as chairman, brought up the fourth report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts (on Controller and Auditor-General’s Report, etc.).

Report and evidence to be printed and considered on 20th June.

Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence and that of the House, may I invite your attention to the fact that on Tuesday last a member of the Natal Provincial Council moved the adjournment of that Chamber for the purpose of calling attention to the rejection by you of certain resolutions passed by the provincial council on the question of (1) South African Nationality and flag Bill; (2) the Indian agreement. The resolutions were forwarded to you for communication to this House, and were returned with an intimation that you found yourself unable to present them to this House as the representations sought to be submitted to Parliament did not fall within the scope of the provisions of Section 87 of the South Africa Act. With submission, sir, may I ask whether you would be prepared to make a statement for public information as to your reasons for rejecting these resolutions, especially in view of the fact that a resolution from the Natal Provincial Council on the Indian question was communicated by you to this House on the 28th July, 1924. And may I ask, sir, whether you would be prepared to accept these resolutions if they were so altered in their phraseology as to come within the section of the South Africa Act quoted, by definitely recommending legislation of a certain character since the exclusion of these resolutions from this House may conceivably be taken to deny the provincial council the privilege of representing to Parliament its considered opinion on the questions referred to?

The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls) was good enough to inform me that he intended to ask these questions and I will deal with them at once. I may say that on receipt of the resolutions I discussed the matter with the President of the Senate and we came to the conclusion that they did not fall within the scope of section 87 of the South Africa Act and therefore could not be formally communicated to Parliament. In my opinion section 87 of the South Africa Act does not entitle a provincial council to have formally communicated to this House any and all resolutions it may wish to pass with regard to intended legislation before Parliament. I think that a reference to sections 85, 86 and 87 of the South Africa Act will at once show that section 87 is intended to meet the case where a provincial council finds that it has no power to pass legislation which it considers necessary for the Province. In such cases the provincial council may recommend to Parliament the passing of the law or laws which it deems necessary. That is what was done in the resolution which was communicated to this House on 28th July, 1924, and to which the hon. member for Zululand has referred. In effect that resolution was a recommendation to Parliament to pass legislation which the council considered to be necessary for Natal and which it was not competent to pass itself.

Section 87 of the South Africa Act provides an exception to the salutary rule that no resolutions of outside bodies should be formally communicated to this House and if that section were to be construed more widely than I have indicated above it would mean that whenever legislation of a general nature is under consideration of Parliament every provincial council will have the right to pass resolutions with regard thereto and to have such resolutions formally communicated to this House. In my opinion that was never contemplated by the South Africa Act. For these reasons the resolutions of the Provincial Council of Natal to which the hon. member has referred were not communicated to the House but were returned to His Honour the Administrator. The resolutions in the one case urge Parliament to reject the Nationality and Flag Bill and stated reasons for such a case, and in the other case they protested against the ratification of the Indian Agreement by Parliament and expressed certain opinions thereon. In my opinion the resolutions in neither case were such as could be formally communicated to Parliament as being within the meaning of section 87.

The ordinary way in which the views and wishes of persons or bodies outside Parliament are made known to this House is through hon. members, and it would be contrary to all parliamentary practice to allow resolutions of any outside body to be officially and formally communicated to the House except in the case provided for by section 87 of the South Africa Act, namely, when a provincial council recommends to Parliament the passing of legislation affecting the province which that council is not competent to pass itself.

I may say that in 1919 the Provincial Council of the Orange Free State passed a resolution protesting against the Enemies Repatriation and Denaturalization Bill and it was sought to communicate the same to Parliament, but Mr. Speaker ruled that the resolution did not fall within the scope of section 87 of the South Africa Act_ and it was returned on 7th April, 1919. On 30th May of the same year a resolution of the Provincial Council of the Transvaal expressing apprehension at certain intended legislation and urging upon Parliament not to pass any measure having the effect of validating the illegal registration of companies formed for the purpose of holding land on behalf of Asiatic shareholders and further protesting against the legalization of certain licences granted to Asiatics, was returned on the same ground.

It will be seen therefore that the point has on previous occasions been considered and decided, but this is the first time that a statement by Mr. Speaker has been asked for.

With regard to the second question put by the hon. member I may point out that it is of a hypothetical nature and I am not prepared to say whether I would accept the resolutions if their phraseology were altered. I may, however, state that in my opinion the only resolutions of a provincial council which can be formally communicated to Parliament are those in which the Council in terms of section 87 of the South Africa Act “recommends to Parliament the passing of any law relating to any matter in respect of which such Council is not competent to make Ordinances.” If a provincial council decides to discuss legislation which is under consideration of Parliament and to express its disapproval thereof or of the actions of the Government it can send its resolutions to the Government or have its wishes made known to this House through hon. members of this House like any other body but it must not expect such resolutions to be formally communicated to this House under cover of section 87 of the South Africa. Act.

I wish to give my ruling in regard to the points raised in Committee of Supply on the 12th instant.

To entitle the mover of an amendment in Committee of Supply to the benefit of a forty-minutes’ speech under Standing Order No. 104 (3) there appear to be two essentials. First, the amendment must be bona fide intended to challenge the Minister’s policy and not merely to enable the mover to evade the ten-minutes’ rule; and secondly, the matter to be discussed must be a single specific question of policy.

I do not think that it was the intention to grant to the mover of such an amendment a roving commission to launch a general attack on the Minister’s policy on all matters for which he may be responsible. For instance, an honourable member who wishes, in Committee of Supply, to discuss all the policies of the Minister of Agriculture in the various departments under his control, could not, in my opinion, avail himself of the rule. The same applies to the various policies of the Minister of Railways and Harbours. If the rule is to be construed in such a way that more than one question of policy may be discussed then in principle there is no reason why all questions of policy should not be discussed and it would have been much easier to have laid down that two members could avail themselves of forty-minutes’ speeches on moving a reduction of the Minister’s salary.

It must be remembered that a general discussion of policy takes place on the Budget debate, and, in my opinion, an honourable member under this rule, is confined in committee to the specific question of policy raised by him if he wishes to have the benefit of a forty-minutes’ speech. It seems to me also that if any other interpretation were placed upon the rule it would be very difficult indeed for the Chairman to know when to draw the line. Moreover, if members were to be allowed to make use of the rule merely to get in all they want to say on various matters, it would not be fair to those who really wish to challenge the Minister’s policy on a definite question.

I am of opinion that the view expressed by the Chairman is the correct one.

I should now like to fulfil the promise which I made yesterday to the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) about the work of the House before the end of the session. I think the only matter of importance which does not appear on the Order Paper is the Nationality and Flag Bill. Besides this Bill, orders I to IX including the motion standing in my name will be disposed of as well as orders XIII and XIV, and the Bill on Railway construction, which is the order of the day for next Friday. The last-named is a short Bill. That is practically all the Government intends to deal with during this session.

What about the Public Health Act Amendment Bill?

That also is possible, but I fear it will be a difficult matter. The Government would also like orders XII and XVIII, if it is at all possible, to be dealt with. Possibly there may be some reports of Select Committees to be considered, but I am not certain about it. I think that this is a clear enough statement as to what still lies before the House. Hon. members will see that from the Order Paper one gets an exaggerated impression of the work there is still remaining. I hope that we shall be able to finish within the next twelve or fourteen days.

I want to ask the Prime Minister to have copies printed in the form of a White Paper of the most important parts of the report in relation to the status of Great Britain and the Dominions which was passed by the recent Imperial Conference. It is a very important matter, and the large majority of the members do not know the contents of the report which was laid on the Table.

I see the necessity for it, but unfortunately our copies have not arrived from England. They may, however, arrive any day. I still have three or four copies which I should be pleased to hand to hon. members if they wish. I gave one the other day to the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) and told him that if other members wanted copies I would give them to them. In the circumstances I think that it is too late to have parts of the reports printed, because members will anyhow not be able to get them before the debate comes on.

submitted a message from his Excellency the Governor-General, as follows:

Government House, Cape Town, June, 1927.

On the motion of the Minister of. Agriculture, the amendment was considered and agreed to.

further stated the ruling given by Mr. Speaker to the points raised in Committee of Supply on 10th June.

On Head 2, “Maintenance of Permanent Way,” £3,238,474,

We find under this head a decrease of £128,000 which on the face of it seems satisfactory, but to appreciate the position it is necessary to know what expenditure there has been from renewals fund. No information is given to us. Previously wages expenditure was charged to a special vote known as the maintenance vote. It is now charged to the renewals fund. I would like to know what proportion comes from the renewals fund so that we can appreciate the position.

I should like to put a question to the Minister in connection with what appears under this Vote for salaries and wages. I take it that it includes the wages that are paid to white railwaymen for maintenance of the permanent way. According to my information the wages for unmarried persons at present are from 3s. 6d. to 5s. 8d. a day up to their 21st year, and for married railwaymen 6s. 3d. a day. Unskilled labourers, however, under Government contracts are paid, according to certain stipulations of the Public Works Department, at the rate of 1s. an hour or 8s. a day. It goes without saying that this influences the view of the railwaymen because their work is also Government work. They naturally think that when others get 8s. a day they are also entitled to it. My question now is simply whether the Administration intends to increase the wages up to 8s. a day.

In answer to the question of the hon. member I can only repeat what I said last night in answer to a question, viz., that it must not be forgotten that the young people who get the low wage are being trained for their life work, and if that is remembered the wage is not so low. We have the same principle in the trade union apprentices who are indentured for five years and earn a low wage. They are learning during that period. With regard to the old people who earn 6s. 3d. a day, I want to point out that besides free housing they have many other privileges such as the pension fund, free transport once a year for the worker’s wife, etc. It is difficult to calculate the cash value of that.

†The hon. member for Harbour (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) asked for information with regard to the allocations. He will find the particulars of expenditure from the renewals fund in the brown book. The allocation which is made on a particular work is done by the chief accountant.

We used to have it under different heads in detail.

You have it in the brown book.

There is a certain amount of expenditure taken from the renewals fund, and to understand the one we want details from the other as well.

But we cannot put that on the working vote. It is dealt with in the brown book because renewals and capital expenditure are very much bound up.

What is the meaning of £35,000 for overhead electrical equipment? What are you going to spend £35,000 on in regard to electrical equipment?

This amount includes the salaries and wages of the staff required for repairing and maintaining the overhead equipment of the Natal electrified line. The increase has been occasioned by the additional provision made for the staff by way of increments changes of personnel and travelling expenses.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head 3, “Maintenance of Rolling Stock,” £4,106,415,

I would like the Minister to give us some information about the American engines he got out some time since, how they are going on and what is the position in regard to them.

I understand it was formerly the custom to call for tenders for the railways, and to have them sent in to the office of the High Commissioner in London. This was subsequently altered, and the practice now is to have them sent in to the head office in Johannesburg. I should like to know what the result of this change means to the taxpayer.

In reply to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) I may say that, as intimated to the House, the company responsible for the delivery of these engines has agreed to supply us with the castings which failed in the first instance, and I understand that the engines are now giving satisfactory service.

†*With regard to the question of the hon. member for Bethlehem (Dr. D. G. Conradie), I just want to say that there was some doubt at the commencement whether the policy of having tenders sent in in South Africa would be successful. I am glad to be able to say that the policy of the Government has been absolutely justified by the facts because, as the Government expected, nearly all the oversea firms who do business here sent agents to South Africa and opened offices here to carry on business, and in these offices people from South Africa are, of course, employed. A further benefit is that we find that the delivery of supplies is much expedited by the agents being in direct touch with us, and they look after the interests of the firm and see that speedy delivery is made. Another advantage—it is strange that it is so—is that the field of competition has been extended. Where formerly the High Commissioner’s office had a certain number of firms on the list, we find now that the advertising is done in South Africa and tenders are opened here, that a large number of firms tender who formerly did not do so, and the result is that it is all to the good of the Administration. Finally I want to say that during the past year, 1926, more goods were purchased in South Africa, viz., to an amount of £1,420,000 than in 1925. That is a further justification of this good policy.

I would like to ask the Minister, while he is dealing with the question of tenders, whether he can make a statement to the committee with regard to the Railway Tender Board. I particularly want him to give attention to the difference between the Union Tender Board and the Railway Tender Board. I understand that in the Union Tender Board all tenders are opened in public, but in the Railway Administration tenders are only opened in private. I would like to know from the Minister whether he would be prepared to arrange that the same method is adopted in the Railway Administration as applies to the Union Tender Board.

I would like to call the Minister’s attention to the items under “coaching stock,” where I see there is a decrease of £4,509. There are quite a number of complaints with regard to the condition of the rolling stock. I am not referring to the Union mail—that is quite up-to-date—but passengers complain that the coaching stock on other trains is very dirty and in a deplorable condition, and I think it is time that the Minister probably increased this vote so that the coaches may be put in proper repair and renovated. I desire to support the plea of the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) that tenders should be opened in public. I understand that the railway department endeavoured to try to meet the wishes of the public, and opened tenders in public in Johannesburg one day, but nobody put in an appearance, and the department turned the thing down. In the public works department a day is set apart when tenders are to be opened, and the public turn up. Probably on this occasion the railway department did not notify tenderers that tenders would be opened on that day. I think if the Minister were to adopt that method of fixing a day on which tenders would be opened, he would find that the public would attend.

I do not know whether this is the proper head on which to bring up a certain matter, but as a point has been raised about the Tender Board. I had perhaps better bring it up now. Can the Minister give any explanation in regard to tenders for ropes? Two tenders were sent in.

I think the hon. member should wait until we come to the next vote. I cannot allow any further discussion on that matter now.

I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that there is a considerable amount of dissatisfaction in regard to the control of the sick fund, and especially in so far as the appointments of medical officers are concerned. Under the regulations, for every £100 that the members contribute to the sick fund the Administration contributes at the rate of 75 per cent.

Order. Which item is the hon. member debating?

I understand that no separate sum is placed on the Estimates for sick fund purposes, but that the amount required is spread over the various votes under such headings as Indirect Expenses or Miscellaneous Expenses.

I understand from the Minister that there is. It will come under the item “indirect expenses.” The hon. member may proceed.

I do not want to raise the general question of the control of the fund at the present moment, because I understand that representations are going to be made to the Minister next year with a view to revising the whole system. I want to deal more particularly with the appointment of R.M.O.’s. Under the old regulations the District Sick Fund Board would recommend the appointment of a certain medical officer. That recommendation would then be referred to the Central Sick Fund Board, and if the board confirmed it, then that officer was appointed forthwith. A new regulation was promulgated in June, 1926, under which the appointments of railway medical officers, etc., are placed under the jurisdiction of the Central Board, but subject, however, to the approval of the Administration. I can assure the Minister that the members of the Central Sick Fund Board and of the District Sick Fund Boards and the railway servants are rather perturbed about the actual working of this regulation. Up to now there has been an elaborate series of sick fund regulations laying down definitely rules in regard to the appointment of certain officers, and suddenly a regulation is brought in which nullifies the work that the Central Sick Fund Board is responsible for, and I say that to do this is an interference with what I consider the rights and privileges of the staff. There may be some very cogent reason for altering the regulations in this way, but I can assure the Minister that the members of the Central Sick Fund Board consider that their rights should not have been taken away in this manner? I would be glad if the Minister would make a statement on this subject.

I desire to draw the Minister’s attention to the item in regard to “coaching” and also “goods stock.” I would remind the Minister of the undertaking given that everything possible would be built in South Africa, and we expect that, as far as our workshops are concerned, they will be kept fully occupied with what they can do. There can be no question whatever that, to the utmost extreme, our coaching and other rolling stock should be built in this country. As far as Pretoria is particularly concerned, certain classes of repairs have been removed to Germiston, and that change has necessitated the removal of sixty or seventy workmen. We can have no objection whatever, of course, if it is in the interests of the country; and the department is bound to get work done in the best way; but it is essential that we should keep our undertaking in regard to utilizing the workshops for coach-building in Pretoria, so that men who are taken away from there may be replaced by others for this work.

