There is very little really that calls for a reply in this debate. Hon. members on this side have already given adequate replies to the few points which have been raised here. My task will be mainly to emphasize what they have already said. Very little has been said with regard to the Budget itself. Except for the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) hon. members on the other side carefully avoided discussing the financial details of the Budget. I must assume therefore that the Budget meets with their approval; that they are perfectly satisfied with it. The matters on which they concentrated were matters which had very little to do with the Budget as such. There was the usual hullabaloo, of course, that we have come to expect from the hon. members for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) and Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw). For the rest hon. members opposite largely kept their eyes on the forthcoming Provincial Council elections with a view to seeing what advantage they could gain for their party during this debate. My position to-day is that I have to play the role of a buck-hunter, whereas, as you know, Mr. Speaker, I like hunting big game. However, that is the position and I have to be content with it.

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J.M.Steyn) made a better speech here than he did last year. He did try to make a study of his subject, although in many respects it was a very superficial study, as I will indicate in the course of my speech. The hon. member was not aggressive; he was courteous and I will treat him in the same way.

Before I proceed, however, I want to address a few words to the hon. young member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman). I would have ignored his speech because it was typically the sort of speech that one expects from a party organizer, but the hon. member made what I regard and what this House regards as a very scandalous and untrue allegation, an allegation of which he ought to be ashamed. This is what the hon. member said—and I should like the decent hon. members on that side to listen—the hon. member said this in the course of his speech, “Or does the hon. member want to tell me …”

On a point of order is the hon. member entitled to say, “the decent members on the other side”, the insinuation being that the hon. member for Maitland is not a decent member?

Mr. Speaker, if all hon. members listen, then they are all decent.

Mr. Speaker, on a similar occasion previously an hon. member was asked to withdraw that statement. The hon. the Minister used precisely the same words.

Order! The hon. the Minister should withdraw that statement.

I withdraw it with pleasure, Mr. Speaker, if you order me to do so. Let me put it much more mildly then and say that all sensible hon. members who like courtesy and who like the truth will listen. The hon. member for Maitland said the following: “Or does the hon. member want to tell me that the people are the gluttons in the railway service; that they are the people who asked for too much, as the hon. the Prime Minister said? Is that what they are?” The hon. member then went on to say the following: “They are not the gluttons or the covetous individuals to whom the Prime Minister referred. They are responsible people.” Sir, I call this House as my witness; did the hon. the Prime Minister ever say such a thing?

Never!

Did the hon. the Prime Minister ever talk about “gluttons” and “covetous individuals”?

Never.

I think that statement is untrue and scandalous. The hon. member is still a young member of this House; he only came to Parliament recently. I just want to tell him that that is not the way to make a name for himself. If he goes on doing this sort of thing he will earn contempt for himself rather than anything else. I think he ought to apologize to the hon. the Prime Minister.

I come back to the hon. member for Yeoville. As I have said, it is inevitable, of course, that he and his party should direct their eyes towards the provincial elections which are going to be held in two weeks’ time. One cannot really blame them because a drowning person clutches at every straw to save himself, and the United Party is sinking very fast. It is a remarkable fact, Sir, that these champions of the railwaymen have put up no candidates in constituencies where the voters are predominantly railwaymen.

Like Salt River.

The hon. member talks about Salt River, but I would remind him that places such as Salt River and Langlaagte, although railway workshops are situated there, are not the residential areas of railwaymen. I have in mind a constituency such as Uitenhage where the voters are predominantly railwaymen. I have in mind a constituency such as Germiston which is predominantly a railway constituency; then there is Vasco which is predominantly a railway constituency. It is clear therefore that they do not really believe that the railwaymen are going to believe them; that is why they have nominated no candidates there. I think hon. members on the other side realize that although there are some railway workers who have grievances, no railwayman in possession of his full faculties would be prepared to exchange the National Party Government for a United Party government.

The Opposition based its attack upon three main grounds, the first being the working conditions of the staff; secondly, the staff shortage and, thirdly, the so-called lack of efficient planning. Let me deal first with the working conditions. I readily admit that there are some sections of the staff to-day who are working under extremely difficult conditions. Many of them, particularly the trained staff and the footplate staff, are working long hours, frequently with little time for rest. I have a great deal of sympathy for these people. I have great sympathy for them because I am one of the few members of this House, if not the only member, with personal experience of that sort of work. In the days when I was in the Service I also worked shifts of 14, 15 or 16 hours in a hot locomotive where I had to shovel coal with a spade. I worked day and night, both during the week and over weekends. When I speak of sympathy therefore, I speak from experience that I gained personally; unlike hon. members opposite I do not rely on what I have read in the newspapers and what I have heard from some railwayman or other. I should very much like to see that it becomes unnecessary for railwaymen to work these long hours without proper time for rest. But under present-day circumstances that is unavoidable. If the wheels are to keep turning, then inevitably the railwaymen have to work these long hours. They have been perfectly willing in the past to work these hours. I have the greatest appreciation of the sacrifices made by the staff. Moreover, I have shown my appreciation over the years in a tangible way, not by lip service but in a tangible way. I do not like making reproaches; I do not like reminding people continually of what has been done for them; all I want to say—and the staff know this—is that I as Minister have done more to improve staff conditions and to improve wages than any previous Minister in the history of the Railways. It has been, it is and it will always remain my policy to look after the interests of the staff.

Coloureds as well?

Everybody. When I refer to the staff, I refer to White and non-White staff; but I am also called upon to look after the interests of the general public. I should very much like to increase the basic wage of the railwaymen by 50 per cent, but even a 10 per cent increase in wages and salaries would involve an expenditure of more than R26,000,000 per annum. Is there any hon. member on that side of the House who is prepared to tell me that I can incur expenditure to the tune of more than R26,000,000 without increasing tariffs?

No staff association is asking for a 10 per cent increase.

I beg your pardon! What did the hon. member say?

It does not matter.[Laughter.]

The hon. member wanted to say that no staff association was asking for a 10 per cent increase. He has clearly not read this morning’s newspaper.

I know about it.

I received a telegram this morning from the Artisan Staff Association, which is only one of many associations, asking for a 17½ per cent increase.

They added something else.

That was in their previous representations, not in the new representations. Again the hon. member is not acquainted with the facts.

Sir, I do try to bring about improvements as far as the finance of the Railways permit. A few months ago, for example, I granted holiday bonuses and certain increases in wages involving an expenditure of approximately R12,000,000 per annum. Even in this Budget I have set aside a sum of R5,000,000 for departmental housing. Housing forms part of the working conditions, and I am trying to improve their housing conditions. So much with regard to staff conditions.

The hon. member for Yeoville also complained about the enforcement of discipline with reference to contraventions of the safety regulations. Sir, I want to put this very pertinent question to the hon. member: Does he want a relaxation of the enforcement of discipline where the lives of people are at stake? The hon. member was clearly referring to the safety regulations. He said that the fact that many of these workers who were charged had been on duty for long periods and that they were exhausted, was not taken into consideration. I want to say here in parenthesis that that fact is taken into consideration, but not in connection with the punishment and enforcement of discipline where the lives of people are at stake. Does the hon. member not realize that it is not only a question of punishing the man himself but that the punishment is also intended to serve as a deterrent to others? The hon. member can now tell me whether he wants a relaxation of the enforcement of discipline where there is a contravention of the safety regulations and where the lives of people are at stake? I shall be glad if the hon. member will give me his reply when he gets an opportunity to speak again.

In this connection I just want to say that the railwayman is particularly fortunate. He is in a more fortunate position than the ordinary public servant, because an appeal procedure has been laid down and a railwayman who is punished, if he feels that an injustice has been done to him or that the punishment is too severe or that it is unfair, has the opportunity to appeal to the head of his department, to the General Manager and thereafter to the Minister and the Board. I can assure the House that when those appeals come before the Board, they are considered with the greatest sympathy and that all relevant factors are taken into consideration. In certain cases the man has the opportunity to appear before the Board personally, together with his assistant, to state his case. The hon. member for Yeoville also says that the relationship between the Administration and the Management on the one hand and the staff on the other should be improved. I just want to give the hon. member the assurance that that relationship has never been better than it is at the present time. I want to give him the assurance that the staff associations will confirm this if he approaches them. The relationship between the Management and the staff and between the Administration and the staff has never been better in the past than it is to-day. That is readily admitted by the staff. The staff associations have free access to the Management; they have free access to the Minister. That is proved by the fact that during the whole of these 11 years. I have had the full support and co-operation of the staff associations.

The hon. member for Yeoville then went on to say something else without enlarging upon it. This is quite a serious charge. He talked about promotion and said that people who were promoted to the higher posts were selected from just a certain group of favourites. I shall be glad if the hon. member, when he speaks again, will give us the facts to bear out his statement. I can tell him in advance that that statement is devoid of all truth and that as a matter of fact there is no organization in which promotions are made on a fairer basis than in the Railway Service. Where promotions are made, the railwayman who feels aggrieved has the opportunity to lodge an appeal if he is not satisfied. The procedure is that nominations are submitted, but the recommendations are made by the Service Commission for approval by the Management. They are responsible for it. As far as the artisan staff is concerned, there is a merit system which has their support. That is the basis on which promotions are made. I most strongly deny therefore that there is any question of preference or that promotions to higher posts are made from the ranks of certain groups of favourites.

I come now to the manpower shortage. We have again heard the old story here, of course—a story which has been repeated ad nauseam—that the manpower shortage is due to the fact that the Government put a stop to the United Party’s immigration policy. Sir, that is utter nonsense. Surely it is an indisputable fact that if a situation of full employment is maintained in normal times, there must inevitably be a manpower shortage when there is a great upsurge in the economy. Even if we had continued with this immigration policy therefore, and even if thousands of additional people had entered this country under conditions of full employment, there would still have been a manpower shortage with this tremendous upsurge in our economy, with this unheard-of expansion. I say that this is the old story that we have been hearing all these years. That is simply not the position.

The hon. member for Yeoville wants to know what I am doing to meet this shortage. Sir, that is quite a fair question and I will tell him what we are doing. In the first place we periodically bring about improvements in wages and working conditions. But, as I have said on previous occasions, it is impossible for the State to compete with a private employer as far as wages are concerned. Whereas I would be placing a burden of R26,000,000 on the Railways if I increased wages by 10 per cent, the private employer, who perhaps employs only 10 or 15 people, can afford to pay wages which are 50 per cent or 60 per cent higher than the wages which the State and the Railways can afford to pay. But as far as it is within the financial power of the Railways to do so, we do periodically improve wages and working conditions. Then there is the question of mechanization. Mechanization naturally saves manpower. One of the matters which constantly receive attention is the question as to where we can possibly make use of mechanization. Thirdly, there is the provision of facilities. The hon. member talked about facilities which ought to be provided at certain marshalling yards. Facilities are continually being provided, perhaps not facilities of the particular kind mentioned by him, but we are doing everything we can to provide the necessary facilities for the staff. Efforts are constantly being made to increase the productivity of the staff, because it follows that when productivity is increased one needs less manpower to cope with the work. Intensive training is given to the staff so that they can be more efficient in the particular work that they perform. Study bursaries are granted. Of the students to whom study bursaries were granted, 31 have already completed their studies and at the moment there are 270 students who are studying on study bursaries. Housing is also provided. This is one of the most important measures that can be taken, not only to attract staff but to retain staff, because as far as departmental housing in particular is concerned, bearing in mind the low rental which is charged for these departmental houses, the provisions of housing is an enormous attraction. As I have said already R5,000,000 is being set aside this year for the building of more departmental houses. We also build hostels and homes, particularly for unmarried persons. They can get board and lodging there at very low rates. Then there is the question of the employment of pensioners and women. This is being done on a large scale. There are numerous pensioners in the service at the present time, and more and more women are being employed for work for which they are suitable. As hon. members will have seen recently, women have been appointed on the Johannesburg station as ticket clippers. This is being done on a large scale. Lastly there is the question of recruiting. We are continually launching recruiting campaigns. The hon. member says that more non-Whites must be employed in posts formerly occupied by Whites, but he says that it must only be done with the approval of the staff associations. The hon. member has not told us to which posts he refers. I asked him what would happen if the staff associations did not agree, and his reply was that it would be the Minister’s fault if he failed to convince them. What a futile approach!

That was not all I said in that regard.

On the one hand the hon. member wants to satisfy the liberals in his party by suggesting that they are in favour of the proposition that non-Whites should be employed in the service on a large scale, but on the other hand he is scared that they are going to lose votes amongst the staff. They therefore have to play up to the staff as well. Sir, why cannot hon. members on the other side adopt some definite attitude? If they are in favour of it, if they feel that it is in the interests of the country and in the interests of the country’s economy that more non-Whites should be employed in posts formerly occupied by Whites, why do they not say so candidly? They always want to satisfy both sides. If one adopts an attitude based on principle, one should be prepared, even if one becomes unpopular, to maintain that principle. They always leave a loophole for themselves; they always say, “Yes, but the staff association …” They say this when they know deep down in their hearts that the staff associations are not prepared to agree to the appointment of non-Whites to certain posts. They now say, “We are in favour of it but the staff associations are not.” They adopt the same attitude in connection with the mining industry. On a previous occasion when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition fulminated here against job reservation and when I referred him to job reservation in terms of the Mines and Industries Act, which provides that certain work may not be done by non-Whites, and asked him whether he wanted job reservation abolished in the mines, he also said, “Yes, if the staff and the employers agree to it.” In other words, they are unable themselves to adopt a clear attitude. They are not prepared to adopt an attitude based on principle; they always want to speak with two voices. As I have said on a previous occasion, it is typical of the United Party to place expediency before principle.

In this connection let me just say this: The accusation has been made here that we have departed from the traditional policy in connection with the employment of non-Whites. But that is not the position, and we have said so repeatedly although not in this particular debate. I want to repeat what I said on a previous occasion, and that is that this has been done for years already. It is no new policy. Non-Whites are appointed to certain posts formerly occupied by Whites. It has been done throughout the years. As far as rail workers are concerned, it has been done for 17 years or longer, for the simple reason, firstly, that the White man no longer wishes to do pick and shovel work and, secondly, the White man is given a better post. But this is also being done in connection with other posts. Non-White ticket clerks have been appointed throughout the years; non-White gate attendants and non-White stokers have been appointed throughout the years. I am not referring here to firemen on locomotives but to stokers on boats. [Interjections.] That is old policy; it has been done throughout the years. We have non-White stokers on boats; we have non-White trainee stokers (“kwekelingstokers”). The term “kwekelingstoker” is really incorrect; what is meant is “locomotive cleaner”, the sort of work which I did in my days. But instead of the White lad first having to clean locomotives, as I had to do, we make him a trainee locomotive fireman immediately. Then there are non-White flagmen, non-White messengers, non-White semi-skilled workers. As I say, these are all things which have been done throughout the years; this is no new policy. I want to add that all this has been done in consultation with the staff associations concerned; they agreed to it. This practice may perhaps be extended further in the future, where necessary. I want to point out too that there are certain posts in which non-Whites cannot be employed and where I am sure the staff associations would not agree to it. Let me give a few examples. We have a serious shortage of station foremen and station masters, but I do not think there is any hon. member on that side who would suggest that non-White station masters should be appointed in White areas. In the case of conductors, firemen, drivers’ assistants on locomotives, skilled artisans, to mention just a few posts, it would be quite impracticable and undesirable to appoint non-Whites.

What about shunters?

As far as shunters are concerned, that is a possibility if the staff associations agree to it. [Laughter.] That has always been our policy. We do not try to give the country the impression that we are the people who are anxious to give all those opportunities to the non-Whites in our economy; that we want to appoint them to posts formerly occupied by Whites because we are so concerned about their future. In other words, we do not try to evade the issue and to say that this is the liberal attitude of the Government.

I come now to the so-called lack of planning. Mr. Speaker, I have seldom heard as much nonsense talked on any subject as the Opposition talked here on this subject. It is perfectly clear to me that most of them do not have the slightest idea as to what planning really involves. They confuse planning with the implementation of large schemes. They are two entirely different things. The hon. member for Durban (Point), for example, said that there was a lack of planning with regard to the Durban harbour, but at the same time he said that the planning was completed years ago. His real complaint is that these schemes have not been carried out earlier. The planning was completed years ago by the Moffat Commission which then submitted its report. They recommended at the time that a start be made with the expansion in a particular year and in fact it was started years before that date. In other words, instead of accepting that recommendation in connection with the date on which a start was to be made with this expansion, we started with it at a much earlier stage. It has nothing to do with planning therefore; it is a question of the execution of the work. The hon. member for Yeoville also admits that the planning in respect of the Midway-Nelspruit line was completed some years ago, but he says that the work has not yet been started. Sir, that is not planning; it is a question of the execution of a scheme. There are many good reasons why it has not yet been undertaken. But it is not a question of lack of planning. As far as planning is concerned, I want to ask hon. members to read paragraphs 75 to 83 of the Schumann Report; they will then see what it really embraces, what the composition of the Planning Division and the Planning Council is. They will also see that the Schumann Committee speaks in laudatory terms of the Planning Division and the Planning Council of the Railways. I want to give just a few examples too so that the hon. members can understand what planning really involves. The first is long-term planning and the second is short-term planning. Long-term planning takes place on the basis of the particular annual percentage increase in traffic, having due regard to peak and valley periods, the economic justification for new works and the financial implications. That is the broad basis. Let me give an example. I want to indicate how one particular aspect of planning really takes place. Details as to the carrying capacity of every section are available in the Planning Office. It is first calculated, as far as a particular section is concerned, what the maximum capacity of that section is, that is to say, the maximum number of trains which can run over that section and the maximum tonnage that can be transported. The number of trains presently running over that section is taken and it is then determined whether or not there is any surplus capacity. The normal increase in traffic is taken into account and it is then determined, on the basis of the continual increase in traffic, in which year saturation point will be reached. It is then decided what form the increased capacity or the carrying capacity should take and when the work should be done. For example, an increase in the carrying capacity can be brought about by way of dieselization, which is usually an interim measure, or by way of central traffic control or electrification and, lastly, by doubling the line. But something unexpected may happen, of course. Huge new industries which nobody foresaw may be established, the goods of which have to be transported over that particular section. New mines may be opened. In that case, of course, the work has to be expedited. One must always be on one’s guard, however, against surplus capacity over a long period, because that means unproductive capital. Let me give an example of short-term planning. A bottleneck may arise unexpectedly and provision has to be made for it immediately. This is not a matter which can be planned years in advance. It was announced in January of this year that Foscor had entered into a contract with Japanese buyers for the sale of magnetite and that as from the end of the following year approximately 800,000 to 900,000 tons per annum would have to be transported to the coast for export. The line from Phalaborwa to Komatipoort goes through the Kruger Game Reserve. It is a light line and it simply cannot carry this traffic. We will really have to build an entirely new line which will completely by-pass the Kruger Game Reserve on the left, a line with lighter gradients, with bends which are not so sharp and with heavier rails. It will take many years to build the line, but in the interim some other measure must be taken. The only way in which one can handle that traffic, although not quite satisfactorily, is by introducing diesel tractive power. There was no planning in this regard, and the result is that we are now faced with an accomplished fact. It has therefore been decided to purchase 20 diesel locomotives at a cost of R2,000,000. Those locomotives have to be delivered this year. As I say, this is the sort of short-term planning that is necessary to eliminate bottlenecks which suddenly arise.

As far as the implementation of these schemes is concerned, it is all very well to have planning and to say when a particular scheme should be started. The hon. member spoke of co-ordination between financial planning and physical planning. That is constantly taking place. The financial implications have to be taken into account but in addition to that one must always take into consideration the available capital funds and the available manpower before the scheme can be undertaken.

Why do you keep this such a secret?

No, we do not keep it a secret; the hon. member need only look at the Brown Book; there he will see everything. I say that the same applies to the purchase of rolling stock. These are just two examples.

I want to give an example now of the complete lack of planning that there was under United Party rule. As an example of this I am going to mention the Hex River tunnel, about which hon. members on the other side have had such a great deal to say here. This Hex River tunnel was started by the United Party Government in 1947. It would only have been needed 20 years later. In other words, for about 20 years there would have been surplus capacity; that capital would have been unproductive. But that is not all; they tackled the Hex River tunnel project and neglected more urgent essential work of which I want to give one example, namely the regrading and relaying of the Cape Midlands line. That project was shelved. Mr. Speaker, do you know why they started in 1947 with the Hex River tunnel? The hon. member for Yeoville gave us the reason. He said, “It was spectacular and it appealed to public imagination.” Just imagine, Mr. Speaker, they were prepared to spend millions of rand, not to meet the requirements of the country or of the Railways, but “for something spectacular that would appeal to public imagination.”

That was not the reason; that is an unfair representation of what I said.

There was no planning whatsoever. Can you imagine that any responsible Minister of Transport would be prepared to embark on a scheme which will only be needed 20 years afterwards, that he will be prepared to spend millions of pounds on it, and to shelve more urgent works which are necessary to meet the requirements of the Railways?

I said no such thing.

The hon. member talks about something “spectacular” and about “public imagination”. I want to refer him to the hotels that they wanted to build. Would the building of hotels have met the transportation requirements of the Railways? Sir, hon. members opposite ought not even to mention the Hex River tunnel because in doing so they only reveal their lack of planning and the lack of vision on the part of the then United Party Government. If I were in their shoes I would be too ashamed to mention the Hex River tunnel. And then they talk about planning and say that there has been no efficient planning! I say again that all they need do is to read the report of the Schumann Committee. This was an impartial committee which was composed of outsiders, of people representing the most important industries and commercial bodies, not of railwaymen. And if you look at the report, Sir, you will see how much praise is showered upon the Planning Division of the Railways.

The hon. member also referred to the pipeline as a further example. He says that it is because of lack of planning that the pipeline will only be ready for use at the beginning of next year. He says that they agitated for this pipeline for years. But, of course, the United Party is prepared to agitate for anything; they are irresponsible; they are prepared to ask for the moon; they know that if they suggest something within the realm of possibility—something must happen sooner or later—then they can claim the credit for themselves eventually. The Van Eck Commission was specially appointed to examine this whole question of the pipeline thoroughly and to put forward recommendations. The Van Eck Commission reported in 1958, and do you know what they recommended? After they had considered everything and after a very thorough investigation by men for whom we all have the greatest respect, the Van Eck Commission recommended that this matter should be considered again in 1968 and that if it was then found to be justified, the building of the pipeline should be proceeded with so that it can come into operation in 1971. Hon. members opposite talk about lack of vision. This pipeline will now come into operation five years before 1971, five years before the year recommended by the commission. How in heaven’s name can they talk about lack of vision? The decision to construct this pipeline was taken before this enormous upsurge started in South Africa, so it is not even the outcome of the present economic upsurge. But it was because we looked to the future that we decided to proceed at this stage with the construction of the pipeline, and it will now come into operation in February 1966. The hon. member says that this pipeline will relieve the pressure on the Natal mainline to a very large extent. Sir, this is one of the matters in respect of which I said that the hon. member had made a superficial study of his subject. The extent of the relief that the pipeline will bring about in respect of that line is confined to four trains in both directions between Durban and Ladysmith and two trains per day in both directions between Ladysmith and Germiston, which is not a very great relief. The necessity for the pipeline lies mainly in the fact that it will ensure a constant flow of fuel between Durban and the Free State and the Transvaal; it will ensure that in the event of a derailment or some dislocation the supply of fuel will not be affected but that there will be a constant supply of fuel, and in addition to that, of course, it will naturally relieve the pressure on that particular line to a certain extent.

Another example of a somewhat superficial study made by the hon. member is the connecting line that he advocated between Modder River and Koffiefontein. He said that such a line would considerably relieve the pressure on the Postmasburg-Beaconsfield-De Aar section. Here again the hon. member did not study his brief very well. There is no overloading of the line between Beaconsfield and De Aar. This is a line which was only recently doubled. In other words, there is no bottleneck there. But if a line is constructed from Modder River to Koffiefontein, it will mean, apart from the building of that line, that the line from Koffiefonten to Springfontein will also have to be rebuilt because it is a light line. In other words, the line that will really have to be built is from Modder River to Springfontein, and if the traffic is diverted there, then there will be a bottleneck again and the line will be over-loaded between Springfontein and Noupoort. It is therefore of no practical value. This matter has often been investigated to see whether the building of this line is justified. There is very little traffic and very little potential traffic in the Koffiefontein area. Its only value would lie in the diversion of traffic from Modder River to Springfontein-Noupoort, but, as I have said, there is no necessity for it.

Another line which the hon. member describes as one of his favourite lines is the link-up between Connandale and Candover. I do not know why he referred to Connandale because Connandale as such has never been considered; what has been considered is a line from Piet Retief to Candover. But here again the hon. member made a very superficial study of the matter. Three routes were investigated: Piet Retief to Candover; to Mkuzi and to Empangeni from Vryheid. It was found that the line from Vryheid to Empangeni was the cheapest of the three lines. The hon. member will agree with me. The line from Vryheid to Empangeni has this great advantage that if the line were built from Piet Retief it would, it is true, be able to divert the Eastern Transvaal traffic to some extent, or it would be able to direct the traffic on the North Coast line to the Eastern Transvaal, but the Vryheid-Empangeni line would carry all the coal and anthracite for export over that shorter route and considerably relieve the pressure on the Hlobane-Glencoe-Durban line. Secondly, it would also be suitable for the diversion of all traffic from the Eastern Transvaal to Durban and vice versa, from Durban to the Eastern Transvaal, a double advantage. Thirdly, if a harbour is built at some future date at Richards Bay, it will be the shortest link (about 12 or 14 miles) between Empangeni and Richards Bay. If the hon. member had asked me for it just before he made his speech, I would have given him all this information. These are just a few examples of the Opposition’s lack of understanding of planning and of their lack of knowledge of the actual conditions and of the superficial study that they make of this subject.

