When the debate was adjourned yesterday evening I was busy referring to the fact that the former Government did not only pursue a bad financial policy but that our country was plunged into poverty. A considerable portion of our people were reduced to beggary, and when the former Government resigned 3½ years ago the people said—

The Nationalist party came into power with a Pact Government, and to-day the people outside are glad that it has had the opportunity of putting this Government at the head of affairs, because it possessed enough statesmanship to enable it to rescue the people in their distress. At the time of the former Government there were deficits annually. First of all a financial policy of inflation was attempted and when everybody was going about the country with a roll of banknotes, suddenly a change was made and a policy of deflation was adopted with the result that thousands of well-established farmers and inhabitants of the country were driven to bankruptcy and did not see a bright future for themselves in South Africa. Now the people feel that this Government, which has been so much criticized of late, is showing surpluses, and this year the biggest surplus since Union has been achieved. I cannot associate myself with a few points mentioned by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). I am also in favour of economy but if it has to be achieved at the people’s expense then I do not feel that that is a kind of economy which will advance the welfare of the country, and that we cannot go to work in that way. The hon. member mentioned yesterday too that taxation had actually been increased since 1924 by £3,098,000, and that there has been no reduction in taxation in spite of the increased revenue. He asserted that if the European population in 1923-’24 and the revenue of that year were compared with the present European population and revenue, it would be found that there has been an increase of taxation on the population of 14s. per head. I have gone carefully into the matter in order to see what has actually happened, and on enquiry it appears that the Minister has abolished certain taxes and that in place of these no new taxes have been imposed. We can only come to one Conclusion, therefore, viz., that the present Government was in a position to create a more progressive people, and that the existing taxes are sufficient to cover our revenue to-day. Those are not taxes we have imposed on the people, but they were imposed by the opposite side of the House. All that we have had to do with it was to eliminate from our statutes the direct taxation of the poor man. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) also advanced some other argument which I cannot understand. He first of all spoke in the interests of primary products, but then reversed altogether and now he wants import duties on sugar to be diminished. I wonder what the sugar farmers of Natal will say about this, because the sugar industry is one of the primary industries of the country and the sugar farmers are a part of the primary producers. The hon. member cannot pose as a supporter of the protection of primary products and on the other hand allege that the import duties which aim at the protection of primary products, should be reduced. The hon. member has endeavoured to persuade the public outside that the Opposition is also speaking in the interests of the farmers, because he was very much concerned about their interests. However, after that, he urges that import duties on sugar should be removed, and he has forgotten that we have sugar farmers in Natal. I wonder what the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) will have to say about it, and whether he will agree with the hon. member for Cape Town (Central). I differ from the hon. member on another point, and I wonder whether he speaks for his party where he supports low costs of production. We are against that because we are in favour of reasonable costs of production in our industries. The lowest costs of production are not in the interests of the farmers because they mean low wages in factories and mines and low wages have as a result a low purchasing power and consequently a worse market for the farmers. This side of the House is in favour of the principle of reasonable costs of production. We want the costs of production to be in proportion to the bearing capacity of our industries because in that way the purchasing power of the country is increased, so that the prices of agricultural products will rise correspondingly. From the budget speech of the hon. Minister of Finance it seems clear that the economic condition of the country has made considerable progress, but in spite of this progress I want to say that in one regard that has not been the case, and that is in the farming industry. The present Government is not to blame for this because the position of the farmer is a peculiar one. He is dependent on the purchasing power of the world market and on the supply and demand of the world market, and is not in the same position as the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) who can raise the prices of his articles and obtain the higher price. The farmers are dependent on what the market will pay and therefore it is all the more necessary for the Government to see to it that the purchasing power of the country is kept as high as possible, and therefore it is necessary that the costs of production in the country be reasonably high. I made an accusation against the former Government here, and I want to refer to a few facts in order to show that there is reason for that accusation. When the present Government came into power it was said that they would be able to govern very easily because they had inherited a house in order from the former Government. It was said that the Pact Government would be able to govern very nicely because the former Government had left a surplus of £300,000, and it was prophesied that when that £300,000 had been spent the Pact Government would have no money for further progress.

What about the £3,000,000?

I said that there was a surplus of £300,000 and the South African party alleged that as soon as the £300,000 had been spent the Pact Government would not be able to get money with which to govern the country. First I would just like to say that there were one or two other old book debts of the former Government which had never been mentioned, and although this was done in the past year or two it was not done often enough because hon. members of the Opposition appeared to be very innocent about it.

Is that the £3,000,000 which was taken from the former enemies, the Germans?

I am coming to that. And then I shall also ask what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) said in that connection on a platform in Johannesburg. But let me come back to the three years prior to 1923. The former Government showed deficits during that time altogether not less than £2,745,000. I just want to tell the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) that he and the Opposition only think in terms of millions when they have to do with deficits and unproductive debts, but in hundreds when they are talking about surpluses. The accumulated deficit had to be paid with moneys from capital account, and if the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. J. P. Louw) runs his farm in such a manner that he has to take amounts from his capital every year in order to cover the expenses, I wonder how long he will exist. In 1923 there was again a deficit of £2,144,000. In 1924, before the end of their regime, the former Government had again to take £500,000 from capital account. If they did not in the first and last cases take money from capital account in order to cover the deficits, the accumulated deficit would have been £5,389,000, and not £2,144,000. The £3,245,000 was, indeed, paid out of capital account, but who is to pay it back? The people have to pay whether it comes from capital account or from any other account. The debt remains and, unfortunately, it is unproductive debt of which the former Government has left so much behind. The country, however, sees through it and, at the next election, the electors will give their verdict and the Opposition benches, when we come back, will contain many more empty places. Let us examine for a moment this inherited debt of £2,144,000, and the so-called surplus which we were supposed to take over from the former Government, and see what was the actual position. The surplus was not £300,000, but £226,000 and it was portion of the £500,000 taken from capital account. It was, therefore, no surplus. If we subtract the £226,000 then there still remains a deficit of £1,918,000 of the £2,144,000. At the end of this lucky Government’s first financial year, as it is called, there was a surplus of £808,000, which was used, not in advancing our own interests, but in paying off the old debt of the former Government. Then there was, therefore, still a balance of the old accumulated deficit of £1,110,000. Now I come to the amounts taken from the custodian of enemy property, viz., an amount of £3,419,000. If the account in the “Star” is correct then the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) said on a platform in Johannesburg in connection therewith that the present Government has wasted that 3½ million. Let us see what truth there is in it. In the first place, £200,000 was taken for land settlement in South-West Africa. Is there ail hon. member who has anything against that? £500,000 was taken and given to the provincial councils for road construction. Do hon. members object to that? Then £1,609,000 was utilized in paying off public debt, and the balance of £1,110,000 was taken to settle the balance of the accumulated deficit. Now where is the wastage? That debt is a sign that in the past money has been wasted, but this amount of £2,144,000 is not the only deficit. There are many other deficits, e.g., the pension funds with large deficits, on the Cape Civil Services Pension Fund the deficit is £2,525,711, and that has to be liquidated from revenue, and this Government allocates annually a sum of £128,700 for the rehabilitation of that fund, and this year £160,000 has been provided in order to put these funds on a sound footing. For 25 years an amount of this nature will have to be provided in order to put in order the funds neglected by the South African party. Then there is the Transvaal fund with a deficit of £560,000, of which £250,000 was paid off last year from the surplus. There is still to be paid the Natal police and superannuation fund, which shows a deficit of £800,000, and for which the Government put aside £25,000 in 1925, and £24,000 in 1926, and £59,000 in 1927. If we add up these deficits we see that the accumulated deficit which must eventually be paid from revenue is no less than £6,029,711. The elector outside is noticing this, and knows how he is going to vote next time. The facts are not disclosed by members on the other side. They are very much afraid that the facts will become known to the people. People are told that this Government has not reduced taxation during the time in which it has been in office. We have repealed taxes, and those are taxes imposed by the Opposition. The Opposition always imposed taxes and never reduced them. There is the medicines tax and the tobacco tax, which hit the poor man and, although to-day the Opposition pooh-pooh this, yet they were then considered so important that they were imposed and could not be remitted. The fact that the abatement of income tax has been raised from £300 to £400, and revenue is greater than in the past, is a clear indication of the progress of the country under the present Government.

What about the licences tax?

Do you pay it? I am here as the representative of the farmers and not of licence payers. Then there is the reduction in postal tariff and the alteration in the estates tax, by means of which small estates are also exempted. Then the employers tax in the Transvaal has been done away with. It is said that this is not a Union, but a provincial tax, but it was only possible for the municipal council to repeal this tax by reason of the increased subsidy which they now receive from this Government. It is, therefore a tax really repealed by this Government; the subsidies to the provincial count is have been raised with the result that the provincial councils have been able to reduce their taxes. The Government has also assumed further burdens by taking over technical training, and by providing for oud-stryders by increasing granted war pensions has assisted the old republicans. If all these amounts of taxes repealed and the burdens the Government has assumed are added together we find that they amount to approximately £3,000,000. The burden of taxation has been reduced. The obligations assumed by the Government have been increased, but no new taxes have been imposed, and, in spite of that, every year there are surpluses which leave the Opposition dumbfounded. I have one difficulty, and I hope that the Minister will pay some attention to it, and that is that I am sorry that a large portion of the big surpluses have not been used towards the buying of land under the nine-tenths system, because my opinion is that that is the best system of land settlement we have ever tried in South Africa, and the more money rendered available for it the better. Our people would then be able to remain on the land and become a success. Another point already mentioned by the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. Tom Naudé) is the bringing in of natives from other territories. Our industries have developed and diamond fields have spread enormously and native labour is very scarce to-day, and if we close the boundaries altogether against the importation of unskilled labour, we fear that the farmers who cannot pay high wages will suffer. We must take into account the nature and dimensions of the sphere of labour and see how much labour is available, and whether it is necessary to make provision for importing labourers for the farms from other territories.

What does the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) say?

I am speaking of farm labour. The hon. member for Troyeville was quite correct in saying that labour just like any other thing should be regulated by supply and demand, and that if too much labour is imported it will handicap our labour market in the industrial sphere.

Now you are in a difficulty.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) ought to be more careful, because his electors will not tolerate his attitude much longer. The sooner he takes up a different position the better. It may, perhaps, be necessary for him to change his party if he wishes to keep his seat. The electors of Johannesburg (North) are beginning to taste the sweet fruits of the Nationalist Government, and they do not want to change. To-day we are not a party Government, but a people’s Government, that is why the country prospers and faces the future with confidence.

The hon. member who has just sat down has been singularly unhappy in the reference he made to my friend the member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys). He told the House that my hon. friend will have to change his party if he wants to retain his seat, and that the country was extremely satisfied with the Pact party. The answer has been given by his own constituency. Three years ago we had a general election, and we know with what majority the hon. member was returned to this House. There was another election a few months ago, and the hon. member knows with what a small majority that seat was retained in the provincial council. No, the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) is perfectly safe, but I would ask the hon. member for Marico (Mr. J. J. Pienaar) to be very careful about his own seat. The hon. member was equally infelicitous in the reference he made to the deficits left by the South African party Government. He said the South African party Government left accumulated deficits of £2,100,000 which this Pact Government had to pay off, but he forgot to say that with that deficit the South African party Government left assets to the tune of £3,400,000, with which the deficit was wiped out, but the Government was left with a large sum of money to distribute largesse all over the country—£500,000 to the provincial council for roads, £700,000 for land settlement, and money for other purposes. Not a penny of Pact money was needed to be spent on the deficit left by us. We left enough money to pay off our own deficits, so the hon. member can be quite easy on that score.

Unfortunately, it should not have been used for wiping out deficits, it should have been used for capital purposes.

I need not pursue the argument. I agree with the hon. members who said that the true financial position is reflected, not by the budget of the Minister of Finance, but by the budget of the Minister of Railways. It is the railway budget which reflects the true financial position in the country to-day. They have both been sinners, but the Minister of Railways has been the greater sinner, and his sins have found him out sooner. It has been said that the Minister of Finance is lucky. The Minister of Finance is still basking in the sunshine, whilst the gloom has already overtaken the Minister of Railways. The day of the Minister of Finance is also coming. There can only be one end, and the Minister of Finance, looking with gloom at his friend, the Minister of Railways, can say with another great man—

No, the effect of this spendthrift policy of the Pact Government is clearly reflected by the railway budget. There has been this indisputable rise of expenditure in three years from 1924, when the Pact Government came into power, to this year, 1927, when altogether the admitted rise is £5,750,000 in the railway expenditure, almost £2,000,000 per year. Of course, it might be said it was spent for good and laudable purposes, but that is not the question. There are many good and laudable purposes to which I could draw attention, but the question is—can this country stand the expenditure? I can mention an infinite number of laudable objects on which money can be spent if we had the resources, but we have not, and we must cut our coat according to our cloth. In the year of depression when the present Government took over. 1924, my friend, the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), could produce a railway budget with a surplus of almost £1,500,000. This year, a year of prosperity, following years of prosperity, the hon. Minister comes with a deficit, and it would have been a larger deficit but for the windfall he had in relation to the Electricity Commission. He budgets for another deficit which might be still larger, and it shows the change which has come over our public finance. Whereas the South African party Government in years of depression after a hard struggle could more than make ends meet, the Pact Government, in years of prosperity, have frittered away that prosperity, and have come to the House with deficits. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) could, during years of depression, reduce railway rates by millions. What has been done by the present Government? He (Mr. Jagger) economized and was, perhaps, too ruthless in the details, but he did a great national service at great odium to himself, to his Government, and to his party, but a national duty was laid upon him, and he did it. After three years of Pact Government that work has been frittered away, it is lost and gone. Railway expenditure has been run up to a colossal figure, and we sit with the dismal result that there is no prospect of further reduction of railway rates, and there will be no reduction as long as this Government remains in power. Economies are gone, and this dismal prospect as to the future is before us. Moreover, the Minister of Railways has made it impossible for us to find out the true position. He has formally abolished statistics for the branch lines. That is a very serious matter. We are enjoined by the South Africa Act to run the railway on business lines. We want branch lines in this country, and no one will go to the length of saying there should not be branch lines built, but we must know the facts and have the figures. The Minister has made it impossible for us in future, if we abide by his decision. It will be impossible to say whether in the policy of railway extensions in all directions we are carrying out the intention of the South Africa Act, and proceeding on business lines. He has announced also that he has abolished the figures in regard to the civilized labour policy. That is also a serious matter. We ought to know the facts. There are not many members in the House who object to a sane and moderate civilized labour policy—

Another convert!

Not a convert, but an original apostle! The white civilized labour policy was started as far back as 1908, and thousands and thousands of white labourers were taken into the railway service before Union. I believe the number was a very large one indeed. There is no objection to the policy, but the country must know from time to time what the figures and financial aspects are. We cannot now ascertain whether this is a policy which is being carried out on business lines or not.

How long did you maintain that policy?

That policy was carried out right to the very end, in years of depression.

Are you serious?

Yes, just as clearly as the Minister’s has been carried out to the 31st of March. The House is aware of the circular which was mentioned by the hon. member for Harbour (Maj. G. B. van Zyl).

Have I retrenched?

