Before the first order is read, may I just offer a personal explanation in regard to an incident which occurred in connection with the Pretoria Waterworks (Private) Bill. The hon. member introducing that Bill said—and I did not quite catch it at the time— that I had discussed the Bill with him and had offered no opposition, and I see that it is so reported. That would be rather a reflection upon me, and I would like to explain what occurred. It was very simple. I had met the hon. member and asked him when the evidence of the committee would be printed and he told me it would be, he hoped, by Wednesday. As we were coming into the House I said to him, “Is there likely to be any opposition?” and he replied, “I think not.” We then passed on to our respective seats.

Hon. members must bear in mind that when a personal explanation is due in regard to statements by other hon. members, they should take exception at once, and offer the explanation at once, either during the speech or at the end of the speech.

Unfortunately I did not hear him, and as a point of honour I do not want it to be supposed that I made any such agreement.

This matter cannot be discussed.

I move:

I object.

We listened with very great interest to the Minister of Railways and Harbours the other day, and although this is a Part Appropriation Bill, the Minister took advantage of his position to give us a very full and detailed statement and to make a speech as if it were on the budget. The Minister, of course, had all the advantage of us there. He could make a full statement ana had unlimited time. We on the contrary are bound down to a fixed period of time, and we lose the benefit of that detailed criticism which usually has such a great effect in showing up defects in any budget. The Minister said very little about the future. I do not know whether it was prophetic anticipation but he was certainly very careful to stick closely to the past only. No doubt he found it convenient to enter into all that has been done in the past, feeling there is an election in the near future and it would be well to let people know how much, as he claims, he has done. He has, of course, also taken the opportunity of distributing largesse. That does not surprise me. However, the position is this, that whereas the Minister has all the advantages of a full budget statement, we, as I say, will not have the opportunity of that detailed criticism which is so necessary in Parliament to show up weaknesses in detail. The Minister has found it convenient also to offer this year to expend in certain circumstances £162,000, when in the same circumstances two years ago he told us it was quite impossible to take any action because it would mean the spending of £96,000. Last year he gave a little in that direction; and thus whereas, two years ago, it was quite impossible, last year it was possible to do it in part, and this year it is possible to go the whole way. I feel he must excuse us if we say we look upon that to a very great extent as a payment on account of what may happen on June 12th. I am referring particularly to the improvement in service conditions and the very small extra payment to those men be calls civilized labourers and who, up to the present, have had nothing in the way of civilized wages. The nearer we come to the general election, the more nearly does the Minister arrive at a condition somewhat in keeping with his promises during the last election. I can well imagine him feeling that the time has arrived when some of those promises have to be fulfilled, because he is so near making new promises in regard to what he is going to do for the workers on the railways. The Minister has compared what has happened during the five years of his term of office with what happened previously. We naturally do not cavil at that. I personally am going to make use of that comparison, but from a very different standpoint. I want to congratulate the Minister that after five years’ struggle he has at last been able to bring the position of the railways into such a condition that he has not to tell us this year his expenditure is increasing faster than his income. This is the first year in his term of office that he has been in such a position, and we ought to congratulate ourselves that the railways are being brought into the condition in which they were when the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) left office. For the first time, also, an attempt is made to comply with our frequent requests by taking as the basis of comparison the rise and fall in income and expenditure in different years, the ton mileage in preference to the ton, train and engine mileage. For that we have pressed for a long time, and we are told that the system is to be adopted. I understand it was started about nine or ten months ago, but there is no information with regard to the matter now. I should like to remind the House of the very severe criticism meted, out to this side when we were in power with regard to two matters particularly—the institution of the system of grain elevators and the electrification of the Natal line. The opposition was strongly led by the Minister himself, who went all over the country preaching against our attitude. They condemned us and told us we were guilty of wasteful extravagance. I could remind the Minister of some of his statements in select committee, but I will leave it and remind him of what he has done in the country. They referred to the erection of the elevators as something which was inexcusable, and they took great advantage of the unfortunate position with regard to the elevator at Durban, which, of course, was no fault of the Minister at the time. To-day there is not a single hon. member on that side who dare, in any way, suggest that the system should be done away with; on the contrary, there are continual demands for further elevators, and the Minister, greatly cheered by his own supporters, proudly claims that last year 421,000 tons of maize and kaffir corn have been dealt with and, with great triumph in his voice, he boasted of an increase of 157.100 tons over the previous year. I would like to know what the Minister would have done as to the export of this maize had it not been for the foresight of his predecessor. The loss on the system last year was £17,759. The aggregate losses since 1924, on elevators has been £226,218, and in the face of that, the Minister is prepared to advocate further grain elevators being built, which shows how complete is his conversion. In regard to the electrification of the Natal system, we were severely criticised—

And rightly so.

I am glad to have that statement confirmed. But if we were so wrong, I would like to ask the hon. member why the Minister now sees fit to claim that, without that system, he would not have been able to cope with the tonnage of traffic offering under steam without tremendous capital expenditure.

Why do you suppose I did what you say?

It is common knowledge and surely the Minister cannot deny it. He now says that the electrified working is an unqualified success and an economical factor of the highest order in the transportation work of the administration. Whatever was done by this party here, nothing was good enough; but to-day, everything we did is adopted by the Minister, who admits, that without that being done, he would be unable to cope with the work on the railways. It is so with every movement for progress. Violent opposition comes from hon. members on that side; the initiation of everything that is progressive came from this side; and when success comes, they take all the praise. Take, for example, the employment of youths on the railways. The scheme was initiated by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) at Uitenhage. To-day his efforts are forgotten, though they form the foundation of all the advancement in that direction. Take the meagre rate reductions of the Minister. He boasts of the reductions, but they are a mere fraction of what they were when the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) was in power, who laid the foundations of sound business principles and totally eclipsed the Minister, who, in those days, used to shout across the floor that these reductions were totally insufficient; yet, to-day, that he is in power and has such a large balance, he does not do as much as the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) did. Then we have the favourite topic of the Minister—the civilized labour policy—for which he claims all honour. We took the more honest course and called it “white labour policy,” long before the Minister came into power. We did not mislead any section of the public to believe that others also, besides Europeans, would get any benefit out of this policy. We instituted the policy, which made great advances under our Government.

Did it?

We developed the policy and used it as it should be used as a Government policy. It was a Government policy, and we did not ask the users of the railways to pay for all that experiment; we asked the State to pay for it, and the State did pay for it. We extended that policy in every way, and we did not bring men specially from the countryside to give them employment in blind alley occupations and in surroundings which were strange and unnatural to them.

Did we do that?

