I move—

The purpose of this Bill is to make provision for the financing of Government expenditure after 1 April 1966 until such time as it will be possible to pass the Main Appropriation Act for the financial year 1966-7. As the Budget will not be introduced before the second Parliamentary Session of 1966, financial provision has to be made for a much longer period than usual, that is to say, for approximately seven months. The amounts being requested are R710,000,000 on Revenue Account, R16,000,000 on Bantu Education Account, and R249,000,000 on Loan Account, a total of R975,000,000 or approximately 51 per cent more than 7/12ths of the total appropriation for 1965-6. However, I want to point out to hon. members that Government expenditure shows considerable fluctuations from month to month and that this figure cannot simply be used for making deductions as regards the possible total expenditure for the financial year 1966-7. As is customary the amounts being requested in this Bill may only be spent on services which have already been approved.

As the Budget speech will only be delivered by the Minister of Finance during the second Session, I deem it desirable to avail myself of this opportunity to make a brief statement to the House on the state of our economy and of the treasury.

With certain exceptions, which I shall mention at a later stage, and despite certain problems which called for a great deal of attention from the authorities, the year 1965 was a good one for the South African economy. The provision of employment was at a consistently higher level than in 1964, and the same applies to the volume of industrial production, the value of mineral production, and the value of retail sales. Unemployment remained at a low level. The indications are, therefore, that the real national product has shown a satisfactory increase as compared with the already high figure for 1964.

The main exception to this picture of prosperity is of course agriculture, which has suffered severely as a result of drought over large areas. The Government and the entire country are grateful and glad that large areas have recently had some relief. I hope that relief will also come to those areas which have had no rain as yet and that further good rains will fall in those areas which need it. Even under the best of circumstances, however, the consequences of the drought will still be felt for a long time in our country, and the Government will continue giving assistance to severely stricken areas.

The most important economic problem with which we had to contend during the past months was the problem of inflation. The economic revival was so powerful and the increase in the total monetary demand for goods and services was so marked that the expansion of domestic production could not take place on a corresponding scale, particularly as a result of certain labour and other bottlenecks.

The main reason for this excessive increase in the monetary demand was, according to provisional estimates, a further considerable increase in gross fixed capital expenditure, in both the private and public sectors. Capital expenditure by the South African Railways and Harbours showed a particularly marked increase. Investment in supplies increased considerably over the year as a whole, as did the current expenditure of public bodies, but private consumption, after showing a marked increase in 1963 and 1964, showed a comparatively small increase in 1965.

Consequently the main factor in the inflation problem of 1965 was the fact that our economy wanted to develop at too fast a rate; in other words, it suffered from “growing pains”. The result was that gross domestic expenditure showed a considerable excess over gross national production—an excess which was reflected in a deficit on the current account of the balance of payments.

As a matter of fact, by the middle of 1965 the balance of payments was causing concern. During the second quarter imports, after the elimination of the seasonal influence, reached an annual level of nearly R2,000,000,000—a level which could obviously not be maintained for a long period. As a result of certain measures which I shall mention at a later stage, the rate of our imports decreased during the third and particularly during the fourth quarter, so that total imports over the year amounted to approximately R1,800,000,000. Even this figure is approximately 13 per cent higher than the figure for 1964 but this increase is at any rate considerably lower than the increases of 24 per cent and 23 per cent in 1963 and 1964, respectively.

The drought had a very adverse effect on our agricultural produce exports in 1965, but the decrease in these exports was more than compensated for by an increase in the export of manufactured goods. Our gold production showed a relatively small increase. It is perhaps not always realized that the value of our gold production has more than doubled since 1955, which has, of course, made an extremely valuable contribution to our balance of payments, but it would appear that increases of such magnitude can no longer be expected.

These and other factors resulted in the balance of payments showing a large deficit on current account in 1965. However, this deficit coincided with a considerable inflow of both public and private capital. Incidentally, the year 1965 was the first since 1958 in which the South African private sector obtained a nett inflow of capital from abroad. It would appear that the major portion of the private capital inflow during the year consisted of short-term movements, including trade credits. There was nevertheless an encouraging inflow of private long-term capital—probably to an amount of more than R50,000,000. The nett result was that the total gold and foreign exchange reserves held by the Reserve Bank, the commercial banks and the Government decreased by only R45,000,000 over the year as a whole.

Here I want to mention one other facet of the inflationary tendencies, namely the price level. The consumers’ price index rose by approximately 2.9 per cent between December 1964 and December 1965 which may be regarded as moderate under the circumstances. Wholesale prices increased by only 1.4 per cent during the first 11 months of 1965.

Hon. members will remember that the authorities took various measures during the previous session of Parliament in order to combat the inflationary tendencies. The most important measures were the increase of the Reserve Bank’s discount rate to 5 per cent, the increase of its interest rate pattern for Government stock, and the imposition of additional liquidity requirements on commercial banks.

These measures undoubtedly had an important effect on the economy, but for various reasons they were somewhat slow in taking effect, and particularly in view of the constantly deteriorating balance of payments position, the Government decided during the third quarter to take certain further steps. My colleague, the Minister of Economic Affairs, imposed more stringent restrictions on the importation of capital goods and raw materials as well as consumer goods. The Government itself took steps to reduce Government expenditure, particularly on capital works, and obtained the co-operation of the Provincial Administrators in curbing the expenditure of their Administrations. Discussions were also held with the larger municipalities and public corporations and they were requested to curtail their expenditure. In order to finance its own essential capital expenditure in a non-inflationary way, the Government issued a long-term loan at the high rate of interest of 6 per cent on 15 October 1965 and appealed to financial institutions and private bodies and persons to support the loan. The rate of interest on savings deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank and on National Savings Certificates was also increased. Finally, and in order to restrict the expansion of bank credit—which played such an important part in the development of inflationary conditions—the Reserve Bank requested all monetary banking institutions in October 1965 to ensure that the total amount of their discounts, loans and advances to the private sector, excluding the Land Bank, on 31 March 1966 would not exceed the total in respect of these items as at 31 March 1965. Certain guiding principles to be followed by the banks in complying with this request were also laid down.

It would appear that these measures have achieved their object and have had the necessary effect on the economy. Thus the gross national product and private consumption, according to provisional indications, did not increase considerably during the second half of the year 1965. Gross domestic expenditure, particularly private fixed capital expenditure and investments in supplies, the advances and discounts of commercial banks, and certain other economic pointers such as retail sales, sales of new motor vehicles, building plans approved and transactions involving fixed property even showed a decrease. In other words, the excessive growth rate of the economy has been reduced to a level which it is hoped can be maintained without endangering the equilibrium of the economy.

The measures which the authorities had to take in order to achieve this object have undoubtedly caused some temporary inconvenience or even hardship in certain cases, but fortunately they were not drastic enough to put a stop to our economic growth and thereby cause more prolonged inconvenience and hardship. That is the price we have to pay if we want to retain private enterprise as the basis of our economy, because no such economy can hope to escape cyclical fluctuations, and then the Government must take corrective measures.

In this case we had to deal with an extremely difficult problem—a potentially dangerous inflationary situation, coupled with a serious situation in agriculture as a result of the drought—but I think we have succeeded in combating the danger of inflation without causing any serious disruption to the national economy. To-day we can feel more at ease in this regard than we could six months ago.

It is of course desirable that these measures should be relaxed as soon as the danger is over. For various reasons I am of the opinion, however, that the time for doing so will have to be chosen very carefully. It is true that the Reserve Bank’s foreign reserves, after they had decreased by no less than R150,000,000 during the first nine months of 1965 to R32,000,000, subsequently increased to R383.3 million at the end of the year, and to R415.8 million last Monday. As I have said, at least part of this encouraging improvement was due to short-term capital movements—something we cannot necessarily rely on for the future. Furthermore, the full effect of the drought will still be felt for several months—both in respect of decreased exports of agricultural produce and in respect of the importation of certain foodstuffs such as maize, wheat and butter. Even in our domestic economy there are signs that inflationary conditions have not been checked altogether; there is still full employment of labour and other production factors, while the ration of money and quasi-money to the gross national product still remains a high one. The effect of the recent salary increases in the public sector, which may gradually increase the demand for consumer goods, must also be taken into account. However, the danger is much less now than it would have been a year or even six months ago.

There are two factors, however, which act in our favour. The first is that personal savings, which decreased sharply in 1964, have begun to increase appreciably; total domestic savings increased by 13 per cent according to provisional estimates, as compared with 4 per cent in 1964. That in itself will facilitate the necessary adjustment in our economy to a considerable extent.

The second factor is that the very reason for the inflationary conditions of the past year was a too rapid rate of capital investment, in other words, the expansion of our production capacity for the future. This increased capacity is now coming into operation, and provided we can continue keeping price increases within reasonable limits, it can form the basis of renewed growth in our economy, both in the field of exports and in the field of production for domestic consumption.

Although it would therefore not be advisable to relax the restrictive measures at this stage, I am nevertheless optimistic about our economic future. I think we can claim to have combated our inflation and balance of payments problems of the past year with a much greater measure of success than many other countries. With a stable Government in power, conditions are favourable for a period of consolidation and of stable growth and increasing prosperity for all sectors of our national economy.

I shall now proceed to discuss the fiscal position for the financial year 1965-6.

On Revenue Account, despite additional provision for increased salaries, I anticipate expenditure to be approximately R30,000,000 less than the amount of R1,130,000,000 originally provided, mainly on account of a considerable saving which is anticipated on the Defence Vote. Revenue is anticipated to amount to R1,145,000,000—R18,000,000 in excess of the original estimate.

The old story.

Income tax on persons, import duties and excise duties on beer and spirits were largely responsible for this increase, but we also received a windfall from the Mint as a result of the change-over to the new nickel coins. Consequently I anticipate that we shall end the year with a surplus of R45,000,000 on Revenue Account.

Overtaxation.

On Loan Account the position is less favourable. Perhaps that will give the Opposition greater joy. In spite of determined efforts by Government departments to cut their expenditure as part of the Government’s anti-inflationary measures, expenditure will probably be only R8,000,000 less than the amount of R461,000,000 that was voted. The financing of the Loan Account also caused us difficulties. Although we expected that the Public Debt Commissioners would invest an amount of R135,000,000, their nett investments will probably be considerably less as a result of the withdrawal of certain funds. The amount of new money invested in Government loans will also probably be less than the R70,000,000 we budgeted for, in spite of the fact that the present rates of interest are the highest ever in our history and in spite of a special appeal made to insurance companies and pension funds to invest in these loans. These institutions can of course still invest in the loan to be issued on 15 February and I hope that many of them will avail themselves of that opportunity. I think I should just add that if they do so, it will redound to their credit. The term of the loan has been extended to 25 years for the very purpose of meeting the requirements of long-term insurance companies and pension funds.

In these circumstances it became clear to me that it would be desirable—also from the point of view of the balance of payments— to seek additional foreign loan capital. Because of their own balance of payments position, it is at present not easy to obtain loans (other than export credits) in the United States of America or Britain, and consequently I paid a quick visit to France and Germany in August and September in order to study the capital markets in those countries. As a result of that visit the following loans have been negotiated:

1. (1) A loan of 50,000,000 French francs (approximately R7.3 million) at 6 per cent from a group of French and Belgian banks under the leadership of the Credit Commercial de France. An amount of 20,000,000 francs is repayable over one year and the remainder of 30,000,000 francs over two years. The loan has been given to the Reserve Bank, which in turn has made a similar loan to the Government.
2. (2) A loan equivalent to R7.1 million in dollars, French francs and Netherlands guilders from a group of French, Belgian and Netherlands banks under the leadership of the Banque de Paris. The loan is for two years and the rate of interest is 6 per cent.
3. (3) A loan of 10,000,000 European units of account—approximately R7.2 million— from the Credit Bank, Luxembourg, through the agency of the Credit Commercial de France, at 6 per cent for two years. The “European units of account” give the borrower as well as the creditor a choice of European currencies in which payment may be demanded.
4. (4) A revolving credit of DM 40,000,000 (R7.1 million) from a group of German banks under the leadership of the Deutsche Bank, at 6 per cent plus a commitment fee of | per cent for two years. This loan replaces an existing revolving credit which the Government obtained from the same consortium two years ago.
5. (5) A loan of $10,090,000 (R7.1 million)from the Banca Commerciale Italiana, in Milan, for one year at a rate of interest of 6 per cent.

One of the purposes of my visit was to investigate the possibility of a long-term public issue in Europe. Such an issue has to be carefully prepared and offered at the right moment. The condition of the capital market in Europe is not too favourable at present, partly because of the considerable number of loans which American corporations are issuing there, often with conversion rights. The fact that the Electricity Supply Commission negotiated a public loan of DM50,000.000 (approximately R9,000,000) in Germany in October 1965 has also made it advisable for the Government rather to wait a while. We are keeping in touch with financial institutions in Europe, however, and we are ready to enter the market when the time is ripe.

Apart from the loans which were arranged during my visit overseas, we recently obtained an export credit to the value of $4.6 million (R3.3 million) in connection with the purchase of diesel locomotives arranged by the Railways. The credit was granted by a group of American banks under the leadership of the Morgan Guaranty Trust Company, and is for six years at 5⅞ per cent per annum.

Without all these loans we would definitely have found it difficult to finance our Loan Account for the current financial year. Even with the aid of these loans we shall end the financial year with a possible deficit of approximately R50,000,000 on Loan Account, which, however, can easily be met from the surplus on Revenue Account, or from other sources. I just want to add that these figures of the Treasury are, of course, tentative figures to some extent. It is still a long time to the end of the financial year, but that is what the position will be according to the particulars we have at the moment.

It would not be proper to say anything about the Budget for 1966-7 at this stage; that has to stand over until the next session of Parliament. Until the new tax legislation is passed then, the current rates of taxation will of course remain in force, including the special surcharge on income-tax and the loan levy.

In this year of the fifth anniversary of the Republic it is perhaps appropriate to look back on the progress South Africa has made in the economic sphere during that short period.

During the past five years the South African national economy has shown phenomenal vitality in all spheres. In this connection the national economy has not only experienced a remarkable boom which has benefited all population groups, but has also displayed the vigour of a rapidly developing country.

The economic pointers present one with an impressive picture of the economic boom during the past five years, and therefore I want to present you with the following picture in the light of a few of the most important pointers. The first and most important is the real rate of growth in our gross national product. During the past five years it increased consecutively as follows: in 1961 by 4 per cent, in 1962 by 7 per cent, in 1963 by 71 per cent, in 1964 by 6½ per cent. That gives an average annual rate of growth of 6¼ per cent after provision has been made for price increases. That is a truly remarkable achievement, all the more so when it is borne in mind that this rate of growth is of the highest as compared with that in the major industrialized countries.

A striking feature of the economic growth over the past five years is the dominant role played by industry. During this period the contribution of industry to the gross domestic product increased from approximately R1,051,000,000, or 23.3 per cent, in 1959-60 to more than R1,800,000,000 or nearly 30 per cent. The physical volume of industrial production increased by approximately 55.5 per cent from 1959-60 to 1964-5.

Similarly the value of mining production increased from R864,000,000 in 1961 to R1,042,000,000 in 1964—an increase of 20 per cent. In spite of setbacks on account of drought conditions, agricultural production was maintained fairly well during the past two seasons. During the period 1960-1 to 1964-5 the physical volume of agricultural production increased by approximately 8 per cent. The forestry and fishing industries also experienced a boom period during the past five years.

Increased opportunities for employment went hand in hand with the rapid rate of economic growth. Thus opportunities for employment increased by 34 per cent in private industry, and by 77 per cent in private construction during the relevant period.

One can quote further figures in respect of various economic pointers to illustrate the spectacular economic growth experienced over the past five years, in spite of the fact that we had a balance of payments crisis in 1961, when prophets of doom predicted that it would be the end of practically everything. Thus, for example, retail sales increased by 21.6 per cent; property transactions by 80.6 per cent; building plans approved by 48.4 per cent and Railway revenue by 44.0 per cent.

In view of the fact that the foreign sector plays such an important part in the country’s economic development and structure, it is also interesting to note the marked increase in the country’s foreign trade. Thus imports, for example, increased from R1,127,000,000 in 1960 to approximately R1,800,000,000 in 1965 —an increase of approximately 60 per cent.

Exports, on the other hand, lagged behind somewhat, mainly as a result of the effect drought conditions had on the production and export of agricultural products. The relative decrease in the export of agricultural products was, however, partially compensated for by an increase in the export of industrial products, particularly in 1965.

Although the period of prosperity experienced during the past five years was not without its bottle-necks and growing pains, the various economic pointers mentioned above nevertheless bear testimony to the remarkable economic prosperity which South Africa has experienced and is still experiencing. South Africa can easily cause the phenomenal progress it has made to be lost or to be frittered away if it allows its economy to become overstrained, in other words, if its rate of growth exceeds that justified by its capital and manpower resources or the equilibrium of its balance of payments. Then it would be sacrificing stability to a passion for growth; then it would ensure that its boom period would be of short duration, with a long aftermath of misery. But with a stable though dynamic Government that boom period can be extended, although it may entail some temporary inconvenience, and South Africa can look forward to even greater achievements during the next five years.

We have just listened with great interest to what is in effect a preelection Budget speech without the Budget. I understand that the Minister is agreeable to giving us time to study his speech before we reply to it and at this stage therefore I should like to move—

I move—

We have discussed this Bill at every stage and certain important matters have become clear, and in the light of these it is necessary that the Opposition, which is speaking on behalf of the people of South Africa in this case, should state very clearly the attitude it adopts in regard to this Bill as it has come to us through the Committee Stage. One thing that has become clear—clear on the authority of the Chairman of Committees—is that the principle of this Bill is to create a monopoly and that the fight which the Government side put up for several hours was concerned with protecting the interests of 11 privileged companies—that was the real principle of this Bill and the Opposition is not game for something of that nature.

The other matter which has become clear is that while it is clearly provided in Clause 6 that Parliament wants to leave this matter to the discretion of the State President—that is the intention of this Bill—it is also clear that, owing to the fact that he feels morally obliged to adhere to an agreement with 11 companies, the Minister has curtailed that discretion beforehand. Not only has he curtailed his own discretion, but it also appeared that, where in terms of Clause 6 he has to advise the State President, he has further limited his discretion in that he left it to the 11 companies to grant him the concession that he may advise the State President in different terms than those of the existing agreement.

The third point which I want to make in brief is this; the Minister asks us to support this Bill and to allow it to go through at the Third Reading in order to help him, because he supposedly finds himself under a moral obligation; but the Minister also has another moral obligation; during the discussion he referred to that on several occasions. The other moral obligation the Minister has, is the undertaking which he gave to us in this House and to the people during the discussions last year, when he said that companies which had conducted themselves well in regard to third-party insurance, would be allowed to join the consortium; in other words, that under this Bill he would in terms of Clause 6 advise the State President that he should also allow those companies which had acted correctly in regard to third-party insurance to become parties to the agreement in terms of Clause 6. Now we hear that that is not the case. The Minister has to obtain the permission of the existing consortium before he can cause that moral obligation to be met. We now find that there is a moral conflict which the Minister has not solved with this legislation. On the one hand he maintains that he is morally obliged to abide by an existing agreement; on the other hand, we maintain with great emphasis and with just as much right that the Minister has committed himself to a public undertaking which he has given to this House, to the people, to the insurance industry, to motorists and to the public who may put in claims in terms of the Act, that he would afford companies which had acted correctly in the past an opportunity of joining this consortium. The Minister’s point of view is that no company acted correctly in regard to third-party insurance. If that is so, one cannot understand how 11 companies can be privileged in that way; then it becomes totally obscure, because the Minister clearly revealed that he felt that even the members of the consortium, of the 11 privileged companies, had not necessarily acted correctly in regard to third-party insurance. The major question which remained unanswered throughout the discussions is this; on which basis are those companies chosen in terms of Clauses 6 and 7? The hon. the Minister maintains that he has in fact replied to that, but he has not. His reply was that his Department had chosen the companies and that he did not even know which companies they were. That was his reply and he wants us to be satisfied with that. He wants us to content ourselves with that reply. The question was pertinently put to the Minister; we asked him to restrict himself to one company only. We received no reply, except that he is hiding behind the Department. The responsible Minister is hiding behind his Department. If there is one matter on which we are agreed in this Parliament, apart from political disagreements, it is that we are opposed to monopolies by certain sections of the private sector to the exclusion of other sections, which can be injurious to the public, which can restrict services to the public. That is one matter which is common cause between the parties. During other stages of the Bill we tried to prevent this by requesting that if there had to be a monopoly, it had to be restricted to the State, and even that we were refused. Even at this stage I am appealing to the hon. the Minister not to commit himself to something to which he and his Government and his Party and the Party on this side of the House and the people of South Africa are opposed on sound principles, and that is creating a monopoly to benefit a group of people at the expense of other concerns which are engaged in the same business, and ultimately at the expense of public interests. Mr. Speaker, there are many matters which have not been cleared up during the discussions. Up to the present, for instance, there has been no clarity as to what the future policy is going to be in regard to premiums for third-party insurance. We have asked this question very courteously, but we could not get any satisfactory replies, and therefore we on this side of the House feel obliged to oppose this Bill once more, because we refuse to be a party to the creation of a privileged monopoly to certain favoured concerns in South Africa, and for that reason we have no choice but to ask that this House should once again divide on this matter.