Wait until your end has come. No, I say that, even where we agree with the policy, we are by the South Africa Act obliged to run our railways on business lines, and the least we should do is to have the facts and figures before us, but the Minister has now made it impossible for us to have the facts and figures, and in the future we shall have to grope in the dark in regard to them. The Auditor-General has expressed his opinion very strongly that we are not acting rightly, that we are acting wrongly in suppressing these figures. However, this Government rides roughshod over everybody and over everything. There is their policy and they will carry it out until they go over the edge, which, I hope, is not very far off. There has been this great growth, this extraordinary growth of expenditure in the railways and yet the Minister comes forward and wants to make this House believe that there is to-day more efficiency in the railways service than there was in 1923, during the time that my hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) was cutting to the bone and doing his best to run the railways with the least possible resources. The Minister says to-day there is more efficiency. The proof he alleges is this, that it costs now, according to his calculations, something like 1.1d. per train mile less to run the service than it did in 1923. That is surely a childish argument. I was surprised that the Minister should seriously come forward and ask this House to believe an argument of that kind. I am not arguing whether the reduction is a fact or not, but, even assuming that it is a fact, it is perfectly clear that the bigger the business is, the bigger the traffic is, the less, relatively, the expense is. There has been a great expansion of traffic, there has been a great expansion of mileage and of train mileage, and it stands to reason that if the railways were economically run there ought to be a very substantial reduction in the cost per train mile. The only reduction that the Minister can show is one of a penny and a fraction. I say that is a reflection on the Minister. So far from being a proof of additional efficiency, it is a proof of real inefficiency. I do not think the matter is worth arguing even. It is notorious that there is to-day a growing slackness and inefficiency in the railway service.

Give us one single instance.

The Minister wants a single instance. Well, if the Minister, instead of running politics in this country, will run his railways then we would have less instances than we have to-day.

Give us one instance.

These facts are notorious and they are universal.

Give us an instance.

And accidents.

I am not speaking about accidents. It is notorious that the standards are falling in the whole railway service. What else can you expect when political considerations are being introduced more and more into our railways? Men are being harried and transferred from pillar to post, not because of their inefficiency, but because of their politics.

I challenge you to give us a single instance.

It requires a great deal of hardihood to throw out that challenge. The Minister can go to any body of railway servants, or any trustworthy railway officials, and get instances. It is notorious that this is taking place. White labour is being distributed in small voting forces all over the country, at strategical points. The civilized labour policy really leads to a mobile voting force in this country. You will find these little colonies dotted all over the country in order to produce the necessary effect at election time. It is commonly said—I do not know whether it is correct, but the Minister, no doubt, can give the House information on the point— it is commonly said that discipline is being undermined in the service.

Said by whom?

If the hon. member will give me a minute, I will proceed. It is commonly said that discipline is being undermined in the service. In many cases there is direct correspondence between the Minister and men low down in the railway service over their grievances.

Give me one single instance. It is not correct. I challenge you to give one single instance.

I the Minister denies that he has never received correspondence from railway workers or labourers direct, then I accept it. Will he say that?

I certainly do.

There is no doubt that there is a growing indiscipline, a growing slackness, and a great inefficiency in the railway service and you see the results everywhere. The older men in the service shake their heads. They do not understand what is going on. The service has been their pride; they have built it up and they see after a few short years the great morale which once animated our railway service going to pieces. But the most serious result of all this, as far as the country is concerned, is that railway rates are not going to be reduced. I look upon that as a very serious thing for this country. We have great handicaps from the transport point of view. Our rivals in the world are much better situated than we are from a transport point of view. You have the Argentine with its magnificent river transport. You have Australia developed more or less within reasonable distance of the coast. In this country of vast distances the expansion and development have been mostly inland, at great distances from the coast, and we are absolutely dependent for our future expansion and our development and our progress in this country on cheap railway rates, and the worst news you can give to this country and to all forms of industry here is that there is going to be no prospect of further reduction of railway rates in the near future.

made an interjection.

The hon. member was not present yesterday when instances were quoted by the hon. member for Harbour (Maj. G. B. van Zyl). He gave the facts. What I say is this that, even where in other countries they happen to have higher railway rates, because of the shorter distances there the effect is not so great as here. You have to consider our railway rates in relation to the very long distances that we have to go in this country to see what the magnitude of the burden is which rests upon development in this country in that respect. I am very sorry, but I think that it is the greatest dis-service that the Pact Government could have rendered this country. We have always this solid fact before us, that in hard times, in difficult times, in times of depression, my hon. friend’ on my left (Mr. Jagger) could reduce railway rates and could help the future development of this country, whereas now we have gone in for a different policy—we are no doubt giving employment to far larger numbers—and the result is that the development of this country is not going to be helped by reduced transport expense. Take the case of coal. Coal is our principal mineral. Our coal assets, our coal deposits, are a far greater asset to us than our gold or diamonds or any other mineral deposit that we have. With low coal rates we could build up la tremendous industry in this country. We might capture the markets of the East. How was the industrial position of Great Britain built up? On the export of coal. It was the export of coal that gave Great Britain the great industrial position that she achieved in the world. Here we have these enormous deposits in this country, but go to any coal enterprise and you will hear from them that the handicap on the development of this industry is very considerable, because of the distance that our coal deposits are from the coast, and the comparatively high railway rates at which coal is carried to the coast. No, the railway system should have been a stimulus, instead of being a handicap, as it now is, to the development of our country in this connection. Take another instance, take a matter with which we are dealing this session—the iron and steel industry. The iron and steel industry to be established at Pretoria will only have a certain radius. It cannot command the whole of South Africa. The Minister of Defence has explained to us that it will only have a certain radius in the interior, because our railway rates are such that over a very large portion of South Africa, not only the coast but a very substantial part of the interior, foreign enterprise can compete successfully with this enterprise to be established in Pretoria. This only shows the vast importance to this country of the lowest possible railway rates. If we had low rates it might be possible for this industry to compete all over South Africa, whereas under the existing system we are confined to a certain radius in the interior.

Would you carry at less than cost?

When the cost is worked up to the high figure and on the basis which this Government is doing, I think there will be very little reduction of railway rates. Even so I am told that when this enterprise is in full swing there will be a great loss to the railways. I have seen the statement made that the loss to the railways is going to be about half a million per annum owing to the establishment of this industry in the interior. It is of the utmost importance for our industrial development in this country that railway rates should be reduced to the lowest basis possible. The Minister says there is no prospect, and there will be no prospect in his day, of lower railway rates. The blame for all this rests with the Government. I do not blame the senior staff of the railways for the situation into which we have landed ourselves. They have done their best under very difficult conditions. The General Manager of Railways has been a tower of strength to this country. We are going to lose him. Let me say this, that Sir William Hoy has to this country been, in my opinion, a priceless asset; his enterprise, his enormous efficiency and his driving power have been of the greatest assistance to the development of this country. The railways to-day are far and away the biggest business in this country; the railway budget is bigger than the general budget. But for men at the top of the very highest calibre I wonder what would become of this enormous machine of our railway system. Weil, he is going, and I shudder to think how things will turn out in this country in days to come. One hears curious rumours about new experiments to be tried in railway management in this country. One can only await events and see what is going to happen. But let me say this to the Minister of Railways, let me warn him against tampering with our system, which was established under the South Africa Act and has worked fairly well so far. The country has had quite enough of his amateurish experiments, and I hope he will be very careful before he breaks down a system established under the South Africa Act. Let me now turn to the general budget. As everybody has said, the Minister of Finance has had great luck— three successive years of surpluses. But that is not the question. There is no particular merit in surpluses. I do not wish to detract in the least from the merit of the Minister of Finance, but he will agree with me, and I think we must all agree, that in surpluses you have various elements—of accident, of good fortune, even elements of miscalculation. It is sometimes, in well regulated and well governed countries, considered a very serious reflection on a Minister of Finance when he produces a surplus far beyond what he foresaw and anticipated. No, he has not much merit in coming forward with a surplus.

Is there more merit in a deficit?

Sometimes. I think it would have been better for this country if our finances had been regulated in such a way and taxation had been reduced in such a way that rather than coming forward with these spectacular surpluses my hon. friend had come to us with a small deficit. That is my criticism of the budget. He has had a great opportunity of reducing expenditure in this country and of reducing taxation especially. Year after year he has come with these beautiful surpluses, and I think it is a severe condemnation of the financial policy he has followed that he has not made use of his opportunity and that he has not come and said to the country—

If he had remitted taxes in proportion to the inflow of revenue and to the surpluses, this country would have been a much happier one. Finance is simply an instrument for national welfare, and I am sorry to say that the Minister has not used that financial instrument to the best advantage.

Taxes have been reduced by over £1,000,000.

I will come to that. I say without fear of contradiction from any side of the House, that the greatest boon we could have in this country would be low taxation. We are a young country, in many ways a poor country. We are a country that must be developed, and if you ease the burdens on the people, if you reduce taxation and make the cost of living low, you are making the best contribution to the future development of the country.

Why didn’t you do it?

Let me come to the £1,000,000 remission that the Minister has referred to. What have been the surpluses? The Minister has, with great pride, trotted them out—£808,000 in 1924; £422,000 in 1925, and last year, 1926, £1,150,000.

You have never seen that.

Only too true. I have not seen these surpluses for many years. A total of £2,380,000. What an opportunity! I laboured with deficits in my day.

Not reducing taxation, but putting it on.

We had to. The Minister knows that we were called upon to rule this country just when the curve was at its lowest— after the war, in that dead period when every country in the world was shaken to its foundations by depression. Those were the years in which we ruled and saw the country through. We had labour troubles and industrial troubles. We need not shout over these things. I did not cause these troubles; every country in the world had them. Every country had that deep depression; we were visited by the same calamities, and we saw it through. It is ridiculous in the extreme, it is childish, to compare the period through which we had to steer this country with the period of quiet and prosperity in which the day of the Minister has fallen. Let me go into the remission of taxation. I have read out these enormous surpluses, these figures over which the Minister and his supporters have gloated. What use was made of that opportunity? Let me just mention that in the first year, in 1924, the Minister made some customs adjustments in local industries, and he made the tobacco adjustment; he abolished the medicine duty and he remitted taxation that first year to the extent of £104,000. Then in the following year, 1925, there were again remissions on leaf tobacco, and the penny postage was started then. These two items together amounted to a remission of £330,000.

And income tax?

I will deal with income tax. It happens to fall the other way. In the same year there were additions to the taxation. There was a new customs tariff; the 3 per cent. preference was abolished. The Minister said that that meant £600,000. He made certain remissions on that again to the extent of £200,000. So that, as far as customs were concerned, there was a total addition to our burden of £400,000. There were certain income tax adjustments in the same year which put an additional burden of £200,000 on the taxpayer, and, therefore, together the £400,000 from the customs and the £200,000 from income tax adjustment gives an additional taxation of £600,000, as against the remission of £330,000. In 1925, therefore, there was an addition to taxation—not a remission—to the extent of £270,000.

Someone has been pulling your leg.

I have taken these figures from the budget. I am still waiting for the Minister’s £1,000,000. Let me come to the two following years. The following year, 1926, there was a better showing. There was the restoration of penny postage, £300,000, and income tax abatement of £205,000. There was, therefore, a remission of taxation to the extent of £500,000. The Minister also claims that the abolition of the Transvaal Employers’ Tax should be looked upon as a remission, that is, £180,000. I have never been able to agree with him there, and I do not think any sensible man has been able to do so. How the abolition of a provincial tax which never came into our coffers could be looked upon as a remission of Union taxation, I never could make out. The result, therefore, is that in that year there was this remission of £505,000. This year there will be a further remission of £2,15,000, according to the announcement of the Minister. If these figures are added together, the pluses and the minuses, we get a total remission of taxation for the three years of £554,000, not the million that the Minister of Labour referred to, but half a million. There is a total surplus of £2,380,000, a boom time for the country, and that great opportunity, that unrivalled opportunity, for easing the burden on the people was utilized to the extent of reducing taxation by £500,000. I think that is a very severe reflection on the finance of the Minister. He should have used his opportunity better. Instead of coming here with spectacular surpluses he should have come with spectacular reductions of taxation. That would have endeared him to the hearts of the people of this country. We have had surprises; I believe that the taxation involved in the withdrawal of the British preference was probably greater than was thought at the time, because the customs revenue has been continually showing much better than was anticipated, and I believe the step the Minister took in abolishing the British preference laid a much greater burden on the people of this country than was thought at the time. I say this, that the mistake of the Minister in not reducing taxation and in coming forward with these surpluses has been very great indeed, and has had very far-reaching consequences. How can you expect economy in administration as long as the Government comes forward year after year with a big surplus? You destroy the spirit of economy. You hold an inducement, a temptation before the country and the Government to spend more and more. It would have been far better to have relieved taxation, and that I would have called good finance. But the spurious reputation, if I may say so, which my hon. friend has built up on these surpluses, will not last long. It would have been a far more lasting and enduring reputation if he had eased the burden on the people and reduced taxation in accordance with the great opportunity which he had—

is the great cry of the people of this country, and it is to the true interest of this country. Our poverty calls for economy, and I say this burden of expenditure we are bearing to-day is crippling the productive resources of the country to such an extent that we cannot expect the development to which South Africa is really entitled. Let me give the figures of public debt, which tell the same tale. The public debt is piling up. We heard some wonderful figures yesterday from the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. Tom Naudé).

They are quite correct.

I do not want to rob the hon. member of any prestige he may have acquired by these figures, but the hon. member said there was a deadweight debt of £63,000,000 some years ago, and, according to the latest figures, it was £49,000,000. What had become of the difference, he said—

Well, I do not know where this payment took place. The Minister of Finance, who does not generally hide his light under a bushel, has not disclosed the secret to us—how suddenly £14,000,000 of deadweight debt was paid off. The hon. member is chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, and no doubt he has found out amongst the figures, and I hope we shall have a further disclosure from the Minister, and he will show us. The facts are perfectly clear. The deadweight debt was calculated some years ago on a certain basis. The figure was disputed, and there was no agreement between the treasury and the Auditor-General, and £63,000,000 may have been mentioned as the approximate figure to work to. The Minister the other day went into a calculation which to my mind is a better test of the deadweight debt. He took the non-interest paying part of our debt and not all of that would be deadweight, because public buildings, school buildings and all these things do not necessarily pay interest, but yet all that was included in deadweight debt. He came to the more reassuring figure of £49,000,000.

The figure of the hon. member for Pietersburg was quite correct, and on exactly the same basis.

But the Minister does not go to the length of saying he has paid off the difference.

It has been reduced in various ways, which I gave.

I am not criticizing the Minister, but using him as the basis of my argument.

If the right hon. member will allow me, the hon. member for Pietersburg was quite right. The debt has been reduced in various ways. I have explained it. The mere fact that for three years we have not applied our loan receipts supplied from mining leases to ordinary revenue, but applied them to the purposes intended in our legislation, has given us £7,000,000 or more. You may not call that paid off debt, but it was reduced in that way.

