gave notice that he would move on Friday next—

Why wait until Friday? Why not introduce the Bill to-morrow?

The Bill is not quite ready.

laid upon the Table—

I move—

objected.

laid upon the Table—

Estimates referred to Committee of Supply.

laid upon the Table—

Report referred to Select Committee on Public Accounts.

Might I be allowed to ask the Minister of Finance whether he has received the report from the Board of Trade and Industries on the dumping of sugar, and if so, whether he will place the same on the Table of the House.

Yes, I will lay a copy on the Table. I may say that J have given Mr. Nicholls, who represents these interests, a copy of the report, but I will also lay a copy on the Table.

I move—

It has been pointed out by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) that it might be well, in this case, to make it clear that the attorney correspondent is entitled to make allowances.

seconded.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Amendments in Clause 9, put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, adopted and read a third time.

I have an amendment on Clause 15 which I have not tabled. I should be glad if the House would allow me to move it now, but I would like to put it to the Minister first. The amendment is on page 12—

Many of the companies which would fall under Clause 15 do not confine themselves to operations solely for the benefit of their members, and I would be glad if the Minister would agree to my amendment confining the benefit of this clause to companies which operate solely on behalf of their members, otherwise a company which is only nominally a co-operative society, could escape all these things.

[No objection.]

That would confine the very material benefits of the clause to true cooperative societies. Not all societies registered under the Bill would necessarily confine their business to their members. My information is that certain companies would be entitled to launch out into private enterprise; for instance to do auctioneering for non-members. We want to encourage real co-operation, but not to allow certain organizations to compete with other companies under the cloak of co-operation. If the Minister can give us the assurance that companies registered under the Act must confine their operations to their own members, then I am satisfied.

That is just what is happening under the Cooperative Act.

I hope the Minister will satisfy himself on the point, because I have had representations to the contrary from very well informed quarters.

seconded.

The benefits of co-operation should be only for the advantage of co-operators, but it may be used as a cloak for an ordinary trading concern.

It is impossible—it is against the Act.

To make sure, put the amendment in. It is the only justification you have for releasing certain real co-operative societies from taxation, because any benefits that accrue go to the co-operators.

The Co-operative Act passed two years ago by the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) is quite plain on the subject, and there is no room for misunderstanding the point that a co-operative society’s operations are limited to its members, and must do business for its members. I can quote an example which happened recently, when the Umfolozi Society was prevented from crushing cane for non-members.

Look at new Clause 17.

Under sub-section (2), Clause 17, the activities of a co-operative society may be extended to non-members. That being so, I think the amendment is a reasonable one.

All societies registered since the passing of the Act of 1922 can only deal with their own members. There is no doubt about that.

What about line 51 on page 12?

That only deals with the 25 per cent. who do not belong to co-operative societies. It is quite clear that all societies registered under the Co-operative Societies’ Act have to conform to the regulations.

Look at Clause 3 of the Bill.

That only deals with the Minister’s decision whether a company or a trading society is a co-operative concern, and if so whether it has to register under the principal Act. There were a few co-operative societies which were in existence at the time of the passing of the Act in 1922, and they were enabled under that law to deal with people who were non-members, and they were specially allowed to come in without infringing their rights, that agreement was arrived at a conference held at Pretoria.

Should they not be dealt with?

If so you will infringe existing rights. You may make it very difficult for a few concerns to differentiate between a member and a non-member. Since the passing of the 1922 Act no society can register unless it deals only with its own members.

The member for Somerset (Mr. Fourie) has stated the position quite correctly. The only societies affected are the few societies in existence before the passing of this Act, and for these societies special provision was made by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) that they should be allowed to register under the Act. If it is thought to exclude these societies from those benefits then this motion would be a right one.

Perhaps the Minister will look into this before the Bill goes to another place. I have been doubtful about the wording of Clause 3. In the old Bill you make provision for societies that the hon. member for Somerset has referred to. You make provision for societies not purely co-operative societies, and there were certain societies which were quasi co-operative societies. Under Clause 57 there were societies which had not, under the Act, applied within the time to come in, although they were not co-operative societies. Clause 3 seems to go further. Clause 3 says for the purpose of paragraph (a) a person or body of persons shall be deemed to be carrying on the operations of a co-operative agricultural society or company or trading society if those operations are part similar to those of a society formed and registered under the principal Act. When the Bill was going through Committee I intended to ask the Minister what the meaning of that clause was. You can go further under that than under Clause 57 of the original Bill. If that is so, there is something in the amendment of my hon. friend. The Minister should clear that up before the Bill goes to another place. Perhaps either of the Ministers will tell us why Clause 3 was put in. Is it put in solely in connection with societies that did not register, but which were entitled to register? If not, why did it not particularly specify certain societies that were co-operative and did not register? It is not the intention that any company not a co-operative company or society should be allowed to use the word “co-operative” because that will be misleading to a large number of people. I am nervous about that clause. It allows a society to use the word “co-operative” that does not come within Clause 7 or 57. It may be even less co-operative than under Clause 7, which makes provision that they should not be allowed to carry on operations without registration under the Act.

There is no doubt that under the old Act co-operative societies could only do business with their members except certain societies which were privileged. Here power is given to the Minister to make those concessions to other societies as well; seeing they are included under the Co-operative Societies Act, it would be unfair now to adopt the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) and to make it so severe that they are prohibited from doing business with supporters of the cooperative society who are possibly not bona fide members. I therefore think that we should not adopt the amendment.

I am sorry that I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz). By doing so we should commit a breach of faith with what the House previously granted to certain societies which tall under section 57 of the Act. We have the Natal Creamery Society. That would mean that we would have to permit the societies not to come under the Act. That we cannot do the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) now comes and asks what the meaning of section 3 is. He was in the House yesterday, and agreed to the adoption of section 4. Now I just want to tell the hon. member for Fort Beaufort as he has now woke up what the intention is. If we do not put it in, any society can evade the Act. A society has 99 producers, and can then easily evade the Co-operative Societies Act and be registered under the Companies Act if they just take one non-producer into the society. Then we have no authority. If that one man is against co-operation, the whole Co-operative Societies Act can be made a failure. To avoid this, the section gives power to the Minister to intervene in cases of that kind where a society carries on co-operative trade and yet evades the Act by becoming registered as a company.

I take it I am not allowed to reply?

No.

I would like to back up what has fallen from the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) about this. Clause 3 defines as a co-operative society—

I think that is where the danger lies. If the Minister will not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz), I would suggest to him that he should say “in greater part” so as to make sure that any of these societies which come in under the guise of farmers’ co-operative societies shall be, in the main, such societies. This clause amends section 7 to the extent of extending it to a society whose operations are “in part similar.”

But they are not registered.

The hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) keeps on saying that they are not included. This is going to provide for their coming in. It is going to put them under the Co-operative Societies Act; they can be registered. Clause 7 is going to be amended to allow any society whose operations or constitution are in part similar to come under the Act. I ask the Minister to consider this very seriously. If he will not accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central), he should at least strengthen the clause so that we can be sure that these societies shall be for the greater part similar to agricultural co-operative societies. In Clause 17 we are giving extensive powers to 75 per cent. of the producers in a district who belong to a co-operative society. Let us make sure that these societies are to the extent of at least 50 per cent. truly agricultural co-operative societies.

Amendment put and negatived.

Omission of Clause 16 put and agreed to.

On Clause 18,

Amendment put in lines 32 to 36.

I move, as an amendment to this amendment—

seconded.

seems to me that the words “as defined in paragraph 5” are quite superfluous. I have consulted the draftsman, and they are unnecessary. I am prepared to accept the remaining amendments.

First amendment put and negatived; remaining amendments put and agreed to.

Amendment put in lines 52 to 57.

I move, as an amendment to this amendment—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

On new sub-section (5),

I did not quite catch what the Minister said in reply to the point about allowing semi-agricultural societies to come in. I want to make it perfectly clear that the inclusion of any other products should be only in terms of the sub-section. I do not want to move it now if the Minister will assure me that the law advisers consider it unnecessary, but I suggest adding at the end of subsection (5) “in terms of this sub-section.” It is possible for the subject to be interpreted rather widely as it stands. I want to make it quite clear.

It is quite clear.

As the Minister refuses to give me the assurance for which I ask, although he knows full well that I wish to help him, I move as an amendment—

seconded.

I really do not know what the hon. member means. He wants to make the section still more plain. I have consulted the draftsman, and he says that the section is quite clear, and can give no cause for misunderstanding. Now the hon. member wants to insert more words and make it still clearer. I am sorry that I cannot accept the amendment.

I want to ask the Minister about this. I told him I did not understand him. Will he please explain whether the law advisers say it is unnecessary.

I have just explained that my secretary went this morning to see the law adviser, and he said the question was quite clear, and the amendment proposed by the hon. member was not necessary. What more could I say?

Yes, but my hon. friend must realize there is a way of explaining, and it is open to everyone in this House who takes an interest in a Bill of this character to ask for the fullest explanation before it goes through, and it ought to be a pleasure to the Minister to give explanations instead of slapping at members when they want explanations.

With leave of the House I withdraw the amendment.

New sub-section (5), as printed, put and agreed to.

New sub-section (6) put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, adopted and read a third time.

I move—

This Bill carries into effect the policy already announced in regard to the raising of the abatement from £1,000 to £7,500 in the case of estate duty, and in the second place, in modifying and simplifying the assessment of life interest. I indicated to hon. members that, in connection with the administration of the Act certain difficulties have been experienced, which we are now attempting to modify and simplify the law. This refers both to estate and succession duty. Certain alterations were proposed in that regard, and certain minor amendments have been made in the principal Act of 1922, and certain consequential amendments which have to be dealt with by the House, are included. In regard to life interest for estate duty, the modifications are these. Under the principal Act all life interest except usufructs from property of a deceased spouse were valued on the expectation of life of the holder. That was one of the difficulties. When a usufructuary ceased, if the person to whom the property passes was a young person, the amount was relatively higher than in the case of an old person, and that was an anomaly which we tried to deal with also Under the new proposals fiduciary interests which carried with them the ownership of the property will continue to be treated in the way of assets, but on a new basis of valuation; but this is an important change. No first usufruct will be liable to duty. A usufruct which is reserved by a person who makes a donation to his children, or anybody else, if that person dies, the usufruct will pay estate duty, but in the case of a first usufruct that we are going to eliminate. Also if there is a succession of usufructs the second or subsequent ones will also pay the duty. Hon. members will see that the second method is necessary, otherwise you would open the door to anomalies, which it would be inadvisable to encourage by way of fiscal enactments in this manner. Then there is the method of valuation for estate duty. As I have already indicated, formerly the method of valuation was the expectation of life of the person who benefited. This has unfortunately brought about administrative difficulties. Cases occurred where there were many beneficiaries, and it was necessary to ascertain the age of each of these, and very often it happened that the value of the usufruct exceeded the value of the property itself. These are difficulties which have arisen, and we have now tried to devise a simple system. Fiduciary interests will be valued at the full value of the property as at the death of the fiduciary. A usufructuary interest will be valued on a different basis according as the cessation results in its merger with the ownership or in the beginning of a new usufructuary interest, as in the case where a series of usufructuary interests are created. In the first case the interest will be valued as the difference between the full capital value of the property at the date when the usufruct comes to an end, and the value of the nude dominium at the date when the usufructuary interest was first created. The date of the cessation of the interest has been taken so as to make allowance for alterations in value between the date of the original disposition and the date when the interest was to be valued. Then we get the case where the usufruct is followed by another usufruct, the basis of expectation of life is retained, (that is the expectation of life of the next holder) as being the only logical basis for such circumstances. Where there is a second usufruct, we take as the basis the expectation of the life of the person benefiting as under the existing law. Hon. members will turn to a few of the clauses, which I should like to comment upon. Clause 1. This is merely a verbal alteration, designed to carry out the intention of the original paragraph. Doubt has been raised whether the original wording had the intended effect of making the basis of liability the necessity for recording the ownership of the shares by registration in the Union. We accept that it is necessary to have that recorded in the Union. In such cases these shares will become liable, but, of course, there are cases where such registration in the Union may not be necessary. Clause 3 effects three changes. Paragraph (a) exempts all life interests from liability to estate duty where the interest was created under a bona fide transaction of purchase and sale. The original Act only gave the exemption where the transaction had taken place before that Act came into force. By removing the time limit a class of transactions very common in this country will no longer be penalized by the purchaser of property subject to a usufruct finding himself mulcted in estate and succession duties on the cessation of the usufruct. Paragraph (b) limits the exemption from estate duty of bequests to public institutions to bequests to such institutions within the Union. Paragraph (c) carries out the increase of the abatement from £1,000 to £7,500. Clause 4 provides the new basis of valuation for life interests (in which term is included interests for a period of years) which will be applicable to such interests as still remain chargeable under the Act. Those will, of course, be comparatively few. Sub-paragraph (iv) defines “annual value” for capitalization purposes as 6 per cent. on the capital value, but allows the Master a discretion where it is established that the property could not produce such a value. These provisions are necessary to deal adequately with cases where the property over which the usufruct is held is either not used at all or is inadequately used. For such cases average yield (though reasonable enough in normal cases) is useless as a basis. Opportunity is also taken of making provision for life interests in pictures and other heirlooms. These will only be given a value if a commercial use is made of them. Subparagraph (v) brings any values under this paragraph into the general scheme of valuation provided by the Act; that scheme is: valuation by an appraiser subject to (a) review by the Commissioner, (b) arbitration, if the Commissioner’s valuation is disputed and no agreement can be reached. Experience in administration has proved that it is not always possible to accept an appraiser’s valuation as final. Different appraisers will give widely divergent values of the same property With regard to Clause 9, under section 17 of the principal Act only estates which come within the purview of a Master of the Supreme Court were provided for administratively, although the duty was chargeable in respect of all estates. The new provisos make the necessary provision to enable the Commissioner to obtain returns in respect of other estates, such as native estates (excluded from the Master’s jurisdiction by Section 3 (d) of Act 24 of 1913) and estates where the only assets are those which are—

such as life policies, life interests, donations inter vivos within the two years’ limit, and donations mortis causa, and which do not, for that reason come before the Master. In order to compensate executors and other persons for the trouble caused in returning these latter items, provision is made under Clause 12 for fees to be fixed by regulations, on the lines of the remuneration paid to executors under the Administration of Estates Act. Clause 12 provides for remuneration to be paid by the department under regulation in cases where the nature of the assets in respect of which duty is paid is such that no executor’s fees are payable. The Act necessarily imposes a great deal of extra work on executors, and it is only reasonable that that work should be remunerated in the same way as other estate work. Clause 13 substitutes the new scales of duty. These have been designed to produce approximately the same revenue as that produced by the existing scales. Clause 14 is designed to remove a hardship which can arise under the principal Act when property is left by a father-in-law to his son-in-law, or where a surviving spouse benefits by the cessation of an interest which would have benefited the deceased spouse had he or she lived. The son-in-law or survivor is a stranger in blood to the predecessor, but the bequest in the first case is really meant for the benefit of the daughter and the daughter’s children, and it is equitable that the rate of duty should accord with the real purpose of the succession. We hope that as a result of these changes many objections which have existed with regard to this law will disappear.