Hon. members have complained that certain major works have been delayed. The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw), mentioned, amongst other things, the expansion at the Durban harbour, the electrification from Durban to Mandini and Durban to Cato Ridge. Sir, this is the same Opposition as the hon. member for Parow has pointed out, who strenuously objected a few years ago to the large capital expenditure of the Railways. Take the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant). He objected very strongly to the “over-capitalization of the Railways”. That was in 1960 and in 1961. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) objected to it and so did the economic expert of Jeppes (Dr. Cronje). They all objected to the heavy capital expenditure. Sir, if that heavy capital expenditure had not been incurred, what would the position have been to-day? I think the House will be interested to hear what hon. members opposite said in this connection in 1960. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) said this—

Not unproductive capital, but capital investment. Yesterday the hon. member tried to get out of it when my hon. friend over there quoted him, but here I am quoting his own words—

What did the hon. member for Turffonteinsay?—

That was in 1960. At that time they did not want large amounts to be spent on major works to improve the Railways and to provide new facilities. They did not even have the confidence in South Africa to believe that there would be an expansion in the economic sphere. What did the economic expert of Jeppes say? He said—

That is the sort of nonsense that they uttered at that time. They did not want us to incur heavy capital expenditure; they objected to it. They did not want us to make provision for the future, but to-day these same gentlemen come along and complain that these major works were not undertaken sooner; they want to know why we waited so long. But in those days when we had to undertake major works they objected to the capital expenditure. In the next year, in 1961, they reopened this matter and on that occasion the hon. member for Turffontein said this—

That is the sort of story that we heard from them. Mr. Speaker, if I had propagated stories of that kind in the past I would certainly not have had the audacity to come here to-day and complain that certain major works should have been undertaken sooner.

In quoting what you did you left out the most important statement, and that is with regard to the role that private hauliers could play.

The hon. member will have an opportunity to speak again. It is very difficult sometimes to follow him. He is inclined to be rather confused, as I shall indicate in a moment, in connection with his figures. Hon. members have complained bitterly about the fact that so far I have not made my decisions known in connection with the recommendations of the Schumann Committee. Let me first remind them of the fact that the report of the Newton Committee—the last committee that was appointed to investigate the tariff system of the Railways—was submitted in September 1949 and that the new tariff structure only came into operation five years afterwards, in September 1954. Hon. members must realize that the framing of tariffs is a highly intricate matter; it is a scientific task. Every recommendation has to be studied properly; all implications have to be studied, and it would be very unwise to come to over-hasty decisions. Moreover, I delayed my decision in connection with the recommendations at the request of commerce and industry and of the agricultural industry. I did so at their request. They asked for an opportunity not only to submit memoranda but also to have a personal interview with me. I agreed because this was an important matter which affects the country as a whole. The last memoranda came in after December and the last interview with commerce took place just a few weeks ago. There has been no avoidable delay. I repeat that one cannot come to over-hasty decisions in connection with an important matter of this kind. That is the reason why no decisions have been announced up to the present moment. They will be announced as soon as possible. The moment I arrive at my decisions I will make them known to the country.

Hon. members on this side have pleaded that the recommendations of the Schumann Committee in connection with tariffs on agricultural produce must not be accepted. All I can say to them is that I will give due weight to their representations when I make my decisions.

There are a few other matters referred to by hon. members that I want to deal with briefly. The hon. member for De Aar-Colesberg (Mr. M. J. de la R. Venter) referred to the income-tax that servants have to pay on their overtime earnings. That is a matter for the Minister of Finance, as the hon. member knows. He also said that where servants were sentenced for some misdemeanour or other, they should be re-employed once they have served their sentences. That is done in certain cases. Every case is treated on its merits. As far as the question of improved facilities at Norval’s Pont are concerned, provision has already been made for that in the Additional Estimates. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. J. A. Schlebush) pleaded for the lengthening of the railway line from Bultfontein to Bloemfontein. I have already dealt with this matter on previous occasions. The hon. member knows that a connecting line is at present being built between Ancona and Allanridge. That will bring about a certain amount of relief as far as that line is concerned. It is because of economic reasons that the line is not being lengthened from Bultfontein to Bloemfontein: in other words, it would be a very expensive line. There is no economic justification for it. The hon. member for Kroonstad has asked that training facilities for railway officials be extended to the larger railway centres in the rural areas. If he looks at the Estimates he will see that provision has already been made for a certain amount of decentralization of Esselen Park college. Training centres are being established at various places because the facilities at Esselen Park college are very limited and it is for that reason that we have decided to decentralize.

*The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) was one of the only members who said something about the Budget, and I think what he said merits a reply. The hon. member states that the country is committed to a huge outlay of R600,000,000 on Capital Account. He presumably arrives at this figure by taking the difference between the estimated total cost of all Brown Book items and the amount estimated to be spent on them by 31 March 1965 and he arrives at the figure of R608,400,000 to be expended on the Brown Book programme during 1965-6 and subsequent years.

But this is not all to be financed from new capital. Much of the expenditure is chargeable against the Betterment Fund and the Renewals Fund and the Working Accounts. The Loan Funds commitment included in the figure of R608,400,000 is R425,800,000. This figure, in turn, does not represent commitments made in the Brown Book for the first time but is mostly for works approved by Parliament in previous years and still to be complete. The capital commitment on new items, in fact, amounts to R203,200,000. As hon. members are aware, many works and services take a number of years to bring to completion and as some of the new items are works which will extend over a long period, the amount mentioned is not regarded as excessive.

The hon. member also spoke about coordination. In drawing up the Brown Book programme regard is had, in addition to the need for the actual facilities involved, to the resources both departmental and contractual available to execute the various works and services. Funds are not requested if the physical means of using such funds are not likely to be available. Co-ordination is, therefore, maintained between the demand for additional facilities, the resources available to provide them and the financial outlays required both to cover total cost and to be approved by Parliament annually.

The hon. member also referred to Loan Fund drawings and seemed to doubt whether the amount of R119,500,000 approved by Parliament would be spent. The present indications are that they will be spent.

The hon. member must remember that capital expenditure is financed from other sources than fresh drawings of Loan Funds, viz. capital credits and other moneys already held by the Administration. The practice is to utilize these other moneys first. Furthermore, the monthly expenditure of funds is affected by contract deliveries. For example, rolling stock and other expensive items of material may be greater in one period of the year than in another. Cases also occur where merchants deliver, but payment of their invoices falls into a subsequent month. Frequently substantial sums are so involved.

The hon. member for Turffontein again mixed up his figures and his comparisons. The hon. member contends that the figure of 2.6 per cent increase in staff during the last three years is not correct, according to his analysis.

No, I did not say that.

I have got the hon. member’s speech here. He said that the 2.6 per cent increase in the staff establishment was over the last three years and that this 7.6 per cent increase in staff in three years hauled another 15 per cent increase in traffic.

That is what you said.

Yes. The hon. member continued—

A decline in a single year, from 1964 to 1965.

Even there the hon. member is quite wrong. This 2.6 increase in the staff establishment was not based on White employees but on the total staff establishment, and the staff establishment on 31 December 1962 was 217,245 and on 31 December 1964 it was 222,791, an increase of 2.6 per cent. Then the hon. member compares the figures of White employees given in the General Manager’s Report, namely 114,766 White employees with the White Paper which gives the figure as 113,066, and the hon. member says that there was therefore a decline and not an increase of 2.6 per cent. As I say the hon. member is mixed up. Again the hon. member did not take all employees into consideration.

I was talking about White employees.

But the biggest mistake he made was this: He compared incomparables. He compared the General Manager’s Report which deals with the Financial Year, with the White Paper that deals with the calendar year.

How clever can one be!

I have said in previous years that when the hon. member starts quoting figures, it is very dangerous to accept those figures.

Certain other hon. members have raised minor matters which will receive the necessary attention.

*There were complaints from one of the members on the other side in connection with the appointment of the commission of inquiry into the co-ordination of transport. In this connection I just want to say that various bodies were approached to nominate members. Those bodies could not come together immediately and they first had to be given an opportunity to meet. In addition to that, the terms of reference had to be drawn up. There was no unnecessary delay therefore. But I am in a position now to inform hon. members and the House that the appointment of the commission will be published in the Government Gazette tomorrow. It has already been approved by the State President. I should like to give the House the terms of reference and the names of the members of the commission. The terms of reference are as follows—

1. (a) The legal provisions applicable to the South African Railways concerning the balancing of its budget, and the fact that subsidizing of the Railways by the Central Government is limited to the services mentioned in Sections 105 and 106 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1961 (Act No. 32 of 1961); and
2. (b)the relevant road systems and the standards and carrying capacity of the roads,
   • to investigate and report upon—
     1. (i)the roll which the different forms of transport such as railway, road, air, pipe-line and shipping in the Republic of South Africa and the territory of South West Africa must fulfill to promote the development of national economy in the most efficient manner;
     2. (ii)the nature of the control measures and administrative machinery necessary to ensure that the role determined for each form of transport, in accordance with paragraph (i), is fulfilled in the most efficient manner, either separately or by way of co-ordination with one or more of the other forms of transport; and
     3. (iii)any other matter which the Minister of Transport may refer to the Commission.

Those are the terms of reference. The members will be the following: The chairman will be Dr. M. D. Marais, a well-known economist and prominent businessman in South Africa, who was also vice-chairman of the Schumann Commission. Other members will be the following: Representing the S.A. Railway Administration, Mr. P. G. Joubert (Deputy General Manager); representing the National Transport Commission, Mr. A. B. Anderson (Deputy Secretary for Transport); representing the Transport Consultative Committee, Mr. D. W.R. Hertzog (member of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituuty, then Mr. H. G. Ashworth, who is a member of the organization of the Association of Chambers of Commerce of South Africa; Mr. L. Lulofs, who is a member of the organization of the S.A. Federated Chamber of Industries. The mining industries nominated Mr. A. Louw; the S.A. Agricultural Union nominated Mr. J. F. van Wyk; the S.A. Shipowners’ Association nominated Mr. W. M. Grindrod; the civil commercial aviation interests nominated Mr. L. Zimmerman. The Secretary will be Mr. M. van der S. Dreyer of the Department of Transport and the assistant secretary Mr. J. J. Horn (S.A. Railway Administration.)

Almost a conference.

The terms of reference are comprehensive. After all, the hon. member wanted a conference. This is a representative commission on which all the most important interests will be represented. It includes all the transport interests, railways, airways, shipping and even road transport. I think I have dealt with all the important points now, as well as the points referred to in the amendment. I just want to say again that it is a very easy matter for the Opposition to demand unlimited wage increases. If wages are increased, however, and are then followed by tariff increases, hon. members on the other side would be the first to object. I want to say again that where I can make concessions I will do so, having due regard to the ability of the S.A. Railways to foot the bill.

I fully realize that the Railways are heading for a very difficult period. In parenthesis, however, I do want to say to those industrialists who keep on complaining and who always run to the newspapers with their complaints, that to a large extent they are responsible for the difficulties experienced by the Railways at the present time inasmuch as they entice my workers away from the Railway Service. They cannot have it both ways. I want to give the House the assurance, however, that we will do everything in our power to meet the transport requirements of the country.

I am convinced that every Railway worker, from the most senior to the most junior, will put his shoulder to the wheel and do his utmost to see that things go smoothly.

Will you also do that in connection with wages?

Sir, the hon. member over there has wages on his brain. Ever since the thought has struck him that he represents a number of Railway workers, he has suddenly been terribly interested in the Railway workers. But I want to say that the Railwaymen to whom I referred a moment ago also expect goodwill and encouragement and appreciation instead of attacks.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and H. J. van Wyk.

NOES—37: Basson, J. A. L.; Bloomberg, A.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Hopewell. A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell. M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Taurog, L. B.; Taylor, C. D.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and N. G. Eaton.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

The House resolved itself into Committee on Railway Estimates.

House in Committee:

Estimates of Expenditure from Revenue Funds:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to address you for a few minutes on the item “Minister’s salary” with reference to his reply to the Budget debate we had from him a few moments ago. It was a very interesting reply and we are grateful to the hon. the Minister for having replied in such detail and for having replied so thoroughly to practically every point raised by the Opposition. I appreciate it and I want the Minister to know that we appreciate it. But what he said is of course a different matter. I am afraid that, except in one case, we are no wiser than we were before the Minister spoke. The Minister criticized us for not having discussed his Budget. That is true to some extent. Hon. members on this side did indeed discuss the Budget but most of us had to discuss what the Minister had omitted from his Budget speech; because the Minister did not give us an exposition of his plans for next year. That was why it was necessary for us to emphasize those portions of his plans for next year which the Minister omitted to tell us about and I think we have made some progress. I am pleased that we have clarity in one respect and that is in regard to the appointment of the Marais Commission. We think the terms of reference are exactly what we on this side of the House have asked for. The Minister cannot go wrong if he draws up the terms of reference on those lines.

Order! Does the hon. member not think it would be better to discuss that during the second reading of the Bill?

As you wish, Sir. But I was under the impression that under the Minister’s salary we could discuss such an important matter as this commission. But I just want to say that I am pleased it is such a representative commission. The only people who have been omitted are those who have a knowledge of statistics but officials may perhaps be able to assist the commission in that regard. We have no complaint about that.

However, I want to return to the Minister and ask him how it is that he told us so little and how it is that we learnt so little from his Estimates about his plans regarding the staff. We raised the matter on other occasions but it remains very unsatisfactory. I think the time has arrived for the Minister to tell us whether he agrees with the statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister earlier this year when he said very clearly that it was not the intention of the Government to grant increases to Government staff in normal circumstances.

Quote him.

The Deputy Minister says I must quote the Prime Minister. The hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) was sharply rebuked by the hon. the Minister for having used the word “gluttons” (vrate). What did the Prime Minister say? The Prime Minister first pointed out—and I summarize from his speech—

Quote him.

I shall read from it but I shall deal with the matter in my own way. The Prime Minister said it was difficult and practically impossible—and the Minister of Transport said the same—for the State to compete with private enterprise as far as wages were concerned. The Minister nods his head in agreement. I am therefore not doing the Prime Minister an injustice and it is consequently not necessary for me even to read it. Secondly the Prime Minister pointed out that wage increases could lead to inflation and could put a stop to the economic upsurge we were experiencing in South Africa. He pointed out that this economic upsurge was the strongest argument South Africa had to-day internationally. I think that is also a reasonable summary. Then he said this—

What could be a clearer warning to people not to ask for higher wages than telling them it would be unpatriotic and that they would jeopardize the safety of South Africa? I am pleased the Minister agrees with me. Did the hon. the Prime Minister deny that prices were rising in South Africa? His words were—

In other words, rising rentals do not count, rising transport costs do not count and all the other increases do not count. The only thing that was of interest to the Prime Minister was the increase in the price of foodstuffs, which is actually wrong. There are other increases. The hon. the Prime Minister then pointed out how the people had received wage increases under the Nationalist Government and he then uttered these significant words—

He says they desire more—

Where do the “gluttons” come in?

We of the Opposition say that, when the Prime Minister of a Government tell people not to insist on wage increases because it is unpatriotic; that they are asking the Government to do the impossible thing and that they do not need it; that they only desire more; that they desire what they do not require in an unpatriotic manner, we are entitled to interpret the Government’s attitude to be that those people who do demand it are gluttons, and we make the strongest objection to that. We have heard a great deal of the wonderful wage increases the railwaymen have received. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) said that in some cases their wages had increased by 100 per cent. But is the Minister convinced that the railwayman receives his reasonable share of the increased national income of South Africa? That is the test, Sir. It is no good saying people have received up to 100 per cent increases. In 1948 when the United Party was in power, according to the index figure used to-day, the cost of living index figure was 66.8 and to-day it is 111.5. In other words, the pound of 20 shillings of 1948 is worth 119 cent to-day. But that is not taken in account. The real purchasing power of the person whose salary rose from R100 to R200 per month has in actual fact only increased by 20 per cent. But what has been the national income during the same period? The national income was R1,558,000,000 per annum in 1948 and according to the latest figures available it is nearly R6,000,000,000 today, nearly four times as much. Has any railwayman received an increase of 400 per cent when you compare the value of money in 1948 with its value to-day; has any railwayman a fair share in the rise in the national income? No, not one. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) did not quote correctly what the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) had said. The hon. member for Maitland said this in reference to the words used by the hon. the Prime Minister: “They are not the gluttons and the people who are desirous to whom the Prime Minister has referred.” The Prime Minister said people desired more but do the hon. members for Maitland and Yeoville not know Afrikaans? There is a big difference between “desire” (begeer) and “desirous” (begerig). They need only refer to the dictionary. To “desire” is when somebody wants something but “desirous” has a bad meaning; it means that somebody desires something to which he is not entitled.

That is precisely what the Prime Minister said.

No, the Prime Minister said people desired more and he found no fault with that. If you read his speech again you will find he said it must only happen in a responsible way. He made no objection to people desiring more. He simply stated a fact which is true; people desire more. The Prime Minister did not say what the hon. members for Maitland and Yeoville have attributed to him; he did not speak about people being “desirous” or of the “gluttons”. That is a completely wrong interpretation of the words used by the Prime Minister.

As far as this matter is concerned the hon. member for Maitland also did me an injustice. He said these people who are being reviled by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) as being desirous, the gluttons …

By implication.

There the hon. member is repeating it. I say I did not say it and that even by implication he cannot place that interpretation on it. I challenge the hon. member for Maitland at a later stage to read the portions of my speech where he can put that interpretation on my words by implication. But he cannot do it. He quoted me further and said: “The hon. member must not say the railwaymen are asking for money but ought not to get it.” I challenge the hon. member for Maitland to read those portions of my speech where it can be implied that I had said that. What I said in my speech was this. I said I thought the Minister of Transport did what the staff asked him to do and that the Federal Board of the Staff Associations had met the Minister in 1954 and asked him to grant a holiday bonus rather than a wage increase and that the Minister had granted that bonus. I said nothing further about wage demands.

But there were further wage demands.

It is no good that hon. member being in such a hurry. I went further. In reply to the statement by the hon. member for Yeoville who said overtime should be consolidated with wages so that the people could meet the rising cost of living when there was no further overtime, I made a comparison between the cost of living on the one hand and the wage increases given to various groups of railwaymen on the other hand. I want to challenge the hon. member for Maitland who, in his over-enthusiasm to curry favour with the railwaymen, attributed words to me which I never uttered, to read the relevant portions from my speech where I reviled the railwaymen and said they were “gluttons” and “desirous”. I challenge the hon. member to prove where I said the railwaymen were asking for money but ought not to get it, even where he can by implication place that interpretation on my words. If he is a man he will get up and apologize for this misrepresentation. I want to say this to the hon. member for Maitland. If there is anything which the railway staff deprecate then it is the way in which the Opposition is continually making a political football of them in this House. And if there is anything the railway staff associations deprecate it is when the Opposition try to do their work for them; work they are quite capable of doing themselves.

Sir, I trust you will afford me an opportunity of correcting a mistake which slipped into my speech during the debate on the motion to go into Committee of Supply. When I checked my Hansard speech I found I had said that during the period 1957-64 the White staff had increased by 11.1 per cent. That is wrong. Although the White staff did increase during that period the increase was not 11.1 per cent. What I did want to say—and I have it in my notes—was that the White staff had increased by 11.1 per cent during the period 1951-64. The hon. member for Turffontein need not look so pleased because I made a mistake. It does not alter my argument in any way. The fact of the matter is that the White staff did increase over the period of 1957-64 but by a smaller percentage. [Interjections.] I say I made a mistake as far as the years 1951 and 1957 were concerned. I read it in the newspapers the next morning and I could not believe my eyes. I consulted my Hansard copy and that tallied with the newspapers. I take it I made a mistake. I spoke against time. Hon. members know I had to reply to an hon. member opposite who had spoken for an hour and I only had half an hour. When you are in a hurry you can easily make a mistake but that does not detract from my argument that during that period of seven years, from 1957 to 1964, the White staff had increased and the non-White staff decreased.

I think it was a fine gesture on the part of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) readily to have admitted that he had made a mistake. We all know a mistake can easily be made in the heat of debate. We appreciate the fact that he has availed himself of the first opportunity to correct it. It is only a pity that he did not do so immediately when the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) was addressing him in that regard because had he done so a long argument might perhaps have been avoided.

I had not yet realized it at that stage.

I accept that. I pointed out earlier on that the national income had increased practically fourfold while the best figures the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) could quote in respect of wage and salary increases received by railwaymen were just over 100 per cent. I do not want the House to adduce from that that there should be strict correlation between national income and salaries and wages but I mention it to show how wrong and unfair it is to make comparisons of this nature on a percentage basis in order to defend your attitude that these people should not receive further concessions; because the only reason why this argument was advanced was to try to convince the House that the railwaymen did not need higher incomes.

But I did not even say that by implication.

I think it would be much sounder if we rather argued on the basis of whether the people could maintain the standard of living a White South African could expect to maintain in the changing circumstances of South Africa on the income they were receiving to-day. I say changing circumstances because people in other employment who live on the same level as they do live infinitely better and the railwaymen feel that they are falling behind. It is human and right that in the competition to get in front in life people must not sit still when they see they are falling behind others. I think it is inhuman and unfair on the part of the Minister, particularly on the part of hon. members who represent the railwaymen, like the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East), to argue at length in an effort to convince us that it is wrong on our part to say that the railwayman is having a hard time to-day. The Minister must remember what our main argument was. Our main argument was that it was particularly unfair that railwaymen had to maintain their standard of living to-day by working excessive overtime. From that flowed the fact that once people had become accustomed to a certain standard of living, it was wrong that they should have to rely on something of a temporary nature like overtime to maintain that standard of living and that was what the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) did; he included overtime in the figures he mentioned. He used overtime as an argument to prove that they were better off than they were previously.

You know of course that only a minority of railway workers work overtime.

Yes, but I am referring to the argument of the hon. member. It would be much better if we took as the basis the right of a person who had done an honest day’s work to be properly compensated for it, compensated in such a way that he will be able to maintain himself in the society in which he moves. That is the test. Then I also do not think it is unfair or unreasonable for people to demand higher wages in these days. The cost of living figures available to us are all obsolete because the inflation which confronts us to-day and about which the Minister of Finance is justifiably and seriously worried, is something which has really only made itself felt during the past few months; it is not yet reflected in the statistics at our disposal. That is enough on that subject but I just want to emphasize again that the railwaymen who come to the Minister and ask that their working conditions and wages be considered are not irresponsible people and I think it is wrong to create the impression that they are only desiring more but do not require more.

The Minister put a very pertinent question to me. He asked me whether I thought discipline should be relaxed where safety regulations were contravened by train staff. That was not my argument. My argument was that that was not taken into account. I did not say it had of necessity to be taken into account; it could be taken into account in the case of offences where the safety of people was not involved. I did not refer specifically to safety regulations. Let me put it this way: If the Minister says it is impossible, for the reasons given by him, to take that into account in the case of safety regulations, does that not show you, Sir, that there is something fundamentally wrong with the position of the staff on the Railways in that men are being asked to work excessive overtime, to wear themselves out, to tire themselves, and that when they contravene the safety regulations in those circumstances, the fact that they were tired cannot be taken into account because it is against the interests of the Railways and jeopardizes the safety of the railway user. It is wrong to place people in a position where they have to work under such circumstances. We should like to see something more positive done to put this matter right. It is inhuman to expect the train staff to continue working these long hours and that other people who are concerned with the running of our trains should have to work under the conditions under which they worked last winter, and will probably again have to do this winter. Something drastic will have to be done in this connection.

Then I come to the question of the relaxation of the conventional colour bar on the Railways. I really tried not to make political capital out of this matter; I really tried to point to the fact that the Minister had a tremendous problem and that he should try to solve that problem in some way or other, but if one way of solving it is relaxation it has to be done with the consent of the trade unions. In the course of his speech the hon. the Minister admitted that he also felt it should take place in consultation with the trade unions …

That is being done.

… But the hon. the Minister then said that we had no principles. Mr. Chairman, I want this on record please, that the United Party’s approach to this matter is one of principle. That principle is very simple and it is this, namely, that when circumstances demand it the conventional colour bar anywhere—in this case on the Railways—must be relaxed. That often becomes necessary. The hon. the Minister gave us a long list of cases where that had become necessary during his term of office. In that case we say it must be done in terms of industrial democracy. That is the principle on which the United Party bases its standpoint. We regard industrial democracy as a principle of dominant importance.

Just answer this question please: There are a number of industries for which there are no trade unions, industries where the wages are in terms of Wage Board determinations; there are no organized employee organizations; who must be consulted in those cases?

Well, those are special circumstances. But we say that where trade unions do indeed exist they must be consulted.

And where they do not exist?

In that case there is State machinery such as the Wage Board, for example, to look after their interests.

No, the Wage Board only determines the wages.

