brought up the first report of the Select Committee on the Library of Parliament, as follows—

1. (1) That the action of Mr. President and Mr. Speaker in purchasing the collection for a sum of £7,500 be approved.
2. (2) That the question of making provision for the accommodation of the collection in the Houses of Parliament be left in the hands of Mr. President and Mr. Speaker.

Report considered.

I move—

seconded.

What are you going to do with the duplicates? I understood that there was some arrangement under which they would be taken over by some private individual who would pay half.

A certain gentleman has offered to take over all the duplicate copies we have.

Is he going to contribute towards the cost?

Yes, of course they will be priced.

Motion put and agreed to.

I desire, with your leave, Mr. Speaker, and with the leave of the House, to put a matter right in regard to which I made certain statements and criticisms while the House was in committee on Wednesday afternoon. It will be remembered that I criticized the action of the Minister of Labour in making the appointment of a Mr. Downes as arbitrator at a conciliation court at Johannesburg, and I criticized the latter’s action in sitting for a fortnight and then leaving for three weeks to go to Rhodesia. I now find that at the first sitting of the arbitration court he announced that his arrangements were such that after sitting for a fortnight he would have to go to Rhodesia; secondly, the adjournment was made with the consent of both parties, and thirdly, the municipality did not object under the circumstances because it gave their representatives further time to prepare their case.

I move—

This matter, as has just been stated, was referred to the Public Accounts Committee and the committee has recommended the approval and confirmation of this notarial agreement. The other day before the matter was referred to the Public Accounts Committee I shortly stated the circumstances of the case. The history of the Cinderella and the East Rand mines is well known. My predecessor appointed a committee in 1923 to bring the two companies together in order to negotiate a possible agreement. The municipality and the inhabitants of Boksburg who are directly interested in the continuation of mining by both the East Rand and the Cinderella mines have constantly approached both the former and the present Government to do something to assure such further exploitation. The matter was fully gone into at that time, and the House is being asked to-day to cancel under section 52 of the Gold Law certain liabilities of those mines to the State, or liabilities which might still arise later. We have obtained expert advice to the effect that if the two companies are not amalgamated, further exploitation is practically impossible, and the State would in any case get no benefit from the rights under section 52 of the Gold Law. The committee appointed by my predecessor suggested that not only the debt under section 52 of the Gold Law should be cancelled, but that the State should further guarantee another £250,000 debentures. The Government at that time refused to do so, but we have given the promise that the debt under section 52 would be cancelled and it is no more than right that the promise should be kept. I therefore move the adoption of the report

seconded.

Motion put and agreed to and referred to Senate for concurrence.

I move—

Agreed to.

I wish to say, before referring to the Estimates, that it is true we protested against the system of the House not being given an opportunity of discussing Select Committee’s reports. We sit in committee for months, have reports prepared, and consider resolutions. We report to the House, and the matter is put on the Order Paper, but we never have an opportunity of discussing these reports. There are three reports before the House now, which have been on the Order Paper for many weeks, and we have not had an opportunity of discussing them. One report is of very great importance; it is in regard to the statistics for branch lines. I understand that the Government have already accepted the principle as laid down in what I may refer to as the majority report, but they have not given the House an opportunity of discussing the matter. We are wasting our time up there, for unless a report is agreed to unanimously the Government does not wish to have the matter discussed. In reply to the Budget debate, the Minister was rather in a hurry, and so were his followers, to get away, and on many points he did not reply to questions raised in the House. On many of these points we feel we require a reply as to the Government’s policy. Reluctant as I am, I have to press for adequate replies and to enable me to do so, I move—

On what particular point?

Several points.

The hon. member is confined to one particular question.

I thought that on discussing the Estimates I could do so on any question; if it is to be on one point, let it be on the Government’s policy of civilized labour.

The hon. member wishes, I take it, to avail himself of the 40 minute rule, but then he has to mention some particular question which he wishes to discuss.

I mentioned one. I take it that under the rule you will not require me to confine my remarks to that particular question only.

If the hon. member wishes to speak on other questions he will have ample opportunity; but then he falls within the ten minute rule.

Do I understand that if I move a reduction in the Minister’s salary I may discuss only one point, and later avail myself of the ten minute rule to discuss other subjects?

Yes, that is so.

That is quite a new departure.

It is the third paragraph of Rule 104, which I shall read. [Par. read.] The hon. member will notice that the word “question” is here in the singular, “on a question of policy”: not any number of questions.

Then I shall make my point, and instead of speaking on the civilized labour policy, I shall speak on the general inefficiency of the hon. Minister in his administration.

No, no, that is too vague. I cannot accept that,

Then I must suggest that I go on, and if you rule me out of order on any point—

Then the hon. member must mention to me what the question is.

I mentioned the policy of the Government, or if you prefer it, Mr. Chairman, the administration of the Government in regard to railways.

There must be some definite point.

I say that the railways are not run on proper business lines.

I may point out what I said on July 8th, 1925, when the same question cropped up, and the same hon. member was involved. A report of the question appears on columns 5719 and 5720 of Hansard. The report is as follows—[Quotation read.]

Is it not competent to move that the policy of the Minister in administering the railways is opposed to the general interests of the development of the Union?

That is far too general and vague; it covers the whole question of railways.

Does not the question of policy cover the whole question of railways? Have we not on the agricultural and other votes, discussed the whole question of policy? The object of moving a reduction in a Minister’s salary is to point out that the policy adopted in the general administration of his department is not in the interests of the country. This is a very important point so far as the privileges of hon. members are concerned.

I cannot allow a general discussion.

Before the Chairman gives his final ruling, may I call his attention to the Interpretation Act of 1910, which says that in the interpretation of every law in force in the Union and all bye laws, rules and regulations, certain words shall bear certain meanings, and it is laid down that the singular shall include plural. These standing rules are rules made under a law, and one would naturally conclude that a question referred to would necessarily include questions. Suppose an hon. member has two important exceptions to take, is it not competent for him to discuss them both?

I don’t think so. The rule says an extended period shall not be permitted to more than two members, but one hon. member might cover all the ground and take up all the time.

Only two members can move a reduction of the Minister’s salary, and only two members have an opportunity of speaking for forty minutes, but they have every opportunity of speaking for ten minutes at subsequent periods. On a question of policy, the mover of an amendment is permitted to speak for not more than forty minutes. The question of policy, so far as the administration of railways is concerned, is not confined to one specific subject, but to the whole of the administration. I was under the impression that the rule was framed to meet the case of members who had important matters to bring forward, which the ten minute rule did not give them an opportunity of stating adequately.

The hon. member left out from the earlier portion of the rule, the words “Where a Minister’s salary is specifically challenged.”

On a question of policy.

We want a specific challenge.

Do I understand the ruling to be that only one point may be raised and covered by an hon. member who avails himself of the privilege under the rule? When I challenged the vote of the Minister of Justice and told the Chairman that I wanted to raise three points of policy, he informed me that his view was that one concrete point and one only, might be raised under this rule. With great deference, I venture to differ from that view. So long as broad questions of policy are discussed and they are all cognate, a member who has the privilege accorded him of speaking for forty minutes, should be allowed to speak on one or more questions. If Mr. Speaker has not given a ruling on that point we shall probably have to get one from him.

I am trying to throw some light on the rule. It seems to me there may be various questions of policy challenged, but each one must be specific—certainly it cannot be the administration in general. If various specific points of policy are raised then there must be allowed not more than twice forty minutes for two members speaking on amendments, and the rest of the speakers who are allowed ten minutes, could also raise questions of policy. In my opinion more than one question can be raised. It must be a specific question of policy.

Shall I be in order in moving the reduction of the Minister’s salary by £100 to enable me specifically and bona fide to challenge the Minister’s policy in that he was not carrying out the principles of section 127 of the South Africa Act, 1909?

I am afraid that is a general thing. Perhaps it would be better if the speaker’s ruling was called in. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) once wanted to raise three points of policy, and I prevented him doing so. Mr. Speaker’s ruling was not called in, and I think it would have been advisable if this had been done for my own guidance. I am clear, there should be one specific point, and only one. I cannot allow the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) to discuss for 40 minutes the point he has raised. That is too general.

I ask on a point of order, I raised the question, will you tell me if it is definitely ruled out.

I should like to mention a few points in connection with railway matters.

On a point of order; I understand we are still discussing the point of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl). Let us get that settled first.

I have given my ruling. Bring it up again just now.

The hon. member has raised an extremely interesting point of order, and he has read the point of order out. Would it not be advisable to ask him to read it again and for you to give your ruling? You yourself are anxious on a vital point of this kind that Mr. Speaker’s ruling should be called in if you disagree.

I suggested that the Speaker’s ruling should be called in, but it has not been asked for.

I rise on account of the ruling you have given and putting the question. You gave me the right of speaking.

The hon. member can proceed.

I want to ask the Minister of Railways and Harbours—

I rise to a point of order. Do I understand it is your ruling that before this point of order is settled, other members can address the committee? I understand when there is a difference of opinion on a point of order the hon. member who desires Mr. Speaker’s ruling must put it in writing.

I did not know the hon. member wanted the Speaker’s ruling. I suggested that course.

It is very difficult to hear what you say.

I said you might call in Mr. Speaker’s ruling.

I asked if you were ruling against me.

I said, yes, it is too general.

Then I ask for the Speaker’s ruling.

To a point of order. I was speaking, and the point was disposed of.

On a point of order, would it be permissible for me, while Mr. Speaker is being called in, to raise the other point I mentioned? It would be convenient if the two are decided together. I will draft it in the meantime.

It will be better perhaps to have that point raised as well now. One is whether this is specific enough and the other is—

Whether one can raise one or more points of policy. I will draft it now.

To a point of order. I cannot see how the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) can deal with a hypothetical case. The hon. member does not now wish to address the House about two or three points but to put a hypothetical case.

I move—

The member for Bezuidenhout wants Mr. Speaker’s ruling whether, under rule 104, a member is entitled to raise more than one point of policy. This point has not been definitely raised here this afternoon, but for my own satisfaction and for the satisfaction of the committee, I am prepared to have it put. The second question is that of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) who moves the reduction of the Minister’s salary by £100 to enable him specifically and bona fide to challenge his policy in that he is not carrying out section 127 of the Act of Union. I hold this is not specific enough.

On a point of order, might I ask what is the point of order on which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has intervened and asked for Mr. Speaker’s ruling.

I have read it out.

Read it again, sir.

Whether under the privileges of Rule 104, a member is entitled to raise more than one point of policy.

Motion put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

stated that he had been directed to report progress in order to obtain Mr. Speaker’s ruling on his decision.

I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to sub-clause (3) of Rule 104 which says—

These are the very words used by me in questioning the Minister’s policy in regard to carrying out Section 127 of the Act of Union, which says that the railways of the Union must be run strictly on business principles, and it is only in regard to the way the railways are administered, and to show that they are not administered strictly on business principles that I wish to call the attention of the House. It is impossible in a matter such as the railway administration adequately to discuss any item of policy in less than ten minutes. Innumerable items go to make up policy and in a concern such as the railways, policy undoubtedly embraces many items. If the rule is to be of any effect, then the underlying idea of the rule must have been to enable one to take advantage of the privilege given and to do that one has to refer to more than one or two points so as to bring out clearly and definitely the complaint that the railways are not administered as we think they should be administered. I can find nothing in this rule to support the ruling of the Chair. I submit that if we have to be confined to one specific point in any policy it is very difficult to know what the words “on a question of policy” can possibly mean.

The point I have asked the committee to refer to you for your decision, Mr. Speaker, is really quite a separate point from that mentioned by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour), but as your ruling was being taken on the one point and as the Chairman has given a ruling the validity of which I somewhat doubted at an earlier stage on the other question, I thought it would be convenient for you to consider both points at once. On the point raised by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour), I would say that the rule states—“where the Minister’s salary is specifically and bona fide challenged.” It says that there must be a specific challenge to the Minister’s salary. The word “specific” does not relate to “a question.” It does not grammatically relate to the word “question” at all, but it relates to the word “challenge.” It must-be a specific challenge and a bona fide challenge. On what? On a question of policy. Remembering the origin of this rule, namely, that ordinarily we were confined to ten minutes in committee because we were supposed to discuss only points of administration in dealing with the estimates, but on questions of policy it might be found that the ten minutes’ rule would be inconvenient, I suggest that no more appropriate instance of what this rule was intended to cover could be found than the one furnished by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl). A morecrisp and appropriate instance of what this rule is intended to cover could hardly be imagined. Therefore, I submit that Mr. Chairman was wrong in ruling on it as being too wide or too vague. The rule says nothing about wideness or vagueness; it must be a question of policy. This rule was intended to be wide in its operation and intended to assist members to have ample time to discuss questions which are wide. To come to my own specific point, on which the Chairman has confessed that he felt that there was room for doubt and on which he, in common with the committee, would welcome your ruling, I would point out that when the vote of the Minister of Justice was under consideration in committee some time ago I went to the Chairman and said that I wanted to take advantage of the forty minutes’ rule to discuss three points of policy in regard to the administration of the Department of Justice. I intended to discuss (1) the action of the Minister in releasing prisoners; (2) his action in appointing in various parts of the country messengers of the courts who are agents of the Nationalist party, and (3) the way in which the licensing courts in Johannesburg and elsewhere function. He said that under this rule, as he read it, I could discuss one point only and that if I wanted to discuss the other points then I must do so under the ten minutes’ rule. I find I am fortified in my view by the statement of the Minister of Mines and Industries, who agrees that the words “a question” must not be taken in their literal sense to mean one-question and one question only, but as meaning that it must be a bona fide challenge on questions of policy. I suggest that, both on consideration of the intentions of this section and on general grounds of convenience, you will rule that “a question of policy” would not be interpreted quite so narrowly as the Chairman has felt himself bound to do.

I partly agree with the view of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), but when he said that general State policy can be touched upon I do not agree. I think that the intention of Clause 104 (3) is that any member during his time of 10 minutes or two members during their time of 40 minutes can each raise a specific point of State policy. The words “specifically and bona fide challenged on a question of policy” would include more than one policy but it must be specific. I do not quite agree with the hon. member that the words “specifically and bona fide” only go with “challenged.” The salary of the Minister is attacked, and in the nature of things it is specific enough in itself. The spirit and the intention of the rule is that where more than one question of policy is challenged then it must be challenged on a specific question. So much for Clause 104 (3). Then we get the practical application in the motion of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbours) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl). He says that he is entitled to attack or challenge the policy of the Minister of Railways and Harbours under section 127 of the South Africa Act. The objection to that is that it is too general. I agree that it is too general. An Act in the nature of things, and especially one like the Constitution, deals with general principles. It would be competent for the hon. member to say that he attacks the policy of the Minister of Railways and Harbours under section 127 of the South Africa Act as regards business principles on which the railways are carried on if he goes on to say “because such and such and so and so is the case” and gives a specific example. That is my view of the matter.

I want to point out that Clause 127 in the Act of Union lays down the general policy for the railways. It is not a question there of one or other department of the railways to which business principle must be applied, but it specifically lays down the general policy of the railways. If the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) accordingly attacks the Minister because he is not running the railways on business principles, then he is actually attacking the general policy of the Minister and the railway management. I just want to point out what might possibly occur. Suppose, e.g., the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) is right in his attitude that he can now rise and bring it all out, then he will, e.g., be able to deal with civilized labour, branch lines, catering on the trains, rolling stock, workshops, new construction, the eight-hours’ day, etc., in his speech. Every possible matter which there may be in any back corner of the railways can be discussed. It is just my point that it follows from that that this section lays down the general principle, and if the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) is right, then he can deal with the whole general policy, because he can debate every small matter, and that is not the intention of Clause 104 of the Standing Rules and Orders. If that were allowed Clause 104 would be evaded.

I want to support the hon. member for Harbour in his contention when he says that he is in good faith specifically challenging the policy of the Government in stating that the provisions of Section 127 of the Act of Union are not being carried out. That is a specific challenge. That is what is referred to in this rule. It says: “Where a Minister’s salary is specifically and bona fide challenged on a question of policy.” I do not think anything could be clearer than a challenge of that sort. After all, these rules are made in order to allow members of Parliament to examine the policy of the Government and to challenge the Minister’s salary where they think the policy has gone wrong. Then in regard to the second point, I feel that is a point which is really laid down in the law, and we cannot get beyond it. If we look at the Interpretation Act, No. 5 of 1910, we find that Section 2 lays it down that—

We go on to Section 7 of the Act which provides that—

These Standing Rules and Orders were made under an Act of Parliament, namely, the South Africa Act, which in Section 58 provides—

If we apply this principle to Rule 104, which reads—

it necessarily follows it may be challenged by any member on questions of policy. So I think with regard to that point there can be no doubt, and I submit that the hon. member was on the occasion he referred to perfectly in order in challenging the Minister’s salary and bringing up these questions in support of his challenge.