I am getting up m order to support the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) in this matter. I want to start where he left off, where, with this legislation we are now granting the hon. the Minister the right to create a monopoly, with the aid of this House, with the consent of this House, a monopoly of a certain number of companies in South Africa. It seems to me that we are dealing to-day with a principle about which this House and the hon. the Minister may perhaps have regrets in years to come, and I should like to plead with him that he should once more consider the matter very carefully, and that he should tell us to-day, once and for all, whether he is prepared to see something of this nature happening in South Africa. In our attempts at helping the hon. the Minister we even went as far as offering him this choice: rather than creating such a monopoly, with everything it may entail, we are prepared to say that a State corporation should be created to control the matter. We are not in favour of that, but if a choice has to be made between a State corporation exercising control over a matter of such extreme importance, and a monopoly of a few companies which can reap their profits on the basis of a fixed percentage while other companies are excluded, then we are prepared to choose the lesser of the two evils. That is how we tried to help the hon. the Minister, but he would not oblige.

I find it peculiar that this matter which affects hundreds of thousands of people and in regard to which an important decision was taken yesterday, in regard to which an important principle was accepted yesterday, was not at all reported in the Nationalist Press this morning. I scrutinized their items dealing with the debates in Parliament; nothing was said about this matter, and it seems to me that in this case, too, there is a measure of “embarrassment”—if I may use that word. It is clear to me that somewhere somebody finds himself in an embarrassing position, and on account of that we come back to the hon. the Minister again. The hon. the Minister was so kind as to consent to it that the agreement made in terms of this Bill would be made known to the public so that they might see for themselves the nature of the agreement into which he had entered with this monopolistic concern, but I should like the hon. the Minister to consider the fact that when he has made this agreement known, he would still find himself faced with the position that it would be too late to try to correct that which has been bungled or with which we do not agree. On account of that I am making a final appeal to the hon. the Minister to reconsider his point of view. We are dealing with a serious principle. If he is not prepared to listen we shall have to follow the lead which the hon. member for Yeoville has given.

Mr. Speaker …

Don’t you want to come and stand at Welkom?

Sir, I thank that hon. member for the offer. He has just invited me to Welkom. I think it is a very generous gesture. I will consider it.

I think the hon. the Minister is aware of the fact that the image of the Railways at the present time is reasonably good, and if the public has the impression that the Railways are being run efficiently …

Order!

You are on the wrong Bill.

Sir, 1 was about to say that that same hon. Minister has quite a different image when it comes to third party motor vehicle insurance. Now that I have been permitted to give the Minister this left-handed compliment, I must proceed to criticize him very severely on behalf of the public of South Africa, and not just the Opposition here. I must criticize him on behalf of all the motorists involved, and on behalf of those who, through no fault of their own, are the have-nots in the insurance industry, for the action which he proposes to take when this Bill becomes law. Mr. Speaker, we have canvassed this matter reasonably well, and yet there are many things which can be said against the Bill—which remain to be said. Among them, for example, is the fact that certain companies have, for better or for worse, developed their business by relying on a certain portfolio of insurance—a certain type of income—which may be a considerable source of income, and have established their premises, their staff and their organization in the expectation that, other things being equal, they will be permitted to continue, under a system of free enterprise, to pursue that part as well as any other part of their business. They are now in the position where they have to think very seriously about how they are going to reorganize themselves. At a time when expert or even skilled labour is not easy to come by, they have to do this. I would suggest to the hon. the Minister that he is creating unnecessary difficulties by placing a large number of employers who, in each case, have a substantial complement of employees, in the position where they have to start considering whether they should dispense with the services of one or more of the members of their staff. A man who has been trained in the insurance field or any other field usually prefers to continue to work and earn his livelihood within that field. Therefore, Sir, if Company A. which is one of the 59 have-nots, has to dispense with the services of a man it has employed for many years in its third-party department—and in some insurance companies you will find that it is quite a big department, with a large number of employees in it—the odd thing about it is that that individual cannot go to another company readily, because there are only 11 companies left in the field which can avail themselves of his services. There are no longer 70 or 80 companies that can use his experience and perhaps his integrity, in their business— for example, as an assessor or an appraiser of damage. That person’s field of employment has shrunk to the group of 11 companies. I think that the hon. the Minister should have given some regard to that aspect of the matter before he placed some of these companies in a position of great advantage, while placing the remaining companies in a position of very serious disadvantage.

Another aspect of the matter is that, regardless of what the hon. the Minister has said, or may say, he cannot even pretend to give the public the assurance that it will be as convenient, let alone more convenient, to obtain these tokens which are required under the law, at the time when they are required by the individual motorist. Mr. Speaker, some of us have seen what happens then. We have seen it happening under normal conditions. Others have seen it under the abnormal conditions of last year. But even under normal conditions, when the time came for the motoring public as a whole to take out their third-party insurance, there was considerable pressure on those companies, regardless of the fact that Parity had collared 42 per cent of the turnover. Under normal circumstances there is great pressure on the companies, which have to make available not only the services of their staffs, but also the tokens at the appropriate time. All the motorist has to do is to look for a company that will insure him. The convenience of the public—I believe the hon. the Minister does study it when it comes to one of his portfolios, namely that of Railways—seems to have been completely disregarded in the case of this portfolio, under which this Bill will be applied. With great respect to the hon. the Minister, nobody can pretend that these 11 companies, no matter how rapidly they intend or hope to expand, in the acquisition and training of new staff, will be able to make available these facilities as and when they are required. The fact is that, regardless of how enterprising any one or more of these 11 companies may be, they cannot overnight or even in one year take the place of the 70 or 80 companies that were trading in this field. They cannot. A company has been included in this group which, up to the end of December, was responsible for the insurance of not more than 129 motor vehicles out of a total of 1,700,000 motor vehicles in South Africa. The hon. the Minister has talked of the convenience of the public. He referred in very derogatory—and, perhaps, justified—terms to what happened in the case of those companies which, when the Parity collapse took place, were to be found only in virtually inaccessible places like the fifth floor of some building where one could not get to them in time. Having regard to that, does the hon. the Minister seriously want to tell the House that a company which up till now—or up till the end of December—has had no more manpower, know-how and facilities than to deal with 129 clients? …

Order! The hon. member is repeating the second-reading debate. That point has been made over and over during the second-reading debate.

In regard, Sir, to the convenience of the client? With great respect, Sir. I thought I had been here throughout most of the second-reading debate, and the convenience of the client …

Order! The hon. member can proceed, but he must not argue with the Chair.

Sir, I am not arguing with the Chair. 1 may have been outside the Chamber at the time …

The hon. member can proceed.

Sir, may I proceed with the point in connection with the convenience of the public? I do not want to be in conflict with your ruling. May I deal with this aspect of the matter?

The hon. member must not continue the second-reading debate.

Then, Sir, I merely want to complete this point by saying that 1 doubt whether the hon. the Minister expects the House to believe that a company which up to now has dealt with 129 clients can now take any substantial part of 1,700,000 clients overnight. The argument in regard to the convenience of the public falls rather flat, I think, when you consider what the Minister has actually done.

We have dealt to some extent with the comments that have been made in the Press on the subject of third-party insurance in South Africa. There were comments which were justified in many cases, and perhaps not justified in some. When a public opinion-maker like a responsible journal calls the whole thing “a farce from beginning to end”, I think the hon. the Minister and this House should pay some attention to the situation that is being created. It is perfectly clear that no one—not even the Minister—emerged with any credit at all from the Parity collapse. It is perfectly clear that the hon. the Minister reacted to it very strongly. He was certainly very displeased with what had been done or what had not been done by his Department or by other departments, either to prevent that collapse from taking place, or to clean up the mess that was left as a result. Whereas there may be some validity in the Minister’s belief that to some extent the insurance industry itself has blotted its copy book by the actions of certain individual companies, he has not been heard to tell the House in his second-reading speech that he believes the industry as a whole was not prepared to carry out its obligations, whether it was financially embarrassing to do so or not, in terms of the Motor Vehicle Assurance Act. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, one is still entitled, I think, at this late stage to urge the Minister to consider the fact that he must deal with the position as a whole rather than to look at one segment of it and say: I am satisfied with this little piece of it, or I am not satisfied, and I am going to make my decisions in accordance with the appearance of this segment. The whole being greater than the part, or segment, the whole industry is affected by this type of legislation. The whole insurance industry may be beneficially or adversely affected as the case may be, but the point is that the whole industry is entitled as of right to full consideration from the hon. the Minister. It emerges very clearly that whatever his action was after the Parity debacle, after that sorry episode, the Minister did not apply his mind to remedies which would embrace the available manpower, resources and co-operation of the insurance industry as a whole. I should like to urge on the Minister, even now, the necessity for considering whether, by accepting the point of view which has been put forward by the Opposition, he can see his way clear to pin-point those particular companies about which, according to what he said during the second-reading debate, he has evidence as to their desire to obstruct and their failure to co-operate, and say: I will not give these companies an opportunity—but I will give all the others an equal opportunity of sharing the burden, if it is a burden, or the privilege, if it is a privilege, of carrying third-party insurance in South Africa. I would like him to think again, before the third reading of this Bill.

This stage of the debate in this House and the Committee Stage, have, I think, been distinguished by the absence of contributions of any substance by anyone who should know something about this question from the other side of the House. As the hon. member for Maitland has already pointed out, looking through the Burger, a Nationalist Party organ, this morning, I could see no report of yesterday’s debate at all. And I am not surprised. If I were running a Nationalist Party organ, this is a matter about which I would be very embarrassed. And Sir, the embarrassment is reflected in those benches. I am referring particularly to the Select Committee members on that side of the House; they are standing in the lobby. Not one of them took part in the debate. I must say that in respect of one of them there might be something to be said because he is now a Deputy Minister and perhaps it is not customary for Deputy Ministers in other departments to take part in debates which are conducted by other Ministers. Be that as it may, Sir, no one else has taken part. And I vouchsafe, Sir, every single one of them is opposed to this Bill. That is the only conclusion one can come to. One wonders therefore why the hon. the Minister has pressed this Bill. One wonders what pressure has been on the hon. the Minister in all these circumstances.

Order! I have allowed the hon. member to make his point, but now he must return to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister is persisting with a Bill, the principle of which is to create a monopoly of II companies. That is the Minister’s concern. That is why he is pushing this through. We on this side of the House are concerned with the motorists and the general public. Having regard to that, how can the hon. the Minister justify pressing this Bill through at this stage at all? The hon. the Minister must surely have regard to what the commissioner said in the Parity inquiry. I should like the hon. the Minister, when he replies to this debate, to indicate just what his views are on the findings, the views and the animadversions of Mr. Justice Marais who was the commissioner of that inquiry. There is one thing that is quite clear, and that is that as sure as God made little apples this Bill is going to result in higher premiums, because the hon. the Minister arranged with these companies that they would pay out of the 75 per cent all the claims and legal expenses.

Mr. Speaker, the premiums must go up. They must go up because the 11 companies cannot provide the machinery and the personnel for the settlement of claims. I am not talking about persons getting their insurance— I am talking about the settlement of claims. I hope that the hon. the Minister, having regard to his present attitude, is going to ensure that on the dead-line when these disks for third-party insurance have to be procured in terms of the Act, some arrangement is going to be made for this. Or does the hon. the Minister have in mind that he is going to proclaim a sort of period of amnesty—a period of truce during which motorists can run about the roads without disks, but nevertheless be covered? Because what has happened hitherto is that these 80-odd companies have always sent out reminders to their clients. If I were one of the excluded companies, I most certainly would not make available to a company in the consortium a list of all my clients. The result is that persons are not going to receive reminders from their insurance companies as they normally do and that a number of people on the last day are going to find themselves without any cover and they are going to have to find a company which can give them that cover. This is going to be limited to 11 companies whereas 80 did it before.

I hope the hon. the Minister has had regard to this aspect because this is one of the things that is going to result unless the hon. the Minister does in fact broaden the scope of this consortium. He is entitled to do so. The Bill states that the State President may allow any other company to enter the consortium. The hon. the Minister is going to advise the State President. But what is so peculiar about this Bill is that in one clause we in effect validate an illegal agreement the hon. the Minister has entered into with a number of companies, and in the next part of that clause we give to the State President a discretion to allow other companies into the consortium. Now the hon. the Minister says he is morally bound by the agreement but the agreement, as I understand it, states that no one is allowed into the consortium except with the unanimous approval of all the other members of the consortium. At this stage I want to ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider the reason he has given us over the past few days as to why he is pressing on with this Bill, namely that he is morally bound by the agreement. Mr. Speaker, if he is not morally bound by that part, then he is not morally bound by anything at all. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will in this agreement put in some clause which will ensure that the settlement of claims by the consortium companies, by the persons with whom the agreement is made, is going to be done on a proper business-like basis. In other words, when the hon. the Minister implements this Bill, is he going to ensure that there will be some means of checking up on the settlement of claims by these consortium companies by his Department. I think this is very important and if the hon. the Minister can devise such a scheme, he should put it into effect. He must write this into the agreement and he must have a penalty clause in the agreement to the effect that if any company does in fact settle claims other than on the proper basis or on a higher basis than should perhaps be done, he should have the power to exclude that company from the consortium.

The other aspect which arises is the question of morality. In April of last year the hon. the Minister justified the contents of this Bill on the basis that there were all these motorists formerly insured with Parity and who were now going to new companies, and the companies were not playing the game. They were putting obstacles in the way of persons wanting to obtain third-party insurance because they did not want to provide third-party insurance because they did not like the sort of risk that Parity had carried before. So the hon. the Minister said that he was going to make an arrangement with certain companies to do this business exclusively because the other companies were not playing the game. Motorists could not obtain their insurance which they were compelled by law to do. Then yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister made the most remarkable statement that has been made throughout the whole debate on this matter. He was pressed to name those companies which had been excluded and which had not played the game. The hon. the Minister’s reply was that as far as he was concerned all insurance companies had not played the game—all of them, including the companies in the consortium. As I said to the hon. the Minister at that time and before, I have documentary evidence here that one of the big companies which has been included in the consortium, was not playing the game.

I will show this document to the hon. the Minister if he wants to see it. If the hon. the Minister is going to renegotiate an agreement and put it on any sort of moral basis, and if he is influenced by any moral basis, then he should see it and I will show it to him. I am not going to name the company here but the document is here if the Minister wishes to see it. So on the basis that in fact all the companies did not play the game and were obstructing certain persons from obtaining insurance under the Act, how does the hon. the Minister justify the choosing of those 11 companies. The Minister says that as far as he is concerned—and he is responsible, as he agreed —none of the companies played the game, and then he says that he left it to someone else to choose the 11 companies in the consortium. Whatever morality there was in this agreement when the Minister announced it in April of last year, has now disappeared completely with that statement by the hon. the Minister.

The hon. the Minister has had schemes with the unanimous approval of both sides of this House put before him previously—schemes which he could implement here. You will remember, Sir, that the Select Committee on this matter in 1964 produced a Bill which was read in this House. The Bill provided for a pool, which in effect provided for the same scheme as this Bill, whereby all companies which were registered would be able to share in this pool. All the premium-income would go into the pool, just as is going to happen with the consortium, and that would therefore be protected. Now why can the hon. the Minister not implement that and include in it, if he must, all the conditions that he wants—the conditions which he is going to make applicable to the consortium. Is there any reason why the hon. the Minister cannot do that? I do not think that there is but perhaps the Minister can indicate why he has to resort to this step when with the unanimous approval of everyone in this House, he had a foolproof scheme presented to him but which was not accepted by his Department. The hon. the Minister has abandoned his responsibilities. He has abandoned them because in effect he is saying to these companies: “You carry on this business exclusively. You need only use 75 per cent of your premium-income to settle claims and for the legal expenses in connection therewith. The 25 per cent that remains you may keep and if you cannot come out on that then do not worry; I will put up the premium— the public will pay for it, you will not carry any risks so do not worry.” That is not what the hon. the Minister was entrusted to do. He was entrusted to keep control of the situation using the normal channels of commerce and insurance—the best, the cheapest, the most efficient method for the benefit of the public. The hon. the Minister has abandoned that system and he is going to be responsible for it, his Government is going to be responsible for it, every member on that side of the House is going to be responsible for it because when the moment came to express their views here, they were lacking. There is without any doubt a number of them who are opposed to this measure, not only on principle but on the basis that it cannot work in the future. When the premiums go up, the hon. the Minister will be responsible and hon. members on that side will be responsible.

Why will the premiums go up.

Order! The hon. member may continue his speech.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. the Minister is going to make some provision in this agreement that if any one of those companies which he has admitted to us do not play the game—as far as he is concerned none of them played the game— puts obstacles in the way of motorists getting third party cover, it will be excluded from the agreement. I hope that he at least will include that together with the other clause which I mentioned [Interjection.] My hon. friend says “a reformation clause” and I hope that the hon. the Minister can do that. But I hope even more fervently that the Minister will see his way clear to persuade the 11 companies of the consortium that he, with the information that he has available now, is no longer prepared to negotiate an agreement with them to the exclusion of all the other companies and that he will allow them all into this consortium, or that he will abandon the consortium.

The hon. member for Yeoville started his speech by saying that the Opposition was speaking on behalf of the people of South Africa. Since when has the Opposition been speaking on behalf of the people of South Africa? [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, every election in the past has shown that they have never spoken on behalf of the people. The only behalf on which they are speaking at present is that of the companies which will be excluded from the consortium. [Interjections.] They are the people on whose behalf they are speaking. As I said yesterday, it is very clear that they have been instructed to oppose this matter, because their attitude was quite different last year.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, does the hon. the Minister have the right to allege as a fact that members on this side of the House are adopting an attitude in Parliament by the direction of private concerns outside? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister may continue.

That is the position. [Interjections.] What else can one conclude when one bears in mind that …

What hon. member said that the Minister knows that it is not true?

Mr. Speaker, I said that the hon. the Minister would know that it is not true.

The hon. member is a lawyer and he knows that he may not make that remark. There is no excuse for him to make such a remark. The hon. member must withdraw those words.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw.

The hon. the Minister may continue.

Mr. Speaker, that is the only deduction that can be made when one takes into consideration the attitude which was adopted by those hon. members last year.

The hon. the Minister can take it from me that that is not so. He ought to be ashamed of himself for saying such a thing.

No, I am not ashamed. Those hon. members ought to be ashamed of themselves for adopting that attitude. That is typical of the United Party—they are never consistent in regard to any matter. That is the reason for their sitting there and becoming fewer at every election. It is simply for that reason that the people of South Africa do not trust them. They never know when they are going to be consistent in regard to a particular point of view—and that is particularly true of the hon. member for Yeoville. Last year when all these difficulties started, they were most concerned about them. They admitted that the companies had to a considerable extent placed obstacles in the way of motorists who wanted insurance. They were most concerned about that. They saw all the newspaper reports, they saw the telegrams which were received, and they themselves received telegrams and telephone calls; then they were most concerned about the matter; then they expected the Minister to do something drastic. The hon. member for Yeoville said this:

At that stage the hon. member wanted to know whether I was going to make a statement in regard to the matter. That was exactly what I did. The hon. member continued and according to Col. 4679 of the Hansard of 23 April 1965, he said—

The hon. member therefore expected the Minister to take action, to take strong action. Through this it is clear by implication that he approved of the agreement into which I had entered with the companies.

No. Read my words. I asked that the matter should be investigated further and for that I received your undertaking.

I want hon. members to listen now. As I said yesterday, this hon. member is never able to adopt a firm attitude. He is slippery and always sees to it that he leaves a back-door open so that when one corners him on one point, he slips out with the aid of another.

He is a political eel.

According to Col. 4680 of the same Hansard, the hon. member also said—

In other words, he accepted the fact that an agreement would be entered into with one or more companies. If words have any meaning, surely that is what these words mean.

We proposed an amendment to the effect that there had to be more than one company; we are therefore quite consistent. However, you rejected that amendment.

Surely there is more than one company. What I suggest here is that last year hon. members on the opposite side approved by implication of the action I took. That was when they saw that chaos would develop. They themselves asked the Minister to take drastic action. I informed the House at that stage that I was entering into an agreement with a small group of companies. They agreed to that by implication. But, as I have said, once again this hon. member has, as usual, left open to himself a back-door through which he can escape. That is what he has once more tried to do now. It is simply impossible to corner him on a particular point of view.

Not with such silly arguments.