With respect, the hon. Minister’s question is not reasonable either, because 99 per cent of the people who are not organized to-day are non-Whites or Coloureds or Indians. They are not people who will be adversely affected by a relaxation of the colour bar. The hon. the Minister must not try to catch a fish like this with a safety pin; that is a little bit below the Minister’s dignity. Time does not permit me to enlarge on this principle of industrial democracy but it is a fundamental principle. I hope the Minister will negotiate and I trust he will try to prove to those people, not only by word but by deed, that they too can derive great benefit from this. If the Minister approaches the matter in that spirit he may achieve something. I do not want him to achieve it by benefiting one section of the community; I want him to achieve it by benefiting the whole of South Africa in the form of an improved transport system and by relieving the present position of the staff.

The hon. the Minister says the staff shortage on the Railways has nothing to do with the fact that this Government put a stop to the United Party Government’s immigration policy in 1948. He says that if their is full employment in a country …

What policy did you have?

Do you know, Mr. Chairman, I say this in all kindness, but that is an hon. member who taught our children! Poor children! The hon. Minister says we have full employment and for that reason immigration would not have made any difference. But had this economic upsurge been planned, as we have been officially and emphatically informed by the Minister of Finance, this position would not have arisen. The hon. the Minister said last year in his Budget speech that he as Minister of Railways expected a decline in the economic upsurge; that he expected a decline in the tempo of economic development. In other words he did not know of the plans of the Minister of Finance or he did not believe in them; he must decide for himself. [Time limit.]

There was a decrease. I should just like to have clarity in regard to the very interesting point the hon. member raised here. As he says, I tried to throw out the hooks to catch him, but, as I said on a former occasion, that is very difficult. I think we should have a little more clarity in regard to the standpoint of the United Party in connection with the relaxation of the colour bar provided the trade unions and the employers agree to it, or let me rather say provided the trade unions agree, because the employers agree to it in any case. That has been repeatedly stated by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and by that hon. member and by other speakers opposite, that there should be a relaxation in the colour bar—I am referring now to the traditional and the statutory colour bar—provided the employers and the employees agree. I now want to put a very simple question to them, and here I am talking about a matter I know something about because I was Minister of Labour for 6½ years. There are many thousands of workers who do not belong to trade unions. There are many industries and businesses which are not organized. That is the reason why there is a Wage Act and a Wage Board. The Wage Board has nothing to do with the racial composition of the workers in a particular industry or undertaking.

Is there anything which prohibits them from becoming organized?

Nothing.

Then you have already replied to the question.

No, that is not the reply to the question yet. The fact remains that they are not organized; they can be organized, but I shall deal with that matter also. There are thousands of workers of all races, White, Coloured and Bantu, who are not organized. We may ignore the Bantu because in any case their trade unions are not recognized. That is why the Wage Board is there to determine wages and conditions of work, but not the racial composition of the labour force. I now want to put this question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: In that case there is no trade union which can be consulted; they may form a trade union but they do not want to form one, and perhaps in the foreseeable future they will not form one. If there is now a shortage of White workers, are they then in favour of non-Whites replacing those Whites, without consultation? What is their standpoint in that regard? There is no trade union to be consulted, and their standpoint, as the hon. member stated here, is that there should be consultation with the trade unions, and if the trade unions agree then they are in favour of the traditional colour bar being abandoned. But here we have unorganized workers who do not have trade unions and will not get them. In that case there can be no consultation with trade unions. What happens in such a case?

This is a very interesting discussion and I should have liked to take it as far as possible, but I just want to put this question to the Minister: Is there any instance on the S.A. Railways of a number of White workers who belong to no staff association?

The trade unions on the Railways are not 100 per cent representative. Some staff associations are 80 per cent representative, some 70 per cent, and some 85 per cent. I am now talking about the members they have; I am talking about the particular groups who have the right to be represented by them. They urged me for a long time that the closed shop principle should be applied. Hitherto I have refused it because the State cannot apply something like that, because one finds people who have conscientious objections to joining a trade union. The State cannot compel them to join and tell them: “I will not give you work unless you are a member of a particular trade union.” There are large numbers, thousands of White railway workers, who do not belong to staff associations. That is the reply to the hon. member’s question.

I should very much like to discuss the matter with the hon. the Minister, but I hope we shall have another opportunity. The case he quotes here is not relevant. As I understand the position—and the Minister must tell me if I am wrong—the staff associations are not 100 per cent representative; there are staff groups which are in fact represented by a trade union, but individuals in that group are not members of trade unions. Well, then it is their own voluntary deed if they withdraw from the trade unions.

Order! I think the hon. member should come back to the Estimates.

I therefore hope we will be able to discuss this matter on another occasion when we can have a broader discussion. We may perhaps discuss it under the Labour Vote, because it is in the national interest that the two sides of the House should have clarity in this regard.

On a point of order, may an hon. member speak just as many times as he likes under this Vote?

Yes.

I think the hon. the Minister has dealt with the Opposition so effectively that it is not necessary for me to refer to the debate we have had hitherto and I should therefore like to confine myself to a completely new point at this stage. In the last part of par. 11 of the report of the Committee in regard to Railway tariff policy and the establishment of industries in South Africa, I read the following (translation)—

I think that this is the most suitable time to raise a matter of the utmost importance to our farmers in the more extensive farming areas of our country, where stock farming is mostly practiced. In view of the fact that it is accepted that the policy is still being applied of tariffs being determined on the basis of the importance of the article and on the basis of what the traffic can bear, I should like to make a few comparisons in regard to tariffs which will show that the main product of those extensive farming areas, viz. livestock, is in a very unfortunate position. I refer here to areas which in any case do not have rail transport available but are dependent on road motor services, whether private service or the road motor services of the Railways. I want to suggest that the tariff for livestock in this particular case is utterly unrealistic. I just want to make a few comparisons and I hope that the Minister will devote attention to it when next he deals with these matters.

A comparison between road motor service tariffs and railway tariffs shows that the road motor service tariffs are 1½ times as high as the railway tariffs. We accept that this is quite a fair ratio. Our proposition is based on many different tariffs, but in general road motor service tariffs are 1½ times as high as railway tariffs. But when we come to the road motor service tariffs in respect of livestock, we find that the ratio between railway tariffs and road motor service tariffs is a little unrealistic. I have no objection to the Railway tariffs in respect of livestock. May I mention a few examples. The Railway tariff for the transportation of 18 head of cattle over the distance of 150 miles is R23.84, but if one were to transport those same 18 head of cattle over a distance of 150 miles by road motor service, the tariff amounts to R108. The ratio is R108 as against R23.84, more than four times as much. If we transport the same 18 head of cattle over a distance of 250 miles by rail, the tariff is R35.28, whereas the road motor service tariff for the same distance is R180. I just want to say that these figures are absolutely basic figures; they include no additional services. I am merely trying to make a basic comparison between railway tariffs and road motor service tariffs.

I want to take another example. If we were to transport 98 sheep by train over a distance of 150 miles, the tariff would be R18.62; if those 98 sheep were to be transported by road motor service it would cost R73.50. The loading costs are the same, but the road tariff is four times as high as the rail tariff. I also want to give the figures for the transportation of 98 sheen over a distance of 250 miles. The rail tariff is R27.44, as against R122.50 per road. I have taken different amounts at random because there is not such a great difference in all cases; I wanted to make an honest comparison, and we find in every case that the road tariff is three or four times higher than the rail tariff.

I should also like to make another comparison between the various road tariffs. Let us take a commodity like lucerne. If we transport a ten-ton load of lucerne by lorry and trailer over a distance of 180 miles, it costs R44.20. If we used that same unit to transport sheep over the same distance, the figure would be R73.50. If one transported cattle over the same distance, the figure would be R108. Sir, if we test these articles by their essentiality, we readily concede that the tariffs are reasonable and we are very grateful for the reasonable tariffs charged by the Railways for the transportation of livestock. I think livestock is just as essential for our community as these other commodities because it is ready-prepared food for humans which is being marketed.

But I want to take my argument a little further. If we look at the second basis on which tariffs are determined, viz. what the traffic can bear, then I want to state that I really do not think that the traffic in this case, viz. livestock, can afford to bear any extra tariffs. I do not think that the stock farmer, particularly in view of the periodic droughts, is in such a happy position that he can afford to pay a tariff which is so much higher.

I should also like to regard this matter from the economic point of view in so far as road motor services are concerned, although here I am on very thin ice. I know that the Minister will tell me that I am now venturing on to very dangerous terrain because he has his economists to work out his tariffs for him. We find to-day, particularly in the north-west, where road motor services are being used, that the transportation is undertaken to the various towns by road motor services and then the vehicles return empty. We find that the farmers there either use their own lorries or hire lorries, for which exemption is obtained from the National Transport Commission because the farmers there allege that the road motor services tariffs are so high that they cannot afford to pay them. I think that if these tariffs are put on a realistic basis, the hon. the Minister may perhaps find that he will get so much return traffic to the railway stations that it will perhaps compensate for the loss he suffers as the result of reducing the tariff. I may just say that this statement I have just made is accepted by private hauliers. We find that the tariffs of the private hauliers is in most cases far above those of the Minister’s road motor services. It so happens that I have had much experience of it because I have had to deal with the matter every day. [Time limit.]

I suppose it is the right of a frontbencher and also of a Cabinet Minister particularly to give lessons to back-benchers: it is their right and possibly a privilege, and I am certainly prepared to receive parliamentary instruction from any hon. Minister; I shall be only too glad to do so, but I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I am prepared to take parliamentary instruction from no Minister in language which in my humble opinion is not fitting from ministerial lips. The Minister would have had a case—he would have had a very good case—provided he could have proved that I was deliberate in my allegation.

But you were.

The hon. the Minister did not, however, allege that I was deliberate. When I tell the hon. the Minister that in my humble opinion I gave an honest interpretation to the hon. the Prime Minister’s words, what right has the hon. the Minister to say that I am not a decent member of this House?

Order! The hon. the Minister has withdrawn that word; the hon. member may not refer to it again.

I just want to tell the hon. member that I never intended referring to him as not being decent; I want to say that immediately.

I accept it.

That was not my intention.

Then I shall leave the matter there. I just want to repeat that I do not mind receiving parliamentary instruction from the hon. the Minister with his seniority …

You should apologize.

I shall come back to the hon. member in a moment. When the hon. the Minister deals with me, he should just remember that I am not prepared to receive my instruction in the language the Minister used here. I leave it there, Mr. Chairman.

What is the hon. member’s insinuation?

No, I am referring to the other language he used—scandalous language.

His attitude.

Order! Is the insinuation that the hon. the Minister used unparliamentary language?

No. I say it is the type of language which I do not expect from a Minister.

I now come to the challenge issued to me by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg).

Apologize.

I am not prepared to apologize to any hon. member or any Minister in this House; I stand by all my statements. I come to the challenge directed to me by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East). The Opposition said: “We request that the railwayman should be given a larger income”. That was the basic statement and the case of this side of the House. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) told us how well off the railwayman was. The comparison he made was one between the increase in the cost of living and the tremendous increase in the salaries and wages of railwaymen. I then said: “If the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) now says that the railwayman is so well off, why then does he knock on the ministerial door for salary increases? Or must I accept, in the words of the hon. the Prime Minister, that those are the people who desire more, and as my interpretation still stands to-day, are they the desirous people, are they, according to my interpretation, the gluttons (vrate)”? The hon. member can now accept it or not; I say that either by implication, or as the result of the impression his speech made on me, my inference is 100 per cent fair and I stand by it. If the hon. member wants to be sensitive, I just want to tell him that he must not think that this is the first time that someone on the Nationalist side has misinterpreted the United Party. It will not be the first time. I am prepared to leave the matter there.

Let me just come back to the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé). He is the hon. member who yesterday hurled many questions across the floor of the House.

And you could not reply to them.

There is one question which he put to me repeatedly and he would not grant me the privilege of replying to him even by way of a counter question. I beseeched him, as I have never done in my life before, please to give me the right to reply to him by means of a question. I am still waiting for that privilege. And then they are the people who tell me that I should apologize to them. Why? I stand by every point I made and I am not prepared to apologize, not even to the Prime Minister because my interpretation of his words was an honest one. If it was malicious it would have been a different matter. I stand by my interpretation; it was quite honest.

You were quite correct.

I should like to associate myself with hon. members who referred with appreciation and gratitude to what the Minister and the railway personnel have done to comply with the transport requirements of the country, as we have inferred from the Budget speech. Where the Railways, in spite of the manpower shortage, could still achieve what they did, that must be ascribed to the efficient organization on the part of the management and to the high degree of efficiency on the part of the staff; we must also ascribe it to the willingness of the staff to co-operate in order to achieve all that. The Opposition has tried to intimate here that there was a lack of planning and that there was no proper organization and that there was not the highest degree of efficiency in the Railway Service. Sir, the Opposition refers, in season and out, to the manpower shortage of the country, and the Government is blamed for that shortage, whether it be in the Railway Service or elsewhere. We quite understand that, but this manpower shortage is due to the fact that this Government has planned to promote the economic development in this country. When I look at the Opposition, it seems to me that the shoe hurts most in regard to this one aspect about which they raise the most fuss, viz. the manpower shortage. I think there is an acute manpower shortage in the Opposition. It is for that reason that they want to blame the Government to-day for the manpower shortage. The manpower shortage in their ranks is due to the proper planning and organization and responsible government practiced by this side of the House. Where the Railways play such an essential role in the economy of the country, we must accept that the Railways have played their role in the economic progress of the country. One can compare the Railways with the main artery in the human body. If that artery is severed one dies.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the Government on behalf of South West Africa, which owes a debt of gratitude to the Government for its policy in respect of Railways and increased facilities in South West. I think of the narrow gauge lines we had for years in South West and in regard to which the Opposition, when they were in power, could have granted relief. That narrow gauge has been widened right to the north. Recently we were pleased to hear that a fast goods train was being introduced between Cape Town and Windhoek. Goods put on the train here on a Monday now arrive in South West on Friday. That is a tremendous improvement. It must make a contribution towards the development of that territory and we are grateful for it.

A fast passenger service has been introduced, viz. the Southwester. We have not been neglected. Also in terms of air traffic, South West was taken into consideration. There are to-day five direct flights between Windhoek and Johannesburg, with two additional services which stop at intermediate places. That is all due to this Government. The development of our rail facilities there has been properly planned and complies with the needs of the developing area. We are grateful for the announcement made in the Budget speech that the Viscounts will replace the Skymasters in South West Africa. We think of the developments which have taken place at Walvis Bay during the past year. Over a period of 15 years an amount of R8,000,000 was spent by this Government at Walvis Bay in order to handle the goods traffic. We are grateful for it and we do not approach this matter in a belittling way as the Opposition does. We do not try to depict the Railways and their organization in a bad light to the voters outside. We are grateful for the announcement of the extension of the harbour at Luderitz. That is the only harbour which belongs to South West Africa. We are grateful for the services being rendered there. We think of the road motor services which have been introduced in S.W.A. where we have long distances and transportation is difficult. We remember these things with gratitude.

Further, we are glad that the Minister has given the farmers the opportunity to state their case in regard to the recommendations of the Schumann Report. While we have the opportunity of bringing this matter to the notice of the Minister, I should just like to bring the following to the attention of the Minister, in addition to what hon. members on this side have already mentioned. It concerns the transportation of livestock to the markets in the Republic. I am thinking more specifically of the transport of cattle. If the recommendations are to be accepted in regard to the transport of cattle, it will make an appreciable difference to the railage and eventually also to the marketing costs. I have taken three points from which the Cape Town market is supplied. Those are the three cattle areas of South West, the north-western Cape and the Eastern Province. I have taken Outjo, Queenstown and Vryburg. The cost per head from Outjo is R7.54; from Queenstown it is R5.27, and from Vryburg it is R5.19. If these recommendations are implemented, it will mean that the railwage per head from Outjo will be just over R10. That will mean that the average head of cattle, i.e. an animal weighing approximately 450 lb. when slaughtered, together with the railage, will cost 2.36 cents per lb. more, whereas under the present rail tariff it is 1.68 cents; i.e. an increase of 1 cent per lb. if these tariffs are adopted. In the case of Queenstown and Vryburg, it will also lead to increases. The railage from Queenstown will be R7.50, and from Vryburg it will be R7.50. That means that it will affect not only the farmers but also the consumers.

Then I should just like to bring the following to the notice of the Minister. If the Viscounts replace the Skymasters in South West, does that mean that the Viscounts cannot land at Keetmanshoop and Alexander Bay? Will attention be granted to the existing services which to-day serve Keetmanshoop and Alexander Bay if these Viscounts are introduced? Particularly in the case of Alexander Bay, seeing that Alexander Bay makes a large contribution to the passenger traffic between Cape Town and Windhoek. At Alexander Bay people who work there board the plane and also people who work in Oranjemund. Those people have no other transport. There is no rail transport and they necessarily have to go by air. That is why I wanted to bring this matter to the notice of the Minister.

I raised a matter last year in regard to the salaries paid to Coloured labourers on the Railways. I should like to express my personal appreciation to the Minister for the way in which he reacted to me by immediately saying that he would institute an investigation into this matter. A few weeks later the Minister called me and informed me that the salaries of Coloured labourers would be increased by 15 cents a day and that the wage scale of R2 a day would come into operation after five years’ service instead of after ten years. I should like to express to the Minister the appreciation of those whom I represent. I may say that I was asked at public meetings, particularly in East London and Uitenhage, to thank the Minister. That was requested particularly by people who will now go on to the scale of R2 a day after five years instead of after ten years, people who have been in the service for six or seven years and therefore now go on to the scale of R2 a day. Now it may be said that 15 cents a day amounts to about only R3 a month, but if one thinks of the sub-economic conditions in which most of these people live then it is at least half the month’s rental. I appreciate the concession, particularly because the Minister granted it after introducing the Budget. We so often hear that the man in the street does not share in the prevailing prosperity, and with the surplus announced by the Minister I feel that I can make a further appeal to him because my previous appeal did not fall on deaf ears. I want to ask the Minister, in view of the fact that private industry and commerce to-day practically accept that they have to pay R2 a day, whether we cannot set the example by introducing a wage scale of R2 a day?

The fact still remains that when it comes to food and clothing, the cost of living of the Coloured is the same as that of the White man. I want to mention here that I recently had to employ people to clean my house. I cannot plead for higher wages for people doing that type of work if I do not pay them myself. I paid R2 a day for unskilled labour. So that reproach cannot be made against me. I feel that a State undertaking like the Railways ought to accept that principle in view of the fact that it is being accepted to-day by private undertakings. The Railways, being a State undertaking, is surely the undertaking to which we must look to set the example and which we expect to pay wages which will attract the best type of labour.

There is another matter which I should like to bring to the Minister’s notice, and I do so in all sincerity as a representative of the people who sent me to this House. This matter has been discussed in this House, but with the greatest hypocrisy and falseness …

Order! The hon. member may not use such words.

I beg your pardon, Sir, I forgot to say “party-political hypocrisy”.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw both words.

I withdraw them, Sir. If things are said here which are not quite genuine, things which do not quite reveal the sentiments of the heart, it is difficult to get past your ruling, but I leave it there. Last year the hon. the Minister announced that he would send a mission to Europe to seek recruits for the Railways. In the report I read at the time shunters were specifically mentioned. I happened to discuss this matter with an hon. member of this House who does not sit on the Opposition side, because I was visiting him. If one recruits a shunter from Holland, he can speak neither Afrikaans nor English. If one recruits a shunter from Germany, he cannot speak Afrikaans or English; if one recruits one from England he cannot speak Afrikaans, and ten to one one will not understand the English he speaks either. What on earth is wrong that we in this country cannot recruit people from a population group which has a Western background, which talks our language and has our culture and our religion and our way of life as soon as it gets to the same economic level as ourselves? During this debate allegations have been made that the economic prosperity was not foreseen, that there are now more Coloureds employed on the Railways; and then that was controverted by arguments that an even higher percentage of Coloureds was employed on a different occasion, but the crux of the matter was not discussed here honestly by any speaker, viz. that when there is a shortage of manpower and the wheels of the Railways have to be kept rolling, it does not matter whether the stoker or the shunter is a Coloured; he is a citizen of this country who is just as loyal to South Africa as any White man here. One can understand that it cannot be said by the Government: “We employ these people because they can do the work.” because then the hon. member concerned is held responsible by the White voters in his constituency. One can understand that it cannot be said from the side of the Opposition either because the hon. member concerned wants to catch votes for the next election and he will not get them if it is said that Coloureds should be employed. Here we are faced with a form of job reservation which has been in existence since Union. I feel that I can make an appeal to the Government in all honesty and sincerity, when the economic progress and the prosperity of South Africa demand it, to give this population group the opportunity to do what they are well able to do. The question was asked here as to what posts they are suited for. What is a person suited for? A person is suited for the post, firstly, for which he can be trained, and secondly the post for which he has been trained. I can assure the hon. the Minister that if for 80 years the Coloureds were good enough, skilful enough and had the training and the courage to be a bulwark between White South Africa and the savages on the eastern border, then the Coloureds are equally able to be trained to fill the posts for which the Minister now seeks people overseas, people whom he cannot obtain, as he has admitted. Give these people the opportunity. I do not say we should start at the top. Let us begin at the bottom. Let us be honest about it. I am glad that the Minister, in answer to an interjection, said: “Possibly also shunters.” Why cannot we train Coloureds to do that work; why can they not get the benefit of the salaries attached to it; why can we not raise their economic standards in that way? [Time limit.]

I want to bring a matter to the notice of the Minister under Head No. 2, maintenance of railway lines and works. First, just permit me to react briefly. I am sorry that the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) is now leaving the Chamber.

I shall return in a moment.

The hon. member said that words such as those which were used by the hon. the Minister should not be used by Ministers. I feel that was a display of very bad taste on the part of the hon. member. And I am moderating my language when I say that. What right has a hon. member, irrespective of which side of the House he sits, again to raise a matter after the Minister, or any other member, has withdrawn the words after having been ordered by the Speaker to do so?

On a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to argue about something which the Minister has already withdrawn, and which, incidentally, the hon. member has accepted and apologized for?

After the incident was passed the hon. member for Maitland has now raised the matter again in Committee. He referred to it again and that is why I am reacting to it. I am just pointing out that the Minister withdrew the words, and that it is bad taste to raise the matter again in this Committee.

The hon. member must continue with his speech.

The Minister of Justice also did so.

It is also bad taste on the part of that hon. member to mention the name of a Minister who is not in this Chamber. I really hope that the Opposition will cease that type of behaviour, because it really just leaves a bad taste in one’s mouth, in this House which represents the people.

The matter which I want to bring to the Minister’s notice is this. In my constituency there will in the near future be the relaying of the line between Harrismith and Bethlehem to Kroonstad. I am just concerned with the portion of the line which will be rerouted in my constituency. Small stations will necessarily disappear as a result. But we find that quite a number of Bantu are being housed next to the line. They are housed in small groups without any police control. I do not wish to allege that all the Bantu living along the line are guilty of theft, etc., but unfortunately it is the experience of the farmers that where there are such small compounds on their farms, on railway territory, stock theft occurs on a fairly large scale. When the Minister relays the line, I want to ask him to consider the idea which I am now going to express, namely that a stop should be put to the old policy of housing Bantu anywhere along railway lines. I know it is convenient to house the Bantu there because of maintenance work and construction work. We know that when large construction works are undertaken fairly large compounds are established. That does not take place near a station or on a fairly large station where there is police control; nor does it take place near a town where control can be exercised over such a compound. I want to mention one case. With the construction of the tunnel at Van Reenen, a farmer living near those construction works lost more than 70 sheep within a year in the vicinity of that Bantu compound. It may be said that he lost them through other causes, but the farmers know that when an animal gets lost and one cannot find any trace of it, it could only have been lost as the result of theft. If it is necessary to have compounds for the maintenance of our railway lines and for construction works, I want to plead that those compounds should at least be placed under the control of a supervising Bantu constable or, where there are larger compounds, that there should be proper police control. It also creates bad relations in the rural areas between the farmers and the railway construction units if the farmers suffer damage as the result of this type of thing. I believe it is possible that the Bantu doing construction work and maintenance work on the Railways can be accommodated in convenient places and that they can be transported from their homes to their work in a short time in some way. Therefore I ask the Minister, for the sake of good relations and in order to eliminate un necessary losses, to devote attention to my request.

I want to conclude by saying that I have many reasons for thanking the Railways, and particularly the Minister, for their actions in recent years where we had trouble with the transportation of wool and slaughter stock. Whenever we made representations attention was immediately devoted to it. We appreciate the fact that the railway staff are so sympathetic towards the farmers in regard to these problems. At the biggest station in my constituency there have been great improvements in regard to deviation lines and shunting yards. I want to express a particular word of thanks for the better furniture which was made available to the staff of the Harrismith station. We had antiquated furniture which did not redound to our credit. That was replaced by decent furniture. That shows the spirit of the Administration, the Minister and the other heads of the Railways towards their subordinate officials.