I submit that these two questions should both be answered in the form in which they have been raised in order to give a clear interpretation of the meaning of these rules. With regard to the first point as to raising general questions, I submit that to say you cannot challenge the whole of the Government’s policy is to say that in 40 minutes you must deal with only a little of that policy. If a member wishes to attack the Government because he considers they are not running the railways on business principles, surely he is entitled to declare the policy he wants to challenge and then bring in the various items as illustrations of his contention that the Government is not running the railways on business principles. I submit that to say he can only select one item would make it so limited as to be almost useless. The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) says that this is a general section which deals with the whole matter of railways. But Sections 125, 126, 128, 129, 130 and 131 are all sections of the Act of Union which deal with railways, and there are other matters of policy set out in these other sections. Here is a specific challenge that the Government is not running the railways on business principles, a challenge in respect of which the hon. member Wants to give evidence. All these illustrations are not different points of policy, but are illustrations of the allegation. With regard to the other point, I submit that much too technical a view is urged when it is suggested you have to select only one question. Supposing the wording had been “questions.” Would a member have been out of order because he could not find more than one question to raise? Would the Chairman then have ruled: “You are out of order because the plural is used?” It only shows that the use of the singular there has no particular significance. If you say “question” means one question, then “questions” means more than one question and the Interpretation Act shows that the question of singular or plural does not carry you further at all. You must be specific, that is, you must move a definite reduction in salary. A question of policy does not refer to one question or more questions; it is a question of policy as distinguished from a question of administration. It must be something in the nature of policy and not in the nature of administration. Therefore the question of singular or plural does not come into it at all. The word “question” is simply a way of differentiating it from other things. You are not supposed to deal with questions of administration but of policy. It simply means something that is policy and not administration. On these points I submit the hon. member is entitled to challenge the Government upon a question that they are not doing something on business principles, and to give various arguments and illustrations in the form of arguments, and that he can give any number of points of policy provided he gets through them all in the 40 minutes allowed by the rule.

With deference to the views that have been expressed, I think members have lost sight of one aspect of this difficult question, and it is this, that all general questions can always be raised on the budget, which the rule under discussion exists for the purpose of giving hon. members the opportunity of raising specific questions in committee. When one realizes that, one begins to see light and to see the reason for the rule. The rule is as follows: “Where a Minister’s salary is bona fide and specifically challenged on a question of policy …” If this was meant to be general it would have been worded in this way “where a Minister’s salary is bona fide challenged on questions of policy …” Then there would be no difficulty. To specifically challenge means that a member must make a specific point for challenging the salary.

Can he only make one?

Otherwise the word “specific” means nothing and it could have been left out if members are correct in their contention. It simply means you must raise a specific point for your challenge. And the point which I think lends colour to my submission is, as I have already said, that on the Budget you can raise all and every question, but this rule exists to give hon. members an opportunity in committee of raising a specific question and gives him 40 minutes in which to do so.

The hon. member who has just spoken said in the beginning of his remarks that we are beginning to see the meaning of this rule. All I would say is this, if that is the condition of mind of the hon. gentleman, I think his mind is still shining in darkness. May I call your attention to the reasons for Rule 104? You may remember, Mr. Speaker, that some time ago the Standing Rules and Orders Committee, with the general approval I think of the whole House, considered that in the administration of business with the time at our disposal it would be necessary to curtail the period of discussion when the House is in Committee, and it was then laid down ill a rule adopted by the House that in committee a member could only speak for ten minutes, but when it was seen that would interfere to a very large extent with any member challenging the policy of the Minister, it was then specifically laid down that two members should have the right by moving a reduction of the Minister’s salary to speak for forty minutes, the reason being that it was palpable that in a challenge of that sort ten minutes would not be sufficient. I go further than my hon. friend here. I maintain that a question of policy covers the whole administration of the department supervised by the Minister and that a question of policy does not mean one specific item, because you may remember the rulings in committee always have been that when you get on to the estimates you are specifically obliged to devote yourself to one item of administration which is at the moment receiving the attention of the committee. But so far as the question of policy is concerned it refers to the whole administrative policy of the Minister in connection with his department. My hon. friend desires to question the policy of the Minister in connection with Article 127 of the Act of Union in which it says that the railways of this country shall be administered on business principles and I maintain it would be hardly possible for anybody, not even with the cleverness and ingenuity of my hon. friend here, to discuss that without bringing many points on which the Minister has departed from the principles laid down in that section. Under these circumstances I would say that the privileges of hon. members are going to be very materially curtailed if we are to be brought down to the narrow interpretation which the Chairman of Committees has put on this rule. I think in practically all previous sessions we have never been restricted in that manner whenever an hon. member considered it advisable to move a reduction in the salary of the Minister, not on account of any personal grudge against the Minister, but for the purpose of pointing out to him his mal-administration of the department under his control.

Just a word or two I want to add to what has been said. Of course, we are all approaching it from the point of view that the rules are not intended to burke discussion, but to restrict the unlimited loquacity which had revealed itself in committee before that. There was one celebrated occasion when an hon. member, having failed to make his Budget speech, did it in Committee on the Estimates.

One of the present Ministers.

I will not say who it is. I want to draw your attention to one point, which has not been touched upon. According to the first paragraph of Rule 104, an hon. member can speak for ten minutes, and on one vote he can touch on four or five questions of policy. The third paragraph of the same rule says, when two hon. members specifically raise questions of policy they are allowed to speak for forty minutes each. I support the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) that “question of policy” means questions of policy, and includes the plural as well as the singular. This rule has been one of difficult application. By way of illustration, difficulties arose on the vote of the Prime Minister and Minister of Native Affairs. When we came to the Native Affairs vote we were told that certain votes should have been raised on the Prime Minister’s salary. Look at the effect of that. If it had been raised on the Prime Minister’s salary one hon. member would have been allowed to speak for forty minutes on native affairs, and the debate would have been confined to other parts of the Prime Minister’s vote. The result is you would not have got a connected debate on native affairs when we were dealing with the Prime Minister’s vote. That seems to indicate that the rules should be referred to the Committee of Standing Rules and Orders. We are going further now. If, in addition, when you have a specific Ministerial vote on one page and long after that another under the same Ministerial administration, if we ought to have that restriction and if that strict rule is necessary we ought to amend the rule.

rose to speak.

You are not a lawyer.

Fortunately, I am not, or we could not get any clarity as far as the House is concerned. If we read a bit further and come to Rule 106, we can see the obvious intention, which is, if we accept the contention of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) and move a general clause in which he could discuss the whole of the policy, Rule 106 would not operate, because it says. [Rule read.] It is obvious that if they wanted to get more than one reduction they should introduce them in order. If it is a general omnibus reduction, as the hon. member introduced, there would be no further reduction, and you would discuss it on that one.

The question that has been raised is a very important one, and I do not think that I should finally dispose of this matter at this time. In the meantime I do not think it advisable that the business of the House should stand over, and it would be just as well if the movers of these motions were given the benefit of the doubt that has arisen. I think that would allow the business of the committee to proceed, and enable me to give a definite ruling at a later date.

House in Committee:

Mr. Speaker has asked me to give a liberal interpretation to the rule to-day. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) does not need to give any reason; if he just moves a reduction, I will give him his forty minutes.

I move—

I do not want to be hard on the Minister. The first point I wish to make is in regard to a matter which seems always to worry the Minister tremendously. I hope he is going to accept my criticism in a different spirit to-day, and not indulge in stage-thunder and innuendo when replying, but consider the matter and the criticism in the spirit in which it is introduced. I am not going to criticize his civilized labour policy from the point of view in which I have done it in the past. Last year the Minister told us that Government had definitely and finally decided on the policy. The Minister, this session, told us that they are definitely accepting the report of the Departmental Committee, which has made some very important suggestions. They have made some valuable suggestions which, to my mind, will go far to relieve the present position, which is rather against these youths who have been apprenticed. I should like to know from the Minister, and I hope he will clearly tell us, which part or parts of that report he is going to accept as the policy of the Government. Some parts, with which the Minister has said he is not in agreement, are, I take it, not going to be accepted. If the Minister can arrange that there is to be some benefit for these youths, and that they are not left in a blind alley occupation, much of the opposition to the policy will fall away.

Do you refer to the apprentices of the workshops? I want to be clear.

You have been accepting youths all over the country, and, according to the report, they have been put in a position for which they are not fitted, and they have been denied any further advance they would have got had they been properly fitted.

I have placed a memorandum on the Table definitely dealing with what I am going to do with these junior labourers.

There is also the point with regard to other labourers.

I have put a clear statement on the Table.

That refers to youths only.

No.

There must be a later memorandum.

No, this one.

What I want to know is, there was a memorandum put on the Table early in the session which I saw. I mentioned to the Minister it dealt mainly with the employment of youths, and practically nothing was said there about other employment. The Minister must have put another on the Table, but I did not see it. If the Minister will turn to page 3, U.G. 11, 1927, he will find that the revenue from the railway main services is given as £24,852,048. How does the Minister arrive at this? It is an estimate, of course, we know, and it actually promises to be no better this year with regard to revenue. Last year when he lost on the mealie traffic he gained in other ways. Now, for the past year, which is by no means a bad one, taken on the average, the total revenue for eleven months was £22,049,564, or £2,802,484 short of this year, in other words, an overstatement of anticipated income during the year of £800,000 at least. We have not the last month’s figures. Taking the two last bulletins, which we must take as a basis, in January there were decreased earnings of £22,972, and an increased expenditure of £556,653. In February there were increased earnings of £4,769, and increased expenditure of £641,065. These figures are purely the running figures and do not include contributions towards reduction of interest-bearing capital, betterment, pensions and superannuation. I mention these figures merely as examples, and I want to put it to the Minister that is an answer to his estimate of the income for the coming year which, to a very great extent, is inflated. To a great extent the Minister has based the whole of his expenditure estimates on train mileage, which it is estimated will be run during the period. What is going to happen when we find that in most districts the mileage of the road motor services is increasing, and to a similar extent the railway revenue decreasing? We are told that the road motor services are earning a small profit, but if we make an estimate on the figures given to us, we find a considerable loss. The revenue under road services is estimated to amount to £170,103, but on turning to page 5, we find that the expenditure on the same head is estimated to amount to £196,770.

I said that on the past year we had a loss of £2,000. April, however, showed a profit of £200.

We were told that the road motor services earn a small profit, but it would appear that during the ensuing year a considerable loss will be incurred. The Railway Department is extending its road motor services, and in this connection the Railway Board makes a rather startling suggestion. In their last annual report they say—

In many districts the farmers are finding it impossible to take their produce to market at a reasonable price, and so they are establishing road motor transport of their own. The Minister should tell us what the Government’s policy is in this matter. The Railway Board, in its report, also says—

“Unfair” competition.

How is it unfair? If a man can afford to run a motor service at a profit what is unfair about that? It will be very serious if Government wants legislative protection against competition of this nature. The Government is engaging in fresh activities in every direction; for example, it is starting an ice factory, and it will come into competition with private-owned ice factories. When Government finds that it cannot do better than the private individual, it wants legislative protection. There is very great dissatisfaction in the service on the question of promotions and increments. There is not the same system of promotion in the railway service as there is in the ordinary service. Naturally, we cannot expect an outside body like the Civil Service Commission to interfere with all promotions in the railway service, especially so far as technical appointments are concerned. Some promotions, however, are made in which seniority should, but does not, count, and which are detrimental to the men who are passed over. There have keen some very serious cases of this nature. The men are grumbling, and are stating that they are not promoted unless they are persona grata with someone or other in the service. A case has been brought to my notice from Kroonstad, where a second-grade clerk was appointed on May 22, 1927, as acting district inspector at Bloemfontein in place of a first-grade district inspector. The appointment was made over the heads of first and second-grade stationmasters. Without some explanation, the service feels that there is favouritism. Page 70 of the Auditor-General’s report contains some very strange cases of promotion. [Extract read.] The examples of promotion given by the Auditor-General are all in connection with the Railway Board.

They are close to the fire there.

They get nicely warmed.

The Minister should go into the matter very carefully. I have another case requiring explanation. The salaried staff of the Table Bay docks say that Standard VII is not accepted so far as Afrikaans qualifications are concerned. In 1922 the members of the staff were advised that Standard VII certificate would be accepted, and that the possession of that would exempt them from all other examinations in regard to the Dutch or Afrikaans languages. Later on, this exemption was withdrawn without any reason, and representations were made by the salaried staff association, but in spite of that the exemption still remains withdrawn. Turning to Hansard, page 3653, Volume 4 of 1925, we find something of very great interest. The leader of the Opposition made an appeal to one of the members on this side of the House on a definite promise given by the Minister. The quotation from Hansard is as follows—

The position now is that Standard VII certificate is not accepted. The staff say that over and over again the Minister has stated that the half-yearly examinations are not more severe than the examination for Standard VII. If that is so, it is difficult to understand why Standard VII certificate is not accepted. Strangely enough, the men who have written to me on this subject all have Dutch names. They do not fear any examination in Afrikaans but they rightly say that faith has not been kept, and, in any case, their objection is to having to sit for an examination when they have by all the rules of the service and the promises of the Minister already qualified. I have now to bring up a very serious case in regard to the recent accident at the cycle track. When, in a preliminary examination, it is found that a man will ultimately have to stand his trial on a criminal charge, why should they force him to go through several inquiries? First, he has to make a report, then there is a departmental inquiry, next a magisterial inquiry, then a further departmental inquiry, and finally the man has to stand his trial at the criminal sessions. These men feel that all the information possible against them is got by the department and whether it is sent on or not the impression remains that when the criminal action is taken it is on the evidence collected by the department during these investigations. This man was required to give all the evidence in four different stages, and even though it may not have been used against him it makes him feel he is put to a disadvantage at the criminal trial. When the case took place the Government excused their action by saying the proceedings took place in terms of Section 68 of Act 22 of 1916. That may be true, but, when the original inquiry is made, the Administration must be in the position to judge whether or no there will be a criminal prosecution, and, therefore, in justice to the man, they should not insist on any departmental evidence being given by the man himself. When questions are asked in civil cases which might incriminate an individual, he can refuse to answer. Whether this evidence is sent to the Attorney-General or not, they feel an unfair advantage is taken of them.

Have you any suggestion to make?

My suggestion is that when the Administration judges that a criminal investigation has to follow they must not ask the man to give evidence that might incriminate him.

We must have a departmental inquiry, surely.

But this man had to undergo four different examinations.

But that is what the law demands. You don’t suggest we should not have a departmental inquiry?

When you do have departmental inquiries it should not be in such a way as to make the employees believe that what the general manager said means more than it really does mean. The general manager said that the administration was in duty bound to assist the work of the public inquiry, and these men rightly say if that is the view of the administration then it means to their mind that their evidence at the administration inquiry is to be forwarded to the public inquiry and then the Attorney-General has all the information before him. I put the case as they put the case to me. I think they put it with fairness. When the administration looks upon it as their duty to find out all the information and then give all the information to the public inquiry the men feel that all evidence given at the ordinary private inquiry goes before the Attorney-General. In a case like this it must have been anticipated there would be a criminal trial and these men feel that the administration, in common with them, knew there would be criminal proceedings.

But we don’t decide it.

But men with common-sense must know that the position is as stated by me.

How can you anticipate whether there will be a criminal prosecution or not until after the departmental inquiry?

I put it from the men’s point of view. If the department hold that it is their duty to get every information then the administration has no right to ask the man himself to give evidence which might incriminate him. You don’t require a lawyer to decide such a question. Any man with a little common-sense must be able to judge whether or no a particular man was likely to be criminally prosecuted.

Other men can be called.

Yes, but you need not force the man himself to give evidence. It is a serious position. The men have been in communication with the Government and with the Minister of Justice in particular, and have asked that the matter be ventilated. It can be avoided by a man going before a judge at a criminal trial without having given evidence at a previous inquiry. Now I want to come to another question on which the Minister challenged me and that is with regard to rates and fares. The Minister said my information was not correct because the information from his own records that South African rates and fares were lower than those in other countries. I have taken the trouble to make further inquiries and I have found that besides the items previously stated our rates and fares are not generally lower than elsewhere. For the information of the Minister I give him my authority. The information is to be found on page 263 of the official year book of the Commonwealth of Australia No. 19 of 1926, and the official year book for 1925 No. 18, pages 284 and 285, and there he will find what I am stating is correct. For comparison I took our own year book of 1925, pages 717 to 719, and I want to give a few illustrations. Take first class, single fare journey, 50 miles; South Africa is one penny lower than Australia; 100 miles, South Africa is 2d. lower. Now we come to what affects this huge country with its long distances. For 500 miles’ journeys we find South Africa is 12s. 2d. more than Australia. Take 1,000 miles. That would be Cape Town to Johannesburg, where most people travel, and you find the difference is 44s. 1d. higher in South Africa than in Australia. Now we take second class, and strangely enough we find the same position. On the short distances we are 2d. lower for 50 miles and 3d. lower for 100 miles, but for the long distances, for 500 miles, we are 8s. 1d. higher than Australia, and for 1,000 miles 29s. 7d. higher than Australia. Now take the highest class of freight. In every class we are higher. For 50 miles for 2,000 lb. weight we are 6s. 1d. higher, for 100 miles 7s. 7d. higher, going up all the time; at 500 miles,. 50s. 3d. higher; and for 1,000 miles, 71s. 11d. higher. Take the lowest class of freight. Here, on the lowest class rate, we are lower by 1s. 8d. for 50 miles, 3s. 7d. for 100 miles, 16s. 9d. for 500 miles, and 32s. 4d. for 1,000 miles. Now we take parcels weighing 85 lbs. to 112 lbs. For 500 miles by passenger train it is 13s. 3d. in Australia. In South Africa the same parcel costs 17s. 3d.—that is, in South Africa the parcel rates are higher by 4s. per 100 lbs. I mentioned this to show the Minister that besides the figures I gave him previously, those I give him now prove my contention that our rates and fares are much too high. No doubt he will challenge me again.

