I move—That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Bill contains two clauses arising out of the budget. In the first we make transfer of £350,000 of last year’s surplus to the redemption of debt, and the balance is transferred to the loan account. Then we have to provide for the necessary protection of provincial revenue as far as the 20 per cent, rebate the Union is giving on income tax. Under this clause the provinces’ rights to levy a provincial income tax are not affected by the rebate we give to Union income taxpayers. Another clause deals with the adjustment of certain financial questions which have arisen, mainly as the result of audit and it would be more convenient if I gave any information which may be desired by hon. members when the Bill goes into Committee.

The Minister has been good enough on this occasion—I do not remember that he did so last year—to say that the normal income tax will not be affected by any provincial tax. Why did he not put this in the Income Tax Bill itself. Why does he put it in a Financial Adjustments Bill? It is very confusing to find rebate provided for in the one Bill, and then in another Bill a reference is made to it which might have been made in the Income Tax Bill itself. A large number of people in the Transvaal have been very puzzled as to why the rebate is not allowed in respect of poll tax. I want your ruling, Mr. Speaker, as to whether it is competent in two Bills in the same Parliament to deal with the same matter. Should the Government not have introduced in the Income Tax Bill this proviso, which they make at the end of subsection (2). By that proviso the rebate is not allowed to be deducted so far as the Transvaal poll tax is concerned. It is a capitation tax of £1 10s. upon certain individuals plus the income tax which they pay to the Union Government.

I think the hon. member must be under a misapprehension. The 20 per cent, rebate which I proposed in the budget is a rebate which accrues to every taxpayer in South Africa as far as Union income tax is concerned. That is provided in our income tax legislation. What we are doing here is to amend quite a different law. The provinces have the right under the Financial Relations Act to impose a provincial income tax, and we now say that the rebate which we are giving as far as Union income tax is concerned will not affect those rights under the Financial Relations Act. Otherwise the effect will be this, that whereas we have promised the provinces that they will be able to get a certain revenue based on a certain percentage of Union tax, if we decrease that Union taxation we ipso facto decrease their provincial revenue. What we do here is to protect their rights under a different Act of Parliament. We could not have put the matter right in any other way.

In view of the explanation of the Minister, that is quite in order. I might also point out that last year two Bills dealing with the same subject were allowed to run concurrently.

Motion put and agreed to.

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

House In Committee:

On Clause 3,

I would like to ask the Minister if in extension of this clause he will consider at some time the exemption from stamp duty of loans granted by the Central Housing Board ?

We are dealing here with acknowledgments of debt executed by local authorities, in favour of the central Government. We are not dealing with the execution of any instrument by an individual borrower to a local authority. That would mean the introduction of an entirely new principle which I am afraid we cannot deal with in this way.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining clauses and the title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment and read a third time.

I move—

I am interested very keenly in the question of industrial banks. In “Hansard” for 1926, Volume 6, it is stated that Mr. Alexander moved that a select committee be appointed to enquire into the establishment of an industrial bank for South Africa, and the Minister of Finance, in reply, said—

A clear and definite promise was made by the Minister that the Board of Trade and Industries would investigate the question and report in due course to the House. Here we have a Government with a definite policy of industrial development by protective duties and facilities in railway rates and so on; furthermore, such is the policy of all political parties in this country. At the present time the assistance given to industries in this country approximates to that given to agriculture except under the heading, “Finance.” We have a state of affairs existing to-day under which a welcome is extended to overseas firms to lay down plant in this country, and South Africans are encouraged to devote their capital and their abilities to the establishment and carrying on of industrial enterprises in their own country. It is in the initial stages that assistance is so very necessary. Industries in many instances are established either without sufficient capital, on insufficient care having been taken to see that the necessary markets really exist. Another thing that happens sometimes is that industries may be established, and develop so successfully that the turn over runs away from their capital; and it is always an extremely difficult matter to get that extra capital. It is in this direction that such a bank could be of great assistance to the industrial development, of this country. Farmers have the Land Bank; industrialists have nothing of that description. There is plenty of groundwork to go upon from what other countries such as Germany have done. The modern tendency in industry is for combines to take place, and where formerly there were several small industries each making profits, these paid dividends which were collected by the commercial banks and formed a capital nucleus for the establishment of new industries; but to-day, only a nominal amount is paid out in the way of dividends, and the balance is used by these combines to spread out in different directions and so make use of that spare capital. That is one reason why it is becoming increasingly difficult to find capital for the establishment and development of industries in this country. Another reason is that the Government itself is a competitor for such capital as may be available, under the heading of Government loans, etc. There are other reasons, but these two are sufficient to show that the need exists, and to justify an enquiry as to whether the time is not ripe to establish such an industrial bank, which would provide a very necessary link between the investor and industry, and would not only be useful to industries but extremely useful to investors. I am not pressing for the immediate establishment of such a bank, but for a complete and thorough inquiry as to whether the need does not exist which would justify its establishment.

I want to take this opportunity of raising the question of local allowances with the Minister of Railways and Harbours. Its application is divided into five districts.

That is a railway question.

Am I out of order?

If the hon. member wants to discuss railway local allowances, he is out of order.

I would like to refer to the remarks of the Minister of Finance when the House was dealing with part appropriation with regard to a suggestion for the introduction of an amending measure with respect to war pensions. When the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Roper) made this suggestion, he did so in broad and general terms, and I think the Minister of Finance indicated that he was prepared to deal sympathetically with any case of hardship which might arise. One point which came out clearly in the course of the discussion was the inequity in the original legislation with regard to widows. Under the law there is a limitation confining its application to those widows whose husbands die from the result of wounds within a period of, I believe, seven years. No widow whose husband dies subsequently is considered a widow under the Act. The Minister has made it his business to assist widows being granted a compassionate gratuity through the medium of the select committee on pensions. It was a sad disillusionment to me to see how it is possible for the recommendations of the select committee to be treated at the hands of this House. One is most reluctant to go on under the present arrangement. The Minister of Finance has admitted that the law as it stands is inequitable. War pensioners can be kept alive by medical science to-day for a very long period. But there are few war pensioners who will not eventually come to their end as a result of war service. It is most unjust to think that we are keeping pensioners alive long enough for their widows to be compelled eventually to petition Parliament for relief. I would ask the Minister to consider the introduction of an amending Bill. The Minister dismissed the suggestion of altering the Act by reason of the fact that it would cost hundreds of thousands of pounds. Let me point out the position of the Governor-General’s Fund, which has become in effect a subsidizing institution of the pensions department. There has been an actuarial assessment of its future liabilities, and within 13 years the yearly distribution will be reduced from £70,000 per annum to about £10,000. If the Minister would accept on behalf of the State, the obligations which morally fall upon the State, it would relieve this fund, which was raised solely for the purpose of charitable and compassionate relief. The inadequacy of the flat rate of pensions, which at present falls to the lot of a widow, 25s. a week, has been pointed out. I do not think the Minister will suggest that 25s. a week is at all adequate. No less than 66 per cent, of the £70,000 distributed by the Governor-General’s Fund per annum is being awarded to widows, practically £50,000, or round about that amount. One does not suggest that £50,000 is going to be paid in perpetuity. According to the actuarial assessments upon which the Governor-General’s Fund is working to-day this £50,000 is going to be reduced to about £10,000 in 13 years. I asked the Minister during the recess to consider the recommendations of a joint report that was sent to him on the subject, and to see if it is not possible for him to accept a more generous assessment for widows. I should like the Minister to consider this during recess so that he may be in a better position to appreciate each individual recommendation and its possible cost and to accept these recommendations which are based upon the equitable grounds which could be put forward and he could accept these and discard others. The country is in a very prosperous condition and this is a case where one might perhaps act more generously than was intended, so that we can accept the responsibilities which Parliament intended should be laid upon the shoulders of the State.

I want to refer to the administration of Act 45 of 1925. Many members of this House have raised the question of the status of the South African who is qualified for the position of master or mate on South African Ships. Most of the men who are employed are foreigners and the Minister told us that the idea of the Government was to give assistance so that some of these South Africans can be trained for the work, but the South African has various disabilities and he has to prove that he has been at sea during the previous 12 months. While there are no fewer than 30 foreigners in our ships, there are 20 South Africans out of our employ and all they ask for is that the Minister should consider their certificates. If they were fully trained they are as able to conduct whaling operations in this country as the Scandinavians. 20 of these South Africans are out of work at the present time, and I hope the Minister will see that the South Africans have the preference. I want to put to the Minister the position in regard to the administration of suspected mental cases. I know of a case of a young man who went from Cape Town to Riverton for employment and before he was taken into employ, he went through a medical examination and received a clean certificate. Shortly afterwards however, he was arrested and locked in a cell at Beaconsfield. After some days, he was medically examined, but had been kept from the 14th to the 20th, when it was certified that there was nothing wrong with him, but he lost his position and has never been able to get work since, as this is always brought up against him. I think the Minister should see that in cases like this there is some sort of medical certificate before men are put under restraint. This man was simply brought before a magistrate who signed the order. It is true that the Minister’s department acted in terms of the Act, but the administration should be more careful so as to hurt no members of the public.

With reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Borlase), I can say that matter was referred to the Board of Industries, and I know they have been going into the matter. I shall make further enquiries again, but I have not yet had a report. With regard to the question raised by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Bowen), I do not think that I can carry the matter any further at present. I told the House at the time the main point seems to be that we have to introduce legislation providing for more generous benefits. The hon. member raised the points of the widows, but I do not think this is a hardship at all. Although our law debars the giving of a pension to the widow of a soldier who dies within seven years of the war, they all get pensions in every case. I did so because I thought at the time that it was a concession which was equitable, and I do not want to devise machinery to deal with this particular case. The other case is a much bigger question, as to whether we should be prepared to raise the scale of benefits to the widows. That is linked up with other requests from other organizations. I propose, during the recess, to go into the matter, and see what it will cost, and probably we may have a further discussion in the next session about the whole subject. I was under the impression that the matter was dealt with during the war when Parliament was very sympathetic, but I doubt very much whether Parliament at this stage is prepared to give greater benefits than were accorded at the time. when the pensions were first considered. However, I do not want to shut off the matter.

It would be a decreasing charge.

Of course, and that point was taken into consideration by Parliament at the time the Act was passed. The hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) raised the question of the certification of South Africans under the Merchant Shipping Act. Unfortunately, there has been considerable delay in the establishment of the necessary machinery for the examination of young South Africans for positions in the mercantile marine. Ultimately, we obtained the services of certain Board of Trade officials, who examined our candidates. Now we have sent an official to England who will endeavour to qualify himself to return to South Africa and hold examinations here. Under the circumstances we were bound to give exemptions.