I appreciate the explanation that the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. Van Rensburg) gave just now in regard to the statement made in the second reading that the staff complement had increased by 11.1 per cent from the period 1957 to 1964. I regret very much indeed that the hon. gentleman did not indicate that while I was talking and dealing with the mistake he had made. I accept that he had made a mistake in that regard and I accept his explanation. I hope the hon. the Minister will do the same thing, Sir. I want to correct a wrong impression the hon. the Minister left in quoting from my Hansard. I think he did so quite unjustifiably and quite incorrectly. I have my Hansard before me. I received it just before this debate began. I have had no opportunity of correcting or checking it. This is what I did say in dealing with the Minister’s Budget statement that there had been a 2.6 per cent increase of staff hauling a further additional traffic of 15 per cent—

Fullstop! But the Minister went on to read the next paragraph as part of this sentence. That was what the Minister did. The second argument that I came to was this—

And I went on to deal with his statement. My 2.6 per cent referred to what the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) had had to say and had nothing at all to do with my previous contention that a comparison between the General Manager’s figures and the figures in the White Paper indicated clearly that there had been a decline in staff over a period of a year. It had nothing to do whatsoever with the 2.6 per cent and I now hope that the hon. gentleman will take the opportunity of making the same correction his colleague, the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) had made. There was no association between those references and what I had to say about the White Paper or the General Manager’s report. You see, Sir, I have not corrected my Hansard like the Minister corrected his on a previous occasion. The other point the Minister makes …

On a point of order, Sir, what is the insinuation?

Did the hon. member insinuate anything?

No, Mr. Chairman. It is a fact. I did not protest when the Minister corrected a statement. I challenged him that he had said he would be present. He inserted the word “not”. I know it was a mistake on the part of the Minister. The copy I got of his original Hansard and his copy with the alteration give two different variations. But I know what the hon. the Minister intended. The Minister made a justifiable correction just as I an entitled to in putting fullstops and commas in my Hansard report.

But I am still right. You were comparing a calender year with a financial year.

Let me come to that argument. I am dealing with the first contention. The Minister’s argument is that my comparisons are unjustifiable because the report of the General Manager deals with the financial year and the White Paper deals with a calendar year. The White Paper clearly says on the front page “For the Financial year 1965-66”. But the heading of the top states that the figures are for the year ending December 1964. My comparison of the figures was in respect of that year. Does the Minister want to tell me that between December 1964 and the end of the financial year, March 1965, he got an additional 1,700 staff? I am comparing a 12 months’ period, which I am entitled to do. I compared 12 month periods, which I am entitled to do. And I say to the hon. Minister now that when we get the annual report of the General Manager for the year ending 1965, next year, without a shadow of a doubt it will reveal the same disparagement in these figures. I say that the attitude of the hon. Minister and the implications of the Minister’s statement in his reply just now that I gave wrong comparisons and created a wrong impression, is quite unjustified. Just the same as when the hon. Minister refers to the Hansard report of my speech in 1960. Strange as it may be, but I quoted from this Hansard in my speech. I did not say whom I was quoting. The Minister will recall that I quoted out of Hansard in regard to capital expenditure on the Railways. I quoted from that same speech, but why did the hon. Minister not go on with the quotation he read? Because my comparison referring to capital expenditure was in relation to a proper co-ordination of transport between the private sector of the economy and that conducted by the Railways as a public service. I queried capital expenditure in that regard without taking into consideration the overall economic needs of South Africa in respect of transportation. That was my speech in 1960, and for the Minister merely to quote an extract in order to create the impression that we opposed capital expenditure merely as such, created an entirely wrong impression.

Was my quotation incorrect?

No, in 1961 I made the same contention. We made it in 1962 and in 1963, and I did so again this year, 1965. But the significant part of the whole issue is this: That the Minister does not attempt to answer the questions we raised about this capital expenditure. There were very pertinent questions raised. We raised the whole question of the advisability of a policy of spending millions of rand on capital expenditure in the Railways when at the same time the Minister has appointed a commission to determine the proper co-ordination in respect of the whole of the transportation needs of South Africa. The point which I made in my speech was the advisability of following a policy of spending millions of rand and pouring that capital into the Railways when that capital expenditure is for one purpose only, namely to haul uneconomic, unpayable low-rated traffic on the Railways. Because that is the purpose of all this capital expenditure. That is why we want to say to the hon. the Minister in this debate that we are very dissatisfied with the attitude he has adopted towards the Schumann Commission’s report. Why cannot—the Minister be frank? The Minister says that he has had representations from the private sector, from industry and commerce, and it is going to take him another couple of weeks to decide, but in his Budget speech he said that he probably will have to face R6,000,000 in concessions. If he is prepared to pay R6,000,000 in concessions, then he is obviously prepared to accept certain aspects of the Schumann Commission report. The commission suggested certain short-term concessions which would have cost the Railways in the year 1963, upon which the figures of the report are based something like R2,750,000. The Minister says he is going to make a R6,000,000 concession. What we want to know is what the principle is. Does the Minister accept the principle of this report? Is the Minister prepared to accept what the commission recommends, that rates in future should be based on direct cost, on the cost of moving goods from Point A to Point B whether it be agricultural products or mining material? Or is the Minister going to adhere to the policy recommended by the Newton Committee to which he referred this afternoon. There was no suggestion in the Newton Committee Report that all rates should be based on direct cost. The Newton Committee Report indicated a far greater scale than existed before those tariff rates were made applicable in those days. Instead of having grades 1 to 9, it extended the grading in order to close the gap between high-rated and lowrated traffic, and what the Minister must tell us in this debate is: Does he accept the underlying principle—never mind the concessions that he may make, or the provisions he may accept—does he accept the underlying principle of the report that in future the rating of the Railways must be based on the principle of direct costs? [Time limit.]

One really wants to congratulate the Minister of Transport on the replies he gave to members of the Opposition to prove how right he was. That he gave the correct replies is now proved by the howls emanating from the Opposition benches because he hit them very hard in connection with the allegations they made here, which were not accurate. For the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) now to accuse the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) of wanting to make a correction at such a late stage—well, he at least had the decency to make that correction and to inform the House about it. But the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) did not have the decency to withdraw the allegations he made.

What allegations must he withdraw?

The Chief Whip of the Opposition should not get excited now. He and I can cross swords with one another and I am very keen on doing so. It has become the habit of members of the Opposition every time they get up to make wild, barbarous allegations because they are so bankrupt in so far as policy is concerned. Because they have no policy they use such expressions as “gluttons” (vrate), strange words which we do not know about. They now try to draw the inference that this is what the Prime Minister is supposed to have said. Those hon. members think that if they can draw the inference that the word “vraat” was used in his speech they might be able to shock the voters outside and catch a few stray votes. But I want to tell the United Party that this was surely one of the most scandalous speeches we have ever heard in this House, this speech of the hon. member for Maitland. It is beyond my comprehension how he could have drawn such an inference in connection with “vrate” from the Prime Minister’s excellent speech. [Interjections.] There they are howling again, but the Prime Minister again made a masterly speech and they feel very unhappy about it because the Opposition are incapable of making such a speech as they are politically bankrupt.

Who is howling now?

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) is the greatest howler in this House. I repeat that it is a great pity that the hon. member for Maitland, who is still a backbencher—not that that makes a difference, because I am also one …

Hear, hear!

I am a responsible backbencher. [Laughter.] When the Minister in all kindness wanted to give him a little advice, we had this peculiar attitude adopted by the hon. member, which he again revealed towards the Minister later. And when we told him that we would hit him hard, he ran away like a coward. He was told that he should be here but he has disappeared from the Chamber. I want to tell the United Party, seeing that they talk about “vrate”, that I think they were the biggest political “vrate” who have ever governed this country. If we go back to the time when they governed the country, the voters had many desires but the United Party was so anxious to rule the country that they only thought of governing the country and paid no heed to the desires of the voters. In the period in which they governed they were political gluttons. The people wanted housing, but what did the Opposition give them? Nothing. The people wanted education, but what did the United Party give them? Tents, in which they had to attend school, under trees. The people wanted better living standards, but the Opposition let them live below the breadline. The people wanted separation instead of intermingling, but they allowed Whites and non-Whites to live intermingled. Those were the desires of the people and because the United Party did not accede to them they are sitting where they have already been sitting for 17 years, and there is no hope of their ever governing the country again. The hon. member for Maitland is not present, but I want to ask the Chief Whip to tell the hon. member that the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) challenged him to quote from Hansard where the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) said that the railwaymen were gluttons, or anything from which he could have drawn such an inference. He did not say it and it cannot be inferred from the speech of that hon. member. Now I challenge hon. members. Get up after me and say where the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) said it. They cannot bring that proof. All those hon. members can do is to distort things and to try to catch a few votes, but not even that will help them because the voters have known them for too long already.

Order! The hon. member should get into the habit of referring to members as hon. members and not as “them”.

I want to say that the members on this side of the House never referred to the present wage demands which are being made. We on this side consider that wage demands should only be handled by the staff associations and the Minister. We have every confidence in the members of those staff associations on the Railways to obtain the best possible benefits for their members. But the Opposition has no confidence in the members of the staff associations. That is why they always try to interfere in order to make political capital out of it. As the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) has already said, I want to tell hon. members opposite that we are tired and that the railwaymen are tired of this politicking which goes on in this House year after year. The railwayman knows that his only friends are the members on this side of the House and the present Minister of Transport, who have never yet left the railwayman in the lurch. The railwayman knows the Opposition’s record, and it is no use those hon. members opposite trying to act on their behalf because they know it is only Judas language that they are using.

Order!

I withdraw it.

I am sure the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Bezuidenhout) would not expect me to follow him in the fanciful flight of imagination that he has just indulged in. We are living in an age of air-flight to-day, and I think it will be much kinder to leave him in orbit than to bring him back to earth to deal with the matters that really count in this debate.

I want very briefly to touch on statements from this side of the House and more recently from the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. J. Steyn) in connection with extra time and overtime earnings, and so on. I think it is time there also that we got back to solid earth. The railway staff, good as they are, are human beings, men and women and families just the same as any other human beings, and they have just the same likings and dislikes as any other human being. It has been the whole trend in regard to industrial employment, in regard to workmanship that we are reducing hours so that men can have more leisure time, leisure time to spend mainly with their families, leisure time to enjoy the fruits of what they earned during their working hours. Also to see that for the shortened hours in which they work, the recompense and the pay for those shortened hours is sufficient for them to meet all their requirements, to enable themselves and their families to live in comfort and to have something left over to let them enjoy the leisure of our modern system of industry. I think that is the target we have got to aim at in the Railways. One admires the tremendous sacrifice the staff is making, but it is time that those sacrifices were properly recognized. The obligation to do that, the responsibility to do that, rests squarely on the shoulders of the hon. Minister and his Government. I do not want to enlarge on that aspect, because I want to touch on another feature, but I do think that it is time that the House began to realize when we talk of the Railway staff, we are talking about human beings, the same as the rest of us. You can use the example of what happened in this House only last Session, when in order to reduce the hours of work of members of this House which were becoming fatiguing and over-long, we reduced the hours in this House. That same principle requires to be employed with regard to the railwaymen.

The Minister said so.

It is not much good saying so. What I want to suggest is that the Minister does something.

I want to touch on another matter and that is a matter which the hon. Minister did not deal with in his earlier reply. No doubt it was included amongst those minor matters which the Minister referred to, but I can assure him that it is not a minor matter for thousands of his passengers who depend on the suburban railway service for getting to and from their work, tens of thousands of passengers who have no other form of transport, who are compelled to depend on the Railways and expect regularity and comfort in the services they use. I want to ask the hon. Minister why he did not deal with this matter. Perhaps it is quite natural that the hon. Minister would like to keep silent on what happened on the suburban line here when the summer service was introduced. I can hardly imagine that he can look back with any pleasure on what happened then. I do not say that he is individually responsible for it. I am sure that he himself does not relish what happened. Nevertheless it did happen—that chaotic state that was created, will go on, the service will remain inefficient and will not be satisfactory until the whole question of the suburban service in this Peninsula is tackled from the foundation upward. For the past 12 years the House has been told by this Minister, and prior to him by his predecessor, that to get a fast express service which is essential to move the passengers out to the more distant areas, people who have got no alternative method of travel, that it was necessary to increase the number of tracks to carry the additional trains. I have already mentioned earlier in this debate that those tracks are not being supplied to adequately meet these demands. For 12 years we have been told improvements depended on these extra tracks, and on the new railway station at Cape Town and on the various other features that should be dealt with. I want to ask the hon. Minister whether it is not possible to have an investigation, starting from the bottom upwards, to endeavour to replace into this suburban passenger service a fast timetable with an adequate number of express trains at the proper periods which will meet the requirements of the travelling public as well as to also cater for the increase which is steadily taking place in that travelling public. I want to ask the hon. Minister if he cannot treat this as a crash programme because there is some crash necessary about it. You see, Sir, the timetable that was introduced here in December, made a complete omelette of the timetable which had been built up over 10 or 15 years and was progressively becoming relatively satisfactory. That old timetable was completely destroyed. There has been an effort ever since to try and reinstitute the old timetable, and we are gradually starting to get back to it, although it itself requires improvement. I want to ask the hon. Minister whether, particularly in connection with the more distant areas, where many of the passengers have to stand after a long day’s work, have to stand for anything up to 25, 30, 35 minutes on their way home, whether he cannot reinstitute an adequate express service to deal with that portion of the line, the portion from Wynberg through to Simonstown. I know the difficulties. We have had them thrashed out before. I want to ask the hon. Minister: Can’t he institute a crash programme to remedy that state of affairs, and in the drawing up of the programme to have adequate consultation with all the various interests that are concerned. You see, Sir, the present system is not taking into account the expansion which is taking place at the southern end of the line. Take the area of Pollsmoor which has been developed very extensively by the prison service, which has led to a big increase in the families residing there. The same thing at Westlake where the Post Office has taken over and has created another very big increase in the population. Coming to Simonstown itself, you have its development as the naval station with a tremendously increased population, a population consisting not only of the men of the fleet, but of their wives and families and of the many hundreds of additional staff employed in the dockyard. You see, Mr. Chairman, it is over 20 years ago that it was also necessary to institute a rail service from Simonstown to move away over 3,000 people from that area within about a matter of 35 minutes. To move them every day in in the mornings and out at evening. That was done 20 years ago, under the old steam train system and in the early days of electrification. Some of the trains were running express right through in both directions as far as Rondebosch in order to move them away home in time and move them back to work in time. There is nothing comparable with that to-day, and yet you are building up in the South African naval dockyards a staff running into four figures, fully 50 per cent or 60 per cent of whom live up the line and have to travel and have to be moved away and brought down every morning. There is the development of the naval township, Da Gama Park, where you have approximately 350 to 400 naval families living. There is a very large amount of travel to and from that area. There is the growing number of youngsters who have to travel up and down to school. The service today is one of the worst we have had at any time in the last quarter of a century, and I would ask the hon. Minister if he would give that matter his serious consideration and cause the officials concerned who deal with that type of work to draw up a plan which will provide from the tracks upwards all the necessary facilities to introduce a service, which can and which should be instituted in order to meet the demands of suburban passenger traffic of that area. Dealing with the figures of passenger traffic disclosed in the Minister’s Budget speech, as the hon. Minister said himself, you cannot ignore the value of the suburban passenger service to the Railways. When we come to the southern end of the peninsula system, the problem is being made even more difficult for the hon. Minister, and I concede that it is a problem, by the concentration in the vast township areas where the Bantu are now living, at Langa, Nyanga, Guguletu, etc., and these other places. Bantu who have to be moved daily to and from their work, and where you require special extra rail services to deal with them. That adds to the difficulties because all traffic has to be moved over the same couple of tracks. All these points need examination and such examination must be carried out quickly, it must not be a long drawn out job, but a quick one. It has been on the way now for well over 12 years, according to statements we have had in this House, but the service must be put back in order. Until that is done, the Railways are going to continue to run into trouble and the travelling public is going to be inconvenienced in getting to and from their employment, and just so long is industry and commerce in this part of the Republic going to be inconvenienced through the late arrival of their staff coming in far too late, anything from 30 or 35 minutes late on account of having been held up by failure of the train system.

I do not want to become involved in the battle in regard to words and the meaning of words. I just want to raise a few matters of specific interest to my constituency with the hon. the Minister. In the first place we have a railway crossing between Randfontein Station and Middelvlei Station which presents a real problem. Numbers of accidents have already taken place there. According to the figures which I have obtained from the Town Clerk, there have already been 48 fatal accidents at this specific crossing. This number includes fatal accidents involving cars and trains and a train accident which occurred last year in which a number of passengers, both White and non-White, were killed. This railway crossing is on a curve and the reason why it has not as yet been eliminated is because it is the intention of the Railways to re-lay and straighten this specific line. Once the railway line has been re-laid, the crossing will also be moved. This is apparently the reason why the crossing has not as yet been eliminated. I am also aware of the fact that with the building of the Houtkop line for passenger trains travelling between Johannesburg and Cape Town, this line will no longer be used to such a large extent by main line passenger traffic although the line will continue to be used for all the traffic between the Rand and the Far West Rand gold fields as well as for traffic to Potchefstroom. The line is electrified and because of this fact the local passenger train traffic to Bank Station and Potchefstroom is fairly heavy. This line will therefore still continue to carry heavy traffic even though it will not in the future carry main line passenger trains and certain other traffic. In spite of the lessening of traffic along this line, a fact which may possibly result in a lessening of the danger of accidents, I still want to ask that a special effort be made to have the re-laying of this line attended to as soon as possible, if it is in fact to be done, and to eliminate that crossing as soon as possible because I am convinced of the fact that the latest accident to occur there in which four Or five railway trucks were smashed to matchwood was more expensive than it would have been to build a bridge or subway in order to eliminate that crossing. The people of Randfontein have to use this crossing every day to travel to and from their work and they feel that it is a very dangerous crossing. I think that this matter should receive the specific attention of the hon. the Minister and that in this regard we should not necessarily have to wait our turn according to the order of precedence for the elimination of railway crossings. I think that a special case can be made out for the elimination of this crossing.

I want to raise another matter and that is the question of the maintenance of roads, particularly those running through railway property. I am speaking now of the roads in which the houses of railway employees who live near the station are situated. A difference of opinion has arisen in connection with the question of whether the local town council or the Railway Administration is responsible for the maintenance of those roads. Unfortunately, these roads are not in a very good state of repair. The voters in my constituency approached me with the specific request to bring this matter to the attention of the Minister, and that is what I am doing.

The third matter that I want to raise is, one may say, something of cultural value. We have a large number of railway stations in the Transvaal which were built during the time of the old Transvaal Republic but we still have only three of the so-called gable railway stations which were built in the old Republican days, namely, those at Klerksdorp, Middelburg, and Krugersdorp. These three stations are really Africana, and when I say this I am not poking fun at Randfontein station which the hon. the Minister also said was Africana and should be preserved. He also said that because of this fact I should not ask that a new station be built. These three stations are definitely Africana; they are gabled stations of the old type. I want to ask whether the hon. the Minister’s Department could not consider taking very good care of these stations and keeping them just as they are. No improvements or alterations should be made to these stations so that when new stations can be built, these old stations can be converted into museums and be preserved for future generations. These are three stations of the old type which should not be demolished.

I should like to deal with the matter of policy which was raised by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) during the debate on the motion to go into Committee of Supply. It is in connection with railway pensioners. I listened very carefully to the hon. member when he made certain observations, but I was disappointed that the Minister did not reply to those points. I hope to put forward a case to the Minister in regard to his policy in connection with railway pensioners for his consideration and I hope that the Minister will be good enough to reply.

The position is that at present with the means test which becomes applicable with the payment of the temporary allowance, a situation has arisen which has caused a considerable amount of dissatisfaction amongst a certain section of railway pensioners. We have heard during the past two days of the great staff shortage in the Administration. I feel that a great opportunity is being lost by the Minister to encourage some of his former employees who are now pensioners to take active employment and assist to relieve the staff shortage. I believe that the employment of pensioners to meet this staff shortage has not been fully explored and that they can be used far more extensively. We find that a number of pensioners qualify for the temporary allowance, but when they wish to take temporary employment at a rate of pay which means that their total earnings will exceed the amount of the means test, they lose their temporary allowance or get a reduced allowance. That level has been set at R1,800 p.a. or R150 a month for a married person and R900 p.a. or R75 a month for an unmarried person. If the person’s total earnings plus other State pensions or any profits which might be derived from business or farming, exceeds these figures, this person then becomes disentitled to receive that temporary allowance. This discourages those pensioners who are willing and able to take other employment and wish to remain productive and who wish to make their experience available to the labour market. We have heard how inflation can be caused by a low standard of productivity of workers, but here where persons are willing to earn money they are penalized, whereas if they just sit back and do nothing they can enjoy this temporary allowance of R35 a month, which is unproductive money. I think the Minister should review this aspect. I realize that he must be guided by his actuaries and in addition to that he will have to obtain the approval of the Cabinet in regard to the matter, because it will also have its effect on other public servants. But my appeal to the Minister is to consider this matter as an urgent one, because it can assist to ease the manpower shortage if these persons are encouraged to take further employment. After all, these are people who have given a lifetime of service and they are extremely experienced workers and they are prepared to continue working. I believe that more pensioners could be employed to ease the manpower shortage in clerical capacities, so relieving other members of the staff to fill posts where there is an acute shortage of labour.

When we look at the levels of the means test, we realize that with increasing wages and the higher cost of living many of these people are loth to accept employment if it means that they will have to sacrifice R35 a month. I have had many of these cases brought to my notice where they have lost their social pensions such as war veterans’ pensions and old-age pensions when that increase came about in the temporary allowance. Several of them have lost their pensions because they exceeded the means test for social pensions. But the arrangement between the Department of Pensions and the Minister’s Department has meant that these people have in fact not received any increase in their overall benefits and in fact some of them are slightly worse off due to the fact that their war veterans’ pensions were previously not taxable, whereas now the amount they are entitled to, coming from the Railway Administration, is subject to P.A.Y.E. So in fact some of them are worse off. As far as encouraging a person to remain in employment is concerned, the present level of the means test operates against it. The one typical example I have here illustrates what happens in many cases. This particular pensioner was drawing a railway pension of R52 a month and he was entitled to the temporary allowance of R35 a month, making a total of R87. When he wished to take employment which was offered to him at R75 a month, he was informed that if he accepted it he would forfeit his temporary allowance. This person therefore, if he accepted any employment in excess of R63 a month, would then forfeit his temporary allowance. Consequently, although he was willing and able to work, he was discouraged from doing so because of the means test applicable to the temporary allowance. I believe that the Minister should give consideration to a relaxation of this aspect of the means test, and if he feels that the temporary allowance should only be paid to persons in a certain category, he should perhaps raise the level of the means test above the R150 a month in the case of a married person and the R75 a month in the case of an unmarried person.

Another factor is the question of some of these pensioners who have dependent children and find that they must seek employment to provide a decent standard of living for the children. As far as the temporary allowance is concerned, if a person is married and finds that he must work, he does not receive any recognition of the fact that he has these dependent children. Perhaps the Minister could consider some form of abated temporary allowance which will take into account and give recognition to those persons who still have to maintain minor children. I realize that this is a difficult matter of policy for the Minister, and I also realize that it is an important matter to which I believe the Minister should give serious and sympathetic consideration. I know that this matter has also been raised by the staff associations. I was interested to see an article in the Salstaff Bulletin of December 1964, which also makes reference to this problem which faces this group of pensioners and the imitation that is placed upon them in regard to the temporary allowance. I feel that this is an opportunity where the Minister can make greater use of experienced workers who can assist him in various fields where there is a staff shortage, and at the same time it will give recognition to those former employees who have rendered many years’ service to the Railways and contributed to the building up of its present position. [Time limit.]

During the first half of this Committee Stage a great deal of time was wasted by arguing about Hansard quotations which had apparently been wrongly quoted. All sorts of allegations were made which did not hold water at all but which merely served to waste the time of the House and which I am sure, made the officials sitting in the departmental bays long for a positive suggestion on the part of the Opposition which they could make a note of and study and try to fit in with the requirements of the Railways to the advantage of the whole country. As far as I am concerned it is very clear that the Railways and the hon. the Minister and his staff are to be congratulated on what they have done. They inherited a Railway Administration with a great backlog in rolling stock from the United Party. They inherited a position which was virtually untenable and they have caught up on this backlog in a way which redounds to their credit. Not only they but the ordinary railway worker about whom we have had so much argument by hon. members opposite has acquitted himself well of his task because we have the calibre of man in the Railways who renders a service, who does not simply work for money but who also sees his task in the light of a service to the Railways as such and to his country, a man who in this great manpower shortage we are experiencing, sometimes does more than can normally be expected of him. These men work because they do not simply consider their work to be their duty but because they are also interested in and love the work they are doing and know that the service which they render thereby to the Railways and the public is appreciated. It is that class of man we on this side of the House will always praise and assist as far as possible. The Opposition need not concern themselves in this regard. The hon. the Minister will ensure that these workers are given the best conditions of employment. When requests are made along the right channels those requests will be considered and more favourable wage adjustments will be made in order to satisfy these people. I am sure that this is also the approach of the staff to this whole matter at the moment. But I do not want to be guilty of the same thing of which I have accused hon. members opposite—of having made no constructive suggestions—and so I want to make use of this opportunity to direct the attention of the hon. the Minister to the Western Transvaal, to the Marico constituency where there is a critical shortage of trucks which is affecting the area considerably. Our district is being plagued by a tremendous drought. Zeerust, Zwartruggens, Groot Marico and Koster are not industrial towns. The mining industries which are established there are dependent upon the transport of the low-grade ores which are mined on a large scale at Marico. This ore has sometimes to be transported by lorry 50 or 60 miles from certain places to the station. Great disappointment and inconvenience is experienced when the trucks which are ordered are not available. The low-grade ore is mined at a very small profit. Every delay results in an even smaller profit margin and this has a very harmful effect upon the industry because by damaging the industry the whole community is placed at a disadvantage. I have already directed requests to the authorities in this connection and I believe that those requests will be complied with but I wanted to bring this matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister across the floor of the House and to say that it would be very greatly appreciated if the demand for trucks could be met as soon as possible. The various companies mine manganese, chrome, flurospar and andalusite and the regular availability of trucks for the transport of these ores is vitally necessary.

