacity is always governed by the amount of tonnage you can pass along any single line section. Even to-day, where you have single line sections between the double line sections we are losing something like 60 train hours a day, caused by trains waiting on sidings for other trains to pass. The consulting engineers did not attempt to justify their original proposal, and said they would undertake to give all the results to be gained by doubling the whole track if allowed to put in an estimate for electrifying the line from Glencoe Junction to Maritzburg, commencing at the Glencoe end. On this estimate the Government in 1921 decided to electrify this section between Glencoe and Maritzburg, instead of the two sections I have already discussed, and Messrs. Merz & McLellan sent to South Africa Mr. C. H. Lydall, who remained in charge until the completion of the work. In 1921 the Chief Civil Engineer, Mr. Wallace, was instructed by the general manager to arrange his staff and to supervize the work; he appointed as resident engineer Mr. Moyers. In May, 1922, Mr. Lydall submitted to the general manager a list of the staff that he would require, and at this stage the general manager seems to have changed his mind, and instead of placing the supervizing engineers under our own resident engineer, he decided they should be placed under the consulting engineer’s staff. This is a very highly technical matter, and one would have thought that in coming to a very grave, drastic and fundamental change in respect of the overseeing and controlling of this work, the Chief Civil Engineer would have been taken into consultation, but he knew nothing whatever about the change of control until two months after he had ordered Mr. Moyers to take charge. In 1921 a paper UG47 was placed before Parliament—the estimate prepared by Messrs. Merz & McLellan, and asking for an authorization of £3,318,990. In September, 1922, Messrs. Merz & McLellan reduced their original estimate to £3,299,052. Both these estimates subsequently proved to be very wide of the mark, for in September, 1924, our own engineers submitted an estimate to Parliament showing an increase, and they submitted an estimate of £3,819,791, and subsequently one for £3,852,334. In 1925 the Estimates were again revised, and an explanation again submitted to Parliament, and, as a result of these constant increases of expenditure, the Auditor-General drew the attention of Parliament to what appeared to him to be a waste of public money. Certain definite facts were established, and one fact was that a good deal of the confusion and loss of public money was the result of this dual control by having our engineers and the consulting engineers as independent factors. It led to friction, which lasted right through. The engineers before the committee were asked definitely to state what they considered was the actual wastage of public money, the result of the friction which had occurred, or to there being no supervision, and they stated that the country had lost no less than £237,600, which they regarded as money which could easily have been saved. It is true the consulting engineers contested those figures, but they have not brought forward in the time at their disposal one tittle of evidence to prove that those figures were wrong. That the figures were right is quite easily proved by the work carried out by our own engineers in doing exactly similar work without the control and advice of the consulting engineers. There is a three-fold duty imposed on me. I think one has to satisfy this House that the Auditor-General was right in supposing that there had been a waste of public money, and one has to satisfy the House that notwithstanding the vast expenditure, totalling nearly £6,000,000, the country has not got what it is paying for. Lastly, that, notwithstanding this tremendous expenditure, there is still no finality to-day as regards this scheme, nor is finality going to be reached until a yet greater cost has been incurred which a more reasonable and far-sighted policy would have adopted at the time. One has to point one’s finger in the right direction for the blunder which has been committed, and one must see to it that innocent persons should not be blamed. The outstanding evidence to which I think the attention of the House ought to be drawn is that in the white paper, U.G. 47—’21, in which the following words appear—

These are the words of the consulting engineers supported by the general manager, which decided Parliament to go in for electrification. As a matter of fact, it has cost £5,535,291 to give us with great difficulty a daily average of 25,000 tons. The Minister will say that they have run 27,500 tons a day. It is true that has been done with a supreme effort, but immediately after one of these efforts I have noticed the daily tonnage has fallen tremendously. For instance, I noticed it fell to 18,000 tons a day for some days afterwards. 25,000 tons were actually hauled by steam engines before we spent a shilling on electrifying the line. This is the thing which has shaken the country. The traffic on the Natal line is doubling itself every ten years. We have already reached the 30,000 mark, and to get the other 5,000 it will cost probably four or five hundred thousand pounds to increase the plant at Colenso, while there will have to be considerably increased expenditure on rolling stock, so that the total cost of electrification will be round the £6,000,000 mark. All along the line during the construction period the Administration’s engineers protested that money was being wasted, but their protest, unfortunately, always fell on deaf ears. They proved that money could be saved very materially in the building of the foundation of the masts, a very big item, and that money could be saved by using old railway rails in places instead of the very expensive imported masts, but they could not get the consulting engineers to take the slightest interest in their experiments. At last they forced the consulting engineers to suggest some form of test strain to which the masts could be subjected, and the consulting engineers suggested a strain which would have bent their own masts double. Again our engineers protested vehemently against stone being brought down from Johannesburg for concrete work when there were ample supplies of stone along the line, but no notice was taken and money was poured out like water. I give the comparative costs of that section of the line constructed by our own engineers compared with similar work on the mam line carried out by the contractors as an illustration. The section constructed by our own engineers was from Maritzburg to Masons Mill. As a matter of form the consulting engineers were asked to give an estimate of the cost, and they estimated that the overhead gear, wirework and labour would cost £32,543. Our own engineers actually did that work for £24,000. For supervision and interest on capital expenditure the overseas contractors were paid £77 per mile, while the cost when the work was done by our own engineers was only £45 per mile. The expenditure on line was £594 per mile when the work was done by the contractors, against £342 per mile when the work was carried out by our own engineers. It is to be wondered at that the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours, in its report presented last year, said—

Now, if the select committee’s report has done nothing else it has saved the Cape Town-Simonstown line from suffering in the manner of Natal. It is a sad story and is not yet over, for it continues right up to this very day when we are finding that the estimated and promised saving in working and running expenses bear no relation whatever to what is actually the case. The causes are: (1) A faulty agreement; (2) dual control; (3) overlapping, and (4) underestimating in both time and money. Now a final word as to the responsibility, and this is a phase of the problem that cannot be shirked. I am not one of those prepared to point the finger of conviction at any one person and say—

Least of all am I prepared to lay the whole responsibility on the shoulders of a great public official of herculean strength and of outstanding mental attainments, who has served his country with such outstanding results as has the general manager of railways—but one cannot absolve the consulting engineers, who were paid a great fee, from their share of the responsibility and, with evidence before me, I let it go at that. But if it is admitted that I have proved my case, and that (1) there has been a waste of public money, (2) that in spite of this vast expenditure we have not got what we paid for, (3) and that finality of expenditure has by no means yet been reached. Then the real cause for this lies upon no one in particular, but on the shoulders of the country as a whole. It’s the system which we are following, an artificial, threadbare, obsolete system which is at fault. We are running our railways, one of the largest single system railways in the world—95,277 employees (excluding steamships) whose wages are 14 millions—on exactly the same lines as we ran single track lines when first laid down in South Africa, and we are throwing upon the shoulders—broad shoulders admittedly—of one man the sole responsibility of managing and controlling our railways in every possible and impossible detail, unassisted by anyone of equal or even approachingly equal authority. If a party of American tourists comes to the country, it’s the general manager who personally meets them, arranges their tour and sees them comfortably tucked in. If the cooking is bad on the refreshment cars it’s the general manager who has to put it right. If a tremendous contract involving an immense amount of highly technical knowledge has to be entered into, it’s the general manager, not even assisted by his chief civil engineer, who has to draw it up and see to its carrying out. It is he who appoints and controls 95,277 employees with wages of £14,000,000 per annum. It is true that there are four so-called assistant general managers, but nothing is more misleading than their title. They are divisional superintendents pure and simple, and have not even authority to spend as much as £100 in any very necessary and urgent local work without consulting the general manager. And so it goes on right through the system. The whole responsibility and labour are thrown on the shoulders of one man. No other railway man in the world to-day is carrying such a burden. And if this system, or really utter lack of system, is to continue, just so long must the country expect to experience such shocks as it unquestionably has experienced in connection with the electrification of the railways in Natal.

I hope that very considerable reorganization in the management of the railways will take place. The accounting work and control of expenditure should be taken out of the hands of the general manager, for that and the general management are more than one human being can attend to. There is no question that we have spent far more money than we estimated to have to do in electrifying the Natal line. Why not have an inquiry into the whole matter, and put the blame where it should rightly be placed? I have my own idea where the blame lies, but now is not the time to mention it. I certainly think it is due to Parliament, which sanctioned that enormous expenditure, that some very full inquiry should be made by technical men. The Railway Select Committee have made a very careful inquiry, but the members of that committee are not technical men. We should have a technical committee, similar to the one which inquired into the Durban grain elevator. I think the Minister of Railways should have made some explanation this afternoon as to the financial position.

I made that on the Additional Estimates.

The Minister will recollect that the latest figures we had before us were up to the end of November, and they showed a deficit of £315,000, but he now tells us that he expects to balance his accounts at the end of the year. Well, now, we have got almost to the end of the year. It is only three weeks off. I will admit at the end of December the deficit had been decreased by £162,000, but I don’t know where he will get his balance from. He assured the House that notwithstanding he had such an enormous amount to make up, that he hoped to balance at the end of March. That is a bit of a mystery which most of us cannot get to the bottom of. How is he going to make up in three weeks the £153,000 he was behind and the extra sum of £800,000 he asked for in the additional estimates? Perhaps he will give us the information before we pass the second reading of this Bill. The Minister is asking for a grant on account partly for working, and partly for loan account, of nine millions of money, and he laid on the Table the other day estimates for the coming year amounting to £28,728,000, an increase of £651,000 on the previous year. The pity of it is this does not really show the true state of affairs. On his ordinary working, quoting his own figures, there is an increase of £1,525,000. The running expenses increased £445,000 over last year. The increase on maintenance and rolling stock was £179,000, and traffic expenses £241,000. Of course, there are certain savings in the direction of exceptional items, amounting to a total £897,000, by which means he gets his total increase of £651,000. I don’t think the figures represent the real position of the railways, and this excessive increase of £1,500,000 is alarming, especially when one observes it is in identically the same items last year in which there was an increase of over £800,000. Not only is there a big increase now in certain items given on page 5, general charges, maintenance, the permanent way, rolling stock, etc., in which there is an increase of £825,000, but last year it was £1,300,000 on the same items. I do not know when you will get to the end of this large increase. One can only conclude that the expense of running the railways is increasing to an alarming extent. One explanation is the very large increase in the mileage run. Last year my friend asked for a large increase in his estimate, because he expected to run three million additional train miles. Well, at the end of December for nine months of the year, there was a decrease of £25,000 in receipts. Notwithstanding that fact, we were asked to sanction and pass the increased estimates last year on the grounds of increased train mileage. Yet at the end of the chapter, judged by L.S.D., there was a decrease in receipts of £25,000 in the nine months of the year. It makes one a trifle dubious. I do not doubt the honesty of my hon. friend, but I think he is too sanguine and will not get what he expects. He has developed largely the road motor service, and he increases the estimate of expenditure by £128,000 to £196,000. I do not question that. I am not against it, I think it will help the country. But there is one thing I would like to mention, and that is the road service from Sea Point to Clifton, on which there is a loss.

It has been taken over.

How has he managed with regard to the roads with these motor services? When I was in office it was always put up to me that the roads were too bad and would not stand the traffic; I think we contributed to maintain the road from But River to Hermanus. Is my hon. friend doing the same now?

I am not.