I say the Minister has taken these men away from the country and brought them into the towns. If the Minister had used the extra funds spent on this so-called civilized labour policy, to keep these men on the farms, they would have been of greater economic value to the country. The Minister also claims credit in regard to the reorganization of the railways, but he must not take all the credit to himself. The chief part of the re-organization is in regard to separating the accounting department from general managership. We advocated that for years, and I think the Minister will admit that that is one of the chief reasons why the scheme is so successful to-day. Then the Minister reviewed what has been done during the last five years, and gave us the figure of £1,753,000 as the accumulated surplus, including the estimated surplus for this year, £330,307. This aggregate surplus accumulated during five years is only £303,186 more than it was for the last year alone under the South African party regime. The great point is that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) was able to show a surplus of £1,450,267 in one year, and that goes to prove that he had brought the railways into such a position that the foundations for their future development were very solidly laid. In 1923-’24 revenue increased over the estimate by £1,500,000, and the expenditure increased by only £300,000—a far more business-like proportion than anything the Minister can show. The last surplus under the South African party gave the Minister a foundation on which to build, and had the superstructure not been moderately sound, it would indeed have been deplorable. I would ask the Minister to go a little more deeply into matters, more particularly in regard to these surpluses. The Minister has told us nothing about the position in regard to the Rhodesian strike, which must have affected the income of our railways to a certain extent. I would like to know whether the estimated surplus given by the Minister makes any provision for losses likely to have occurred during the Rhodesian strike. Take the 1923-’24 revenue. When my friend, the hon. member for Cape Town (Central), was Minister of Railways, he increased his revenue by £1,500,000, whereas his expenditure only increased by some £300,000. I think that was far more businesslike than anything the present Minister of Railways has been able to do. The year before the present Minister came into power, a surplus of £1,500,000 gave him an opportunity of building upon a foundation which was very strongly laid, and it would have been deplorable if he could not have carried on to show that the railway system was still a payable proposition. Railway earnings have increased from £24,000,000 in 1924 to £31,000,000. That must show that the country as a whole had advanced, and if the general business of the country is so advancing, one would expect that the transport facilities were going ahead in the same way, but while the increase in income rose from £24,000,000 to £31,000,000, we find that expenditure has gone from £23,000,000 to £31,000,000. During the period 1924-’28, earnings increased by £4,900,000, or an average of £1,230,000 per annum, while expenditure increased by £6,300,000, or an average increase of £1,500,000 per annum. If we take the Minister’s estimate, we find that in six years the increase in expenditure has been £8,000,000, or at the rate of £1,360,000 per annum, or by £567,000 per annum more than it was under the South African party Government. Under the South African party Government, in 13 years, during a period of the war, rebellion and depression, and which also included the 8-hour day system and the war bonus of £7,500,000, during that period of all these adverse—adverse in comparison to what the Minister has experienced—circumstances, the earnings of the railways increased by £12,750,000, or just under £1,000,000 per annum, while during the same period expenditure increased by £10,750,000, or under £800,000 per annum. That is the difference between the two Governments. In the last three years of our Government, expenditure decreased by £5,000,000, and rates were reduced by over £3,000,000, showing again that the member for Cape Town (Central), with sound business principles, brought the railways into a position for anyone who followed him to carry on without any very great difficulty. Then let us take another basis of expenditure, the expenditure in relation to open mileage over a period of three years. In 1925-’26 the increased open mileage was 4 per cent., but the expenditure increased by 11.5 per cent. In 1926-’27 the open mileage increased by 3 per cent., while the expenditure increased by 5½per cent. In 1927 ’28 the open mileage increased by 11 per cent., and the expenditure increased by 3 per cent. Take the train mileage. In every case there is an increased expenditure out of all proportion to the increase in the train mileage. Then we find a progressive increase in the cost, of the train and engine mileage during the Pact’s period of office, which compares very unfavourably with what took place during the South African party’s government. With this progressive increase one would expect a progressive decrease in the cost per train and engine mile. We find it is the very opposite. Under the previous Minister the business principle that with a larger mileage the cost per train mile should decrease was followed, and it worked out in every instance that the cost per train mile went down as the train and engine miles increased. The train mileage increased in 1926 ’27 by 2,750,000, while increased expenditure was £2,500.000; in 1927-’28 the increased mileage was 5,500.000 and the increased expenditure was £628,000; in 1928-’29 the increased mileage was 2,500,000 while the increased cost was £649,000; and in 1929-30 the increased mileage was 2,000,000 while the increased expenditure was £1,750,000. We find that in four years there was a progressive increase in cost per train mile. In 1922-’24 it was 23.9d.; in 1924-’25 it was 24.01d.; in 1925 ’26 it was 24.20d.; and in 1926-’27 it was 24.65d., or an increase of 75d. per train mile in three years. Now let us consider the methods of expenditure. The Minister of Finance, last evening, was very careful to say in referring to the request for a restoration of the salaries of the civil servants to the Graham report scales, that the people of the country would object to an increase of administrative expenditure. Yet we find a substantial increase in the administrative expenditure in the Railway Department. In three years, from 1927 to 1929, on the main services there is an increase of from £18,500,000 to £20,750,000; on subsidiary services there is an increase from £1,000,000 to £1.500,000, and on expenditure on net revenue an increase from £5,250,000 to £6,250,000, or a total increase of £3,500,000 in two years. Except in the catering, bookstalls and advertising, bedding equipment and grain elevator items, there are increases on every head. In the general manager’s office this year there was an increase of £27,640, and there has been an increase since the Pact took office of £46,329. In the accountant’s office this year there is an increase of £104,734, or, since the Pact took office, of £136,512. The wages and salaries in the general manager’s department have increased by £26,060 this year, or, since the Pact took office, there has been an increase of £40,699. In the accountant’s office alone there has been an increase in salaries and wages this year of £95,139, or an increase since the Pact took office of £125,342. Take maintenance of rolling stock, there is an increase of £235,000, and the total cost to-day is £4,500,000, of which wages amount to £1,500,000, or an increase of £7,597. Running expenses were increased by £272,669, and now stand at £5,371,989, of which over £3,000,000 are set down for wages. If we compare the open mileage between 1924 and 1928 to the number of employees, we find the increase of open mileage is 11 per cent., and the increase in employees is 28.9 per cent. During this period there has been an enormous decrease in regard to labour on constructive works. Take the cost of labour. In 1924, the cost of labour was 46.13 per cent, of the total cost of administration; in 1928 it was over 50 per cent, of the total cost of administration. The pay of officers and employees has increased from £12,500,000 to £15,500,000. Compared with 1927, there has been an increase of £59,617 to European officers and of £282,942 to European employees. From the Auditor-General’s report we find that there has been a decrease of £112,414 in the expenditure on non-European employees. It is very strange that we have never been able to separate the coloured from natives and Indians. We have been told that they are lumped together, including natives, coloured people and Indians, and that payments to the different classes cannot be given. Yet, now the Minister tells us there has been a great advance in the payments to coloured people. It is somewhat strange that there should be this reduction of £112,000 in the wages of the coloured men, seeing that there has been an increase of only 64 servants in the department, and in the same year the salaries and wages were increased by £230,000, nearly a quarter of a million. During the last five years the staff has increased by 16.6 per cent, and salaries and wages by 29.6 per cent. Again, if we compare the position under the South African party with that under the present Government, in 1924 there was an open mileage of 11,113, the persons employed numbered 85,000, the expenditure was £23,000,000, income increased by £24,500,000, and there was a surplus of £1,500,000. By 1928 the mileage increased by 1,400 and the personnel by 9,000, the expenses by £6,500,000, the income by £5,000,000, and the salaries and wages by £2,750,000. Let us consider the capital expenditure. Under the South African party the capital expenditure increased by £3,500,000 per annum; under the Pact it has gone up from £117,000,000 to £154,000,000, or has increased by £37,000,000 in five years, or at the rate of £7,400,000 per annum. The sum of £154,000,000 is an enormous one. We are to-day in the peculiar position of having severe competition all over the country. We have not the monopoly we previously enjoyed. What provision is being made should we suddenly find ourselves confronted with the position of having to close down our branch lines. I asked the Minister two years ago for a statement. What is he doing with regard to a sufficient sinking fund to meet the position? We are losing on practically every branch line. I think the Minister ought to tell us what his policy is. We have asked him twice, and he has given no reply. We know he has appointed a commission, but the report of that commission will be accepted by very few people in this country. The Minister should tell us what his policy is should he find himself forced to close down these lines, and he should also tell us what the position is with regard to these branch lines. We would also like to know whether these lines are paying or whether they are being run at a loss as great as they were losing a few years ago. This enormous capital very seriously affects the question of the interest which the country has to pay annually. The interest charges have increased by £334,000 from 1927 to 1928, and there have been progressive yearly increases since we left office. The interest charges in 1925 were £4,600,000; 1926, £4,900,000; 1927, £5,169,000; 1928, £5,500,000, there having been an increase in four years of £883,000 per annum in interest charges alone. For 1929-’30 the interest charges, according to the Minister’s figures, will be railways £5,399,946, and harbours £560,656, making a total of £5,960,602, or £16,000 per day in interest charges alone. We now come to the renewals fund. The Minister stated that the departmental committee came to the conclusion that the contribution of £1,500,000 per annum to the renewals fund was not sufficient, and that from now onwards the contribution must be increased. Now it is true that we generally refer to the sum of £1,500,000 as the amount so contributed, but, as a matter of fact, that is the amount contributed in respect of depreciation on rolling stock and permanent way only. In the financial year 1927-’28 the total was not £1,500,000, but £1,884,830, the balance being made up by contributions of £239,108 in respect of railways subsidiary assets, £125,009 in respect of harbours and lighthouse assets, and £20,712 in respect of steamships. In the new estimates, while the amount for depreciation has been increased to £1,890,000 in respect of permanent way and rolling stock, the total contribution in respect of all railway assets is £2,138,433, including £98,000 for harbours, £55,000 for road motor services, £50,000 for grain elevators, £28,000 for cartage and £15,900 for catering. The renewals fund has been discussed over and over again, so I wish merely to warn the House that with this continual increase we are more and more deprived of that detailed criticism of expenditure which Parliament should never forego. The House has no opportunity to make detailed criticism, and more and more the power to criticize the renewals and betterment funds is being taken away from Parliament. At the end of 1928 there was a credit balance in the fund of £3,450,758. From 1913 to 1928 the expenditure on new locomotives, coaches, goods stock and motor vehicles was £14,500,000, while the recorded value of stock actually withdrawn from service during that period was only £1,825,000. We should have some explanation why this enormous sum has been spent in purchasing new goods. [Time limit extended.] I thank the Minister, and promise not to be long. The Minister is allowing oil tanks to be erected in Cape Town docks. Has the Minister considered the reports of the Port of London Authorities and the British Board of Trade, which have limited the quantity of petroleum permitted to be stored in the docks under their control, because they have found that beyond a certain fixed quantity the presence of the oil constitutes a source of serious danger? In Cape Town a large number of oil tanks has been erected in the centre of a populous area and oil-tankers freely enter the docks. Has the Minister made any detailed investigation into the matter? There is another serious question. The ordinary police have been removed front Cape Town docks, which are now controlled by the railway police. The latter may be the best men in the world, but they have not been trained in the work required to be done at the docks. The men who have been at the docks for many years are all trained swimmers, fully qualified life-savers, oarsmen, are ready at all times to proceed to the assistance of any craft, and all have a working knowledge of the Immigration and Customs Acts. They are all capable of assisting the Fisheries Commission in enforcing the fishery laws. They have built up a very fine reputation, and are regarded as one of the finest bodies of men in the world. I have been told that people from overseas qualified to express an opinion hold very strongly that a better body of men for their specialized type of work could not be found anywhere. These men are all South African born, with the exception of perhaps the commanding officer, but they have been removed from the sphere, in which their special capabilities are of the utmost value, to the Cape Flats and other places. Has the Minister considered the position very carefully, because not very long ago when the Railway Department desired that its own police should have the power of arrest, it received the following opinion from the law advisers—

This opinion was given in January, 1920, but up to two months ago the Railway Department knew nothing about it. Now will the Minister allow the docks police to return to spheres of duty in which they are so pre-eminently qualified to perform with the utmost satisfaction to the department and the public?

I am not so much concerned about the good qualities of the late and present Ministers of Railways as I am about the vital importance of the railways to the future of this country. I would like to impress upon the Government the necessity for double tracking some of the main lines of the railway. I feel confident that the future of this country depends upon efficient, cheap and sufficient transport, and for this we are entirely dependent upon our railways, because we have no navigable rivers in South Africa as some other countries have, especially America and Canada. Those countries owe their phenomenally rapid growth in wealth and population to cheap and available transport. That is an object lesson not alone to present members, but to those who may succeed. If anyone, a hundred years ago, had predicted that the population of America to-day would be double that of the United Kingdom, I think they would have been laughed at. I am simply going to give the rough figures. During the first year of Union, 10,000,000 tons per annum were carried over our railways. To-day we are carrying 25,000,000 tons per annum, an increase of 150 per cent, in 18 years. The number of passengers during the same period has increased from 25,000,000 to 82,000,000, nearly 200 per cent. I see no reason why this progressive increase should not continue, and, therefore, the question arises—can this enormous traffic be carried over a single line of railway? I doubt it. I do not feel justified in expressing a definite opinion; I leave that to the experts. During the season, when large quantities of mealies are exported, rolling stock has to be diverted from the Natal coal mines to carry the mealies to the ports for shipment, greatly to the injury of this, I am sorry to say, languishing industry. I can quite understand that mealies, which are perishable, must have a preference, but the present condition of the Natal coal industry—several companies are on the verge of closing down—is, in some measure, attributable to the diverting of the rolling stock from Durban to the north for this purpose. To my mind, this is a sure indication that the carrying capacity of our railways has almost reached its zenith. That is my opinion. I am not criticizing the management in any way. I marvel that they succeed in carrying such enormous quantities of tonnage over single lines, and it reflects the greatest credit upon all concerned. For a considerable time the attention of almost the whole of the mechanical staff has been devoted to designing locomotives to carry larger loads, and what effect this would have on the permanent way is best known to those connected with the railways. With a double track many of our lighter locomotives could be commissioned. I have been told by eminent railway men, that, with a double track, at least five times the tonnage could be carried by the existing engines and rolling stock, compared with the present line. Some have told me that seven times the tonnage could be carried. It is not so much a question of rolling stock as of sufficient roadways. If you were to place the rolling stock of Europe on our lines we could not carry the tonnage that will be available 15 years hence. The present policy has handicapped many industries, and has damaged the Union. Instead of tending to lower rates, it has had the opposite effect of increasing them. Millions can be wasted by initiating a wrong policy. I know that from experience. I know of a case where a wrong policy was adopted against a minority. That policy cost the company—which in magnitude does not compare at all with the railways—a million sterling. It is not merely the original cost of a wrong policy; the after-effects are much more expensive than the original loss. Since I can remember, up-country constituents have been taxed on a sliding scale in proportion to the distance from the ports. This has been to pay for mistakes made and losses incurred on branch lines. I have agitated ever since I was a member of the old Cape House, and many members of this side have agitated; in fact, the agitation is right up to date, but those responsible have turned a deaf ear to our reasonable demands, and up till now there has not been the slightest redress. The money that has been, I won’t say frittered away, but unwisely spent on electrification, grain elevators—I am referring to the Durban catastrophe—and unpayable branch lines, would have been more than sufficient to pay for double tracking one of our main lines. Of that I am quite certain. This enormous outlay and the employment of uneconomical labour has thrown on our railways too much dead weight. I do not object to employing poor people on our railways. I would be in favour of employing double the number of these men—if the whole country paid. Under present conditions the ports contribute nothing; this additional expenditure is borne mostly, not altogether, by the up-country districts. I have no objection to the Government employing more distressed men, but to the extent that it is uneconomical, the costs should be debited to the general expenditure of the country. The Treasury should pay the difference between what these men actually earn and what their labour is worth to the railways. This cost should fall on the general taxpayer.

And you should tax them.

That is not my point. What I mean is that if the railways expend £100,000 more in wages by employing these white men over what they would pay if they employed other men, that £100,000 should be paid out by the Treasury.

I follow that, and I say put taxation on to them.

The only way to do it would be what the Minister is so fond of—the old system of taxing them through the customs. I say advisedly you will never solve the poor white question by throwing the burden of the cost on a portion of, and not on the whole, community. The present policy on the railways, to my mind, retards the progress and the development of South Africa, and tends to maintain continual high rates when our future depends on low rates and our ability to compete in the world’s markets with our produce, especially that grown north of the Orange River. I say to those who are responsible for the policy of our railways—do not wait in a state of masterly inactivity until the country comes to a standstill; look ahead, and try to picture what this country will be 15 to 20 years hence; the greater the statesman, the more concerned he is about the future. My advice to the railway authorities is to go with the times and provide for the future, and see that every shilling expended on capital account is spent on sound business lines. Do not place additional burdens on the already over-burdened railways, and do not fritter away money on boneless and unpayable projects. I admit that the doubling of some of our main lines would cost money, but it would reduce the cost of running the railways, and the wear and tear would not be anything like what it is at the present time. As this is the eve of my retirement from public life, it cannot be said that I am bringing these matters up before this hon. House from political motives—with regard to the doubling of the track of the main line, and reducing rates to a minimum. I am just giving a little fatherly advice in the interests of the country after a long and, I think, not an unsuccessful business career. I hope it will provide food for thought, so that the natural progress and development of South Africa may not be delayed from want of preparedness and foresight.

I greatly value the principle underlying a debate like this, that, before a supply of public funds is voted, grievances should be aired, and, if possible, attended to. The House will pay this tribute to me that when I speak I speak with brevity, and, as far as possible, very much to the point, but on this, which is not my final speech, but is assuredly my penultimate speech, I ask for the sympathetic attention of hon. members, irrespective of party, to the sad grievance of a certain individual. Following what the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris) said, I cannot be accused in what I am going to say of any electioneering programme. I do not want to take up this case, which has cost me great anxiety for more than a year, unless I feel convinced that Parliament is in danger of meting out very marked injustice to a public servant of many years’ standing. I refer to the case of William Thomson McTaggart.

