“Thrice armed is he who has his quarrel just, But four times he who gets his blow in fust,” and I should feel grateful for getting in on this debate so early. I was alluding last night to the use for storage purposes which some coal-owners made of trucks sent down to the ports and unduly detained, and I said that possibly a heavier demurrage charge would result in the speedier use of many of these trucks and increase their earning power. Similar criticism may be applied to the grain elevators now used by speculators. Some standardization of coal for export and for bunkering ships should be carried out. A point to which I wish to direct particular attention is in reference to the German engines. The two very heavy and expensive engines which arrived some time ago have not done a week’s work between them, I believe, since they arrived. These two engines are taking up room in the repair workshops which could be occupied by six ordinary engines, and, therefore, as there is shortage of space, I wonder if it would not pay to run up a shed temporarily to house these expensive white elephants. Not only are they taking up valuable space, but it requires an average of three months to overhaul German engines, whereas one of the English type is completely overhauled and reconditioned in less than a month. It is a commentary on both German and American engines that when they break down, as they have done so frequently, the engines which come to the assistance of the transport service are of English make. Some of the latter have been running for 20 years and are still thoroughly good and serviceable. I think that is an outstanding fact that should be specially noted in regard to the I policy of sending orders to Germany for cheapness. It is unfortunate that there is no system of bookkeeping by which a particular engine is debited with the cost of all repairs, and with its being maintained in a working condition. I know there is a system by which it is known the number of days an engine has been in the workshop. The individual cost of upkeep might well be applied also to coaches and saloons when the locally-built vehicles would prove their superiority.

I am afraid the hon. member is travelling rather far outside the Additional Estimates.

I am contending that additions to expenditure are made necessary by these points I am making, and showing the Minister why it is and how it might be rendered unnecessary to come here with additional estimates. It is pertinent to say that much of this further expenditure has been tendered necessary by these foreign engines which last such a very short time. While the running staff are perfectly willing to do their duty, there is a good deal of nervousness in regard to the heavy engines since the discovery was made of defective Belgian rails, and so on. I put a question the other day to which I hardly got quite a satisfactory answer. That question was whether coaches are still imported in sections or in one piece from end to end. I know that when they are imported in three separate sections and bolted together they have not the rigidity and lasting strength of those constructed in our workshops. It was said in answer to my question that these coaches and saloons are now shipped in one piece, and not in sections. In that case I do not know what ships have hatches big enough to allow them to take these coaches in complete lengths. I see a considerable amount is provided for the increase of pay of various sections of the staff, clerical and running, and I take it that may be some proof of the rumours that have been prevalent recently that, the railwaymen are to benefit to some considerable extent from the surplus the Minister expects from the Railway Department. Although it may not be all that is expected by the service, it is at least some redemption of the promises made. I would remind the Minister of what has just occurred in Rhodesia. An unfortunate strike has been occasioned because profits have been made, and economies that were forced on the men were still carried out; and the men had reason to expect, as our men have, that when the railways pay handsome profits everything should be made up to the staff so as to have a contented department. It is in the satisfaction of the men employed that true efficiency will obtain. The power of the running staff, of stationmasters, and men in the workshops, to save money, is very great indeed; and if they are satisfied that everything possible is being done for them, we will get reciprocity, and they will do everything possible for the Government. On these benches we have always claimed that Government should lie a model employer, and there should be little chance of dissatisfaction as regards remuneration. I hope indeed that in the coming year we shall give first consideration to the men engaged in this great service. The Minister, I know, is actuated by goodwill towards them, he will deservedly get the credit of doing them tardy justice. We should have been earlier in facing the question of fair remuneration to all ranks, and restitution of the cuts in pay recessitated by a false economy.

I think that the Minister of Railways and Harbours can feel absolutely satisfied with the debate so far. Notwithstanding the fact that he asks for more than £¾ million more than on the original estimate for the current year no real criticism has yet been offered of the sums which have been requested here. I think that what the Minister said here yesterday evening is absolutely correct, that the reorganization of the railway administration has contributed largely towards producing the condition that the expenses are 3d. less per train mile than before. Anyone who has been interested in railway management already felt long ago that the management as it was formerly was not satisfactory. With due respect to the former general manager, I think that he tried to take too much responsibility upon himself, and that it is much better to get more help from the departmental managers, and for someone responsible to the general manager to be at the head of each department. This policy has now been adopted, and it is a great improvement. The result of this policy is very encouraging, because we see that it was justified. The Minister has shown that a fairly big sum is being voted for the increase of the rolling stock, and I think that we all feel glad to learn that it is done to put the railways in a position to have adequate material for the period of greatest demand. This is of particular importance for those districts where mealies are grown. Hon. members who represent maize districts know what happened in the past. Only last year my division sent an urgent telegram to the divisional superintendent in Bloemfontein begging for trucks to carry maize. Last year stocks of maize were accumulated in the towns and on the smaller stations and when trucks were asked for it was said that the railways had to carry coal, and that they were very sorry but they could not meet the demand immediately. The people understand the difficulty of the position, but when we remember that many contracts are not able to be fulfilled in consequence, that the trader or farmer cannot deliver his maize within a certain time because the railways have not carried it, we see that it is in the true interests of the country to provide sufficient rolling stock for that period when the greatest traffic occurs. Even if we may not use the rolling stock certain times of the year as much as we would like to, it is still in the interests of the producer and of the country generally that in times of great traffic we should have the necessary material. We are therefore glad to learn from the Minister that the Administration’s policy is to see that there are sufficient trucks to be able to carry everything in the time of greatest demand. Then the Minister spoke about the bus services and the creation of new ones. We are, of course, very grateful for the assistance given by the Government, but there is still one thing of importance that I should like to bring to his notice. It is that when the bus services in many parts of the country are approved of, the public has to wait months and months before the service is inaugurated. In the meantime, private bus services are started.

The hon. member must confine himself to the discussion of the additional amount.

I understood the Minister to say that a certain amount had also been intended for bus services. I just want to point out that the bus services that have been started do not answer their purpose if there is such a long delay. I do not want to say more about it, but to confine myself to one case of a bus service which was approved last year. It took months before the service started, and then there was more than one private service, and the railways had to give up their service because the private ones had got in before them. I will say no more, but I think it is high time for this point to receive the attention of the Railway Administration.