Motion put and agreed to.

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

House In Committee:

On Clause 1,

Unfortunately I did not have an opportunity in committee of speaking about the amount which the Minister is making available for the Provincial Administration for road construction. We are of course very thankful about it. I just want to ask the Minister what his policy is.

The hon. member cannot now debate the policy and he must confine himself to Clause 1. He can only put a question.

I just want to ask the Minister whether any agreement has been made with the Provinces with regard to the allocation of the money. The Minister will remember some years ago—I think in 1925—a commission was appointed to enquire into the way by which our road system could be developed. The commission recommended three classes of roads.

I cannot allow the hon. member to go further into that.

Then I will raise the matter again on the third reading.

I can now tell the hon. member that we are not going, in connection with the money which is being placed at the disposal of the Provincial Administration for road construction, to interfere with the function of those administrations in deciding where the roads are to be constructed. We have imposed the general conditions that such roads should be selected as will lead to the development of the country, and where the work is of such a kind that we shall be enabled to properly employ unemployed. A few days ago there was a conference between me and my colleague, the Minister of Labour, and the provincial administrations, where details were discussed, and I think a satisfactory arrangement was arrived at. The roads will be indicated by the provincial administrations, subject to the approval of the Minister of Labour, so as to enable him to see that the work on which the money is spent is of such a kind that unemployed can be employed.

I see the conference only discussed main roads.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining clauses, schedule and title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

Dr. STALS seconded.

The point was raised last night in regard to certain loan moneys spent on the construction of irrigation works by the Labour Department. We were told that these were not really irrigation works, and, in fact, that they had been condemned by members of the Irrigation Commission, and we were informed that they were really relief works. It is very difficult from the point of those who wish to understand the expenditure of the country, if these works are taken in hand merely as measures of relief, and the money is practically thrown away from the point of view of the country, as the works will never be of any use from an irrigation standpoint.

No.

I understood the Minister to condemn them as irrigation works.

No.

I understand that the same principle applies to roads constructed by provincial councils for the purpose of affording employment. Is the money to be spent as a measure of relief, or for the purpose of national development? I think we should have a clear figure in the account showing what money is being spent on purely relief works.

I should like to refer to the question of the certification of captains. It has been pointed out to me that the whaling industry will have great difficulty in regard to captains coming from Norway. The Norwegians have spent a lifetime in this industry and I hope the Minister will bear this matter in mind.

I am aware of the position in regard to the whalers. Representations were made to me at the time when we granted these exemptions. I asked the department to go into the whole matter and see how far the position has altered to justify us in altering our policy. The points raised by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) are important, and I gladly give him the information. I think there is a misunderstanding in regard to the roads. In the first place our idea is to get better roads in the country. That is the main idea. They will be valuable national public works, and they will, in addition, afford an excellent opportunity of putting large numbers of our unemployed on useful work. Let me assure my hon. friend the idea is to employ these people on piecework, where they will give value for the money which they earn. The experience of the labour department in various centres has been that the work done on piecework has been of such a nature that we have been getting value for the money expended, and that is the policy which would be adopted in regard to this particular work. In regard to irrigation schemes I certainly did not say they would be useless from an irrigation point of view. They will be very valuable irrigation works, but what I did say was that when we started them we expected that standing alone they would not be economic propositions in the same way as several other irrigation works constructed in the past have not been economic propositions. I think they would be much better than Hartebeestpoort, for instance. Why the expenditure is borne under the labour vote is because during the recess they decided to start the work, and I could not allow the Department of Irrigation to expend money on their vote, because our Irrigation Act says that no irrigation works can be started without an Act of Parliament. I had to get a Governor-General’s warrant, and the only possible way was to get the Labour Department to undertake it. In the accounts it will eventually be adjusted. Eventually the work will be debited to irrigation in so far as the amount is concerned which would be economically debited to the work, and the balance will have to be written off in the same way as other non-economic expenditure on irrigation has been written off in the past. As far as these schemes are concerned they are no worse as irrigation projects than many of the schemes we have had in the past. They will certainly be of considerable value, and it is the intention of the Treasury to eventually adjust the expenditure on the lines I have indicated.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

It will be appropriate to make a few remarks at this juncture. It is particularly appropriate just now, as I understand the railway commissioners are on a tour of inspection throughout the Union. The Minister, like all other good Christians, recites his creed occasionally. We may examine what the function Of the Minister is, and particularly what is the function of the railway commissioners. It has been the intention of this country, as expressed in the Act of Union, to place these commissioners in the position of judges. They are appointed for five years, and if their appointment is terminated before the expiration of that term it has to be reported to Parliament. I think the Minister will agree that underlying that was the intention that they should be secure in their position, and that they should exercise their function in a diligent fashion. One knows South Africa is particularly proud of the way in which these judicial offices have been upheld. They have often been filled by prominent politicians. I think there is no case where a prominent politician has brought his political predilections on to the bench. No doubt we shall he able to point with pride to the railway commissioners having exercised their functions in accordance with their high office. The fact that three commissioners have been politicians who supported the Minister’s policy should and must make them particularly careful in the way in which they exercise their functions, and we want to support them in that. I hope when the railway commissioners report to the Minister as the result of their tour, they will report on business principles only and on no other consideration whatever. I think the Minister may be fully trusted to look after the political part of the business. It is all the more reason why any views of his in the political past and more especially in the political future should, to some extent, be counterbalanced by the report of the railway commissioners. I want to read the Minister a copy of a resolution forwarded to me which is from the East London Chamber of Commerce, and which it is my duty to place before the committee. It is—

This resolution was based on the fact that an oil tank vessel drawing 28 feet 7 inches desired to enter Buffalo Harbour, and it required the united efforts of the three dredgers there, including the “Sir Thomas Price,” to work in the fairway before this vessel could come into the harbour. This is a serious matter for the people of East London to contemplate, that their business may he hampered through the withdrawal of this particular dredger. There are two other dredgers, it is true, but they are incapable of doing the work efficiently, and when the Minister says it will he his endeavour to see that the normal working of the harbour will be maintained, I cannot see how that can be done. One of these two dredgers cannot maintain the required depth, and the other cannot deal efficiently with the hard rock. It is not a matter of Buffalo Harbour alone, but affects a large hinterland, as may be found from the report of what was said by Mr. Seals Wood, who was the chairman of the federated chamber of industries, and I believe at present is a member of the shipping board, which alone entitles his remarks to be received with respect. He is the head of the very large firm known as Lever Brothers. About a year ago he paid a visit to East London, and speaking about Harbour Development he said that all along the East Coast harbour development was necessary for the future development of the country, both agriculturally and industrially. He also said—

That gentleman, who was not a politician, is not satisfied that the working of the port would be maintained, as the Minister said. I hope the Minister is not as weary as he looks.

I have heard it before.

I am sorry to say he is destined to hear it in future.

And the House has heard it before.

And none the less it is my duty to bring this matter before the House.

I have no objection.

But I wish the Minister was more interested. Mr. Wood also said that it was a matter of importance, not only to East London, but to Kimberley, Johannesburg and other places. Why, I ask, should the “Sir Thomas Price” be taken from Buffalo Harbour; apparently it is the only dredger which can cope with the work there successfully. The biggest blow is, they feel, that if the “Sir Thomas Price” is taken, the work of completing the turning basin will be postponed. [Time limit.]

I do not move a reduction in the Minister’s salary because I think he is really underpaid, if you compare his salary with that paid by enterprises much smaller than the railways. The Minister in trying to prove the increased efficiency of the railways gave us only one example, namely, that of the ratio of expenditure to revenue; I would like to remind him that in 1928 he himself said that that was no proof at all of efficiency. On April 5th, 1928. he said—

I think the Minister should give us further examples to strengthen his case that the efficiency of the railways has increased. That is particularly necessary, as the Minister does not always rely on the selfsame figures. Last year he said that the increase in train and engine mileage would be 2,000,000 or 3½ per cent.

I said “over 2.000,000." I did not say that they were actual figures.

I will remind the Minister what he said. He said “over 2,000,000, or 3½ per cent.” He did not say “approximately 3½ per cent.” I want to show the Minister how estimates go wrong and the tremendous difference which results from these small mistakes he makes.

It makes all the difference. I said “over 2,000,000.”

I am afraid I must insist on this figure of 2,000,000. In the summary the mileage is given as 2,072 000, and the percentage as 3.47. How can the Minister say that we are wrong in trying to demonstrate that this increased efficiency which he claims for the railways has been realised? The only figures we had when criticising the position as put forward in the Budget statement were those the Minister gave us. One does not deliberately want to misrepresent the Minister. I want only to help and to show the House that the efficiency is not as we have been led to believe it was. If you take the new figures given by the Minister since the Budget you find my figures were wrong, for this reason—because they were based on the first figures the Minister gave me. He must know what the train and engine mileage was for 1928-29, and why does he not give the figures?

I shall do so.

I wish the Minister to give us the figures of the train and engine miles for the year 1928-29. because the only way I can make a computation is by taking the figures he has given. I have made a new calculation based on the figures now printed in the Railway Estimates, and I find that the mileage for 1929-’30, allowing for an increase of 2,000,000, would be 61,782,000 train and engine miles, an increase over 1927-’28 of 932,000 train and engine miles, or an increase of one and a half per cent. over 1927-’28, while his expenditure is three and three-quarters per cent. or very nearly four per cent. higher. These figures are quite correct, but actually the Minister will find that in the year 1929-’30 when he runs one and half per cent, more engine miles, he will spend four per cent. more than he did two years ago. That does not look like efficiency.

I should like to bring the state of affairs at Mafeking to the notice of the Minister. The railway there belongs to the Rhodesian Railway Company, hut is under the control of the South African Railways. The fact that the railway belongs to the Rhodesian Company does not prevent that part of the country having the same rights to the facilities as the rest of the Union. I found that houses are built there in such a way that the man who is transferred there, will not have a home for himself and his family for years. The Minister ought to make representations to the Rhodesian Railway Company in this connection. I know of cases where railway officials were transferred there, with their families so that they had to lease houses in the village, and if they could not get houses there, then they had to live with their families in the open air. That is a state of affairs that we may not allow to continue, especially as the Union Administration controls the line. Mafeking is becoming an important railway centre because the diggings of the Western Transvaal are served by it. The station building is also in a bad state, and certainly no asset to the town. At present a small part is being added to it but it is so small that it really is not encouraging. Then there is another matter I want to bring up. The present Government has been in office for five years but we still find to-day that Afrikaans is not used on the notice boards. There we must be content with merely one language. I had a personal interview with the Minister about it nine months ago and he promised to give instructions about it, but fourteen days ago I was at Mafeking station and found that Afrikaans was not yet being used on the notice boards. The Minister must not think that Mafeking is out of the Union, although it does lie on the borders of the Bechuanaland Protectorate. The Rhodesian railway commences at Vryburg and it is striking to see the difference between that line and that of the South African Railways. The Minister ought to see to it that we spend more out of their pockets—with their directors living in London—than out of our own pockets, for conveniences for our own people.