In the second place I want to raise a matter which has already been raised ad nauseam but which becomes all the more important as the main road from our industrial centres, Johannesburg and Pretoria, is macadamized to the west. It has already been macadamized almost up to Vryburg and Kimberley. The main road runs through Zwartruggens and Koster. There are three railway crossings at Koster, two in the town across the main road and one on a side road, also in the town. One of these is situated at the bottom of a hill. The traffic on this road is becoming heavier and each day the possibility of serious accidents increases. I know that there is a long list of railway crossings on the waiting list and we are waiting our turn patiently. But I should like to urge the hon. the Minister to give these crossings preference. What I say holds good not only for Zwartruggens but also for Koster. The residential area is situated on a hill. The railway runs along the foot of the hill and the main road in the direction of Rustenburg crosses the railway at this point. Accidents have already happened here because people become flustered on the hills and do not apply their brakes in time and before they know it the train is on top of them. The possibility of accidents is always greater at an open crossing at the foot of a hill.

My last request deals with Zeerust where there is also a railway crossing next to the Kareespruit. The municipality want to build a bridge across the spruit but this bridge will have to fit in with the plans of the Railway Administration. The municipality cannot build a bridge until the Railways have finished their planning so that the bridge will fit with the general plan. This is a matter of importance. I trust that the hon. the Minister will give his sympathetic attention to the requests I have made.

I have much pleasure in telling the hon. member for Marico (Mr. Grobler) that I will have a very pleasant duty to perform on Saturday. I shall be speaking at Marico and Zeerust and I shall tell them that for the first time I have heard their member make a plea on their behalf.

They will not believe you.

I shall also tell them that the hon. member who represents them regards the Railways not as a job where people work for money but as a mission, a cause, something for which you must make sacrifices, something like an army where you serve for the love of your country. Well, we do not believe that. We believe that people who work for the Government deserve to be properly paid for their labour.

Before I return to the Minister, the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Bezuidenhout) issued a challenge and I have the greatest pleasure in accepting it. Next year we will be having a general election and I invite him to come and stand at Point. [Interjections.] Although it would be rather an insult to the voters at Point, I would be prepared to let him take a beating there, so that the Railways and Harbours workers there can show what they think of his attitude.

I wish to return to the question of planning with which the Minister dealt rather brusquely as though it was a matter of little concern, as though the criticism by this side of the House of his planning was just a matter of passing concern. What it really shows is this. The Minister said that we asked for things which the Commissions which investigated them did not consider necessary. He dealt with the Moffat Report. He dealt with the pipeline and said that his experts had said that it was only needed by the end of 1970. What it shows, of course … [Interjections.] He said that the Van Eck Report said that it would only be needed in 1970, and he abided by that. We on this side of the House have more faith and confidence in South Africa, and this is where the Minister’s whole argument breaks down. He said how could he foresee the development and that we asked for things 20 years before they were needed. Yes, 20 years before they were needed under this Government but under our planning and under our rate of progress then it was not 20 years too soon; these things would have been needed within a year or two. I want to test the Minister’s statement that the Durban Harbour development was all planned in the Moffat Commission. Why, if it was planned and ready, and why, after we had pleaded for the implementation of the recommendations, and had pleaded for the proposed extension and development of Durban Harbour some six or seven years ago, why did we have to wait until this year before the Minister realized what we know seven years ago? Why did he have to wait until there was a backlog—almost a crisis—before he had to admit that the United Party had been right all along and that when we said it should be done at once in fact that was the time he should have started. But the Minister says he was told that it was not necessary then. It was his business as Minister; he was told by people who know what they were talking about—not only those who pleaded from this side of the House but people whose daily lives were concerned with some of these developments—why did he then turn down those requests and wait until the crisis occurred before he got on with the job? That is our criticism, and not that there is no planning. I am sure that the Minister has probably planned dozens of other things. Our criticism is that he was out of touch with the needs of the country and was unable to forecast when these needs would become reality. That is the charge we made against the Minister, but he has not answered it. The Minister referred to a 4.7 per cent increase in revenue-earning goods carried. I challenged him to deny that approximately 5 per cent was the average increase over the last 20 years. In other words, there was nothing abnormal about 4.7 per cent; it was a little below the average of the last 20 years. Now, if that was the average, why was he not able to maintain that average with his eyes closed? But he was not. He gives generalizations of tonnages carried. I speak from experience as a user. I myself have had goods railed, a full truck-load, which took 17 days from Durban to Pietermaritzburg, a distance of 50 miles; and when you try to find out where the goods are you are told that they are somewhere en route but nobody knows exactly where. That is the experience of railway users throughout the country. If it were not for the fact that the sugar farmers of Zululand had gone over to large-scale road transportation, there would have been absolute chaos in the sugar industry. The Railways were completely unable to handle it, as they were also unable to handle tens of thousands of tons of timber which the farmers could not transport themselves. But they could transport the sugar and that is the only thing that saved the Minister’s life there. This is not something which happened last month or even last year; it has been going on for years. Our complaint is that it has taken the Minister years to let the alarm clock go off which would awaken him to the need. He foresees them but he waits until some crisis forces him to take action. That is our complaint, that he waits until it is too late when he should have been able to foresee it.

The Minister touched on so many things that it is impossible to deal with them all, but I want to deal with the matter of staff, the attitude of the Minister to the railway staff. The hon. member for Yeoville raised it. I had planned to raise it in the Committee Stage in regard to another group, the servants in the catering department, where catering installations have been handed over to private enterprise. Last week these employees did not know what their future was. They did not know where they were going or when. As short as a week ago I spoke to people, married men, who said they thought they were going at the beginning of March but they now may be going on 1 April; they did not know.

Going out of the service?

No, to some other station, but they did not know where. And some of them are leaving the service. I know of at least four senior men who have resigned. I know of one who was told that he would go from manager of a restaurant to flight steward on a plane. I think the Minister should tell this House exactly what he has done in regard to these hundreds of people whose livelihood has been affected by a move debated in this House, a change in their whole life, while they do not know what they are going to do. [Time limit.]

We have now listened ad nauseam to this criticism of the Minister’s planning. I just want to say that people who use their brains and who are well-informed will definitely take much more notice of the Report of the Committee on Railway Rating Policy. Here we have a report by people of very high calibre who can express an opinion on matters with authority and with insight.

Do you accept their recommendations?

I have never said that I accept their recommendations, but their opinion is of much greater significance than the opinion of hon. members on the other side with their idle talk. I just want to point out that we have a very able and very conscientious Minister of Railways. We have a very able and very intelligent and conscientious management and group of head-officials who devote all their attention to Railway interests. This talk by members on the other side in actual fact amounts to running down people who are rendering distinguished and devoted service to the country. This Committee reports as follows in this Report—

That has already been read out to us.

The hon. member really ought to read it a few times more, then he may perhaps understand it. A full exposition of all the activities of the Planning Board is given here. Their functions cover a very wide field. In paragraph 78 the Committee states—

Here, therefore, there is co-operation with the best councils we have in the country, councils consisting of the ablest men in their respective fields. The advice and co-operation of these people are obtained; there is full co-operation with them. Then the Committee further states—

The functions that are carried out by the Planning Section and the co-operation that exists with very important councils in our country, and that can only result in improvement of the Railways and the best planning and preparation for the future, cannot be set out more clearly than is done in this Report.

While we are discussing this Report, and in view of what has been said. I do wish to express a few thoughts in regard to the question of rates, particularly in so far as agricultural products are concerned. The hon. Minister has already said that the matter is receiving attention and that a thorough study is being made of the recommendations contained in this Report, but this matter of railage rates in so far as agricultural products are concerned is of vital importance to the producers, and I feel that I must again express a few thoughts in this regard. The Committee accepts that there must be differentiation in rates, and that the old principle of determining rates on the basis of what can be afforded by the traffic was adhered to in the past and was also accepted as the correct policy by various committees in the past; it is for this reason that we cannot understand why the Committee recommends that the rates on vegetables should be increased by more than 100 per cent. Where the present revenue from the transportation of vegetables amounts to R1,305,000, they are proposing a further increase of R1,308,000 by means of applying tariff 9 to vegetables and fruit for domestic consumption, and furthermore, that export fruit should be transported at rate 10 minus 20 per cent. I say that this matter is one that is of vital importance to the producer. Hon. members should realize that when rates on merchandise or industrial products are increased, the cost is simply passed on to the consumer; the industrialist and the merchant does not suffer; the consumer has to pay an increased price. But in the case of agricultural products that have no fixed prices, the extra cost is passed on to the farmer, extra cost which in many cases he is unable to bear. The producer cannot bear these increased costs, and there are sufficient proofs of this. The hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Knobel) has already referred to the prices of vegetables and to the way in which the fruit and vegetable farmers will be affected by the increased rates. In this regard I just want to quote a few figures in connection with citrus. I want to take the figures for a couple of years, and these are not years that I have specially selected; the trends are the same throughout, and the final results are precisely the same every time. In 1954 the average gross price per bag obtained by the producer was 42.5c. The railage was 10c; the average price free on rail obtained by the producer was 32.5c. The average cost of production, packing, picking and marketing was 38c. Hon. members will see, therefore, that the producer suffered a loss. Take the year 1955: The average gross price was 40.42c; the free on rail price to the grower was 31c. In 1956 the gross price was 40c and the average free on rail price obtained by the grower was 31.83c. It remains a loss all along. Take the year 1962: The gross price obtained by the producer was 30c; his net income delivered free on rail was 21.58c. In 1963 the gross price was 30.67c and the net free on rail price 22.17c. In 1964 the gross price was 26.46c and the net price 17.38c. The cost of production remains approximately 40c per bag. I say that where this product is already a dead loss to the farmer, we cannot go along and place upon him an additional burden in the form of higher railage rates.

We agree.

We all agree with this; it is in the interest of the farming community that these rates should not be increased. But the Minister has never said that he is going to increase the rates.

The Committee recommends that they be increased.

The Report suggests that the rates be increased, but I know of no report that is accepted in its entirety by any government.

If you object to an increase in the rates on agricultural products, do you make the same objection to the recommendations contained in the Report as far as passenger fares are concerned? [Time limit.]

I should like to reply to the few matters raised here by the hon. members. The hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. G. de K. Maree) spoke about road motor service rates, and he said that they were very high, particularly on cattle. I quite agree with him that they are high. They are, of course, much higher than rail rates, but the hon. member is of course aware that the operating costs of the road motor service are very high as compared with those of the ordinary rail service. The maintenance costs, for example, are extremely high. We have steam locomotives running on our lines to-day that are 60 years old and are still in service; we have trucks that are 40 and 50 years old and are still in service. But if a heavy road vehicle lasts eight to ten years it is a very long time; usually they have to be replaced much sooner. As a result of the very much higher costs the rates are fairly high. The hon. member was quite right in saying that, as far as certain commodities are concerned, the road motor service rates in the north-west are still lower than those of private hauliers. I also support the view that we should rather have full vehicles running at low rates than empty vehicles at high rates. I have asked the management to re-examine the whole question of road motor service rates, but at this stage I cannot give any undertaking that the road motor service rates will be reduced to any extent. I do not think these rates are affecting the farmers very seriously at the moment, for the cattle prices have shot up to such an extent that farmers selling cattle to-day probably make a fairly good profit.

If they are not farming in a drought-stricken area.

No, I am talking of farmers who sell cattle.

The hon. member for Namib asked whether the Viscounts, when they are introduced on the south-west routes, could land at Keetmanshoop and Alexander Bay. As far as Alexander Bay is concerned, they will land there. If the hon. member looks at the Additional Estimates he will see that provision has already been made for an amount to be spent this year on tarring the runway at Alexander Bay. So they will in fact land and take off at Alexander Bay as soon as the runway has been hardened. They will be unable to land at Keetmanshoop unless the runway there is hardened, for the jet aircraft, the “turbo-props” as we call them, cannot land on gravel runways, as the gravel is sucked into the motors and damages them. They will therefore be able to fly to Windhoek, but I do not think they will be able to land at Keetmanshoop. except in an emergency.

The hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland) pleaded for a wage of R2 per day for Coloured labourers. This is already the maximum wage for unskilled Coloured labourers. I am afraid that at this stage I cannot convert the maximum wage into a minimum wage. If this were done, there would of course have to be wage increases on an equivalent basis for the rest of the staff as well, and at this stage the Railway finances would not be able to bear this.

The hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. J. J. Rall) asked for police supervision to be exercised over Bantu persons who are stationed along the railway lines in connection with the rerailing of these lines. I do not know whether it is possible to assign a Bantu constable or a policeman to each group of Bantu persons: policemen are rather scarce to-day, but I shall in any case ask the management to go into this matter to find out to what extent assistance can be given.

The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) raised the question of the suburban services. I did not reply earlier this afternoon; I called for a full report and I can give the hon. member the information now.

Scheduled train services are reviewed annually to meet the dictates of changes in traffic patterns. A revision of the suburban services on the Cape Town-Simonstown line became urgently necessary owing to rapid expansion of certain residential areas especially at Steenberg and Retreat where the number of passengers increased by 16 per cent during 1964. The latest time-table became operative on 7 December 1964. Unfortunately its introduction coincided with a bus strike in Cape Town which caused large numbers of passengers who normally travel by bus to switch to trains. The result was severe congestion on suburban station platforms and overcrowding of trains with consequent delays in the normal departure times and a snowballing effect as trains moved forward. The bus strike ended on 14 December 1964, but there was no apparent decrease in the number of railway passengers.

In order to eliminate train delays at stations owing to overcrowding, two additional trains were introduced during the early morning peak period with effect from 14 December 1964 into an already heavy service. As some trains were then running at two-minute intervals it was necessary to eliminate stops at certain stations to achieve better spacing and to ease the bunching of trains as a result of the delays caused by passengers trying to board crowded trains or the occasional failure of power or technical equipment.

The position has still not changed and a new time-table is now being built up for introduction during July to effect a more even spread of trains during peak hours and to meet present-day passenger requirements. The introduction of the revised services on 7 December 1964 was announced in the Press and pocket time-tables were available at bookstalls as from 2 December 1964. Amendment slips announcing the changes as a result of the introduction of the two additional trains were issued and notices that these are available at bookstalls free of charge have been posted at all stations on the Cape Town-Simonstown line. The proposed new time-table is being compiled in consultation with interested local bodies such as ratepayers’ associations, vigilance committees, advisory boards, etc. The liaison committee of which the hon. member for Simonstown was a member ceased functioning approximately 12 years ago.

*The hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) asked for a fly-over bridge to be built at the crossing between Middelvlei and Randfontein. The hon. member for Marico (Mr. Grobler) also spoke about level crossings. Hon. members know that in passing an Act, the Level Crossings Act, a few years ago, this House itself decided that the Standing Committee was to decide which crossings were to receive priority, and that this is no longer in the hands of the Minister or the Railways Administration. I am now speaking of the elimination of existing crossings. The matter is now in the hands of this Standing Committee. They draw up priority lists, and with the available manpower and capital as many level crossings as possible are eliminated each year. Unfortunately I do not know what position this crossing between Marico and Koster occupies on the priority list. The same applies to the crossing between Middelvlei and Randfontein. The hon. member saw me about it some time ago and I gave him a reply; I do not remember precisely what I said to him on that occasion.

The hon. member also requested that the old station buildings should be preserved and should not be altered. I just want to know whether he has consulted his colleagues about this. Has he consulted his colleagues in whose constituencies these buildings fall, for this concerns Middelburg, Krugersdorp and Klerksdorp? I do not know whether the Chairman is quite content that in future no change should ever again be made to the Klerksdorp station building; unfortunately he cannot reply, but as far as Middelburg is concerned, I want to say that the Simon van der Stel Foundation has already made representations to the Management that the station building there should not be altered substantially, and that these representations have been accepted. I believe this is the only station building they have in mind at the moment.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) again dealt with a matter to which I replied fully in my reply to the debate on the motion to go into Committee, and that is in regard to planning and the reasons for delaying the commencement of certain schemes, such as the expansion of Durban Harbour, for instance. I said in my reply that it all depended on the available manpower and the available capital when schemes are embarked upon. If there is no capital and the manpower is not available then these schemes simply cannot be started. The hon. member must remember that capital is not unlimited. The Railway Administration gets a share out of the kitty; all Government Departments get a share of the available capital, and when the capital is limited a priority list must be drawn up and, of course, the most urgent works must be given priority. In regard to expansion of Durban harbour, the recommendation of the Moffat Committee was that the expansion programme should be commenced much later than it has been commenced, and it is quite wrong for the hon. member to say that I wait until a crisis arises before I decide to embark on a certain scheme. That is nonsense, of course, because it was decided in 1963 to commence with the expansion of Durban harbour. That was before there was a crisis and before we had the bunching of ships. Money was placed on the Estimates at the beginning of last year and the matter was dealt with here in the course of the Budget debate.

In regard to members of the catering staff who have not received notice, I have asked the Management to go into the matter. The refreshment rooms, of course, have not been let yet. Tenders have been called for but the refreshment rooms have not been let yet.

At East London?

I am referring to the refreshment rooms, not the airport. The refreshment rooms at the stations have not been let yet.

What about Ladysmith and Port Elizabeth and East London?

Is the hon. member speaking about the railway refreshment rooms?

Yes.

My information from the Department is that tenders have been called for but that the contracts have not yet been allocated. That is why the staff there have not yet received notice. As far as the airports are concerned, I am inquiring to find out why the staff have not been advised yet as to what is going to happen to them and where they are going to be employed. They will, of course, be absorbed into the service, but I agree that they should have been advised. Inquiries are being made and as soon as I get the information I will pass it on to the hon. member.

Will care be taken also of the people at the other stations?

Yes, they should receive notice at an early date as to what is going to happen to them and where they are going to be placed. As I say, they will be absorbed; it is simply a question as to where they are going to be transferred.

*The hon. member for Nelspruit (Mr. Faurie) also spoke about the recommendations of the Schumann Commission and about agricultural rates. As I have said to other hon. members, I shall give very thorough consideration to all these representations before taking my final decision.

What about the principle I asked you about?

Which principle?

The principle involved in the rating policy suggested in this report.

The hon. member must restrain his curiosity. I am not dealing piecemeal with the matter. When I give my decision as to which recommendations I accept and which recommendations I do not accept, I will deal with the whole matter.

Cannot we debate it now? You have had the report for a year?

The hon. member can debate it next session.

What about the question of pensions?

I am sorry, I forgot to reply to the hon. member on the question of pensions. It is a question of raising the means test and raising the means test costs a lot of money. There has to be joint action between the Minister of Finance and myself because it also applies to Civil Service pensioners. But even if you raise the means test you will always have border-line cases. The only way to meet the position is to abolish the means test completely but I think that would be entirely wrong. It would be entirely wrong to give a man an allowance of, say, R30 or R40 per month when he receives a pension of R3,000 or R4,000 per year. The same principle applies to old-age pensions. If we abolish the means test in regard to Civil Service and Railway pensioners, it logically follows that it must also be abolished in regard to old-age pensions and I do not think any member here would suggest that a wealthy man with an income of several thousands of rand a year should receive an old-age pension.

There are a few matters of a local nature and a few others of wider interest which I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister. The first one is in regard to the old Cape Town station building. I think that the hon. the Minister will agree that the old station building stands to-day as a monument to the development of the Railways in South Africa and there are numbers of people who would like to know what is going to become of this old building over the course of time, particularly with a view to the new station building. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will be so kind as to make an authoritative statement in regard to the old station building here in Cape Town, and to tell us what is going to become of it. I see that they are already breaking up the beautifully inlaid floors. I think that the people of Cape Town will be pleased to have an authoritative statement from the Minister in regard to the way in which this old building can perhaps be adapted to fit in with the new building which we have in Cape Town.

Another matter that I want to raise is one which I raised during last session in connection with Observatory station in my constituency. I told the hon. the Minister last session that this was a station situated in a very densely populated residential area and that this station was provided with facilities—I am talking about overbridges and subways and the times of police visits—which are hardly adequate to make the necessary facilities available to the people living in that area. But over and above this there is a large office of the Bantu Administration Commissioner which is situated between 200 and 300 yards from the station. Observatory station is to-day, as it were, being used as the jumping-off place or the meeting place of all Bantu who visit the office of the Commissioner. The result is that the present limited station facilities have to serve the local inhabitants and these Bantu and, as a result, there is a great deal of dissatisfaction in that area. I think that this is a matter which ought to be investigated carefully. I may perhaps suggest that the hon. the Minister have liaison with the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development in his regard because I feel that the offices of the Department of Bantu Administration should not be situated there. Another matter that I want to raise is the question of Maitland station. The hon. the Minister knows the circumstances there. The position there is that there is one subway which runs under the line and which links the residential area with the factory area. Over and above this, the subway is also used as a means of access to the various platforms. But the subway is at the moment being used by Whites, Bantu and Coloureds; the hon. the Minister knows that representations have already been made to him in connection with the improvement of the position there. The hon. the Minister also knows that there is an overbridge there but the overbridge is not adequate because it gives access to only half of the platforms. As I say, there is actually only one subway to serve all these people. In the meantime, the hon. the Minister has informed us that this matter is apparently one which is to a large extent the responsibility of the Cape Town City Council.

The thoroughfare from one part to the other.

Yes, I realize that. As I understood the position, this matter was raised with the City Council of Cape Town more than a year ago. More than a year has passed and the position is still as it was; no change has been made. There is still the same amount of dissatisfaction in this regard; in fact, that dissatisfaction has increased. When one approaches the City Council one finds that there is an argument between themselves and the Minister. In the meantime the public at Maitland have to put up with a very unsatisfactory state of affairs and no progress can be made in this regard. It appears to me that this is a matter in which someone must take action; either the hon. the Minister must bring the necessary pressure to bear upon the City Council to do something in this connection or else it appears to me that the hon. the Minister will himself have to do something to rectify the position and to satisfy the people who use the station.

There is another matter which is of importance, to my mind. During the recess, or rather, in the recent past, various people have approached me, people who used to work in the Railway bookstalls which have now been taken over by private enterprise. All the people who approached me were summarily dismissed after years of service. There may perhaps be some background to this matter but the fact remains that one person told me that she had had 13 years’ or more service and when the bookstall was taken over by private enterprise, this lady who was in the service of the Railways was asked to relinquish her position. No other post was found for her.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Evening Sitting

I want to come back to the statement made by the hon. the Minister earlier in reply to certain questions put to him in regard to the Schumann report. The Minister has a reputation of being able to face up to any issue in this House. I think this is the first time I can remember on which the Minister has on every occasion during the course of this debate run away from one of the most important issues facing the Railways to-day. Not only the Railways but the whole economy of South Africa in regard to the recommendations contained in the Schumann Commission report. What was the Minister’s reply? He said he was not going to answer now. He said we must come back in a year’s time. He says when we deal with the Budget in a year’s time we can then get his answers as to what he proposes to do with this report. What are the facts, Sir? The Minister has had this report since April last year. Let me remind the House too, that before this House had ever seen this report the Minister was able to stand up here during a discussion on transport matters and say he was accepting one of the recommendations of the Schumann Report, namely, to appoint a commission to go into the question of coordinating all forms of transportation in South Africa. He said that before any member of this House had actually seen the report itself. The Minister, by that reply on that occasion, indicated that he had had a preview of this report. Industries and the Minister’s Planning Department have had the report, the Government have had the report but the Minister says he can’t give us any reply. “Come back next session”, he says. But I want to remind the hon. the Minister that we are discussing his Budget now. His Budget indicates that he expects to dispose of his estimated surplus of R7,500,000 by giving something like R6,000,000 in the form of concessions based on the Schumann Report recommendations. Surely, Sir, if the Minister has already come to that decision we are entitled to ask him what part of these recommendations does he envisage accepting that will call upon him to dispose of R6,000,000 of his surplus. He must be giving that R6,000,000 back to commerce and industry in some way or other related to the recommendations contained in the report.

You see, Sir, the hon. the Minister has run away from every single question put to him about this report. Neither we nor the country have had any information from the Minister about this matter. The Minister then went further and said: “I shall take a decision in two weeks’ time; after I have had an opportunity of considering the replies I have had from organized commerce and industry.” But my information is that the Minister has had representations made to him on this report from commerce and industry for some little while now. He has not only just received them. I think the Minister is treating the House and the Opposition and the country with very scant respect by not giving us any information at all. Surely the Minister cannot at this stage say that he is prepared to accept the majority report or that he is prepared to accept the minority report subject to the provisos contained in paragraph 536? Surely the Minister can give us some indication as to whether he is prepared to accept the recommendation of the report in regard to the establishment of a Tariff Advisory Board? May I ask the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) whether he will advocate to the Minister to accept that portion of the report which recommends the establishment of a Tariff Advisory Board? We have had many pleas during the course of this debate from hon. members opposite that the Minister should not accept the recommendations dealing with the agricultural industry. Is there a member on the Government’s side of the House who will get up and ask the Minister not to accept those recommendations which clearly indicate that, if the Minister accepts the majority report, the rail fares of the travelling public of South Africa over a period of four to five years will be increased as much as fourfold? I ask the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. J. J. Rall) whether he will get up and plead with the Minister not to accept those recommendations of the report?