This is another extremely important Bill which is somewhat late in the session in making its appearance; we had it only this morning. I understand that the measure is a considerable improvement on the last one, and removes certain anomalies, but I am sorry it has not gone a step further and done away with the double taxation which exists under the Bill. People resident in Great Britain, who may invest money in South Africa, have to pay death duties both in the Union and in Great Britain. We want capital to develop the country both from a mining and an industrial point of view. It does, however, seem a very strange way of obtaining fresh capital from overseas when those who put that capital into South Africa will be taxed twice over.

Do you want me to allow them to escape taxation?

I will deal with that later. If a man invests money in South African loans and he is domiciled overseas, he is taxed in both countries. How can you expect people to submit to that? Then if a man goes overseas to reside and leaves his capital here double death duties will also be payable. I must confess that the Government talk about development, yet they are literally driving capital out of the country. Most people are not aware of it at first, but they learn from experience. In Great Britain the duties are heavier than they are here; they are up to 40 per cent., whilst in South Africa they are up to 17 per cent. When a large estate has to pay this burden it is a heavy hardship. The blame does not exist entirely with the South African Government. There is an arrangement with Great Britain whereby there is a certain abatement which is made to avoid this hardship. An agreement has been come to with every Commonwealth except South Africa and the Government of Australia. Why cannot some effort be made by South Africa to do the same? We want the capital here, and it is to our interest to do it. Some abatement should be made. If my hon. friend would make the attempt something like that could be done, and it would be in a larger degree to the benefit of this country. I am sorry he has not brought this in and has not made some effort to bring about some kind of agreement.

Before this Bill is read a second time I want to say a few words. When the Act of 1922 was passed there were various taxes in the different provinces of South Africa in regard to this matter. In the Transvaal there was an estate duty without succession duty, and in the other three Provinces there were succession duties, but no estate duty. The Government then decided to make the taxation uniform, and applied the estates duty over the whole Union, and the succession duty was also retained. In the Cape Province it was decreased under the Act of 1922 which the Minister is now amending, but the estate duty was applied throughout the Union. Now I just want to say that I think that in a young country like South Africa it is a mistake to stabilize this estate duty. I should have liked to see the Minister foregoing the estate duty. We could then have returned to the succession duties. The estate duty is undoubtedly a tax on capital and economy, because what is our business system? If a farmer makes a profit on his farm he invests it in further development of the ground. That happens in other businesses as well. Now we are going to establish the tax on that capital when a man dies. It therefore amounts to this, that the capital is taxed which is invested in this way. It is a tax on capital, economy, and let me also say, on thrift, without which we cannot get on. This is one of the first essentials for building up our country and our family system. And if an Act is passed which is in conflict therewith, we are doing something which is not beneficial to the development of our primary products and of progress. As the Minister has now decided to make an alteration —and I am thankful to him for the alteration—I am sorry that he could not allow this tax to drop. I am against this system of taxation; I think that it is wrong, and I think that my friends who support the Minister will agree with me. Our country is possibly old in civilisation, but through natural disadvantages and so forth we are still young in development. We require much capital for further development, we are here laying a tax on capital. For this reason I am very sorry that the Minister has taken steps to levy this tax again. I understand that there is an exemption up to £7,500, and an estate of £7,500 will therefore not pay estate duty. Is that so?

Yes.

But what about section 13, and the first schedule? That section reads as follows—

First Schedule,—Rates of Estate Duty.

Upon the first £2,000 of dutiable amount ½ per cent.

Upon so much of the dutiable amount as

It seems to me that the position is the same as under the old Act.

No, that is not so.

Is it covered by section 3?

Yes.

Then I want to say that the Minister is making it easier for the small estates. I agree with that, but I must say that he makes it very heavy on the estates of £25,000 and upwards.

But they can pay.

Yes, but hon. members must understand that it is not only the capitalist who has £2,500. I know of many farmers whose estates are worth £40,000, including the value of their ground, of course. In my constituency the ground is specially suited to wool and grain and good ground sells for £20 a morgen. We can now understand what the possessions of some farmers are and they will be taxed heavily. We think we are going to catch mine magnates, etc., but we are going to hit many of our own people hard. For this reason I am sorry that the hon. Minister has not taken full power to abolish this estate duty. I am certain that his party would have supported him.

I am astonished that the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) has not spoken before in the way he has done to-day. It was his party who laid down the principle of estate duty. To-day he is in opposition and raises all kinds of objections. At that time he did not oppose it.

I was then in the Speaker’s chair.

It was his party who introduced the Act. But I agree with him. The estate duty has never yet been popular in the country. We can argue as we like and turn matters how we will. In the outside districts the tax is very unpopular, and I must say that there are great expectations that the Government as soon as possible will take the opportunity of repealing the estate duty and substituting something else. What happens now in the outside districts? The people there have concluded that the best way is to transfer the ground in an estate to the children. It is a tiling which never happened before that a man should transfer his ground during his life time. But now it is being done because they are afraid of the tax. I acknowledge and am thankful for the exemption of estates up to £7.500, but the hon. member for Caledon has rightly said that the tax on estates of £25,000 and upwards is made much heavier. Now, on the other hand, we must remember that the largest portion of the farming population is married in community of property, and there are thus joint estates which means that instead of £7,500 an estate of actually £15,000 escapes free, because the half of the estate usually goes in any case to the survivor, and in that way actually only the half of the estate pays duty. I have not much objection to this tax so far as the average farmer is concerned, because the exemption up to £7,500 will help much in that case. What I am not quite certain about, however, is the question of the tax on usufruct and fides commissum. It is undoubtedly a complicated matter, and is not understood by a large part of the farming population. The system under the former Government was that the usufruct for taxation purposes was valued according to the lifetime of the man who obtained the usufruct. I am not yet quite certain what this Bill lays down. I read it to-day for the first time, and have not yet studied it.

Usufruct is entirely excluded.

Quite excluded? Then I am very thankful. I am a man in practice. I liquidate regularly a few estates every year, and with exceptional knowledge and large experience of it I can assure the House that it is a great concession to the farming population. It removes at once the great objection which does not exist so much in connection with your ground which is to-day left to your children, but in connection with quasi ownership where in connection with usufructs estates duty has to be paid. I am glad and thankful if usufruct does not come under it. For the rest, I only wish to express the pious hope that sooner or later we shall see the funeral of this tax, and that the time will come when there is an opportunity of putting another means of getting money in its place, rather than putting a tax on capital on the country, which practically taxes the dead and operates on the present population of the country, laying a burden in the form of a tax on capital. I hope that the Minister will soon be able to abolish the estate duty.

I cannot help thinking that if this measure had come before the House at an earlier stage of the session the proposals of the Minister would have aroused more attention, because there seems to be an impression abroad in this House that provision is being made that no estate up to £7,500 has to pay anything and that, generally speaking, no great change is made in the incidence of duties. The abatement of £7,500, I would point out, is, like the abatement of £1,000 under the old Act, subject to great limitations, as the abatement will be diminished by £1 for every £ by which the total value of the property included in the estate, after allowing the deductions under the schedule, exceeds £7,500. It is obvious, therefore, that an estate of £15,000 is not going to escape by paying duty on only half of that amount, and therefore the relief which is given, although I agree that it is an appreciable relief to the smaller estates, is not going to be an appreciable relief to any of the somewhat larger estates. The rate of duty now imposed is raised very considerably. Under the old schedule in the principal Act on an estate of from £30,000 to £40,000 the duty was 7 per cent., but it is now on an estate of from £30,000 to £35,000 8 per cent., £35,000 to £40,000 9 per cent., £40,000 to £45,000 10 per cent., and on an estate of £75,000 it goes up to 17 per cent., a figure which was only reached before when an estate was worth £1,000,000.

But you are not stating it correctly. These are not the rates; you must take the block rates.

These are the rates in the schedule. I could only say that under the old schedule the rate of duty on so much of the dutiable amount as exceeds £1,000.000 is 17 per cent., while in the new schedule the rate of duty upon so much of the dutiable amount as exceeds £75,000 is 17 per cent. Therefore, the comparison is surely between £75,000 and £1,000,000. I hope the Minister will enlighten us if that is not so. I wish to revert to a point to which I referred when in Committee of Ways and Means, and that is the great hardship which is going to fall upon the owners of landed estates. Hon. members opposite do not seem to mind that. I would have thought they would. But there are a good many people on this side of the House who do mind it, and they mind it for this reason, that if you are going to put taxation of this kind on land you are inevitably going to break up the great majority of the estates which are worth more than a moderate sum, and whether that is going to be to the advantage of the country seems to me to be a very moot question, because it must be realized that when a man whose estate consists chiefly of land, real property, has to pay duty, steps have to be taken either to sell a part of the property or money has to be borrowed on very disadvantageous terms or some steps of that kind have to be taken. In any case the estate is crippled, and there is no money available for the development of the land. I think it will be agreed that the development of the land in this country is an object we should all keep in view. If this duty were going to have the effect of creating a large number of small proprietors, well and good, but we see every day in this country that estates are being broken up in the ordinary course by the existing duty, and by the testamentary dispositions which are made. If we were creating a large number of prosperous small owners we should not see the influx of people into towns who cannot get anything to do on the land. That this taxation is going to accentuate that movement there is no doubt. It is reasonable to look at what has happened in other countries. In England, the taxation is almost a preposterous amount. It went up during the war to an appalling figure, and the result is that practically every estate in England will be broken up in two generations. We know, we can learn from experience, that where you have this principle embodied in the legislation of a country, then the moment the Treasury is hard up the Minister turns a handle and increases the duty, with the result, that more and more estates are broken up. I think that is an unfortunate thing. I have read, with some interest, since the discussion in Committee of Ways and Means, that that point has been raised and pressed strongly in the British House of Commons, in connection with the increased duties which were proposed under the latest Budget. As the result of that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had had to give way and amend his proposals, so that the increase of duty is made not applicable to agricultural land. That, it seems to me is confirmation of the argument we have used, that the imposition of these duties constitutes an exceptional hardship on estates composed of agricultural land. They are the estates with least provision to meet the duties, and they are the estates which are going to suffer most, I suppose it is useless to protest against the whole principle of the Bill, and I do not propose to do that; but when we go into committee I propose to move an amendment to the first schedule, that is to Clause 13, which will provide that these proposed increases, so far as the estate consists of agricultural land, shall not apply. That is to say, so far as an estate consists of agricultural land, the duties shall remain as they are under the existing Act, and the land shall not be subject to increased duties under this Bill. I hope hon. members opposite will realize that as they really represent landed interests of this kind, by agreeing with this taxation they are doing the very thing which is against their own class, and their own interests and they will be doing great harm to the future development, of this country.

I want to reply briefly to two points touched upon. One is where the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has referred to the question of double taxation. I do not know whether the hon. member blames me for the existence of that position. I do not think the hon. member suggests that because people are taxed overseas we should not tax them here at all. I understood later that the principle of his objection was that we should take steps in consultation with the British Government to rectify this position. That I agree to, but the hon. member cannot expect this matter to be settled in less than a year. He knows the previous Government took up this position, and the Economic Conference discussed it, and they were unable to effect any change. I do not despair. The position will be taken up in due course, and we shall see if we cannot come to some equitable arrangement. The hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) pointed to the heavy duties, and I interjected that I did not think he quite appreciated the exact position. You do not get the rate of duty of an estate by simply comparing the rate with the figure opposite. These are block figures. Take an estate of £75,000. Here we have a duty of 17 per cent., but the actual duty is only 8.9 per cent.

Yes, I quite understand that, but comparing the two schedules the difference is as between £75,000 and £1,000,000.

You have certain categories of estates, and the actual percentage duty is, of course, very much less. I quite admit these proposals mean an increase of duty, so far as the larger estates are concerned, but not very much. We are trying to recover the amount we have lost from the smaller estates through the larger estates. That was the best we could do in the circumstances. I hope the second reading will now be passed.

Motion put and agreed to.

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

The Minister of Railways appointed, some time since, a departmental commission to inquire into matters connected with the workshops and the manufacturing of railway articles in South Africa. I must say that, as it turns out, my hon. friend did a public service in doing this. It seems to me the committee has revealed a very unsatisfactory state of affairs, particularly as regards the efficiency and output and cost of working in the railway workshops, in fact, I think it reveals a very grave state of inefficiency. The report shows that the cost of maintaining rolling-stock has gone up from 1s. to 1s. 10d. per train mile in the last 10 years, and it also points out the excessive time taken before rolling-stock sent for repairs is returned to running, something like 90 days, as against about 50, I think, in New South Wales. As the report points out, that means that we require more rolling stock than would otherwise be the case, and, finally, this commission finds that under better arrangements, better layout of workshops and more up-to-date machinery, £800,000 per annum could be saved in the maintenance of our rolling-stock. That is a very large sum, and I would like to ask the Minister what steps he intends to take towards saving this amount. Does he intend to adopt the recommendations of the commission? One should point out that this report is not very encouraging as regards the cost of producing our articles. On page 47 they point out—

and in paragraph 303—

I think hon. members should turn to this extremely interesting and informative annexure on page 115. There is given a comparative statement of the cost of various articles manufactured in the mechanical workshops of the South African Railways, and the price at which they could be purchased. I will mention a few cases only—

and there are many others. There is not much encouragement there for local manufacture in these cases. Is my hon. friend going to allow this to continue? We are not justified in manufacturing these things at such a cost. There is another point. I noticed, in the terms of reference of this committee, that the Minister did not ask them to investigate whether it was desirable to make rolling-stock in South Africa. He took that for granted. They were to find the best means, as I must say they have done, for making them in South Africa. But, judging from the report of the commission, I do not think there is much doubt as to what their ideas were. It was not to manufacture in South Africa.