On the Vote to go into Committee of Supply, I drew the attention of the Minister to the serious state of things at Algoa Bay. In response he gave us a general homily on the danger of over-capitalising the railway service, with which I am in entire agreement, but be did not refer to the condition of affairs at Algoa Bay. It was a nice little homily, but the Minister’s reply did not touch the point. I am not going into the details of the matter. I know that they are known to the Government. They have been brought to the attention of the Minister not only by the Harbour Advisory Board and the mercantile community, but by his own trusted officers. There is great anxiety at Port Elizabeth in regard to the matter, and I do hope the Minister will make some statement as to what the policy of the Government is. The thing has to be dealt with, the traffic is there, and things cannot be allowed to go on as they are. If the Minister is in a position to make a statement he will be doing a service to the community there who are anxious as to what is going to happen.

I beg to move—

in order to enable me to discuss railwaymen’s grievances.

I am sorry I have to rule this out of order, as it covers the whole policy of railways instead of one specific point. On the 10th June, 1927, the then Chairman gave a ruling on this question which was on appeal confirmed by Mr. Speaker on the 14th June, 1927, to the effect that only one specific point of policy can be put forward on a motion for the reduction of the Minister’s salary.

I can assure the Minister that I have no intention of casting any reflection on him in attempting to move for the reduction of his salary, but I do so merely in order to have sufficient time to discuss grievances of railwaymen. I am sure the Minister will admit that it is not merely the Minister himself, nor those who are in charge of the administration but also the railway employees who can claim credit for our railway system, because of that system, so far as the running part is concerned, is a credit to South Africa. It compares most favourably with other parts of the world. I am talking now, not about the financial side of the question; but about the running of trains. Persons coming from overseas pay a high tribute to the accommodation and the courtesy they receive at the hands of railway servants. It is therefore only equitable that if railway servants have certain grievances, the Minister should hear them. Certain grievances have been raised by the hon. member for Maritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane), and the Minister on that occasion replied to the points raised. I feel, however, that the Minister’s replies were not satisfactory. I wish to air one or two of these grievances. In reference to the differential rate of pay introduced in 1923, the result of that anomaly is that certain persons doing the same class of work receive different rates of pay. There are men working at the same bench, one receiving 18s. and the other receiving 20s. a day, and the result is an injustice to the man getting the lower rate of pay. The Minister has stated that the new apprentices in the service came, knowing full well what the conditions were. I should like to ask the Minister two specific questions, namely, whether those men who were getting the higher rate of pay are overpaid, or whether the large number of men getting the lower rate of pay are being underpaid. The Minister cannot have it both ways. I know of an instance where a youth, an apprentice, stated that he did not appreciate the fact that when he entered the service, he was to be put on this new rate of pay. This is a very definite grievance, and we would like to know why the Minister continues to differentiate in these rates of pay. The railwaymen are not satisfied, and they would like to know the Minister’s reasons. Then again with regard to the hours of duty. It is true that the hon. the Minister has carried out certain recommendations of the Hours of Duty Commission’s report, but that report was a compromise report. There were members representing the administration and the railway service on the commission, and there was a certain amount of bargaining and compromise, and the report was a compromise report. Take the case of the 96 hours worked by loco, men and the 106 hours by guards and ticket examiners. According to the report it was agreed that overtime should only be counted if 96 hours or 106 hours were exceeded. That was not what the men wanted, but they were prepared to make that compromise so that other recommendations might be put into effect. The hon. the Minister has admitted that certain other portions of that report have not been put into effect, and those are the very things which were most strenuously debated.

Practically the whole of the report has been put into operation.

Not in one or two vital matters. The Minister has given the eight hours day to the drivers and the firemen, and they well deserved it. But the other grades have been sacrificed. There is also the question of the compensation to be given to foremen and station masters on branch lines. It will be remembered that it was agreed that the eight hours day could not be complied with on certain lines, and it was suggested that a compensation scheme should be introduced. That was not done and that is another grievance. There is yet another grievance. That is the existing practice governing appeals. The hon. the Minister knows that the system laid down in the 1925 Act was that where a man was discharged for some disciplinary offence, he came before a board of inquiry, and after that, if necessary, had the right of appeal. According to the Act, the appeal board exercised a discretion, and then the administration’s officer decided the case after the finding of the appeal board. After the finding of the appeal board, in other words, the system manager decided the case and where the decision of the appeal board was unanimous against the man, the system manager would not reverse the decision of the appeal board.

In 1926 the Government appointed a Commission to enquire into and report on the matter of dangerous level crossings. A very valuable report was presented with various recommendations. With regard to Toise River, they call particular attention to this crossing which is a very bad and dangerous crossing, and one which carries considerable traffic. It crosses the line between two deep cuttings. I will read the report dealing specially with this crossing. They call particular attention to this crossing as being most dangerous and one which should receive the immediate attention of the Government. That was two years ago and yet up to date nothing has been done. Representations have been made, and the hon. the Minister has personally viewed the spot, accompanied by a representative of the local Divisional Council and he is satisfied that it is a dangerous crossing. It is on the Great Northern road which serves the whole interior from as far north as Rhodesia to East London in the South. The attitude taken up by the hon. the Minister is that the divisional council should bear half the cost of the overhead bridge and at its own expense maintain the road. It is a trunk road, and it runs parallel to the railway line. So that as far as the Cathcart district is concerned it is used far more by the travelling public than by the local residents. The Council would be prepared to construct and maintain the roadway if the department would build and maintain the bridge at their expense which seems as nothing else but fair under the special circumstances of the case.

Business suspended at 12.4 p.m. and resumed at 2.21 p.m.

Since the report of the commission which recommended that the crossing at Toise River station should receive immediate attention, an accident has happened at this crossing to a motorist who resides many miles from this spot. We who live in the vicinity are aware of the danger and take particular precaution. The existence of the crossing is entirely due to the action of the railway administration in re-grading the line. In this case the Minister can well make an exception and erect a bridge. The local authority, on it’s part, will construct and maintain a road leading to the deviation. It seems manifestly unfair that the local authority should be saddled with the expenditure of approximately £1,000 for a bridge, the necessity for which the local authority is in no way responsible, as the dangerous crossing is entirely due to the action of the repartment. With regard to the Turning basin at East London I wish to give the Minister the assurance that behind the request of the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) lies a whole hinterland served by Buffalo Harbour. I am sure the Minister will find that behind the request lies a solid public opinion in favour of having this turning basin at East London. At a congress held at Aliwal North of the Cape Eastern bodies consisting of farmers’ associations, chambers of commerce, municipal and divisional councils and automobile clubs, a unanimous decision was taken supporting East London in her request for the turning basin. After all it will not be a huge expenditure. Another point I wish to raise is in connection with leave regulations of railway employees. I am informed that at some Stations men work eight hour* a day, while other man, by force of circumstances, have to work twelve hours a day. Could not some quid pro quo be granted to the men in these circumstances, if not by way of additional salary then by additional leave?

I should like to call the Minister’s attention to the condition of the Mossel Bay harbour. It has been neglected for a number of years, and when I had an interview with Mr. Jagger, during the previous Government, about it, he said he would not give 6d. because he did not get 6d. in return. I hope, however, that the present Minister of Railways and Haroburs will do something to help us. The public of Oudtshoorn, George, Riversdale and Ladismith can best be served through Mossel Bay, but the Mossel Bay merchants could not compete with the merchants of Cape Town and Port Elizabeth because the large harbours get all the facilities while we are left in the cold. I hope the Minister will do a little to provide a small amount to improve the Mossel Bay Harbour. Even if it does not pay so well, let the big harbours pay for us, because later on we also will be payable. If at all possible the breakwater ought to be extended. This will also be very useful for the fishing industry, because many more people will be able to make a living out of that industry if there were less danger of their boats sinking in stormy weather.

I would like to ask the Minister to be patient with me for a little while; we have been very patient with him. I will put a few facts before him, and I invite him in his reply to deal categorically to those facts. The Minister has been approached innumerable times, as he would say, over this matter. Our trouble is we have never got any reasoned reply. We are always put off on the vague score of expense. About a fortnight ago, when a deputation went to see him, he said that if he acceded to all the requests made to him and to the railway board it would amount to £30,000,000 in one year. How delighted he should be when I come and show him so far from spending money how he can save money. To begin with, we claim that the “Sir Thomas Price” if left in the port for about three months longer, will complete the work of excavation. The total actual cost to the country would be the amount of coal and oil consumed. In return for that sum if every item were entered up on paper it is believed the cost would not be more than about £10,000. If the Minister’s information is different, let us have it. During the elections he called for this matter to be re-submitted to him. He must therefore have this information. In addition to this cost being really negligible, having regard to the importance of the work, it would release lighters to the value of about £35,000. These lighters are wanted elsewhere. We know that because there is an item in the brown book providing for three new lighters at a cost of over £10,000. Surely it is not much to ask for that this important service should be done at a nominal cost as I have explained simply by allowing this dredger to remain in the port for three or four months longer. We feel very deeply about this matter. We are not asking the country to incur a large additional expense, but on the contrary we are showing how the Minister can make a substantial saving on the balance. I would ask the Minister to give this his most sympathetic attention. No good reason has been advanced against it. If I am wrong in my facts or figures I ask the Minister to show me how and where I am wrong, and not take refuge in rather vague statements of expense or policy. The facts as I have put them I rely upon. Let the Minister tell us why he should move this dredger, which is the only one capable of doing the work satisfactorily. It is his intention to convert her into a vessel that will require to be attended by lighters, which will mean more expense, because this work must eventually be done. The Minister may say that when this basin has been scooped out the work is not done, but this additional wharfage accommodation and equipment is overdue. Is he prepared to let Buffalo Harbour remain unable to deal with the traffic as it is at present? We know that fourteen ships have been in the harbour at one time with wharfage accommodation for only five at a time. Look at the amount of expense and trouble that is involved. We know that the turning basin will eventually have to be equipped with wharves, but I do not expect the Minister to put all this on the Estimates at once, but a beginning could be made. I wish the Minister would also take into consideration the regrading of the Eastern system. I do not ask for a large sum, but he could begin with a small sum for the easing of the grades and the straightening out of the curves, which would prove an economic proposition. When it was asked that this should be done, the reply was that it would be done when the traffic warranted it. When we have the traffic, such as manganese ore, it is said it cannot be carried as cheaply as on the Natal line. Between £8,000,000 and £9,000,000 has been spent on the betterment of the Natal line since Union, and perhaps I am understating rather than over stating it. Again I would urge the Minister to be guided by the Railway Board from the business side of these matters. The Minister will understand the anxiety I am expressing, not on my own account, but on that of those I represent, and the much larger community whose interests are concerned.