If you are wrong, certainly.

I am giving you the official year book and if the figures are wrong blame the year book, but then also prove that they are wrong. Now I want to ask a few questions about the High Commissioner. We have had an extraordinary position here. We pay to him over £39,000 annually, and I want to ask the Minister what he has done with regard to the appointment of inspectors who passed those goods sent to this country and which have proved to be almost valueless. In a contract for grain wagons £19,850 was involved and no formal contract was entered into. Yet another case, 10 locomotives, at a cost £127,000, were purchased without any tender being called for. Then we come to a case of 10 Mountain and 5 Pacific engines, at a cost of £137,000, in which tenders were not invited and no form of contract was given and after the orders were placed it was found we had forgotten to ask for catalogues and tracings for which we were asked to pay £1,790 extra. Having been faced with this position they entered into another contract and again forgot to ask for catalogues and tracings, and had on this occasion to pay £1,650 to get them. Where does the fault lie? Is it with the High Commissioner or his office, and if so, then I want to know how he treats the men who make these serious errors. There are many other cases where high-priced goods are purchased without tender and, as we know, the Auditor-General is frequently calling attention to it and select committees have passed resolutions on these matters yet they still continue. I want to know what the High Commissioner has done in regard to these men who were guilty of passing goods on the other side which were not up to standard. Many of these men, I understand, are outside the employ of the Government, and we ought to know what has been done with them and whether they are going to have another opportunity of passing on goods passed by them in that careless manner. I want to refer also to the matter of catering, but before I do I want to refer a point of order to you, sir. On the order paper is a report of the select committee on statistics of branch lines. By the rules of the House we are not allowed to discuss the matter until we get to that particular order. I do not know whether we are allowed to discuss it here to-day.

We shall never reach it otherwise.

As the chairman is momentarily absent I will put this question to him at a later stage. With regard to catering I find the sales increasing for 1925-’26 by £45,589 and the gross profit by £22,336, and yet there is a decrease in net profits of £5,726. Here we have the same tale that applies in every other department—income going up very fast, but expenses increasing very much faster.

And rates reduced.

I am coming to that. It is the only case where the Minister has reduced the rates satisfactorily. If anything I think he has gone too far. He should rather claim that the reduction of rates has been to the benefit of the administration, but with all that big increase there is a decrease in the net profit of £5,726, which shows that the expenses have gone up enormously. The working expenses increased by £28,676, salaries and wages alone accounted for £18,644. The loss shown on the working of the dining cars was £3,563, but these figures do not take account of any charge for superintendence, nor for any miscellaneous expenses, nor for any interest. If we take these items into account it has been estimated that the loss would be something in the neighbourhood of £21,990. I feel that the Minister has done very well for the public in reducing the tariff, and I think, if necessary, the public would be prepared to stand an increase, but on his own showing the reduction has brought in a very substantially increased income. That goes to show that the policy which we have enunciated of reducing rates and fares, as far as possible, must benefit the administration to a great extent. I want to put it to the Minister again that if he goes on business principles and puts the rates and fares at such a level as to enable people to make more use of the railways, he would perhaps have a very much more successful concern. Let me take the administration. I find that the general charges show an increase of £12,575 under Head 1. The increase is chiefly in the general manager’s office and the chief accountant’s office. As far as the chief accountant is concerned, we know that he has to administer all the new Acts. Superannuation and Pensions Acts, etc., which necessarily means increased staff, but in the general manager’s office we find that wages and salaries have gone up in two years by £14,180, an increase of 22 per cent. It seems to me that if we take the Minister’s system of judging on train mileage, it should have been 10 per cent. at the most. I think some explanation is required in regard to that increase. Coming nearer home, I would like to ask the Minister whether it is correct, as given out by an official, that on the Sea Point line they are going to put men in charge of the electric trains so that they can gain experience when they are called upon to run the electric trains on the suburban lines. That is the statement put to the public by an official, I believe the Chairman of the Electricity Commission. He put forward the statement in an interview that the men are going to be in charge of the electric trains on the Sea Point line so as to learn how to drive these trains and be ready to drive them in a proper way when the electrification system is commenced on the suburban line. I think the Minister should say something about that, because people are becoming nervous.

Do you suggest that we should import men?

I do not suggest that, but surely you are running your electric trains in Natal.

That is quite a different system and they were trained there on that different system.

The statement made by this official was not that these men were going to be taught on the trains, but that they were going to be put on these trains so as to practise how to drive and be ready when the suburban trains start. If you say that you are putting them on one system so as to be fit to work on another system, the obvious conclusion is that they are to be put on the first system when they are not qualified.

Under control, of course.

After all, the Minister must consider the public. [Time limit.]

I have a few points I want to raise on this vote. The first is whether the Minister will not reconsider his answer to the running men’s petition in connection with the eight hours day. The drivers and firemen were given, we know, the eight hours day, but by separating their booking on and booking off allowance, from the calculation of overtime, what they got on the swings they lost on the roundabouts. The guards and ticket examiners, also running men, were put off with a nine hour day. A petition was presented and the matter went before the Conciliation Board, who unanimously recommended that favourable consideration be given to these two points as early as possible. The Minister has turned it down. I think the Minister might very well reconsider this matter. The next point which I would draw attention to is the inadequate housing accommodation at St. James Station for the station staff. Only the stationmaster is provided for and it is very hard, indeed, upon the foreman and other members of the staff, who have to live far from their work and who cannot possibly pay the high rents at St. James out of the salaries they receive. I would ask the Minister whether there is any prospect of any additional housing accommodation being provided somewhere near St. James for the station staff there. The next point is the case of about 13 men who are retired apparently under a wrong section of the Civil Service Act of 1895. They were retired under the abolition of office section, and it was afterwards found that there had been no abolition of office. In some cases they went to law about the matter, other cases are still pending, and there was some attempt last year to introduce a Bill to validate these irregular retirements. I am glad to see that that Bill has not been brought forward again this year. I would suggest to the Minister that he might appoint a small committee in his own department, as he did after that disaster of last year, to go into the claims of these 13 men and see whether he cannot come to some fair compromise with them. The next point is a matter which I have represented to him and that is the question of travelling time pay allowed in the case of 71 railway labourers in the Transportation Department up to 26 December, 1926, when it was suddenly taken away. I would ask the Minister whether he would not go into this matter again. These men live at different places along the line and many of them have to leave their homes very early in order to start work at 7.15 in the morning and, of course, it takes them a long time after they have finished work to get home again. This travelling allowance was granted to these 71 men on the foreman’s certificate, and then it was suddenly withdrawn, and this letter from the Minister, sent through his private secretary, says that it was paid irregularly. I would like an explanation of that. It is very hard when these men, who do not earn much money, were budgeting on a certain income coming to them and then quite suddenly they are told “These payments were made to you irregularly and they cannot be continued anymore.” There is another question in regard to the men who work at the docks. Here I think there is a grievance which the Government should meet. They used to get a railway concession when the Government ran the railway down there, but now that the ’buses have taken its place they get no concession on that. Before it amounted to £2 14s. a year, but now they have to buy books of tickets which cost them £7 10s. a year where their railway fares used to cost them £2 14s. There are about 75 men affected. There are no residential quarters for them down there and they cannot live there, nor, I am told, can they get their meals there. I do think as these ’buses are run by the Government, they might give these men the concession they used to have. I have drawn the Minister’s attention several times to the commercial schools, one particularly at Wynberg, which are not allowed to sign the concession form, and that is very keenly felt by them. Another point is the open drain upon the foreshore where a serious accident occurred last December. Two young coloured people were walking there and when two railway constables flashed a lamp in their faces, the man rushed off and fell into this open drain. He remained in hospital for thirteen days and then died. I would like to ask whether steps have been taken to protect the public from that particular open drain. The next point is in regard to Lamberts Bay. There is a tiny place where a few boats can shelter, but there is no anchorage or real safety at all from the weather. I would like to know whether something cannot be done for the fishermen there. I believe thousands of bags of guano are got from the little bird island near that spot. I think, as a good deal of revenue comes from that little place, something might be done by the Government to make a safe anchorage for the fishermen there.

We have listened to the speech of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), but we have not had much of an attack on the so-called business principles on the railways. After all that has taken place, we thought that there would be a big attack on the Minister on matters whereon the railways had not been run on business principles, but I do not know that he dealt with one point in relation to that in his speech. On the contrary, he pleaded for cheaper passenger fares, and I should say that it is a business principle to get as much as possible out of passenger fares. The first point I want to mention —it is possibly a delicate matter—was that, for a few days, it was noticeable that Union Jacks were flown on the suburban trains. At this stage that is an important matter. I have no objection to the Union Jack, but I want to ask the Minister to prevent anything being done on Government property at this stage which might stir up unnecessary feeling.

Do you object?

I say very clearly that I have no objection to any person flying the Union Jack, but to do so at the present time is unwise.

Where did it happen?

The Union Jacks were flying in front on the locomotives on the Sea Point line.

Is that a crime?

It is not a crime, but the hon. member will see himself that it is very unwise to do it on State property. I hope the Minister will give instructions that it is not to be done. Say, e.g., that it is done in the country, it might happen that the Union Jack would be pulled down, and that would be unpleasant. Before it goes further, I hope the practice will be stopped. Then I want to ask the Minister a question in connection with the carriage of maize in the Free State. A big harvest is expected there, and I want to ask whether the department is aware of it and is prepared to handle the maize. We know that there was difficulty with the large harvest there two years ago. I do not blame the Administration for that because it was an abnormal harvest, but I want to ask the Minister to see that the Administration is in a position to properly handle the maize on the trains and in the elevators. Then I want to mention a matter which I have previously raised, viz., that of railway doctors. The Minister will remember that I have repeatedly done so, and that he said that the department was now prepared to make an experiment to obtain panel doctors in certain centres. As far as I know that has not yet been done, but I understand that permanent appointments of railway doctors have been made. The position as it affects the greatest portion of the staff is not satisfactory. I know of a case where the wife of a railwayman was seriously ill, but called in another doctor because she had no confidence in the railway doctor. Her illness, however, became so serious that she had to have an operation. Because she had no money to pay for it, she had at once to tell her doctor to stop visiting her, and she had to allow the railway doctor, in whom she had no confidence, to operate and treat her. I hope the Minister will tell us what he is going to do in connection with this matter. It is also necessary for railway doctors to be bilingual. There are cases where they are not bilingual, but have to visit houses where the wife and children are possibly not bilingual, or are very weak in English. They consequently cannot understand him. We are sorry to have to speak on the language question every time, but we find it necessary, because matters are not right yet. When one goes about you find cases every day where improvements are made, but in the matter of the maintenance of bilingualism there are still cases of officials who come into touch with the public not being bilingual. We do not wish to demand that the whole service should be made bilingual, but we want the Minister to give instructions that officials who deal with the public must be bilingual. It is absolutely necessary. In many places incorrect translations are still to be seen. The Minister has had a great many rectified, but we find a case, e.g., where “reservation of seats” is translated by reservation of “setels.” Everyone will see that that is ridiculous. “No smoking allowed” is translated by “Roken niet toegelaten.” There are cases where Afrikaans is terribly butchered, and I hope the Minister will see his way to appoint a small departmental committee to go about and see that such cases do not occur. Then I may mention something which happened at a certain station. A certain official had to paint a notice board, and he painted the Afrikaans on top and the English underneath. His senior official asked him how he dared to do so, and ordered him to paint it out and to put the English above and the Afrikaans below. I have no objection to the English being on top, but it surely means the spending of money to make the alteration.

That is petty.

I do not even wish to speak of it, but of the question of £ s. d. Then I was told that in a number of offices natives are still employed as clerks amongst the Europeans. I do not know if this is so, but if it is, I hope the Minister will alter it.

I do not think it is so.

I am glad if it is not so.

The Minister is up against a very serious problem in regard to the competition of motor transport against the railways. There is only one suggestion to make, and I hope the Minister will begin with the maize rates. They are considerably too high when you consider that bagged maize pays 15s. per ton after the 271 mile limit. I know that the Minister will say that in comparison with Australia and other countries the rates are lower; but South Africa is growing maize and not wheat, which can stand a higher rate. We have to consider the competition of the Argentine, and the Minister should come down to a 10s. rate as the maximum, so that we can compete successfully with the Argentine. It does not affect the province which I represent as it produces comparatively little maize, but it affects the Free State and the Transvaal. Tractors are so powerful that farmers can plough their land long before the rains fall, thus conserving the moisture when rain comes and ready for planting. If a reduction is made in the rates of 6d. per bag over these long distances it means everything; larger areas will be cultivated. Only a few years ago South Africa was an importing country, and after the 1s. duty was put on, it became an exporting country. If a reduction is made on the railway rates on mealies it will induce a greater production, and the Eastern Transvaal and Free State will compete with Argentine maize. The average has gone up from two to four per acre. Then in Natal we know a large part of the railway has been electrified, and in parts of Europe, especially Spain, it has been found that electrification brings about a saving of 55 per cent. as compared with steam. I ask the Minister to give the producers the benefit of that saving. A very valuable industry in Natal, the wattle industry, in 1920, exported wattle bark to the amount of £986,000, and since then we have passed the million mark sterling, and it has been greater, as the Minister knows, than our coal export. But there is a tremendous waste in that industry owing to the excessive railway rates on timber. Any plantation which is more than 8 miles from a railway is unable profitably to sell its timber owing to the high rates and increased cost of road transport. The average production of a wattle plantation is 3½ tons of bark per acre, but for every ton of bark you have 6 tons of timber. I appeal to the Minister to reduce the timber rates, more particularly on mine plots and firewood. The rate from Dalton to Johannesburg, a distance of 453 miles, is 15s. 1d. a ton, which is much too high. If the rate were reduced more timber would be sold beyond the eight mile limit. Not only that, but the working cost on the low grade gold mines would be reduced as they would get their mining props at a lower figure, and this would help to lengthen the lives of the low grade mines, providing more employment. We have two very good markets for firewood, Kimberley and Bloemfontein, and if the rate to the former place were reduced from 15s. 6d. to 11s., and to the latter place to 10s. 6d. a ton, we should be able to supply thousands of tons on wood in place of the coal now used there. Wattle is delivered at the station at 9s. to 10s. a ton in logs of convenient size. If more wattle were used for firewood it would reduce the consumption of coal, which could be exported; beside that, wood is a cleaner and healthier fuel than coal. It is said on all sides that the Minister is running the railways on political lines and that he has £23,000 of increment which should have gone to English-speaking South Africans on the railways who are unable to pass the Afrikaans examination. I believe 200 or 300 men, born in South Africa, are leaving the railways because they feel the hopelessness of staying on.

I am sure you don’t agree with that allegation.

I am asking for information. It is a serious matter when young fellows, who are born here, are leaving the service because they are unable to pass the examination owing to its severity, and that they are also leaving the country. All that has accrued since the Minister took office. I understand the Minister will shortly visit my constituency—Umvoti county. I hope that is correct, for there he will have a demonstration of how South Africa is losing money through lack of three railway extensions of only 45 miles. I shall have much pleasure in showing the Minister round when he visits Umvoti, and I hope he will be convinced of the very great importance of the wattle industry. The industry is hampered because of the delay in constructing these three branch lines—Greytown-Riet Vlei, Bruyns Hill Glenside and Krantzkop extension. I feel that this delay in construction is due partly to Natal not having a representative on the Railway Board. If we had these lines built, the wattle industry would expand considerably.

