I move—

Before I deal with the motion, perhaps I may be permitted, in a few words, to tell the House what the final results are of the revenue accounts for the last financial year. Now I regret that I am not yet in a position to give the House final figures, because the accounts are still unaudited, and we have not got all the surrenders from the various departments. We do not yet know what the final amounts will be that will be surrendered by the various departments, but I may tell the House that the figures which I gave when I introduced my Budget will probably be realized I then stated that according to the revised figures the surplus would probably be £1,150,000 with a probability that it may reach £1,250,000. The final unaudited revenue figures will be £28,558,000, that is £58,000 in excess of the revised figures when I made my Budget statement. If, as I assumed at the time, our expectations are realized in regard to the ultimate amount to be surrendered, the surplus will probably be £1,250,000. Before dealing with the Loan Estimates, I just wish to draw hon. members’ attention to the supplementary estimates which they have before them. There they will find that I carry out the intention which I adumbrated when I introduced my Budget statement, that is, of transferring from loan account certain services to the revenue account. In the supplementary estimates hon. members will find that there are three items which have been transferred from loan account, that is, in connection with £100,000 for public works, £23,000 for grants and refunds to local authorities under the Public Health Act, and £5,000 in connection with advances for the purchase of seed wheat. I may just add that the original and additional estimates of loan expenditure for last year totalled £14,789,000. The actual issue up to the 31st March last amounted to £13,286,000, leaving an amount to be surrendered of £1,503,000. I may add that of this amount the Railway Department has actually surrendered £750,000. Hon. members will remember that in the additional estimates we asked for an appropriation of over £1,000,000, because the Railway Department then expected that certain accounts for rolling stock would come up before the end of the year for payment, and provision had to be made for that. As it turned out, the amount was not paid during the financial year and consequently this amount was surrendered. Then I come to the loan estimates for the current financial year. These estimates total £13,470,000. To meet this proposed expenditure we have a balance on loan account of £300,000. Then we expect to receive during the year under the head loan recoveries, that is, mining leases and other heads, an amount of £2,500,000. Then we expect to have a further surrender under the loan votes for last year of £300,000, giving a total of £3,100,000, which will be available in connection with the proposed loan expenditure. So that if we expend the full amount for which we have budgeted, the Treasury will probably have to bear during the current financial year an amount of £10,370,000, but, of course, there are always certain unexpected balances, so it will not be quite so much as that. Hon. members will see that we have now for a number of years, been budgeting for a total expenditure on capital account of between £13,000,000 and £14,000,000. As I informed the House last year, I think we must look forward to the time when we can considerably curtail our expenditure under loan account. I think hon. members will agree that we cannot go on at this rate. The Union is developing in various directions, however, and if hon. members scrutinize the proposed expenditure under these various heads, I think they will find it as difficult as the Government and the Treasury found it difficult, to suggest any considerable reduction without doing harm to the development of the Union. Hon. members will find that there has been considerable reduction in various votes, but still the amount has not been brought down to the figure which I would have liked myself. First let me add, in regard to this amount of £13,470,000, the whole provision will be interest-bearing with the exception of about £976,000 under the heads public works, £550,000; land and settlements, £80,000; forestry, £219,000; labour, £75,000, and defence £52,000. These for the moment will not be interest-bearing, although, of course, in future we may expect to get revenue from the expenditure on forestry, also land and settlements and also the amount expended on labour. That will be an advance which will probably be recovered. So if we add these together, we get a total of £976,000, which will not be interest-bearing at present. Coming to the various votes, hon. members will see that for this year we propose to allocate to railways and harbours an amount of £6,000,000. I must say that the demands put forward by the railways department were considerably in excess of this sum. That has always been the position, but the position is becoming pretty bad. If hon. members will refer to the evidence given by the general manager in the Select Committee on Public Accounts this year, they will find that he makes a serious complaint, that both the previous Government and this Government have been restricting railway expenditure to such an extent that the position is not altogether satisfactory. But still, we simply cannot afford to meet the demands which the railway administration makes annually on the Treasury. I have cut down the amount very drastically, and I have asked the general manager to try and come out on the figure which the Treasury can afford to give him, and I hope he will succeed, but we have been warned that towards the end of the financial year, it will be altogether impossible, without injury to the public interest, to delay spending a large amount on railways. Then I come to the vote for public works. There hon. members will see we make a contribution of £550,000, and in connection with this vote, we had the same position as my hon. friend has had during a number of years with his railway expenditure, that is, we have had very large commitments which have been carried over, and for two years I have been doing my best to reduce the carry-over. We must not go in for new commitments until we have worked off our past commitments. Hon. members will see that we have succeeded very well during this year. I have asked the public works department to cut out practically all new commitments to enable us first to bring the vote into a satisfactory position. Wherein the past it has been over £1,000,000 the carry-over for next year, if this amount is expended, will only be about £750,000. Practically the only new commitment of any importance in the public works vote this year is the provision for the bridge over the Vaal River. That, I understand, has been an urgent and pressing matter for a number of years, and the department has come to the conclusion that a start must be made now. That is to improve the communication between the two provinces. Under telegraphs and telephones the Government is continuing the policy of extending telephone communication in the country, and especially as regards rural telephones. This is, of course, expenditure which is revenue producing, and is on a sound basis. Here, again, hon. members will see I am making less provision than we have made in the past, and we have cut down the vote by £50,000 under the provision for last year. The department would very much like to go a bit faster; but this is one of the cases where the Cabinet said—

and we have done so. Under lands and settlements we are providing for £763,000, and hon. members will find fairly full details of this expenditure. It will be seen that we are continuing the policy which was laid down some years ago to provide a certain amount annually for the purchase of land under Section 11. This is one of the best phases of our land settlement, and one of the heads under which we have the most satisfactory results. The applications coming in total a huge number, and the amount we can provide is exhausted quickly. Here again, you cannot go as quickly as the Minister of Lands would like to go. We are providing the usual amount as provided last year. Under irrigation, the details are given as to the proposed expenditure and that is quite a normal vote. We again provide an amount of £25,000 for the purchase of land for afforestation. I understand if the programme the department has set itself has to be continued they will have from time to time to get new areas. We do again the same thing as we did last year. Then I come to an important vote which unfortunately shows an increase this year; I refer to local works and loans, £2,318,000. The provision here is made up as follows—the Cape £275,000, which includes £27,000 in connection with making a start with clearing the site of the Groote Schuur hospital, and for the redemption of certain loans raised by the university school provision of the provincial administration in 1926. The province would have required a considerably larger amount to cope with the programme on hand but they still have £120,000 on the loan account, and they will come out on the amount we provide. For Natal there is £250,000, the amount they have asked for. With regard to the Transvaal, the amount is £267,000, which includes a further sum of £42,000 for the Pretoria hospital to which they are committed. I have agreed to provide them with the necessary loan moneys to carry them for a certain period of years. They also have a credit balance of £90,000 under loan account. In the case of the Orange Free State provision is made for £275,000. They have actually asked us to provide £356,000, but I was not able to comply with that. In the Orange Free State they are very much behind in their road programme, and they would like to do more. We have not been able to allocate the full amount for the work. A sum of £35,000 was included for the new hospital at Bloemfontein. Hon. members will see that provision is made for £25,000 under the head “General,” which is required by the Labour Department for loans to provincial administrations in connection with schemes to deal with unemployment. This item formerly appeared under the labour vote. We are trying to group all this expenditure of a similar nature as far as possible, and transfer it to this loan vote, so that there will be only one vote which deals with advances to the provincial administrations. Loans of this nature are recoverable from the provinces. Unfortunately, we have to make provision for supplying South-West Africa this year with a considerable amount. Up to the present we have annually placed on the estimates a smaller amount to South-West Africa for loans for capital expenditure; fortunately they have not availed themselves of the amount we have provided annually, but this year it will be different, and they will require the provision we are making here. South-West Africa has had revenue surpluses of £1,112,000 which they have expended on works of a capital nature, and they have accordingly not borrowed for capital works.

Why has the situation changed then?

I am going to tell my hon. friend. This year, as the result of an expected decline of their revenue from diamonds, they will probably not have provision for capital expenditure. They expect to have a deficit on their revenue account for the first time to the extent of £148,000, and they want to make provision for capital expenditure to the extent of £265,000, which would have given them a deficit of £413,000. The Treasury has specially asked the South-West African administration to try to curtail expenditure on both heads so that the deficit shall not exceed £330,000. They are making normal provision for the local loan fund, and also providing the balance for housing loans of £366,000. The amount which the previous Government committed itself to provide will then have been provided for. Then we come to the loans to universities and colleges of £430,000. The bulk of this expenditure is, unfortunately, in connection with the Cape Town University. We are committed to three-quarters of a million, and the requirements this year will be larger than in years past, so that this year we will have to make considerable provision, and there is not much left for the extension of other colleges. Cape Town University continues to absorb the major portion of the provision we can make under this head. Then under agriculture £48,000 is provided. These are merely re-voted in connection with the ostrich feather industry and the tenant farmers’ scheme. The money was not drawn last year. The other votes I do not think require any comment, excepting the other big amount of £400,000, which hon. members find is provided for the relief of distress under the Drought Distress Relief Bill. This is abnormal expenditure which we hope will not recur, and if it does not rain in these districts we will probably have to make provision for this amount.

seconded.

I wish to congratulate the Minister on his success in securing his full surplus of £1,250,000. But I am sorry he has not seen his way to surrender a little in the shape of taxation.

We are doing the next best thing—paying off debt.

At the same time taxation might have been reduced a little. As to the advances to the Free State, is that a sound method of making roads.

All the provinces have been getting money for roads of a permanent nature, the advances to be repayable within 20 years.

The situation in the South-West Territory seems to be pretty serious, and it all arises from the fall in the price of diamonds. I hope the Minister of Finance will bring pressure to bear on the Minister of Mines to see that the Precious Stones Bill goes through as early as possible, and not to delay its further stages until everyone wants to get away from Parliament. The Minister of Finance asks for £13,500,000, which is a record amount for loan services. The Minister himself agrees that it is necessary there should be a reduction. I want to say a word to the Minister of Public Works. In times past he has had a good deal to say as to the amount of our debt and the interest we have to pay, in fact I understood he had a patent system under which we could avoid paying interest altogether. Now that he is in office, however, he does not carry these principles of his into action, but is supporting the Minister of Finance in raising money in the old-fashioned way from the capitalists and paying interest on it. Seeing that the Minister of Public Works wants £550,000 for public works, and in his capacity of Minister of Posts and Telegraphs desires an additional £450,000, here is an opportunity for him to put this patent system of his into practice. It just shows how circumstances alter cases, and’ that once you get on the Treasury benches you part with all your principles, even though you are a Labour man. As to the vote of £6,000,000 for Railways and Harbours, I regret that the Railway Department continues its bad habit of estimating for more money than it actually needs. In 1925-’26 they asked for £7,000,000 and actually spent £6,214,000, and in 1926-’27 they asked for £7,174,000, the actual expenditure being £6,424,000. I do not blame the Minister for Finance for this, for I have myself been to blame in this respect, and I am not speaking from a party point of view. The most effective way to check this excess estimates of its requirements would be to make the Railway Department pay interest on all the money they ask for, whether they use it or not. This would be only just and would make the department more careful in the future. Why should the taxpayer have to pay for the Railway Department’s miscalculation? Is the Minister of Public Works carrying out in his building operations the payment of a shilling per hour for unskilled labour, and if so, does he get the consent of the department concerned? Suppose the Agricultural Department wants to build dairies in the country—

It does not operate there, but in the towns.

Gaols are built in the towns. Is the Minister of Justice asked whether he is agreeable to pay unskilled labour a shilling an hour? There may be cases, too, when the work would not be proceeded with if this additional payment had to be incurred. I notice that advances of the same nature still continue to be made by different departments. For instance, the Agricultural Department proposes to make advances to tenant farmers to the amount of £15,000. Also on page 16, the Labour Department proposes to make advances to tenant farmers £55,000. Would it not have been better if these advances were under one administration? Why should two departments make advances to similar people? The agricultural department are making a grant of £28,000 to ostrich farmers through the Land Bank, and at the same time the Land Bank itself is making an advance of £58,000 to the sugar industry. Both of these are under State guarantee. Take Hartebeestpoort. Two departments are going to spend money there. You find under the lands department, on page 9, general development £10,000; preparation of buildings £24,000 and advances to settlers £25,000.

What is your objection to that?

I am complaining about two departments dealing with the same thing. Turn to page 10, irrigation department. An amount of £154,000 has been spent on irrigation work, settlements and purchase of land, and £10,000 on works construction and submerged areas. There you have two authorities dealing with the same thing, and I presume there must be officials looking after the land department as well as the irrigation department at Hartebeestpoort. I object to having two sets of officials and two authorities advancing the State’s money. Then, both these departments are buying land.

Nobody can buy land except me.

I am not objecting to the advances, but to so many sets of officials having the power to make advances. There must be overlapping. Surely it would be far sounder if the advances were from one channel only. There are no less than four public departments under the Loan proposals, exclusive of the Land Bank, making advances of State money under the loan vote, the lands department, the Land Bank, the agricultural department, the labour department, and of course, the Treasury. It strikes me, as an ordinary business man, as being a profoundly unsatisfactory system. People are always eager to borrow if they have the chance, and here we multiply the chances and encourage them to borrow money, and if this continues we must land ourselves into a mess. The total advances due to Loan Account amount to £24,000,000 at the present moment, and increased, last year, by £2,655,000. It increases every year. This is money raised on loan by the authority of the House and then loaned out to other departments. It is only fair to say it includes money loaned to the provincial authorities as well. I want to urge some method should be brought about of centralizing these advances. Let me give an example of what we used to have in the Cape Province at the time of Union. In the Cape Colony days there were authorities and officials who had money entrusted to their care, but there was no particular machinery under which they loaned money out. They did it in their discretion, and when we came to wind this up at the time of Union there was quite a lot of money lost. In fact, we only got one paid off in the last twelve months, and we only got that because we were extremely careful in nursing the account. I believe there is one today in this city not paid off at the present moment. We stopped that and laid down that all money should be placed in one fund under the Public Debt Commissioners, who to-day control £48,000,000. They are responsible and as far as my knowledge goes, there has been no loss except that sometimes we get depreciation of security. There has not been the same anxiety that was necessary under the old system. Take the example of New Zealand. They do a lot of advancing, and they create a State Advances Office. A commission was appointed in 1894 to make enquiries as to the best methods of making advances, and they decided upon an advances office. They commenced by making advances to settlers. Let me inform the House as to the principle they went on—

Rural advances are also made by a branch of this department, the system being as follows—

Advances under the Housing Act were also put under the advances office. All these things were done by the one authority. What I would suggest to my hon. friend is that this matter is really more serious than perhaps he appreciates. The present system is most unbusiness like and very loose. Why doesn’t he appoint a commission to make enquiries and then introduce legislation and get something done on these lines? It is absolutely necessary, in my opinion, that in the near future something should be done to put this matter on to a proper basis.

The Minister will find when the report of the Public Accounts Committee comes before him that the general idea which has been put forward by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) has been supported unanimously by his (the Minister’s) friends, as well as by the Opposition. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) has told us that immediately a man gets on the Treasury benches he loses grip of his principles. I hope the hon. member is not saying that from experience.

No, it is observation of the other side.