I presume that a portion of this item of £11,000, appearing under the head of “Running Expenses,” is to be spent upon the catering service of our railways. I daresay the Minister has read a rather remarkable article in the “Argus” entitled “What our visitors really think of our railways.” If he has not seen it, I would commend it to his attention, as I am sure no one is more jealous than he is for the maintenance of the high reputation of our railways. I would like to emphasize the seriousness of this. If there is one thing that is definite about our country, it is that we stand the chance of adding enormously to our prosperity by attracting a large number of tourists. In time this will form a very large item under the heading of “Invisible Imports.” In the opinion of the travelling public, our railways hold a very high place, and we want that maintained, and as our visitors are prepared to pay for what they want, there seems to be no good reason why we should not meet their wishes. I am sorry to say that there is a complaint as to the want of cleanliness in food and other services on our trains. If that is so. it is a very serious fault indeed, and one which should at once be remedied. Then there is a complaint with regard to the lack of fruit. Surely we could not have a better advertisement for South Africa’s fruit trade than to see that our visitors are supplied with plenty of our best fruit. It is calculated that every visitor to this country spends at least £200—some a great deal more. I look forward to the time when they will spend many times that amount, and especially to the time when they will be attracted by our diamonds when purchaseable in the cut form.

I am afraid the hon. member is covering a very wide area.

I am drawing the attention of the Minister to certain improvements under the head of “Running Staff.” Surely I am not out of order in referring to our fruit.

All these things are supposed to have been discussed when the original Estimates were before the House.

It would affect my vote if I knew how this increase was to be spent.

The hon. member must confine himself to the Vote—Additional Estimates.

I think it will be a great advantage if the men employed in the Catering Department are provided with smart, clean uniforms. It does no harm to draw the attention of the Minister to this matter, and it will be greatly to the advantage of the Administration and the country to pay some attention to these details.

I should like to take this opportunity of endorsing the Minister’s statement in regard to what the new general manager is doing to create a better feeling among the staff generally. He is a practical man, and one who likes to see things for himself.

The hon. member is dealing with something which is not in the Additional Estimates.

In connection with the rolling stock vote, when we voted money last year, we were under the impression that the work would be divided equally among the workshops, so as not to create any anomalies. It is hoped that the Minister will see that this work is fairly distributed between the various workshops. I think that is a very necessary thing, because I have had my attention drawn to the fact that there is a faulty distribution of work, there being a shortage in one workshop and an excess in others. I think the workshops should each, as far as possible, be given a fair share of any work which is available. With regard to imported coaches, if the Minister is told that they are more suitable than those made locally, I would like to point out that the coaches built overseas are constructed under different climatic conditions, which is a very important matter. Whatever reports the Minister may have received to the contrary. I wish to inform him as a practical coach-builder that if you have a coach manufactured in this country made of seasoned timber, properly finished and constructed, you will never get a coach from overseas to equal it. As to the coaches recently imported, I understand that the finish leaves a lot to be desired. I do not know who is responsible, but your money has not been well spent. I do not know how much of the additional money required has been used for supervision, but I do know that at the present time there is a lot of over-supervision going on. Men who are not inefficient, and who do not i object to reasonable discipline regard this over-supervision by production foremen as unwarranted, and if any of the extra money is being used for that, you are not getting the results you desire. No workman works better for being watched unduly. I would like to say a word or two respecting running expenses. We know that the Minister has done something during his period of office with regard to meeting the wishes of the staff in the direction of re-introducing the 8-hour day. I would like to see a very much larger extension of that principle, but the Minister has told us that he cannot do that because of the amount of money required for other things. We may not be able to get an 8-hour day fully, but I think some of the extra money might well be devoted to an application of the principle of each day standing by itself. It would also be very much appreciated by the staff if the booking-on and booking-off time were included in the 96 and 108 hours pool. Provision is being made for £67,936, an additional amount, for goods labourers, etc. I hope some of this money will be used for the bottom dog, and that a portion of it will be used to raise the wages of the lower paid grades. The coloured labourers also form a part of the men who require consideration, as they have just as much difficulty living on their low pay as the European labourers. Then I hope the Minister will improve the conditions of the clerical staff. I think he might consider the possibility of removing one of the biggest anomalies in the railway service—

The hon. member cannot discuss these details.

All I wish to say is that the Grade C barrier is a great hardship to hundreds of deserving clerks, and if the Minister can use some of this money to modify it, it would cause general satisfaction.

Will the Minister make a statement informing the House as to whether the increased amounts are likely to benefit the men in the way of remuneration and hours of labour? When the hours of labour committee’s report was submitted to the Government, it was generally accepted as a compromise between the Government and the railway men, and the railway men, on the assumption that those concessions would be carried into effect, also made concessions in the expectation that the whole of the compromise would be given effect to. But only those portions of the report that suited the Railway Administration were carried out, and this has caused great dissatisfaction. The 8-hour day was a pledge made at the last election, and it was also subsequently held out as an inducement to members of the Labour party to join hands with the Nationalist party in undertaking administrative responsibility. At the time when we complained that the report was not being given effect to in this respect, the Minister told us that what had been done was merely an instalment. I want to know whether in the increases provided for in the Estimates any further instalment is being made in consonance with the statement made by the Minister of Defence. The Minister of Railways and Harbours should tell us whether all these rumours, which are very useful from an election point of view, have any foundation, and I hope he will inform us either that some provision is being made in the provisional estimates, or that something will be done between now and the general election to give effect to the promises made to the railway men as regards hours of labour and amount of pay. I should also like to know if anything is to be done in regard to the differential rates of pay for the same class of work. Statements have been made in the newspapers—I do not know whether they were inspired—that it is quite likely at an early date some portion of this differential rate of pay will be done away with.

That matter can be discussed to-morrow on the motion of the Minister of Railways and Harbours, when the hon. member can go into all these questions fully.

I am not going into the details, but am simply giving reasons why the Minister should supply us with the information. I would also like to know whether an increase of pay is provided for the labourers, who, through the generous action of the Minister, are getting 3d. a day more, or whether the Minister has thought better of it and has decided to approximate their emoluments to a civilized standard. I hope the Minister will give us a very frank statement, instead of leaving us to wait.

There is an item on the estimates of £67,936 for goods labourers and porters. Do I understand that it is the intention of the Government to increase the wages of these labourers? There are a large number of men in my constituency drawing £5 or £6 a month, on which they cannot live. As it happens, these men have not got votes—not for me—but I would like to put forward their case on behalf of the Nationalists who are fighting me. It is not a question of votes, but of dealing with people properly, for a married man with children cannot live on £6 a month. The Government is bringing these people into the big towns, and they are having a most difficult fight to live, and their children are not having fair play. In this country, where every white man is supposed to hold the gate of civilization, these unfortunate people are not able to do their duty in that respect. I hope the Minister will do something in this matter. If the Government has a white labour policy, it should be at least on the basis of 10s. a day. If the Government cannot pay that, then it must not employ white labour. It is no use pretending that you are going to pay white men a decent wage, and then give them only a little more than that paid to the indigenous native who has a very much lower standard of living. I hope the Minister will not pass this off in the nice, airy way he has. These people will be a danger to the Nationalists, of whom they are getting very sick, and it is very probable that they will not vote for the Nationalists—they certainly will not vote for the South African party.