The mountain has produced a mouse. I admit there has been a little payment, but not £14,000,000. Our public debt as handled by the present Government tells the same tale. There has been the same inflation and rapid growth, unprecedented in peace times. At no other time in peace times has the debt piled up so much. The Minister admits he has borrowed to the extent of £25,791,000, and he admits that the public debt has gone up during this period of three years by £21,650,000. My question is not whether all this money has been usefully spent. My question is different, and it is—can this country incur all this expenditure, because it means interest piling up. It means expenditure in many other collateral ways. We are a small country with a small population—slightly over 1½ million people—who bear this unequal burden. I wonder whether there is another country of a similar population which bears the burden South Africa is bearing. The public debt shows the same spirit of undue optimism and extravagance which the ordinary expenditure shows. Let me take a very striking instance of this spirit of “don’t care” to what extent public expenditure is being swollen. There is the Iron and Steel Bill. Here is a case where a smaller inducement on the part of the Government might have achieved the end in view—if the Government had guaranteed 1½ millions of debentures for this enterprise, we probably would have secured that a private company would have done this work.

Why did you not get us this industry?

The Minister and the Government have set their minds on State control.

Why did you not get it?

Never shall I do it. We had passed the Bonus Act with the consent of the Opposition at the time. The bonus system had been successful, and worked well both in Canada and Australia, and that was why we adopted it here.

You reduced the guarantee of the debentures, to say we will introduce the bonus system.

My memory is pretty clear on the point. We had introduced the bonus system, and the enterprise was on the point of going through when there was a change of front oversea. Undertaking a liability of 1½ millions would have meant the establishment of this industry as a private concern, but the Government has come forward, infected with this microbe of socialism and State control, and said—

The end of this thing may be four or five millions liability to the State. It will all be added to the debt. It may turn out a success and all right, or it may not, but there you have the same reckless spirit in dealing with the finances of the country. We have the public debt being run up unnecessarily where a smaller sum would have sufficed. Private enterprise is discouraged and waved aside. Even private enterprise which is in existence is successfully fought and an existing concern has to be wiped out in order to carry out this idea of a State institution.

made an interruption.

We had the bonus system.

Before you had the bonus system?

If the Minister will listen to me for a minute—we had negotiated on that bonus system and we thought it would succeed, but at a later stage events took a different turn in England, and it was found that a guarantee was wanted and at that time the commission came from Holland and Germany to inquire into this business. That was the stage when we left the Government, and we did not conduct operations further.

You could not give the guarantee.

No, we could not. Hitherto, there has been a tendency in regard to this extravagance to exculpate the Nationalists and say it is the Labour wing of the Pact, and that this is the work of the wicked socialists. I doubt whether we can follow this argument. To-day, when this legislation is being put through, the Labour party scarcely exists. We have extinct volcanoes on those benches. A great change has taken place in the country, and the Nationalist wing of the Pact know they are making surrenders and making concessions to that other wing which does no longer exist, and the full blame must be borne by them. If laws are passed which mean unnecessary inflation of the public debt we will not be able to say—

but it is the work of the Nationalists in this country. The patience of the people has been exemplary, but recent indications show us that this patience is wearing thin. The Labour party has had its turn, and my hon. friends opposite can expect theirs to come. If you look at what is shown by the Government in the administration of this country you would say that the country is flourishing in every respect. We know very different, and we know that the agricultural community, who are the backbone of this country, are in a bad way. We need not go further than the figures laid before us. The situation has been saved by the mines, which will not continue for ever, as they are a wasting asset. The budget shows that the condition is parlous, and that the situation has been saved by mining. The mines do not get much sympathy, and the mine owners get scant sympathy from the opposite benches. There is the case of mining labour. The mines are badly in want of native labour, and there is a grave shortage. The mines have appealed to the Government to help them with native labour. The Government has turned them down, and I think it is really the Minister of Defence who has done it. He started with the obsession years ago that mining can be run by cheap white labour. I think he is wiser now, but there is a psychological survival from that period of thirty years ago, and—

if it can be helped. The result is that the mines are crippled, and no sympathy is shown to them in the difficulties they are having today. I firmly believe that the agricultural community suffers correspondingly.

They are doing better than they did before.

The Minister knows that for every 10,000 natives employed on the mines, there is additional employment for at least 1,000 men.

No, I don’t.

By crippling the native labour supply, he is crippling white employment, and at the same time he is crippling the labour supply at the farms.

No, statistics contradict you.

The farmers cannot compete, as the mines can always outbid the farmers, and the result is that wherever you hold meetings in the interior of South Africa, this labour question is for ever being trotted out. The people want labour, but there is no labour, because the Government has ruthlessly turned off the tap, or I should rather say, the Minister of Defence has turned off the tap. The mines must exhaust every available source of supply here to the great detriment of our farming industry.

You should read your own letters of 1922.

The system I followed in 1922 or 1923—I do not know the exact year— was this, that there was a state bordering on starvation in the Transkei, and the Cape Province was full of natives who could not get work, the mines preferring the well-trained east coast boys. I then laid down the rule that as native labour from the Union was easily available for the mines, no resort should be had to the east coast, which should be supplementary only. That policy has been departed from.

Did you satisfy the mines?

I do not know—I cannot read into their souls—but this I can say, that whenever the mines could prove that labour supplies from the Union were not easily available, we agreed to give them the right to go to the Mozambique province. The present Government, however, has rigidly turned off the tap. The portcullis has fallen, and the Minister knows perfectly well that he is thereby curtailing white employment.

You ought to write a romance, instead of a philosophic book, for your imagination is wonderful.

The protective policy of the Government, on the whole, has been sound, although I have not agreed with it in every detail. Mistakes have been committed, but on the whole the policy has been fairly sound. It has, however, been combined with a continual interference with industry. The result is that we have this continual state interference by way of regulation and inspection which will fritter away whatever help has been given to our industries through the protective tariff. We have had a long debate on the Conciliation Act and its extension to the country. Knowing the state of the country, knowing how absolutely necessary it is to cheapen cost to the farmer, who is not helped by protection or the raising of wages, I should have thought the Government would do everything in its power to help the farming industry, and keep in check this development. Conciliation Act conditions meant for the building trade in the big centres such as Johannesburg, Cape Town and Durban have been applied without mercy in the villages and on the distant veld.

You know that is not true.

It is perfectly true. The result is that the cost to people in the countryside will go up. Semi-skilled labour to a large extent has been thrown out of employment in the distant villages. All this has been brought about without consultation with the people themselves. Their fate has been settled for them by the highly-skilled artizans and the employers in the great centres. If anybody had told me in 1924, when we dealt with this legislation, that we would have a Government which would apply the Conciliation Act in the villages and on the veld, I certainly would never have agreed to the Act. The time has come when a stop should be put to it. Since then we have had the Wages Act, which is coming into operation by slow degrees, but in the end it will have very far-reaching results in raising the cost of living, and in making farming impossible. The policy is one of extreme socialism. The chairman of the Wages Board is Mr. Lucas. Some years ago the Local Government Commission on municipal taxation sat in the Transvaal.

You know it is not customary to attack public servants who cannot defend themselves.

I am not attacking anyone, but I am mentioning facts. The commission, in its report, says—

This gentleman is the chairman of the Wage Board, and wages will be settled in that spirit.

Do you suggest he is using his position on the board to further his own political ideas?

These are his views.

Are you making the suggestion that, as chairman of the Wage Board, he is endeavouring to carry out his own political views of 10 years ago?

I do not know about his political views. There are the economic views of Mr. Lucas. I have no reason to think he has changed these views on the land question. He was deliberately put at the head of this board. This sort of legislation, this interference, which I call socialism, is entirely unsuited to the conditions of South Africa, and the country only asks to be left alone from these tormentors. I do not know now this country has sinned in order that it should be saddled with people like that who torment it, and irritate it and prevent it having its proper development. I have very grave misgivings about our agricultural position. We are suffering from very grave natural handicaps, we have droughts and other difficulties. Cattle diseases and tick fever are spreading under the able administration of the Minister of Agriculture. We have looked forward to fruit export as one of the great industries of this country, but there are very grave setbacks. The Government started a system of Statesocialism in their Control Board which is not panning out as was expected, and the result has been a setback to the fruit industry. The other day the White River settlements were put up to action, and hon. members have read the details.

Is that the fault of this Government?

The export of fruit meets with so many setbacks that the people concerned do not know where they are. Then there is this growing accelerating exodus from the country to the towns.

How was it in your time?

It has been a growing symptom, I admit. I feel that it is the duty of this or any Government to turn its attention to rural problems, and to do its best to ease the burden of taxation, and in every way possible to help the people on the platteland. If we don’t do that, we shall get to the same position as Australia. We shall collect the white people into a few coast towns, and the great development we look to in the interior—our great task and our mission—will be neglected, and will not be carried out. I think the Government is not doing its duty. It is under the influence of people who look merely at conditions in the great industrial and urban centres, and laws are being passed and financial systems adopted which are not in the interests of the development of the country. We should have reductions in railway rates and in taxation, and it is for this reason I beg to move the following amendment to the motion of the Minister—

I beg to second the amendment moved by the right hon. member, because I feel with him that public expenditure is based on a standard beyond the means of this country to bear. The Minister has told us that the revenue he has got is fortuitous, but the increased expenditure is not for one year but is permanent. The high taxation imposed to meet this expenditure at the present time tends to become the normal rate of expenditure and as such I hold it is beyond the means of the country to bear. This expenditure is going on increasing. I do not wish to repeat the figures already given, but I take the numbers of the civil service. If we take the estimates now before us we see this year it is proposed to add to the number of civil servants 1,141, and on the railways it is proposed to add 2,921. It is true, so far as the railways are concerned, there is a reduction under harbours and steamships, bringing the total to 2,500, and this although there has been a general feeling throughout the country that our establishments were too high throughout the civil service. In spite of that the Ministers have budgeted for an increase of 1,141 in the civil service and almost 3,000 on the railway. It would seem that in this country, both in public and private finance, the word “thrift” no longer has a meaning. When we get it in the public service we get it in private as well, and both in public and private the standard of living in this country is more than the people can afford. We are asked to give details but details can only be given from those inside as the Minister will confirm when he was transferred from one side of the House to the other. When in opposition he was asked for details but he could never give them. When my hon. friend here is again acting, as I hope before long he will be, he will have no difficulty in making the reductions now necessary.

What a hope.

The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) asked for reductions but he wanted them from the surplus and such reductions would only be for one year, but it is a permanent reduction that is required, and that is the only way it can be put on a sound basis. I am told it gives a comfortable feeling to have a good balance at the bank and the Minister has that feeling and, to a certain extent, I share in the feeling knowing that there is a surplus, but we have to look at it from several points of view. Firstly, there is the use to be made of the surplus and then the method of getting the surplus—how it comes to be there. With regard to the method of using the surplus I think once again he is making prudent use of it. He has shown before that when he once has the money he has shown a level-headed way of using the surplus and I think he is doing so again. I am hoping that before long finances will be managed from this side of the House, but can almost feel in my heart the Minister would produce a budget, if free from the handicaps he suffers from, the handicap of the Labour benches, if he had an opportunity of bringing a budget such as with his level head he would like to do, free from the fear of the rapacious animals of the Labour party and subject only to the fear of his own tame rabbits of finance, better than he has been able to do at the present time. Before going on to some of the details I would like to go into a question that the Minister referred to, that is the difference between his estimate and his realizations. With regard to the question of his customs revenue it is not only the customs he gets his revenue from. There is a surplus from nearly every head and it is a hard fact he is £1,250,000 out in his estimate of revenue and £400,000 out in his estimates of expenditure so that we are faced with £1,500,000 of unremitted taxation. We don’t say nasty things about that, as used to be said from this side of the House when that sort of thing happened when the late Minister was told he was deliberately underestimating his revenue in order to bring out a surplus—but we do say that the country has been grossly overtaxed and it is not only in his estimates of revenue that he is out. We have had two years now when the Minister, in introducing his partial appropriation, has given estimates of what the year’s outcome would be. Last year in the month of February he said he expected a surplus of £300,000 and within two months he came in with it doubled. This year in February he said he expected a surplus pf £600,000 and within six weeks he comes and tells us it will be no less than £1,250,000. Surely, a Minister like the Minister of Finance should be better in touch with finances than that. With all his good qualities the hon. Minister seems to be a bad hand at guessing, which is the same thing as estimating, worse in fact than any who have ever held the position of Minister of Finance in this House.

He errs on the safe side.

Unfortunately, that safe side means we have to be taxed to make up for it. I would rather have a man who would take a little risk and save us from the extra taxation. The hon. Minister spoke of the effects of the protection policy and said there were more factories and more employment. It follows from a protection policy that there will be more factories and more employment and nowhere is that more marked than where I come from—Port Elizabeth. But the Government is there to hold the balance between the various interests of the country and it is true that the country has adopted the policy and that it was prepared to pay a certain amount to get the factories here and to have a better balance in employment in the country, but the question is whether the country has not been asked to pay too much arid whether it realizes how much it is paying. The Minister finds satisfaction by making reference to the cost of living. He says the cost of living has not increased and refers to the index number of the cost of living. I am always a bit dubious of the index price made up from the tremendous returns from the country. Very often one gets nearer the truth by rule of thumb, and if the Minister could get the budgets from a dozen or two housewives who have to keep up a family on £400 or £500 a year he would get a better idea of the cost of living. He would get a better idea from the index fingers of the housewives than from the index numbers in the blue books and I doubt whether the hon. Minister would get the same return. The Minister also referred to the question of the extra duties in increasing the cost of living. It depends really on the incidence, and unfortunately in this country the duties are imposed on the things the people have to use every day of their lives. You cannot go only by the aggregate of the customs. You must go by the incidence of the taxation. I do not think that the Minister would mean to put forward that the items upon which these increased duties have been imposed are not costing more because of those duties which have been imposed. The whole purpose of putting the duties on was to increase the cost. I will take the three items which the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) referred to yesterday—boots and shoes, clothing and milk. The whole object of the tariff is that those items should cost more.

Were there not many other items on which the duties were reduced?

I would like to refer to that at once. The Minister speaks about the duties on which the tariff has been reduced. I wonder which they are If you take the Minister’s, own statement, the reductions have been on items that the manufacturers would require for the production of their goods in almost every instance.

What about the 1925 reductions?

What are they?

Farming implements of almost all kinds, and cotton piece goods of various kinds.

I was thinking more of items of food and drink than of farming.

In which eases were duties increased on those articles that you mention, eating and drinking.

I will take two that I have mentioned, sugar and milk.

The price of sugar has not increased.

Boots and shoes.

You put on the duties on boots and shoes; I did not put them on.

In regard to what the Minister was saying about these reductions of duties, I say that in the majority of cases these items where a reduction has been made have been for the benefit of the manufacturer and the selling price of the goods in this country is still ruled by the import price, and, as long as that is so, anything that is done benefits the manufacturer and increases his opportunities, but it does not reduce the price of goods to the consumer in this country. The consumer is too often lost sight of altogether. In regard to the very items which have been referred to, if one looks at the customs returns one finds that more boots and shoes are being imported than ever, and the same holds good in regard to milk and clothing also, so that it can only mean that, seeing that the price is fixed by the import rate, the effect of putting duty on to these things is to make everybody in the country pay more. I say that in my opinion, too much is being asked of the consumer in this country. This policy is being carried too far. The Minister himself has his doubts upon that matter, because later on, after saying that the cost of living had not increased, he spoke very brave words about the effect of this policy. He says—

With that I am in entire agreement. I am not against the general policy. I recognize that the country has accepted that policy, but I do say that the country is being asked to pay too much, and the Minister himself recognizes that and is going to go carefully into the matter. What one is afraid of is the danger of injury to our primary industries, upon which all depends, and there is also the fact that by this policy we are arranging to manufacture our own needs, but, if we think we are making ourselves into a real manufacturing country, we are only deluding ourselves, because it is impossible for us to get an export of manufactured articles so long as we can only manufacture for our own use by virtue of this wall of high protection.