Hear, hear.

I hope you will say “hear, hear,” when I have finished, and that I will get approval of what I am going to say.

It depends on what you say.

Let me rehearse the main facts in this now notorious case, as human memories of the available facts and their importance are easily forgotten. I know the man very well and have seen a great deal of him, and I am impressed with his rugged honesty. In 1900 he joined the service of the Cape Government Railways, thrifty, sober, hard-working, self-respecting. He gradually rose until in 1927 he was classed as of specially high standing as an engine driver. On the 1st of September of that year, on a dark night, near Berlin, he drove a goods train and over-ran the points by 15 yards. The case had, of course, to be reported, and when he was brought face to face with the enquiry it limited itself, according to the testimony given to me by him, not to the fault of over-running the points by 15 yards, but an ill-founded, altogether unjust accusation was made that he was drunk on duty. The accusation was brought against him by his fireman. I have testimony that this fireman had been troublesome to two other engine drivers, and soon after the enquiry began, the fireman was glad to withdraw his accusation. That ought to be expunged from all the records of the enquiry. I am sorry to say that in the debate in this hon. House there were hon. members who said they believed the accusation of drunkenness. The enquiry did not believe that accusation, because it was glad to drop it. I have been to a great deal of trouble, and I have made enquiries of men who best know McTaggart. None say he is a strict teetotaller; who would say that of all hon. members in this House? Everyone who has known him for many years, has never known him to be under the influence of liquor when engaged in the responsible position of driving. He did over-run the points. Five years previously, while a train was travelling at 18 miles per hour, in the execution of his duty he walked along the rail on the narrow footplate, when suddenly the handrail broke, and he was flung to the ground, all the teeth in his head were shaken out, he was off duty for two months, and a medical certificate proved that following an accident like that a temporary lapse of memory was possible. McTaggart stated to me repeatedly that the only way he could account for overrunning the points in September, 1927, was that he had a temporary lapse of memory. These facts were known to his supporters, and yet they continued him in his responsible duties. There are things in life which one would gladly forget, and I would like to get rid of the remembrance of what happened last year when this man presented a petition to Parliament, stating that as he had been dismissed he had forfeited all pension rights, and asking the House to take into consideration, not his restoration to employment, but to his receiving a pension for 27 years of faithful service. It is, to me, a painful thing; I would almost say it was pitiable, that last year, just before the prorogation of Parliament, things happened which I could not have thought could happen in connection with this Parliament.

The hon. member must not make any reflections on the action of Parliament.

I am speaking under the stress of very deep feeling. I feel that this man has been treated unjustly, and that his case has not received the consideration it should have received. I tabled a motion in this House early in the session that the whole of the circumstances of the dismissal of this man should be enquired into by Parliament. At that time I think it was the fourth or fifth notice of motion on the Order Paper, but it got down to No. 27, and then it had to be removed altogether. Do not let us, for the sake of form, run the risk of doing a grave injustice to a man who deserves well of his country. Here he is walking about the streets of East London looking for work. If ever a case demanded the sympathetic attention of this House, it is the case of McTaggart. I do not know if the Minister of Railways is aware of the intensity of feeling there is throughout the service of which he is the parliamentary head? I am aware of it.

Is that why you are not standing again?

That is foolish and unworthy. In the country centres, where hundreds of men are employed on the railways, down to the remotest railway station, there is very strong feeling about this case, and there is a feeling of “Who of us is safe if he is guilty of some slight dereliction of duty?” Since McTaggart was dismissed the following cases have happened within a limited area. I will not mention the names, but I will be glad to give them to the Minister. Here is the case of a stationmaster who let a double-headed goods train run into a short dead-end, causing damage to both engines and to the rolling stock, and one of engine men was injured. This Stationmaster gave the “run through” signal, and handed up a “line clear” order. The points were wrong. He was fined £2 and not suspended. Another case: A guard came on duty under the influence of drink. A doctor was sent for, and the guard was sent home. He was reduced to the position of shunter for about six months, but is now a guard again. Case No. 3: A station foreman, with a shunter, interfered with a young lady on a railway platform. The shunter was dismissed; the foreman was reduced to the status of a shunter. After six months at this duty he is again a station foreman. Another case: An engine-driver had a head-on collision with a mixed train and a native passenger train. This happened in daylight. The driver was reduced to a “passed” fireman, but he has not done any firing since that, but is relieving other drivers or doing shed duty. This collision caused serious damage to three engines, and they had to go to the shops for repairs. Case No. 5: An engine-driver working the leading engine in a double-headed passenger train ran into the rear of a goods train. Both passenger trains were de-railed, and the goods train was smashed up. The guard of the goods train and some passengers in the other train were injured. Driver reduced to second-class driver. Case No. 6: An engine driver working a native passenger train ran past his crossing loop for a mile, and met another native passenger train and had to get back to his crossing loop. The driver was fined £5. Yet another case: A driver was found to be under the influence of drink when he was in charge of an engine. He was reduced to a shunting engine for six months, and received a warning from the head office. These are light punishments for faults in themselves serious. In the case of McTaggart he overruns the points, there is no danger to property or life and limb, and he is dismissed. Where is the justice of it? Here is a man with 27 years’ service.

May I ask the source of the hon. member’s information about these cases he has given?

I have given them in all good faith, and I have offered to give the names to the Minister. Does the hon. the Minister deny the truthfulness of these statements?

I know nothing about them.

I do, and I have offered to give the Minister the names of those concerned. Is not that satisfactory? Why try to put me off? I do plead with the utmost earnestness that in the case of McTaggart a commission be appointed to enquire into all the circumstances attendant upon his acknowledged fault, and upon his sad dismissal, which has injured him so much. If that be done, I am prepared to stand by the finding of such a commission; but we cannot get it, and I now ask that what has hitherto been refused be granted, an enquiry into the case of this engine-driver.

As one of the youngest members of the House I cannot give the fatherly advice to the Government which has been proffered by the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris), but whoever is returned to this House every member who comes back will regret the absence of the hon. member for Beaconsfield in the next Parliament. Those I have the honour to represent will infinitely prefer that the control of the railways should remain in the hands of those controlling them at present rather than that the railways should revert to the hands they were in up to 1924. The Minister is accessible, and I have always gone away from interviewing him feeling pleased even when I have not been satisfied. I think the Minister is the finest exponent of pleasing a man without giving him anything that I have ever met. I should like to ask what is going to happen to the town of Durban in connection with the non-electrification of the Natal portion of the railways from Maritzburg to Durban. The Electricity Commission has recently erected a very large power station in Durban to act in co-operation with the Durban Corporation power station, the idea being to supply the power not only for the town of Durban, but for the electrification of the railway from Durban to Maritzburg. When an agreement was arrived at it was arranged that the cost to the corporation should be 39d. per unit, but there was a second agreement to the effect that the Durban corporation should pay the cost price of the electric current. I now understand that the South African Railways are not going to electrify the railway from Durban to Maritzburg, and, if that is the case, the cost of the power station is going to be borne by Durban, and, instead of the town of Durban having the cheapest electrical supply in South Africa, they will have the dearest. I think they have been bluffed into accepting a burden no one has any right to impose upon them. Another matter I wish to refer to is, as to whether it is not possible, in the interests of economy and efficiency, to limit the number of classes of engines which are introduced to the railways. Men become experts in dealing with one type of engine, and then a new type is introduced. There are 28 types of engines, and it is impossible at all times when engines need repair to find men who are experts to deal with them, and the consequence is that there is not that efficiency in the repair works which is desirable. I think the number of experimental types should be cut down. I would also like to refer to the casual labour at the Point, a matter to which I referred when the Additional Appropriation Bill was being considered. I should be glad if the Minister will give some assurance on the subject. At present we have a deplorable state of affairs in Durban. The very name by which the Employment Bureau is called—“the slave market”—shows that it should be put right. Men turn up morning after morning, some of them for seven years, in order to get a job on the railways. They are still termed casual men, and they should be permanent by now. If the Administration there were efficient, these men would have been on the permanent staff long ago. I want to move an amendment to this motion, and I don’t want any misunderstanding or any misrepresentation from the Minister of Defence about this amendment. This amendment was settled on long before the Minister of Defence persuaded his colleagues in the Government to take action against the South African Labour party.

Why worry about him?

I am not worrying about him, but some people in the country, although not many, may still be deluded by him. I move, as an amendment—

1. (a) the complete acceptance of the report of the Hours of Duty Committee of 1927 with the added proviso that each day shall stand by itself for overtime purposes;
2. (b) the increasing of the wage of civilized labourers to a minimum of 10s. a day;
3. (c) the restoration of the 1923 rates of pay;
4. (d) the reintroduction of the long service increment; and
5. (e) the application of the last proviso of Section 28 of Act 23 of 1925 to the 1914 strikers”,

The first matter in which redress should be given is the 8-hours day. In 1926, after the Labour party had debated the matter in their caucus, the Minister of Defence was put up by the Government to reply to the attacks of his colleagues on the Government. He is reported in “Hansard” to have said on 18th March. 1926 (column 1721)—

We had, at that time, received an instalment of the recommendations of the Hours of Duty Commission, an instalment costing £250,000 out of a total of £480,000. We were concerned at that moment with the hours of duty of guards and ticket examiners who had been given a 9-hours day, whereas the engine-drivers got an 8-hours day. We are not asking on behalf of a few isolated people, but for the whole of the running staff. On June 27th, 1928, a deputation went to the Minister of Railways and presented a petition from practically every guard and ticket inspector, and there are 800 of them. There is dissatisfaction and impatience amongst the men on the railways.

You are exploiting them.

It is there—we express it, but not exploit it, and some of us expressed it when we were still within the fold of the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux). There is still dissatisfaction. The Minister has a big surplus to-day, and I want him to apply more of it to the running staff and less of it in reduction of railway rates. The latter may possibly benefit the whole of the people of the country, but that benefit will be given—if the men are not adequately paid—at the expense of the railway men. It is unfair to tax a portion of the community for the benefit of the whole of the community, and particularly a portion which cannot afford to pay the tax. Now the men sometimes work 16 hours one day and 6 hours the next. There are other points in the report of the Hours of Duty Commission which are still outstanding, and I ask the Minister to implement the pledge given by the Minister of Labour to the Labour party at its conference in Jackson Hall when it was decided to allow the Minister to go into the Cabinet. I ask for the support of the Minister of Defence and his colleagues in the ex-Labour party on the Government side of the House. If they do not vote for us, they must vote against us and show the people where they stand. With regard to the increase in the wages of civilized labour, we have, this session, the assistance of certain members of the South African party. I hope they are sincere, and if, by any mischance, they come back into power they will put this into effect. Would the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) do it?

No, I would not.

I have many of these railway men in my constituency and they are living under deplorable conditions. They are trying to lead a decent civilized life. They are trying to bring up children under a wage condition that makes it impossible. The Minister has devoted £50,000 to Durban for housing purposes, but that is nothing to what is needed. These men are honest men. They have to run up bills, and they are unable to meet them when they fall due, and in the civil courts at Durban there is a constant procession of judgments for debt against these men. It is not a good thing for South Africa. Unless we can give them a living wage—and a tickey a day does not make it a living wage—the Minister should confess it is not a civilized labour policy, but a semi-civilized labour policy. The restoration of the 1923 rates of pay is another thing that has come up from time to time. You have men working in the railway workshops side by side, one man getting £1 and another getting 18s. Times are not so hard now, and these men are entitled to the wage they had before. It is causing dissatisfaction. The next point is the re-introduction of the long service increment. Men with 17 years’ service were entitled to a shilling a day, but the then Minister reduced it to 6d. for the first 17 years, and he then cut it off altogether. You have men drawing the long service increment while other men are not drawing it, and have no hope of getting it. When a man has been 17 years in one grade and has nothing to look forward to he tends to become a machine, and he loses interest in his work. It does not cost much. For the increased efficiency a man gives through the satisfaction of knowing he has something to look forward to, it is well worth the expense. The wages they get are not large, 13s., 14s., 15s. a day is the maximum, and if they were allowed the extra shilling after 17 or even 20 years’ service, they would be satisfied. The last point is the application of the last proviso to Section 28 of Act 23 of 1925 to the 1914 strikers. It is provided that a break in service is condoned for the purposes of promotion, whereas the men who went on strike in 1914 have their break condoned for purposes of pension. There are only 40 or 50 in the whole service. I want to ask the Minister to grant to the strikers the promotion rights which he has granted to the rebels, and to grant to the men who went into the rebellion the pension rights granted to the strikers. Make them both equal. It is a small thing, but it rankles in the minds of railwaymen, and I ask the Minister to put it right. I know no reason why this should not be a pledge by the Minister. If it is going to put the general election off for a fortnight, to put this into effect, it is worth while.