He is as slippery as an eel. It is simply impossible to get a grip on him. Allow me now to refer to a remark made by the hon. member for Durban North (Mr. M. L. Mitchell.) That member was most concerned about the fact that members on this side of the House were not participating in this debate, and from that he deduced that members on this side of the House did not support this measure. That is, of course, a totally wrong deduction. Every measure introduced in this House is submitted to our caucus, and every member will confirm that everybody who objects to a measure has and is given every opportunity of raising that objection. They will also be able to confirm that when this measure was served before the caucus, nobody rose in order to object to it. Those are the facts, facts than can be confirmed by all hon. members on this side of the House. The hon. member also said that there was no report in this morning’s Burger on the debate on this matter which was discussed in this House yesterday. That is possible. In this regard, however, I should like to point out a major difference between this and that side of the House. As regards the opposite side of the House, we know that they always wait for the British newspapers to give them guidance before they adopt an attitude in regard to a matter. That is not the case with this side of the House. That is the difference. Over the years it has been proved time and again that they are always waiting for guidance on the part of newspapers, especially that of The Sunday Times, before they adopt an attitude. The moment they have been given that guidance, they adopt an attitude. This side does not do that. On the contrary. This side gives guidance to the newspapers.

Is it not a fact that the eleven companies which constitute the consortium, dictate to you?

The hon. member is talking nonsense. I was the one who summoned them together. [Interjections.] Have you ever heard such silliness, Mr. Speaker? I took the initiative to summon these companies together; now it is being said that they instruct me. Surely that is a nonsensical remark. And hon. members know that it is a nonsensical remark. Then there is also the question of the discretion of the State President. Hon. members are alleging now that the Minister has curtailed this discretion of the State President beforehand. That they say owing to the fact that the Minister is under a moral obligation to the 11 companies. But I have already dealt with this point. The discretion of the State President is not curtailed in any way. It is constitutional practice that I, as the Minister, should advise the State President. I said that I was morally committed to these 11 companies. That is so. I am morally committed to this extent, namely that I gave the undertaking that I would see to it that these 11 companies would again be admitted to the consortium. That is quite correct. But I have also repeatedly said in this debate that the possibility was by no means ruled out that other companies could also become parties to the consortium.

Only with the consent of the 11 companies?

I have also said that it was a possibility that this provision could be removed after discussions with the companies in question. You see, Mr. Speaker, that I try to act honestly and decently, and I try to keep my word, in contrast with hon. members on the opposite side of the House. When I give my word, I keep it, and seeing that I have given my word to these 11 companies, companies which operated under the most extremely difficult circumstances, it is my intention to redeem that pledge. At the same time I want to say that I am quite convinced that it will be possible to take this right of veto out of their hands. That will probably be done so that the State President may have the exclusive right of veto as far as the addition of more companies to the consortium is concerned. But it is my intention to keep my word that these eleven companies will form part of the consortium. There should be no doubt in that regard. The hon. member also asked on what basis the eleven companies were selected originally. This point, too, I have covered repeatedly in my replies to the debate. I have said that I have instructed my Department to summon together companies whose boards of directors are here in South Africa, because there was no time for companies to consult overseas boards of directors. That was necessary so that an immediate ruling might be given. Within a day or so six companies were summoned together.

I know of at least one South African company which you omitted.

There are three such companies, but there are other reasons for the fact that they have not been invited, reasons I do not want to mention here in public. The six companies summoned together were willing to include another five companies in their ranks. After a conference they suggested the names of these five companies. The hon. member also said that there was one thing about which Parliament was agreed, and that was that a monopoly which could be injurious to the public and would curtail services to the public, would not meet with the approval of Parliament. In this regard I agree with him. As far as a monopoly of that nature is concerned, all of us in this House are agreed that we cannot tolerate that. But now I suggest that this monopoly is a different sort of monopoly, which is indeed in the interests of the public, and which is decidedly not to its disadvantage. I suggest that this monopoly is going to bring more benefits to the motorists than third-party has ever done in the past. I have already advanced my reasons for this statement. For instance, there cannot be another repetition of the Parity debacle. I have also pointed out that if I had originally yielded to the demands of companies for a 20 per cent increase in the premium tariff, motorists would already, over a period of two years, have had to pay 40 per cent more in premiums. In the first instance, under the new set-up motorists will therefore already be spared this. Now we find that there are still hon. members on the opposite side, the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel), for instance, who maintain that these eleven companies will not be able to manage all third-party insurance. But does the hon. member realize that Parity alone undertook more than 40 per cent of this type of insurance in South Africa? If one company could do that, there is no reason for 11 companies not being able to undertake all insurance. Furthermore, the hon. member for Durban North alleged that I have not yet said anything about what the future policy in regard to the premium tariff would be. He alleged, inter alia, that “as sure as God made little apples, premiums will increase”. But as far back as last year I said that the possibility of an increase of the premium tariff would not be ruled out. According to Col. 4704 of the Hansard of 23 April 1965, I said the following—

Therefore I said last year that the possibility of an increase of the premium tariff would not be ruled out. Why does that hon. member now repeat that question? In addition to that I repeated that statement in the course of the present debate. What the hon. member forgets, is that if I had complied last year with the request of the premium committee to increase the premium tariff by 20 per cent, motorists would already have paid 20 per cent more in premiums. Under the new scheme motorists pay the same premium both this, year and next year. Is such an agreement not to their advantage?

After that companies receive a three-fold increase.

No, not necessarily. In view of the fact that the money, which will be collected in premiums in the future and which will be invested, will mean a few million rands extra revenue to the Fund, I am convinced that it will not happen. On account of that it may well be maintained that motorists will have greater protection against an increase of the premium tariff, than has been the position up to now.

But companies also received premium revenue before, not so?

Yes, but the money was not invested separately. It was paid into a general pool. The difference will be, therefore, that in future this money will be pooled and afterwards invested at the current rate of interest.

That has also been recommended by the Select Committee.

No, the hon. member is referring to something else. But allow me to remind the hon. member that if he should look at the evidence submitted to the Select Committee, he would see that the companies did not want to have any dealings with the pool idea. They intimated that they would refuse to co-operate.

To co-operate with Parity.

The hon. member should read the evidence again. The hon. member also inquired of me whether my Department would exercise any form of check as regards claims. Let me inform him that there will be a special claims inspectorate to check this aspect of the matter. If it is necessary such a provision will be included in the agreement. The hon. member may rest assured that seeing that we are dealing with a smaller number of companies, the control which my Department will be able to exercise, will be much more effective. Any company which does not strictly maintain payments with regard to the settlement of claims will most certainly no longer remain a member of the consortium. The whole purpose of the scheme is to protect and benefit motorists.

Finally, I want to repeat again that in my opinion this measure is in the interests of the country. It is true that it is not in the interests of certain companies, but I maintain that it is decidedly in the interests of the country and motorists in particular.

I wish to move—

It is pleasing to find, Mr. Speaker, that for once it is possible to approve the action taken by the Minister of Transport. It is also pleasing to note that the Department of Transport has brought up to date its mechanical work and that it appreciates a less obvious aspect of its activities namely the maintenance of the health of its personnel. This is an equally important aspect. For years the Railway Sick Fund has looked after the health of the staff. The Administration has other problems, a problem not of ill-health so much as of maintaining good health, especially the health of its most specialized servants. The Department of Railways and Harbours is in more than one aspect unique. Some of the work is so specialized that the Department has perforce to train its own key men, because generally speaking it is impossible to recruit such highly specialized men on the labour market.

What clause are you referring to?

The clause in terms of which the retiring age of pilots is increased. The Department has perforce to recruit men of this type from universities and technological colleges. In any event, men for these specialized positions must have had a basic training in that particular kind of work for which they are required. Thus you will find that although a man has had a basic scientific training that does not necessarily fit in for work on the Railways in that sphere on account of the fact that the particular scientific work on the Railways is of a highly specialized nature. Generally the work of the Railways is to move vehicles from one place to another, whether it be by land, by sea or by air and in each case the control of the vehicle is in the hands of a single man. One man is the final arbiter as to whether a vehicle will move or remain stationary. To see that they are moved, that is the job of the Railways. For this the services of key-men are required. Take away those men who are at present responsible for the moving of the vehicles and you grind the entire transport system of the country to a halt, much more than the application of oil sanctions ever could. Since the time when mechanical transport came into use we have come to rely to ever-increasing degree on the services of these individuals. It is they, whether pilots, captains, train drivers, etc., who really run the Railways. All else is subservient to them. Until recently it was considered that age was sufficient reason for retirement. In so far as this is concerned, I wish to congratulate the hon. the Minister on having made some progress at least. What is more, in order to be absolutely certain the age limit was determined at a much lower age than was necessary. Now, the way age is arrived at is by counting birthdays. This science has proved to be one of the most unreliable of all suggested methods. The sooner this is therefore completely abandoned, the better. A man’s age is not equal to the number of his birthdays but is determined by the state of vital organs. Slowly but surely the medical profession has found the means of measuring the age of these organs. After having arrived at a true estimate of their real value, it is decided whether they are in fact in good working order. Let me refer to the engine driver. It was considered that he should be retired at a certain age because of his vision. That is how the date of the retirement of certain men is arrived at on the Railways. And, Sir, I want to point out that this first step, or really the second step of raising the retiring age of pilots is a move in the right direction. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to go further and try to devise a different method of determining the retiring age of all railway employees. Some of the Minister’s porters, for instance, stagger on their feet although they are only 50 years old, while others could easily carry on until 70. Yet they are all discharged compulsorily at a certain age.

I should like to say something about the question of a man’s vision, which is of particular importance as far as the engine driver is concerned. By means of scientific tests it can now be determined with a high degree of accuracy how good a man’s sight is. The tests indicate how far he can see with accuracy and whether he has a good judgment of distance. Furthermore tests can reveal a man’s muscle-nerve reaction and his ability to act correctly when under stress, to act as he has been taught, to act as his judgment tells him, and not to panic. All these characteristics can be gauged with great accuracy. What is more, a man’s reactions in the future can be predetermined by means of these tests. The results of the tests can be a warning of a man’s deterioration in some direction or other.

Mr. Speaker, we must abandon completely the idea that when a man should retire can be determined by his years. That idea is wrong. Certain men come to light with their best performance after numbers of years. It is time— (and it would be a good example)—that this, the largest industry in the country should discontinue turning out old people and thus cause them to eke out a miserable, lonely and useless old age while they are capable and willing of giving many years of productive work by being retained in the service. It should be productive employment for men who do not work productively are parasites upon those who do. The old men who work are men who produce something. What do savings do, Sir? Savings buy only the work of the worker who is actually working. That is all that can be bought. Too many pensions will absorb all production. We must have more work and fewer pensions.

I trust the thought which has been revealed by the hon. the Minister in this Bill will go further and apply to a wider field. Let all men’s working capacity be judged by their output and not by the number of their birthdays.

What the hon. member has just said is very interesting. But it did not really have much to do with this Bill because the Bill deals exclusively with the retiring age of pilots, and this measure has been introduced at their request. The hon. member pleaded for the abolition of age as the criterion of retirement. Well, as a medical man he knows that one cannot accept the state of health of a person as the norm, differing as it does from individual to individual. One might find one man being quite healthy at the age of 60 whilst another is almost finished at the age of 50.

That is the point he was making.

That is the reason why we have a definite age limit, as we also have in the case of pilots. They are subjected at half-yearly intervals to very stringent medical tests. If the examination reveals that anything is wrong with the pilot, for instance a slowing down of his reaction—which is the greatest danger— then he hx2as to retire.

The present position is that workers on the Railways retire at a certain age. Now, the problem here is that when a man enters the service of the Administration a contract is entered into with him, and that contract forms the basis of his employment. In other words, if the contract stipulates his retirement at the age of 60 or 63 years with a pension, that course must be followed. The only way in which the retiring age can be increased is by obtaining the concurrence and the support of these people. Because, Sir, it would be wrong morally, after having entered into a contract with a man, to increase the retiring age against his wishes. Some years ago I increased the retiring age to 63.

You can make it optional.

I had to make it optional for those already in the service before that particular Act was promulgated. Of course, those who entered the service after that date, have to continue until the age of 63 years. I know that life expectancy is much higher now than it was 10 or 20 years ago, and I think that a man of 60 or 63 is quite fit enough —in most occupations, at any rate—to continue his work.

And he is most useful.

Yes, he is most useful because of his wealth of experience. Sometimes these men are valuable, and one cannot really afford to lose their services. As I said, the raising of the age limit can only be done with the support of the staff. What is more, Mr. Speaker, the raising of the retiring age limit from 60 to 63 in some groups and 55 to 58 in others some years ago has not really appealed to most of the staff. Only a small percentage choose to remain on in the service of those who have the option. Most of them prefer to retire at the earlier age. I repeat that I agree with the hon. member when he says that today many people can work to a riper age than they could in the past, and it is really a pity that the value of these servants’ services should be lost.

Is their disinclination to be re-employed not because of a reduced salary after their retiring age?

I am not referring to reemployment but to continuous employment. A man has, for instance, a contract stipulating his retirement at the age of 60. But he has the option of remaining on until he is 63. His pension is adjusted if he exercises his option, and he retains the same salary and occupies the same position as before. Nevertheless a large number of employees do not avail themselves of the opportunity to continue working.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

During the Committee Stage of this Bill an amendment which I sought to move was ruled out of order because certain employees affected by this legislation are in the employ of the Government. At this stage of the Bill we can only ask the hon. the Minister to indicate whether he is prepared to take the necessary steps to implement what I believe to be the wishes of the vast majority of workers who fall under this legislation, namely the celebration of Republic Day each year as a paid public holiday.

The Minister has the necessary machinery at his disposal. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is now prepared to make use of that machinery to obtain a concensus of opinion of all employers affected by this measure regarding their attitude to granting Republic Day as a paid public holiday every year. I think the machinery at the disposal of the hon. the Minister is well known. He can either make use of the offices of the employers’ associations or he can refer the matter to the employees’ associations. But whether he does something about my suggestion or not, I have no doubt pressure is going to build up over the years before Republic Day is proclaimed a paid public holiday each year also for those workers at present excluded from this privilege.

Therefore, Sir, I think it would be a good thing for the Minister to indicate—as he did during the second reading stage—that his thoughts are in that direction. Unfortunately he gave no indication whether he contemplates converting his thoughts into positive action. That is why I am asking the hon. the Minister now at this third reading stage whether he is prepared to take the necessary action for having consultations with those interests affected by this measure which might result in an agreed Bill going through this House.

I think the hon. member knows that all the employers’ associations have been canvassed on this issue, and they are opposed to making Republic Day an annual paid holiday for all workers. Of course, the employees’ associations are in favour of the proposal. What further consultation can there be? All I can say is this: If pressure does come in the future, well, I will consider the matter, I will take everything having a bearing on the matter into consideration, and I will see what can be done. But at this stage I regret I can give no undertaking that I am prepared to go further than I have gone in this Bill now before the House.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? What method was used to consult employers affected by this Bill?

They were consulted by means of correspondence and they were also questioned on the matter. Interviews also took place. The employers concerned were all consulted.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

Both during the second reading and in the course of the Committee Stage of this measure hon. members on this side of the House very clearly recorded their opposition to Clause 3. This side even moved an amendment, but seeing that the hon. the Minister assured us that he would put the matter to rights on a later occasion, we withdrew that amendment.

As the Bill reads at present, the hon. the Minister is relieved entirely of his obligation to determine a formula in course of time. In other words, if this measure is approved it will mean that the Minister will be able to issue temporary permits for many years to come. That will entail that consumers of water will have to wait very long before they will know what quantity of water they will be allocated permanently. But even as the original Act, as amended in 1961, reads at present, the position is an unsound one. At present the hon. Minister’s hands are tied so that he can do nothing to supply water. And that is something we on this side of the House do not want either. To-day I received a telegram from people in an area which has suffered terribly under the drought and which, owing to recent beneficent rains in that district, once again has rivers in full flow. As the Act reads at present, these people will perhaps not be able to avail themselves of temporary permits. For that reason, Sir, this side of the House is eager to help the Minister in this respect. Accordingly we are prepared to support this third reading, provided that the hon. the Minister repeats his intention of moving the necessary amendments in the Other Place. In other words, the intention of the hon. the Minister—as he suggested at the Committee Stage—not to allow the period in which he has to determine the formula, to be extended over a great many years, but to determine it within the period of three years. If the hon. the Minister could give us that assurance again, we shall support him at this third reading stage.

Mr. Speaker, I gave my word during the Committee Stage. I really do not believe that it is necessary for a man whose word is as good as mine to repeat my undertaking. Hon. members can expect me to honour my undertaking.

Bill read a third time.

As was indicated by me during the second-reading debate yesterday, this side of the House is opposed to this clause.

With your own amendment or that of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman)?

The hon. the Minister tries to make cheap propaganda. The Minister knows very well that I said yesterday we are going to oppose the Bill. I can see the line that side is going to adopt. They talk about dirty politics for this election. This is one of the dirtiest lines the hon. the Minister is taking. I want to say, Sir, that the arguments raised by the hon. the Minister yesterday were some of the dirtiest arguments too.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that remark.

What remark, Sir?

Order! The remark that the Minister’s argument was the dirtiest argument used. It is unparliamentary.

But, Sir, we have heard …

Order! The hon. member must not argue with the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, am I to understand then in future any reference to dirty …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the remark.

I withdraw the remark, Sir. I wish to say I have never heard such a foolish argument from a Minister as I heard yesterday. And the hon. the Minister is a barrister.

He was an attorney and now he is a barrister. He ought to know better than to use the type of argument he used yesterday. I said our objection to this clause was because it was so extensive, it went so far. It is not just a question of a man being a communist. In the course of my speech I referred to all the laws which apply, and the Minister in reply to me said the test was whether the man concerned was advocating or defending the objects of Communism. He said the objects of Communism were defined in the 1950 Act, and that I had used the example of a man who, advocating a republic, could be accused of advocating one of the objects of Communism.

That is what you said and it is nonsense.

Yes, that is what I said, but it is not nonsense.

But you are running away from my point.

I do not think the Minister was a member of Parliament in 1950.

But I can read the law.

When this 1950 Act defining Communism was passed, there was a discussion here as to what the word meant. And older hon. members will remember that Dr. Malan’s speech made at Graaff-Reinet in 1913 was referred to frequently. Then we mentioned that all the different objects of the Nationalist Party were included in the objects of Communism. And they are not excluded by this definition which the Minister read yesterday. The definition says Communism is “the doctrine of Marxian socialism”. What is it? Is it for the maintenance of a monarchy? Of course it is not. According to the definition in the 1950 Act—

Exactly.

The Minister then read out the various doctrines or schemes. But all the other objects of Communism are covered by this Bill …

Taken as a whole, but you cannot single out one …

The hon. the Minister tried to give the impression yesterday that the only objects of Communism were those contained in sub-paragraph (a) and (b).

Then you are talking nonsense because I read out what …

The hon. the Minister read

(a) and (b). Sub-paragraph (a) reads as follows—

He said it was not covered by that. Well, I am not so certain that it is not covered by that. The Minister then read sub-paragraph (b) —

and he said I overlooked the following words—

The hon. the Minister tried to create the impression yesterday that there had to be disturbances or disorder …

Order! I have allowed the hon. member to reply to the hon. the Minister. He must now refer to the clause. The House is now in Committee.

Our objection to the Bill is, Sir, that the definition is so wide that it can cover a multitude of crimes. We do not look upon this measure as being only a Sobukwe Bill, as legislation just to detain Sobukwe. The Minister chooses to call it the Sobukwe clause. We have pointed out before, Sir, that the hon. the Minister must find other means by which to detain Sobukwe and not keep this law on our Statute Book. He is asking for authority to extend the provision for another year. He himself accepts that the relevant section should only be temporary. The hon. the Minister said Sobukwe may be released next year. Therefore, Sir, it would appear the position is not as critical as the Minister would suggest. Under the circumstances this side of the House will again vote against this Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend replying to the argument advanced by the hon. member just now. I merely rise to express my astonishment at the fact that the hon. member became so terribly excited about a single little question I had put to him. The question was simply whether the hon. member would move his own amendment or whether he would again vote in favour of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). That is all I asked the hon. member; and now I leave the hon. member to settle that question at the election.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Would the hon. the Minister tell me in what other way I could have voted against this measure yesterday?

I shall gladly reply to that question. If the hon. member had the courage, the easiest way would have been that he himself should have moved the amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton.

But why? It was unnecessary for the amendment to be moved.

The position is that the hon. member—if he cares to go and find out what his actions were—did not act similarly last year.

We voted against it in the same way as we are voting at this stage.

No, the hon. member may go and look it up in Hansard. Last year it was different. What is more, Mr. Chairman, why did the hon. member not move the amendment himself? All I can conclude from that is that the hon. member did not have the courage to move the amendment and that he was therefore compelled to follow the lead given by the hon. member for Houghton. In other words, Sir, the hon. member has twice not had the courage of his convictions, firstly, in not moving the amendment himself and, secondly, in voting against the amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton.