What about boots and shoes?

There are no boots and shoes exported. Does not the hon. member know that?

Are you against it?

I have never said a word against it. The Minister also referred to the question of freer credit, and quoted the bank position. He remarked—

I share the wish of the Minister, but the Minister is getting at the wrong people. There is an increase in the use of bills as between traders, wholesalers and retailers. The difficulty is that the retailer himself cannot get the bills from his farmer customer, and I do not suppose he ever will so long as so much of our farming is seasonal, and the farmer only pays his accounts once a year. Unless the Minister can instil into his farmer friends that a bill or promissory note is something to be met at due date at a definite place, you cannot have the full use of bills in this country that the Governor of the Reserve Bank is so often asking for. I think if the Governor were to go round the back country a bit and see how business is done in those districts, he would have less to say about the use of bills in this country, at any rate between the farmer and storekeeper. Incidentally, I would like to mention that I was interested in hearing the Minister state that there had been an increase in the tonnage of goods landed of 292,000, or nearly 12 per cent. That, of course, has a very direct bearing on the budget of the Minister of Railways in regard to the class of goods that he deals with. I would also like to Quote the Minister again in regard to the taxation of companies. He said some very useful things when he talked about the exemption he was going to make to mutual insurance companies. He said—

Is there any reason why the Minister should not apply that to ordinary companies as well as insurance companies? Every word that he said is just as true of any ordinary company as it is of an insurance company. The Minister will know that there is a strong feeling on the part of shareholders in small companies, and small shareholders in big companies, that they might be met in that way. Then I cordially agree with what the Minister proposes to do in regard to transferring certain items from loan to revenue. I think it is a very good beginning and begun in the right place, with the public works, and I hope he will go on with that and that we shall gradually get into the sounder system of financing more from revenue than we do at the present time. There are one or two items of general interest I want to deal with. Before I do that I would like to say a word or two on the question of the railway budget. The Minister of Railways is apparently finding that the management of railways, after all, is not quite so simple as he thought at first. In one sense the management of railways is a simple matter when you consider that the Minister has got a monopoly to supply something that everyone must have and he can charge as much as he likes. On the face of it, that makes a very simple business of it, but here we have it that the Minister presents us with a debit of £146,000. I would like to diverge for a minute. When the partial appropriation was brought in, the Minister told us that, notwithstanding a certain state of his finances at the end of November or December, he expected to come out exactly square. I ventured the opinion that that would only be possible if there was something done in the way of a wangle. The Minister simulated great indignation. He was not really indignant; he is one of the cleverest actors in the House. There is no dictionary which defines what wangling means. What I had in my mind was that, I had heard there was to come to him a certain amount from the Electricity Commission on account of earnings not of this year. It seems to me that if the Minister is going to take into account items accruing in previous years, it is wangling. If that amount has been put in, that is what I mean by wangling, and I was justified in saying that the Minister did a wangle >n regard to his accounts. Under these conditions of what it means to run railways, one would like to know why there is a deficit. It can only be as the result of one of three reasons. First of all, not sufficient tonnage; secondly, if the rates were too low; and thirdly, if expenses were too high. It cannot be on account of tonnage, because there has been an increase, and there is likely to be a further increase. The Minister attributed it in part to carrying low-rated traffic. I cannot see that it was any lower than the maize. The maize is carried at a lower rate. The figures I quoted from the Minister of Finance showed an increased tonnage on imports. The Minister gave us the cost per train mile. He did not say anything about the ton mile. We must look further to find the reason. The Minister did not, this year, tell us how many thousand more men were taken on in the railways. It was a proud boast before. We see from the return that 3.000 more men have been taken on this year. I cannot help thinking that this question of civilized labour has a good deal to do with it. I have not had the opportunity of seeing the report, but one can use one’s observation, and I have no hesitation in saying that in many instances civilized labour is only another name for civilized loafing.

Shame!

It is perfectly true.

If the Minister of Labour would come with me to Wynberg, I could show him what happens there. I come in sometimes by rail, sometimes by road. When I come by rail, I see gangs of civilized labourers at work on the lowest forms of work, for which a white man is not suited, and to which the native really has the right.

What kind of work?

The working of the ballasting.

Is not that work done by coloured people?

It is not easy to tell down here. If I come by road I see gangs dressed rather like a football team, only the referee carries a gun. I believe they belong to my friend the Minister of Justice. There is as much interest and desire to do the work shown by that football team as there is by the civilized labour gang. It is work not suited for the white man to do. To get the white man on the railways is a good thing, but, like many other things, it can be overdone, and it is being overdone, and when you are told that that work is efficient and that it pays, I say that one’s observation shows one it is not correct. We come to the alternatives. It is quite clear that the railway rates cannot be raised. No Minister could survive the raising of the railway rates. I would like to ask one or two questions of the Minister. The Apolda, he told us, has been sold. Can he tell us how the funds are being applied? We got it as a gift. I am going to make no excuse for referring once again to the question of the general manager’s retirement. It is not a party matter. The Minister said he hoped before the end of the session he would be able to make a statement. There is not going to be very much time left, and I hope that as soon as possible the Minister will make his statement as to what it is intended to do when the general manager retires. I am not asking about the personnel, but merely whether there is to be a change in the method of dealing with the management. I am going to make no excuse for referring to the question of the purchase of engines in Germany. I have had no opportunity since the Minister made his statement, when he told us that he and the able gentlemen he has chosen to assist him and advise him as the Railway Board had gone above the advice of his technical officers and decided to get German, instead of English, engines. I am not saying for a minute that good engines cannot be made in Germany. I believe that on the narrow-gauge line in South-West Africa, when we took the German engines over during the war, they were beautiful engines. But I am not able to be satisfied that the Minister and the Railway Board acted in the interests of our Union in overriding the advice of the whole of your technical officers, and deciding to place those orders, not in Great Britain, but in Germany; and partly for this reason. We have lately had an Imperial Conference. Certain fears that were felt by hon. members opposite of domination have been wiped out, and have disappeared. That fear has gone. As has been emphasized by the Prime Minister, a position of absolute equality has been definitely established beyond doubt. Some of us had no doubt on it, but those who have doubts have had them quelled. The Prime Minister said truly that the test is goodwill, but there is something more than words. It has to be shown in deeds, and here was an opportunity of showing goodwill. The technical officers are just as much animated by a desire to benefit South Africa as the Minister and the Railway Board could be. They recommended British engines, or a combination, partly of British and partly German, to be purchased.

Largely German.

With a little exercise of goodwill, the order could have gone where Great Britain would have got some benefit. When we claim equality, it must not be equality for anything we can get, but also equality for what we can give. If the position had been altered and tenders called for South African goods under similar conditions, South African goods would have got the order. There must be equality in goodwill as in other things, and I cannot feel that the Minister has acted in the true interests of South Africa in letting that order go past Great Britain. I see a statement made in a cablegram—I do not think it is correct, I state it to give the Minister an opportunity of denying it—that the specifications had been put in a different way to England and to the Continent; that certain conditions were made regarding trade union rates which handicapped the British manufacturer as against the Continental. It is difficult to believe, especially after the expressions about goodwill which the Minister made. The specifications would be drawn up by the technical officer, and the Minister would not have seen them. I must now get back to some of my own domestic matters before I sit down, and talk about the harbour at Algoa Bay. A statement on this is rather eagerly expected at Algoa Bay. Three years ago there were engineering difficulties which have been wiped out. Two years ago it was a question of the trade. The Minister appointed the Van der Horst Commission, which found entirely in favour. A detailed survey was made. After that it was expected that a definite statement should be made by the Minister, whether he was prepared to go on with the full harbour or not. He must realize that there are people anxiously waiting, and his own constituents are showing not a little anxiety about this. It is quite easy to make a statement on the matter, and I hope he will make one at as early a date as possible. I quote again from the green book. The expected profit from Table Bay is £109,000, from Algoa Bay £134,000, East London £14,000, and Durban £170,000.

The remarks made by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gem Smuts) were a direct insult to the rank and file of the railwaymen of this country, and also reflected on the officials who are responsible for the working of the railways. The right hon. member went out of his way to say these things, and I hope railwaymen will remember that. Serious allegations were made by him to-day regarding the extraordinary falling-off in discipline amongst the railwaymen. I want to ask the right hon. member and his party—

In the railway service we have the most rigid working rules, and provision is made there for dealing with misconduct in every individual case. But the right hon. gentleman did not give us one concrete case at all. No breach of discipline can go unpunished if the officials are doing their duty, and the Administration is carrying out the rules of the service. I must say I am very much surprised at this statement coming from the right hon. member, who has the reputation of being a great man, and one who is judicially minded. I hope the Minister will inquire into these allegations. What remedy is proposed for this state of things, if it is true? I say the statement is not true. Already this session we have had one full dress debate on civilized labour, and yesterday the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) again devoted the main portion of his remarks to attacking civilized labour policy. However, we are supporting the Government through thick and thin on this policy, and we don’t want the Government to go back on it. The real reason the railways are not making the profits they otherwise would, is because of the legacy of the late Government. Take the elevator scandal which was caused by the policy adopted by the South African party. The expert originally estimated the cost of the elevators at £1,500,000, but the cost has been about £3,000,000. Another expert advised us on the electrification of the Natal line, and said it would cost about £3,000,000, but the total cost so far has been well over £4,000,000. The Minister should be very careful about so-called experts who always underestimate. But for the heavy responsibilities which these miscalculations have laid on the shoulders of the Pact Government, there would be a surplus on the railway. The Pact Government has reduced railway rates by £1,250,000, contributed £237,000 increased contributions to the renewals fund, made additions to the pension and superannuation funds at an annual cost of £425,780, re-introduced the 8-hour day to many grades at a cost of £240,000, the increased burden of almost £2,250,000 having to be paid out of revenue. The Pact Government has not only fulfilled its obligations, but has to clear up the mess left by its predecessor. It is unfair to charge the Government with always spending money recklessly when it is only playing the game. There is need for a thorough investigation into the finances of the railways, and particularly into the so-called funding system. At a time when there were over £4,000,000 in the renewals fund, the late Minister of Railways said the railway finances were in a serious condition, and the Government had to cut down expenditure. The funding system should be inquired into by an expert with a view to seeing whether it cannot be replaced by a more modern system, and one which would avoid the locking up of large sums of money in its renewals fund, insurance fund, rate equalization fund, etc. We have the anomalous position that when men ask for better conditions and higher pay the Government says it cannot afford to meet their wishes, yet there is sufficient money in these funds to grant the men’s requests without impairing the efficient working of the railways. When all commitments are paid out of the renewals fund for the current year, there should be a balance in hand of nearly £2,000,000. Generally speaking, I hold that these balances are excessive and are too large for the possible requirements of the railway and could be put to better purposes in various ways, so far as the public and the railway servants are concerned. Speaking of the civilized labour policy, the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) made the charge that the system is too costly and is ruining the railways, and he painted a gloomy picture of the results of the Government’s policy of preferring to place in employment men who were working previously on the relief works, and thousands who were walking the streets of the large towns. I cannot understand the mentality of members who object to the policy of providing men with work on Government undertakings in lieu of keeping them unemployed or putting them on relief work. Unemployment means demoralization both for themselves and their wives and families, and hindering progress for the future. I want to know from the South African party what they would do. They are opposed to the present policy, and I ask them what policy they would adopt if they again became the Government of the country? Do they propose to sack all these civilized labourers, and again indulge in the policy of preferring low-paid native labour to fairly well-paid civilized labour, the employment of our own people? I am not satisfied for one moment with the rate of pay given to the so-called civilized labour but it is much better than to have the same men walking the streets, as they used to do, whilst the natives were employed in their place at low rates of pay. I would like to see a rate of pay sufficient for the day’s work. I was disgusted to hear the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) use the expression—

These men are doing real work and should not be despised. Because a man has fallen in the social scale, and has to accept this work, there is no reason to call him a loafer. It is an expression which is ungentlemanly and unChristian. I want to know from the South African party what their policy is with regard to civilized labour. I want to know definitely if they get into power again, which heaven forbid, whether they are going to dispose of the services of this civilized labour and reinstate low-paid native labour. If that is so, there will be little chance for the South African party getting into office again. If that is its policy, there will be no need to fear that the Pact Government will remain in power. I have had an instance to-day to show the nature of the problem, when two unemployed European men came to me and asked me if I knew of any work. I asked them if they had been to the Labour Bureau, and they said yes, and there was nothing doing. They were told a certain number of men were being taken on the railways, but the bureau had nothing for them. One man went to the docks and there was nothing doing there. He then went to some works on Paarden Island and one of the officials in charge there said—

That gentleman evidently agrees with the policy of the South African party. If that is so we must see that the present Government never goes back on the policy of giving the civilized people a fair chance in life. Several members have urged on the Government to reduce rates. I say that would be a crime until every man employed on the railways is receiving a living wage. Large numbers of them are not receiving a living wage. When you have large numbers of natives, Indians, coloured men and civilized labourers receiving wages from 2s. to 6s. a day, no one can say they are getting a living wage.

What is a living wage?

A wage a man can live on and maintain his wife and family. I would certainly fix a minimum, a national living wage for all working men, coloured or not, below which they should not be paid.

Give us an actual figure.

I want the exact living wage fixed by a competent authority. I am not going to attempt to lay down the actual figure, but I know the Minister of Railways will not reduce rates until the men I mention are paid a living wage. This allegation about the Government employing too large a number of European labourers on the railways is not fair. There are 15,378 civilized labourers employed on the railways, and 41,105 natives, coloured and Indians. That is the position to-day. No man interested in the railwaymen can be satisfied with the rates of pay to these classes.

What would you be satisfied with?