These matters are very-interesting, but have nothing to do with the estimates before us.

I think I am allowed to say that this dual rate of pay is causing enormous dissatisfaction. Under Head No. 4, “Running Staff,” £120,000, there is money which may be paid out for the extra 2s. a day. I think I am quite in order in bringing this forward, otherwise we shall have to vote against it. I take it we are quite in order, but the Minister keeps quiet, like a dummy, and we have to pull these things out of him, and, in doing so, we have to break the rules of order, which is the last thing I would like to do, seeing the position I hold. I will bring the subject up later.

I understood form the Minister some days ago that the statement which he proposed to make in regard to the loss which the Government has suffered through the disuse of certain German engines would be made at this stage. I am sorry that the Minister has not yet vouchsafed to give us this information. In the capital and betterment funds there is provision for the purchase of certain further engines which, I take it, must be made to take the place of those locomotives which have gone out of use. I think this might be an appropriate time for the Minister to give a statement in regard to the unfortunate experience of the Administration in relation to the engines in question. I asked the Minister a question in the early part of the session, which deals with this matter. [Question read.] While speaking on this matter, I should like to ask the Minister whether he has received a letter from the late chief mechanical engineer. Mr. Collins, dated the 20th February, 1929, in regard to the enquiry which was held by a departmental committee, when he was called upon to resign or he decided to resign. If the Minister has received such a letter. I should be glad if he would lay it on the Table, or if he would allow me to give it publicity. The letter is of great public importance, and I hope the Minister will not prevent discussion by withholding information which it is the right of this House to have.

Perhaps I had better deal at once with the point raised by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick). I indicated in reply to a question by the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) that all the papers dealing with the question of the retirement of Col. Collins, and subsequent correspondence, and, therefore, including the letter the hon. member refers to, are open to any member who desires to see those papers. I do not propose laying these papers on the Table for the simple reason that these are departmental papers.

Won’t you allow them to be published?

I think it would be very undesirable. At the same time, the Administration has nothing to hide from any member. The whole of the evidence and findings of the departmental committee, together with the letter from Col. Collins, are at the disposal of any member. The principle of keeping departmental documents in the office of the Administration is a sound one. I want to deal with points raised by hon. members as they arose. I will deal first with the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), who asked me a question about the provision we are making in connection with repairs to rolling stock. The reason is that we have been getting far greater efficiency in our workshops, and our output has increased.

You are overstaffed at present.

No, I would not say that. We are gradually absorbing the staff becoming surplus from time to time. I am glad to say that great credit is due to the assistant chief mechanical engineer, Mr. Watson, who is now acting as chief mechanical engineer. The proof of the pudding in in the eating. The cost of material has increased, but wages have not increased. The hon. member raised questions in regard to running and traffic expenses. I must frankly admit I could not follow him, and until such time as I can consult “Hansard,” I cannot give him any information on these points. I shall then be only too glad to give any information I can in that regard. He also dealt with the question of the cost of the High Commissioner’s office in London, and he asked whether the fifty-fifty basis was not unfair to the Railway Administration. Although it is a fact that we are largely buying our stores in South Africa, a very large proportion of those stores still come from overseas, and they must be inspected. I do not think at the present moment a case has been made out for putting it on a different basis. The hon. member may rest assured that we are taking due note of the whole position, and if we think there is a case for an alteration in the proportion of the expenses, we will certainly raise the matter. The hon. member, in connection with the lifting of the Mtuba-tuba-Somkele line almost suggested there was a little manipulation of the accounts, or perhaps I should say he implied that in debiting the costs of the upliftment we should not have debited it to betterment, but rather to revenue. The position is this—there was an existing line from Mtubatuba to Somkele, a distance of about twelve miles. Parliament decided the line should be extended from Mtuba-tuba north. For the first twelve miles the line from Mtuba-tuba was practically a deviation of the existing line, but in order to meet our objective in the north, it was found, after a most careful survey, that it would be better to take off at Mtuba-tuba. It therefore became necessary to uplift that line. The chief accountant decided to deal with it in this way—the capital cost invested in the twelve miles was debited against the betterment fund. The betterment fund rightly bears all costs of deviations. It would have been most unwise to have taken off at Somkele. The uplifting costs were also charged to betterment, which was perfectly justified. The value of the material obtained was credited to the betterment fund. I hope the hon. member will now understand the position. The question of a surplus or a deficit had nothing to do with it. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has asked why we are purchasing in South Africa, and not continuing the old policy of buying overseas. I think he will agree with me that it is only right to our own citizens and merchants who deal in stocks of this nature, and who have their businesses established in this country. It is true they charge us 2½ per cent., and sometimes more if they can, but I think on the broad South African principles it is necessary that we carry out this policy. Let me just put this to him—does he know that, as a result of this policy, a large number of overseas firms have opened agencies in this country and started business here, in which they employ large numbers of young men, and pay taxes?

It all comes out of the pockets of the taxpayer.

I assure my hon. friend that in this regard he is a voice crying in the wilderness. He has asked me about the £770,000. It is true we have had only a surplus of £282,000 at the end of December, but that was the difference between our revenue and expenditure. We are asking £770.000 because the revenue we expect is over £1,000,000. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn), the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) and others have asked me whether there are any amounts included in these estimates for benefits to the staff. The reply is in the negative. I do not think the time is opportune to deal with this matter, except to say that the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) and others seem to be under the impression that the European labourers in the service are only getting 5s. per day.

Oh no, some of them.

But that is not the position. Let me again explain what wages are received by European labourers. When they enter the service they receive 5s. per day, but they also get privileges and are provided with a free house, and if no free house is available, they get from 1s. per day in the Cape to 1s. 9d. per day in the Transvaal.

The town council is doing it.

I admit that the town council of Bloemfontein has acted handsomely with regard to housing.

Some get 3s. a day.

If the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) would only study the facts! These are young boys being trained to be railway men. If the hon. member would only get down to bedrock with regard to a certain number of subjects, he might be of more use, but now he has a smattering with regard to different subjects and has not the knowledge to deal with them. Let me explain again, these boys who come into the service between the ages of 16 and 20 years are trained for a period, varying from six months to two years, in the same manner as we train apprentices in our workshops, and admittedly they get a very low wage; they get 3s. at the age of 16, 3s. 6d. at the age of 17, and so it goes up, to 21 years of age.

For what are they trained?

They are trained for all classes of railway work. These men are passed out on to the permanent staff and are prepared for their life’s work; surely that is a policy with which the hon. member, if he loves South Africa, must agree. I do not propose to waste any further time on the hon. member, but will deal with the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North), who I have found to be a reasonable man. These labourers get not only 5s. and a free house, but a large number of privileges, which are estimated to be worth at the very least 1s. 3d. per day. They get free medical service for themselves and their family, annual free passes, free marketing passes and are also members of the pension fund.