I also would like to make a few complaints. It will possibly surprise hon. members that, notwithstanding the fact that Klerksdorp is within 100 miles of Johannesburg and 800 miles distant from Cape Town, and, notwithstanding the fact that the head offices of the railways are in Johannesburg, Klerksdorp, for administrative purposes, comes under Cape Town. This has been a public grievance for years, and chiefly among the railway officials at Klerksdorp. They feel that it is unjust. If an official at Klerksdorp has to correspond with the railways, he must write first to the superintendent at Kimberley, whence it goes to Cape Town, and from there to Johannesburg, and it is quite possible that the same circumlocution takes place before the answer reaches the Klerksdorp official.

Otherwise it could be done by telephone.

Yes, that would be possible. Moreover, it is a grievance of theirs with regard to transfers. Instead of officials being sent to the north—Transvaalers usually like to go there—they are sent down to Kimberley or Beaufort West or De Aar and thereabouts. Another reason why we cannot see why Klerksdorp should come under Cape-Town is that we do not want to be so far away from the fire. We are very far from the fire, and those who are close to it are kept warm, but Klerksdorp has been much neglected in the past. Our station, e.g., is without an island platform. The signal boxes are at a spot where they do not command the whole area. It is a wonder that there are no bad accidents. I makebold to say that if we came under Johannesburg the requirements at the Klerksdorp station would long since have been seen to. I hope the Minister will seriously consider the matter and do justice to us. We used formerly to come under Johannesburg. The late Government took us out of the Johannesburg jurisdiction and put us under Cape Town. We expected this Government to treat us with more sympathy and give us what was fair, but, although I have personally done my utmost with the Minister and with the Railway Board and the Administration, no alteration has been made. I hope, however, that the Minister, now that I complain in public, will try and remove the grievances.

I want to ask the Minister to again consider this question of the coal rates in Natal There are two or three rates which apply to coal. The rate for bunker coal is 15s. a ton, and that is 125 per cent. higher than the pre-war rate. The old rate from the centre of the coal fields to Durban was 6s. 8d. per ton, and for a good many years now it has been 15s. a ton, and all the appeals which have been made to the Minister for a reduction of the rate have been in vain. One could quite understand the Minister’s reluctance to agree to any reduction while the railways were not paying their way, but now they are, according to the Minister, on a proper business footing and in a much better position than they were a year or two ago, I hope he will take into consideration the advisability of reducing this high rate on bunker coal. This has an important bearing on the freights which steamers charge to this country. If they get cheaper coal here they are more likely to reduce the freight on cargo and benefit the public than if high rates of railage are charged. I have been informed by shipping men that the Australian Commonwealth line of steamers, which used to call at the Cape, now go via the Suez Canal. If they could get coal at several shillings a ton cheaper than they can now they might be induced to come once more via the Cape instead of the Suez. Perhaps also other liners, such as the Aberdeen liners or the White Star liners, might reconsider the position, as coal is getting cheaper, and they, one day, might leave the Cape out of their route altogether. I am told that 150 tramp steamers are employed in carrying wheat from Australia to England, and most of them go via the Suez Canal. By reducing the rate for bunker coal we might get these steamers to come this way, and the collieries would benefit, and a certain amount of money apart from that would be spent in this country. With regard to the rates of coal for export, I understand the rates from the centre of the Natal coal fields to Durban is about 6s. 3d. to 6s. 4d. per ton, but if it is sent from the Natal coal fields to be exported by sea to the Cape we have the extraordinary rate of 19s. a ton charged. Is that fair? If it goes to India or Mauritius, 6s. 3d. or 6s. 4d. is charged. We know the intention is to try and send the coal overland to the Cape. But I don’t think that is quite a fair way to try and divert the traffic. Steamers calling at the Cape want cheap coal, and if it can be exported more cheaply by sea than by land, why should it not be done? I am told that on the railage of coal to the Cape at same rates as export coal to other parts of the world, there would be a difference of 12s. to 13s. a ton in favour of the carriage by vessels. One of the principal attractions a port has for shipping is cheap coal, and we are artificially keeping up the price of coal at the Cape to benefit the railways. I think that is not in keeping with business principles. I do not think from a business point of view you can defend the charge of 19s. per ton for coal to Durban, which happens to come afterwards to the Cape, and only 6s. 4d. for a ton of coal that is afterwards exported to Mauritius and India. These are points I should like the Minister to take up with the Railway Board. The Minister, I suppose, will think this subject is a hardy annual, but the coal mining industry feel very strongly about it. They do not understand why they are being differentiated against compared with other industries. We know the general average of rates in force today, as compared with ten years ago, is 35 per cent. greater, but on this particular bunker rate it is 125 per cent., and in the case of the other export coal to the Cape it is in the neighbourhood of 200 per cent., and that is really not good business. There is another question I should like the Minister to enlighten the House on, and that is in regard to the railway workshops. I do not know whether the Railway Board has made up its mind with regard to the site of the central railway workshops. I am reminded the Minister yesterday stated in the House that this question had not yet been decided. I would like to impress upon him the necessity that when he decides it he should decide it on business lines. About two years ago I raised the question and the Minister was frank enough to say that considerations other than economic considerations would have to be taken into account in settling this question, and the only other considerations I could imagine would be political considerations

There are many others. Take the situation in regard to national defence.

I think that is quite a sound point. If the Minister is in doubt about the subject, then, if necessary, appoint another commission. If the Minister does not intend to accept the recommendation of the commission already appointed, would it not be well to have the whole question gone into afresh with additional members or a new commission?’ It is a serious step to sweep aside the findings of this technical commission appointed by his predecessor, and simply decide the matter without further and closer inquiry. I ask the Minister to see that a further and impartial inquiry is made into this matter before coming to a decision.

I should like to bring a few points to the notice of the Minister. Unfortunately, the Minister has already rejected an application which I brought personally to his notice, but I now want to attempt to get the sympathy of the House. The first point is the overhead bridge at Caledon. With regard to that, I am really speaking in the interests of the Minister and the department itself. It concerns the main road from Cape Town to Bredasdorp. The department has built a railway across the main road. Things are very wrong there and serious accidents have already taken place. Various people have been killed and the animals, especially mules of the farmers, are often being injured there. One can hardly believe that the department would continue in that way any longer. There are eight pairs of sleepers lying across the main road, and the result is that there only remains a small, narrow path to the other side of the line, along which all the traffic to the station has to go. The result is the continual danger of serious accidents. During the day the department has a flag man there especially to warn travellers, but this person disappears at nightfall. Trains arrive in the night and trucks are shunted from one end to the other, and the danger at the crossing is always great. What does the department say? It says that they admit that it is a dangerous place and that something must be done, and that an overhead bridge is absolutely necessary. Thereafter, they, and also the Minister, who is so well acquainted with the local management, say, however, that such a bridge would cost £3,000, and the Minister with the board behind him says that the Divisional Council of Caledon must pay £750 and the Municipality £750 as well.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) agrees with that.

His position is quite different. If he looks at the suburbs where it is merely suburban traffic from which the municipality gets a great benefit, then I can understand that they ought to contribute, but this farming area is situated outside the municipal limit, and now the Minister says that the municipality must pay the half of one-third and the Divisional Council a further £750, otherwise the bridge cannot be built. In other words the Minister says: We would rather pay compensation, would rather kill people, but we are not going to provide a bridge. My chief town (Caledon) has just incurred an additional debt of over £30,000 for waterworks, and that is over and above the existing loans. They had to borrow £10,000 for electric lighting. All the local bodies that assist the Government in governing the country are now asked, although they cannot provide for all the local needs, to contribute to the expense of railway overhead bridges. It is the railway business that quite a number of shunting lines are necessary. The local bodies can no longer go to Parliament or to the Provincial Council to pay for the building of bridges. The divisional councils now have to build bridges from loan funds. There are two such bridges in my constituency. The one over the Palmiet River cost £10,000 and the taxpayers had to borrow the money. Then there is the bridge over the River Zonder End, which is dilapidated, and for which £10,000 is required. All the financial responsibility is thrown on the local bodies, and if, in addition you have the Government, that goes in for business and makes money out of the public, asking the local bodies to pay for railway bridges, although it is a public road running to other parts outside the area of the divisional council, then I regard it as too much. I can tell the Minister that the time has come that the present policy can no longer continue. It will, subsequently, become impossible, and the Government will have to pay compensation for accidents at the crossing, and that is not necessary. I now come to another point. The Administration will also have to contribute to the cost of maintaining the roads used by the railway lorries. In my constituency, on the road from Bot River to Hermanns, there is enormous motor lorry traffic but the Cape Divisional Council taxpayers must pay for the maintenance. The Divisional Council has hundreds of miles for which it is responsible, and yet this bit of 28 miles is broken up by the railway motors. The Divisional Council is expected to keep the road up to motoring standard, and if it is not up to that standard it gets a letter very quickly from the Railway Administration pointing out that accidents may occur. We admit that the lorry services develop the districts, and that the Minister is doing the right thing in extending the road motor services, so that in certain parts of the country they can take the place of new branch lines. The Administration will, how over, be obliged to co-operate with the local bodies and to contribute to the maintenance of the road. The Minister cannot say that he will cancel a road motor service if the Divisional Council refuses to maintain the road. That is impossible. The road from Bot River to Hermanns has practically become a national road, because it is used by travellers coming by rail from all parts of South Africa. It will, therefore, not be possible to take away the motor service there. Moreover, it pays well, because last year the profit was over £1,000. The Minister refuses, however, to pay a penny to assist in maintaining the road. I hope the Minister’s heart will be softened, and that he will assist the local body. [Time limit.]

I want to use this opportunity to remind the Minister of a promise he made me which is still unfulfilled, viz., the enlargement and alteration of the waiting room at Touws River. When the line to Beaufort West was built, it answered its purpose, but the traffic has become much greater and, after the building of the Ladismith line, it became necessary for people to wait over at Touws River. Now they are huddled together in the waiting room. There is no room for the coloured people who have to stand outside. It is said that the passengers can remain in the carriages, but it is impossible to always sit there. I, therefore, hope the Minister will make the alterations as soon as possible. The matter of damage to roads by railway motors is an important one. My district made the same request, but I will not deal with it now. As soon as the Minister grants the other road motor services which I have asked for, I will co-operate with the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige). Then I hope the time will come for an alteration to be made. More damage is done than what the Minister thinks. The road motor services are in the interests of the railways and of the public, but I think the Administration gets the greatest benefit from them because the traffic is brought to the railways. The motor services will, in future, render it unnecessary to build branch lines.

As my hon. friend knows, I am not afraid of taking responsibility for any of my misdeeds in the past, but it is not quite fair for the Minister to hide himself behind my back. There are certain things which I strongly recommended, but he has left them alone. One is in connection with the renewals fund, in which he has reversed my policy, entirely, I think, to the detriment of the service. I know this renewals fund or depreciation fund is a matter very much discussed the world over among railway people. It varies very much with the financial position from year to year of the concern affected. When a concern has perhaps had a good year, it is more disposed to make a bigger contribution to depreciation account than it would otherwise do. It is the case very much with our own railways. Five or six years ago, we were making a heavy loss on the railways and accumulating a pretty heavy deficit. Consequently those who controlled the railways at the time reduced the contribution to the renewals fund. When we had accumulated a deficit of over £4,000,000 at one time, I took £2,000,000, with the consent of the House, from the accumulated renewals fund, and applied it to reduce the deficit. As I explained to the House at the time, if we did not do that, we should not be in a position for a considerable time to reduce rates. I want to get into a position where we are paying our way and the sooner the rates are reduced the better for the country. The renewals fund was abnormally high just then, because we had not taken much from overseas in the way of rolling stock. After that, we had to get on to a new footing. I instituted then what I thought was the best plan, a plan used by some of the railways in the Argentine, for instance, and I am not sure if it was not at one time used in the Rhodesian railways, and that was to take 7 per cent. of the earnings of the department and place that to the credit of the renewals fund. The new Minister, as soon as he took office, reversed that policy and made a fixed contribution of £1,500,000. He said yesterday that that brought in a higher contribution to the renewals fund. It did at the time, but if he had continued the policy of putting 7 per cent. of the receipts to the renewals fund, it would to-day have been very much more. In 1925-’26 it would have been £1,690,000, instead of the £1,500,000 which he contributes now. I am for ample contributions to the renewals fund and also for using them to the utmost possible extent, instead of capital expenditure. That is the soundest policy to pursue, because you always have variations in the long run in the contributions to the renewals fund, because there is so much see-saw in regard to the prosperity or otherwise of the railways. There are prosperous times when you can make a good contribution and there are bad times when you cannot afford to do so. Under this system of 7 per cent. on the traffic receipts, you allow for variation. In the good times you contribute a larger amount than you do in the bad times. It meets the situation very much better than a fixed contribution. Certainly I have seen no reason yet why that proposition is not a sound proposition. When it was fixed it was more on the basis of taking a valuation right round. I think it is a much more workable proposition, and I hope my hon. friend will consider the case. I want to refer to one or two other points. I want to know what he is going to do about the Fruit Control Board. I do not think it is working quite so satisfactorily as we expected. I think we get the stuff away quicker, but there is no doubt the expense of shipping is tremendous nowadays. Of course, they have to engage space on some steamers which they cannot absorb, and in consequence the rates paid are very stiff indeed. As my hon. friend should know, the margin on fruit for overseas is comparatively small, and when you have to pay 80s. to 90s. for your freight it works out very stiff. What I advocated, and I think most shippers have come round to that view is to try and enter into some agreement with the Union-Castle Company. Everyone wants to ship his fruit by the mail steamers. It has two great advantages; firstly, it is the shortest or the quickest voyage and, secondly, you know the port to which it goes—Southampton. My hon. friend would have to make a very careful arrangement with the company, that is, to provide sufficient cold storage accommodation and fix rates of freight. The great thing would be to have quite a fair weekly supply of cold storage; and then throw the responsibility on them. I have never spoken to a fruit shipper or a fruit grower yet who does not support that idea. That is the conclusion to which I have come from experience, and I have shipped a fair amount of stuff last year and the year before. I quite admit the Minister’s ideas were to support the fruit industry and give it facilities. The great thing is the supply of cold storage accommodation of the ship that is required. [Time limit.]

I do not rise to criticize the salary of the Minister so much, but I should like to bring a few points to his notice. The Minister is going away, and I should like to know a few things beforehand. I am in the same difficulty as the hon. member for Caledon, viz., that the Minister has already refused my application. I recently corresponded with him about certain workmen, shunters, in the Johannesburg Kaserne. The people feel that their expectations have been disappointed. Hon. members opposite must remember that many promises are made and the people feel that they are not being kept.

A station costing £600,000.

I am not speaking about the station, but about the people working there, and about whom the hon. member spoke so much when he was in opposition. Then they always complained about the poor treatment of the workmen, but now they are quiet, and even the members on the cross benches say nothing.

It is not necessary. They are being well treated.

I just want to point out that the treatment is not so very good. Some of the workmen feel that they are not being treated as they should be. Representations were made to the Minister explaining the complaints. One of them, e.g., is that the shunters have to pay pension contributions for 30 days, even if some of the days out of the 30 are not worked.

This was at their own request and in their own interests.

Very well, if the Minister can assure me—

I do not specially mean the shunters, but their representative who dealt with the matter before the select committee.

I do not wish to make unnecessary trouble, but they have complaints. The petitions only reached the Minister after a very long time, but eventually the Minister—I must admit this—replied in a friendly way. Unfortunately, however, he answered that he could not grant all the requests. Hon. members must understand that the people are poor. They get from £10 to £10 12s. per month, and have to come out on that with their families. If four or five days are booked off then the position is very difficult. Then there is another regulation that the people may not do any outside work. If they do so they are immediately dismissed. It is very unfair. A man has on the days he is booked off accordingly to stop at home and may not work for anybody else. Many of the men are farming people who can do all kinds of small jobs, but they are not allowed to. Hon. members from the countryside will think that their wages are fairly high. They are from 8s. 6d. to 12s. 6d. for ordinary shunters, 12s. 6d. to 14s. for first grade shunters, and 14s. to 16s. a day for foremen. The members in the town, however, are quite different from those in the country, and often they do not work 30 days. This is one of the complaints of these people, and I want to know if the Minister cannot soften his heart. The people have asked for an impartial commission. I do not know whether that is the right thing. I do not think the Minister can do it, but the people feel that if they complain in the ordinary way to their chiefs then they run the danger of being transferred or of being put on other work which does not pay so well. Then I want to say something about the language. I hope hon. members will not think that I am worrying too much about racial questions—on language problems—but about 80 per cent. of the people working in the Kaserne are Dutch-speaking and some of the inspectors over them do not know a word of Dutch. I feel that this is not right. An alteration must be made.

“Hear, hear.”

I am glad that hon. members say “hear, hear.” I am glad that the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser) is waking up. He will also possibly say a word for his people.

He acts.

I must say that I have not yet seen much of it, nor have the people there. I can assure the Minister that many of the people are not very well satisfied. They are only progressing in a small way. [Time limit.]