Then it is a mystery how he gets over the road difficulty. A more serious matter is the large number of accidents taking place at the present moment. In the Free State last week there was an accident in which two officials of the department lost their lives. Last year there were eight serious accidents put down on the paper laid before the House, in which 22 Europeans lost their lives, and besides that, 530 minor accidents. I don’t think I exaggerate when I say that some uneasiness is coming over people who travel. Might I venture to say, for his information, that rumours are abroad that some of these accidents are put down to the fact there is not the same discipline in the service as there was previously? I give that for his information, and he can make inquiries. Why will he not publish the branch lines’ reports? When I was in office I took care they were published each month, and they are very useful. They indicate what class of country is the best paying to the railway, whether agricultural, grain growing, or purely pastoral country. It is the information you can get from these reports. Nothing surprised me more than when I saw the information regarding the line from Kraaifontein up to Klaver It pays better than one expected when it was constructed. I am at a loss to know why the Minister refuses this information, because it is also a fair indication of what the production of the country is over which the line passes. There is another point, and that is this. Last year, against strong opposition, he passed the Fruit Shipment Control Bill. I will not say anything as regards the management of the commission he appointed, but I want to grumble at the cost of this control. My manager got the information in a circular that between the sailing of two Union Castle boats the rates for hard fruit would be 85s., and you pay the Union Castle Company for that 60s. For soft fruit it is to be 90s., and you pay 65s. In each case the advance is 25s. I think that is a bit expensive. It is what we pay to have the privilege of the Government managing our affairs. To my mind it is a bit tall that we should pay 33⅓ per cent. more for the shipment of our fruit because the Government have control. After the 1st April we are going to get it cheaper, but at the present time, during the heavy shipment of grapes, we shall have to pay 90s., and I don’t know how people are going to make it pay. They will only pay the shipping companies 65s., so that they make 25s. a ton on every ton shipped. This is one of the fruits of Government management. We send out stuff to the ship, and they take charge. I want to ship to Southampton, but if it does not suit them it goes to London or Liverpool, and I have the privilege of paying 90s. for the shipping of it.

I am sorry to hear the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) making an attack on the railwaymen, because he practically charged them as being largely responsible for the accidents.

No.

The hon. member said that the accidents were due to lack of discipline. This charge which has been made of slackness on the part of railwaymen is, I maintain, not true. I would like the Minister to take into consideration a matter which I have been asked by the farmers to bring under his notice. The time has come when rates should be reduced. The farmers are suffering to a large extent from these high rates. I know we shall be told that we cannot reduce rates and put up wages. In the Free State it is considered by all parties that the rates are too high, and they are pressing on the farmers, I do not know whether the Government has worked out the position of the farmer in South Africa. I have, and I have come to the conclusion, reluctantly, that taking the country right through, the farmer is not making more than £100 a year, that is, taking rich and poor. We are told that farming is the main industry of the country, whereas, taking the farmer right through, you will find that he is the lowest paid white man in the country. I do hope that the Minister will go into this question very seriously to see whether he can do something to reduce these rates. Recently Sir Lionel Phillips, speaking at a meeting of the 1820 Memorial Settlers’ Association in Johannesburg, made the statement that the reason why we had such high rates in South Africa could be blamed entirely on the South African party. When the hon. member (Mr. Jagger) quotes these figures, he forgets to tell us that he put these taxes on. The Government of the day has given about £500,000 relief in rates. The time has come for the Government to tackle this question and tackle it seriously, because we people who live up-country are the people who really pay the rates. Another matter I would ask the Government to take into consideration is the reduction of passenger fares. The Minister will find that, if he reduces the fares, more people will travel, and in the end he will make more money. You should make it as cheap as possible for people to travel in South Africa. The fares to-day are too high. It is almost prohibitive for a man to come with his wife and family from Kimberley or the Free State to the Cape coast. Specially cheap fares ought to be offered to working men in Cape Town to go to Muizenberg with their wives and families. I hope that the Minister, now that he has had experience, will take into consideration where he buys his railway material in future. The lowest price material in the end is not always the cheapest, as he will find out, and as he is finding out. The South African party set that bad example of going outside Great Britain and buying in America.

We imported American engines during the war.

Oh, no; before then.

The big lot that we got from America we got during the war time.

The South African party set that example of going outside Great Britain. For years and years South Africa bought in England. It has got to be proved that better railway material is made outside England than is made in England. Up to now our experience has not been too good. There is another point we have to take into consideration, and I am speaking now of the farmers. We are selling our stuff, not to America, but to England. If you are going to bar people who are buying our stuff, they are going to bar you.

Rubbish.

My hon. friend says “rubbish.” He never produced a cabbage in his life. I am talking about the people who are producing this stuff. If you are going to sell your stuff to people and not buy back from them, you are making a mistake. A tariff wall will be raised in England against us one day. I want to congratulate the Minister on his road motor transport system. Although it has only been running two or three months in my constituency, this service has already done an enormous amount of good there. It is opening up large portions of the Free State, and I hope the Minister will continue with the policy which, he has undertaken. I also want to congratulate the Minister and the Government on the change which has come over the advertising in England in regard to settlement. I think the advertisements put out in England by the publicity department of the railways are equal to anything done by the dominions. These advertisements are attracting numbers of tourists to South Africa, but when the tourists come here they find that, with the exception of one or two hotels, we have probably the worst hotels in the world. I hope the Government will take into consideration the building of a big hotel here.

The hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) has been holding forth about the enormous expense in connection with the electrification in Natal, but the real scapegoat is just going out of the House now.

I can stand for it, don’t you worry.

The House and the country will remember that when this scheme was first mooted by the late Government, the scheme drawn up was to electrify from Durban to Maritzburg, and then to double the line under steam traction further up north, but when the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) became Minister of Railways he disapproved of the whole electrification of the railways, but afterwards, when he found it did not suit the policy of his party, instead of going on with the original scheme, which was thoroughly worked out by the consulting engineers, he switched off and said—

Then the consulting engineers had to draw up estimates for this large work; I believe they only had four months in which to do it. If the hon. member had not done that, you would have found that the electrification in Natal would have cost far less, and would have been more satisfactory than it is to-day. The chief engineer said that the plans were not properly drawn up, and all that added to the expense. So that it does not come very well from that side of the House when they get up and complain of the expense of the electrification of the Natal line. Personally, I think we have made a good investment from the country’s point of view. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) talks about accidents. I am surprised, because when he was Minister of Railways he went economy mad, and a great deal of the main line was probably neglected. I was told the other day that the line from the Orange River to this side of De Aar some years ago was in a very serious state, and that it was a wonder that more accidents did not occur. To insinuate now that it is through Government neglect that there are accidents, is, I think, really a case of chickens coming home to roost; we are paying the penalty for the hon. member’s neglect of his duty as Minister. With regard to the branch lines, the statistics are not founded on fact, but as nearly as possible on guesswork. How can you estimate what the revenue of a branch line is going to be? Take the new line from Belmont, the extension to Douglas. Of course it did not pay because there were very few people there, but what has happened since it was built? They have discovered a manganese deposit, and the result will be that in a few years’ time this line, now run at a loss, will probably be one of the best paying lines within the country. The statistics are only founded on surmise. The debits and credits in regard to the branch lines are also made up by mere guesswork. Therefore, I think the Administration would be well-advised in future to cut out all these enormous statistics which are of no use for information and only cost the country £12,000. The hon. member mentioned about the discipline of the railway employees. I have travelled a good deal, but I have never seen any lack of discipline. But there is one thing I will tell him, and that is that we have now a contented railway service, more contented than they have ever been before. I want to ask the Administration why they do not take the bull by the horns and stop this railway line to Sea Point. It is one of the biggest farces imaginable, and an eyesore. If they were to stop that, and improve the esplanade it would be very much better. They should introduce a system of motor-buses, which I think would be far more profitable. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) has been talking about buying in England and in America. In 1911 the South African party Government bought a lot of American engines. You know what happened in regard to the electric engines. We were supposed to be buying them in England, but they were made in Switzerland and Germany. It is no use talking about England retaliating by not buying from us. England only buys our mealies because she wants them. She does not buy them out of charity. I say that we must buy from England when everything is fairly equal. All things being equal, I would give England the preference. The threat the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) made cuts no ice. We must buy our material in the cheapest market and sell in the dearest.

I must congratulate the hon. member who has just sat down on his change of opinion of railway officials and railwaymen, but I cannot congratulate him on his lack of memory, because his afternoon he has charged the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) with departing from the electrification programme entirely on his own, while last year the select committee, of which the hon. member (Dr. Visser) was chairman, definitely decided that full information of that change was placed before Parliament.

After the change took place.

And what is more, the chairman himself drafted that report, which states—

I want also to congratulate the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) on bringing to the notice of the Minister the question of railway rates as they affect farmers. The remarks made by the hon. member are perfectly true. The railway rates of the farmers are quite 25 per cent. of their income on all the produce they sell. Several hon. members have rather severely criticized the alarming increased cost of working the railways, and while no doubt the policy of the Minister is largely responsible, there are several other items which show that our railways are not economically administered. I am not bringing up this matter in any party spirit. In the latest report of the Auditor-General for 1925-’26 it is stated that the overtime payments for the year amounted to the enormous sum of £1,254,704, made up as follows: Daily paid staff, weekly overtime £573,563. Sunday time £599,764; salaried and monthly paid staff, weekly overtime £15,254 and Sunday time £56,123. Everybody knows that overtime is neither good for the employee nor for the service. It is most expensive, and should never be allowed to get to such huge proportions. It points to one of two things—either you are under-staffed, or this part of the railways is very badly managed. It has been pointed out on several occasions that what is required is a steady flow of work to the workshops, and not the absurd practice the Government indulges in at the present time with regard to rolling stock. On page 74 of the Auditor-General’s report it is stated—

A few days ago, when we were discussing railway matters, the Minister, in reply to some questions, said that if nothing abnormal happened during the next two years, our workshops could go full steam ahead. Later on the Minister said we ought to improve our plant in our workshops very much. Much has been done during the last two years; my hon. friend “Mr. Jagger stifled the workshops.” In the Auditor-General’s report, page 73, it states—

That is the first year under the present Minister.

Who placed those orders?

When I have finished you will have an opportunity. I know you do not like this. The Auditor-General’s report shows that in 1925-’26 we imported 56 coaches and built 23, and imported 477 wagons and built 194. I want to examine these figures. They show that in 1923-’24 for every coach we imported we built five and one-sixth in South Africa, and for every wagon we imported we built two and one-third in South Africa. In 1924-’25 for every coach we imported we built four-fifths in South Africa, and for every wagon imported we built one-eighth in South Africa. In 1925-’26, against one imported wagon, we built three-sevenths of a wagon here, and for every coach imported we built three-sevenths of a coach. In other words, during the last year of the regime of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) we built in South Africa 25 more coaches and 206 more wagons than we imported. In I924-’25 however, the first year of the present Minister’s administration, we imported 10 coaches and 922 wagons more than we built in South Africa. In 1925-’26 we imported 36 coaches and 283 wagons more than we built. If the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) stifled the workshops I would like the present Minister of Railways to give us the name of the operation he is performing on the workshops at the present time. It is rather amusing to remember that in 1924, when a similar motion to the one proposed this afternoon was before the House, the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) moved, as an amendment—

The present Minister of Railways supported the amendment. Is the hon. member going to move a similar amendment to-day?

Oh no.