I see the Minister is proposing to spend £179,000 extra on the maintenance of rolling stock, so I hope it will be more efficiently done than it has been in the past. I will relate my own experience. Coming down to Capetown in January the engine broke down at Heidelberg and instead of getting in at ten minutes to eight, we got in at ten minutes to two. On the way back, the electric light gave out in my coach and we were four hours in the dark. When I was coming back here again the locks of the doors had not been attended to, and I had to get out three times in the night to close the door. This is my own personal experience of the way the rolling stock is maintained, on the line between here and Port Elizabeth, and I hope with this extra sum on the estimates, there will be an improvement.

I think the Minister has made a grave mistake in taking the appointment of medical officers away from the men themselves. Up to now the entire control of the sick fund has been in the hands of the staff. It is one of the things they appear to value highly, and to have taken away these privileges is, I think, entirely uncalled for. I would certainly urge my hon. friend to reconsider the whole matter. There is a full account on page 4 of the report of the Railways and Harbours Board, and they say they are going to leave in the hands of the sick fund board the whole of the other matters in connection with the fund, but the appointment of medical officers must be subject to the approval of the Railway Board. I think that my hon. friend has made a great mistake there.

The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) has raised the question of the presence of the public when tenders are opened. The position is that tenderers are allowed to be present when the tenders are opened, but it is not open to the public because our experience has shown that it does not redound to the public interest. At the present moment, the whole matter is under consideration.

Are they advised when the tenders will be opened?

Yes, if they say they wish to be present they will be advised. The hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti) and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) raised the question of the maintenance and condition of the passenger coaches. Unquestionably we have rolling stock in use which should have been on the scrap heap a long time ago. I do not want to keep going back to 1920-1924, but this forms part of the history of the railway administration. Undoubtedly we then got far behind with our rolling stock. We have been spending millions on rolling stock.

Rather more than you require.

My hon. friend now says we have gone too far. I can only say that we have to make the best use of the rolling stock at the present time. If there are cases where carriages and coaches are not clean, that is a matter which should be dealt with. There is no reason why, even if a coach is old, it should not be perfectly clean. If hon. members will bring those cases to the notice of the officers concerned, they will look into it and see that the staff responsible is suitably dealt with. My hon. friend has also complained about delays on the Cape Central. Unfortunately, that is so, but I indicated when we took over the line that the condition of the permanent way was such that we could not run our heavy engines over the line. We must use a lighter engine, and many of them are of an old type. I am making provision for relaying, etc., a further section of the line, and I am hoping the whole of the line will soon be completed, and then the whole service will be re-organized. With regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) with regard to the appointment of railway medical officers, let me make it clear that there is no intention on the part of the administration to interfere with the work of the sick fund board. They are still carrying on the business of the sick fund as they did before, and making all appointments with this exception, that when it comes to the question of railway medical officers, the appointments are made subject to the approval or disapproval of the Railway Board.

If you disapprove, what happens then?

It is then referred back to them to make another appointment. We have not taken the power to appoint. The reason for this change is that it has been felt that as the administration, and as such, the users of the railways, the taxpayers, contribute 75 per cent. against 100 per cent. contributed by the staff of the revenue of the sick fund board, that it is only right that as medical men are taxpayers, that the administration should be responsible ultimately and finally for their appointment.

Have the sick fund board misused those powers in the past?

I would not go so far as to say that, but the Railway Board has had occasion to differ from the sick fund’ board in these appointments on three or four occasions, and they referred the appointments back. In view of the fact that medical men all over the country are taxpayers, it is right that they should have redress, and that they can only have against the responsible Minister in this House. In these circumstances, I think the action of the Railway Board has been thoroughly justified.

The Minister has given many explanations in this House, some good and some bad, but I do not think the Minister has ever given a more foolish explanation than the one he has given this afternoon, in which he said the reason this change is taken is that the medical officers are taxpayers.

Medical men, I said.

But we are all taxpayers. Are the members of the sick fund board not taxpayers? Are the members of the railway who take advantage of the privileges under the sick fund arrangements also not taxpayers? By what ingenuity of reasoning does the Minister say this change is justified, because medical men are taxpayers? If my hon. friend had told me it was another example of that desire to increase the bureaucratic tendencies of my hon. friend and the Government in general, I could well understand it, and if he had told me it was in pursuance of a desire to keep their finger on every possible appointment so that they could carefully scrutinize the qualifications, not only from the professional point of view, but other qualifications as well of every person put in a Government post, then I think the committee could understand better what the reasons of the Minister were. I agree with the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) that the sick fund board have the confidence of the employees of the department. True, the men only pay a quarter of the contributions, and the State pays the other 75 per cent., but whether the State pays a larger portion or not, the sick fund board are the representatives of the men administering this fund, and the sick fund board, as such, are the people who should make these appointments without the assistance of the Minister.

The members pay more.

The members pay £100 as against £75 by the Administration.

If such is the case that makes the case still stronger. What reason is there for the Government departing from an old principle and stepping in in a bureaucratic manner and taking this power out of the hands of a body that is elected to represent the men? Because after all if the men who are members of the sick fund to which they contribute are dissatisfied with their medical attendant, that is their business, and it is not the business of the Government to tell them they must be satisfied with anybody the Government desires to put there. Does my hon. friend consider this is a very democratic means of administering a sick fund? Perhaps my hon. friend is thinking of some medical men who would like to become taxpayers, and whom he could assist by putting them into these positions.

I do not think the Minister’s reply in regard to this sick fund question is very satisfactory. A fundamental change has been brought about in the sick fund board control without adequate justification. The only reason given by the Railway Board is that the appointments were open to a little criticism. Ever since the establishment of the fund up to the 22nd June, last year, the Railway Board has never interfered with the appointment of a medical officer and the recommendations of the sick fund board have been accepted. Yet during the present year strong recommendations by the sick fund board Have been set aside and appointments have been made by the Minister. That destroys the confidence which should exist as between the Railway Board, the sick fund board and the administration. To make a success of the fund, and to give confidence, there should exist between the two boards complete confidence and trust. The change that has been brought about has destroyed that position and is going to lead to a tremendous amount of friction with regard to this fund. If the Minister had given a good reason for the change we would have accepted it, but he has not done so; he has said that he and the Railway Board are the boss. That is how it appears to me. The sooner the Minister and the board get back to the old position the better for the fund and for the Administration. Members of the district sick fund board know better than the Railway Board sitting in Cape Town and Pretoria the men who should be appointed. In my own district four-fifths of the men sent a petition stating that they were satisfied with the medical man’s services and asking him to be retained, but he has been passed over, and another appointment is to be made.

Who got that appointment?

I do not know; it has not been made yet.

The Minister in the meantime is making an investigation into what his political views are!

I think the Railway Board is going a little bit too far in passing over the recommendations of a local board. There is uneasiness amongst members whether their functions are not going to be frittered away, or a beginning is to be made with that, and to hand over the whole of the functions of the sick board to the Administration. I suggest to the Minister, for the sake of his own peace of mind, that he should go back to the old system. He says that the Railway Board is open to criticism, if he does not go Back to the old system they will be open to more criticism under the new system than under the old.

I hope that the Minister will not give up the authority the Railway Board has taken to itself. I sneak from experience of a place like Johannesburg where for years —it is better now—it has been a close preserve to certain medical men, to put it bluntly, who are not South Africans.

You have let the cat out of the bag.

For years past it has been absolutely impossible for a Dutch-speaking South African to be appointed. It is better now.

Are you an applicant?

No. In Johannesburg the men have not a controlling interest in the board, but the casting vote is always with the Administration, and if the men’s representatives have their way they would have a panel system. It has been a failure in Durban, and that is always held up to Johannesburg. Take a large system like the Crown Mines, where they have 2,000 men. There the panel system is a success. The men’s representatives, to put it bluntly, never had a perfectly square deal, and I am glad the change has been made by the Minister of Railways and Harbours. Gross favouritism against South African men, especially Dutch South Africans, has been shown in the past.

Some extraordinary reasons have just been advanced by the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser) why this change should be made. As far as our own people are concerned, the charge made by the hon. member is not true, and if it be true in Johannesburg—I do not believe it is—I should like some specific instance where a man has been chosen because he belongs to some particular race or otherwise. Whether he happens to be a German, a Frenchman or belongs to any other race, the best qualified man is recommended.

I am sorry that this discussion has incited so much feeling. Hon. members in this committee do not know sufficiently about the subject to deal with it in the way they have been doing.

We are learning.

I have as much reason for speaking on this subject as anybody here. After seventeen years’ experience I may inform the committee that this system has given dissatisfaction to both medical men and employees, for a number of years it has been a cause of friction between them. Medical men have found the position untenable to a large extent, and employees could not get the men they wanted. Some criticism has been advanced to the effect that the Minister overrides; that cause cannot be advanced to prove the system has not been a success in the past. I am not going to prophesy that it is going in the end to reduce dissatisfaction, but it will prove to the public and the committee whether the new system will give more satisfaction than the one in the past. I agree with the closing remarks of the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser)—not the preliminary remarks—that we must come to the position when we have to nominate or elect panels of men, so that employees may go to the men in whom they have most confidence. The relationship is not a business one, but goes a good deal beyond that. We want to put the Minister in charge. For the present I am going to support the Minister for what he has done, and I believe the system will have better results than in the past.

I also wish to protest against the suggestion made by the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser). It is news to me that the ordinary man in the street or worker is concerned with the nationality of the doctor. I think the medical profession is looked upon as a universal profession, and the medical man people want is the best they can get, irrespective of whether he is Dutch or English—especially when they are sick—and the only thing they are worrying about is to get that relief and attention they feel they are entitled to. But I do say the Minister is wrong in taking up the position of criticising appointments or recommendations of the district boards, because if there is one thing these boards are in a better position to do it is in a matter of this description, because they are in closer contact with members of the sick fund and know the local conditions better. Generally they know who is most acceptable to the men. It does seem a curious thing that within twelve months four or five recommendations in Germiston and Pretoria have been turned down. The Minister would be wise to keep clear of this. The hon. member for Vrededorp mentioned the Crown Mines sick fund, where they had many difficulties, and where they are satisfied with the panel system as far as I can see, but before they got that working smoothly they had all sorts of difficulties and they had chaotic conditions for some time. As the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) rightly put it, the relation between a man and his doctor goes much further than a business relationship. Leave it to the local people, who, after all, know what they want.

It is very easy for hon. members to talk about free medical treatment and then to say that it is best for the local committees to appoint the doctors. That is the very opposite to what the facts are. I have time and again asked the Minister why he is not prepared to introduce the panel system His excuse is that it was tried in Durban, but that it was found too expensive. Last year, however, the Minister said that he intended to make another experiment, probably at Bloemfontein. It came out clearly before the select committee last year that it was always the old bogey that in Durban the experiment had proved too expensive and that, therefore, the system could not be adopted. I should like the Minister to keep his promise of last year and make another experiment. When I am at Bloemfontein numbers of cases come to my notice of people who are dissatisfied with their treatment. Last year the general manager (Sir William Hoy) himself admitted to the select committee that there were numbers of railwaymen who, although they contributed to the sick fund, did not call in the doctor of the fund. They often have no confidence in the doctor, or otherwise he is unilingual, and it is awkward to have such a doctor in a family, but chiefly it is a question of confidence. There are other doctors who are willing to do the work for the same payment, and I cannot see how the panel system can work out so much more expensive. Then the people will be able to choose which of the panel doctors they want. What objection is there to it if the doctors are prepared to do the work for the same tariff. I can assure the Minister that this is a great grievance. I mentioned special cases on a former occasion. I hope the department will still see its way to arrange that the people who contribute to the sick fund will not be deprived of the benefits thereof, but will be satisfied, and be able to choose the doctor they want. It is an important matter, and we can well understand that when one is once accustomed to a doctor, and has confidence in him, you do not like in a case of serious illness to call in another doctor that you do not know and have no confidence in. I beg of the Minister to keep his promise and to make another experiment in one or other centre.

I spoke about this matter last year and suggested that the two chairmen of the medical councils, the chief medical officer of the Crown mines, and the chief railway medical officer should be appointed a small committee to go into the matter. It will not cost 3d., because they have offered to make an investigation to see whether the same system that is in force on the Crown mines cannot be introduced among the railwaymen. It will give great satisfaction. In connection with the remarks about the appointment of Dutch-speaking railway doctors, I may say that it is actually a fact that they had no chance in the past. The Dutch-speaking men tried repeatedly to have a Dutch-speaking railway doctor appointed in Johannesburg, but they always failed to secure it.

I should not like the debate to degenerate into a racial one. The question was raised by me because a matter of principle is involved. Although the men contribute to the sick fund more than the Administration does, the latter controls the Central Sick Fund Board because it nominates the chairman, who has the casting vote. It is not democratic that the Administration should have the power of veto on doctors selected by the board. It is a dangerous principle to interfere with the board’s recommendations, and I would rather take the risk of an occasional unsatisfactory appointment being made, than to open the door to the worse possible kind of influence being brought to bear in making these appointments. The Central Sick Fund Board should have complete power to decide what is best in the interests of the contributors, as the members are either nominated by the Administration, or elected by the railway servants, and by interfering with the selection of doctors there is the danger of the contributors losing confidence in their own representatives, and such action I contend constitutes a slur on the personnel of the board, and also on its impartiality.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) has again raised the question of the panel system. Serious objections are being made this afternoon by certain hon. members to the curtailment of the powers of the Sick Fund Board. If the hon. member had been in the House he would have heard that I said that the Sick Fund Board was an entirely independent body, and that the only power of the Railway Board was to approve or disapprove of appointments. For the rest it is an independent body. I asked the Sick Fund Board to go fully into the panel system. It is now late in the session, but I am prepared to lay the report of the Sick Fund Board on the Table next year. Then the hon. member can convince himself that there is, on the part of the Sick Fund Board, which, under its constitution, is an independent body, serious objection to the panel system.

It has objections, but the objections are groundless.

That is what the hon. member thinks, but I am prepared to lay the memorandum on the Table next year.

Appoint an impartial commission.

Unless I am prepared to compel the Sick Fund Board to do so by legislation or regulation, the system cannot be introduced.

What about the people who do not make use of the facilities?

I know that there are such cases, but the facts have all been brought to the notice of the Sick Fund Board. Notwithstanding that, it was not prepared to make further experiments.

†As to the appointment of doctors, not only the chairman, but half the members of the Central Sick Fund Board’ are nominated by the Administration. No Minister, however, would ever think of interfering with the right of the nominated members to exercise their free judgment. I certainly have never attempted to do it, and no Minister should, in my opinion, attempt to do it. When you appoint responsible officers under such circumstances no Minister should dictate to them. They exercise their free judgment so that there is no question of control by the Administration of the actions of nominated members of the board. Hon. members do not seem to appreciate the position of medical men outside the number of those who have been appointed in the past. Medical men have the right to look to this House for protection in connection with appointments where public money is concerned.

They are not pensionable appointments.

The fact of their not being pensionable is further proof of the justice of the position taken up by me. Assuming that there are three medical men in a town, and there was an opening for R.M.O., and all three desired to have the position, which might carry a salary of £300 or £400 a year. Assuming the District Sick Fund Board appoint X, but the two others believe they have stronger claims to the position. Where does their remedy lie?

What claim can they have?

As public taxpayers.

That gives no claim—we are all taxpayers.

Where does the right of the individual come in? His rights can be defended in Parliament and in Parliament only. What right has X got to the position?

He has been chosen.

But public money is involved, and the two others have a right to be considered.

We cannot all have rights.

Would the House ever take the appointment of district surgeons out of the hands of Government? The Minister is responsible for the appointment of district surgeons.

That is an entirely different thing.

A district surgeon is a Government servant.

No, his position is not pensionable in any way. If hon. members think other doctors have better claims to posts, they will not give up their right to criticise the Minister for making the appointment. Public money is involved. If other doctors think their claims have been unjustly passed over, they will request a member to raise the question in the House. It would be unsound to depart front the principle of giving the final say in the appointments to the Railway Board. If for good reasons the board disapproves of particular appointments, they can refer the matter back to the Central Board.