Not to manufacture in South Africa?

Exactly. A general perusal of the report shows that, but turn to page No. 50, paragraphs 355 and 356. The fact of a million extra cost of manufacturing having to be put upon rates and fares is sufficient to show that. Or take paragraphs 353-354, in connection with conditions of employment.

I have been allowing the hon. member a considerable amount of latitude, but he is now discussing policy.

I have been asking the Minister what he is going to do. I am showing the effects of manufacturing in South Africa. It means that you keep up a big staff.

The hon. member has asked his question. I cannot allow a discussion on policy.

I asked when we would discuss this report.

On Head No. 1, when the Minister’s salary was under discussion.

We had no time to discuss this report. It was laid on the table the same day.

I am not to blame for that.

It is a very curious thing.

I want the hon. member now to come to the point. He has asked his question, and however much I should like to allow him further latitude, I think I have allowed enough.

If one is not allowed to discuss policy one cannot say very much, but undoubtedly this report points out the increased cost to the country of manufacturing articles in South Africa, but I won’t pursue that matter further.

I do not know whether your ruling, as regards the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) will affect what I wish to say. I wish also to address the House on this question of the departmental workshops’ report, and to deal with the question of the site for the manufacturing workshops. That matter has already been dealt with by the House, and as the debate proceeded the Minister asked the House to desist from further discussion on the subject. I do not know whether your ruling, Mr. Chairman, means that I am not entitled to raise the question now.

The hon. member cannot discuss the policy of the Government now. I am very sorry to stop hon. members, but there are the rules.

I wish to ask the Minister how long he is going to allow the position to continue under which two men doing exactly the same work at the bench or lathe receive different rates of pay. That position cannot be tolerated.

I already stopped two hon. members who wish to discuss policy.

This is a question of artizans’ pay. The wages paid to men engaged in maintaining rolling stock come under this heading.

The hon. member may draw the attention of the Government to that point. The hon. member may proceed.

The position on the railways is that owing to the schedule of pay for new entrants introduced by the South African party Government, two men working alongside one another and doing exactly the same sort of work receive different rates of pay. On June 2nd last, the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) asked the Minister of Railways a question with regard to railway rates obtaining in Natal, and the Minister replied. The question and the reply are given on pages 3,881 and 3,882 of Hansard. The Minister stated that “the new rates of pay on the whole are fair and reasonable.” I would like to show that the new rates are not fair and reasonable; further, that the Minister’s reply is not in accordance with the real facts, and that the statement has been received in Natal with something akin to consternation. A special notice was issued from the general manager’s office on November 2nd, 1923. It was a notice to the artizan staff notifying reductions in wages for all men entering the service after March 31st of that year. The ex-Minister of Railways will remember the matter very well indeed; I have no doubt he was responsible for it. It was another way of bringing down the pay without disturbing the men then employed on the railways, but intimating that all engaged subsequent to the date fixed would have to work for a lower rate of pay. No doubt the rate of wages, had there not been a change of Government, would have been made uniform on the lower scale all round by this time. There were 71 grades of artizans specified for wage reductions in the new schedule. In Natal, under the new scales, artizans in only eight of these grades are able to earn over £18 2s. a month, reckoning the month as 26 days. In 16 grades the men are only able to earn £18 1s. 10d. a month: in 20 grades, £16 13s. 8d.; in 4 grades, £15 7s. 8d.; in 6 grades. £13 17s. 4d.; in 13 grades, £13 4s. 4d.; and in 4 grades, £11 16s. 2d.; making the average monthly wage for 63 grades £15 13s. 3d. per month. Does the Minister call that fair and reasonable wages? In Durban the average rent of dwellings let from £5 to £15 a month is, according to the last municipal census, £10 a month. This means that the average artizan, unless he and his family live in rooms, or let part of the house, is left with only £5 13s. 3d. I admit there is a temporary cost of living allowance of between 17s. and 26s. per month for married men, but the lower the wage the less the cost of living allowance. If a railwayman lives in a decent house and pays the rent demanded at Durban, he is left with £5 13s. 3d., plus cost of living allowance, to meet all the other requirements of himself and family for a month. I ask the Minister whether he thinks that is a fair and reasonable wage. [Time expired.]

I am not going into this question of the manufacture of rolling stock here, because you have ruled it is not permissible. I wanted to draw attention to some of the figures in the report. I agree that some of the figures we find in this report are very striking and they give one a most pessimistic idea of what our possibilities are in regard to manufacturing our rolling stock at anything like economic prices. On page 27 of this report we find the cost of maintenance of rolling stock at the present time is approximately £800.000 more than it ought to be, not because we are doing more in the way of maintenance, but because our costs are higher than they should have been. For example, take the locomotive repairs. The average time taken for a repair in the locomotive repair shop is about 90 days, according to the report of the commission, and in New South Wales the time allowed as reasonable varies from 18 days for the smaller engines to 50 days for re-building or for re-converting to super heated engines. The commission says we should reduce our 90 days to 40 days, and that would be equivalent to an additional stock of 150 engines with a capital cost of £1,000.000. The Minister should tell us that he has inquired into the cause of this. Is it due to bad organization, or to badly-equipped workshops, or what is it owing to? These figures are very remarkable and so far from showing that we are obtaining increased efficiency they show just the reverse. Take coaching repairs on page 28. The average time for a general repair to coaching stock is 76 days. The commission say it should be reduced to 36 days. That is a very remarkable margin. It shows to my mind a very remarkable state of things. Turn to page 19. You will find some statistics showing the average cost of maintenance per locomotive engine in South Africa is £111. With the exception of New South Wales this amount is far in excess of the amount anywhere else either in Victoria, Queensland. South Australia or New Zealand. When you come to the English cost it is naturally more than double. Take New Zealand and Australia it is far in excess of either of those. So fat as coaching maintenance is concerned the average cost per vehicle in South Africa is £197, in New South Wales it is £192, in Victoria £157, in Queensland £146, and we are told we have cheap labour in South Africa, yet our costs are higher than any other place where they have not got cheap labour. I am not surprised at that. I don’t believe in cheap labour, because it is usually dear labour. These figures do not show that our white artizans in the railway workshops are maintaining the standard of efficiency they are maintaining elsewhere. It is our business to see that we get a far higher standard of efficiency as reflected in these maintenance costs than we have at the present time. The vote is £3,686,000 and the commission tells us that is £800.000 too high or nearly 25 per cent. too much, and that is a serious state of things.

If my hon. friend will refer to page 13 he will find one of the explanations of the high cost. This report is extremely interesting as the best vindication of the operations of the late Government I have found anywhere. Hon. members ought to refer to pages 12 and 13, “Conditions of Employment.” I call the attention of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) to page 13, “rates of pay.” Take the original rates of pay in the railway. At Johannesburg the pay per week is 164s. 6d. on the railway, 144s. in the municipality, 120s. private, and 127s. in the mines. Take Durban. The rate of pay there on the railway is 143s. 8d.. in the municipalities 134s., in private employment 132s.

That is wrong, there is an extra 2s. a day in Durban.

This states that the railway rates are based on the rates for new entrants, and I would rather take these figures, which are impartial. Take Cape Town. The rates in the railway workshops are 137s. 8d., in the municipality 128s., and in private employment 120s. As this report states the rates are just about double those paid in Great Britain, and they are based on the reduced rate of 18s., not the old rate of 20s. Besides this, the railwaymen in South Africa have advantages which they have not got in Great Britain. As they point out here in a private workshop in Great Britain if work is slack the men must go off. We have not done that. The railwaymen in the employ of the South African railways are a privileged class. There is no class better off. They are getting higher wages than in any private workshop in the Union. They get privileges in the shape of paid leaves of absence, free tickets for themselves and their wives and families from time to time, and so forth, which, when I was in office, were reckoned as worth 2s. per diem. Furthermore, they have security of tenure in their positions. They have not to look to the future as to whether work is likely to be slack or not. I think if anything justifies the action we took when the late Government was in office, this report does on pages 12 and 13. These men are the highest paid men in the Union for the same grade of work, with their special privileges, guaranteed position, no fear of slack time, plus, of course, liberal treatment as regards the sick fund and extremely liberal treatment as regards the superannuation fund. I think every member of this House ought to read the report to see what is exactly the position in regard to these matters.

It is rather unfortunate that this report came into the hands of hon. members at the end of the session, instead of at the beginning.

I quite agree with you.

With all due respect, I would advise hon. members not to say too much about this report until they have really read it and digested it and understood it. The remarks of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) leave one with the impression that he does not understand the real significance of this report with regard to the railwaymen being a privileged class, I suggest that there are other privileged classes in South Africa, including the merchants. I do not see why the people who are doing the work of the country should not also enjoy some measure of privilege. As a matter of fact, the average railwayman is not well paid. In my opinion, he is underpaid. I know many cases where men on the railway are not paid what I regard as a living wage. If you take the case of a highly-skilled engineer or a boilermaker who is engaged upon piece work and working over-time during the busy times, he may draw high wages at the end of the month, but there are also slack times when his earnings drop a good deal. My advice to hon. members is to take away this report and during the recess make some enquiries among the railwaymen in their own constituencies, and then come back to this House and argue whether they are over-paid or have an easy time. In connection with this vote, I am perfectly certain that there is no sincere Labour man in this country, trade unionist or otherwise, but regrets the attitude of the Minister in regard to the double rate of pay which prevails in the railway workshops. Here you have a certain number of men on a certain rate of pay, and alongside them another body of men doing the same work—maybe more efficient men—at a lower rate. If these men were organized as they are in other countries, they would not stand this very long. It is very bad for the men to have these different rates of pay: it is bad from the efficiency point of view, as it causes disatisfaction. As regards rolling-stock repairs, I rather resent the remarks of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), who suggested that the white artizans here are not maintaining the high state of efficiency which they do in other countries and on behalf of the artizans on the railways and other artizans in this country I hold that it is very unfair to say that. I am not surprised at the nature of this report. Personally, I did not expect anything else. One cannot go into the personnel of the commission at the present time, but I submit that it is not too safe to take your policy from this report.

There was a Labour man on it, all the same.

I believe there was a representative of Labour there, but I say that you must not take this report too literally. This is not the last word so far as the railway workshops in the Union are concerned. Because a commission consisting largely of highly-paid officials bring up a report, that, surely, does not represent the last word on the subject. My advice to hon. members is to read and digest this report, and discuss it with the railwaymen in their constituencies, and ask them whether they have a “soft time” in the workshops and whether it is true that they possess motor cars and go to the opera frequently. As regards the artizans on the railway, I can say that the standard of efficiency is equal to that of any other tradesmen in the world. A very large number of these men have been employed in workshops in other parts of the world. If the matter is gone into, it will be found there is something wrong in the system or in the workshop management. Do not blame the artizans of the Union and the men in your railway workshops for that. They cannot speak for themselves. This suggestion is entirely unjustified, and I am sure hon. members would do well to make some enquiries before they stand up and condemn a body of men such as are employed in our workshops.

I am glad of the tribute that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has paid to the work of the commission, because, whatever view one may have as regards the conclusions which the commission have come to, there can be no question—even my hon. friend the member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) will agree—that very valuable information has been given by the commission in this report. I have some fault to find with the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) and that applies to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) also. They have pointed out in the report passages where the commission indicate that our repairs are costing too much. They are perfectly entitled to do so, of course, because the report undoubtedly indicates that, but I have rather a bone to pick with them. Why did not the hon. members refer to the conditions under which the work is being done in our workshops and which, after all, is the real reason? It is not because our artizans are not as qualified as artizans in other parts of the world.

I did not say that.

I do not say you did. Our artizans are as fully qualified. The hon. member put a question as to what would be the cause. He put that as a possible cause.

If the Minister will allow me to explain, what I said was, that we must look into the fact, whether it was bad organization or faulty equipment, or what the reason was.

I quite accept that. If hon. members refer to the report they will find that the reasons why our repair costs are so high are very good reasons in so far as the artizans are concerned. I am afraid I will have to deal with my hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) and the previous Government as the cause of many of these things. Let me indicate some of them as disclosed by the commission. The first outstanding one is the slow and spasmodic development of our workshops and their equipment. During the last few years, the years of war, our development in the workshops has not been what it should have been. The other is the inadequate and, in some cases, the obsolete machinery with which the work had to be done. Is it fair—can you expect our artizans to produce good work and cheap work when they are working with machinery which is obsolete and inadequate? Another reason is the delays to the artizans on account of the congested condition of the workshops, and of the lay-out. Our workshops were not planned, in the first place, for the big extent which they now cover. That is clearly indicated as one of the reasons. Material is not being supplied to the workmen as it ought to be, and there is a lot of delay for which the artizan himself is not responsible. Another reason, which is also indicated by the commission, is the fact that much of our heavy repair work is done at the running shops, which ought really to be done at our mechanical workshops. We should confine our repairs in the running shops to light repairs, but we have been so pressed that in many cases we have had to do heavy repairs in the running shops. What is the cause of all this? It is the policy which was followed by my predecessor, deliberately followed, for very good reasons, looking at it from his point of view. It was a policy, in order to put the railways on a sound basis, of spending as little as possible on the capital expenditure of our workshops. That was the deliberate policy which he carried out at a time of financial stringency. It is most unfair to put the blame for these high costs on our artizans. I do not say they cannot improve their workshop conditions; they probably can, but we must be just to our workmen, and we must clearly indicate to the House the reasons clearly set out by the commission why we are not producing as cheaply as we ought to be. May I point out further that when once you get production in bulk, when once you get mass production, then your costs are bound to be lower. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has referred to this schedule, certainly a very interesting schedule, and I must admit, in many respects, an alarming schedule, as to what it is costing us to manufacture in South Africa as against the imported price. What we have to do is to reorganize the whole of our workshop system, and in that reorganization on the lines indicated by the commission we should concentrate on certain shops for certain classes of work. It seems to me that with reorganization we will be able to eliminate many of these things which the commission indicates as unsatisfactory. Comparisons have been made with New South Wales, but I must remind the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) that the commission indicates that the figures given must be taken with a certain amount of reserve, because they, do not know whether the conditions in New South Wales are the same as in South Africa. It must also be remembered that their engines are of a much lighter type than those used in South Africa, so it is rather misleading to compare our conditions with those in New South Wales, or in any other country. I may ask the hon. member for Cape Town (Central)—business man that he is—did not he know at the time when he was controlling the railways, that the conditions in our workshops were not satisfactory?