I now wish to examine the other statement of the Minister, in which he said if nothing abnormal happens during the next two years the workshops can go full steam ahead. When I heard that, I thought that at last our workshops would receive some attention in the right direction. That statement was made on February 16th, but on February 3rd the following letter was sent to all officials in the workshops—

If these instructions mean anything they mean—

It is a most extraordinary state of affairs, as only recently we had Ministers going about the country boasting that they had put thousands of men on to the railways. This circular also means that the necessary repairs to rolling stock will not be carried out, and consequently in the near future we shall have vast sums spent on the payment of excessive overtime. The circular also indicates that the daily paid man is to be again sacrificed, and made to suffer for the huge mistakes of those at the top. Whilst this treatment is going on it is rather interesting to note what the Auditor-General has to say in regard to other members of the staff. On page 70 of the Auditor-General’s report—

Another item on page 75 of the Auditor-General’s report, Item 49, Mr. E. S. Malherbe, clerk, gets a special allowance of £60 per annum while acting as examiner in Afrikaans which was in January, 1926, merged into that officer’s salary with ante-dated effect from the 1st January, 1922—

It is very illuminating how certain senior officials are most favourably treated, and I want to show how a senior officer was allowed to retire and draw a pension in excess of the amount to which he was entitled. In the Auditor-General’s report, page 59—

In view of this case I would like to put this question to the Minister and ask him whether he will allow similar privileges to any other officer or employee who wants to leave the service. I remember a case which was recently brought to my notice. A man had been many years in the railway service and was 57 years of age. Through excessive overtime and hard work as a striker his legs became so bad that he was afraid they would board him and put him off as medically unfit, and his pension was so low that he could not support his wife and family on it. I ask the Minister if he would treat this man the same as this official drawing £1,400 a year. I have worked out the details of the official’s case, the pension payable, with the addition of three years to his service, amounted to £771 18s. 11d. The pension payable without the added years was £701 18s. 11d., so he got as a gift £70 a year of public money. This gentleman, we will call him Mr. A, some of you may call him Mr. C, commuted one-third of his pension for a cash payment and got £3,116 1s. 5d. If the additional three years had not been added he would have received £2,833 10s. 6d., the difference being £282 10s. 9d. His two-third pension with added years is £514 12s., but without the added years £467 19s. 4d. That is to say this officer, as the result of the addition of three years to his service, drew £282 10s. 9d. more in cash and a pension greater by £46 13s. 3d. per annum than he would have drawn without the enhancement. I have applications for a similar nature of treatment from cases where the annual emolument will be one-tenth of the emolument drawn by this special officer, and I hope they will receive the same favourable treatment. I am now going to touch on one other point and that is the retirement of railway officials. On the 31st March, 1926, there were 34 men in the service beyond the retiring age. The general manager advised the Auditor-General that steps were being taken to ensure that the retiring age is being strictly adhered to, and I want to ask the Minister if this instruction will also apply to the senior officers of the service.

I rise not to criticize the general railway estimates, but to refer to a question of great importance to the fruit farmers of this country. I believe it is pertinent or germane to this vote to now draw the Minister’s attention to the congestion of fruit at the docks, and also the attention of Parliament to the serious position with which the fruit farmers are at present faced through the management of the Fruit Export Control Board. I am not going to broach this subject in any spirit of party. I will submit only certain facts brought to my notice which I hope the Minister will explain or inquire into. I intend to refer specially to the Fruit Growers’ Association at Elgin in my constituency. To appreciate fully the position of the fruit farmers at Elgin, I think it is necessary to tell the House what has transpired at Elgin in reference to fruit culture in the last 12 years. Thirteen or fourteen years back this area was practically undeveloped, apart from the magnificent Government forest plantation, which covered 6,000 morgen of ground. Twelve years ago the farmers took seriously to the culture of fruit and the propagation of different classes of fruit. I can assure you that at present in that valley there are close upon half a million fruit trees, the majority of which are coming now into full bearing. This area was first considered, owing to altitude, soil and rainfall, to be only suitable for the cultivation of apple trees. Some years ago it was discovered that the area was also unsurpassed for the cultivation of the peach tree. From one farm alone during the present season there have been sent to the docks for export 40,000 cases of peaches. The two farmers who own this farm have, on their own initiative, and with their private capital, erected a cold storage costing them over £8,000, in which they can store about 60,000 cases of fruit. On that farm at present there are about 50,000 fruit trees, gradually coming into bearing, apples, pears and peaches. The right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) accompanied me a few weeks ago to that particular farm when the packing season for peaches was at its height. There were then employed between 200 and 300 people, including over 40 students from Stellenbosch University who were engaged there as packers. This is more or less typical of what is going on the other farms in that area. As is true of all branches of farming, whatever profit a farmer makes the reinvests in the farm upon further development and further culture. This fact of development by the farmer is the basis upon which the farming industry as a whole can claim from the State sympathetic treatment and encouragement as far as possible. The fruit export season in regard to soft fruit is really only a matter of three months, from January 1st to the end of March. What the farmers feel is this, that if the Fruit Control Board are in close touch with the farming community in regard to their production, they would be able to furnish ample shipping, and to make proper arrangements for the farmers to get that shipping when required. The Elgin Farmers’ Association have, from time to time, advised the Fruit Control Board. The board were advised early in January that they could expect a full crop of peaches and apples, about a week late. That was the information which the Elgin Association forwarded to the Fruit Control Board. On January 22nd, the Elgin Farmers’ Association were asked by the Control Board to pack heavily and forward as quickly as possible to the docks. This request was repeated on February 11th. No intimation was given on February 11th to the farmers that there was a risk of a bank-up at the docks in regard to fruit. I am informed that about January 20th, the Fruit Control Board began to cancel freight, freight that had actually been engaged for the transport of the fruit. I am informed that about January 28th they cancelled all freight in the “Dunluce Castle.” This steamer sailed from Cape Town on February 17th. About February 4th, I am told they cancelled freight to the extent of 471 tons in the “Walmer Castle.” This steamer sailed from Cape Town on February 25th. Also by that time they cancelled all freight in the “Llandaff Castle,” which sailed from Cape Town on February 26th. The “Llandaff Castle” was a boat specially fitted to carry fruit.

Do you know whether any fruit was offering at that time?

I am only speaking now from the Elgin farmers’ point of view.

What was offering was taken.

I hope the Minister will not interrupt me.

I wanted to clear up the position.

The dates in this matter are important. I am also informed that by this time the Fruit Control Board cancelled the freight on the Australian steamer “Bendigo,” which left Cape Town Harbour on 27th February last. Luckily for the Board, when they cabled over to Australia to cancel the freight, the “Bendigo” had already left Australia, and they could not, therefore, cancel that freight, with the result that the “Bendigo” was in a position on February 27th to carry away 1,000 tons of fruit. If the “Bendigo” freight had also been cancelled, the position would have been worse by 1,000 tons. From February 12th, I am instructed by the farmers to say, fruit was leaving Cape Town docks seven to 14 days’ late, and the farmers are afraid that ere long their fruit will be 21 days’ late. I understand that the “Arundel Castle” sailed from Cape Town on February 18th last, and took the fruit up to the 11th and part of the 12th February, but they were about seven days’ late. The “Dunluce Castle” sailed the previous day without any fruit, and, I understand, there was no attempt made to re-engage freight on the “Dunluce.” If the “Dunluce” freight had not been cancelled, she would have been able to take 371 tons of the “Arundel Castle’s” cargo, and the “Arundel Castle” would have taken the fruit supplied up to February 15th. The result is that there is a very serious bank-up here at the Cape Town docks. My constituents are prejudiced to the extent of 8,000 boxes which are now lying there eight to 14 days’ overdue. During the week-end I met at Stellenbosch a settler from Holland, a young man who has put a large amount of capital into his farm in the Stellenbosch district. This young man came to me in great distress and said—

He said that his whole income from the prunes, which he estimated at between £600 and £700, was entirely gone. He cannot use the fruit now for any other purpose. They were kept at the docks for three weeks. When they arrived they were in perfect condition.

But surely the fruit would not have reached the London market in good condition.

Not after being kept three weeks beyond the time, and then another 17 days at sea. The whole consignment is now condemned. He cannot send them now. Coming back to my own constituents, the first intimation that the Fruit Association of Caledon had of this bank-up of fruit at the docks was on February 25th. The last news they had from the control board was—

On the 11th they were still asking them to forward heavily. What is now the position? Is it that the farmers who sent what we call the hard pear for export have got to wait, and the preference is given to the soft fruit farmers, but to get the preference the soft fruit farmers have to pay 90s. per ton, whereas the ordinary flat rate is 74s. a ton. Look at the unsatisfactory state of affairs. I do not wish to blame the control board entirely, and I hope the Minister will be able to explain the position. What the farmers in the Caledon district feel is that this board has not been in proper contact with them; they have not been advised from time to time of the position here. They thought everything was going on smoothly, but now they find they are prejudiced to the tune of 8,000 boxes which are lying in the harbour waiting export. What the farmers feel also is that they have no remedy. If you look at the Act we passed last year, the Fruit Control Board is by law entirely protected. You must prove otherwise that the fruit board did not act bona fide, which is a most difficult thing to do. I would like to ask the Minister another question, which is rather agitating the minds of the farmers, whether it is not a fact that the Union Castle Steamship Company made an offer to the control board to carry at a reasonable rate all the fruit of the farmers, and whether it would not have been better for the control board to have operated with this company than to have engaged freight from various sources instead of having the one responsible company to deal with, which would have met the control board whenever they were in a corner with regard to supplies not coming forth. I hope the Minister will make a thorough inquiry, because it is a matter which at present is very closely and adversely affecting the fruit industry not merely in the Western Province, but in the whole of South Africa.

The debate has taken the form of a frontal attack on the Government from the Opposition side of the House, and it gives one pleasure to contradict some of the wrong statements made in regard to the alleged excessive working of overtime in the workshops. The person mainly responsible is the ex-Minister of Railways and Harbours, the member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). On his shoulders lies the full responsibility for-arrears of work and for the difficulties which the Administration finds itself in at the present time. For three years the railway workshops were working short time. I am sorry that the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates) is not in his seat. He quoted from page 72 of the Auditor-General’s report for last year, but he did not quote the whole thing. What does it say? Here is a paragraph from a letter from the chief mechanical engineer, Pretoria, to the general manager giving reasons for this overtime—

The present Government has adopted the policy which the late Government refused to adopt, of making as much of our own requirements as possible in the Union. On March 27th, 1924, we divided on that question and the S.A.P. voted against it; the Nationalist party and the Labour party voted solidly for it. The real reason why we have now to send overseas is owing to the systematic neglect on the part of the S.A.P. Government, in failing to “carry on” with the policy of workshop extension and equipment. The workshops were hopelessly inadequate for the manufacture of our requirements, and we who know the workshops know that is a fact. When the present Government decided on its policy the workshops were booked up for three years, mainly with arrears of repairs, and the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates) forgot to say that, and that was why we had to send oversea for new rolling stock. A letter from the chief mechanical engineer to the general manager, which appears in the Auditor-General’s report for 1925-’26, at page 73, states—

Why cannot hon. members on the Opposition benches be fair? If you put the workshops on short time for three years you have to make up for it afterwards. Even in terms of money it would be difficult to say how much the policy of the late Minister of Railways and Harbours (Mr. Jagger) will cost this country ultimately owing to his systematic neglect and failure to extend the railway workshops. Another point was raised by the hon. member for Uitenhage, and as an old railway workshops man I would like to see the honour of the railway workmen maintained—and that was with reference to the Workshops Commission’s Report. They state (page 74, Auditor-General’s report)—