I am surprised at the hon. the Minister. It seems to me he is completely at sea. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister when this side voted for the amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton yesterday?

[Inaudible.]

We have never voted for the amendment—it was never put.

Order! That matter is not under discussion now.

I want to support what the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) said about this hon. the Minister. Here we have a Minister of Justice, dealing with a matter like this, making cheap political propaganda only. The Minister is just making cheap party political propaganda.

Order! The hon. member must discuss the clause.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. the Minister, seeing he is being so flippant and so skittish about this very important measure, whether his attitude has changed since this was first introduced. Because at that time he said this was a measure which offended him. He agreed with this side that it should not be part of the permanent law of South Africa. Will he tell us whether that is still his attitude? Or has he changed his mind?

The hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) is objecting to this provision now, When the principle was discussed yesterday he did not say a word. [Interjection.] It is not a question that it was not necessary; the hon. member could not speak; he was not allowed to speak about it; and I shall tell him why not. His feelings on the matter are the same as those of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). That is why he did not speak yesterday.

Order!

Is it so or not that the hon. the Minister feels about it just the way now that he did then?

Order! That is not relevant.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—77: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coetzee,; Coetzee, J. A.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.: du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J.; Frank. S.; Froneman, F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.: Henning, J. M.; Heystek, J.; Jurgens, J. C.: Knobel, G. J.; Koornhof, P. G. J.: Kotze. G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, W C; Marais, J A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins. H. E.; Muller, H.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Odell, H. G. O.; Otto. J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Potgieter, D. J.: Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch. A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd. H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Vorster, B. J.; Webster, A.; Wentzel. J. J.

Tellers: P. S. van der Merwe and H. J. van Wyk.

Noes—39: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Eaton, N. G.; Eden, G. S,; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Taurog, L. B.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.

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

This clause says that the Act shall apply in respect of civil judgments given in the Republic and in any country or territory outside the Republic which the State President has for the purposes of this Act designated by proclamation in the Gazette. We welcome this Bill and the clause, but I would be glad to hear from the Minister whether it has been possible already to make reciprocal arrangements with various countries and, if so, with which countries. One knows, of course, that in regard, for example, to the authentication of documents there are large numbers of countries where we recognize the actions of the authorities there. I was wondering whether any progress had been made in this regard.

Many countries have similar legislation, in which case that follows automatically; in respect of those countries which do not have similar legislation, there will be consultation, due regard being had to the circumstances. I cannot take it further at this stage.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 7:

Would the Minister explain why the presumption contained in sub-section (1) is there at all? It provides that a judgment shall be deemed to be final notwithstanding that an appeal against such judgment is pending in a court of the proclaimed country concerned or that the time prescribed by the law of such country for appealing against such judgment has not expired. By the latter sentence I presume is meant the time for the noting of the appeal. This is very peculiar, to say the very least, but we here provide in this Bill for the reciprocal enforcement of civil judgments, and we have a presumption that a judgment of a foreign country to be enforced in this country is final. In other words, you can execute against that judgment when in fact there is an appeal pending against it. In other words, this seems to be the very negation of every principle that we have in our law, namely that you may not execute a civil judgment until such time as either the appeal has been disposed of, if it is pending, or the time for noting it has expired. I hope the Minister can explain this rather strange position.

I explained that during the second reading. It might have escaped the hon. member’s attention, but the same procedure followed in these courts may also be followed by our own courts. That is the type of section one finds in British law, and for the reason I advanced, one finds it in all the other laws.

I must say that the fact that they have it in the British law does not suggest itself to me as being a good reason why we should have it in our law. Only British bias would suggest that because they have it we should have it too, and I am not so biased that I want to see such a provision here. Frankly, this offends me. Appeals very often take a very long time. But you can get, in effect, a judgment and bring it to South Africa and before the appeal is decided you can execute it here. If this were a South African judgment you could not execute on that judgment. I do not like this at all and I wonder whether the Minister can indicate to us whether it is really necessary to have such a provision in our law.

I cannot take it any further. That is how it was put to me by our law advisers.

Do I understand the Minister correctly that in fact this is part of an arrangement where South African judgments will be enforced and executed in those countries?

On the same basis and the same principle.

Yes, but why must we change our principles of South African law to fit in with some arrangement we have for reciprocating the enforcement of judgment?

It entirely depends on the agreement between the various countries.

But it is the principle, and it is not a principle of our law. Why must we use the processes of our courts to further a principle of a foreign country, a principle which is, frankly, anathema to me as a South African.

The hon. member may discuss it in the third reading.

This is the only stage at which we can really discuss it, but seeing that it is almost time to adjourn the Minister might have the answer after lunch.

Just before we adjourned, the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) chased up a hare which unfortunately spoilt a good afternoon for me and which once again illustrated the point that hon. members should not simply rise to speak after having glanced at the Bill without have done their homework. I assume that the hon. member now knows what the reply is to his questions, and that he does not really want an explanation from me any more. The truth of the matter is-—as the hon. member now understands, I presume—that an appeal need not necessarily stop execution. The person who wants the execution to proceed, has to apply to the court for the necessary order, and the reason for that is not far to seek. That is because the person who has a judgment, is subject to that judgment, and the fact that an appeal can be made does not alter the position in any way, because, if it were different, such a person can quite easily dispose of the goods on which execution can be levied. That is the full reply. If the hon. member advanced the argument that we have now altered the entire basis of our law to suit other people, I would say that it is not the case, because that is in fact the basis of our law. I tried to bring that home to the hon. member by means of an interjection, but unfortunately we could not understand each other. But that is the full reply to the question.

I am sorry we spoilt the Minister’s afternoon by making him come back here and we are greatly pleased to have his instruction in law. We, of course, know, and the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) knows as well, as the Minister knows now, that you can always execute after judgment is given and then the debtor can apply to have the execution stayed.

Exactly.

Yes, but as I said this morning. the Minister is losing his grip. He is not following things too well. The point the hon. member made was this. In terms of this Bill now, a judgment shall be deemed to be final notwithstanding that appeal against that judgment is pending in the court of the proclaimed country concerned. But what the hon. member wanted to know was this. Can execution in the other countries still be stayed?

But this has nothing to do with the other country at all. It has to be executed in this country.

Yes, but the point is this. It says that the judgment shall be deemed to be final notwithstanding that an appeal is pending.

And then you apply in the ordinary way for a stay of execution.

But the Bill says it shall be final notwithstanding the fact that an appeal is pending. What I want to know is this. If we have a judgment in this country on which we want to execute abroad and an appeal is noted and execution is stayed, will the execution in Britain, for instance, also be stayed? We merely want an assurance from the Minister on that, that these words do not mean what we read them to mean, namely that it is final despite the fact that an appeal has been noted.

Surely it is very clear. A person obtains a judgment in Britain, for example, and he wants to enforce that judgment in South Africa. He may have execution in respect of that judgment in South Africa, notwithstanding the fact that the person against whom he obtained the judgment in Britain has noted an appeal against the judgment in Britain. If the debtor who is then subject to the jurisdiction of the South African court does not want execution to proceed, and if he thinks the execution should be stayed, he may apply in the usual manner to this court and state reasons why execution should not be proceeded with. If good reasons are advanced by him, this court will grant him the relief he seeks against security being furnished or on any other condition, as the court usually does. This will be done notwithstanding this wording, because this is also the wording of our own law.

The Minister said before lunch that the reason why he had this provision was because this was also the provision in the law of Britain and other places. Nowhere else, as far as I know, does this provision appear in our law. The Minister says you can apply for a stay of execution. Of course you can, but the basis on which you ask for a stay of execution of a judgment is that there is an appeal pending; in other words, that the decision is not yet final. But here he provides that in law the judgment is deemed to be final, notwithstanding that there is an appeal. In other words, whereas in our law one could rely upon the fact that an appeal is pending and say that this is not a final judgment, and therefore you want to stay the execution, this provision seems to provide that in law that decision subject to an appeal is deemed to be a final judgment; and if you have a final judgment, how can you stay the execution?

As they say in Dutch, “Hoe ik dieper poog te delven, hoe ik meer bederf ontmoet”. I said a moment ago that the hon. member has not read the Bill. Then I thought so, but now I am sure, because if the hon. member would read Clause 5 (2) he would find this, and I am sure it is the first time the hon. member has seen it now—

That is the complete answer to the hon. member’s question.

Then why do you have the presumption?

Because that is the ordinary law.

When we adjourned yesterday I was pointing out that the hon. the Minister’s speech lacked cohesion. But he is not to blame for that; it is in the nature of this debate and the Minister is entitled to touch upon various matters which in his opinion this House and the nation should know about. One cannot blame him for the fact that at this stage of the year 1966 he was mainly concerned about making a propagandist speech. It is quite legitimate and it is quite understandable. We know the hon. the Minister. Only a very thin administrative skin has been pulled over the hide of the politician, and for that reason we do not blame him. I think that under similar circumstances many other members of this House would have done the same …

Order! Has the hon. member used the word “hide”?

Yes, but if it does not meet with your approval, Sir, I shall gladly use another.

Mr. Speaker, I am making the point that one has to make a very precise and clear analysis of the Minister’s speech in order to ascertain what he has told us and what he has not told us, and that is rather significant. In doing so one learns certain things and I think it is necessary that we from our side should bring what one does learn from a careful analysis of the Minister’s speech to the attention of the nation. As an indication of what our line of thought is, I should like to move the following amendment—

It appears from the Minister’s speech and from Railway publications which we all have at our disposal, that things went fairly well with the South African Railways up to and including September, because, as the Minister said, there were large quantities of imported goods which had to be transported at high tariffs, and that kept the revenue of the Railways at a high figure. The Railways are, of course, very dependent upon goods, especially imported goods, which have to be transported at high tariffs. If one makes an analysis of the figures, one finds that 17 per cent of the goods transported at higher tariffs was responsible for 51 per cent of the Railways’ revenue, while 83 per cent of the goods transported at lower tariffs only yielded 49 per cent of the Railways’ revenue. That was the position up to September, but since September, certain interesting changes, to which the Minister has only referred in passing, have come to the fore. Since September the Railways have begun to feel what the economic consequences of the economic maladministration for which the Government was responsible, would be for South Africa and the Railways. I only want to give a brief summary and I want to remind you of the fact that the Government, according to the Minister of Finance, has made plans for a period of tremendous economic revival in South Africa. They anticipated a boom and planned a boom, but they did not plan well, because they failed to take certain things into account. The fact that we have a shortage of manpower in South Africa as a result of their policy and negligence, was not taken into account. Secondly, they failed to take into account that when the private sector is encouraged to expand rapidly by means of private undertakings, the Government should curtail its activities temporarily and allow private undertakings free scope. But this Government became intoxicated by the boom and spent wildly there was an unprecedented increase in Government expenditure, and they actually competed with the private sector. We shall be able to say more about this, and it would also be more appropriate, when the financial measures introduced by the Minister of Finance are discussed. Those two factors were the main reasons why the boom could not be maintained, and a weak Government had to act against the nation of South Africa, as Mr. Wilson is acting against the Rhodesian nation; it had to institute economic sanctions against its own nation to curtail the boom; to slow down the prosperity of the country to a certain extent, and, as the hon. the Minister said in his speech during a brief moment of insight, the consequences of this policy of curtailment were felt more rapidly by the Railways than any other sector of the economy, and by the end of November last year we were beginning to see what was happening. For instance, we found that last year the Railways could run at a profit of R12,800,000 during the first eight months of the financial year, but by the end of November 1965 that profit had decreased to a mere R1,759,250, a disastrous decrease in many respects. It is interesting to note that Railways expenditure amounted to R413,341,000, during those eight months, approximately R40,000 more than during the corresponding period of the previous year. Expenditure increased by R38,500,000; but revenue increased by only R27,500,000. There was a deficit of R10,000,000 as compared with the previous year, and the surplus which amounted to R12,800,000 in November the year before last, was a mere R1,760,000. Last October the deficit on the Railways exceeded R3,000,000; in November the deficit was R3,500,000. I want to concede straight away that an important reason for that was the increases granted to the staff as from 1 October with retrospective effect. But, Mr. Speaker, the full effect of those increases is still to be felt, and the Agues at my disposal—the latest I could find were in the Government Gazette of 14 January— show for instance that it has not yet been indicated what the effect will be of the payment to the staff of approximately R12,000,000 in vacation bonuses. Consequently one has to conclude that the Railways are heading for a period in which they will be hard pressed financially. The hon. the Minister did not tell us much about this; he merely stated in passing that he could not predict what the position would be when Parliament assembled in August after the election.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, that is quite correct; the Minister cannot predict what the position will be at the end of March. We shall have to consider that for the first time in August after the election. I am very grateful to the Minister because that makes my point very clear. But he did say that if there should be a deficit, it would be supplemented from the Rates Equalization Fund. In other words, he confirmed what he told businessmen in Durban, namely that there would be no increase in tariffs. But it is interesting that the Minister cannot give us an indication of what the position will be in March. It is possible for the hon. the Minister of Finance to announce that he anticipates a surplus of R45,000,000 at the end of the financial year, and the Minister of Finance has a much more difficult task than the Minister of Railways because he is dealing with several Departments. He also has to deal with many uncertain factors. The Minister of Railways is dealing with something which, in terms of our Constitution, has to be run as a business undertaking, and consequently it is much easier to predict what the position is going to be. We only know that the Rates Equalization Fund is going to be used so that the Minister may keep his promise that there will be no increase in tariffs. But the Rates Equalization Fund is not inexhaustible, of course. At the moment there is a tidy sum of R55,113,000 in the Rates Equalization Fund, but for what period is the Minister going to continue using that money and for what period will he be able to keep that up? However, he anticipates a change in the situation; because it is very clear from the indications we have had that this Government will have to take further steps to curtail prosperity in South Africa; because South Africa finds itself in the unfortunate position that it has a Government with a policy which cannot afford prosperity. If one is afraid to use one’s manpower, if in a time of economic revival one recklessly competes with one’s private sector as regards expenditure and imports, then one cannot afford to have prosperity, and we have had warnings that these sanctions will have to bite deeper into the South African nation. The penalty the nation has to pay for an unsuitable and inefficient Government will become greater. There are many little points in the hon. the Minister’s speech which do not make one feel cheerful. There is, for instance, his concern about the passenger services in respect of which there is still an adverse ratio between revenue and expenditure; there is his concern about road transport services in respect of which we sympathize with him to some extent as we know that the drought has greatly added to the difficulties of that section. There is his reference in two or three places, and the reference on nearly every second page of the General Manager’s Report, to the shortage of staff in South Africa, and there is no indication that the Government has the real answer to the problem of a shortage of staff in South Africa. In the case of artisans the Minister has succeeded in convincing artisans to consent to non-Whites being employed in certain jobs. We do not hold that against him; we suggested that that was what he should do, and he said he could not do so; but we told him to keep on trying and he finally listened to us as befits a Minister and succeeded in doing so. That is the only thing that has been done up to now. The shortage of staff continues; it is becoming more acute; it is becoming more serious and the hardships endured by the staff are increasing. There is no doubt whatsoever that as far as the Railways staff, and the Public Service staff in general is concerned, South Africa has fallen behind other civilized countries, as is also evident from public announcements made by the hon. the Minister and senior members of his staff. Recently no fewer than three missions were sent abroad to recruit staff for the South African Railways, and the one was as great a failure as the other. They were total failures. But that does not only happen in the Railways —recently, and I mention this in passing to bear out my argument—the Transvaal Provincial Council also sent a mission overseas to recruit staff for certain specialized jobs. That mission too returned without having accomplished anything; it was a complete failure and the reasons for its failure were announced. The most important reason was that although it migh appear on paper that the salaries paid in South Africa are better than those paid in Britain and on the Continent, the workers are intelligent enough to take into account other benefits to workers in civilized countries, benefits which workers in South Africa do not receive. South Africa is probably the only civilized country in which those benefits are not provided. If the high taxes paid by workers abroad are set off against the benefits they receive in the form of pensions without the means test, free medical services and all the other assets of a welfare state, then it becomes clear that for the first time the workers in South Africa have fallen behind the workers in Europe. Until recently we could boast that people coming from abroad to South Africa were better off than people in England or people in Holland or people in Germany, but under this Government the workers of South Africa have fallen behind. We are sending one mission after the other overseas to look for recruits in order to boost our manpower, and on their return they have to say: “We are sorry; we have failed.

Discuss the Railways.

Mr. Speaker, I have much more confidence in you when it comes to guidance than I have in the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé).

As I was saying, three missions of the Railways have failed. Railways staff was recently granted an increase. If the Minister should now send a mission to Europe, it would be interesting to see whether it would achieve more success. I have my doubts, because what has happened to our Railways staff …

May I correct you? When I was speaking about the failure of the mission, I did not mean that the mission did not succeed in finding people. The people themselves proved to be failures when they arrived here.

Mr. Speaker, now I am somewhat confused.

I only wanted to correct you.

The hon. the Minister has corrected me, but he has helped himself from the frying pan into the fire. I was saying that the missions were failures and now the hon. the Minister has told me in what respects they were failures. They were unable to find suitable people. That is what I am saying as well. The people they found were unsuitable; they were the poorer types of Europe. The people they were able to recruit were not the type of person we wanted. What kind of mission is the Minister sending which makes such bad selections? The trouble is that there are too many people to-day who believe the Government’s stories that everything is going well with the ordinary man in South Africa. They do not realize that the South African worker has fallen behind the workers of other countries because of Government policy. If the Minister sends missions overseas which cost us thousands of rands, then surely they have to bring something back, but what do they bring back? Only failures. That is what the hon. the Minister is saying now. I am very grateful; I hope that he will continue helping me in this way!

We are grateful for the improvement in the position of the railwaymen in South Africa, but we want these improvements to be seen in the proper perspective. They should have been granted an increase a long time ago. We on this side of the House have time and again drawn attention to that, and time and again the Minister has said “no”: time and again he has had excuses. In March 1965 he told a deputation of artisans that he could not grant them an increase on account of the drought.

And then the drought became worse.

The drought then became worse, and they were then granted an increase because an election was in the offing. In the month of July he told salaried staff that the financial position of the Railways did not permit of an increase, but the election was then in the offing and the financial position of the Railways was no longer a consideration. In the month of May he told train staff that an increase was simply impossible— he would not even mention reasons—but now he has done the impossible. Mr. Speaker, if I were an employee of the State or the Railways, I would pray for an election to be held every year, because it is only in election years that people are granted relief. The point I want to stress is the following: the Railway workers have only received what they should have had a long time ago; it was only a belated effort to remove an injustice which were created over several years. The failure of these missions to recruit workers abroad for the Railways is proof of the injustice done to the South African worker over the years as a result of the policy of the Government in power to-day.

But we should not think that there are no injustices under which many of the Railway employees have to labour. I can mention many, and I am going to mention several. I should like to draw the attention of this House to what is happening to an extremely important group of workers in the South African Railways to-day, namely the shunters, keymen, men about whom the Minister is very concerned because there is an acute shortage of shunters. The shunters get one day of rest a month. They work from 12 to 14 hours a day. Recently I stood on a mine dump overlooking Angelo station on the East Rand and I saw how the boys worked. I shall not be surprised if they have to run from 10 to 12 miles a day, because that station as well as other stations I visited on the East Rand was so overcrowded with trucks, there was such a congestion of traffic, that they could only do the shunting work by contravening the regulations; in other words, by doing what they call “fly shunting”. Those boys ran about for hours on end. How they keep it up I do not know. [Laughter.] The hon. member on the opposite side is laughing; he obviously does not have any Railway people in his constituency; that is why he can afford to remain indifferent and to rejoice in the misfortunes of underprivileged people.