Not to this extent, by a long way. How could I know?

The hon. member ought to have known.

What nonsense.

Did you know until you got the report?

We realized that something was wrong, and that was why the commission was appointed. The whole of our conditions with regard to repair work, the whole of the layout and the regulation of repair work, must be revised and reorganized. I put that quite apart from the question of manufacture; it stands alone. As regards our workshops, as far as repair work is concerned, the whole matter will have to be very carefully enquired into. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) supported by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) has again raised this vexed question of the differentiation in the rates of pay. I do not want to repeat what I have said before; I can only say that I regret that I am not prepared to consent to revise the rates of pay, and it seems to me that hon. members cannot have it both ways. Hon. members appeal every day—and I accept it; I think it is their duty to do so—for the employment of a large number of our South African boys. That is the continual plea from all parts of the House, but you cannot have it both ways. You cannot go back to that comparatively high rate of pay and at the same time continue to take in more boys. You must lower your costs. If we are to compete with oversea manufactures, if we are to get mass production, then we must have concentrated production, and we must have it at a reasonable rate. Hon. members know I have never been in favour of cutting down the wage of a workman, because cheap wages, I agree, are not economy, but I do not think hon. members can for a moment suggest that the wages we are paying to new entrants are unreasonable ones. I admit it is unsatisfactory to have different classes of workmen at the same bench, one receiving one rate of pay and another another, but we simply have to face that. If you touch, now, the rates of pay of the artizan, then that is bound to react on the whole of the service, and on the public service as well.

It only applies to one grade.

If the cut which was made in 1923 is now taken away as regards the artizans, then how could the Government defend retaining cuts as regards other parts of the staff? For that reason I trust hon. members will not press that point. I must say I trust the advice—which I think in many respects is good—of the hon. member for Salt River will be acted upon, that we should take this report home and study it carefully, and next year we may come back with our opinions perhaps more fully formed. As regards the question of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) as to what the Government is going to do with regard to the question of manufacture, we are giving that very careful consideration; and as regards repairs, that we are dealing with at once, and we hope to take effective steps by which reorganization will be brought about so that the position in the workshops will be improved.

There is only one thing to which I must take exception, and that is when the Minister states I should have been aware of the state of affairs. It is absolutely incorrect. How is it possible? He himself was not aware of the state of affairs when he went into office, and would not have been to-day had it not been for this commission’s report. It is officials who are really responsible; I am not blaming the Minister. How could he have known the extremely unsatisfactory state of affairs that existed, but for the commission’s report? It is not the business of the Minister to go into the workshops. It is the business of the chief officials to bring such things to the notice of the Minister. But when the Minister appointed the commission, it was not with the idea of finding out these things, which no doubt came as a surprise to the Minister. The object of the enquiry was in regard to the practicability of manufacturing requisites, rolling stock, etc., in the workshops. To say that the late Minister is to be blamed, I do not think is in accordance with the present Minister’s usual fairness. I wish to draw attention to another point. I see that recently four large American engines have been ordered. One of these were recently referred to in the press. I would like to know the cost of these. I would also like to draw his attention to certain engines we have had before from America. During the war we ordered 120 of these, and the controller and auditor-general reported on them. We some times get a better report from the auditor-general than from the officials. It is in his report of 1921’22. He gives details of the number of days these engines were out of running, under repairs, as follows—

And to settle this business, I think we got three engines free from these people. Now my hon. friend has placed a further order with the same people. I am astonished. I think my hon. friend has not had his attention drawn to this. I made up my mind—

You ordered them from Germany.

We got a better article. Would you not rather go to Germany and get a good article? I am astonished that the Minister should have done this. Perhaps my hon. friend will tell us why he has gone again to these people, and I hope the auditor-general will keep his eye on them and give us a report. Then there is another question in regard to the electrification of the railways in Natal, which are being worked by electricity from Colenso downwards. From the newspapers I see that they are attaching three engines to a train of fourteen to fifteen hundred tons. This is not in accordance with what we were promised by MacLellands.

No allowance is made for depreciation under this head. I find under many of the other heads, even in regard to the fuel and water plant, allowance is made for depreciation; but here, on rolling stock, no allowance is made for depreciation. I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to the auditor-general’s report. He has made very strong remarks about the method in which the renewals fund is dealt with. We have the electrical engines in Natal paid for to a very large extent out of the renewals fund.

That is quite correct.

I know the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) does not agree with me; my views, however, I am going to express and would remind the Minister that while he is using a renewals fund in this almost improper way, he cannot possibly show the proper profits on the railway. On page 30 of the auditor-general’s report he says—

He goes on to show that in 11 years—1912-’13 to 1922’23—an amount of no less than £12.000,000 has been taken from the renewals fund; whereas the proper depreciation is only £1.000,000 odd; that means that in those eleven years you have taken £11.000.000 more than you should have taken. In regard to the electric engines, you have taken out of the fund no less than £927,000, although they were originally provided for in the capital estimates. I think my hon. friend should provide for this expenditure in the capital estimates. Why was the change made? One feels that you are depriving the railways of certain profits and you will never get down your rates in that way. If these accounts in future showed clearly the depreciation year by year we would have a proper check. Now we have no check until we see the auditor-general’s report. I would like to know what the Minister has to say on that subject.

It is certainly amusing to listen to the criticisms of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger); his party is responsible for this policy. Previous to the war the New Zealand Government manufactured one locomotive at a cost of nearly 500 per cent. over what it could have been imported for, but now New Zealand is able to compete with the imported article, showing clearly that if the party to which the hon. member belongs had followed the policy of Australia and New Zealand, we should now be manufacturing our railway requirements in this country, not only as cheaply as the imported, but of far superior quality to a large amount of the stock imported under the last regime.

After what the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has said it would be very interesting if the Minister would give the committee the reason—after the departments experience of American engines, it imported more engines from America, instead of getting them from England. The Minister of Finance would take a deep interest in the statement, because he will very soon have to go to the money market and he can hardly expect very sympathetic treatment from the London market when it knows that we buy engines from America, when past experience has shown that engines of very much better material and superior workmanship can be obtained in England. If the Minister will go into the matter with his officials he will find that the consensus of opinion is that the British engines are very much better, because they cost very much less in repairs, and have a very much longer life.

Why didn’t you do it?

If the hon. member would only restrain his admiration. Since he took a trip to Europe he wants to pose as an authority on everything. In Liesbeek he may be a great authority, but here we don’t pay that respect to his statements which, perhaps, they are entitled to, but he is not yet Minister of Railways, although he may have hopes under the new Bill introduced to-day. When he does become a minister we will pay attention to him, but I am now addressing my remarks to the Minister of Railways. I hope he realizes that the English engine is very much more satisfactory, both as regards its life and a lesser amount of repairs, than foreign engines, whether they be American or German. I should like to know the reasons which actuated the Ministers and his advisers, and whether the latter recommended that the engine be purchased in the United States instead of Great Britain. Does the Minister of Finance consider he is likely to get the same fair treatment in raising loans in London if it became known the way in which we proposed to spend the money? There is a strong consensus of opinion in this country that within reason we should order our supplies from Britain, and even pay a little more for them, seeing that experience has proved that the British is the very much better article.

I suppose I know as much about American engines as the hon. gentleman who has just spoken, and that is nothing. He may make up his mind that a good deal about America will be heard in South Africa for a long time to come, for I do not think this, or any other dominion, will be able to borrow money from any other country than America. You cannot get money in England to-day.

Why not?

Because it is not there. The days of borrowing money in England are past. Australia could not borrow money in England, and I don’t think South Africa will be able to. I should like to know if the Minister is satisfied with the management of the railway workshops. In the report signed by Col. Collins we are told that the equipment is insufficient in many cases. This is the most damning criticism of Col. Collins’ (the chief mechanical engineer) by Col. Collins himself that was ever written. He says that everything is wrong. Who is responsible for these workshops? You cannot expect the Minister to know. You cannot ask the Minister to go into the workshops and ascertain what is going on. No Minister can do that, neither the late nor the present Minister, but Col. Collins should have known. I do not know him by sight, so there is nothing personal in the matter at all. Does the Minister believe that the men in charge of the workshops are the right people to be in charge?

You cannot hold the officials responsible for the fact that the machinery in the workshops is obsolete.

Do you expect the Minister to condemn the machinery if it is obsolete?

Does the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) mean to say that he was not aware that much of our machinery was obsolete?

Yes, I do. Not to the same extent as it says here.

It was well known. A superficial inspection of the workshops would satisfy any man who knew anything about it. I don’t know whether he inspected the workshops.

Why appoint a commission if you could see it for yourself?

It is not fair to blame our officials for obsolete machinery. They can only represent through the general manager to the Minister what the conditions are. That has certainly been brought to my notice. I was quite fair to my predecessor when I said that he was in a peculiar position with the financial depression that existed. But he did not provide sufficient money for the development of the workshops.

I thought we spent too much money when you were in Opposition.

We always pressed for more work in the workshops. My hon. friend has raised the point about the American engines. I am aware of our experience with the 125 engine. This is a new company from which we are getting these engines, it is the Baldwins Company, and all the latest developments have been embodied in these engines. Our initial experience with the engines was satisfactory.

You didn’t expect them to break down right away did you?

The hon. member asked about the working on the Glencoe section. On that section three units make up one engine, and is driven by one driver.

Why call it three units?

We must clear up the whole matter. Three units are driven by one man, and it is one engine in the electric working.

But there are three engines.

For electric working you can use either 1, 2 or 3 units.

But they are three separate engines joined together and driven by one man.

Yes, you combine three units and make them into one engine.

It was never explained to the administration that three engines would be required for this work.

What a confession.

I am sorry if you were under a misapprehension. You are bound to use three units for a 1,500 tons load. At present we are only in the initial stage, and only one system is open for public traffic, and there are many initial difficulties to be overcome, and you cannot expect us, at this stage, to carry the full load. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) asks why do we order these engines from America?

On account of your past experience?

When you were in charge in the old Cape days you ordered engines from the Baldwin Company.

On a point of explanation. However much I differ from the hon. Minister he is always courteous. The Baldwin engines were simply an order when it was practically impossible, owing to events then existing, to get engines from Great Britain. They were not ordered by preference. The railway officials were sorry they could not get English engines, but owing to the war it was necessary to get them from America.

When we ordered engines, whether from England, Germany or America, we ordered them after world-wide tenders had been called for. We have an advisory engineer in London who inspects these engines in England or on the Continent.

That was not done in America.

No, I don’t suppose he was able to go over there, but he sees from time to time that they are built to specification. I am prepared to admit our experience with British engines has been good. That has also been our experience with continental engines.

But not with American.

I agree, we were unfortunate with the other 125 engine, but this is a different company now. With regard to depreciation we provide one-and-a-half millions under another head for that purpose—the contribution to renewals under head No. 8. Surely hon. members know we deal with the question of depreciation of rolling stock under the head of renewal funds. The whole question has been discussed again and again, arid I indicated in the Budget statement that the matter was being considered.

I thought it was to be a percentage basis.

We are doing it under another head. The hon. member referred to the debit for electric engines against the renewal fund. My predecessor was responsible. I have indicated and I am prepared to say that I hope to be able to debit as much against the renewal funds for the purpose of new rolling stock under the terms of the law. I think it is bad policy to be building up a big capital account on which the users of the railway must be paying interest from year to year. As I am reminded, we have no sinking fund. I am afraid the hon. member and I must agree to differ on this point. He has his own views in regard to this, and I, personally, do not share those views with him. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) has asked me about the mechanical engineer, as to whether I have confidence in him. I think I have already indicated, I hope to the satisfaction of the hon. member, that what is disclosed in this report does not so much reflect on the work of our senior officers in the mechanical department as it shows that the position of affairs in the mechanical department is not satisfactory as regards equipment and machinery. I have full confidence in Col. Collins. Having signed this report and dealt with the whole matter, the re-organization which is bound to take place will be in safe hands under his control.

I have just received an unconfirmed rumour from my constituency that a very serious railway accident occurred there yesterday, near Estcourt. I would like to know whether that is true or whether it is only a rumour. It is stated that a train has run off the line and a considerable amount of damage has been done.

I understand that electric trains are running now from Ladysmith to Mooi River and back in eight hours. I have been informed that the electric-engine drivers are objecting to the eight-hour day. I would like to know whether that is correct. They are objecting, because they say they are not earning as much as the steam engine drivers who are doing overtime. I would like to know from the Minister whether they receive any extra payment to make up the loss. If that is so then I would warn the Minister that there he has clearly the Writing on the wall.

If he is going to have an eight hour day, then he must be prepared to pay increased wages.

Order. What item is the hon. member (Mr. Nel) discussing?

I am discussing “rolling-stock.” I would like to know whether the Minister can tell me whether this information is correct.

I want to ask the Minister whether he can tell the House something about the electrification of the system in Natal, and by how much they have exceeded the original estimate.

You can ask that on the Loan Estimates.

I want to ask it now.

I want to ask something else about it.

All right, you can do so.

This is not the opportunity.

I want to ask it now. I am sorry I asked it first.

You have no need to be sorry about that.

In reply to that question, I may say I am dealing with the question of electrification. In the loan estimates the hon. member will see we are asking for a sum for this purpose, and I trust either to-morrow or the day after to lay on the table a white paper giving a full statement by the consulting engineer and by the general manager about the whole position which will clearly indicate what the position is. The hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards) has asked me about the accident. Fortunately it was not a very serious one. It was a coal train and a number of trucks were overturned and blocked the line for a day, but the line was clear again this morning. Fortunately no lives have been lost.

What was the cause of it?

That I cannot say at this stage. Investigation is being made. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) has asked me about the drivers. They are working a nine-hour day.

Are they getting any special allowance?

Only when a man works overtime is he entitled to a special allowance.

Head put and agreed to.

On head 4, “Running Expenses”, £3,910,802.