I would like the Minister to give the Committee some indication what is the position with regard to level crossings on the suburban line. I understand some time ago an arrangement was made that the cost would he shared on a fifty-fifty basis, and up to that stage the matter is clear; but I understand the point: It is naturally said, let the fifty-fifty basis be a fair one. It is quite clear that the Railway administration would make a considerable saving; they would save a big amount in salaries and also in keeping in action the guillotine arrangements which they have now and which are endangering the public hundreds of times a day. The Railway Department always have to have a staff to keep these things in order. In consideration of that they should consider the capital value of what that means to the railways, and allow for that before the allocation of one-half of the cost to the local authority and one-half to the Railway Administration. I do not think the local authority is asking more than is fair. This matter has been hanging over us for years, I think I can say; at any rate, since the Minister came into office; and for five solid years the lives of the people are endangered through those level crossings. The Railway authorities, I am afraid, will not take final steps to come to a conclusion on this matter until there is a catastrophe to some persons who are well known. The matter has been dealt with in the autocratic method in which the Railway administration deals with these matters; I do not say the Minister; I do not think he would willingly close the matter up, but he imbibes certain of the railway administration atmosphere. I hope that before we meet again the Minister will have reconsidered this matter and accepted the suggested compromise.

I would like to support the suggestion made by the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford). It is a matter which has been considered for years. If the Minister will not accept the whole expense of making the railway crossings safe, the least he can do on the fifty-fifty basis is to take into consideration the actual savings the Government will make. There is the upkeep of these crossings and the salary of the gatekeepers. Why is the Minister so hard-hearted and difficult to reason with. Let him adopt an attitude of reason and of calm, and consider the matter from a dispassionate point of view. As he knows, it is a very serious question indeed. A very well known man was killed a little while ago; many other lives have been sacrificed. The Minister has brought the danger to the roads. There is a great deal to be said for the Minister taking the entire responsibility.

And the development?

The development has got nothing to do with making the crossings safe for the public. Hundreds and thousands of people are running risks at these crossings.

The reduction of the rate on coal was advocated in this House and it was said that such reduction would result in the extension of the industry, but no data or proof were given to substantiate this statement. Witbank has now the largest coal industry in the Union, and I think it will astonish hon. members to learn that Witbank is responsible for one-fifth of the total goods receipts on the Union Railways. This gives an idea of importance of the industry to the Union. I also want to advocate a reduction in the rate, but in doing so I am not unprepared to furnish data. I should like the coal owners to be given an opportunity—through a conference or an interview with the Minister—of proving what hon. members have stated here, namely that a reduction of the rates will be followed by an extension of the industry. When we remember that South Africa has an exhaustible supply of coal, as well as the industrial policy of the Government during the last five years we must realise that the coal industry deserves sympathetic treatment. I want therefore to request that the owners be given an opportunity of advocating and explaining their case. If the manufacture of oil out of coal is realised in our country—and we learn that in England such an industry has been established—we can realise the importance of the coal industry to South Africa.

I wish to say a word or two with regard to the Fruit Export Control Board. We want a continuance of the arrangement which has been made to control allocation and distribution at the various ports, I ask for this in view of the fact that the excellent chairman of the board has been seconded for another position. It is desirable that the fruit shall be forwarded from the various ports in priority of arrival, so that there shall be absolute fairness respecting the various shipments. The control of the freight arrangements has eased the position. There will now be no necessity for the chartering of vessels. Something could, however, be done in connection with the railways to give us absolute fairness and freedom from outside. Then there is the question of the pre-cooling of deciduous fruit at Algoa Bay. We have a certain amount of pre-cooling lighters, which while unsatisfactory, must be accepted under present conditions. Some further arrangement should be made because the export of deciduous is increasing from that part of the country. Citrus we need not say more about, because I think the Minister knows that large shipments are going to be made from Algoa Bay in the near future. He is also aware that traffic is being diverted from Algoa Bay because we have no satisfactory precooling arrangements. I hope the Minister will see that the export trade of South Africa is looked after. I feel sure that the matter will receive sympathetic consideration at his hands.

I want to emphasize the point made by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence with regard to apprentices. Let me illustrate. A commenced work as an apprentice at the age of 15 years. B commenced three months later at the age of 16 years. In consequence, though A has been in the service longer than B, A’s apprenticeship finishes later than B’s. In that interval in comes the Jagger cut and A is penalized. He works on piece work in the same gang with B, but he is penalized to the extent of from £30 to £40 a year. I want the Minister to give a more sympathetic hearing to representations in that regard. I also ask the Minister to interest himself respecting the turning down of judgments of the appeal board. I have a letter which is an illustration of what happens. It is from one of the system managers to a man upon whose case the appeal board adjudicated. Under the decision of the appeal board, according to the statement of the system manager, he would be fined £2 instead of being reduced 6d. per day for six months, but the system manager stated that he was unable to agree with this finding. I contend that this is turning the district appeal board into a farce. As we have spent so much time in this House in regard to the question of the cost of housing, I should like to ask the Minister if he will not reduce the rate on building material, and in this way he may materially assist to reduce the cost of housing. If we could get the same preferential rates as are given to produce from up-country to the coast it would materially assist inland towns in regard to the housing question. With regard to de-grading, it does not seem fair that after nine or ten years’ service a railwayman should be put on lower pay because he cannot pass into a higher grade. If he has given satisfaction for nine or ten years surely he should be qualified to continue in that position for the rest of the period of his service in the Railway Department. I would like to ask the Minister to go into the question of the distributing tariff and the differential rates as they exist to-day. Distributing rates are higher in Bloemfontein than in some other places. There does not seem to be any reason for it.

I would like to refer to the matter of the sick fund. Regulation No. 55 (n) states—

In practice this often works out to the detriment of the men. For instance if a man falls sick and is absent for a few days only he will find himself deprived of the difference between normal pay and sick pay a loss of income which may hamper him in carrying through his small domestic budget. He may then resolve that the only way out is for him to take those days off his leave, with the consequence that the man loses some of his leave and the sick fund, benefits at his expense. I would suggest that the Minister give his attention to this question and consider whether this regulation should not be amended, so that when a member elects to avail himself of paid leave during any period of sickness a proportion of his pay should be debited to the sick fund.

I have been silent up to now on the question of Buffalo Harbour, and I am not going to take up much more of the Minister’s time in discussing this important subject as the position has been fully set forth by my hon. friend (Brig.-Gen. Byron) and the hon. member for Cathcart (Mr. van Coller) as representing the opinion of the Border bushland. The Railway Board will be in East London next week, and I also hope to be there to do my best to show them round and to go into matters with regard to Buffalo Harbour. I am sure after studying the position on the spot that what we have been asking for a long time the Railway Board will recommend. The Minister of Railways said to me the other day that he was going to do his best to see that we got fair play, and that is all we want. The Minister also stated that the dredger committee had recommended that the Sir Thomas Price should be taken from East London to Cape Town. That dredger committee has not yet been to East London, and East London is not represented on that committee, and I would suggest that when the Railway Board comes to East London next week he might send a member of the dredger committee, when I feel sure after studying things on the spot they will reverse their recommendation that the Sir Thomas Price be sent to Cape Town, that I think enough has been said by members representing all the ports of the Union on their various requirements and I shall not say much more beyond this that I want the Minister to understand that the feeling in the border districts, generally, is very keen, and it is felt that the removal of the Sir Thomas Price to Cape Town is a very great mistake, and we hope it will not be done. I want to refer to a question I put to the hon. Minister of Railways, differentiation in the pay of railwaymen due to the report. One section is receiving 18s. and another a higher rate of pay, 20s. and all being equally competent why should they not receive equal remuneration. I was glad to know that white labourers had been taken on. There are men on the running staff now who have been labourers in the past, and are proving their worth. One matter I would like to refer to is this, there are skilled labourers taking up and usurping the positions of the artisans. Skilled labourers should not be allowed to usurp the position of skilled artisans. I find that (speaking from actual experience) many of these white labourers will not rise above the positions they are in now. When a white labourer is taken on the railways the first thing he does is to go to the railway dispensary, where he receives free medical attention and free medicine. If the poor devils had a soup kitchen to go to, it would be very much better for them, as they merely subsist on a pittance. They should be paid a decent living wage.

The most refreshing thing we have heard this afternoon is the speech of the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence), who crows very loudly for a young rooster. I agree with him, however, as to the iniquity of the differential rates of pay, but he did lot mention that it was his own government which introduced the differential rate of pay for artisans. It was also the South African Party Government which made up its mind to change the system by the process of reducing the higher paid men to the scale of the lower paid.

The hon. member has no right to discuss the policy of the previous Government.

We congratulate the present Minister of Railways on stopping that reduction taking place when he came into office.

No such reduction was ever made.

The hon. member was a member of the Government when the notice was issued distinctly stating that the reduction would take place in October, 1924.

We were not in office in October, 1924.

When is the uplift to take place?

I would like to hear the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) definitely pledge the South African Party to restore the 1923 rate of pay. It is all very well having it from a member on the back benches, but let us have it from the hon. member for Yeoville.

Let us have it from the present Minister of Railways.

We cannot have a second Budget debate.

Hon. members keep on interrupting. The Minister’s civilized labour policy is an experiment with which I am in entire agreement. I am not talking about the colour of a man’s skin, but of a civilized man, and he should have civilized pay and conditions, but I do not think the Minister is getting value for his money because there is a lack of organization in the service. A welfare officer has been appointed, but I am told that he being a member of the head office staff it is most difficult for the lower grade men to explain things, and when he visits the men he is concerned not so much with the welfare of the men but chiefly with the welfare of the department. Many of these men, through no fault of their own, have almost come to the position of being unemployable. Many of them were boys at the time of the South African war. The utmost discipline is necessary, and also the utmost sympathy so as to make them real upstanding fellows. The welfare officer should not be a big king, but should find out whether the men have genuine grievances, and then he should consider them sympathetically.

You cannot make that complaint about my welfare officer.