The work of these shunters is so difficult that the hon. the Minister in his wisdom paid them a special allowance—they call it a danger allowance—to encourage them to come to work, because if they stayed away from work they did not receive that allowance. That allowance was 50 cents a day. If a shunter worked 26 days he received R13 for that month. That allowance has been taken away. The shunters received an increase, I think, of R20 per month, but that allowance has been taken away. If one takes into account other expenses related to the increased wage, they are left with a net monthly increase of only R5, or R6. Is that fair? Is that fair to men doing the most difficult work on the South African Railways? But that is not all. I have a letter here drawing my attention to the fact that approximately 26,000 men on the Railways, men who do hard work for the Railways—shunters, foremen and others, falling under what the correspondent calls “the employees’ grade”— were each deprived of R60 under the new salary increases, based on the fact that other employees whose wages are calculated on a yearly basis received an immediate total increase of approximately R23, whereas these people whose wages are calculated on a monthly basis received an increase of only R15 per month. Only R10 of this increase is being paid to them at the moment, and they have to wait a year for their next R5. Why this discrimination against the under-privileged, against those who are in a weaker position on the staff? But that is not all. I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the large group of former Railway workers who are suffering an injustice, the pensioners. There are thousands of men to-day who have given a lifetime of service to the Railways, a good lifetime of service, and who have paid with money of higher value for their pensions, who are being adversely affected to-day under the policy of the hon. the Minister. In the past we on this side of the House have pleaded time and again with the Minister to be more accommodating in respect of that special allowance of R35 per month, and once more, Mr. Speaker, we have achieved success, but unfortunately our success has been spoiled by the wrong application of a fine principle by the hon. the Minister and his Management. The reason for that is the fact that if Railways pensioners work for the State the means test no longer applies, and they retain their R35 even if their income exceeds R150 per month, but if they work for private undertakings they are still being penalized by the application of the means test. I can understand why the Minister has done that. He wants to draw those people into the public services, but can he get up and state in all honesty that everybody, if they were still suitable for work, applying for work on the Railways and in the Public Service, would be employed? If he cannot give that guarantee, then I say it is extremely unfair discrimination against the Railways pensioners. Do you know, Sir, just before I came down from Johannesburg, two elderly gentlemen visited me. Both were special grade engine drivers. One of them retired in 1960 after a period of service of 36 years and his pension was R64. If one adds the R35, it amounts to R99. The other gentleman retired in 1961, after a period of service of 36f years, and his pension was R71 per month. Add the R35 to that and it amounts to R106. At the moment—and I am glad that I can say this—the position of all pensioners has improved to such an extent that an ordinary railway worker, if he had qualified for the maximum pension, receives a pension of R92 per month. But it is fair that people who have done more responsible work for a lifetime, people who have bought their pensions with money of higher value, should now be placed on the same level as people who have done less responsible work and who have bought their pensions with money of lesser value? They are not to blame for the fact that the value of money is decreasing. Of course, it is the policy of this Government to maintain a state of creeping inflation. It is as a result of Government policy that there is a decrease of slightly less than 2 per cent in the value of our money each year. Why should people who have paid for a pension with money of good value, be penalized to-day in contradistinction to people doing less responsible work, who buy their pensions with money of lesser value? These pensioners, under the new dispensation announced by the Minister, are going to receive an increase of R4 per month if they are married, and in increase of R2 if they are single.

There are many other injustices I want to mention. There is the inexplicable way in which discipline is exercised on the Railways. One can write volumes about that. Take for instance the case of alcoholics. It seems to be the Government’s policy that if a man drinks too much and becomes a problem, he has to resign on half his pension. But recently a case was brought to my attention of a station master with more than 20 years’ service. One of the members of his staff had made a mistake … and that man was dismissed. I feel like taking this case to the Minister and asking him to make further investigations, because something is wrong here.

There is nothing wrong.

There are instances where people refused to be transferred when the Railways had had to transfer them, and where the Minister could have applied Section 13 of the 1960 Act, but did not do so. It is possible for me to continue in this vein, but I do not want to take up the time of this House much longer. The point I want to make is that there are obviously no definite standards according to which discipline is being exercised in the Railways. I wish—and my wish will probably come true—that the Minister would soon become an ordinary citizen of the State once more and that he would have an opportunity of talking to the ordinary people in the Railway service. He would then learn how people were seething about something they considered to be an injustice, namely that no clear standards have been laid down for exercising discipline. Mr. Speaker, I have mentioned instances of people having been severely penalized for trifles, but recently—and it is possible that certain hon. members will recall this case immediately—a senior clerk in the tourist service who dealt with overseas tours was caught appropriating large sums of Railway money for his own purposes. He was allowed to resign without any other punishment. How is one to understand that? Where is the principle, where is the norm, where are the standards?

I am convinced that the Minister cannot be aware of the amount of overtime railwaymen are being forced to work under present circumstances on account of the shortage of manpower, for which this Government is directly responsible. I want to tell the Minister about two men I have spoken to myself. Their case is a typical one; I have spoken to many people. I have seen them waiting in their locomotives at the bottle-necks on the East Rand for 12 hours, eight hours, nine hours, 13 hours. They did not move. There are these bottlenecks. This is a specific case. They told me about a period they, a driver and a foreman, had experienced together, a period of 102 hours, and in those 102 hours they went from Germiston to Kroonstad, and then to Klerksdorp only, and that in a matter of 102 hours.

102 hours on end?

Will the Minister please be patient? During that period of 102 hours they had a rest-break of six hours between journeys, six hours! For the rest they took turns in resting in the locomotive. They were paid for 96 hours out of the 102 hours they spent in the locomotive, but in actual fact they were travelling for only 37 hours out of those 102 hours. Is there anybody who would look objectively at something like that and who would say that it was proof of good organization? Something is definitely wrong. It is possible to employ such men to better effect. If trains have to remain stationary for hours on end, it is possible to take those men off the train, use them for other work and give them more time at home. But to expect people to be confined for 96 hours on end in the cabin of a locomotive! They admit this because they pay the men for that period, whereas the men were actually engaged on the work they were employed to do for only 37 hours. Is that efficiency? Is that the way to get a happy staff in the South African Railway service? I could continue in this vein.

Mr. Speaker, under this Minister a myth of efficiency has originated, but it is only a myth. The difficulties of the South African Railways arise as a result of the bottle-necks which exist. The reason why one cannot always obtain coal when it is cold in Johannesburg is the existence of these bottle-necks. Last year the Minister was very fortunate that we did not have a cold winter. Heaven alone knows what would have happened if we did have a severe winter. The difficulty is that our trains are not running. I can confirm this from personal observation. That day when I stood on the mine dump at Angelo there were 300 trucks at the station and five moved during the half-hour I stood there. Recently I asked a friend of mine to look at the notes on the trucks at a few stations and he told me that he had noticed two things. At Content, near Kimberley, there were no fewer than 14 trucks loaded with factory coal which had been standing at Content for ten days. They did not move, they were stationary. At Paauwpan there were no less than 35 empty trucks which had been standing there for a month, empty, and the nearby manganese mines at Postmasburg could not load manganese ore because no trucks were available. Is that efficiency? I read in the General Manager’s Report that the South African Railways has 123,260 good vehicles at its disposal. Last year 5,492 new trucks were put into service, and if one takes into account the number which were withdrawn from service, the increase is 4,614. I read that a further 10,000 trucks have been ordered. But what happens to the trucks? The Economic Bureau of Stellenbosch and Iscor informed us, arising from an argument they had that on an average the trucks on the South African Railways moved less than three miles a day. If there was any private undertaking with a performance like this, the administrative head of that undertaking would be discharged immediately— something I ask the nation to do on 30 March as regards this Minister. In the General Manager’s Report I read that the average time taken by a truck to return to its point of departure is 8.69 days, a slight improvement on last year’s time. But we are not informed what distances were covered. It is an important point that the trucks travel for an average of 8.69 days but they cover less than three miles a day. Sir, if I drove my car like that its battery would continually be flat. And that is the difficulty with the Railways. Its battery is flat. These are points derived from the Minister’s speech where he was furnishing information about the past year and the coming year. The rest of his speech consisted of propaganda. He mentioned everything the Railways have done and achieved from 1948 up to the present date. But if one analyses that, what does it amount to? It is a tale of the Railways’ efforts from 1948 to 1965, to keep pace with the development of South Africa, and we all know that we have a wonderful country. But with what measure of success did they keep up with this development? If one examines the figures, not in a vacuum but against the background of the growth of South Africa, to what extent have they succeeded? They landed us in transport crises time and again, and a very worthy Minister, Mr. Paul Sauer, had to be made the scapegoat of their own inefficiency and shortsightedness. One winter after the other the Railways were unable to do the work it had to do, and they could not supply the nation’s demands. The Minister now has to do on a permanent basis something which we suggested as a temporary measure in the time of Mr. Sauer. Coal now has to be transported to the Witwatersrand in private vehicles, in lorries. To prove to you how inefficient that is, Sir. do you know that three trains per day which were kept moving—not stationary—could provide all the coal requirements of the entire Witwatersrand? If one assumes that there are 2,000 tons of coal on a train, it means that 600 ten ton lorries, extremely large lorries, are needed to do this work and the Witwatersrand is congested with traffic. The Railways have failed as regards one of the first requirements which may be put to them, namely to be able to provide in the essential needs of our population.

I grant the hon. the Minister better prospects than those he has and has always had as a Minister of Railways in a Cabinet as inefficient and inadequate as the Cabinet we have in South Africa to-day, the Cabinet of a Government which in reality, as I have said, cannot afford to see a prosperous South Africa, because when South Africa becomes really prosperous it has to apply brakes, it has to apply sanctions against the nation. We can only hope that one of two things will happen. The first is that the Minister will be allowed and will influence the Cabinet to govern South Africa better, because the Railways can never do better than they are allowed to do by the Government. And secondly the Minister may just as well give up in good grace and give another Government, which will be able to govern South Africa better, a chance to govern it as the most promising and best country in the Western world deserves to be governed.

To-day we saw the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) at his best once more.

At his worst.

No, he has tried dramatically to make the best of a very poor case. He tried dramatically, excitedly and with much gesticulation and wildly exaggerated statements to persuade himself and his friends that he was right. Why did the hon. member become so dramatic? We know that it is the election that is haunting him. We know that the hon. member can be a very good propagandist when the election is haunting him, especially now when the United Party has to go and fight an election, an election not to fight for the government of South Africa, but to fight for its own salvation and survival. It is then when one finds the hon. member for Yeoville with his back to the wall, and that is why he put up such a fight and why he came with wildly exaggerated statements to try to convince himself. Mr. Speaker, I feel wonderfully satisfied when the hon. member becomes so extremely dramatic, because then I know the hon. member does not feel sure of his case; then I know the hon. member is pleading a very poor case, and I also know that the National Party and the hon. the Minister of Transport are still following the right course.

Reply to the poor case now!

The hon. member made a speech here which was a propagandistic speech from beginning to end, while he himself saw fit to accuse the hon. the Minister of making a speech here yesterday, the major part of which, he said, was a propagandistic speech. Apparently the hon. member and his Party find it difficult to learn. Last year during the debate on the Railway Budget we also found ourselves before an election, before the provincial elections. I think it was precisely two weeks before the provincial elections of 24 March when the hon. members did their utmost, as they have done to-day, to fish for the favour of the railway workers by telling them of the hardships and injustices suffered by the Railway staff and of the discontent which prevailed amongst them. What was the reply they got from the railway workers? What did they gain by fishing for the vote of the railwayman? The railwaymen gave a clear reply on 24 March last year. The railwaymen told the United Party: We reject you and your cheap wooing of the vote of the railwayman. We have confidence in Minister Schoeman and he will do us justice in his own time. The United Party got such a hiding in that election that it has not recovered from it yet, and it still does not know what happened to it on 24 March last year. You know, the United Party makes one think of the doctor who could not find out what was wrong with his patient. Every time after he had examined the patient he consulted his medical book. He had done so three or four times before he asked the patient: “Tell me, did you have this disease before?” The reply was: “Yes, doctor, I did have this disease before.” The doctor was greatly relieved to hear that and said to his patient: “I shall tell you what is wrong with you—you have the same disease you had before.” It is the same with the United Party. They suffer from a disease at every election. They know that, but they cannot determine what that disease is. They only know that they are paralysed by the disease at each election.

They are suffering from shrinking disease; they are shrinking.

The hon. member’s speech consisted of two parts. The first part of the speech was propaganda, making up to the railwayman, and in the second part he complained of the rapid development which was taking place in our country and as a result of which bottle-necks were developing on the Railways. What a nice testimonial for the hon. member for Yeoville to give the Government! It is a testimonial to the effect that the bottle-necks are continually developing on the Railways as a result of the economic prosperity the Government has brought about in the country. He complains of the rapid expansion, and I say it is a fine testimonial for the Government.

At the beginning of his speech the hon. member said that those things the hon. the Minister did not mention were, in fact, very important. However, the same applies to the hon. member for Yeoville. I should like to remind the House of what the hon. member has been saying here for the past two years, matters which, although very important to him, he did not even mention to-day. We heard nothing to-day of the spectacular Hex River tunnel plan of the United Party which seized the imagination of the public during the years in which they were in office. We heard nothing about the hon. member’s favourite example: the building of a railway line between Commondale and Candover; we heard nothing about the hon. member’s suggestion that a railway line should be built between Modderrivier and Koffiefontein. The hon. member did not refer to the oil pipeline at all. He could at least have expressed his gratitude for that, because only last year the hon. member said that the oil pipeline would not be completed before two winters had passed, whilst the oil pipeline was completed by October.

The hon. member said that the National Party had repeatedly landed the Railways in a transport crisis, but apparently that crisis existed only in the imagination of the hon. member for Yeoville. Do you still remember the forecasts made by the United Party and its Press during 1964 that a transport crisis would develop during the winter months of 1965? Do you remember that the Leader of the Opposition requested the Minister of Railways in November 1964 to have a commission of enquiry appointed immediately in order to prevent a transport crisis from developing during the winter months of 1965? The hon. member for Yeoville, who is noted for his inborn talent to exaggerate things, even went so far as to say that his Leader had not gone far enough, and that the transport crisis would occur before the winter months. Why did the hon. member not say anything to-day about the transport crisis he predicted last year and which did not eventuate? Those are important things the hon. member did not mention.

The hon. member devoted a substantial part of his speech to the injustices done to and the discontent prevailing amongst the staff. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to you that never before on the Railways has there been such a good relationship between the Administration and the Minister on the one hand and the Railway staff on the other hand than there is at present. As a result of that the wheels of the Railways can be kept going under the most difficult circumstances. Labour relations on the Railways are healthy; labour unrest is being prevented; the negotiation machinery on the Railways was greatly responsible for the good relationship that exists; this negotiation machinery was to a large extent established, improved and expanded by the present hon. the Minister, until it has become an efficient institution through which the Administration and the staff can meet each other—the staff to make known to the Administration their requests and their demands, but at the same time, also, to learn of the problems of the Administration; to learn of what is demanded from the Railways and what the abilities, financially or otherwise, of the Railways are. In this way a basis is formed on which the staff and the Railways can best serve the country. Nobody, not even the hon. member for Yeoville, can dare deny the great part played by the present Minister in establishing this conciliation machinery in the Railway service. The manner in which the staff has served and devoted their energies to the Railways is one of the facts nobody can deny, despite all those things that have been said by the hon. member about the so-called injustices done to and the alleged discontent and hardship amongst the staff. During the past years a high standard was demanded from the Railways, and it was primarily the staff who had to meet those demands. How did the staff react to the demands that were made of them? The staff met those demands in a magnificent way, for which they deserve the highest praise and appreciation of the country as a whole. I am convinced that it required from them the greatest effort and efficiency, so much so that while passengers’ journeys and the total tonnage conveyed during the period 1962/65 increased by 29 per cent and 17 per cent, respectively, the staff increased by only 3.9 per cent. That is an achievement on the part of the staff. A discontented and aggrieved staff could not have achieved this.

In 1959 the hon. member for Yeoville quite rightly said the following in this House—

I want to tell the hon. member that the following is happening on the S.A. Railways to-day: the staff reacts and serves in this manner as a result of the fine quality of the management placed in charge of them. This effort and dedication on the part of the staff did not pass by unnoticed, but has been liberally rewarded by the Minister. As the hon. the Minister indicated in his speech, not less than R190,000,000 was spent during the past eighteen years under National rule in improving the salaries and wages of the Railway workers. Over the period of eighteen years it is an average increase of R10,500,000 per year. This average increase in salaries and wages per year is more than that ever granted the staff in one wage improvement by the United Party during its term of office. During the last nine years of United Party rule it amounted to an average improvement of only R2,000,000 per year against R10,500,000 per year under National rule. What does these wage improvements totalling R190,000,000 mean to the railway workers? They do not only mean that the Railway workers got R190,000,000 in money. One must remember that these wage improvements are repeated each year. The wage improvement of R14.7 million granted in 1948, the first year of our term of office, was not granted for the year 1948-9 only; it has subsequently been repeated 17 times. If calculated on that basis it means that all the salary and wage improvements as far as the South African Railways’ staff is concerned, has meant more than R1,600,000,000 to the railway workers since 1948. I want to refer to the recent increases of R35,500,000, which is perhaps the largest amount granted the South African Railways’ staff on any single occasion. The other day we had complaints in the debate on the Additional Appropriation against the salary increase granted the Railway Commissioners. I want to mention to you what the percentage increases in basic wages were in various grades: railway workers, 29 per cent, shunters, 20 per cent …

Only the latest increase?

Yes, only this increase: clerk, grade I, 8.5 per cent; artisan, mechanical department, 12.7 per cent; assistant foreman (mechanical department), 20.3 per cent; chief clerk, 12.7 per cent; assistant superintendent, 11.7 per cent; fireman, 12.2 per cent; driver (Class II), 11.5 per cent; station foreman (Class II), 10.5 per cent; checker (Class II), 10.5 per cent, and, Mr. Speaker, the salary of the Railway Commissioners was increased by only 6.5 per cent. I am sorry the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) is not here to-day, because the hon. member recently developed the habit of issuing challenges left, right and centre. He challenged me to mention one single case of a post held in the Railways who received an increase larger than that of the Railway Commissioners.

Except the highest ranks.

I do not want to take a particularly high rank; I want to take the rank of assistant foreman (mechanical department). The assistant foremen received a salary increase of R600 per year, which is R100 more than that received by Railway Commissioners.

He spoke of the two increases.

Well, I am talking about the one increase now. What does the hon. member know about the two increases? There the ignorance of the United Party is revealed once more. I am glad the hon. member for Durban Point reminds me of the fact that the Railway Commissioners received two increases. They say that two increases were granted against the one increase granted Railway staff. Surely that is not true. When the Railway Commissioners received an increase two years ago, the Railway staff had received rationalization of their wage structure barely a year before that. Why do hon. members not mention that? I want to tell the hon. member for Turffontein that he should be more careful in his challenges in this House. As far as the improvement in salaries and wages is concerned I should like to point out that the concessions made to the staff did not end there. Take housing. Do you know that since 1948 not less than R154,000,000 has been spent on housing for the staff in respect of the three different housing schemes (the house ownership scheme, the departmental housing scheme and the scheme in terms of which a grant of 10 per cent is made administered by the railways. Take pensions. The hon. member for Yeoville complained about the pensions, but during the past eighteen years more than R50,000,000 was spent on relief granted the railway pensioners. I want to mention how pensions improved in respect of a few grades, merely to show what active contributions were made to improve the Railway worker’s pension. The annuity of a Railway worker—I am talking of the two years 1948 and 1965—increased from R167 to R607, and his lump sum payment increased from R818 to R2,088; in the case of a shunter the increase was from R293 to R833, and from R1,434 to R2.867, respectively; clerk, grade I: from R452 to R1,160 and from R2,213 to R3,990 respectively; firemen: from R208 to R729 and from R1,167 to R2,811; driver: from R324 to R1,O55 and from R1,817 to R4,068; artisan: from R751 to R1,098 and from R1,870 to R3,777. In no other period of eighteen years in the past has so much been done for the railway worker than was done by this Government during the past eighteen years. Look at the record of the South African Railways during this Government’s term of office. Over a period of eighteen years R1,800,000,000 was paid out to the staff and R1,545,000,000 was spent on capital development for the purpose of modernizing and expanding our Railways. Our Railway system was expanded to such an extent that it was able to keep abreast of the astonishing and most revolutionary economic development this country has ever seen, while the Railways itself played an important part in our industrial expansion. Railway funds have been increased to constitute a healthy financial basis for the Railways to-day. For example, the tariff reserve fund amounts to R55,000,000 at present, the renewals fund amounts to R111,000,000, while the betterment fund amounts to R11,000,000.

Notwithstanding these tremendous achievements and this vast sum spent on the development of the Railways and the great concessions made to the railway worker, the tariff structure of the Railways remains to be such that it provides the cheapest transport in the world. Where in the whole world does one still find a railway system such as that of the South African Railways.

Let us ask ourselves what the position would have been were the United Party in power during the past eighteen years. Through the years we became accustomed to the fact that the United Party advocated a particular railway policy here. According to that policy one may quite easily determine what the position would have been had the Railways been under the management of the United Party Government during the past eighteen years. Year after year the United Party pleaded for more exemption to be made to private conveyors, which would have meant that more and more high tariff traffic would have been lost, coupled with a substantial decrease in railway revenue. That was one of the legs of their policy. Furthermore, they continuously alleged that those people using the Railways were over-taxed. In doing so, they continuously pleaded for a reduction in the tariffs. Last year the hon. member for Yeoville pleaded for a surplus carrying capacity for the Railways. The railway system should be developed so that it could have a surplus carrying capital at all times in order to cope with peak traffic at any time. What would have been the total result of that? That would have necessitated an increased capital investment in the Railways with an attendant higher interest burden which would have had to be met from current revenue. In summary: The main issues as far as Railway policy was concerned, advocated by the United Party during the past few years and which indicated what course would have been followed by them had they been in power, firstly, a surplus carrying capacity for the Railways which would have resulted in a loss of revenue, and, secondly, a reduction in the Railway tariffs, which would have had the same effect. The third issue was that more exemptions should have been granted private road transport, through which railway revenue would have been seriously affected. However, at the same time they pleaded for the wages and salaries of the staff to be increased. What would have been the result of all that? Under United Party rule the Railways would have been the “jolliest” railways any country has known. But to that I should add that it would also have been the most bankrupt railway in the world.