The Minister, I am glad, has held on to some good principles, at any rate, and one he has enunciated to-day, and that is as far as possible to make a proper distinction between the amounts that he can charge to loan, and the amounts that he can charge to revenue. As he told us, he has made a distinct advance in that way. I put it to the House, and to the Minister, that in these loan estimates there is still room for improvement in that direction. On page 9 we are still putting in to loan vote the amount for triangulation surveys. Surely that is an amount that should be paid out of revenue. I cannot see any reason why we should do that out of borrowed money. On page 16—it is true that these amounts are not very large, but we are now on the question of principle in these matters— under “advances to tenant farmers” we have an item of £20,000, maintenance allowances to families. I do not understand that these maintenance allowances are going to be repaid. Advances for the purposes of stock, etc., are, but if the Minister expects to get the allowances for maintenance of families repaid, I think he is very sanguine indeed. There is another item which seems to be rather a curious one, and that is on page 15 under the Agriculture Vote, “redemption of loan granted to faculty of agriculture by Stellenbosch University.” That is a redemption of a loan, so that it cannot becoming back again. Surely that is hardly an amount to be paid out of loan funds. There is another one that seems to me rather remarkable, and that is on the defence vote, “provision oil fuel,” £21,000. The only fate of oil fuel is to be burned. You cannot possibly be getting any return from that. That would seem to be eminently an amount that should be paid out of revenue, and not out of loan. I would like to say a word about the provision of £500,000 for the purchase of land for settlement purposes, whether that large amount continues to be necessary, seeing that the Auditor-General in his report calls attention to the large amount of dormant capital that is lying out. On page 327 of his report, he gives the details, £141,030 still dormant, unallotted, on land purchased between the years 1912 and 1925-’26 and certain other amounts, making altogether £294,000, of dormant capital for land that has been purchased and not yet dealt with. One would almost think that £300,000 would be sufficient to have on hand without having another £500,000, as provided for in these loan estimates. I think that the Minister has shown a distinct improvement upon what we have been having, but I would urge upon him, seeing that he has a good sum on hand, that he might extend what he is doing to cover some of these

I would like to draw the Minister’s attention, as well as the attention of the House, to the very serious position that we are gradually drifting into, so far as our expenditure is concerned. Our public debt is rapidly growing and I feel alarmed at it, and I think the country must also be alarmed, not on account of the fact that I am opposed to expenditure for development, but on account of the fact that the method of financing that development has a very serious effect on the country. The Minister has indicated that largely, probably as a result of the stringency or the difficulty and the undesirability of raising more money in certain directions, he has had to curtail requirements of particular departments. He gives us one instance, the amount of money required for telephones, which had to be curtailed. There is a case of development of a remunerative character— having to be curtailed as a result of the fact that we cannot go on raising money indefinitely. I think it is desirable that the country and this House should realize what is actually our debt position. We are asked to-day to pass an amount of £13,470,000 for loan expenditure. Out of that, £6,000,000 is in respect of the railways and harbours. Our debt charges to-day amount, by way of interest, to £9,663,333 per annum. That is quite apart from £650,0000 for sinking fund, and £54,000 for other costs. Of the amount of £9,663,000 which I have mentioned, over £4,000,000 comes out of ordinary expenditure, and £5,669,000 out of our railway expenditure. So that if you take our ordinary expenditure, which is something like £27,000,000, we are paying away one sixth of that in respect of interest. In other words 3s. 4d. out of every £ that we are paying for the administration of South Africa is being paid away in interest in respect of our debt charges. In so far as the railway is concerned, out of the expenditure of £28,000,000, it is paying away £5,669,000, or more than one-fifth of that expenditure, in respect of interest. That is more than 4s. in the £ That is a very serious position. It must make it abundantly clear to everyone that our development, whether in the ordinary way, or in so far as the railways are concerned, must be very materially curtailed, because we are paying away 3s. 4d. in the £ out of our ordinary expenditure, and more than 4s. in the £ out of our railway expenditure in respect of interest. That position becomes more clear when we realize that, while we are paying away that money, our debt is virtually remaining in the same position. In 1922 a return was made in the other House at the request of Mr. Whiteside, who was then a senator, in connection with our railway and harbour expenditure, which showed that at 31st December, 1922, the total railway and harbour loan liabilities, amounted to £104,852,374. Taking the amount which had been paid in interest on the railway and harbour capital up to December 31st, 1922, and taking the interest charges at £5,000,000 pet annum, we find that at the end of this year, we shall have paid away in interest in respect of our railways and harbours an amount equivalent to the loan debt of the railways and harbours, and we do not own the railways. The railways to-day are bonded to the same extern to the people from whom we received those advances. That is a serious position, and we are going on in that direction year by year, and our interest charges are annually becoming heavier, because the money market is becoming more stringent day by day. If you go to the London market you find that there is a great stringency there. The result is that some of these loans which we raised at a lower rate of interest, as they fall due and are not repaid, will have to be converted into new loans at a higher rate of interest, and instead of paying £9,600,000 per annum, it is conceivable that in the next few years we shall be paying away something like £12,000,000 a year in respect of interest. The effect of that burden on the country is threefold. In the first place it must have the effect of curtailing development, because the Minister of Finance naturally, especially a Minister of Finance who is so cautious as our present Minister, will make every effort, as I have no doubt he is doing, to cut down every department as far as he possibly can, in order to restrict the amount of his borrowings and, therefore, it means that he is restricting the amount of development that can go on and should go on in South Africa. It has a further effect. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has been talking about high taxation, but when we are paying so much away in interest charges it is almost impossible to ask any Minister of Finance to reduce the taxation. Therefore, it has the effect of keeping up taxation at a fairly high level. It has the further effect that it depresses the standard of living of the people and the wages of the employees in Government departments. We have that position in connection with the railways. When the Minister of Railways comes along and says he has a deficit which is to a considerable extent created by the interest charges, one can quite understand his saying that he is not able to increase wages or reduce hours of labour because his revenue will not permit of it. So you have this threefold effect. These difficulties which exist should not be shelved. We should not be afraid of them especially as I believe they are likely to become greater as time goes on. The money market is becoming restricted as far as Great Britain is concerned. We know from all the financial authorities that the opportunity of borrowing money on the London market is becoming less and less. The rate of interest, therefore, will have to become higher. England is not in the position to-day to make advances to the colonies and foreign countries that she was in some years ago. For various reasons. One reason has been the policy of deflation. It has also been brought about as the result of the conditions emerging from the Great War when Great Britain is paying her liability at the rate of 20s. in the £, as far as her debts are concerned and she is not receiving that amount from her creditors. Great Britain is paying America not only the original amount of the debt but at the original rate of interest, and a little more, because on account of the policy of deflation the amount has increased in value and the interest has increased. We find ourselves in the position that to-day the rate of interest is bound to become gradually higher and higher and we shall be forced in the near future, whether we like it or not, to go to other sources for our money. We will have to go to America whether we like it or not and the rate of interest in America is going to be considerably higher than it has been in Great Britain. There is another aspect which should not be overlooked. It is this, that those who are lending the money have definitely for the last few years adopted the policy of saying “We will lend you the money under certain conditions.” It is not merely a question of the security or the rate of interest but the question arises “What are you going to do with that money?” The tendency on the part of many who are advancing money whether in Great Britain or America is this: they say, “We will advance you the money on condition you spend it in the country where the money is advanced and on materials produced in that country,” so in reality not only is the rate of your development decided upon by the lending country but the type of your development is also largely decided by the people who are advancing the money, and over and above that we have the further effect that the general policy of the borrowing country largely becomes subject to the whims and decisions of the lending country. Some years ago the then Prime Minister of Queensland decided to raise a loan. He went to the London market but because they were against certain legislation which had been carried out they said—

He had to alter his policy to meet the requirements of the London money market. So the lending company has got the power to decide the policy of the Government. It is, therefore, futile for us to throw out our chest and talk about our sovereign independence when South Africa is heavily bonded to the lending countries of the world and our freedom to that extent very much jeopardized. I do not propose at the present stage to go into the alternative that should be adopted. My views are well known in this House, but what I do say is this and I say it with all earnestness, that the position is a very serious one. It may apply to other countries, but that does not help us, and what I urge upon the House and the Minister—and I am sure he is just as much alarmed as I am—is that the time has arrived when a very careful and searching enquiry should be made into not merely the question of how money is to be spent but how money is to be raised for our capital expenditure in South Africa. I am sure when he calmly and dispassionately considers the position he will agree that it should be considered whether the time has not arrived in the interests of the development of South Africa and of the people of South Africa, that there should be a searching enquiry into the whole monetary and credit policy of South Africa. I do not ask the Minister at the present stage to give me a definite answer to this question. Personally, I believe that where the interests of the country are at stake consistency should be regarded as the bugbear of little minds. The Minister should not be afraid, because on a previous occasion he made a particular statement, of altering his decision in connection with that matter. He should also not be afraid of doing anything that may be undesirable to the S.A. party, because he is not the darling of the S.A. party to-day that he was once. I ask him to consider the position which arises from these loan estimates and to seriously consider during the recess whether the time has not arrived for a searching enquiry into our currency and money policy.

We members are always very careful in noting the ordinary public expenditure, and it is quite right but I think we sometimes forget to do our duty and to express our feelings about the expenditure from loan funds. I am the last man to stand in the way of the development of the country, and I admit that capital expenditure is necessary for the development of the resources of the country. I want to support everything which is right in this respect. I think the Minister of Finance is doing what he can to keep the capital expenditure as low as possible, and I think he is often brought into difficulty by us, as members, and also by his colleagues. If I might advise him it would be that he should try to put his foot down with regard to loan expenditure. I estimate our national debt on the 31st March, 1927, at, at least £230,000,000 and the Minister is now proposing loan estimates of over £13,000,000. He admits that about £10,000,000 will have to be borrowed during the coming financial year with the result that the national debt on the 31st March, 1928, will be at least £240,000,000. The amount which the Minister has to borrow this year will increase the burden of interest on the people by at least £500,000. I think the time has come that we as the peoples’ representatives—apart from where we sit in the House—should assist the Government in every respect to try to keep the increase in the national debt as low as possible if we are not able to reduce it. I am speaking here especially of the members who represent the permanent value of the country. I ask the question whether South Africa has actually progressed during the last ten years in agricultural and mining matters. If the Minister were to prepare an estimate of revenue from mining and agriculture, and compare it with the revenue of the ten previous years, then I am afraid he will find that we have made little progress in the two great industries on which the permanent interests of South Africa in the future depends.

Little progress in what?

I admit that we have progressed in industrial matters, and I want to support the Minister in all he has done to push industries in South Africa. At the moment there is apparent progress in South Africa, but we must not forget that if we have a capital expenditure of £14,000,000 every year, then the expenditure contributes to a great extent to that apparent progress. It is therefore necessary that we should carefully go into every item of capital expenditure to see whether it is actually necessary for the development of the country. When we think that we are living in a time of prosperity, but find on going to the root of the matter that the capital expenditure of £14,000,000 per annum largely contributes to the apparent prosperity, we shall see that the position is not as rosy as we think. I am making these general remarks in a non-party spirit. We are all of us the cause of the expenditure because we, or the Minister, force the Minister of Finance to make the expenditure which we regard as necessary. The duty rests on us as members to be in each case convinced in our minds that our constituencies need the capital expenditure before we ask for it. That ought to be our rule as members of this House. I hope the Minister of Finance, while he sits there, will do his duty in seeing that the national debt increases as little as possible because in the long run the permanent value of the land must be the security for the money that is borrowed. We who represent the permanent value—the land—ought therefore to be careful, and I hope that we, as the House of Assembly, will assist the Minister to be on his guard and to see that the national debt is kept as low as possible in the interests of South Africa.

After the remarks which have fallen from the hon. member who has just sat down, one might be under the impression that this country is on the down-grade, and that we are running into the dismal valley of desolation. The two principal industries which the hon. member has just quoted—mining and agriculture—have, during the life of this Government, reached the high-water mark of production and export, and, together with that, we have to take into consideration the remarks the hon. member has made with regard to loan expenditure. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), who was more generous, did not go so far as the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige), and congratulated the Minister on the line the Minister is establishing in very closely scrutinizing the loan expenditure which he had reduced by a million and a quarter, which has never taken place previously as far as South Africa is concerned.

They have never been so high.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) has objected relevantly to a number of items, and questioned the expenditure.

I am against these items being scattered.

You can go too far in the direction of centralization. You get to a point afterwards where there is no economy. We are practically reproducing the discussion we had in the select committee which is dealing with the question. The Government has tried to get items under one head, as far as possible, but, as I say, you get to a point where it is not economical to centralize further. The trouble has been in the past, it has not been a question of control of public works, but the practice has grown up under the previous Government that where they could not meet demands from revenue, they have overlapped into loan. Take the present list before us. We find a number of items under “Public Works” that ought to be under “revenue.” There was a clamour for new post offices which could not be satisfied from “revenue,” and they have overlapped into “loan.” Take, for instance, the Kimberley post office, alterations and additions, £35,000, total cost as estimated. It is merely a case of book keeping whether you put that into revenue or loan account. If Kimberley had to construct its post office from the revenue which is derived to-day the position would be very unsatisfactory, and it would be unsatisfied because there would be no post office. In Lichtenburg, on the diggings, you have a case suddenly arising, and the Government has to meet it from loan funds. I must say I do not agree with the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) who, contrary to his previous view, has taken a very pessimistic view. He says that the Government should cut down this loan expenditure entirely.

That is a new doctrine from a Labour man.

I never suggested it.

Here we have South Africa, a young country, absolutely dependent on loan expenditure for what we are to recover from the future, and the hon. member says the Government must control the loan account and cut it down to a minimum.

I did not say that.

That was the impression I got from listening to what the hon. member said. The hon. member does not express the same views when he speaks of schemes for which he wants money. But on these loan funds there are a number of items to which I wish to draw attention. Take the Native Affairs Vote. You find—

I do not know whether the Minister could not put his pruning knife very deeply into that. Then there is—

I think we have been lulled into a sense of bigness with regard to our position, and we are not keeping in touch with the white population for which we are creating this loan vote. Items like these strike the eye as if we are living on the big scale the previous Government established for us. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) quoted two instances where there was dual control, with regard to lands and labour, with regard to Hartebeestpoort. Is it possible for Lands to control labour projects, as a Lands Department pure and simple, on the Hartebeestpoort scheme? The department has divided the expenditure and said that on one side of the canal Lands functions, and on the other side Labour functions. They have had trouble with inspection, and you can have trouble where you have two departments which are closely allied and working in the same area, and where the functions of the two departments are entirely different, as they are there. How is it possible to bring them under one head? The hon. member says we should entrust all the buying to the Lands Department, and then criticizes the Lands Department for buying expensively.

No, that is the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central).

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Mr. Macintosh) raised the point that the Lands Department had an amount for land settlement which he thought inordinately high. That is for the different departments working under “land settlement,” and they are bringing it under one head. As far as land settlement is concerned, we have not the amount we think necessary, and it is necessary to increase the vote considerably if we want to carry out an efficient land settlement scheme. I agree with the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) that the control should come from one department as far as possible. With regard to electricity supply, I have listened very carefully whether there were any criticisms from the other side of the House, especially on the Auditor-General’s remarks that when the Act was framed, this position was never contemplated. This is a case where the treasury has had to find a further £1,700,000 for electricity supply, and there is no objection on the other side of the House, because we know the money is going to be largely reproductive in the future, and it is necessary and essential in the interests of industry that that position should be created. Further, why criticize the same expenditure which is also reproductive as far as the Government is concerned? I want to congratulate the Government on the items in the public works votes, and also on putting down £450,000 for additions and extension to telegraph and telephone systems. We want more formers’ lines and extensions of existing exchanges. This expenditure is all reproductive, and it will be for the benefit of a section of the community which desires communication most. I wish to congratulate the Government on its loan estimates. The Government has put the pruning knife in up to the hilt, and I do not think we can put it in any deeper, unless we wish to close down the South African household.

Sir Abe Bailey recently remarked that the South African party had taken the crape band off their hats. Evidently it has been placed round the hat of the Minister of Finance, for a more doleful and utterly pessimistic statement than that which he has just made could scarcely be imagined. Is this the first result of our obtaining full sovereign independence? Does the Minister anticipate that our credit will soon go down, and our trade with it? As a South African, I sincerely regret this attitude, for I have no time for doleful passimists. I believe in my country, which has always backed up those who have faith in it, and I am very sorry to hear from the Minister that he is using the pruning knife so drastically, the operation actually receiving praise from his own side. I can understand praise from the Opposition, for, naturally, they desire disappearance of the credit and popularity of the Government. The Minister is an absolute and complete conservative. I am, indeed, sorry for him; for if he had pushed forward his halfhearted protectionist policy he would have seen a greater reward even than that which he secured during last year. He has a fine surplus of £1,250,000, and yet, on top of that, he yields to the fear that all the good days are over— that our golden days have fled to the past. In view of his easily obtained surplus, there is no reason to drastically cut down the votes. The effect of the Minister’s “rem-schoen” policy will be that he will take all heart out of his colleagues in developing the country. The Minister is continually crabbing his own colleagues, and he has cut their expenditure down until at last they are on the bare bone. Perhaps the best plan for him would be to say to his fellow-Ministers: “Take a holiday, see the world, join the Minister of Defence in a joy ride, and don’t come back for a year; the heads of departments will do all that is necessary, for nothing new is wanted.” I have always lamented that our Ministers know so little of the real world, that they have come back from London with heads too big to wear hats; but I should like to hear them see that we can do what the other newer countries can do; they should get rid of useless talk about our higher status, drop the sentimental business, and get right on with the job. The Minister says, in effect, he does not believe in the continued prosperity of South Africa; that the time has come to cut down every possible thing, and admit that we have reached the zenith of our possibilities. I regret very much that he takes that sad view. If he would get a pro forma account made up of our assets and liabilities, and see what the country is really worth, he might show a vastly different spirit and evince greater confidence in the Union. In spite of £55,000,000 having been spent on unreproductive works, and £7,000,000 on raising loans— in spite of all that wasteful extravagance—let him look at what we have got for our money and take courage. I can understand that coming from a little place in the Free State his natural view is that the Free State is the world, but the world is considerably bigger than the Orange Free State. So far as the raising of money is concerned, he gave us some faint hope a short time ago of the Government issuing premium bonds, but I am afraid that is too far advanced a policy to suit the conservatism of the hon. gentleman. He will not face anything that requires courage in the way of financing. I regret exceedingly that so small an amount is put down for housing. Johannesburg could not get any money at all for its housing schemes, being told that it was rich enough to get money for itself, and the whole country is crying out for more houses. Yet the only failure in regard to housing loans was at Kimberley, that now dead end; the only subsidiary industry at Kimberley being trapping. With the exception of Kimberley, every housing scheme has paid, and even at Kimberley the Government will not suffer loss as it is guaranteed by the municipality. When it comes to finding loan money for the provinces, there exists more faith in the future than that possessed by the Minister, and the provinces want far more money. Are they spending too much when they build bridges, public buildings and schools? As a matter of fact, they are not spending nearly enough on these things, for the Transvaal pays £100,000 a year in rentals of unsuitable buildings. The Minister thinks he has done enough when he says to one of the provinces: “Here is £250,000, but for heaven’s sake don’t spend it all.” and then he comes here and boasts that £40,000 has been provided for a hospital for Pretoria, and £35,000 for Bloemfontein. What a boast for a great Minister of Finance!