I want to ask the Minister a question in regard to this. I see this includes fuel. This Commission points out the consumption of coal in South Africa per engine mile is 95 lbs. In New South Wales and other Australian states it is much less. Australia is 72 lbs. and in Great Britain it is 54.55 lbs. Why we should be the highest I cannot understand. Perhaps my hon. friend will explain.

I want to ask the Minister if it is not possible to make a trial now of an invention by a South African railway official some years ago, known as the automatic train control. Every chief officer admitted it was an ingenious and valuable invention and the only reason for not adopting it was the high cost of installation. But to-day I think the administration should have no further objection, and should make a practical enquiry into it. A letter which was sent to the inventor in 1920 stated that it was an exceedingly ingenious and effective invention, but could not be adopted on account of the high cost of installation. In view of the very high cost when a collision takes place the administration should take this invention into consideration now, especially in view of the fact that the cost should be less than estimated in 1920 and big schemes of electrification are being completed.

In reply to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) I may say that the greater consumption of coal is accounted for by the bigger engines used on our lines. We deal with South African coal, and can only give our South African experience. As regards increased quantities that is due to the increased trade mileage which we expect to do this year. In regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) I would like him to bring particulars of this invention, in regard to train control, to the notice of the administration. If the hon. member will give me the papers I will see whether it is a practicable proposition. We are always prepared to adopt new inventions if they are not too costly.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head 5, “Traffic Expenses”, £3,830,355.

I brought the matter of the electric lighting of the railway cottages at Worcester to the notice of the Minister, and I would like to know what he intends doing about it.

In regard to Head 5, there is a note on page 2 of the Railway Estimates, in regard to the application of the civilized labour policy of the Government, which also refers to labour at the harbours as well as on the railways. I want to raise a question in regard to this matter; but am not sure whether I should do so under this head or under Head 21. Will the Minister tell me whether it should be brought up here? I think it should be brought up under Head 21; but I do not want to miss the opportunity, if the matter should be brought forward now.

The hon. member should raise it on the particular vote of the harbours. I should raise no objection to its being raised here; but it is for the Chairman to rule whether the hon. member will be in order in moving it later.

The note on page 2 says—

May I raise the point here?

Clearly the hon. member will be entitled to deal with this under No. 21.

If the hon. member wishes to discuss policy generally I may have to stop him.

Does the Minister intend to have stewardesses on trains conveying girls during the holidays?

In reply to the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) I may state that money has been provided for the long-wanted electric light for the cottages at Worcester. Stewardesses are being carried on certain trains at the present time.

Are the tenders for printing advertised? What firms receive commissions on advertisement?

Commission is paid to Messrs. T. Cook and Sons, who sell tickets for the administration. The increase is due to the Pretoria office being run by that firm.

I take it that certain firms are paid commission for obtaining advertisements. Is the printing put out to tender?

Item 85 deals with the amount paid to Thomas Cook and Sons. As to commission, we pay 15 per cent. to outside firms.

I want to know the names of the people who get advertisements for the railway.

We are prepared to take advertisements from any advertising firm which bring them to us, and we are prepared to pay them commission.

I want to know the firms who are getting the money. Is the printing done by tender?

I regret to say that I have not got the full list of advertising agents, but the names that occur to me are those of the South African Advertising Contractors, and Mr. Pay, but there may be others. The printing is done by tender.

Is the Minister quite certain of that point?

Yes.

I learn that our advertisements in London are given to two hostile newspapers. The African World and South Africa. I should like to know whether there are not more friendly newspapers which can support us.

The matter has already been brought to my notice and steps are being taken.

Head put and agreed to.

On head 6 “Superannuation,” £373,785,

It is a pity the Minister does not put the whole of the superannuation fund under this head. £790,000 is paid in superannuation payments and why does it not come under this head. It would give the House a better idea of what the amount is. The committee should know clearly that we are paying £790,000 superannuation.

The hon. member is correct, but this is a correct way of dealing with it, when I dealt with the Superannuation Bill in the House, I gave the figure we should be responsible for, and the figure is correct. The head was agreed to.

Head put and agreed to.

Head 7, “Cartage Service,” £379,224, put and agreed to.

On head 8, “Depreciation of Permanent Way and Works and Rolling Stock”, £1,500,000,

My hon. friend has changed the policy whilst he has been in control. He has put down here for depreciation of plant £1,500,000. To my mind that is not sufficient. It is not founded on any principle. It is purely an arbitrary sum and it is exactly the same as put down last year. The old system was to put down a sum based on the estimated depreciation of the permanent way rolling-stock and so forth, which went according to schedule. The old principle which existed since 1914 was continued until 1921-’22 and in that year the estimate was £1,667,000. Since that time we have spent on capital account £15,500,000. Yet we contribute less now to the renewal fund than we did in that year. When I was in office I put it on another basis.

Was that satisfactory?

It was more than this comes to in any case.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.7 p.m.

When the committee adjourned, I was pointing out that this vote No. 8, for depreciation of permanent way and works and rolling stock, was £1,500,000, the same as last year, and, as I have said, it was not founded on any principle, but was purely an arbitrary sum. In fact, it is less than the vote was in 1921-1922 when the amount was £1,667,000. We have since that year spent on capital account, rolling-stock, permanent way, etc., £15,500,000, yet the sum is the same. When I was in office, I put the matter on another basis, which I thought was a more satisfactory basis. Instead of taking a percentage of the value of the various assets of the department, which had been done up to that time, I decided to make a contribution based on a percentage of the traffic receipts, especially main line receipts, and I took 7 per cent. of the main line traffic receipts as being the basis. Had that been adhered to—it was altered by my hon. friend as soon as he came into office—last year, instead of a million and a half, I think we should have contributed owing to the increased traffic receipts something like £1.520.000. Personally I still favour this contribution being based on a percentage of the traffic receipts. It is an example followed in some other railways—on some South American railways and, I believe, on the Rhodesian railways. If this contribution if founded on a percentage of traffic receipts, it can vary with those traffic receipts and vary quite properly. If this traffic is heavy and a good deal more goes over the line there is more wear and tear to the line and your receipts are more and you can more easily afford to make a big contribution. If the receipts fall off the contribution also decreases to some extent and naturally the wear and tear is less and you make your contribution according to the traffic receipts. I think still it is the soundest plan on which to base it. Had it been done this year the total contribution instead of being £1,500,000 would have been £1,552,000 taking the estimated receipts as the basis. The Minister has said he wants to keep down the capital account, in which I altogether agree with him. I believe if you are not very careful the time will arrive shortly when you cannot afford to pay more on the capital account of the railways. Here is the brown book which shows the estimates. Let me point out one or two items charged to capital account. For instance, there are new works and open lines this year £2,812,000. It is no addition in any shape or form. Let me give one or two examples. For instance, take strengthening the bridges and culverts. There is no bridge, but part of the amount is charged to capital account. On page 5 item 38 Cape Town to Simon’s Town, widening the track. The total expenditure is going to be £76,000 of which £20,000 is put down this year and the whole of that is charged to capital account. I know it is an improvement, but it would have been better if it had been charged to the betterment account or to the renewals fund. Improvements to yard and signalling at Durban is down at £115,000 estimated cost. £6,000 is down to the capital account. We spend millions every year on improvements and it will be far better and far sounder if we charge more than we are doing now to the renewal fund. I never had any scruples in charging as much as we could to depreciation account or renewals fund. As my hon. friend knows we have no sinking fund at all. I have been blamed for charging these electric engines up to the renewals fund. We did that for a set purpose, because it displaced a certain number of engines undoubtedly. It ought to be the policy of the department to charge as much as they possibly can to renewals fund for the simple reason of keeping down the capital account. The Minister has put aside £250,000 for a contribution to new construction. I do not object to that in itself because it goes in the same direction, but I would not have done that myself; I would have put the whole thing in the renewals fund. I do urge upon the Minister to continue the policy and to make as liberal contributions as he can to the renewals fund and the depreciation fund. I remember the time in the old Cape days of the Cape Government railways no contribution was made to the renewals fund or depreciation fund. At one time we had to borrow the loan money for no other reason than to put this in a better state of repair. We have had a better system in my opinion since Union and I hope my hon. friend will support it and make the best contribution he can to the renewals fund. [Time expired.]

What I want to explain is this, that the way in which this fund is being used you have no right to call it a renewals fund at all. If you want to use it in this way, establish a sinking fund, then we would know where we are, but this is absolutely misleading. The Auditor-General this year says—

The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has criticised this contribution of £1,500,000, stating it was inadequate, and he said the system was purely arbitrary. That is so, but I want to ask the hon. member whether the system adopted by him of contributing 7 per cent. whatever his earnings might be, whether that rested on a scientific basis, a sound basis. I think the hon. member must agree that this is open to just as much criticism as he now places against mine, which is a round figure, and which is adequate.

I do not care what basis you put it on, but keep it on a given basis. Take a percentage of the total assets, but have a fixed basis.

We investigated this whole matter, and I think in an important matter like this we should come to one fixed amount contributed from revenue. There is, of course, the life basis. The House will be interested if I give them figures showing what it would mean if we adopted the life basis. In 1923-’24 we contributed £1,261,000. At life rates, full rates, it would have amounted £2,335,000. So my hon. friend was a million under the amount which he ought to have contributed, if the contribution had been at full rates, and if 2.86 had been contributed the amount would have been £1,926,000. So that on the basis of 2.6 adopted by my hon. friend it would have been £700,000 under that amount. Take 1924-’25. The amount contributed was a million and a half. Contribution at full rates would have amounted to £2,378,000, and at 2,86 the amount would have been £1,966,000. So that it was £400,000 under what it would have been if we had contributed on the basis of 2.6. We are going into this matter very closely to see whether we cannot arrive at a basis which will be sound, and will not burden the revenue to too great an extent, and keep pace with the depreciation that is going on all the time. While I am in agreement with the hon. member, where he says we should charge as much as possible to a renewal rather than to capital, still the hon. member must bear in mind that we cannot charge more to renewals than what we are entitled to. After all, the portion to be charged to capital account is that portion which represents the increased value, and you cannot charge more to revenue than what that portion represents.

I am afraid that is one of your own regulations drawn up by the chief accountant.

Does the hon. member suggest we should change that? Under the regulations which the hon. member carried out, the position is that we cannot charge more than the amount I have indicated. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) has again raised the question of electric engines. I do not know whether he has satisfied the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) that he acted wrongly when he debited them to the renewals fund. I do not think I will continue that argument; it belongs to past history, and I trust when I come before the House next year, if I still hold this position. I will be able to satisfy the hon. member and this House that we will adopt the basis which is sound, and, at the same time, will do justice to the country on this very vexed question of the amount we should take from revenue.

Perhaps my hon. friend, the Minister, will spend a little portion of the recess in looking up the investigations that took place, years ago, in connection with the railway committee, in regard to this very interesting renewals fund. Very interesting evidence was given by the late Sir Thomas Price, and then the fact was brought prominently forward, that there was a quantity of rolling stock, of some millions of pounds value, which was absolutely obsolete, and, of course, will be more obsolete now under the existing conditions. If my hon. friend goes down to the railway works, he will see—if they have not been put over the breakwater before now—large numbers of classes 3. 4 and 5 engines that have now become absolutely useless. They were all originally charged to capital account, and consequently in any fund of this sort you must take into consideration this large stock which has become obsolete, and which has to be replaced. During 1913-’14. I believe, there was a discussion about £18.000 a year being put into the renewals fund, and evidence was given that there was rolling stock to the value of millions of pounds, such as small trucks with a greater tare than the load. If my hon. friend will go into that he will find the amount of £15,000 is not enough.

Head put and agreed to.

Head 9, “Catering Service”, £586,196, put and agreed to.

Head 10. “Bookstalls and Advertising”,

£166,091, put and agreed to.

On Head 11. “Bedding Equipment of Trains”, £44,202,

I should just like to ask the Minister if he can say how far the travelling public can rely on proper provision being made for bedding on trains for persons who have reserved seats. A case came to my notice where a person was travelling and reserved accommodation a few days beforehand. Unfortunately it was cold and the Coach had not been properly heated and when he asked for a bed there was no bedding for him. He then went to the chief steward to ask who was responsible and received the comforting reply that the travelling public who were using all the bedding was responsible for it. He then had to return to his cold compartment. I think that it is necessary in every case to warn the travelling public if the department is not able to make sufficient provision.

I want to bring to the Minister’s notice that coloured servants on the trains should receive instructions not to enter compartments without knocking. They simply enter and some times when ladies are dressing. The stewards also do so. Then I want to say that the railway servants are courteous as a rule, but the coloured people are some times impertinent and the Minister must not be surprised if we throw them out of the train in the Transvaal.

I wish first to say something about the matter mentioned by the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe). I admit that it is possible that some times there is not sufficient bedding on the train, not because the service has not sufficient bedding, but because trains are some times very full, and it then unexpectedly happens that a considerable number of passengers apply for bedding. In such a case there may be a shortage. But if the hon. member will bring such cases to the notice of the department we will go into it and see if there was negligence on the part of the chief steward or whether it is merely caused by an unfortunate concatenation of circumstances. We want, of course, to meet the travelling public in such cases. As regards heating I hope the new system which is now being introduced will shortly put the whole matter of heating on a completely satisfactory basis. The hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood) has objected to officials coming into the compartments of ladies and other persons. Well, we have introduced the system on the fast trains of chains with a lock and key for passengers, but unfortunately we find that passengers make very little use of it.

I asked for it three times, but could not get it.

Was that on the main line?

Yes.

I am surprised at it. I will go into it. The idea is to extend the system which we now have on the fast trains to the other lines and to make chain locks and keys available at a small charge so that passengers should not be interfered with in their compartments. But I may also say that strict instructions have been given to the staff to avoid being a nuisance to the public at times when they are going to bed or getting up in the morning, and not even to bother the passengers for their tickets at those times. Of course there will always be some officials who are careless and possibly act rudely. I must, however, say that I am surprised to hear the hon. member say that Cape coloured people in general are impertinent. That is not my experience. He says that impertinence has taken place in the Transvaal. I shall be glad if the hon. member will bring instances of that to my notice on the part of any official, whether white or coloured, who is rude or impudent towards the travelling public. If such cases are brought to the notice of the administration, severe steps will be taken against such officers.