I can understand, of course, that the hon. member for Yeoville is feeling very dissatisfied and unhappy about the fact that the Government has increased the salaries and wages of the railway worker on the eve of the election, because by that they are robbed of a weapon they could have used against the Government at the election as they did in 1961. At that time the hon. the Minister said that he would increase the salary of the railway worer after the election. To what extent did the United Party sow suspicion then? The hon. Leader of the Opposition need not look at me; he was leading the way in sowing suspicion. During the election campaign at Aliwal North he challenged the Prime Minister to state that the wages and salaries of the railway worker would not be reduced after the election. Not only their Leader, but all of them tried to buy the vote of the railway worker by sowing suspicion against the promise of the Minister of Transport during that election. Was there any truth in the suspicion they sowed? There was no reduction in salaries and wages after the election of 1961. On the contrary, the salaries and wages have been improved on more than one occasion since that year. Therefore, I can understand the United Party being angry and annoyed to-day, because we anticipated them in this, thus robbing them of an important weapon for the election. The hon. member for Yeoville now says that the increases were granted too late. He said the increases should have been granted earlier. But if these increases had been granted earlier, if the increases had, for example, been granted at the beginning of the year, they would not have meant so much to the railway worker, and I shall tell you why. The economic activities of our country reached too high a level at that time, and any increase in salaries and wages would have been absorbed by, inter alia, stronger competition on the labour market, easier credit facilities, increased prices and an even further increase in prices. At the time the increase in salaries and wages was granted, the rate of development was already slower as a result of the brakes applied so wisely by the Government, brakes which were gradually beginning to have their effects on all sectors of our economic life.

The railway worker also cannot afford the prosperity.

For that very reason we want to give him greater prosperity. It would have been useless had we granted the railway worker an increase of salary and wages during a time when the advantages of such an increase would have been lost to him.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that just as the railway worker did not take any notice of the cheap wooing of his vote in the past, he will agree with the rest of the nation on 30 March that the United Party has once more to be rejected.

There is not much to reply to in the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down. It only contains a few points which I cannot allow to pass unnoticed. [Interjections.] One of those points is the one of which the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) has only just reminded me. You know, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Cradock is always bubbling over. When the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) was speaking about the satisfaction it gave him to listen to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn), the following words bubbled from the mouth of the hon. member for Cradock, “My teeth are aching.” I can well believe that the speech of the hon. member for Yeoville not only gave the hon. member for Cradock a toothache, but that it did the same to the hon. the Minister and to all hon. members on the opposite side. The silliest point made by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) was when he referred to the granting of increased salaries and wages to the railwaymen on the eve of the election. He stated that these increases would have been to no avail at an earlier stage, because our economy was supposedly at too high a level at that time. Any increase would therefore have been wasted. But I say that it was at that very time, when our economy had reached its peak, that the railwayman had the least money. He had to go through that period of higher economic development with less money, as a matter of fact, with less money than any other section of our population with the possible exception of post office workers and public servants. What kind of argument is that? Some time ago I read in one of the newspapers that the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) would be considered for a deputy ministership. Well, I can only say that if the hon. member does not make better speeches than he made here this afternoon, the hon. the Prime Minister will have to think twice before appointing him to such a post. This afternoon the hon. member asked here with tears in his eyes where in the world a better railway system than that of the South African Railways was to be found. If he had asked where better railwaymen were to be found, I could still have agreed with him. I have said in this House on previous occasions, and I repeat to-day, that our railwaymen are amongst the best and most faithful workers under the sun. There can be no doubt about that. But to ask where in the world a better railway system is to be found! Is my memory playing tricks on me when I recall the hon. the Minister saying a few days ago that he had spent R18,000 on sending a mission to Japan to ascertain to what extent the Japanese railways were superior to those of our country? Is my memory playing tricks on me when I recall the Minister saying that more than 50 of the recommendations submitted by that mission had already been accepted? And that, I ask you, Sir, when our system is supposed to be the best in the world. And on top of that, a country like Japan! The hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) toys with figures, but figures can prove anything; one can do with them what one likes. He spoke about the millions of rands which had been paid to the railwaymen in the form of salaries and wages since 1948. I hate asking the hon. member what his personal income was during that period, but it is, of course, quite a different story if I ask him how much of that income he still has left to-day. He also mentioned the wonderful achievements of the staff. He referred to the large tonnage of traffic handled by them, and that, Sir, in spite of the percentage increase in their salaries and wages.

That shows how satisfied they are.

The hon, member said that it demanded great dedication and exertion on the part of the staff to handle this tonnage of traffic. But does he only realize that now? Why does he realize only now that the railwaymen exert themselves to do their duty, and do their duty in a dedicated way? He said that the United Party alleged that grievances and dissatisfaction existed among the railwaymen. He denied that and said that they were working under the most difficult conditions. Well, it is true that they are working under the most difficult conditions, but at the same time he maintains that they are satisfied and are grateful for everything they have received. If that is so, why do I recall that a group of railwaymen proposed a motion of no-confidence in the Minister at Koedoespoort a few months ago?

I am not aware of that.

I think the hon. the Minister does not want to be aware of that, because does he not remember himself saying that if he got one motion of no-confidence from railwaymen he would resign?

Where did I say that, Tant Sannie?

May I remind the hon. the Minister that I am no relation of his. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) referred to the speech made by the hon. member for Yeoville as being a propagandist speech. He said that it was a speech that was solely intended to “play up to” (op te speel na) the railwaymen. I do not know what that means, Mr. Speaker, because I do not understand Afrikaans of that kind. I take it that what he meant by that was what he subsequently accused the United Party of in his speech, namely that they were wooing the vote of the railwaymen. He also wanted us to thank the Minister for the oil pipeline. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, we have to say thank you for the oil pipeline! That is something for which we pleaded with the Minister for many years. But just as this Government is too late in everything it does, it was too late with this oil pipeline as well. However, I think I have devoted enough time to the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East). I shall therefore take no further notice of him.

As regards the increase in the salaries and wages of railwaymen, I want to suggest that any thanks for that is due to this side of the House. We have been pleading for an increase for years, and year after year we have provided proof of the fact that the railwaymen needed an increase. We have raised the grievances of railwaymen in this House year after year. Now, on the eve of the election, the hon. the Minister has thought it safe to grant the railwaymen an increase. Now he is beginning to get afraid. But what he has given the railwaymen is too little and, what is more, it has come three years too late. This increase should have been granted three years ago. He already owed it to the railwayman three years ago. Money has decreased in value to such an extent and times have become so much harder that this increase in wages has come three years too late.

What did you do before the 1958 election?

All the hon. member can do is to live in the past; consequently I shall leave him there. Not even a year ago the Prime Minister said that people were not worse off but only desired more. I wrote down word for word what he said. I understood him to say that people were not worse off, but only desired more. Was that not a scandalous thing to say? In other words, people were only being greedy; they were just wanting more. Those were his words, not mine. Talk about increases on the eve of an election! Now they are granting this increase to railwaymen in order to win the election, because they are granting this increase while at the same time saying that South Africa finds itself in a difficult position. We are faced with a major drought and difficult circumstances are prevailing. They nevertheless see their way clear to do this now. When they had the large surpluses in the past, no increases were granted. It is not so long ago that lhe hon. the Minister said that if salaries and wages were to be increased, railway tariffs would have to be increased as well. Does the hon. the Minister forget that? In the speech he made here he kept very quiet on that point. Only last year the hon. the Minister and other members on his side tried hard to ridicule our arguments. The hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Smit) who is not present in the House at the moment, tried to do so again this afternoon. He laughed very heartily this afternoon when we mentioned the difficulties which the railwaymen had to face.

Do not create such a wrong impression.

The hon. member speaks too soon. I have the debates of 1965 in front of me. Then it was not the hon. member who was the first speaker, but the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. J. W. van Staden). On that occasion he said—

Continuing, he said—

It was then that you, Mr. Speaker, had to order him to withdraw his words. Only a year ago, therefore, it was “paying court … in a shameless manner”. [Interjections.] And now it is an election budget.

Now they are paying lobola.

Both the Minister and the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) said that the railwaymen are voting Nationalist. They maintain that the railwaymen support this Government. But if that is the case, is this not a greater shame? Is their shame not so much greater because they have over the years neglected their supporters to such an extent that this side of the House had to take up the cudgels for them? Is that the contempt the hon. the Minister and members on his side display for their own supporters? Have they achieved such eminence and become so rich that they can now look down upon their own voters, on people who, as they maintain, vote for them? Of course, I am not saying that it is true, but if it is true that the railwaymen support the Government, then the same of that side of the House is so much the greater. The fact of the matter is that they have neglected their own people. This Government has neglected the railwayman in the same way as it has neglected the farmer of South Africa. What kind of Government is this then? What kind of Minister is this who boasts of the loyalty of the railwayman, and at the same time does not want to grant him his fair share in the prosperity of the country? He is not getting his fair share of the planned prosperity of which the hon. member for Malmesbury spoke. The hon. member for Malmesbury spoke about “planned” prosperity. In his turn the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) said that it would have meant nothing to the railwayman if he had received this increase last year. He then said that our economic development was at too high a level. Any increase for the railwayman would consequently have evaporated and disappeared. On the one hand, therefore, an hon. member speaks about planned prosperity, and on the other, another hon. member says that it would not help the railwayman in the least to share in that prosperity.

You are referring to two speeches, one of which was made a full year after the other.

Yes, but I can also tell the hon. member what happened five or six years ago. The circumstances which prevailed then as far as the railwaymen are concerned are still prevailing to-day, and that in spite of this Government which says how faithful the railwaymen are. [Interjections.] An hon. member behind me here tells me that the railwaymen will not vote for me. Allow me once and for all to make it very clear to hon. members opposite that I am not after the railwaymen’s vote. What I am after is to get better working conditions and better salaries for them. What I am after is to see to it that their wives and children can live a decent life and take their place in a worthy manner as loyal and good Afrikaners. What I am after is to build up an Afrikaans nation of which my people and I can be proud. Just look at the number of members opposite who are taking an interest in this debate. Where are they? I take much more interest in the railwaymen. In 1962 I spoke about the working conditions of the railway workers, inter alia, at Danskraal. I pointed out that tremendous demands were being made there on the railwaymen’s powers of endurance. I pointed out that it was difficult to obtain leave because there was no relief staff available. I said that conductors had to remain on duty for long hours owing to the shortage of staff. Shunters had to work impossibly long hours. I also pointed out that it was essential for them to earn overtime as their basic wages were inadequate. Well, every word I said on that occasion still applies today. It applies to the driver as well, even if he is on the highest grade.

There was an election in 1961 too.

I said that in 1962, 1958 and 1954. I pointed out what a disgrace it was to see under what working conditions these people had to work. I spoke about the dirty shacks in which these people had to eat and sleep, shacks full of ratholes and teeming with cockroaches, shacks which were too hot in summer and too cold in winter. I said that at the welding depot the workers had to work in the open air. According to the Hansard report the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Knobel) then told me that I did not know what I was talking about, as the depot which I was talking about had been completed long ago. But that was not the case, and it is still not the case to-day. Despite the fact that a new depot was provided for on the Estimates for the past three years, it has still not been built.

I said that there was still no flash-butt welding depot, despite the fact that it had been provided for on the Estimates in three successive years. I have all the Estimates in which this item appears, and it has still not been completed. Mr. Speaker, but what is the position there? These people have to work and eat under difficult circumstances. The office of the senior works foreman and roster compiler is situated between two other large buildings. It is impossibly hot in that building. The workshop has no ventilation. There is no eating-place or restrooms. The people are expected to eat amongst the oil and rubbish. I want to tell you, Sir, that no doctor would ever approve that building. The public washrooms at Danskraal are dirty and have rough floors. The best of those buildings have already been standing for a period of 17 years, and have never been painted during that time. All the workers and even the Bantu can go and fetch warm water there if they need it. The building is sprayed out once a week. This is one of the buildings for which I pleaded and which was placed on the Estimates and built during my time. The place has now been crowded with lockers. There is no electric kettle, neither is there any table. There is one hot water installation which is so dirty that you do not even want to look at the thing. The electric hotplate is in a terrible condition. The windows are dirty and the largest collection of rubble imaginable is lying on top of the cupboards. As much as 115 drivers alone have to make use of these facilities. Altogether there are 150 workers who have to make use of two toilet rooms. There is no table to eat off. Neither is there any couch. All that there is is a few benches. I want to tell the hon. the Minister here that he should come with me to satisfy himself that I am telling the truth. If he himself does not want to come then he should send one of his senior officials. There are no power plugs in the restrooms. The building in which the oil is stored is built of wood and corrugated iron. On the day I paid a visit to the place, the temperature was 95 degrees in the shade. I have already said that the toilet rooms are in a miserable state.

Please leave out the toilet rooms.

They are something which is necessary. The worst of all is that the washing-places of the Bantu are right next to one of these buildings and under the same roof. One hundred and eighty Bantu have to wash themselves there in two old paraffin tins. There are only three taps and the Bantu stand all over the place. There is no caretaker either. The place would at least be in a better condition if there were a caretaker. There is a new and better building for the shunters. But here again there are only three toilets. Mr. Speaker, why is it that this hon. Minister and his Department are not subject to the regulations of industrial legislation? Why is it that this Minister can do what he pleases with his workers? Why is nothing done to improve these conditions? But the biggest joke of all, Mr. Speaker, is the flash-butt welding depot, where the people have to work in the open air. As long ago as five years it was said that I was behind the times and that the flash-butt welding depot had been completed. The day I arrived there, I was taken to the person in charge. He showed me the beautiful green parks and the canna flowers. He showed me how the rails had been stacked up in a neat pattern. But when I asked him where the workers were, he told me that they were working a little lower down somewhere. I then said that I wanted to go and see where they worked, but he insisted that it was not possible for me to get there. However, Mr. Speaker, I played a clever trick on him. I clambered over all the rails and went to have a look and found that the people were working in the boiling hot sun. The money which had been spent, had been spent on useless things, that is to say, on lawns and so on, while the men who in my opinion are some of the most loyal in the whole of the world, those people who through their loyalty have always kept these Railways in operation, and who have done us all a service, have to work in circumstances which are too bad for me to mention here. There are many other things which I can discuss. One of the matters I want to discuss is in connection with the housing of the railway workers. This is no new thing. The Minister knows all about it. I have already spoken to him about Pretoriusdorp and Ladysmith on several occasions. He is aware of the fact that I have mentioned to him that these people are living in impossible conditions. His reply has always been that Pretoriusdorp does not belong to the Railways. I have been to the General Manager already in this connection and he sent three men to investigate the conditions at Pretoriusdorp. Pretoriusdorp belongs to the town council of Ladysmith. It is a condemned area. The houses there have been condemned. But this Minister and his Administration rent them from the town council of Ladysmith so that the buildings cannot be demolished, because if that were done nearly 100 families would be homeless. In these circumstances the town council of Ladysmith can do nothing whatsoever about the matter. The worst of the matter is that the Minister rents those houses. If one looks at the beautiful annual report of the General Manager, one finds on the first page the beautiful Paul Kruger Building, the Railway Head Office in Johannesburg, in all its colourful splendour with one storey upon the other reaching up towards the sky. When I saw that I could not help thinking back to the conditions in which the people at Danskraal and Pretoriusdorp have to live. What really struck me when I read through that report was not so much the things which were mentioned in it, but the things which were not mentioned. If one were to read through this report, one would think, as the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) thought when he read through it, that all was well in the Railways. It is only when one investigates the matter personally that one finds all the things that are going wrong with the Railways. I hope the day will soon come when we will be able to rectify all these matters.

Before I reply to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) and the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) I first want to concur with the hon. member for Bleomfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) in regard to the distasteful remarks made by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) and the irresponsibility of the Opposition in voting against the item in connection with the salaries of Railway Commissioners. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) has already disposed of those misrepresentations that the Commissioners had supposedly received two increases while the staff had only received one increase. This allegation, is, of course, devoid of all truth. The hon. member has already dealt with these increases on a percentage basis. He also pointed out that at the time of Union in 1910 Railway council members received much higher salaries than the Chairman of the Public Service Commission and Heads of Departments. I now want to explain briefly to the House what the true state of affairs is in regard to the salaries of Railway Commissioners. The hon. member has already sketched the position as it existed in 1910. In 1947-8 when this self-same United Party was in office, the Railway Commissioners received a salary of R4,800. The Chairman of the Public Service Commission received a basic salary of R4,600. In other words, Railway Commissioners received R200 more than the Chairman of the Public Service Commission. Heads of Departments, on the other hand, received R4,200. Railway Commissioners therefore received R600 more than Head of Departments. What is the actual position to-day? The position today is that the Chairman of the Public Service Commission receives a salary of R9,600; the Heads of Departments, R9,000; the Senior Board Member or Commissioner, R8,100; and the two junior members of the Board R7,700. But I want to go further, Mr. Speaker. I want to point out to the House that the two Deputy-General Managers of the South African Railways also receive even higher salaries than the Railway Board members, namely R9,600. Four senior officials receive R8,100, while one senior official receives R7,800. I have the names of these officials at hand. I want to put it very appositely and clearly that I have no objection to these people receiving these salaries. I am thoroughly aware of the fact that they hold very responsible positions, do very responsible work and that they also have the ability to do that work. I want to emphasize, however, that the work done by the Railways Board is work of a very important nature. Apart from the fact that it is the highest body, in conjunction with the Minister, to whom Railway servants can appeal, it is also the body which has to make a thorough study of all new extensions, the building of new railway lines and of all new developments, in which regard they have then to advise the Minister. I think the Minister agrees with me in this regard. Then I also want to mention a further important aspect, namely that Railway policy is not determined by the Administration, but by the Minister and his Railways Board. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I really feel that if I have to criticize these Estimates in any way, then what I want to do is appeal to the Minister of Railways here this afternoon to rectify this matter. I am sorry that the hon. member for Turffontein is not here, as he could then have had the opportunity of performing one honourable deed, i.e. begging the pardon of the Chairman of the Railways Board in particular, who is a trained economist. He possesses a doctor’s degree in economics. His appointment is no political appointment. I really think that the Opposition owes him a apology too, for in my opinion they acted irresponsibly. Where they are now pleading for an increase in the salaries of Railway officials, they ought at the same time to plead that the salaries of the Railways Board be adjusted proportionately. One realizes, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. members were really directing their attack at the two political appointments, namely those of Messrs, du Plessis and de Villiers. While we are talking about political appointments, I must definitely point out that in the time of the United Party all three appointments to the Railways Board were political appointments. There was, for example, Mr. Bates, who was an ex-M.P.

Mr. Bates was appointed by the Hertzog Government.

But it was done during the United Party period of office. There was also Senator Eichmann and Mr. Johan Fourie, who is to-day Secretary of the United Party in the Free State. At that time he had been defeated in an election. Apart from the fact that these are political appointments—let that be the case —I still at least take it that a responsible Minister would not appoint incompetent people to those posts. In the same way I take it that in the future if the Opposition were to come into power again, they would also appoint responsible people to those positions. I am, therefore, making an appeal to the Minister to revise this little matter and set it to rights.

I also want to say a few words in connection with the speech made by the hon. member for Yeoville. He reproached the Minister repeatedly about the shortage of staff. He reproached him and he tried to make the Minister look ridiculous on account of the abortive recruitment campaign overseas. This he accordingly regards as being one of the reasons why the Railways will not be able to function effectively enough in the future.

Now I want, particularly in view of the coming election, to know from the hon. member for Yeoville and the Opposition how they intend coping with the Railway staff shortage. I would be very glad if they would tell me that. However, I do know how they intend solving the problem. They are going to solve it in terms of their labour policy, namely the rate for the job, or equal pay for equal work. They are against job reservation and this I shall go and tell the Railway people at Bethlehem, where a candidate is standing against me. Approximately 1,000 Railway servants are employed in Bethlehem. I shall tell them that the danger which would confront them if the United Party were to come into power would be the abolishing of job reservation. If a Bantu, therefore, is capable of becoming an engine driver on a locomotive, he may, according to the policy of the United Party …

But there is no job reservation on the Railways.

You say there is no job reservation on the Railways? Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me that this hon. member is only waking up now. There is definitely job reservation on the Railways. It is the policy of the Minister of Transport to appoint non-Whites temporarily in certain lower-paid grades for which insufficient White workers are available. Is that not job reservation? As opposed to that, Mr. Speaker, what is the policy of the Opposition? Was it not your experience, Mr. Minister, when you were Minister of Labour, that they were opposed to job reservation?

They are still against it.

