I move—

Mr. Speaker, I think this is an opportunity where we on this side of the House should perhaps surprise the Minister by expressing our appreciation to him for the courteous manner in which he is always willing to listen to complaints about particular aspects of the administration of the S.A. Railways and to have those complaints investigated to see whether they are well founded and to have them remedied. We appreciate that attitude on the part of the Minister most sincerely. I wish we could say at the same time that we are happy about the approach of the Minister to the problems of South Africa affecting the S.A. Railways, as we have in the past taken various opportunities of stating them to the hon. the Minister. We are certainly not happy nor satisfied about the approach by the Minister and his Department to the future role of the Railways as part of the organization of a state like South Africa committed to the principle of private enterprise. It seems to me that in order to indicate to the Minister what our main concern will be in this debate I should move the following amendment—

We could perhaps examine this problem we have in the light of the Minister’s reaction to the Van Zyl Report, the report of a commission which was appointed to investigate the complaints in regard to competition between the railway workshops and private enterprise, particularly in the steel industry. In order that we should understand each other well, I propose to state the approach of this side of the House to this problem of the relationship between public or State enterprise and private enterprise. We are fundamentally committed, and I think hon. members opposite are too, to the principle of private enterprise. We believe in the capitalist organization of the economy of the nation because we are convinced that there is no other economic system in the world which can bring about such a speedy advance in the lot and the state of ordinary people as the system of private enterprise. Therefore our policy has been at all times to assist private enterprise to render the services to the community and to the State that they can render, and to encourage them to do it rather than that the State should do it itself. But then there are exceptions to every rule. Now occasions have arisen in the history of South Africa when private enterprise has been either unable or unwilling to undertake services which are necessary in the interest of the State as a whole, and in those cases, where a service is required in the interest of the community as a whole and private enterprise is unwilling or unable, economically or physically, to perform that service, then the State has the right to enter into that field of enterprise in order to satisfy that need. And the State can do it either through public utilities or through a State Department, as in the case of the Railways. When one realizes that this is the attitude of the official Opposition to this problem, it is possible to look at the Minister’s attitude to the Van Zyl Commission’s Report, and one would expect to find many points on which our thoughts coincide. There is much in the action of the hon. the Minister of which we must approve. We agree, for example, that in the past the Railways were compelled to enter into the manufacture of certain components because private enterprise did not or would not do that work. We agree that it would be wrong if great assets were to become redundant. We agree that proper utilization of manpower requires that this work should continue, and so on. We agree on most of these points, except on two points.

Firstly, we cannot accept the second head of the Minister’s argument where he says that the cost of articles put out to tender has shown that the Railways are more efficient. Nor can we accept that it will be such a terrible burden to have larger stocks in supply in order to cope with the irregular and unreliable deliveries from private enterprise. This Van Zyl Commission, after all, was a commission of most distinguished gentlemen, and all of them, except one person, reported that they found it impossible, and that the cost accountants found it impossible, to find a true basis of comparison between the cost of enterprise undertaken by the Railways and that of work undertaken by private enterprise. I think the Minister owes it to the country to indicate on what basis he makes this comparison, where the cost accountants and the experts whom he appointed himself and in whom he had enough confidence to appoint, cannot find a true basis for comparison in costs. The same applies to a lesser extent to his bland charge that private enterprise is unreliable, a charge which is contained in part of the first and in the fourth head of his argument which I read out. I am worried about this, Sir, because if hon. members opposite accept these arguments by the Minister, we may as well say that we should go over to a socialistic State in South Africa; that State enterprise in the nature of things is more efficient than private enterprise. And once you concede that then in all departments of life you must begin to plead for State enterprise as against private enterprise and commit yourself to a socialistic outlook. The Minister as a confirmed capitalist and I as an aspirant capitalist cannot possibly concede that. I do think that the Minister owes a little more detail, a little more explanation to the House before he commits us to that. In any case, most of the arguments used by the Minister can very effectively be turned by private enterprise against the S.A. Railways. They can also claim that over the years they have built up a know-how and a technique, which is precious and valuable to the South African community; they can also claim that private enterprise, which admittedly does work for the S.A. Railways, plays an important part in the economy of many towns, just as the railways workshops do, as mentioned by the hon. the Minister, in the case of Maritzburg. They can also claim that if the Railways take more of the work which they have been doing for the S.A. Railways, they will develop great surplus assets which will be a waste to the community of South Africa; and just as the Minister claims that the Railways have done much to build up private enterprise, which is true, they can claim with equal justification that private enterprise in South Africa has done a great deal to build up the S.A. Railways. These arguments cut both ways. But it seems to me there is some misapprehension in the minds of the Railway Administration as to what private enterprise wants. I cannot believe, from my contacts with entrepreneurs in this field, that they want to see an abandonment of the S.A. Railways workshops or an immediate curtailment in the activities of the S.A.R. & H. workshops. If they wanted that they would be utterly irresponsible and we would have to dissociate ourselves from that plea. But it is clear that what they want is a shift in emphasis, a shift in direction. They want to be able to say that in the future they will continue to get their fair share of the work that has to be done for the S.A. Railways. They want some security in that regard; they want to be able to plan for the future. Sir, it is not only I who say that or certain private entrepreneurs who say that. I notice that in the latest report of Vecor, which is a semi-State enterprise—practically a public utility—they say that their future profitability as an organization will depend upon whether they can rely on future contracts for the manufacture of wheels from the S.A. Railways. Sir, it is in the public interest—not only in the interests of a company like Vecor or of private companies—it is in the public interest that there should be some assurance that the S.A. Railways will not tend to become monopolistic in the manufacturing of goods for its own use.

The Minister made certain proposals in the light of this commission’s report. He gave an assurance that the existing facilities of the S.A.R. & H. workshops would be used mainly for maintenance and repair work. He also said that he would not extend his facilities for manufacture if there was adequate proof that private enterprise was able to supply the needs of the Railways continuously and economically, which was very close to the statement of policy which I made on behalf of this side of the House. He also gave the assurance that in future the departmental manufacture of spares for rolling stock manufactured by private enterprise would be curtailed. All that is good as far as it goes but it is vague; it could almost be described as a mere pious undertaking. I would not say that; I think that this is a reflection of what the Minister intends to do, but it is capable of a wide range of interpretations. I can imagine that a statement like this—and that is why I call it vague —can be interpreted in entirely different ways by different Ministers and by different General Managers of the S.A. Railways. I want to say that as far as we are concerned, the result of the Van Zyl Commission’s Report is that the Minister and his Administration are on trial. Within the framework of this statement of policy—these three points made by the Minister—it can mean that there will be a change of direction in South Africa; it can mean that the Railways will help and encourage private enterprise to do more and more work for the S.A. Railways without harming or curtailing the activities of the railway workshops, which none of us wants because they are a most valuable asset to our South African nation. But we feel that it would be wrong to continue to expand the S.A. Railway workshops and in the process to deprive private enterprise, which is the basis of South African community, of full participation, of its full share, in supplying the needs of the S.A. Railways. We would be most unhappy to see the S.A. Railways develop as a monopoly in every sphere of endeavour associated with the transport of goods. Therefore I repeat that as far as we are concerned the Administration is on trial and we shall watch with great interest to see how it develops in future months and years.

Furthermore, while this statement is not clear and will have to be tested in practice, there is still no clarity either on how the Minister sees the future of the S.A. Railways in our developing economy. The Minister on other occasions during this Session gave the assurance, as he did yesterday, that the part private enterprise plays in the transport organization of South Africa is constantly growing. He gave the impression that the Railways were very generous and very willing to share this part of our national enterprise with private entrepreneurs; yet at the same time one gets reports, as I have been getting over the last few days, that the Railways are hardening their resistance to applications by private entrepreneurs for permits to undertake transport over distances of more than 300 miles. Those reports come from so many sources that it is quite obviously a matter of railway policy. Sir, that does not accord with the Minister’s statement that they want to concede, in a generous fashion, greater participation in the transport of South Africa to private enterprise, without curtailing the work of the S.A. Railways or without injuring their present activities or without unduly limiting the future participation of the Railways in the development of South Africa. In view of the assurances that the Minister gives us, we want to know why there has been this hardening. Up to now the Transportation Board have resisted this attempt by the Railways to restrict the issue of permits. The Railways at the moment cannot cope with all the traffic that is offering; we know that. We hope that soon they will be able to do it again but at the moment they are having difficulties. Is it that what the Minister accuses private enterprise of doing is true of the Railways? The Minister suggested that private enterprise was really competing with the Railways only for higher rated traffic. Is this an attempt on the part of the Railways to get a higher share than they already have of high-rated traffic and thus to make it more difficult and almost impossible for private enterprise to fulfil the role that it should fulfil in the transport of goods in the transport system of our State which is committed, as we say in our amendment, to the system of private enterprise? You see, Sir, we would like the hon. the Minister and the S.A. Railways not to look at their problems merely as railwaymen. We would like them to look at their problems also as South Africans dealing with a State which is at a certain stage of development and which we hope and believe is going in for a period of almost extraordinary development over the next few years. The hon. the Minister tells us in his speeches what is going to happen to the road system of South Africa if private enterprise was to be given a larger share. He reminds us how the roads between Witbank and the Witwatersrand were churned up when private enterprise undertook the transport of coal some years ago. He warned us of the safety factor. But, Sir, that is exactly the point we make; we make it now to the Minister of Railways, and we shall make it to the Minister of Transport too, at the appropriate time. We have to plan for the future of this land. The Minister cannot tell us that the road system of South Africa is inadequate to carry the volume or the weight of the traffic or to carry it safely, and that therefore he must spin a cocoon around himself and have no vision for the future development of private transport in South Africa, as a partner of the Railways. He should tell us how the Railways are going to assist the Minister of Transport to plan the future of South Africa’s transport system so that the planning of an adequate road system for a highly developed State will be undertaken and carried out in South Africa. We do not want to hear from our Minister of Railways that private enterprise cannot play a greater part in the growing economy of South Africa because the roads which were planned after the last depression, 30 years ago, are now inadequate for such a future vision. We should like him to have a vision for the future too. I should like to remind the Minister that when a United Party Government had vast surpluses after we abandoned the gold standard in 1933, there came this great vision of a national road system for South Africa.

Order! The hon. member must not go too deeply into that.

No, Sir, but we are discussing the future part that the S.A. Railways will play in the transport system of South Africa, and the Minister says that they must continue to have a restrictive monopolistic effect on the development of the transport system because the roads are not there. Our reply is that he should reveal the vision which the United Party had in the past, when the opportunity offered, as it offers now, and that there should be planning with regard to the future road system of South Africa. Sir, we do not want the S.A. Railways to lead an isolationist existence; there are enough dangers of isolation facing South Africa in other directions so that we do not want to apply it particularly to the S.A. Railways. I can remember that two years ago when the Minister increased railway rates without reference to any commission he had great courage to increase railway rates by 10 per cent all round. Now, of course, he does not have the same courage to reduce railway rates by 5 per cent. He has enough courage to reduce railway rates a little bit on petrol, but he is using the excuse that the Schumann Commission is sitting to enable him to continue to take more money out of the pockets of railway users than he needs for the running expenses of the S.A. Railways. When he did that two years ago, Sir, he did it in isolation; he did it at a time when we should have been particularly chary of increases in the cost of living. He did it at the very moment when the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council was in session; when they came out shortly afterwards with a statement that in future we should budget for growth points; that the Budget should play a part in planning the future development in South Africa. But the very next day the Minister announced an increase in railway rates which had an effect on the general economy at that time. When he was asked why he did it while the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council was sitting, his answer to the Federated Chamber of Industries was that he would not allow any deliberations or decisions by the Prime Minister’s council to affect his administration of the S.A. Railways. That is the attitude that worries us. The Railways and the Harbours and the Airways of South Africa do not exist in isolation; they are an essential and vital part of the economy of South Africa. They do not belong to a particular Department of State; they belong to the State, and we ask for a reassurance from the Minister, a reassurance that we cannot get, that he is joining with whatever agencies there are trying to plan a greater future for South Africa, not planning in the socialistic sense or in the authoritarian sense but planning merely in intelligent anticipation of the prospects that there are for South Africa. We want an assurance in that regard and until we get an adequate assurance we must persist with the amendment that we have on the Order Paper.

While listening to the previous speaker, I was struck by his changed attitude. When participating in the previous debate, he adopted a most belligerent attitude towards the Minister. I think he has now learnt his first lesson, because he revealed an entirely different attitude here this afternoon. I think he has taken a very wise step in changing his tune for we recall what happened to his predecessor who is not here in this House now. Whenever one comes across him, one sees he is still rubbing certain sore spots where this Minister castigated him. I am afraid this is going to happen to him also. He adopted the attitude here that there should be much greater recognition of private enterprise and that private enterprise should be given its rightful due to a greater extent. Sir, private enterprise has always been taken into consideration by the Railways. Private undertakings have always been recognized, and whenever the Railways have been able to use things manufactured by private undertakings, the Railways have always done so. Even as regards road transport the Railways have not pushed aside the private carriers to whom he referred. The Railways have made concessions to private carriers. But the Railways have always remembered one thing, namely that they are here in the national interest and that they cannot prefer private interests to the national interest. In perusing the report of the Van Zyl Commission, we find that the minority report also emphasizes this. We can see that the whole disposition of the commission was to put the national interest before private interest.

The previous speaker dilated considerably upon the need for planning, but I think the great surplus of the Railways for the past financial year definitely is the result of thorough planning through the years. Five years ago, on 11 March this same hon. member made a speech in this House in which he accused the Minister of being, in their words, the epitome of “managerial and ministerial inefficiency”. The hon. member will recall that those were his words at the time. The Minister warned them and said: “I hope you will have the courage, when this tree we have planted begins to bear fruit, to retract those words.” We are still waiting for them, in these times of prosperity, to come forward and to admit chivalrously and bravely that they were wrong; that the Minister had shown greater vision than they thought and that his planning left nothing to be desired.

The great surplus shown by the Railways at the present time, according to the Opposition, is proof of poor budgeting and of over taxation of the public. They say the real reason for this surplus is tariff increases. I take the view that this is not so. I say that this surplus in fact is proof of the greater efficiency of the Railways, which in turn is attributable to thorough planning. But I wish to go further and say that the level of efficiency we find in the Railways at the present time is higher than we have ever had before and that it is higher than the level of efficiency we have experienced under any other Minister.