Has the time not arrived when the title of the Minister’s portfolio should be altered to Minister of Transportation? I hone that when he visits Europe the Minister will take every opportunity of enquiring into all systems of transportation overseas. The reason I make this suggestion is that we have had from various members complaints with regard to transportation. South Africa has embarked on a policy of road transportation, the railways taking it up in self-defence. If outside competition is not checked, and if road transportation is not utilized for the benefit of the State, we may experience very great difficulties. The railways have assumed such immense proportions that those responsible cannot pay that intimate attention to the harbours which is essential if the harbours are to be developed. The Minister has been continually approached on matters affecting the harbour staff and points concerning the successful operation of the harbours. Important harbour matters have been standing over for a considerable number of years. Although trade has increased very greatly since 1910 Durban still has the same number of deep water berths as it had at the date of Union. Consequently a large vessel after discharging half its cargo is shifted to make room for another steamer. The argument advanced by the Minister when he is asked to provide more deep water berths, is that the Government has no money available for the purpose. However, there is such a thing as necessary expenditure, and when development demands it we must spend money. If we had a Minister of Transportation dealing exclusively with matters of transportation and not merely with one of its branches, more intimate consideration could be given to harbour matters. Every branch of transportation demands the care of the specialist, because it takes a lifetime to master the technique and to become fully conversant with its possibilities. I think we have reached the stage when it is absolutely necessary to consider the formation of a Ministry of Transportation to deal with all transportation developments. I do not wish to delay the committee at this stage by a relation of the difficulties that are being experienced by our harbours, but I shall do that as the various heads are discussed. The Minister might defer replying until he has heard the arguments which I shall advance on the various heads as they are all applicable to the main argument. When the Minister travels to Europe and discusses matters with the officers on the ship, I am satisfied he will find that although they appreciate that our harbours are well administered, they are not used to their fullest capacity as they would be if the system I advocate were put into operation.

The “Eastern Province Heiraid” has been publishing for a few weeks past a chart showing the time trains are due there and the actual time at which they arrive. Apparently this has brought about an improvement, and it shows that the department can effect an improvement when publicity is given to the matter. It is extraordinary that a large town like Port Elizabeth >should have had to get the principal newspaper of the district to publish such a list in order to keep the Railway Department up to the mark. Another complaint has reference to the delays in the delivery of goods. I have been requested to call attention to the position of coloured men at Port Elizabeth. Although coloured men have been given the parliamentary vote in the Cape their wages have not been raised to any extent. I don’t suggest that they should get the same wages as Europeans; they don’t want that, but they do want a little more than they are getting. For the class of work they are doing they are not being paid a reasonable rate. The same applies to natives working on the sea at Port Elizabeth. I used to question your predecessor when in office, with regard to the natives employed in the store at Port Elizabeth who were getting much higher wages for work which is not so heavy as that of the natives working on the sea. Their locations are quite a long way distant and they are on the lowest rates of wages paid in the Eastern Province. I know expenses should be kept down, but not at the expense of the stomachs of those who are doing hard work. In connection with the natives who have to travel 5½ miles to their location, I know they get railway facilities, but at the early hour in the morning at which they have to start there is no train service, and if they are working on the mail steamers until two and three o’clock in the morning they have no means of getting home except by walking. I know it is like a voice crying in the wilderness to expect any consideration for that class of work, but the Administration ought to be just. I have received a letter from Uitenhage sent to me on account of the unfortunate illness of the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates). It deals with the case of a native who has been discharged at 60 years of age after working for 37 years, discharged without any consideration whatever. I ask, in all fairness, after working from the age of 23 to 60, ought he now to be turned adrift? Do you think there is a farmer in this country who would turn an old native like this away and leave him to starve? Although I know the railway department have not much soul, I ask them in the name of humanity to step in and give consideration to a case of this kind. He never had much of a wage, and at the present time he is a penniless, helpless pauper. With regard to the eight-hour day, I do not want it all over the railway system, because that is impracticable, but it ought to be introduced in all the big centres.

I want to ask the Minister if he cannot grant the same facilities to the sheep show at Cradock as are given to the ordinary show. In these sheep districts it is already becoming the custom at some of the larger places to hold two shows in the year, and this is done at Cradock and Queenstown. The separate sheep shows are of great value to the farmers, but facilities are only given to one show in the year. Now I want to appeal to the Minister to extend the facilities in this matter to both shows. Then I want to ask him if it is not possible to extend the road motor services in the Cradock district. I think it is an excellent service that the Minister has started, and I should like to see more in Cradock.

I was sorry to hear from the Minister there was a possibility of this line from Postmasburg down to Douglas not being required. If it does go through I hope the Minister will have it run more direct to Douglas. I understand the survey is going round via Griquatown, which lengthens the line by 15 miles. That means extra running cost and extra capital cost, and it runs only through pastoral country. A deputation has been ail the way down from Griqualand West to point out to the department the disadvantage of running via Griquatown instead of direct to Douglas. I hope the Minister will take this into consideration. I also want to ask the Minister if he has any information with regard to the fire at Kimberley, which we were all so sorry to hear about. Can he tell us what has been the loss? There has been a lot of these fires taking place lately; there was one at Vryburg.

We have not had many.

There have been a lot in the newspapers.

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

When the House adjourned for dinner I was just calling attention to the recent fire at Kimberley. I also expressed the opinion that fires seem to be rather frequent at the present time in the railway department, from which view my hon. friend differs. I can only say that it is quite a general impression that there are a good many fires in the railway department just now. I want also to ask my hon. friend what is the position in reference to the electrified line in Natal. Is it paying working expenses, and interest on the money invested? I hear very good reports about it and I hope my hon. friend is able to confirm them. Is the Minister in a position now to give some information with reference to the appointment of a general manager? He has put off the question several times when he has been asked about it. There is one thing I would suggest to him that he should do when he makes the appointment. I have mentioned it several times, and I want to emphasize it. He should keep the financial side separate from the managerial side. I think that is very important. If I might suggest to him, I would appoint an officer almost of equal standing to the general manager, who would be directly under the Minister and the Board, to deal with the financial side. If my hon. friend wants information about that system, he will find a good deal of data which were got up, I think, by the previous general manager. Sir Thomas Price. The concern has become so big that it is absurd for the general manager to have to interest himself in the financial side. He ought to be kept posted and the Minister should be kept posted by an officer, independent of the general manager, and responsible to the Minister alone. I want to allude to another matter which I know is rather a sore point with the Minister, and that is his white labour policy, in which he has now adopted a policy of refusing information. My hon. friend makes a mistake in refusing that information. He won’t give information in reference to the branch lines. That is a big mistake in my opinion. The railway is the property of the people, and they have a perfect right to know every item of information in regard to their property. I would point out also that if the figures in reference to the branch lines were published every month, I believe my hon. friend would be able to keep the expenses down far more than he is able to do now. That was my experience. Now, when these statistics are hidden away there is not the same effort to keep down the expenses. I cannot see why my hon. friend does not let the public know. It was my policy, and I think it is a sound policy to let the public know everything. And now he has adopted the same attitude with regard to his white labour policy. He is making a mistake, in my opinion, in regard to that, a grave mistake. What will the public think? They will draw the conclusion that the enormous extra working expenses now taking place arise from the fact of employing white labour. I have some figures before me with reference to the working expenses for the eleven months of last year which are published in the general manager’s bulletin, and in that connection I would express the hope that my hon. friend will not abolish this little book as soon as he changes his general manager, because I think it is very interesting.

I quite agree with you.

Well, continue the publication of it. The working expenditure for the eleven months shows an increase of £641,000, and the total earnings were less by £5,000. If my hon. friend is going to hide away and not publish these details about white labour, the public will draw the conclusion that these extra expenses are caused by the employment of white labour. If you have a sound policy and you conscientiously believe in it, let the public know all about it. By so doing you will be acting in the interests of the department. I do not altogether approve of this white labour policy, though I do hope that it will be successful. I read a report from his department in which it is pointed out, as everybody knows, that, not only in the Railway Department, but in private business as well, labour has been so cheap in the past that the department have not provided the mechanical facilities which are provided in other countries, such as America and Australia, where labour is expensive, so that the work can be done with a less number of men. I hope my hon. friend will go into that question thoroughly, because, if he does, he will keep down his working expenses to some extent. Besides that, it will be necessary to provide more houses for these people. I hope my hon. friend will do that. I would strongly urge him to follow the suggestion that wherever he can provide mechanical appliances and things of that nature for getting the best results out of his European labour, he should do so. That is the secret of how men like Henry Ford get such tremendous results. Every possible device is employed for getting the utmost possible efficiency from the labour. I would urge upon him that it is in his own interest and the interest of his policy to publish the figures and let the public know all about it. Do not try to hide them, because it will rebound upon his own head. People will draw wrong conclusions, and they will draw the conclusion that it is more expensive than it really is.

Correspondence has taken place between the Minister and the Amalgamated Engineering Union regarding the differentiation of wage rates for artisans as between Bloemfontein and Kroonstad. The men of Kroonstad are on a lower rate of wages than the men of Bloemfontein. In 1920 when a readjustment of wages took place the Kroonstad men were put on a lower basic rate of wages but their war bonus and cost of living allowances were made higher than Bloemfontein, bringing the actual amount nearly equal in the two towns, but when the economy stunt came on in 1923 the cost of living allowances were taken away the Kroonstad artisans found themselves on a lower basic rate than Bloemfontein. Ever since the railways were run through the Free State the artisans in Bloemfontein and Kroonstad have been on the same-scale of wages and there is no justification for continuing the present anomaly, whether cost of living or any other basis is taken, and I hope the Minister will give some attention to that. It is causing, among the artisans especially, a great deal of unrest and discontent to the extent probably of retarding the efficiency of the men concerned. The time has in my opinion arrived when the Minister should give his attention to doing away with all these allowances, local allowances, climatic allowances and so on and putting the staff on a basic district rate throughout the country, so that the men will immediately know where they are. There is another important thing which I raised last year, and that is whether the Minister will give some consideration to the question of excursion facilities for workmen and women getting their annual leave from their employment. The reply I got last year was not too satisfactory and I want to press it again. Nearly every employer in the country now allows his employees twelve days’ leave in the year, and in some industries one or two men get their leave at the time of the excursion facilities, but the bulk of the workers do not get the facilities because they do not get their annual leave at that time. If he cannot at the moment see his way clear to give it to all workers could he not give it to the men who work underground in the gold mines and coal mines of the country? These men scarcely ever see the sunlight and when they get their holiday leave they can only spend their time hanging about the street corners because there are no excursion facilities for them. I suggest to the Minister that books of certificates could be printed and sold to the employers, if he did not want to give them free, so that when any man got his leave the employer would sign a certificate to the effect that that man is in his employ and was on leave from such a date. That ticket handed in to the booking office would enable that man and his family to get excursion facilities to go to some holiday resort where they could really recuperate their health.

It seems to be perfectly useless, so far as the Minister is concerned, to “flog the dead horse” of an eight-hour day, but I can assure him he will get no comfort until that is seen to. It is one of the definite promises held out to the railwaymen. Then the question of the “cut” in the pay is another thing which is bound to be kept to the front, and before any question of further reduction of rates again takes place, these two matters should be put right. What I want particularly to draw attention to is the question of the salaried staff and their grading. I think there was some hope, if not an actual promise, that there would be a departmental enquiry into that grievance, and the clerical staff would have an opportunity of restating their case. I hope that is so and that such intention will be carried into effect, so that the salaried men can feel that at least they can bring forward their case for review. They certainly think that a departmental enquiry would be able to satisfactorily deal with some of the more vexed questions, particularly where the guillotine has come down on the clerical staff and prevents rising from grade to grade, and ensuring the increments of promotion now checked. I am asked to draw attention to what may be a small matter but one of considerable interest to the people concerned at Irene, and that is the cancellation of a facility which they have enjoyed for a long time. Previously the 1.6 p.m. train from Pretoria stopped at Irene, but now it appears it is to go past. Then there is a question of policing the railway reserve at Pretoria. It comes under the department and not under the municipality. Either the department should take the responsibility or it should approach the police administration at Pretoria. I have often raised the question of the Church Street west railway crossing. It is becoming more dangerous still because of increased traffic. The ringing of the warning bell is not heard owing to the noise of the trains, and that might apply generally to crossings. If the warning bell could be heard further off it might prevent many accidents. Then there is the question of more general interest, on stones which are placed on the line and derailments caused thereby. It appears that little native boys found a way to shake the train so that coals were shaken off. Other little natives were seized with the idea of seeing what a train looked like when it was turned over. A method which has been tried with success in other countries is the issue of warning notices. Such notices in four languages could be distributed by the police within a radius of three miles of railways to show what a serious thing it is and what severe punishment will follow. Natives parents would then realize their responsibility. I feel sure something could be done in that way which would prove effective. Some employees on the railway think there should be readjustment in regard to staff regulations, particularly one which requires 17 years’ continuous and satisfactory service for the increment of 6d. to 1s. a day. They ask that it should be made for 15 years at most, or even less. In 1921 there was a regulation in regard to added leave to employees who had completed 20 years’ service. It would not cost the department very much, and would be very much to the satisfaction of the old hands, who certainly have served the department faithfully for so long, if this was restored made to apply like the other provision to, say, 15 instead of 20 years. This special addition of leave, with a railway holiday pass, would be looked upon as a very kindly concession by these old hands. I have a question to put of the case of foreman W. Tiede of the machine shop at Pretoria, a very competent man, who is due to retire in about a year’s time. He came from Uitenhage and was placed on the £580 maximum. It does not seem fair that he should be cut down, when, had he remained where he was, he would have reached the maximum of £600. He and those who work with him feel this to be an injustice, and I hope the Minister will go into the case again and give it favourable consideration. Then there are instances that crop up every now and then, and petitions are presented —I refer to condonation in a break of service—men who have resigned and are taken on again, and wish to enjoy the longer service rights for pension purposes. This grievance has been mentioned so frequently that some way should be found of dealing with it without appealing to Parliament. These may be looked upon by the department as trivial matters but they mean much in ensuring a contented service.

I should be glad if the Minister would be good enough to give the committee some information regarding the outer south pier works, Natal harbour. I think the intention was the south pier should be extended by some 200 feet. How far is this work progressing? Is anything contemplated in connection with the north pier? The last time the “Windsor Castle” came into the harbour she unfortunately, had a mishap, and perhaps the Minister has some information with regard to that. With regard to the Utrecht railway, will the Minister give details of the agreement between that railway and the Government. When does this expire? In regard to what I said about motor-’buses competing with the railway between Maritzburg and Durban, I did not speak of this because I wanted to stamp put private enterprise, for every man is entitled to a living. These men have put up money, taken their courage in both hands, and seized the opportunity. My object was merely to show where competition might be expected, especially in regard to branch lines which are being built everywhere and cannot be expected to pay. I drove to Paarl yesterday and saw many motorlorries along the road conveying wine presumably to Cape Town. The more people you can get in this country who can get a living the better for the country.

I desire to ascertain from the Minister what progress has been made with the classes established in Natal for the purpose of imparting a working knowledge of Afrikaans to railwaymen. Perhaps the Miniated will remember that it was partly owing to a suggestion I made some two years ago that these classes have now been started, and it would be interesting to learn the results to date. As the Minister and hon. members well know, this is a Very important question in Natal. Railwaymen in the clerical department there had little or no opportunity in the past to acquire Afrikaans. The last Government were wise enough not to press unduly the language question in Natal, but, because the law is being enforced to-day, the Pact Government is somewhat unpopular there. In time, however, the majority of these men will acquire sufficient knowledge of Afrikaans to pass the necessary examination. One of the other matters to which I want to direct the Minister’s attention is the petition recently presented to him from the drivers of electric units in Natal. These men underwent a very trying course of instruction in the control and running of the electric units, and many of them put themselves to considerable domestic inconvenience; for, after they became proficient in the driving of the units, they left their depot in Maritzburg and went to Daimana to suit the convenience of the Administration. They cantend that because of their extra skill they are entitled to extra remuneration. I would like the Minister and the Railway Board to reconsider that petition. They have turned it down, I am sorry to say. I do think these men are deserving of favourable consideration. It is recognized in other industries, when labour saving machinery is installed, that the operators receive a higher rate of pay for operating these machines; and the Administration is obtaining greater service than was the case with steam locomotives I have received a communication from Natal to-day asking me to thank the Minister for at last wiping the slate clean with regard to a strike which took place in Natal in 1909; owing to the unsympathetic handling of the workers in those days the men were obliged to withdraw their labour. On the staff records it was stated that they were “disloyal during strike.” I submit a man is not disloyal if he comes out on strike. He is loyal to his fellowmen, and that is the most important thing of all. These men wish me to thank the Administration for rectifying this long-standing grievance. I now want to touch briefly on the suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. G. Brown). It would be an excellent thing if, on presentation of a certificate at a booking office, all workers would get similar facilities for holiday travelling as are offered to the general public during stated periods Regarding the matter raised by the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander), I would like to remind the Minister what the Prime Minister, then the hon. member for Smithfield, said just before the last general election. Speaking at Heidelberg, he said—

and, of course, we know, and railwaymen know to their sorrow7, that the last Government did retrace their steps with regard to the eight-hour day. The Prime Minister went on to say—

[Time limit.]