They can’t eat them.

Is that a Natal argument? The free doctor is a very valuable thing. It means that our men who enter the service get a minimum of 7s. 6d. per day when they enter. In the Transvaal it would be a higher sum. I am taking the average case. Last year we added to the wages; after three years an increase of 3d. per day, and after four years it is another 3d. per day. The European labourer who has been in the railway service for four years receives 8s. per day, which includes the privileges. When hon. members speak about this matter, I have no objection to their criticizing the Government and the Railway Administration for not doing enough. I would like to do more. But hon. members should deal correctly with the position. I hope next week, when introducing the budget, to make a full statement with regard to the intentions of the Government in regard to the labourers, the clerical and the running staff. The hon. member for Pretoria West (Mr. Hay) has dealt with the question of building railway material in South Africa, and he, as well as the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow), have said, and very rightly, that the rolling stock built in South Africa in our workshops need not in any way take a back place compared with rolling stock built oversea. I have practical experience that they are stating the facts. Our policy is to build in South Africa whatever it is possible for us to build here with our existing equipment, but hon. members will appreciate that we can only build to a limited extent with our present buildings and equipment. Unless we increase our equipment very materially, we are limited by the equipment at our disposal.

Is not your present machinery obsolete?

There may be obsolete machinery, but we are always replacing and introducing new machinery. I could not admit that on the whole our machinery is obsolete.

Some of it.

Yes, but that applies to every private business. The hon. member also dealt with the question of coal trucks being under load at the docks, particularly at the Point, Durban. While to a large extent I agree with him, there are two sides to the question. The officers of the Administration very carefully control the position at the ports. We have a large storage bin at the Point, where coal can be stored. What we want to avoid as much as possible is double handling, because Natal coal is brittle. Where we can, we meet the collieries by not insisting upon the placing of coal into the bin. I have been pressing the Natal collieries to pool their supplies, and they have replied that it is not possible to do so. Why they cannot do it I do not appreciate. It is done in the Transvaal, and it means a very great saving in truckage. We have still to convince the Natal collieries that it would be in their interests to pool. Unless they assist us we shall have seriously to consider the charging of demurrage. No demurrage is charged at present, but unless there is cooperation between the collieries and the Administration we shall ultimately, perhaps, have to consider the question of demurrage.

And reduce railway rates.

That is a different question. The position of the collieries in regard to export and bunker coal is at present not very satisfactory, so that I hope it will not be found necessary for us to charge demurrage. The hon. member also dealt with the question of the German engines. I think a more appropriate opportunity for dealing with this will present itself at a later stage, and I will say nothing further at the moment except to lay stress upon the point that the mechanical department have certified that as regards workmanship and quality of material, both are good. It is true that there is overweight, a most unfortunate occurrence. I would have preferred not to have referred to the fact that I requested the chief mechanical engineer to ask for his retirement. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) in his mistaken friendship for Col. Collins, has, however, seen fit to make reference to it. Well, all I can say is that the interests of the Administration will best be served by his retirement. We have not penalized him in any way, but have added four years’ service, so that he retires with full pension benefits. The hon. member also referred to the Belgian rails. In this connection I would like to say that there is no reason whatever for any feeling of insecurity. There is not the least danger to the public in that regard. We have made a very good settlement with the Belgian suppliers in the matter. Reference has been made to the articulated saloons built in Great Britain. Hon. members do not seem to appreciate the fact that all new rolling stock, during the initial stages, whether built in Great Britain, on the Continent, or in America, give difficulty. These saloons have given us some trouble, but, as I have said, at the beginning almost all rolling stock when placed in service gives a certain amount of trouble. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) has stressed the necessity for the maintenance of goodwill on the part of the staff of the Administration. Let me say, and I think he will agree with me, that the keenness and efficiency of our railway staff is unsurpassed. They are undoubtedly giving their best, and I think South Africa has every reason to be satisfied. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) has referred to the articles in the press telling us how we should run our railways. Well, we see many of these articles from people who have come to this country on a short visit. During the last few years I have seen all the railway systems of Great Britain and the Continent, and I am of opinion that our system compares very favourably with those in any other part of Europe.

That is because it is run by the State.

I have no personal knowledge of the American railways, but Mr. Eric Louw assured me that we have no reason to be ashamed of the manner in which our railways are run.

That is generally true, but what about these defects?

I take it that the hon. member did not mean to make an attack on the Administration. With regard to the staff, as soon as these matters to which the hon. member has called attention, came to the notice of the general manager, he called together the ticket and catering inspectors, and held a consultation with them. I have no doubt that, as a result of the steps taken by the general manager, grounds for complaint will be removed. My hon. friend will appreciate that in our country, with long distances and the dust of the Karroo, it is very difficult for our staff to keep themselves as clean as railway attendants in Great Britain. The serving of fruit has been referred to. We have spent many thousands of pounds in providing fruit. That is a new departure. I do not say that we always are providing the very best. We find the greatest difficulty in buying good fruit at a reasonable price. We have asked our catering manager to get into touch with farmers direct, and he has had the very greatest difficulty in getting satisfactory contracts, so much so that am afraid that we shall have to continue to buy on the different markets. In Cape Town and the Western Province we are in a very much better position than in Johannesburg and in other places. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) says that there is a scarcity of work in the workshops. It is very difficult to keep all sections of the shops always fully employed. One particular section of the shops may be very busy, and another section may not have sufficient work. It is the continual effort of the responsible mechanical officers to so organize the work that no section of the staff will be placed unnecessarily on day work. We have met the men in this regard, and in some cases we have reduced the number of working days to some extent.

In this connection I cannot understand the shortage of your stock.

We have been given authority to keep our railway workshops supplied with work for two years, but it is difficult at all times to keep all the sections in the shops employed. If you have to build, say, 25 coaches at Salt River, your saw mills for weeks will be very much pressed with work, but when all your timber has passed through the milling section, the work in that section will become slack. We do not then dispense with the services of the men in the milling department, but adjust the work in the best interests of the men. The hon. member has complained of over supervision. I cannot agree with him. I am glad to say that we are finding that the staff in the workshops are co-operating with us. We are dealing with very much larger amounts of material without increasing our wages. They are actually turning out more work, using more material, and it is not costing the State more. I think that is the best tribute that can be paid to the good work the men are doing in the shops. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) referred to the question of wages, and I have already indicated that I hope next week to be able to make a full statement with regard to that matter.

†*The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) mentioned the question of trucks for maize. I am glad to hear that he agrees with the Administration that it is advisable to procure enough trucks and rolling stock to handle all traffic at the busy period. We cannot allow the special interest, whether it is that of the coal producer or the maize farmer, to suffer loss owing to shortage of trucks. I want to point out to the hon. member, and I hope he will explain it to his constituents, that it is no use our carrying all the mealies to the coast in one month, because the whole matter is regulated by the possibilities of export. In the past the farmers insisted on the mealies being carried to the coast as quickly as possible, with the result that thousands and thousands of bags of maize lay for months in Durban and Cape Town. The farmer must, therefore, not be dissatisfied at the mealies being temporarily accumulated at the stations, because what is the use of sending them to the Cape when there is, in any case, no opportunity of shipping them?