In dealing with the proof of this efficiency, I may refer hon. members of the Opposition to certain statistics that serve as a criterion. For instance, take the revenue per train mile. What do we find here? This is higher than it has been at any time during the past ten years, not to mention the previous years. The passenger services, the number of Whites and non-Whites undertaking suburban and long distance journeys, have increased appreciably by 7.13 per cent above the figure for last year. If we refer next to the increase in revenue goods, we find an increase of 4.69 per cent, while the average for the previous five years has been 3.71 per cent. There has been an increase of 4.75 per cent in goods ton miles. Over and above everything, we still have this great surplus for the past financial year. If we analyse this great surplus and ask what it is attributable to, we must admit that the tariff increases certainly constituted one of the contributing factors; we will not deny that for one moment, but we say that is not the only factor. Tariffs were increased because the Minister wishes to fulfil certain obligations to his personnel, and that amount had to be met by those increases. But now we find that a much greater profit has been shown as a result of tariff increases and other factors. To what is that attributable? We may mention various things. Firstly, we may mention the tremendous industrial development in the country, which has involved large-scale conveyance of ores and raw materials to factories, which in turn of course resulted in increased traffic. Then there has been the increased carriage of manufactured articles. Because the factories have been producing at an increased rate and because these manufactured articles have to be carried to the markets, we are obtaining a greater quantity of high tariff goods, with the result that a greater profit is shown too. Another factor is the economic prosperity of the Republic. There are greater imports in consequence of the suspension of import control, with the result that high tariff goods are flowing in on a large scale. Furthermore we find a growing number of consumers who are asking for these goods to an increasing extent, and these goods have to be carried to the factories. Then there is the increased consumption of oil and petrol, etc., resulting from the present economic prosperity. All these factors have resulted in the Railways having a tremendous amount of work to do. There is the suspension of foot and mouth disease control. This in turn has resulted in many more cattle being carried to the markets latterly. Then there has been the canvassing of overseas markets which has resulted in the marketing and transport and export of maize on a larger scale. We say that all these things could not have been exploited properly if the Railways had not been able to carry all these things. Had the Railways not expanded and planned ahead and prepared itself so as to be able, when such a wave of prosperity came along, to carry all the goods offered, the Railways could not have shown this profit during the past year. We say this large surplus is due to the fact that the Railways were ready, as a result of planning, to carry all the goods offered. We say that this surplus is not due to tariff increases alone, but to the efficiency of the Railways in performing its work. But to me the most cogent proof of the increased efficiency of the Railways is this: Owing to the stricter control over expenditure and the higher efficiency, the direct operating costs have not increased in direct proportion to the increase in traffic. While there has been an increase of 8 per cent in traffic, the direct operating costs increased by 6 per cent. The difference of 2 per cent amounts to a very large sum when converted into money; it amounts to R3,500,000. Here is one item only that proves to what extent effective planning and control have resulted in the Railways being as successful as it is at present. But there are other factors too that we could mention. The factors that have promoted this higher efficiency may firstly be described as physical factors. If we refer to what the General Manager has said in his annual report, we find that he mentions a number of things. In the first place there is mechanization; the increased carrying capacity; the provision of more rolling stock; the relaying and easing of gradients which have resulted in greater loads being moved more easily and at less expense; there is the duplication of railway lines which has eliminated delays and bottlenecks. Only a few years ago, it frequently took a goods train 24 hours to run from Kimberley to De Aar, and I do not think there is one goods train that now takes longer than eight hours for this journey, and that is due to the duplication that has taken place already and which is still continuing. There is electrification on a large scale, which has promoted a speeding up of services throughout the country. There has been the provision of more effective traction; there are the diesel engines used on various sections, and there is centralized operating control, such as we have in the Northern Cape. I have heard from an authoritative source that this centralized operating control has considerably reduced the running times of trains. All these things show there has been planning, and have resulted in the Railways producing a large profit. Hon. members of the Opposition now come along here and talk about planning. Mr. Speaker, these things cannot be done in a day. One has to plan years ahead. That has been done and we are to-day enjoying the fruits of that planning ahead. We have more than enough proof of the thoroughness and the effectiveness of this planning. But then we have another factor, and that is the human factor —the role played by the Planning Council. The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) referred to the constitution of such a council, but he is thinking in terms of the Economic Advisory Council to which the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) also referred. But the hon. the Minister cannot go to the Economic Advisory Council and ask them what tariffs he should levy. The Minister takes note of certain recommendations made by the Economic Advisory Council, but he has to devise his own policy and he has to carry on as he thinks best having regard to all factors. He cannot make himself subordinate to the Economic Advisory Council. The Planning Council of the Railways has pushed out its feelers in all directions; he has his finger on the pulse of everyone advising him, and he takes notice of that council. He gets advice from all the various bodies; he investigates all the development tendencies in the country and then plans accordingly. But, Sir, when I refer to the human factor, there are the engineers of the Railways too. lust think of what the Department has done to train more engineers. Since the inception of the bursary scheme, 400 of the 423 bursaries awarded to promising students have been awarded to prospective engineers. We know there is a shortage of engineers, but there is a shortage of engineers throughout the world. And what do we find to-day? In these times of scarcity of engineers we find that when engineers have joined the Railways, industry offers phenomenal salaries because of the great shortage of engineers in industry, to attract those people. However, I trust the hon. the Minister will see to it that in future the salaries and conditions of employment of engineers in the Railways will be made progressively more attractive, and that he will be able to attract those young men to the railway service to an increasing extent. In the meantime there are the engineering assistants who are being trained by the Department. There is a large part of the work to be done by engineers, for which one does not require the highly qualified men, but men with technical skill who can see to it that the projects that have been technically developed and planned by the engineers are carried out. For this one requires people who are able to supervise and who possess the requisite technical knowledge. One does not always require graduates for this work. The engineering assistants do this work in an efficient manner. But then there also are the better equipped personnel as a result of the large-scale expansion of courses at the Railway College and the training given there. There are two new directions in this connection that have appeared recently, namely training in regard to human relations and as regards the prevention of accidents. If human relations can be put on a sound basis, from the labourer to the most senior persons in the service, this will obviously promote higher productivity.

Then there is guidance given in regard to the prevention of accidents by means of safety training. As a result of this training, the incidence of accidents has dropped tremendously in one year. Whereas in the previous financial year there were 4,031 accidents involving the loss of 44,932 man days, during the past financial year there have been 1,109 accidents involving a loss of 13,737 man days. That is to say, as a result of this service, 31,199 man days that otherwise would have been lost, were made available. Those are the people who because of that training were protected against accidents, and who did not absent themselves from work.

Next there is the other extremely important form of planning, namely the proper employment of people. That is one of the latest developments in the Railways. That is a matter we have been pleading for repeatedly, namely that you have to place a person in employment in which he is interested and for which he shows an aptitude. Mr. Speaker, one of the best examples of how successful that is, is this Minister himself. This Minister would not have made the gigantic success of his portfolio if he did not have the intimate knowledge of the inner workings of the Railways which he in fact possesses. For that reason he at the present time is the most obvious person to handle this extremely important portfolio in such an able manner. We are advocating this self-same principle as regards the employment of ordinary railway personnel, namely that the staff should be selected by means of interest, interrogatories and aptitude tests in such a way that a person who is mechanically minded is employed in the mechanical division, and a person with a clerical aptitude should be employed as a clerk, and that the man who shows an aptitude for agriculture should be employed on the railway properties. This is being done to an increasing extent now. Therefore we say we are glad that in this regard too there is proof of the best planning. The Railways have not set about things in a haphazard manner like a quack. They approached the National Institute for Personnel Research and this body devised the first tests suitable for this purpose. But the Railways decided to go further. They picked their own men who are to an increasing extent devising and standardizing tests in the Railways’ own research laboratory, tests that are suited to the Railways. So we say everything shows the increasing efficiency of the Railways as a result of very thorough planning.

If the country had to listen to the speeches emanating from the Opposition, and if the people had to infer from those speeches what policy the Opposition are advocating, I say they would then find a policy envisaging a sad state of affairs for the Railways. They want to sever the main arteries of the undertaking and hand it over to private enterprise. They are unwilling to do anything to protect the Railways in this important service they are rendering. We have that extremely sensitive tariff structure where one requires the greatest experts to devise the tariffs in such a way that they work properly and so that the balance is retained. Now the hon. member for Turffontein wants to upset these things. He has another proposal. The hon. member for Yeoville says the tariffs should be reduced by 5 per cent. It is immaterial to him if the wave of prosperity passes and we are faced with a deficit. He is unwilling to wait for the report of the Schumann Commission, that commission of experts, to see what they have to say regarding the operation of this sensitive structure. No, he wants to interfere. I say that is as stupid as taking a sensitive watch to an unskilled man to be repaired by him with a crowbar.

The public will see from the speeches made during this debate by the United Party that the planning council proposed by the hon. member for Turffontein is a kind of glorified debating society. Those functions are already being performed by a very competent board. We have the Economic Advisory Council which provides us with all the advice we require and when we ask for it. The Opposition will not wait for the Schumann Report. They want to reduce the tariffs by 5 per cent or 10 per cent forthwith. In the face of the deficit resulting from this, they are advocating increased pensions for the pensioners. That is foolish reasoning; there is no logic in their approach. So we say the country may with confidence leave the administration of the Railways in the hands of a capable Minister and a competent Department.

The speech by the hon. member for Kimberley (South) (Dr. W. L. D. M. Venter) was amazing in several aspects. The first aspect that I should like to take up with him is that he has tried to indicate to this House that we have taken a line of placing private enterprise above a State organization such as the South African Railways. Of course, the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) has made our point quite clear. What we are trying to do and what we are keen on doing is that the Railways should take its proper place in the over-all picture of our economy and not that the Railways in itself should become the economy of South Africa. I believe that if the suggestions made by this side of the House in that respect were followed the South African Railways could serve the economy of our country better than it does to-day. The hon. member made the amazing statement, too, that the hon. the Minister increased tariffs because of undertakings to the personnel. Maybe that is so, but I would remind him that it is always this side of the House, in spite of the amazing surplus that the Minister is showing, that pleads the cause of the railway employees. It is not the Minister who voluntarily increases their incomes; it is only when this side of the House brings these things to his notice most forcibly, and time and time again, that anything is done about it. The hon. member also said that these huge surpluses were not due to bad estimating, as pointed out by this side of the House, but that they were due to foresight, planning and greater efficiency on the Railways. Be that as it may, Sir, I am not denying that the Railways are improving in efficiency; we do not say that the Railways do not plan at all, we only believe that they should plan further ahead. Surely when the hon. the Minister shows surpluses of R20,000,000, as he has done this year, some consideration should be given to ploughing these back into the community from which they have been taken and that his estimating, now that he is more efficient, should be done on a far better scale than to relieve the community of an extra R20,000,000 in his yearly budget. It is obviously money over-paid for the removal of goods.

I want to deal with a particular aspect which I believe will disprove the hon. member’s statement about far-sightedness and planning. I want to deal particularly with harbours. During the course of this debate the hon. member for Yeoville moved an amendment. Part of that amendment said “To develop our harbours to meet the requirements of our trade”. After listening to what the hon. the Minister had said on the question of harbours and having listened to his replies to questions that have been put from this side of the House, I am quite satisfied that the inclusion of that leg in the amendment was more than justified. You see, Sir, it has been said in this House, not once but many times, that the harbours are the “Cinderellas of the Service”. I sincerely believe that they are. Even in the hon. Minister’s Budget speech his reference to harbours was summed up in a few words. He said this—

That is the importance that the hon. the Minister himself attaches to the whole question of harbours. That is a picture of the Minister’s planning for our harbours for the coming year. If you go through the Brown Book you see very little other improvement.

In this speech I am making I want to deal particularly with Durban harbour. I do that because it handles, as you know, the bulk of the imports and exports of South Africa. I believe what applies to Durban harbour also applies to a lesser degree to the other harbours of South Africa. I believe if I confine myself to that particular harbour it will make the position very much easier for us to debate. The improvements the Minister has mentioned in his Budget speech do not go very far to deal with the problem which really faces us in our harbours. That problem is to handle better, more efficiently and more quickly cargoes which are either brought into our country or are exported. When I discuss this question of harbours I want to discuss it particularly against the background of an increase of 7½ per cent which the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs allowed the Conference Lines on 31 January of this year. That means that they were allowed, with the consent of the Minister, to increase their charges for carrying our goods to and from Europe and the United Kingdom by per cent. So you see. Sir, there is not only a surplus in the Railway Budget but this extra tax has been put on the cartage of our goods. I believe that a portion of that 7½ per cent increase to which the Minister of Economic Affairs had to agree, was due to the fact that shipowners were finding it increasingly difficult to estimate the time their ships would take to turn round at our South African ports. I am talking especially of Durban harbour which is the main turn-around point. The average type of ship which serves us, bringing general cargo here and taking general cargo away, costs something like R1,500 to R1,600 per day to keep. When they arrive at a port, as happened again towards the end of December and the beginning of January this year, and they find a queue outside the harbour of up to 14 ships, some of which have been kept there for four to five days, it adds so considerably to their costs that they are not prepared any longer to carry the whole burden of that extra cost. So, Sir, I believe a certain percentage of that 7½ per cent increase—I do not know what percentage, because I do not know on what basis the increase was granted—has been because of the inability of Durban harbour to turn their ships round in a reasonable time. And the hon. the Minister uses, as an excuse for this, that there is, what he calls, “bunching” and ships arriving ahead of their time. I think the hon. the Minister must understand that harbours are the point where private enterprise and State enterprise meet. The shippers are business people; they run their ships on business-like lines. If one of their ships is capable of doing a trip quicker or of doing an extra trip during the course of the year, that is good business to them. This hon. Minister must not take the line that they are being unreasonable by bunching at ports and wishing to discharge their cargo quickly. I think he must take the line that he must be prepared to serve the shipping that arrives at our ports. That, I think, is the primary duty of a port. I think if that line of thought were taken we might get nearer to solving some of the problems of our harbours. I would remind the hon. the Minister that although he has little or nothing in his Budget this year to provide for further development of our harbours he will find in his own memorandum that there is such a noticeable increase in the amount of traffic being handled that it becomes forced upon us that something must be done.

I want to refer him to the eight months April to November 1962 on page 12. Imports totalled 6,679,272 tons. In the corresponding period of 1963 they had increased to 8,147,457 tons. This is quite a fantastic increase over a period of two-thirds of a year. If he looks at exports he will find that they have increased over that same period in 1962 from 7,810,822 tons to 8,912,224 tons in 1963. So the picture is there, Sir. It has been there for many years. The indication is there that something urgent is needed to properly equip our ports to handle this increased volume of traffic.

I have been in this House for five or six years and each year, when the Railway Budget debate comes along, it follows exactly the same pattern regarding harbours. The Minister gives certain explanations; he talks about bunching; he is reconstructing old wharves that are falling down anyway, and spending a lot of money. But we never seem to get anything done because the same questions are asked year after year and we are faced with the same problems year after year. The problems we are facing at Durban harbour this year are the same problems we were facing five years ago. There is no difference. The problem is that we cannot handle the cargo properly and in adequate time.

To judge from his attitude and from what he has said, I think the Minister has almost made one of the first points I want to put to him. The first point I want to put to him—I suggest it is not new to this House; but I think he might reconsider it—is that he must seriously consider the setting up of a separate port authority to look after the ports of South Africa. At the moment Johannesburg rules the waves. The ports of South Africa are definitely controlled from Johannesburg. I do not suggest that they are not handled reasonably efficiently, I have already raised the point with the Minister that our ports are the point where private enterprise and a State undertaking meet. Our ports handle approximately 25 per cent of our revenue-earning goods transported by the Railways. And it is most important that these two groups should come together with the least possible friction and with the greatest measure of efficiency. I believe, Sir, that it does not matter how good a railwayman is it does not necessarily follow that he is a good man in the operation of a port and in dealing with ships and shipping. People who deal with ships are a breed all of their own, and unless you understand them and they understand you, you will not get the greatest efficiency from them. Whilst this might to a certain extent be a psychological argument it nevertheless is true and that is one of the problems which we face in the harbour of Durban. I believe that if this hon. Minister would seriously consider setting up such an authority to advise him and guide him, where commerce and industry and the Railways could come together, he would make great strides in improving the facilities and the working of our ports, strides with which he would be very, very pleased and for which he would be very, very grateful.

Let me just deal with a couple of the points that have arisen during the course of this debate. The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) asked the Minister whether he was happy about restricting the depth of Durban harbour to some 42 feet in view of the new type of tanker that is now being used for the more economical transport of petroleum products and the like. The Minister said the refineries must just make sure that they got a type of tanker that could come into the harbour. You see, Sir, that is an entirely wrong approach. At the direction of this Government two refineries have established themselves in that area and they use that port. They have made a total investment, including everything that goes with a refinery, of probably in the region of R150,000,000. The latest refinery cost some R50,000,000. The one before it, with everything that goes with it, cost probably something in the same region. Their tanks, pipelines, and all the bits and pieces that go together with a refinery and help to make it operate probably come to an investment of somewhere between R100,000,000 and R150,000,000. Yet when it comes to the question of getting the cheapest means of conveying their products here to be refined the hon. the Minister says they must just be sure that they pick on a particular type of ship that will come into the harbour. Surely that is an approach that does not line up with modern thinking. Surely the approach should be that in the very near future it might be impossible for those refineries to compete if they do not use the most efficient and the cheapest means of transport.