And their policy to-day is still—the rate for the job. If the United Party comes into office therefore, a Bantu who has the proficiency to do so and who is then only an ordinary worker, perhaps, could be appointed as an engine driver.

You know that is not true.

I know that it is true. That is your policy. What is your policy then? Surely it is true that you have never ever changed that policy? I am aware that the United Party frequently changes their policy, but I am not aware of them ever having changed this labour policy of the rate for the job and equal pay for equal work. I challenge one of the Opposition speakers to rise after I have sat down and say across the floor of this House that I am wrong.

Yes, you are wrong.

This is personal knowledge which I have of the labour policy of the United Party. If it is your policy in other sectors, then surely it is also your policy as far as the South African Railways are concerned?

You are talking nonsense.

The hon. member for Yeoville said I am talking nonsense. But it is his own policy. He must prove to me then that 1 am talking nonsense or that I am acting irresponsibly. But I want to warn him that I shall tell it to the Railway servants in Bethlehem.

That is how you win elections.

Yes, but I am warning you. You can come along and oppose me. What would the final result be? The result would be that if the United Party should one day come into office they would cram the Railways with Whites, Bantu and Coloureds. Ultimately there would be nothing to prevent the Section Manager being a non-White. Even the General Manager could be a non-White. It follows that a further outcome of the multiracial Federal Parliament policy of the United Party is that a non-White may ultimately become Prime Minister or State President. [Interjections.] I am making a postulation here, Mr. Speaker, which is based on the labour policy of the United Party. I challenge the hon. members to prove that I am wrong.

You are wrong.

Very well, then you or one of the other hon. members can come and tell me that I am wrong in due course.

I now want to return to a few other statements by the hon. member for Yeoville in which regard I am of the opinion that the member should feel properly ashamed of himself. If we take into consideration the fact that the South African Railways is the largest single industry in the Southern Hemisphere, and one which employs over 100,000 White officials and more than 100,000 non-White servants, surely he cannot come along here and criticize isolated cases? He reminds me of a Std. VI schoolboy. Quite at random an incident is selected where 35 trucks stood at Poupan for a considerable length of time. He did not even have the decency to make a thorough investigation of the reason for that. But the tremendous overall services rendered by the South African Railways, that he does not appreciate. The whole country appreciates it but not the Opposition. Actually the Opposition is annoyed, for they would rather have seen that these Railways of ours came to grief. Unfortunately for them, the Railways are a great success. The United Party is annoyed because it knows that it will not obtain the votes of the public outside this House. Mr. Speaker, even one of the most hostile English-language newspapers has praised these Railways and expressed its appreciation. It gives me great pleasure to read what this newspaper has to say about the South African Railways and about the present Minister of this Department. I shall read the following to you—

I leave you to guess what newspaper made these comments on the hon. the Minister. I know you will not be able to guess. It is the Sunday Times of 28 November 1965.

Is that newspaper always correct?

No, it is not always correct. On the contrary, it is always wrong, except in this case where it cannot do otherwise when dealing with the honest Minister of Railways.

Mr. Speaker, I come now to the hon. member for Drakensberg. I would really like, for a moment, to say my farewells to her. I certainly think we shall miss her sorely if she does not return next year. One shall certainly miss her dramatic behaviour in this House— in this instance I do not want to say hysterical behaviour. She can sometimes become oh! so moved, just like the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman). I listened very attentively to her description of Danskraal. I do not in any way want to allege that what the hon. member was stating in that regard was untrue. Yet I want to emphasize here that, as I know the South African Railways, with its intensive planning, those conditions will not continue indefinitely. The measures taken there are merely of a temporary nature. Rome was not built in a day. The hon. member mentioned major improvements which have been made. She spoke about the beautiful lawns and the beautiful way in which the rails were stacked. I will not be told, therefore, that the position as it exists at present will continue. I can only take it that these are only provisional measures. And I think the Minister would agree with me in this connection. That is as I know the Minister. The hon. member painted a terrible picture here of the housing conditions of certain Railway people in Ladysmith. Something else I cannot entirely accept is that when houses have been condemned by a health officer, anyone else would have the right to live in those houses. This ought to apply to the Railways as well. However, let us accept that those are the circumstances prevailing there for the time being. Now I want to take the hon. member for Drakensberg back a little to 1948 when the United Party was still in office. I do not know whether the hon. member is aware of the fact that the United Party of those days treated Railway servants as inferior Whites. They were regarded as an isolated group and were not accepted as a part of the population. They were a section on their own—label them the “untouchables” if you like. I will take the hon. member to Bethlehem where a Railway camp is still standing to-day where the United Party’s Railway servants, the same dear people whom the hon. member for Drakensberg loves so much to-day, were so shamefully treated. To-day, if you were to go to a church and a church council was in sitting, you would not tell me that one of the church council members was a Railway servant.

Of course not.

But at the time the circumstances were such that those people lived below the usual standards. I want to tell the United Party that they will wake up with a shock in this election. I challenge the hon. member for Yeoville to come and support the candidate standing against me in Bethlehem. There are thousands of railwaymen there. The hon. member for Drakensberg can also come. We shall give her a hearty welcome and give her a good hearing, and we shall not be insulting to her either. We shall be much politer to her than she usually is to us. She may as well come along and see whether she can achieve anything with the election. Sir, I feel sorry for the poor candidate standing against me there, not because I am such a capable person, but simply because the National Party has, during the years it has been in office, done what was best for every section of the population and because the people realize that there is only one Government which can do this for them and that is the Nationalist Government.

But before my time is up I would like to bring two little matters to the attention of the Minister. In the first place I want to thank the Minister, the Administration and the staff here this afternoon, on behalf of the farmers in the drought-stricken areas, very sincerely for the wonderful way in which the farmers who had to move with large herds of cattle were assisted. I am almost unable to describe the services which they rendered, how block-trains were arranged, how they even had to off-load the farmers’ cattle at night, and how they did everything in their power to make the necessary trucks available and how they gave preference to these drought-stricken areas. I also want to point out that enormous quantities of fodder were transported to the dry regions from Bethlehem, and when the Administration heard that the farmers needed trucks in order to send fodder to those regions, they were immediately given preference. I wish to express my thanks and my appreciation to the Minister, the Administration and the staff for their sympathy.

The second matter is in regard to the oil pipeline from Durban to Johannesburg. In the first place this afternoon I want to express my thanks and appreciation to the MacAlpine Company which had the contract to lay that pipeline. They had to dig a ditch up to five feet deep and they had to take it over lands and across fences. But I want to testify that even though we as farmers did not see eye to eye with them at the outset, as they were in a great hurry because the Minister was pressing them, we subsequently got to know them much better; and when it came to settling accounts, where they had gone beyond their right of way and further than fifty feet inside the farmers’ mealie lands, they compensated the farmers fully and without argument. They merely took the hard cash out of their pockets and said: This is the compensation money for the number of bags of mealies which were spoiled.

I would also like to express my appreciation to the Minister and the Administration for the exceptionally sympathetic way in which they supported us as farmers in regard to the activities of MacAlpine; for the officials who were made available to us to survey the ground which was outside the right of way, and to see to it that nothing went wrong there and that fences and temporary gates were put up in the lands. I would also like to express my thanks and appreciation to the Minister and the Administration for the way in which they treated the farmers in regard to the alienation of the land and the quantity of grain which was destroyed, and for the wonderful way in which the farmers were compensated. Even in the case where land was alienated, the Administration allowed the farmers to continue ploughing and sowing on that land, even though the land belonged to the Railways. I know of a farmer who felt that he was losing one-third of the value of his land and who then claimed one-third of the value, and who, to his great astonishment received the reply that the Administration was paying out the full agricultural and animal husbandry value of the land. Once more, many thanks.

I want to thank the Minister and the Administration for the wonderful way in which they have, over the past year, administered the South African Railways to the benefit of South Africa. I want to wish them strength and fortitude for the difficult task which lies ahead.

The hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Knobel) made it clear quite early on in his speech that we are standing on the eve of an election. On one or two occasions—I do not want to interpret him incorrectly—he told this side of the House bitterly that we should feel ashamed of ourselves over certain matters. I am a back-bencher, and the hon. member is a front-bencher, and it does not befit me to say the same thing to him. But I must say that, in the light of what I heard this afternoon from that hon. member about the actions he is contemplating for the election, he, as a front-bencher, has shocked me.

You will get a greater shock on 30 March.

The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) must please busy himself with Bantu affairs. He knows nothing about railways. I want to return to the hon. member for Bethlehem. What has he come along here and told us? He challenges us and says: I am going to the public of South Africa and I am going to tell them the United Party advocates a policy whereby a Bantu can be promoted to train driver. [Interjections.] Sir, but this is a challenge over an untruth. I do not want to be guilty of unparliamentary language, but the hon. member must at least know that what he was conveying is not the policy of the United Party. What is the policy? The policy is simply this, and I shall reiterate it in a few sentences, that no position previously held by a White person will be filled by a non-White person unless the trade union, which has control over that position, has agreed to it. And the trade unions are controlled by Whites. We made this clear last year, and I am doing so again. We have heard of dirty elections. If this is a foretaste of what is to come, then I must say it is the dirtiest form of the old negrophile politics (kafferboetie-politiek) which I have heard for a long time, and that from a front-bencher of the Nationalist Party. In passing I just want to say that I was a little astonished to see what scant interest hon. members opposite displayed in the affairs of the railway people.

Just look around you.

I just want to tell the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotze) that I noticed there were not any more members present when speeches were being made on their side. If one considers that one is dealing with a quarter of a million Whites only, it is surprising that there are not more members opposite taking an interest in the debates. The South African Railways to-day is the largest single employer in the country, and that is a fact of which the Railways ought to be proud, and I take it that they are proud of that fact. However, that is also a fact which places a large measure of responsibility upon the shoulders of the Railways, and not only in regard to its own officials—there is also the responsibility of behaving towards its own officials in such a way that it will serve as an example for the other employers in South Africa as well. I say that this organization must set an example in respect of working conditions, not only for its own people, but also for other employers, in respect of working conditions, salaries and pensions.

I wonder what the position of the railway workers is to-day? Under what conditions are they living? Hon. members opposite would like to intimate that the position is so good that whatever we say cannot be true. I want to be honest. If I have to reply to the question of what the position of the workers on the railways is, I cannot fall back on my own knowledge, as I am not a railwayman. I have to fall back on information which I can acquire from the railwayman himself. When evaluating that information, I must bear in mind that we are here dealing with an organization which employs more than 100,000 Whites, and it is obvious, therefore, that some of the complaints will be unfounded. But nobody is going to convince me that all the complaints we hear are quite unfounded., I really believe that a great many of the complaints which reach us are well founded and ought to be properly investigated. I believe, further, that a great many of the complaints reaching us to-day can be traced back to what I term a basic fault in the approach of the Railways Administration to the staff matters of the Railways. I want to give a few examples.

In the first place I believe that the Railways’ approach to the whole question of overtime— and I shall return in a moment to the policy of the United Party—is a mistaken one. It is a known fact that we have always had overtime in South Africa. What is more, it is an ever-present phenomenon. You will never be able to eliminate the phenomenon of overtime entirely. But what I find disturbing in the Railways is that overtime is increasing. It indicates a growing tendency over the years which can be in the interests neither of the Railways nor of the railway workers. Not only does too much overtime make for inefficiency, but it certainly interferes with family fife, and I believe that these are both things which the Railways should eliminate from the lives of their staff. I believe that if you take overtime too far it can even cause loss of life. One often wonders, looking at the figures, to what extent the accidents taking place on the railways should be traced back to overtime. Too much overtime leads to fatigue, and I want to read what is said in the General Manager’s report for 1965. The picture is given very clearly here. On page 25, under the heading “Staff Casualties”, it is stated—

If we had to reduce this sentence to the cold reality, it really means that there was an accident on the railways each day of the year in which some person was injured or killed. It seems to me that it happens every day of the year that a person is injured or killed, and I cannot help wondering to what extent you can trace it back to overtime and the resulting physical and mental fatigue.

I can give another example. I have here a report where the very question of tiredness is put very appositely. Here we were dealing with the case of a man who, after being on duty for 18 hours, met with an accident. The case came up before the court, and the court investigated the matter. They could not establish what the reason had been, but the question of fatigue after 18 hours’ duty, from 4 o’clock in the morning to 8 o’clock at night, counted very heavily in the case. I want to read what was said in this court case—

The coupling came loose and, as a result, the man had an accident and was killed. The cold reality is that someone is killed or injured almost every day of the year. Now we are left with the case of an old lady who has to be satisfied with a meagre pension, but the Railways shrug their shoulders and say: It is not our fault.

What was the nature of the accident?

He was one of those people who put up electric wires. He fell off the ladder and broke his neck. One can continue in this vein. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Cradock may say I am exaggerating when I speak of the dead, but it befits him ill to do so. If that old mother had to be sitting here this afternoon and heard what hon. members have said, she would have been very shocked. This is a serious matter.

But to come back to the case I want to put. Why do we have overtime in South Africa? There are two basic considerations. People work overtime because they are either so loyal to the Railways that they want to do it, or otherwise they do it because they need the money. Their basic wage is so low that nobody could make a decent living from it. I have no doubts as to the loyalty of the railwaymen. We know that if it had not been for that loyalty the wheels of the Railways would have ground to a halt long ago, particularly when one considers the matter in the light of the manpower shortage. That loyalty is laudable. But what is not so laudable is the fact that these people have to work overtime because their basic wage is not enough to give them a decent living. It is tragic that something like this can happen in South Africa. For thousands it is essential that they work overtime, whether they are mentally or physically capable of doing it or not. The man’s destitute circumstances simply compel him to work overtime as he simply cannot keep the pot boiling on his basic salary. If overtime has to be worked in times of abnormal pressure, one can understand it. But something which I think is unforgivable in the Railways’ labour pattern is the fact that overtime has become an integral part of that pattern. I think it is monstrous, it is something which should be rectified at all costs; if not in full measure—one would never be able to do that—then at least to as great an extent as possible.

The hon. Minister might tell me: It is easy to say that overtime must be eliminated, but how are you going to do that? There is a tremendous shortage of workers. The Minister has been talking about that for years and he says his visits overseas were of no avail in getting hold of people. These are good questions, but I want to tell the hon. Minister that the railwayman in South Africa cannot go on like this. The time will come when he must break, and that will be at the expense of the Railways. His loyalty is being tested too far. Nobody can keep it up for the duration. On the Railways, more or less the same number of people are transporting a growing tonnage, and I wonder how long this can go on. The Minister might ask me what I suggest. There are a few things we can do to rectify the matter. The first thing I beg to recommend to the Minister is that he should pay the railwaymen a salary sufficient to guarantee them a decent living.

What would be sufficient?

The hon. member asks what would be sufficient. He should rather ask the Minister. Ask the railwayman himself. He is very fair and he will tell you. And if you have done that, and you have offered a satisfactory basic salary, so that it is no longer a requirement to have to work overtime, then you must see to it that his cost of living is adjusted periodically as it rises. We have heard here of the R35 million. The hon. member for Bloemfontein-East (Mr. Van Rensburg) says: We did not want it last year; the inflationary tendencies would have swallowed it all up; the prosperity was so great that we could not pay the railwaymen, who needed the increase badly, any more; we had to hold him back. But now the Railways come along and give people R35 million, and we shall have the same inflationary tendency. We shall simply find that the great increase in salaries will in course of time be swallowed up by the rise in the cost of living. 1 say no, give the railwaymen a basic salary on which he can live in the first place, and in the second, supplement that basic salary from time to time as the cost of living rises. And when this has all been done, I would say: Unless the railwayman in South Africa works overtime and works a lot of overtime at that, the Railways cannot remain in operation; we cannot get the people. I would then say to the Minister: Once you have paid the railwayman sufficient, so that it is not essential for him to work overtime, consult his trade union so that in the course of time, slowly and surely, and with the consent of every trade union involved in the matter, Coloureds may be brought in below the Whites and the Whites raised up so that the Railways can remain in operation, so that the Whites can earn a decent wage and so that the Railways can proceed to operate on a sound labour basis.

Do you want to replace the Whites?

No, I do not want to replace them. This is another misrepresentation. I am saying that I think it is desirable and I believe that if you deal fairly with the railwayman, and do not stampede him with negrophile politics, he will be sensible enough to accept this step. And let me tell the hon. member for Heilbron that it is no new thing. I remember the Minister saying in this House last year that, provided that trade unions consented, even a Coloured would be able to become a shunter. It has been recorded in Hansard. This is also the United Party’s approach. It is not a negrophile policy which we are advocating, it is a sound policy. It is of no use the Minister coming to this House year after year and telling us: I must complain in your ears; things are not going too well as we have a shortage of labour. We know he cannot get the labour in the White sector. We do not want to endanger the White man’s position, we are coming forward with suggestions to improve his position. But if you talk about the Coloured in South Africa you are pounced upon as if by a flock of vultures and. particularly before an election, every drop of propaganda value is squeezed out of it, even if that approach is of profound importance to South Africa. No, I say the Railway’s approach to this matter is in my humble opinion faulty. We must approach the matter in another way.

In the second place, I believe that the Railway’s approach to pensions is wrong. The Railway pensioner is entitled to his pension. It is his money. If the Railways state that that may receive a temporary allowance, it is nothing else but a supplementary cost of living allowance. The pensioner is entitled to it. My opinion is that even though that man did some other kind of work, even though he got as much as a thousand rand a year, the Railways, as his former employer, do not have the right to withold a penny from him.

You begrudge the Railways that.

Mr. Speaker, would that hon. member keep quiet. I begrudge the hon. member a little more sense and responsibility.

The shortage of White labour is an evil in South Africa; it is a world-wide phenomenon, and if we could retain the services of our pensioners, no matter what form their services took, then we must do it at all costs, and I want to ask the hon. Minister this afternoon not to go and restrict pensioners, with their cost-of-living allowance, to service in the Railways only. If the people have the ability, be magnaminous; as the largest employer in South Africa the Minister can afford to do so. Let these people work in a wider field where they can serve South Africa. I think that is what ought to be done.

But our motion deals with two points; the one concerns the staff and the other the consumer. I want to return to something which, in my opinion, is an anomaly as far as the consumer of South Africa is concerned. The pipeline was mentioned here this afternoon. I regarded it as a wonderful project. It is a project for which the Nationalist Party cannot claim all the plaudits; they know they cannot. I am glad the project has been established for the South African consumer. When the pipeline was being built from View Flow, Durban, to Johannesbug, I said to myself this is a wonderful thing; it is progress; it is modernization; now the people up country are going to get cheaper petrol. But what I unfortunately did not remember is that the hon. Minister had said a few years ago: “I am going to build a pipeline but you must not think that I am going to give you cheaper petrol.” What are the facts in regard to the transportation of oil in South Africa? Last year the hon. Minister gave us the transportation costs of a gallon of petrol as being 1.536c. The Railways charges me 7c per gallon if I transport petrol. This gives the Railways a profit of just on 600 per cent on a gallon. I think that at one stage a figure of R12,000,000 per year was mentioned; that is the profit which is being made. I think it is a good profit, and I think the hon. Minister should give us a little return on that profit by means of reduction of the tariff for the transportation of petrol through the pipeline.

It would help my voters; it would not help your voters.

The hon. Minister says that it would not help my voters. He might be correct. Should I only be concerned for my voters in Maitland? 1 am going to retain my seat in any case but I am concerned for South Africa; I am concerned for the hon. Minister’s voters. What is the position? I have just said that the petrol transportation costs are 1.536c per gallon. The hon. Minister says his estimated costs for the transportation of petrol through the pipeline is not even as much as 1c; it is .92c per gallon. But the hon. Minister now tells us that he does not want to transport the petrol for us at a cheaper rate. He says he cannot afford to lose that tariff. I say that this is a mistaken and slanted approach to the matter. I believe it is an anomaly as far as the consumer is concerned. I believe the people up country ought to reap the benefit of the saving on the transportation of petrol as fuel is to-day one of the fundamental economic factors. If you can deliver it for less then you are benefiting the entire economy, and that which benefits the Transvaal might perhaps flow over into the Cape.

In conclusion I would like to put another few matters to the Minister, all dealing with commissions. A year or two ago we had the Schumann Commission and this matter was touched upon last year. As hon. members know, the Schumann Commission went into the question of tariffs, etc. It was an investigation which dealt with fundamental matters in the railway system. Last year the hon. Minister told us that the matter was still receiving attention. I think the Report of the General Manager of the Railways also stated that the matter was still receiving attention, and I am quite sorry that the hon. Minister did not tell us in his speech what has become of this report; that the hon. Minister did not tell us what his policy approach to the report was and that the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) did not tell us this either. I think he is on the way to a position which should enable him to come by the information. Then there is another commission which has also been appointed, the Marais Commission. I know it deals with transport but the Railways have a substantial interest in this matter. I would like to know from the hon. Minister what progress has been made with this matter?

They have only commenced their investigation.