The general manager of railways has stated in one of his annual reports that in times of depression the State should go in for development, and should utilize the services of its servants in order to prepare for the inevitable reaction that will take place. That was not adopted under the previous regime, and to-day we are paying a very heavy price for that neglect. Overtime is a very expensive matter, and no one wishes to work it. You cannot avoid working a certain amount of overtime in the railway workshops, but you should not have this enormous amount. It is bad for men to work systematic overtime, and it is also bad from the point of view of solving the unemployment problem. Apart from this minor matter of overtime, the real attack on the part of the Opposition is on the civilized labour policy of the Government. I must say I cannot understand how hon. members can stand up in this House and argue against that policy. When the Government came into office it found that there were thousands of our own kith and kin who were out of work. There were many thousands on relief works or walking the streets. The Government adopted a new policy of employing these men on Government works as far as possible. The rate of pay does not satisfy me for one moment, but I know the difficulty of the Government in adopting that policy. I do not know how any so-called civilized man can live on the pay of a civilized labourer, but it is better they should do work of that kind than walk the streets without having anything to do. But how civilized people can object to work being given to their own civilized fellow-men I cannot understand. It is a callous state of affairs, and I could not believe that any so-called civilized man in this country would oppose it. It does not only affect the men, but their wives and children. We had the dole system here, and people got a small rate of pay on the relief works, but that time has gone past. I think hon. members ought to congratulate the Government on this civilized labour policy instead of condemning it. Whether the railway revenue ought to bear that extra cost is a matter for discussion; some argue that the general revenue should bear the cost, but as to the policy itself, I cannot understand the objection of some hon. members. But I can understand the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) perfectly well, and any other member of the South African party of the Cape Province, because we know quite well that their most loyal followers are the natives. The South African party are the real employers of the natives instead of people of their own flesh and colour. Although they stand for—

and—

they also stand for the exploitation of the cheapest form of labour. They much preferred to give a native a job on the railways than to one of their own people. We used to have hundreds of our own people coming to this House as deputations, starving and asking for work, but we do not get them now. I have a letter dated April 14th, 1924—and it must be remembered that the general election took place two months later. This letter is addressed from the office of Van Zyl & Buissinne, Cape Town, to a teacher living at the native location at Maitland. The writer informed the recipient that if he will call upon a certain railway official as soon as possible—

This is a most flagrant case of—

I have ever heard of, for we know that low-paid and unorganized natives are pals of the South African party. Yet we are supposed to stand for something which makes for the betterment of humanity. How members of Parliament can defend the employment of Europeans on relief work and at the same time sanction the employment of natives on the railways, passes my comprehension. All men, irrespective of colour or race, should be employed by the railways at a civilized rate of pay. The late Government did not pay that rate, and I am not entirely satisfied with what the present Government is doing, but at any rate, it is doing something. It has done away, for instance, with the issue of qualified certificates in regard to the condition of rolling stock and the railway track. Under the South African party administration the leading technical officials of the railways were unable to give a clean certificate owing to Mr. Jagger’s policy of economy. That fact is borne out by reference to the report of the Audi tor-General and of the Railway Board for 1921, according to which substantial economies were effected by the abolition of the cost of living allowance, by the stoppage of all works not considered necessary; while the modification of the eight-hour day was claimed to have proved very effective. Short time was introduced in certain shops; week-day overtime was abolished and, excepting in a few instances, no new appointments were made. Owing to the diminution of traffic and falling off of work generally a substantial reduction was also effected in the total number of the staff employed; as a matter of fact, the staff was reduced by over 12,000. At the same time the board reported that the progress of the more important new works had in many cases been retarded owing to the lack of funds. That was not economy at all, but it was the most expensive policy which could be adopted by this, or any other country. If you start works and then stop them, the interest charges on the money already spent still continue, although no additional revenue is being earned and in addition, the railways take risks which no country should countenance. My business is to keep the House informed of what the policy of the South African party was responsible for. As far back as 1913, when Mr. Burton was Minister of Railways, he called for tenders for railway coaches, and a German firm secured the contract. The railway strike of 1914 originated entirely in consequence of Mr. Burton’s workshops retrenchment policy and, at the same time, he was actually placing orders for rolling stock in Germany. Why, then, blame the present Government for placing orders overseas for engines and rolling stock when they are compelled to adopt that course on account of the late Government’s neglect? I hope to live to see the day when we shall be able to build certain kinds of engines in this country. There is no reason why we should not make a start. We have the mechanics here, and thoroughly competent technical men, and all we require is more workshop accommodation, improved machinery and the “will to do.” We make most of the parts required for engines at Salt River and other workshops, and I am certain we could make the whole lot. I hope the Minister will put a stop to the practice of bringing out these world-record engines, as far as size and weight are concerned, for the railway service. It is a big mistake. We should stick to the class of engine we have, such as the 15A class, which drivers will tell you are very satisfactory and reliable, and do the work well. With regard to the staff, we are not altogether satisfied, but we know that we have had to pull up arrears of work left by the last Government as well as to place the superannuation fund on a proper basis. I want the Minister to try and give the eight-hours day to those members of the staff who have not yet got it, ticket examiners and guards, for example. The return of the eight-hours day would be much appreciated by those men. Then there is the hardy annual about the dual rate of pay for the artizan staff. We are not satisfied with it, and it does not make for discipline when you have two men working side by side on different rates of pay, and I am certain it would be better to do away with the dual rate immediately. Then there is the catering department which undoubtedly is the Cinderella of the Railway Service. Here you find stewards working from 6 o’clock in the morning until 11 at night, and hon. members know the conditions under which they work, especially in the Karroo. All day long they walk the corridors for a miserable rate of pay. They should have more consideration and a higher rate. Single men are getting from £6 a month, and married men £8 to £10 a month. It is true the public give them tips, but that is wrong and demoralizing. I would rather abolish the tips, and give them proper rates of pay so that they can lift their heads up, and not have to depend on charity. With regard to your chefs and their assistants, if some members put their heads into the train kitchens of dining saloons, they would be suffocated by the heat, and their pay is very poor indeed. The present Government policy is all for the betterment of the workers of this country, and instead of being criticized, the Government should be supported in its policy. When the South African party goes to the country it will find it a very bad platform to attack the present Government for adopting the policy of carrying on industry on a civilized basis instead of an uncivilized one.

I want to support the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) on the question of fruit. The Fruit Export Control Board is making a distinction between different classes of fruit as regards the time at which it may go. They are allowing people, who wish soft fruit to go off, to send it at once on payment of higher freight, and they are keeping back hard fruit and as compensation they allow that fruit to pay less. The question is whether that is within the power of the board in accordance with the terms of the Act. The Act says the board is a board to control the export of fruit, but the question is whether the board has power to divide fruit into different classes and to delay one class while it sends the other class off. I do not dispute the board is, in its opinion, doing its best in the general interest, but that question has arisen because some of the people whose fruit is delayed consider the fact they get a low freight, is no compensation for missing the market. This year there is a considerable scarcity of pears, and those people with pears to export are doubly hit when the pears are delayed. I ask you whether it is necessary to do this, and whether you are satisfied it is within the powers of the board under the terms of the Act, and whether any steps are being taken to obtain the general views of the exporters on this point. I am informed that no steps have been taken to ascertain the wishes of the exporters, and I think some means should be found to ascertain the general opinion. I do not wish to accuse the board of doing anything unfairly, but at the same time hardship may be done by this to certain exporters of fruit, and I shall be glad if the Minister will make it clear what the position is, and whether the procedure followed is within the powers of the board.

Many points have been raised this afternoon, and the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) has, inter alia, spoken about railway rates. He persists in making a comparison between the existing rates and those of 1914. I think that everyone will agree with me that that is quite an unfair comparison. I think no one can say that we should revert to the 1914 rates. The conditions have entirely changed and this can be seen in the revenue and expenditure and in the general position of the country. The cost of living has increased, and things generally have so changed that it is unfair to say that the rates in 1914 were so and so and that they are now higher. Hon. members opposite, and the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour), of course, forgets to mention the fact that rates have actually been reduced. I do not know why, but on the countryside it is often represented that the Government has never in the three years it has been in office reduced rates, though we know that the rates have been reduced by approximately 1½million pounds.

When the House adjourned I was speaking in connection with the existing rates in comparison with those of 1914. I now, however, come to another point on which the Opposition attack the Minister, viz., branch lines. I want to tell the Minister that I fully approve of his policy, and I am very glad that he took that step. What is the use of issuing statistics about branch lines if the statistics are not accurate? There are hon. members who complain that the statistics are not available to see whether the various branch lines pay or not, but my objection to the figures is that they contain no useful data. One cannot depend on them. Then the publication of those data costs much money, I think £12,000 per annum, and that money the Minister can at once save by stopping the publication. My other objection to the data regarding branch lines is that they are entirely one-sided. The hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser) has told us that the percentage of credit for branch lines in Australia is 40 per cent. higher than with us. If we therefore work on the 10 per cent. basis, they in Australia work on a 50 per cent. basis; which of us is right? This shows at once that there is a great difference of opinion about the matter. On the debit side you must put how much the branch lines cost, what the running of the trucks costs, what the wages of the conductors on the branch lines come to, etc. How can this be all estimated? It rests entirely on an arbitrary basis. On the credit side we have again to do with an arbitrary basis. It is admitted by the Administration and the Auditor-General that those calculations are arbitrary. Now I ask how hon. members can argue on those arbitrary figures about branch lines? The great point in this matter is that the large centres want to prove by those figures that the branch line does not pay. The branch lines are of great importance to the countryside, and the large centres want to point out that on this branch line or the other £12,000 or £8,000 is lost, so as to be able to say that more lines ought not to be built. Therefore I think that as the figures rest on an arbitrary basis, it is in the interests of the countryside that they should not be published. Why should the public, by means of arbitrary figures, be brought under the impression that the branch lines are a burden on the country? Another point which was recently mentioned a great deal in the press, and also in this House, is the orders which were sent to other countries than Great Britain. A great complaint is made by members because the Government did not place certain orders in Great Britain. Hon. members represent that the work in Great Britain is so much better than that on the European continent or America, and that the steel is of a much better quality. Well, in the first place, I just want to read what an acknowledged expert recently said about the matter, viz.. Sir Ernest Harvey, Controller of the Bank of England. He was asked whether the fact that orders were placed by the Union in Germany would damage the credit of the Union in Great Britain. He positively denied this, and added that the circumstances would possibly contribute to the British manufacturers taking more pains to be able to compete, and to put their own house in order. That is a very plain statement which may be quoted in answer to the arguments of the hon. member. But I further want to point out to the House that when the former Government in some cases placed orders in England, the orders were sub-let in France and Germany. In some cases 50 per cent. of the work was done in Germany. Take the case of electric locomotives. In 1924 78 electric locomotives to the value of about £1,000,000 were ordered in England by the Government in which the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) was Minister of Railways, but the English firm sub-let 50 per cent. of the contract to a German firm in Switzerland. What remains of the argument that the work and material of the English factories is so much better? For sentimental reasons it is often said, as the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) said this afternoon, that England should be given the preference because she is our largest purchaser. That is not quite right. We have fairly large credit, and why should we not do business with Germany? What use is it for us to say that we must trade with England and give the contracts to British firms when those firms share them with German firms? The former Government did actually place orders in Germany. In 1923 the present Minister of Labour asked a question of the Minister of Railways and Harbours about certain orders which were placed with the Metropolitan Vickers Company, Limited. The question is on page 132 of the Votes and Proceedings of that year. He asked for information about the sub-letting of the contract to Krupp and other German firms, and whether inquiry would be made as to whether the British firms make an undue profit on the contract through the subletting. The answer was that sub-letting had taken place, and that wheels, axles and other under-parts had, with the approval of the Administration, been manufactured by German firms. That could be done at that time when the public were told that the contracts were given to English firms. On the 15th February, 1924, Maj. Hunt asked the Prime Minister whether the Union Government had ordered steel sleepers and fishplates from foreign firms, and if so, what the special reasons were, especially in view of the resolutions with regard to preference passed at the Imperial Conference. The then Minister of Railways and Harbours replied that consignments had been received from American and continental firms, and that the tender of a German firm had been accepted, because it was much lower than that of the other firms. To-day the same hon. member (Mr. Jagger) objects to the Government doing that very thing. I say that the hon. member has no right to protest against it to-day. Here you have a contract given to a German firm because it was cheaper, and when contracts are given to British firms then half, or a portion of them, is sub-let to German firms. I think that this criticism by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and the Opposition looks very bad in view of their own record in the past. The hon. member and his friends argue very strongly that we should not buy in the cheapest market. They say that we should buy in the British market even if it is more expensive, because the British material is better. That is their doctrine to-day, but they did not practise it in the past. I now come to the matter of the electrification of the Natal main line, which was referred to to-day. I am surprised to hear hon. members opposite raising complaints and making objections in that connection in order to give the impression that the present Government is wasting money. Their objections were raised in a tricky manner because the present Government cannot be accused of that. They speak, however, of waste of money, and the impression remains that it is the fault of this Government. We all know that the present Government had not the least to do with the electrification. The estimate was made by the last Government, and the bulk of the work was done during its regime. My difficulty in connection with the whole matter of electrification and the failure that was made of the first attempt is that we attached too little value to our own engineers. It was the same in the case of the Durban elevator. The Administration at that time despised its own engineers, and would not accept their advice. In the “Hansard”of 15th February, 1924. I notice that the present Minister of Railways and Harbours asked a question whether the attention of the Minister at that time had been drawn to an advertisement appearing in the “Star” of the 12th January, in which applications were asked for six electricians with “home” experience and for “country”work, and secondly, whether it had been done with his approval. What was meant by “home” and “country” was not stated. The answer was that the advertisement had been placed by the contractor, who temporarily had his offices in the railway buildings. Sir Abe Bailey thereupon asked whether the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. C. W. Malan) had consulted the Labour party before he asked the question. I only read this to show how at that time electricians were asked for with “home” experience for the “country.” The same applies with reference to electrification. In the select committee it appeared, and we all felt, that our own electricians were much insulted. Capable men who could do the work were removed because the oversea firm said that they were not fitted for it. I mention the case of Mr. Leibbrandt, an engineer with experience, not alone in South Africa, but also on the continent and America. He made a certain recommendation, but the consulting engineers said that he knew nothing about the matter, and disregarded his advice. Finally, however, they had to adopt it. Then there is the case of Mr. Lawson Brown. He was appointed by our Administration, but the oversea consulting engineers refused to continue to employ him, and said he had no knowledge of the work. On pressure by the Administration, however, he was taken on for six months, but thereafter they dismissed him and appointed a certain Mr. Baker from overseas. He was in the service of the consulting engineers, and accordingly occupied the double appointment. He assisted with the construction, and inspected his own work. That Mr. Baker wrote letters to himself of approximately the following nature—