I was referring to cases where damage is actually suffered because maize did not arrive at the coast in time, owing to the traffic requirements of the coal mines.

There may be individual cases, but I hope the maize farmers will not expect all the maize to be carried in one or two months. The transport must be regulated according to the shipping. There are months when export is practically stopped, and there is then no object in taking the mealies to Cape Town or Durban. As for the ’bus services, I want to point out that the demand is so great that the Administration simply cannot always meet all the requirements. We are trying, however, to obviate, as far as possible, the delay the hon. member complained about.

Motion put and agreed to; House to go into committee now.

House in Committee:

On Head 3, “Maintenance of Rolling Stock,” £247,701,

It is difficult to appreciate the Minister’s remarks on this head. The sum of £247,000 is to be spent on material and the Minister’s note states that the amount of repair work is in excess of that anticipated when framing the main estimates, this being due to the arrival of new stock and the release of more stock from service for repairs. That means either that the amount of material is in excess of the requirements, or that the amount spent according to the last estimate for labour was more than was necessary. The Minister is very fond of new labour schemes, but I hope he is not going in for employing robots. We ought to have further information regarding the large additional amount.

I can only pass on to the House the information given to me by my officers, who say they found it was possible for them to save money. I have no reason to think there is any waste of material.

Is that the report of the present chief mechanical engineer?

Yes, the present acting chief mechanical engineer is responsible.

The explanation of the apparent paradox to which the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) has referred, is that far more labour may be required on repairing parts than in fixing new parts to engines, in which case the material used would cost a good deal more, but there would be less labour cost involved.

The only object we have in mind is co-operation and consultation with the men, and I hope the hon. member will tell this to those workmen who have complained to him. In the course of another debate the word “spy” was used. There is no idea whatsoever of spying on our men—we trust our men.

You have done away with spying?

Absolutely. We must, however, have increased efficiency and output for the money spent in our workshops.

What measures are to be adopted as regards mass production of different trucks, wagons, carriages, etc. In South Africa, with its vast distances, it is impossible to produce commodities at an economical rate under the present system, but if, instead of manufacturing a little of everything in each centre we produced one commodity on a large scale in one centre, and another article on a big scale in another centre, it would mean that we could economically manufacture more things than we do at present. The Government has done a great deal in dispensing with obsolete machinery, but it would also assist in cheapening production if it obtained more up-to-date machinery.

That is our definite policy. As an example, I might mention that the wagon works have been removed from Pretoria to Germiston, and the points and crossing work are being concentrated at Bloemfontein.

Head put and agreed to.

Head 4, “Running Expenses”, £256,112, put and agreed to.

On Head 5, “Traffic Expenses”, £131,694,

Do I understand this is the vote under which the pay of European labourers comes?

Yes, additional labourers.

I want to draw attention to the Minister’s own statement in this House in regard to the wages of these labourers. The Minister, in reply to a question by me, said the wages were 3s. a day. That was stated to be the wage for European labourers under 18 years of age.

The hon. member appears to be going into policy as to the payment of these labourers. The hon. member must confine himself to the reasons for the increase in this amount. I cannot allow any discussion on general policy with regard to the payment of labourers.

I do not intend to make any remark on it, except that the Minister himself made a statement on this subject and I think it is germane to this vote. I wish to join issue with the Minister.

As far as I am concerned, I am not going to allow that.

Shall I have the opportunity at some future time?

On the Part Appropriation, certainly.

I shall recall the Minister’s own words with a view to showing he has misinformed the House.

Head put and agreed to.

Head 15, “Interest on Superannuation and other Funds”, £935, put and agreed to.

Head 17, “Miscellaneous Expenditure, Net Revenue”, £39,288, put and agreed to.

On Head 18, “Contribution to Betterment Fund”, £100,000,

I want to know whether it is the intention of the Minister to continue this at the rate of £350,000, as well as the £250,000 contribution which he makes?

I do not know whether this is the most suitable time to discuss the whole question. I was hoping the House would have an opportunity of discussing the whole position in connection with our loan expenditure, and I hope that will take place on the Part Appropriation Bill. I think the time has arrived for us to go very carefully into this whole question of the provision of a sinking fund. I admit my little effort of £250,000 every year is perhaps a crude method, but the hon. member will agree it is in the right direction. I certainly mean to continue the £350,000 to the betterment fund quite apart from the £250,000. We are increasing our contribution to renewals fund by close on £400.000. This year it will be £1,890,000. That is the result of the adoption of the departmental commission’s report.

I am sorry to raise this matter again, but I am not quite satisfied with the explanation the Minister gave. The betterment fund is purely for improvement or replacement. Here we have it charged with the cost of uplifting a line. How can that be improvement or replacement? The instruction is that in such a case it should be charged to net revenue account, and yet in this case the charge is put to the betterment fund. I cannot understand that. Already the fund is short of funds, and the Minister asks for a further contribution. The Minister told us last year he anticipated a deficit, and I think he mentioned £5,000. It was very strange to find there was a surplus of £47,000, and we found if he had not drawn these amounts from the betterment fund there would have been a deficit very close to his estimate. I think the Minister should observe his own rule, that in a case like this, the money should not be taken out of the betterment fund.

Let me again repeat that the betterment fund is a fund to provide money for improvements. The renewals fund is to provide funds for replacement and net revenue is drawn upon where you abandon the asset altogether. I will give a specific instance. Take the Sea Point line. Suppose Parliament resolves to uplift the Sea Point line. That would be charged to net revenue.

This is the same thing.

It is not the same thing. Here you had the line to Somkele. You improved the whole position. It is to all intents and purposes a deviation of the old existing line. We avoided Somkele because we knew it was not a good point to take off from. The line is not very far from the old one, and under those circumstances my contention is that the officers of the department were quite right in debiting it to betterment fund for improving the line. I am afraid I cannot agree with the hon. member.

Head put and agreed to.

Estimates of Additional Expenditure from Railway and Harbour Revenue Funds to be reported without amendment.

Additional Estimates (Capital and Betterment Works).

On Head 1, “Construction of Railways”, £5,484,

What is the reason for this item, construction of loop to serve Louis Trichardt township?

I may say that after further consideration we came to the conclusion that it would be better to uplift the old line.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head 3, “Rolling Stock”, £665,326,

I would like to have some information about the two Union type engines about which it is reported that they could not be used on account of over-weight. The engines came from Messrs. Maffei. How is it further orders have been placed?