And if the board puts forward the same applicant again?

We would then have to deal with the position in another way. The question of political jobbery or the appointment of a particular friend of a Minister or members of the board does not arise, because the final appointment is made by the Sick Fund Board. It is not as if the Administration had taken the powers of appointment out of the hands of the Sick Fund Board. I must differ radically from the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie), who said: “Never mind whether the doctor is bilingual or not.” Can he maintain that position with justice when about 75, per cent. of the lower-paid men are Afrikaansspeaking and many of them and members of their families are unable to understand English? My hon. friend says I must not carry it too far. If there are two doctors, A and B, and one is bilingual, and one is only partially bilingual, then you would undoubtedly appoint A. I do not want to go into each case, but if hon. members desire it, I am prepared to enter into each case mentioned and give the House particulars. The board went carefully into these applications and had good reasons for turning them down.

What is the position between the district surgeons and the railway medical officers’ You may have a dozen district surgeons in a district and only one can be appointed.

That is my point. Has he not the right to appeal to Parliament?

Not unless he wants to use political influence. There may be a dozen other people in the district who have just as much right to the position. Why then does he not apply the same argument to the medical officer? My friend, the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) said’ there was dissatisfaction. Does he not think there will be more dissatisfaction in these cases? I suggest, as the Minister has made a change, he should go the whole hog and have the panel system.

It is a question of expense.

How can it be a question of expense? The hon. member for Vredefort (Dr. Visser) pointed out there is no extra expense. You then give all three a chance. There are men outside who think these appointments by the Railway Board are made from a political point of view. I advise the Minister, in his own interest, to adopt this system and to give the most satisfaction. People have their fancies and fads in regard to doctors, I know, but give them a choice, adopt the panel system, and I do not see why it should cost sixpence more than the present system, and it will give far and away more satisfaction. I warn the Minister he has not heard the last of this yet. He will get it every session.

I have come much into touch with poor people in Pretoria, and I can assure the House that there is much dissatisfaction about the railway doctors. I think that the system of appointments now being tried will be a solution of the difficulty. It is not a question whether the Sick Fund Board is dissatisfied or not, but whether the railway officials and workers are dissatisfied. Hitherto the railway people have been dissatisfied with the railway doctors they have had. The poor people in Pretoria are dissatisfied with the railway doctors because they say the latter are not sympathetic. The railway doctors come in for a moment, hardly examine the sick person, write out a prescription, and leave. The result is that some of the people go to other doctors. When a married woman is dissatisfied with a railway doctor she goes to another doctor and her husband has to pay for it. The Railway Board will now have the final decision about the appointments, and I want the new system to be given a chance to see whether the people will be satisfied with the doctors they will now have. If that is not the case, then the panel system will have to be resorted to. At present the people are dissatisfied, and the sooner there is contentment the better. It will be in the interests of discipline and the railway service. I trust that the Railway Board will now act more satisfactorily than was the case in the past. The object should be to satisfy the railway officials because a part of their salaries is deducted.

I have had experience of this panel system. There are over 2,000 men engaged with the company I am connected with, and the panel system has been in vogue for 35 years. The company contributes 60 per cent., and the men 40 per cent., and we allow them to select their own doctors. It has given great satisfaction. Why should not the men be allowed to select their own doctors? If the men make a mistake in the selection the fault lies with them. To protect themselves there is no better system than the panel system, and it will set aside a certain amount of suspicion.

Personally, I have no objection to the panel, and I agree, all things being equal, that bilingual men should be appointed. That is not the point raised by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) which was the principle involved by taking the control out of the hands of the board elected by the men. If the Railway Board had come forward and said that they found the Control Board had used their power in an improper manner, then the House would have said quite right, the Railway Board had the right to take the power out of the hands of the Control Board. They only said, however, the board was open to criticism, so, being a little bit afraid of criticism, they had to take this fundamental step.

There was actual criticism in the House.

They have been criticising me ever since I was a little boy, and some of the names they have called me were terrible. Criticism may do a little harm, but sometimes it does a great deal of good. These appointments should have remained in the hands of the Control Board, and unless you get back to the old system you are creating suspicion in the minds of these men. If they feel they are not trusted, they will be no use in the job. It is on the grounds of the principle of the filing that we have raised the question, and we ask the Minister to go into the matter in the spirit in which it has been raised.

When the Minister replied on the question of bilingualism and partial bilingualism, do I understand the power of veto is exercised wholly on that ground?

That is one of the grounds.

Then I want to suggest, don’t carry the question of bilingualism too far in the appointment of a doctor. The science of medicine being universal should be the first consideration. If a doctor can exercise his professional functions with satisfaction to himself, and to the patient, by having enough knowledge of the two languages, that should be sufficient. A large number of workmen are Dutchmen, and they are not so discriminating in that respect. They want the best, whether Englishman, Dutchman or Jew. Do not apply this discrimination of bilingualism too much against the doctors. The proof of the pudding is in the selection the men make themselves with regard to a doctor. I submit that the Minister ought to be very careful in regard to this matter. One cannot sufficiently emphasize this fact that the local boards and the Central Board, in direct touch with the men themselves, having made this recommendation, having decided that this man is a suitable man, certainly know much better than the Minister or the Railways Board ever know. After all, they are the people who have to put up with these men once they are appointed. Therefore, I think you ought to leave it to them, and you will save yourself a great deal of trouble, and you will certainly satisfy the 75 per cent.

There are just two points that I want to clear up. One is the question of suspicion. In order to eliminate that, I have agreed with the Central Board that if, in future, any case arises where the Railway Board is not in a position to see eye to eye with them, before they turn down the recommendation of the Central Board there shall be consultation between a small deputation of the Central Board and the Railway Board. That has been agreed to between the Centra] Board and the Railway Board, so that any question of suspicion will be eliminated.

Who will be the final judge?

The final judge is the Railway Board In regard to the question of the panel system for which the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris) have pleaded, I said in the House quite frankly and I am prepared to repeat it, that it seems to me the panel system is the ideal system The final conclusion of the Sick Fund Board to whom I referred this question again, after last year’s discussion, is, however, as follows—

I was not prepared to undertake that, and, consequently, the matter dropped. In view of the strong feeling expressed on all sides of the House to-day—

It is going to cost very much more in the country districts.

That is what the Sick Fund Board say. In view of the strong expressions of opinion this afternoon, I am prepared again to refer this matter to the Sick Fund Board, ask them to go into it, and next year to place on the Table of the House a memorandum from them giving their conclusions in regard to the matter, so that the House may have a further opportunity of dealing with it.

Could you not go a step further, and introduce it in the big centres?

I may possibly, after consultation with the Sick Fund Board, agree to do that.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head 4. “Running Expenses,” £4,844,421,

I see that the Minister is requiring £372,000 for electric power. I presume that is at Colenso, and possibly the station here also. There is also an increase in the coal and wood vote of £51,000. One would have thought that with the introduction of these electric engines, etc., there would have been a decrease in the consumption of coal, in any case, on the steam engines. Perhaps my hon. friend will explain that.

I would like the Minister, who, I understand will not be here during the recess, to leave instructions to his departmental officers to see whether it is not possible to do something to reduce the extraordinary amount of overtime which is being worked in this particular department. Men in responsible positions, I understand, are placed on the roster to work 12 and 13 hours a shift. There is altogether too much overtime being worked in connection with this department.The aspect which appeals to me rather in this connection is that we have been recently discussing the question of unemployment, and I want to point out to the Minister that by reducing the enormous amount of overtime being worked, he can do a great deal towards applying a remedy for the unemployment problem. There is also the social side. Men who are working long hours are deprived of the ordinary amenities of home life, and these long hours have a bad effect on them physically and mentally. There are hundreds of civilized labourers working on the railways who would be only too glad to be trained to fill some of the positions that might be created if this systematic overtime were reduced, and we should certainly be brought a step nearer to the accomplishment of what I wish to see, i.e., the re-introduction of the eight-hour day, as recommended by the Hours of Duty Committee.

In regard to the question raised by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) I may say that if it were not for the fact that we are taking power from the Colenso power station, our coal and wood bill would have been very much more. Traffic is increasing all the time, and that is the reason for the increase in this vote. In regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) I agree with him that in normal circumstances one does not want to see overtime worked to any great extent, and I am glad to say that there is a tendency for overtime to drop. Of course, he will appreciate the point which I made earlier this session that, with seasonal traffic in South Africa as it is we must either have a very large staff capable of dealing with the traffic at its peak, or we must have a smaller staff dealing with the traffic at peak periods with overtime. During February and March there has been a tendency for overtime to drop. I am afraid now it will go up again owing to the maize season. There will be this seasonal traffic which will have to be dealt with. If you take a man into the service, he naturally wants to get on to the permanent staff. That means an increase in the pension contributions, sick fund contributions, etc. We, therefore, do not want to overstaff, but at the same time I agree with the principle that we should not work overtime regularly.

I am speaking about systematic overtime.

I agree with the hon. member, and we always work towards the elimination of that as far as possible.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head 5, “Traffic Expenses,” £4,342,348,

I see from this head that the total increase is £241,536, of which £206,557 represents increased salaries and wages. I would like to take the Minister over the running and traffic expenses for the last four years. In the first year, 1924-’25, the train miles increased by 5,000,000, while the running expenses increased by £170,000 and the traffic expenses decreased by £20,000. In the following year we find the increase in train mileage is practically the same, and the increased traffic and running expenses were proportionate. In the third year we find the increased train mileage is down by two million, while there is an increase in running expenses three times greater than previously. The running and traffic expenses were also three times greater. We come to the fourth year and we find an increase in running and traffic expenses proportionate to the previous year. That seems to me a very strange position that in these four years we find for two years the increases are proportionate and in the other two years the increases are out of all proportion. We find the running and the traffic expenses three times as much as previously and I think we are entitled to some explanation. I want to bring to the Minister’s notice, in regard to the Tender Board, the matter of these ropes. Three firms tendered. Two firms quoted f.o.r. and the other one was railage. It was quite lately. The first tender was for 267,000 lbs. of rope and the price quoted was 68s. 3d. per 100 lbs. f.o.r. Johannesburg. The next was 69s. 3d. f.o.r. Natal. These two tenders were accepted. The third tender was for 59s. 6d. delivery anywhere the railway wanted. By accepting the first two tenders the railway lost in railage £263 9s. 3d., and they had to pay more for the goods £1,500; in other words, they paid £1,763 9s. 3d. more on the tenders they accepted than they would otherwise have done. There was a large amount of railage lost. It seems to me that here we require a very clear explanation. They were the same goods according to the specification and yet there is a difference of over £1,700. I want to know from the Minister why in a case like this the Tender Board should accept a tender for goods which makes a difference of over £1,700 to the railway administration.

I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to a matter under the heading of station expenses, and that is the position of the staff at the goods station at Pretoria. I understand these men go on somewhere about the middle of the day and they have to work until the job is completed very often up to 9 o’clock at night. They work right through Saturday afternoon. They find the position is getting unbearable and I hope the Minister will give his attention to this. Then there is the position of these goods labourers. I take it these are the white labourers the Minister is employing in place of natives. There have been considerable complaints from the Chamber of Commerce at the way these men handle the breakable goods, glass and crockery. There has been a considerable increase in damage since these men were taken on. I hope the Minister will take it up with the goods agent at Pretoria.

Just let me remind the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) that we are continually opening new lines, new stations and crossing places, and additional traffic is also responsible for a large increase of tonnage and all these factors are responsible for the increased expenditure. Then he raised the question of the Tender Board in regard to a tender for ropes. As far as I remember this matter has not come before the Railway Board for approval, but I will look into the facts and advise the hon. member. The hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti) has raised the question of goods shed working at Pretoria. I will go into that and also into the question of the alleged damage to goods.

Head put and agreed to.

Head 6, “Superannuation,” £544,445, put and agreed to.

Head 7, “Cartage Service,” £426,612, put and agreed to.

Head 8, “Depreciation of Permanent Way and Works and Rolling Stock,” £1,500,000, put and agreed to.

Head 9, “Catering Service,” £666,002, put and agreed to.

Head 10, “Bookstalls and Advertising,” £178,740, put and agreed to.

Head 11, “Bedding Equipment of Trains,” £64,533, put and agreed to.

Head 12, “Grain Elevators,” £256,863, put and agreed to.

On Head 13, “Road Motor Services,” £196,770,

In the matter of road motor services, what is my hon. friend doing about the roads in connection with these services? Is he making any contribution to the upkeep of these roads? How does he manage on the Transvaal road, for instance?

I may say that the pressure, not only from the Transvaal Provincial Council, but some other Councils, has been very strong indeed, but I have not acceded to the request. It seems to me that so long as the construction of roads and the control of roads are in the hands of the provincial councils there is no justification for the Railway Administration contributing. I think the House will agree that if we were to make a contribution to the maintenance of roads we would be benefiting not only our services, but also general services. I do not think any case has been made out. I certainly do not intend making any contributions. It seems to me that the provincial councils must face their responsibilities.

Am I in order in raising a matter of administration on this vote? It is in regard to road motors, and it is the question of allowing some of these lighthouse-keepers in outlying districts to get their supplies by these road motors under the same privileges as you give to your railway servants. It is very hard for them to get supplies; they have to pay very dearly for them, and I have in mind a particular case at Port St. Johns, where you have a road motor service running from Kokstad down there. I would ask the Minister if he could not extend this concession to these men. These men have no better pay than on the lighthouses such as Dassen Island, where all supplies are delivered free of duty; no local allowance or anything of that kind. I hope the Minister will look into this matter and see if he can afford some relief.

While I am prepared to look into this matter, I am not prepared to concede the principle of concessions on our road motor services. Our road motor services are there for the development of the country, and if we start granting concessions then we will never see the end of it. The services are not paying, or let me put it in this way, they did not pay last year, and there may be considerable loss this year. If I grant one concession, it simply means that the floodgates will be opened. I can hold out little hope.

Does the railway pay for licences on these motors?

No, we do not, but in the big cities we pay a small contribution.

Is not the difficulty that the provincial councils ask for a contribution for the damage done by these heavy tractors? If you paid a licence, there would be no difficulty.

Our contention is, and it is, I think, sound, that by opening up areas by these motors we are increasing the value of property there.

Head put and agreed to.

Head 14, “Interest on Capital”, £4,979,342, put and agreed to.

Head 15, “Interest on Superannuation and other Funds”, £541,940, put and agreed to.

Head 16, “Charges in respect of lines leased”, £13,500, put and agreed to.

Head 17, “Miscellaneous Expenditure”, £119,100, put and agreed to.

Head 18, “Contribution to Betterment Fund”, £250,000, put and agreed to.

Head 19, “Contribution to reduce deficiency in Pension and Superannuation Funds”, £287,000, put and agreed to.

On Head 19/1, “Contribution towards reduction of Interest-Bearing Capital”, £250,000.

There is nothing said in the law about contribution to capital account. My hon. friend (the Minister of Mines and Industries) is a lawyer; perhaps he will give his opinion.

He has enough troubles of his own.

This is purely an arbitrary payment to suit the fancy of the Minister, and there is no justification for it. Take his general assets connected with harbours; there is Port Alfred, a debit account of £300,000. Why does he not write that off—that would be far more sensible, and that is what a business man would do. To put down £250,000 like that is against the law. That is what a plain, ordinary man would say. If you wrote it off as dead assets we could understand it.

I am glad to see my hon. friend taking an interest in this item. I have done so for a long time. There is no doubt that this is a payment not contemplated in the Act of Union, and is contrary to it. The only interpretation I can put on it is that it is a sort of sinking fund, but the Minister does not Use it as a sinking fund.

You know my difficulty in that regard.