You want all the money for Johannesburg.

No, though it is the greatest revenue producer, we have to repay it with interest. The provinces are not permitted to borrow for themselves. The Free State gets an amount equal to the Transvaal, and a little more is given to the Cape, which is unfair, for the credit of this country rests mostly on the Transvaal. I don’t grumble at the Free State having a good friend at court, but don’t let the Minister boast he is doing big things when he is providing only £1,100,000, which will be repaid in full, for all the four provinces to create permanent and required assets. Let the provinces get ahead and show what they can do. After three years of Pact Government one is sorry that we have come to this admission that our rocket which went up so brilliantly is coming down like the stick. We told the people that we had a Government which was going to do great things for them, and now we have to go and apologize. The Minister for Public Works has no money for public works. What does he think about it? What could the Minister of Agriculture, with all his energy, do if he was backed up with sufficient money? He could certainly make things jump ahead. For one thing, he could bring bulls enough into the country so that in three years’ time we could have meat for export.

Why bring them from outside? They are bred in this country.

Yes good ones, too, but how many do you breed? The other day in one show in the Aregentine they had 4,000 bulls on view. We have 9,000,000 head of cattle here rapidly going backwards, yet the hon. member supposes we breed enough high-class bulls in this country. Not 5 per cent. of cattle sold on the Johannesburg market give meat fit for export. I hope the hon. the Minister is going to be wrong in his dreary forecast that we are going to have a bad year financially. I believe he is absolutely wrong, and that this time next year we shall be able to tell him he is utterly mistaken in his estimate of the future of this country. Again we shall see, though he estimates for a deficiency, he will once more come out with a large surplus, and he may then regret he let the opportunity pass for further development. There is no virtue in getting a surplus and writing it off the public debt. He is working overtime to build up a surplus with which to write off the loans, whilst he is borrowing with the other hand. If that is high finance, I will leave it to the hon. the Minister without admiration.

I am sorry my ideas in regard to finance have caused bitter disappointment to the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay). He is probably right in saying it is due to the fact I hail from the little Free State. There we believe in living within our means, and paying our debts. I am applying these homely principles also to the finances of the State. We cannot get away from the fact we have been spending during the last four or five years an amount from loan moneys, and we have been increasing our debt to such an extent that we must become anxious about the future. I have as much confidence in the resources of the country and in its future as the hon. member, but we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that our white population is not increasing. We are developing as fast as other countries, but we are not increasing our white population.

And not taking any steps to increase it.

As far as our staple industry, agriculture, is concerned, I agree with those who say we are a poor country. We may be rich in patches, but I hold the farmers are not doing too well, and the prospects are not bright enough to make us reckless for the future. We cannot go in for spending, even on laudable objects. Fortunately, our credit is good, and if we want to go on spending this way, we can raise the money, but if we are not careful, we shall find ourselves like other countries, in difficulty in finding money for capital purposes. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) is rather alarmed we are borrowing for these purposes. Well, I must confess, if we have not got the money, I do not know of any other means to find it for these services, but he thinks we can get out of the difficulty by instituting an inquiry. I know of no other way of creating wealth, except by producing through the hard work of the people. Is the hon. member thinking we can get out of our difficulties by creating a State bank in the country? I do not think even a State bank will do the trick, unless you set the printing press in motion. That is a method which has been tried in other countries, and we do not need to appoint a commission to find out the results of that sort of thing. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) has pointed out the need for making an effort in the estimates to transfer from loan account to revenue account certain items of expenditure, and that we could do very much more in this way. He has also pointed out certain items where he thinks we might apply the same principle, that of transferring them to revenue account. I do not think serious exception can be taken to the items mentioned by him. Take the oil fuel which he says he sees no purpose for, except to burn it. This is a balance of the amount we undertook to provide, under an arrangement with the Imperial Government, to fill the oil tanks at Simonstown. It would be used by the navy and future expenditure will be covered by the Imperial Government. This is not going to be wasted, and is an item which might be kept on the loan account.

Don’t you think we might keep them filled in future also?

If we did that, the hon. member would be right in saying it could come out of revenue. Then the hon. member referred to the redemption of the Stellenbosch-Elsenburg College loan. Originally, expenditure was incurred on buildings, etc., and now the Union Government is in possession of the assets. It was originally an item which properly could be charged to loan account. Then the hon. member mentioned the expenditure in connection with the triangulation survey. Here you have an asset not productive, but which is going to be a permanent asset, and posterity should be prepared to bear a share of the burden. Then the hon. member referred to the maintenance allowances made to the settlers under the Labour Department. Here again, it is an item which will be recoverable. I told the committee when I introduced the motion that we did not at present regard all this expenditure as interest-bearing, but the expenditure is recoverable, and if it is recovered there will not be a loss on the amount. Although not interest-bearing, it might well be charged to loan account. If it were possible to transfer all these items to revenue, we should be prepared to do so. We cannot make a clean sweep all at once. Then the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has pointed out the advisability of having a central advances department, and he has referred to what is done in New Zealand. I do not think we have much to learn from what New Zealand is doing in this connection. All the advances referred to by him, which go through the Advances Department in New Zealand, are dealt with here through the Land Bank. The member has asked why is the Umfolosi and the ostrich farmers’ expenditure under the Loan Department. The Umfolosi expenditure is in terms of the Land Bank Act, but the Land Bank pointed out it was not an advance in the ordinary course of business, and the only way to get that loan, was by the central Government giving a guarantee. It was a commitment made by the previous Government, and we had to see the matter through. In regard to the ostrich feather advances, this is something quite different. Here the Government, as a deliberate matter of policy, asked the Land Bank to make the advance in the interest of the farmers. We want to see if we can keep the industry, and here again we had to guarantee the amount. If the hon. member will refer to the remarks of the Auditor-General, where he deals with this question of centralizing expenditure of this nature, he will see that the Auditor-General, in the interests of proper parliamentary control, advocates the opposite thing. He points out that the only way to have proper control is to make the respective departments responsible and charge all these advances to the respective departments. He has pointed out that we are not following the course laid down in 1910, but in the end he says the only way to have proper control is to see that each department is responsible for its policy, and is responsible for providing the money. I think the only instance to which reasonable exception can be taken where perhaps, a case might be made out that there is some duplication is what is going on at Hartebeestpoort in regard to the probationary settlers and the work done in connection with the down-and-outs. That question is at present being investigated by a departmental sub-committee to see whether there is over-lapping, and whether the work could not be co-ordinated in a better manner. Hon. members must see that the work that is carried on there is not of the same nature at all. The Minister of Lands deals with selected settlers. In the case of the Minister of Labour, the men are just put on the land there, and they are sorted out and eventually put on some other settlement. I think the hon. member is not quite right in saying about the Irrigation Department—

They look after the canals and the irrigation work. They have to see that the work is properly maintained there, and I do not see how you can eliminate the Irrigation Department from that area, for they are dealing with an entirely different matter from any other department. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) has drawn attention to the very big amount which we are providing this year for the Electricity Commission, £1,700,000. That is quite an unexpected demand which was made upon the treasury. I had thought that last year when we provided the balance of the amount which the previous Government undertook to furnish to the Electricity Commission, I had finished with them, but, fortunately or unfortunately, the work of that commission has extended so much that they find that nearly all their existing stations are too small. In most other countries all these undertakings have passed through a lean period until they could get their consumers, etc., but here, in regard to our stations, from the very start, full loads were taken by consumers at the various places. I am informed by Dr. Van der Byl that it is absolutely necessary that we should go on and provide this amount this year to be spent in enlarging the existing stations. Colenso is the only undertaking that is in full operation. Witbank will be in full operation shortly. As these stations come into operation, they will have the necessary assets to go into the money market and find the requisite money themselves. Up to the present, they have not been able to do so, and they have had to come to the central Government for assistance. Under the Act we can only do this for four years, and that is expiring now, but in the Financial Adjustments Bill I am taking power for another three years to enable the central Government to come to the assistance of these undertakings. Within a short period they will start to pay half-yearly interest on the amount which we have advanced, so fairly considerable amounts will be returned on the moneys which we have advanced to them. With the amount we are now providing, they will have had just over £7,000,000 from the State for various undertakings. I have made inquiries, and I am informed that the future of these undertakings is very good, and that it is considered of the utmost importance for the industrial development of the country that we should be able to provide power at the cheap rates which the commission is intending to provide. I believe it has made a big saving to the mines in Johannesburg in regard to the amount which they pay for current on the mines. I, therefore, consented to provide the money for this year.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

Hon. members will see that the amount asked for loan funds and which has been approved by the Treasury is £6,000,000. They will see from the brown book which has been supplied them that we propose to make £1,297,453 available for the construction of lines, further £2,254,946 for new works on open lines, £2,030,701, for rolling stock, and smaller amounts for other (heads, in all a sum of £6,823,180, of which £6,000,000 is being borrowed, while the balance will be found from other funds. To give hon. members an idea of how much our loan funds for railways and harbours are curtailed, and how we are trying to economize the following figures are of interest. We are transferring an amount of £6,277,000 from old works. That is the balance which is carried forward from last year, and for which provision has to be made during the current year. This does not touch the amount of £546,000 for new works, for which provision was not made last year on the estimates. The new works are as much as possible restricted to work of an urgent nature, and which will lead to economy, and I think that the figures which I have given clearly show that much care is being taken to keep the capital expenditure in connection with the estimates within proper bounds. Other particulars in connection with the estimates can, I think, very well be given in committee, but I just want to say a few words in connection with the last financial year. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger)) asked what the position was and when the figures would be published. That will be done to-morrow, but because I know hon. members would like to have the figures at this stage, I will give them at once. That position is that the year has been closed off with a deficit of £158,811, which is £12,000 more than I estimated. Hon. members will remember that we brought forward a surplus of £21,844 from last year. That surplus of last year makes the deficit for the past financial year £136,967, but hon. members know that we have a fund of £450,000 which was specially created just to assist in such cases of deficits, and the deficit of this year is therefore being covered out of that, so that we enter the new year with a clean sheet, although the Rates Equalization Fund which was originally £450,000 will remain at £313,033, and the amount will still be available for use in future if necessary. I thought that these data would be useful in connection with the discussion of the estimates.

seconded.

Can the Minister give us some explanation of this balance of £800,000?

It is on the first page of the brown book.

Yes, exactly, but does that include the whole amount?

You will find the particulars given on the first page.

Yes, but I do not appreciate where the balance comes in. However, we shall discuss that later. In this shortage that the Minister mentions now, has he taken into account the £250,000 received from the Electricity Commission?

Yes.

I just wanted to make sure. I am very glad we have at last come to take the proper course in discussing this vote. On previous occasions we have had to discuss this only on the Appropriation Bill. This is the first opportunity we have ever had of discussing the details in Committee of Supply. We have a long list of new railways. If we look at pages 2 and 3 we find a very alarming list. The total expenditure on new constructions is £9,000,000 odd. We are asked to vote to-day £1,279,000 odd. We find that in addition to what was previously proposed, there is £76,054 extra on the Messina Line alone, and on four other comparatively short lines we are asked to vote an extra £46,230. Taking that amount now asked for as capital to be borrowed alone, we find that the position is becoming rather serious. The Minister of Finance stated in his remarks this afternoon that to his mind we are spending too freely, and I think in regard to the railways, we are certainly spending in some directions far too freely. I wish to put to the Minister the position I touched on during the discussion on his budget speech but which he did not fully reply to because he wanted to get away. It is a matter of great importance that the Minister should tell us what his policy is. We are carrying an enormous burden, and the burden is better appreciated when we consider the interest charges we have to pay to-day. I find that on railways alone for 1927-’28 we have to pay as interest a sum of £4,979,342. Compared with 1926-’27 there is an increase of £287,698. On harbours for 1927-’28 we had an increase of £46,439 for interest alone on capital expenditure, so the total increase for the year is £334,127. In the four years from 1924 there is an increase in actual interest of £883,767. If we add to this the interest which we will have to pay to the Electricity Commission, because the Railway. Department is responsible for the capital—

We pay for the power.

In any case there is an increase of interest charges there, and taken altogether the Minister will admit that the interest charges to the Railway Department alone have increased by over £1,000,000 per annum, which to my mind is a very serious position. If we consider some of the more important works on which there is expenditure from loan funds, to my mind it becomes rather doubtful whether we are gaining a benefit commensurate with the tremendously increased interest charges which we have to face. Let us take, for example, grain elevators. We all know these are very necessary for the development of the country and I do not think anyone expected they would show a profit on their work, but there is a large amount sunk there which we can make up our minds we will never recover. It is the same position with regard to graving docks. We must have them and must spend large sums of money on them, and we must make up our minds that they will never pay us. In the same category are many of our new branch lines. We know we are running our railways at a loss. I have not seen the figures, but if we take all things into careful consideration, the actual loss for the year’s working is very considerable and must be in the neighbourhood of £1,000,000. Take the position of the motor services, which we expected to be run at a profit, these are to-day also run at a loss, as far as I can make out; but with the losses they are making they are not making the losses there would be were there branch lines where these motors are running now, and I feel that the time has arrived when we, in this country, as in every other country in the world, have to consider the question of a change in our traction services. I would put to the Minister that the time has now arrived to consider whether we should continue building new branch lines. If the Minister will turn to the report of the Railway and Harbour Board, on page 1, he will find they say that many deputations were received during the course of the year for further railway extensions, and they say that everything possible will be done to comply with these requests, in order, when the time arrives for a new construction programme to be framed, that the commissioners will be equipped with the necessary particulars. There is an agitation for new lines, and the railway board is faced with these constant requests. If we continue in the old way we will be committed to a capital expenditure we will not be able to stand. The Minister should go into the matter, as to whether this development should not take place by motor traction in preference to the building of new branch lines. What is going to become of the present branch lines? Here also we may be faced with a difficult problem. The time will arrive when they will be practically of no value, and we are making no provision for the future. The administration pays interest on a capital sum of £136,182,908, and increase of £49,929,943 since Union. Besides this in the three years 1923 to 1926 the amounts borrowed from the Treasury to meet capital expenditure on railways and harbours was £16,906,829 and the estimate for 1926-’27 is £7,173,645. Thus in four years an amount of 24 millions odd was borrowed. This sum with the previous £136,000,000 odd brings the capital sum to 160 millions, of which 74 millions odd represent the increase since Union, and for the last four years an average increase of six millions per annum. We know, of course, that there is a large amount paid from betterment funds, and there is also betterment provision which annually saves expenditure from capital. Since 1922 we contributed towards betterment at the rate of £250,000 per annum, and a large proportion of this is utilized on what may be termed major alterations of existing structures which in any case would have been met from revenue. It is also true that since 1925 £250,000 per annum has been placed on revenue estimates as contribution towards reduction of railway debt. There is, however, no statutory provision for this and it seems to me the time has arrived when we should seriously consider a fund for the redemption of the debt. We know that at present it can fairly be claimed that our railway debt is represented by a permanent capital undertaking consisting largely of live assets but there are such items as the Kowie harbour, capital £306,064, and Port Shepstone harbour, £78,069, which go to show that our estimate of live assets is very largely over-estimated. I wish to refer to a matter which appears to be of great importance. A short while ago it was reported that certain negotiations were on the point of being concluded with a firm of ironmakers and engineers for the establishment of works here. That the company intended starting with a capital of one million, and that several thousands of Europeans would be employed; but Since then we have heard nothing. What is the position to-day? A commission decided that there should be central workshops, and what is the position with regard to these? I do not know whether the Minister finds it very difficult to decide which centre should receive the benefit. The report of the Railway and Harbour Board refers to this matter and suggests that the workshops should be proceeded with, if the country is satisfied with the large capital expenditure required at the start. We have always understood that our railways should be continued to be run as a State-owned concern. We have grown up with that idea and it is somewhat disturbing to have rumours floating around to the effect that our workshops are to be handed over to private enterprise. We cannot run one section by the State and another by a private individual. Either all State or all private. There can be no division of responsibility or control. We were told it was necessary to have these central workshops to enable the administration to carry on successfully. Now I see it stated that a gentleman has bought a large farm in Bloemfontein, and the report in regard to this matter is that this gentleman is going to run workshops and practically do all the Minister had decided, as the result of the report of that commission, to do departmentally. I do not say the report is correct, but the Minister would be in a bétter position than we are to know, and it is necessary that he should give a very clear and careful explanation. If the report is in any way correct, it means that the workshops are going to be placed in the hands of an individual, which is a very serious matter as far as we are concerned, and I do suggest that the Minister should make a very clear statement with regard to this.

Any man can start a workshop.