Then Mr. Baker inspected his own work and replied to himself—

He was paid a double salary. He was in the service of the Railway Administration and of the consulting engineers.

No.

The select committee itself acknowledged that. He supervized his own work. It came out further in the select committee that our own engineers told the foreign engineers that they were wasting money on the foundations they were digging, because those foundations were not at all required where they were making them. The consulting engineers replied—

Our own engineers then made certain tests a few yards away from the place where the consulting engineers were at work to show that their (our engineers’) proposal was a good one. The consulting engineers, however, did not take the trouble to come and see. The result was that subsequently the scheme of our engineers was adopted, and it was admitted that they were right. During the six months, Mr. Lawson Brown pointed out mistakes at least six times, but the contractors said to him—

Eventually in all six cases they had to pull down their work and carry out Mr. Brown’s suggestions. Take the dry dock in Durban. Our own engineers quoted a price at which, according to them, the work could be done. Foreign firms said that it was impossible, and sent in a different tender. Fortunately, in this case our Administration was wise enough to have the work carried out by our own engineers. Excellent work was done, and £750,000 saved. We should in these cases, in the first place, trust our own men and follow their advice. It has repeatedly appeared that they were right. And what is the moral effect on these men when their advice is rejected? A man from overseas carries out the work, and eventually it turns out that our men were right. Let us in future keep to the practice of showing confidence in our own men, then things will go better.

I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to bring to the notice of the Minister and the country certain occurrences with regard to the transportation of livestock on the railways. I shall refer to two cases only which have been brought to my notice by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals of Johannesburg which has already been successful in the prosecution of a station master and another individual for cruelty as the result of overcrowding. An inspector of the S.P.C.A. on the 6th of May went to the Johannesburg stock market and found a truck, No. 22,073, loaded with 40 oxen and consigned by H. Steyn from Kroonstad, three of the animals being unable to rise and were nearly trampled to death, having to be destroyed on arrival. The carcases were considered unfit for consumption on account of the terrible bruises inflicted. These facts were communicated by the secretary of the S.P.C.A. to the District Commandant of Police at Kroonstad with a request to enquire into the matter. The latter forwarded a statement, dated 11th May, 1926, signed by P. J. Beukes, checker, stating that the animals had been loaded at Kroonstad, and he, checker Pieter Johannes Beukes, bad warned Steyn that he was overloading at his own risk. On the strength of the document a prosecution was on the 8th June, 1926, instituted by the S.P.C.A. The witness Beukes gave evidence “that he had not warned accused about any overloading.” He, Beukes, was then shown the statement he had made, above referred to, and when confronted with the document he immediately said that what he had just testified was untrue and that he had warned the accused. The prosecution, after this collapse of the chief witness, did not go further, and the administration of justice was defeated. The secretary of the Johannesburg S.P.C.A. then, on the 12th June, 1926, wrote to the general manager of the S.A.R. recapitulating the facts I have just related. One clause of the letter reads—

No reply was received, and more than a month afterwards, on July 13th, the secretary of the S.P.C.A. again wrote to the general manager asking what steps the latter was taking in the matter. On July 23rd the general manager replied—

On the 11th August, a letter was received saying that the statements of the checker Beukes had been specially investigated, and disciplinary action was being taken in regard to him for this irregularity. Nothing further was heard by the S.P.C.A., and on the 16th of August a further communication was sent by the secretary of the society to the general manager, asking what was the nature of the disciplinary action taken in connection with checker Beukes. The next letter, also by the secretary of the S.P.C.A. to the general manager, dated 27th September, 1926, was with reference to the case of the 21st September which came before the courts at Johannesburg, also in connection with overloading. Sixty-three sheep had been loaded in a short truck, whereas the regulations stated 42; on arrival two were dead and three injured. Mr. Steyn, the only witness obtainable from Kroonstad, stated that the sheep were not overloaded. Two Government sheep inspectors testified that the truck was overloaded, with resulting cruelty. Owing to the conflict of evidence, the magistrate refused to convict. On the 16th of October, a letter was sent from the general manager to the secretary of the S.P.C.A., which shows that the complaints were having effect. It reads, inter alia—

The secretary wrote on 19th October to the general manager—

There was no reply received from this letter for almost a month. On November 12th it was again necessary for the secretary to write to the general manager and ask for a reply, which was received on November 22nd. The reply stated—

The Society in acknowledging the department’s letter stated that in the view of the committee the disciplinary action was wholly inadequate in view of the very grave circumstances. It took from June 7 to December 12, this is six months, for this very public-spirited and useful society to get any definite information from the Railway Department in regard to this very gross case. It really looks as if the Administration had been endeavouring to shield an official who had been guilty of a very serious offence. He had been strongly censured by the magistrate, he had committed perjury, and so reprehensible was his conduct that his witness’ fees were disallowed and the magistrate told him that he was unfit to hold any position of trust. I do not wish to make any charge, but I do say that the postponement of action for six months will require a close investigation by the Minister himself. The view which some hold that a deliberate attempt was made to screen the man would receive some sort of support from a case which occurred in Cape Town where John Richards, an engine driver was prosecuted for being drunk. The magistrate who dealt with the case said—

I should like to ask the Minister whether he considers the disciplinary action taken by the department in Beukes case is a sufficient deterrent. Will such action tend to proper discipline. I wish to refer to a case regarding the carriage of cattle owned by Mr. W. J. Clarke. According to the facts supplied by Mr. Clarke to the society, he sent on December 15 last two horses from Rosehaugh in the Transvaal to Pietermaritzburg. According to the endorsement on the consignment note of which I have a duplicate here the animals were to be fed and watered en route. The animals arrived at Pietermaritzburg on December 19, and Mr. Clarke was waiting to take delivery of them from 6 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. The station inspectors and checker were absent at Maccris Hill and there being no bank there the cattle could have had no water. During the whole period of transit the animals were neither fed nor watered, and they reached their destination in a very emaciated condition. While the truck was at Pietermaritzburg Mr. Clarke examined the S.A.R. ticket on the truck and saw that it bore the pencilled words—

If the Railway Department undertakes the conveyance of livestock on the condition that they will be fed and watered, that undertaking should be carried out, and it is no excuse to say that that cannot be done because it is a public holiday. Mr. Clarke further says—

Has the time not arrived to give effect to the recommendations of the Livestock Commission which was composed of very representative men and who, after a thorough investigation made a number of recommendations; including the appointment of a livestock officer to deal with livestock and meat traffic on the same lines as grain traffic was controlled. I am sure that the Minister deplores happenings of this character on the railways. We should do our best to see that these occurrences cease, and that as little cruelty as possible is inflicted on animals in transit. The only way to do that is to appoint a responsible officer to have charge of this department. I know the stereotyped reply to these suggestions is that the time has not yet arrived for the appointment of such an officer. One has only to take up a newspaper such as the “Farmer’s Weekly” to see complaints regarding cruelties in the conveyance of livestock. I do not say the Administration is not doing its best, but its best is not good enough. Our fair name is concerned in this matter. If the treatment which is accorded to dumb animals is a criterion of the state of civilization which any nation has reached, then I am afraid we have very little to be proud of. Every year the direct form of cruelty is inflicted on livestock in the shape of starvation, I am not referring to farmers as a whole, but the vast majority of improvident farmers who accumulate large quantities of stock and make no arrangements to feed them, especially in winter.

We are all improvident now.

Unhappily that is so. We have droughts, but even in good years, provision could be made which is not made. This yearly sight of starving stock is heartrending, and besmirches our good name. No man has a right to keep more stock than he can feed.

The hon. member is discussing railway matters.

I am afraid I have got slightly off the rails.

I heartily concur with what the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus) has said with regard to the carriage of stock. I am one of the last to find fault with the Railway Administration, because everything possible is done to carry the stock as fast as possible. Possibly the Minister does not know the position in the greater portion of the countryside with reference to the carriage of stock. Recently 464,000 sheep were carried on the Matjesfontein section. Sometimes a farmer gives eight days’ notice beforehand of his intention to consign stock, but when he gets to the station he is delayed day after day without the least opportunity of getting food for his stock. If we can run expresses to Johannesburg for passengers, then we can also have fast trains on which the poor dying sheep can be loaded. Another matter of the greatest importance is railway rates. I understand the Minister has reduced rates by approximately £1,000,000, but the present cry of the former Minister of Railways and Harbours, viz., business principles and make the railways pay, cannot be given effect to. The promise was made by the former Minister, and I thought that the present Minister would give effect to it that lucerne hay would be carried cheaper. Lucerne hay intended for export is carried at 10s. per ton, but I admit that I cannot understand that it is carried for 10s. a ton for export while the charge is as much as 35s. per ton when the lucerne is intended to save our own poor stock. I am under the impression that the present Minister of Railways and Harbours promised that lucerne would be carried to the drought-stricken districts at 10s. per ton, but to-day more is demanded.