Put it off altogether.

I ask the Minister to tell us what he is going to do on these things. I ask him to give them to us, and I ask for the support of the House.

In seconding this amendment I first wish to say that I think the whole case has been put very temperately, indeed, very well, by the introducer. No attempt has been made to stir up feeling, and although we are well aware we are approaching a general election, and that it has its influence, yet at the same time it cannot be denied that these reforms are what we have pressed for the whole period of this Parliament. So that we have been consistent; even when we were on the seats at the back of the mighty, instead of, as accidently happens, facing them, we were always in favour of these very reforms that are being pressed now. We are not going out with a fresh programme for the railway men, to say: “Vote for us, we are your only friends.” Nothing of the kind. I think what has taken place in this House recently, the general advertisement to the electors of the country as to why they should pay very great attention to us who have been sent here and why they should return us to these seats, proves one thing, that all this consideration now for the voter, especially the voter in the public services, shows that the Chartists were right. Every three years’ there should be an election. Of course, none of us are much in favour of repeated appeals to our constituents. They sometimes ask what we have done, as well as what we propose to do, and that is unfortunate for some members. As we get nearer to an election, so there is consideration for the future. Voters will state what their views are; now nobody cares. We are trying to see whether we can get the odd 3,000 on our side; they are a very important balancing factor. It is a curious thing that we should think we are going to sweep the country when there are only 3,000 independents who hold the balance. We are all very eager to assure these electors that their interests are in our hands safe. In this amendment we are asking definitely again only what has repeatedly been urged on the Government; and half promises, which are really worse than real promises, have been broken. I notice comparisons are made with other countries as to cost per train mile. With the mileage it looks as if we are doing very well, but we have the great advantage of running on cheap coal, and, unfortunately, on cheap labour. No country can get on satisfactorily now with cheap labour. We have to awaken to the fact that if you run on cheap labour services are inefficient. The Minister begins to realize he has a rather more contented staff because he has met their claims to some extent. What I would like to see is in parallel columns what railway men are getting in various grades in various countries. We know-heads of departments show a good comparison, although very big men in other countries with big populations get tremendous pay—a course which we have not followed. But when one comes to the running staff, and the engine drivers particularly, to whom most precious lives are entrusted, what wage do we expect them to accept contentedly? I plead also for firemen, whose task in shovelling coal is no light one, and whose pay is far less than their onerous services to the public deserve. I was struck, when travelling in Canada, with their pay being something commensurate. I want to congratulate the department on one thing, and that is the catering. The catering staff, with all their drawbacks and difficulties, do remarkably well, and I am very sorry to say that they depend rather more on tips than on their actual rate of pay. It is hardly the right way of looking at it, and to say that, if we pay them more, prices of meals will increase. I certainly would rather see a contented staff than be always looking to the margins of profit. I would ask the Minister whether he is determined to tear up the Sea Point line. I admit that if you run the line with the sea on one side and a sparse population on the other—

That question is not now before the House. There is a Bill specially dealing with the matter.

What is the Railway Appropriation Bill dealing with?

That dealing with the Sea Point line.

Surely, on a general Bill for railways like this, there is an amount to pay for the Sea Point line till it is closed up, and surely that brings it within the sphere of our consideration.

The hon. member must abide by my ruling.

Undoubtedly, sir. I have never placed myself in antagonism to the Chair. I was told last night to resume my seat, and I went down in a humble and obedient manner. Very well, if I cannot discuss the Sea Point line I must leave it alone till I can be permitted to discuss it. I think I may refer to a class of article the Government is introducing on the railways. The Minister surely does not require any further evidence as to the waste of money we have had in trying to get cheap goods from Germany, and the inefficiency as material has been demonstrated. Its real cost in the long run has never been gone into. I want to show what in the past has enabled the Germans to compete with British manufacturers who are hated by some sections, at any rate, in this House. A tender was called for engines of a certain class, but there was a time limit. These engines had to be supplied within a period of six months. The British, with that child-like honesty which had dispossessed them of their share in many markets, said: “We cannot supply these engines within the time limit.” The Germans, in that obliging way they have, said: “We can supply within the time.” The result was that the order was placed in Germany. Then what happened? The Germans started sending the working plans back for explanation. That gave them three months, and when the plans reached them again they returned them again for further queries, and the result was that the engines were not ready for nine months. The Germans had very carefully plotted all that out. They very cleverly calculated upon that delay, and the result is that our workshops have been busy with the German stuff and a lot of American stuff, which proved hopelessly expensive. I endorse what the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) has said in regard to the time taken up with repairs, and that this has not been sufficiently taken into account. Experience has taught us that it is far better to spend your money on good material, and keep up the British standards that are wisely set. These standards have become recognized in the trade, so that when you ask for a British standard of excellence, you know what you are getting. There is something more than patriotism in this. I would like to call attention to the bad designing in connection with our railway coaches. I cannot account for the bad design of these coaches, much of it being obsolete. Is it too much to ask those who design our railway carriages to be up to date? Take carriage windows, for instance, so provokingly annoying. Even the cheapest motor-cars have for years been fitted with a simple appliance for lifting and lowering the glass, why not our coaches? Some of the railway lines are not paying, and I would ask the Minister, before he agrees to these lines being pulled up and destroyed, whether the segregating of people could not be observed. If you guarantee a European passenger that he would not be obliged to sit alongside some verminous coloured or native person, the trains would be more patronized. I make a general appeal to those who, fortunately, possess motor-cars to put themselves in the place of those who are prepared to use our railway system of traffic if they could be assured that they were not going to meet that class of people. We should be able to say: “Why should you be ashamed of your own race? Get in amongst your people and lift them up in the social scale.” Certainly we ourselves should not be ashamed of segregation, and if it were laid down that Scotsmen should always travel together, I would say: “Thank heaven, God’s own people are coming together at last.” I am not among those who are simply out to proclaim that our railway staff are fine fellows, because they have votes to give us, but altogether we have a remarkably good staff. I bitterly deplore this wretched minimum wages of the poorer workers. It would really be better for them even to be assisted out of the country. There are other countries in which they would be far happier and infinitely more prosperous. They are fine material. We say to them: “Your minimum wage is under 6s. per day, indeed, we will give you another 3d.” These workers are the very foundation of society, upon which the whole super-structure rests. Until we raise this low rate we are going to have deplorable conditions right through, because it is sporadic in operation and continually spreads further. I am going once more to point out that any railway man can easily make his services 10 per cent, more efficient or 10 per cent, less efficient. Inefficiency when dealing with trucks at a station may easily mean 50 or 60 trucks standing at a station because of even a slight decrease in efficiency. The consequence is an enormous cost, because each truck should be earning so much a day. If we make a comparison with other countries we will find that what is often called cheap does not prove to be so. We should accept a minimum wage of 10s. a day right away. The purchasing power of this country is reduced because we are not paying workers enough. I thank the hon. Minister for what he has accomplished; he has certainly “made good.” I am quite sure that we on these benches have no better intentions than he has. The railway is in a finer condition to-day than it has ever been, and is giving greater satisfaction, and now that we have eliminated those rotten Belgian rails, which are to be only used on sidings, I hope we are in for a period of safety of travel. I hope that it is now realized that it is no use chasing around the world for cheap material.