He uses it to finance operations on capital account. I cannot see why he does not pay it into the betterment fund or make a contribution to renewals fund, which is devoted to the same purpose. I cannot see why he should create a new head on the Estimates. The Minister brings it in under a different name. Why not call it by the name and describe it as it really is?

I go a little further, and I propose that the Minister should introduce a Bill to make this payment compulsory annually. It is time we considered our position, which is becoming very serious. Unless we start some sinking fund now we are going to find ourselves in a position of difficulty, and already we have a large number of dead assets of no value to the country. We shall have to meet them somehow or other. I agree that the Minister is somewhat camouflaging the position.

In regard to the legal position, I consulted the law advisers, and they advised that as far as this provision is concerned, there is no question of breaking the law. My hon. friend suggests that we should make larger contributions to the betterment fund, but this fund is largely circumscribed, and the same holds with the renewals fund. I have given careful consideration to this matter, and I am largely in agreement with the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) that the time has come to revise our whole position with regard to the growth of capital expenditure. I do not know whether the time has not arrived to face the position and establish a sinking fund. The whole position is under consideration, and I do not want to commit myself, but the matter is one of a serious nature, and we will have to face the position.

This is a gradual reversal of what the object was when we drew up Clause 127 of the South Africa Act. Under the Cape Administration, there is no doubt Kimberley, which was a big consumer in those days, was looked upon as a milch cow. We used to charge 4d. per ton per mile for ordinary goods. The representatives at the convention, particularly of the Transvaal and of the Free State, knew that perfectly well, and made up their minds to take every possible precaution to guard against that as far as the Rand and the Transvaal were concerned. Hence Clause 127 of the Act of Union. The intention was that the lowest possible rate should be charged for the traffic going to the north. So strong was the feeling that the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) called these clauses the Magna Charta of the North. Keep the rates to the north from being used in any shape or form for taxation purposes, or for any fads or experiments of the railway department. The Minister is carrying out an experiment with white labour.

An experiment no longer.

This is being done at the expense of the railway users, and naturally more at the expense of the northern consumers than the people down here. I rather disagree about the sinking fund. In the National Convention we fought for days about the sinking fund. We had been accustomed to a sinking fund in the Cape Colony, but the northern men took up the attitude that so long as the railways were kept up to standard and ample contributions were made to the renewal fund, that would be sufficient.

You are spending a lot of money out of capital which does not bring in a penny more.

Keep a tighter control over it. I want the representatives of the northern consumers to know what the position is.

The position is unsound in the way it is going now.

I am not opposed to it but it should not be camouflaged in the way it is now. But the question of a sinking fund requires considerable further consideration. I am surprised that the representatives of the northern provinces do not oppose this extravagant expenditure, for so long as it continues there is no chance of any reduction in rates or fares. The biggest impulse to the prosperity and development of the north is cheap railway rates, but the Minister has gone away entirely from that.

I am glad the hon. member has not committed himself against the establishment of a sinking fund. The House must consider this matter in a strictly non-party spirit. As to the position of the north, does not the hon. member realize that the whole position has changed? The stream of traffic to-day is to the coast. Take, e.g., maize, cotton, and citrus.

The northern men have to pay for the carriage of their produce from the north to the south.

But has not the producers of cotton, maize, coal, citrus, tobacco and monkey nuts all the advantages of a cheap export rate?

The cheaper you make the railway rates the more they can produce.

Undoubtedly. The position has been completely altered since 1910. At present many trucks go empty to the north and come back full.

That is a change in the proper direction.

I thoroughly agree it is a healthy development, but the hon. member must not say that the north suffers. The Railway Administration is certainly assisting the producer in the north in the terms of the Act of Union. I do not think the inland portions of the Union have any real grievance against the department in that regard. We have dealt very handsomely with the inland producer in the matter of export rates. The whole matter should be discussed in the future from the point of view whether the time has not come to make proper provision for a sinking fund.

This reminds me of the old controversy in regard to the sum of about £400,000 which is paid by the railways to the Treasury in respect of interest on capital. The only satisfactory explanation of this I have ever heard was, “Well, we discussed it in the Convention and we came to the conclusion that as it was definitely understood there would be no sinking fund, and as the railway users would not have to contribute by railway rates to a sinking fund, we will say nothing about this £400,000.” If the Minister raises the question of a sinking fund, he will have to face this little point. The Minister’s argument about the north has no point in it, for we are taking money out of the users of the railway whether we send their goods north or south. The inland people have to pay these heavy railway rates out of all proportion to that paid by the people of the coast. I agree with the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger)) that if the Minister of Finance is becoming scared over the growth of capital expenditure, let him keep his hands on the purse strings.

The Minister’s reply really gives the case away, for the up-country man pays twice over for railway extravagance, first in getting his commodities to the north, and he pays again when he sends his product down to the coast, if he does not enjoy the lowest rates possible.

A very far-fetched argument.

It is not far-fetched. If the railways are run economically the man up-country will get the cheapest possible rates for his exports. The additional railway charges on exports come out of the producers’ pockets the maize grower, the cotton grower, and every other producer—because the price of his produce does not vary one half-penny whether the railway rates are high or low. But all this extravagance that is going on the railways to-day—the white labour policy and the payment to men of more money than they are earning—is coming out of the producer, who, generally speaking, lives upcountry, and will have to pay through the nose for the pleasure of having the Minister in that position.

Why didn’t you put the white labour policy to the vote last night?

It is all very well for the Minister to talk like that, with a big majority behind him.

Head put and agreed to.

Head 20, (Harbours) “Maintenance and Upkeep”, £565,049, put and agreed to.

On Head 21, “Traffic Working”, £65,651,

I would like to ask the Minister what he is doing about Walvis Bay. Are the works finished, and is it paying its way?

It is too early to say yet what the financial results will be, because the works are about to be completed. There is a small provision on the Estimates this year to complete the work. Ships are coming into the harbour. My hon. friend knows the terms of the agreement with the South-West Protectorate.

I want to ask the Minister to leave the question of pilots’ salaries open. I want the Minister to go into it because I want to go into the question of the Minister’s reply to the last deputation of the pilots. They appreciated the courtesy with which the Minister listened to the deputation. In reply to them, the Minister said—

I will give an official extract from the Board of Trade’s return in the United Kingdom-—

The pilots placed a table before the Minister showing the majority of the harbours paid their pilots a higher rate than is paid by the administration. It is significant the staff has not been increased since the time of Union, although the increase of traffic has been very material indeed. That is why I ask the Minister to leave the matter still open so that he can go into the matter when overseas. The Minister refers to the question of actual pilotage itself. He says—

As a matter of fact, there is very little to be drawn from the comparison, and if there is anything, it is in favour of the pilots out here. When I was in Europe I saw a member of the Board of Trade and discussed with him the respective merits and duties of the two services, especially in so far as the Thames pilotage was concerned. They admitted the distances of pilotage in the Union was small, but it required very careful handling, more careful handling than in the long distance channels. Taken all round, it is a question which should be gone into, and as far as possible there should be an increase of staff. There is no night work, I know. It is not a question of bringing the vessels into the harbour, but of shiftings inside the harbour. Here it is done by the same service. The pilots have to take great risks, which should be considered.

Will the Minister tell me more fully why he cannot make better provision for anchorage for the fishermen in Lambert’s Bay?

We are well served by our pilots, who have given very good service, but I am afraid I cannot hold out any promise in regard to any increase in salary. We went fully into the matter some time ago, and information was supplied by the officers. We considered the matter carefully, and found it impossible at the present stage to do anything in that regard. I will act on the hon. member’s suggestion, to look into the matter further overseas. In regard to the question of the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) the harbour at Lambert’s Bay is not a proclaimed harbour, and unless it is we cannot spend money there. It falls under the Provincial Council, and they must deal with the matter.

Head put and agreed to.

Head 22, “General Charges”, £24,224, put and agreed to.

Head 23, “Superannuation”, £22,765, put and agreed to.

Head 24, “Depreciation”, £85,720, put and agreed to.

Head 25, “Lighthouses, Beacons and Signal Stations”, £49,647, put and agreed to.

Head 26, “Interest on Capital”, £524,674, put and agreed to.

Head 27, “Miscellaneous Expenditure”, £21,400, put and agreed to.

On Head 28, “Steamships”, £174,903,

I see my hon. friend has bought a couple of ships. What is the good of these ships? I hope he is not going in for a shipping line. I should think he has had sufficient examples with other countries of the losses they have made. Look at the loss of half a million recently reported by the American Government. There is not a Single Government that I am aware of which has gone into the shipping trade and has not lost money. I think my hon. friend should take the opportunity at an early date to get rid of these ships. What does he use them for? Is he still fetching sleepers from Australia and carrying coal at the same time?

Yes.

This cannot continue. I hope my hon. friend will drop this business and confine himself to the work of the railways and harbours.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) has asked what the good is of these ships. He has asked what are we doing with them. We are taking coal to the East and doing excellent work in that regard. We are assisting the exporters of coal in the Transvaal and Natal. We are bringing sleepers back from Australia. I think my hon. friend, in advising me to get rid of these ships, is giving me very bad advice. The position is that we have sold one of the ships which was presented to us by the British Government. It was old and there was not much further use in that ship. Two new ships have been purchased, not out of capital, but out of the reserve fund which we built up during past years. These two ships are giving us excellent service. We have five ships at the present moment and they are all fully employed. In regard to a shipping line, the hon. member may rest assured that we shall give very full consideration to that aspect before we ask the country to embark upon it.

The profits which my hon. friend makes out of these ships do not pay any taxation.

We pay the harbour charges.

Does my hon. friend pay income tax on these ships? I would commend this aspect of the matter to the Minister of Finance. With all the extra duties that the Minister of Railways and Harbours takes on, he does not pay sixpence to the taxation of the country. The old Cape Central line, with all its faults, paid towards taxation £4,000 a year.

And no dividend.

Now, when my hon. friend has taken over that line, it does not pay sixpence to the revenue of the country.

And the country has got the benefit.

In every single case where my hon. friend invades private enterprise he takes away from the ordinary revenue of the country. If these ships were run by private enterprise and were South African owned, there would be some contribution to the taxation of the country.

Head put and agreed to.

Head 29, “Miscellaneous Expenditure— Steamships,” £50, put and agreed to.

Is my hon. friend not going to reduce this item to £7,500?

I do not think it advisable. Of course, we shall not spend more than is actually required. I am advised that there will be incidental expense in connection with the matter.

There is another point. I understand further that out of that £7,500 there will be certain duplicates. Those have been bought by some gentleman or other and this of course will bring the price further down. Will that go into the Consolidated Revenue Fund?

It will go to revenue.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote 15, “Superior Courts,” £800, put and agreed to.

On Vote 20, “Interior,” £10,050,

I see the Minister in a spirit of optimism has put down a sum of £15,000, expenses in connection with flag referendum. We are a long way from that referendum yet.

I will be very glad if I save it.

I would suggest to the Minister that he leaves out this item for the time being. It is surely quite unnecessary at this stage and quite premature before Parliament has decided to accept any referendum.

Of course, the hon. member (Mr. Blackwell) is quite right when he says that it is not certain that we will use the amount. I was faced with the fact that if we had to spend this money later on and we had to obtain a Governor-General’s warrant, the Auditor-General would rightly have said, “This is expenditure which could have been foreseen.”

I would like to ask the Minister of Finance what the conditions are of this loan of £2,500 to the national zoological gardens of South Africa. I take it that is the institution at Pretoria. I am glad to see that he is not making this advance out of loan funds, and to that extent the policy is one to be commended. I would like to know what is now happening to the zoological gardens in Pretoria. Are they still being run on such a large deficit, as used to be the case, or, are they now being put on a more payable basis?

I am sorry I cannot tell the hon. member (Mr. Duncan) what the actual financial position is of the national zoological gardens at Pretoria, but I understand that it is absolutely necessary that certain capital expenditure should be incurred immediately and we have decided to make this loan to the Gardens and deduct it for a period of five years from the annual grant which they get from the Union Government. Instead of making them a grant, we are making them a loan, to be repaid out of the annual grant which they receive from the Union.

I am sorry the Minister of the Interior is not here because I want to speak in regard to the promise made by him to the Kirstenbosch Gardens. The Minister said last year on the 4th of May that he had a good deal of sympathy with Kirstenbosch and he had done a great deal for that institution. He referred to the agreement between the Government and the institution to make a contribution on the pound for pound principle so that they would get another £1,050 from the Government. This £1,050 is not down in these estimates.

Yes, there is £500 already on the other estimates and £550 now.

If the Minister will look at the letter from the Minister of the Interior he will find that this is another matter altogether. This is a special grant towards the cost of buildings and the new dam. It is not the promise in regard to the bequest. Here is the letter from the Department of the Interior dated the 2nd of June which says that the sum of £1,050 will be provided. On the 2nd of June this had not been put down on the estimates. If the Minister will look at the letter of the 5th of May from the department he will find they absolutely refuse to put it on the estimates at all. So it cannot be the same amount. It was first refused, but then the Minister wrote to say he would put it on the estimates, but they are withdrawing all their promises in regard to future contributions to the gardens. This is a national institution. We are committed to certain expenditure and we are getting the public to assist us on the condition that the Government give the pound for pound contribution. We are losing all that and with the commitments we have we are going to find the position very difficult to meet. When the Minister definitely promised to give that money we should not have to come back afterwards and have it placed on the estimates. We feel we are forced into a very awkward position. We feel we are receiving adequate assistance from the Government to carry on the work as it should be carried on. I think more particularly that when a promise is made and we commit ourselves on that promise, it should be carried out.

The position is here that I cannot agree and I have informed the trustees accordingly to commit the Treasury in future to contribute on the pound for pound principle in connection with bequests which may be left to the gardens. What we are doing here is to provide for £1,050 to implement the promise given by the Minister of the Interior last year. I understand he had committed us to that and I am implementing that promise.

This is for buildings and the new dam.

That is what they wanted the money for. I am prepared to give the £1,050 which the Minister of the Interior said last year the Government would give. It was afterwards when we found out the trustees were relying on the statement made by the Minister in the House that they would get the contribution, that we decided to do this. But the Treasury never intended in terms of the regulations to contribute in respect of bequests left to the society. I had a deputation from the trustees and as they relied on the statement of the Minister, I said that under the circumstances although this contribution would not strictly fall under the regulation, I was prepared to provide the additional amount to give them the £1,050 which the Minister of the Interior mentioned.

With regard to this loan to the national zoo, during the war the expenses of keeping up the zoo increased so much that they got into debt. They have been carrying that debt ever since about 1920 and they have endeavoured by various means to liquidate the debt, and the only way they can do it is to get a loan, which they have agreed to repay in five years’ time. That is the position.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote 22, “Printing and Stationery,” £15,000, put and agreed to.

Vote 23, “Public Health,” £23,000, put and agreed to.

On Vote 24, “Native Affairs,” £7,000,

I want to draw attention to an anomalons state of affairs. I pointed out to the Minister the other day the excessively heavy taxation levied on the natives for their clothing and so forth and here he is going to be charitable and make them a contribution of £7,000.

These people pay no taxation.

It would have been far better if you had reduced the taxation I think.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote 28, “Agriculture,” £5,000, put and agreed to.

Vote 31, “Posts, Telegraphs and Telephones,” £3,000, put and agreed to.

On Vote 32, “Public Works,” £100,000,

I want to say in the first place that I think the Minister ought to be congratulated on this new departure in presenting a formidable list of new works to be paid for out of revenue and not out of loan. I will be glad if he will tell us on what principle he allocates the new works to loan or to revenue. I understand that up to now anything over £500 is debited to loan and anything under £500 is debited to revenue.

No, we have not done so, and I do not think it is practicable. I would like to do as much as possible out of revenue, in connection with what you might call minor works. We have selected out of the list of the various departments all these smaller buildings, and there is no hard and fast rule. I daresay if we come to a building of £2,000 it might be constructed out of loan. The policy we have adopted now is to contribute out of revenue as large an amount as we possibly can afford instead of charging it to capital account. All these cases have to be treated on their merits.