Sometimes when a man in one of the graded positions goes on sick leave or annual leave, one of his labourers is put in his place, perhaps for weeks or months, but the labourer does not receive the pay that the graded man was getting. It has been laid down that a labourer must pass standard six before he can be promoted to certain graded positions such as fire lighter, but many of these men cannot pass standard six. There are pump men, lamp-men, washers-out, strikers to blacksmiths, holders-up in wagon shops and crane drivers. All these positions are laid down as graded positions and men who have not passed standard 6 are debarred from them. I do not want the Minister to relax very much but I do want him to go into this question and see whether it is absolutely necessary in all these cases that Standard 6 should be passed. I have seen in Great Britain a striker to a blacksmith, a good man at the job, who could not recite the alphabet, but in this country a man to he a striker has to pass standard 6. All this shows the necessity for a thorough investigation into the organisation of the civilised labour sections of the railways. Some of these men are allowed six days leave without pay. Included in the emolument of many labourers is a free house, but when they go on leave, without pay, for a period exceeding three days, they have to pay rent for the remainder of the period they are away. [Time limit.]

The last speaker accused me of crowing very loudly for a young rooster, but may I suggest to the hon. member for Germiston that the exhilarating crow of a young rooster is preferable to the swan song of a defunct Labour party. I hope the Minister in considering the matters I am putting before him, will not fall back on the old cry of what the South African party Government did. The circumstances of 1923 were very much different from those of 1929, and when it was necessary to make certain cuts and differentiations those measures were purely of a temporary nature and due to reasons of urgency. Apart from that, one had expected from the promises made on election platforms that all the wrongs attributed to the evil genius of the South African Party would he removed. I would like to ask one supplementary question in regard to the differential rates of pay in addition to the two specific points I have already put. Can the Minister give us an estimate of what it would cost the administration and the country if he were to level up the rates of pay? I was dealing when I last spoke, with the question of the Appeal Board. As far as I can understand it, the position is this, that if a railway servant has been found guilty of an offence, he may within fourteen days, lodge an appeal to the Appeal Board. The Appeal Board consists of an elected member and a nominated member. If the decision is not unanimous he has a further right of appeal, but if it is unanimous, it goes to the System Manager and it is for him to have the last word. It has been found in practice that where the decision of the board has been unanimous against the appellant, the system manager has invariably endorsed such a decision, but cases have arisen where the decision has been in favour of the appellant, yet despite that unanimous recommendation, it has been found that the system manager has reversed it. The Minister may say that the Act allows it. From a purely legal point of view, one cannot controvert that, but it is surely within the discretion of the Minister to give instructions that that sort of practice should not take place. Such a practice must surely engender a feeling of lack of confidence in the minds of railway servants, and I earnestly commend this matter to the Minister’s attention. In regard to disciplinary enquiries, where a railway employee is charged with an offence, he may get one of his fellow workers to represent him, but he cannot get outside assistance. The Minister may say that it is a very good thing, but surely, where it may affect a man’s whole future, he should not he denied the right if he wishes, to go outside for legal assistance. When there is a possibility of punishment out of all proportion to the offence, surely it is permissable to ask that a man should be allowed to have outside assistance. After all, the future of the man is at stake. You cannot leave out the human element and you cannot subordinate justice to convenience. There is also the question of the long service increment. This applies only to pre-Union men. II would like to ask the Minister if it is merely on financial grounds that he does not see fit to extend it to the post-Union men. The railway servants of the country would be glad to have a definite pronouncement from the Minister. I tabled a question yesterday in regard to housing facilities for railwaymen. Perhaps the Minister would he able to give us some information on that matter to-day. I would like to know what percentage of houses the Government has provided of the number which is necessary. I know one instance at De Aar where a large number of railway cottages were built under the regime of the previous Government, and the present number does not meet requirements. I cannot emphasize too strongly that these are matters of vital importance to the railwaymen, who are human beings, and not automatons. It is up to the Minister not to treat these matters with indifference. They are important matters to the individual, and because of that, important to the State.

I wish to raise the question of local living allowances. Neither the Minister nor any other hon. member can justify the present system. We know its application is divided into five districts. No. 1 district includes the centres I have mentioned, except those classified in districts I will mention afterwards. No. 2 comprises the Cape province, north to the Orange River and extending to the protectorate, Kimberley and Beaconsfield ex-chided; the Orange Free State, all stations except Bloemfontein; a considerable portion of the Transvaal, excluding the lines from Standerton to Volksrust, and so forth; No. 3, the Cape Province, Kimberley and Beaconsfield; the Fourteen Streams line to Bulawayo; part of the Protectorate; the Transvaal, apart from the Reef; and places not included in No. 2; No. 4. O.F.S. stations, Bloemfontein and Witbank; No. 5, all along the Reef; Randfontein to Springs and branches; Pretoria, but not the line between Germiston and Pretoria. District No. 5 receives the highest allowance, equivalent to £60 per annum. The lowest rate of pay entitled to the allowance is up to 5s. 11d. a day. In District No. 2 a man receives 3d.; in No. 3, 7d.; in No. 4, 1s., and in No. 5 1s. 6d. per day. The maximum substantive pay over 28s. 6d. a day is No. 2 district, 1s. 2d.; No. 3, 1s. 11d.; No. 4, 3s.; and No. 5, 4s. 3d. No. 1 district, comprising the major portion of the Cape and Natal provinces, gets nothing, which is a crying injustice. The cost of living allowance and the whole system are out of date. It originated during the war, and is formed on obsolete data. If one takes the cost of necessaries to-day, it will be found that there is very little difference between Cape Town and Johannesburg; and the amount, apart from climatic allowances, is, in round figures, about £700,000. It is manifestly unfair that this should continue. The Minister and the House are convinced of that; and it cannot continue. The time must come when this has to be readjusted; and why not do it now? I suggest the amount should be pooled, and that all railway servants should share in it. This is the only fair way of dealing with it. The Minister knows the dissatisfaction which exists over a large portion of the Union, and the system of distribution is unjust. I want to raise another matter—in regard to double trials—and the Minister the other day, in replying to me, said that if an employee was charged with culpable homicide, the railway department had nothing to do with that. He might be found not guilty, but might still be guilty of contravening a railway regulation. I have only to cite the case of du Plooy. In this case he did not overrun the points nor pass the signals at danger. Is the Minister justified in trying to prove by departmental inquiry that the man did what he was charged with—travelling at an excessive speed, and that he had taken drink the night before. Both these cases broke down. The administration had 40 witnesses, there was a four days’ trial, and these charges could not be established. How can the department try these men and accuse them of excessive speed, and of being under the influence of drink? How can the Minister with his legal knowledge blind himself, and endeavour to blind this House, by saying that this is not a double trial? I am sure that the Minister’s endeavour to chloroform this House with regard to this matter will not wash. The whole country is up in arms against the system of double trial. What other country has such a system? It is unfair that men who are aquitted in a court of law should be tried a second time and sacked. I hope we have seen the last of double trials. I was interested in the speech of the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Kentridge). He is very fond of citing the faults of the South African party. He reminds me of the case of a man who lives in a glass house. What about his action this week, when he and his party voted against a pension for Mr. Green, and how about the case of Sandy McTaggart? The hon. member voted against common justice in the case of McTaggart. Let him look after his own house before he comes here and finds fault in the way he did this afternoon.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the dangerous state of the railway crossing at Zwartruggens. That crossing over the main line has booms on one side and houses on the other, and one cannot see a train until you are within ten yards of it. There have been several accidents in the past, and I hope the Minister will look into it. I am sorry that there is to be no further building of railway lines this year. I therefore would ask the Minister if it is not possible to have a motor service from Zwartruggens to the Bushveld, a distance of about fifty miles. The farmers there are cattle farmers, orange and mealie farmers—and they would find such a road motor service very useful. I shall be very glad if the Minister can meet them in that way. We understand there are many nonpaying lines, and it might be said that this line also will not pay, but I am certain that if the lorry ran once a week it would not only meet the public but would pay. Another point I want to call attention to is the condition of the railway labourers. As the Minister knows they now get five days’ leave a year. The railway labourers are those that have to work the hardest and get the lowest wages and the shortest holidays. At least fifteen days a year is given in any business. I think that if the Minister were able to give them five days more holiday the grievances would be removed. I quite understand that the Minister has employed Europeans in the place of natives and am grateful, but if the Minister meets them in the way suggested it will remove a grievance they have.

I should like to revert, for a moment, to a matter we dealt with in the early hours of this morning, when the Minister gave us an assurance that he was satisfied that Bloemfontein was the best site for the Points and Crossings workshops. The Workshops Commission dealt with these shops specifically, and recommended the Cape Peninsula or Northern Natal. Had the Workshops Commission known we were going to make rails at Pretoria, they would have probably included Pretoria as a possible site. I suggested that the Minister might place the report he received from his departmental heads recommending Bloemfontein as the best site for these shops on the Table of this House. I recognize that there may be objection to placing departmental reports on the Table or I would ask for them, as the Minister has said he is acting upon them. I do not think it is fair that departmental chiefs should be involved in a discussion as to the claims of different centres of the population, so I will not press for the report. I would ask the Minister, however, to give us a little more information than his assurance that the best site has been selected conveys. Will he tell us whether his departmental chiefs recommended Bloemfontein because at this centre the cost of manufacture would be less than at any other point, or will he give us the reasons of the departmental chiefs for deciding on Bloemfontein? For some years now the Railways and Harbours Department have been investigating various schemes for the development of Gansbaai, and I would earnestly urge the Minister to put one of these schemes into operation immediately. At present only one boat can disembark fish at a time and there are some 20 fishing boats and over 100 fishermen. This delay in getting the fish ashore is a real hardship for it means that the fresh fish is delayed in getting to the market which is many miles away, and to which the fish has to be transported by lorry or cart and horses. Besides this there is a still more important consideration to which I wish to draw the Minister’s attention. The present landing place faces towards the north and lies open to the full force of the north-western gales. Should a sudden storm spring up whilst the boats were at sea they would all have to fly to the one little narrow harbour where they can only come in and be pulled up one by one. In the meanwhile the rest of the boats have to lie off shore exposed to the full force of the wind with no shelter at all and faced by a dangerous rocky coast. It will quite easily happen that a dreadful calamity might occur and several people lose their lives. The inhabitants of Gansbaai are a decent hardworking people who are mainly self-supporting, and the class of person the Government should help. I am all for land settlement schemes, but I say that if there is money to spare let the Government first help the class of our people who are trying to help themselves and be self-supporting Last year 883,000 fish were caught with a weight of nearly one million lbs., and to the value of £8,213, and this could easily be doubled if the harbour was developed. What is wanted is for the present landing place to be increased so that three of four boats could come in at the same time and further a breakwater must be built behind which the boats, waiting their turn to come in, can shelter from the wind and sea. I most strongly urge the Minister of Railways and Harbours to commence developing this splendid fishing industry at once. I have had strong representations made by the fishermen to the effect that they want a local man who has practical knowledge of boats, fishing and the sea as harbour master. It is most unsatisfactory, they contend, and I entirely agree with them, to have this important duty assigned to anyone other than the type suggested above, and I wish to impress this on the Minister. I would also like to state that I understand that the Minister, has been approached directly to have a bus service from Stormsvlei to Rietpoel Station. He knows all the details and so I just want to urge on him the necessity of installing this scheme. I do not wish to take up the time of the House any further as I see the hon. members opposite have been muzzled, not being allowed to speak and are in reality having a dog’s life. But I must draw the attention of the Minister to the urgent necessity of joining the Caledon-Bradasdorp line with what was once the New Cape Central line. I am not suggesting where the join should be made. That is for the engineers to decide. At present producers and business men have to send their goods and produce hundreds of miles round by Cape Town and Worcester to get to Missel Bay, Port Elizabeth, etc. The distance to be built is only a few miles and then the entire Garden Route would be complete and the public could travel from Cape Town along the Garden Coastal route all the way to Port Elizabeth and the North. The railways are losing a lot of revenue due to the distance goods have to go round, as business men find it cheaper, for instance, to bring motor cars down from Port Elizabeth by road than to have them railed. The joining up of these two lines is a crying necessity and I do hope the Minister will ask Parliament for the money to build this line during the next financial year.