For those of us who are accustomed every year to listen to the chief speaker of the Opposition on the railway estimates, it was a pleasant change this year to miss the usual tone. Last year the complaint was accidents on the railways. The year before the attack was on civilized labour. This year the opposite has occurred. The chief grievance of the chief speaker of the Opposition is that they do not get enough credit for certain institutions which exist to-day, particularly civilized labour. If I was a member of the South African party, which I never shall be, I should talk as little as possible about this lack of appreciation. I now want to refer to a few points the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) mentioned. The first was that sufficient emphasis was not laid on the progress of the number of white labourers under the South African party Government. I may just point out that the number of white labourers under the white labour system of the South African party was as follows: 1916, 4,200; 1917, 4,325; 1918-, 4,455; 1919, 4,633; 1920, 5,084; 1921, 4,038; 1922, 3,621; and in 1923, 3,182. What splendid progress. It is really a drop of 1,000 during the last eight years of South African party administration. So we see what hope the whites had on the railways under the South African party Government. The hon. member’s second point was the large reduction in railway rates under the South African party administration. First an increase was made in the rates by the previous administration, which, during the five years from 1916 to 1920, amounted to £9,320,000. In the last five years they were in office they reduced the rates by £3,915,648. Now the hon. member talks of splendid reductions, although, in the first place, they increased the rates by £9,320,000. There remains, in any case, an increase of about £5,000,000, which they allowed to remain. That is the way the previous Government went to work with reference to the railway rates. I think the figures speak for themselves and that I need not go into them any further. The other question about which the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) is concerned, and for which the previous Government has not got sufficient appreciation, is the electrification of the railways. I am glad that he now makes the admission that they are responsible for the electrification. I want to refer to the figures in connection with the electrified lines. The Sea Point line shows an annual loss of nearly £50.000, and the loss on the suburban line is estimated at from £250,000 to £300,000 Hon. members opposite know that the electrification in Natal, according to the preliminary figures available, will show no benefit. It may be, as hon. members say, that more traffic is possible on that line than would be the case with steam, but, in any case, the line shows no profit. The costs per ton mile have hitherto been 0.389d. for steam, against 0.40d. per ton mile with the electrical line up to June, 1928, after which it drooped to 0.3676d. per ton mile for the electrified line for the last ten months. That, therefore, is the position in spite of what the Opposition say. In two cases there is a loss, and in the case of the third electrical line no profit is made. Those of us who take an interest in the transportation systems of the world, and more particularly in those of South Africa, listened with pleasure to the speech of the Minister of Railways and Harbours and read the report of the general manager of railways and harbours with like pleasure—because both speech and report show that our railway system, notwithstanding severe competition, is going ahead. They also testify to the possibilities of growth in the future. This gives us as representatives of the people and taxpayers reason to be proud of the system which has been woven and worked into the national life. In connection with the satisfaction which our railway system gives, I may quote the words which were recently used by a well-known railway expert, Sir John Thorny-croft in which he praised the way the South African Railways had done their share in developing the country. In this the particular aspect of the constitution and co-operation is dealt with, and we have enough evidence from other persons that our railway system can legitimately be praised. The causes of these praises and the fact that our railway system can grow and develop notwithstanding competition, is, in my opinion, chiefly to be found in the welfare of the people as a whole, the attitude which the traffic system takes up towards producers and consumers, the economic working and administration of the railway system, and finally the state of mind or attitude of the railway workers. The latter is a factor which has tremendously contributed to push the great railway system of South Africa. When I admit that, and praise the staff together with the Minister and the general manager, I want to give attention to the action of the administration to get the goodwill of the workers. I particularly want to do this because hon. members, like the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay), are continually hammering on the point that the railway men in South Africa are treated as inferiors. First of all, I want to draw attention to the action of the Administration with regard to the housing of railway men. In 1921 the building of 53 railway houses was approved; in 1922, 18; in 1923, 44; and since the present Government came into power in 1924, 109; in 1925, 283: 1926, 101; in 1927, 163—and at the end of 1927 there were still 99 houses under construction. We know that this is one of the chief existing needs, especially where there is no proper opportunity for hiring houses. Therefore, I do not only want to thank the Administration, but I want to point out that it has done its best to meet the railway men in this respect. The second is the sympathetic distribution of the profits made by the railways. At the moment there can only be two parties who can benefit from the profits made by the Railway Administration, after provision is made for the inherent working and other costs of the service. The two parties are the users of the railway and the workers. In what way has the railway management met the workers? In 1926 the Administration improved the position of the railway men to such an extent that it meant an amount of £500,000. In the Bill now under discussion the workers are again being assisted and given the prospect that improvements up to an amount of £162,000 will be introduced. There are however not only the direct earnings, however welcome they may be. When the railway men have to leave the service the superannuation and pension funds are of great importance to them, and here again the railway management has very much assisted the workers. In 1924 the Railway Service Act was passed which contained particularly favourable conditions. The year after the Superannuation Fund Bill, and the Pensions Bill were considered, by which an increased amount of £60,000 was immediately paid into the funds for the benefit of the pensionable workers. Other improvements were made in this respect to a considerable extent. It should be added that the fund had deficits of quite £4,000,000, and the Government at once decided to make grants to put them on a sounder basis. In this connection £1,231,700 was paid into the deficit in the pensions fund. In 1928 the Railway Gratuity Act was passed for the benefit of the workers who were not benefited under the former Acts. I must point out that not only therefore have the conditions of service been improved, but the needs of the pensions and superannuation funds which, when taken over by this Government, were in a particularly unfavourable position, were provided for. I want however also to express my thanks for the appointment of officials who make direct enquiries into the grievances of people. Sufficient emphasis cannot be laid on the value of immediate enquiry into grievances by officials who are not concerned in the matter, and who are not the immediate superiors of the persons having the grievances. This gives more satisfaction, and convinces the railway servant that a sympathetic enquiry and not a partial one is taking place. Then there is the fact that the railway administration has given work to about 20,000 Europeans and some thousands of coloured people. The fact that the State no longer maintains the interpretation that the last Government gave to the Constitution, namely that the only aspect with the railway system should be the capitalistic standpoint, but that at present the administration shows a little bit of feeling and humanity in its control, means much to the people. One thing is very often greatly emphasized, namely that the railways are a national asset. I myself think that that view is not justified to-day. The Minister will agree when I say that what we have to-day is a transportation system in the hands of the State, but not a national asset, not an asset in the sense of a national possession. If there is one characteristic of the attitude of the administration which pleases me more than anything else it is that the administration has made a really national system of the system. I want the distinction to be understood. The Government took over an administration in connection with which the action in the past was not always in my opinion good. I do not think it is necessary to go into details, but we know how there was no stability, how the rates mounted up and then dropped, sometimes by great leaps, how subsequently civilized labour was adopted, and then again another policy adopted and native labour employed. The whole attitude of the previous Government was one of inconsistent opportunism, and I consider it as one of the greatest services which the present Government has rendered the country that it has made a national system of it, that it is a system to serve the people in the true sense, I want to draw attention to a few aspects. More than ever before has the railway system become so bound up and intertwined with the national life that the development of the people without the railway system is unthinkable. I am now thinking of the railways as a means of taking the goods of the producer to the consumer. The goods are not left at the stations but are more and more being collected at the front or back door of the producer, and taken to the consumer, or to the inland market, or to the coast. And they are not even left there. Provision is even made for the further distribution to take place under proper control. I think that is one of the outstanding merits of the Administration. But not only are the transport and marketing of the produce organized for the producer, but the railway system also provides for the needs of the consumer at his back or front door. In extraordinary circumstances the Railway Administration has during recent years, provided in a brilliant manner for the needs of the country. I have already mentioned the employment of a large number of civilized labourers. At the moment the position is that there are about 56,000 Europeans and a smaller number of non-Europeans, notwithstanding the fact that we are an African state and in other African systems the Europeans form but a small minority. With us the percentage of Europeans is about 60, and the railways pay no less than £15,696,000 to the staff. Not only do the lower grades of the staff enjoy the benefits of that, but provision is also made for the most promising and brilliant young men being trained in order to occupy the highest appointments in the railway system, which is another merit of the present Administration. Now an attempt is being made to train up our youth as efficient artisans which was not the case before. When I have said that in regard to the development of the railway system then I of course do not wish to convey that there are not dangers against which even the present Administration should be warned. One is the competition which has often been discussed and in connection with which the Government is now also making enquiries. But in addition the Administration unfortunately inherited a number of assets which to-day cause high working costs. Anyone who knows anything of the electrification system knows that e.g. the Natal system is altogether too high, that the provision of electrical power is quite too high to-day. This is partly due to the advice that overseas people gave the previous Government. It is even to a great extent owing to that. The previous Administration adopted the attitude that there were no engineers in South Africa who could advise the railways, and in consequence not only were hundreds of thousands of pounds spent oversea for advice, but estimates were made and work carried out which were much too expensive, such as the Durban harbour, and the Durban grain elevator. I should like to emphasize that our Administration should bear in mind the competition and on too high working costs as the result of the factors mentioned. The criticism opposite is constantly made that the costs are too high. I think it is only right that the House and the public should be informed what the position of those costs was during the past years. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) is almost right when he gives the figures for the increases in the past number of years, but he of course takes the expenditure for the following year and then he connects it up with this debate. I, on the other hand, take it to the end of the current financial year, and then I find an increase of a little more than £1,000,000 a year. I have also tried to take the increases under the previous administration, but unfortunately we cannot choose any year where the Opposition does not say that it was an extraordinary year—owing to war or depression. They always take it as a fig leaf or smoke screen to shield behind. Therefore I have chosen two normal years, namely, 1911-12 and 1913-’14, and although the increases are less they are also more than £1.000.000 a year. Then there was not even a civilized labour policy as yet. I should like the Minister to give us the increases between 1912 and 1927. Let me now enquire under what heads the chief increases took place. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) mentioned firstly interest on capital. The total capital has been increased in our time by about £28,000,000 which has involved an increase in interest of £1,098,000 for the five years. If a charge is made in this respect, and if at the same time it is not stated what the money was spent on, then it is absolutely no charge. During the five years there was tremendous development on our railways. The length of line was increased by 1,550 miles, and the staff by quite 13,000. In 1924 the staff numbered 84,800, and in 1928 the number was 98,000 for railways, harbours and steamships. With an increase of 13,000 in the staff one would expect a considerable increase in salaries and wages. The increase was about £3,000,000, from £12,500,000 in 1924 to £15,696,000 in 1928. If merely the increase is criticized without proving that there is too large a staff or that the wages are too high the argument has no force. When then various speakers state further that the wages are not high enough, I need not go any further into this side of the matter. Then there were increases in expenditure owing to the neglect by the Opposition of special services. It is easy to have money in your pocket if you do not pay your debts, and when the speaker for the previous Administration refers to their economy without pointing out their arrear debts, then I do not want to call it wilful dishonesty, but it looks very much like it. The obligations on the present Administration as the result of that old policy were as follows: contributions to deficit in the pensions fund, £287,000 a year; reductions of interest-bearing capital, £250,090 a year; contributions to the renewal fund approximately £300,000, and contributions to the betterment fund, £100,000. These facts, however, are suppressed by the Opposition. Then there are various new services. The railway road motor services involve an extra expenditure of £285,000; tourist traffic, £26,050. and grain elevators approximately £200,000. This brings the expenditure under the five heading to about £6,000,000 more, and leaves only about £1,000,000 over for development in other directions. When we can make this statement about the way money is spent I have no hesitation in going to the people and letting them judge. A matter I should like to deal with is the question by how much the present Administration has spent too much. I have already shown that a larger mileage amounting to 1,550 miles must be maintained, and in this connection I may state with regard to the economic working of the railway that the number of workmen per open mile was 6.3 in 1923-’24 and in 1927-’28, 6.6, or an increase of less than 5 per cent. Here, however, mention must be made of the increase in traffic of all kinds as mentioned by the general manager in his report. The number of officials per 1,000 ton miles was 1.52 in 1923-’24, and 1.42 in 1926-’27, an actual reduction. The maintenance costs per train mile were as follows: 1923-’24, 8s. 4.5d.; 1924-’25, 8s. 4.5d.; 1925 ’26, 8s. 5.4d.; 1926-’27, 8s. 6.9d.; and 1927-’28, 8s. 5.9d. That is a small increase of 1d. per mile in spite of the civilized labour policy and of so much overtime work. It was the custom during recent years to compare the relation of the revenue used for running costs with overseas countries. The Minister has already pointed out on a previous occasion that in this case it is not at all applicable because we practically have a white staff—60 per cent, of the whole. I have taken trouble to get information about the actual relation, and when a comparison with Kenya is made I want to point out that only a small section of it is European and the greater portion is native. If hon. members opposite want to criticize the working expenses and will use this basis then they will have to answer to the public why they would rather have native labour instead of white labour. I think we are very much indebted to the Administration, which has not only carried on the large railway system economically under difficult circumstances, but has increased it so as to become more and more a part of the life of the people. We are also indebted to the Government and the Administration for having used a delicate scale to divide the profits between the two great factors, the users of and the workers on the railway.

There was a little trouble in my constituency over the matter of the want of reserved compartments for coloured and native people. Representations were made to the Administration, and these were dealt with satisfactorily, up to a point. I am sure that when the opportunity arises the Minister will pursue this policy further, not only in the interests of the Europeans, but also in the interests of the native and coloured population. I hope that the Minister will give close attention to the re-grading of the eastern system. It is a big question, I know, but it is a matter that must be faced, and I am sure that when the line is re-graded it will prove an economical proposition. It is a matter of very considerable importance, particularly to East London, which is rightly claimed to be one of the most charming watering places in the Union. It makes a considerable difference to the people coming down from the country whether they have to spend one night or two nights in a train. I am sure that the Minister will do everything within his power to maintain the high reputation of our railways system for the comfort of travellers. In this connection I fully endorse the favourable opinions expressed by overseas visitors. I think we have reason to be proud of this. I would like to reserve any further compliments to the Minister until after I have dealt with two or three other little matters. There was one thing which filled me with very considerable concern, and that was that when my esteemed colleague, the hon. member for East London (City) (the Rev. Mr. Rider), made an urgent appeal to have justice done to one of his constituents, his appeal was received with smiles. You may have beard that a very wise man has said, “there is no better way of judging a man’s character than by observing what he smiles at —what he finds amusing.” When a man feels he has been the subject of a great injustice, and his representative brings it before the last and highest court of appeal in the land, namely, Parliament, it should not be received with smiles; and I regret to say that these smiles were not confined to one portion of the Government benches—both portions smiled. One should be jealous of the reputation of Parliament, and all such cases should be properly received and considered. The case was referred to a select committee, and that committee, having found that they could go no further, adjourned and a motion was carried by an unanimous vote of that committee, the members of which represented all parties requesting the production of the report of the departmental enquiry. These papers were refused, the acting Minister of Railways taking up a very strong attitude, and even threatening to resign if the motion ordering their production were carried. This House will always be indulgent to any government that is sympathetic in cases like this. If the Government could say that the production of these papers was not in the public interest—I should like to ask the Minister now not to lay these papers on the Table of the House, but to allow members interested in the matter to peruse them. It will be a great satisfaction to members who are interested to feel and know that McTaggart’s case has been fairly dealt with. If there were reasons for not making this departmental report public, is there any reason now for not doing justice in this matter. Is this unfortunate individual to bear the whole brunt of some weak administrative actions? We are not asking for mercy, but for justice. I will tell the Minister that if he desires further information, there are a large number of McTaggart’s colleagues who are willing to give evidence. I do not know whether that evidence will be in favour of McTaggart or not, but these colleagues of his have volunteered to give it. After all, McTaggart was a colleague of the Minister in the running of the railways, and if he wants to get the best possible service out of his humbler colleagues, he must do them justice, and if an injustice has been done he should be willing to re-open the matter. We would not like to have to tell our constituents that when we urged this matter, we were met by a non-possumus attitude on the part of the Government. We do not want to do that. We are very jealous of the reputation of Parliament. We want our constituents to know that a case such as this will be received sympathetically, and not with smiles and laughter. The Minister made a great point that he desired to know the source of my hon. colleague’s information. Does that affect the matter in the least? Surely the hon. the Minister is more concerned with the truth of these things. My hon. colleague has offered to give the Minister such particulars as will enable him to investigate these statements, and see if they are correctly represented. The Minister can have the names; my colleague has promised them. The source doer not matter. It is something new in Parliamentary practice that an hon. member in bringing a matter to the notice of the Government should be expected to disclose the source of his information. In the course of an investigation, it will come out whether the statements made are true or not, and the Minister should be satisfied with that. It is inevitable that we should be rather suspicious when the Minister makes such a point of enquiring what the source of an hon. member’s information is, instead of dealing frankly with the request for reconsideration. The source does not affect the matter in the least, and we do not want the main point to be side-tracked. The main point is that there were a considerable number of derelictions of duty of a somewhat similar character to that of McTaggart’s, and my colleague tried to draw a comparison between the treatment meted out in some of these cases and most severe punishment meted out to McTaggart. It is a drastic punishment for a man with 27 years’ good service to his credit to be suddenly thrown on the world and deprived of his pension. I am led to understand that his contributions to the superannuation fund were offered to him, provided he signed a statement prohibiting him from making any further claim. Look at the condition of the poor man. Living on his monthly wage, he was thrown on the world with a wife and family, and to live as best he could. What position was he in to meet the temptation of getting £200 ready cash on the condition that its acceptance meant he was satisfied with the settlement and could not go any further. I want to put up a strong case for the re-opening of the whole position. We should like an opportunity of perusing the departmental report if the Minister finds he is unable to give publicity to it; but we do want the employees of the railway to feel that when they come to this House, they will get a fair hearing. It will be difficult when we get back to East London to persuade them that they have had it. Unless the Minister will re-open the matter, and give it his personal attention. I am sure it will make his path and that of his successors much easier if all his employees are satisfied that if they have a grievance it will be enquired into and of a genuine one it will be remedied; at all events, they will have the knowledge that matters they bring forward are gone into. Can we say that McTaggart has that knowledge? Thousands of his colleagues are watching the result of the representations made on his behalf. I ask the Minister to investigate this matter, and see if it is not possible for this man to be less harshly treated.