I would be satisfied with a living wage, and my idea of a living wage is somewhat different from that of the gentlemen who live in the Mount Nelson Hotel. We have had hon. members stand up in this House and admit that they live on the natives and they naturally object to pay a reasonable wage to men employed on Government work. Seeing that the rate of wages paid on the farms is somewhere from 9d. a day to £3 per month, I think it is about time that this House went into the question of low wages and adopted the suggestion of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge). I want to say a few words about engines. I want to tell the Minister that, in my opinion, he has been wrong in adopting a policy of placing rush orders for engines and rolling stock. I want that practice to cease. I do not want the Minister to be persuaded by his officials to place any more rush orders. The breakdown of engines which have been recently got from America might just as well have happened to engines which came from Germany or any other country. In connection with the American engines, I saw an interesting little advertisement in the “Railways and Harbours Magazine” the other day of the American Locomotive Sales Corporation. It is headed “Showing the Way,” and it states that—

to start work. It is very fine, no doubt, to be able to build 23 locos in 60 days and send them off, but I am inclined to think that if those engines had taken three to six months to be manufactured, probably better work would have been put in and it would have been better for this country. I hope the Minister will be able in future to anticipate his requirements a little more in advance so as to ensure getting better work. Another little matter that I would mention is that for many years we have had types of engines at work in this country, made in various countries, which have proved to be entirely satisfactory. I refer to what are called 15a and 16a classes of engine. There seems to be a sort of craze at the present time to build record-breaking engines so far as weight and size is concerned. That I consider is a bad policy. There are two objections to it from my point of view, one is that they are too unwieldy for our 3 feet 6 inches gauge and the other is that there is too much wear and tear on the track itself and on the men who have to control the engines. I want to see a policy adopted of employing the largest number of proved and reliable types of engines in this country, such as the 15a and 16a classes. After many years of satisfactory working of these particular classes of engines, the chief mechanical engineer, I understand, has been responsible for a modification in the design which I am told by every practical enginedriver and every practical fitter ought never to have been made. It is in connection with the piston extension rods. The chief mechanical engineer has introduced this radical alteration in the method of working the engines which practical railwaymen, drivers, fitters, etc., tell me is bound to shorten the life of the engines. I would like the Minister to make some inquiries into that matter. I would also like to refer to the coaches which are being introduced for the suburban electrification scheme. Formerly we had a coach with a door at every other compartment which was a well-built and well-designed vehicle, giving accommodation for two passengers on each seat at the sides of the central corridor. Some enterprising gentleman has seen fit to go one better and now we have coaches which have seats for three passengers on one side and seats for two on the other. The accommodation is not sufficient for the two passengers on the one side or the three on the other as the passage way is very narrow, and it is very difficult for exit purposes. That was a wrong change to make. I maintain that it is quite sufficient to provide seats for two passengers on each side of the corridor and that the old design ought to be reverted to. With regard to the coaches which are being brought out for the electrification scheme, I am informed by practical coachbuilders that the finish is very bad, and certainly not up to the standard of coaches manufactured in our own workshops. There appears to be a need for greater supervision in the workshops where these coaches are made. I also want to touch on the question of piecework. Many years ago, when I was working at the Salt River Works, the Government of the day introduced a system of piecework. I was one of a deputation which went up to Pretoria to protest against that proposal. We argued that it was bad for the men and in the long run a costly system. The Government of the day took no notice of our representations. I have been looking at the Auditor-General’s report for last year, and I was astonished to find that although we have a larger number of artisans, and more up-to-date machinery, the output of work is certainly not what it should be under piecework conditions. The allegation at the time was that the men on day work did not do a fair day’s work. The Auditor-General’s report states in regard to heavy repairs to rolling stock that in 1913-’14 751 locomotives underwent heavy repairs. In 1925-’26 under piecework, with a larger number of artisans and more expensive machinery, they only turned out 852. That does not say much for this wonderful piecework system. In regard to coaches, in 1913-’14, 1,064 came out, having undergone heavy repairs and in 1925-26 only 1,035 came out, a decrease of 29. Where is the benefit of piecework? It is costing an enormous amount of money, and yet our output is less. In 1913-’14, 13,463 wagons were turned out. In 1925-’26 only 13,180 were turned out, a decrease of 283. These figures are rather suggestive. They show that there is something wrong with piecework; it is not a paying proposition. Hon. members may be surprised to know that under the piecework system, men are not encouraged to do a fair day’s work; they are encouraged to dodge work. The overhead charges are very great; there is the cost of bookkeeping, and preparing schedules. All this must be added to the cost of piecework. Piecework is a bad system, an expensive system, and not justified by the results. It would be infinitely better to pay the mechanics the same rate as they are earning to-day on piecework, and do away with piecework, and under competent supervision you would get better results, and you would increase your output as far as the workshops are concerned. These figures I maintain show that piecework is not a success; it is a costly business, and a good day’s work system under proper supervision would be far better for all concerned. With regard to the reduction of rates, it would be a shame and a scandal to reduce rates while men in some branches of the railway service are receiving the poor pay which they are getting at the present time. As far as the catering staff are concerned, they are the worst paid in the service. These are the rates of pay: Take a chief steward, a man who can run a dining car or hotel, usually a competent man, and a bookkeeper. His minimum rate of pay is £18 per month, and maximum £28, giving an average of £22 10s. For a second steward the minimum rate of pay is £11 a month, and maximum £13, giving an average of £12 15s. The ordinary steward, the man who waits on our table while we are having nice meals, and runs up and down the corridors 12 hours a day, gets a minimum of £9 a month, rising to £11, an average of £9 2s. 3d. a month. Most of them are married men. It is quite true that while on the trains they get meals, and they have sleeping accommodation, but I say that pay averaging £9 2s. 3d. is pay on which no married man can live decently. Then take the question of a chef. A chef on a train has got a rotten job, one I would not care to do for double the money. Working in the Karoo or the Northern Transvaal or Natal where you get intensely hot days, they carry out very responsible work under frightful conditions. If hon. members went into the kitchens, they would be astonished to see the conditions under which a chef and his staff work, conditions which they would not tolerate for a day, worse than in some of the mines on the Reef. They start at £18 a month and in rare cases go up to £33. But that is if they have very long service and are very competent. The average is £21 per month. For European labourers on the trains the minimum commencing rate is £3 10s. per month, which goes up to a maximum of £6 10s., the average being £5. The rate for coloured pantry boys is from £4 to £7, the average being £5 per month. The rate for coloured kitchen boys is from £3 to £5 per month. These men on the trains have to be honest, clean and healthy. They cannot possibly come out on their pay. According to the speech of the Minister there is a deficiency in the revenue of the catering department, but in my opinion it is top heavy, and under these circumstances you cannot make it pay. In the old days the stewards were supposed to make a bit and to help themselves, but to-day there is a system of treble-checking, and in addition to that you have what I regard as an army of inspectors, 15 or 16 altogether, who draw very high rates of pay. Men have been appointed as inspectors who have no previous knowledge of catering or of hotel work, but have been doing mainly clerical work hitherto. I suggest that under the new system of bookkeeping and with the treble check you can do away with most of these inspectors except one or two catering men who can see that the standard is maintained. If these economies are effected it would avoid the necessity of increasing the prices of meals on the trains. The catering department is the worst paid of the railway services, and I want the Minister to pay more attention to that service as far as pay and the conditions of labour are concerned, also go into the question of extremely high overhead charges. With regard to the railway service in general, we have got to that stage where the old order has changed, and there is a new order of things. The railways have got to be a much bigger thing than its founders possibly imagined. There are officials who have no experience of modern conditions as far as they apply to railway finance and labour questions. I want the Minister seriously to consider whether he should not adopt a suggestion made in another place, i.e., to set up a commission to go thoroughly into the modern system of running railways, whereby the country and the staff would benefit, and you will get a more contented service. I want to give the Minister all credit for what he has done for the railwaymen. He has, I believe, done his best to carry out his promises, but I hope he will soon be able to do more to bring up the lower grades of the service to what I regard as a reasonable standard of life.

As far back as 1883 Gladstone said that it was not through being spendthrift, but through neglecting the balance between income and expenditure, that financial confusion arose in the different countries which led to revolution and bloodshed. It is interesting to note, however, how we in South Africa to-day see that prophecy fulfilled in the present position of our country. In the past three years under this Government we have had budgets with surpluses, and satisfaction and prosperity reigns throughout the country. On the other hand the Opposition, during the 14 years of their regime, only had a surplus now and then, and for the rest a chain of deficits, and the result of the lack of balance between revenue and expenditure has been confusing to the courage, the business and the life of the people. There is, therefore, every reason for congratulating the Minister of Finance on his budgets for the past three years, and for expressing the hope that he will follow this financial policy still further, and will not be the cause of financial confusion which will lead to bloodshed and revolution. Now it is strange that the attack of the Opposition is aimed at this very surplus. It seems clear that it is a case of sour grapes. The Opposition have no points of attack, and there was almost no spirit yesterday, and again to-day. The leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) had to bring forward his motion of no confidence to-day in order to instil a little life into the limbs of the Opposition. When one sees how things went during their regime, and what their budgets looked like, and how fortunate the new Government has been since with its budgets, then naturally one feels sorry that the Opposition can find no explanation for it. I repeat that there is nothing to warrant the Prime Minister introducing his motion to-day, and that we therefore all feel that it has only been done to instil a little life into the members of his party. As it happens, as mentioned by the hon. member for Standerton, the Minister of Railways and Harbours has a small deficit this year, and that is the starting point of the Opposition’s attack. It is noteworthy that in referring to figures, members of the Opposition conveniently quote figures which suit them, and conveniently pass over figures which do not suit them. No less a person than the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has been guilty of that. He has quoted figures with regard to the expenditure and revenue of the railways during the three years 1924-’25, 1925-’26 and 1926-’27, and from those figures he comes to the conclusion that in these three years the expenditure of the railways has increased by £3,999,000, and then he refers further to the revenue in these three years, and shows that the increase in revenue has not kept pace with the increase in expenditure. There he makes two mistakes. In the first place, he takes the last year of revenue, which year was an unnatural one; in the second place, he conveniently passes over the figures of his own administration. I want, therefore, to quote here the figures of the former Government also. We see that they from time to time had great difficulties, and we see how the former Minister of Railways also experienced difficulty by reason of the increase in expenditure being greater than the increase in revenue, and that the increase in revenue did not keep pace with the increase in expenditure. We see from the reports of the Auditor-General that under the former regime of 1912-’13 to 1922-’23 (ten years later), the expenditure increased from £13,600,000 to £22,700,000, that is, an increase of about £10,000,000 in ten years, or an average of about £1,000,000 per annum. If we investigate the revenue for the same years, we find that the revenue in 1912-’13 was £14,050,000, and ten years later £22,650,000. from which it follows that revenue only increased by an average of £860,000 per annum. Then the people are told that expenditure is increasing so enormously, and so much faster than revenue is, while further information is conveniently forgotten. I want to go into that now, and see in what direction expenditure has increased, and what the explanation is. In the first place, the burden of interest on capital has grown steadily, and has already reached nearly £12,000,000 for the railways. This burden of interest on capital is due to a large extent to the building programme which was taken over from our predecessors. The bigger the capital, the bigger, of course, the burden of interest. In the second place, I want to show that as a result of the course followed by the S.A.P. Government, necessary things, especially the pension funds, were neglected. The former Government has gained a reputation as regards the neglect of pension funds. That is one of the main reasons for the increased expenditure in the past year or two. We have taken over no less than five bankrupt pension funds, and this Government had to make provision this year for £262,000 per annum, in order eventually to put those funds on a sound basis. Further, it was also conveniently forgotten that the administration is running about 1,000 miles of railway more than formerly. In the past three years our network of railways was extended by about 1,000 miles. Why do hon. members in their criticism neglect to take those important factors into account? On the other hand, one of the reasons why revenue has not increased is to a certain extent that tariffs have been reduced, which means that nearly 1¼ million pounds sterling less is forthcoming. Hon. members make comparisons with the revenue of last year, which was an extraordinary year. The Minister has shown that an amount of £800,000 had to be provided for what the former Government has neglected, otherwise there would be a substantial surplus This sum of £800,000 consists of £312,000 for pension funds, interest bearing capital £250,000, and then another item of £250,000. The hon. members also do not mention that as a result of the drought, traffic on the railways has been detrimentally influenced. If we had had a normal maize harvest, there would have been a larger increase in the revenue. The carriage of mealies last year was one million tons less, and on that the State would have drawn £750,000 for transport. Even subtracting the extra costs of transport—according to the Auditor-General, about £316,500 in 1925—a considerable amount would still have remained of about £430,000. It is not so much a question of what the figures are at the end of the year, but in how far the country and the people have been served by the undertaking. We want to declare at once that we are not at the moment against sound criticism of railway policy because the Opposition is also interested in the railways. It is a big undertaking in which £140,000,000 has been invested, and which provides employment for about 95,000 persons, viz., 8,000 officials, 41,000 Europeans, and 44,000 coloured labourers, at the end of 1926. The questions we must ask are whether the railways are efficiently controlled, whether they are run economically, and what service they render the people. With regard to the efficiency of the service, the Minister of Railways and Harbours has mentioned that the running costs in South Africa to-day are 8s. and 3.4 pence per train mile, and he added to that that it is the cheapest in the world, excepting one state in Australia. We have no reason to doubt that, and neither is it denied by the Opposition. Where that is the case, we really do object to hear from the Opposition that wages are too high, and that too many persons are taken into service The personnel required by the Railway Administration in 1912 to earn £1,000 in revenue was 4.48, and last year the numbers were 3.57 personnel for an income of £1,000, that is to say, in 13 years there has been an improvement in the efficiency and economical working of the railways of 20.3 per cent. Further, in 1926 70 officials were necessary for £100,000 of capital expenditure, but in the financial years of 1925-’26 the number was 65. During the financial year 1923-’24, before the present Government came into power, the ratio of highly-paid officials to those of lower rank was as follows: Of a total personnel of 74,447, there were 44 officials drawing an annual salary of more than £1,000. and in that year the open mileage was 11,710. Last year there were 42 officials drawing a salary of over £1,000 out of a total personnel of 86,203, and with an open mileage of 12,642. In spite of an increase of personnel of about 13,000, and of open mileage of about 1,000 miles, the number of highly-placed officials were two less than at the beginning of the regime of the present Government. That is one of the matters we referred to, viz., that there ought to be a proper relation between highly-placed officials and those of lower rank. In the Auditor-General’s report there is an apparent conflict where it is said that the personnel per open mile in 1924 was 6.3; in 1925, 6.5; and in 1926, 6.8. That shows a small increase, but in explanation thereof I can mention the following facts. In the last year or two there has been an increase in the mileage, and in proportion as the mileage increases in the lesser populated districts, the personnel increases. And further, in that year 4,000,000 more train miles were effected than in the former year, and there was an astonishing increase in traffic. I think that the figures I have mentioned should be adequate proof that the running of the railways has been economical. It was a matter of special surprise to me to see that the management of the South African party is particularly interested in the economical running and control of matters pertaining to our country in general, because in the manifesto of the South African party there is the interesting statement that the party is in favour of economy. Really, if that had not been published, we would never have known it. During the regime of the former Government, people looked forward to that for years, but it was never to be found. That is decidedly good news to us, just to satisfy our curiosity, because I don’t think that the people will make use of it. People have enough experience of the financial policy of the former Government. I would like to mention a few instances where the former Government has particularly economized. There is, in the first place, the pension fund. No less than five funds fell behindhand, and the railway pension fund and the superannuation fund actually went bankrupt, and in the two railway funds there was a deficit of nearly £2,000,000. Economy of this nature was in the wrong direction, and it imposed an extra burden on the people to-day and on the shoulders of the Railway Administration. Instead, however, of giving the Administration credit for wanting to keep its word and doing its duty to the personnel, accusations are now flung at the Administration.