The latest order, I may point out, has been divided between Messrs. Henschel and the North British Locomotive Works. One must be fair to the firm mentioned by the hon. member. Their workmanship and the quality of the material supplied are good.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head 7, “Working Capital”, £282,628,

I would like my hon. friend to give some information about this item here, “stores stock, £250,000

The whole position with regard to our stores is, as my hon. friend knows, one of very great difficulty and complexity. The general manager has a very competent committee of senior officers who are going into the whole question. I cannot forestall the findings of the committee. We shall carry out the necessary reorganization. If we have not the necessary spares on hand when repairs are necessary, difficulties are created.

I remember the time when we had to reduce the stock. You must have a proper proportion. I hope the Minister will fix some ratio.

In fairness to the officers, I must say that they have such a large number of different types of locomotives and rolling-stock that it makes it very difficult for the railway storekeeper to be prepared, as he must be, to supply from stock what is necessary. One of the things the present general manager is very keen on is standardization, and he is strongly of opinion that we have too many types. In future we shall be able to tell the manufacturers what type we require.

I move—

Agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into committee now.

House in Committee:

Clauses and schedule put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Would I be in order in discussing items on the third reading of this Bill? When the Bill was introduced, I omitted to mention a matter dealing with pensions.

I think the hon. member is entitled to mention it.

Under the Old Age Pensions Bill every person entitled to any benefits has to be a British subject, either born, or has to be naturalized. There are about 300 old people in the Union who, in many cases, came to this country as children, but who had never taken out naturalization papers, and because of that they are unable to benefit under the Old Age Pensions Act. These people have lived their lives in South Africa, many of them have served the country in various capacities, have fought through many wars and hold their discharge certificates; others have spent their lives in the police service. Now in their old age they find themselves in want and are barred, owing to what, in their cases, is really a technicality, from any benefits under this Act. I am aware that the department has this matter under consideration, but I would ask the Minister to make a statement as to what he intends doing, as the people I refer to are very anxious as to what their position is.

The hon. member is quite right that the principle laid down in the Act is that benefits shall go only to British subjects. I have considered the whole matter, and I have come to the conclusion that it would not be in accordance with the wishes of Parliament to exclude these people. What I propose doing is to submit the names of all these people, and have their claims inquired into to see who are eligible for pensions under the Act, and then get the matter legalized by means of a special Bill. I hope my office will have all the applications ready before Parliament rises, but if that cannot be done, I propose with the general concurrence of the House to ask for the Governor-General’s warrant to pay out these pensions as from the time these people became entitled to them.

How many are they?

About 300. They are cases of people who have lived here practically all their lives. We shall not alter the principle of the Bill at all.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

This is a very simple Bill, the object of which is to get over a difficulty in connection with a piece of land held in the township and borough of Estcourt. Some years ago, eight acres of land were set aside, by the then Natal Government under a trusteeship for a sports ground. At that time there was no local authority in Estcourt, and three trustees were appointed. In the course of time Estcourt became a municipality, and no provision had been made for assumption. In connection with land set aside in this way, it is generally provided for in the trust deed that, upon the coming into existence of a duly constituted authority, the trust shall pass into the hands of such authority. By some oversight this was not included in the original deed of trust, and the whole difficulty has arisen from that fact. As time proceeded, two trustees passed away, until to-day only one is left. Estcourt is now under the authority of a mayor and corporation, and everyone is agreed that they are the proper authority to have control of this ground. This Bill provides for the transfer from the existing trustee to the mayor and corporation of Estcourt. All the parties are agreed that it is of great importance that the Bill should go through this session, because during the lifetime of this trust there was no available space for the establishment of an agricultural showground, and with the consent of the people of the district, who used this ground as a sports ground, the Supreme Court authorized the trustees to enter into a lease with the Agricultural Society of Weenen, on the understanding that at the end of the lease, which was for 25 years, the trustees would compensate the Agricultural Society for any buildings they erected on the property. A very fine hall has been erected under that assurance, and it is necessary for this Bill to go through in order that the corporation may carry out the agreement under the lease and compensate the agricultural society and take over the hall as their own property.

I wish to draw the attention of the House to Clause 3 of the Bill, where it is laid down that the Registrar of Deeds at Pietermaritzburg shall, without charging stamp or transfer duty, or other office fees, on production of the original deed of grant by the mayor or other duly authorized agent, make thereon all necessary endorsements. This is a private Bill which has been before a select committee, and I think the Revenue Department should have been given an opportunity of expressing its views. If we accept this proposal we shall be taking away revenue, which is assigned to the provincial authorities of Natal. The Natal Transfer Duty Act lays down that property transferred to a local authority may be transferred free of duty if it is for a charitable, religious or educational purpose. Under these circumstances I submit that if we pass this measure in its present form we shall be foregoing revenue which should accrue to the provincial authorities of Natal. I think it would be an undesirable principle for this House to adopt to authorize by means of a private Bill of this nature, the exemption of property from the payment of duties in conflict with the general principles operating in these cases.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into committee now.

House in Committee:

On Clause 3,

I move—

Why not simply take out the words “or transfer duty”?

No, the principle is the same.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 4, schedule, premable and title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments and specially an alteration in the Dutch version of the title.

Amendments considered.

On amendment in line 7 of Clause 1,

I move—

seconded.