I wish to take advantage of the opportunity afforded by this Bill to publicly thank the Minister and the Railway Administration for the attitude taken up by them in connection with the recent strike on the railways in Southern Rhodesia. I shudder to contemplate what would have been the result under the previous Government. There is little doubt that if the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) had been in the saddle while this dispute was in progress, the Union railwaymen would have been used to try and break the strike. Instead of that, the men in Rhodesia have been able to settle their industrial difficulties and differences by the methods of reason. What a contrast from the methods that were adopted in this country in 1913 and 1914. I had communications from the general secretary of the railway union in Rhodesia long before it was expected that the Rhodesian railwaymen would have to strike in order to secure a measure of justice, and he pointed out then what difficulties would ensue if the Railway Administration of the Union did not remain neutral in their dispute. It is to the credit of our Minister and our Administration that they did not interfere in any way. I hope the Minister of Railways will give favourable consideration to the plea put up by the hon. member for East London (City) (the Rev. Mr. Rider) on behalf of Sandy McTaggart, but it should not be forgotten that the unfortunate position McTaggart now finds himself in is largely due to the agitation of the South African party politicians and their press [interruption]. I knew you would not like that. It was just about the time when the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), supported by the majority of the members on the Opposition side of the House, made the country ring regarding accidents that were happening on the Union railways. Even if they did not go so far as to ask that every servant responsible for an accident should be made an example of, they certainly suggested such a course. Notwithstanding this, if the hon. member for East London (City) (the Rev. Mr. Rider) will adopt the method most hon. members pursue—that is, to make representation direct to the Minister of Railways—

I have seen him a dozen times.

—I am sure the hon. member will meet with the same measure of success that other hon. members have met with in similar circumstances. It is altogether unjust that McTaggart, who, I understand, has 27 years unbroken service, should be turned off the railways without a penny of pension. I do not, however, agree that the House should re try this case, or that the Railway Administration should produce the papers for that purpose. McTaggart was dealt with under the railway regulations, and a charge of overrunning the points was enquired into by a departmental committee, the members of which were no doubt influenced by what was happening at the time, and poor old McTaggart was a victim of the agitation.

Nonsense.

What a compliment you are paying to your own Minister.

All you want to do is to make party political capital. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) came to my constituency and told a number of half-truths in connection with the case. He said I had sinned against the sunlight in voting down the petition of a railwayman. I did nothing of the kind. The attempt made on that side to insist upon the production of the papers was not in the interests of the McTaggart petition, and if the hon. member for East London (City) will go the right way about it I am sure he will be doing a service to McTaggart.

I tried in a dozen ways to follow the hon. member’s sage advice.

I was rather pleased at the moderate language used by the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn) in proposing his amendment, but I do not think he should have gone out of his way to say that he did not want any more misrepresentations from the Minister of Defence. The Minister is not in the habit of misrepresenting anything—

Not yesterday?

I think the hon. member spoilt an otherwise good case by introducing observations of that kind. He also said that he always came away dissatisfied after any interview he had with the present Minister of Railways.

I did not. I did not say anything of the kind.

Then my hearing must be at fault. If I have been mistaken I am sorry. My experience has been the reverse. I have always found the Railway Minister—in contra-distinction from the previous Minister— at all times prepared to hear reasonable representations. The hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates) nods his head in agreement. He also has found that not only the Minister of Railways but all the other Ministers of the present Government are approachable, and that if you put up a reasonable proposition, you meet with a fair measure of success. Quite different from the Mussolini tactics of the previous Minister. When the very matter embodied in the amendment of the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) was under consideration, the Salstaff Association approached the ex-Minister of Railways. Take an extract from the “Salstaff Bulletin.” In reply to Mr. Banks, the secretary, Mr. Jagger said—

That was the method of the previous Minister. Circumstances alter all cases, and there is a considerable contrast between the criticism of the hon. member for Umbilo to-day and the praise bestowed by him, when the Railway Appropriation Bill of 1926 was under consideration. On that occasion, according to “Hansard,” he said—

I said so this afternoon.

The position was appreciated then, but to-day we have conditions stipulated before we may vote supplies. The seconder of the amendment was also pf a different opinion then. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) on the same occasion said—

We do not hear any praise of that kind now from the mover and seconder.

We said it this afternoon.

To-day they tell us that the railways are seething with discontent. The railwaymen, I submit, are reasonable men, and in the words of the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates), they are prepared to take instalments of the Hours of Duty Committee report towards the betterment of their conditions; to be thankful for concessions for the time being, and to hope for more. I just wish to deal briefly with the amendment. Let us take the items seriatim. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) proposes that in carrying into effect in full the report of the Hours of Duty Committee each day’s work shall stand by itself for overtime purposes. We all know perfectly well it is not possible to put the whole of that committee’s report into operation at the present time; and it can only be for electioneering purposes that this amendment is moved. There is no one more opposed to the departure from the cardinal principle of trades unionism of each day standing by itself than I am. I have frequently called attention in this House to the anomaly, and I was hopeful that circumstances would permit of the Minister being able to restore the position of each day standing by itself; but it must not be forgotten that the pool system of a 96 hours’ fortnight for drivers and firemen and a 108 hours’ fortnight for ticket examiners and guards was recommended in the Hours of Duty Committee report itself, and even if the Minister accepts that part of the amendment to put into effect the full report of the committee, it will not be getting away from each day standing by itself. But I do hope that when the general election has been duly held in June, the Pact Government is returned, with increased strength, and the prosperity of the country continues as it is doing to-day, the matter of restoring to railwaymen the principle of each day standing by itself will be favourably considered.

Will ye no’ come back again?

Oh, there is no question about that! Perhaps the majority of voters in my constituency are railwaymen who may not be altogether satisfied. As the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) once said “they never will be satisfied”; and quite right; I do not agree with the workers being satisfied. If to insist upon better conditions for the workers is agitation, I am rather pleased to admit that I am an agitator. The hon. member who moved the amendment also wants the wage for civilized labour to be not less than 10s. a day. I am sure every member on this side would like to see-that brought about. I know every member of the party to which I belong would desire to see such a condition of affairs, but, after all, it is wholly a financial question, and the finances of the railways at present will not permit of this being done beyond the extent already provided for. Our railwaymen are not unreasonable in their demands. Now we come to the restoration of the long service increment, and to apply the provisions of Section (28) of Act 3 of 1925 to those railwaymen who went on strike in 1913. I have repeatedly tried to induce the Minister to wipe the slate clean in so far as all railway strikes are concerned. The hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson) brought forward a petition in 1923 on behalf of seven railwaymen in Natal who participated in a strike of Natal Government railway employees in April, 1909, praying for the restoration of service prior to the strike, and other relief. This duly came before the Pensions, Grants and Gratuities Committee, who decided that the services of these seven men should be condoned for all purposes. The report of the Committee was agreed to by the House, but when the Bill was brought forward to give effect to the committee’s recommendation, the Minister of Lands, Col. Reitz, who was chairman of the committee, after having agreed to the recommendation, moved to omit the words “and all other”. This meant the condonation of the break in the services of these seven men for pensionable purposes only, but not for all other purposes. To this amendment Mr. Boydell moved a further amendment to substitute the words, “and long service increment.” That was defeated by 45 votes to 23, and I mention this to let the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) know how much support to expect from his newly-found friends in connection with getting the breaks in service condoned “for all other purposes.” The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) voted against that, and so did the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close), the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti), the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Nicholls), the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (South) (Mr. O’Brien), and the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus). Further, the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) is not in favour of condoning the breaks in the service of railwaymen who went out on strike “for all other purposes,” nor the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl). The hon. member for Umbilo can therefore expect little support from hon. members on that side of the House.

Is the Government in favour of doing it?

You would say that you were in favour of anything, whatever it was, if it suited the situation, as far as you were concerned, for the time being. The hon. member for Umbilo has given an interview to one of the Durban daily newspapers—he was never really happy except when referring to this paper as “the polecat of Natal”—but when it suits the aims and objerts of my hon. friend he has no hesitation in stating his views therein. The hon. member for Umbilo, commenting on the motion he intended to bring forward, which is now embodied in his amendment, said he was not sure about the details, but he heard on the best authority that the concession included 1s. a day extra for labourers, an improvement in the hours as recommended by the Hours of Duty Committee in 1927, and some concession to the artisans, which would probably amount to 1s. a day. Now this is where the purpose of the interview comes in. He goes on to say—

When the House adjourned, I had finished endeavouring to expose the altogether foolish attempts being made by our ertswhile Labour comrades to show to people outside that they are the only champions inside this House of the rights of the workers. It is all very cheap and nasty. I feel certain that the railway workers generally will accept what has been done for them under this budget and, like Oliver Twist, will continue to ask for more. The clerical workers will welcome the concession that has been made to them. The civilized labourers will appreciate the measure of justice which has been provided in the shape of increased pay, and the transportation staff will be pleased that the booking-on and booking-off times are to be included in the 96 hours’ fortnight. Now I want to touch on one or two parochial matters. I ask the Minister to complete what is otherwise a splendid and necessary improvement to the railway station at Maritzburg by erecting a roof on the island platform. I wish the Minister to give attention to the condition of the hutments at the old military camp at Fort Napier. The Minister and the Railway Board visited that place recently. The situation is perhaps the finest in Natal—every prospect pleases, but only the hutments are vile. I would like the Minister to take into favourable consideration the clearing of that fine site and making it into a real railway camp. While the Minister and the Railway Board were in Natal representations were submitted by all the public bodies in Maritzburg in connection with the extension of the railway workshops, and it was contended, and I think rightly, that Maritzburg is not getting its fair share in that respect when compared with what is being done at Germiston, Bloemfontein and other places. The Minister I hope is prepared to give Maritzburg the share in railway development that its importance as a railway centre entitles it to.