The complaints of the travelling public have been mentioned. Somebody asked the other day if it was fair to bring those matters to the notice of the Minister in this place. I have got up merely to say that I have had heaps of cases where persons testified to the politeness that they now receive from the railway officials. It is only fair that we should say so here that we as members of Parliament, appreciate it on behalf of the public. Especially Dutch-speaking people now get the courteous treatment which they have never before enjoyed.

I think that the whole population is thankful to the Minister for the great work that he has done, especially with regard to the young lads who have been employed in the service. I understand that he has already employed 2,200 in the service and saved them from ruin. But nevertheless the young lads should not be allowed to do kaffir work. Complaints come from all sides, because they, of course, have got the inferior work that those placed over them do not treat them properly. I want to bring this to the notice of the Minister. He knows that such things have happened in my constituency. He has investigated them, but it has also happened at other places that they are not well treated. I hope that the Minister will warn those who have this supervision that they must treat their subordinates properly.

It is seldom that the railway staff get a word of appreciation, therefore, I appreciate on behalf of the staff the friendly words of the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. Conradie). From my own experience I can testify to the praiseworthy courtesy of the officials, and I was glad to hear the “hear, hears” from all sides when the hon. member mentioned his friendly words about the staff. With regard to the matter mentioned by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. J. S. F. Pretorius), I may say that I am convinced as far as the senior officers are concerned of their sympathy towards the lads, and they are anxious to do all in their power for them. But, as I have already said, we find that there are individuals who are not tactful. It would be unnatural to expect everybody to be tactful. When particular cases come to the notice of the hon. member, I hope that he and other members will give the administration the opportunity of going into them by bringing them to our notice. The senior officers are sympathetic towards the boys and where such cases come under our notice severe steps are taken against the officials who do not treat the boys sympathetically. I am sorry that the hon. member has talked about kaffir work. We must get away from that idea. It is no shame to work. We have lots of boys with the intermediate certificate, a larger number with the matric and the junior certificate who are working as ordinary labourers. And why not? It is no shame. I hope that he will not use the expression again.

I just expressed myself wrongly.

I understand quite well, but I just want to avoid a wrong impression. I can give the House the assurance that all possible attempts are being made by the staff officers to push on the lads in the service. It is good for the service and also for the lads who are encouraged when they know that they are being considered for vacancies.

The Minister did not understand my interjection. I am very much afraid that the constant utterances from hon. members opposite with regard to kaffir work will not do any good to these young fellows who are working on the railways. The less that is said in this House about the work of these young men whom the railway is employing, the better it will be for the railway service and the young men themselves.

Head put and agreed to.

On head 12, “Grain Elevators”, £189,922.

Do the Government contemplate extending the elevator system? With the volume produced last season the present elevators could not cope with the storage. We know it is the custom in South Africa for certain speculators to travel round and visit the farmers and purchase the grain crops before they are reaped. Are the farmers going to get preference of storage over these speculators?

With regard to the first question, we do not propose to extend the elevator system. The whole of our system has not had a thorough opportunity of testing itself. The Durban elevator terminal is not complete, and until it is complete it would be wrong for us to continue on an extension of the whole scheme. Last season the crop of mealies was such that the system did not get an opportunity. This year the position is different, it is complicated somewhat because the elevator is not finished. Let us give it a full trial and then we can discuss the question of extending the system. We are providing money from the loan funds to erect one country elevator, in order to see if our engineers are capable—I know they can do it—and in that way when we do decide to extend the system, we shall be in a position to proceed at once with our engineering staff in the country. With regard to the second point, we cannot make any such differentiation. We must treat the nubile equal and alike. In fact I do not think we should be allowed to differentiate between the farmer and the speculator under the Act of Union.

Why not pass a law preventing the speculator buying the mealie.

I don’t think my hon. friend means that seriously and I don’t propose bringing legislation forward on that matter.

I would like some information with regard to the item of £2,000 compensation. What is that for? Then with regard to depreciation. It was £20,000 last year and £30,000 this year. What is the meaning of that?

With regard to the £2,000 compensation, it provides for workmen’s compensation and for injury while on duty for workmen engaged on the elevators. Under depreciation there is an increase of £9,000, and that is based on the actual valuation at the 31st July, 1924, on the value of the machinery and equipment, which is £500,000.

Head put and agreed to.

On head 13, “Road Motor Services”, £26,976,

I asked the Minister at the time to enquire into the motor service from Triangle to the Koo. A considerable amount of fruit is produced and the people are not able to transport it to the railway. I do not know whether the Minister has investigated the matter. Then I ask him to consider a motor service between Ashton—Tradouw. At that time he objected that he would be taking traffic for the N.C.C.R. That objection no longer exists, and I should like the Minister to look into the matter.

I should like to ask the Minister whether the road motor service paid during the past year or whether it was run at a loss and whether he intends extending the services, or to leave them as they are.

I should also like to know whether the motor services have paid. Then I want further to bring to the notice of the Minister whether it is not possible to institute a special motor service in the districts which his year have a very large mealie harvest. There are districts in the Transvaal where the mealie harvest is very big and it will take the farmers a long time before they can get the mealies to the railway, and the cattle will, of course, be over worked and later not be in good condition for ploughing, and so possibly the next harvest will be damaged. I do not know whether the Minister has sufficient motors available, but if the department can meet us in this way it will be a great service to the country.

I may tell the hon. member for Ladysmith (Mr. J. J. van Zyl) that the motor service to the Koo has already been enquired into. We find, I regret to say, that the farmers there will not support us. They prefer their oxen and mule wagons. We do not establish a motor service where the farmers do not want it. I will enquire into the service he asks for, Ashton—Tradouw. I want to tell the hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. G. A. Louw) that in 1924-’25 we made a profit of £1,089 on the road motors in the various parts of the country. In some places we made a profit, but in others we had losses. Further, I wish to say that we have placed an extra amount on the estimates to use it eventually for these services, always on the understanding that the farmers desire it, and we will give them assistance. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. van Niekerk) asked for something which I regret to have to tell him it is impossible for the railway administration to grant. Something which was probably also in the thoughts of many other members. From almost every district where mealies are grown representations have been made to us. It is impossible for us to institute motor services to carry mealies to the stations. We should have to buy many. That would not be such a great complaint, but when the harvest was past we should have no traffic for them. Then the hon. member will criticize us for having bought too many motors. Our eventual object must, of course, be to extend the motor services to help the farmers in collaboration with the provincial authorities, because good roads are necessary. This is, however, a matter for the future. During this season it is impossible to give the help to the farmers. I know that the farmers are in a difficult position. They will hardly have removed the mealies and then will have to plough with tired cattle. However this may be, we cannot now grant his request.

I am sorry to hear from the Minister that he is going to further extend the motor service. The Government wants to provide places for poor people, and as one who has had as much experience of unemployment as he has I want to ask him if it is not his opinion that he is going to create more unemployment if he does that? We know that the transport is now done by private individuals, and the only advantage the motor cars offer is a little more speed, but by the introduction of motor services he will, I am afraid, create more unemployment. The motors, moreover, are imported from abroad and take the place of the vehicles which are now made here.

I am surprised at the remarks of the hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. G. A. Louw). I think he came to me recently about a railway in the neighbourhood of Merriman. I do not reproach him for that, but if a railway goes there, then we are only interfering with the transport rider.

No.

I am surprised at his words. We cannot remain stationary and be sorry for the transport rider. The transport rider must produce, and if he owns no ground he must go and help develop the land. If there is no motor service or railway I have no objection to him, because he makes an honourable living. I hope that the hon. member will not oppose the motor services.

Head put and agreed to.

On head 14, Interest on Capital, £4,495,835.

I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to this vast sum which we pay in interest. I want him also to bear in mind that in regard to this vast sum we pay interest on, practically 40 per cent. of that has been spent overseas. That means that not only do we pay 4½ millions in interest, but we circulate and have circulated overseas over £25,000,000 of our money. Out of that 40 per cent. of our total debt, fully 50 per cent. is left in countries that we purchase our commodities from in the form of wages and profit. All authorities agree that finished commodities are 50 per cent. value in materials and 50 per cent. value in wages, profits and interest. We, on the other hand, only get 50 per cent in the value of the commodity. I hope and trust the Minister will pay attention to this matter and see that he does not leave so much South African money in other countries, but that he will endeavour as far as possible to have the goods manufactured in this country, thus saying a vast sum to this country and also circulating a large amount of currency here.

I want to say to the hon. member (Mr. Pearce) that I am in cordial agreement with him on the principle of spending as much money as we can in this country by the railways as a State undertaking and I may say that that is the policy which has been adopted and which is being carried out at the present time both as regards the railways and harbours and we are also doing that in regard to our steamships. We are buying all our requirements in South Africa as far as we can.

How many ships have you bought in South Africa.

Ultimately no doubt we will come to that, but I am in cordial agreement with the principle the hon. member (Mr. Pearce) has laid down that we should spend as much money as we can in South Africa, because that helps the country.

Head put and agreed to.

Head 15, “Interest on Superannuation and Other Funds”, £392,735, put and agreed to.

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

Head 17, “Miscellaneous Expenditure”, £91,698, put and agreed to.

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

Head 19, “Contribution to Reduce Deficiency in Pension and Superannuation Funds”, £262,000, put and agreed to.

Head 19/2, “Contribution towards reduction of interest-bearing capital”, £250,000, put and agreed to.

Harbours.

On head 20, “Maintenance and Upkeep”, £492,896.

Can the Minister give us any information as to the intention of the Administration in regard to the entrance to the Durban harbour?

The steps taken by the Administration at the Durban harbour are as follows. We have taken every step possible to move all the blocks in the channel and I understand that that has been done. That was the one great difficulty that was blocking the harbour. We had these cement blocks blocking the harbour and they have now been lifted. We are also extending the southern breakwater. We have taken the advice of Mr. Wilson, the expert associated with Colonel Nicholson, our harbour advisory engineer, and these two gentlemen have reported on the whole position. Their report has been laid on the Table. We are asking this year to do a portion of the work to extend the southern breakwater and I trust that that will improve the position. These gentlemen have also recommended that another work should be taken in hand, but we are not doing that at the present time.

Head put and agreed to.

On head 21, “Traffic Working”, £57,231.

I wish to bring up the matter of the pay of the men employed at the docks. There is great dissatisfaction. Let me take the case of the Sarangs. They are responsible for the handling of the goods; they have had service for a considerable time; they all bear very excellent characters; they are living under conditions which are very superior, and they are getting the sum of 7s. 6d. a day. Employed by private employers, the stevedores, men doing the same class of work get 15s. a day. Then there is the next class, the sorters. They carry out important work, and they are responsible for any mistakes. They get from 5s. to 5s. 2d. a day. The labourers or casuals, who are now classed as civilized labour, receive the princely sum of 4s. 6d. a day. Many have been employed for 30 years or more. When these men complain about the small wage they get I am informed they are told that if they do not like it natives can displace them. The natives can live down at the docks very cheaply; they pay for quarters, light and fuel 3s. a month, and can live on very little, whereas these men try to live under respectable conditions, and they cannot hire a room at less than 30s. a month. If these men have families they find it next to impossible to live decently. The Minister has told us, on many occasions, that he has not replaced any coloured persons for Europeans. A body of the men down at the docks, after the Minister’s statement held a meeting and wrote me a letter from which this is an extract—

This letter ends—

This information comes on top of the information I gave the Minister the other day. He then said in regard to these men who were replaced by Europeans that when it was discovered that they were wrongly dismissed they were immediately reinstated. I am told they were dismissed in October and November, 1924, and they had not been reinstated by the 18th May, 1925. I think the Minister should go into this matter very carefully, and he should see that these men are treated more sympathetically in future. I am bringing this up now, because the Minister told us last time that I was wrong when I referred him to the cases of the seven or eight dismissals. After the Minister’s statement this letter was sent to me, and it was sent in view of the Minister’s statement that Europeans were not replacing coloured people. I trust the Minister will look into this and let us know what the actual position is. I also trust he will see that these men who have been working at the docks for many years receive more adequate wages in future.

I rise to support the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl). Everything he has stated is correct, from information which has been given me. On the other hand, I want to be quite clear. While I complain to the Minister, and while it is correct that the conditions are such as has been mentioned, it is a great improvement on what it was two years ago. While we realize that there are these disadvantages, we thank the Government for the improvement they have made in the conditions of the workers down at the docks.

I want to point out to the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) that these men who receive 15s. a day in private employment or stevedoring really get employment only three days a week, and then it is irregular. As regards the coloured employees employed by the administration, they have practically a full week of six days, so there is that difference. It is true we are paying less, but we are giving them a full week’s work. My information with regard to the question of the coloured people who have been replaced by Europeans on the north quay and the east pier is that at the urgent representation of the Department of Labour, that these Europeans were unemployed, a certain number of them were employed there. I have no definite information on that point, but if the hon. member assures me these men were dismissed. I am quite prepared to accept it.

That is my information.

I will have that matter looked into. We are continually employing additional coloured men at the docks, and there seems no reason at all why these men, if they were replaced by Europeans, should not be re-employed by us at the docks. I will certainly look into the matter. The hon. member also raised the question of the wages paid to the Sarangs, sorters and labourers. I think he will agree that it is a most difficult question, because we are carrying out the policy now of replacing the natives as they go—by wastage—by coloured men. If we were to pay these men what might possibly be too high a wage, we would make the whole thing impossible. I will say candidly to the hon. member, what I think we should ultimately come to is this, that the natives will naturally all leave our docks as far as Cape Town is concerned, because it is the only field of labour for the coloured man in the Western Province. We have a large number of coloured men in Cape Town unemployed, and I am hoping that the time will come when, at the docks and in the Western Province, not a single native will be employed, and that without doing any injustice to the native. When I come to deal with other matters, I will give practical proof of this. In the native area, the native is to have preference over the coloured man and the European, but in this particular area, which is the natural preserve of the coloured man to-day, as regards labouring work, I think the hon. member must agree that he must take every step to help the coloured man to recover what he has lost in Cape Town and docks and Western Province. I ask the hon. member not to press me unduly in regard to wages. If we pay the coloured man too high a wage, we will make this policy impossible. I know the hon. member is sympathetic in regard to this coloured labour, and I know his difficulty in regard to the natives. Unfortunately, the political question does come in. I do not say it weighs much with the hon. member, and I do not blame him. I know he is sympathetic to the employment of coloured people and under the circumstances. I ask him not to press me to increase the wages of the coloured people, as that would make it impossible, and we do not want to revert to the old system.