The public has a right to know what is being done from beginning to end and be fully acquainted with every step of the negotiations. As these reports are being widely circulated the Minister should give a most careful explanation, and should tell us exactly what he has done, what he is going to do, what rights he will get, and whether the State or an individual is going to run the workshops. After all we were told by the Government as to State enterprise, it is very disturbing to be told that the whole matter is to be handed over to a private individual. I can quite understand that the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) knows more about it than we do, for he was one of the chief negotiators. I find it difficult to believe that the report is true, but the Minister should relieve the very serious anxiety of the public on this matter. I will delay any further remarks on this subject until we have heard the Minister’s explanation.

There are two points I would like to mention. One is with regard to the provision for the building of a bridge over the Limpopo River. The memorandum says that half the cost will be borne by the Union, but it has been reported in the press that the whole of the money will be found by Southern Rhodesia and the Rhodesian railways. The other matter I wish to refer to is Port Elizabeth harbour. I am glad to see that the estimates show an appreciation by the administration of the needs of Port Elizabeth, but it is due to that town that there should be a statement as to the Government’s policy regarding the harbour. I am not complaining of the provision made in the estimates, but I am complaining that we have had no statement of the Government’s policy. As far back as 1924 my hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) arranged for an engineering survey of the harbour. The engineers reported entirely in favour of building a harbour from an engineering point of view, but when they were asked to report on the trade prospects, they replied that they were engineers, and it was not for them to say what the trade prospects were. The Minister then appointed what is known as the Van der Horst Commission, which reported entirely in favour of building a comprehensive harbour which the report stated was an urgent national need. The commission also said that in order to obtain information as to the exact cost, a survey of the harbour should be made. That survey has been completed, and we are now looking to the Minister and the Railway Board to make a declaration on the matter, but no such declaration has been made. All we can see is the provision in the brown book. On page 4, under the heading of “new works on open lines,” we find Port Elizabeth, reclamation and other harbour improvements, first instalment—probable cost—£157,000; estimated total cost, £50,000; estimated expenditure during 1927-’28, £25,000. How the estimated total cost can be £50,000 when the probable cost is £157,000 I don’t understand. On page 39 of the brown book appears the following: Table Bay Harbour: modified southern scheme, £2,502,373; estimated expenditure during 1927-’28, £104,000. By putting down the total cost in this way, the total scheme is approved of. We should have a statement from the Minister whether the total scheme at Port Elizabeth is also approved of. The reclamation work is necessary to the building of the harbour, but surely the time has come, after the engineering difficulty has been removed, for a definite statement on the subject. If the Government’s policy can be stated in regard to other harbours, it can be stated in regard to Port Elizabeth harbour. It was understood that as soon as full information was obtained, the policy of the Government would be stated. Parliament would be asked to approve of the scheme. In place of that nothing has been said about it. It is not stated whether the scheme is approved of, but there is this curious item of £157,000 as the estimated probable cost and at the same time £50,000 is put down as the total cost. I am bewildered and I would like to have that bewilderment relieved.

I have to thank my hon. friend for his brief statement. If he had followed his colleague’s example he would have done better. I do not think it was a full enough statement. He said he had a deficit of £158,000 but he also forgot to mention the comparison of the position between this year, 1926-1927, with previous years. In the previous year, 1925-’26, he had a surplus of £769,000 and if he adds that surplus to the deficit this year the railway administration is worse off by £928,000 than it was twelve months ago. This year so far from having a surplus he has a deficit of £158,000 and if he adds these two items together the railways administration is worse off to-day after twelve months’ working. That is the position and it is borne out by the statement in the general manager’s bulletin for the month of May in which it is stated that the railway earnings for the period the 1st of April, 1926, to the 28th February, 1927—11 months—totalled £22,000,000, an increase in earnings of £4,769 compared with the corresponding period of 1925-’26. During the same period the working expenses amounted to £17,000,000, an increase of £641,000, so that my hon. friend has spent in 11 months £641,000 to earn an increase in revenue of £4,769. In spite of the fact that he is worse off by £900,000 on the year’s working, he proposes now to spend a further £6,000,000 of capital expenditure which, of course, means an increase in his charges in the shape of interest of £300,000 a year. His proposed expenditure from loan funds is very heavy under the circumstances. Take the new works on open lines. This is a thing you can spend any amount of money on. I refer hon. members to page 34 of Estimates of Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Work and they will find a programme is laid down for £20,037,000. It is not all spent in one year. They have spent up to date £10,969,000 and they propose to spend in the current year out of loan and betterment funds two and a quarter millions and from the renewals fund, £2,039,000 or a total of £4,772,000. I want also to call special attention to the enormous programme for rolling stock. On page 38 you will find the total. It is proposed to spend on rolling stock and certain smaller things no less than £8,937,000. Of that to date they have spent £3,166,000 and they propose to spend in the current year, 1927-’28, from loan and betterment funds £2,030,000 and from renewals fund £84,000. On harbours he proposes to spend £8,795,000 of which £3,314,000 is spent to date and it is proposed to spend in the current year a total of £872,000. I want to give the Minister with a word of caution in these matters because we have spent rather lavishly in the railway department. In many cases this expenditure will not bring an extra ton of traffic. I am well aware you have to have improvements. I am not condemning the expenses on open lines in toto, but he must be careful. I once went with a deputation of Cape Town merchants to ask Mr. Sauer, then Minister, to build a new railway station for Cape Town. We had a fine plan requiring half a million of money. He asked us if it was going to bring an extra ton of traffic and we could not say yes. That taught me a lesson and that is the case now. The Minister must study economy for two reasons. It was pointed out by my hon. friend to-day that the fashion now is to have other methods of transport besides the railway. I support him in the step he has taken to increase motor transport. Furthermore he must bear in mind this is not a wealthy country. It is a country of long distances and a sparse population and for these reasons my hon. friend must be careful in incurring large capital expenditure. Then he should not pile up his capital account, because it renders it more difficult than ever to get down rates. I will give a few items which in my opinion bear out what I said, that you are not going to get an extra ton of traffic for a good bit of this expenditure.

Cape Town harbour.

Relaying 45 lb. with 60 lb. material, £118,800. I will admit that part of that comes out of renewal fund, but this line has been made within the last five years and I cannot conceive what reason there is to want to relay 45 lb. rails with 60 lb. rails except that the Minister is letting the engineer have his own way. Let my hon. friend look at item 175—Newcastle-Ingogo: Belaying 78 lb. with 80 lb. material, £48,600. What is the good of wanting to increase the rails by 2 lbs.? Why should we throw away, as we are, in my opinion, £48,000 on that? Then take items 246 and 247—Cape Town: New power-worked signal cabin, £36,000, and Cape Town-Wynberg: Automatic signalling, £42,000. There is a sum of £78,000 going to be spent on signalling on eight miles of railway. I think this should be gone into again. I would like to ask what extra traffic is this going to bring on to the line. Does the safety of the line require it? We are eternally spending money on the Cape Town-Wynberg line. Now I want to come to another item on which there may be some difference of opinion. I refer to item 322—Johannesburg: New station, £640,000. I think that is excessive for a station, even at Johannesburg.

You said you were going to build a new one there.

Exactly, but at nothing like that price. No private company would spend £640,000 on a fresh station there. I would ask here again if this is going to bring a ton of extra traffic on to the railways. I think it is a matter which requires a great deal of consideration. I myself agreed to a new station, but I did not agree to £640,000. I would like to ask whether this is not in addition to the amount that has been spent in acquiring the Wanderers ground.

That is the inclusive figure.

I am glad to hear that, but I still think that £640,000 is a big sum to spend on that scheme.

It is long overdue.

Does my hon. friend want to spend £640,000 on that station?

How much did the Cape Town station cost?

Renewal of running sheds and loco, yard to Salt River with connecting lines to Cape Town, £213,000. That seems to be a lot of money for a thing of this kind. Then take items 512 and 513—Bloemfontein: New carriage and wagon lifting shops and transfer of existing wagon shops, £70,000; Bloemfontein: New saw mill, carriage and paint shop and equipment, £130,000. There just in two shops which have to do with the building of rolling stock you have £200,000. But that is not all. Under item 521 there is an amount of £275,000 for new carriage and wagon yard, repair shop and equipment at Germiston. Further down on page 32 there are items 529 and 530—Salt River; New coach shop, £90,000, and new boiler shop, £67,000. These buildings are going to cost an enormous amount and I think they want to be very carefully looked into. As far as I can judge the department is altogether too lavish in regard to these matters. I have no doubt that the Minister has been told that these buildings are very badly required, but do they bring extra traffic? And my hon. friend has now got a deficit. I have no doubt he is as anxious as any of us to pay his way, but he must consider these points. Another matter I want to draw attention to is the rolling stock. I think the Minister has probably considered this and I am well aware that great pressure has been brought to bear upon him because in recent years we have not made the adequate provision that we ought to have done. I would be rather doubtful about laying out £9,000,000 on new rolling stock, especially when the total increase of traffic last year was less than £5,000.

You are only referring to revenue now. Look at the tonnage.

How much tonnage?

Over two millions.

No doubt you carried more passengers, but the results should have been shown in the revenue. I particularly want to call attention to the change of policy. I was abused on the fact that I placed orders for rolling stock, etc., overseas. My hon. friend laid it down as my duty that everything should be purchased locally, even engines. As I said this afternoon, circumstances do alter cases. According to this brown book he is going to spend a large amount on imported rolling stock. I will give one example, 12 electric locomotives. Further on he is going to build 50 first-class coaches. I take it that these will be built locally. I have taken out the figures of rolling stock to be imported and the amount is £5,592,000. Built locally, the figure is £1,376,000. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) evidently has not taken account of it.

Oh yes, I have, and I know what the cause is—because you did not extend the workshops.

I think I have called attention to the way my hon. friend is slipping away from principle.

Have we worked short time?

I don’t suppose you have, but I am condemning you and I think the country will condemn you, for the way you have abandoned the principles you laid down on this side of the House. Why, the very welkin rang with my iniquities. However, I have drawn his attention to that, and I want to conclude on the note on which I started. I think my hon. friend should be very careful in spending money. Why cannot he adopt the policy of his colleague? These estimates, in my opinion, are on too lavish a scale altogether, and ought to be very materially curbed and nothing spent which is not actually required. Otherwise you are going to land the department, in my opinion, into a serious financial position. When the department in one year goes back £900,000, I think the time has come when there should be an examination into the position.

There is one question I would like to ask the Minister on a subject referred to more than once this session, but which seems to come into prominence having regard to the figures before us for construction of new railways, new works on open lines, and works in harbours. On those items there is provision made for an expenditure this year of, in round figures, £4,000,000. It seems to me to be obvious that the cost of all these works is necessarily a great deal affected by the policy the Minister is pursuing in regard to the employment of white labour instead of native labour. I do not want to go into the merits of that at all, but what I do want to suggest is that it is very important that the House and the country should have some estimate of the actual cost of this policy, because it is perfectly obvious that the extra cost must be very appreciable. We have some proof of that in the general manager’s bulletin No. 111 in the paragraph in which he says—

When we see that the working costs of the railway are increasing in a degree so much more than the revenue is increasing, surely we are bound to enquire whether there is not a reason for that, and it seems to me that probably a good proportion of that increase is due to the employment of white labour instead of native labour. I do say that this House and the taxpayers of the country and the people who use the railways are, in my opinion, entitled to have some estimate given of the actual cost of this policy, and when it applies, as it obviously must having regard to the figures I have quoted, to the working costs, it must also apply in a corresponding degree, to the cost of the construction of new lines, new works on open lines and harbours. We have heard from the Minister of Labour in particular, that he considers this policy is a great success, and the amount payable for relief work is less than it was before, which he puts down to this policy, but in the supplementary estimates of expenditure we find, under the native affairs vote, there is for the relief of distress among natives an amount of £7,000. When, on the one hand, we are going to prevent natives from getting the employment to which they were accustomed in the past and employ a more expensive form of labour, we are bound to look at the other side of the picture and to see whether this policy is, after all, a very sound one. Without going into the merits of the system—I am not saying that policy cannot be defended—I do say that if the people of this country are asked to pay in the shape of relief work, for that is what it is, a large sum of money, that affects the working costs of the railways and the cost of construction, they are entitled to know exactly what they are being asked to pay, and I hope the Minister will give us some estimate in that respect in regard to the cost of construction work for which provision is made in these estimates.

I have looked through the estimates in the brown book very carefully and I regret to find no provision made therein for the extra deep water berths very much needed at Durban harbour. The Minister knows the great necessity for these. A very strong case has been made out, and I think the Minister himself is convinced that there is a demand for these and a very great call for them. We have tried also to impress the Minister and the Railway Board with the urgency of this matter, and I would just like, again, to put before him some figures which I hope will show him and the House that we are not asking for anything out of place. It is a fact that of the total tonnage of goods handled on the South African railway system, 45 per cent. is carried over the Natal railways, despite the other fact that of the total mileage of lines in the Union Natal has only 12 per cent. In 1925 the total tonnage handled at Durban harbour was 4,798,000 tons, an increase of 1,740,000 tons over 1913. The percentage of vessels of 5,000 tons and over to the totals vessels visiting the port in 1910 was 21.4, and in 1920 it was 50.3. These are striking figures showing the great increase of shipping at the port of Natal. This is not a question that has grown up suddenly. It has grown steadily and yet since 1911 there has been no increase of the deep water berths at Durban. We pointed out to the Minister and to the Railway Board how congested the work now is at Durban. Sometimes steamers have to be kept waiting for a berth and sometimes they are moored alongside one another while they are waiting. Though it would cost a great deal of money to provide these berths it would also take a considerable time, and all we ask is that the Government should make up its mind these berths are necessary and make a start with them as soon as possible. If a start is made we would be satisfied, because we would know that the Government realizes the position, and intends to carry it out. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) made the remark, with regard to harbour construction at Table Bay—

That applies also to Durban harbour, and even more emphatically. If these facilities are not given, the railways, Natal, and South Africa will suffer. In connection with the traffic from the Point to the interior, it has to go across the main street of Durban, which is a grievance there, and has been for a long time, as the Minister knows. A number of schemes have been proposed with regard to the working and development of Port Natal, but there is a diversity of opinion as to what would be the best scheme. What we would like the Minister to do is to appoint a harbour advisory commission, composed of harbour officials, commercial and shipping men, to go into the whole of the question of the traffic and shipping needs of Durban harbour as a whole, and make a report thereon. I know that the Minister is going on a trip up the East Coast, and, judging by the newspapers, he is not calling at Durban, which I am sorry to hear.

I know the port.

He might now be inclined to look upon these things more genially and generously when he is on holiday bent than he has done in the past. I hope he will be able to sanction the appointment of this commission before he departs, so that its report may be ready for him on his return. Might I make a plea for something to be done in regard to the railway station at Durban? We do not want £600,000 or £800,000 spent on it, but we would be content with a much smaller amount. There is great need for extension; the position is very congested, and the public is suffering a great deal of hardship and inconvenience because of the want of accommodation. If the Minister cannot provide all that is required, I hope he will make some attempt to extend the station and have more platforms. Sometimes passengers are put to great inconvenience, and some of the trains are discharging their passengers close up to the railway workshops.

I have only two matters to bring to the attention of the House and the Minister. The first is one that has my high appreciation. It is now part of the declared policy of the Railways and Harbours Administration to secure for Buffalo Harbour what has been so long needed—a high-level bridge, for rail and road traffic. The sum specified here is £114,000, and I believe one-third of that is to be provided by the municipality of East London, which reduced the charge to the Administration to £76,000. On item 685, I fail to find in that vicinity the slightest reference to what public opinion in East London and on the border deems is absolutely essential to the well-being of Buffalo harbour, I mean a turning basin. If the Minister, who has been so good in these estimates as to make provision for a high-level bridge and certain subsidiary services, will also tell us that the matter of the turning basin is not lost sight of, we shall be extremely grateful to him.