When the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Odlfield) raised the question of the inefficient graving dock or improvements to the graving dock at Durban, the hon. the Minister passed that off by saying it was not a paying proposition anyway. Once again I suggest that that is the wrong approach. I think the proof is before the hon. the Minister at the moment. At Christmas time a very beautiful ship had the misfortune to run ashore on the Aliwal shoal, the Aimee Lykes. It was brought into Durban which was the nearest port. It could not go any further. Durban undertook to do a repair job on this ship which is quite a fantastic repair job. It consists of almost rebuilding the ship. That ship had to use the only available graving dock at Durban. One compartment was not long enough to contain the ship; two compartments had to be used. This job was estimated to last for six months. What is to happen to the regular users of that graving dock during those six months to all the people who have used that port and helped to build up our engineering and shipbuilding industries in Durban whilst that ship is in that graving dock? Has the Minister not got enough foresight to know that if he is going to develop shipbuilding in Durban adequate dry-docking facilities are the first he must provide. If he reads the report that has just come out he must know that in Durban we have the basis of one of the finest shipbuilding industries in the world. This ship which was not due to be finished until July is now going to load cargo on 20 April. I say this to show that we can cope. I want to read the hon. the Minister a little extract—

But in Durban shipwrights repairing the Aimee Lykes debunked this. They pointed out that work was well ahead of schedule and added that 90 per cent of the steel used had been manufactured by Iscor to United States Bureau of Standards specifications.

All-in cost of repairs is now assessed at R1,150,000. The original estimate was R700,000.

I would like the Minister to take particular note of the following—

You see what I am doing, Sir. I am asking the Minister to give these men the tools to do this job. They can do it; they have proved it. When the call came South Africa and her steel industry responded to the call and so did the men.

That brings me to my next point. When a question was put about the allocation of shipbuilding sites in the Durban harbour the Minister gave the same reply that he gave last year. A year has gone by but he gave exactly the same reply, namely, that he was waiting on his colleague, the Minister of Economic Affairs, to decide and then he, the Minister of Transport, would sort out the sites.

Sir, what is the hold-up? Here we have people who are capable of doing the job and they are having the means withheld from them.

They are not in a position to do so.

Yes, and why not? I want to go into that reason. I know the Norval Committee went into this and it was recommended that a consortium should be born to do the shipbuilding. Is it necessary to force these people to form a consortium? This job on the Aimee Lykes was not done by a consortium. The hon. the Minister saw the extent of the job. Two men came from overseas, the one representing the American Bureau of Shipping and the other representing the London underwriters.

That was a repair job; not a shipbuilding job. They are not interested in shipbuilding.

Yes, but let us get this right. Does the Government wish to force those people into a consortium, perhaps unwillingly? Perhaps this is one of his stumbling blocks. Those firms who have established themselves at Durban, who have helped to build up the ship-repairing and shipbuilding industry are now faced with having to share the fruits of those years of labour and that risk of capital with somebody who has appeared from nowhere. Does the Minister not think that that might be one of the factors that is restricting the progress of the shipbuilding industry at Durban? I know it is going to be difficult for any nation in the world to compete with the Japanese shipbuilders. But I believe that we can do it. It says in this article—

This man was brought up in shipbuilding and shipping, yet the Minister says nobody is interested in doing it. I believe they are interested.

They are not in a position to do it.

Of course they are not because they have not got the facilities. The hon. the Minister does not give them to them.

The hon. member should raise that matter with the Department of Economic Affairs. That Department has contacted all the local ship-repairers.

I am glad, but let the Minister investigate what I have said.

I am only concerned with the allocation of sites.

The point I want to make about harbour development arises from the rather interesting question which the hon. member for Yeoville put to the Minister. He asked whether the Railways could handle all the pig-iron which was going to be shipped from Durban harbour. And the Minister said yes, of course they could. Of course the Railways have been improved to convey that pigiron and so has Durban harbour. That is one of my points of complaint. When people handling the ordinary products which are the lifeblood of our country want improved facilities for the handling and the quicker turning around of their ships, we go on for years and years arguing about it and we make little or no progress. But when it comes to the question of selling pig-iron to Japan, which is the policy of this Government—and I am not blaming them for it; if it is good business, what happens? Almost overnight an amount of R1,238,400 appears on the Estimates for improving the facilities for handling that pigiron. In other words, for work of that nature provision can be made almost immediately but when it comes to the imports and exports of ordinary commerce and industry, the lifeblood of South Africa, we have to go on for years and years battling to try to get some improvement in the handling of our cargoes and speedier turning around of the ships.

Commerce and industry and the shipping lines do not quite know where they are. They do not know what is being done. There are quite a number of things that they want to know. For example, I would like to know, and I am sure they would too, what has happened to this highly secret Moffat Report? As the hon. Minister will remember this is the third time I have asked him to make a copy available to the official Opposition in this House. Yet he made this report available to many bodies. We could not have it, but the Progressive Party had it. Everybody had it, but the official Opposition. Even in the Natal Mercury of 15 March 1960, …

What are you actually complaining about?

The hon. Minister refused me twice in this House. The hon. Minister knew that a copy would be immediately available to the former member for Durban-Berea; the hon. Minister knew that, and he knew that he had one. You knew that he would have it because of the bodies with which he was connected, and yet this highly secret document that he cannot let us have was in the hands of various people. A copy of the main parts imposed upon a map appeared in the Natal Mercury as long ago as 15 March 1960. How secret is it? We still cannot get a copy, but the Natal Mercury could publish the guts of the Moffat Committee recommendations for the Durban harbour as long ago as 1960, and we have not yet been able to get a copy of it. Why all this secrecy about the development of Durban harbour? I cannot understand it. I told the hon. Minister before that we are all aiming at the same thing to try and increase the efficiency of the port and to better the port. What do we get? Vague replies and brush-offs. The hon. the Minister has built up such an atmosphere of secrecy about the development of this port that it is most difficult to discuss the matter with people who even use the port. I for example am very friendly with a gentleman who is one of our top shipping men in this country and he wanted to have lunch with me so as to discuss some of the problems he and his company are up against. What did he do? He said: “I will name the venue, and only you and I must be there.” He was afraid to talk openly about it. This is not just a small schoolboy, this is a top shipping executive in this country. And I have had it not only from him, but from many others. Let us do away with all this secrecy attached to the development of Durban harbour and let us all get down to the job together. Set up a port authority where these things can be freely discussed and not have to be discussed at street corners and behind closed doors.

One of the next things the hon. the Minister should do something about is to get an over-all plan of the development of Durban harbour. He has fought shy of that for many, many years. We want to know, and I am sure he does too, what is the maximum capacity to which the harbour can be developed and when can that development take place. Can the harbour keep up with our needs? I think until you get down to these basic things, we just embark upon a series of piecemeal developments such as we are undertaking at Durban harbour at the moment. One of the hon. Minister’s nautical advisers—I do not know whether he still is—showed me one afternoon four authentic plans for the development of Durban harbour, and each one was the genuine article, but they were all different. Most fantastic when you try to get information about the harbour. One of them, I remember, envisaged a jam factory in the middle of Durban Bay.

That must have been under the United Party régime.

I saw the plan with my own eyes, and it was under this Minister, not so long ago.

No.

Hon. members from Durban will remember that at one time they were going to build Native locations in the middle of this most valuable harbour, to house the Natives working there. That gentleman the hon. Minister is laughing at was his nautical adviser, not mine. A jam factory in the middle of Durban Bay. I ask you. [Time limit.]

It is not my intention to follow the hon. member who has just sat down, except as far as one contention he made is concerned—that the phenomenal progress and development of the Railways is due to the annual contributions and criticism and recommendations of the Opposition. By that the hon. member apparently meant that they were the architects of the structure of the Railways. Sir, if we go back about 10 years in history we will find a completely different story, as far as expansion and development are concerned, from that told to us by the hon. member. We also know that the chronic ailment from which the United Party suffers is to lay claim to the fact that it was because of them that all the great services which this Government is rendering to the country have been made available. We experienced this again a short while ago in regard to the Orange River project, and we also experienced it as far back as the first years of Iscor. We have found this right through all these years. All we have from them are words, words, and more words. I think that we have had enough of that during this debate.

This debate is fast approaching its end. We have had the opportunity to make an analysis of the contributions made both by this side and by that side of the House to this debate. We have once again had to listen to the tales of woe of the Jeremiahs to whom we have had to Listen so often in the past. It all amounts to the same thing. There are accusations and there is suspicion. Things are said by the Opposition that cannot really be regarded by anyone as being sincere constructive criticism. With them it is always a question of finding fault in a light-hearted manner. The railway community as a whole, the staff, must be stirred up against the hon. the Minister and the Government. We have already become quite used to this over the years and really we can attach no value to it. It does not make a contribution of any importance to this debate. When we think back to what the position of the Railways was ten years ago and we compare it with conditions in our country now, then we acknowledge and we are grateful for what has been done. People who respect the truth irrespective of the political party to which they belong ought to acknowledge these things with gratitude. This kind of soapbox story to mislead people and to try to stir them up has never won elections or seats, and this is the annual contribution of the Opposition. I have been listening to the debate now for three days and I noticed how the arguments of hon. members on the other side who stood up one after the other to make an attack on this side of the House were nullified. Not one of them was able to break through the firing line of the Railways. The highlight of this whole debate as far as the Opposition was concerned was the fact that their shadow Minister of Railways, the new chief critic on railway matters on the other side, the father of the ideas expressed by hon. members opposite, as we know him to be, the all-wise man on the opposite side, found himself in a dreadful predicament because he was trying to find a grain elevator at Port Elizabeth. Ships were bobbing about on the ocean waiting for the maize they had to load and were being kept waiting because the Railways could not deliver the maize to this nonexistent grain elevator! It was the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) who led the attack. We expected a strong attack this year because we know that the hon. member always attacks strongly. He became so confused that he started searching for things in our country that do not exist at all. We once again experienced a revelation of how little the Opposition know of conditions in our country, particularly as far as agriculture is concerned. They have tried to pillory us before the farmers of the country for not having pulled our weight, saying that the Government is not interested in the position of the farmer and so forth. That is the knowledge revealed by the Opposition in regard to agricultural conditions through the medium of the chief critic of the United Party.

The United Party also tried to drive in a wedge between the hon. the Minister and the railway staff as a whole, from the General Manager down to the most junior employee. The hon. Minister was attacked in regard to pensions, wages, conditions of service and so forth. Each one of those attacks, besides the fact that the hon. the Minister dealt with all these points himself, was repulsed by this side of the House. Let me tell the Opposition that the railway workers in general know their Minister and the hon. the Minister in his turn knows his railway workers. The tales told by the Opposition will not succeed in causing friction and disunity and discontent. That of course has been their motive in saying these things but it must be generally admitted, because it is the truth, that the teamwork of the hon. the Minister, his General Manager and everyone in the service is of the best. It is because of this fact that these great results have been achieved which the Opposition are not prepared to acknowledge. They mentioned all sorts of strange matters here and spoke in so many foreign tongues that one was not sure of what they were talking about. But they cannot tell the public in the country this sort of thing. Their voters and mine know that that is not the truth; they know just as well as the representatives of their party who have the honour to sit here representing them to know that these stories are untrue.

I am prepared to address the railway workers in your constituency.

The hon. member will be sent away with a flea in his ear. I warn him. That is the contribution and the criticism that we get from the Opposition. They cannot strengthen their party in that way and they cannot win confidence in that way. As far as the general progress and development of our Railways are concerned, we have a great deal to be thankful for.

While I was listening to the debate it became very clear to me that hon. members opposite wanted the hon. the Minister to show a deficit. If he had, the Opposition would have cried out: “Hosanna! Crucify him!” Even though we have a surplus, a surplus of which we as a nation can be proud because the Railways form such an integral part of our whole economy, they still scream “Crucify him!” That is why one cannot have respect for the attitude of the Opposition. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister, his General Manager and those who have had to deal with the interests of our constituencies, approachable people who try to understand our problems, on this wonderful surplus, and I believe that in saying this I am interpreting the feelings of everyone who is interested in railway affairs. I want to thank the hon. the Minister generally for what he has done for the farmers but I also want to thank the hon. the Minister on behalf of all those who have to deal with the Railways, the factories, the industries, the mines, all of them, for the excellent services that have been rendered. All the important interests that have dealings with the Railways do not have the criticism to express which the Opposition has tried to express. All of them speak with appreciation of our Railways. They are all satisfied that railway affairs are in good hands and that there has been great progress. As I have said, it is my particular privilege to thank the hon. the Minister on behalf of the farmers for the great services that are being rendered in the interests of agriculture. I mention the grain elevator at East London with a capacity of 60,000 tons which is being built at a cost of R4,000,000, chiefly in the interests of the maize farmers. I want to thank the hon. the Minister heartily on behalf of the maize farmers for this great concession. Furthermore, 65 diesel engines are being purchased at a cost of R13,000,000 chiefly to operate the section from Burghersdorp to East London and to accelerate traffic. I also want to thank the hon. the Minister for the way in which the Railways handled the transport of maize during the 1962-3 season when 22,300,000 bags were transported for local consumption and 21,800,000 bags for export. It is already intended to export 26,000,000 bags of maize in the current year. It is particularly pleasing to the maize farmer to know that as far as transport is concerned he need have no fear. The Railways will be able to handle this maize. I also want to thank the hon. the Minister heartily for all the services to my constituency. A dam was recently built at Coligny for the railway community there. Water has been a problem there over the years and this has also been the case in regard to services at Lichtenburg, at Ottosdal and other stations. I also want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the building of the pipeline from Durban to Johannesburg and the transport of livestock to market. This has also been a great problem to the farmers in the years gone by. I think of the transport of animals from drought-stricken areas. I think of the farsightedness of the hon. the Minister in placing large orders for trucks at this stage with a view to future transport-particularly as far as maize is concerned. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the results of our South African Airways, probably one of the best services in the whole world. We can all be proud of these things. I also want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his train staff and the service that they render to the public. There are many other matters that can be mentioned but I want to conclude by saying that South Africa can be proud of her Minister of Railways, her General Manager of Railways and of every railway worker who is honest and sincere in his intentions as far as the Railways are concerned. In my opinion this is a masterly Budget!

The hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. M. C. van Niekerk) thanked and congratulated the hon. the Minister so many times that I in my turn want to thank him for having resumed his seat. Before making my contribution to this railway debate I think that it will be interesting to give the House details of a score that I have been keeping and the hon. member can check up to see if it is correct. I see that he thanked the hon. the Minister nine times and congratulated him eight times. I think that this is a record. But I must add that although he either congratulated or thanked the hon. the Minister 17 times, he did not mention more than six matters for which he was grateful. His speech was really a song of praise of the hon. the Minister and I hope that the hon. the Minister in his turn will express his thanks and convey his congratulations to the hon. member for Lichtenburg. The attacks made by the hon. member for Lichtenburg on this side of the House were of course not very fair. We made a plea for pensioners and we made a plea for the staff. I wonder what the staff will say and what the pensioners will say when they learn that the hon. member for Lichtenburg attacked us because we made a plea for them? I do not think that that was a very nice thing to do.

Because of what has been said in the debate up to the present stage, I think that I have every justification in making the following observations. The first is that except perhaps for minor concessions to pensioners, all the appeals that have been made to the hon. the Minister for only a few crumbs from this vast banquet of R20,000,000 and more that the hon. the Minister has in the form of a surplus, have fallen on deaf ears. Even the pensioners may ask how it is possible that they have received so little when they find out that three times as much as is paid out of the pension fund is paid into the pension fund each year. Even the pensioners will be surprised to hear that there is an actuarial shortage of nearly R80,000,000 in the railway pension fund, and the bulk of this deficit arose during the period of office of this Government.

Another fact that struck us was that no assurance was given by the hon. the Minister that when he receives the report of the new tariff commission he would not amend tariffs in such a way as to adversely affect the cost of living. One of the most important factors that gave rise to the enormous increase in the cost of living was the increase in railway tariffs, and one of the reasons why the public and the railway worker in particular is suffering to-day because of the high cost of living is the fact that tariffs were raised in the past. We must always remember that the R20,000,000 surplus which the hon. the Minister has, has been made possible by over-taxation, the over-taxation of industry, of agriculture, of trade and the over-taxation of the ordinary man in South Africa.