Fodder is carried at half the ordinary rate.

It is still above 10s. per ton. I have a letter here from a large lucerne grower in which he says that on the Johannesburg market he can get £5 5s. per ton, but from that has to be deducted the railway freight, market commission, auctioneer’s tax and the agent’s commission, and that brings the price down to £3 per ton for lucerne. That does not include the expense of the bales and thread and of the transport to the railways. This is an absolutely impossible state of affairs. I hope the Minister will give his attention to it because if lucerne can be carried for export at 10s. a ton, then it ought to be able to be done for any other purpose, because in any case the lucerne is used to save the lives of our stock. The railway rate for the export of coal also needs attention. The terrible position our farmers are in compels them to bore for water. I hope the Minister will give his attention to this and will not only attend to the cry that the railways must pay. The farmers in the drought-stricken districts are in a sad position and, it will be a good thing if the Government will help them to get cheaper transport for their lucerne, also lower rates for Coal intended for use in boring for water.

The Minister in introducing this Bill gave us practically no information. That is understandable seeing in a short while he will make his Budget speech. At the same time seeing we have before us the Estimates of Expenditure on this account it is natural we should go into detail and, putting the best face on it, I share the anxiety expressed at the growth of expenditure on the railways. I reckon that £800,000 extra is being asked for and I arrive at it by taking the increase of £1,125,000 and eliminating from that the road motor service, interest on capital and the interest on superannuation and other funds, increases which are natural and inevitable. Deducting that it leaves us with £1,034,000. Take the decrease in maintenance of Permanent Way and Miscellaneous, and that leaves the increase at £800,000 to £900.000. The explanation is that there is an eleven per cent. increase in the mileage to be run and therefore there is an eleven per cent increase in the expenditure. I do not look upon that as a very sound basis. If the Minister expect as a decrease automatically on the increase in traffic, then he is going to be disappointed. One item referred to by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) is the retirement of the general manager. The general manager has grown into the position and the position has grown with him and it is bound to make a profound difference to the Railways when he retires. There has been in the press several forecasts and remarks. I do not ask the Minister anything I should not ask. I do not ask who his successor will be, but we are entitled to ask if it is the intention of the Administration to make an entire change in future so that the Railway shall be managed by a board of commissioners. There should be a special committee to go into the matter if there is to be a momentous change like that and I think it will require legislation because under the Act of 1916 it laid down that the executive work of the railways must be done by the general manager. I hope if the Minister is in the position to give information that he will be frank with the House. It is not a party matter, but one on which we should come to an agreement. The manager will retire on the 1st November of this year so that if anything is to be done it should be done this session. It would be interesting if the Minister would tell us the approximate result of working the grain elevators and whether the economies hoped to be effected by electrifying the Natal Railways have fructified. Certainly as far as comfort of travel is concerned it is the best we could desire, but is it an economical way of working or not. Then I want to go a little more into detail on the matter mentioned by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) with regard to the purchase of engines. The Minister laid on the Table a synopsis of the papers and the member for Bloemfontein laid stress on the question of reciprocity, that it was a good thing to do business with your best customer. That is a good thing in business. Looking over these papers I take the case of the purchase of the biggest number of engines. 42 class GF Garratt engine. In that case there were four tenders discarded. One was not in accordance with the requirements, the second was because of the absence of detail and the other two were also in accordance with the requirements. The next was accepted, and the mechanical engineer said there was little doubt that these firms were working together, but that neither had ever built Garratt engines of their type, and he was therefore doubtful about recommending either of the firms. The next lowest tender, the lowest British tender, was submitted on behalf of the North British Locomotive Company and he remarked that it was contrary to specification in that oil lubrication instead of grease must be used and the tender was not recommended. The chief mechanical engineer was satisfied it was a sufficient bar. Then there came the tender from Messrs. Barr on behalf of Henschels and Sohn of Germany and Messrs. Beyer, Peacock and Company of England. The report upon that tender stated that it was based on working arrangements with Beyer, Peacock and Maffei, and as these firms had all built engines in South Africa he (the chief mechanical engineer) had no doubt at all that the best results would be obtained by placing the order with them. The report continues—

The chief railway storekeeper concurred in this recommendation that this half-German half English tender should be accepted. The Tender Board, after three hours’ discussion of all the tenders received, concurred in the recommendation of the Administration’s technical officers. When the tenders came before the Railway Board meeting, at which the Administration’s technical advisers were present, the Railway Board considered all the tenders, and enquiries were made as to the reasons for not accepting any of the tenders lower than that recommended. The board decided in favour of the acceptance of Hanomag’s tender for the reasons that the tender was the lowest that complied with the Administration’s specifications, the tender was more favourable in point of time of delivery, and the firm was of high standing, had been engaged upon the construction of engines for very many years, and was in every way capable of performing the work to the satisfaction of the Administration. You have the technical officers, the tender board, and the general manager overridden by the Railway Board, and the tender is given to a firm who, the mechanical engineer reported, have never built engines in this country, although it was a perfectly good firm and a perfectly capable firm. I must say that it really does not seem to me to have been worth while taking the risk of getting engines from a firm that we have not dealt with before, leaving out for a minute, although I could never leave it out myself, the question of reciprocity and placing the order in England, if possible. It appeared as if the Railway Board had overridden their technical officers and gone out of their way to place the order out of England. I can’t help thinking what would have happened if the position had been reversed and this contract had been given out in German territory. I cannot feel that the best interests of the country have been served in this matter in the way it has been done. Leaving that matter of the engines, of which I daresay we shall hear more at different times, and getting back to railway matters generally, I would like to ask the Minister if nothing could be done in accelerating the train service at any rate on the midland line. We are very modest people in Port Elizabeth, and always inclined to be entirely reasonable, and all we ask is one fast train to and from Port Elizabeth and Johannesburg per week. On a recent occasion there was some special function at Kimberley, and I believe there had been an accident on the western line, and that the trains were all running out of gear. A train was run from De Aar to Port Elizabeth with a saving of six hours without any accident and without any danger. Then I would like to make a little reference to the loan expenditure. The traffic at Port Elizabeth is growing and growing, and we have the greatest difficulty in getting any loan money to meet the traffic that is there offering and waiting. Had we all been treated alike I suppose we would have had to grin and bear it, but I opened the “Cape Argus” the other day, quite an interesting paper, and found an article with this double heading—

This is on the authority of Engineer Shadwell.

Do you object?

No, but I want similar treatment. I am not taking any objection. I have never raised any objection to any expenditure on the ports, but I do want similar treatment. I see it stated by one of the chief officers of the Administration, that “armies of men and hundreds of tons of machinery are at present employed in more than doubling the size of Capetown docks,” and yet our poor little grant that we got for going on with our break-water of £150,000 a year, is cut down to £75,000. The Minister professes the greatest love for us, and yet he cuts the grant down to one-half. If it is not too late and the Minister has not yet made up his loan estimates, will he try to bear that in mind and give a little parity of treatment between the ports?

I am one of those who think, foolishly perhaps, that when railway material is required for South Africa from overseas, the Minister and the Railway Board should give preference to manufacturers in the British Isles. The initial outlay may be a little more, but I am certain that it will he found to be cheaper and better in the long run. A great deal has been heard of the fact that the present Government is giving contracts to manufacturers on the continent of Europe, and much propaganda is being made, especially in the Natal press, for the purpose —and it is very successful—of leading the people of Natal to believe that the Pact Government is anti-British. It may be as well to draw attention to news items published in Durban. The morning paper, one day last week contained an article in connection with the steel rails imported from Belgium and now, I understand, lying at the Salt River railway works. The half-column is headed—

The article says—

I am pleased the Minister has seen fit to make a statement as to the actual facts of this matter. I would suggest that the practice should be carried out to a greater extent in order to defeat the object of these tarradiddles which find their way into the press, and are so misleading. We heard this afternoon from several speakers on the Opposition side that contracts were never sent to the Continent by the S.A.P. Government after the war. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) referred to an instance where the S.A.P. Government had placed a contract in Germany, and the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) said that was before the war.

I never made any allusion to orders in Germany that I am aware of.

It is daily contended by leader writers in the newspapers of Natal that the S.A.P. were not in the habit of sending contracts to the Continent for railway material. I have taken the trouble to find out. Hansard is a very handy thing.

At times.

Yes, at times, and this is one of them. On the 15th of February, 1924 —the year when the present Government came to office to the everlasting betterment of the country—Major Hunt, the then representative of Turffontein, asked the Prime Minister, who is now the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts)—

And the reply was, not by the Prime Minister, but by the ex-Minister of Railways and Harbours, the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger)—

I have nothing to say about that.

I am not concerned whether you have anything to say or not. But I am concerned in bringing out the fact prominently before this House that it was a common practice for the S.A.P. when in power to do exactly what they are complaining of in the Pact to-day. My hon. friend here says—

Well, so far as Durban is concerned, the greatest idea of patriotism there is driving an American car with a Union Jack made in Germany. The hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) is one of the performers.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member’s accusation against me is incorrect, and I ask him to withdraw it. I have never driven with a German-made Union Jack.

The hon. member does not drive an American car?

You said that I drove with a Union Jack made in Germany.

I will withdraw in order that we may get on. The hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) this afternoon made great play of much extravagance regarding the electrification system in Natal, and gave as an explanation of that the dual control existing while the work was being carried out, but he neglected to tell the House that all the trouble in connection with the electrification scheme in Natal was entirely due to the late Minister of Railways and Harbours (Mr. Jagger). In the committee last year a statement was made by the general manager that the original intention was for the electrification to proceed South of Pietermaritzburg, but the ex-Minister of Railways and Harbours, without consulting the Railway Board or anybody else, cancelled the original proposal and ordered the electrification to go north of Pietermaritzburg to Glencoe. I do not want to weary the House by reading extracts. I do not want to make a speech in Parliament by reading the report of the Auditor-General. But we have it on evidence of no less an authority than the general manager of railways that the ex-Minister was responsible for the whole muddle. The station and general plans were not ready by the time the overhead equipment was coming along. Men had to leave the overhead work at several points and go back again. All this shifting took time and caused considerable expense. I will leave the advocacy for a reduction of railway rates to those whom it may concern. What I am most concerned about is that no reduction of rates should take place, until the men who earn the revenue for the railways are properly looked after, and until such time as we have a contented service. Notwithstanding the many advantages and concessions railway men now enjoy as contrasted with the disadvantages they had under the previous Government, they are not yet contented, and I think sometimes with the hon. member for Cape Town (Central )(Mr. Jagger) that they never will be.

There is no doubt about that.

I believe, however, in men not being contented. If you contrast the conditions of the railwaymen of our country with those of other Dominions, it is little to be wondered at that the workers are discontented, because almost in every direction the comparison is unfavourable so far as South Africa is concerned. I understand the Minister recently received a deputation from the railwaymen of almost every big centre. This is to be commended and I hope the Minister will always endeavour to get into direct personal touch with the railway servants. The Administration should put into practice the whole of the report of the Hours of Duty Committee. This will cost a considerable sum of money. The recommendations have already been partially put into operation, but many of the good points have been nullified by the manner in which they have been applied. I hope the Minister will see his way to put the whole of that report into operation. During last recess the Railway Administration decided to remove a considerable body of men from Pietermaritzburg to Masons Mill without consultations with the men affected. Representations were made, and I wish publicly to congratulate the Administration on agreeing to send officials there to meet the men, and on the reasonable way in which the matter was ultimately settled to the satisfaction of all concerned.