I do not think I will deal with the hon. member. One feels sorry for our old friend. He is in a very awkward position. We will leave him there. I do not want to carry on this stupid wrangle which my hon. friend has raised. I want to thank the Minister and the Government for what they have done in bringing the points and crossings shops to Bloemfontein. There will be employed, I understand, 300 or 400 men. I would like to ask the Minister what is the Government going to do with regard to the big central railway workshops. I am rather afraid, because I am not so certain as I was that the Government are coming back, but I hope they will come back. My hon. friend for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) is always sour about Port Elizabeth, that has been spoon-fed by every government and has never done well. If it bad not been for the Free State, there would have been no Port Elizabeth. What are you going to do about these railway workshops? We are just spending £100,000 in Bloemfontein for houses for your men out of our own pockets. We are the only place in South Africa which does this sort of thing. We have spent £1,000,000 and a large portion of it has gone towards housing Government servants. The railways are not doing their duty towards Bloemfontein. The Minister has built very few houses. I understand the points and crossing shops will employ at least 300 men. We shall house 100 at our own expense, at cheap rentals. What is the Minister going to do about the other 200? They will find it very difficult to get homes because the town is growing. I want the Minister to make a statement in this regard before the election. It does not make the slightest difference in regard to votes. There are a number of men there who cannot get homes. Will the Minister say whether he is prepared not only in Bloemfontein, but everywhere else, to build more houses for railwaymen? I would also like to ask whether he cannot see his way clear—I know the Government cannot accept the amendment—to meet us in these matters. Take the 1914 strikers. There are only about 20 men involved, men who were loyal to the Government. I want to ask the Minister of Defence whether he will help us in this question. The Minister smiles.

You are very comical.

The Minister has caused a good deal of laughter in his time, unwittingly caused it. We will leave it at that. I am not blaming the Minister but his friend at his back. If he will leave him alone for two minutes I will leave him alone for a year. Can the Minister of Railways help these men? There are a number in my constituency, men who have done very good work on the railways, but they cannot get promotion because they took part in the strikes. The rebels who took part in the reform movement in the Transvaal and were sentenced to death sat in this House. Why not have these unfortunate railwaymen, who did far less, properly treated? With regard to dual pay, the Minister knows it is a difficult position for us members of Parliament to be told day after day there are two men doing the same type of work, one getting a pound and the other 18s. Surely the Government can do something even on this “tickey” budget. The Minister will admit that I represent a large number of railwaymen and he will also admit that I am one of the very few men who do not worry him much, but when I have seen him here I have asked him about putting certain grievances right, I have never been able to get one put right yet. It is a bad record. We heard my hon. friend (the Rev. Mr. Rider) sob stuff for an hour. His case is nothing. I have a case which is much worse than his. I have done exactly as the hon. member has done, but have not come to the House about it, and made a song about one case. The party sitting there has gone into the McTaggart case. The Minister is one of those fortunate people who can promise the world everything, and never carry out his promise—and get away with it. He can go wherever he likes in South Africa, and people say, “What a wonderful Minister!” He never carries out his promises, but remains the most popular railway Minister in the House. Some day he will be caught out, and they will find the pea under the thimble. How the Minister does it I do not know. I ask it for the last time, because I fear the Minister may not be here again.

And what about yourself?

I am one of those fortunate people who have the knack of always getting in.

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) on his very humorous speech this afternoon, but cannot congratulate the Government on their new ’mbongo. While listening to his explanation of the McTaggart case it was forcibly brought home to my mind the truth of the old saying of: “ Save me from my friends.” The hon. member agreed the very gravest wrong had been done to an old railwayman, but added it was owing to the criticism of the South African party and the Press. What an admission to make! We knew the Minister was not faultless, but had not realized he was so weak. I want to congratulate the management of the railways on the result of last year’s working which has produced a very fair surplus, and also established a record as far as the amount of traffic handled is concerned. There is also the pleasant feature that the serious epidemic of railway accidents which at one time assumed rather alarming proportions has been alleviated, and when one knows the amount of wire-pulling that goes on in the service at the present time, one recognizes the difficulty of proper control. In spite of that I am sure the management will continue to endeavour to make our railways as safe as any in the world. I was glad that the Minister was able to give some relief as far as railway rates are concerned, and I am sure that farmers will appreciate the reductions on power paraffin, wool and mohair, but I think the Minister should also consider the reduction of rates on perishable products. I know this is considered low-rated traffic, but the railage considerably reduces the farmer’s profit, which, at the best of times, is very small on that class of produce. Altogether the producer’s expenses in connection with the sale of his produce amounts to about one-third of the net return, and of this, one-half goes to railway rates. The production of this produce should be helped in every way. It encourages farmers to go in for side lines; it produces the monthly cheque which is so necessary for the poorer farmer and has a great tendency to reduce the cost of living in the towns. I want to congratulate the Minister and the Board, which I always do when I think they are right, on turning down the offer of a private company to build rolling Stock in South Africa under certain conditions. If the offer had been accepted, it would have proved fatal to our existing workshops and some of our quite large workshop centres would have dwindled down to mere repairing depôts. We can build coaches and trucks in our workshops better and cheaper than any private concern can, either here or overseas. To do this we must have a comprehensive building programme in our workshops for at least five years. Repeatedly I have drawn the Minister’s attention in the House to the fact that at certain seasons of the year, when every vehicle is required to be put into traffic, some of our carriage depots are practically idle. During certain periods no coach is allowed to go in for repairs and if there be no new work the men are put on odd jobs. This occurs time after time, and is an expensive and disgraceful state of affairs. At Uitenhage we have a well-equipped and modern carriage depot, capable of accommodating more than double the present staff, and no doubt this also applies to other centres; and yet year after year, Parliament is asked to vote, as we are asked to vote this year, large sums of money for the purchase of rolling stock overseas. Every one of which could and should be built here. I know the Minister will say that he wants quick delivery; that has always been his cry. What is wanted is a Minister of vision who will look to the future, and think not only of to-day. In the general manager’s report on page 94 we see that 53 coaches were built in 1927-’28, as compared with 58 for the previous year. Evidently, in spite of what the Minister said of the quality of the work turned out in our workshops, we are building less and less in South Africa. There is no doubt that the workshops have always been the Cinderella of the railway service. But the time has arrived when we must take immediate action to alter this. In the general manager’s report we see the following—

This paragraph, or words to the same effect, has appeared year after year, but unless the Minister is prepared to find the money it is useless to expect the chief mechanical engineer to do justice to his department. And here I should like to say that Col. Collins has never been treated fairly in this respect. In regard to the centre which I represent, we see the following in the general manager’s report—

And then the report goes on to say that a modern underframe shop with the latest appliances is required. A new iron foundry, and a new and larger pattern shop and store, and also new office accommodation are required. In regard to the office accommodation, I should like to emphasize that the present building is not only inadequate, but absolutely congested and insanitary. No mere patchwork will do any good. What is wanted is a new erecting shop, with cranes able to do the work. I wish now to refer to the staff, and I must say very regretfully that there is a good deal of discontent, and consequently the efficiency is not as good as it should be. Differentiation in pay and treatment are largely responsible for this, and to-day the service is so full of anomalies that it is quite impossible to get efficient and contented work. When is the Minister going to introduce that very sound policy of equal pay for equal work, and when are our South African tradesmen going to receive the standard rate of pay of 20s. per day? When is the Minister going to apply the Wage Act to the railway services? In my opinion the State should lead in that respect. To show how far the differentiation is carried out I will give two examples. The staff clerks at Pretoria and Durban are in the same grade. At Salt River, which is the biggest depot in the Union, the staff clerk is on a grade lower and the staff clerk at Uitenhage is a grade lower than Salt River or two grades lower than Durban or Pretoria. This cannot be justified, and I should like to ask the Minister on what basis these men are graded. I want to give another example. There are two men in the same workshop, working similar machines; one gets £1 per day, and the other 16s. 4d. On a certain job the higher-paid man is allowed forty minutes to complete the work, but the lower-paid man is allowed 15 minutes. On another piece of work the higher-paid man is allowed 70 minutes, and the lower-paid man 30 minutes. From these figures it will be seen that one employee is not only penalized as far as wages are concerned, but he actually performs more work. The men concerned do not object to doing extra work. The reason they are performing this work so expediously is because of the fact that certain articles had to be manufactured in the shop as cheaply as possible, and, like good South Africans, they agreed to this, in order that the articles might be manufactured in this country. They now think that as they have proved their efficiency, they should get the standard rate of pay 18s. per day. I wish to say a few words in regard to the civilized labour policy, and in that connection I wish to back up what the hon. member for Harbour (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) said, that although the Minister always takes full credit for this scheme, it was really the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) who initiated this policy. The official who was really responsible for its inauguration is Mr. Hill, who is system manager at Port Elizabeth, and was the chief staff assistant. I do not say that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) would have gone nearly as far as the present Minister has, but there is no doubt that this policy was tried while he was in office. I was very glad to see that the Minister has agreed to give this grade a slight increase, but my quarrel with the Minister is that he does not go far enough. I know that at the present time anyone who joins the railway service joins it as a civilized labourer, and, naturally, many of them soon pass out of that grade, and no doubt that is the reason why it was stated that so many of them are promoted. In the workshops we have hundreds of men who have served three, four, and five years, but who are very little better off than when they entered the service. There should be some means by which these men can improve their position, even if it is only as far as pay is concerned. A case has been brought to my notice which illustrates the difficulty these men have in getting promotion. The man in question applied for promotion on the 24th of July, 1927. He asked for a grade, and the reply he got was that there was no vacancy to which he could be promoted. Nine months afterwards he wrote again, and he was told that there was no vacancy. In the following year he applied once more, stating that he had been employed in the department for 3½ years, and was in receipt of 6s. 3d. per day. He also stated that he had a large family to feed and clothe, and that rents were high. He got a reply stating—

The man then wrote saying that at the time he received his education, it was not customary to issue certificates in regard to the standards passed, and that the principal of the school he attended had been dead many years, so that he was unable to produce documents of any kind. He added that as regards his capability, at his work the mechanic with whom he had worked would be pleased to give all information. The man got the following reply—

The applicant, in answering this, said he was 46 years of age, and was 18 years of age when he left school. He asked if it was not rather late in life for him to sit for an examination. That is a typical case, typical of hundreds of other cases. Here the Government is asking a poor white labourer who can only expect promotion in some unskilled grade to sit for an examination. Recently a certain section of the railway service objected to examinations, and I think the department has gone examination mad to ask a man to sit for an examination for an unskilled grade. There is another very objectionable practice in the railway service, and that is to keep men in acting grades indefinitely, although they are filling definite posts. This is most unfair, and prevents a man from obtaining certain privileges to which he is entitled as soon as he is graded. If an employee were called upon to serve three or six months to prove his efficiency, nothing could be said against the probationary period, but some have been acting for years and yet the Chief Mechanical Engineer refuses to sanction their promotion. I hope the Minister is listening.

The gallery is.

That is where my hon. friend will be after the next election. Let me give instances. J. J. Nel has been acting as a skilled labourer for nearly two years, and he is not graded. J. A. Nel has been acting for two and a half years and is not graded. And another man has been acting for nearly three years and is not graded. I can give the Minister dozens of similar cases, of deserving men who have been recommended for promotion by the officer in charge of the department, and the officer in Pretoria refuses to sanction the promotion. I ask the Minister how an employee can be expected to give of his best if the chief head of his department deliberately refuses to grant him promotion to which he is entitled, and for which he has been constantly recommended by his immediate head. I have another matter to mention, and I say quite deliberately that if the treatment complained of is allowed to continue, neither the pension nor the emoluments of any man in the service will be safe. The first case I wish to refer to is that of a man who joined the service as a labourer sixteen years ago. By faithful and efficient discharge of his duties, he worked his way up until he attained the grade of 14s. 4d. per day. A little over two years ago, on the advice of the railway medical officer, owing to a slight touch of rheumatism of the knee, he was put to work on a drilling machine, and he would have been working on it now if the Minister had not decided to import boilers instead of manufacturing them in this country. As there was no more work for this machine he was put in the generator-room where he gave entire satisfaction. Suddenly without any warning he received a letter stating that unless he agreed to accent a reduction of 3s. 8d. per day in his pay—that is from 14s. 4d. to 10s. 8d. —he would be retired from the service on the ground of permanent ill-health.

Why didn’t he appeal to the Board.

I think he did appeal to the Board.

Surely you don’t hold me responsible, unless the man appeals to the Board.

He appealed to the Minister.

Why do you waste time like this?

If the Minister is not interested in the men in his department—

I am interested in the men following the regulations.

The man is no longer in the service.

You are not serving the interests of the men now.

The man received a letter which stated, inter alia—

In other words, he is strong enough to remain in the service if he will accept a reduction of pay.

I want to point out to hon. members that they are supposed to address the Chair and not particular members or ministers.