Thirdly, we have had no assurance that ample provision has been made for the railway worker in the event of a further rise in the cost of living. Will the railway worker again have to struggle for six, 12 or 18 months before something is done in this regard? The hon. the Minister has told us that no demands have been received from railway workers or from staff associations in connection with conditions of service or the improvement of wages. But has the railway worker always to approach the hon. the Minister cap in hand? A Minister with foresight will realize how the threatened rise in the cost of living will affect the railway worker. That railway worker is waiting for an assurance from the hon. the Minister that his interests will be looked after sooner than was the case last time.

Fourthly, the impression has been given by some speakers, and also by the hon. the Minister, that great satisfaction prevails throughout the railway service in South Africa. My answer is that while there may perhaps not be many cases of bitter dissatisfaction, it is undoubtedly true that there is widespread discontent throughout the whole country.

How do you know that?

I want to ask the hon. member whether it is not a fact that 90 per cent of the speakers on the Nationalist Party side spoke about shortcomings and loopholes in the Railway Administration? We heard complaints from the north to the south, complaints from Pietersburg in the north down to Swellendam in the south and from Namaqualand in the west to Somerset East in the east in regard to shortcomings in the Railway Administration. The speakers were very clever; they never spoke about complaints; they just wanted to bring certain things to the attention of the hon. the Minister! But the fact is that they were really complaints. Those complaints were made by hon. members on the Nationalist side and came from all parts of the Re public.

Have railwaymen made any complaints to you?

Many, numbers and numbers of them. I only hope that the promises that the hon. the Minister has made will be kept. I can think of a promise made by the Nationalist Party which is almost as old as the Nationalist Party itself. This is a promise to which the hon. the Minister can now give effect, although it does not seem as though he will be able to do so. In 1924, 40 years ago, a promise was made by the then Minister of Mines, Mr. Willie Beyers. He went to Namaqualand and he said: I promise you that a railway line will be built between Bitterfontein and Karas. When he was asked where he was going to get the money he said: We will use the profits on the diamonds we find. The north-west has been waiting now for 40 years for that promise to be kept and they have once again been told that the hon. the Minister does not have sufficient capital to undertake that work.

The fifth characteristic of this Budget is that the hon. the Minister himself realizes that everything is not going well with the Railways. If things were going well, why was it necessary for him to appoint this commission to deal with a tariff policy? Why did he have to appoint the Van Zyl Commission to investigate the question of competition with private industry? Why was the Joubert Commission appointed on railway workshops? Most important of all, why was the commission urgently appointed in connection with the Catering Department of the Railways to discover why the position has deteriorated from a profit of R500,000 in 1946 to a loss to-day of more than R1,000,000? That report may possibly be made available to one hon. member on this side but it seems to me quite probable that the report will be kept secret from the whole of this Parliament, including hon. members on that side. I say that there is no necessity for that secrecy. The hon. the Minister said that I had insulted 3,000 people in the Catering Service. That is nonsense! The crisis that arose in the Catering Service arose as a result of the bad leadership and administration of the hon. the Minister himself.

I have read all of that in the Kruithoring before now.

I do not know what the hon. member means by that and whether he is speaking of the old days when he was a General in the Ossewabrandwag. I have no criticism of the hardworking staff of the Catering Department. I am sometimes surprised that they can still continue to work under those difficult conditions. But there is criticism expressed by members of the Catering Department themselves against the hon. the Minister, not direct criticism but criticism that is supported by the facts. I want to mention here the large number of resignations from the Catering Department. I want to tell hon. members that in one year, out of an establishment of a little more than 200 chefs and cooks, there were no fewer than 111 resignations; 50 per cent of the staff resigned. I do not know to what extent this is due to the policy of planning meals in advance which the cooks then have to prepare.

The hon. the Minister has told us that everything is in order and that there is no inefficiency in the Department but let me tell him something which he may not perhaps know. I do not know whether the General Manager knows about it either. The hon. the Minister usually only hears about these things when I ask questions in this House. Does he know that crockery and cutlery belonging to the Catering Department and worth hundreds and hundreds of rand was found on the trash-heap near D. F. Malan Airport—cups and saucers and knives and forks that had been thrown away? I do not know whether the hon. the Minister has heard about this but I shall ask him a question in this regard and then we will have the facts.

May I put a question to the hon. member? When these irregularities were brought to the attention of the hon. member, what did he do about them?

I immediately decided that as soon as I had the opportunity I would ask a question in that connection in order to bring the matter pertinently to the attention of the hon. the Minister. But if the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Badenhorst) wants to do so, he can ask the question.

To continue, we have had a number of excuses from the hon. the Minister in connection with the competition between the private road hauliers and the Railways and he has given us his reasons for imposing those restrictions. The hon. the Minister told us that private enterprise would never dare to transport low-tariff goods like coal. He referred to the transport of coal between Witbank and Johannesburg when there was a transport crisis and he said that if it were not for the fact that a subsidy was paid in order to assist road hauliers, they would not have been able to transport the coal. But that is only half the truth. The whole truth is that restrictions are imposed upon the transport of goods like coal by the National Transport Commission, and if those restrictions are removed these people will then be able to compete with the Railways without the necessity for a subsidy. Those restrictions have now been removed. Here is one thing that proves it: After those restrictions were removed, after numerous requests were received from northern Natal, private road hauliers were allowed to transport loads of 30 tons of sugar cane at a time, and during this year they have transported more than 1,000,000 tons of sugar cane. It can be done. Just give private enterprise the chance. Give the people in the Transvaal diesel oil at the old price and petrol at the reduced price, the price it ought to be once that oil pipeline has been built, and let the unfair restrictions of the National Transport Commission be removed and I am sure that private enterprise will also be able to transport some of the low-tariff goods on which the hon. the Minister’s Department is incurring such a heavy loss.

At this stage I want to bring two matters to the attention of the hon. the Minister. Two of my colleagues asked me to do so. The first is in regard to the railway line that runs across the lower end of Von Weilligh Street in Johannesburg. I am not sure whether it is a private railway line or not. It is near to the Bantu sports grounds and the traffic at those sports grounds becomes very congested at peak hours. We should like to know whether the hon. the Minister cannot perhaps ensure that that railway line is not used to such an extent during peak-hour traffic periods. Once Von Weilligh Street is lengthened it will become one of the major arterial roads between the southern suburbs and Johannesburg. If something can be done in this regard I am sure that it will contribute greatly to the efficient arranging of traffic affairs in Johannesburg.

A second matter brought to my attention by one of my colleagues is this. It is a fact that the farmers are not at all satisfied with the way in which their stock is transported and trucked. They feel that there are still far too many cases of injury to stock and that it takes far too long to transport the stock from the stations to the abattoirs in the cities. I understand that representations have been made in this regard to the Government or to the hon. the Minister by the Meat Board and I should like to know whether anything further has been done in this connection. It is a serious matter from the point of view of the farmer and also from a simply humane point of view as far as cruelty to animals is concerned.

Let us see now how wonderfully efficient the Railways really are and let us do so in the light of a few examples that I want to mention. We know that there is a critical housing shortage throughout the country today and that the hon. the Minister of Housing is at his wits’ end. We also know that one of the great house-builders in South Africa is no less a person than the hon. the Minister of Transport. But even though we have this shortage of housing, railway houses are standing empty. Do hon. members know how many of these houses are standing empty in the Republic and in South West? Not 100 or 200 but 786, according to the figures which the hon. the Minister has given me. I know that it is part of railway policy that certain houses should stand empty but I wonder in how many cases it has happened that the conditions of service of shunters have been so poor that they have resigned from the railway service and have been replaced by non-Whites? I ask whether cases of this nature have occurred? There are 786 railway houses standing empty. I say that even though 300 of them may be empty for good reasons, what about the other 486?

What is the position of the Railways and how efficient is the work done on the Railways? I want to mention a second example. Within a few hunderd yards from this House, at Culemborg, there is a railway laundry. It was started in 1958, some years ago, and was only put into operation in May 1963, five years afterwards. I know of no other laundry anywhere else in the world where the building has stood empty for four or five years because necessary items were not available. Do hon. members know that machinery to the value of R55,000 was standing idle there for virtually three years, amongst which were two large ironing machines and three driers? Now at last that laundry has been put into service but in the meantime thousands and thousands of rand have been spent in having the laundry done by other undertakings while the Railways themselves could have done it if they had planned efficiently.

Hon. members may talk about efficiency on the Railways but let us look at the number of accidents. An accident is a serious matter and it is even more serious if that accident takes place as a result of a disregard for or contraventions of the train control regulations. I put a question to the hon. the Minister and he told me that during the first five weeks of this year there were no fewer than six collisions and nine derailments—fifteen accidents, all as a result of the fact that the train control regulations were disregarded. In other words, it was the fault of the Railways. Accidents do occur in which nobody is to blame but when two trains collide or when there is a derailment because of excessive speed, then I say that far stricter action must be taken than has been the case in the past. When I asked a question a year ago in connection with a certain accident, hon. members laughed at me. This accident occurred in the southern Cape and it was found that the driver was sitting in the conductor’s compartment at the time of the accident. I want the hon. the Minister to tell us what the driver of that train was doing there at the time the accident took place when the train was derailed, tens of thousands of rand of damage was caused and the stoker was killed.

Let me mention a further example of “efficiency” on the Railways. Take the poor disbursements of the Sick Fund. We know that the Sick Fund is of the most vital importance to the railway worker.

And you know that it is controlled by the railwayman.

Yes, it is controlled by the railwayman but the facts in this connection were given to me here by the hon. the Minister and so he also accepts responsibility in this regard. Let us look at the facts of the matter. The railway workers complain that they are kept waiting for their money. When they fall ill and send in their claims they have sometimes to wait for months before they are paid out. In 1962 I asked a question in this regard and I was told that at that stage there were no fewer than 904 of these Sick Fund accounts which were more than four months in arrear. Those railway workers had to wait months before they were paid out. I asked the hon. the Minister what the reasons were for this. He gave me six reasons and promised that something would be done in this connection. I asked the same question the next year. The next year the hon. the Minister told me that there were certain reasons for this state of affairs but many of the reasons that he mentioned had to deal with the Railways, as I am sure he will admit. I again asked the same question this year and I thought that things would have improved. But what was his reply? Instead of having 904 cases of arrear disbursements, there were 1,168 cases! Once again I asked what the reasons were for this position and whereas last year I was given six reasons, this year I was given eight reasons. These examples show that the way in which the Railways are being run is nothing at all to write home about.

The most important point of all was mentioned by the hon. member for Yeoville. This point deals with the question of future planning and what is going to be done. The hon. the Minister wants facts. Very well, let me give him the facts that were given to the country by the Federated Chamber of Industries in regard to the additional railway requirements that would be needed this year. These figures are large. It is a challenge to the Railways, something which the hon. the Minister ought to accept with enthusiasm instead of saying that we do not produce facts. The Federated Chamber of Industries said that on the average South African industry would require 10 per cent more railway transport than was the case last year. They also said that the food industry would need 9 per cent more transport this year, the textile industry would need 14.1 per cent more transport, the chemical industry 11.7 per cent more and the metal industry … [Interjection.] This is a sign of the sound economic progress of industries which are not controlled by the Government. They ask that the Railways, which are con-trolled by the Government, should keep pace with that progress. Industry is going to do well and I can only hope that the Railways are also going to do well. We will see next year to what extent things have improved and to what extent we no longer have the reports of commissions which are brooded over for months and months without anything being [ done. It is a g eat privilege for me to support our amendment which does not simply seek to criticize but which also contains constructive proposals for the future of the Railways and of the country.

I am really not going to waste my time on the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) and all the irresponsible attacks he made, but I do think it is necessary for me to say this in the House to-day. While the hon. member for Orange Grove continually gets on his high horse to criticize the Minister and his management and to point out to them what their duties are, how does that hon. member perform his duties in this House? Last year he was a member of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours, and there were 13 meetings of that select committee. Do you know how many of those meetings the hon. member for Orange Grove attended? Only seven.

That is more than 50 per cent.

Yes, but can one now understand that a man who is so piously concerned because other people are supposed not to do their duty and that things are not going well with the Railways attends only seven meetings of the select committee where he can help to criticize the General Manager in regard to these matters? He was not there to do his duty, and then he makes a fuss in this House only for party-political propaganda purposes. Therefore I will not waste my time on that hon. member.

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) complained that there was a lack of planning in regard to the Railways on the part of the Minister. Now, in regard to planning I think there are par excellence three characteristics which should be shown by a good transport undertaking like the Railways. The first is that such an undertaking should be able to cope with all the traffic offered. Why does the hon. member for Yeoville not make a study of railway matters? If he had done so he would have learnt from the report of the Deputy General Manager which was published in Railway News in December that traffic had moved smoothly in 1963. If he had made a study of it, he would have seen that the General Manager also said in his annual report that traffic had run smoothly. But now, instead of relying on the authorities, the hon. member relies on leading articles in the Financial Mail which mislead him. I say that is the one characteristic of a sound transport undertaking. The other characteristic is that it should be able to transport the goods offered as cheaply as possible. Now I want to say that the tariffs of the S.A. Railways are amongst the lowest in the world. Therefore the S.A. Railways always complies with this characteristic of a sound transport undertaking. Thirdly, there is the level of efficiency. The hon. member for Kimberley (South) pointed out very effectively how efficient the S.A. Railways really is.

Now what does the hon. member for Yeoville mean when he says that the Minister shows a lack of planning; what does that mean? As the result of a lack of real criticism, and the fact that he is not able to criticize the sound characteristics of the S.A. Railways, he just makes a general statement that the Minister shows a lack of planning. That is meaningless. I doubt whether he really knows what sort of planning the Railways should have. Then the hon. member accuses the Railways of having monopolistic tendencies, and he says there should be greater concessions granted under the Road Motor Transportation Act so that private road transport will also be given a chance, and then the hon. member says this Minister should have the same vision as that which the United Party régime had. I just want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville to show me the courtesy of listening to me when I am replying to him. He says the Minister should have the same vision in respect of road transport which the United Party régime had. I must say to the credit of the hon. member that he was not a member of this House at that time, but I want to read what Minister Sturrock said in regard to this matter—

That is precisely the same accusation the hon. member for Yeoville is now making against the Minister. Then Mr. Sturrock continues to say—

And I agree with Minister Sturrock to-day. There are no facts to support the allegation of the hon. member that the Railways have a transport monopoly—

The Railways, as the exploiter of the services over the routes in respect of which motor transport certificates for the carrying of passengers have been granted, has certain vested rights. … Consequently it is necessary to protect the interests of the owners and the users of the Railways, who expect the Minister to act as the trustee for their property.

That is all the more true to-day, because here Minister Sturrock is protecting a capital asset of the nation amounting to only R440,000,000, but to-day this Minister has to protect an asset worth R1,695,000,000.

But who replied to Mr. Sturrock when he said that?

That is a stupid remark. Just recently the hon. member has been trying to make a joke of everything. What has that got to do with the matter? The hon. member said that the Minister should have the same vision as the United Party Government. Now, who had the vision during the years of the United Party régime? Was it not their Minister of Railways and Harbours? But now he wants to know who replied to Minister Sturrock.

What is the date of that speech?

26 February 1947. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Yeoville referred to matters of which he knows nothing, as he has repeatedly done in this debate.

Like the grain elevator at Port Elizabeth.

The hon. member relied on the Viljoen Commission. Does he know that the Viljoen Commission also stated that the tendency of private road transportation would be to take off the cream of the traffic, the high-rated traffic, if they were given the opportunity to compete with the Railways? In other words, what the hon. member advocates is greater relaxation under the Road Motor Transportation Act, which will give the private entrepreneurs the opportunity to take away from the Railways the highrated traffic, and they will immediately do so. And what will the Railways be left with? The Railways will retain the non-paying portion of the traffic, the low-rated traffic, and who will then pay the losses? If the hon. member wants that to happen, who will make good the losses of the Railways?

That is what they want.

The hon. member will not reply to this question. Those hon. members plead so ardently for the staff and for the pensioners, but will it not be the staff which in the end will have to make good these losses suffered by the Railways? Will it not be the pensioners whose temporary allowances will be withdrawn to make good these losses? I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville this. I think it is essential for us to have clarity in regard to the United Party standpoint on this matter.