The hon. member who has just sat down adversely criticized the late Minister of Railways, but the report of the Select Committee exonerates the late Minister of Railways in regard to the electrification muddle. The Select Committee’s report is a unanimous one, and it was signed by the hon. member (Mr. Strachan). If he is the honest Scotsman he professes to be and makes a charge like that then his remarks are valueless.

Read page 668.

There is no page 668. but the report does say that it finds that the change was duly placed before Parliament, supported by reports from the consulting engineers and the general manager of railways. The maize farmers are absolutely dissatisfied with the railway rates for the conveyance of maize. These rates are 50 per cent. higher than they were in 1914. Maize growing is an industry which needs encouraging, and a lower rate will stimulate production. The maize farmers have suffered unjustifiably at the hands of the Government, they having lost a lucrative market through the Government’s bungling over the tariff, for when the Government took over the 3 per cent. preference rate the Australian Government doubled the duty on South African maize, which means seven shillings per bag. We have to compete in the world’s markets, and it is an undoubted fact that we are producing the finest white maize in the world. In 1925 the maize crop of South Africa was 24½ million bags, and the work created by the moving of that crop enabled the Government to employ 14,000 men on the railways. The following year we had a short crop through a dry season and business was very black. We claim that good seasons are coming, and the Minister should regard this industry as one of the most important in the country. We have not yet reached the limit of our maize production, for South Africa is capable of producing from 30 to 35 million bags annually. The present season will not be a good one, but the chairman of the Chamber of Commerce estimates that it will be about 17 to 18 million bags. Can the Minister tell us if the Durban elevator will be completed in time to handle this season’s crops? In Natal the early maize will be fit to handle in three months. The use of the grain elevator is most beneficial to the maize farmer, as it saves him a lot of money in the purchase of bags and in the avoidance of waste caused by rats. It is quite true that farmers pay no less than 35 per cent. of their income in railway rates. Is that right in a developing country? No wonder farmers have mortgages on their farms. The farmers look to better treatment from the Government than they are receiving. There is another matter I wish to draw attention to, and that is the timber rate, which is 13 per cent. higher than it was in 1914. The amount of timber produced in Natal for the mines is valued at £500,000 annually, and if the railway rate were reduced to the 1914 level it would help the low-grade mines on the Rand which are not paying any dividend. They use a vast quantity of timber, and if the mining costs could be reduced employment would be continuous on the mines to thousands of men employed. Most of the timber comes from my constituency, but it has to travel by a right angle through Maritzburg to Mooi River, a distance of 120 miles from Krantzkop. But if it could go by the more direct route, via Greytown to Mooi River, it would make a saving of 70 miles in the transport and the landing of this timber at a cheaper figure at the mines than it is to-day. Not only that, it would relieve congestion, with the enormous down traffic on the line over the 70 miles from Pietermaritzburg to Mooi River. I reminded the Minister last session that I said, with the diminution of tanin material from the Argentine, that the world would look to South Africa to replenish the supply, and the words which I prophesied have come true quicker than I expected. The wattle bark is £2 10s. a ton dearer now owing to increased demand, than it was last year. If the Minister came to my constituency, the home of tanin producing material, he would realize how important it is to encourage this industry by building the Greytown-Mooi River and other branch lines. Bark export is worth over a million of money annually to South Africa from overseas, in addition to the half million sterling of timber sold to the mines. If I could make the Minister realize the importance of this he would have no hesitation in asking the House to vote the money to build the branch lines so badly needed in Umvoti. You cannot grow this tanning material anywhere in South Africa, because the altitude and the distance from the sea, and if the Minister would get on with these lines we should double the output and put that additional wealth in circulation in the country. There would be none to vie with us because the tanin material produced in the rest of the world cannot compete in cheapness and quality with South Africa. East Africa has tried, but owing to the distance from the sea the railway rates handicap it. I feel sad to think this industry is hanging fire for the lack of a little extra railway construction, the 60 miles extra of railways would nearly double the output of the tanin material. I fear the whole trouble in my constituency and in Natal is that we are net represented on the Railway Board. If we were we should get better treatment with regard to railway construction. When my hon. friend said that no branch lines had been built in Natal since Union he was wrong. Only twenty miles have been built, so he was not very far cut. We are not being fairly treated. We are losing time, and some other country may come along and outpace us.

It is interesting to hear the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) pleading for cheap railways for pals. In his constituency they want another railway and they want cheaper rates for timber. When they have pals wanting anything from the Government they are not afraid to come forward and ask for it. He says the reason they have got nothing lately is because they have not a representative on the Railway Board. They had a representative on the Railway Board for fifteen years and he himself admits they only got twenty miles of branch railways. I hope the Pact will do better than that. If the Minister of Railways has money to spare I hope he will not give it away in cheap railway rates for pals of the hon. member for Umvoti. I hope he will give it to the railway workers. They are not satisfied and the best way to get success is to have a satisfied staff. They still want the 8-hour day and until they get it is not right for any hon. member to be satisfied in this House. It does not cost more than £40,000 to give the guards and the ticket examiners the 8-hour day, and I ask him to give the money to them. There is one question I wanted to call attention to, and that is the question of the housing of the railway staff. I represent a division where, as the Minister well knows, the conditions are almost indescribable. I know one case where a railway worker is living with his wife and seven children in one room. The house is owned by Indians, and Indians are living in the other rooms of the house. I think a report was recently presented to the Minister himself describing the housing conditions in the district of Clairwood in my division. I went down there a little while ago myself to investigate the conditions under which some of the men in my own division live. I found a large number of men, men of the section of the South African people to whom the Minister himself belongs, living under conditions of absolute sordid poverty. There was an old lady, the grandmother of a family that had been brought down there, for the purpose of looking after the domestic arrangements. When I went into the hut, an old converted barracks, she was cooking at the stove. I asked her how she was getting on. She said that there was one thing that could be done and she would be perfectly satisfied with this concrete floor, bare walls and tin roof, and that was if she could get a board some three feet square on which she could stand while she cooked. She got the board, not through the railway department, and she is perfectly satisfied. These are the conditions and worse than these, under which servants of the railway department are working in my own division. I know that this is a wide-spread question throughout the country, but I want to make a special plea on behalf of the railway workers in my division.

I had very little intention of intervening in this debate for the simple reason that I think many of the speeches that the House has listened to to-night could be more aptly delivered on the Budget debate which is looming up in the near future, but the lion, member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) refused to read page 668 of the report and that obstinate, refusal of the hon. member has forced me to my feet. It is my intention, if the hon. member had not the courage to face the truth, to read to the House what page 668 of the report says, but before I do so I would refer the House to what the hon. Member for Weenen (Major Richards) who raised this subject of electrification this afternoon, said. Firstly, he spoke of the great waste of public money. He said that one million of public money had been wasted over electrification in Natal. That was his first object in raising this question. But, he said, it was unnecessary to point the finger of conviction at the particular individual who was responsible for this waste. There again the hon. member lacked courage or perhaps he was defending some eminent member on his side of the House, the late Minister of Railways.

No, he was not.

The hon. member for Weenen sat on the Select Committee last session which went very intimately and deeply into this question, and all of us who sat on that Committee had a very clear impression where the scheme for electrification went wrong, and yet the hon. member refuses to point the finger of conviction. I will read to the House the evidence which was given before the Select Committee last session, reported on pages 667 and 668. It is in the evidence of the general manager. He said—

Then at page 668—

A question was then asked by Mr. Le Roux—Who was the Minister?

The answer was—

The general manager then proceeded—

It was thereafter that the white paper we have heard about to-night was got out and placed before the House, in order to explain what the Minister of Railways had done, and for that purpose only.

Did not the general manager also say he entirely approved of the change?

That is not the point. The whole question was, who was behind that arbitrary change?

Were you a member of the Select Committee?

I was a member of the Select Committee. But let me point out this further fact. In evidence it also appeared very clearly that one of the main reasons for this tremendous under-estimate of a million of money was due to the then Minister forcing his officials to take out these figures without proper preparation. The previous scheme had been extremely carefully considered, and witnesses and evidence were to the effect that if the previous scheme had been proceeded with there would not have been this extraordinary under-estimate, but, owing to the arbitrary and sudden action of the Minister of that time, there was this under-estimate of over a million on the new scheme. There is the evidence. I do ask members of the Opposition to face the facts clearly and not be afraid of them.

What was the finding of the commission on that point?

That has already been stated, but the point I wish to make clear is what evidence was laid before that commission. It clearly demonstrated the fact that the late Minister of Railways was the cause of this tremendous under-estimate of a million of money on the electrification scheme in Natal.

It is interesting to hear how much value is now attached to the evidence of the general manager of railways before the Select Committee for Railways and Harbours, but yet the last speaker signed the report of the Committee which exonerated the previous Minister of Railways and Harbours from all blame.

Do you not believe the general manager?

The Select Committee attached no value to his evidence, and, notwithstanding that, handed in a report which was signed by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) and the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. te Water), which completely exonerated the previous Minister of Railways. I should also like to ask the Minister of Railways if it is not possible to reduce the rates for the carriage of agricultural produce. I hope the Minister will not listen to the advice of the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) when he said that the reduction of rates was nothing but “cheaper rates for pals.” I wonder what hon. members opposite who call themselves countryside representatives think of that.

The hon. member for Umbilo was only speaking of the speech of the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane).

I hope hon. members opposite will see that their friends are people who have no time at all for the farmers. That is the class of man who supports them. Let me say that the hon. member who speaks like that will also suffer if the farmers fail. I hope that the countryside representatives will get up and contradict the statement with regard to cheaper rates for pals, and will show that they actually represent the farmers’ interests.

Do your duty.

I shall do my duty and not allow myself to be dictated to by people who do not represent the interests of the farmers. It is an undoubted fact that if rates are reduced, especially on agricultural produce, then farming will be benefited. The high rates interfere very much with the development of farming. There is no doubt that they pay a fairly large amount of their income in railway rates. I also wish to call attention to the rate for lucerne, which was mentioned by the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden). In connection with that I want to say that the farmers generally complain that the tariff for lucerne is so high that it does not pay them to consign the article. We find to-day that along the Fish River great developments are being made, and that the State has spent thousands and thousands of pounds there. We find, however, that the people cannot pay the high railway rates. As the money has been spent by the State, the railways should also assist the people there in making a success of their work. The Johannesburg market is the only one for farmers who farm intensively and grow lucerne. I should also be glad if the Minister will give his attention to railway communication between Tarkastad and Cradock, because then there would be a link between the Fish River area and the parts where cattle farming is done. It will, therefore, be profitable not only from the point of view of the people who grow agricultural produce, but also from the point of view of those whose cattle farming is suffering severely from the drought, and who have to buy lucerne to keep their cattle alive. In the midlands the position is serious to-day, and the reduction of rates will greatly assist to prevent lucerne from being tremendously dear. The purchase of lucerne and mealies comes out at a very high price, and if the Minister will consider the reduction of rates on agricultural produce it will have a good effect, and he will give the people a chance of regaining courage to win through. The expenditure of the railways is made higher and higher to assist poor whites to get work, but if the rates had rather at that time been reduced, and the farmers been encouraged to produce, then that class of man who to-day works on the railways, and comes principally from the countryside, could have worked on the farms. I should like to know how many of the people who have been employed as labourers in the railway service belong to the unemployed class in the town, and how many came from the farms where they were assisting to produce? If they had rather assisted the farmers, then it would not have been necessary to give them work on the rail way and to make them a burden on the railways.