The Minister of Public Works has instituted paying unskilled labour 1s. an hour, or 8s. a day. Has he the consent of his colleague, the Minister of Justice, in regard to the Cradock court room? Has he applied it there, or perhaps to the Pietersburg public offices, for which I see an amount of £1,000?

No; the hon. member must know, because I have told the House on several occasions, that all these estimates are based on the old system, and native unskilled labour is taken into account on the ordinary rates that have been obtaining in the past. It is a genuine estimate based on the old-time estimates of computation, and there is no “sheenaniking.”

Is that word parliamentary?

In the big centres it is 1s. an hour, and it is done within those estimates. The hon. member can feel perfectly safe, and if he thinks I might scatter money broadcast, my hon. colleague will shut his purse. If 1s. an hour is exceeded I think my friend, the controller of the Treasury, will want to know all about it.

Can the Minister give us some information with regard to the provision of £1,000 for poultry pens in Pietermaritzburg? In the past service of this kind has been provided at Cedera.

I have no definite information, but what probably has happened is that we desire to bring the fowls to the public instead of the public to the fowls.

What is the meaning of the item “French Hoek river bridge, £1,400”? It is a local bridge, and I thought it should have been built by the provincial authority. Is this solely for the forestry department? Why is he spending so much money on these forest quarters? These are tall prices for quarters of this kind. Are they for married or for single men?

My hon. friend must realize that in these out-of-the-way places it is a costly thing to get material and men to the job, and the contract was tendered for accordingly. We enquired very closely into this, and we have instituted a system, as I announced in the House, where, if we think the tenders are abnormally high we do the work departmentally. With regard to the French Hoek River bridge, in all probability that is in one of the forest settlements. I have not the facts at my fingers ends, but the Agricultural Department has put it up, and we have agreed to that as an urgent service.

Vote put and agreed to.

I move—

Agreed to.

On Head 2, “New Works on Open Lines,” £2,245,946,

This opens up the question again of this station at Johannesburg. The amount approved by Parliament, first instalment, is £250,000, and the additional amount required, £390,000, making a total of £640,000. I think that should be reconsidered. It appears to be a very tall price. We have just, as a matter of fact, had published the report of the present mining engineer which does not prove very much different from the report of Sir Robert Kotzé. This industry is by no means a permanent industry on which Johannesburg is dependent. I think the amount is enormous and very heavy, and that it should be reduced. I move—

I hope my hon. friend is not very serious about this. I expect, of course, in a large item of this kind that my hon. friend and other hon. members would naturally criticize it, but it seems to me that the Minister made a good case for it when we dealt with the matter on the loan estimates. I have looked at the plans, and I must say there was nothing about them that I could see that was of a luxury character. The accommodation required is very large, and we are not merely providing for the ordinary accommodation of a railway station, but also for a large amount of office space for the different departments of the Railway Administration. Look at what railways in other countries spend on railway stations. Take the American railways.

But look at the population.

Well, take the English railways. It is not long ago that £1,000,000 was spent in re-arranging Waterloo station. That, of course, is a big concern compared with Johannesburg, but Johannesburg is the chief city of the Union, and it is the city from which other parts of the Union derive their livelihood directly or indirectly. The provision of a suitable station for Johannesburg is very long overdue, the present station being entirely inadequate for a place one-quarter the size of Johannesburg. Taking into account the accommodation that has to be provided not only for passenger traffic and the administration’s officers, but the amount that is spent in re-arranging the tracks, I do not think this can reasonably be objected to. It is a favourite argument of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) to ask how much additional traffic these new buildings will bring. I think this will bring additional traffic.

How much?

I am not in a position to give an exact estimate, but the present facilities are such that no one will use the station unless they can possibly help it. There is no doubt that a new station is needed, and the amount put down is not excessive

A lot of people may travel up from Cape Town to see it.

That is an argument I had not thought of. Seriously, the amount is not out of reasonable proportion to what is required. The argument has been brought forward that we are not justified by the prospects of the Rand in building such a station, but that argument is without foundation. If hon. members will go to Johannesburg and see how private companies are providing for themselves in the matter of new buildings, they would see no lack of confidence. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has also shown his confidence in this way in the future of Johannesburg, but he is not one of the more recent ones. The people who show their confidence by spending their own money may be taken as a fairly good index as to what their outlook is for the future of the Rand; the Government justified in showing its confidence in erecting a new and much-needed station.

I honestly thought that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) was not serious in his objection, but I cannot at all understand that he should now move a reduction on the expenditure on the Johannesburg station.

We will vote for it.

The hon. member can safely do so if he can reconcile it with his conscience and can vote against his own Government. I want to thank the Minister of Railways and Harbours that he has now met the need of Johannesburg, which has long been waiting for a station. I am sorry that the Government which I am supporting neglected its duty so long. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central), when Minister of Railways and Harbours, neglected his duty in this respect so that the Government of its opponents is now giving the station. For my part I have never yet been jealous of anything done for Cape Town, and since the commencement of Union Cape Town has received much and progressed a good deal. The Minister is now providing for a long-felt need in Johannesburg, because the building was long since required. Hon. members representing the countryside will agree that it is necessary.

No, we do not agree.

Everyone that wants to sell his produce and sheep sends it to the Johannesburg market. What would South Africa be without Johannesburg? The hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. J. P. Louw) went so far the other night as to say that the station would one day be standing alone, and that Johannesburg would merely be a dust heap. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) is afraid of there being too many factories there because he wants to keep everything for Cape Town. He also is the cause why Johannesburg did not have a station, which was so necessary, before. He had the power in his hands and overlooked the needs of Johannesburg, and now I am sorry that another Minister has had to give the station which it really needed to Johannesburg. Hon. members opposite must surely vote with their Government. The public buildings in Johannesburg are in a deplorable state, and I think that the Minister of Justice has to give further buildings which the town requires. Johannesburg is the largest city in South Africa. Let the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) and other hon. members remember how much the taxpayers of Johannesburg pay into the Treasury every year. Think of what the gold mines mean to the country. Do not let us any longer be petty. I think the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) and the other opponents of this expenditure are petty in going against Johannesburg. I know that the Minister and hon. members opposite will use their common-sense. I hardly have words sufficient to express my feelings towards the hon. member for Cape Town (Central). He is a business man and ought to know better. The people of Johannesburg will be dissatisfied if such a shabby amendment towards Johannesburg is passed, and one proposed by an hon. member on this side of the House. The Minister of Railways and Harbours completely floored the critics the other night when he pointed out that it was not only a station building but the head office for all the administrative work of the railways. Do hon. members, then; not want the head office to be a decent building? Should the officials in the head office have the kind of offices which the officials at Cape Town have to work in? Here the officials have to work in cubicles which are a scandal to Cape Town. Large buildings have only been erected in Cape Town since the commencement of the Union. Take, e.g., the alterations to the Cape Town station and the buildings which are now being erected at Groote Schuur. What is Cane Town not getting by the electrification of the suburban line. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) remains silent about that.

Move that it should be reduced.

The hon. member should be silent because he is also a representative from the Rand.

I shall vote with you.

I know that hon. members opposite will have to vote with me, even the hon. member for George (Mr. Brink). The last named knows that the produce goes from his constituency to the Johannesburg markets. Johannesburg has to consume the articles which are produced in the country. The industrial development of Johannesburg is only in the initial stages, and as the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) said, large companies are to-day investing money in buildings. Close to the station large and beautiful buildings are being erected to improve the town, and it will be an honour to South Africa, The Railway Administration is taking pains to attract tourisms here from other countries, but if South Africa is to be advertised by a station such as Johannesburg has to-day, then it would sooner frighten away than attract. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) does not know what the officials have to endure. They have to work in cubicles in the existing building. When the hon. member comes to Johannesburg he goes to his own large building, and he does not see what the officials have to put up with. The Minister should also make provision so that natives and Europeans should not meet on the station, because, unlike the people in Cape Town, we are not accustomed to rub shoulders with each other every day. [Time limit.]

It is amusing to see how this battle royal developed between the protagonists of Johannesburg and the other people. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) has made one mistake. He has criticized the attitude of hon. members as if we were against a new station at Johannesburg. Not one hon. member has put his criticism on that basis, nor is it on account of jealousy. We are a little unaccustomed in this House to seeing votes of £650,000 for a railway station, and naturally we wanted to know why such a large amount was put down for a new station. We also wanted to point out to the Minister that he reminded us last year that it was gross extravagance to be spending money at the present time. There are claims in other parts but we are not pressing them because of the need for economy. After hearing this talk of the need for economy it is surprising to see such a large sum put down for Johannesburg. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) and the papers at Johannesburg need not be so touchy about the criticism of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and of other members because after all the sum is a very large sum indeed to be put down for the purpose of one single station, and we have not yet had any explanation why such a magnificent station at such a cost should be put up at Johannesburg or anywhere else at the present time.

I notice that there is an amount of about £1,700 on the Estimates for the station at Potgietersrust. Now, I want to ask the Minister to enquire into the station building before the amount is spent, because the feeling amongst the public is that the station is situated at a wrong place and that it ought to be moved. If that is so then I want to warn the Minister to first make enquiries. I admit that I am not acquainted with the matter, but it is the prevalent opinion. There was a public meeting held yesterday and railway officials were to have been present. An enquiry ought to be made whether the money ought to be spent at the present spot or whether the station building will not eventually have to be built over again.

The station at Johannesburg is an eyesore, and I have noticed that it is not even sufficiently large to accommodate passengers and traffic on many occasions when I have been there. I have seen passengers lose the train because of so much baggage and luggage on the platform. Johannesburg and the Transvaal have contributed in a great measure to the prosperity of South Africa. In Johannesburg there are some of the most beautiful buildings which will compare very favourably with any buildings in Cape Town, and I think the station should be in keeping with the other buildings, and it should be worthy of South Africa. Although we may not increase traffic, I do believe a lot of people are prevented from travelling via Johannesburg, because of the inconvenience and danger in the station during the crush of passengers at excursion times. As a Cape member, I am in favour of building a new station at Johannesburg in keeping with the status of the goldfields and to the credit of South Africa.

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

I have been a friend and follower of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) for many years, but I must say I cannot go with him in this latest outbreak of his on the question of the new station at Johannesburg. Let me clear up a misapprehension that exists in the minds of some hon. members. They say that to spend £640,000 on a new station for Johannesburg is extravagance gone mad. But of that £640,000, £275,000 is for the lay-out, that is the purchase of the necessary ground, the track, equipment and bridges, and so forth, and it has nothing to do with the station itself. Of the balance, a very substantial portion is for the administrative offices of the railways, and has no real connection with the needs of Johannesburg itself at all. As hon. members know, Johannesburg is the administrative centre of the railways, and there are already large administrative offices there going round three sides of a quadrangle, and I understand it is contemplated to devote a large portion of this money to completing that quadrangle. It should not be necessary to remind my hon. friends of the Cape of some very elementary facts. They seem to forget that Johannesburg and the Witwatersrand generally is the centre of the largest European population in Africa. It is the most wealthy mining community probably in the world, and certainly it is, and has been for the whole of this generation and longer, the main source of this country’s wealth. If Johannesburg had not existed my hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) would not be sitting in front of me to-night, and my hon. friend, the member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) would not be sitting on my left here, and we would not have been sitting in this House. I want to remind my hon. friends that the gold product alone of the Rand has been over £900,000,000, of which an amount of over £700,000,000 has been spent in this country. My hon. friend (Mr. Jagger), referring to this report of Dr. Pirow, the Government mining engineer, said he had read it, and he did not think there was much in it. I have just read that report, and it leads one to hope that for this generation and the generation that will follow this the mines of the Rand will continue to be the chief source of this country’s wealth, and yet we are told by our Cape friends that they cannot see any necessity for this expenditure. My hon. friend, who has led the opposition to this, draws a very large portion, if not the main portion, of his wealth and his income from this town of Johannesburg. His business there is one of the largest and most prosperous in that city, and he ranks as one of the leading merchants of Johannesburg. That station, when built, will convey his goods to his wholesale emporium, and will take them away from that emporium to his customers, and his customers will be attracted by the amenities afforded by that station.

That is the best proof of his impartiality.

I agree. I do not question his impartiality for one moment. He would make an equally vigorous onslaught if the proposal were to build a palatial station in Cape Town, but I do say one can sometimes be short-sighted and over-zealous in this cry of economy. We have waited forty years for a decent station in Johannesburg, and at last we see the prospect of getting one. I would not stand up in this House and defend any proposal in regard to Johannesburg or anywhere else that savoured simply of unnecessary spending of money, but when one knows the needs of that city, the volume of traffic that that station will have to cope with, and the wealth that is distributed all over South Africa from that station, I submit that this cry is one that will cause grave feeling on the Rand and elsewhere, and that it is entirely unjustified. What the Government is doing for Johannesburg is exactly what Johannesburg has been doing for itself in regard to building. I have asked my hon. friend, the Minister of Labour, to get for me the figures of building which has gone on in Johannesburg and on the Rand for the last few years. In 1921-’22 the total expenditure in the whole of the Union on building was just over £5,000,000, and of that amount a sum of over £2,000,000 was spent in Johannesburg itself, and nearly £500,000 on the rest of the Rand. In 1922-’23 45 per cent. of the whole of the expenditure of the Union on building was spent on the Rand. In 1923-’24 it was 44 per cent. During the last three years from 44 per cent. to 50 per cent. of the total expenditure in South Africa on buildings has been spent in Johannesburg and on the reef. Yet, when you come to look at the other side of the picture and ask yourself what the Government has spent there, what it has done for public buildings and public amenities in Johannesburg, another story is told. We used to complain in the days when my right hon. friend (Gen. Smuts) was the head of the Government, that their treatment of Johannesburg was somewhat step-motherly. I can only say that this is the first earnest that we have had from the present Government of anything but step-motherly treatment of Johannesburg, and when they do come forward with a proposal of this sort, I say it is misguided and it savours of narrow provincialism for my hon. friends in the Cape to get up and question that expenditure. I want to give what has been spent by the Government on public works in the various towns of the Union in the year which has just ended. I am quoting the figures for the final six months of the last financial year, 1926-’27: Cape Town. £70,000; Durban, £149,000; Bloemfontein and the Free State, £212,000; Johannesburg and Witwatersrand, £81,000. At Pretoria, £54,000, so that of the total spent in the Union by the Government on public works during the last six months of the financial year, 13 per cent. was spent in the Witwatersrand, while 11 per cent. was spent in Cape Town and 32 per cent. was spent in Bloemfontein and the Free State. [Time limit.]

I am deeply grieved, in fact, pained, at the hostile attitude of some of my hon. friends. I can quite understand that hon. members think the figure is big, but you cannot criticize a figure unless you have all the facts and circumstances. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs said that certain provision would be made in the new station to deal with postal matters.

That is in addition. It is not in this sum.

I am very much relieved to hear that. I feel this matter has been very carefully handled and has been gone into by the best architects you could have. The whole of the present station it must be remembered will have to be scrapped. I do not know whether hon. members realize that the present building is a wood and iron building, and that this building has been serving us for all these years. I do not think it takes us any further to make comparisons which are sometimes invidious, but if one looks at these very estimates we see items on page 23 of £59,000 for Cape Town. Then, if you turn over and go a couple of pages further, you will find an expenditure of £212,000. and on page 53 a further item of £225,877, making in all a railway expenditure for Cape Town for this year of £487,600. It is probably required and necessary. I would not venture to express the opinion that it is wrong. These things are required and, naturally, should be provided, but I hope hon. members will cease to talk about this large expenditure, because they do not know the facts of the matter. The amount is large, but the amount is necessary, and we are at last to have a public building which, I hope and trust, will be an ornament to the city. If there is one objection and criticism, I would make, it is this—I notice the entrance to the station on either side is guarded by elephants. Well, I would prefer lions as being more characteristic of the country.