And that you definitely do not have at the moment.

I want to ask the hon. member what he means by greater relaxations of the Road Motor Transportation Act? He should tell us what relaxations there should be, so that we can have clarity about it.

I have already done so, but I shall do so again.

He must tell us whether he wants to give the opportunity to every person in this country who needs transport to choose the cheapest form of transport. If that is what he wants, then he should tell us whether he wants uncontrolled competition with the Railways.

That is a stupid question.

If every man who needs transport in this country is going to choose the cheapest form of transport, surely it is obvious that one can only give that man that right if there is free competition in South Africa and if the Railways need not appear in the picture at all.

The hon. member is very surprised to-day at the fact that the Minister is supposed to be violating the principles of free economic enterprise, that the Minister is revealing a socialistic outlook. He says the Minister is a capitalist, that he supports the capitalist system. Sir. it is quite correct, but the hon. member for Yeoville, although at the moment he does not know very much about the Railways, surely knows quite a lot more about the economy of the country. Surely the hon. member is not a stranger in Jerusalem. He surely knows that there are certain spheres of private enterprise which have continually been encroached upon by the Governments of various states in the world from time to time in recent years. The hon. member must be aware of that.

Under a socialist Government.

No, I am now talking about capitalistic countries. In fact, if the hon. member had read the report of the Van Zyl Commission thoroughly, he would have seen that the majority report specifically mentions free economic enterprise. I have the Afrikaans translation here which reads as follows (translated)—

The hon. member for Yeoville pointed to the vision which the United Party Government had. Here the Van Zyl Commission says in its majority report—

In other words, even his Government, which showed that vision, was itself guilty in that regard. Why does he now make an exception of the hon. the Minister and call him the great socialist? I do not want to misinterpret the hon. member and I want to ask him whether I understood him correctly. Did he say that the United Party supports the majority report of the Van Zyl Commission?

I stated my standpoint very clearly.

Do not try to put words into his mouth.

That hon. member is now being very unfair towards me. In all fairness, I asked the hon. member whether I understood him correctly. I did not try to put words into his mouth.

That is what you tried to do.

No, I did not do that. If the hon. member says I did it, then he does not understand Afrikaans. The hon. member himself can say whether I misinterpreted it. I asked him whether I was interpreting him correctly. I began my question by saying that I did not want to attack the hon. member for Yeoville and criticize him unfairly, and that is why I put the question to him. Now, did I understand’ the hon. member for Yeoville correctly? The hon. member for Turffontein should now please open his ears and listen. Did the hon. member for Yeoville say that, except for the second and the third reasons given by the Minister, he could find no fault with the other reasons, except perhaps the eighth reason which he did not understand clearly?

I said except for the second and third reasons.

Very well, the hon. member said that he differed from the Minister in regard to reasons Nos. 2 and 3. Then I completely fail to understand how the hon. member for Yeoville can have any objection to the Minister entering the field of free economic enterprise here, because then the hon. member for Yeoville surely agrees completely with the Minister and with us on this side of the House. Then there is no difference of opinion at all. If the hon. member looks at the first reason given by the Minister, he will see that it reads as follows—

If the hon. member agrees with this, how can he then blame the Minister if he sets out from the standpoint that the manufacturing work of the Railways should to a large extent be done by the departmental workshops themselves? How can he find fault with that? You. see, Sir, that is what makes it so difficult for us to understand the Opposition. The standpoints they adopt here are never clear. Here the hon. the Minister comes along—and the hon. member says he agrees with it—and says—

Tell me what you are quarrelling about now.

I am quarrelling because the hon. member does not state his standpoint clearly and unequivocally. Hnterjection.] Why does the hon. member then quarrel with the Minister if he does not differ from him?

I did not quarrel with the Minister.

The hon. member says that he agrees with the fourth reason—

We also agree with that. He says that he agrees with the fifth reason—

We also agree with that. The sixth reason given by the Minister was the following—

The hon. member agrees with that also. What fault can he then possibly find with the Minister? Why does he try to stigmatize the Minister as the greatest socialist of all time when he does not differ from the Minister even by a hair’s breadth? I think the hon. the Minister of Transport can really throw up his hands in despair in trying to understand what the hon. member for Yeoville was trying to say. The hon. member for Yeoville is terribly concerned about the Minister. He says the Minister has now become a socialist; he no longer supports free enterprise in the country, but all the time the hon. member completely agrees with the statement made by the Minister.

As you yourself said, that is not true.

No, I expressly stated that the hon. member does not agree with reasons Nos. 2 and 3.

But a moment ago you said that I agreed with all of them. You must keep your wits about you.

I am keeping my wits about me; I think I am much more wide awake than the hon. member. Sir, I want to reiterate here to-day what I have said on a previous occasion: There are two matters which we should consider in connection with the report of the Van Zyl Commission. The first is the financial implications affecting the Railways, and the second is whether or not it is in the national interest. There is also a third matter, and that is whether the fact that the Railways themselves to a large extent undertake the manufacturing work is detrimental to the industrial development of this country. I want to make my views very clear in regard to this matter. I do not think the hon. member for Yeoville or any other hon. member can find fault with that. In fact, the majority report says that the costs to the Railways which will be involved every year as the result of the fact that the Railways will now pay more for articles manufactured outside instead of in the departmental workshops will amount to an additional sum of R5,400,000.

But that is not the end of the story. I want to say immediately that I wholeheartedly agree with the way in which Mr. Bestbier, who submitted the minority report, came to his conclusions, because I reject the manner in which the findings of the majority report were reached. Methods of calculating the departmental production costs were used which in my opinion were completely wrong. Factors which had nothing to do with the matter were introduced. I cannot associate myself with it. Therefore I say that I associate myself with Mr. Bestbier, who estimated that the additional costs which would be incurred by the S.A. Railways every year would amount to anything from R13,000,000 to R19,000,000. But let us assume that we can reach a compromise somewhere between the minimum costs estimated by Mr. Bestbier and the costs mentioned in the majority report, viz. R5,400,000; that bring us to an amount of approximately R10,000,000, the extra amount which it will cost the Railways every year. Can the S.A. Railways afford that? Sir, the majority report makes no calculations in regard to the loss on capital expenditure, but the minority report in fact gave an estimate which indicates that the unproductive capital expenditure will amount to more than R20,000,000. I ask whether the Railways and the country can afford that.

In regard to maintenance costs, they found that it would also have a serious effect on the repair and maintenance costs of the Railways. There sits the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton), and I do not think he will try to deny it. It was that hon. member who warned the Minister five years ago and said—

I think this case has been made out and the Opposition wholeheartedly agrees with it. Sir, if we have a loss on capital expenditure, an unproductive utilization of capital assets, if we have additional costs amounting to approximately R10,000,000 per annum, and there is an increase in maintenance costs, what result will all this have? Will it not amount to one thing only, namely that transport costs will increase tremendously? And if transport costs increase, hon. members opposite will again immediately complain of the serious and deleterious effect it has on the industrial and economic development of the country. But what effect will it have on the staff? Hon. members opposite are always trying to reveal their wonderful regard for the staff. If the Railways has to stop its manufacturing work, it will result in 7,000 members of the staff, including 240 supervising officials and 2,000 artisans, having to be given alternative work, and because they are people who have been trained in a particular direction it is only logical that they will go over to the manufacturing businesses of private industry. They will have an effect on the wage account of private industry, and if private industry cannot carry it, it will mean that these personnel will possibly be employed by private industry at lower wages, and also definitely with worse leave and working conditions; they will receive smaller pension benefits and fewer housing privileges than the Railways offered them. Is that the love revealed by the Opposition for the railwayman, as contrasted with their great love for private industry?

Why are you arguing?

I am arguing with the hon. member because he is quarrelling with the Minister. It is as simple as that. The Minister made a very clear and unequivocal statement in regard to the matter. He gave eight reasons—and nobody can state it more clearly—as to why he rejects the majority report of the Van Zyl Commission, but to-day the hon. member for Yeoville quarrels with the Minister; he says that the Minister is a socialist, and now that I argue with the hon. member he asks me why I am quarrelling with him.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the second consideration. It is in the interest of the country as a whole that manufacturing work in the departmental workshops of the Railways should be stopped and handed over to private industry.

Who said that it should be stopped?

I am referring now to the majority report of the Van Zyl Commission. Why is the hon. member revealing such a guilty conscience? Must I just address him continually? Must I continually quarrel with him when I speak in this House? Can I not express my own independent, individual thoughts here without quarrelling with him? Why does the hon. member for Yeo-ville feel so guilty? It seems to me that I have got under his skin. It seems to me he sits there with guilty thoughts. Sir, as the minority report quite correctly states, it appears to be highly improbable that it would make an appreciable difference to the tempo of industrial development if that should happen. [Time limit.]

I think it must be obvious to the House that the speech which the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) has just been making is one that he prepared before the Budget debate. He is doing a lot of shadow fighting here. We do not know what he is arguing about. He has made a speech here which he obviously prepared before the Budget debate in anticipation of a certain approach from this side of the House and now he finds that he is completely wrong. If the hon. member had looked at the Minister while he was speaking, he would have seen a look of complete surprise on the face of the Minister. The Minister was clearly surprised at the shadow fight which the hon. member put up here; he was wondering what it was all about. Sir, these are the tactics that we have to put up with from hon. members opposite. I want to show the House what we on this side have to contend with when Government members participate in debates in this House. The hon. member launched an attack upon my colleague, the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan); he alleged that the hon. member for Orange Grove had attended seven out of the total of 13 meetings of the Railways and Harbours Select Committee last year. I wonder why the hon. member who is the chairman of his railway group and chairman of the select committee does not look at the attendance record of his own members before he starts throwing bricks across the floor of the House. Let us have a look at the record of the hon. member for Kimberley (South) (Dr. W. L. D. M. Venter), with whose speech I propose to deal a little later on. The hon. member professed to take a great interest in the railwaymen and in the railway transportation system of South Africa. Let us look at the attendance record of that hon. member. He attended eight out of the 13 meetings. What about the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Badenhorst) who represents a railway constituency? He attended only eight out of the 13 meetings. But then we had an even better record than that of the hon. member for Orange Grove. Where is the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling)? How many of the 13 meetings did he attend?

He is no longer a member.

He was a member last year. He has been kicked out since then. He has the distinction of having attended six out of the 13 meetings. I want to suggest to the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) that before he starts throwing bricks at members on this side, he should first look at the attendance record of his own members. While we are on this subject, let us go one step further. How many members on the Government benches come to meetings of the select committee, sit for five minutes, clock their names in and then leave again, leaving it to Opposition members to make an objective study of railway matters? The hon. member must not quote the attendance records of members on this side because we can also quote the records of Government members as far as attendance of meetings is concerned and the degree of interest that they take in the affairs of the select committee. But let us go one step further to ascertain what the true position really is. Apart from the attendance record of Government members on the select committee, let us see how much work is done by them, how many questions they put arising from the Auditor-General’s Report. I again say to the hon. member that before he starts flinging bricks across the floor of the House he must remember that we on this side can hit back twice as hard.

Why do you lie so much?

On a point of order, is the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Badenhorst) entitled to say to the hon. member who is addressing the House, “Why do you lie so much?”

Which member said it? I did not say it.

On a point of order, the hon. member for Orange Grove made an accusation against the hon. member for Uitenhage, who has denied that he used those words. Must the hon. member for Orange Grove not withdraw what he said and apologize?

Is he not ashamed to make such a false accusation?

On a point of order, we all clearly heard an hon. member in that corner over there saying, “Why do you lie so much?” I should like to know, in the first place, whether it behoves an hon. member to use such language, and secondly whether it behoves members on the Government benches to joke about it.

Did the hon. member for Uitenhage use those words?

No, Sir, I did not use those words.

Did you hear those words?

Order!

Let me now come to the hon. member for Kimberley (South) who has such a great deal to say in this debate. In praising the Minister this afternoon he made the profound statement that the tariff increases introduced by the hon. the Minister some two years ago were introduced to meet the Minister’s obligations to the staff. I want to suggest to the hon. member for Kimberley (South) and other Government members that before they participate in debates of this nature they should make sure of the statements made by the hon. the Minister. They should do their homework; they should study the railway reports and other data available to them before they make such wild allegations in this House. The hon. member for Kimberley (South) need only look at the Minister’s face at this moment to know how wrong he was, because the Minister knows what is coming. I suggest to the hon. member that he should read the Minister’s speeches and that he should look up what the Minister said about tariff increases and wage increases, because when this side of the House pleaded so strenuously for the due rights of the railwaymen, this is what the hon. the Minister said—

And then a couple of months later he gave that increase. The Minister went further. When we on this side said that a wage increase could be given without increasing tariffs, the Minister agreed with us to a certain extent because this is what he said—

Let me remind the hon. member for Kimberley (South) what the Minister did say. He said—

What is wrong with that?

What is the date?

I will give the Minister the date. He made that statement in the course of the railway debate here in the latter part of March or in April 1962. In spite of the fact that he had said that it would be against the interests of South Africa, five months later the Minister slapped 10 per cent onto the railway tariffs. He had to slap on 10 per cent because the Minister was faced with the threat of a general strike by railwaymen, and having granted them an increase in wages he had to cover his costs, so he slapped on the 10 per cent even though, in his own words, it was against South Africa’s interests. However, the hon. member for Kimberley (South) comes here this afternoon and says that the tariff increases were introduced by the Minister to meet his obligations to the staff. That was not the Minister’s attitude.

Sir, we talk about the necessity of advance planning. I put forward a sincere proposition to the Minister in the course of the Budget debate, a proposition which I think is worthy of consideration. Here we find that in spite of having made this statement that an increase in tariffs would be against the interests of South Africa, that it would drive industrialists away and that there was no need for it, the Minister nevertheless increased tariffs and then proceeded to declare a surplus in the same year. On what basis was that statement made if there was no planning? Who advised the Minister? Did the Minister decide that on his own? Did his planning council advise him? On whose judgment was that decision based as a business proposition? The crux of our case against the Minister is that there is no adequate advance planning by the Railways in respect of our transportation system as a whole, because if there was planning, if there was a business-like assessment of the potential traffic and of the carrying capacity of the Railways and of the type of goods that would be offered for transport, then the Minister would have been able to make an open statement in this House as to whether or not he would have to increase rates in order to meet his obligations as far as railway finances were concerned. The Minister is shielding in this debate behind the report of the Schumann Commission. He says that he is not prepared to grant any relaxation to railway users, in spite of the surplus, because he does not know what the findings of that commission will be as far as rates and tariffs are concerned. Sir, we agree with the principle that tariffs must be in accordance with what the traffic can bear. We accept that as common principle. But if the Minister could increase tariffs by 10 per cent while the Schumann Commission was sitting, while it was still deliberating, then by the same token why cannot he also give railway users a reduction of rates since he has this huge surplus? Sir, the General Manager makes the emphatic statement in his report that he expected the Schumann Commission to report before the end of December. The Minister now says that he expects the report in April, and I say openly to the Minister that my suspicion is that the Minister has had some indication of the contents of that report otherwise he would not have kept R10,000,000 in reserve, as he is doing in his Budget. What is the significance of those conflicting statements made by the General Manager and the Minister? Was the General Manager wrong in his anticipation; was he wrongly advised?

I think you should ask the Schumann Commission.

I am not in a position to do so, but the Minister and the General Manager must have been in a position to do so. The Minister on his own evidence is leaving R10,000,000 in the kitty. Why do that unless he has some idea of what is going to be proposed by the Schumann Commission? My suspicion is that the Minister has an indication if I have to accept the word of the General Manager in his report.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) thought he would get his own back. He never thought it was possible that the Opposition would come with new ideas about the transportation system in South Africa. It was never anticipated. Look at the tenour of all the debates. We had recitation of figures by member after member. They quoted at length from the General Manager’s report. Anybody can do that. They are incapable of coming forward with original new ideas and with bold thinking for the future of South Africa.