I should like to know from the Minister whether the elevator in Durban is ready to receive the maize of the next harvest, and I should also like to know whether the necessary preparations have been made for carrying the maize. We know that the lack of trucks in the past has caused great loss to the farmers. I notice that the crop reports prophesy a big maize harvest this year. I think, however, the estimate is too high, and I think, personally, that the highest figure will be 14 or 15 millions. Yet there will be maize for export and the Railway Administration will, therefore, have to take the necessary steps to see that there is no shortage of railway trucks, so that the farmers should not come to the station to find that their mealies cannot be removed.

As I represent an inland constituency, thus one consisting of users of the railway, my constituents are very much concerned as to how the railways are controlled and managed. It is laid down in Section 126 of the Act of Union that the control and management of the railways, ports and harbours of the Union shall be exercised through a board of not more than three commissioners and a Minister of the Crown. The position of a railway commissioner is a very important one. He is appointed for 5 years, can only be removed from office for cause shown, which must be reported to Parliament, and his emoluments cannot be reduced. Before Union we had bitter experiences in the Transvaal in regard to the railways being used as a taxing machine. Prominent Transvaal leaders, who were really the fathers of Union, therefore found it necessary to refer to this matter at public meetings, and elsewhere, and to reassure the public. Mr. Hull, the Treasurer, speaking in the Transvaal Legislative Assembly on March 31st, 1909, said—

Sound views on the same question were expressed by the Hon. R. H. Brand, who was secretary to the Transvaal delegation to the Closer Union Convention. Mr. Brand had been secretary to the Railway Board of the Inter-Colonial Council during the whole of its existence while operating the Central South African railway system. His experience and capacity to express an opinion from an economic aspect are therefore undoubted. Further evidence of his ability is evinced by his being appointed a member of the reparations commission at the Versailles Peace Conference. In October, 1909, Mr. Brand published a book, which is authoritative, entitled “The Union of South Africa,” in which he states—

I am afraid the fathers of the Union will be sadly disappointed to find that the elaborate provisions they made for the protection of the users of the railway have utterly failed.

And are being whittled away.

We, the users of the railway, have long since been disillusioned. The policy of the board on the white labour question should be clearly stated. So far as I have been able to discover they have made no study of, or pronouncement of, the economic aspect of the Government’s policy, which they have, it seems, simply swallowed. The Railway Board should consist of independent, capable, experienced and impartial men who are not party enthusiasts. We have travelled a very long way from the intention which the framers of Union had in view when the South Africa Act was drafted. The Minister will probably say, “We are only doing what you did.” But two wrongs don’t make a right. Some of the appointments of the late Government should, in my opinion, not have been made. The railway commissioners receive considerable emoluments. [Time limit.]

I listened very attentively to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), but I hope the Minister will not take his advice as his ideal of business principles would de-humanize the public service. The railways should be used for service and the betterment of the country generally. If we were to carry out business principles in their entirety, what would happen to stock carried during droughts; also what would happen to our colonial industries? The railways belong to the State, and should be used for the benefit of the people of the State. While I believe the State should look after all the different interests, the railways should keep a separate account showing the services it renders to other public departments. For instance, in times of drought it is right that the railways should place at the disposal of farmers facilities for the removal of stock from one area to another, but the railways should keep an account of the expenditure this involves. In the same way the railway department should keep an account showing what it does to assist colonial industries. I also wish to enter my protest against the cost of living allowances paid to railway workers. It is ridiculous that the railway workers of Johannesburg, generally, are given an allowance which means they receive wages higher than that paid in the Cape, although the cost of living on the Rand is lower than it is in the Cape. The time has arrived when all allowances should be done away with, and whether a man is a clerk or a carpenter, or whether he works at Pretoria, Johannesburg, Port Elizabeth, or Cape Town, he should receive the same salary. While in some districts house rent is higher than it is in others, the cost of living in the former districts, generally speaking, are lower. I would like to ask the Minister if he has considered the question of abolishing the railway police and having their control vested in the Minister of Justice. Would it not be more beneficial to the railway department, and tend to greater efficiency, otherwise I congratulate the Minister on his humane policy in the management of the railways. It is true he has not been able to come up to expectations regarding the manufacture of his own rolling stock in South Africa. I know it is not possible with the present plant and workshops, but I hope and trust he will gradually build more workshops. I should like him to do it more rapidly than at present. It would redound to the credit of South Africa if our requirements were manufactured to a greater extent in South Africa. Fifty per cent. of the price of every article the railway imports is left behind in the shape of wages and profit in the country where it is manufactured. If those articles were manufactured in South Africa it would mean more money in circulation, which would be a great help to this grand country we live in.

I am sorry that I also have to come to the Minister with a number of grievances. They are grievances of the people in my constituency who sent me here to look after their interests, and they expect that I should so represent matters as to obtain relief. During the last five months I have been to see the Minister often in connection with these difficulties, and I think he is rather tired of me. Hon. members know what trouble a young member has. I tried to pin him down, as he is such a small little man, in his office, but he got out every time like a piece of slippery soap. Now I am trying to pin him down here. I think the Minister is not much concerned about the complaints, but in a few weeks I shall be having a meeting in Kroonstad, and he will be on board ship for Europe. On the 12th of June last year Kroonstad had the great privilege of a visit from the Minister. He was specially invited in connection with local grievances, but, unfortunately, there was a festival, so glad were the people of the Minister’s visit that they did not put all their grievances before him. I hear that the Minister has had another invitation to come there. The troubles are among the railwaymen. The complaint in connection with the necessity of the railway bridge has already been brought to the Minister’s notice. Kroonstad really consists of two towns. The railway town contains about 1,800 people. They do not carry on business, nor are trading licences permitted there. About 350 children have to cross the line and return every day to and from school, or must go through the dangerous subway. The same subway is used every day by about 5,000 natives who go to the village and back looking for work. The subway is also the main road to the east, and the traffic is very great. Hon. members can, therefore, imagine how much the vehicular traffic is. All this and the children as well have to go through the narrow subway. There is, therefore, the greatest need of an overhead bridge. It would not cost thousands of pounds, and it ought to be provided. Another great grievance is that, up to 1920, the local allowances at Kroonstad were more or less the same as at Bloemfontein. To-day the people feel that they are being unjustly treated, for while the local allowance at Bloemfontein is now 2s. 6d., at Johannesburg 4s. 6d., at Kroonstad it is only 9d. This was brought to the Minister’s notice when he visited Kroonstad, and he then promised that a committee from the Census Department would be sent to make enquiries. I think that was done, and a report made to the Minister which, apparently, did not convince him that the position is unsatisfactory. The railwaymen doubt whether the enquiry was a fair one. They cannot believe that the cost of living in Kroonstad is so much lower comparatively than in Bloemfontein and Johannesburg. Let me here say that a clerk who was recently sent to the post office at Kroonstad assured me that the cost of living there was no less than at Johannesburg. I should just like to read a short paragraph in connection with the promise that the Minister made during his visit. He then said that the people who had grievances had so excellently submitted their difficulties that the report would have the closest attention of the Administration and himself, and that he hoped to be able to give some relief during that or the following year. He said, further, that in view of the electrification a bridge might possibly be made. That was on the 12th June, and the people inferred from those words that an attempt would be made to assist them, but it is now June, 1927, and I have looked in vain on the estimates without finding 1s. for the rectification of things there. Then there is another point, viz., that the municipality recently spent a large sum in building abattoirs, and they have now again improved the public sale kraals. We know that Kroonstad is a very important centre, and four times a month there are large sales. They are now building alongside of the abattoir which adjoins the main line, and the municipality approached the department recently to remove the loading and off-loading poles from where they now are, viz., three-quarters of a mile away from the sale kraals. It is not only inconvenient, but impracticable. All the thousands of sheep have to be driven through the town to the kraals, back again from the kraals to the loading place, etc., and I do not think it will cost much money to alter it. I hope the Minister will give his attention to it. I should also like to know whether when the amount of £5,000, which I see on the estimates for the line, Lindley Road-Petrussteyn is spent—when the Minister thinks that the work will be broken up. That £5,000 is only enough for 20 days and I want to know whether the Minister is making provision to continue with the work.

In answer to my criticism. I received a rather severe trouncing at the hands of the Minister last night, and it is with feelings of some temerity that I return to the charge this evening. Since I have been in this House I have noticed that the Minister generally seizes the occasion of his replies to his critics on railway matters and when he is in difficulties as an opportunity to indulge in heroics which amounts to mere stage-thunder. When I heard the Minister reply to the first debate when I first entered this House I was thrilled, as figuratively speaking, I saw him dancing on the corpses of his critics. The following session I was merely amused, and now, when he indulges in that sort of reply, we are all extremely bored.

The hon. member is referring to a previous discussion.

I am referring to matters of policy.

The hon. member must not refer to a previous debate. I understood he was discussing something which took place last night.

No, I have finished with that Owing to the Minister’s form of reply, it makes it difficult to bring matters before him, because of his tendency—another weakness of his—to put a construction on the words of his critics which conveys a different meaning entirely to that intended by the speaker. It fits in with the Minister’s case to do it that way, he then proceeds to demolish the argument. Now we were discussing Johannesburg station, and no one objects to Johannesburg having a new station. We admit it is long overdue, but we found fault with the fact that the Minister proposes to spend something approaching £750,000 for one station in one town. That would he quite right if there was a superfluity of money. Whilst this expenditure is going on, we have the constant answer from the Government that certain essential works, which have been promised, are held up for the simple reason there is no money. Railways which have been authorized are down on the programme, but no means provided for their construction. Some of these railways are very essential. Then again one hears a good deal of criticism about the white labour policy of the Minister, and the Minister prefers to take a wrong view of that criticism. It touches him on a tender spot, he says, and that is the wrong way to take it. He said, on one occasion, that he looked upon it as a personal matter, and that anybody attacking the white labour policy was practically attacking his own kith and kin. Now if he is going to continue this white labour policy, the House and the country have a right to know exactly what it is costing. He has no right to get into a state of heroics and say that Natal is objecting to these people coming down into Natal for racial reasons, and try to raise a racial strife on our criticisms, because that is all nonsense. We want to know whether the policy is justified, or whether it is not. If it is not justified, surely the Minister must then cast about for some means of putting his scheme on a sound economic or reasonable basis. If it is incurring a considerably increased cost in connection with the running of the railways, the question arises, is it fair to throw the whole of that burden upon one section of the community, the users of the railways? If you throw a burden of that kind upon the users of the railways then you are using the railways for political purposes. Surely that is perfectly clear. I say, why should you throw the cost upon one section of the people only? The country is crying out for reduced rates, particularly the rates on primary products. Then what one would like to know and what one would like this House to be informed about, is the cost of the white labour policy, and what is the difference between the cost this year as against the same service rendered in the time of the Minister’s predecessor. That would be a true comparison, and I think the country is entitled to know it. When we ask these questions the Minister must keep perfectly calm and either say that he cannot answer the question for this or that reason, or give us the truth, but he must not turn round and attack us, knowing perfectly well that he has got the last word, and that for the next six months we are silent. The same thing applies very largely to the question of branch lines. There again, we always ask what the branch railways cost, and we get no answer. There were certain branch railways which paid. I believe most of those in Natal paid. There were those which paid, and paid quite well in different parts of the country, but there were others which showed a heavy loss. So long as it was the policy of the Government to disclose the result of the working of those branch railways, there was always this check on the tendency of the Government to construct railways which had no hope of paying. That was one of the protections which the public had against their money being utilized for the construction of a railway perhaps to please a few political partizans. We know that the present Minister would not for one moment construct a railway just to please a few political friends, but a time may come when a Minister is in office who might do that. The Minister was very indignant last night and I was more or less pulled up, but I was going to draw his attention to this, that very frequently when certain suggestions have been made as to the tendency to use political influence in connection with the running of the railway he has generally cast the retort across the House—“Mention one case.” The Minister knows that no one is going to mention the case of John Jones or Tom Smith, and the Minister then pats himself on the back and says—“No one can mention a case.” That is, of course, absurd. We will take the case of the English-speaking clerks. The Minister knows perfectly well that he is holding in his hands to-day no less a sum than £23,000 per annum, the earned increments which these young clerks are entitled to and which he is holding back for no other reason except that they have been unable to qualify in their Afrikaans examination.

They are not entitled to it by law.

That is the retort, of course, which the Minister is inclined to use. He says they must qualify themselves, and they will get their increments. The Minister also knows, and the hon. member probably does not know this, that many of these young men who are unable to qualify, and whose increments are being held back, and I say unjustly I—do not say unlawfully—when the hon. member is a little older he will realize what a lot of injustice can be done legally—because there are young people who have been failed in their examinations for a shortage of 1¼ marks only. That may be lawful, but it is not justice. [Time limit.]

I would like to ask the Minister what is the Government’s policy in regard to the motor ’bus competition which is springing up everywhere against the railways. If anybody of individuals or any corporation desired to run a second railway parallel with our present railway the Government would immediately close them down, but the motor ’bus services which we have got are doing exactly the same thing and everywhere throughout the country this is going on. We know that around the Peninsula hundreds of thousands of pounds are being spent on the electrification of the railways, yet the most noticeable feature in Cape Town within recent months is the number of motor ’buses which have sprung into existence, taking the very traffic which this electrification has been brought into existence to serve.

It has not started yet.

Whilst we are spending all this money on electrification, the trade which it should get is being filched from us by the motor ’buses. I will give another instance within my own knowledge. A little over a year ago a motor ’bus started running between Germiston and Johannesburg. It was at first treated as a joke. I was surprised when I was on the Rand during the recess to find that, instead of that one ’bus which was put on originally, there are now eight motor ’buses on that section and they are not only running to Germiston, but they have extended out to Brakpan. The traffic which these ’buses are carrying originally came to the railways and, seeing that these ’buses in order to pay must take £15,000 a year, I hold that that is money which is taken from the railways. If this thing goes on, it means that within a few years and while we are extending our railways the whole of the suburban traffic throughout the country is going to be carried by motor ’bus. It might be said that the public patronise the ’buses because they are cheap. They are cheap for this reason, that the owners of these ’buses have merely running expenses to pay, and have no capital charges for track or road. While ’buses may be a convenience to the public, the public convenience is not necessarily the public interest. I think it is up to the Government to take some action in the matter. Generally speaking, in these matters one is accused of asking the State to interfere in private enterprise. This is a case where the position is entirely the reverse. If something is not done soon the ’bus services are going to work up such big vested interests that later on when the Government is compelled, as other countries have been compelled, to take over these services they will have to pay a very big price for them. We have an instance in Johannesburg where the ’buses have come into such competition with the trams that the municipality have had to try and buy them up. I think the whole question of transportation should be taken over by the State. It might be that the State would not want to work them all, but the State ought to have control. The Government motor services throughout the country are, I believe, very successful, but the State should also try and devise some means whereby services competing with our railways should be controlled. I am sure this merits very serious attention as it is one of the problems seriously worrying railwaymen throughout the world. I would like to support the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. G. Brown) with regard to the necessity for extending the railway excursion fares to workmen and their families on the Witwatersrand. For health reasons it is imperative that these people should be enabled to have an annual holiday. The Railway Department really loses through not having excursion rates because frequently with the fares so high many men on holiday have to remain at home and just loaf about. With regard to the underground men, if there is any portion of the population which deserves well of the Government it is the men working underground on the Witwatersrand. The progress of the country is dependent upon the working of the mines, and any man who goes to work underground on the Witwatersrand sooner or later risks a horrible death from miner’s phthisis. I do trust the Minister will put all-year-round excursion fares for workmen and their families into effect at a very early date.

I want to commiserate with the Minister a little because it is somewhat unkind that members of his own party should be reminding him of broken election promises. Coming from the quarters they do, these are rather like stabs in the back, and I sympathize with the Minister. It is true the criticisms are directed in a very tepid kind of way and you cannot be surprised, considering the fact that some of these gentlemen very probably and very largely owe their presence in the House to these very promises. When the hon. member for Kroonstad (Lt.-Col. Terreblanche) more in sorrow than in anger reminded the Minister of promises made at the bye-election, I could not help thinking of the old nursery rhyme “This year, next year, sometime, never.”

That is the South African party policy.

That is what the Minister always indulges in when he has nothing to say and is beaten to the world. We will take the hon. member for Maritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan). When he was speaking about the eight-hour day, I had vivid recollection of some of my election meetings during 1924, when people asked one “What is your view about the eight-hour day? Will you promise an eight-hour day?” I had not the courage of the Minister to promise them and fall back on a breach of promise afterwards.