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

When the House dispersed this afternoon I was remarking that the South African party also declares itself in favour of economy. In the same manifesto something else is said in connection with the administration of the railways which cannot be substantiated for there is an insinuation to the following effect—

If there was ever a case of putting a burden on the shoulders of the people, then it is to be found on the first page of the Auditor-General’s report. In the twelve years the Opposition was in power there were surpluses only on five occasions, and it will be interesting to enquire into the burden the South African party Government with its deficits year after year has placed on the shoulders of the people. It seems to me that this sentence in the manifesto is a veiled attack on the Government’s civilized labour policy. When the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) declared in the House this afternoon that he was the father of civilized labour, I think most of us were stupified. My conclusion was that if the policy of civilized labour stands in any relation of childhood to the hon. member, then it is surely that of a step-child. If it is the case that there is a relation of father and child between this policy and the hon. member, then I do not understand why the Opposition, during the past few years, has been making veiled attacks on the civilized labour policy. I have tried to make enquiries as to what has already been done by the present Government in this connection, and what relief has been granted to thousands of breadwinners and sons of South Africa who have a right to make a living. I think that the country as a whole does not approve of this policy, but that the people appreciate the efforts of the Minister of Railways and Harbours in assisting our sons in obtaining work of an economic nature. In the 1925-’26 report of the Auditor-General mention is made of the fact that more than 13,000 persons have been taken into the service of the State, 8,000 adults, 3,000 young men and 2,059 persons on a loose footing. Those appointed in the railway service have not been appointed to displace others, but, as the Minister has repeatedly said, new appointments are made in the ordinary course only for purposes of extension and for filling up vacancies. Unless we are prepared to do the youth of South Africa justice and to follow the example set by the former Minister of Railways, we are obliged to give civilized labour its due portion in the public service. It is practically suggested that too much is paid for civilized labour, but there could not be a more baseless argument. In the, report of the Auditor-General mention is made of the fact that during the previous financial year 10.160 persons were employed, and the General Manager argues that those people caused an additional expense of about £191,000. I want to emphasize that we must ask ourselves on what basis this calculation is arrived at and how the work of the European workers has been compared with that of uncivilized natives. The fact of the matter is that there was nothing of the sort, and that this calculation was arrived at only from the expenditure per head. This system of bookkeeping is unscientific, and, in the second place, it is misleading. Although the report of the commissions appointed by the Minister of Railways and Harbours to institute an enquiry has not as yet produced any proofs of the economic value of civilized labour, incidents are quoted showing that nothing is more expensive than uncivilized labour. I am glad that provision is made for civilized labour, and that more provision has been made for promotion. The insinuation is that service of this nature runs to a dead end, but that is certainly not the case. What, however, is very unsatisfactory and should be deprecated is the use of the loose argument—the employment of civilized labour in the railway and civil service is one of the causes of the depopulation of the countryside and the flow to the towns. This argument does not agree with the facts. If the representatives of the South African party do not want the youth on the countryside to go to the towns in order to obtain work, do they want to argue that the country youths should not get a proper share in the public service. The only conclusion one can come to is that they want the public service to be reserved only for the youths of the towns. The flow to the towns is a world feature and is even being found in England to-day. Since the war about £400,000,000 has been spent in houses, and that is a sign that the English people, in spite of the reduction in the cost of living, are streaming to the towns. It is a world feature, and why should it now be ascribed in South Africa to the policy of the Government. An accusation of that sort is false and misleading. Industries are also developing in the towns to-day, and that will be an attraction for people in the country. When one hears the contentions of the South African party, one would assume that during their regime there was never any flow from the country to the towns. The census figures, however, reflect the very opposite, because it is shown that the rural depletion during 1911 to 1921 amounted to 70,000. Now I want to make a few more remarks in connection with what the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) has said. I am very sorry he is not here, but I think that one may say these things to his face. Now that he is not here it will probably be brought to his notice. I do not want to say that his representations were deliberately inaccurate, but I will say that they were considerably out. I am glad to see that we do not get that kind of criticism from the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). We may differ from him entirely, but his criticism is straight and is honest. The first thing I object to is that the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) accused the Minister of restriding the commission which received instructions to institute an enquiry into the matter of civilized labour in their terms of reference, that he hindered them from carrying it out properly. The hon. member spoke here of a restricted reference, in other words, the Minister limited them in their instructions regarding civilized labour. I have the report here and their instructions are to examine every phase of civilized labour. In sub-division 4 it is said that they must enquire into the expansion of civilized labour, and where it would be practicable to displace natives by Europeans. Further, that they should suggest any other way of advancing the economical use of white labour by better organization and methods of work, and, in this way, to spread civilized labour. There is thus no limitation, but it is stated that every phase must be enquired into. The Government is only responsible for this policy to the party which supports it, and the policy of the Government has not been subjected to a commission of this sort. We take the responsibility on behalf of the people, and it would be indescribable folly to subject this policy to a commission after it has been followed for three years. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) has nothing with which to support his accusation. The second point in his speech is probably more dangerous. He represents matters as though the Minister is responsible for the drawing up of the report, or has influenced it. According to the report in the “Cape Times,” he said that the report is first laid before the Minister of Railways. I think it is dishonest to say that the Minister and the Railway Board first went through the report. It has no facts to support it, and the hon. member had no right to draw those conclusions. The report consists of various subdivisions, and in one of the first sections the discussion between the commission and the Conciliation Board are dealt with. There is no secret, but what happened is explained quite clearly. It is apparent that what has been reported is the result of some co-operation between the commission and the Conciliation Board. I don’t want to read the section, but I just want to say that the hon. member had no justification for his accusations. One with the influence of the hon. member ought not to be guilty of such baseless assertions. His conclusion with regard to the economic value of civilized labour he endeavoured to support with incomplete information and by the reading of short sections and portions of sections from the report. In that way he gave us an inaccurate impression, although I do not say deliberately. Section 129, for example, he read, but no further. It deals with the national importance of the use of Europeans instead of natives. It is said there that the question whether Europeans can be used in place of natives cannot be governed by motives of necessity, but by the economic aspect of the matter. I contend that it is governed by both. We feel the necessity of employing civilized labour, but we are convinced that it is justified economically. But that was not what the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) aimed at when he made reference to it. He gave us the impression that the Government took into account the necessity only, without in any way keeping account of the economic aspect of the matter. Definite cases are mentioned in Section 135 in which European labour has been used, and where it has been found just as profitable, or more profitable than native labour. One case af a huge task in connection with the deviation of a line is mentioned. The cost was originally estimated on a basis providing for the use of native labour; although European labour was used the original figure was not exceeded. In the same section another instance is mentioned. The use of civilized labour is justified from an economic standpoint as well. I don’t want to detain the House any longer by mentioning any more examples. I just want to recommend for the Minister’s consideration sections 179 and 189 which are in some measure a reflection on the discipline and supervision in connection with civilized labour. The first section deals with it and I believe that the success of civilized labour is only assured if there is proper discipline. We do not want drill sergeants but the discipline and supervision should be adequate. The ability is there and the will is there and we must not allow the system to be wrecked for lack of discipline or supervision. Section 180 deals with it. Mention is made there of the fact that in many cases the civilized labourers work under an unsympathetic overseer, who has no knowledge of that class of person, who perhaps has not had previous experience of them. It is also said that the overseers should in each case be bilingual. I am pleased at that recommendation and hope it will be carried out. It is necessary that they should know the language of the people with whom they work in order to create a favourable understanding. I hope that the Minister will give effect to this recommendation because in the past persons have been appointed overseers who cannot speak the language of the European labourers and that makes sympathetic understanding impossible. If there is a lack of economic value in employing them then we must on our side not neglect to do our duty by appointing capable overseers who can work with those people. There are one or two other things which deserve the attention of the Minister and his department. On page 71 of the report of the Auditor-General, mention is made of the huge sum spent in overtime. This matter has been discussed on a former occasion when the additional estimates were dealt with and therefore I don’t want to go into details now, but it is clear to any one who has done any work that one can only work efficiently for a certain time. After a "certain time fatigue sets in to such an extent that one cannot work economically, and if overtime is driven too far it may have, as a consequence, more uneconomical labour than in the case of civilized labourers. The case mentioned by the Auditor-General is only applicable to the period of the huge maize traffic, but we ought to emphasise now that overtime should not be indulged in to excess. Further, I am glad to see that the Administration has already taken steps to make provision for repairs, because if trucks are kept too long in the railway workshops it has a detrimental effect in traffic. The Minister has, however, taken more workmen into service, and extended the existing workshops. I think that the House need not take the amendment of the hon. member for Standerton seriously. It is a measure of necessity and we will see that the consequences in the country and in his own party will be negligible. In the name of that section of the people represented on this side of the House, I may say that they have the utmost confidence in the Government’s policy in spite of what the hon. member for Standerton has said. The people have much greater confidence in the present than in the former Government.

No graver charge has ever been made in this House against an honest hard working body of men such as our artisans in the railway workshops are, and this charge was made by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow). I wrote the words down, so that the hon. member cannot deny them—

I hope that the Minister of Railways and Harbours will defend his workmen against this unwarranted charge.

On a point of explanation, I did not do anything of the sort. I was quoting from page 165 of the Auditor-General’s report for 1925-’26.

I accept the hon. gentleman’s apology, but I hope that the railway" workmen of Salt River will take note of the hon. gentleman’s words this afternoon.

You mean the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts).

The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) said it was a crime to reduce railway rates. Well, one cannot expect a better remark from the hon. gentleman considering he has a mind as big as a pin’s head. [Cries of “withdraw.”]

May I explain that remark? What I said this afternoon was that it would be a crime to reduce railway rates, until every railway employee was paid a living wage.

I must apologize for the size of the hon. gentleman’s mind. He said it was a crime to reduce railway rates, forgetting that by such reduction production is stimulated and employment is increased. The hon. gentleman did not say it was a crime under this white labour system to pay these men the starvation wage of from 3s. to 5s.; but I will say it for him. To-day the fact that these starvation wages are being paid to these men means that the whole of their relations are dependent on benevolent societies for sustenance. The secretary of a benevolent society here told me that never have there been more applications for assistance. In Cape Town docks you find natives drawing 6s. a day. I think the Minister of Railways and Harbours should change the name of this policy and call it—

That would be more consistent. The hon. member for Salt River this afternoon accused the right hon. the Leader of the Opposition of making the statement that the railwaymen were inefficient. The hon. member is confusing a quotation from a report, quoted by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), by technical men appointed by the Minister. There are three outstanding features in that report. They are, firstly, lack of discipline; secondly, they do not know how to work; and thirdly, the policy would lead to serious disorganization and inefficient service. This white labour policy is not economic as far as the railways are concerned, and should be charged to general revenue. It should not be charged to the users of the railways, that is, the farmers. This policy is costing the country half-a-million, and it is wrong that it should be charged to the railways. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) stated yesterday that there were ten thousand people starving in South Africa. This is from one of the important supporters of the Pact Government. One is pleased to state that one could not make that statement during the regime of the South African Party Government. The hon. member went on to say that he took exception to the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. Tom Naudé) who favoured the importation of East Coast and Mozambique natives, and the hon. member for Troyeville was entirely opposed to that, but to show his inconsistency, if we were to prevent the importation of these natives, it would mean the closing down of the mines, and throwing thousands of Europeans out of employment. The right hon. the Leader of the Opposition was perfectly correct to-day when he said that all over the country there was a cry for native labour. Hon. members must not forget that your principal industry in South Africa is agriculture, which makes a return of 81 millions, as against 54 millions for the mines and 41 millions for industries. With the expansion of agriculture, we find that there are not enough natives to go round. For the wattle industry of Umvoti and the cultivation of maize and sugar, we find we have not sufficient natives to carry on, and we have to depend on Basutoland and the Cape Province. Within the last five years native wages have increased 100 per cent., and they are from 40s. to 50s. per head per month, plus proper food and housing. I am interested to see the smile on the face of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, who has fixed one shilling per hour as the wage in Government contracts for natives. Here is a repercussion of that policy. A native called Champion, the provincial secretary of the I.C.U., a native organization, recently stated to a representative of the “Natal Witness”—

He explained that it was the intention of the I.C.U. to force employers through the Wage Board to pay native house servants between £7 and £10 per month, and for other positions wages on the same basis as those paid to Europeans. The result would be, he said, that 5,000 native houseboys would be thrown out of employment, because their employers could not afford to keep them. That was just what he wanted to see, as it would force the Government to deal adequately with the native unemployed. As to native farm labourers they were out for a minimum wage of £5 per month. The Minister of Railways was very loud this afternoon in desiring examples of the inefficient working of the railway department. I consider it is a crying disgrace to the department the way in which the grain elevators, particularly those in the Free State, are being worked. I have letters here which the Minister can verify. I will not read out the names of the firms but I will give them to the Minister. A Natal broker asserts that an enormous quantity of grain is taken in the elevators, certificates taken for twos when they are threes, and in a great many cases it is under grade rubbish.

Will the hon. member lay that letter on the Table?

I will hand it to the Minister. The broker proceeds that he was informed that one firm bought two hundred bags of twos which were very unsatisfactory. Another buyer had the same experience, and if they are doing this sort of thing it will cause a lot of trouble. Another firm informed the broker that they were not going to buy any more elevator twos, which are the best quality maize. Twice in one week they bought some twos which were so very inferior that they would not grade as threes. In some instances short weight was given, the bags were secondhand and some of them burst in the trucks. This sort of complaint is being made all over the country.

Was that complaint brought to the notice of the responsible officials.

I am bringing it to the notice of the Minister. The letter is dated March 18.

Why didn’t you give it to me before to be investigated?

There are things which the country should know. Here is a letter from a miller of 30 years’ standing who writes—

This is a very serious matter. We are competing in the world’s grain markets. This season we have to look forward to low prices for maize, and that is an argument to reduce the railway rate on maize, which is a flat one of 1s. 6d. per bag. We are handicapped in regard to the Argentine where most of the transport is by river, the cost of which is about one-tenth of that of railway transport. The principal maize we grow is grade 6, the same as the Argentine. The Argentine is quoting forward prices to November for sixes 28s. per quarter (480 lbs.) which is equal to 11s. 8d. per muid, less 5s. 4d. expenses of freight and rail leaving 6s. 4d. Argentine twos are quoted at 32s. per quarter, which after the deduction of expenses leaves a net amount to the farmer equal to 8s. per muid. The greatest amount of maize South Africa has grown in one season was 2,429,550 tons of which we exported was 2,429,550 tons of which we exported 929,000 tons, the balance being consumed in South Africa. The coming crop is estimated at 19,000,000 bags and we shall have only 4,000,000 bags for export. The largest crop 4,000,000 bags for export. The largest crop of Argentine maize was grown in 1924 the quantity being 5,200,000 tons, so South Africa is in the picture in the world’s maize production. There is, however, one unfortunate feature and that is our low yield per acre, and that is where the agricultural department should come to the assistance of the farmer. The production in South Africa per acre is the lowest of the ten principal maize growing countries of the world. We should follow Australia’s example in wheat growing and employ expert knowledge to increase our yield per acre Our sea freight is rather more favourable than the Argentine we paying 22s. 6d. a ton for bulk and £1 5s. a ton for bagged maize as against the freight of 27s. a ton from the Argentine. The Minister should reduce the railway flat rate for maize from 15s. to 10s. a ton and that would stimulate greater production’ I am sorry the Minister of Agriculture is not here, because I want to lay at his door absolute inactivity in regard to agriculture. He has done nothing whatsoever to help us get a market for our cattle. Excluding calves, the latest census figures show we have 9 738 337 head of cattle in the Union. Including calves, the number is well over 10,000,000. We hear a lot about our duty to the natives, and how wishful we are to solve the native problem Finding a market for their cattle is a burning one. In the native reserves there are 2,963,088 head of cattle, and natives on farms have 1,294,287 head of cattle, or a total of 42 per cent. of the whole. Cattle is the natives’ biggest asset, but it is a frozen asset owing to no market, and what limited market there is in South Africa we have to share with Rhodesia. I do not forget that the Italian Government purchased a few thousand head of cattle, but that is only a drop in the ocean. We have had a severe drought, and farmers have found their farms overstocked with cattle which should have been turned into cash. In regard to our dairy produce, we are far behind. If we take Australia, we find they have 13,000,000 head of cattle or 3,000,000 more than we have, and they supply their home market, and in addition export butter to the extent of 4,000,000 per annum, and we, with 3,000,000 head less, export 31,337 lbs. It is because the Australian Government realize, as this Government does not realize the need of controlling the grading of bulls in order to improve the production capacity of the cattle. Australia does this, and that is the reason her quality of cattle is such that with 3,000,000 less than the Union they produce a total value of 20,000,000 against our small output. When the Suffolk society in England wanted to export pedigree stock here recently, the Minister refused and his reason was on account of foot-and-mouth disease in England. A reasonable quarantine was offered, and he refused this. Had there been any danger, I should have said he was justified. Contrast that with the late Government when they negotiated with the United Kingdom to send" over some pure-bred Frieslands. They knew we had east coast fever in this country, but my hon. friend, the member for Beaufort West (Sir Thomas Smartt) arranged a reasonable quarantine for these cattle, and after accepting, the result was that magnificent prices were obtained. It is deplorable farmers should be in this position, a position of not having a sympathetic government. When the natives have 42 per cent. of the cattle, and it is their only asset, why don’t you give them a chance to convert it into cash. The position is different with regard to sheep. In Australia with 93,000,000 sheep they produce £56,000,000 sterling for wool, while South Africa with 31,000,000 sheep produce £15,000,000 for wool. We are reasonably near to them in proportion, but the position of our farmers is deplorable, and I hope before ruin overtakes the farmers, the Government will relieve the situation.