I move—

This is a private measure to enable the company to add to the generating station at Vereeniging, so as to enable them to supply electric power to the mines and municipalities along the Reef. The Rand Mines Power Supply Company is entirely controlled by the Electricity Control Board; its tariff is fixed, and it has to return to the consumers profits over a certain figure, so that, although it is a private company, it is subject to public control, and to the interests of consumers. The station at Vereeniging was started in 1912 at a cost of approximately £1,000,000. There are other stations from which power is supplied, and the company now runs a new station at Witbank. In 1919 the company obtained a private Act of Parliament giving it certain rights to water for its Vereeniging station. The Act provided that the company was entitled to the use of water from the Vaal River, which was to be stored in the area at Vereeniging by the Rand Water Board, which was entitled to erect a barrage and store water in the Vaal River, not only for its own use, but for the use of riparian owners abutting on the storage area. The powers given to the Rand Mines Power Supply Company to use water from the Vaal River are confined strictly to the storage area, and there is no question of granting the company an additional storage area. The Bill asks for a certain increase in the amount of water impounded in the new dam and the quantity of water going down the river to the lower riparian owners. The Act of 1919 authorized the Power Company to take from the storage area not more than 30,000,000 gallons in one year, while the amount of water allowed for evaporation should be deemed to amount to 270,000,000 gallons. Accordingly, Clause 3 of the Act provides for, the storage accommodation inside this area of 300,000,000 gallons. I want to make it clear to members what portion of the amount of water there that is. Under the Act the storage area was required to be sufficiently large to provide 288,000,000 cubic feet for the use of riparian owners. A cubic foot is about six and a quarter gallons; therefore, the accommodation provided by the Act for the use of riparian owners was about 1,800,000,000 gallons, and the amount that the company was entitled to provide for itself under this Act of 1919, out of this area, was 300,000,000 gallons. The present Bill asks that this storage accommodation should be increased to 600,000,000 gallons. The first clause of the Bill provides for the extension of the generating station, so that it can send out in one hour electrical energy not exceeding 136,000 kilowatt hours abstract use. The Act of 1919 limited the extent of the generating station to 50,000 kilowatts. The second clause provides that the amount of water which the company is authorized to consume for the working of the generating station, and not obliged to return to the river, is increased to 200,000 gallons in any one period of 24 hours, and the quantity lost by evaporation in excess of natural evaporation is increased to 560,000,000 gallons per year. Clause 3 provides that the storage accommodation is to be increased from 300,000,000 gallons to 600,000,000 gallons. There are two points that necessarily arise. First of all, there is the question of necessity. Why is this increased output required? For what purposes is it to be used, and are those purposes sufficiently important from a national point of view to justify this House in saying the company is entitled to use this amount of water? I said the object of the company is to provide energy for the mining industry on the Witwatersrand and the municipalities along the Rand. The reason why an increased capacity is necessary is because these requirements have been increasing at a rapid rate and are expected to go on increasing at a rapid rate. The other station cannot provide increased accommodation. The stations along the Rand cannot do so, because there is not a sufficient water supply there. The new station at Witbank was authorized to have an output of 100,000 kilowatts. Three generators have been installed and are working, a fourth has been erected, and a fifth has been called for, so all the available accommodation at that station will be utilized. Therefore, the only place at which an extension can be made is the station at Vereeniging. It should be a matter of gratification to the House to know of this increased demand for power. When one hears, as one does, about the decline of the mining industry and the gradual loss of this great source of revenue, it is comforting to find there are people who are prepared to back their opinion as to the future expansion of the industry with their own money. The additional cost of this station which will be provided for if the Bill passes, will be in the neighbourhood of £1,000,000. This amount of money is being put in by the company. Naturally, they believe they will make a profit. The House may be interested to look at the evidence given by the general manager of the company. I will read Question 39. [Question read.] Hon. members will see from the evidence he gave that if this Bill does not pass, then, in two years’ time, the whole available margin of power will be absorbed. There will be no margin to provide for contingencies or unexpected increases, or the putting out of action of a particular part of the plant. That is what makes the Bill urgent, because it will take two years, if this Bill is passed, before the machinery that will have to be ordered can be installed and in working order. Therefore, if we delay this matter, industries in this country, not merely the mining industry, but many other industries which depend on electrical energy, will be in danger of a shortage of supply. That is the reason for pressing on with this Bill. I would like to quote the general manager on that point. [Evidence read.] There is no additional water taken out of the Vaal River, and the normal flow of that river has been fixed by the special water court which sat under the Act of 1914. The Water this Bill takes is taken out of the storage area already provided, so the lower riparian owners cannot be embarrassed. The normal flow, as determined by the board, is 250 cusecs, which is equal to 135,000,000 gallons per day. Among the riparian owners abutting on the storage area are certain companies which grew out of the firm of Messrs. Lewis & Marks. These had a barrage in the river before the passing of the Rand Water Board Act, and the effect was to submerge the entire dam that the Lewis & Marks companies had in the river. For that reason, when the power company had to go to Vereeniging, they came to Parliament in 1919 to get authority to take water out of the storage area, and they were awarded 300,000,000 gallons’ accommodation out of the storage area, and the Lewis & Marks companies were entitled, and it is proposed similarly in this Bill, that the additional storage area should also be deducted from whatever storage the Lewis & Marks companies or the companies that succeeded them are entitled to. The Rand Water Board Act provided that the claims of persons who owned land riparian to the storage area would have to be determined by an extraordinary water court, and it was originally in contemplation that this company would obtain permanent use of the water in the same way by application to the extraordinary water court and apply to the court, for it was found, owing to the state of the irrigation laws of the country, that, seeing it was for tertiary purposes, it could grant it after the needs of all the riparian owners for primary and secondary purposes had been determined. The court came to the conclusion that it could not be shown what these primary and secondary rights would be. That was the reason why in 1919 it was necessary for the company to come to Parliament to get permission to use that water for tertiary purposes. That permission was given as a deduction from whatever rights the Lewis & Marks companies might be entitled to. As showing what that share would be likely to be, I shall quote some figures. The share of these Lewis & Marks companies in the storage area has never been determined, neither has anybody else’s share, but from the amount of land they owned adjacent to the storage area, it is fairly clear that there is enough to provide for this demand of the company. Mr. Kanthack, late Director of Irrigation, in giving evidence before the select committee, said that 600,000,000 gallons were capable of irrigating only 882 acres in a year, whereas in only one of the farms set out in the agreement 2,055 acres were irrigable, and 537 by pumping. It is quite clear that whatever share in this storage area may ultimately be allocated to Lewis & Marks and their companies, there would be ample accommodation for this company, and the rights of the other riparian owners will be shared with the Lewis & Marks’ farm. Therefore, seeing that the additional accommodation now asked for by the company comes out of the Lewis & Marks’ share, makes it clear that the other riparian owners will not in any way be damaged, unless the share ultimately awarded to Lewis & Marks shall be less than 600,000,000 gallons, but that is not likely, I submit, to occur. I have shown what the urgency of the Bill is—the importance of the water supply to the industries of the country, and that the demand made for water is infinitesimal compared with the actual quantity of water. The total amount of water which can now be impounded in the present storage area is 33,600,000 million gallons, which is the total quantity provided for the use of the Rand Water Board and for the use of riparian owners. Under this Bill this company is asking for an additional storage equal to 100,000 million gallons out of the storage area already allocated from the Vaal River. I have already explained that ultimately the amount of water required under this Bill is infinitesimal. Two petitions were forthcoming in opposition to this Bill, but they have both been withdrawn. First of all the Rand Water Board petitioned against the Bill, but a settlement has been arrived at, and the chairman of the board, in giving evidence before the select committee, made it clear that the position had been entirely met. I would refer hon. members to paragraphs 138 and 139 of the report of the select committee. There was also a petition from the municipality of Kimberley. That has also been withdrawn. Appended to the report of the select committee is a report by the Director of Irrigation, showing that he had no objection to this Bill. If hon. members will look at paragraph 2 of Appendix “D,” they will see that that was the case. The point I want to emphasize is that the effect on the surplus water is infinitesimally small. The same thing appears from the evidence of Mr. Kanthack, who did not think that riparian owners would be injured in the least. In his opinion there was not the least possibility of the lower riparian owners being injured. I know that water is a precious commodity, and that riparian owners are very jealous of any interference with their rights. But we have to consider—although the rights of riparian owners are paramount—this House has to consider that an application such as this is on behalf of practically the greatest mechanical interest in the country to obtain water for the purposes of power needed for expansion. We have to consider whether the benefits to be derived are commensurate with a particular loss of water per year to the riparian owners. I think I have shown that the damage to riparian owners will be too small to calculate, and, therefore, I submit that the House would not be justified in preventing this company from obtaining the necessary facilities for increasing the power required for expanding this great industry, if the House is satisfied that the rights of riparian owners will not in any way be injured. The only other point in the Bill is the question of the temperature. The Act of 1919 prohibits the company from returning water to the river above a certain temperature. That matter was the subject of negotiations between the Rand Water Board and the company in regard to the increased supply which the company is now asking for. The Rand Water Board is now satisfied that their interests in regard to temperature will be protected if certain works are carried out, and that matter has been provided for.