Why do you plead for the farmers and not for the other people?

I do believe that the reason why we have had no statement from the hon. the Minister is that he has said to hon. members on his side: “Plead in this House and before the public that I do not apply the recommendations in regard to the agricultural industry; that will offer me a leg-out; let us see what the Opposition says in regard to those recommendations.” That is a political tactic. Here is a report which throws overboard one of the principles in respect of which the Minister has challenged us for years. He has often asked us whether we as an Opposition stand by the principle of fixing tariffs on a differential basis, namely, on the principle of what the traffic can bear. The Schumann Report says clearly that if you want to get a proper perspective in respect of fixing rates you must apply the principle of direct costs. What we want to know from the Minister is whether he accepts that principle underlined in this report? We are entitled to ask him that. The country is entitled to ask it.

Then we come to the other aspect. If the hon. the Minister is prepared to accept the principle of direct costs the Government, through the Minister, according to the reports, must accept the principle of subsidizing uneconomic rates, when found to be necessary, by means of a direct Vote from the Treasury. Is the reason why we cannot get any answer from the Minister the fact that the Minister, as a member of the Cabinet, cannot get any decision from his colleagues in the Cabinet as to what should be done about this report? Is that the real reason behind it? It is a farcical situation. Here is a report on which the whole economic foundation of the Railways rests. If the Railways rest on it then it affects every economic aspect of the national life of South Africa. This is one of the most important documents ever submitted. Here we are dealing with the Minister’s Budget and he cannot get up in this House and say what his policy is in respect of the recommendations contained in this report. It is a farcical situation. I submit to the Minister that he cannot give us a decision on policy. If he can’t give us a direct answer then he should resign because he has no policy in respect of a matter of this nature.

He is waiting for commerce to tell him.

I think he is waiting for the Opposition to tell him. This is the point about the whole report. The Minister’s difficulty why he cannot carry all the traffic is because of the vast volume of low-rated traffic the Railways have to bear at the present time. If any hon. member opposite would look at the estimates in the Brown Book he would see that the bulk of the expenditure on those estimates is in order to allow the Railways to carry larger quantities of maize, iron ore, coal and all the low-rated commodities. The bulk of the capital expenditure the Minister is asking us to approve of is to equip the Railways to carry this low-rated traffic. There is no trouble about high-rated traffic. The Minister can carry all the high-rated traffic offering to-day. There are no delays. He can carry it efficiently. The Railways can cope with it fully. But with what the Railways can’t cope is the low-rated traffic. If that is so then it immediately raises the issue of planning for the future of the Railways. If a commission is appointed to investigate to what extent road haulage by private hauliers can participate in the transport business of South Africa the question arises what is the future of the South African Railways in respect of this vast capital expenditure. The Minister has no policy in that regard. He can’t tell us anything at all. We put questions to the Minister. In the second-reading debate we made proposals to the hon. the Minister to none of which he has given us any answer in this debate. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that we will pursue the subject of attempting to get some statement of policy from him in respect of this most important document as long as it is possible to do so before this debate ends. If the Minister does not give us any indication as to what he intends doing about these recommendations he must realize that he sits there as Minister of Railways in the Nationalist Cabinet without any policy whatsoever in respect of the future developments in South Africa. [Time limit.]

The curiosity of the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) threatens to get the better of him. He has now made representations to the hon. the Minister to announce precisely which of the recommendations contained in the Schumann Committee’s Report he is going to accept and which of them he is not going to accept. He did this shortly after the hon. the Minister told us very clearly that he was going to issue a White Paper stating precisely which of the recommendations he was going to adopt and which he was not going to adopt. The whole matter is being carefully considered and the hon. the Minister will give his reply not when it suits the hon. member for Turffontein but when it suits the hon. the Minister to do so. The hon. member is acting like a naughty child by insisting upon an immediate reply from the hon. the Minister. He will get nowhere with conduct of that sort. He must simply accept what the hon. the Minister has told him.

In connection with the Schumann Report I should like to direct a friendly request to the hon. the Minister not to accept that part of the report recommending an increase in the tariffs for livestock, vegetables and so forth. The farmers living in the drought-stricken parts of the country will be very hard hit if these recommendations are adopted. Because the farmers are already struggling, I want once again to ask the hon. the Minister to give serious consideration to this matter and not to accept that part of the report which recommends increased tariffs in respect of agricultural products.

I want to discuss a matter which I have raised on previous occasions in this House—the question of a link-up between the South African Railways and Rhodesia Railways. I know that the hon. the Minister will say that as far as South Africa is concerned, we have done our duty, and that the line has already been taken across our border from Messina to Beit Bridge. This question of a link-up between ourselves and our neighbouring state is of very great importance to us in South Africa. It is of particular importance to those of us living on the northern borders of the country because the two areas are in regular contact with one another. If that link-up can be effected, I believe that it will be of great value and importance to the Northern Transvaal and also to the southern portion of Rhodesia. As we know, there are to-day two alternative routes for the Railways to Rhodesia. The one runs via Mafeking through Bechuanaland. This was built during the Anglo-Boer War in order to bypass the Transvaal, for obvious reasons. The traffic on that line in 1950-2 was very heavy. Partly because of the fact that water is scarce along that line and because of the fact that much of the traffic destined for Beira was unexpectedly diverted to Port Elizabeth and Cape Town, which fact caused a certain amount of congestion, the former Government of the Federation decided to build the so-called Pafuri line to Lourenço Marques. The advantage of this line to Rhodesia was that it brought their harbour closer to them although they would have been three miles closer still if they had linked up West Nicholson and Beit Bridge to Lourenço Marques. But the first-mentioned line covered a longer distance in Rhodesian territory and, because of this fact, brought development to that part of the country. I feel that the climate for the rail link-up I have mentioned is very favourable to-day. We are on very good terms with Rhodesia; the Federation has been disbanded and new circumstances have arisen. The climate to-day is far more favourable for a link-up at a place which, instead of covering the distance from Beit Bridge to West Nicholson, a distance of 105 miles, will join Beit Bridge with Rutenga, a distance of only 85 miles. This will be greatly to our advantage. Businessmen both in Rhodesia and in South Africa have made representations from time to time to have this line built because it will bring the two largest cities in Rhodesia and South Africa respectively, namely, Salisbury and Johannesburg, 150 miles closer together. There is a great deal of advantage to be obtained by the two countries from this fact. As far as railway tariffs are concerned, it will stimulate trade between the Republic of South Africa and Rhodesia. I want to make a friendly request to the hon. the Minister to tell us whether there has been any further development in this connection. I know that we on our part have already done our share by taking the line across the border. Actually, the onus for making that link-up rests with Rhodesia. Nevertheless it is in our power to negotiate with the Rhodesian Government and the building of this line will be of great importance for both countries.

I cannot help gaining the impression this evening that the Opposition do not have a great deal to discuss. Each time they come back to the old story about which so much has already been said. They insist that the hon. the Minister tell them what he is going to do about the Schumann Report. I think that they should be very grateful that the hon. the Minister did not first make his decision and then come to Parliament. He is giving them the opportunity to discuss the matter and to air their opinions. The hon. the Minister has been good enough to give them the opportunity to consider this report. I think that the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) ought to thank the hon. the Minister; if he wants to do the right thing in this regard he should thank the hon. the Minister and not continue to complain.

I want to come back to the subject which I was discussing earlier this evening. I want to thank the hon. the Minister very much indeed for giving me the assurance that he has instructed his officials to investigate the question of tariffs. But I am afraid that the hon. the Minister did not quite understand my request. I think that there was a slight misunderstanding between us and this misunderstanding caused me to think of the story of the old man and his wife. He realized that things were not going so well between himself and his wife. He discussed the matter with his neighbour and his neighbour asked him: “Do you take your wife a bunch of flowers every now and again?” to which the old man replied: “To tell the truth, I do not.” His neighbour then asked: “Do you kiss her when you come home?”, to which the old man replied: “No, I do not do that either.” Then his neighbour said:“Try it to-day.” When the old man got home, he gave his wife a bunch of flowers and a hearty kiss, at which she suddenly burst into tears and said: “This is the last straw; the child is ill, the maid has not turned up, the stove does not want to burn and you have to come home drunk!” I am afraid that the hon. the Minister expected me to say something else and that is why there has been this misunderstanding. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that we in the north-west are really not complaining about the railway tariffs. We think that generally speaking the tariffs are very fair. We realize that when the Road Motor Services have to do the work of the Railways they certainly cannot do it at the same tariffs unless they act as an integral part of the Railways. But this is a question of policy and we cannot discuss it now. The Road Motor Services cannot operate more cheaply than they usually do. I think that the Road Motor Services are by far the cheapest in the country but I want to refer to a certain anomaly in the tariff structure. While in the normal course of events road motor transport is one and a half times to twice as expensive as transport by rail, we find that in the transport of live stock, the Road Motor Services’ tariff structure is four to five times more expensive—in extreme cases it is as much as six times as expensive—than that of the Railways. The question I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider is this: Because there are hardly any rail connections in the north-west, we ask that this commodity, the main source of production of the northwest, should be brought into line with other commodities on the normal basis of one and a half times to twice the tariff charged by the Railways so that we can market our products at more competitive prices. The hon. the Minister said half jokingly here this afternoon that beef is so expensive that the farmers will probably not mind. But I feel that I can tell the Minister in all earnestness that the fact that beef is so expensive is due to the very severe drought we are experiencing. We know that the hon. the Minister feels just as we do in this connection. He has already shown his sympathy in the past in the form of the assistance which he has given. Present beef prices are abnormal; they are not an indication that the industry is flourishing. This is a position which has arisen because of the difficulties of the farmers. Their herds of stock have died because of the drought. Cattle are very scarce at the moment and the small price increase which the farmer is receiving is costing him a fortune. That is why I shall be very pleased if the hon. the Minister will have this specific aspect investigated; this anomaly in regard to the tariffs charged by the Railways and the Road Motor Services on the transport of live stock. I am sure that he will find that there is an unexplained price difference in this regard.

I want to raise a further matter in regard to tariffs, namely, the tariff charged for the transport of wool. I want to say immediately that I realize that the tariff on wool is fixed on the old basis of what the product can bear. We realize that the production of wool was one of the most profitable industries in our country a few years ago. The position is briefly that if we transport a ton of wool over a distance of 1,000 miles, it costs R28. If we transport a similar commodity, such as cotton, over the same distance, it costs R6.24, that is to say, the tariff on wool is about five times as much. I realize that wool is better able to bear these increased transportation costs than any other product. It is better able to bear them than, for example, cotton is; that I readily agree. But I do think that these tariffs have become a trifle unrealistic when we consider the present price structure of wool.

I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to another important matter and that is the position of the karakul farmer in regard to his hair clips. These hair clippings are transported as wool. It is hardly worthwhile shearing the hair and sending it away but it is transported at the same tariff as wool. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister should not have an investigation made into this matter to see whether it cannot be rectified. We as farmers know that we have always enjoyed the sympathy of the Railways in the past. We know that the hon. the Minister is not unsympathetic towards our problems. That is why I have taken the liberty this evening of raising these two aspects of the matter with him. I was not able to complete my argument earlier this evening. I feel that in all fairness to private transport services I should complete the argument which I was advancing in that regard otherwise I may be accused of having advanced a one-sided argument. Before I resumed my seat earlier I was saying that, although the Railways are in the normal course of events far cheaper than private transport, we find in the case of the transport of livestock that the tariffs charged by the Road Motor Services are usually higher than those charged by private transport. I just want to certify this matter for the purposes of the record because I was not able to complete my sentence before I resumed my seat.

The hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. G. de K. Maree) told the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) that he should be grateful that the hon. the Minister had not summarily accepted the recommendations of the Schumann Commission without first consulting this House. If ever a person has spoken through his hat, Sir, it is that hon. member. Recommendations of a commission which are as drastic as these in regard to tariffs do not only affect the Railways. If the hon. member know anything about the matter he would know that there are many industries paying railway tariffs which are higher than they would actually have been if these tariffs were based on the actual cost of transport only. Because they pay that tariff they receive customs protection and other protection as well. Apart from the acceptance or otherwise of the recommendations in connection with tariffs, there is also the question of the rectifying of a large number of things in order to bring them into their correct perspective. Even though the hon. the Minister were to accept the recommendations it would take some time before these recommendations were given effect to. The report mentioned a period of ten years.

I want to associate myself with what has been said by hon. members opposite who represent agricultural interests. I want to make a special appeal to the hon. the Minister and ask him to wait until he receives representations from agriculture before deciding upon these recommendations. I know that he has not as yet received such representations. Notwithstanding what was said by organized agriculture before the Commission, they will certainly have something else to say in connection with the recommendations regarding tariff changes. I want to associate myself with what has been said by hon. members who have already discussed this matter and I want to make a special appeal to the hon. the Minister to accede to their requests. I ask this for a particular reason. I know that if tariffs are changed in a scientific way—we like to do things in a scientific way—provision will be made to restore the balance as far as agriculture is concerned by way of subsidies and so forth. I just want to mention a few commodities. Can the hon. the Minister imagine what would happen if the tariff on vegetables—I am speaking of fresh vegetables with the exception of potatoes—was increased by 102 per cent? In order to enable those vegetables to be sent to the Johannesburg market for the purpose of feeding the public, vegetables will have to be subsidized by a corresponding amount in order to return to the basis of what the industry can bear. Can the hon. the Minister imagine what the people will have to say about this? Does the hon. the Minister know how tired the farmers are of hearing how they are subsidized? I readily admit that the way in which it is being done at present—on the basis of what the industry can bear—is an indirect method of subsidization. But the moment one has to make budgetary provision for all the subsidies which will have to be paid in respect of particular products, complaints will once again be made about the farmers’ being subsidized to such an extent. Let us readily admit that although the basis of what industry can bear is perhaps not the best tariff basis, there are many commodities in the country which will have to be subsidized before they can bear that tariff. I am not speaking about wool. I have always pleaded the case of wool with the hon. the Minister and I have said that wool pays too much on the basis of what that industry can bear. A corresponding subsidy will have to be paid in respect of particular commodities otherwise the farmer will not be able to produce them. These goods have to be sent to the large markets and the farmers cannot get them there at increased tariff rates. If the farmers have to be subsidized, it will leave a bad taste in the mouths of the public. We as farmers ask the hon. the Minister not to expose us to a situation of this nature.

On behalf of the constituency which I represent here I want to thank the hon. the Minister for what he has done for that constituency. But I want to add, as the hon. the Minister knows, that the goods station, shunting yard and main station are very old fashioned and that a main street traverses that railway line. They may be adequate for Potfontein or Putsonderwater but they are no longer adequate for a city like East London. I want to ask the hon. the Minister in a friendly way to expedite the work in this connection. It is almost a scandal as far as East London is concerned. While thanking the hon. the Minister for what has been done, the re-laying and doubling of the lines, the building of the grain elevator and so forth, I want to ask the hon. the Minister in a friendly way to expedite that work.

I should like to bring two matters to the notice of the hon. the Minister. The one is in connection with the bringing into operation of diesel locomotives on the East London-Burghersdorp section. I think that this is a matter which will be of particular interest to the railway officials concerned. I also think that this is a matter which will be of very great interest to the towns concerned in this regard, towns like East London, Queenstown and Burghersdorp, particularly from an economic point of view. Besides this, I think it is a matter which is enjoying wide interest and I shall greatly appreciate it if the hon. the Minister can tell us whether it is still his intention to introduce diesel traction there instead of steam, when a start will be made in this regard and to what extent the plan will be implemented.

I also want to ask—it is almost obvious—that if it should happen that the staff are reduced, as one may well expect, the hon. the Minister and the Railway Administration will be as sympathetic as possible in transferring officials and may perhaps be able to see their way clear to transfer those officials who want to leave and allow the older officials who have been there for some time now, who have homes there and whose children are at school there, to remain.

The other matter which I want to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister is in regard to drivers on the Road Motor Services. I have received various letters over the past period not only from my own constituency but also from two other constituencies in the Border area. The position is that when these drivers are on duty and have to sleep out, they can claim expenses. It seems to me that they can claim expenses according to two scales, the tariff scale or the night scale. The one is R2 and the other is R1. Some of these officials have been repaid too much in expenses in the past; some have been overpaid an amount of R250, on the higher scale, over a period of three years. I do not exonerate them completely because these officials are informed what they may do and what they may not do through the medium of circulars. I should like in mitigation to say that some of these officials who have written to me and who have spoken to me personally have told me that when they arrived at various centres they made a point of asking the chief clerk, among others, how they should fill in their expense sheet. They were told to complete it according to a particular tariff. It was approved, signed by that official, stamped by him and approved by the district engineer. It was then approved by the accountant at East London and the money was paid out, as I have said, over a period of three years in some cases. I also want to advance as a mitigating factor the fact that they could have gained that impression because officials in other grades in the service who went out with them and slept with them in the same buildings had the right to claim expenses according to the higher scale. I do not want to ask for the impossible but I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to investigate the matter and, if possible, to consider giving some relief to these officials who have now to refund the amount which they have been overpaid. I submit that the fact that they have been overpaid is just as much the fault of the Administration as it is theirs.

I believe it is the duty of a responsible Opposition to criticize where criticism is necessary, and I find so often that the Minister is inclined lightly to brush aside criticism made by the United Party and that subsequently he then finds that it is expedient to accept the suggestions of the United Party. I want to refer to a particular case, the Hex River Tunnel. This afternoon the hon. Minister was particularly scathing, but I believe that the basis of this difference involves the question of forward planning. I want to refer the hon. Minister to some remarks that are recorded in his name in Hansard, just two years ago, when the matter of the Hex River Tunnel was raised. The Minister said this—

That is what the Minister said two years ago.

The strange thing about all this is this that an article in Railway News refers to the fact that in order to give private carriers an opportunity to get their goods down to the Cape, it has been arranged through Lourenço Marques for coal to be transported to Lourenço Marques and shipped from Lourenço Marques to various Cape ports. The quantity quoted is at least 100,000 tons which will be carried this way. This seems to be one way in which the Minister planned for the “boom”!

Last year, in this debate, the Minister was asked to do something concrete about the non-White wages. As far as the wages of the Coloured people were concerned he was sympathetic, and it is gratifying to know that from 1 May, last year, certain increases were granted to the Coloureds. But here is another strange instance where I cannot understand the working of the Minister’s mind. He said “Bantu wages were improved on rationalization. It is not my intention to increase wages at this stage, whether they be wages for Bantu or for Whites. I cannot increase wages every year. A certain period of time has first to elapse”. Six months afterwards we read, and it is reported in the annual report, that the minimum wage of Bantu and Indians has been increased by 20c a day. That too is gratifying, but I want to point out to the hon. Minister that it is not a very satisfactory state of affairs. Last year, in 1964, we find that 97.9 per cent of the Bantu in the employ of the South African Railways were in receipt of less than R2 per day. This amount is being considered now as a norm by commerce and industry, but 97.9 per cent received less than this amount. As a result of this rise which was granted by the Minister, we find the position has improved by 1½ percent, because 96.6 per cent of the Bantu are still receiving less than the minimum of R2 per day. The Minister’s Department, has no cause for pride in this matter. I think he could take a leaf out of the book of another department, the Department of the Interior, where up to 40 per cent of the employees are in receipt of a salary of over R2 a day.

Sir, there is another case of apparent contradiction. In this House and in the Other Place the question of air-conditioning of passenger trains was raised. I believe I am right in saying that the Minister in the Other Place said “No, it is too expensive”. But what do we find in the Budget this year? An amount of R2,600,000 being voted to supply two Blue Train sets. I am sure we are all very pleased to see that we are to have these trains. The country will be proud of them, and the Minister, according to the newspaper reports, has said that they will be the showpieces—the best trains in the world, and he also indicated that it was the intention to use the old Blue Trains on the Trans-Natal run. I would appeal to the hon. Minister, and to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Bethlehem in 1959, when the hon. member was not discussing air-conditioning, but cooler travelling on the Orange Express, and he said this—

He was referring to the Orange Express, and I want to suggest with respect to the hon. Minister that the Trans-Natal journey is usually done during the cool of the evening and the cool of the morning, but the Orange Express passes through the Karoo at the hottest part of the day. Therefore I would like to suggest to him that he should consider very seriously placing the old Blue Train on the Orange Express run when the new Blue Train comes into operation.

Another question that seems to be very much linked up with the labour position on the Railways is housing, and here again, the hon. Minister showed his sympathy in 1959, but his sympathy seems to have faded a little of late. He said in 1959—

About that time, some R40,000 was spent and 6,000 homes were provided. But what has been the position in the last four years? From 1961 to the end of December 1964? We find an expenditure of R4,000,000 approximately involving 728 houses. I will admit that the sale of departmental houses has been curtailed in order to make provision for people who have to be transferred to city areas where houses are scarce, but that is not the full picture. We find that a great deal of money is appropriated to provide the houses, but that here again the forward planning has not produced the houses. We had last year nearly R10,000,000 appropriated and this Budget indicates another R11,800,000, but what do we find in regard to the housing position? We find that the number of outstanding applications since 1961 has averaged 4,258 a year. When we come to the applications for departmental houses we find that the figure in 1961 was 1,964, but at the end of last year it had increased by 40 per cent. When we come to the question of houses allocated we find that the position has remained almost static. Allocations are not keeping pace with applications.

Then I come to this very vexed question of shunters. The Minister has given information concerning the shortage of shunters and we find that the department is 15 per cent short of normal requirements. We find too that absenteeism amounts also to 15 per cent. Sir, it could well be that if there were a full complement of shunters, it would just be possible to make up for the absenteeism which occurs, I believe, as a result of the long hours of work. We find too that this particular shortage is in two of the busiest sections of the Railways in the Republic, because in Natal there is a shortage of 211 shunters, 31 per cent of the total shortage, and on the Western Transvaal section we find the percentage is 38; so on the two busiest sections we have a shortage of 69 per cent of shunters. [Time limit.]

If the hon. the Minister agrees to the request of the hon. member to use the present Blue Train on the Free State-Durban section, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to have that train painted orange. After all, it will then be the Free State’s train, the Orange Express. Unfortunately, there is only one Blue Train and there are two trains on the present Orange Express run. I hope that the hon. the Minister may perhaps be able to convert the other one into an air-conditioned train.

I rise to make a very friendly request of the hon. the Minister and that is that when the Hex River Tunnel is completed—the United Party tunnel, as we call it—he should invite the present Opposition to be present on the day when the tunnel is put into operation so that they can make the journey along those miles of tunnel in a long train with two steam locomotives pulling it. I think that they will very soon discover then that their planning was completely wrong. They will realize that that line first had to be electrified before the miles of tunnel could be built. My further request is that the hon. the Minister will open all the windows of that train and ask the driver to stop in the middle of the tunnel and make a lot of smoke!

On behalf of the farmers of the north-eastern Free State I also want to convey our hearty thanks and appreciation to the Railways for the particular assistance which has been given us in transporting our wheat crop. We had an abnormal wheat crop there last year, a crop such as we have never had before. That crop was twice as large as any previous crop. The co-operatives did make provision for bags but eventually all the bags were used up. If the Railways had not given us immediate assistance by bringing trucks from Durban-Point in 24 hours, it would have meant that all the harvesters would have had to stand idle until more bags had been made available. I have been specially instructed to convey the thanks and appreciation of the farmers in that area to the hon. the Minister and to the Railway Administration.

Listening to this debate in the House here now, it really amazes me how the Government benches seem to have lost all interest in life. There is no fight in them, they can’t even “thank” decently. The hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Knobel) pleaded to have a train painted yellow. Have they got nothing else to talk about? Surely everybody in the Free State is not satisfied with what is happening?

They are yellow in the Free State.

That is why they want the train painted that way to make certain that the train goes through that province. Sir, what are we getting from that side of the House? Surely everybody is not satisfied. Surely the railwaymen in their constituencies are not satisfied! Even the Minister has been most subdued. And what did we get from the Minister? The Minister in accordance with Nationalist Party policy, taking over our policy bit-by-bit every year, has now taken over our tunnel. And what was his excuse? He makes no excuse for taking it over, but he says that had we built it when we wanted to, it would have been built 20 years too early. On what does he base that assumption? He bases it on the assumption that the progress in this country’s development would have been at the same pace as under the Nationalist Government. What a fallacious argument! If the party had got into power, five years later, we would have been in the position in which we are to-day. The immigrants would have flocked in, the immigrants they now try to get. They would have flocked into this country, and would have helped to build up this country. Sir, we have lagged far behind Australia, but at last the people of the world are coming here because the other countries cannot absorb all the immigrants from the European countries. At last we are getting those immigrants which we should have had long ago. The hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. G. de K. Maree), what did he do? He was so afraid that there might be some misunderstanding between him and the Minister that he tried to excuse it, and he likened his position to a woman who was having trouble with her husband, and he said the husband was given the advice that he should take his wife a bunch of flowers and go home and kiss her. When the husband did that, the wife thought he was drunk. That is typical of what is happening in the Railways. If this Minister gives the railwaymen anything to-day, they will think that he is drunk.