Ought natives preferably to have been employed?

My view is that if the farmers were able to produce more then these people would have been able to work on the farms. I stand to it that every Government should assist the farmers as much as possible.

Is that not being done?

Is the hon. member satisfied that enough is being done to-day?

We have already done a great deal.

I am not yet satisfied. The hon. member will not alter my view that I am arguing in the interests of the farmers.

Then you should also say, Thank you, for what has already been done.

I am thankful for it, but does the hon. member think that rates cannot be further reduced?

Do you wish to abolish rates?

It is the influence of the socialists which makes the hon. member ask that question. We do not want that. The farmers are prepared to pay for the services rendered them, but the rates must be reasonable and the farmers must be given a chance.

What would the rates have been if the railways had belonged to a private company?

Then there would not have been the plea that there should be a contented service before the railway rates were reduced. The company would have taken care that the railway service was conducted as cheaply as possible.

What was the tariff on the late New Cape Central Railway,

The hon. member is now talking about the railway which practically did not have a chance of developing. I shall be glad if hon. members of the Nationalist party will get up and state that in this respect they do not agree with the Labour members who say, “cheaper rates for pals.” I know that the Minister is reasonable, and I know that in his heart he is convinced that the development of the farmers must be brought about by reducing the rates where possible. A little while ago I brought a point to the notice of the Minister and I want to thank him for the expeditious way he improved matters. It was in connection with the shortage of trucks at Cradock. At present more trucks have been made available there, but the people are not altogether satisfied with the type of truck. They are trucks which will hold 200 bales of lucerne, the so-called J type, but the people would rather have the K type, in which 250 bales can be loaded.

Make the bales smaller then they will take 250.

I hope the Minister will go into it. Further I want to ask him to give instructions for the trucks to be properly cleaned before the farmers have to load their sheep and wool in them. It happens now that trucks are dirty with coal dust and other things.

I am glad that there are so many farmers in the House to-night, and that farmers’ interests are being advocated, inter alia, cheaper rates for lucerne. I should also like to urge this upon the Minister, but as other members have already done so, I want to advocate the reduction of the rates for the export of lucerne. We do not always have a drought and sometimes there is a large surplus of lucerne. The farmers of Oudtshoorn and Ladismith have now tried to find a market for lucerne abroad, and to advertise it there, they sent 50 tons gratis abroad as an advertisement. We then tried to induce the shipping companies to carry lucerne more cheaply and they replied that they were prepared to do so if the railways would also carry the lucerne cheaper. I hope the Minister will be able to do so. With regard to the civilised labour policy I want to ask hon. members opposite if they want to return to the old policy and replace white men by natives. Do they wish more people to be driven away from the countryside. The natives have come out of their territories and squeezed out many people who have taken refuge in the towns and villages. It is only fair that the Minister of Railways and Harbours should apply the civilized labour policy. The people are not altogether happy, but are satisfied that they can at least make a living and support their wife and children. We hope therefore that the Minister will go on with that policy. There are a few other little things which I should like to bring to the Minister’s notice. In the first place I want to point out to him the inconveniece to the Ladismith farmers owing to the complete absence of cattle kraals along the railway line. I negotited about this point with the Minister, and he replied that there was not enough traffic, but I think the Minister will admit that recently thousands of head of cattle have been carried, and the people have at present to load the cattle by hand which is not only inconvenient but also causes expense and damage. Then I want to point out the inconvenience to the travelling public at Touws River. The trains arrive there and there is no connection with the main line trains. The people have to wait there a number of hours, and the conveniences, therefore, are not at all adequate. The waiting room is too small for the large number of passengers often at the station. I hope the Minister will go into it. Hon. members have pleaded for better housing for the railway workers. At Touws River there is much to be wished for in this respect, and I shall be glad if the Minister will inquire into it. Houses were erected there in former days, but as a result of the extension of the railway area the locomotives now go immediately past the houses, and these are almost uninhabitable on account of the smoke and noise. Then there is another block of houses that was originally intended for coloured people, but owing to the shortage of quarters are to-day occupied by whites. The post office at Touws River is also inadequate, and the Minister can make an improvement in that also. For the nth time I want in conclusion to ask the Minister whether the construction of the little bit of line between Ladismith and Calitzdorp will soon now be commenced. The Minister knows that it will reduce the distance by train from Calitzdorp to Cape Town by 72 miles if that missing link is added. A large deputation the other day pleaded for the building of a railway line from a certain point in the Oudtshoorn district to Beaufort West. I am not asking only for relief works, but am making a payable proposition. The little line to Calitzdorp does not pay today, and will never pay, unless the Minister builds the missing link. At present the people at Calitzdorp have commenced to export fruit. A thousand boxes of grapes were exported the other day, but they have first to be sent to Oudtshoorn, and from there by a detour to Cape Town. If it is not otherwise possible the line can possibly be constructed as a relief works, similarly to the Namaqualand line. This will give many people work who are at present without food, and at the same time it will pay the department.

I want to say a few words about white labour, or, as the Minister says, “civilized labour.” It seems to me that the Minister has had a little trouble in finding a suitable name, because it would not do to call it white labour, as coloured people are also included. The Minister has, therefore, called it civilized labour. It would be difficult to say precisely what is meant by that, because, as the Minister has himself said, all work en nobles. There is, therefore, no uncivilized work on the railways. The Minister has, however, given a definition of what he means, and said that civilized labour is that for which a wage is paid which will enable a white man to live at a civilized standard. It is a good definition. The Minister even went further, and said that, as soon as a native had so far advanced as to stand on the same level as a white man, his labour would also fall under civilized labour and he would also enjoy the same rights and privileges. Now, the question is whether wages are being paid by the Minister which make it possible for the white person to follow a civilized way of living and to maintain the standard of a civilized man. If we look at the wages that are paid, we must admit that they are not sufficient to properly lead a civilized life—to put a man in the position of giving his children a proper education. I should thus like to see the Minister able to raise the wages of railway workers. The chief point regarding the branch line in my district is, however, that the dwellings of the people are quite inadequate there. They live in little huts of corrugated iron or something else, and there a man and his family have to live. I have here a letter written by a person who is well acquainted with the labour position on the railways, and he mentions a case where a married man lives in a small corrugated iron dwelling with his wife and has another man who is un-married in the same room. That surely will not meet with the Minister’s approval, and I hope he will bring about an alteration and improvement. In the report of the general manager of railways, we read that the application of the civilized labour policy costs the taxpayers the sum of £190,000 per annum, and the erection of dwellings in connection with the use of civilized labour has cost about £270,000, of which £250,000 is for newly-constructed lines that is a colossal amount, and the question naturally is: who will pay it? The users of the railways pay that amount, and it is an amount that they would actually not have to pay if the Minister employed natives. The inland provinces—the Free State, Transvaal, and a portion of the Cape Province—have to pay it. The coastal areas do not suffer so much through it. Take the building of new lines. The Minister knows that a new line is being built in my district with civilized labour. The cost of the wages calculated on a native basis and the extra cost were calculated. The difference between the construction of the line by whites and native labour must come out of the Treasury.

Do you want to alter the system?

What I would suggest is, whether it would not assist the Minister to reduce the rates if the extra costs of the white labour policy were to fall on the consolidated revenue fund.

Will you be in favour of that?

Yes, I am in favour of it, and that the extra cost should be put to the debit of the general Budget. I am, however, in favour of the policy of civilized labour which is being followed by the Minister, and it is, I think, praise worthy that so many thousands of people find work on the railways, but I should like to see that the wages were higher and the dwellings were better, and that extra expenditure in connection with the policy should fall on the Treasury, so that the Minister should be able to reduce the rates generally. Then there is another matter to which I want to direct the attention of the Minister. It is one I have already mentioned, but the Minister replied that it was an impossible thing, and that the cost would be too much. I believe, however, that the Minister did not quite understand me. I spoke of platforms at the country halts. I do not want the construction at every outside station of a large platform as long as a train, which will cost hundreds of pounds, because I know that the passenger traffic is not sufficiently great to justify so large an expenditure. To make a small platform as long as a vehicle, however, to enable aged passengers to get up or to descend will not cost more than £15 or £20. I do not know whether the Minister has witnessed the arrival of a train at one of these outside halts. The steps are made under the railway carriage. Although it is easy to ascend and descend at large stations, such as Johannesburg and Cape Town, because people do not notice the height from the ground, it is very difficult at outside stations. The Minister ought to give attention to try and find out if it would not be possible to build small platforms. The train staff are willing enough to assist the passengers in ascending and descending, and there is no lack of assistance, but the want of platforms causes great inconvenience to the passengers, and I shall, therefore, be glad if the Minister will be more sympathetic and will not immediately answer—

I can assure the Minister that it will not cost too much, and I hope he will have the improvement effected.

The last speaker mentioned “civilized” labour. I wonder whether because a man is black he requires less in the way of recreation and holiday than in the case of a white or coloured man. A native porter in my constituency informed me that the native employees on the railways are receiving no pay for four public holidays per annum, whereas the coloured labourers are paid for these holidays. The departmental reply to me stated that the four days’ leave per annum granted to non-Europeans are restricted to coloured labourers employed on work of a more or less permanent character and are not applicable to natives. I think that is an injustice, and I cannot see any reason for making that differentiation. Often a black man is more “civilized” than a coloured man or even some white men, and I do not see why he should be debarred from this privilege because he is a native. The sooner this is adjusted the better. We heard just now about the desirability of having contentment and satisfaction in the railway service, but I want to see that throughout the public services, whatever may be the colour of the men’s skin. Another point I wish the Minister to consider is the question of branch line rates. Main line rates are in operation on certain branch lines, including those from Cookhouse to Blaney, Rosmead to Stormberg, and Springfontein to Fauresmith. The same thing will apply to the De Aar-Upington section and also to the Cape Central Railways. I take it that line would be treated as a main line. I ask the Minister to have the matter gone into to see if the same main line rates cannot be extended from Alicedale to Port Alfred. I do not want to treat the matter in a parochial or village-pump manner. If his department went into the figures, that alone would justify that line being treated on that basis. I can give him a long list of the produce, values, tonnage and cartage in and out on the line from Alicedale to Port Alfred, and the producing area from Port Alfred to Grahamstown. For the whole of last year there has been a big increase in the production of that district, and I think you will find that the very successful motor lorry services in that area are increasing the railway traffic, and feeding the line, so that to all in-tents and purposes, traffic on that section is main line traffic. It is no good saying that that line does not pay, nor that the costs of haulage are heavy, because that is an engineering mistake committed when the lines were first built. The fact remains there is this line, with its expensive haulage, and the Minister may say the haulage costs are very high on that section. We know they are. I am sorry I have not the totals worked out, and I do not want to bore the House with half a column of figures. The traffic forward from Grahams town, for instance, included 8 trucks or 52 tons of oranges, nearly 10.000 cases of apples, over 7 of deciduous fruit and nearly 15,000 packages of vegetables. My point is that the fruit and pineapple production is going up in leaps and bounds, nearly 3,000 cases, or 34 tons of pineapple, and 6,000 cases or 307 tons of oranges and apples, etc., were carried, and that production is for 1925, for which figures were available, and I think it was nearly doubled in the last year. I ask the Minister to go into this question and see whether it would not be possible to extend the privileges of main line rates to this line, which, for administrative purposes, is considered a branch line. Then there is another point to which I would like to call attention; it is rather going from the sublime to the ridiculous, but I would like to see more shower baths provided on the passenger trains going to the North. That is one of the things we should encourage, one of the things we could easily add to the amenities of our railways, which already have a good name for comfort and convenience.