I just want to say a few words about the Van Zyl Committee report. My hon. friend has dealt at length with it. There is one significant thing in that report which deserves attention other than the Minister’s statement in regard to how he intends to apply the Van Zyl Committee’s report. The issues have been dealt with adequately by my hon. friend, the member for Yeoville. There is one aspect of this report which deserves attention. I think it is an aspect which should be investigated. I am not going to quote the figures at length but it shows that the total capital investment in the manufacturing side of the railway workshops is something like R24,900,000. It also shows in the report that there are something like 22,000—I am giving round figures—working units employed in those workshops of which approximately 14,000 are White artisans, workmen or tradesmen. They also give the total wage bill in respect of the workshops. The total wage bill in respect of all units employed in railway workshops—and this is the manufacturing side only—is something like R26,750,000. It shows the output of these workshops, exclusive of raw material, at something like R41,000,000. I see the Minister smiles because he had obviously spotted this himself in studying the report. The Minister can consult any manufacturer and he will find that the usual proportion of wages to the value of the manufactured product is one-third but this is over 50 per cent. I say that it is a very high percentage. I would suggest to the Minister that he investigates this further; that he investigates the operation of the railway workshops. There are large numbers of units employed there and when we look at the cost factor—I shall deal with that in a moment—the figure seems to me to be a relatively high one and I shall be glad to have the Minister’s comments in that regard. I shall not deal further with the report at this stage.

I want to come to another matter and that is a matter to which the Minister made reference in his Budget speech and which he ignored in the debate on the Budget and that is the further introduction and use of diesel traction. The Minister has stated that he is now going to introduce diesel traction as far as East London. He gave his reasons for that, such as, certain difficulties on the track and because of the grain elevator that has been established at East London. I would like to know what the position is in regard to the whole tractive effort at the present time— diesel, electric and locomotive. You see. Sir, I placed a question of the Order Paper in regard to the comparative costs of operating diesel traction compared with steam traction. The only properly equipped diesel workshop in the country at the present time is at Windhoek. Diesel, was introduced in South West to overcome the water and coal transportation difficulties on that system. I think diesel traction is used as far south as De Aar. My information leads me to understand that diesel locomotives are not only operating as far as De Aar but that they are travelling as far south as the Williston/Calvinia line and to some extent on the East Cape system. If any engine breaks down or requires maintenance there is no maintenance other than at Windhoek. In other words, if an engine breaks down on the Williston/Calvinia line it would have to be hauled to Windhoek for repairs or overhaul. I would like to ask the Minister whether in his planning—we come back to the question of planning—he has considered the fact that in view of the cheapness of coal and the other cheap factors of operation, diesel traction may not in fact not be a cheaper proposition than steam traction? I pose this question for a very good reason. If you look at the unit cost statistics given in the General Manager’s report you will see that separate unit cost of statistics are given in respect of the maintenance of steam traction, diesel traction and electric traction. For example, the maintenance cost to operate diesel is approximately 50 per cent of that of steam locomotives. But we do not know how far that is affected by the fact that most of the locomotives are old-fashioned and out-dated except those that were bought in 1950, the Class 24 and Class 25. We also know that there has been a decline of over R4,000,000 in the steam locomotive effort since 1959 but there is no information whatsoever in regard to the unit cost statistics for operating steam, diesel and electric locomotives. If the Minister refers to the General Manager’s Report on page 121, Addendum 5, he will see that the running expenses of locomotives are lumped together with all classes of traction, namely, diesel, electric and steam. And it is given as R68.24 per running mile. I would like to suggest to the Minister that before he makes a fundamental statement in this House much more information is needed in order to make an adequate assessment of the planning that goes into these different fields of traction power. There is another important point about this. Sir, and it is this that South Africa’s transportation system becomes more vulnerable as we introduce more diesel traction. We are dependent entirely for the importation of diesel oils and fuels on countries overseas. And the more we introduce diesel as opposed to electric traction and steam traction the more vulnerable South Africa’s transportation system becomes in view of the situation we face in the international field to-day. We hear talks of boycotts and other threats. If this system is further introduced the more vulnerable will our entire transportation become.

While I am on the question of cost statistics I want to return to the hon. member for Kimberley (South). This is the type of thing we get in this debate. The hon. member rises in this House to-day and he says: “Look at the wonderful position of the S.A. Railways: the income per mile is higher than ever before.” Does the hon. member still stand by that statement? But he gives us half a picture. The hon. member turns to the General Manager’s Report and he looks at the summary of works and he sees that the revenue per running mile is greater than it ever was before. Why does the hon. member not look at the table just below that? Why does he not extract a relative percentage. Because what does that table tell you? It tells you that as far as the working expenses are concerned they are the highest ever. The working expenses per running train mile have more than doubled in less than ten years. [Interjections.] You challenge it; then why does the hon. member not look at page 182 of the General Manager’s Report? But there is an even worse aspect about this. We have referred over and over again to the wild expenditure without adequate planning in connection with capital investment. Why did the hon. member for Kimberley (South) not quote this figure? Why does he not tell the House that the percentage return on capital invested in the S.A. Railways has been slowly declining over the last three years until it now stands at 4.85 percent. In fact, Sir, it is over 2 per cent less than it was eight years ago. This figure shows that the volume of goods carried by the S.A. Railways and the relative revenue earned by that volume of goods bears no relation to the amount of capital invested in the Railways. That is the significance of these figures. Is the hon. member surprised then when we come to this House and say that the time has arrived for a new look?

Let me remind the hon. member for Kimberley (South) of the debacle of the former Minister of Railways. The hon. member will remember that when this hon. Minister was appointed because of the situation in which the Railways was placed at that time, he announced in his Budget speech that he was appointing a Planning Council, he made a big issue of it. That was a Planning Council to consider operative costs. That was what it was appointed for, the question of the modus operandi to operate the Railways. We admit on this side of the House that increased tonnage is carried. The figures show that there is additional operation by the Railways in the transportation of goods, but that is not enough in an expanding economy. What we have to look for to-day, Sir, is further development, the development of the business potential of the Railways as a business concern that will take business risks with the rest of the economy of South Africa. And that is what we are not getting. That is what we on this side are asking for.

Just to prove the point. I have argued in this House before with the Minister on this question of railway earnings relative to highrated and low-rated traffic. In his Budget speech this year the Minister stated that the revenue which accrued to the Railways from low-rated traffic, bulk traffic, had for the first time exceeded the revenue received from highrated traffic. I want to point something out to the Minister. The reason why it has earned more than the high-rated traffic is because the Railways are carrying the bulk traffic that is offered in a more efficient manner. Let the Minister deny that. There are all sorts of port installations for the quick transportation of ore. There has been a slow decline of uneconomic truckage—four wheeled bogeys being replaced by eight-wheel bogeys for bulk loading. There are liner trains running from point to point for fast delivery without stoppages. There are many factors that affect the efficient operation and carriage of bulk traffic. That has resulted in increased revenue to the Railway Administration. Then the Minister comes along with the argument, as he did in the Committee Stage, that one of the functions of the Railways is to carry bulk traffic. But he added “I am carrying a lot of it at a loss”. He then referred to the coal traffic and other incidentals. I want to ask the Minister to-day: Is all bulk traffic carried at a loss? No, of course not. According to the Minister’s logic though the Railways should not have shown a profit on this year’s operations but a heavy loss. I have the Minister’s Budget speeches here for the years 1956, 1957 and 1958. In those years the Minister argued that a 1.6 per cent drop in high-rated traffic affected railway revenue to an enormous extent. Does he still stand by that?

On that tonnage.

I have his Budget speech here; I shall not waste time to read the relevant portion. But the Minister made it quite clear that a drop in high-rated traffic meant a drop in revenue relative to the tonnage carried. When he showed a surplus he said it was because of a slight increase. In the year 1957-8 a .3 per cent variation in the ratio meant a difference to the Minister at that time of something like R16,000,000 on his arguing. What does the General Manager say? The General Manager says in his report that over the last three years there has been a decline in the percentage of the total of high-rated traffic compared with low-rated traffic. But in spite of that, Sir, we have increasing surpluses. We have increasing surpluses for one reason and that is the increase in the bulk loadings of traffic.

What does that prove?

It proves that another look can be taken at the basis upon which the Railways accepts and receives traffic offered to it. It proves this, Sir, that a new look must be taken at the road transportation campaign in South Africa. With the increased bulk loadings, the increased export markets, the increased volumes and tonnages that can be carried there is more opportunity for the road haulier in South African and a greater role that road haulage can play in the over-all picture of transporation of goods in this country. That is what it means. That does not mean that the Railways have to operate as a protected monopoly. It means that the Railways can operate as a monopoly by Statute but with this qualification that it can operate on business lines and according to business methods. And that is the kernel of the argument this side of the House have attempted to place before the Minister in the course of this debate. It is possible to operate the S.A. Railways as a business concern, a concern prepared to take business risks in the interests of the railwaymen and in the interests of the users of the S.A. Railways in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to devote a few moments of my time to the hon. member who has just sat down. The hon. member had a great deal to say about the fact that some of my colleagues and I failed to attend all of the select committee meetings. May I just remind the hon. member that both the hon. member for Kimberley (South) (Dr. W. L. D. M. Venter) and I represent railway constituencies. We consider it our duty to visit our constituencies from time to time. I personally visit my constituency once every fortnight. My constituents expect this of me and I like to visit them. The difference between the hon. member who has just sat down and the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) and ourselves is that they attack the railway workers here, they attack the Administration, they attack the management and they constantly find fault with the railway worker whereas we have not done so. The reason why I mention this, Mr. Speaker, is that not one of them knows the railway workers. I wonder whether they each have a dozen railway workers in their constituencies. If a railway worker sets eyes on the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) he would get a fright.

I shall come to your constituency.

I invite the hon. member to come and hold a meeting in my constituency and to say there what he said here.

I accept the invitation. I shall appear on the platform with you.

We know these United Party tales. We know that what they say here will never be implemented. The hon. member is welcome at any time. As far as the hon. member for Orange Grove is concerned I just want to tell him that the remarks that he makes here reflect adversely on the railway workers. If time permits I want to address a few further remarks to the hon. member for Turffontein. He had a great deal to say about the select committee, but what is the position? Does the hon. member know that his own colleagues on that committee can no longer tolerate him because of the nonsense that he talks on the committee? Does he know that his colleagues on that side of the House complain about the irresponsible remarks he makes and the nonsense he talks on that committee? Does the hon. member realize that everyone on that committee becomes nervous when he starts talking because all he does is to waste valuable time?

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

I have finished with the hon. member. It is fortunate for him that you stopped me, Sir, otherwise he would have fared pretty badly.

I want to come back now to the hon. member for Orange Grove. The hon. member says the most irresponsible things that I have ever heard. He mentioned the numbers of houses standing empty. I do not believe his figures and I want to know where those houses are standing empty. Before he answers let me tell him that these are old, obsolete little houses along the railway line. They are situated in the veld; one sees them every day. Does he expect us to allow Whites to live in those houses? They are completely unfit for occupation. But let him tell me where one single railway house is standing empty in a railway area. He also says that non-Whites are used as shunters. Where? Does he not know that a non-White person cannot do skilled work on the Railways? He also complained about the Sick Fund. I think any railway worker who goes to him with complaints must be a very sick man. He would have to be very sick because he would not know whether he is going to come back alive. Why does the hon. member complain to the hon. the Minister? The railway workers have their own Sick Fund Board. That is the body he ought to approach if railway workers make complaints to him.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 92 (1) (c).

I want to reply to the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis). He said that ship owners were finding it increasingly difficult to estimate the turnaround times of ships in our harbours and that was probably the reason for the recent freight increase. I do not think the hon. member believes that himself. There were periodic and spasmodic delays to ships at Durban but there were practically no delays at any other of the harbours. Does the hon. member really seriously suggest that the few delays that the Conference Lines ships experienced in the Durban harbour have been the reason for the 7½ per cent increase in freight?

I said part of it.

No, but that is not so. The hon. member knows more than the head of the Union Castle Company knows about that and he gave quite different reasons for the increase in the freight rates. The hon. member should check his facts.

The hon. member pleaded for a separate port authority. I have told him repeatedly in the past that I could not see how that would benefit the administration of the harbours. The hon. member must realize that the harbours are an integral part of the transport system of this country. They are administered and administered efficiently by the S.A. Railways by men who have a knowledge of harbours and related matters. But apart from that the fact remains that harbour expansion must always keep pace with rail take-off. If we were to have an unco-ordinated and separate authority that will not increase the efficiency but will probably decrease the efficiency of the harbour. It is no use expanding the facilities at the harbour when there is inadequate rail take off. The two must be co-ordinated. Apart from that, the capital must be obtained from the same source, and if there is competition between the Railways on the one hand and the port authorities on the other hand it is quite possible that the port authorities will suffer in the process. So I cannot, as I have said in the past, see any benefit in establishing a port authority to control the harbours. I think that on the whole the people of Durban have very little to complain about Durban harbour. The trouble with Durban, Sir is that they think they are not part of South Africa; that they are a country on their own. I do not think there is any other city in the whole of South Africa where the people are as parochial as the people of Durban. They are only concerned about their own matters and about Durban harbour which is apparently the only real thing that they have to talk about. I admit and I have admitted it before that there are difficulties. But to make the general statement that they have been battling for years and years to get some improvements at Durban is nonsense. Improvements are continually being effected to Durban harbour. I can give a list of improvements that have been effected there.

All that the hon. member really wants is the building of additional quays. When we do come forward with the plans for the provision of additional berths then Durban is up in arms and they say: “You are spoiling the expanse of water in Durban harbour; we do not want it”. As a matter of fact I had to meet representatives from commerce and the City Council and industry a year or two back. They were concerned about the Moffat plan that the quays should be constructed in Durban harbour. They want the natural beauty of Durban harbour to be retained but at the same time they want additional facilities.

Have they not asked you to construct an additional quay?

Yes, that is under consideration. The hon. member must realize that the Railways must try to operate on business principles. The same applies in regard to the provision of a graving dock; an additional graving dock will operate at a considerable loss. Why? Because you will probably occasionally have one or two ships availing themselves of the facilities. We have the Sturrock Dock in Cape Town. It is one of the biggest in the world. It can accommodate almost any ship, even 85,000-ton tankers. The Sturrock Dock stands idle most of the time. Is it really an economic proposition to provide an additional graving dock in Durban which will probably be unused most of the time? Hon. members must be realistic. It is all very fine to talk about future planning and about looking into the future. Of course, if you look into the future you can do any silly thing and even if it is uneconomical now you can always say: Well in 10 or 15 years’ time people will probably make use of it. I think that would be most irresponsible. No responsible Minister can do that. No responsible Minister has in the past done that. The Sturrock Graving Dock was largely constructed as the result of war requirements. It was not because the United Party looked into the future and said it might probably be required in 15 or 20 years’ time.

The hon. member also said it was shortsightedness because I had said I was not prepared to provide facilities for 85,000 and 100,000 ton tankers. I want to give the hon. member some more detailed reasons why I am not prepared to do it. The depth of Durban’s entrance channel and its quays compare favourably with most harbours in the world. The entrance depth could be increased at great expense not only in initial cost but in annual maintenance. Incidentally, the deeper the channel is made the more serious becomes the problem of loss of sand from Durban beaches. I wonder what the outcry would be from Durban if, as a result of making the entrance deeper, they lost the sand from their beaches. It must not only be deepened for these tankers, but widened as well. The cost of widening the entrance, presumably by removing the north pier and rebuilding it would be fabulous. There would be no difficulty in deepening the waterways within the port, but here again maintenance and dredging costs would be correspondingly increased. Few, if any, of the existing berths could be deepened without endangering the stability of the quays, so that new super deep water berths would have to be provided at more expense. Can it honestly be expected and reasonably be expected of a country such as South Africa to go to this enormous expense simply to accommodate a few super-tankers that are built solely to suit the convenience of certain oil companies? Then the hon. members talk about business principles and they want me to do this! It would be most irresponsible. The hon. member wanted to know what was the maximum capacity to which Durban harbour could be developed. Plans have been prepared to see how many additional berths can be provided and how many additional quays can be built in the Durban harbour. I can give the assurance to the hon. member that Durban harbour still has considerable potential capacity and considerable expansion can take place in the future. The hon. member says that there was a report presented which provided among other things for the building of a jam factory in the Durban harbour. I think somebody must have been pulling his leg.