I want to talk to the Minister about the Transkei, and I want to refer to a resolution which was discussed at the Federal Consultative Council in October last year. Now hon. members opposite will know that in the Transkei an experiment is being carried out. They are pleased about what is happening over there, about this experiment, hoping that this experiment in the Transkei will solve all their problems. So they tell everybody about it, not only in South Africa, but they bring every outsider, everybody from abroad to the Transkei to see for themselves what is happening there. This is the justification of their policy, the development in the Transkei. They make great play of the fact that in developing the Transkei, in the progress that is being made there, we are not following the course taken up north. The cry is “emancipation without chaos”. And why is there emancipation without chaos? They say very proudly that it is because they have not handed over control to the Africans before the time was ripe, and they are keeping the control in the hands of the White civil servants and Government officials.

Is this now a Bantustan debate?

Now, Sir, one of the most important services supplied by the Government of the Republic to the Transkeian Government is transport. If the transport collapsed there would be chaos in the Transkei. In order to get the Administration to carry on without chaos, the Government assured that it would get fully trained officials in the Transkei to assist the Government. And how did they get those officials to go to the Transkei? They had to import them from outside the Transkei, and they got them there by offering them special allowances, housing allowances and a territorial allowance. The housing allowances vary from R33.50 a month to R45 a month. That is the housing allowance for those who do not occupy Government houses, and those who occupy Government houses do so at a rental a fifth of the normal rentals paid by other civil servants. In addition a territorial allowance is paid from R15 a month to R40 a month. That is in addition to the housing allowance.

My complaint has been, and I have raised this matter before with this Minister—and it was also raised at the Federal Council meeting—that there is discrimination. The following resolution was passed at the meeting of the Federal Council—

They said—

Do you know what that means, Sir? Not only are they complaining that they have to compete with civil servants who are getting house allowances and with civil servants who are getting the special territorial allowance, but also those who have housing at the moment, find themselves living in areas which may be in the “afgebakende” portion, the zoned area for Bantu occupation. What is happening? When the Zoning Committee zones an area for Black occupation, it means that Africans can buy in that area. But railwaymen are at present in many instances hiring houses in such areas and own houses in those areas. When an area is zoned Black, it does not mean that the Government will buy all the White houses in that area. It simply means that Black men will be able to buy houses in that area and live there along with the White people. That is what these railwaymen object to. I say this: If the Government wants the Transkei to develop to “emancipation without chaos”, and if it finds it necessary to bring in civil servants and to give them special allowances, no distinction should be made between civil servants and the railwaymen. These railwaymen are not doing favoured jobs; the work they do is not more pleasant than the work done by the Bantu Administration servants. In fact it is less pleasant. These railwaymen don’t all live in the towns and villages of the Transkei. Some of them live at stations far out, isolated, in the reserve. But they do not get special allowances. Some of the railway men, in the R.M.T. service who have to drive buses, do so not always under pleasant circumstances. They have to travel over bad roads in bad weather. But they don’t get favoured treatment, they don’t even get the same treatment as the civil servants who have seconded to the Transkeian Government. The complaint of the United Party is that if some civil servants are going to be attracted by special allowances, then all other civil servants should get the same treatment. Why should some be favoured over the others? And why should some of the railwaymen who have been living in that area which is now being zoned Black, be forced to live in an area with people with who they do not want to live, departing from the traditional policy of this country of residential segregation? I want to ask the hon. Minister to make a statement to us about the policy in regard to transport in the Transkei. What is the policy of his Department in regard to the Transkei? How is the service going to be handed over to the Africans? I have heard, Sir, that bus drivers are being trained to take over some of the bus routes. I want to know whether they are going to be given positions as stationmasters in the Bantu areas? The Minister himself raised something like that this afternoon when he wanted to know whether we would have Bantu station-masters in White areas. [Time limit.]

I should like to bring one matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister and that is the position of our vegetable farmers who live a long way from the large markets and who have to send their products to those centres by rail. The vegetable farmers are usually those farmers who do not have very large incomes. They fall into the poorer group and their incomes usually fluctuate to a large extent. I have here a case of a farmer in the Riversdale district. I have not selected this particular case but I take it at random as being one of many such cases. Here are the figures which he sent me last year. He sent 15,000 bags of onions to the Johannesburg market. He was paid R6,800 for these onions. The railage on the onions amounted to R1,520. This meant that 24 per cent of his gross income had to be used to cover railage costs. Because we have such a favourable Budget, we wonder whether something cannot be done for this group of people, something that will assist them financially.

The hon. Minister of Railways blushed rather badly when the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) told him that he was possibly the only popular member in the Cabinet. His reply was that he might not be the only popular one, but that he certainly was a practical member. Whether he is the most popular one or the only practical one, the conclusion to which many of us on this side of the House are coming, is that he is the most obstinate one in accepting any useful suggestion made by this side of the House. As proof of this contention I want to cross swords with the hon. Minister once again for his lack of interest—and I use these words advisedly—in giving consideration to the position of the vulnerable mines on the Witwatersrand. The Minister of Railways is possibly in a better position than any other Minister in this Cabinet to prolong the life of the mines on the Witwatersrand. Instead of doing that, he has gone out of his way in making it practically impossible for the mines to carry on on a profitable basis, and has persisted with this unnecessary railway surcharge of 10 per cent on all those commodities, which put up the working costs of the Transvaal mines. When challenged on this aspect, and asked to rebate the 10 per cent surcharge which was imposed in 1963, the hon. the Minister said—

But what is the position? A matter of only a week ago, the hon. Minister of Railways sat very silently, as apparently is his custom now-a-days, when we voted a rebate of R206,500 for commodities manufactured in the Transkei/Ciskei complex, and which are transported on the railway lines for consumption in the Transvaal. Was that not discrimination in favour of a certain section of the community? And if the hon. Minister could make himself a party to that, I say the time has come when the hon. the Minister must face the issues that confront us on the Witwatersrand, and he must go out of his way to make it possible to get a reduced railway tariff on the 101 commodities which are carried by the Railways and which are pushing up the costs of the mines in our area. I say that the Minister cannot leave this matter over indefinitely. With the inflationary tendency that is going on throughout the country, and which is affecting the gold mines more forcibly than possibly any other section of the community, the time has come when the Minister must make a similar concession to the Transvaal gold mines as he has made (a) in the case of the Transkei/Ciskei complex and (b) in the case where he has made concessions to farmers, for instance, where they have to suffer as a result of drought. I don’t say that the farmers are not entitled to that concession. I say they are, because it is a situation over which they have no control. But similarly the mines have got no control over the situation which has developed and which is pushing up the cost of their manufactured article to this unreasonably high level. I think the time has come when the Minister cannot continue giving us the evasive answer that he has in the past, when he has used the excuse that he cannot discriminate in favour of one section. He has set a precedent, and it is over to him now to face the realities of this particular situation.

When one talks about facing the realities of the situation in respect of the Railways, I once again want to say to the hon. Minister that he is not facing the situation that is developing on the railway lines in regard to the transport of coal during the coming winter months. The hon. the Minister said that the Railways would transport as much coal as they did last year, but any excess that might be required, would have to be hauled by commerce and industry. The Minister has gone further and said that he will make concessions and lift the restriction against road transport by private hauliers, and allow them to transport coal during the coming winter months. The hon. Minister has left it too late! The transport of coal is of the utmost importance to the country, and the hon. Minister has not given any indication to private hauliers and transport firms how long they will have this concession. No responsible firm will go ahead and invest in heavy transport lorries, and so on, unless it knows that they have got a fixed period, say three or five years at least, in which they can make up their share of capital amortization on these heavy lorries. The hon. Minister has asked for coal stockpiling—stockpiling which will bring about the danger of spontaneous combustion—but he is not prepared to give any guarantee to those people, who have to outlay such considerable sums in investing in these heavy lorries and vehicles. It has been stated that in one week during this month, 65 firms were only able to stockpile 3,200 tons of coal, and this during a period when the seasonal demand was low. That is only one-fifth of what is going to be required in the coming winter months. Here you have sufficient proof that it is impossible to stockpile under present conditions. The Minister has left this matter too late! We are going to have a recurrence of what we had in 1958 with all the dangers on the Springs-Witbank roads and the ruination of those roads.

If another criticism is to be levelled against the Minister, it is the fact that when the United Party went out of office in 1948, we were told that the R6,000,000 that we were going to spend on the Johannesburg Station was excessive and extravagant. What is the position to-day? The estimate in regard to Johannesburg Station is now shown in these Estimates at R21,000,000. I do not say that it is not necessary that the station should be of that magnitude, but the criticism levelled against the United Party in this case—and in many other instances—has been proved absolutely unfair and unnecessary, in that this Government has spent, as in this case, nearly four times the amount that the United Party found it necessary to spend. I would like to ask the hon. Minister: Is this going to be the end of the spending on the Johannesburg Station, or how much more will be spent on the Johannesburg Station? Will the Minister tell us if the accusation made against the United Party by the Minister of Railways at that time of spending money on paintings has not been overdone 140 per cent more than we found necessary at the time of the United Party regime? The hon. the Minister has boasted about apartheid as enforced in his Department, but he just has to come to the East Rand, to my constituency, and see the number of Railway Bantu houses, right in the middle of a White area, and right opposite to what is going to be the civic centre of my town. Up to the present we have found it impossible to have those houses removed, because they come under the administration and the control of the Minister of Transport. Where is the sincerity in saying that apartheid is rigidly applied, when in the case of the Minister of Railways, we find that we are unable to have these houses removed expeditiously, immediately opposite the future civic project of Springs. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog) and his party are against apartheid, but now he is pleading for apartheid. One does not know where those hon. members stand from day to day. However, in regard to this particular matter, I have no knowledge of it. But the hon. member has not kept up to date with developments. He has not been reading his newspapers. He wanted to know about the transport of coal. He says I left it too late to make these concessions and he wants to know whether these concessions are temporary and for how long they will last, because these hauliers will not be prepared to invest capital in the purchase of trucks if it is only a temporary concession. If the hon. member had kept himself up to date he would have known that these concessions were already made in October last year, a considerable time before the winter, and that they were made on a permanent basis. In fact, I said so in my Budget speech, that these concessions are made on a permanent basis and not on a temporary basis. In other words, the hauliers need have no fear of being deprived of that right after a short time.

Another thing that the hon. member is apparently quite unaware of is the fact that the rebate on the railage of certain commodities, manufactured commodities, was not granted by the South African Railways; it is actually being paid by Treasury under the Vote of the Department of Economic Affairs. I made no concessions to any of those industries, but the Department of Economic Affairs, with the approval of the Treasury, are paying for those rebates.

*The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Mr. M. J. Rall) pleaded for the railage on vegetables to be reduced. There is. however, one thing that I must tell hon. members. It is very easy to plead for rates on some commodity or other to be reduced, but rating is a very complicated matter and has many implications. One cannot simply reduce the rates on one particular article without taking into account the position in regard to numerous other articles that may be suffering under the same difficulties. Vegetables have no fixed price; the price depends upon the supply and the demand. There are times when vegetables are very expensive on the market and other times when they are cheap. It would be impossible for rates to be adjusted in such a way that the farmer would get the benefit when prices were low and that the rates would again be increased when prices were higher. Vegetables are already being transported at a heavy loss. Hon. members must realize that the Railways are not prepared to suffer even heavier losses on the transportation of particular commodities as a result of rates being reduced. As far as all the rates are concerned, however, these are all matters that are linked up with the recommendations of the Schumann Commission, which are still to be considered and in regard to which a decision will soon be given. This is also my reply to the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman). The hon. member made a plea which was the very opposite of the statement made by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant). The last-mentioned hon. member wanted me to indicate now what my decisions are in regard to the recommendations made by the Schumann Commission, but the hon. member for East London (City) said that I should not decide now; I should first listen to all the representations, including those made by agriculture. This is again the typical United Party, blowing hot and cold. This hon. member made a fuss because no decision was being taken, but that other hon. member asked for it to be postponed. Now, who is speaking on behalf of the party?

There is no inconsistency. It only exists in the Minister’s mind.

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) is so adroit that he could explain any inconsistency in such a way that even his own people would think there was none.

The hon. member for Turffontein has again indulged in his old weakness, putting words in my mouth that I never used. I have written his words down. He said that I said that they could come back in a year’s time to hear what my decision was.

I said we could discuss it at the next Budget.

The hon. member is already denying what he said only ten minutes ago.

You are just making debating points.

I am not making debating points. I am showing that that hon. member is indulging in his old weakness of putting words in my mouth that I did not say.

You know very well what I meant.

I do not know what the hon. member meant. Nobody ever knows what he means. [Interjection.] The hon. member also said that in two weeks’ time I was going to take a decision when I had received the comments of commerce and industry. Where did I speak about two weeks’ time? But that is typical of the hon. member, and then he takes exception to the fact that I have made this accusation before.

You are making a debating point of it.

No. I am only trying to show the hon. member that he is trying to get away with things by misrepresenting the position. If the hon. member wants to know what I said, he should have listened and he can read my Hansard.

*The hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) asked that the Cape Town station building should be left to stand as a monument. The glass roof of this building has been donated to Kirstenbosch. It will be erected there. As far as the rest of this building is concerned, there is an agreement with the Municipality of Cape Town that it must be demolished in order to allow the street to pass through there. In regard to Observatory Station the hon. member says the facilities there are limited as far as the subways are concerned. I understand there are two subways. They are used mainly to gain access from the one part of the city to the other. In such a case it is the responsibility of the Cape Town City Council to bear the cost. There have been negotiations with the Cape Town Municipality, but a deadlock has been reached. They are not prepared to pay for it, nor are the Railways. The best the residents there can do is to make further representations to the municipality. Then, as far as the book-stall attendants are concerned, the attendants referred to by the hon. member were not servants of the Administration. These bookstall attendants operated on a commission basis. The result was that once the book-stalls had been sold and handed over to private enterprise, the Administration had no further responsibility for them. They should have negotiated with the private undertakings that took over the stalls.

The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Niemand) spoke about linking up the railway line between Beit Bridge and West Nicholson. This, of course, is a matter for the Rhodesian Government. We should very much like to have this connection, but naturally the Rhodesian Government has to decide whether or not this connection is to be built. The matter has been raised several times, but up to now they have found that it was not economically justified for them to have this connection built, for they contended that they had the two railway lines to the coast, namely, the one through Bechuanaland and the other to Lourenço Marques, and that if this link were built, it would only draw away traffic from the other two lines and then these lines would be operated at a loss.

The hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. G. de K. Maree) again spoke about the road motor rates for livestock. It is true that the difference between the railage rates and the Road Motor Service rates for livestock is a very large one. It is much larger than the difference between the railage rates and the Road Motor Service rates for other commodities, but this is due solely to the fact that the railage rates for livestock are exceptionally low and virtually uneconomic. This is why there is so large a gap.

The hon. member for East London (City) also asked about the improvements to be effected at East London. It is the intention to relocate the goods yard there, and I hope to make provision for this in the Estimates next year, should finances permit.

The hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Loots) asked whether it was still the intention to introduce diesel traction on that section, and he wanted to know when and to what extent. As I said on a previous occasion, the intention is to “dieselize” the entire section, from Burgersdorp to East London. The first diesels will be arriving within a few months, and provided the workshop at East London is ready, the necessary machinery is available and the necessary staff has been obtained, diesel operation will probably be commenced by the end of the year. As far as possible transfers are concerned, it is always the policy, if transfers have to be made, first to move unmarried persons and those who are willing to leave and, if possible, not to move settled persons, except when it is unavoidable. In regard to the expenses of road motor service staff I may just mention that a committee that was appointed quite some time ago to investigate the whole question of expenses, recently submitted its recommendations, which have been approved and which will probably be made public soon. This will mean a general improvement in the expenses that are paid.

The hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Wood) wanted to know whether the old Blue Train could not be used on the route from Cape Town to Durban, now served by the Orange Express. That is a matter which can be considered. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) again spoke about the difference in the allowances paid to railwaymen stationed in the Transkei and certain public servants who have been seconded to the Transkei Government. I have already explained on a previous occasion that those public servants are actually seconded to the Transkei Government and therefore they received increased allowances.

Who pays their allowances?

The Government pays them. They are seconded to the Transkei Government.

They are not seconded.

They are seconded to the Transkei Government and they receive the additional allowance. But railwaymen and other public servants have always been there and they receive the same allowances that those railwaymen and public servants receive in other Native areas. They suffer from the same disability. That is why there is no intention to increase their allowances to bring them on a par with those public servants seconded to the Transkei Government.

In South West Africa, are not railwaymen and public servants paid an extra allowance?

Yes, and that has been in existence since 1922.

The principle being that they are working in a different country.

No, the principle is that living costs were exceptionally high in South West in those days and that is why they received the allowance. The hon. member wanted to know how transport would be handed over to the Transkei Government. There is no intention of handing it over to the Transkei Government. I already said on previous occasions that the Railways belong to the South African Government and will continue to belong to our Government. We have run the railways in Bechuanaland for many years. We have also run road motor services in Swaziland and Bechuanaland for many years, and they are going to become independent countries but those services belong to us.

And the railways?

From Ramathalabama northwards the railway line belongs to the Rhodesian Government. I purchased the line from Vryburg to Ramathalabama from the Rhodesian Railways a few years ago, and now it belongs to the South African Government. Ramathalabama is on the border, but we have been operating the line as far as Mahalapye. I have decided now, after consultation with Rhodesian authorities, to withdraw my station staff and my permanent way staff from Bechuanaland, but not the train staff and the locomotive staff—they will continue to operate from Mafeking as far as Mahalapye.

Who will operate the road motor services in the Transkei?

The South African Railways, and they will continue to belong to the South African Railways. [Interjection.] That will be the position for as long as I want to do it, and if they do not want to do it they will get no services. [Interjections.] No, it is an excellent situation. The same position applies to Swaziland and Bechuanaland, What is the difference?

Will you have Black drivers on the buses in the Transkei?

That might be possible. We are using Bantu assistants even on certain bus services to Basutoland. They are actually serving their own people, in the same way that I appoint Native ticket clerks and Coloured ticket clerks to serve their own people. What is wrong with that? I have not the information at the moment, but as I say, that is quite possible, that those bus services serving exclusively the Native population will be manned by Bantu. I think that is the correct policy. I think these are all the points that were raised.

Heads put and agreed to.

On Heads Nos. 18 to 25.—“Harbours”, R19,401,400,

These Heads deal generally with the harbours and ports services and I might say that we are pleased on this side that the Minister has at long last taken note of the advice and guidance we have given him over the years in regard to the development of certain aspects of these ports. For many years we have been stressing on the Minister the urgent need for developing the ports to deal with the ships of the future, some of which ships have arrived to-day, but there are bigger ones and other types still to come. In the plan of development which the Minister briefly outlined in his Budget speech during the debate, it is still necessary to look well ahead both in regard to the size and type of vessels which we will have to deal with in the years ahead. Some of the developments the Minister has outlined now are so long overdue that they are almost out of date already. The bulk loading type of ship which the Minister referred to as being one of the problems he had to deal with may be fairly new to us, but they are old in the shipping world, and it was inevitable that we would have to deal with them, more particularly when we have regard to the type of bulk cargo that we are shipping overseas, the minerals and grain which we can ship and which inevitably will attract that kind of bulk loading vessel.

I want to deal with the question that the developments the Minister has outlined are so long overdue that, partly for that reason and partly because a number of ships held up in other parts of the world are now arriving here, every port in the Republic is suffering from chronic overloading. We have from Durban to Cape Town, probably with the exception of East London which is very little used, this spectacle of vessels lying in the bay waiting to be off loaded. In Cape Town we have an additional problem in regard to the number of foreign fishing vessels using the port. But they are all revenue-producing and in certain cases some of the foreign fishing fleets are being associated with commercial flotations and developments in this country and will eventually form portion of our own maritime expansion, so that we cannot treat them with a lack of respect. The point I want to make is that these ship delays which are taking place affect the cost of living and the development of the country. The shipowners are called on to face a very heavy loss. It is fair to say that with the modern cargo type of ship anything between R1,000 and R2,000 per day is being lost for every day’s delay waiting to get a berth to unload or load. The shipping companies affected are not generally backed by State finance. They have to pay their own way and it is inevitable that their losses are passed on in the form of increased freight charges to the customers, who in turn either pass them on to the consumer of the goods or deduct them from the profits of the exporters who send their products overseas for sale. It means that if their shipping rates go up they lose profits, so that in the end the lack of Railways foresight in regard to harbour development must be regarded as one of the important factors bearing on the increased cost of living. The ports are always a bottle-neck, and there is still need for a very dynamic drive not only in regard to advance planning but also with regard to the speed-up of the work in progress. I know that some of the work being done in our ports now is being done at a very creditable rate, like the tanker dock here at Cape Town. There is certainly no grass growing under the feet of the contractors for that job. But I want to ask the Minister in that connection whether he has started planning the future development of that particular tanker harbour which, in regard to the size of the tankers already using our ports is already or will be inadequate by the time that this tanker dock is finished. The Minister in his Budget speech dealt with the estimated revenue from the harbours for the coming year and put it at R29,250,000, an increase over the R28,500,000 for the year just completed. That in itself was R3,500,000 up over the return of the previous year. So there is a steady increase each year of some millions of rands. The Minister particularly mentioned in his Budget speech the increase in the oil and petrol traffic discharged from tankers in our harbours. He said that the petroleum products landed rose from 3.7 million tons in 1963 to 5.9 million tons for this year and that the shipments out were up from 700,000 tons to 1.9 million tons. That again is something which one could well foresee. We are not developing these huge refineries at Durban and Cape Town without expecting to get increased exports and imports. So these are things we should expect and plan ahead for. These refineries will grow because that is a world trend and we happen to be on the correct sea route for that type of development, so we must expect that type of development to go ahead. In planning the development of oil tanker berthage, therefore, we must look ahead, and whatever we do now must be capable of being expanded quickly with the least possible additional work and expenditure in order to cope with the needs of projects that lie ahead of us. Dealing with the transport of coal cargoes by sea: There have been reports in the Press lately, and I want to ask the Minister whether they are correct or not. There have been reports that the Administration has placed an order for a new coal-carrying vessel to replace the Hangklip. Well, nobody will quibble at that being done, because the Hangklip has done her turn and it is time she was replaced, and coal-carrying by sea is not an intermittent job; it has come to stay. I would like to ask the Minister whether it is correct than an order has been placed in Japan for such a ship, and if so, is the vessel ordered one of the modem type, one of the self-trimming bulk-loading type being used so extensively for bulk cargoes to-day? And if that is so—and it should be so; we certainly should not order any other type of ship for that work—is provision being made at her ports of discharge in the Republic for the equipment of those ports with the necessary machinery and equipment to enable the bulk handling of the cargo to be carried out expeditiously, instead of the antiquated method we still use, with the grabs.

What other method is there? There is only pipe-watering and that is quite unsuccessful.

In most of the big London river ports where these coal-carrying vessels ply up and down all day with their cargoes, you will find that the bulk-handling ships have their own equipment and shore equipment for combined operation in order to facilitate quick unloading. There is other equipment in addition to the grabs. But it is essential, even if we are going to use grabs, that the ship should be a self-trimmer to save the large amount of the manual trimming work which has to be done below to bring the coal under the hatches.

I want to deal with a matter which was raised earlier by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) in regard to a group of workers for whom I pleaded last year and from whom I have again had representations this year. They are the so-called intermittent casual checkers. This is a group of people, considerable in number—in one particular group alone there are 18 of them—with an average period of employment with the Administration for two to three years continuously and who have been completely left out of the recent improvements given to railway servants. This group, who are doing an important job and who are important particularly because of the bottle-neck we have in Durban at the moment, feel very dissatisfied. I hope the Minister will deal with it and therefore I shall not take it any further.

Now I want to come back to the question of Durban Harbour, which the Minister has twice now pushed aside on the basis that he has the report of the Moffat Commission and that he started work on it two years ago.

Not started work. I said the decision was taken two years ago.