I am obliged to bring one more point before the Minister, namely, the lack of facilities in my district. As an orphan I sympathise with the orphans in the far north. They never had the opportunity to reach the standard of education and efficiency required for promotion in the railway service. We had to maintain ourselves there and did not have the opportunity to be able to compete under the present railway regulations. They are of such a nature that however clever or practical one may be you can obtain no responsible post without a knowledge of theory. I guarantee the Minister that there are children with practical experience, and who have been doing practical work for years and who are just as competent, and more so, than all your theorists. I want to ask the Minister to make an exception for those who show practical ability, and who have been doing practical work for years, so that they may have an opportunity for promotion in the service, although they do not hold the certificates that others possibly do.

In the first place I strongly support the appeal of the hon. member for Bredasdorp as to Gansbaai. I would like also to put in a special plea for Hermanus. A Fishing Commission went round our fishing harbours a few years ago. We are always talking about the potentialities of our fishing work along the coast. The Commission made very strong practical recommendations, especially as to Hermanus, but so far nothing very practical has been accomplished. These fishermen lead a life, sometimes, of particular hardship, and the dangers of their occupation are very great. These people land there Very often at the risk of their lives. The Commission was composed of practical men and they recommended that from the fishing point of view harbours for fishing boats should be developed on that coast. I can understand that the Minister is particularly anxious to develop the harbours along the coast, but I wish the Minister to go round and look at the landing places to see the conditions under which the fisherman has to land his catch. There is no man who deserves more credit for his courage than the fisherman, and we want to develop not only that industry, but the hardy race of seamen who are being bred along that coast.

I am not suggesting that there is any lack of sympathy on the part of the Minister. It is only a question of organising these men better than in the past, I also ask him to reconsider the whole wage level of these labourers. The conditions under which they are living is terrible, and the wage level might be reviewed. In fact I think now the whole position might be reviewed. It has been called a civilized labour policy, and it should enable a man to live a civilized standard of life. In one of the first cases that Mr. Justice Higgins dealt with, in the Australian Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, he had to lay down what was a fair and reasonable wage for a civilized man to live on. He showed that although a man could come out on a certain amount he could not lay that down as a principle that was fair and reasonable. He had to consider light, clothes, boots, furniture, household utensils, savings bank account, loss of employment, his trade union subscription, books and newspapers, train and tram fare, sewing machines, amusements, his glass of beer, tobacco, sickness, and contributions to religion or charity. These are the things which Mr. Justice Higgins said in a civilized standard provision must be made for in the man’s wage. Will the Minister not reconsider the wage level of these men in the light of the instances I have just read? Mr. Justice Higgins has been recognised as an authority not only in Australia, but also in the United States and other countries. I believe that the members of this House know that they could not exist if provision were not made in their incomes for the items of expenditure I have mentioned. I can assure the Minister that it will pay South Africa handsomely to raise the wages of these men. At the same time the Minister will have to take care that he does not attract men from the platteland to the railways, but the men now in the service who desire to advance, should be encouraged by having their wages increased.

I put a question to the Minister a week or two ago with regard to the high charge—12/10 per tube—for the conveyance by the railways of carbonic acid gas cylinders from Johannesburg to Cape Town. Will the Minister approach the Minister of Finance with a view to extra customs duty being imposed on imported carbonic acid gas so as to give the inland towns an opportunity of competing?

It would increase the cost of living.

That argument could be used in the case of every duty that is levied with the object of supporting South African industries.

You want to make the task more difficult.

Is that really a statesmanlike reply? I am not paid to find reasons for imposing customs dues, but the head of the department concerned should devise some scheme whereby the inland manufacturer can compete with the imported article. After all import duties are imposed to encourage South African industries.

The cost of supplying electric current to the railways was gone into last session by the Select Committee on Railways, and the facts placed before the Committee, showed me, at any rate, that the charges made by the Electricity Commission are much too high. I do not say, however, that that is the fault of the Commission, which is bound by its Act and also by the Treasury which required the Commission to pay three per cent, towards the redemption of capital. Seeing that the Commission has to make allowance for maintenance and depreciation charges as well as working costs, that three per cent, is a figure which no railway can possibly stand. I am afraid the Minister of Finance is making a profit out of this.

I am going into the matter. We treat them very generously.

What is the Department’s policy regarding the extension of the electrified railway to Durban? We have rather burnt our fingers lately over electrification schemes, but I hope that we have learned by experience, and it is obvious that the present electrified railways in Natal are hanging in the air. The Commission has built a large power station at Durban, and I do not see how that can be justified if the railways are not electrified to Durban. What is the Government doing in regard to the railways in the mandated territories which under an Act passed, I think, when the South African party was in office, were declared to be a part of the South African railway system. The Mandates Committee of the League of Nations took serious exception to that, and at the last meeting of the council of the League of Nations the Mandates Committee reported that the Union Government would bring the law into actual conformity with the mandate. Has any legislation to be passed to confirm the undertaking given by the Union Government? The other point is, when are we going to get statistics on the ton mileage basis? The Minister at the present time occupies a most enviable position from the point of view of criticism. If you criticise expenditure on the basis of the engine mile he says the train and engine mile basis is quite different from what it was two years ago, it costs a great deal more than it did two years ago. You take him to the basis of the percentage of working expenditure to revenue, and he then says, “Oh, but it is this low grade traffic.” When you think you have him, he retreats to another position. It is like the game of the pea under the thimble. I want to know when we shall have these statistics of ton mileage, which will give us, as far as I know, the most accurate barometer as to the real movements of revenue and expenditure.

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Sturrock) said that he thought the central railway workshops should be in the Transvaal or Natal, but that in any case they should not be established in Bloemfontein. I think on the contrary that the Minister should seriously consider putting them in Bloemfontein. We know that the Railway Administration are thinking about doing it, but as no final choice has yet been made I want to ask the Minister if he cannot state that Bloemfontein will be definitely selected. The Minister admitted in the House the other day that the Town Council of Bloemfontein had met the Railway Administration a great deal in connection with the building of houses, and if he intends to make any extensions in Bloemfontein in future the Town Council will be just as prepared to assist the administration. The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown) said this afternoon that the Railway Welfare Officers in the Transvaal had not done satisfactory work, but I want to point out that the position of the white labourers before the appointment of the welfare officers was very unsatisfactory. There are officials in the service who are unsympathetic towards the white labourers and who do all in their power to get rid of them for trivial reasons and on account of small mistakes. Since the appointment of the Welfare Officer in the Free State the position has changed and things have occurred where the welfare officer saw to the reinstatement of people in the service if they were discharged for inadequate reasons. We find that the welfare officer in the Free State is doing excellent work, and we are glad that the Minister made the appointment because the interests of the white labourer are being looked after. If the Minister only gets as good welfare officers in the other provinces then the results there will be just as satisfactory as in the Free State.

In regard to the commutation of pensions, I would like to know what system is adopted by the administration in determining the amount of commutation of a man’s pension. If a man has a clean bill of health, under normal circumstances that would entitle him, for commutation purposes, to one-third of his pension emoluments, but one case has been given to me where a man went on pension on the 18th of June last year, and he then received a letter telling him he could have one-third, £265, in cash, provided he produced a satisfactory medical certificate. Although he furnished a certificate from a doctor and a specialist, he was offered only £180, which he refused to accept. Then in regard to sick leave pay, I understand that when a man goes on sick leave, he is entitled to three months’ sick pay, and thereafter to nothing except as a privilege. One man that I know of got a month’s additional sick pay, and since then, he has been struggling for further sick pay without success. He had a letter telling him he would have to go on pension at the end of the present month, but nothing has been done in regard to pay. He is not allowed to do outside work, and he must exist in some way. I would urge the necessity of speeding up these cases to determine whether a man is to go on pension or not. Then, again, where a man is injured on duty, he is entitled to a higher rate than sick pay, but if he is awarded compensation subsequently, any “injured on duty” pay is docked off his compensation. That seems to me to be something which cannot be justified. These are matters essentially affecting the welfare of railwayman. Then I should like some information regarding a circular which has been sent round the Salt River workshops. I understand it states that if a man wishes, he may retire at 55, and he will receive full pension. Why has it been found necessary to send that circular round? Is it that there is not sufficient work for the men to do, or is it the intention of the Government to retrench, or is it merely an act of grace on the part of the Government? If these men avail themselves of the offer, will they receive their full pension? I should also be glad if the Minister would give us full information as to why he has ignored the unanimous recommendation of the Departmental Workshops Commission which stated that the number of sites for a central workshop was reduced to two, namely, the Cape Province, and Northern Natal. A recent report in the press stated that three big shops would soon lie in course of construction at Bloemfontein—a points and crossings shop, a wagon shop and a coach shop. The claims of Salt River have been entirely overlooked, in spite of the unanimous recommendation of the Commission. I hope the Minister will give us the assurance that it was not because of political considerations that this has ben done.

The hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Vorster) mentioned the case of persons who are not taken into the service unless they have passed Standard VI. Let me say that every person who knows the circumstances of such a large portion of our people who on the countryside were deprived of educational privileges without it being their own fault in any way that they could not pass the Standard VI certificate has the greatest sympathy for them. The railway administration moreover has shown that it has such sympathy. On the other hand it is a fact that the higher posts in the railway service require a certain standard of education. Take, e.g., the job—goods officials—not a high post but yet important. Such officials must have a fair amount of knowledge and schooling, otherwise the danger exists of their making so many mistakes that it would damage the administration. With most appointments in the railway service a certain schooling is required, but to meet the position to some extent we have indicated a number of posts for which the possession of the Standard VI certificate is not required. The details hereof are contained in special Bulletin No. 35 of which we have heard so much in the House. The Department has therefore taken action to meet such people but in view of what was said this afternoon I shall go into the matter again to see if a few more occupations cannot be added to the existing list. I hope my hon. friends will understand that we have already taken action and that we cannot go too far because it will have injurious effects in the railway service. Then I want to add that the administration gives the labourers every possible facility to make themselves efficient in the service. Night schools and continuation schools have been established.

Not on the countryside.

They have been established in the larger centres and we assist the staff to go to such centres. We also assist them in putting them into contact with technical schools, as at Johannesburg, where they have correspondence classes. The welfare officers also make special efforts to assist the people in improving their position. I want to ask my hon. friend to constantly use his influence with the white labourers he meets to encourage them to make themselves more efficient. The hon. member for Zwartruggens (Mr. Verster) mentioned the question of railway crossings and I have already said the principle is that the local community must pay half of the cost of building subways and overhead bridges.

Cape Town doesn’t pay.

Cape Town, Johannesburg and all other places pay. The hon. member also advocates railway extension, but as he is going to bring the matter to the notice of the members of the Railway Board I need not now deal with it. He also asks for a road motor service from Zwartruggens to the Bushveld and that is a matter I will go into, to see if it can be done. Leave to the labourers was raised by various hon. members who feel strongly about it. I want, however, to tell them that they must please not ask me to go too far. They must not forget that we pay the white labourers in the Transvaal, including their house allowance of 1s. 9d. a day and other facilities, a wage which practically amounts to 9s. a day. I do not want to use the cheap labour of the native as an argument, because I do not attach the same value to it as hon. members opposite do, because I believe that if we want to maintain the white civilisation in South Africa we must also give the white men a chance in the lower posts. There are hon. members who say that five days leave a year is not enough and plead for ten to twelve days, but they must understand that we have 15,000 white labourers in the service and that the granting of the request will involve a large amount. Further they must not forget that the users of the railways insist on reduced rates and if we go on increasing the privileges of the white labourers I will tell you what will happen. We will go on to a certain point until an unsympathetic Government comes into power and then the whole policy will be thrown over.

We shall always remain in power.

I hope at least that the hon. members will not come into office before they have been converted with regard to the policy of civilized labour.

(inaudible).

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) knows that the S.A.P. Government transferred so many people from the branch lines that they were obliged to leave the service, and further the S.A.P. Government broke down the houses for the white labourers along the branch lines so that we find it difficult to-day to place white labourers there again. I want to ask hon. members not to press the request for leave and that we should go too fast. The hon. member for Witbank (Mr. Robertson) spoke about the importance of the coal industry. Let me say at once that I quite agree with the importance of that industry to the country. The hon. member must, however, not forget that we have already reduced the rate on bunker coal by 1s. a ton and I can also assure him that we are acting in close co-operation with the coal owners. They are constantly making representations to us and I must say that they are people who know how to look after their interests. I fear, however, that I cannot promise any reduction in the coal rates under existing circumstances. The hon. member for Riversdale (Mr. Badenhorst) asks for improvements in the Mossel Bay Harbour. I hope hon. members have noticed the pleas for harbour improvements, not only for Port Elizabeth and East London, but also for Gansbaai, Hermanus, etc. Hon. members will therefore see how difficult it is to grant all the requests. I will bear the breakwater at Mossel Bay in mind. I realise the importance of the fishing industry and will do what I can. The hon. member for Bechuanaland (Mr. Raubenheimer) spoke about the housing at Mafeking and about the station. He knows that the railway north of Vryburg is the property of Rhodesia and is only controlled by us administratively so that we are not very anxious to incur heavy expense in the matter. I will however go into it.

† The hon. member for Yeoville has brought up a number of questions. He dealt with the question of the cost of electric current. I am in full agreement with him.

Have you had a refund?

Yes, but only in respect of some period of time for the Cape Town-Simonstown line. We have submitted our case to the control board, but I have not yet had any information as to what decision the board has come to. The hon. member has asked about the extension of electrification, more especially from Pietermaritzburg to Durban, We have burnt our fingers so considerably, and more especially on the Natal system, that we shall certainly go slowly. I think the prospects of coming to the House for further funds in connection with electrification are not very favourable at the present moment. The connecting of the supply stations at Durban and Colenso may, however, later change the whole aspect. Not enough attention has been given in this House or in the country to the excellent work of our own engineers in connection with the Cape Town—Simonstown line. Great credit is due to our engineers for the excellent work they have done. My hon. friend also asked about the railways in the mandated territory, and I may say that we have the whole matter under consideration. With regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) the ton miles have been compiled from the first of this year, but until we can get a full year’s results prepared I am afraid my hon. friend must be left to make all the political capital he can out of the figures which have been given. There is no doubt, however, that he will find that under the present management the position of our railways is very sound, and it will continue to be so if my hon. friends do not press me too much in regard to capital expenditure. The point raised by the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) will receive further attention. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) has referred to the question of the dredgers, and more particularly the “Sir Thomas Price.” He is evidently sincerely alarmed at the position at that port. I do not pretend to have any knowledge with regard to the technicalities in connection with the working of dredgers, but I have given my hon. friend the assurance that the whole question of the movement of our dredgers as between the different harbours has been placed in the hands of a committee of technical officers. The dredging committee consists of Mr. Watermeyer, the assistant general mechanical manager, Mr. Pybus, the chief civil engineer, and the port captain of Durban. I may say that both Mr. Watermeyer and Mr. Pybus have been at East London at no distant date, I cannot say when the Port Captain of Durban was there last, but I am sure he has full knowledge of all the conditions there. I have their assurance that the “Sir Thomas Price” is required at Cape Town. The “Sir Thomas Price” will be transferred either at the end of this month or during September, but, as my hon. friend knows, if it is required at East London later, we can take it back there or get another from Durban. I can assure my hon. friend that the interests of East London are not being neglected. The dredging committee have gone into the whole question, and has satisfied themselves that the removal of the “Sir Thomas Price” will not endanger the normal working and the customary expansion of the port. I now come to the question of the turning basin. My hon. friend has forgotten that we have done rather handsomely by East London. If he looks at the Brown book he will find that we are this year making part provision for the Buffalo Bridge. The cost will be £114,000, of which we will recover one-third from the local body. That is item 32, page 4. Take item 901, Buffalo Harbour—oil tanker berth. The plea my hon. friend has put up for East London ignores the fact that the present administration have done quite a lot for that port. My hon. friend may rest assured that we shall not lag behind when the time comes for further extensions at East London.

The turning basin will cost you nothing.

I was told that before, but if you have to dredge and construct wharves it will cost a considerable amount of money.

Will you tell us what it will cost to complete the excavations.

I cannot say, but it will cost a considerable amount. With reference to the remark made by the hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard) on the question of the sick fund, the Sick Fund Board were advised of his remarks. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. Kayser) dealt with the chairman of the Export Control Board. He is under a misapprehension when he thinks that as chairman of the Shipping Board he will be prevented from carrying out his duties as chairman of the Control Board. I should like to pay a tribute to the outstanding work done for the railways by Mr. le Roux, chairman of the Perishable Board. With reference to the remark by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) the hon. member in pressing the claims of their particular harbour did not give full credit to the Railway Department for what had been done. We are making harbour improvements at a cost of £137,000; and that is going to relieve the position very much indeed. My hon. friend knows that a further scheme has been submitted to reclaim a further area of land. I am sorry that I have not had a report yet, and I cannot at this stage give any definite reply. The members of the Railway Board will go into the matter on the spot and report at a later date. We shall have to go very carefully indeed into that question. As regards the bigger scheme I am not prepared to commit the administration in any way, and I cannot carry the matter any farther. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. Kayser) referred to the question of providing a pre-cooling store. If the scheme is carried out we shall, I hope, he able to come to a decision in this regard. The difficulty has been to know where to erect the store and whether it is justified. We could not possibly consider the erection of a pre-cooling store in all our harbours if they are only used for precooling citrus fruit. The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford), and the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close) raised the question of level crossings, and I am glad to see that they have changed their point of view, for not so long ago they pleaded that no contributions whatever should be made. I am glad to welcome them to the ranks of those who recognize hard facts. The hon. members said that I should take into consideration the costs of maintaining these crossings, but there are two sides to that question. We are shortly having a conference with the City Council, and I am sure that when we come round the table, it will be possible to satisfactorily thrash out the matter. I quite agree with the hon. members that these level crossings are a great danger to the public. The hon. member for Cathcart (Mr. van Coller) spoke of the Toise River crossing. I realize that it is a very dangerous one, but the local authorities there must do their duty. If I were to accede to his request because it was an exceptional case there would be other cases. The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown) referred to the question of better organization of our civilized labour policy. I appreciate the manner in which the hon. member has dealt with the question. The solution lies in this, that our European employees should make use of the opportunities we provide at a large number of centres, both large and small, and qualify themselves for higher positions. Our welfare officers have definite instructions to assist the men to qualify. The hon. member must be wrongly informed as to men not being paid the proper wage attached to a higher position when they are called on to do the duties of that position, whether for a day or a month.

The men are not getting the extra pay.

Then the hon. member should bring the matter to the notice of the officer concerned, and the matter will be put right at once The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) has made the very interesting suggestion, viz., that we should pool the local allowances throughout the Union, and said that would solve the question. He invited other hon. members to express their views on his suggestion, but nobody responded. The question is one of very great difficulty. We are not responsible for the system, as we are simply carrying out the report of the Graham Commission. As far as Pietermaritzburg and adjacent portions of Natal are concerned, the figures supplied by the Census Department do not support the payment of a local allowance there. That being so, I can hold out no hope that local allowances will be paid in those areas.

Those figures were compiled six years ago.

No, the figures are adjusted every quarter. With regard to double trial the hon. member while reading from a statement I made at a previous debate, did not dispute the facts as I put them, but gave me the names of certain employees who it is alleged have been subjected to double trial. That is against section (16) of Act No. 23 of 1925. Under this Act no servant in the permanent employ of the Railway Department who has been acquitted by a court on a criminal charge, can be dealt with by the department on the same charge. In the terms of the Act, there can be no such thing as a double trial.

Then why were the men dismissed?

If the hon. member is referring to the Riversdale case, it was because the men were found guilty by a disciplinary inquiry court. They appealed, and I believe the appeal was unanimously dismissed. I have not the papers before me.

They were acquitted by a court of law.