I have seen the plan myself.

The hon. member for Yeoville spoke about the Van Zyl Report. I listened very carefully to the hon. member, but it is not yet quite clear in my mind whether he accepts or rejects the majority Van Zyl Report, or whether he accepts or rejects the minority report. I want to be clear on the subject. Does the hon. member accept the majority report with certain reservations, or does he reject it with certain reservations?

I stated our attitude very clearly.

That is the trouble. It was not clear at all. The hon. member spoke very clearly but he did not state his case very clearly.

May I explain? Our attitude is very clear, I said that we believe in private enterprise, subject to certain conditions. There are cases where we feel State enterprise should be allowed. I did not accept or reject either the majority or minority reports. I referred to the Minister’s suggestion and said “That seems to be in accordance with our policy”. It is a question of interpretation. We should like to see how it develops in practice.

Even now it is as clear as mud.

I can explain, but I cannot give the Minister the intelligence to understand.

The difficulty is that the hon. member’s explanation is so involved and so abstruse. The trouble is that the hon. member is always supplementing the actual point, that he is always running round the point. You cannot get the hon. member down to a definite statement.

Do you accept the minority report in toto?

I accept the minority report in toto, except …

Oh!

My position is perfectly clear. But the hon. member discussed the Van Zvl Report and dealt with my reasons for rejecting the majority report. The hon. member says that he accepts most of these reasons except two. The hon. member must correct me if I am wrong. He does not accept my second and third reasons Is that correct?

Yes.

The second reason was—I have got it in Afrikaans here—

The hon. member says that he rejects this. I wonder if the hon. member has read the report and the minority report? He said he rejects my reason for saying that the prices quoted by tenderers, that is for components, in comparison with those that are manufactured departmentally, are quite unrealistic. Mr. Chairman, this committee accepted the Railways’ cost of manufacture. They state that definitely. They accepted the costs submitted by the Railway Administration, that is the Railways’ cost of manufacture.

They made their own selection of items.

That is so and they accepted those costs and the manufacturing costs of the Administration included direct cost plus overheads plus all the relevant costs. That was accepted by the committee. Then they endeavoured to obtain from private industry their costs. They were unable to obtain those costs. Private industry was not prepared to throw their books open to this committee. So they were compelled to accept tendered prices. I first of all want to say that my whole purpose in appointing this committee was to meet the challenge which private enterprise repeatedly made. They stated that the S.A. Railways could not manufacture their requirements at a lower price than private industry could quote. That statement was repeatedly made by private enterprise and the main purpose that I had in appointing this committee was to prove that the Railway costs of manufacture were less than the prices quoted by private enterprise for the same components. In other words, I felt that if private enterprise could sell to the Railways cheaper than the price at which the Railways could manufacture, it would be wrong for the Railways to manufacture and the Railways should buy from private enterprise. That was the purpose for which the committee was appointed.

This committee started its investigations. They got the Railway manufacturing costs of a number of items, and then they got the tender price for similar items manufactured by private enterprise. When they found that the manufacturing costs of the Railway Administration was considerably below that of the prices quoted by private industry, they suddenly decided to load the manufacturing costs of the Railways, because they said: We have to take into consideration the tax paid by private industry, we have to take into consideration the profits to be made by private industry, the interest on capital of private industry. Consequently they came to an arbitrary decision and said: We are going to reduce the prices quoted by industry by some 53.9 per cent, and then compare the costs quoted by private industry and the manufacturing costs of the Railways. Now this is what happened. I am giving some comparative costs given by the committee. Cast-iron rail chairs. There was a quantity of 1,960,000. The Railway cost, which they accepted, was .468 rand; private enterprise’s lowest quotation was .975 rand, about twice as much. But then they started adjusting, manipulating the cost by reducing the price of private enterprise and they came to the conclusion that actually the Railway cost should be .469 rand and private enterprise, the adjusted cost, .408 rand, in spite of the fact that the quoted price of private enterprise was .975 rand. I wanted to know whether private industry could quote cheaper than the Railways could manufacture, but I am not prepared to accept the reduction by an arbitrary percentage of 5.39 per cent on the prices and then to accept that private industry can manufacture cheaper than the Railways. That is the main reason why I am not prepared to accept the report. But the hon. member disagrees with me. I said that that is the second reason why I am not prepared to accept the majority report, and the hon. member disagreed. In other words, he accepts the committee’s report, allowing the loading of the manufacturing costs of the S.A. Railways to get the basis of comparison I have mentioned. Did I understand the hon. member correctly?

We will come back to it again.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) quoted the minority report which says that if all manufacturing activities are to be handed over to private enterprise, it would cost the Railway Administration an additional R13,000,000 to R19,000,000 a year.

May I ask the hon. Minister a question regarding these comparative figures: Were the specifications identical?

Identical items, in other words an item actually manufactured in the railway workshops compared with a similar item manufactured by private industry for which a price was quoted. It often happens that the railway workshops are unable to manufacture a particular component in sufficient quantities and then it is put out to tender. These were identical items. My second reason for rejecting the majority report was—

Quite right. When you have your own workshops you know you have a continual supply of spares, but when you are dependent on private enterprise you do not have a continual supply. Tenders have to be put out, huge manufacturing processes have to be started, and it has been proved over and over again that you have to keep bigger stocks, larger amounts invested in your stores if you are dependent on private enterprise. I do not know why hon. members opposite do not accept my view for rejecting the majority report. The hon. member talks about a socialist state and says that we should encourage private enterprise. I want to say to the hon. member that we do encourage private enterprise. I do not think there is any undertaking in South Africa that has given greater encouragement to private enterprise than the S!A. Railways. As a matter of fact the S.A. Railways are the direct cause of the establishment of many industries. I want to give a few examples.

Industries were the direct cause of the expansion of the S.A. Railways.

That is an entirely wrong way of putting it. I want to give a few examples: New goods wagons placed in service (equivalent to short trucks): from 1934-5 to 1938-9, 9,000 were built by the S.A. Railways and 8,000 were imported. None were built by South African industries. The first time that South African industries came into the picture was between 1945 and 1949 when they built 8,900, whilst 10,000 were imported and 5,000 were built by the S.A. Railways. From 1959-60 to 1962-3: The South African Railways built 8,000, 900 were imported and 20,000 were built by South African industries. Passenger vehicles, there you have the same thing. They used to be imported, now they are built by South African industry. Locomotives the same. Electrical units were built overseas. All electrical units are built in South Africa now. I can quote numerous examples where the S.A. Railways have encouraged the establishment of industries. The S.A. Railway workshops have really operated parallel with the South African industry. I stated definitely that there is no intention of unlimited expansion of the workshops. Private industry will get its fair share, but there are certain essential components that must be manufactured in our workshops for the purpose of maintenance and repair, and that will be continued. That is why I said—

I think the hon. member can accept that. I do not know what the argument is about.

I do not know either.

The hon. member does not know himself what he is arguing about. That is “’n ontnugtering”, as we say in Afrikaans. I want to read a telegram that I received only this afternoon—

The hon. member shakes his head and now apparently we are in complete agreement.

*The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) also participated in the debate. The only reason why I am replying to the hon. member is because he makes the sort of statement of which one does not, of course, take very much notice in this House but which may perhaps give the wrong impression outside this House. Let me give the true facts, therefore. For example, the hon. member makes this sort of allegation: He says that one of the things which caused the cost of living to rise sky-high was the increase in tariffs. Remember “to rise sky-high”. In September 1962, the consumer price index was 103.7 and in January 1964, it was 107.4, an increase of 3.5. The hon. member alleges that the cost of living rose sky-high. That is the sort of irresponsible allegation that is made by the hon. member.

An increase of 3.5 per cent is a large increase.

The hon. member made another allegation. He said that railway workers had to wait months and months before their accounts were paid. I want to tell the hon. member that railway workers receive nothing from the sick fund. The hon. member did not even read correctly the reply which I gave him to his own question. He asked—

I replied in the affirmative. The amount involved was R1,861. But does the hon. member know what these accounts are? They are accounts which the sick fund pays, not to railway workers but, inter alia, to nursing institutions in respect of medical treatment received by those workers. The railway workers receive their full sick pay from the Railways as soon as it becomes due.

That is correct.

Why then does the hon. member make such a wrong allegation? Why does he say such a stupid thing in order to create the impression that the poor railway workers are not paid in time? The reason why one does not want to reply to the hon. member is that he makes allegations of this kind which he cannot substantiate, and which he simply sucks out of his thumb.

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) stated that I must have some indication of the contents of the Schumann Commission’s Report. I can give him the assurance that I have no indication, that I have not spoken to the chairman of the Schumann Commission, or any members since they were appointed. I am completely unaware of what the contents of the report will be, or what their recommendations will be. But the hon. member bases his statement on the fact that the General Manager said originally that the report would become available in December and I said in April. Surely he cannot hold me responsible for that. Surely it is up to the Schumann Commission to say when they are going to submit their report and if they originally told the General Manager that they probably would be able to submit their report in December and they found that they could not do it and that they would only be able to submit it in April, then it is not my fault or the General Manager’s fault. As a matter of fact, as the hon. member knows we have been expecting the Press Commission’s Report for several years and we have not got it yet. I do not think the same thing will happen to the Schumann Commission’s Report.

Then the further introduction of diesels. I fully agree with the hon. member that by introducing too much diesel traction it would make South Africa more vulnerable. I have said in the past that it is not my policy to dieselize the South African Railways. I said that it was only for the transition period between switching over from steam to electricity. The ideal is to electrify our lines eventually and to use electric traction only. Steam locomotives are not being manufactured anymore. You have either got to decide on diesel traction or electric traction. Electric traction is expensive. The capital outlay is very high for the overhead equipment. It is only when the traffic density on a particular line is so high as to economically justify the capital outlay that we can electrify. The introduction of diesels is much cheaper. They do not require any overhead equipment; All that is required are repair and maintenance depots for the diesel locomotives. I am not going to dieselize the South African Railways, but as I say for the transition period between switching from steam to electricity we will be using diesels. We are already using diesels to a limited extent. Now it is quite true that we do not have the comparative operating costs per unit of diesel and steam, but we have the experience of other railways in the world, and that is sufficient for us. All the other railway systems have found that diesel traction is not only more economical but is considerably more efficient than steam traction. We have the comparative costs of the maintenance costs. The maintenance cost of electric units is the lowest, diesel comes second but it is much lower than the maintenance cost of steam locomotives.

Why is it not possible to get the running costs per unit?

We have not been able to make a comparison because we have no steam locomotives and diesel locomotives running over the same section, but that will be done now because we now have diesel units running on the Noupoort-Port Elizabeth section where steam locomotives are also in operation. But, as I say, we have the experience of other countries. Diesel traction is much more efficient than steam traction. As I say, I prefer electrification, but then you have to embark upon considerable capital expenditure. Diesel operation will be limited. I am introducing the diesels on the Burghersdorp-East London section for very good reasons. It will give us more efficient working, it will be more economical and it will be a great improvement in the operation of that section.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

I move as an amendment—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to. On Clause 4,

I move— In lines 72 and 73, to omit “(if any)”. Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining clauses, Preamble and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

In this clause the divisional councils are now appointed as the labour control boards. Prior to this, I think it is correct to say that the divisional councils acted as the labour tenant control boards, and it is on this point that I should like the Minister to give us some clarification. The position became somewhat clouded and misleading when the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) declared that divisional councils had never acted in this way. Why I ask for clarification is that we are now developing the position where the Minister is virtually calling upon 94 or 95 divisional councils to undertake what must be quite a lot of work. In the explanatory memorandum it would seem that the divisional councils have to accept the responsibility for all Bantu employees in farming activities, domestic servants, and also farm labour tenants. Now this position arises. The divisional councils have a very active association, and I want to ask the Minister whether the councils were consulted through their association and what their reaction was, and whether the Minister can give us some idea as to the volume of work they will have to undertake.

You have not read the clause properly. The divisional councils will not be the Bantu labour control boards. But I will explain the position again later.

They are at present acting as the labour tenant control boards. From the explanation, I understood that the divisional councils would now perform the duties also of the Bantu labour control boards, but if I am wrong I shall be glad if the Minister will explain the position.

I explained this point the other day, and I shall try to do so again. In the Cape Province the labour tenant—and remember the word “tenant”—control board work can be undertaken by the divisional councils and they have done so in the past. [Interjection.] No, the hon. member for Cradock did not say anything which was wrong. I have the figures here and I will show later that we have almost no labour tenant system in the Cape Province. [Interjection.] In the Cape we have the divisional councils and up to to-day, and also after this Bill is passed, they can do the work of the Labour Tenant Control Board, but in Clause 24 we make provision for the introduction of a Bantu Labour Control Board. That is something different from a Bantu Labour Tenant Control Board. It is without the word “tenant” in it, and a divisional council cannot act in terms of Clause 24 (c) as a Bantu Labour Control Board. Where a Bantu Labour Control Board will be necessary in the Cape, we will not be in a position to ask the divisional council to do this work, but we will have to institute a board specifically for that purpose according to the provisions of this Bill. I hope that is quite clear now.

I rise to ask the Minister whether he will deal with this question which was referred to by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman), in regard to where reference is made in this clause, in the new 28bis, to Bantu labour control boards having control or jurisdiction in respect of Bantu who are employed in bona fide farming operations and bona fide domestic servants. He emphasized the words bona fide. In other words, it is clear from what follows, which I cannot discuss here yet, that a dispute may arise as to the number of Bantu who may be employed on a farm. But here it is quite clear that the use of the term bona fide means something. If it means what it says here—and this is what I would like the hon. the Minister to explain—then it means that the Bantu labour control board which supersedes the Bantu labour tenant control board in any area in which the Minister proclaims a Bantu labour control board, the latter takes over from the tenant labour control board. Now the labour tenant control board have jurisdiction over labour tenants. That was a limited sphere of activity, but the superior body, the Bantu labour control board, supersedes the other body and it has jurisdiction over all Bantu, not only labour tenants, engaged in bona fide farming operations and in bona fide domestic services. If that is in fact the meaning, then we have control here for the whole of the farming area of South Africa, which is virtually the same control the Minister can now exercise in the urban areas, and control will now be complete and absolute. Because here there is no question of mala fides. There is no question of what is called “Native farming”. This deals with where they are bona fide engaged in farming, and presumably those who are not engaged in bona fide farming cannot come under the jurisdiction of the Bantu labour control board because they are not engaged in bona fide farming. The Minister must be very clear and explicit, because we will have to explain this Bill and we want to know precisely where we stand. The hon. the Minister smiles. It is not going to worry him. All he has to do is to administer it, and if he does not like it he can come back and amend it next year. But we want to be quite sure that if the Natives are not engaged bona fide in farming then the control board has no jurisdiction over them because that is contary to what the clause provides here.

It is quite clear that the Bantu labour control board will exercise control, as the Bill states very clearly, over Bantu employed in bona fide farming operations or in bona fide domestic service. [Interjection.] The Bantu labour tenant control board only controls labour tenants and no other Bantu farm workers, but the Bantu labour control board will deal with all the bona fide Bantu farm labour.

The Minister is not dealing with the point at all. The labour tenant control board disappears as an entity. It ceases to exist. There is no longer a labour tenant control board as soon as a Bantu labour control board is established. So the tenant control board is now out; it has disappeared as an institution, and whereas it was limited in its sphere, the new Bantu labour control board comes in, but in terms of this section the latter does not deal with all labour in that area under its jurisdiction.

It only deals with bona fide farm labour.

And also bona fide domestic labour, and labour that is not engaged bona fide in farming or in domestic service is therefore not under the jurisdiction of the Bantu labour control board. Therefore if there were labour tenants who are not bona fide engaged in farming, those labour tenants will not come under the Bantu labour control board because they are not bona fide engaged in farming.

The clause deals with bona fide farming labour.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he does not expect a measure of chaos to arise out of this particular clause.

No.