This man is quite well and hearty. He is prepared to come and interview the Minister and the Railway Board, and undergo any medical examination.

Why does not the man make use of his rights under the regulations and appeal?

Although the man was well enough to remain in the service if he had accepted a reduction of 3s. 8d. a day, he was retired. I want to give an even more glaring case. It is that of a man who joined the service in 1895 as a labourer, and seven years-after was promoted. At the time when the department was short of locomotives an engine would come in with leaky tubes, and although the boilers were almost red hot, this man was called upon to attend to them. To do this wet sacks had to be placed inside the firebox, and to these conditions the man ascribes the fact that he contracted attacks of lumbago which continued for many years, and three years ago—on the advice of the medical officer— other work was provided for him. At this work he gave every satisfaction until the “smelling-out” process commenced. No consideration was paid to his previous service or to the reason of his disability. This man happened to belong to the Fixed Establishment, and he refused to accept a reduction of pay and was compelled to leave the service on account of so-called “permanent ill-health, although for the two-and-a-half years immediately prior to his retirement he had not lost a single minute through illness and worked up to the very last day he was allowed in the service. When he left the service he was given a character which included the following—

After thirty-three years’ service, because he would not take a reduction of 5s. a day he was kicked out of the service!

Do you question the medical certificate?

I am giving the facts that he had not lost a moment’s work for the two-and-a-half years immediately preceding his retirement and that he worked up to the very last day he was allowed in the service.

Did the man appeal?

He is appealing now, through me, and I appeal to the Minister, who I thought was more sympathetic. Recently he reinstated five men who had been dismissed at Pretoria; one of the men had been out of the service for three months and the Minister reinstated him and gave him full pay for those three months. I appeal to the Minister to go into these cases.

I certainly will not unless the men appeal according to the regulations.

In the previous case the man wrote to the head of his department saying—“I wish my case to be laid before the Board.” But the man never heard anything about it going before the Board. In conclusion I wish to refer to a matter in regard to which I wish to be generous as well as fair, because it personally affects the Minister, and if he can give an explanation I will welcome it, in spite of the shabby treatment he has given me to-night I have always been fair to the Minister and have received courtesy from him. Before the Minister occupied his present high office, he took great interest in the grievances of the men in the railway workshops at Uitenhage. So much so that on one occasion he visited these works and interviewed every man who thought he was not being fairly treated. Needless to say that was immediately prior to an election. Naturally if promises are made and not carried out, they do not inspire confidence, and recently it was brought to the Minister’s notice that there were many grievances. Some time after, an official presented himself at the offices of the mechanical engineer and said, “I have been instructed by the Minister to come down here and make inquiries into certain grievances of your staff.” On being asked what were these grievances, the official said, “I was instructed to call on the chairman of the Nationalist party and obtain from him a list of the names of the men who wish to avail themselves of my services. I have done so, I have got the list, and I want you to send for these men.” That was done. Naturally when it became known that a grievance officer was in Uitenhage, other men asked to see this officer, but only those who had applied to the Chairman or Secretary of the Nationalist party were able to do so. One man was not satisfied, and applied in writing for the reason, and this is the answer he got—

I want to say this, that if the general manager sent Mr. Carney to Uitenhage and told him to call on the chairman of the Nationalist party and obtain from him a list of the men he was to see contrary to all the rules and regulations of the service, then the general manager is not a fit and proper person to hold the office he does. If, on the other hand, the Minister is responsible, then the Minister is degrading his high office for political purposes.

I think that everyone in the House is astonished to hear such a speech from the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Bates). He is a man who has shown in the past that he knows something of railway matters, but this evening he has made the weakest speech which we have ever yet heard from him. He was in the railway service himself. Yet he has not criticised the policy, but has quoted a number of cases which, according to him, have been unjustly treated. This is the hon. member who always talks of discipline. Only last year he spoke about the lack of discipline on the railways. Now he comes here and pleads for men who have not even made use of their right of appeal. He comes here and draws the Minister’s attention to a large number of cases, but how can he expect the Minister to be au fait with every one. Is it fair to the Minister and the House to come here with that crowd of grievances? I think it is absolutely unfair of the hon. member. I criticise his conduct because he is a man who knows better. I hope we have heard the last of it, and that the hon. member will teach those people the proper method to follow, before they send him to this House with their grievances.

I move—

May I make an appeal to the hon. member who is introducing this Bill not to press the committee stage?

The matter cannot be discussed now. The hon. member can raise his point in committee.

Before you put that clause, may I appeal to the hon. member who is introducing the Bill that it might save time if he would consent, even at this stage, to send it to Pretoria so that the people of Pretoria may decide.

The hon. member cannot discuss that now. This is a question of the definitions.

May I ask to be allowed to read a telegram which I have received to-day from Mr. Schlesinger? In justice to Mr. Schlesinger, I should say that as his name was raised during the debate the telegram should be read. It was not in order to prejudice his name in any way that I mentioned it, but I did so on information from those very deeply interested in this question. Mr. Schlesinger telegraphs—

I think he is entitled to have that repudiation made public in view of the other statement. Clause 1 is very comprehensive indeed. It is so wide that it ought to be referred to the people of Pretoria before it is passed by this hon. House. If once we pass it becomes operative, and the people would have no redress. It is the beginning of a comprehensive Bill in which enormous powers are given—

The hon. member must confine himself to Clause 1.

It is Clause 1 to which I was referring. I would like to ask the Government why they are giving these special privileges for a private Bill and putting aside Government motions to make way for it.

The hon. member must confine himself to the clause.

This Clause provides for very expensive work. I think the Select Committee’s report is very interesting to Pretoria, and it is their only chance to know what is being done. If these powers are given to construct and maintain storage works it is the commencement of an enormous expenditure, and I respectfully submit that the clause should be withdrawn until the people of Pretoria have an opportunity of considering what the whole thing covers.

I will read what was stated by the town clerk of Pretoria before the Select Committee. Mr. Nicholson said—

That means that the Minister at first fully protected the interests of the State. As you go through this evidence, before the Committee you become more and more convinced that these gentlemen concerned in the scheme could do nothing unless clause 3 was consented to by the Government. That means that the Government have jeopardised the rights of the State regarding Hartebeestpoort dam. The Government are rushing the Bill through under circumstances which they will regret.

I have the same objection to make to this clause, namely, that the people of Pretoria have had no opportunity of considering it. It is a most important clause, because it involves an expenditure of £484,000, with an additional £75,000. It is true that the consent of the Pretoria Town Council has been obtained, but the people have not had an opportunity of considering the Bill, or the evidence given before the Select Committee. The people’s rights are being abused, and no care is taken that they should have full opportunity to consider the matter. This is a private Bill, and private Bills require very close watching. I will read Clause 4 [clause read.] You will see that this gives very wide-reaching powers, and involves an enormous expenditure, and before the House gives that power, it should be quite satisfied that the people of Pretoria approve of it.

This clause is also very wide in its application. I will read it. [Clause read.] The people of Pretoria have not been consulted, and that is why I object to it. Evidently they are not going to be consulted if it is possible to rush this Bill through Parliament.

This clause refers to expropriation, and extraordinary powers are given. I trust our Pretoria friends will give close attention to it. Conferring, as it does, powers which should be very reluctantly allowed. Expropriation of areas may raise legal difficulties. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture very kindly removed all difficulties as far as he is concerned, yet, when these powers of expropriation come into operation they may give rise to expensive litigation. [Clause read.] I do not find any evidence in the select committee’s report which refers in any way definitely to the large powers which can be exercised under this clause. Then the proviso seems to have been passed over quietly. [Proviso read.]

This clause gives the council power to convey private water [clause read]. I congratulate the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. te Water) on having induced the Government to give him precedence for this Bill. But why this extreme haste? We shall be here again in four months’ time, and during the interval Pretoria will have an opportunity of considering this and other clauses and really no harm will be done to anyone by delay. The pushing of the Bill through at this late stage of the session, and putting aside other important work in order to give the measure precedence, gives a very unpleasant impression. Those of us who know what has been done at Johannesburg and other places feel that all the people at Pretoria should have the whole scheme frankly laid before them, and should be told who are going to make money out of it I trust hon. members will see the absolute justice of my action. The cost of this Bill and of the graft is going to fall on the poorer workers and their families. Some of these vendors are men of very high principle. Were they here I feel sure they would listen to me. Some are even Christian gentlemen who take the plate round in church on Sunday. In the report of the select committee it shows they are buying water rights. They are merely getting the right to convey this water. The whole scheme rests on rights purchased of practically no value whatever. Vendors have apparently sold their rights to collect water on the surface. I am putting up a very lonely fight, but on the principle of democracy I feel it is only right that the people concerned should be asked whether they approve of the whole scheme. It is a fight for the right, a fight for what is just and against the principle of graft which is the curse of this country.

I draw attention to the fact that the Director of Irrigation, Mr. Lewis, did not come before the select committee to give evidence. A committee charged with such an important matter did not even see that a man like Mr. Lewis was consulted at every stage. There is a report by Mr. Lewis attached to the report wherein he says [extracts read]. At this stage I would like to move—

I read further from this very interesting report of the Director of Irrigation, who makes very guarded observations. He goes on to say that the Crocodile River is also to be considered, and that the Water Court should also determine the rights of the riparian owners. Section 8 of this report says. [Clause read.] The whole idea is you do not see any water except that limited supply, and that is required for the Hartebeestpoort dam. The quantity of water in this dolomite is unknown, and no one can discover its extent, quantity or value. That is what Mr. Lewis is pointing out. He says—

There you have the opinion of the highest authority but Committeemen do not ask for information, but simply attach this guarded report, and in the meantime—and this is the gravamen of my complaint—Pretoria has never even seen what I am reading, and it was never intended that the people of Pretoria should see it. [Time limit.]

I would point out that the right of access with which this clause deals is also referred to by the Director of Irrigation, and he says that it is a very important matter, and it is intended to apply to the water court under sections 15 and 16. He also remarks that very wide powers are given, and it is clear that the evidence given warrants one in saying that to ask the House to essent to a scheme which has not been submitted and explained to ratepayers should not be respected. Again I protest against this Bill being put through in this hasty manner. There will be no harm whatever in its standing over for four months.

I think the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) is trifling with the House, and I beg to move—

I move—

I move—

May I submit—

I move—

On a point of order,—

It is moved that the question be put. Will the hon. member resume his seat?

Then I am not allowed to put a point of order?

I move that Mr. Speaker be called in to decide whether when an hon. member is putting a question in committee

The hon. member may raise that point after I put this clause.

Am I not in order in moving that Mr. Speaker be called in to decide the question whether when an hon. member is on his feet, discussing a clause in committee, it is possible for another hon. member to get up and move that the question be now put. That is a question I wanted to ask there times.

Perhaps the hon. member may ask me first what my ruling is.

Very well, sir, I ask for your ruling on this point.

I will reply to it.

I would like to ask for your ruling on this: whether if an hon. member is on his feet, discussing a clause, it is permissible for any other hon. member to rise and cut in with a motion that the question be now put, and that the hon. member who is speaking be ordered to resume his seat, and the motion that the “question be now put” is decided without hearing him.

I must refer the hon. member to rule 63 (1) (e). [Read.] I think that is very clear.

I take it, sir, that your ruling is that when an hon. member is speaking, he can be interrupted. Do I understand that? Very well, I ask that Mr. Speaker’s ruling be taken.

It is not a question upon which Mr. Speaker could rule otherwise than the rule I have read.

The point I want to put is, when a clause has not yet been discussed, whether the closure can be taken?

Yes, it can be taken.

Then the committee has no opportunity of discussing it?

Yes—at the discretion of the Chairman.

I am asking for information. I am not a legal man. Can the Chairman of Committees determine for himself and for this House in Committee whether a certain measure shall go through or not?

Every motion has to be put to the Committee.

Yes, but I feel that there is something very important at stake, otherwise I would not have taken part in it.

I have given my ruling.

With the utmost respect, the question at issue is, whether the Chairman, without any opportunity of discussion having been given on a clause—

I would refer the hon. member to Rule 81.

Cannot that discretion be questioned?

No.

I move—

I decline to put that motion.

I move—

I will not accept it under the circumstances.

On the title,

I move—

I move—

I object.