I would like to contribute a few words of good advice to the Minister and help him steer along that straight and narrow way between the hard economists, telling him to cut down the loan expenditure, and other hon. members, who tell him about useful avenues of further expenditure. I do not want to criticize the amount on the loan vote so much, because, apart from new construction, and the £1,300,000 which he has provided here, it seems that if a concern such as these railways has to provide for the traffic we may reasonably expect to have, we must face capital expenditure something like the figures which are here. It seems to me that in the past we have gone gaily along with a new programme of railway construction over so many years, and we are getting ourselves now in the position where we are landed with a very considerable amount of mileage which really is not payable. It may be payable, in the far distance, and let us hope it will, but it is not at the present time. The safeguards which the Act of Union laid down to try to protect us against this kind of thing are not effectively employed. What we have to do, before a scheme of new railway construction is put forward, is that the Railway Board have to make an examination of the scheme, and submit an estimate of what they consider the revenue and expenditure or the profit and loss will be, and on that report, the matter comes before Parliament. I am afraid that the Railway Board do not quite fill that part of the Bill that they were expected to fill when the Act of Union was passed. Their function rather is to report on the lines which the Government wants to build, and give an estimate of the profit and loss which may be expected to be incurred on them. The estimates they have given, I am afraid, are not worth very much. The Auditor-General’s report gives some very striking examples of estimates put in which have been very wide of the mark indeed, so that I think, before we embark upon any new schemes of railway construction, we have to think very carefully of the financial effect of the money that is going to be spent. Our expenditure is going up enormously on our railways, or as the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) said—“By leaps and bounds,” as compared with our increase of revenue. I am afraid we are going to find ourselves driven to rely more for our railway revenue on a narrow section of payable traffic. It is being narrowed down to a small number of articles or lines, and if you took away the coal traffic to the Rand, I am afraid there would be such a hole in our railway revenue as would astonish us. We are carrying a very narrow margin of traffic which is payable, and are conveying the rest either at a loss or at very little profit. That should be a warning against embarking on railway expenditure which is not likely to be reproductive. Another point I wish to mention is the financing of capital expenditure from the renewal and depreciation funds. I am not against having recourse to revenue as far as possible to meet our capital expenditure—not at all—but it is important that there should be some sort of principle which should govern the Railway Board in deciding when to spend money out of loan funds, capital or renewals, for, unless you have some definite principle, the capital account does not reflect the real cost. Take, for instance, the New Cape Central Railway. It was acquired by the Government in a condition which immediately necessitated very large expenditure to put it in an even ordinary safe condition of working. That line was bought as a breakdown concern at a very high price—the price of a new article. On page 9 of the brown book the following items represent expenditure in order to bring this line into proper working order. Worcester Fore Bay, relaying 46¼ lb. with 80 lb. material, strengthening, and improvements to water supplies and stations (second instalment) estimated total cost £385,659. Then there is a third and final instalment for the same purpose for a further 109 miles of track, the total estimated cost of which is £209,941. Some of that money is payable from renewals fund, although not a penny has been paid into the renewals fund for reconditioning that line. Money for this purpose is taken from the loans fund, betterment fund’, renewals fund, and from working expenses, so that four different funds contribute money to the reconditioning of the New Cape Central line. That is not a very scientific principle of finance, and surely it should be possible to draw a line between works which should be financed from renewals fund and those which should be financed from capital fund. Even now one cannot be sure that there is not a fifth account from which money will be drawn for this purpose. This is an example of the present haphazard way of taking money from wherever you can find’ it, and a more scientific system might be devised. I would like to know whether any decision has been arrived at as to how the renewals fund is to be built up, and what is regarded as a reasonable amount to contribute to it every year. Some definite principles should be laid down. What is the condition of our existing renewals fund? We should be told how much should be contributed to it every year from revenue in order to maintain it at a proper figure. At present it is a matter of opportunism and taking money from where you can get it.

I want to support what the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) said in regard to the rumours in connection with the railway workshops. It has been said that the Free State is to get the workshops at Bloemfontein in return for its support for the iron and steel works for Pretoria. Whether that is so or not it is being repeatedly said that it has been definitely decided that the workshops are to be at Bloemfontein, but that the time is not yet ripe for a public announcement. If that is so the Government should no longer delay in making its announcement and set the mind of the public at rest. If a decision has been come to which had not been divulged then undoubtedly there have been leakages and that the acquisition of land at Bloemfontein to a certain individual is not unconnected with those leakages. These rumours are very disquieting to the people in Northern Natal, who in view of the recommendations of the Workshops Commission that Northern Natal was the most suitable locality for the workshops believed that effect would be given to those recommendations. I hope the Minister will take this opportunity to make some definite statement on the point.

I rise to voice my approval of the allocation of loan funds and the railway construction programme. I agree with the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) that the railway board and the Minister are doing their duty. As far as this railway programme is concerned, however, when a number of new lines were approved of in 1925 we distinctly understood that there would be no new railway construction until that programme had been finished. Now, however, I find amongst some other announcements that the Parys-Vredefort line, the estimated total cost of which is £48,700, is still standing in the books but without any allocation being made towards the cost of its construction. Yet on new lines in the 1927 programme I find we are starting with an allocation of £50,000—Cape Town to Woltemade. I don’t quarrel with that, but I do quarrel with the Minister for starting an entirely new line from Messina to Limpopo River, £55,000. These people could have waited if the loan funds do not stretch far enough to finish the 1925 programme. There is also a loopline to serve the Louis Trichardt township, £31,000. These people have had to put up with the inconvenience for some time, but it is not more than the inconvenience at Vredefort, and this £31,000 would have gone a long way to getting that line completed.

I also rise just to express my thanks to the Minister of Railways and Harbours for having decided to build the line from Messina to the Limpopo. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik), has indeed objected—

I did not protest against it.

If there is one-thing that will assist the Northern Transvaal then it is the connecting up of that line. There are many poor people who are expecting to get work on the construction of that line, and I hope the Minister will be able to tell us that the construction of it will soon be commenced. As for the line to Louis Trichardt, it is one which was voted last year. The station is quite a number of miles from the village, and I am glad that the Minister has decided to build the little line, and to take the station closer to the village. This is a part where the voortrekkers went to live and we must help it on as much as possible. I can assure the Minister that the public there very much appreciates the step. I do not wish to say anymore about it, because the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Pirow) is not now here, and I do not like meddling in another man’s work.

I actually feel a little bit jealous that members opposite are so fortunate as to be able to heartily congratulate the Minister, and I am sorry to see that no commencement is yet to be made with the line Somerset East to Bruintjeshoogte, and that nothing has been put on the loan estimates. In view of the serious position there due to the drought—large sums are being collected to alleviate the need there—I want to appeal to the Minister and to ask him if it is not possible to still put an amount on the estimates this year to start the work. It will not only mean the commencement of the line, but also that a large number of people will get a little work there. Then there is another small thing which I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister. We hear of the large station which is to be built at Johannesburg.

It has long been required.

The hon. member will certainly be content, but I want to point out that, although such a large station is being built, we are struggling in vain to obtain a little thing, viz., a store at Cookhouse. I think it has actually been recommended. A large deputation of farmers went to the station to meet a representative of the department from Port Elizabeth, and I think the Railway Board said that it was urgently necessary. I hope the Minister will not entirely forget us on the countryside, but that when we make a reasonable request he will grant it.

I would like to mention item 244, on page 17, “Pretoria: Overhead bridge to workshops and camp,” on which £1,000 is given as being spent to the 31st March this year, with provision for £8,300 further. I have been desired by my constituents to get an assurance from the Minister that that bridge is really going on. My informant wished me to ask if it was going to be like the pauper and his will. The pauper instructed his lawyer to put £10,000 down for certain people in his will, and the lawyer reminded him he hadn’t got £10,000. “I know that,” said the pauper, “but I just wanted to show what I would have done if I had it.” In the light of what the Minister of Finance has said respecting lack of funds, I hope this will story is not going to apply to our railway bridge.

I would like to ask the Minister what is being done in regard to the creation of a fund for a rainy day, especially in regard to branch lines. Competition is growing, and it has come to stay. Between Pietermaritzburg and Durban a motor ’bus service has been started which runs both ways three times a day. It has become very popular, and many people prefer travelling by this rather than by the railway, and this competition is becoming serious to the Railway Administration. They have now started motor wagons which are employed by merchants in Maritzburg to run down to the docks and load goods at ships’ sides.

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

When business was suspended, I was trying to impress upon the Minister of Railways and Harbours the importance of seriously considering the suggestion made by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) in regard to creating a sinking fund for the railways to provide against losses on railways, and particularly on branch lines. I would like to explain further what has taken place in Natal. Not only has a passenger motor service been established between Durban and Maritzburg, running three times a day between each place, but these motor ’buses have been constructed on the latest up to date lines, something like the buses you see about Cape Town, and they have become so popular that many people—lawyers who have business in the city and others—are making constant use of them, because they can do the journey from Durban to Maritzburg and back again in one day. I want the Minister to realize that this is a very serious matter. Motor transport is not merely limited to passengers, but it is being taken advantage of for the conveyance of goods. Storekeepers in Maritzburg send motor lorries to the docks in Durban; goods are there loaded up and transported to Maritzburg and received on the same day. I can assure the Minister that this motor transport is becoming a very serious competitor. I certainly think that the Minister has to look forward to the day when motor transport is going to be a very serious competitor to the railways. Many of the branch lines which you are constructing will not be payable for many years to come.

Have you any suggestion to make in regard to this competition?

Yes. The motor ’buses run to and from Maritzburg and carry passengers three times a day, and the passenger is able to do both the outward and return journey the same day. The cost is exactly the same as on the railways—17s. 6d., first class return. The first ’bus leaves Durban in the morning at seven, and arrives in Maritzburg at ten, and lawyers are able to attend the court and return the same day to Durban. They cannot do that by the present train service. When you come to goods, the trouble is this— that, if a merchant or importer in Maritzburg, we will say, requires his goods from the docks to be transported from the Point to Maritzburg, they will take probably three or four days to deliver, whereas, if they send motor wagons direct to the sheds and load up the goods, they can get delivery in Maritzburg the same day, or next morning. In order to meet that competition you will have to bring about some system which will give better delivery of goods between those places.

To look alive.

Yes, as my hon. friend says, you will have to “look alive,” wake up. I would like to draw attention to one omission from the brown book. Last year provision was made for a new railway station and sidings at Greenwood Park. That is not included in the brown book now issued. There is no explanation, but I happen to know that there was some difference about the ground. The Railway Department required ground to carry out their scheme at Greenwood Park, and the owner wanted £1,000 for it. The Railway Department were only prepared to pay £700. Surely the Minister is not going to scrap that very necessary work for the sake of a difference of £300. It is work that is very urgently wanted, and I hope the Minister will take it in hand. I would like to call attention to what I consider very faulty estimates of the cost of construction, and I would instance the Matubatuba-Pongola railway line. This House was asked to pass an expenditure of £400,000 for the construction of that line. We are now told that it has cost £631,000, or more than £200,000 above the original estimate. Now it is all very well to come to the House and say that the force of the river was not realized at the time, but I contend that the responsible men who sent in this estimate should have taken these things into consideration at the time. It is hardly fair to come to the House and ask for £400,000 odd, and then, after the line is sanctioned, find that the work is going to cost 50 per cent. more. The Auditor-General, in his report, reveals that sometimes railway material, locomotives, is purchased in Britain when no contract is entered into. When the Administration advertises for tenders, and these things are supplied according to tender, a formal contract is entered into, but I was very much surprised to find that a very large number of locomotives were ordered by letter and there was no contract for the supply of these particular engines, with the result that something like £1,600 was required, in addition to the original contract price, for the supply of plans and specifications. I suggest that in any of these big orders there should be a formal contract binding the supplier to supply everything that is required in connection with the supplies. I would like to support my hon. friend for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Henderson) in his request for more deep-water berths at Durban. We are asked here to provide £750,000 for a new railway station in Johannesburg, while these objects I have mentioned are being starved. Figures have been quoted to show the volume of trade that passes through Durban, and there is great difficulty in handling ships because of the lack of these deep-water berths. I think it is up to the Minister to see that these are provided.

I have a few earnest words to address to the Minister before this motion is agreed to. If any member would go to the same trouble as I have done in analyzing these figures he would be as shocked as I am at the results, as affecting East London. We have, in Buffalo harbour, one of the most promising ports. It serves an enormous hinterland, and it is probably the port through which I believe in future a quarter of a million tons or more of manganese is to be exported every year, and undoubtedly that port will, in the future, be required to handle enormous quantities of citrus and other fruits, and yet the improvement of that port is being utterly neglected. It is true that a matter of £116,000 is contemplated for a high-level bridge, but that will not help the harbour, and even of that amount not a penny is set down for this year. When we look at the figures we find the amount to be expended on Buffalo harbour is £13,585 out of a total for the other harbours of £467,690. I think that is very indifferent treatment under all the circumstances. The great necessity at Buffalo harbour is to provide a turning basin. When that is provided, the largest ships will be able to get in and out again with facility. When I raised the question some weeks ago, the Minister gave a very non-committal answer, and I was very disappointed, and the community at East London will be disappointed, to find that no provision is made for this necessary improvement. I wonder if hon. members understand what the situation is. At a comparatively small cost, this port could be provided with a turning basin into which ships of all sizes could enter and get away with perfect safety. The amount involved is small, and the eventual saving would be very considerable. At present the lighter charges amount to £10,000 a year. That would be largely saved, because these lighters could be transferred to other harbours. In addition, we find from local information that this work could be carried out at a minimum of cost. No matter what the engineers’ estimates are as to the total cost, the facts are that the necessary dredging could be carried out on days when it was too rough for dredging to take place outside, so that would reduce the cost considerably. In that time on those days they could be working at deepening and enlarging the river mouth, and providing the basin referred to, so that the cost to the Government would be very small indeed. I do not see any reason why this very necessary work should not be proceeded with. Buffalo harbour has been very sadly neglected in all the railway arrangements contemplated for the forthcoming year. If the Minister would go to the trouble of analyzing the whole of the expenditure for the whole of the eastern system, he would find it is very shabby treatment for one of our most important ports. It is the port through which the great bulk of our wool goes. It is very necessary that it should be developed. I am thinking of the time when we will be exporting, not hundreds of thousands, but millions of cases of citrus every year. It will be absolutely necessary for the safe and satisfactory handling of these cargoes that the mail steamers should be able to get alongside the wharf and load the fruit. This is not the only instance of the shabby treatment this port has received. We find that the ports of Cape Town and Durban have been provided with grain elevators at a cost in round figures of £2,000,000. While I do not approve of the principle of spending such large sums on coast elevators for the export of maize, it is undoubtedly the case that as things are at present, in the backward condition of our farming, it is necessary at times to get rid of the glut of maize that follows a bumper crop in South Africa. Temporary appliances costing £8,000 only could be established at East London, but when I have represented that, I have been met with a blank refusal. They have been used successfully at Durban, pending the completion of the grain elevator. These temporary appliances have been able to handle maize at only one-third of the cost per ton of handling by the elevator. We have no hope for this year apparently, and very little hope for the future. We find it is laid down in the estimates of expenditure for subsequent years that a total of £4,608,000 is to be spent on the harbours of the Union. East London’s share for the future in that amount is only £34,000, so obviously the Minister does not contemplate increasing the very necessary facilities that are required. I think he is making a great mistake. Obviously, that part of the country is not receiving fair and just treatment. We have one of the oldest railway stations in the Union, and the citizens were actually ashamed of having to receive the Prince of Wales in that shabby place. It is in no way worthy of the importance of the port. A really wise, far-seeing and intelligent Government, with an able Minister of Railways, would take immediate steps in these directions. And another point which is absolutely necessary is that attention should be paid to easing the curves and flattening the grades on the whole of the eastern system. There is no sea front in the whole of the Union that has better natural advantages than East London, and it is bound to attract a very large number of tourists and holiday-makers to this place as soon as the railway facilities are what they should be. These are matters that I hope will receive the Minister’s attention. I do not see how he can evade the charge that East London and Buffalo harbour are receiving very indifferent treatment at the hands of the Administration as regards facilities and improvements. I believe these things will be found to be economical in the truest sense. They will not cost much in the first instance, the saving will be great in the next, and in the third place, they are calculated to produce a largely increased revenue. I do hope the Minister will be able in future to give more attention to these important matters and to put the necessary sums on the estimates for carrying out these improvements.

I am pleased to see that with these estimates provision is made for the betterment of the line Kamfersdam to Wintersrush and that the line Wintersrush-Koopmansfontein, is also on the estimates for completion. As hon. members will have seen in the newspapers, there is a scheme, now that the manganese fields have been discovered in my constituency between Postmasburg and Dingle, by which the Government will be able to agree with an American company to build a line to Postmasburg. It depends on the Railway Board what direction the line will take. It may possibly be from Douglas to Postmasburg. The Railway Board went from Belmont via Postmasburg to Kimberley to make an investigation, and I understand that the people at Postmasburg welcomed the Railway Board, because they thought it meant that they were going to get a railway line. They are yearning for a railway, and I do not blame them. If the Railway Board thinks that the majority of the people at Postmasburg are agreeable to have the line built from Douglas, then I must say that my information is quite different. The majority of the people wish the line to be built from Koopmansfontein to Postmasburg. The company which will probably enter into the contract with the Government would also prefer to have the line from Koopmansfontein, but inasmuch as they are afraid that this might baulk them they are keeping quiet.

We cannot have another discussion on the construction of railways.

I hope you will allow me to give an explanation. On the motions with regard to railway construction, I advocated the line from Koopmansfontein to Kuruman, and that has nothing to do with this matter.

I do not intend to allow hon. members in this debate to advocate other railways. Hon. members had the opportunity when the motions for railway construction were before the House.

I must tell you again that this is quite another matter which has nothing to do with the construction of railways. It is a special matter which the Minister is considering, and it will come up in the House on the recommendation of the Railway Board. All I want to say about it is just that I think that the Railway Board hitherto have made good recommendations with reference to the extension of railways, but in this case I warn the Railway Board that it will make a blunder if the line is built from Douglas after the contract is entered into with the American company. The majority of the people wish the line to go from Koopmansfontein to Postmasburg.