When did I make that promise?

The Minister has already admitted in this House that he told people it was a thoroughly just and justifiable thing.

What is your authority for that?

I will let the Minister have it.

You made a statement that I promised it, and I never promised it. You should not make such statements.

I am perfectly right in my statement. The hon. member for Maritzburg (North) also pointed out that the Prime Minister gently and softly, with that lucidity which characterises him when he is making election promises, definitely promised this eight-hour day. And where is this eight hour day? What was the position when I and other South African party members were asked this question? My answer was this that I for one am prepared to advocate an eight-hour day if after proper enquiry by responsible officials it is found the railways can stand the giving of an eight-hour day and the men are entitled to it. That I have never swerved from.

You would have been the first to object.

That is one of the stock weapons the hon. members use. They know that is not so. And so we get this annual spectacle of the hon. member for Maritzburg (North) taking out the skeleton from the cupboard, dusting it gently and putting it back in the cupboard, firing his blank shot and then sitting down at the end of his ten minutes thoroughly glad his ten minutes are over and that he need say nothing more about it for the year, and then he goes away for the refreshment he is so well entitled to after his annual and exhausting effort. I have never made a pledge which I have not carried out. Unlike the member for Germiston and others who sit like lambs when they know that the Minister and others have absolutely broken all these promises. I have nothing to retract on that; I have not to go to my constituents and say that I have promised something I cannot carry out, because a hard-hearted Minister cannot do it. I would give a word of friendly advice to the Minister. “A friendly gesture,” to use a horrible expression, and that friendly gesture is, that although we have such a crowded order paper the Minister should find some time to pass just one little Bill—something on the lines of the one he introduced a little while ago by which he prevented all other litigants having access to a case while the administration had access. He should pass a little Bill prescribing a period, say, of six months, after which it would be an offence to mention the election promises made before the election by a Minister. I would make it six months, so that we should not deprive hon. members of a little pleasure in saying what the election promises had been. That is at least one of the epoch-making questions on which the Cabinet would be united and speak with one voice. There are a large number of people who motor about the country districts and I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the case of a friend of mine who spent his holiday travelling through the south-western districts in a motor-car, and came to the Gouritz River bridge. On the Mossel Bay side he was held up by a railway official who took his name and address and the number of his car, and when he asked what it was for he said because he had not closed the gate. He said he saw seven others, and the railway official said they would be prosecuted. What the railway official did was actually to let all these people go through that open gate for the purpose of taking their names and addresses. That is as near trapping as it could possibly be. My friend was unaware that there was a gate there that had to be closed. [Time limit.]

We have had such a flow of eloquence that I think we might now have a few hard facts. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) has been so voluble about the eight-hour day, but just let me remind him of the position his party took up when the Government dealt with the position. Did he, or any of his party, say that the Government were acting wrongly? Not a word. The Government did act.

And then had to withdraw.

The Government have not withdrawn. It appointed a committee to deal with that question, but unfortunately was not able to accept the whole of the report. But hon. members opposite never did say so.

We never made promises.

Let me remind the hon. member what Mr. Burton did. He adopted the eight-hour day holus-bolus, and it cost the country about £1,000,000. Then my hon. friend, the member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) came on the scene, and withdrew it holus-bolus again without a proper regard to the interests of the men; while this Government has adopted the happy medium. The hon. member for Rondebosch may fume at the mouth about it, but these are the cold hard facts, which he cannot deny.

And cold, dead promises.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) has dealt with several important questions. First of all, he complained that there was very little time for the consideration of Select Committee reports. Unfortunately that has been so in the past, and I do not know whether in future we shall be able to alter that, but in any case the reports and the resolutions of select committees are very carefully considered by the Treasury and the Railway Administration, and replies are given to those resolutions, which are dealt with again by the committees in the following year. As to European labourers, I laid a statement dealing with the whole question on the Table.

You have not dealt with all the recommendations, by a long way.

The report deals with adults and junior labourers. If there is any particular point on which the hon. member wants further information I shall be glad to give it. The hon. member, as well as the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) complained that our estimates of revenue are inflated. If I give the actual result for April this year, which is usually a lean month, they can see our estimates have not been inflated. The result is a profit of £50,794.

January is a very fat month.

If the maize crop eventuates, although not to such an extent as some of the crop correspondents of the agricultural department perhaps expect, it will add considerably to the revenue. As to the Railway Board comments on motor competition, I do not, at this stage, propose dealing with the whole question, because it is of such national importance that it seems to me that the time is not far off when the House will have to face the position if motor competition, which is becoming so serious that the Railway Administration, as a State undertaking, will have to face the position.

How is it going to face it?

The Government will come forward with its proposals, and the House will have an opportunity of dealing with the whole position. The same problem exists in Australia, New Zealand, England and America, and those countries have taken measures.

They have not taken them in England.

In some of those countries they have adopted a measure of competition by railway motor ’buses. When the time comes, the question can be dealt with by the House. Then the hon. member said there was dissatisfaction because promotions were not dealt with in a proper manner, and he mentioned a case at Kroonstad. If he will give me the name of the officer concerned, I will look into it. If it is the case of a man who was passed over, that may be so. In making promotion, efficiency comes first, and seniority comes afterwards. If that is the Kroonstad case, that happens very often. The hon. member referred to the staff employed at the office of the Railway Board. That matter has been very fully discussed in Select Committee. The secretary of the Board, whose salary has been increased, is an officer of very long standing with the Board, has given excellent service, and the increase of salary has been fully justified, and I am prepared to defend it up to the hilt. That position was very much under-valued. That is also the position in regard to the first assistant, who certainly has made very good progress, but then he is an excellent man. Before he was appointed, we asked for nominations from all the systems and he was the best and most suitable, and the work he is doing fully justifies his grading. The hon. member’s reference to the Standard VII examination in connection with the language qualification rests on a misapprehension. We do not admit a certificate of a scholar who has passed Standard VII, has taken English as a medium with Dutch-Afrikaans as a subject—we do not accept that certificate as proof of a sufficient knowledge of Afrikaans. This also holds in regard to the student who enters the railway service who has passed Standard VII in Afrikaans as medium and has taken English as a subject. That also is not considered sufficient. We treat both languages in the same way. That, however, is not departing from the principle of Standard VII, because in the one case the language is only taken as a subject. We, therefore, ask both in regard to English and Afrikaans, that if the subject has been taken in one or the other language, the person concerned must pass an examination in the language which he took as a subject. It was found that the practice of admitting the Standard VII certificate where a language was taken as a subject only was against the law, and that is why the exemption has been withdrawn. The hon. member further complained about the enquiry into the cycle track accident. Section 16 (2) of Act 23 of 1925 is very clear on this point. I do not suppose the hon. member disputes the necessity of the holding of a departmental enquiry as soon as possible after an accident has taken place. No statement made in consequence of a departmental enquiry is disclosed by the administration in connection with any criminal charge arising out of the accident. That fully meets the position. The hon. member also referred to certain goods which were purchased without calling for tenders, and to drawings obtained from an American firm. Unfortunately at the time of the purchase of the locomotives the drawings were not asked for, as the chief mechanical engineer did not think that would be necessary, but if they had been asked for in the first instance we should still have had to pay for them. I know of only two inspectors who passed materials subsequently found to be unsatisfactory, and we do not propose to utilize their services any longer. In one case, the inspector had been employed in England for many years. In view, however, of the fact that the Belgian rails were unsatisfactory, we have decided not to utilize his services in future. It would not be fair to give his name. As to the catering costs, the hon. member must not forget that we have applied the principles of the 8-hour day, and there are heavier charges in regard to superannuation funds. In addition to that, the charges for meal tickets in railway refreshment cars were reduced to 7s. 6d. for three meals. We have, however, had to go back to 8s. 6d., which is only fair, as we cannot possibly do it at 7s. 6d. The service we give is of a very high standard, and 8s. 6d. is not too much. I was very much surprised to hear the hon. member’s remarks with regard to the training of electrical locomotive drivers on the Sea Point line. The statement he refers to was a perfectly correct one. As soon as the Sea Point line has been electrified we are going to train a number of men on it who will operate the Simonstown line. This is similar to the practice followed in Natal where the driving is far more difficult than it will be in the Peninsula. The driving on the Simonstown line will be perfectly easy. This is practically a tramway, but in Natal it is more difficult and our drivers responded excellently to the training, and in a short time have mastered the intricacies of driving the electric trains. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) dealt with a large number of points including the 8-hour day. A large number of members have raised this question and unfortunately it is not possible for the Government to extend the operation of the full report of the Hours of Duty Committee at the present time. I cannot add anything more to that. We have given a very substantial instalment. I think my hon. friend will agree it is better to go ahead slowly than to rush in holus-bolus and then have to withdraw from the position. We must see that we do not outrun the constable in that regard. Generally with regard to the question of housing, raised by a large number of members, I appreciate the position. It is necessary that we should have more houses at the different centres. The policy has been to concentrate our efforts on housing accommodation in the outside districts and to leave it to the municipal authorities in the towns to provide the necessary houses. I am sorry to say the municipal authorities on the whole, with the exception of Bloemfontein and a few others, have not responded as they should have done. We are giving our attention to the country districts where the staffs are living under conditions which are not satisfactory. My hon. friend raised the question of the retirement of certain officials in 1917, and the proposed legislation to deal with it. The Government have decided not to proceed with that legislation but to deal with every case on its merits. Then he asked about travelling allowances for labourers to and from work. I cannot depart from my attitude that labourers must proceed to and from work in their own time. He has referred to the ’bus concessions at the docks. We cannot introduce the principle of concessions on the ’bus services. These ’bus services are being run for development purposes. My hon. friend will say that is not the case at the docks. I know it is not. But if the principle is once admitted, we shall not be able to stop there. He has also referred to the anchorage at Lambert’s Bay. That harbour is not a proclaimed harbour. With regard to the concessions at commercial schools, these scholars are not full time students and I am sorry I cannot concede that concession.

What about the accident on the foreshore?

I am having that looked into. The hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) has referred to the matter of maize rates. I would have thought he would agree that the maize rates are on a very low basis and I see no reason to further lower the rates. It might be required in particular years when prices are very low, but on the whole the maize farmers have done well and I do not see why they should want a further reduction. He has also referred to the reduction in the timber rate. It is being conveyed at rate nine which is a very low rate and we cannot give any reduction for timber without giving it for coal. He has also referred to the language bar and I was very glad to hear him in such temperate language dealing with this question. It is more than can be said of other members. Let me point out to hon. members how they have forgotten the facts. Who is the party responsible mainly for the arrangement with regard to language in our services? Is it not the party over there? I pay tribute in this to them. When they took the step in 1923 they did a wise and statesmanlike act. It comes very badly from hon. members on the other side at this stage to criticize the Government for carrying out the law. The language qualification as contained in the Act of 1925 are taken over word for word from the Act of 1923 dealing with the general service, and that was passed by the S.A. party with the assistance and approval of this side of the House. It comes badly from that side to complain now as if we are doing an injustice to English-speaking civil servants in Natal. The song has been that I have been doing an injustice to a large number of clerks in Natal because they have not passed the language qualification. I am carrying out the law and I am not prepared to depart from the terms of the law. I have appreciated the position of these unilingual clerks in Natal and all over the system, and hon. members must agree that the railway administration has gone out of its way to assist these unilingual clerks in their difficulties. We have asked a lady of outstanding educational qualifications to deal with the question, and we have placed facilities at her disposal to travel over Natal and organize classes and we have arranged for the fees to be deducted from the pay sheets and we have made arrangements for special teachers to give tuition to unilingual clerks. I am glad to see those clerks have shown a better spirit than the spirit which has been shown here. They are enrolling in these classes and making good use of them. If it were not for these efforts which we are making there might be some reason to say that we are acting unsympathetically. I think hon. members must admit that, while carrying out the law as I am bound to do, at the same time I have taken every step to assist these unilingual clerks. Why should I want to keep their increments from them? I have every sympathy with these men, more especially when they are married with a family. The hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) has raised the question of coal rates, both bunker and export coal rates. We have on many previous occasions discussed this question of the rates on coal and I regret that I cannot agree to any reduction. It is true that the rates, compared to pre-war rates, are higher, but the time has not come for a further reduction. We are watching the position as regards both our bunker and export coal. At the present time there has been a falling off owing to abnormal circumstances, but I am glad to say there has been a slight recovery.

Has there not been a falling off in the export trade?

Nothing to be alarmed about. There have been difficulties in regard to freight to the east. Freight has gone up. Ships were being chartered for Europe and as a result there has been a setback, but it is being gradually adjusted. The hon. member for Dundee asked me about the central manufacturing workshops. I dealt with that fully yesterday and I do not think it is necessary to say more about it at present. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) dealt with the question of the renewals fund and defended his policy of taking 7 per cent. from revenue. I am sorry he has defended it, because I think he must acknowledge that that was not a sound and scientific basis to adopt. Let me give him one instance to show that it is not a scientific method. Take a year when there are rate reductions and there is a fall in revenue. You may also have a bad year as regards traffic and the revenue falls. My hon. friend will realize that during that year the depreciation on the rolling stock and permanent way is going on all the same. Another point is that you may have a year in which you have to deal with a particularly large tonnage of low-rated traffic and the wear and tear and depreciation of the rolling stock is much more than it would ordinarily be. My hon. friend takes 7 per cent. from his revenue. His fund would ultimately be in a hopeless position. I think my contribution of a million and a half is a far more sound and scientific one. It is not satisfactory in the fullest sense of the word. I am having this matter very carefully investigated and I hope shortly to have the report of the committee dealing with it. I frankly admit that it is a difficult matter. The hon. member asked me about the Perishable Products Export Control Board. I was very glad indeed to have the tribute from him, it was partial, it was true, but still it was a tribute to the work of that board. I think that under great difficulties the board has done good work. I am, unfortunately, not in a position at this stage to take the House into my confidence in regard to the negotiations with the Union-Castle Company except to give the House the assurance that the Government is dealing with the whole position, is fully alive to the requirements of the fruit exporters and we hope in a very short time to take the country into our confidence in regard to this question.

Who is going to deal with it while you are away?

My colleague the Minister of Finance will be acting for me and will deal with that matter. The hon. member has asked me about the line to Postmasburg. I am sorry we shall not be able to deal with that matter this session. In regard to the negotiations, I may say that some difficulties have arisen, financial difficulties. This is a line to an area which the Government feels that the State should not in the first instance contribute the whole of the cost. I hope that in time we shall be able to get over that difficulty and certainly the proposition has not been abandoned. The manganese is there and I have no doubt that in time it will be fully developed. The hon. member (Mr. Jagger) has asked me about the loss owing to the Kimberley fire. The position is that the damage in regard to buildings, etc., amounts to £46,000, but that does not include furniture and rolling stock. The assistant general manager and two senior officers have investigated the matter, and have reported that as far as they can ascertain, the conflagration started from the lamp of a European labourer’s bicycle. Probably owing to the bicycle resting in a slanting position against the furniture the paraffin oil escaped from the container and become ignited by the lighted wick of the bicycle lamp. That is the finding of the officers. Our insurance fund is in a very strong position; in fact, so strong that we have reduced our contribution from revenue to that fund. However unfortunate this is, of course, the insurance fund will carry the loss, so revenue will not suffer. My hon. friend is quite wrong when he thinks that we have had an epidemic of fires. That certainly has not been one of our difficulties. He has asked me about the results of electrification on the Natal system. The results are £50,000 better than they were under steam, and I hope the position will further improve. The whole system is giving excellent results. Then my hon. friend and a large number of other hon. members have been back on this question of civilized labour. Let me frankly congratulate my hon. friend on his change of heart. It appears that the policy which has been preached from this side of the House has at length borne fruit. My hon. friends on this side will have marked that not a single member on the other side has dared to attack the principle itself.

Nonsense.

Well, then, the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) must be the only remaining South African party member who is opposed to the principle. All the criticism is now on this point of “Why don’t you publish the cost?” I have, on previous occasions, dealt very fully with the matter. The policy of employing civilized labour, white and coloured men, and giving them every opportunity to advance in the service, forms a definite part of the policy of the Railway Administration.

The public has to pay.

The public is also getting the benefit of increased efficiency. My hon. friend admitted we were getting increased efficiency. He pleaded for more mechanical appliances. He will be glad to hear that that is a matter we have gone into, and intend providing money in that respect. With white and coloured labour, men who are more civilized and intelligent, in order to use their labour economically, you must provide them with labour saving machinery. That is the policy to which we are working. But what justification is there, then, for drawing a line, a line which no one can really7 draw with justice and truth and correctness? What is the value of giving such figures to the country? What are the figures we can give? They are these: Native labour would cost so much, civilized labour is costing so much more. But that is not the whole picture, because with mechanical appliances and increased intelligence we are getting more efficiency. Who is going to say what that is worth in cash? My hon. friend says we are misleading the people. No, I say deliberately that if we were to continue publishing these figures we would be misleading the people, because we would be giving figures which do not really represent the actual facts. I would commend to hon. members the position of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), who has frankly said that the Administration should bear the cost of this, and no more should be said about it. He has also referred to the question framing statistics of branch line working. I am out for economy. Hon. members have said, “Surely you want to know the financial results of the lines we have built.” If any hon. member wants the results of a particular line I am prepared to give it to him. When the board and the House deal with a new programme, and if the House then asks for the results of the working of branch lines, the information will be forthcoming. We are saving money in this regard.