I listened very carefully to the speeches of the Opposition, but I must say that I have been disappointed in my expectations, because during the recess and since the beginning of the session the papers have prophesied that splinters would fly when the Budget debate took place. The hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) has, up to the present, created the most fuss when he alleged that this Government is unsympathetic to the farmers. The reason why this Government was put into power, and why there is such a small Opposition on the other side of the House is that this side of the House takes care of the interests of the farmers. The hon. member was very much concerned that the Government had to find a market for the export of stock, but I think he was one of those who created such a fuss when we decided to increase the weight of stock imported from Rhodesia to 1,050 lbs. The hon. member also made an attack on a number of other hon. members, but did not mention a single case on which it is necessary to answer him. There is only one thing referred to by members of the Opposition with which I agree entirely, and I want to draw the attention of the Minister of Railways and Harbours to the fact that the docks at Port Elizabeth should be built as soon as possible. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) knows that he is one of the reasons of the South African party being in the minority to-day. When he was Minister of Railways he never rose to speak in the House but he quoted section 127 of the Constitution in so far as he thought fit. But he did not give serious consideration to what should be done in the interests of the farming population. In his speech on this debate, however, he mentioned the interests of primary products at least half a dozen times.

He has also got a farm now.

While he was Minister of Railways he got into such disfavour, on account of his conduct to the farmers and the railway officials, that just before the election he suddenly sent in his resignation as Minister.

That was only temporary.

Oh, was that only intended to last until after the election? The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) was much concerned at the high railway tariffs which the Minister of Railways and Harbours does not want to reduce, and that the high tariffs are disadvantageous especially to the farming population. What, however, is the position? I have here information which I obtained from the department of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) when he was Minister of Railways, and it can therefore not be questioned. There it is said—

What was the position when this Government came into power?

The tariffs were reduced by £1,000,000.

You must not speak of boom times.

Is it then only boom time when we are in power? The hon. member for Standerton surprised me when he said this afternoon that he has been in favour of civilised labour policy since 1908. When the former Minister of Railways and Harbours was, however, at the head of affairs, 400 Europeans were dismissed and 7,000 natives employed.

Do you understand the position?

I thought that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort would already have taken part in the debate, but he is keeping quiet because he knows that whatever he says he is bound to put his foot into it. It will be interesting to quote a few passages from one or two speeches of the hon. member for Standerton. He held a meeting at Douglas, and as reported in the “E.P. Herald” he said—

From this, one would assume that all the legislation placed on the statute book by this Government was not in the interests of the people, and it is also a fact that the hon. member for Standerton has opposed every measure brought forward by this Government. I remember how the hon. member for Standerton pointed to his friend, the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) last year and said—

“ Hear, hear.”

Does the hon. member say “Hear, hear?” The South African party had fourteen years in which to do it but they did nothing.

We had no surpluses.

But you had the surplus which they drew from loan funds in order to persuade the people that they had a surplus. That surplus reminds me of my young days. At that time when I was very poor I once paid cash for a span of oxen, but I borrowed the money from a neighbour. The position is the same with this surplus of the Opposition. In the same breath in which the hon. member for Standerton complained about the profit lessness of farming he said that we should spend £1,000,000 every year bringing immigrants to the country. The hon. member for Standerton promised us his support if we went to work in the interests of the people, but very little of that has been forthcoming. It is strange to read a report of the speech by the Leader of the Opposition in the “Sunday Times.” According to that paper he once said at a public gathering—

Who said that?

The member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) did. It was a speech that he made.

You had better try again for that, because we don’t believe it.

Well then, the “Sunday Times” must be reporting something that is not true. And what did the hon. member for Standerton say at Worcester, He made a speech there also naturally in English and he said—

Stories of this sort do not make any impression on the people any more.

Did you not say that you would not remain in Parliament a single day if labour entered the Cabinet;

The hon. member is very fond of sucking things out of his thumb. He tells his electors strange things, especially with regard to the loans the farmers obtain under the Fencing Act and the Land Bank Act. He told the people there that that was his work: he had proposed it and saw to it that loans were more easily obtainable. Alas! that we have no Hansard of speeches of that nature. I have here a quotation from the Cape Times” of the 22nd April last year. I think it is very interesting, but I do not see how the “Cape Times” can get away with such a speech amongst South African party adherents. I could not believe my eyes. I read there—

I would be able to quote a large number of country speeches of hon. members. It would be very amusing, but the people of South Africa have learned to judge for themselves and go into things. There is the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt). He can also say strange things from a platform, things which are quite inaccurate. I got up in order to plead for that section of the people who according to the statistics of the commission of revenue have only a taxable income of £4,000,000, while commerce in South Africa has a taxable income of £20,000,000, and the mines £11,000,000. I call upon the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, who was Minister of Agriculture for so many years, for assistance. In 1916 or 1917 there was an Emergency Loan Act. £50,000 was provided, and of that £50,000 they only lost 1 per cent. I fear that the farmers will not be able to make use of the Act for agricultural credit. I know that the Government has much sympathy with the farmers, and I think that the Government should help these people. Many of the farmers are on the verge of bankruptcy, and if it is impossible to get an Emergency Loan Act through Parliament, then I want to ask the Minister to give those farmers who are not dependent on the Government, and who have never come to the Government for help, an opportunity of being assisted like settlers. According to the figures I obtained from the Minister of Lands, there are 6,809 settlers, and in the past five years £1,689,000 has been granted them. In the past two years more than £400,000 was written off for settlers.

That is not correct.

Surely it is true that of the 6,809 settlers only 2,139 are a success, and these settlers can go to the Government and ask for loans under the Land Settlement Act in order to buy sheep. I am not opposed to the settlers, but I say that the settlers need only apply to the Government, and at the discussion of the motion of the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) I also said that farmers in difficulties and who have not had help from the Government in the past ought to be assisted first. I need not describe the situation on the countryside. The newspapers do it all day. Just a few instances. I know someone who has drudged for 25 years. He bought a farm for £10,000, paid off £5,000, and took a bond for the remaining £5,000. He has no more money with which to meet his obligations and has no more stock, his position is terrible. In another case a man has a bond of £800 on a farm worth £2,400. According to the valuators of the insurance company, the value of the ground is £1 per morgen, but should it be placed on the market it would fetch much more. The man cannot be assisted under the Agricultural Credit Act, because then seven farmers have to make themselves jointly and severally liable. That is impossible. Let the Government render a further sum available for relief, and the loss would probably not be more than 1 per cent. again. With regard to the ostrich farmers, I think that the Government has done everything to render them assistance. £100,000 has been spent in order to make the feathers fashionable again, and I hope that they will still be successful. In the Midlands the rainfall has been less and less every year, and I hope the Government will take that into consideration. I do not want loans to be granted carelessly, but if it is done sensibly, I do not think the Government will lose anything by so doing. If sugar planters and maize farmers are protected, and if debts are written off for the benefit of co-operative undertakings, then it is the duty of the Government to help these people also. Allow me to reply to a letter which appeared in the “Cape Argus” recently, and in which mention is made of the white slavery in the districts of Jansenville. If the “Cape Argus” publishes reports of white slavery, then it does not understand the position of the people. They have never been helped by the Government in the past, and I think the Government is under an obligation to them. The Government will have to decide to help them by assisting them in the purchase of stock in order to keep them on the land. If we want to do that, then I can tell the Minister of Railways that the charges for the transport of stock in drought-stricken areas is still very much too high to-day. When the country is being stricken with a drought such as the present one, then stock much be conveyed even if the Minister has to stop passenger traffic. I go further. What necessity is there for following the policy of the former Government in that the Minister of Railways and Harbours has to go to the Minister of Agriculture and show receipts for the transport of stock. No, I go so far as to say that stock should be carried free of charge.

What about business principles?

We should not only read the first portion of section 127. It will be first-rate business if the Minister should decide to carry stock free of charge in the future instead of allowing millions to die. He will find that a large number of animals are not transported because of the lack of trucks and because the people are afraid of making more expense. I maintain that I am as well acquainted with the position in the country as anyone. It is characteristic of the farmers that they always endeavour to hide their distress, and if the Government decides to appoint a commission to inquire into the matter—it need not be an expensive commission—then it will be found what the true position is and that hundreds are starving. They should be assisted to remain independent, and to remain on the land. The Government should come to the help of the people under the Agricultural Credit Act, but if the rains come, the duty of the Government will be to come to the assistance of the people in all directions. The Government should not follow the example of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central), because he said he would not allow stock to be carried unless paid for. Fortunately the hon. member for Fort Beaufort was more sympathetically inclined. Stock ought to be carried free of charge. How will that effect the railways detrimentally? The losses will be very small if regard is had to the numbers saved.

Do you not think it ought to be paid from the Consolidated Revenue Fund and not by the railways?

I say that the railways should decide to carry the stock free of charge, whether it comes from the Consolidated Revenue Fund or from railway funds.

That makes a big difference.

We hope that there will soon be a big change in the position because in some parts it has already rained sufficiently, but it is taking an unhealthy course to talk of business principles when people are dying of hunger and distress and the ranks of the poor whites are being swelled year after year I hope that the Government will seriously consider the position because my advice can easily he followed. It will be good business for the future of South Africa.

I do not claim to be a politician or a high financier, but I claim to be a plain farmer, and I want to point out to farmers on the other side of the House that the Minister of Finance is taking more from them than he ought to. The farmer’s income fell by over £8,000,000, and the export fell by £4,839,000. Although there was an actual increase in the amount of wool exported last year of 3,079,000 lbs. avoirdupois and 35,000,000 lbs. were exported as against 32,000,000 in the previous year, the value was less by £2,449,000. It was the same with cotton which fell by 1,100,000 lbs. for a less value of £94,623. Ostrich feathers fell by £132,000, hides and skins by £264,000, wattle bark and extract £191,000, live cattle, horses and mules, £18,000, dairy products, £41,000, cheese £4,600. The only two bright spots in the export of agricultural produce was that meat, fresh and frozen, increased by £191,119 and the exported sugar increased by £30,000. On the face of it the increase in the export of meat looks as if it was a gain to the Union, and although the export of cattle increased from 45,000 in the previous year to 65,000 last year, the share of the Union was less than 2,000 head. The cattle population or the Union at the end of 1924 was 9,706,000, while the annual consumption is under 400,000. Out of that number 121,000 came from neighbouring territories, and out of the 65,000 exported, 63,000 were from neighbouring territories, so that the whole of the Union was able to produce only 250,000 head for consumption in the country. There is something very far wrong with our farmers when such a state of affairs exists. We have heard a lot during the last few days about the key industries. Cattle farming is the key industry of agriculture, but if we are going to continue farming, our methods will have to be reformed considerably. If you don’t feed cattle and manure the land, although you may use superphosphates, the land will be blown away by the wind, as it is now. If this is to be a country for people to live in, not only for our ain folk, but for other folk as well, we must reform our methods. It is no use taking everything out and putting nothing back, for if we do, we shall leave a howling wilderness. I have farmed on the same farm for 44 years, and it is still able to support me, and I hope will be able to support my boy after me. A good deal of the Minister’s surplus of £1,125,000 came out of the farmers’ pockets wrongfully. The more money that is raised by taxation, the more inducement there is for extravagance, and that is what we are suffering from, not only the Government, but the farmers. We imported 18,000 motor-cars last year, and sent out £3,000,000 in cash for petrol, but that was not for the benefit of the farmers. Farmers would be far better off working with horses than driving six-cylinder motor-cars. A large quantity of our cattle which does not come up to the Continental standard had to be boned last year. The annual review of the frozen meat trade states that last year there were in the Union 9,000,000 head" of cattle, of which 3,000,000 are owned by natives, while Rhodesia had 2,000,000, half of which were the property of natives, and Bechuanaland and the South West Protectorate had 500,000 head each. Very little of the beef exported from South Africa was suitable for the English market. The Stud Breeders’ Society are suffering from a dearth of good bulls. We cannot go on breeding stud bulls unless we obtain fresh blood from Europe. We can import cattle from Holland, but not, from Great Britain, because in one district there has been an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. Yet this disease is endemic in Holland, from which country we are allowed to import livestock. Why this differentiation? The demand for stud bulls in South Africa has increased considerably of late. Over 100 bulls were taken in one consignment in the last six months from Natal to Rhodesia. They ranged from 9½, to 15 months. That is a trade we do not want to lose, but we cannot keep it up unless we get fresh blued from the old country. If the Government have any regard for farmers it is up to them to find a way out. Last year, owing to an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease which occurred at Lanark, and which was traced to a shipment of pork from the continent, the Board of Agriculture in England closed the ports to imported pork from the continent of Europe. That gave South Africa a chance, and over 6,600 frozen carcases of pork were exported from Durban in four months. Most of these were from Natal, that being the only enterprising province, in spite of it being a coolie and native reserve. Last year, referring to the export of beef I asked the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture when they went to London, to interview the Colonial Secretary and see if they could not get the same terms for the import of live cattle as Canada enjoys. I was told a memorandum had been drawn up which was handed over to the Minister of Finance, but we know nothing further about it. We do not know whether he took up the position with the Colonial Secretary or not, we do not know the result. If Canada can enjoy free import of “stores” and they can go anywhere in Great Britain—slaughter cattle must be slaughtered at the port of entry, but if described as “store” they are entitled to go anywhere and breeders are glad to secure them. When the farmers were on a visit here last year they said that some of our cattle were what they wanted and they were willing to pay £30 for them. There is a difference in that price and the £10 we obtain here even with the cost of freightage. It would be a great thing for the cattle trade if that were brought about.