I just want to add a word or two to what I was saying. Hon. members should not forget this, that for years Johannesburg has been pressing for one of the most necessary improvements that could be made, namely, the lowering of the line. Hon. members know that by reason of the fact that the railway line cuts Johannesburg in two, an almost intolerable position has been created there. The department has always said: “You must wait until we finish our new station.” Yet we get this criticism from my hon. friends in the Cape. It is very keenly resented on the Rand. One of the critics was the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards), who represents a Natal constituency. That province, within the last few years, had four and a half millions spent on electrification, a million on a graving dock and three-quarters of a million on a grain elevator, and yet when this first piece of capital expenditure that has been spent near Johannesburg for years is mentioned the hon. gentleman throws up his hands in horror at the suggestion.

But it is not reproductive.

It will probably be a far more reproductive piece of expenditure than the new building costing close on £100,000 which we have put up next to this building. I do want to appeal to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) not to pursue this matter. I tell them frankly that if they do they will stir up a good deal of interprovincial feeling the repercussions of which may be felt in the Cape. There are a good many members in this House who, for many years past, have been convinced of the unwisdom of the dual capital, but we have refrained up to now from taking any concrete action in this House, because we did not want to stir any form of inter-provincial feeling, but I will tell them this—that if they pursue this discussion in the narrow provincial spirit they have shown up to now, and they take this matter any further, then some of us will consider before Parliament meets again whether we should not bring up in this House a proposal to abolish what we believe to be an anomaly which costs every year far more than two Johannesburg stations put together.

I do not see why this should not be discussed in a calm manner. There is no reason for any feeling that I can see. We ought to discuss it calmly as a responsible body responsible to the taxpayers for expenditure. If I may venture to be personal for a minute I daresay I am more interested in Johannesburg than anyone in this House. I went there several times by coach from Kimberley in the early days. I quite agree and always have agreed that a new station is wanted at Johannesburg and when I was in office I made a definite promise that we would build a new station. I was not in office sufficiently long, that is the sole reason, otherwise a sum would have been put on the estimates to make a start. I do not go back on it now but the only thing is that my idea was to spend £250,000 to £300,000 on the station. What I do grumble at is the amount of £640,000 and I do not think that will be the last of it. You have to consider two or three things. You have above all to consider the future of Johannesburg. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has spoken of what it has done in the past. No one disputes that. It has done more probably to send forward the prosperity of South Africa than any other industry or city in South Africa. But, unfortunately, it is not a permanent industry. If it were a permanent industry and could continue to produce this gold every year it would be a different story, but we have these warnings, and on this industry the prosperity of Johannesburg when all is said and done is dependent. It is claimed that it is going to be a big manufacturing centre. It cannot be. The working expenses are too heavy, far heavier than at the coast. It is alright talking but I am in business and I know. How can you make on a big scale boots and shoes or clothing when you pay far higher wages than down at the coast? It cannot be done. The industry which it has is not permanent. I have a few extracts from what has been said by men who know the position. This is one by a very well known gentleman in South Africa—

Here is another one by a correspondent—

That is exactly the truth. He goes on—

That is precisely the case. He says further—

Sir Robert Kotzé reports that of the 49 mines two have already ceased operations and four have not yet had their lives determined for purposes of taxation. Of the other mines the lives range from one to 30 years. For less than five years there are 19 mines. It is admitted that these figures are conservative, and I should add three years, making it eight years. From 8 to 13 years there are 11 mines, from 13 to 18, seven mines, from 18 to 23 years four mines, and from 23 to 33 years two mines. In 35 years from now there is no doubt there will be a very different state of things in Johannesburg, and I say it with regret. Dr. Pirow’s report is not so definite as Sir Robert Kotzé’s. But then certain factors have come into play which will prolong the life of the mines, but I cannot conceive a man not taking the future into consideration in this regard. There is nothing that Dr. Pirow brings out so strongly as that if we want to prolong the life of the mines it is entirely a matter of working expenses. We can prolong them for five or six years, and one way of reducing expenses is to reduce railway rates. The Minister ought to aim for that; if he can reduce the cost of carrying coal from Witbank to the mines you can prolong by years the lives of some of these mines. The whole thing, to my mind, almost hangs on the Government and the people generally doing their level best to reduce the working expenses. [Time limit.]

I do not propose to say anything about inter-provincial relations or dual capitals in this discussion, but it is somewhat ungracious on the part of certain hon. members from the Cape to have spoken as they did. If any two towns in the Union should be considered for better railway consideration, they are Johannesburg and Kimberley, and neither has been looked favourably upon in the past by any administration. I also have seen the rise and growth of Johannesburg since 1888, and the establishment of the railway; it has never been properly served as far as accommodation at the main station, either Park or Braamfontein, is concerned. In 1914, when the fire took place, it was hoped that something would be done, but the war intervened, which prevented anything being done. I see that something like £500,000 is being expended, within a comparatively short distance of Cape Town on these estimates. I would like to ask how much would be warranted to be spent in Cape Town were it not for the existence of Johannesburg. Not only, as the Minister has pointed out, is this £640,000 meant for the railway station, but there are several other matters such as the purchase of the Wanderers’ Ground, and certain large buildings in connection with the head office of the railway which are also included in this amount. That being so, I think this opposition should cease, and this vote should pass.

The fly in the ointment from the other side appears in the “Rand Daily Mail.” I do not know whether the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) is the leader of this agitation or whether it comes from the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan). The hon. member for Von Brandis says the whole of the agitation comes from that side, and not only from the hon. member for Cape Town (Central). Interviewed in regard to this question on his arrival in Johannesburg, the hon. member for Von Brandis said—

I put it to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) that is the real thing at the back of it. If the hon. member were Minister of Railways and Harbours to-day, would he put that consideration before him or not? I do not seem to get an answer, and I do not know why. I think this apology coming from the other side is rather unfortunate. The “Rand Daily Mail” said that the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) had no objection to coming to this House for expenditure to protect canaries. The hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) followed the same line, and no word came from him with regard to millions being spent on grain elevators. I think this late apology coming from the other side is simply to detain the House. Criticism of Dr. Pirow’s report is inopportune. I do not think the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) has assimilated that report from the mining point of view. Dr. Pirow stated that on the Witwatersrand under the new conditions of mining they had been able to extract narrower reefs of higher values, which had brought into possibility a longer extension than had been considered to be the case of Sir Robert Kotzé. What the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) loses sight of, not being a technical man, is the continuation of the deep levels, when a mine closes down. To-day you are dealing with mines of 2,400 claims, and at the E.R.P.M. and Cinderella, 4,000 claims, or practically 10 mines rolled into one, compared with previous conditions. When they reach the boundary it overflows. Government ground is being added to it every day. I think Dr. Pirow has rendered a great service by framing this report at this juncture, because the argument was often used in this House that the life of the Witwatersrand had been determined, and we had the end of it in sight. That induced the Government to get Dr. Pirow to report on what the actual position was. There is no limit to be put on, and say that in a certain year or at a certain time, the mining industry will cease. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) will be able to put up a good many double-storeyed buildings before the industry ceases.

Rise of the working costs, shortage of European or native labour, industrial upheavals and lack of capital. What I have done is not in any spirit of envy. I was hard-pressed when I was in office to spend money on Cape Town station, but I thought that it met all the requirements of trade, and that that expenditure was not necessary. I am not against the Johannesburg station, but as a responsible man I wanted to raise a warning, and I am glad I have raised it. I did it with set purpose. An important vote like this should be brought before Parliament, and we should have a discussion. On the merits of the thing. With the leave of the committee, I shall withdraw my amendment.

With leave of Committee, amendment withdrawn.

Head, as printed, put and agreed to.

Head 3, “Rolling Stock”, £2,030,701, put and agreed to.

Head 4, “Harbours, Lighthouses, etc.”, £767,490, put and agreed to.

On Head 5, “Airship Mooring Masts”, £800,

Where is the airship mooring mast to be?

The Imperial Government sent two officers to South Africa and they have made investigations all over the country; they went from Capetown to Durban and visited the interior also. They have presented a preliminary report to the Union Government and will, of course, also report to the Imperial Government. There are conditions which must be fulfilled in connection with the establishment of intermediate stations between Great Britain and South Africa, and it depends on that whether the mooring mast will be at Cape Town or at Durban. The whole matter is under consideration. The cost of the mast will probably be about £50,000.

Head put and agreed to.

Head 6, “Working Capital”, £221,790, put and agreed to.

Head 7, “Unforeseen Works”, £250,000, put and agreed to.

I move—

There can be no objection to the House dealing with this now, because anything we agree to now must be subject to a Bill passed authorizing the construction of the railways in question, and an Appropriation Bill will also have to be passed. It will be very inconvenient to delay these estimates as we want to send them to the Senate.

Motion put and agreed to.

On Head 1, “Construction of Railways”, £1,297,453, standing over,

What is the idea of providing a track on a new route between Cape Town and Woltemade No. 1?

That is an avoiding line. We want an avoiding line taking off from the main line at a point beyond Maitland bringing it right into the docks and so avoiding the block at the bottom of Cape Town station. Full plans and specifications will be in the hands of members before the matter is disposed of.

Will the Minister explain the item “Construction of loop to serve Louis Trichardt £18,453”?

We have agreed to deviate the line but the interest and redemption charges will be met from an extra charge which will be levied on that particular line. Ultimately the loop will cost the department nothing.

Louis Trichardt deviation is completed the local people will petition the Minister for a remission of the extra charges.

What is more, they will get the remission.

If they don’t get it from the present Minister, they will get it from his successor. We have had experience of this before. Take Ceres and several other places which guaranteed to find the interest on the construction of branch lines and then petitioned to be relieved from the payment. I am surprised the Minister was not firmer on the matter.

It depends on Parliament’s decision.

That’s all very well; with a majority at the Minister’s back.

Under no circumstances will we write it off. They must certainly foot the bill.

When will the line be completed to the Swaziland border, and what is the possibility of the continuance of the line towards Goba or Komatipoort?

I should like to know from the Minister when he thinks the line from the Messina to the Limpopo will be finished, and what his opinion is in regard to the station at Louis Trichardt. I should like to know whether a station house is to be built and when the new station will come into use. I am glad that the Minister was good enough to grant a station because the people really need it, and it is gratefully acknowledged. The line to the Limpopo will also help the north very much.

Is this the final estimate of the cost of the Matubatuba—Pongola River line? Without any reference to Parliament the estimate is increased by 50 per cent. over what it was when the figures were first presented to the House. When the Railway Board find that an estimate on which the construction of the line has been sanctioned is exceeded, they should come back to Parliament and put the revised figures before us.

In connection with the railway to the Swaziland border, is it the Government’s intention to run a motor lorry service from the railhead?

Will the Minister tell us the cost of the bridge over the Limpopo river? As I pointed out previously, it has been stated that the whole of the capital cost of the bridge will be provided from outside sources.

Why has the Minister not placed the sum on the estimates for the construction of the Greytown branch—Rietvlei line?

There is no money down for this line so I am afraid the hon. member cannot discuss it.

To spend £55,600 on uplifting ten-and-a-quarter miles of line on the Matubatuba—Somkele line seems to be very expensive. Why not use these rails to extend the line to the Pongola river?

As to the point raised by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) the line is now open to the south bank of the river, and the bridge will be completed and the line will be open to the Swaziland border in September next. The bridge is a railway one only. As to the extension of that line we cannot spend money in territory which is not part of the Union. At the request of the Swaziland Administration the Board visited the area, but there can be no question of extending our railway into Swaziland proper. The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Maj. Miller) asked about the motor services. Yes, we intend to begin motor services in Swaziland at the request of the Administration there.

You are running it on their behalf?

At their request and at our expense.

But it does not belong to the Union.

No, the territory does not, but it feeds our railway lines. We have consulted the law advisers and they advise that we can do so. With regard to the question of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) concerning the Limpopo Bridge the amount must be voted even though the cost is contributed by an outside party. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) asks about the high cost of the line. That is undoubtedly so. There was a serious underestimate of the cost of construction. The Railway Board presented a report to Parliament, and attached the report of the chief civil engineer, who is responsible to the Board and to the House. The difficulty arose because this was totally unknown country, and when the engineers made the survey there were no Europeans living there and they had to depend on the information gathered from the natives. Afterwards floods occurred and it was found the information given to the engineer when he made the survey was incorrect. There is something to be said for the view that the engineers under such circumstances should again report to Parliament. Then about the line from Matubatuba to Somkele. The amount of £55,600 is the original amount which has to be drawn from the capital account,

*The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Geldenhuys) asked me about the Limpopo line. It will, of course, be built after Parliament has granted the necessary authority. With regard to the question about the station at Louis Trichardt, we intend to erect it, and the necessary facilities will be provided.

Will there be a station house?

Certainly.

Why is there not a sum for the construction of this Greytown line?

The money made available for new construction has not been sufficient to go round. Other hon. members and particularly the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) have been very wrath about this and I can quite understand the disappointment of the hon. member. I shall not be able to spend more than one and a quarter millions on new construction, and therefore it has not been possible to make any provision for further lines. I hope next year to make further progress.

Head put and agreed to.

Does not the hop. Minister of Finance think we have had enough of this sitting devoted to estimates? I ask him to allow these to stand over until to-morrow. We have passed the whole of the Railway Estimates, the Railway Loan Estimates, and his Supplementary Estimates.

Surely we must get on. None of the Ministers are here for the next orders.

Vote put and agreed to.

On loan Vote B, “Public Works,” £550,000,

Will the Minister of Public Works give us some information as to whether the two necessary bridges connecting East Griqualand with the Underberg district of Natal are provided for in the Estimates, that is over the Indowana River and Ingwagwane River. I have written to his department in regard to these bridges.

The bridge programme is a very heavy one, and the bridges to be built are definitely set out on the list on page 7.

I would like to know what the new offices are which are being built in Pretoria at a cost of £155,000. What are they for? It is on page 7. In Durban we are spending £105,000 on new offices and in Cape Town £33,000.

Why are there six bridges at once over the Vaal River provided for, when there are so many other works and bridges urgently required in other parts of the Union?

It is for the new station.

I should like to see fewer bridges provided just now and the money spread over the Union on urgent works. Then under the sub-head 18, offices for various departments in Cape Town. Is anything to be done with these old offices in Parliament Street? Are they going to be pulled down and new offices built, or are we going to keep those old rabbit warrens which are there now?

On page 4 the Minister has a bridge over the Kat River. I should like some information about this particular bridge.

In reply to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) the new offices for Pretoria are an extension of the post office annexe and the object is to house one whole department from the Union Buildings. The Union Building has insufficient room for the whole department. In the public offices at Durban we are concentrating in one spot all the public activities of the town. In Cape Town the projected offices are in Lelie Street. With regard to pulling down these old buildings, I think the time is not far distant when we must pull down these buildings and put up a comprehensive suite of offices. It is conditional of course upon whether Parliament decides that Parliament must remain here. In view of the threat of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) it seems very doubtful. I think we shall have to consider asking the city council to agree to close Parliament Street from the old Supreme Court up. It is a dangerous spot and is productive of the utmost noise so that business cannot be carried on here in the day, and in the Select Committees the constant roaring of traffic makes it difficult to carry on. I have made representations to the Cape Town Council without effect. With the exception of putting a notice up asking vehicles to go slow, no effective steps have been taken. With regard to the bridge over the Kat River, that is an internal thing connected with the mental hospital at Fort Beaufort. It is to make it easy of access. I might take this opportunity of telling the Committee that the Manor House at Groot Constantia is now complete, and the Government would like any members who take an interest in that old monument to go out and have a look at the place?

What have they done with it? Are they leasing it?

We have still left it there and we are not leasing it. It is to be preserved to the nation.

Have you leased the wine cellar?

Yes, we have leased the wine cellar.

Surely the wine cellar is the most historic part of the building.

I have been resisting the lease of the old wine cellar, and I have issued an order that no new wine is to be tunned in the old wine cellar. That gentleman has given every undertaking to look after the building and keep it in a state of repair. I must also take this opportunity of paying a tribute to the generosity of Mr. De Pass, who has contributed old Dutch historic furniture and furnishings to the old manor house. It is well worth a visit.