I doubt it.

The hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. D. M. Brown) dealt with train services on the midland system, and delays to the mail traffic. He will be glad to hear that we have made a very careful investigation into all the allegations, and it is proved that the position on the midland system is very satisfactory indeed. He has referred to a certain native who has been discharged owing to the age limit; if he gives me the name, I shall be prepared to deal with it. The policy of the Government is clear. We have a Bill on the order paper which makes provision for gratuities to coloured and native servants who have given long service. It shows that the Government does not view the labour given by natives without interest. I hope to make provision from revenue for gratuities to these servants, when they have given sufficiently long service. The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Maj. Miller) has dealt with a ministry of transport. He has given good advice in that regard and I propose to take it—to investigate the matter further. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) dealt with the question of classes for Afrikaans. I hope I have replied fully to that and given him all the information in that regard. He will be glad to hear that the men are joining these classes in large numbers. As to the wage of the drivers of the electric units, I am sorry, but I cannot depart from the decision that they must receive the same rate as the drivers of steam locomotives. If we departed from that we would be creating difficulties, as the steam drivers say they are doing more work, and have a dirty job, while the electric drivers have a nice, clean one. I am not going into that aspect, but I am not prepared to make a differentiation in payment. With regard to the local allowance for Kroonstad, I have asked the Census Department to go into that, and the Civil Service Commission have come to the conclusion that Kroonstad is not entitled to a higher allowance. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) has dealt with the re-grading of the clerical staff. This depends on the merit of each individual case. There are other small matters he has dealt with, and I shall take the occasion of replying to him in correspondence. Several hon. members have dealt with excursion tickets to employees working on the mines. Hon. members will appreciate that if I granted this for these employees there would be no justification in withholding it from other employees working in other industries. They would be able to make out the same good case, and if we were to do it for them, we might just as well cut out our ordinary rates and fares. Our present excursion programme is a very liberal one, and I cannot extend it. The hon. member for Durban (Stamford Hill) (Mr. Lennox) asked me about the south pier at Durban. We are making the blocks, and by the end of the year we hope to have sufficient on hand to proceed with the work. With regard to the Utrecht railway, the contract will probably expire at the end of 1935. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus) referred to the constitution of the Railway Board. The members of that board have given every satisfaction, and I think the House can be satisfied that they are giving good service. The hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) suggests that the railway department should debit the central Government for the services rendered. It must not be forgotten, however, that we have a State system and we render services which could very justly be rendered; charged to railway working, for instance, when the railway department assist farmers to save their stock we subsequently derive revenue as the result of doing that. We give certain privileges to civil servants, and while we do give very valuable privileges to the central Government there are many things which the central Government does for us in regard to taxation and so on, so the account is about balanced. My leader thinks that the central Government might come out on the wrong side. However, I think the railway service is doing its share very handsomely. As to the railway police most railway systems have their own police, and for the detection of crime on the railway it is very necessary to have men specially trained in railway work. The hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) referred to the new station at Johannesburg arid said to my friends on the cross benches: “You are approving of the Johannesburg station so now you can’t get the eight-hour day.” Surely he appreciates the very small but important difference that whilst the eight-hour day is financed from revenue, the Johannesburg station will be built out of loan funds, and that makes all the difference.

†*The hon. members for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) and for Heilbron (Mr. M. L. Malan) mentioned the matter of maize traffic, and asked what steps were being taken with regard to the approaching harvest. I can assure them that the assistant general manager of the Free State division has got into touch with all the farmers, exporters and buyers of maize. All possible steps have been taken. If the maize comes in too quickly, then it may possibly happen that the Administration may run a bit short, but hon. members can be certain that all possible steps have been taken to handle the traffic. Owing to the fact that the Durban elevator will be ready for the coming harvest, and as 1,000 grain trucks have been acquired, the position is much improved. The hon. member for Ladybrand spoke about the employment of doctors on the panel system. I went into the matter and found that it was tried at Durban, but the Sick Fund Board found the expense so great that it was abandoned. The expenditure throughout the country would be so high that it would mean that the contributions of the railwaymen and of the Administration would, in consequence, be increased. I am sorry that that is so, because I think there is much to be said for the attitude of the hon. member. He said also that railway doctors should be bilingual, and I quite agree. The Central Sick Board was approached in the matter, and I am glad to see that that is also their view. Now that the Railway Board approves or disapproves of the appointment of railway doctors, bilingual railway doctors are appointed as far as possible. The hon. member also complained about the Afrikaans used. Well, I fear that what he says is probably true, but I hope that it is only in a relative sense. I want to ask the hon. member and other hon. members to bring to the notice of the Administration all cases where the least injustice is done to the second official language, and I can assure them that there will be no delay in giving Afrikaans its proper rights. I am glad about his remark that there has been an improvement. My information is that there are no natives employed as clerks in any division. The hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. P. C. de Villiers) has asked for the inclusion of Klerksdorp in the Transvaal system, instead of in the Cape system. I can tell the hon. member that it does not actually make much difference. The officials have to do their work wherever they are stationed, and they usually do it loyally. I fear I cannot comply with the request of the hon. member. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) raised the whole question of overhead bridges over the railway line, and also spoke about contributions to the maintenance of roads. As I have already said, I am sorry that the Administration cannot depart from the principle that the local authorities must pay half the cost for subways and overhead bridges. The hon. member for Caledon and other hon. members will be interested to hear that this policy is already being introduced on the countryside. We have arranged with the Village Management Board of Douglas to pay half the cost of a platform, and I hope the good example of Douglas will be followed. The Administration cannot contribute towards the maintenance of roads. The hon. member for Ladismith (Mr. J. J. M. van Zyl) referred to the waiting room at Touws River. The hon. member will have to wait until the money is available. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) brought a large number of points to my notice. Let me tell him that before we replied in writing in those matters we went very carefully into them, but it, unfortunately, appears to be impossible to agree with them. The hon. member must understand that if the wages of a shunter are increased it does not rest there, but all classes of workers such as the ticket controller and porter will also want more. The whole service is now graded, and if we begin meddling at one end then everyone will have to get an increase. The hon. member also complained about unilingual inspectors. The hon. member cannot blame me for that. It is the result of the system. We still have thousands of unilingual people in the service, and the hon. member surely does not want us to pension them. We are trying to make the best of it, and the spirit among the unilingual men is such that where they cannot attend to the public in the language employed, they do their utmost to find someone else to do so. If there are cases of unsympathetic treatment I should be glad to have particulars. The hon. member further wants that a man who is not working full time on the railway should be allowed to do private work. He may do little jobs for himself, but we cannot allow him to work for anyone else, because then he will be tired for our work the milowing day. The hon. member for Cradock Mr. G. C. van Heerden) advocated facilities for small sheep shows. I am sorry that we cannot grant the same facilities to them as to the large shows. With regard to motor services, it will be best for the hon. member to give me particulars about the wishes of his constituency. We can then investigate it. The hon. member for Kroonstad (Lt.-Col. Terreblanche) complains about the absence of an overhead bridge. It is a question of funds. I admit that it is one of the most necessary things, but if there are no funds I can do nothing. I hope that we shall be able to provide for it next year.

†Just before I sit down I want to deal with the retirement of the general manager. Sir William Hoy. It will be common knowledge to the House that Sir William Hoy, who will reach the age limit early next year, will during the month of November this year prior to retirement go on leave. Now, I think I am expressing the feeling of the whole House, as I certainly am expressing the feeling of the Prime Minister and the Government, that in Sir William Hoy we are losing a distinguished railway servant. Sir William Hoy has been with the different railway administrations before Union, and with the Union Administration since its inception. He has rendered service to South Africa in that regard which is of an outstanding character. I do not want to detain the House with elaborate figures, but I think it will be interesting to the House if I give a few figures showing how the service has grown under the management of Sir William Hoy during the period that he has been at the head of affairs since Union. In December, 1909, the open mileage was 6,894, while on March 31st, 1927, we had 12,269 miles. The capital expenditure of the railways on the first date was £84,466,354, while to-day it is £142,551,611. The staff employed in 1909 was 39,564, while to-day it is 88,343. For the year ending 31st December, 1909 the administration earned £10,455,819, while we earned in the year just closed £25,673,650. We spent in working expenses, in the first period, £5,675,658, while in the year just closed the amount was £20,162,999. Goods, minerals, etc., conveyed in the first period, apart from administration requirements, amounted to 8,935,466 tons, while last year the total was 20,615,369 tons. In the first year the total number of passengers carried was 28,191,135, while last year it was 80,084,249. The total train miles run, in the first period, was 19,662,444 miles, while last year it was 45,547,644. The cargo dealt with at the harbours in the first year was 4,007,148 tons, while last year it was 7,890,455. This must be some indication to hon. members and to the country how our railway system has grown under the able management of our general manager. There has been tremendous progress, there has been tremendous development, and I do not think I am saying too much when I say that the grip, the vision, and the organizing capacity of the general manager has very largely assisted in that development. The general manager, as a man of vision, has always looked ahead, and has always realized that South Africa has a big future before it. He showed foresight in many respects, and, what is more, he had the courage of his convictions. On many Occasions, speaking for myself, I have disagreed with the views of the general manager. There are other hon. members in this House and others in the country who have, perhaps, also at times differed from the views of the general manager, but there is no single man in this country who will not admire the general manager. Sir William Hoy, for the courage with which he has placed his views before the country from time to time. In that regard he has rendered outstanding service to the Union. The Government holds in the highest esteem the work of the general manager, and while he now leaves us to take up a most important position in Southern Rhodesia, we wish both Sir William Hoy and Lady Hoy the very best for the future, and we trust that their future will be bright. We feel sure that he will, in his new sphere of work, show that same capacity, and will be of further service to South Africa, not only to Southern Rhodesia, but to the Union as a whole, more especially in connection with the problems with which he is so thoroughly acquainted. If I may be allowed to say one personal word, with regard to the work of the general manager, since I took over this sometimes difficult and onerous office, it is one of thanks for the loyal and wholehearted manner in which the general manager co-operated with me. I am glad to be able to pay testimony to that loyal, wholehearted and trustworthy manner in which Sir William Hoy co-operated with a young Minister, inexperienced in many ways, willing to learn, but, at the same time, wanting the assistance and advice of a man with the long service and big knowledge of Sir William Hoy. He gave of his very best, and I highly value that co-operation during that period. The question has been raised as to his successor. I appreciate that this is a matter of outstanding importance to the whole of the country, and to the whole of the Railway Administration, and the Government is not prepared, at this stage, to make any announcement in that regard. I have indicated previously that it is my hope that I shall be able, during the next few months, to study problems of railway management in other parts of the world, and I hope that when I come back I shall be able to advise the Government. Very important questions have been raised by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) as regards the division of work and financial responsibility, questions of outstanding importance, on which I have not, up to the present, formed any definite judgment, and upon which I want further information and light. The House and the country may rest assured that before a successor to Sir William Hoy is appointed, the Government will give most careful consideration to the needs of South Africa and the Railway Administration.

May I, with my limited experience, compared with that of the Minister, as to the true value of Sir William Hoy’s services to the State, endorse what he has said in regard to the general manager’s sterling qualities. I feel that Sir William Hoy is not only, as the Minister said, a distinguished servant, but also an outstanding and brilliant servant, and we feel he is perhaps the most remarkable of the many remarkable men we have had the privilege of having in our service. I have been in very close touch with Sir William for some years past; I have not always seen eye to eye with him, but no matter how much one may disagree with him, one always feels he has the business of the Administration at his finger-tips. One feels that he has made a great study of his subject, that he knows every item necessary to be known in regard to that subject, and we know that our country, young country as it is, can ill afford to lose so brilliant a man. I merely wish to endorse what the Minister has said in regard to this distinguished officer, and I trust that we may in future be in some degree as successful in our general manager as we have been in the years since Union. We must admit that the Minister is a real adept at avoiding an issue. I brought up a few questions this evening to which the Minister has carefully avoided replying. In regard to the promotion of officers I never suggested that these men who were promoted are not worthy of promotion. The point I endeavoured to make was that when we have in one section of a department extraordinary promotions against all the rules which have been laid down previously in regard thereto, some explanation is necessary, and if it is not forthcoming the Minister must expect the remainder in his service to be dissatisfied. I mentioned one instance from Kroonstad, and several instances are referred to by the Auditor-General. Several other hon. members have mentioned instances. We have to consider the whole of the service, and when one finds men promoted over hundreds of others and skipping several grades in the process undoubtedly you have a right to ask for some indication why these men are so favoured. I am not suggesting that these men are not fit for promotion, or not worth the better pay that they are getting. With regard to the question raised by the Minister in regard to Standard VII, if the Minister looks at the Act 23 of 1925 he will find in Section 8 it says—

There is not a word about the language in which he must write his papers. I go further and say that the Minister in 1925 as reported in Hansard, definitely stated, in reply to a question raised by the leader of the Opposition (General Smuts) that provision is made in the Bill—

That is so.

If you pass Standard VII and one of the subjects is Dutch or Afrikaans, you will accept this man in the service without—the Minister shakes his head. Let me read—

My position is that Standard VII is the standard which has been adopted and which is applied; and in actual practice schoolmasters will tell my hon. friend that— by passing Standard VII with medium Dutch, English as a subject, he is not properly qualified in English of Standard VII standard.

They have to pass through both mediums; is that it?

He must be efficient in both languages.

What happens when a man is 30 years of age; is he to pass Standard VII?

Employees who are in the service have to pass an examination prescribed by the Education Department; but it is the question of the new entrant my hon. friend has referred to. If it is a new entrant I say that having passed Standard VII with Afrikaans as medium, and English as subject, does not qualify that particular pupil in English; and the reverse holds true.

I appreciate what the Minister says, but what I don’t understand is that in 1925 he did not say what he says now.

I said the test would be standard seven.

These men were perfectly satisfied with the assurance you gave in 1925 but when they produce their standard seven certificates you now say they must sit for another examination. The Minister has now gone back on his promise. The men claim that the Minister has no right to direct them to sit for another examination after they have passed standard seven. As regards the Cycle Track accident, I admit the Minister is technically correct, but my argument was that when the administration anticipates that a man will have to undergo a criminal trial they have no right to ask him to say anything which may incriminate him. The railway servants feel that the man was submitted to four different examinations before he had to stand his criminal trial. This is a very serious position, and the Minister should give it his very careful consideration. As to branch line statistics it is quite true the select committee passed a resolution on the subject, but it is also true that the Railway Board decided as far back as January last that it would not take the statistics. The report of the select committee has never been discussed in this House. I feel this is a matter we should discuss as a special subject. It is very difficult when one is asked to stop in the middle of an argument.—[Time limit.]

I should like to ask the Minister a question. With that dexterity we are accustomed to, in which he gives a plausible answer, which is no answer at all to this side, he dealt with the question of the eight-hour day and the white labour policy, and he said the Opposition had entirely recanted and the Government claimed a great victory. The hon. Minister does seem unable to learn, in spite of our clear and repeated and lucid explanation what our attitude is on the civilized labour policy, that such criticism as is directed has always been the same, and one point has been as to how far in going on with this policy are you acting unjustly to any particular section. The other point raised is, how far are you carrying out this policy, and are you putting the country to greater expense than the economic value of the labour at your disposal. We have raised this question on the same lines which the Auditor-General has taken. He is the most impartial and independent man in the country, and these criticisms should receive the weight they deserve, getting the support they do from the most impartial person in the whole of the country, whose duty it is to examine financial matters. The Minister has laid down two propositions which the House must object to. One is, he refuses to give information on the extra cost of the policy, and the second is because the administration has decided upon it as a matter of policy. What right has the Minister to refuse to give the House the information? What right has he to tell us that the administration has decided on a particular policy? The policy is laid down by the Act of Union, which says that it must be on business lines and it does not matter what policy they adopt, however high the motive, if it is going to be carried out at greater expense than it should be, then we say the extra expense should be made known to the public and should be charged to the proper vote, and not to the administration. That is the simple point we have taken all the time, and the Minister has no right to lay down that because the administration have autocratically decided that this is a fixed policy, therefore he could not give the information to the country I regard that as a misconception of the position of the administration, and of the power and duty of the Minister and of Parliament. The Minister jumped away from the eight-hour day question. He said: “See what you did. The point of the attack—