We were told a few days ago that there were practically no labour tenants in the Cape. That is what the hon. member for Cradock said. The hon. member for Cradock said there were none and the hon. member for Somerset East said there were 438, and he said that by eliminating the labour tenants you would get a better absorption of labour. Sir, I wish that were true, but I want to ask the hon. the Minister how he intends to dispose of these 438. I will give him an example of only one, and I have dozens of them, because these applications were referred to me by the magistrate of the district. In the one application there were 123 members in the family. Their rent was R360. Now, if there are any of those under the 438, how does the Minister intend to absorb them? What worries me is where will he absorb this labour? [Interjection.] Just a minute. The Minister can reply in a minute. The Minister knows full well that just outside the perimeters of every one of the large towns you have a congregation on the farms of illegal tenants and squatters. Now they will come under this as well. Where is the Minister going to accommodate them? The whole thing hinges on whether they can be distributed as labour. I do not think this clause will assist in the distribution of labour because of this fact, that the Bantu is a human being, and he wants to work where he wants to work, and people who cannot get labour to-day will not get labour by that means. Sir, I am worried about it. Let me give an example. Since the establishment of the textile factory outside East London there are literally dozens and dozens of farms cluttered up with illegal tenants and squatters. What is the Minister going to do about that? They have to be absorbed somewhere. I see chaos ahead. Will the Minister please explain to me how he will absorb those Natives.

The hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) says that chaos will result when the provisions of this clause are put into operation. I cannot see how there can be chaos. At the moment there is chaos in the White rural areas of South Africa but these provisions will eliminate that chaos. At the present time there are hundreds of idle Bantu on our farms and the provisions of this clause will prevent that sort of thing in the future. But there is another aspect of this matter. The hon. member Spoke about the distribution of workers. No Bantu will be forced to work on a farm if he does not want to work there. And this will not promote a better distribution of labour; it will simply mean that the surplus Bantu on the farms will now possibly seek other work. They will go and work where they want to work but nobody will be forced to work where he does not want to work.

How do you know that?

I know it from experience. Surely it is obvious. The surplus Bantu who are idle on the farms to-day and who are not working will have to accept employment. Only bona fide workers will be able to stay on the farm.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has told us that in the case of the divisional councils in the Cape the intention is that they will not function as Bantu labour control boards. The labour control boards will be something separate from the divisional councils. I asked the Minister yesterday to express what his intention was in that regard and I accept that what he said was his intention, but I share the difficulty of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Mr. Dodds) that what the Minister expressed as his intention is not stated in the Bill. The Bill says something different. If the Minister starts at sub-section (4) of 28bis (1), he will see that it says “any reference in this Act to a labour tenants control board shall be deemed to include a reference to a Bantu labour control board”. So when we speak in this Act of a labour tenants control board, we are deemed to include a reference to a Bantu labour control board. The question of the divisional councils is dealt with in the previous clause, Clause 23, at the bottom of page 33, where it says that in the Cape every divisional council shall perform the functions of such board, such board being a labour tenants control board. That reference to the labour tenants control board is deemed in terms of Clause 24 to include reference to a Bantu labour control board. That is not what the Minister intends. He does not intend, in the Cape Province, after the establishment of labour control boards elsewhere, that the divisional councils should perform the functions of Bantu labour control boards. But as the Bill stands, reading together Clause 23 and Clause 24 (4), the Bill gives the divisional councils in the Cape by inference the functions of a Bantu labour control board because they have the functions of the labour tenants control board. That is the difficulty which was raised by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central), because he has experience of divisional councils, and if the Minister wishes the law to say what he intends, he will have to amend either Clause 23 or Clause 24.

I cannot understand how the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) who is a lawyer can interpret this clause in that way. It is perfectly clear that a Bantu labour control board can only come into being if it is specifically set up and it must be specifically set up by the Minister. The previous clause says that the divisional council may be a labour tenant control board but there is no provision to the effect that a divisional council may be a Bantu labour control board. The Minister has to set up the labour control board, in terms of the law, and he must set it up specifically as is provided for in the Bill. We know that there will be cases in the other provinces where the work of a labour tenant control board will be done by a labour control board and it is for that reason that we must have what we can call this ambiguity of the regulations. But as far as the Cape is concerned, the position is quite clear. I explained it just now. As far as the regulations are concerned, they cannot be applied to the Cape in order to make a labour control board of a divisional council.

I also want to reply to the question of the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren). I could not follow what he was saying about the 428 because other hon. members were interjecting. If I am wrong, I would like the hon. member to correct me. I just want to point out that the figure of 428 is the figure according to the 1960 statistics. In 1960 these were the only registered labourers who were registered as labour tenants in the Cape. There were only 428 labour tenants in the whole of the Cape. I wonder whether the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) is not much closer to the truth when he says that there is none to-day, because this is a very old figure. The hon. member was very close to the truth when he said that today there was no longer such a thing in the Cape. In all probability he is correct. We do not have the latest figures. Comparatively speaking, the hon. member for Cradock was correct in saying that to-day there was no such thing in the Cape, particularly when we compare the position here with the position in the Transvaal where there were 83,000, in Natal where there were 42,000, and the Free State where there were even fewer than in the Cape, namely, 216 in 1960. The hon. member asks what has become of those 428 labour tenants, and, by implication therefore what has become of the 216 in the Free State, the 42,000 in Natal and the 83,000 in the Transvaal. I have already told the hon. member that the first thing that is going to happen to those labour tenants is that they may all become full-time servants. They can still remain on those farms as in the past but they will now be there as ordinary full-time servants. The hon. member must not suggest that because we are abolishing this system we are going to load all the existing labour tenants on to a wagon and carry them off somewhere. We are not doing away with these people; it is the system that is being abolished. These people can still stay on under the new system. [Interjections.] The hon. member did not want me to reply to him just now by way of interjection. He will have another opportunity to speak just now. I have not finished my reply yet.

In the second place the hon. member asked what we were going to do with the unlawful residents there, as he himself called them. He asked where they would have to go. We cannot really discuss this matter under this clause but we did discuss it at an earlier stage and we may perhaps be able to discuss it under other clauses as well. I have already stated that the labour tenants can stay. As far as the undesirable elements are concerned, we have other provisions under which we can take action against them. There are other provisions which we can apply to deal with undesirable elements but that is a matter that we cannot discuss here. We have the machinery to deal with Bantu who have no right to be at a particular place; they must then be taken elsewhere. They can also go to other places where there is work for them.

Why do you not put that provision into operation?

But it is being done. They can be removed to other places within the White areas where there is employment for them. They can be employed on farms, on the mines and in industries; they can also be removed to the Bantu homelands if there is no employment for them in the White areas. Those who are there unlawfully can be removed to a number of places and far stricter measures may possibly be taken against some of them. It all depends upon the degree of illegality.

Does the hon. the Minister realize that over a period of years we have been trying to get rid of these illegal tenants as well as the legal tenants? The reply we have always had has been, “Give us the land and we will place them on that land”. I actually gave the hon. the Minister an example of one labour tenants’ licence issued for 123 persons. That is what is happening to our South Africa. Where are these people going to be absorbed? The Minister is going to demand more land. That is what he is going to do, just as that has been done over the last ten years. We have always been told, “We will get rid of the squatters, of the illegal tenants and of the legal tenant but you give us the land”. Is that not so? The Minister cannot deny that that is the excuse which has been put forward for years.

Is the question of more land your particular bogey?

Yes, it is definitely a bogey as far as I am concerned. I am not prepared to give you any more land. However, the position is that the Minister is going to face chaos if he has to deal with anything like the example I have quoted here.

I rise just to deal with two points. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) has again referred to sub-section (4) of Section 24 and has indicated that it might cast some doubt on the question as to whether a divisional council could possibly act as a Bantu labour control board or not. I think there should not be any doubt in his mind with regard to the provision of sub-section (2), which specifically determines the constitution of the Bantu labour control board— with that reference, I concede, to the normal labour tenant board. That sub-section places the matter beyond any doubt that the Bantu labour control board can only be a board consisting of the representative of the Minister and three persons representing the farmers in the area. I think the hon. member will concede that. But the main point I want to make is in reply to the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) who has raised the difficulty that the Bantu labour control board is restricted in its jurisdiction to bona fide employees, either in domestic service or employed on farming operations. The non-bona fide residents, the people not in bona fide employment, have been dealt with in Section 19, of which we have previously disposed, and in this connection I might refer the hon. member to sub-section (2) (b) which provides for the exception that only registered Bantu and Bantu employed full-time as bona fide employees of the owner of such land may be on the land legally, so everyone who is not a bona fide employee or, in terms of sub-section (c) registered as a labour tenant, is precluded from legally staying on the land. Action can be taken in respect of people not present on the farm as bona fide employees under this other section. That is why the jurisdiction of the Bantu labour control board is limited to those in bona fide employment.

Will you explain what subsection (4) means?

The interpretation of sub-paragraph (4) is that the general provisions affecting the powers of labour tenant control boards, both in the regulations and in the act, are also conferred on Bantu labour control boards. Sub-section (4) has no further effect.

Powers and duty?

Yes. [Interjection.] The Divisional Council, still being a Bantu labour tenant control board, is not affected by the existence of a Bantu labour control board.

I agree with you but I think it is badly expressed.

Yes, I do not think subsection (4) has been drafted very elegantly, but I do not think it detracts from the meaning of the Act to any extent. Sub-section (2) makes it quite clear what is actually meant.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Clause 25 is the one we could not discuss just now. This clause purports to provide for an investigation by a Labour Tenant Control Board in regard to the number of full-time and part-time Bantu or the Bantu labour potential on any land, the number of labour tenants and so on. It sets out how this information can be obtained. It can be obtained as a result of a writing, if the Labour Tenant Control Board or the Bantu Labour Control Board “is requested in writing by an owner of any land in such area or by a labour liaison officer appointed in terms of a …” a paragraph that is still ahead of us, Sir, namely 38quat.

I should like to turn for a moment to the remarks made by the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) where, in dealing with the question of the jurisdiction of the Bantu Labour Control Board in the clause that has just been parsed, that is, that it has jurisdiction over all Bantu employed in bona fide farming operations or bona fide domestic servants, he referred to Clause 19 which inserts a new section, Section 26 (2) (b). He referred to that clause and he said in regard to the bona fide aspect of the employment: “Just look at that! These are the registered and employed full-time Bantu, employed full-time as bona fide Bantu employees of the owner of such land.” That is the very point I want to come to here in this clause that we have before us. Sub-section (2) (b) of the new 26 does not help the hon. member. That is not what the previous clause said. It said that they have to be employed in bona fide farming operations, and (2) (b) says that they have to be bona fide Bantu employees, just bona fide Bantu employees, not bona fide employed in farming operations. And these bona fide employees come under Section 19. That was not the case under the clause we have just passed, and it will not do for the clause we are considering now, and even Clause 24 which we have just passed now limits the jurisdiction of the bodies concerned, that is the Bantu Labour Control Boards to Bantu labour whose master is engaged on bona fide farming operations, or otherwise they are in bona fide domestic service. I suggest that the clause we have just passed does qualify the employment of the Bantu for the purposes of the inquiry in the clause we are dealing with, and that there is not an unlimited discretion to hold any kind of an inquiry into any aspect of the employment of Bantu engaged in any kind of employment in terms of this particular clause.

You are right.

We then have got the position that while labour tenants or Bantu employees who are bona fide engaged in farming operations can be so dealt with, or bona fide domestic servants, it does not cover all Bantu employees, even if they are the bona fide employees of the master. If they are not bona fide engaged in farming operations or as domestic servants, they cannot be the subject of the inquiry held here. And one wonders then what precisely is the purpose of the machinery which is being set up here, if it is to be limited to an inquiry into a farmer’s labour and the labour which is engaged only in his farming operations. Because I want to make it clear, Mr. Chairman, that you can have a farmer who is engaged in activities on his farm which are not bona fide farming operations. You get that all over the country. In other words, you have got Bantu engaged in the service of a farmer who perhaps has a small sawmill for cutting up firewood, or something or other, he may have a lighting plant and a water-pump and a few odds and ends and he has got a Native who has had a certain amount of mechanical training and is in charge of these installations. Those are not bona fide farming operations. I submit that that Native cannot be dealt with in terms of an inquiry under this particular clause. So I put it to the hon. Minister: What he is getting at is the labour supply of a bona fide farmer who is only engaged in bona fide farming operations, and there he takes the power to inquire into the labour supply of that particular farmer, and orders can be made in the latter part of this clause, as you will see on page 37, in regard to what the board regard as surplus, and sub-section (3) of this new Section 29 says that the order may call upon the owner to take such steps as may be lawfully necessary to effect the removal of so many of the labour tenants or employees resident on his land as exceed the number so determined by the board, but it is not employees resident on his farm, I submit, it is employees resident on his farm who are bona fide engaged in farming activities, and he cannot touch the other Natives who are on his farm. In other words he can hit the bona fide farmer who is doing nothing else but farm, but cannot touch the farmer who has got other activities which he is carrying on on his farm. He can only reach him in so far as his labour supply engaged in bona fide farming operations is concerned. We take the strongest exception to this, Sir. We do not think that there is any farmer who is going to employ labour in bona fide farming operations in excess of what he requires, having to provide housing and paying them a salary when they are not absolutely necessary. I have still got to find that kind of farmer. But here the Minister comes along and says that if a farmer has operations other than farming, then we allow him all the Natives that he likes for that purpose, but we are going to investigate the number of Natives he has got for bona fide farming operations, and if the Committee thinks that he has got too many for that purpose it will order him to get rid of a certain number, and if he does not get rid of them, he is a criminal, because criminal sanctions are applied. What sort of a plan is this, Mr. Chairman? This in fact is now embodying one of the most rooted objections that we as farmers have got to the whole of this Bill. Here the bona fide farmer who is simply farming is being penalized, whereas the quasi-farmer who has got other activities and other callings which he is engaged in, is not subjected to this provision. It only applies in regard to people engaged in farming operations, and there he can be knee-haltered, he can be hamstrung in regard to those particular matters, and even in regard to his domestic servants. Mr. Chairman, I do not want a Government inspector to come along and report me for having three maids in my house, attending to my kitchen work and looking after my grandchildren or whatever it may be. Where is this interference to end under those circumstances? Are they to come along and snoop around my house? I want to point out, moreover, that for the purposes here a labour liaison officer may not be a European, he may be a Native. The liaison officer can lay the first complaint and investigate the matter ab initio. He can set the whole thing in motion and he might be a Native.

Yes.

That is so. I have no objection to Bantu being enrolled in the Government service in regard to a large number of posts, but when it comes to this kind of snooping which can be engaged in by one of these people, and it is an investigation in regard to the domestic servants in my own home, then I draw the line and I say: By Jove, I think the Government is now going a long way when they are embodying provisions in the Bill for that kind of investigation to take place, I to be told how many Native maids I may have to clean my kitchen and to cook and to look after the domestic housework in my home.

I am thinking of the activities of those farmers for instance who are engaged in wattle stripping, and whose labour may be limited. We have farmers who not only do their own wattle stripping, but who buy wattle plantations from neighbours who perhaps have a quota which they cannot fulfil themselves and who sell a standing plantation, and then such a man will cut a standing plantation on contract. Now they are going to come in and interfere with that extra labour which that farmer wants, apparently. I want to know just how far that Bantu labour control board is going to interfere in regard to that sort of labour. Are these investigations to be made on the complaint of one neighbour? We all know that the hon. member for Pretoria (East) said yesterday: You know what happens in some farming districts; one farmer has got lots of labour and another farmer cannot get labour; it is only right that the man who has got too much labour should give up some of it and the board should take it and give that labour to the other man, or give some labour to the other man. The hon. member was quite outspoken. Well, I am not going to talk about enforced labour and things like that. But is that the intention? Are you going to have investigations into every complaint by one person? You have only got to have a quarrel with a neighbour over a fence, some boundary fence, over cattle getting in a crop, and then a neighbour runs off to the control board just to make trouble. He may tell some wild story about you, that you have got too much labour or you are believed to have labour that is not registered and you get an inquiry and you have that sort of thing instituted which leads to nothing but trouble and friction in the whole community.