Well, we say that was two years too late. But what I want to ask the Minister now is what steps is he taking to deal with the immediate position in Durban Harbour. In the debate on the motion to go into Committee of Supply, I pointed out the delays and the backlog in ships and the hours of delay which have built up over the past three months, although there is a temporary lull at the moment, to an average wait of 62 hours during February, with up to 15 ships queued up waiting to get into Durban Harbour. The Minister’s only answer on the three occasions that this matter was raised has been to say that he has the Moffat plans and a decision was taken two years ago to get on with those plans, and he referred me to the Brown Book. We shall have an opportunity later to consider the Brown Book, but the fact remains that out of the R20,000,000 he has placed on the Brown Book, he is planning to spend R1,500,000 this year in the hope that within the next 18 months or two years there will be one additional wharf available. I am grateful for the amount spent on reconditioning the existing wharves, etc., but the Minister must now have seen from the picture of the last four months that this is not a position which can be dealt with on the basis of two years, three years or five years time. It is a problem which has to be dealt with now, this moment, this week, to deal with the delays and the cost of those delays to the economy of South Africa. It does not sound much to talk about 15 ships lying in the roadstead waiting to get into the harbour, unless you work that out in cost to the shipping companies and in cost to people whose cargoes must be diverted because the ships do not want to wait, the cost to Durban of the diversion, as the result of ministerial policy. The Minister will remember that recently I asked him a question in reply to which he said that it was his policy to divert certain cargoes to other harbours because Durban could not handle them. I asked him whether that was a temporary measure, or whether a time limit was placed on it, and he said no. He was prepared to give concessions in railage rates, the same railage rates as from Durban to the hinterland, to anyone who was shipping from Port Elizabeth or East London in order to relieve the backlog. But can the Minister tell the House, and particularly Durban, where there is deep concern about this matter, what hope he has for a quick, short-term solution pending the finalization of the various major projects which we can look forward to over future years? The Minister must be aware of the pressure which is being put upon the staff in Durban Harbour. I do not know whether the Minister has recently spoken to any of those people who are working up to 16 hours a day. Sir, they are starting to crack up. They cannot keep it up, particularly the people working on the cranes, because crane drivers are the most heavily overworked group. They are working from 7 in the morning until 11 at night. They do have breaks for lunch and supper, but they handle equipment which can be dangerous to life and limb. They handle heavy loads and they operate machinery requiring fine judgment, judgment which, if it is a few feet out, can cause tremendous damage to property or severe injury to people. The hon. the Minister must surely be aware of this pressure, of the effect of the pressure on the staff concerned, and of the fact that it cannot continue for very long. Yet the Minister has given us no indication whatsoever, he has produced no answer at all, regarding the solution to the immediate problem caused by the about 30 per cent increase of inward traffic through our harbours. The White establishment has only gone up by 3 per cent, an increase of but a few hundred people throughout the whole harbour service. Even in that regard, in planning for additional staff, the Minister has not made any provision in the Estimates. It is true he has placed money on the Brown Book, but he has not planned at all for the necessary increase in staff and we have not heard a single word from him as to how he intends to deal with the immediate shortages. I know the Minister has appealed for staff and he has transferred staff from other sectors and other systems, but the number transferred is infinitesimal compared to the need that exists. I know he has tried to get people to join the service, and even immigrants have been brought to South Africa, but these have not proved the success which he hoped.

But the Minister cannot just sit there and say that this will be solved. He has a duty to tell us what he intends doing about it, what his plans are, what his proposed solutions entail. If, however, he has no solution, Mr. Chairman, he must admit it and he should say to us frankly that he has not got a solution and he must again shrug his shoulders as he did when he referred to the 7,500 vacancies in the Railway service. Here we are dealing with a small service, a service which is the gateway to South Africa, a service which deals with the entry into the country of goods vital to our economic development and necessary for the growth which we—and, I am sure, also the Minister—want to see continue in the economic life of South Africa. But all these delays, all this congestion, tend to slow down that growth and at the same time they cause annoyance and inconvenience which should be avoided.

If the hon. the Minister is going to deal with this matter, he might then perhaps tell the House whether delays on the part of the customs service are affecting the Railway’s handling or clearance of goods through the harbours. Are the Railways only to blame, or is the position aggravated by delays also on the part of the customs? If the customs service is also contributing to delays, I hope the Minister will tell us whether he has consulted with his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Finance, and whether any steps are being taken in that regard. I say that because my information is that even when goods have been cleared from the ships there is a further delay getting them through customs and then only can one start getting them cleared out of the harbour area itself.

The Minister last year applied restrictions on private transport but since then he has lifted those restrictions. I believe he should tell the House the reason for having applied the restrictions and whether he is satisfied now that the position is under control. [Time limit.]

I want to come back for a moment to the question of bulk handling of coal cargoes, so that there can be no misunderstanding. The point I wish to discuss is the discharging of a vessel when in port with a full coal cargo and the facilities on shore available for handling that cargo expeditiously—even when use is made of grabs and getting it away without a lot of double-handling. What mainly happens to-day is that the coal is discharged from the ship by means of the grab and loaded onto trucks drawn up alongside the vessel. That is quite in order, because often the coal has to go somewhere else and that is the quickest way of loading the truck and avoiding double handling. But what often happens in practice is that when a train-load or consignment of trucks is loaded there are—as there have been in the past—delays before the next batch of trucks is available for loading purposes. But in the meanwhile the unloading operations cannot be interrupted because the ship cannot be delayed and as a result a dump of coal is created on the quayside alongside the ship. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, we have a south-easter season in Cape Town, and as a result when the wind blows not only is everything in the vicinity of the piles of coal plastered with coal dust, which causes considerable damage to paintwork and vulnerable parts of other ships, but inconvenience is also caused to everybody around. Now, because of the shortage of trucks, double-handling of the coal results in that when the trucks do become available the coal from the dump on the shore has to be loaded into them. What I am asking for, Sir, is that, in conjunction with the modern bulk loading, self-trimming coal carrier, the facilities for handling the cargo ashore should also be modernized. I realize the difficulty that exists here in doing that in contrast to many places where the most modern methods are used where the coal goes directly by conveyors from the ship to the power station or whoever the consumer may be. To a great extent the same conditions do not apply here. But conveyor belts, both underground or surface, can be used to transport coal away from the dock area to some place where it can be stock-piled and from where it can eventually be removed to its destination. In that way the ship discharges so much quicker, with a consequent quicker turn-round which may enable the ship to fit in an additional voyage or voyage and a half during a 12-month period, all of which will have an effect on the economic operation of the ship.

I should like the hon. the Minister to seriously consider these points in relation to that particular type of unloading, particularly at the main unloading ports. I fully realize that in a port where the loading and unloading of coal is undertaken for a short period of time only it would not be economic to operate a system such as is advocated by me, but at the main ports of regular discharge, such as Cape Town for example, it is both economical and necessary that there should be an efficient unloading and transporting system.

The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) is not quite correct when he makes the statement that every port in the country is suffering from chronic congestion, because that is not so. Only one port is suffering from chronic congestion at the moment, namely, Durban. Cape Town only experiences periodic congestion. As a matter of fact, this is the first time during this Session that a number of ships are having to lie outside the harbour. This only happens occasionally.

It is well over a period of a week or ten days.

That makes no difference; I mean that Cape Town does not experience chronic congestion. Admittedly there are spasmodic delays, periodic delays, but the situation is certainly not of a chronic nature. In Port Elizabeth and East London there is no congestion at all.

I said there was no congestion in East London.

Neither is there congestion in Port Elizabeth. The only harbour where we are having trouble is Durban. The main reasons for periodic congestion in Cape Town is the transferring of fish catches from one vessel to another. I dealt with the matter in my Budget Speech and explained what improvements of a short-term nature will be effected in Cape Town harbour and which will alleviate the position. As the hon. member is aware, I announced plans for the building of a completely new harbour on the other side of the tanker dock. It is a long-term project and will take years to complete.

In regard to the tanker dock, the hon. member suggested that plans should be made for the deepening thereof so that it can accommodate large tankers. But from an economic viewpoint such deepening is completely unjustified. The oil companies will simply have to use smaller tankers, and indeed they are going to use smaller tankers. The fact that large tankers of 80,000 and 100,000 tons are being built to-day certainly does not mean that the smaller tankers are going to be eliminated, or scrapped. They will, on the contrary, still be used for many years to come. When discussions regarding the tanker dock and the accommodation of their tankers were held with Caltex, no mention was made of any of these large tankers. As a matter of fact, they envisaged using smaller tankers. I am certainly not prepared to spend many millions of Rand, because that is what it will cost to deepen not only the tanker dock but also the entrance and the whole of the Duncan dock, to accommodate these large tankers for the sake of two or three big tankers.

I would not dream that you would be prepared to spend so much money in this connection. But what I am suggesting is that the present dock be so designed and built that it will permit tankers …

It cannot possibly be so designed. It is a question of deepening the entrance to the Duncan dock, deepening the entrance of the canal to the tanker dock, and deepening the tanker dock itself. That can always be done by dredging. The hon. member knows of the trouble being experienced with the very hard rock on the seabed and he knows that blasting has been carried on for months and months with the result that the project is behind schedule. It is a very expensive operation. The tanker dock alone—which was a very simple undertaking for that matter—cost almost R10,000,000. As I said, the hon. member’s proposals would be completely unjustified from an economic aspect merely for the sake of a few large tankers when smaller tankers could be used. The money must rather be spent on more urgent works.

In regard to the transport of coal by sea, the hon. member knows—having had a look at the Brown Book—that an order has been placed with a Japanese firm for a new collier. I do not know whether it will be self-trimming or not, but I suppose my officials will look into that to see that it is, if possible. There is no other equipment that can be utilized for the unloading of those ships. There is simply no room in this harbour for dumping. Removal by truck is the quickest way of getting the coal away, and it is merely a question of seeing that the trucks are there on time, that they are immediately loaded from the hold of the ship and taken away. But there is no place at all in the immediate vicinity which can be used as a dumping site so that conveyor belts can be employed to get coal to the site. There is simply no room in the whole of this area.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) spoke about intermittent casual checkers not receiving a holiday bonus. Well, the bonus is only granted to those servants who have completed 12 months’ continuous service.

But they have.

If they have completed 12 months’ continuous service … well, they are casuals and casual employees do not receive the holiday bonus.

Technically they are casuals, but in fact they are not. May I ask the Minister whether he might not consider the position of these people who are in practice permanent workers?

It all depends on whether a precedent will be created or not, because we have many thousands of casual workers who are not entitled to the bonus. Therefore, it is not possible for me to give any assurance that payment of the bonus can be extended to another staff group.

The hon. member wanted to know what immediate plans are being made to relieve the congestion at Durban harbour. I am afraid there are no immediate plans that can be made. The fact is that sufficient accommodation exists in that harbour and it can handle all ships requiring berths, but the main trouble is caused by the inadequate rail take-off, because that is where the bottle-neck is. It is no use having sufficient harbour accommodation or even excess accommodation if the rail take-off is such that it does not meet the requirements. Difficulties at the rail take-off are caused entirely by the shortage of staff, the shortage of shunters, because the goods simply cannot be got away. For that reason it was suggested to and agreed to by certain companies that their cargoes would be diverted to Port Elizabeth. But similar congestion has been experienced in Lourenço Marques for a considerable time now, although there they do not have the staff problems that we have. The main difficulty is the staff shortage in Durban and, indeed, on the whole of the Natal system, which is absolutely acute and worse than that in any other section or division of the Railways. The plain fact is that if I had sufficient staff to enable the goods to get out of the marshalling yards there would be no congestion in Durban Harbour. As hon. members know, we are doing our best to improve the position. We are transferring staff, we are seconding them there for a certain time, we are stationing them there temporarily, we are recruiting staff; indeed, we are doing everything in our power to alleviate the shortage of personnel. But I am afraid that as long as the acute staff shortage remains in Durban difficulty will be experienced in handling all the ships on time.

Heads put and agreed to.

On Heads Nos. 28 to 30—“Airways”, R37,221,000,

I want to deal with one or two matters connected with the Airways, but before doing so I should like to renew the plea which I and many others on this side of the House have made from time to time on the question of a policy of separate control—a divorcing—of Airways under separate independent, non-Railway administration. I know the hon. the Minister has from time to time used this as a political argument against us …

When have I done that?

Well, the Minister threw it back at me about three years ago and said that I was insulting the Railways by asking for separate control for the Airways. But, Mr. Chairman, the Airways is a separate approach to transport problems. It therefore requires a different outlook, different thinking, it requires highly qualified technical staff and extremely highly skilled pilots, and it requires an international approach which makes physical and mental demands on its staff which the Administration to-day indeed recognizes. It recognizes all these things in that a special allowance is paid and special treatment is accorded to, for instance, its pilots. But, despite that recognition, the recent legislation which this House passed—for instance, making working to the manual illegal arising out of action taken by Airways personnel—indicates the pressure from the Airways workers themselves in this direction. They feel that, being part of the vast Railway Administration, they are lost. I feel very strongly that a greater degree of separation should be achieved, so that the special problems which are peculiar to the Airways can be dealt with separately and specially, without the red tape and other limitations which must of necessity affect it as long as it is part of the Railways.

I should now like to deal with one aspect which, I feel, has been neglected, namely the matter of navigational aids, which I have raised here for the last three years in this debate.

Order! The hon. member cannot discuss that under these three heads.

It was going to link this aspect to the introduction of the Boeing 727’s, and therefore I mentioned it, because I felt it is an essential ancillary to the introduction of this new type of craft for which specialized training is required. I cannot now deal with navigational aids but I think I can deal with the training aspect …

The hon. member is not talking about navigational aids. He is confusing the two items. He is in fact talking of simulators.

No, I said simulators that requires specialized training. The introduction of these aircraft will in turn lead to demands for more and different and improved navigational aids.

No, It will not.

If we are going to have jet aircraft flying at a very high speed compared to our present internal route aircraft, then inevitably the problems are going to be multiplied. Because I will be out of order if I deal with navigational aids, I will have to deal with then under another vote, but I think the hon. the Minister must accept that, because of the higher speed of which the new aircraft are capable and because of the change in the type of aircraft we are going to require, different thinking and different consideration will be required from the Department of Transport and from the Minister of Transport as well.

Does the hon. member not realize that, even if the Airways were divorced from the Railway Administration, it would have no effect on the provision of navigational aids to the airports?

In practice it will have an effect.

No, in practice it will not.

It will indeed have an effect because to-day the Airways is a department lost in the mass. But once there is a separate thinking in regard to the Airways administration, its problems will become highlighted as distinct from the problems of, for instance, signals on the Railways. One just cannot compare the problems of the signaling section to the problems connected to navigational aids. But, though both spheres serve the same purpose, in that the one controls the running of trains whilst the other controls the flying of aircraft, yet because of the intermingling of the whole service in one, these problems are not dealt with in a separate manner as they should be. Because of the intermingling that takes place, other ancillary problems arise. The Airways staff is the basic problem. Though the highly-qualified technical staff—particularly the ground staff—and the pilots receive special consideration, nevertheless they do not enjoy special treatment in any way comparable to that enjoyed by the international airways staff of other countries. They are still a long way behind, Mr. Chairman, and it will have to be dealt with but, because, I believe, it will be dealt with by way of negotiation, I will not deal with it in this debate.

But when it comes to the technical staff, the ground staff, the hon. the Minister must himself realize that he is going to be in trouble. Next year he will again have to shrug his shoulders and ask what he can do about it and explain that he cannot compete with private enterprise. But the Minister knows that the attraction at the moment for a highly-trained aircraft mechanic or electrician or technician to go into private enterprise is tremendous. Nevertheless, it is no use sitting back and asking what can be done and shrugging our shoulders whilst Boeing 727’s are standing on the ground simply because they are not being maintained. I believe that as long as the Airways is dealt with as a compartment of the Railways we will continue to face greater and yet greater difficulties. Accordingly I hope the Minister will give the House some information this evening as to his plans to ensure that there is no break-down owing to the loss to the Administration of the trained specialists who are so essential for these modern aircraft.

In regard to the Boeing 727’s I should like to ask the Minister whether he has already considered, or whether consideration is being given to the introduction of the smaller Boeing, i.e. the 737, which is designed as a partner of the 727 for smaller short haul and intermediary services. I should also like the Minister to tell us what his ideas are in regard to the improvements which the introduction of the 727’s will bring in our internal service schedules. Only yesterday the Minister, in reply to a question, admitted that there were long waiting lists in respect of almost every internal flight. When asked whether it was not possible to schedule more flights, he shrugged his shoulders and said that the aircraft were not available to do that. Even these new aircraft are not going to help us if there will still be these long waiting lists and uncertainty of journeys. To-day flying is the mode of travel of the businessman. When he has to fly from Cape Town to Durban or Johannesburg, it is usually for the purpose of keeping a fixed appointment and not an appointment which can be changed to suit the availability of flights. But to-day the position is that even if you book two or three weeks in advance, you do not have certainty about your flight until sometimes only the night before. Even we as Members of Parliament do not know until the last moment even if we book two, three or four weeks ahead of time. You are merely wait-listed and you do not know until the very last moment whether or not you will be able to fly. Businessmen, on the other hand, cannot afford to take chances such as these. They have to attend a conference or a board meeting on a particular date and they must be there on that day. They therefore cannot afford to wait until the date before their flight is scheduled to take place to learn whether their provisional bookings have been confirmed or not.

Therefore I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that the introduction of the 727’s next year will eliminate this uncertainty which is a hindrance to the development of our internal services. I know for a fact that many people do not make use of our air services simply because they cannot get bookings. Between Durban and Johannesburg there is the certainty of an overnight train journey and people will rather make use of this than wait until the day before an aircraft leaves to find out whether they can get a seat or not. [Time limit.]

There is this one matter with which I should like to deal before we adjourn to-night, namely this question of the divorce of Airways from Railways. I cannot see what benefit such divorce will have. The hon. member has named no good reasons for such a divorce although he said by implication that the staff, and the technical staff in particular, would then probably receive better wages. But that will not necessarily follow because the Airways will still be a Government Department and not a private undertaking. As far as I am concerned, I cannot see any benefit flowing from a divorce of the Airways from the Railways. As a matter of fact, we have one of the most efficient airways services in the world.

Hear, hear!

Ours is an air service with one of the best reputations in the world. Moreover it is one of the few airlines in the world which shows a profit on its operations. Fact is that the majority of airlines being operated in the world to-day are losing money.

That we know.

So what earthly benefit will there be from a divorce of the one from the other? He has spoken of navigational aids. But what on earth has navigational aids got to do with the separation of the Airways from the Railways? Navigational aids are dealt with by another department. Airports are administered by the Department of Transport and not by the Railways. Consequently the Department of Transport is responsible for the provision of navigational aids. This has nothing to do with the question. Let me point out here that we have the most up to date navigational aids at Jan Smuts Airport. That is a fact which is admitted by all the airlines and by all the pilots. Also at our other national airports we are providing the best navigational aids. So this has nothing to do with the question of divorcing the two services.

It is a question of the pressure a separate organization can bring to bear.

What pressure? It will not be able to bring more pressure to bear when separate. I am the Minister of both departments and my instructions are that the best navigational aids must be provided. What other pressure is there to be brought to bear?

It is not being done.

It is being done. I should like the hon. member to discuss this question under the Transport Vote when I shall prove it to him. It cannot be discussed here. I have already mentioned that it is being admitted internationally by pilots that Jan Smuts has some of the best navigational aids and that these aids are comparable to those provided at any other airport. For that I have proof in my possession. Consequently I do not see what the benefits will be that will flow from a divorce of the two services. As a matter of fact, this is merely a parrot cry I have been hearing for years. On one occasion it was asked that Harbours should be divorced from the Railways; on another that Airways should be divorced from Railways. But on no occasion have any cogent reasons been advanced for such a divorce or in what way Airways, for instance, will benefit by such a separation. As far as I am concerned, I think such a separation will be to the detriment of the Airways. Now I can allocate sufficient capital to Airways for purposes of expansion. I am able to allocate sufficient out of the globular amount I receive from the Treasury. When Airways are separated from the Railways, it will just be another department which will have to compete with the Railways for the available capital funds. Under those circumstances it is probable that Airways will receive less than now. Neither will wages be better, nor anything else as far as I can see. Conditions will not be better than they are to-day, because I think the conditions of Airways staff are comparable with those of the staff of any other airline. Let me point out in this connection that when you compare wages, you should not merely compare wages in cash but also wages in kind. The cost of living has to be taken into consideration as well as the cost structure operative in a country before you can make a comparison. If the hon. member does that, he will find that the wages of our airmen compare favourably with those of the airmen of other airlines. But the way in which it must be worked out is—to give one example—to answer the question, how long a man must work before being able to buy a suit of clothes. That is the type of comparison that should be made and not only of cash wages. I have already stated that if the hon. member does the correct method of comparison, he will find that the wages of our airmen compare favourably with those of the airmen of other airlines. But, of course, the hon. member does not agree with me.

Then the hon. member wanted to know what the position will be with the Boeing 727’s when they come into service. I have already explained that these aircraft will offer a larger capacity and that their operation will permit of a quicker turn-round. We ought therefore to be able to cope comfortably with all the passengers offering, as well as with the potential increase in the number of passengers during the years ahead.

How far ahead?

Well, if we find that the number of passengers offering increases out of all proportions, we shall buy more aircraft. The schedules have not yet been decided upon. For that the aircraft must first be placed in service and tested out in this country on our routes and under our conditions. Then only can it finally be decided what the schedules will be. What I can say now is that the flying time will, of course, be very much less than that of the Viscounts.

What speed will they fly at?

They have a cruising speed of about 550 m.p.h.

And you will get a quicker turn-round?

Yes, and that because of the fact that it will be possible to get from the one point to the other much quicker. It is of course necessary that aircraft costing over £2,000,000 each be kept in the air as much as possible; otherwise their use cannot be justified economically. No consideration is being given to the Boeings 723 the hon. member spoke about. The decision is to buy the 727, which is an approved aircraft and which is already in operation commercially. I say again that, if in the years to come these aircraft prove to be inadequate to convey all the passengers offering, additional aircraft will have to be purchased.

In the light of the difficulties that are being experienced at present in carrying all the freight offering, may I ask the Minister whether any consideration is being given to the establishment of a pure freight service on the Airways? The hon. the Minister, in reply to a question the other day, said that on occasions the D.C.3’s had been stripped of their seating capacity in order to enable them to convey goods arriving by freight services from overseas. I shall be glad if the Minister would enlighten us on this point. There appears to me to be considerable need for a sort of round-the-Republic freight service run by the S.A. Airways. Could the Minister give us an indication of his policy in this regard?

My policy in this respect has always been to encourage freight by air. At present, however, the freight capacity of the Viscounts is inadequate and we therefore also make use of the freight capacity of the aircraft on the coach services. On occasions we have used one of the larger aircraft exclusively for the carrying of freight. As far as the Boeings are concerned, the freight capacity of these aircraft is considerably greater than that of the Viscounts and directly the Boeings are in service we hope to be able to cope with all the freight offering. If freight increases, however, special aircraft shall have to be purchased in future to be used solely for the carrying of freight.

There is one thought that I want to recommend to the Minister for his attention. The question is whether, now that our people are becoming more air-conscious and the Boeings 727 are going to be taken into service, consideration should not be given to introducing more feeder services. There is the possibility that the Dakotas and Skymasters may be used for such services. In this connection I wish to point out that long-distance train services are more and more becoming something of the past. This is the trend throughout the world. Even in South Africa we are losing ground as far as our main-line services are concerned, in spite of the fact that these services are excellent. We are losing a great deal of money on these services every year. Should we therefore not invest more money in our internal air services, feeder services in particular, with a view to developing our air traffic?

Heads put and agreed to.

On Heads Nos. 31 to 33.—“Pipe-line”, R938,000,

It is the first time that the expenditure in connection with this pipeline is shown under separate heads in the Estimates. I have certain issues which I should like to raise with the Minister in regard to the operation of this pipe-line.

The plans of this pipe-line indicate, in the first instance, that there will be eight pumping stations and I shall be glad in this connection if the hon. the Minister would indicate to us what superintendence will be provided for these pumping stations. There is another important aspect, one which I believe has already received the attention of oil companies in particular. As the Minister is probably aware, the pipeline provides for six take-off points. In this connection I shall be glad to learn from the Minister what arrangements have been come to with the oil companies in regard to the bulk storage of oil and petrol supplies at these takeoff points. Will installations at these points for bulk storage have to be provided by the Administration or will that be the responsibility of oil companies? My question also covers the installations at the delivery points. It is understood that there will be more than one takeoff point at the end of the pipe. Will the bulk storage installations at these points be at the expense of the oil companies or at the expense of the Administration?

I make this point because as the Minister knows oil companies can now, in terms of relaxations granted, establish at strategic points various bulk storage depots with a delivery radius at present of, I believe, 30 miles. At present it is the responsibility of the oil companies to provide bulk storage installations at the various distribution points. Will this also be the case in respect of the storage points agreed upon for this pipe-line? Will it be the responsibility of the individual oil companies or will the Administration supply bulk storage facilities leaving it to the oil companies to take delivery of supplies from these depots and convey them to their own storage depots? This is an important factor, especially from the point of costs to the oil companies. Could the Minister therefore give us an explanation of his policy in this respect?

May I ask the Minister before he replies to state whether he has changed his mind in so far as the cost of petrol inland is concerned? Is there going to be a reduction in the price of petrol as a result of the building of this pipe-line? The hon. the Minister will remember that he said before that this pipe-line will bring no benefit at all to the platteland because he said he was not going to lose revenue for the Railways. Can the Minister give us some indication of what he intends doing in this respect?

I do not know what the hon. member for Turffontein has in mind when he talks about the superintendence of pumping stations.

We should like to know what the nature will be of the superintendence that will be provided at these points. It is a highly technical job.

No, it is not a highly technical job. As a matter of fact, it is very simple as far as I know. I do not, of course, have all the technical information at my disposal. Nevertheless, these stations will be ordinary pumping stations and their operation will therefore not be so complicated as to require highly skilled men.

The position as I understand it is that in putting oil fluids through the pipeline there are water-brakes between the …

But that has nothing to do with the pumping stations. These are merely boosting stations for the oil, or whatever it is, coming from the coast. It is at these terminal points where the different types of oil will be put into the pipeline. Once in the pipeline the oil will be pumped right through. The pumping stations there will be at various points and will merely act as boosting stations to help the oil through to the terminal points at the other end. These stations will therefore not be very complicated to operate.

Will there be feed-offs at the take-off point?

I shall deal with that now in conjunction with the bulk storage to be provided. These are matters which were discussed with the oil companies before contracts for the building of the pipeline were entered into and it was agreed that the provision of bulk storage depots will be the responsibility of the oil companies.

Business interrupted to report progress.