I quite agree with the Minister that in this part of the country you have a very large coloured element, and I think it is the duty of the Government to try and make provision for their employment; but in the Eastern Province we have not got coloured people, and I would like to know whether the Minister is going to adopt the same policy in the Eastern Province—at East London, for instance—and at Durban, also where we have not the coloured element, or does he admit the principle that those ports of the country are essentially in native areas, and that consequently the natives should have a greater claim for employment at the harbours mentioned than coloured people from the Western Province?

I want to tell the Minister that the information I gave him of men working for only a part of a week is given in the letter from these men. Knowing I was going to ventilate their grievances and seeing that they asked me in the letter to request an interview, I do not think they would tell me what was not correct. In regard to my remarks being dictated by political considerations—

I did not say that.

If the Minister states he did not say that, I accept it.

I should like to tell the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) that I am prepared to meet a deputation from these men, and if he will arrange that, I will arrange a suitable date. I did not say he raised this question for political purposes. I said that I appreciated the difficulties of my hon. friend. I said I knew he was sympathetic to the employment of coloured men, but that, for political reasons, he was not in a position to state it so unequivocally, as he has native voters in his constituency. In regard to the question raised by the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn), I shall certainly see that justice is done to the Europeans. You have not the coloured men, but you have the European, and, naturally, at these places, the European has his peculiar rights. Certainly the native ought to have his opportunity, subject to the rights of the Europeans being respected.

One would like to respond to the Minister’s appeal not to press this matter unduly; but one feels a little alarmed at what the Minister said. I am anxious to help the Minister in the initial stages, where he is starting a new system of “civilizing” the railways and harbours. That is a good word, but it is capable of a good many interpretations, and there I find myself very much on all fours with quite a lot that has been stated on this side, although I do not agree with the object they have in view. The term “civilized labour” requires a little explanation, more particularly now that the Minister has said something about wages. He has not explained that very pregnant point made by the hon. member for Cape Town Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl), namely, how it is that men doing precisely similar work in the docks, the one set employed by the State under the direct charge of the Minister himself, get 7s. 6d. per day, and the other set employed by private employers get 15s. per day. That I hope is capable of explanation, but I must confess that I listened with amazement to the Minister. Are we to understand that in his efforts—and more power to his elbow in that direction—to bring into being civilized labour in the railways and harbours, that that civilized labour is to be set up on a 4s. 6d. a day standard? Surely the Minister can give a better answer than the one he gave? I think sufficiently highly of him to believe that that is not his intention, to keep them at 7s. 6d. I want a little ray of hope. An interview is not much compensation. There is also a further point. When he talks about the whole experiment being liable to wreckage, if it is proposed to make the wages unduly high at the start, does he mean us to understand that the hopes of carrying out the whole scheme in future will be entirely based on 4s. 6d. a day wage? The hon. member spoke of natives getting 4s. 6d. a day, and that they could live on it. If he is going to base his civilized and uncivilized labour on a standard of 4s. 6d.. the outlook for South Africa is very bad, and, although one does not want to press him at this stage, I hope the Minister will be able to give some indication of a development in a progressive direction, so far as the standard of civilization is concerned.

The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) did not do me the honour of listening to me when I was replying, because I clearly indicated that the serangs employed by private people work only three days a week, whereas the men engaged by the railway department are regularly employed. That is the whole of the difference. I trust with that explanation the hon. member will be satisfied.

Oh, no.

The hon. member says that if we are to have 4s. 6d. a day as a wage for white men, that would be a sorry outlook. But we are at the beginning of this new policy, we must train these men, and, as they become more efficient, we shall be able to employ a lesser number at the docks, and then only can we consider an increased wage, but we cannot do that at the present time. I do not say we must run it on economic lines, but what would the hon. member say if I came along year after year with a deficit? I must either increase the harbour charges or employ fewer men. The hon. member must have a little patience. Let us see if we can train these men, white and coloured, to be more efficient, and then see whether a higher wage is justified. Personally, I would not like to see a man employed at 4s. 6d. per day, but we must Cut our coat according to our cloth.

It has been laid down by Mr. Justice Higgins, in Australia, and by Mr. Justice de Villiers, in the Transvaal, that an industry that cannot afford to pay its employees a decent wage has no right to exist. State enterprise is on precisely the same footing as a private employer, and the only justification for an industry is its ability to employ men at a decent civilized standard of wages. Which is better—for a man to get, 7s. 6d. a day and work all the week, or to be paid 15s. a day and work only three days a week? The State ought to demand a living wage for its employees. The other day we passed a Wage Bill laying it down that private employers should pay their men a living wage, and the Minister of Railways and Harbours associated himself with that measure, not by speaking, but by voting for it. It is equally right that the State should see that its employees are paid on an adequate standard. But to say that because we employ men all the week we should pay them only half the rate that is given to men who work only three days a week, is a very poor argument indeed.

Head put and agreed to.

Head 22. “General Charges”, £20.034, put and agreed to.

Head 23. “Superannuation”, £12,695, put and agreed to.

Head 24, “Depreciation”, £82.460, put and agreed to.

Head 25, “Lighthouses, Beacons and Signal Stations”, £47,665, put and agreed to.

Head 26, “Interest on Capital £465,845, put and agreed to.

Head 27,” Miscellaneous Expenditure”, £9.450, put and agreed to.

Steamships:

On head 28, “Steamships”, £177,198,

I notice under this head the Minister shows a reduction of all items except salaries and wages. I want to know if he is getting economical or if they are curtailing their activities. The reduction is especially noticeable in provisions. I hope you are not curtailing the food supply of the men running the ships. Then with regard to depreciation, how does he arrive at £10,000 for that? What percentage is he allowing on the capital amount? Then there is depreciation—survey repairs. What does that mean? It is a new item and it goes into the total depreciation of £15.000. Is that going to be written against the operations of the steamships? There might be a number of items written against the operation of the ships which ought not to be taken into account. Then I want to ask him to tell us whether he has taken into further consideration the resolution unanimously passed by the House this session calling on the Government to consider favourably the establishment of a State fleet.

I would like to ask the Minister a question in connection with a statement current in Durban. It is reported on the strength of a leading shipping owner that the port captain at Durban, who has gone overseas, is commissioned to buy steamships for the Government. In a quiet way, I would like to ask the Minister to tell us something about it.

The reductions of the items mentioned by the hon. member are on account of the reduction in prices of bunkering coal and the stores. Now about depreciation. It is 5 per cent. of the amount of £200,000. Previously we calculated on £242,000. As regards the amount of £5,000, the survey amount started for the first time that is to obviate the undue fluctuation in expenditure and to meet periodical survey expenses and the heavy cost incurred on the steamships. One year we may have heavy expenses and the next year may be lighter. So we put this amount aside. Then about the resolution of the House, we are most seriously giving consideration to this. With reference to the question of the hon. member for Maritzburg (South), the hon. member will see in the loan estimates I am asking for something on that account and I hope to make a statement on that position when we deal with the loan estimates.

I accept the statement that the Minister is seriously considering the position, but I am not satisfied on this question of survey repairs. The Minister said he was building up a fund, but you have an item of £17,000 now. Is that the sort of repairs you mean, or is it some other sort of repairs? Then with regard to the £10.000 depreciation, is that going into a fund which is being set aside with a view ultimately of purchasing more ships?

With regard to the second question the hon. member has given his own explanation which is correct. With regard to the first question there may be periodical surveys or extraordinary expenditure in one particular year and we put that money aside to meet that expenditure.

Head put and agreed to.

Head 29, “Interest on Capital”, £8,000, put and agreed to.

Head 30, “Miscellaneous Expenditure”, £200, put and agreed to.

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

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

House Resumed:

The Chairman stated that the committee had agreed to the Estimates of Expenditure from Railway and Harbour Funds, without amendment and that he would bring up a report at a later date.

Progress reported. House to resume in Committee to-morrow.

I would like to ask the Minister for some information with regard to this item, reduction of the allotment price of portion of the farm “Kromkrans,” Carolina. I see that there are two or three other cases of a similar nature.

I may inform the hon. member (Mr. Jagger) that he will find many more similar cases in this list. This is land bought under section 11 by the Lands Department, where the applicant pays one-fifth and the department pays four-fifths. The land has been overvalued by the inspecting members, at least it was found afterwards that the lessees could not go on and they abandoned the holdings. We had to reduce the amount of the allotment price, because nobody would take the ground at the original figure.

Recommendation put and agreed to.

On recommendation (43),

I would like the Minister of Lands to give us some particulars of No. 43.

The municipal council has a legacy with which to erect an arch, like the Marble Arch in London, at the top of Adderley Street, and they require this bit of land for that purpose. The plans have been before the Crown Lands Committee, and also the Public Works Department, and they have approved of them.

Recommendation put and agreed to.

On recommendation (59),

Writing off has been moved under preceding numbers, but here it is proposed to write off large amounts on certain settlements. It is proposed to write off £49.000 on the settlements De Jagersdrift, Buffalo, Kambuladraai, Hareldene and Spitzkop. Altogether the intention is to write off £135,000. These particular farms on which we are asked to write off £49,000 are farms which were bought by the land board of Natal and they were bought at such prices that the people could not exist on them. That is why the Minister is proposing relief. Let me say at once that I am not opposed to granting relief to the people, because I am convinced that the people cannot make a living. My objection is that the land board negligently or through ignorance bought all the poorest ground which is obtainable in Natal. I can well understand that there was a large demand after the war from the returned soldiers, and every time it is asked why such high prices were paid we are told that the ground was bought in “boom” time. In Natal land was bought to an amount of £226.000, and if purchases had been made to that extent in the four provinces then it would have been sufficient to boom the land tremendously everywhere. But what I am opposed to is that poor ground should be bought where people cannot make a living on it. The land board of Natal was too slow in the purchase and the former Ministers of Lands arranged from Johannesburg and Pretoria to encourage people to buy more ground and even advertisements were placed and the Minister approved of pointing out to the people that the plots of ground are becoming too few for settlement and that they were now to take their chance. One of tile witnesses before the committee acknowledged that the promises which were made to people when they entered into the war had to be fulfilled. But if anyone makes a promise to me if I do certain work to give me a certain payment for it then I expect that I shall at least be treated well. The former Government allowed many of the people to be ruined by encouraging them to buy ground at high prices, ground on which they could not make a living and were bound to pay. The poor devils who put in £200. £300 or £400 of their own into it were forced into misfortune. We now come together; I decided to write off as much as possible. But a new factor comes in. Those returned soldiers who were put on the land as settlers often receive advances of £500 as well for machinery and cattle, and altogether it will cost the country much money. The taxpayers have had in this way to pay £3.000,000 up to the present. Now the policy of the present Government is to make a success of settlements, and with a view to that it seems a good thing to write off, but one thing is certain, viz., that if land boards should to-day continue making such mistakes then settlement will remain a failure or we must go on writing off every day. The country should now once for all understand, and the land boards must understand, that the land boards have made many blunders, and they must understand that if the mistakes are made again in the future then they will be dismissed, as far as I am concerned. The whole land board of Natal, e.g., if they do not voluntarily resign, should be dismissed, because they certainly made many great blunders. If the Minister does not take this step then I will introduce a motion in the House next year or in some other way to dismiss the members of that land board, because they have cost the country up to to-day at least £139.000. What they will cost the country by next year I do not know. I understand that all the settlers are coming to Parliament for a writing off. Whether the land boards actually themselves went to look at the farms or whether they paid the high prices to their friends I do not know. When subsequently a commission was appointed and made a report they stated that the land board had never inspected the ground. Therefore the land board recommended the Government to buy land without going to look at it. [Time expired.]

We have here to do with the list of writings off and if hon. members look at it they will see that it indicates a fairly serious state of affairs. We all feel that we want to make a success of settlements in the country because the solution of the poor white question is to a great extent wrapped up in it. It is, however, a serious position because the sum of £136,000 has to be written off. This is one of the legacies of the former Government, and our Government is not to blame for it. I agree with the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) that the Land Board of Natal made great blunders. If we want to make a success of land settlements then the first requirement is that we must get the right kind of ground for the settlers. Cheap ground is in the long run, dear ground. I admit that members of the land boards are often in a difficult position because they have to buy ground in parts they do not know. We are anxious to prevent further losses occurring and, therefore, I wish to make a suggestion, which I am certain will save the country money. The Minister must assist land boards by appointing local committees who can advise the land board when they go to inspect ground in the various districts. They can then get advice from responsible persons who are acquainted with such parts. What do the members of the land boards do now? They go to such districts and consult irresponsible persons. They do not even know whether those very people are not interested in the ground, therefore; I say that it is a dangerous procedure. If my suggestion is adopted, we shall save money and the blunders of the past will not be repeated. I think that hon. members will acknowledge that it is a practical suggestion. Then there is another point. We have, however, met the settlers and they must acknowledge that the Government has treated them fairly. I hope that they have understood once and for all that they cannot remain on the ground if they do not make a success of it. If they cannot do that then there are enough other people who can make a success of it. We cannot go on spoon-feeding the people. No, we must now come to finality about the matter, and they must understand that they must make a success of the cultivation of the ground. Then there is another point. I want to emphasize it again, but I hope that the Minister will warn the members of the land board when they buy ground for settlements to see to it that they buy ground suitable for settlements. In Hoopstad they bought ground, and I know that no one can exist on such a small piece of ground. The people have gone and the money has been thrown into the sea. In that way our poor whites get a bad name as a type who cannot make a success of the work. Now it is recommended that sheep should be given to the people. In that part of Hoopstad one cannot farm with sheep, and if the land board decides on that, it will end in a great failure. I hope that the Minister will make the settlers understand that the State is not a benevolent institution. It is a matter of business, and if they cannot make a success of the work, then they must make way for others who will make a success of it.