I want to ask the Minister if he can let me know the reason for departing from the policy of construction which he said he was going to be guided by last year. With reference to new lines I understood last year, when the construction programme was drawn up, that the Minister would give preference to fruit lines. I quite realize the position the department was in last year, and that because there was a good deal of distress in the north-west lines were built there for relief works. I draw his attention to the amount of development which has already taken place and the vast amount of development which is in prospect on the coastal belt, especially in the districts of Bathurst and Alexandria. Why is no provision made for the Martindale-Southwell line to be proceeded with? Private growers in that area have planted pines on a large scale in view of the fact that the railway was sanctioned, and unless it is built it will never pay to grow those pines. Road transport is practically impossible as the gradients are so severe and the distances so great, and unless railway facilities are granted it will not pay to grow pines. It is an area which is not subject to drought, as are other areas of the country where expensive irrigation schemes are necessary to ensure production. Conditions in that area are stable, on the whole. We ought to develop this coastal belt as fast as we possibly can. There is a short section of line owned by a private company, but private producers who do not have a contract to sell their pines to the company have the greatest difficulty in getting their produce away, and they are practically in the hands of that corporation. I see that seven new lines are to be constructed, and not one is a “fruit line.” With regard to four, provision is made for a survey. Cannot the Minister at least put this line down for a survey, so that at least the preliminary work might be done, and as soon as you have your staff ready and funds available you can start and do the work without further delay? Apart from this being a fruit growing area, it is a big dairy proposition already, and, if only the staff could be got to the railway in anything like a reasonable time, the development in that direction would be immense.

I just want to ask the Minister to make enquiries as soon as possible into the need for a subway or footbridge over the main line at Touws River at a point slightly to the side of the present platform. During the last few years there have been several big accidents there, and on the last occasion with fatal results when the 7 year old son of Mr. Conradie was killed. The little body was terribly mutilated and the whole neighbourhood was upset about the accident. A footbridge has been repeatedly asked for. There is a school on the other side of the line and hundreds of children have daily to cross it. If nothing is done there will be more accidents. It will not cost thousands of pounds and it will be in the interests of the public. I should also like to know from the Minister what the result is of the enquiry into the road motor service to Barrydale. I know that someone made an unfavourable report but thereafter another person was sent who reported favourably. The Minister is leaving one of these days and there is the danger that the matter will be postponed indefinitely. I should like to know clearly from the Minister what is going to happen. The same applies to the motor service Montagu-Ashton. I know that the Minister intends to build a railway there, but I hope in the meantime he will provide a motor service.

I should like to thank the Minister for a few little things he has done in my district, but I should like to return to a promise which I received from his office. About 18 months ago I was promised that the line between Belville and Eerste River would be doubled or improved. It was of course prejudiced by the motion of the hon. member for Barkly West (Mr. W. B. de Villiers) when he asked for a double line to the Strand. The Minister rightly answered him somewhat shortly. Of course it had a bad effect on the Railway Board, and so far no effect has been given to the promise made me. Now I want to ask the Minister to carry out the promise. He can give all the credit to the hon. member for Barkly West. I only want the double line. Then I want to call attention to the lack of facilities for third class passengers at Stellenbosch. The number of such passengers has increased greatly, but their ticket office is now outside in the street.

I would have got it long ago.

The hon. member can have the honour for that as well. The people now have to stand in the rain and I shall be glad if one of the very cheap shelters is made. It will be very welcome. My friend behind me is so pleased about the station costing £600,000. In the bad times we are living in, I am absolutely opposed to such an expensive station at Johannesburg. A good station can be built— it is necessary—but £200,000 is more than enough. That station costing £600,000 our children will one day see standing in the wilderness when the great Johannesburg gold mines are exhausted. Then the big station will stand there like a white elephant, and I hope the Minister will think a little further about the matter before he has it built. Then I should like to ask about the fire at Kimberley. What is the position with regard to fire insurance on the railways? I know that the department carries its own assurance, but I should like to know whether the insurance fund is sufficient for such great mishaps. Possibly it is necessary to put the fund on another basis so that such great misfortunes can be covered. Then I want to invite the Minister’s attention to the Cape Town station.

Where are the Cape Town members?

Yes but I am every now and then in the upper parts of the station and if a fire should break out both the clerks and I should be burnt up there, because it is one of the most dangerous death traps possible. It is a wooden pile, and there are numbers of passages where one can lose oneself. If there should be a fire it would be a great misfortune, and this Minister and the late Minister of Railways will have to bear the responsibility.

I do think if any stranger came into this country for the first time and he was handed this brown book to read, after glancing through its pages, he would think we were legislating for a population of 20 or 30 millions of people. It is almost incredible that so great an expenditure should be contemplated, knowing that so small a proportion of the people of South Africa have to bear the bulk of the burden. Now Johannesburg’s new station has been frequently referred to in the course of this debate; it is an illuminating fact that not one representative of Johannesburg has defended it, so far as the cost is concerned. The Minister proposes to spend about three-quarters of a million before he has finished this job, but whether the Minister of Railways and Harbours or the Minister of Public Works was responsible for the plans I do not know. It is certainly going to be a magnificent building. Now I am glad the Minister is going across the seas to visit foreign countries. And when he goes to London he should look at St. Pancras, Paddington and Waterloo stations and ask what they cost. I doubt that he will find that one of them has cost £750,000.

They spent £1,000,000 at Waterloo station recently.

That shows how utterly out of proportion it is for us to spend £750,000 at Johannesburg. I don’t think that expenditure can be defended. As a consequence of this, of other commitments, a lot of essential work is being held up, work which has been promised for years, and is necessary for the safety of life. Take the question of level crossings. The Minister has appointed a commission to consider the subject. We know what happens. The commission sends in its report, a bridge may be built here or there, and the matter then drops. A large number of level crossings could be replaced by bridges or subways for half the cost of Johannesburg’s new station. In Natal the railway is electrified, and, in some cases, the passenger station is on one side of the line and the goods station on the other. But as there are no bridges in most cases people who have to get from one side of the line to the other very often endanger their lives by creeping under the trains, which are very long. A bridge has been promised at Mooi River for many years, but the local people are told that no money is available for the purpose. Then how long is the Rietvlei line to be held up? Dependent on it is the settlement of orange growers at Muden, whose output will test the carrying capacity of the railway department’s road transport to the uttermost limit, and I doubt if the railway department will be able to shift next season’s crops in their entirety. Thus an important industry is being handicapped, if not threatened, owing to the lack of sufficient transport. As to grain elevators, they are not required so much at the ports as inland at points where the farmers grow and store their maize. If farmers ask for a grain elevator they are informed that no money is available, and they cannot understand that when £750,000 are to be spent to supply one place with one railway station. Now the Minister of Railways always looks rather aggrieved when anybody suggests that he is running the railways as a political concern. But the public say that because 12,000 or 13,000 people have been placed by him on the railways to do work which was previously done very much more cheaply under other conditions. Now we do not say whether that policy is right or wrong, but the public object to the whole of the extra expense thus involved being placed on the users of the railways. That is one reason why the railways cannot reduce rates. The Minister should tell us what the white labour policy is costing. There may come a time when the House will come to its senses and will say to the Minister—

I am afraid that is not germane to this motion.

I thought railway policy as a whole could be discussed under this vote, but I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

Only capital and betterment expenditure.

All I will add is to ask the Minister to give us some idea of the prospects of completing the 1925 construction programme. Whether it is to be next year or when. People concerned are entitled to know and should not be quite in suspension indefinitely.

I think the Minister knows that I spoke last year about the great expense on the Johannesburg station. I feel that we are too much inclined in this country to put large sums of money into buildings. We must remember that the large sum of money the Johannesburg for sale do not go to the passenger any greater revenue for the railways, because it will not cause an increase in traffic. People are usually in a hurry when they arrive or leave by train. I think that if the money is used for the development of the country—

Who brings their things there to sell?

Such a costly station is not necessary. The things that are sent to Johannesburg for sale do not go to the passenger station, but to the goods station. I hope the Minister will be careful and resist. I notice that the Railway Administration sold a farm near De Aar, and that the survey and transfer costs amount to £240. It is surely the custom for such expenses to be paid by the purchaser.

What farm do you refer to?

The farm Caroluspoort. I also notice that the Minister is putting an amount on these estimates for fencing, and now I want to ask him whether it happens to be intended for jackal-proof fencing or whether it is only intended for ordinary fencing. I have heard that there are a few cases where the Railway Administration has paid for jackalproof fencing, and I want to know whether that is so, and whether this amount on page 16 is meant for the same purpose. In how many cases has jackal-proof fencing already been paid for? I notice on page 21 that a sum of money is to be voted for the renewal of the telegraph lines between Naauwpoort and De Aar. I am glad about it, because it is an important matter to the inhabitants of De Aar, and for the neighbouring farmers, because they are keen on having telephonic communication with Port Elizabeth. Business requires it. The reply of the Postal and Telegraph Department is that it would like to agree to the line, but that the present line is not strong enough to carry the extra wire. The Telegraph Department is willing to do its share, but cannot induce the Railway Administration to do its part. Now that the amount is there, I hope the Minister will see that the work is done as soon as possible so that De Aar can obtain the desired telephonic communication. There is another point I want to mention. Every farmer knows that when a bucksail gets wet, and then sticks, it is useless. I have several times noticed near Cape Town how that bucksails lie outside folded up during rain. They get wet every time, and if they are not opened up so that they can dry, then they will stick and be useless. It is complained that this item costs too much. The cases, which I have referred to, took place at Wellington station. I regret that I cannot find in the estimates that provision is being made for a recreation ground at De Aar. I believe the Minister promised £500 for that purpose, and he will remember that he did so just before the recent Provincial Council election. I hoped that we should see the amount on the estimates, because De Aar would be glad to get the ground. I should be glad if the Minister could tell me that it appears in some other place, or that if it does not appear elsewhere now, that provision will be made for it next year.

On a former occasion I had the opportunity of referring the Minister to the dissatisfaction that exists on account of the bad state of the dwelling houses for white railwaymen in my constituency, and especially on the line from Nelspruit to Graskop. When I saw the estimates the first thing I did, naturally, was to find out whether provision was made for the improvement of these houses. When the Minister introduced white labour and defended the policy, he showed that he was sympathetic towards the railwaymen, but I think his responsibility does not end merely in appointing them. The responsibility is not alone to give them a living wage, but also to see that they have a proper roof over their heads. I was really disappointed when I looked at the estimates, because I saw on page 26 that for Division 8, in which my constituency is situated, there is only an amount of £758 down for new railway houses, one house for the ganger at Belfast. I find no further reference to the building of houses for white railwaymen in my district. £516,000, more than half a million pounds, is provided here for buildings, etc., and £100,000 thereof is for railway houses, and of the £100,000 only £758 is for traffic, District 8, viz., for a new house for a ganger at Belfast. When I read further I saw a fresh ray of hope under Vote 406, where an amount is put down for works not costing more than £500. An amount of £1,244 is made available therefor, and, further, under Item 407, there is an additional £86,237 for houses, waiting rooms and railway houses. Now my question is whether over and above the £758 for the ganger’s house there is a further chance of houses being built in my constituency for white railwaymen out of the other amounts mentioned?

I should like to remind the Minister that during his visit to Amersfoort in November last he received a deputation that approached him regarding the erection of a grain elevator. I think the matter was made very clear on that occasion, because the people are left with their mealies on their hands and in the district of Amersfoort the growing of mealies is being gone in for more and more.

What did the Minister say?

Then I want to bring to the notice of the Minister that when passengers book their seats from Cape Town to the eastern Transvaal or the north of Natal, then their seats are only reserved to Johannesburg. The Johannesburg office is not notified about the reserved seats with the result that the passenger arrives in Johannesburg and finds that he has no reserved seat for the rest of the journey. If it were not for the friendliness and tact of the Johannesburg stationmaster, then more than one person would be left behind there, especially during heavy traffic in the winter months and holiday time.

I am glad the hon. member behind is reminding the Minister of the promises he has made. I interviewed him last year with regard to the station at Butterworth, and he promised to look into the matter. I want to protest against this £640,000 for the new station at Johannesburg. At one time the Minister represented a country constituency, and he found he could not get anything for his own constituency. When our constituents ask us to get a grant for a railway station, and the Minister says there is no money, and, at the same time, the public see that £640,000 is being spent on a station at Johannesburg, it places us in a peculiar position. We have a tin shanty at Butterworth, and I have to go back and tell my constituents that the Minister has no money, and they point to the £640,000, and they say: “Either we have a mighty bad representative, or a bad Government.” Well, they have not got a bad representative, so it must be a bad Government. I refer the Minister to Item 658. “fit 70 native coaches with steam-heating gear.” These natives come from the warm coast, and they have to work on the mines of Johannesburg. They leave a tropical climate, and, as soon as they get to Molteno, they are in the snow belt. Many of these natives arrive from the Transkei with pneumonia and chest complaints. I hope the Minister will see fit to put this steam-heating apparatus in all these native coaches. The Minister is building a new railway from Imvani into the Transkei. Let me tell the Minister the natives are complaining that there are no shelters for the natives at the sidings. The same applies to the Amabele-Umtata line. Practically 95 per cent. of the passengers in the Transkei are natives, and on the sidings you find one shelter with the word “European” and none for natives. I say rather provide shelters for the natives than for Europeans, and the Europeans will appreciate the position, because practically all the Europeans meet the trains by motor-car and they have not got to wait frequently in rainy or cold weather, and do not require shelters. I ask the Minister to make provision at all sidings in the Transkei.

I would again raise the question in regard to reduction on the rates on maize.

The hon. member cannot discuss that on this motion.

It is said the Minister is running the railways as a political machine. This is the cry all over. Is he aware that annually £23,000 is being lost in increment by the English-speaking class who cannot pass the Afrikaans examination?

I am afraid the hon. member cannot discuss that.

I should like some information with respect to Items 703 and 704, Walvis Bay, provision of new slipway and harbour improvements. I see the expenditure estimated at the end of February is £602,000 with a further £37,000. What is the position with regard to Walvis Bay? What are the prospects and what progress is being made there? Then I ask the Minister, what is the position with regard to the electrification of the suburban railway in the Cape? Some time ago there was an announcement that there would be an experimental line between Sea Point and Cape Town, and that afterwards we could expect the line to be run electrically at the end of the year. What is the position? In connection with that, when the electrical railway is under way we shall have a large development of passenger traffic at the various stations on the suburban line, and considerable improvement will be required for stations along the line such as Rondebosch, Mowbray, Claremont and Observatory. We have this sum of £640,000 for the Johannesburg railway station, and it seems to me to be an enormous sum to spend on a place at Johannesburg, and it has been said it is only the first instalment. Our experience of estimates of this kind is that they are apt to be very far below the total to be ultimately incurred, and I should not be surprised if it is not nearer £1,000,000 than £640,000. It may be thought a very good thing for Johannesburg but my own opinion is that it will be a very bad thing. It will set up a standard for Johannesburg, a standard of expenditure that I do not think Johannesburg will be able to afford, rich as it is. It seems to be going far beyond our means to spend such an enormous sum on a railway station. I remember last year when the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) ventured to raise the question of a new railway station for Cape Town, the Minister of Railways, in his most severe tones, exercizing his right of reply, to which there can be no reply in return, gave my hon. friend the most severe castigation as to what this country could afford in the way of luxury. It did my heart good to listen to it, because we knew that the Johannesburg railway station was in the offing. How the Minister can reconcile that good economic lecture which he administered last year with this lavish vote on account of the railway station at Johannesburg, I really fail to see. We cannot afford luxuries of that kind. I do think that we are spending in bricks and mortar on that station far more than the exegincies of the case demand, and far more than the country can afford. I think that, in connection with the electrification of the suburban line, the stations along that line should be a little more generously dealt with, and that the stations will not be adequate to deal probably with the traffic which we are sure will develop when we have got electrification and the University building at Groot Schuur. Take Mowbray station. There you have a feature in a station which I submit to the Minister is really dangerous. You have got otherwise quite a good platform, but you have a portion of the station building projecting into the platform and leaving a width of 9 ft. 6 in between the front of that building and the edge of the platform. I do submit to the Minister that that particular point should receive his special attention. May I put another point to him, and that is, if there is any money left after the Johannesburg station has been built, whether he will not consider the making of a new station with a subway somewhere between Newlands and Rondebosch? There is a long stretch there, there has been considerable development along that area, and particularly development in connection with sport, and there are vast crowds who go there on Saturday afternoons, to whom a station somewhere between those two stations would be of the greatest assistance.

I should like to bring a few points to the Minister’s notice. In the first place, I should like to ask him when the second scheme with reference to the grain elevator at Oogies will actually be carried out. There were two schemes prepared, the first was carried out, and we got an elevator, but the second was not carried out. I understand quite well that the Minister of Finance is closing the bag but we expect the other elevators to be built as soon as possible. That is the district where the largest maize farmers live. There is one of them who produces 100,000 bags. With the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) I am afraid that I shall be told later that I do not work enough, because I obtain nothing for the district of Witbank. I have, however, done my duty and repeatedly pressed for it. My next complaint is about the platform. Our district pays a great deal into the railway revenue, about £1,250,000 a year, and we have only one small platform which is quite inadequate. The people have to hang on to the train which is very dangerous. The trains travel very fast, and do not stop for long, and it is time that the Minister considered us. My next complaint is the station. The Railway Board came there to inspect, and it naturally created the impression that an alteration would be made. The station lies on the wrong side of the railway line. Everybody has to cross the line. There is a bridge, but women and children and perambulators cannot go over it, and all the baggage has also to be dragged over the line. It is almost a mile to get to the station a different way, and conditions are quite unsatisfactory. Our village is growing fast. The village is on the right-hand side, and the station is on the lefthand side of the railway. I hope that after the repeated representations I have made to the Minister he will now provide for our needs a little.