There are riparian owners, particularly those abutting the barrage, who are anxious that this measure should not go through the House without thorough inquiry. On going into the Bill thoroughly, we find that if this matter of the taking of water from the Vaal River for industrial purposes had been put clearly before the riparian owners in the first instance, when they were asked to give their consent, a lot of misunderstanding would have been prevented. The misunderstanding arose because it was represented that water was required to be taken out of the Vaal River, not only for industrial purposes, but for further supply for other purposes. Under the original Water Board Act, the Water Board obtained permission to store 13,000,000,000 gallons, and for the use of the riparian and abutting owners, a storage amount of 1,800,000,000 gallons was allocated. Out of that 1.800,000,000 gallons 300,000,000 gallons was already allocated to the Rand Power Supply Company. They had to come to the House for this further 300,000,000 gallons. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) has told us that that 1.800,000,000 gallons storage was the share that was allocated to the African European Company and the Vereeniging Estates, who owned 35.000 morgen of ground on the abutting area, leaving a balance of 23.000 morgen of ground there. Clause 4 has been amended to this effect, that it is clearly understood that this 600,000,000 gallons will come out of the share allocated to Lewis & Marks for the African European Company and the Vereeniging Estates. The argument put forward here by the member for Yeoville is that there is only sufficient water to irrigate a portion of the abutting ground. It is obvious that if there is more ground than can be irrigated, that ground will be allocated to the abutting owners above, and the owners of the 23.000 morgen must still retain their right to draw that balance of the 1,800,000,000 gallons in the future. That is quite clear from Clause 4, and I want the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), when he replies, to deal with that point. The only other point that is affected is the question with regard to the usage of the normal flow and the flood. That is a question which affects a large number of riparian owners. I think that is where the misunderstanding arose with regard to Kimberley. As the hon. member for Yeoville has stated, the Director of Irrigation has said, and Mr. Kanthack has also pointed out, that the amount of water that has to be further impounded is infinitesimal and deducted from the amount of the flood water that passes, will make no serious inroad into that supply in future. This, to my mind, is the main point in the whole measure, because if there had been any serious inroad into that, it would have been impossible to agree to this measure. The Government is bound to consider the whole question of the flood water as far as the Vaal River is concerned. I believe the Government is now considering the question, and that they understand that any attempt to interfere with this flood water would be very seriously opposed. Members whose constituencies border on the barrage and the lower riparian owners have conferred, and have come to the conclusion that we can support the measure because it makes no inroads into their rights. Indeed, the objects of the Bill are very laudable, as provision has to be made for supplying power for further industrial undertakings which are the result of the policy of this Government to provide cheap electric energy. The company is looking ahead to the time when it will have to supply much more electric power than it is now doing, and we have the greatest pleasure in supporting such a useful Bill without detracting from the existing rights of riparian owners.

I am sorry that I cannot support this Bill in view of the interests of the riparian owners along the Lower Vaal River. My opposition is not based on indifference to the development on the Rand, and I am thankful that hon. members have pointed out the prosperity and progress, but there is a large number of citizens to whom the Vaal River water is a matter of vital interest. I want to refer to the fact that this is the third time Parliament has been applied to for leave to take water out of the river for tertiary purposes. In the first place, I am acting in the interests of the inhabitants of the village of Douglas, which was built on the Vaal River.

The Bill does not affect Kimberley, and will, therefore, not affect Douglas either.

Kimberley must protect itself, but I know what the position of the people I represent is, and I received a telegram from them this morning to make a protest. Besides the village, there is a considerable piece of land on which between 60 and 80 families obtained Crown land, and their agricultural work is dependent on irrigation from the Vaal River. Then there are also 100 to 150 families for a distance of 10 miles above the junction of the Vaal and the Orange Rivers, who are dependent on the river water for their existence. On the northern side of the river there is also a fairly large irrigation scheme at Atherton. Altogether there are thousands of people dependent on the Vaal River waters, and their interests must be protected. The basis of the Irrigation Act is that water for tertiary purposes cannot be granted unless provision is made, first of all, for primary and secondary purposes. I can say from experience that the people I have already referred to have suffered considerable damage through droughts, and this year there are more who lost at least one-third of their wheat and lucerne crops on account of insufficient water. I am now thinking of the objection raised by Kimberley and subsequently withdrawn. I refer to page XI, paragraph 7 of the evidence. [Paragraph read. In this case we have the judgment of the Water Court in 1916, and with all my power I want to concur in that objection, namely, that the privilege of taking water from a permanent river should only be granted after all possible points of view have been properly investigated. Members of Parliament have not all had the opportunity of going thoroughly into the matter, and, in my opinion, the Water Court is the proper body to grant or refuse rights. I feel that the promoters neglected in this case to consult all the interested parties. Even if the lower riparian owners are small farmers they are still people who must make a living. I feel the Rand Water Board cannot be injured, but I do not know the position of Kimberley and Parys, who subsequently withdrew their objection, and, therefore I cannot be influenced by their action. According to the evidence they were influenced by the motive that the quantity of water required is very little. I agree that the reduction is not serious, but it is a matter of principle for the people who are entirely dependent on the use of water from the rivers. Further they are influenced by the argument that the additional water now asked for is the property of the upper riarian owners, the Vereeniging Estates and Lewis & Marks. That may be, but the hon. members for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) and Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) also referred to indefinite rights, and possibly irrigable ground is included in that. My second great objection is that there should have been a proper survey of the lower riparian owners, and of those who adjoin the reservoir. It is said that there is a guarantee as laid down in the judgment of the Water Court in 1916, but the Bill does not clearly say so. The judgment reads—

The promoters must give us the assurance that the judgment of the Court also applies to the share of the surplus water which is now being claimed under this Bill. Now I want the assurance that the additional water asked for will come under the guarantee of this judgment, because otherwise I think that the Bill can be most strongly protested against. I may say here that I received a telegram this morning from Douglas which reads as follows. [Telegram read.]