We have now established 11,000 people on the various settlements, and we must make the returned soldiers understand one thing thoroughly, and that is that the refrain that they have fought for the country and made it free should now stop. As we are now writing off, I should like the Minister to put down his foot once for all, and to insist in the future that they shall pay their instalments regularly. There are thousands of young people in the country who would like to have the chance, and who are prepared, to work and not to indulge in these refrains. I believe that some of the people have written to the Minister that he should prove to them that they ought to pay. The people were given a promise, but that song must now stop. The Government has treated them as fairly as possible, but it must be understood now that it is expected of them to pay their rent regularly, otherwise the Government will tackle them in a different manner. I just want to turn again to the land boards, and to say that if the land boards do not attend to the valuation of the ground, if they do not take the servitudes into consideration then they should be treated a little bit differently. I should like to give the Minister the power to stop employing these people any longer if they waste the country’s money. Natal was the first sinner, but the other provinces do not altogether escape either. We must put the matter on a sound basis, and now that relief has been granted, see to it that the instalments come in.

This committee can rest assured, with regard to the revaluation of these lands, that it has been well done by qualified men and on the Lands Committee, every hon. member is also qualified. I am sure that this work is one of great benefit and will be received with pleasure by the many settlers. It must be borne in mind that, at the time when this land was purchased, things were booming, land was at its high-water mark, and it was not the Government only that were purchasing at high prices. I know of one instance where a farmer in the Kroonstad district purchased a farm at £12 a morgen. When I asked the farmer why he paid such a high price for the land, he explained to me that he had received 5s. per lb. for his wool, and it was so profitable that he wanted to extend his holding and increase his flocks, “for,” he said—

We all know that the bottom fell out of the wool market and that wool receded to a price of less than 2s. per lb. We know that the settlers on this high-priced land have had a very severe struggle. We know that not only has land receded in price, but also produce. At the time when land was bought at these high prices, mealies were high in price, and cattle were high in price, and everything has come down in proportion, and the settlers have got to look to the oversea market to dispose of their produce. We have no home market in this country of any value. For instance, our home market for mealies, which is the largest of any South African grown produce, is 10 million muids a year, and our meat market only absorbs one-third of our annual increase. Now that these reductions are being made, it is up to the settlers to meet their obligations, and I feel that with these reasonable prices of land they will do so.

In connection with what the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) has said I just wish to say that it makes me think of a Transvaal proverb: “When you have finished shooting you see where you ought to have aimed. (Mistakes have been made, but there are certain circumstances we should take into consideration.. It was a time when the prices of ground were abnormally high, everybody knew that the people who had been to the war wanted ground, they knew that the Government of the day had promised it to the people and that the sums had been voted for the purchase of ground for that purpose. The prices then went up and it is a, little hard now to throw all the blame on the land board of Natal. I hope however that the Natal land board made a mistake, but they were at that time egged on by speeches in Parliament and by the public outside to buy ground for returned soldiers and for settlers. They then made mistakes in the excitement that existed. The State at that time spent 2½ millions in purchasing ground and the public £130,000,000 so that we cannot say that the boom in the price of ground was necessarily caused by the Government. In any case the fact is that the land board inspect the ground and make recommendations to the Minister. They act to the best of their knowledge. Usually the ground is bought at a price a little less than what was originally demanded. We see therefore that the land board beat down the price a little. As regards the other point mentioned by hon. members I feel that it is not only with regard to the returned soldiers, but we must make the people understand that they must not lightly undertake the payment of the instalments. We must make all the settlers understand that. Undoubtedly there were difficult years. We had the drop in prices from 1921-’23. We had drought and all kinds of plagues which made it difficult for them to meet their obligations. Now conditions have changed and we have come to their assistance. We have added arrear instalments to the purchase price, doubled the period of payment and now we are going to write off from the value of the farm. We can therefore expect the settlers to fulfil their obligations because if they do not do so we shall subsequently have a feeling hostile to settlers and settlements. People will say that they are not making a success of the ground and will ask why they cannot have the same opportunities. I am going to issue a circular to all the settlers to show them they must comply with their obligations.

How much is in arrear?

There is over £500,000 in arrear. It was £450,000 when I took over and now it already exceeds £500,000. It is too bad and must be rectified. I am also sending people round to bring these things to the notice of the settlers. As regards the purchase of ground I sent a circular to the land boards that in connection with the purchase under section 11 of the Act, which will now be extended, they must be very careful against the speculation in ground as a result thereof. They must be careful not to value the ground too high. If they do so it only means that the settler will get into difficulties. They are always willing to pay any price for the ground. They reckon that they have a long time to pay and that they will subsequently catch up with the payments. It is not the idea in future to buy ground under section 10 but rather under section 11. There we have the advantage that the purchaser and applicant have already seen the ground and made his agreement with the seller. He then makes his application and the land board goes to inspect the ground so that we have a double cheek which was not the case in the boom time. The hon. member for Heilbron has talked about local committees. I will not say that there is no need for them. The position however is that under the Act they have no say and we will find that it will make the expenses too great. It will cause double expenses.

It will drive the prices up.

Exactly.

Yes, that will be the case and I do not think it is a good idea. The land board have learnt by the past. They will not make so many mistakes in the future. There will always be mistakes in such undertakings. If he wants to make no mistakes then we had better abandon the whole undertaking. I think however that there will be far fewer or hardly any fault. The position is however that the people are on the settlements and we must meet them and let them understand that they must take care that matters go right in the future with regard to payments, etc.

Although I was a member of the committee I yet wish to congratulate the hon. Minister on the work which has been done not only by the committee, but also with regard to the new Bill on land settlement. The Government and Parliament have met the settlers all over the country in a very generous manner. We have had a very difficult time in recent years and we have had much trouble in getting in arrear monies. As the Minister knows about £400,000 is in arrear. But I hope that now the settlements have been met in this way the settlers on their side will also appreciate that there are obligations on them and that they are expected to do their best to pay their instalments promptly and timeously. I do not wish to detain the House any longer, but just to tell the Minister that what is advised in the report is a recommendation which is fair and impartial and the settlers may be very well satisfied with what is being done.

Can the treasury also be satisfied?

We must of course also think of the treasury. In any case I want to assure the Minister of Finance that the committee went very carefully to work and considered everything very closely and I think the country will appreciate it and I heartily hope that the settlers will also appreciate it and on their side do their best.

Recommendation put and agreed to.

Remaining recommendations put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Resolutions reported, considered and adopted, and transmitted to the Senate for concurrence.

moved in terms of the report.

I should like to have a little more information about recommendation (1) in connection with the case of Lady Woolls-Sampson.

I have all the papers here. The report: says that the widow of Sir Audrey Woolls-Sampson is in needy circumstances. Her husband has fought as is mentioned in the petition in all the wars from 1878 till 1902 and made himself of use to the country. At one time he gave £10,000 to the Imperial Light Horse. He was subsequently a member of the Transvaal Parliament and was also a member of this Parliament. He has left his wife entirely unprovided for. That is the reason why the committee have granted a pension of £150 per annum. He did not as is further mentioned make any claims in respect of the wounds that he received and the committee decided by a majority of votes to grant the pension.

I am sorry that I cannot agree with the committee’s recommendation. The reasons for the grant which has been mentioned by the chairman of the Select Committee do not appear to me to be adequate. It seems to me that there are hundreds and thousands of similar cases in the country where people have left a widow and they have possibly done much more for the country than the Hon. Woolls-Sampson. Those widows are in poor circumstances and they apply in vain to the Committee for grants and gratuities. If we open this door, what will be the result? Very deserving cases have applied in the past and they have always been refused. I know of statesmen who have done indescribably much for the country and their widows could get no pensions. I therefore propose that this recommendation be deleted.

The hon. member can vote against it.

I am a member of the pensions committee and I cannot be satisfied with the information that has been given. I object to the taxpayer having to pay for this pension. Unfortunately the committee was not complete when this pension was granted otherwise it would not I think have gone through. I feel that we must protect the taxpayer and if we grant this application then we shall have to grant many other cases with just as much right. I hope that the whole House will vote against the granting of this pension to a person who has lived in luxury and has had a superfluity and did not provide for the future. Can Parliament now go and take away the poor people’s pennies for this purpose? There are other very deserving cases for which the pensions committee did not grant a pension. Cases of people who have rendered the State good and great services. Ever since the commencement of my service as a member of the pensions committee I took up the attitude that there was great necessity to do something for old people who had lived in poverty and had no further means of existence. I always had the feeling that we should provide for those people. Until the Government has done something in the direction of old age pension I feel that the committee should consider such cases with sympathy. Unfortunately in this case members of the committee were not all present.

Why was not everybody present?

It is impossible for everyone always to be present. I hope the House will vote against granting this pension.

I am indeed sorry and really surprised at the attitude of those two hon. gentlemen who have just spoken (Mr. Conroy and Mr. van Rensburg). If one of them were unable, I think. The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. van Rensburg) who is a member of the committee, to Be present at the meeting, that is no excuse for his bringing up here this question of a pension to Lady Violet Woolls-Sampson. The committee went thoroughly into the case and if ever there was a deserving case of pension this is one. The hon. gentleman over there (Mr. van Rensburg), it is evident, has a “bee in his bonnet” in respect to old age pensions. I share with him the view that the time has arrived when we should have an old, age pension fund. It does not, however, follow that we should disregard the claims of this lady. Her husband has rendered eminent service to the State and I do hone that the committee will not agree to the motion of the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy).

I think members of the House would be indebted to some member of the committee who would tell us the exact grounds on which we should make a difference between this case and the many other deserving cases. As far as I understand there is no legal claim. There are many men who give up the whole of their lives to the service of the State and who get nothing like the pension mentioned in this particular case. Look at case No. 7, another ex-member of Parliament, a man who served this country well and truly, a man with seven children and the pension recommended for him is less than the pension recommended for this particular lady. I submit that until a very clear case is made out it is not the duty of the House to grant this pension.

I want to put the position as far as I can in this case, and I do hope racialism will not enter into the discussion at all. The word racialism is being used, and I for one do not wish it to enter into this discussion. It is unnecessary. I say this, that if similar cases come along to the pensions committee, as long as I am a member of that committee I shall do exactly as I have done in this case; I shall vote for a sum to be granted for a widow or dependents. The petition sets out the case very clearly. It tells you of the services of this late gentleman, of his services to the country. It also tells you he received no pay for any services rendered, and further, that he put up the magnificent sum of £10.000 for the I.L.H. After he has rendered such services to the country those he has left behind are being forced to live upon the charity of friends. We have the case of the daughters of this gentleman. The position is that they are having to work for a living to-day. There is no hardship in that, but at the same time we have to realize that if this gentleman had not given this £10.000 for the raising of the I.L.H. they would perhaps have been enjoying that money to-day. I do not think there could be any committee where party politics and the crack of the whip are kept out so much as in the Pensions Committee. The vote was not on party lines, and had there been a full attendance I do not think there would have been a bit of difference in this case.

I am not going to discuss the merits or demerits of this case; but I think it is a thousand pities that any member of the Committee should come into this House and take advantage of the opportunity to give expression to a difference of opinion with his colleagues on the Select Committee. In many other cases, members have not always been able to see eye to eye; but have loyally accepted the decision of the majority of the Committee. In the interests of the credit of the country of this House, and it is certainly due to the Committee which has discharged its onerous duties without fear, favour or prejudice, this item should be passed without any further cavilling or discussion.

I did not intend to speak on this question; but where we raise questions in cases where the committee has not recommended anything, we are told that we should be satisfied with the finding of the committee. When you are considering a case like this, you have to take it on its merits. This particular man, whose widow is asking for a pension, the late Sir Aubrey Woolls-Sampson, was a member of this House, and there must be many hon. members in the House still who remember him and his great services to this country. I take it, it is quite clear that this woman is in a very penurious condition at present. There may be many more cases of this kind, but every such case which comes before the House will have my support. Because an injustice is done in one case that is no reason why we should do an injustice in another case. The hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn) has referred to No. 7, Mrs. Magennis, she has had previous grants from Parliament, and if there is anything further needed—if she is in impecunious circumstances—I would press for justice to be done in her case. But we should not deny one widow justice because another does not get it. It is a bad thing for the country—however poor the country may be—if you have to say that when a man has done well for his country and been a great public servant, his widow, who is in distress, should have to knock at the gates of Parliament in vain for assistance. After all, what does it amount to? £150 a year?

It is double the railway pension.

Then you must increase your railway pension. You must not forget this is not a young person. I do not know what her age is, but it must be between 50 and 60, and it seems we are adopting a rather mean attitude; that is, those who oppose this recommendation are. It is not dignified of this House to deny the widow of a distinguished public man of this country, who has performed great services, the assistance she requires. One does not know why there is this objection. Is it the name or title, or what is the objection? Numbers of other pensions went through without question. Why this sudden interest in No. 1? There must be some reason which we have not been told. You have given pensions to men who served in previous wars and got wounded, and were in distress. When this man had means he gave large sums to South Africa, and now his widow asks for a small pension, and we would not be honouring ourselves or South Africa by refusing her request.

As one who has spent a long time on the Select Committee on Pensions. I could enumerate three or four persons who have been treated in the same way that the Committee recommends the present case to be treated. Hitherto members of the Committee have always loyally accepted the decision of the majority. I never know a member of the Select Committee to approach the consideration of a pension on a racial basis. The most impartial Chairman the Committee ever had was Mr. C. A. van Niekerk the former member for Boshof, who is now in another place. Do not let it go forth to the world that we are objecting to paying a pension to the widow of a man who has rendered distinguished public service. The money is contributed by the public, and those who serve the public ought to benefit by it. I appeal to the House to help the poor and the needy, and I hope that this pension will go through.

I have never yet done such a thing as to speak twice on the same subject. But it seems to me that the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Buirski) criticizes me in connection with old age pensions which he is in favour of. I just wish to show how illogical he is. We had a petition from a certain Mr. Scott who is an official. He is 70 years old and was wounded in the war. I detained the pension committee for two hours pleading for a pension of £50 for him, but it was defeated. Now, his mouth is running over about this matter. When we had to do with an old official he voted lightly against the pension.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) said that it looked as if there was something behind this discussion. There is nothing behind it. I want to be quite fair and give all the information about the financial position of the pensionary. [The Speaker here read certain information which was given to the Select Committee.] I can read the whole petition again if necessary. There is nothing else in connection with the matter. If hon. members look at the list of grants they will see that there can be no question of race hatred in connection with the matter. There was never anything of the sort in the committee. The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. van Rensburg) was not present when this matter was dealt with. We had five against three in the division. I voted against, but not on account of race feelings. We divided in many cases.