I had not intended speaking on this vote, but I would like to say a word in support of this new station at Johannesburg. I am sorry that there is such a spirit of rivalry in the House, that if one does not get something for one’s own constituency one seems to envy those who are getting something that they thoroughly deserve. If one realizes for a moment what Johannesburg has meant to South Africa, and if you look at Johannesburg, you will find that it has been absolutely starved as far as public buildings are concerned in comparison with Pretoria or Cape Town. Park Station is absolutely out of date and antiquated. It is a series of partly open platforms, and in stormy weather it does not even provide proper shelter for those who go by train. There is no doubt that this particular station that the Minister is putting up is going to be an elaborate one, and that the Minister is looking far ahead, and it will not be many years before hon. members who are now criticizing this will find that it would be a waste of money to do some patchwork at Park Station. There has been no improvement or addition made to that station for a considerable time, while the traffic there has developed enormously. I quite agree that our Cape Town station has also become somewhat antiquated, and I should like to see considerable improvements there, but I certainly do not envy the people of Johannesburg for at last getting something done by the Government, because I must confess during my visits to Johannesburg, I have always been astounded at the wonderful buildings private individuals have put up, and the very poor buildings that the State has put up for public use. I, for one, would like to congratulate the Minister on this expenditure, because I think it is thoroughly deserved. It is only right, to my mind, that a station should be put up there which is worthy of the part that Johannesburg plays, not only in the life of our railways, but in the life of South Africa generally.

I would not have intervened in this discussion but for the unwarranted and unreasonable criticism levelled against the Minister by members of the South African party in connection with the new railway station at Johannesburg. When one remembers that the people in Johannesburg are still sufficiently foolish to send five members of the South African party to Parliament, I am rather surprised that these criticisms should come from this side. Particularly am I surprised that they should take up this carping attitude when one further remembers that for many years the South African party have been promising Johannesburg, not only a new railway station, but also a new post office and a new magistrate’s court. For years the people of Johannesburg have been clamouring for these three public buildings which are necessary, not only for Johannesburg, but in the interests of the country as a whole. On this occasion I must say I feel justified in heartily congratulating the Minister on having the courage to accede to the request of Johannesburg and to lay down provision for this railway station. I want to mention a few figures to show that the action of the Minister is wholly justified. Some twelve months ago these figures were got out by the Mayor of Johannesburg. They are up to the end of 1923, and if they are brought up to date, it will be found that the position at Johannesburg is even more favourable. Up to March 31st, 1924, the Johannesburg station handled in traffic and goods 25½ per cent. of the total handled by the rest of the Union. They handled a quarter of the Union’s traffic in that very delapidated station, and then members come along and say the Government is not justified in giving Johannesburg a station worthy of such a volume of traffic. Take the revenue, including that from the mining industry. The returns show that the Witwatersrand contributes 70 per cent. of the whole of the revenue of the Union of South Africa. The same applies to the question of new industries. The coast towns are doing very well and one feels glad that industries are springing up, but at the same time one has to realize that on the Witwatersrand the people are not satisfied with being merely a mining camp and distributing centre, but there has been this tremendous industrial development in Johannesburg. A comparison was made from the industrial census for 1922 and 1923 of the industrial development in the Cape Province, Port Elizabeth and Durban with the Rand, and it shows that the number of industries on the Rand was 1,762 as compared with the others 1,904; the value of fixed property in connection with those industries was £5,137,958 for the Rand and £6,171,121 for the other centres; plant and machinery £11,942,000 for the Rand and £8,890,000 for the other centres; and the number of employees in these industries was 57,000 on the Rand and 58,000 in the other centres. The hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) and other hon. members should realize that whatever development is taking place, whether at Weenen or at any other part of the Union is largely dependent upon the progress and the development of the Witwatersrand. Taking that into consideration they should not only support the Minister but should welcome his far-sightedness in giving Johannesburg a station worthy of its progress.

I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to a few matters in connection with Worcester. I was very disappointed that I did not find in his estimates provision for additional housing accommodation for the railway employees at Worcester. You have the ground there in the neighbourhood of the station and certainly sufficient housing accommodation could be provided there. The employees are put to a great amount of difficulty in finding housing accommodation in the town. At De Doorns you provide housing accomodation for the Europeans but you have some coloured employees on the station for whom no housing accommodation is provided at all. The Minister has done a great deal in his time for providing additional loading facilities at De Doorns, at Orchards, at Hex River, and at Sandhill, but at Sandhill they have put up a shelter without a loading platform, which is entirely useless. The Minister has just appointed a level crossings commission. They have visited Worcester and were met there by representatives of our public bodies and their attention has been drawn to the very unsatisfactory crossing at the south end of Worcester station. It is a most unsatisfactory crossing, and I hope provision will soon be made to improve matters and make that crossing safe, which at present it is not. The Administration has been negotiating with Worcester for some additional ground for the station. I hope that as the municipality is very favourably disposed to giving them the ground which they require, they will complete the negotiation and obtain the ground while the municipality is in that mind, because a public body may change its mind and then they might find great difficulty in getting the necessary accommodation there.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) is grieved that Johannesburg has only sent five S.A. party members. I can assure him that when the Labour members on the cross benches have finished their little performance on the Flag Bill, there will be no encore required at all. There will be a good many vacant seats there which will be filled by South African party members.

No fear.

When the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) mentioned the railway station, the magistrate’s court and the post office of Johannesburg, he might have gone further and offered them an elaborate building for the State bank, but probably he thought that that promise of his would not be honoured by the Minister. However, I throw out the suggestion. I do assure the House that we do not object in any party spirit with regard to the Minister’s expenditure on Johannesburg’s station. He has built many agricultural lines, and we cannot have a station at all on these lines. Everything has to be lifted from the ground level to the trucks, and passengers have to get into the carriages from the ground level. It seems to me that in spending this extraordinary amount of money you are starving the lines which are carrying the financial life blood of the country. In that spirit we feel that Johannesburg might be content with a little less pretentious building and something useful, and not so elaborate as what is adumbrated in this expenditure of £600,000. We know that money is scarce and not available for public works. I would like to know whether any attention has been given to the development of rail motors. I understand that experiments have been going on for a year or two. The Anglo-Swiss milk people are intending to start at Franklin in my district, and the success or otherwise of manufacturing condensed milk there is going to depend on the rail transport of the milk. It can only be done by rail motors, and you cannot run trains on these branch lines for this. I think that I am within the mark when I say that at least 20 tons of milk will have to be handled and transported daily during the coming season and this can only be done by establishing a rail motor service. I would like to congratulate the Minister on the great success of the road motor services. I allude in particular to that between Kokstad and St. John’s. There have been difficulties, but that service has been an unqualified success, and it has been necessary to put on additional ’buses to cope with the traffic. I do hope the Minister is going seriously to consider the Kokstad—Umtata service. We feel that this is going to assist materially in the development of the native territories. I wonder if the Minister could not assist the lighthouse keepers in these outside districts by allowing them free transport on these motor ’buses. At Dassen Island a tug is run conveying necessities free of charge to these keepers.

This is a matter more of administration, and should not really be discussed on this motion.

As I was on the question of rail motors I brought it up. I bow to your ruling, sir, and I leave it to a later stage to say a few more words.

I do not know why the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) is always attacking the cross benches, and why he brings party questions into the discussion.

Who raised that discussion? The hon. member (Mr. Kentridge) raised it first.

If it were not for Johannesburg, the Griquas would be starving, and the hon. member for Griqualand would not be in the House.

Where would you be?

Where I am now, and going to be for many years—Bloemfontein (North)— the hon. member can depend on that. What I want to speak about is Monument station, Cape Town. Our chief train which conveys all the mail boat passengers from England— the people attracted to South Africa by our publicity matter—have to leave from Monument station, and generally at this time of the year in wet weather. It is probably one of the worst stations in the world. I am surprised that Cape Town members have not stood up for Cape Town. It does not make any difference to us. We want to see Durban and Cape Town go ahead. After all, we are really Capetonians to this extent, that we live here for six months of the year. We are the crême-de-la-crême of Cape Town. Why is the Minister destroying to-day some of these beautiful beaches in Kalk Bay? That seems something like vandalism. The Peninsula is the playground of the Union. They have a most beautiful church in Sea Point—the Round Church—and they are putting an awful building alongside it. It would not be tolerated in any other town. They allow the foreshore at Muizenberg to be destroyed. The Town Council is now busy destroying the most beautiful foreshore of the world, and everybody from up-country are wringing their hands. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) laughs, but if he talked to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) he would find that many of us are heartsore at the way the Cape Town people are going out to destroy Muizenberg. Yet they call it improving Muizenberg! They destroyed that most beautiful mountain—the most beautiful mountain in South Africa at the back of Groot Schuur by building a hospital.

The hon. member must confine himself to the motion.

I bow to your ruling, sir. I was going to put it this way, that because the people of Cape Town destroy these things that is no reason why the Government should also destroy them. The Government has destroyed these beautiful bays at Kalk Bay. If the people of Cape Town only knew how lucky they are. If they had to live in a place like the Free State where we are fighting all the time against nature, they would appreciate living in a spot like the Peninsula, where if you put a walking stick into the ground it grows. Here indeed “every prospect pleases, but only man is vile.” They should have stood up in their wrath and prevented the Government destroying those beaches.

We did protest.

You could have got help from members of Parliament all over South Africa, this is one of the Treasures of South Africa, and we are interested in it. This is the place to which most people retire in their old age. All South Africa loves the Cape and does not want to see the Cape destroyed. I now wish to come to a parochial matter. The Minister has done a lot for Bloemfontein and we thank him for it, but he is not doing enough in the way of housing the railwaymen. We have given him thousands and thousands of pounds worth of land, you might say £100,000 worth, for nothing. We have spent £750,000 on housing, and many railwaymen occupy the houses erected out of funds provided by the municipality, and it is time that the railway department did something in the matter.

It is no exaggeration to say that I feel profoundly disappointed and deeply grieved at the narrow and niggardly spirit evinced by certain members in regard to the new railway station at Johannesburg. If a stranger visited Johannesburg and saw that vast city with its magnificent private structures, he would ask what is the Government doing for this place from which a stream of gold has flowed over the whole Union all these years. We can show a post office which is inadequate and insanitary.

The Supreme Court?

The magistrates’ courts are inadequate, and so are the superior courts. Perhaps the only other public building we have of note is the art gallery, and that was erected by private enterprise, which also supplied the contents. When we ask, at last, for one public building, one hears these niggardly observations. I think it very wrong and trust that members will show a more liberal spirit. I am pleased to see improvements in Cape Town and I almost look upon Cape Town as much my place of abode as Johannesburg is. The amount for the new railway station at Johannesburg seems large, but it has been decided by those competent to judge.

Extravagance!

I do not know that there is any extravagance about it. As far as I understand, the building is the plainest possible style, but it is necessary to have a station of that dimension to cope with the traffic. After we have been suffering great inconvenience, loss and discomfort for years, and we are getting a building such as we are entitled to. I did hope that hon. members would bless the project, and express their pleasure that at last justice was being done to Johannesburg by giving it one public building to which we can point with pleasure. I hope these attacks on Johannesburg will cease. We are not jealous of other parts of the country, and we hope that a similar disposition will be displayed as far as we are concerned.

I want to call the Minister’s attention to the necessity for relaying the railway line at Dordrecht. The station at present is three miles outside of the town and applications have for years been made to the Administration and to the Railway Board to agree to the railway line being relayed so as to go through the town. This will not only be very convenient to the public but it will effect a great saving to the department because the line will be lighter. I have looked in vain for it in the Estimates, and I hope the Minister will make a note of it so that in the next Estimates provision can be made for the long-awaited line. Then I should like to have information with reference to the road motor service about which representations were recently made to the Minister, viz., from Dordrecht via Bitterplaat to Flaauwkraal and from Rossouw in the direction of Dordrecht. I think that a railway official has already been sent there to investigate, and I should like to know what prospects there are of the service being established.

A very wide field has been covered during the debate. The hon. member for Capetown (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) asked how the balance of £800,000 asked for was to be financed. I refer him to page 1 of the loan estimates, where he will find the particulars set out. He also raised the question of the interest charges on the Colenso power station. As he knows, in January of this year, the power station was taken over by the Electricity Commission, which became responsible for the capital and interest. We pay the interest indirectly through the price which we pay for the power they supply.

How much are they charging per unit?

I cannot at this stage give that information. That was necessary because there is a large number of private consumers who also take power, and they pay their share of the interest on the capital invested in the power station. I was surprised to hear the hon. member criticize the small loss we had made on the motor services. These motor services were introduced in districts where a lot of development work is required. That development is really enormous, and the small loss we made last year of £2,000 is incomparable with the benefits we have given the farming community throughout the country. Then he referred to the question of our interest on capital debt increasing as we proceed year by year to increase the capital expenditure. My colleague this afternoon dealt with that question. I have on previous occasions indicated to the House that we must proceed most carefully with regard to capital expenditure, and I hope my hon. friend who applauds this was present during the course of this debate. If so, he has heard the requests which have come from all sides of the House, and particularly from his side of the House. If only one half of the requests were acceded to we should not only have the carry-over we have now, but it would be increased by millions. It is all very well to say to the Government that we must go slow with regard to capital expenditure, but when it comes to the particular interests hon. members are all out for expenditure.

That is what you used to say when you were over here.

If that is correct, we have grown wiser, but my hon. friends on the opposite side have certainly not done so. If they appreciate now that we were wrong, why do they follow in our steps? Of the amount we require this year, £6,250,000 represents a carry-over from last year. There is only half a million of new commitments this year, and that indicates how seriously I view the position. We have worked to the principle of working off our existing commitments. To those who have pressed for development in harbours, stations and platform development, I can only say that they must wait until we are in a position to finance these works.

What about the Johannesburg station?

I am going to deal with the Johannesburg station, and shall endeavour to justify the expenditure. If members think the expenditure under that head is too lavish, they can exercise their right to move a reduction of the vote. The hon. member has referred to the question of the central workshops, and he and the other members have referred to what they call “rumours.” I can only say that I am not responsible for those rumours. If hon. members ask me for information, I am prepared to give it. I am surprised that hon. members should pay attention to the tittle-tattle picked up in the lobbies or in the press. They should wait until they get the information officially. The Government is committed to the policy of establishing central manufacturing workshops in the Union. If hon. members ask why we have not yet carried out that policy, I refer them to the discussion this afternoon. It is a matter of finding the necessary capital, and it has been our policy to concentrate on the existing repair workshops, extending and developing them, so as to be able to deal economically with the repair work. As my predecessor knows, the repair work has never been done under economic conditions. We have never been able to find the necessary capital for these big works. Tentative proposals have been made to the Government, and when they are complete, the Government will consider them, but nothing definite has been done up to the present and when members tell me that certain interests have bought farms and stands, I can only say that it is the private business of these interests, and I am not concerned with it. When the proposals are in complete form, the Government will consider them, and the House will be consulted, if any action is taken. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) has referred to the question of the Limpopo bridge, and asked me for information. I think the convenience of the House would best be served if I do not at this stage refer either to the construction of the Limpopo bridge or the deviation at Louis Trichardt to which the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) has referred, because these works will be dealt with at a later stage when the Construction Bill is before the House. Of course, these items appear on the loan estimates, because we have to make provision for them, and we do not want to bring in additional estimates. Then the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) has asked me for a statement of policy in regard to the Port Elizabeth harbour. I can only repeat what I said last year, that the Government is not prepared at this stage to commit the country to a policy of harbour development on a large scale, which the Port Elizabeth people have pressed for. What we have done in these estimates is to provide for the elimination of the bottle-neck at Port Elizabeth and certain other necessary work in that connection. The position at Port Elizabeth at the present time is very serious from the traffic point of view. There is a bottle-neck which gives entrance to the harbour area, and that makes working very difficult. Our officers have put before the Administration certain proposals, and those works we propose to carry out. I am not prepared to commit the Government at this stage to any further expenditure than what is disclosed in the estimates. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has referred to different works items and rolling stock and the large amount which we have spent and propose spending in that regard. As he will see from the loan estimates, a very large portion of this work is a carry-over from previous years. When he talks of £20,000,000 for new works and £8,000,000 for rolling stock, it is the programme which extends over three to four years and about half of these amounts have already been spent. My hon. friend quite candidly this afternoon admitted that owing to different conditions, there was at one time under his regime more or less a standstill—I won’t say a complete standstill, but a check—in the spending of money in regard to re-ballasting, re-sleepering, purchase of new rolling stock and things of that kind. The position had become very serious, and it was necessary, and still is necessary, that we should overhaul the whole position. I cannot take the risk of carrying the large number of passengers in this country if we have not got our permanent way in absolutely first-class condition, and that being so, the officers have been told that they should bring our permanent way into first-class condition. In regard to rolling stock, I hold the view that we have been far behind in providing the necessary rolling stock for our system. We should have scrapped a far larger number of locomotives, trucks and coaches than we have scrapped in the past. We have been pottering about in our workshops with these old locomotives, trucks and coaches, and often wasting money on them, and I propose as soon as the new rolling stock comes forward to consider the scrapping of a large number of these old locomotives, coaches and trucks.