Yes, on a criminal charge. All the matters referred to by the hon. member for Bredasdorp (Maj. van der Byl) will be given consideration. The hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close) has referred to the fishing industry. I share his enthusiasm, and perhaps my enthusiasm is all the greater as I have no direct financial responsibility, the subject coming under the Minister of Mines and Industries.

But you are responsible for the harbours.

It is an open question whether the Railway and Harbour Department should be asked to bear the expense.

That is shifting the responsibility from one department to another.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Shaw) raised the question of railway rates on building material. That matter has been looked into, but at the present moment I can hold out no great hope in that regard. As to the points and crossings shop at Bloemfontein, I cannot carry the matter any further except to say that the whole subject was very carefully considered by the Railway Board, and the management, and the decision was come to after very careful inquiry that Bloemfontein was the most suitable place. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) has raised a number of questions of what he calls “the grievances of the railwaymen.” I hope the House will pardon me if I say a few words in reply, as older members have heard so many discussions on these points that they must be very tired of them. He has asked me about the differential rates of pay. I am afraid he is not going to get any reply from me to his categorical questions, except that my predecessor in 1923 considered the whole matter, not only looking at the interests of the artizans, but at the interests of the whole country. My hon. friend must realize that not only was a cut made in the artizans’ wages, but in the whole of the railway and general service. It would cost the country about £2,000,000 to revert to the old rates of pay. Government has given careful consideration to the question on several occasions, and we have definitely come to the conclusion that it is impossible for us to return to the old rates. The hon. member must accept that as a final decision, as far as this Government is concerned. We have gone very far indeed in carrying out the report of the Hours of Duty Committee. We have made very big progress since the committee dealt with the whole question. Take one item. The hon. member suggested that the guards and examiners should be given an eight hours’ day, but I have already reduced their hours from ten to nine, and to give them an eight hours’ day would cost the country between £40,000 and £50,000 per annum. Does he seriously suggest we are to do this? Has he not heard the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) and the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) saying that our administration is costing too much and that I must bring down operating expenses? Perhaps if I give some figures in regard to artizans’ rates of pay it may help the hon. member to convince his constituents that they are not so badly off as they sometimes think they are. In 1914 the rate of pay for artizans was 13s. They now get 18s. That is the rate to which we reverted in 1923. The cost of living, as compared with 1914, shows an increase of about 32 per cent. The increased percentage in the wage is 38 per cent. So that on the old rates of pay these men are still six per cent. better off than in 1914. He also dealt with the question of appeal boards. If he will refer to Section 18 of Act 23 of 1925 he will see that the decision of the Appeal Board is not final. The decision is referred to the controlling officer who deals with it. If it is a unanimous decision and the officer does not accept the decision of the board, the appellant has the right of further appeal to the general manager, and finally to the Railway Board. He also dealt with the commutation of pensions. The position is that the chief medical officer and the consulting actuary deal with all these cases, and we act on their finding. In regard to the other matters he dealt with, I will give him the information later on. I have dealt with all points, except the apologia of the hon. member for Kimberley, who has said that I dealt most unfairly by him, because I gave him wrong information on which he made incorrect calculations.

Correct calculations but incorrect figures.

He says that because his results are wrong I am to blame. Who is responsible? If he will look at the estimates which I laid on the Table, he will find that the correct figure is given in paragraph 7, head 4, viz., that our train and engine mileage during 1929-’30 is expected to exceed the mileage for the previous year by 2,072,515 miles. So that if he had taken the trouble to read this statement he would have had the correct figure.

But we did not have these figures then.

Oh yes, he did. My hon. friend will have to try again. He had opportunity of getting the correct figure. I will say this in justice to him, that he probably did not take notice that I said over 2,000,000. I want to give him some further figures to prove increased efficiency. Our working expenditure per train mile during 1926-’27 was 8/6.9; in 1927-’28 it was 8/5.9, and the corresponding figure for 1928-’29, the actual figure, is 8/1.8. In 1926-’27 there was a loss on the year’s working of £158,211; in 1927-’28 there was a surplus of £47,217, and last year there was a surplus of £295,824. I will give him a final figure showing the ratio of working expenditure to revenue. In 1926-’27 it was 80.68; in 1927-’28 it was 79.83 and in 1928-’29 it was 77.80. Surely he will agree that these figures clearly demonstrate there is greater efficiency. He may say that on the figure supplied by me for this coming year our ratio is going to rise, but let the House not forget that we agreed this year to increase the wage bill for our running men by £162,000. We have also this year increased our contribution to our renewals fund by £390,000. The estimated engine miles for 1929-’30 is 61,832,147. I hope hon. members will, after this debate, appreciate some of the difficulties which a railway Minister has to deal with in regard to a big concern such as ours. Hon. members on both sides must appreciate that we are dealing with an asset in which £150,000,000 capital of the State’s money is involved. Members who wish us, from time to time, to provide additional money for capital expenditure on the same scale must ask themselves whether we can continue as a country to spend money in this way. I do feel the time has come when opinion in the House and the country must be educated to this: that our railway system cannot continue on the same basis of capital expenditure as we have done in the past. We have already reduced the annual amount and I hope when the construction programme has been completed that we shall be able to make a bigger cut in the expenditure on capital funds.

Head 1, as printed, put and agreed to.

Head 2, “Maintenance of Permanent Way,” £3,122,839, put and agreed to.

Head 3, “Maintenance of Rolling Stock,” £4,428,574, put and agreed to.

Head 4, “Running Expenses,” £5,371,989, put and agreed to.

Head 5, “Traffic Expenses,” £4,533,106, put and agreed to.

Head 6, “Superannuation,” £554,648, put and agreed to.

Head 7, “Cartage Service,” £459,689, put and agreed to.

Head 8, “Depreciation of Permanent Way and Works and Rolling Stock,” £1,890,233, put and agreed to.

Head 9, “Catering Service,” £664,431, put and agreed to.

Head 10, “Bookstalls and Advertising,” £185,376, put and agreed to.

Head 11, “Bedding Equipment of Trains,” £52,562, put and agreed to.

On Head 12, “Grain Elevators,” £256,379,

Is there any hope that these grain elevators are going to pay, and that they should cease to be a burden? I hope the Minister will see some daylight.

I may say this question of the extension of the country grain elevators has given the administration much food for thought. There are two schools of thought in this regard. There are many in the House and country who say that we should extend the system, and that if we provide more country elevators the system will pay. Others say that it should not be done. I frankly have not yet been able to make up my mind in regard to this question, and the whole question is still under the consideration of the board. There are so many factors. We may have a good maize crop, but if there is not a good export market the system will not pay. In one year we had a good crop but no favourable overseas market, and the result was that our elevators were blocked, and showed a loss. Provided all the factors are favourable, of course there is no reason why our system should not pay.

Head put and agreed to.

Head 13, “Road Motor Services,” £392,025, put and agreed to.

On Head 13/1, “Tourist Traffic,” £38,000,

I want to ask the Minister if he cannot see, now that tourists are coming to this country, that they get comfortable carriages, especially in winter time. There has been a good deal of neglect lately in the heating up of the trains, and I have had personal experience of that.

What is “hotel accommodation” for?

With regard to what the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown) has said, complaints have come to the notice of the management, and active steps have been taken in that regard. It is fully appreciated that the heating apparatus in the carriages should be in working order. Regarding the question of the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close), these are expenses paid by the tourist agency branch to the hotels where we obtain accommodation for tourists. We pay the hotels, the tourists pay us an inclusive sum.

In connection with this vote, I should like to bring something to the Minister’s notice. During the recent tourist season the world was startled by the number of sicknesses and deaths among the tourists who visited the malaria districts. I just want to ask, in view of the importance of it, whether instructions were given to take the strictest precautionary measures when visitors went through the malaria zones?

I am glad the hon. member has raised the point. I do not think there was the least negligence on the part of the Administration, but, of course, there are always people who, when they go to the game reserve, want to penetrate as far as possible. I heard that also in the case the hon. member is thinking of. The people went far into the bush with lorries, and had to suffer inconvenience. However, careful provision is being made by the issue of quinine to guard against any infection in infected areas, and in the case referred to, we are convinced that the sicknesses had nothing to do with the malaria.

I should like to know what is this transport payable for lake steamer services.

We do it in conjunction with the Kenya administration.

Head put and agreed to.

Head 14, “Interest on Capital,” £5,399,946, put and agreed to.

Head 15, “Interest on Superannuation and other Funds,” £678,120, put and agreed to.

On Head 16, “Charges in Respect of Lines Leased,” £13,500.

I want to ask the Minister whether this line which the department hires whether the railway from Natal to Zululand pays.

The position there is that the line belongs to a company and that the department pays the amount and therefore we bear all the expenditure and take the revenue. I can assure the hon. member that it is quite a good agreement.

Head put and agreed to.

Head 17, “Miscellaneous Expenditure,” £136,610, put and agreed to.

Head 18, “Contribution to Betterment Fund,” £350,000, put and agreed to.

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

Head 19/1, “Contribution Towards Reduction of Interest-Bearing Capital,” £250,000, put and agreed to.

Head 20, “Maintenance and Upkeep,” £594,590, put and agreed to.

Head 21, “Traffic Working,” £60,981, put and agreed to.

Head 22, “General Charges,” £29,419, put and agreed to.

Head 23, “Superannuation,” £29,372, put and agreed to.

Head 24, “Depreciation,” £98,244, put and agreed to.

Head 25, ”Lighthouses, Beacons and Signal Stations,” £50,909, put and agreed to.

Head 26, “Interest on Capital,” £560,656, put and agreed to.

Head 27, “Miscellaneous Expenditure,” £21,050, put and agreed to.

Head 28, “Steamships,” £140,411, put and agreed to.

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

Supplementary Estimates

On Head 30, “Rates Equalization Fund,” £186,967.

This is another of the Minister’s little stockings—a little reserve fund.

I appreciate that remark of my hon. friend, but surely it ought to be a lesson to the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), who said that my successor would have to clear up the mess. It does not look like clearing up a mess when the hon. member’s leader tells him that I have certain pockets in which I have a reserve stored against a rainy day.

I may remind the House that the Minister himself supported me a year ago when I said that better provision should be made.

Head put and agreed to.

Head 31, “Writing Dead Assets out of Capital Account,” £156,074, put and agreed to.

Estimates of Expenditure from Railway and Harbour Funds, and Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure, South African Railways and Harbours, to be reported both without amendment.

House Resumed:

The Chairman reported that the committee had agreed to the estimates of expenditure from Railway and Harbour Funds, and Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure, South African Railway and Harbour Funds, and Supplementment.

Report considered and adopted, and a Bill brought up.