I first would like to direct the attention of the House to what, for want of a better expression, I would like to call the lack of co-ordination and co-operation between the High Commissioner’s Office in London and the Government of the Union. It is a matter of considerable importance. I was in England in 1925 and whilst there the parliamentary organizers of a group of parliamentarians interested in the protection of wild life and wild birds asked if I could do anything in regard to an objection lodged against the English Plumage Bill of 1921. It provided there should be no importation of plumage, but there was a good deal of evasion and smuggling, and it was intended to insert in the Act that—

should be included. It was said the objection had been lodged by the High Commissioner of South Africa with the Home department. Owing to protracted illness I did not attend to the matter, but whilst here I received a long cable from the parliamentary organizers. I naturally supposed the information would be available and that we should know here the grounds upon which the High Commissioner objected to the legislation, and I put certain questions to the Minister of Agriculture. They appear in the current Hansard, page 1686, and in substance the Minister’s answer was that that was the first time that he had heard of the objection. He sent to Pretoria for the papers and they came, but there was no information procurable. He then said that he was communicating with the High Commissioner. That is a highly unsatisfactory state of affairs. I do not know what grounds the High Commissioner had for lodging his objection. They may have been good, but they are not apparent because the Plumage Act of 1921 already accepts African ostriches, and the proposed amendment would again accept African ostriches and would, indeed, create a monopoly. This valuable information should have been procurable here. The High Commissioner evidently acted on his own initiative. He had no instructions from this Government to take up that action, and to take up an action like that of objecting to legislation in a friendly country is an instruction which should have emanated from this Government. In any case the information should have been available here to Parliament and to the country. This matter requires some explanation. What I want to knew is whether it falls within the scope of the High Commissioner to lodge objections to intended legislation in a friendly country, and also to lodge such objection without any instructions from his Government. The next question I wish to deal with very briefly is the question of roads and highways. In this matter I have a very serious complaint to make against the Government for what I consider is the contemptuous manner in which a resolution of this House has been treated. On March 10th, 1925, the following resolution which I introduced was carried in this House unanimously—

After the lapse of two years I thought it was time to enquire what had been done. I put a question on the 22nd of last month to the Minister of Mines and Industries asking what action, if any, had been taken in regard to this resolution. The Minister gave a reply, the substance of which is contained in the last section—

This is not the business of the provincial councils, but of this Government. I think the House and the country are entitled to know why this very important resolution has not been given effect to, and in fact why nothing has been done. The provincial authorities have not even been approached. A very interesting brochure has lately come into the hands of members of the House by Mr. Hill, the chief rodent inspector, entitled “The natural solution of the rodent plague.” The writer draws attention to the increase of the rodents in the Union and the added risk of plague from this increase. Then he gives a list of the natural enemies of rodents, and draws attention to the fact that these have been largely destroyed through the ignorance and thoughtlessness of humans. He pleads for a restoration of the balance of nature. This is the first official communication I am aware of which has ever emanated from the Government. In reply to a question which I recently put, the Minister of Public Health said that he had read the brochure, but that these matters fell under the administration of the provincial authorities, who had been kept fully informed of the position by the Department of Public Health, and had recently modified some of the game laws in response of representations made by the department. It was news to me to learn that these matters fell under the provincial councils. I wish to inform the Minister that they do not fall under the provincial councils. This matter I repeat is not a provincial matter; it is a national matter, and I would ask the Minister in the interests of the country not only from the health point of view, but from an agricultural point of view, to look into this matter, and he will find if these carnivora and wild birds are worth protecting, as I think they are, it is for him to introduce legislation into this House. It is not two days ago that we had an instance, not an uncommon one in this country, of the Government speaking with two voices and that, on a matter of very great public importance. I put a question to the Minister of Labour as to whether he had read the utterances of certain communists in addressing a native gathering. The Minister said no, he had not read them. Immediately afterwards a question was put by the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) to the Prime Minister to the same effect, and the Prime Minister replied that he had read those utterances. I must say I was very dissatisfied with the answer given by the Minister of Labour, because what was notorious and known throughout the country should have been known to him. I do not know whether he did not wish to know it, but the fact remains that these seditious utterances inciting to crime were not known to him although they were known to the Prime Minister. I wish to draw the attention of the House again to what was said by these men. Addressing a meeting of natives they said that the natives must organize to gain possession of the country; they must do as the Russians had done, and as was being done now in China. In other words, it was an incitement to these ignorant natives to carry out a doctrine of spoliation, rapine and murder.

Who said this?

Who said this? Andrews and Glass. Evidently the Minister is not enlightened yet. I have just said his ignorance is not shared by the Prime Minister who knew all about it. I think both S.A.P. and Nationalist members will agree that a law is necessary to deal with sedition of this sort. I challenge any member of the National party to say that he is averse to the introduction of legislation to deal with speeches of this kind. The Minister of Justice last year introduced a Bill which is called the Prevention of Disorders Bill, a Bill to prevent sedition and for the purpose of prohibiting and preventing the dissemination within the Union of speeches subversive of peace and good order. Where is the Bill now? I will tell you why that Bill is not on the Table. It is because an ultimatum has been received from the Labour party prohibiting the Government from proceeding with this Bill. The penalty is being kicked out of office. There is no doubt that in this matter, the Government must obey the behests of their masters and this highly necessary measure for the protection of the State is not being proceeded with. It is a necessary measure for the protection of the natives, because many of these people will be misled by the talk of these agitators. An instance of this sort shows what a danger the present Government is to the State. The safety of the State and the welfare of the natives are secondary considerations to the continued holding of office. The Minister of Justice after the last election, had a good deal to say about self-respect. I remember he said that if the Administrator of the Transvaal had any self-respect, he should resign. He tendered his resignation, but the Prime Minister refused to accept it—to his credit. The matter of self-respect was mentioned again with regard to the Civil Service Commission, and it was said that if they had any self-respect they would resign. The Minister of Justice also said that he could not see how any self-respecting man could remain a member of the South African party. We had a good deal from the Minister about self-respect, but I want to ask the Nationalist members of the Government and of the House whether they have any self-respect. After this terrorizing and the prevention of the introduction of a necessary measure, which is badly wanted in the country, can they claim to have any self-respect? It is difficult to conceive anything more humiliating. The highest interests of the country are sacrificed to a despicable lust of power. The domination by the Labour party of the Nationalist section of the Government constitutes a danger to the State. One cannot speak too strongly on this subject. We find these communists going from place to place, and inciting the natives to acts of violence, and implanting these bad doctrines amongst the natives—and this with impunity. The Bill to which I have referred is a good one. It went to a select committee and came out practically unaltered, but it has been withdrawn. If this Bill is necessary, let the Prime Minister proceed with it, and if he cannot get the support of the Labour party, let him go to the country and he will find the country behind him. Many of his own followers will resent that he is estopped from proceeding with this measure on account of this miserable union and pact which exists between him and the cross-benches. In conclusion, I hope that the question of the reduction of expenditure in regard to this country, and especially in regard to the legislature will have the serious consideration of the Government. Our country is very sparsely populated, and it is very poor. One of the first things we should do is to reduce the number of members of Parliament. Australia has one representative for 68,540 voters, while in the Union we have one member for 10,600 voters. Holland has only 100 members of Parliament. This is not a party matter. It is a common complaint in South Africa that the expenses of Government and the Administration are too high, and that the people are very heavily taxed. A reduction in the number of parliamentary representatives is one way in which to effect economy. The parliamentary machine now costs £180,000 a year. This is a bilingual country which also means extra expense. Then we have the luxury of the dual capital and in addition we have the provincial councils. I would like not only the Government, but our own party to consider the question of reducing the cost of administration.

For fourteen years we had an administration of deficits in South Africa and all those years we longed for something else. We very badly wanted a surplus now and then, but now that that is the case one would think from the speeches of some of the members of the Opposition that that was their greatest grievance. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) warns the Minister of Finance that a surplus is actually a dangerous thing and that it is much better for him to have a deficit. Is that because the Opposition are jealous that after al] these years of deficits the Minister of Finance has been successful in obtaining surpluses?

How many years or deficits?

Fourteen years, and they were not seven lean and seven fat years as in the old days in Egypt. There were only three lean years, for the others were all fat. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. Tom Naudé) who has a better memory than the rest of us remembers only one surplus, but the rest of the country only remembers deficits. It is now said that surpluses are dangerous and that it is much better to leave money in the pockets of the taxpayers. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) said that the Minister of Finance had a good head for financial matters but that he guesses badly, because last February he estimated the surplus £600,000, while to-day it is estimated at £1¼ millions. He seems to have been very much disappointed at the change, but now I want to ask him in all seriousness whether he really wishes to tell this House that the Minister “of Finance every time he expects a surplus should immediately proceed to reduce taxes in order to wipe out the expected surplus. That, apparently, was his line of argument. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) also said that the £1¼ million has been taken out of the taxpayers’ pocket and that it should rather have been left there. Now what do hon. members really mean to contend their warnings against surpluses? Did they not also have good fortune and prosperous years? I think that one of the best criterions of whether a country is prosperous or not is commerce, and the state of commerce can be gauged from the import duties gathered. If we go into the question we shall see that in the year 1920-’21 the revenue from import duties was higher that it has ever been, whether before or after. The income was £8,964,000. After that it lessened again and in 1924 it was £6,660,000. It is true that there has been a certain measure of prosperity during the last three years because the average rise in the income from import duties has been £500,000 per annum. I think that the high figure of 1921 was a very good sign of welfare. The former Government however had a deficit and not a surplus. That is just where the country found fault with the former Government. When they had a prosperous year and a good income, then they saw to it that all the money was made use of and a deficit to boot. That was the policy of the former Government, and it reminds one of the sort of man who spends what he has earned during the week on light refreshments on Saturday night. The Government has had good fortune but also bad fortune. He failure of the maize crop and an unprecedented drought has occurred during the regime of this Government. But what is the luck of a business man? The man who is regarded as fortunate in business is he who is far-seeing enough to know how to regulate matters and eventually be successful. The fortune of this Government comes down to this that when it had a good income and surpluses it knew how to invest the same. Industries have sprung up and were encouraged. Take the building of motor-cars. To-day hundreds of people make a living by it, they have good incomes and the majority pay income tax. Where were they a few years ago? They were not then contributing to the income of the country. They had no income. The Government encouraged industries and provided employment. It is said that the Government should have left 3¼ million more in the pockets of the taxpayer, that the Government is taking so much more from the taxpayer in the country in taxes. But no new tax can be mentioned. It is a mistake to represent the position as though the same people pay more. Reference is made to the fact that the" increase in population since 1921 has not been so large so that the people have to pay more taxation, but the fact is that there are now so many people who earn so much that they must and can pay taxation. That is a result of the policy of the Government. More people are in a position to earn more so that they have a taxable income. What is the use of having a large population on the streets which has to be supported by means of relief works? The right policy is to create a position of such a nature that all the people or the great majority are able to make a living, can earn so much as to be able to make a living and pay taxes. What did our friends in the South African party do when they had prosperous times? The Auditor-General’s report gives the expenditure at page four for a series of years. We find that the Opposition, when revenue was greater, spent more. In 1917-’18 expenditure was £18,959,900; it rose in 1920-’21 when they had a good year in import duties, to £30,075,000. In the following year it was again over 30 millions; later it fell to 24 millions, and to-day it is 27 millions. Expenditure is therefore still less than that of the South African party Government of 1920. They followed the course of spending all they had, and still they produced deficits. Deficits are now regarded as the desirable thing for a Minister for Finance. Now it is said that every time there is a surplus it should be applied in reduction of taxation. I want to know then how the public debt is going to be relieved? Our country has been in the extraordinary position of having had bad times for a number of years, and it was then urged that the Government should come to the assistance of the people with loans. But what should be done when good times return? If we borrow money in bad times and reduce taxation in the good times what will happen to the public debt? In what way is the public debt to be repaid? Would it not be better to follow a more settled course and apply the money in hard times to public works? If we do that we get the money as cheaply as possible, and then we are in a position to spend more money and help more people to obtain employment in this way and to have an income, and in that way assist them so that they need not apply to the Government for charity. But I am afraid that in the past the line of conduct has been to start big works and borrow money in times of prosperity, which money had naturally to be borrowed at a high rate of interest, and in prosperous times wages were of course high, and it was even difficult to obtain labour. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) argued the other day that the proof that the country is highly taxed lies in the fact that investment in savings banks is much greater in Australia than in South Africa. But what has been the experience? Can one deduce from that the prosperity of a country? One’s experience is that in hard times investments in savings banks are larger than in good times. Why? Because in bad times the rich man deposits his money in the banks because he is afraid to speculate. Then the poor man has no money to deposit. In good times the rich man draws his money out of the bank in order to speculate, and the poor man who has earned a little invests it in the bank. That has been the experience. It is therefore no proof that the country is heavily taxed when deposits in the banks are small. At the commencement I said that there was shedding of tears on the part of the Opposition because we have a surplus this year as well, but other tears are being shed as well. We hear much of the love for the poor man and of how the Opposition feels for the poor man. What kind of tears are these? Crocodile tears. It is a very popular thing to say—

We agree that it is a good thing to leave as much money as possible in the hands of the poor man. But then I wish to refer again to the fact that the burden of taxation on the poor man has been reduced. We have shown by means of deeds that we feel for the poor man. We introduced the penny-post, removed the estates tax on small estates and increased the income-tax abatement. What did the South African party do? The Nationalist Government goes further than that,

It’s a Pact Government, not a Nationalist Government.

We go further than simply to leave the money in the pockets of the taxpayer, because that is a secondary consideration. The first consideration is getting the money to flow into the pockets of the taxpayer. I have shown what the effect of the Government’s policy of protection has been and that because of it, work has been provided for the poor man, for whom the Opposition is shedding so many tears. The industries of the country have to be developed, and the Government has shown that that is a thing they have not forgotten. However, what did the South African party Government do? instead of starting national works in bad times and giving the poor an opportunity of producing an income, persons were dismissed from the railway workshops and the work reduced. Thousand’s of pounds worth of rolling stock which could have been produced here was ordered from overseas. That is the record of the South African party Government who are shedding crocodile-tears at the lot of the poor man and the farmers. If it was a fact that the former Government really was concerned with the interests of the farmers and the poor people, why is it that the poor and the farmers are no longer to be found in such numbers in the South African party? There is an old proverb which says—

This afternoon the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) said repeatedly that the Government’s policy with regard to import dues is calculated to raise prices, and he even expressed himself more strongly and said that it was done with the intention of increasing the prices in the country. I do not think the hon. member really seriously meant it. He knows just as well as we do that the import dues are intended to encourage and protect industries and that import dues are levied on articles which are manufactured in this country or can be manufactured in this country. The intention of the protection policy of the Government is to give these industries an opportunity of capturing the markets of the country. All these years we have had import dues which discriminated between different countries, and still we find that articles of other countries which do not receive the preference have sold just as well as and better than articles from those countries which enjoy the preference. If a certain duty is laid on shoes to-day, then it is done in order to give factories in our country an opportunity of manufacturing shoes. It does not follow either that shoes as a result will be higher in price, because there is competition in South Africa, so that it is even possible that these shoes will be cheaper than the imported article. If shoes are imported then the foreigner can regulate prices, but if we have these factories in our own country, competition will be able to make the prices even cheaper than before the imposition of the duty. There is another point in connection with import dues I would like to refer to. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) said in his speech that the import dues prevents a reduction in the cost of living, and that our position does not compare favourably with that of Great Britain, Canada, and Australia. He said that as a result the higher wages do not mean a greater purchasing power for the workers, so that they reap no benefit from the reduction in prices in the world market. I would very much like to know where the hon. member gets the figures he has given the House.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.