You have not made very much provision for renewals fund, I see.

My hon. friend knows the difference we have on this question with the Auditor-General, and I hope the select committee will give us support in that regard. My hon. friend has asked me for information with regard to the Belmont-Douglas line. The work is dependent upon the extension of the railway to Postmasburg. If the line is not extended, as the result of the negotiations carried on for some time with the parties concerned, the line will not be re-ballasted and the me will not be relaid with 60-lb. rails. We cannot carry the traffic which is anticipated oil 45-lb. rails. The hon. member also asked about the conversion of the Newcastle-Ingogo, 78-lb. rails to 80-lb. rails. The 78-lb. rails have served their time and it is simply a question of doing the necessary work now and relaying the line with the standard rails of 80 lbs. He has also referred to signalling in Cape Town, but I can assure him that that is most necessary. Under electrification we hope to be able to run a larger number of trains, but for safety it is imperative that we should have this automatic signalling so that we can have more trains in the section at a time. We are going to make every effort to compete with the trams and ’buses when the line is electrified and in that way carry passengers comfortably and in competition with other undertakings. I shall now deal with the question of Johannesburg station. It appears that there is considerable misapprehension in regard to the matter. Hon. members seem to be under the impression that the amount is required purely for the station requirements. That is not so. They seem to forget that Johannesburg is the head office of the Railway Administration.

You have some very fine buildings there at present.

My hon. friend knows we have the publicity department in one part and stores in another of the city. We propose to dispose of these properties and bring the whole of our staff under one roof. My hon. friend from Stellenbosch speaks of the time when Johannesburg is going to become a desert. That is absurd. If he imagines the city exists on the gold mines only he is quite mistaken. It is one of the most important industrial centres in this country and will remain so many years after the production of gold has vanished from South Africa. Johannesburg is our most important railway centre and it seems to me that we have taken very necessary action, which has been long delayed. We are spending more than a quarter of a million on the lay-out, overhead bridges, subways and the general marshalling yard at the station. The balance will pay for the building. I think the position has been fully met. It certainly is a very substantial building which will do credit to Johannesburg and to the Railway Administration, but there is nothing lavish about it. In that regard a word of praise is due to the consulting architects and the architect of the Railway Administration. The consulting architects are two young South Africans who have made a name in architecture, and, with the railway architect, they have designed a structure which will do credit to South Africa. I was rather surprised to hear my hon. friend, the member for Cape Town (Central) object to the proposed removal of the loco, sheds at Cape Town from its present position. It is most necessary. The avoiding line on the north side of Maitland right into the Docks, is very necessary as well as the removal of the loco, sheds, which should never have been so near the centre of the city. It will take some little time to complete our plans. It is proposed to shift back the goods shed more or less to the position where the loco, sheds are at the present time. We will then have free the whole of the strip of valuable ground facing Adderley Street and the Administration will then decide what to do with that. The position at the present time is that we have a bottle-neck at Capetown and it is therefore necessary that the whole position be faced. I hope that I shall be able next year to make a far larger cash provision in that regard. Then my hon. friend has expressed grave objections to the extension of workshops at Bloemfontein, Germiston and Salt River. But how can the staff possibly deal with the repairs position when they are cramped for room as they are at the present time?

Why are you spending money on all these shops when you say you will have a central workshop?

But my hon. friend forgets that those shops deal with repairs, and not mainly with manufacturing work. If he will refer to the report of the Workshops Commission—a full and able report—he will find that those works were specially recommended. If we want to execute our repair work under economical conditions we are bound to extend the existing shops. All the new engines and rolling stock coming in must in due course be repaired.

Especially when it comes from America.

My hon. friend referred to our criticism when we were in opposition, but I hope he remembers the conditions under which we criticized him at that time. My hon. friend then sent orders out of the country when, at the same time, the men in the shops were working short time, and my hon. friend also retrenched a large number of men. At the present time every workman is fully employed, and not only that, but we have engaged a large number of additional men and are working double shifts. Does that not indicate to the hon. member that our workshops are working to the fullest extent? For the next two years there can be no question of short time. Does my hon. friend suggest that we should meantime wait and not purchase in the overseas markets? My hon. friend forgets that the facts are against him.

The business of the country has increased vastly.

The hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) has again raised the question of civilized labour and the cost. I hope my hon. friends on the opposite side, who have such a strong objection to the policy of civilized labour as announced by the Government, will move a reduction in my salary and test the position. As I said, we are not going to give the cost separately, because it forms part of the system—

Too much secrecy.

The country has been told that it forms part of the permanent system of the Railway Administration of South Africa, and the country knows that. When we are in Committee, or when we deal with the estimates where the Minister’s salary is concerned, let him test the feeling of the House.

Test the country.

That will be a preliminary to testing the country at a later stage. The hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Henderson) has dealt with the question of deep-water berths at Durban. I have already indicated that on this matter I prefer to follow the advice of my friend the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), and to go slow in regard to capital expenditure.

So long as you do something.

But my hon. friend forgets that to do something means a big carry-over, and I am not prepared to do so this year. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) is right in this regard, and my hon. friend over there is wrong.

Don’t starve the goose that lays the golden eggs.

I am prepared to admit at once that the Natal system gives excellent results; but this administration has done its duty to the Natal system. Natal has nothing to grumble about in that regard. We have made considerable additions to the offices at the Cape Town railway station, and conditions there have been very much improved. The hon. member for East London (City) (the Rev. Mr. Rider) referred to the necessity for a turning basin at East London harbour. Naturally East London wants a turning basin, but it will cost a large sum of money, and I am not prepared to include it in the loan estimates at the present time. I was surprised to hear the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) say that East London has been badly treated. I have provided for the building of a bridge over the Buffalo River, and there is appreciation on the part of the East London public in that regard. The hon. member for East London (North) has said that we have treated East London in a most shabby manner. No, we have given East London its due., The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) has advised the administration to go carefully in regard to the building of branch lines. At the risk of offending some of my hon. friends on this side of the House, I am bound to say that I have a certain amount of sympathy with what he says.

You dare!

I shall not say anything more than that I have sympathy. We shall have to go very slowly in regard to the construction of branch lines. We shall have to consider very carefully any new programme. We must face our responsibilities, but I suggest that that can be done by light motor services for the lighter produce, and tractors and trailers for the heavier traffic. As to the re-ballasting of the New Cape Central line, perhaps, strictly speaking, the hon. member for Yeoville is right; but if we can finance the work from the renewals fund, rather than from capital, it is all to the good.

So long as you don’t mix them up.

You are contributing less to rolling stock out of renewals fund.

That is a point which the Auditor-General has made, but we don’t altogether agree. I agree that at the earliest possible moment we should come to a decision with regard to the making of a contribution to the renewal fund, based on the life of the assets. It is, however, very difficult to arrive at a scientific basis. I hope, however, that we shall be able to arrive at a scientific basis, in so far as it is humanly possible to do so. My hon. friend will recognize that I am doing far more in regard to the renewals fund than he ever did.

We will talk about that on the estimates.

My hon. friend seems to forget his past with regard to the renewals fund. Does he remember how he raided the renewals fund?

I don’t deny anything I did. Wait until we get to the estimates, then we shall have more discussion on that.

If my hon. friend had not raided the renewal fund of £2,000,000, the fund would have been in a stronger position. The hon. member for Durban (Stamford Hill) (Mr. Lennox) dealt with the motor competition between Durban and Pietermaritzburg. I was delighted to hear him on that question, and I asked him if he had a remedy.

He told you to be smart and meet the position.

I was glad he drew attention to the motor competition between Durban and Pietermaritzburg. It has become serious both in regard to passengers and goods and I was waiting for some indication from the hon. member as to the policy to follow. We are considering the question of running ’buses between Durban and Pietermaritzburg in order to compete. The position is this. Owing to the configuration of the country the railway line is much longer than the road, and the ’bus has the advantage. He asked about Greenwood station. We found it impossible to provide for it in this year’s estimates and the matter will again be considered next year. He asked me about the cost of the Matubatuba line; I indicated previously that the line was surveyed under great difficulty. There was no reliable information available to the engineer. He had to rely on the information received from natives and it proved to be incorrect, more especially in regard to the rivers. Under the circumstances it was necessary to make greater provision for the line. Then the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) raised the question of the elevator appliance at East London. We have terminal elevators at Durban and Cape Town, and I am not prepared to go further at the present time. He has also referred to the railway station at East London. It certainly can be improved upon, but I consider it a very fine station. The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) asked why the Martindale-Southwell line has not been included on page 2. We have given careful consideration to the whole matter of railway construction and find that it is a matter of supreme difficulty. We cannot provide more than £1,250,000 for new railway construction in one year. Under those circumstances there are certain lines which simply will have to wait until a later date, and the Railway Board, after careful consideration of the circumstances, came to the conclusion that the Martindale-Southwell line should stand over with other lines. The hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) started off by saying that we had swelled our estimates, that we were wasting money, that we were spending money far too lavishly and, when he had done that, he said in effect—

It is the sort of economy which may go down with some people, but it certainly won’t go down with this House.

I never said it.

I do not suppose the hon. member suggested that it would go down.

On a point of order, I may as well say what I did say. I pointed out that—

That is not a point of order.

May I make a personal explanation? I say that, owing to the excessive expenditure in many directions, there is no money left for these essential services.

Does the hon. member consider level crossings, subways, and overhead bridges essential services? Let us test that out. If the Administration is going to provide money for all level crossings, overhead bridges, and subways, does the hon. member appreciate what that is going to cost? It is going to cost millions of pounds. We have to cover 13,000 miles of railways.

Why have you appointed a commission to go into the matter?

I have appointed a commission to advise the Administration on a very difficult problem, but let me say this, I have never committed the Administration and I do not propose to commit the Administration now to a policy in regard to level crossings.

You will have to do something.

Something, certainly. The hon. member for Weenen criticises and then advocates a policy of spending millions of pounds. The hon. member proceeded further and said that the terminal elevator at Durban should not have been built. If he says that, he does not appreciate how it is necessary in the export of maize that you should have terminal elevators. I would ask him to read the report of Mr. Littlejohn Philip, who dealt very fully with the whole matter.

Oh!

He may not have been an expert on foundations, but he certainly knew something about elevators. How can you have a regular flow of maize from the country elevators unless you can get it into your terminal elevators and store it there for shipment in bulk? The hon. member has also referred again to the question of 12,000 or 13,000 labourers, and states that the railways are being run as a political machine. It is very easy to make a statement of that sort, but why does the hon. member not give some facts? Surely, with 13,000 European labourers spread over the whole system he must have been able to lay hands on one particular case where there has been political jobbery. He makes an allegation of that sort, but he evidently does not care whether he has got ground for making it. He thinks it will go down with a portion of the country. With regard to this policy of civilized labour, the Government has given the House full information about the whole subject.

Oh no. What about the cost?

I gave the cost up to the time when after careful inquiry, we had put the whole matter on a sound basis which the country now understands. If hon. members criticize the policy we have adopted, let them take the proper opportunity of doing so.

What is your policy to-day?

If the hon. member has up to this stage, not yet appreciated what this policy is, he evidently has forgotten that we had a departmental commission under the chairmanship of Mr. Harris. He evidently has forgotten that we had a very long discussion on the budget debate.

You told us nothing.

I could give the facts from January to December in every year and the hon. member, in his blind prejudice, would never see light. The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) has made an excellent point re shelters for natives in native territory and I think this is a suggestion which can be carried out. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) asked me about the expenditure at Walvis Bay. The necessary capital expenditure there is about completed now. Ships are being taken into the harbour. He asked me about electrification. I hope we shall be able to open the Sea Point electrification in July, and Simon’s Town about eight months later, say March next year; but that, of course, is only provisional. He has also pleaded for certain stations on the suburban line. It is a question of finding the necessary money and next year it will come up for review. The hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) dealt with the question of housing at Worcester and De Doorns. He will see that we make provision for about £100,000 for housing over all the system. A certain amount will be allocated to the Cape system, but whether it will be possible for the officer concerned to spend money at Worcester and De Doorns, I cannot say, at this stage. The same applies to the other matters to which he referred. The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) asked me about rail motors. If he looks at item 584 he will see we have provided an amount of £75,000 in that regard, and we are spending £20,000 this year. I appreciate his point in connection with the conveyance of milk, and I hope, in time, we will be able to find the right type that will suit South African conditions. Conditions here are difficult with our steep gradients, and it is not easy to get a rail motor that will meet our requirements. We are now using the “Sentinel,” and I hope it will prove a success, but I do not want, at this stage, definitely to commit myself. We are making an effort to get the best rail motor, because it will certainly alleviate the position on the branch lines. With regard to the motor service between Kokstad and Umtata, there is a private motor lorry operating between the two places, and if my hon. friend says the public are not satisfied, I will look into the matter again.

They are very much dissatisfied.

It is rather harsh for the railway administration to step in and push out private enterprise when it is giving satisfaction.

He is only carrying natives.

made an interjection about Natal.

But there they are competing with the railways. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) has raised the question of Monument station. It all hangs together with the whole of the development of that area, and I am not prepared to spend money on Monument station until I have dealt with the whole position. As to the destruction of beaches at the Cape it must be appreciated that we cannot have electrification and doubling of the line there without spoiling some of the beaches to a certain extent, but the railway administration was as careful as it could be to do as little damage as possible, and I think the administration succeeded. The hon. member referred to housing at Bloemfontein, and I am glad he has done so, because it gives me the opportunity of paying a tribute to the municipality of Bloemfontein for what they have done in regard to housing. They certainly deserve credit for the manner in which they have tackled this question. If other municipalities like Durban would follow suit—and I hope the hon. the Minister of Labour will bear that in mind—and realize that the railwaymen in their midst are an asset to them, they would do far more for housing—

You should address your remarks to the Minister of Finance. He stopped the funds.

There is no necessity at all for doing that. The Government have loyally carried out the provisions made by the previous Government for housing. The local community should appreciate that they have a responsibility in regard to housing.

*The hon. member for Wodehouse (Mr. Vermooten) asked me when the relaying at Dordrecht would be done. The relaying is still receiving our attention, and I hope it may be possible to consider the matter afresh. The hon. member for Witbank (Mr. A. I. E. de Villiers) has again pleaded for a grain elevator at Oogies. As we do not intend building any new elevators at present, it will have to stand over for a bit, but as soon as we build elevators again the desirability of building that one will certainly be considered. Then he pleaded for platforms and other improvements, but I fear he will have to continue to exercise patience. We shall, however, not forget him, because undoubtedly that district is one that produces the most maize. The hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Nieuwenhuize) raised the matter of houses for railwaymen. The amount of £100,000 has been put on the Estimates for the various systems, and we may possibly be able to do something in connection with the particular houses of which he spoke. The same applies to the erection of an elevator at Amersfoort. As for the passenger traffic to the Eastern Transvaal, seats can be reserved for the through journey via Johannesburg, but then the rest of the journey must be commenced immediately, and the passenger must not stop over a few days in Johannesburg. If they continue the journey at once, then the Administration is prepared to reserve the seats for the through journey, and I shall see that the matter receives attention. The hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. G. A. Louw) referred to the survey of the farm Caroluspoort. It was a transaction in connection with water rights, and in the circumstances the costs of survey were paid by the Administration. I may say that the Administration does not contribute in connection with jackal-proof fencing.

In no case?

No, unless fences are cut to grant a way across.

That is a pity.

The Railway Administration’s job is not to eradicate jackals. I shall go into the matter of the bucksails mentioned by the hon. member for Colesberg. Then he says that I made an election promise of £500 for a recreation ground at De Aar. When the hon. member drags politics into business matters, then he is usually wrong, but when he talks about matters he knows about, then he is not wrong. The question of recreation grounds at De Aar has long been under consideration, and if the hon. member wants to know how it is being financed, then he should know that it is paid for out of institute funds. The hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. J. P. Louw) spoke about the station at Stellenbosch. He is a little late, because the necessary alteration has already been made.

We have two members there.

Well, then Stellenbosch is very lucky. Then the hon. member referred to the burning of the railway shops at Kimberley. There is an assurance fund, which is in a strong position, and it will quite easily be able to cover the expenses involved. The doubling of the line from Eerste River has not so far been possible. The hon. member for Barkly (Mr. W. B. de Villiers)—I understand he is the second member for Stellenbosch—asked me a question about the extension of the line to Postmasburg. As the hon. member knows, this is a question of route, which rests in the hands of the Railway Board. The hon. member for Ladismith (Mr. J. J. M. van Zyl) asked for a subway at Touws River, but I fear that the expenditure will not be justified. We all regret the accidents that have happened there, but the public will merely have to be careful. As for the motor services, I may say that the matter is being looked into. The hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) spoke about the building of a railway between Somerset East and Bruintjes Hoogte. I hope that next year the matter will be commenced there, but I do not want to make a definite promise. I know there is a great need, and I will certainly consider the matter.

Motion put and agreed to.