Where does my hon. friend get the name “Manor House”? That is a new invention. It is an imported name, and, to my mind, it is an abomination. It does not belong to South Africa.

Singularly enough, it is the first time I have used the expression.

Well then, I should drop it and cause the officials to drop it, too.

I don’t like it.

There are no “Manor Houses” here in South Africa. I see that my hon. friend has got an item here of £97,000 for Appeal Court, Bloemfontein. The Appeal Court is using the Raadzaal at the present moment. Why can it not continue to use that building?

It is too small.

I see that in Cape Town here you have got an item “offices for Labour Department,” £35,000. Where are these?

On Barrack Square.

It seems a tall amount to spend. Then I see that you have got an item for Fort Napier, adaptation of cantonments, £80,000.

That is a re-vote.

We have got money to burn in this country.

It looks like it, I quite agree. Then Valkenberg, I see an item, alterations to European female ward, £4,400. We are always spending money on Valkenberg. I see, again, Cape Town, barracks and cells, £130,000. I suppose this is at Wale Street. Then there is also general post office annexe, Cape Town, £130,000. Does my hon. friend say he is spending £130,000 on that annexe to the post office? I see a further item in connection with the post office in Cape Town, erection of stores, garage, etc., £69,500. I think we are entitled to some explanation in regard to these items.

As the Minister seems to be in such an aesthetic mood to-night and has said so much about Groot Constantia, on which I agree with him, may I call his attention to one of the monstrosities in Cape Town, a monstrosity which is seen by large numbers of people who come into this city, and that is the archway that connects the two post office buildings in Parliament Street.

The Bridge of Sighs.

You have got the old post office with a sort of steel grey or slate grey on the one side and you have a building of an entirely different character on the opposite side, and you have got a bridge connecting the two buildings tinted with the most hideous yellow colour, so that it is most likely to make one feel sick when one comes out of the railway station and walks up the street. Surely my hon. friend can see that it is treated in a colour that will harmonize with the buildings on each side of the street.

On page 7, Telle River bridge. I would like to know what class of labour is to be employed, and whether the same Tate of pay, of 1s. per hour in respect of unskilled workmen engaged upon public buildings, will be paid in this instance.

I would like to say to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) that these figures do look rather large, but I think that in every case they can be justified. Take Fort Napier, those are the old cantonments, and they have to be altered and re-arranged for the mental hospital at Maritzburg. With regard to the police barracks in Cape Town, I think my hon. friend knows quite well that that place is no longer habitable. This scheme has enabled us to meet the City Council in connection with widening Wale Street, which has always been a danger spot. The House has agreed to a strip of land there belonging to the State being cut off and handed over to the City Council for a small financial consideration for the purpose of widening Wale Street.

Are you going to widen Keerom Street?

I do not know anything about that. The offices for the Labour Department are being erected on Barracks Square. What used to be an eyesore has now become a veritable beauty spot with the bricks and mortar placed there, resulting from the efforts of the State on behalf of the public of Cape Town. Whoever says in future that the State has done very little for Cape Town I would ask to take a walk to Barracks Square, In regard to the post office annexe in Cape Town, this is a re-vote. This Government was not responsible for that work, but the late Government. A good deal of the money has gone in the purchase of land. With regard to the way in which the artistic perception of my right hon. friend (Sir Thomas Smartt) has been pained by the colour of the archway, I would like to tell him that it has not yet been completed. There is to be a medallion placed there which will be of an artistic nature.

What about the colour of the archway?

The colour is only a temporary thing. It will not be left like that. In regard to the stores and garage, that is a work which is long overdue. This item is a re-vote. At present we are hiring premises for our postal stores in Dock Road and we are hiring premises for garage accommodation. Speaking from memory, I think it is costing £2,400 a year. We are building the stores and garage near Gearing Limited’s place. The hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton) wants to know about this question of 1s. an hour in connection with the Telle River bridge. That is not one of the cases where we will insist upon the 1s. an hour clause being in the contract, though I can assure him it will not cost any the less because of not having that 1s. an hour clause in the contract.

I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works whether the building he is putting up in Lelie Street forms part of the building scheme, and whether it will fit in with his suggested alterations to Parliament Street. As regards the noise the Minister suffers from in Parliament Street, I would suggest to him that in rebuilding they put back the frontage some feet. It would make an enormous difference to the noise. I live in probably the busiest corner of Cape Town, and I suffer from practically no noise. If he put back the frontage, with by all means a courtyard there which would not be open to the public, he would not suffer from noise in the rooms, and a very beautiful block of buildings could be put up there which would be a credit to the legislative capital of South Africa. I would suggest to the Minister that he should officially write to the Town Council, pointing out the inconvenience to the parliamentary people of the traffic there, and then something might be done about it. If one of us unofficially simply speaks about it, it does not go very far, but if the Minister writes officially, and suggests some improvement there, I think very considerable notice would be taken of it. I should also like to ask the Minister whether he will not make a point this year of forcing on the erection of that art gallery. That art gallery has been promised by the Government to Cape Town for, I suppose, 25 or 30 years. I think it is about 30 years ago that the then Government took the site of the art gallery and promised to give them the funds to put up another one. That money has been used by the State for all these years, and it is surely time to give back to Cape Town what you borrowed from them 30 years ago. I do urge that a little bit of energy should be put into that art gallery. It was in exactly the same position last year. This time last year the Minister said: “We are going to get on with it. You can depend on that.” The only “getting on” is a certain quantity of stuff put on paper. There is not a weed taken out of the foundations. I do ask the Minister this year to, at any rate, take the weeds out of the foundations. There is one other point, and that is Barrack Square. The Minister was rather priding himself on Barrack Square. I will say this—that the Union Government had one of the chances of its life to make of Barrack Square a beautiful site for public offices, but they have simply built up streets of good offices, very well designed, but so crowded together that you cannot see them. Instead of laying the square out with a little artistic taste, you have simply made it look as if you were building semi-detached villas. I do urge, first of all, that we should go on with the public buildings in Parliament Street, as suggested by the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben), and that the Lelie Street part should form an integral portion of the scheme. The other point is, I want the Minister to say to himself every night: “We must get on with the Cape Town art gallery.”

I would like to point out to the Minister that that beautiful town of Somerset West gets a post office of only £3,400, whereas that back country town, Bethlehem, gets one of £7,000. I am more energetic than some members, but I have very nearly been blotted out in the street out here already. I tell you that street is a death-trap for some of our older men. I do not think the contract is quite finished for this Parliament House, £20,000. The laying of the bricks does not do justice to a House of Parliament. There is no finish in it at all. As for the galvanized roof, it hurts me. It is a scandal to have a House of Parliament with an ugly tin roof. Get the contractor to come back and finish all the facings of the bricks. It is not finished yet.

In regard to the suggestion by the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) that we should set back the building, I am afraid that would not help us very much. The noise would be just as great. My idea is, we should get the City Council to close the road altogether, and that we should take out the railings here and throw the whole thing into the gardens. I think we should seize every opportunity of opening the place out, and surrounding it with a certain amount of floral decoration. I have written to the Town Council, I wrote last year officially, but I got no satisfaction. All they did was to stop horse traffic and mule traffic. They closed the side street and asked motorists not to use their horns. Fancy asking a motorist not to use his horn! It becomes instinctive with quite a number of them. With regard to motorbicycles the noise is terrific. I am going to force on the erection of the art gallery. My hon. friend will see that we are determined to pull the weeds out of the foundation, because we are going to spend £14,000 this year upon it. With regard to the Government having promised it for 25 years, I would ask him to hurl his reproaches at the hon. members surrounding him. They promised, and, as usual, we perform. The hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. J. P. Louw) is ungrateful. Look at what we are spending on his gaol. Tire hon. member grumbles because we are spending only £2,400 on a post office for a place so delightfully situated and expansive as Somerset West. We are building only for the requirements of the locality. If Bethlehem is getting more, it is because its requirements warrant that expenditure. The same thing applies to the gaol, and when we have spent the money prisoners will no longer be able to escape—and my hon. friend had better be careful. With regard to the annexe of this House, my hon. friend is hypercritical. I want anybody who knows anything about building to go and look at it, and if he does not like it, he must be hard to satisfy. As to the tin roof, I did not know it was being put on until I saw it. Although we are over-carrying less than last year, our capital expenditure is growing at an enormous rate, and we cannot waste money on unshipping the roof and putting another on. Let us wait some years—we might move.

If my hon. friend walks up the steps here, and looks through the window he will see the extraordinary character of the building compared with the building we are in at the present time. If you will go into the vestibule, look at the Minister’s offices and see the balustrade there he will see that it does not correspond with the one in the courtyard. I am sorry he did not look through the plans and see what a hideous effect you would get in the courtyard. If he consulted his architect, with a comparatively small amount of money he could put a balustrade there which would correspond with the one in the courtyard.

The Minister mentioned Groote Constantia. The cellar wants seeing to. The man who has leased the place and is responsible for keeping it in order, had better be looked after, and somebody should see that he does it. I am thinking of the old cellar and the main door. We who have lived many years at the Cape think more of the cellar than of the House.

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote C, “Telegraphs and Telephones,” £450,000, put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote D, “Lands and Settlements,” £763,000,

There is a small item (c) (3), loans to settlers in areas devastated by floods. We do not seem to have had floods for ages—nothing but drought. Perhaps the Minister will explain this item.

I want to know whether the Minister thinks it is a wise policy to go on year by year placing a sum down on the Loan Votes for triangulation and topographical survey. It is an annual expenditure, and I object to it being put to loan. I do not object to the expenditure. It is not money we are ever likely to get a return for.

I want to know what the £10,000, general development, Hartebeestpoort irrigation settlement, is for. Then there is preparation of plots, £24,000, and advances to settlers, £26,000; altogether £60,000. Then there is £11,000 for the development of the Olifants River irrigation settlement. Is that near Clanwilliam? Then we have £7,500 for the survey and development of the Umlazi location. What is the meaning of that? We have £30,000 down for the purchase and development of land for native settlement. It seems a large amount, and perhaps the Minister could give an explanation.

In reply to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh), this is a small amount that will have to be advanced in connection with the Umfolosi flood which happened some years ago. Some of the plots were destroyed, and we have to make advances to the settlers to put the plots in order again. The question raised by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) is one which may be considered from different points of view. The triangulation of the country is useful for posterity, as well as for us, and it is not right that only the present generation should pay for it. You cannot have a correct survey anywhere unless you have triangulation, and only a few areas have been triangulated, such as the Witwatersrand, the Kakamas district and the Cape Peninsula.

Why do you not do it out of revenue?

Because future generations will derive as much benefit from it as we do. It is the same thing as public buildings. It is a question of policy. My colleagues considered it should be done that way, and the previous Government also did the same. I think the previous Government was right in that particular instance. As to Hartebeestpoort, I started this probationary settlement, and I cannot do it in one year. I put a certain amount on the estimates every year, and prepared 60 plots for allotment. This is the last lot. That will bring up the settlers to about 220. According to the Act as soon as the probationers have been passed out by the Land Board as settlers, they have to be started and we have to make them advances for the purchase of stock and implements; his money they have to repay. That is also the case in regard to the Olifants River settlement. A few years ago I bought a piece of land from the natives south of Durban near Umbogintwini. This is one of the finest sites for Durbanites as a suburb. I have had a town planning expert laying the ground out, and I am perfectly confident I will get twice the amount! I paid for it. We also gave the natives land higher up away from the coast. They are quite satisfied, for in addition to the land we gave them we also paid them £30,00’0. We shall sell the land in plots, but not all at once so as not to flood the market. The purchase money for the plots will probably be repaid over a certain number of years with interest at 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. As to the purchase of land for natives I only act as agent for the Department of Native Affairs so I cannot give any details.

Why do you require £500,000 for land settlement and development when you have a tremendous lot of land in hand consisting of surrendered farms and land purchased some years ago?

I can assure my hon. friend we have not very much land. As soon as a holding is abandoned, it is re-advertised and taken up again in a few months. This £500,000 is spent almost exclusively under Section 11, under which a settler selects the land himself and buys it from a private owner. The sum voted last year for this purpose was exhausted within less than three months. I am simply overwhelmed with applications from people who have a small amount of capital to buy land for them. They make an initial payment of one-tenth of the cost. This has proved the best means of land settlement and one on which we have lost least. I now confine myself exclusively to this kind of settlement. I act as banker, provided that the Land Board is satisfied that the price is not too high and the settlers are suitable. Land is being bought in all the provinces. Natal has made a bigger percentage inroad on this amount than any of the other provinces. Land settlement under Section 10 was a total failure all over the country.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) referred to land like that near Riversdale which has been lying dormant for years. The department still has on hand land to the value of £300,000. Hence why the necessity of £500,000 for buying other land?

There is no ground bought by the previous Government which has not been given out. Naturally we still have Crown land left.

We are not talking about Crown land.

So far as land we have bought is concerned we have no vacant land. I am speaking about land bought by myself.

I am very glad to see it. The Minister has kindly told us the details in regard to his proposal for the subdivision of land at Umbogintwini-Amanzimtoti. Is it his intention to confine the land to allotments for building sites or will it be possible to allot some of the land as small poultry farms? They would be very conveniently situated and would be in great demand if it could be done.

I would like to ask, in connection with the money loaned for assistance in purchasing farms under Section 11 to what extent replacement is taking place? Is it the case that individuals buy land from somebody else and there is really no land settlement, and can you tell me whether individuals, who have obtained loans to purchase a farm, have sold the farm and gone in for another one?

In answer to the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) I want to say the land was not bought with a view to land settlement but to make a nice suburb.

Surely, that is not the business of your department to do that sort of thing?

Yes, it is my business. The Land Department is the only department that can deal with it. We do not only deal with land settlement, but also with the land question.

What city land?

Any land. In reply to the question of the hon. member for Zululand that is one of the things that I keep my eye on. Replacements do take place but the percentage is not very high. Also we watch very closely whether a man sells a farm and then comes to us to buy another farm. In such cases, except exceptional cases, the board turns down the application.

With regard to the survey and development of Umlazi Location I understand the Minister anticipates making a big profit. What will happen to it? Will it go into the Native Development Fund? The natives are very dissatisfied with the exchange.

No. You are wrong. They are very much satisfied with this.

I have personally got letters on it and the natives from the location have interviewed me expressing dissatisfaction. I am wondering if it is not only reasonable that the profit made should go back to the Native Development Fund.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote E, “Irrigation,” £235,000,

What is this item of £7,000 under the general heading “Water Boring”—boring for provincial administrations, railways and municipalities. The report of the Public Accounts Committee was laid on the Table this afternoon by the chairman, and it contains a resolution expressing the opinion that the Government should not bore for municipalities. There are quite enough private water borers and quite a number have failed to make a living in recent years because of the terms upon which the Government bore for farmers. It is not the business of the Water Boring Department to bore for municipalities or for the railways. The Public Accounts Committee took that view and passed a resolution on that point. I hope the Minister will give the assurance that he will go into this question and restrict the activities of the Water Boring Department as much as possible to legitimate farm operations.

Yes, I am prepared to do that.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote F, “Local Works and Loans,” £2,318,000,

I would like to ask the Minister to explain to the House on what basis loans to the Provincial Administration are granted. On inspecting the loan grants I find the Cape gets £275,000 and the Free State gets the same. We know the Cape is four or five times the size of the Free State. We have four or five times as many schools and school children, and for years now the Provincial Council of the Cape have not been able to allocate a single bridge to the Transkei where we need them. The position regarding hospitals is also serious: The Administrator used to state that the blame rests upon the Central Government which refuses to give the Provincial Council sufficient funds for these purposes. It does seem unfair that the Cape should only get the same amount as the Free State, and I ask the Minister on what he bases the sums which are allocated. Are the allocations based upon the amounts requisitioned for by the various provinces or is it pure guess-work. Natal, too, which is also a very small province, gets practically the same amount. It is wrong, and I think that the Cape, having regard to its size, should get a very much larger amount than this. I know that the Cape Province is handicapped very seriously in educational development, and in regard to bridges, hospitals, etc.

Hon. members will perhaps recollect that some years ago the Cape had very large amounts for capital expenditure. They fared very much better than any other province. These cases, of course, are treated on their merits, and we scrutinize the purposes for which these loans are required. Take the Free State and Natal in regard to roads; they are very much worse off than any other province.

We pay for our roads ourselves.

Yes, but you have had very much larger loans for capital expenditure for school buildings, for instance, than the other provinces. In the case of Natal, she has got the amount she asked for. In the case of the Free State, she has got £275,000 and she asked for, I think, £360,000.

The more you ask for the more you get.

No, that is not the case. All these things are scrutinized. As far as the Cape is concerned, for hospital purposes, we have given her the full amount which she wanted. We have given all the provinces, where they are building hospitals, the amount which they are able to spend this year. In the Transvaal also they got the full amount.

I would like to bring before the Minister one item about which there is some difficulty. That is the Port Elizabeth Technical College, where there is a total expenditure of £67,000. An amount of £20,400 has already been spent, and £22,050 is put down for this year. The position is that the contract has been signed with the consent of the Minister of Education for this amount. The Technical College people inform me that they have asked for £42,000 this year, leaving a balance of £5,000. They have consulted their architects again and they have been told that at least another £10,000 is necessary to carry on the building during the year; otherwise they say that the building will come to a standstill. Of course, the building cannot come to a standstill. The bill will have to be footed in some way. The other £10,000 has to be provided, and the suggestion is that an additional £10,000 be granted, otherwise the Technical College people want to know what they are to do in the matter. I think it will ease their minds a bit if the Minister will give some information as to how it is to be financed.

I ask for some further information in regard to the housing loans fund. We have been led to believe that what is to be spent this year is already ear-marked, really only making up to various municipalities what they have had promised in the past, and practically no new amount is provided for this purpose. It is monstrous to suppose that a country like this, expanding as it is, is going to be content with this small amount of loan provided for housing purposes. It does not begin to meet the wants of Cape Town alone. It is all very well for our friends to be constantly talking, as they do, about doing away with slums and going in for city improvements, model townships and town planning, and wonderful things of that kind, and then we find that the total amount apparently that the Government can borrow for such purposes is somewhere in the vicinity of £300,000, and that sum all appropriated. Having regard to the total amount of under £3,000,000, which the Government have so far provided for housing, when one comes to think of what the municipalities are themselves doing, it does not say much for the parent Government that they cannot do more in regard to assisting these important schemes. We are talking loudly about it every year, and newspapers indulge in long articles about what we should do and could do and ought to do, but what can public bodies do if our chief Minister simply knee halters the country? As regards the loans to provincial administrations, I listened with the greatest attention to what the Minister has said in regard to the limitation of expenditure. There again, of course, we have the same old time-worn explanation. We go to the Administrators and they say what amounts they have been able to obtain, in correspondence from the Government. They are told to keep expenditure down, “we cannot provide the money.” We have enormous areas like the Transvaal cut down and told not to spend more than £200,000. Why, we could spend there fully half of what is provided here, for bridges alone. There are municipalities spending every year in capital expenditure far more than is provided for the provinces. It is all part of the policy to try and sicken the people of their provincial councils so as to do away with them, and again I warn the Government that if they try to break up that system they will ultimately be very sorry indeed. It is part of the Union bargain and the people will hold to it. This provision of loan funds is absurdly insufficient, and I think the Minister should make up his mind to carry out the intention of the South Africa Act and say to the provinces, “borrow on your own credit.” I think the Minister has got to face this eventually. It is little use coming to the House and saying that the amount provided is all the provinces have asked for. We know in the past they have been told not to budget for more than a certain amount. I have been pressing this for years. Municipalities are allowed to borrow on their own credit, on the authority of the provincial administrations, and I do not know of a single one that has not met its obligations. It is very pleasing to see the Orange Free State provided with £275,000 and the Transvaal with only the same amount. The Free State does not contribute to the revenue anything like as much as the Transvaal, and it is not a fair allocation. I do hope, so far as the housing loan fund is concerned, the Minister will see it is totally inadequate and I trust he will venture to largely exceed the vote, even if he has later to come to the House for condonation.

I want to support what the hon. member has just said in regard to the housing loans, and I want to know from the Minister whether the Government really are serious in the policy which would appear from the estimates here of closing down the housing loan when this sum of £366,000 has been spent. This is the final vote. There is nothing remaining out of the original allocation after this sum, which, as the hon. member has said, is already all allocated and there are a large number of municipalities and local authorities applying for housing loans which will not be able to get them. What does this mean? It means that the whole machinery that has been working since 1920 has got to come to an end. We have had the Central Housing Board, which has done very valuable work. They have got local authorities in various parts of the country interested in the thing, and now apparently it is to come to an end, and we are to be thrown back on the initiative of individual municipalities and local authorities. The Minister says in large towns like Cape Town and Johannesburg they can borrow the money almost as cheaply as the Government can, and why should they not do so. There are several answers to this, and one is that the State has a definite responsibility in this matter in stimulating municipalities and local authorities to do their duty and help them with the advice of the Central Housing Board. It would be a misfortune if the State should lose all interest in this effort and leave it to municipalities and local authorities. With regard to the needs of the country as to housing, I do not think they have ever been adequately understood by Parliament or the municipalities concerned. When we get some huge national calamity like the influenza epidemic people wake up and a great fuss is made, but within a few years the whole thing dies down again. It seems that nothing but a recurrence of this will shake us out of our comfortable apathy.

People died in the last epidemic on farms, where the question of housing did not come in at all.

People will die of disease under the best possible conditions, but I would like the hon. Minister and others to see some of the conditions here—conditions of housing under which it is absolutely impossible for children to grow up healthy and under moral conditions. When the commission sat in 1920 from which this housing loan took its origin, it reported that the minimum amount then required for housing to put us in a proper position was seven millions. We have spent about £2,600,000, and the need has been growing all the time. The need for that kind of house which is required has not been met, and will never be met, by private enterprise. I hope this will not be the last word of the Government, and that it will not allow all this machinery that has been built up, all this knowledge as to the best type of house, and all this possibility of advice from the Central Housing Board, to be dropped, and leave the matter as it was before 1920.

The question as to the continuance of the responsibility of the Central Government for providing money annually for housing will be considered during the recess to see whether we should go in for another scheme, but that question does not arise now. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) is unfair. In the last four years we had provided respectively £400,000, £337,000, £245,000, and last year £321,000, of which £116,000 has not been expended. This year we are providing £366,000. It is no use putting globular sums on the estimates for housing advances when the money will not be spent. The hon. member attacks me for not putting sufficient money on the estimates for hospitals for the Transvaal. Well, I provide the amounts asked for by each province. What is the good of providing £100,000 if people can only spend £50,000? These people have committed themselves in regard to the expenditure on hospitals costing in the neighbourhood of £250,000. I have undertaken to provide the money, but it is not required all at once. I have provided the Transvaal with the amount it has asked for. Surely the hon. member knows that interest has to be paid on money borrowed, and the provinces do not want to go in for all sorts of expensive schemes, as they have to provide the interest. The whole question of the future of the housing schemes will be considered by the Government, but the matter does not arise this year for we are providing an adequate amount, and even if we put more money on the estimates it will not be expended. We need not vote money specially for the smaller municipalities, as they can be assisted under the Local Loans Act. As to the Port Elizabeth technical college, the allocation has been made bý the Education Department. I told them they have loans to the amount of £430,000. I daresay that rather than stop work the treasury will provide the extra amount needed.

The Minister referred to the question of expenditure by provincial councils out of loans, and said they are not anxious to spend very much as they have to provide the interest. The hon. member for Pretoria West (Mr. Hay) was not exaggerating when he stated that under normal circumstances the Transvaal would spend more than it is doing.

We would like to spend very much more money if we could afford it.

The Minister talks about “affording” in the same spirit as the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). Whether we can afford it or not depends upon the general wealth of the community. I want to support the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) in connection with the complaint about the niggardly policy towards the provincial councils. I sympathize with the hon. member for Pretoria (West) that the glory shed upon him during the last few days does not carry him very far with the South African party, when he concerns himself with economic policy. After making use of him, they are the first to criticize him afterwards. But I entirely agree with him from the date of Union the policy directed towards the provincial councils has been directed towards killing the provincial councils. I think the present Government is prepared to give the provincial councils a better chance than in the past. There is not any real sincerity on the part of hon. members in this House towards the provincial councils. In connection with housing I want to emphasize one or two points. The Minister of Finance, in reply to strictures made upon him, pointed out that he devoted a certain sum of money which has not been taken up. I cannot understand the position. I assure the Minister there is a clamouring for more houses in every part of the Union, and I wonder if the municipalities are aware of the fact that this money has been provided for the purpose, or whether they are concealing—

Come, come, that is not worthy of you.

Well, I want to know what provision is being made to advertise the fact that money is being provided for the purpose.

We only deal with the provincial administration. I do not know what the machinery is that exists.

I should like the Minister to take steps when he votes a certain sum of money to see that the knowledge is imparted to the authorities who have to spend the money.

It takes time for these schemes to come along and mature. They will get the money now, but they did not spend it during the year.

The need for housing is there. Might I point out, the more money we spend on eliminating slums and providing houses for the poorer classes of the community, the better value we shall receive as a community. I know the Minister is interested in the matter, but I do not know if he is sufficiently interested to stress the position of spending as much money as is possible out of what he provides in connection with this matter. I should like to read from the Economic Commission’s report, and I shall quote from the majority report, so that it might receive the attention of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). It is imperative that the Minister should not merely provide this amount and not merely see that it is spent, but that he should really consider the whole question of housing from a much more definite and elaborate standpoint to see if the slum conditions that exist in South Africa cannot be eradicated.

I would suggest to the Minister that the practical difficulty arises in the way he has allocated this sum for housing. As a matter of fact, according to the Minister’s statement, this £366,000 has already been earmarked for certain schemes. They have re-voted the whole of this amount. Owing to the development of the schemes the whole of the money is not likely to be spent. I would suggest that after he has looked into the matter in the recess, and decided that further sums are to be allowed for housing, he should authorize the Housing Board to accept new schemes and new propositions so that then this money will be used in the year in which it is granted. If the Minister would do that then the new schemes can go on. The position today is that if you go to the Central Housing Board you will not be able to get anymore money because they will say that they have already undertaken liabilities to the extent of £366,000. They will say that they agree that these liabilities may not become liabilities during this year, but they cannot grant any further facilities for housing unless they get a bigger amount, and a grant in addition to their total liabilities. That is where, if I may say so, the stoppage has taken place. They cannot spend the money in the year, and they cannot take on new work during the year, because they do not know next year whether they will have money to continue the process. That is where I would like to see the Minister authorize the Housing Board to take on new schemes.

I cannot authorize them unless Parliament sanctions it. I cannot bind Parliament in advance.

Then I ask the Minister to do something better than the £366,000. The housing has to go on. There is no doubt from the point of view of this country that the Housing Act of 1920 has to be kept in force. This amount of £366,000 is the balance of what the Housing Board had put at their disposal.

The whole position will be considered further.

The position is that the Minister does not see that not a single new proposition will be accepted this year if only this £366,000 is voted. Though only half that amount might be spent this year, yet, during the year the Housing Board will constantly refuse to allow any further advances on account of housing. The balance of the money will be re-voted next year, and we shall be in exactly the same position as we are to-day. I would suggest if he would only put on another £50,000 the Housing Board would go on allocating further sums of money which they cannot do today. The Minister said that the smaller municipalities can use the Local Loans Act. I have said half a dozen times that that Act is going to be no good for housing. In the first place, none of the money is allocated under 6 per cent.

Surely that is cheap enough.

It is not cheap enough for housing. The Government only pay about 5.2 per cent. for their money, and, therefore, the Government can easily lend money for housing at 5¼ per cent. 5.2 per cent. covers all their expenses, and they can lend that at 5¼ per cent., because they have the security of the Provincial Council, of the local authority and of the House itself and the individual who has built it. The Housing Board have not lost a single farthing in the last seven years, and the Government is doing a good work without taking any risk. And I say that unless the Minister is prepared to allow the Housing Board to allocate some of this £366,000 for new schemes, it is going to tie up housing altogether, and it is practically going to stop the Housing Act of 1920 from-to-day.

I am glad to hear the Minister say that this matter is going to be looked into during the recess. Owing to the cumbersome machinery of our Housing Act—Government, provincial council, municipality and then individual—and the delay that takes place, there is a weakness I am sorry to say that none of us realized. Now when the Government has a big building scheme on they only ask Parliament to vote a portion of the amount during the year. The Government put down £366,000 on the basis they will spend that amount, but if they find out that only £100,000 is going to be spent surely the Government could say in the same way to these people, “You are only going to spend £100,000, so you’ll only get £100,000.” I think the Minister, if he could do it, and I do not see any reason why he should not under the Act, should allocate the money to the Provincial Council on the understanding that the money would be actually spent during the year. That would release a great deal of this money for other schemes on the basis that they should also be confined to the money that could be spent during the year. That would spread the money over a large number of applicants, and we would do something to get rid of this terrible sore—the lack of housing. The Minister will save a lot of money in the long run if he is generous in the matter of housing. There is no loss; the money is reproductive, and there will be a tremendous saving on other votes, such as public health, hospitals, mental institutes, police, and the administration of justice. Those who work in slum areas prove that a good deal of human misery results from bad housing and slum conditions. It is really a most serious social problem—one of the most serious we have to face. I hope the Government will not hesitate to put a very large sum of money on the estimates. In future I should like to see a very much larger sum on the estimates for housing. In Cape Town alone, as the Medical Officer of Health points out in his last report, we are thousands of houses short. During the last ten years the shortage has become more and more acute, and what is taking place in Cape Town is also taking place in the Union. At the present rate it will take at least ten or fifteen years to overcome the shortage in houses. The Minister will have the whole of the House behind him in putting a larger amount on the estimates for housing.

Possibly the Minister of Finance does not know what has transpired in the past in connection with money wanted for housing. Johannesburg wanted £150,000, and the reply was they were too late By two or three days. When they put in an application later, they were told they were rich enough to get the money themselves. Johannesburg has been compelled under the Urban Areas Act to spend £350,000 for native housing, and faced it, but not a penny piece for houses so greatly required by Europeans. It is a case of subsidizing cheap labour and enabling it to undercut white workers. The Minister might well consider a different system for raising loans for the provinces. If the Union Government itself did not want to go in for premium bonds the provinces could be allowed to do so, and get the amounts they require, thus assisting in the development of the country. Provincial councils have repeatedly passed resolutions in favour of lotteries, and if they were allowed the profits might be devoted to housing. I hope, during the recess, the Minister will go into these suggestions and see if he can allow the provinces to adopt them.

Loans to the municipalities through the provincial councils for housing purposes are generally made for people who can repay them, but the people referred to by the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) and the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) must be helped by some other system, and the municipalities concerned will have to take the responsibility for the repayment. In Pretoria we have no difficulty in lending money to people who can afford to pay back, but when we deal with the persons mentioned by the previous speakers, the difficulty has been to obtain payment. Some system must be devised by which houses for the poorer classes may be provided, but on this vote by discussing this matter we are simply beating the air and extending sympathy to people who cannot afford to make use of the moneys advanced under the present scheme.

What is the position under the local loans fund? Is the Minister able to meet all the demands made on him on that account?

I granted a loan this morning for one of the native territories. The provision we made last year under the Local Loans Act was altogether adequate. We do not encourage the larger municipalities to come to us for local loans, but I have no doubt we shall be able to assist the small municipalities. We have adequate provision for meeting the cases contemplated under the Act.

Vote put and agreed to.

On the motion of the Minister of Finance it was agreed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.