Of course it is an important matter and I take it that it will all take time. Then there is the van der Walt Committee, which had to go into Railway benefit societies—sick funds and funeral benefit associations—associations in which railwaymen have invested millions of rand over the years. There are railwaymen who are very concerned about some of these associations. They want to know what has become of their money?

They are worried about some of them.

Yes. The van der Walt Committee was appointed to investigate the matter and I wonder whether the hon. Minister could perhaps give us a little information. I heard—it might be incorrect—that the hon. Minister has had the report in his possession for months and I wonder whether the hon. Minister cannot tell us, for the satisfaction of the Railway workers, what the findings of this committee were. I hope the hon. Minister can give us a little information in this regard.

I should like to try to reply to a matter to which the hon member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) devoted a considerable amount of time, and that is in connection with accidents on the Railways. The hon. member ascribed the increase in the number of accidents to overtime work done by railway employees and, so I deduce, to the tiredness and exhaustion of railway workers. I should like to refer the hon. member and hon. members who listened with such close attention to that part of the hon. member’s argument, to page 25 of the Annual Report of the General Manager for 1964-5. Sir, a graph is supplied here and the following words appear above the graph: “The incidence of train accidents, (collisions and derailments) in relation to the train mileage run each year since 1949-50 is shown in the following graph”. If the hon. member opens that report at page 25, he will see that although the accidents have increased in numbers, they have decreased when the train mileage is taken into consideration. [Interjections.] It is of no use for the hon. member to try to interrupt me, because his argument is completely fallacious. In that graph it is shown that the largest number of train accidents occurred in the year 1955-6 and again in 1958-9, when there was no mention of so much overtime work and of such a severe (as they have put it) shortage of labourers. But that has always been the argument of the United Party; it is the same argument advanced by them in connection with the blackening of our cities. They maintain that the number of Bantu in the cities has increased, without taking into consideration the relative increase of Bantu to White workers.

I also want to refer to a speech made by the General Manager at Koedoespoort, when he handed out the awards of the National Occupational Safety Association. Inter alia, he said the following, and I quote from the July 1956 number of the Suid-Afrikaanse Spoorwegnuus:

Then he also said:

In general that is in fact reflected by that graph. That argument by the hon. member has, therefore, certainly cut no ice.

But you are comparing train mileage with lives.

Those are train accidents as such. I should like to refer the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) who made us a promise yesterday. The hon. member promised us that we would enjoy an uninteresting debate on the part of the Opposition. In a few cases the debate was in fact amusing, particularly when we were listening to the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk), but if promises had to be carried out the way hon. members have been carrying out that one, then we may very well assume that the promise they give the voters so subtly, will fall just as flat as the promise of an interesting debate.

The hon. member and other hon. members have been harping ad nauseam on the old line of a man power shortage in the Railways for which, as they put it, the Government is directly responsible and then the hon. member tried to poke fun at the three delegations or missions abroad. He did not even know what it was all about. Sir. hon. members should realize that in a country where there is a boom, there will always be manpower shortages. That does not apply only to South Africa. It is to the credit of South Africa that we have this boom. But it applies to Western Europe also. It does not apply to the Africa States, because they do not have such a boom.

Because of that workers of the right calibre could not be attracted in Western Europe. On the other hand, however, I prefer seeing a manpower shortage rather than the unemployment conditions which obtained when the United Party was in power.

The hon. member for Drakensberg spoke about the railwaymen and repeated certain words which the hon. member for Bloemfontein East supposedly used in connection with courting the vote of the railwaymen, but I can assure her that she did not warm the heart of a single railwayman with her speech here this afternoon. In the course of her speech she also said that this increase of R35,000,000 in salaries for the staff was something which was being done immediately before the election. Hon. members on that side of the House should be aware of the fact that the hon. the Minister, as long ago as the first half of last year, promised the Railway’s Staff Associations that he would have discussions with them in October in connection with the requests for salary increases, and as we know the hon. the Minister, he kept his promises, and those discussions with the Railways Staff Associations were held. May I tell the hon. members that at that stage there was as yet no certainty that an election would in fact be held in the first half of the year; it could just as well have been held a year later than that date. Therefore this argument by the hon. member and other hon. members on that side cuts no ice at all.

If one surveys the activities of the Railways objectively, one is forced to consider certain relevant questions. The first question is undoubtedly: Have the South African Railways during the past financial year succeeded in keeping abreast with the economic develops ment in the Republic, and in meeting the transport demands made on it by the expansion of our national economy. The second question which occurs to one is the following: Were the South African Railways prepared to meet this development with their programme of forward planning? The third question will undoubtedly be whether the Railways Administration has succeeded in creating and maintaining a sound and harmonious relationship between employer and employee. In other words, does the South African Railways in general command the services of happy and contented railway officials? I want to submit that anybody who tries to reply scientifically and objectively to these three questions, will in each case give a positive reply without any reservations.

In connection with the first question I want to say that under the extensive industrial development and the consistent economic boom in the Republic, which obtained continuously on many fronts, severe demands were made on the Railways as the general transport body. This colossal and unequalled development would not have been possible if the Railways, as general conveyor and the major conveyor in South Africa, had not provided the necessary and essential transport facilities. The Railways were set a challenge, and despite the so-called manpower shortage, and despite the fact that some of the materials were hard to come by, and despite the fact that delivery of the essential equipment was delayed notably, the South African Railways succeeded most successfully in meeting their obligations and in keeping abreast consistently with the rapid economic development of the country, but what is more: The Railways succeeded in exceeding all previous traffic records. I should like to impose upon you a few examples. For the first time in the history of the South African Railways the total tonnage transported by the South African Railways in one financial year, exceeded the 100,000,000 mark; that is, it reached the 104,500,000 notch, which is 5.23 per cent higher than that of the previous year. We have already heard that passenger journeys increased by 10.97 per cent, a wonderful achievement. We also know that the working results of the harbours in the Republic show that 3,750,000 tons more freight were handled, which represents an increase of 14.08 per cent compared with the previous financial year—also an exceptionally fine achievement. The passenger journeys in respect of the Road Transport Service, operated by the South African Railways, also showed an increase of 5.2 per cent. But to me the most magnificent achievement was in connection with the flights of the South African Airways, which showed an increase of 35.7 per cent compared with that of the previous financial year.

The reply to the second question, namely, whether the Railways Administration consistently planned ahead, is also decidedly positive. Transport services are indispensable, and are absolutely essential for a growing economy, and the South African Railways planned ahead consistently in order to equip its transport services for the great task it had to fulfil. Mr. Speaker, the United Party has so frequently in the past brought the charge that the Railways Administration did not have the necessary vision, the necessary initiative, and that the Railways Administration hesitated or neglected to plan ahead. These charges are fabrications and are devoid of all truth. In fact, they are utter nonsense. The United Party and other persons, as also other bodies, who bring such allegations and charges, frequently shut their eyes, often deliberately, to the real state of affairs. The Railways Administration has always tried to plan ahead judiciously and steadily on the basis of a certain programme, and here I want to mention examples once more. The pipeline has repeatedly been referred to in connection with the transport of petroleum products, which in terms of planning should only have commenced after 1971. In view of the fact that transport increased at such a tremendous rate, however, the Railways Administration decided to set about it immediately, and that pipeline has now been completed. It was a magnificent achievement to complete it within 14 months, and in addition to supply the pump stations and the equipment involved, for example communication equipment. I want to mention another example. Approximately eight years ago a larger harbour at Durban was planned in order to be able to cope with the huge freights and the increasing transport, but at a very early stage it was already realized that even that improvement and that extension would not be adequate, because Durban was such a popular harbour, and because of that more advanced planning and foresight were brought into play and Richards Bay was chosen for development as a harbour in order to relieve the pressure on the Durban harbour. Mr. Speaker, that is an example of forward planning. In the speech made by the hon. the Minister we heard about the doubling, the trebling and the quadrupling of sections. In this connection I am thinking, for example, of the section from Newcastle to Durban, which will meet an urgent demand.

I do not want to give other examples, but dozens such examples can be furnished. I shall also just mention in passing the three sections approved during this Session when the Railway Construction Bill was passed. It should be realized that the construction of the various sections and the planning cannot always be implemented exactly as it should be done, primarily because there is a staff shortage and because there is often a shortage in capital funds. Where such works cannot be completed in time, it is often alleged erroneously that that is due to lack of vision, lack of energy and lack of planning on the part of the Administration.

In reply to the third question, that with regard to the relationship between employer and employee, it can be stated without any doubt that the Railways are thoroughly aware of the value of sound relationships between employer and employee. The Minister and the Railways Management are very much aware of the fact that negotiations form the key to success and contentment, and that is what the Minister and the Management have been prepared to do in the past. In view of this sound relationship between employer and employee in the Railways, the leaders of the various associations have always been prepared to negotiate with the Minister and the Management through the official channels, particularly where salary increases were involved. In general these associations also came forward with reasonable claims, and these reasonable and justified claims have been and are always sympathetically considered by the Minister, and have mostly been resolved to the satisfaction of both parties, as has now happened again in the case of the request for salary increases. I want to give a further example to demonstrate the sound relationship between employer and employee in the Railways. It is striking—and I know what I am talking about—that there are many cases where employees resign from the employment of the Railways in order to find another or better livelihood, but return after a few weeks or a few months and ask to have their previous positions back, and are then prepared to start from the bottom. They usually state that their new employer was not as fair or as considerate as the Railways Administration, and they actually plead to be taken back into the Railways employment. Such persons return to the Railways because that Service offered them contentment in their work and benefits, because they had peace of mind and had the assurance that their future was safe-guarded as far as security in their work and in other matters was concerned.

As an ex-educationist I should like to refer briefly to a scheme in connection with the training of personnel. We know that as a result of the staff shortage special efforts are being made—and that has also become an important task of the Railways—to attract workers and also suitable young people to the South African Railways. We have already heard that the Railways are making intensive endeavours not only to attract more candidates, but also better candidates. In particular, we know of the notable and praiseworthy efforts to recruit matriculants. I should like to refer with appreciation to the praiseworthy and attractive bursary schemes for engineers and other technical personnel, bursaries which are made available to promising young men. It is also pleasing to see on page 76 of the General Manager’s Report that considerably more bursaries for training of engineers were awarded for the past academic year than in 1964, i.e., 115 in 1965 compared with 83 in 1964.

I should like to plead that, more such bursaries be made available by this large organization, and in doing so, I want to repeat the plea I have made before, namely, that graduated engineers should be attracted by larger commencing salaries and also larger maximum salaries.

I also want to refer to the B.Com. bursary scheme, which is a great success, but I want to refer in particular to the bursary scheme for part-time students, which is a magnificent success, a scheme which also encourages people who are already in the Service to avail themselves of it, and which consequently contributes to the status of the Railways through such people improving their qualifications.

Then I want to refer to the other unique scheme, namely the training scheme for engineering-assistants who can attend four year post matric sandwich courses at technical colleges, a scheme which is also meeting with great success. Finally, I want to make the observation that the persons to whom I have referred here, are all required to have matric as a basis for further studies, because the Railways have many employees who do not have matric, and we are very grateful that these people are also being given the opportunity to improve their qualifications.

We know about the good work being done by the 75 instructors at the Railway College at Esselen Park. As hon. members may know, a variety of courses for Railways officials are offered here, courses which are aimed at improving their abilities and their qualifications in order that they may achieve promotion in the Railways service. We are very grateful for this scheme and we know that many officials avail themselves of it.

Then there are temporary classes and day courses which are given and which deal with human relations. It is of course most important that our railways officials, particularly those of them who deal with the public, should follow such courses. In consequence we find that the public is very grateful for the treatment received from railways officials with whom they come into contact. Travellers are delighted with the friendliness and courtesy with which they are treated. Every now and again the South African Railway News publishes letters addressed to the Management, in which certain railways officials are praised for their attitude and behaviour towards the public. I do not think it is necessary for me to read these letters, but I just want to mention that the hon. members on this side are grateful for the praiseworthy behaviour of the staff.

So often the Railways Administration is criticized. But I wonder whether hon. members who do that, and also other concerns which find faults with the Administration, realize that by expressing such criticism they are by implication also criticizing the railway worker. Last year we had a good example of this type of criticism. That was when part of the Press and certain chambers of commerce and industries, and als other United Party, criticized the Administration and made sinister forecasts to the effect that the transport services were on the point of collapsing. They said the Administration’s inability to render the necessary services would impede the Republic’s economic development. But frequently certain industrialists and businessmen were expressing this type of criticism merely to cover up their own bad planning. We are thinking in particular of the so called coal shortage of last year. Sir, this-side of the House appreciates the services rendered by the Administration. I should like to repeat what the hon. the Minister said on a certain occasion. He said that we were in fact able to build wagons and locomotives and to start new works in order to increase the carrying capacity; that is, the facilities could be augmented. But, the Minister also said, we could not manufacture the required manpower. And man, after all, remains the axis upon which everything revolves. Unfortunately there is no magic talisman with which to solve the labour problem experienced by the Railways.

I represent a constituency in which many railway workers live. And the new constituency I hope to represent in the new assembly—Koedoespoort—also contains many railway employees. In fact, the number of railway voters constitutes a larger portion of the total number of voters than was the case in my previous constituency. Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that the railwaymen appreciate the good work done by the Administration and the allocations made by the hon. the Minister and the Administration. I am therefore convinced that the railwaymen in all those constituencies will once again send the Nationalist candidates to this House. I want to go even further. I notice that the United Party has not yet appointed a candidate in Koedoespoort. Well, I challenge them to put up a candidate of their own in this constituency. I am convinced that the result of the election will show once again that the railwayman firmly supports the Government and the Nationalist Party.

The hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Dr. Otto) complained that he has not found the debate interesting so far. Well, I am not surprised that he has not found criticism of the Government’s Railway policy to be interesting. What is more, I doubt very much whether his contribution to the debate will be found interesting by people outside, particularly by railwaymen. And the same goes for previous speakers on that side of the House who did so much trumpet blowing. I think people are getting tired of all this trumpet blowing and would rather like to hear something more specific, particularly as regards the Railway workers themselves. In fact, I think Shakespeare was right here when he said: “Methinks he doth protest too much.” We have been having just a bit too much protesting about the wonderful Railways policy in South Africa. But what is interesting to every railway worker in South Africa is his own future. And the future of our railwaymen is also linked up with the economy of the country as a whole. In this regard I think in particular of something referred to by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) when he alluded to the temporary allowances of retired railway workers. I should like to enlarge on what the hon. member has had to say to show how widespread is the effect of deductions from the allowances paid to retired railway workers. In fact, it has a nation-wide effect on the economy of the country, apart from other unfavourable aspects.

Mr. Speaker, as was said by a previous speaker, these retired railwaymen have given a lifetime of conscientious service to the Railways and to South Africa. And when they, after retiring, earn a little extra money to supplement their meagre pensions, the amount of their extra income is deducted from the allowance paid to them by the Railways. In this regard I want to quote a specific instance that has been brought to my notice. I considered bringing it to the attention of the hon. the Minister privately, but because of its widespread implications I felt it to be a matter that should be ventilated in the House. The case I wish to refer to concerns a retired railway engineer and the difficulties he is experiencing at East London. Up to about a year ago another engineer was engaged in doing ship surveying work, which is an essential work because it ensures that ships are kept moving and as such it is very essential for the smooth running of the harbour of East London. Because of advancing years he retired from his work and the work he had been doing was entrusted by the world-wide shipping firm concerned to the retired railway engineer referred to earlier in my speech. He was to perform his duties in the form of part-time work. As I said. Sir, his work is very essential for the smooth running of the harbour services of East London, but it is not quite sufficient to justify the employment of a full-time man. This retired man is doing very essential work. If I may just quote an example: Ships arriving in the harbour to take away, for instance, fruit, must be surveyed before they are allowed to ship the fruit, to ensure that everything is in working order. If a ship brought fruit from Durban, it would have been surveyed in that port and the necessary clearance would be in order. But if it turns around at East London for the purpose of shipping fruit there, it must be surveyed in that harbour. That is the nature of the work being done by this retired man.

Now. he receives a temporary allowance from the Railways. But it often happens that his earnings from the part-time work equal the amount of the allowance, and in the result, because of the corresponding deduction from the allowance, he has done a month’s work, albeit part-time, for nothing! In one case he quoted he had actually earned R4 after deductions from his allowance. He had only R4 in hand with which to cover all his travelling and other expenses. It goes without saying his part-time work is not a profitable proposition for him. Because of this anomaly, he has. decided to resign from the work, and the firm employing him has asked me to take this matter up because his resignation will cause serious dislocation to the working of the Railways. Had the gentleman been working for the Railways, he would have received his full temporary allowance. But because he is not employed by the Administration and, notwithstanding the fact that his work is essential for the smooth running of the harbour, he has to forfeit the temporary allowance. And because of this unsatisfactory position he has, as I said, resigned, which will cause a certain amount of disruption in the harbour routine.

Mr. Speaker, in my view the attitude of the Railways is definitely a dog in the manger one. Had the man been working for the Railways he would not have forfeited any portion of the allowance.

Many men who retire from the Railways wish to earn something extra. It goes without saying that it is good for them. It is occupationally beneficial for them. What is more, it is not only to their benefit that they should be able to continue working after retirement, it is also good for the country. Yet here we have the Railways introducing regulations which, in effect, prevent these men from undertaking such work, to their own detriment and that of the country. Many men retire from the Railways because, in some cases, they have grown tired of the work, or because they have developed some handicap. Take, for instance, the case of a clerk who has developed arthritis in his hands or writer’s cramp, thus preventing him from continuing with that kind of work. He may not be able to continue doing full-time work, but is quite capable of undertaking part-time work somewhere else. Now, people in such circumstances would have been an asset to the country economically had they been able or had they seen their way clear to do such part-time work. For they would have been productively filling posts, and making others available for the work of the Railways. We thus have a situation where everything works around in circles. The Railways would benefit because people would be employed in other occupations, even though not by the Railways. In some cases men. who have been doing indoor work all their lives, might want to take up farming for the sake of their health. They might want to farm with pigs or poultry or pineapples. They would like to take up any form out outdoor farming work. But they are in effect debarred from doing so because they would lose their temporary allowance, or so much of the allowance that it would not be worth their while to do so.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I feel this to be a case which the hon. the Minister might very well take up and reconsider. Because the policy of the Railways in this regard is not only creating the impression that the Administration is showing very little gratitude to the railwayman for his conscientious work for the country all his life when it virtually debars him from earning a little extra in retirement, but it is also hampering the work of the Railways and the economy of the country. I sincerely hope the hon. the Minister will give this matter further careful consideration to see whether it is not in the interests of the Railways and of the country that the difficulties raised by me should be overcome.

The hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. Field) restricted himself to the temporary allowance paid to ex-railwaymen. I want to draw his attention to the fact that, as a result of the new concession which the hon. the Minister has made, namely that ex-railwaymen who return to the Administration’s service do not lose the temporary allowance, there have been other employers in many cases who as it were have been forced to pay higher salaries to ex-railwaymen to prevent their returning to the Railway service. Therefore, although not everybody receives the benefit of the temporary allowance, the partial concession which the hon. the Minister has made has had the effect that persons working for private employers have also benefited.

In the course of his speech the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) made the utterly unreasonable and unfounded allegation that in so far as the maintenance of discipline is concerned, there is no standard by which discipline can be applied. I say that is an utterly unreasonable and unfair charge, because the maintenance of discipline in the Administration is fully covered by existing legislation, and we have a modern and fair system of applying discipline. In the first instance, an inquiry is instituted by the disciplinary officer at which the accused is properly defended by a legal representative. In many cases naturally there is a right of appeal to the higher authorities. How well this system works is apparent from the latest report of the General Manager, in which it is stated that of the 644 appeals referred to the Disciplinary Appeal Board only 85 were upheld. These 85 successful appeals will help to maintain a good standard, and even to bring about an improvement in the standard in the future. 1 therefore regard the charge made by the hon. member as totally unfounded.

From the report of the General Manager for the past financial year, it is quite apparent that the General Manager and his staff have once again performed an outstanding task. I want to quote a few figures now. If one compares the figures for goods traffic and passenger journeys for the financial year 1946-7 with those for the year 1964-5, one finds that goods traffic increased by 112.22 per cent and passenger journeys by 67.65 per cent. Over the same period the increase in staff was only 26.72 per cent. We are grateful to the General Manager and his personnel for having done their work so outstandingly well.

But the Government has also shown its gratitude towards these officials in a tangible way. For the period 1961-2 to 1965-6 the hon. the Minister and his Department granted salary and wage increases of an average of R18,723,000 per year. Since 1948 a total of R107,000,000 has been spent on housing for the staff under the three housing schemes. The per capita income of White staff has increased by 240 per cent since 1947.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to make a few observations about farming matters. I notice in the latest report of the General Manager that transport of stock accounted for 6,331 trainloads. A high percentage of this was drought stock. As a representative of an emergency grazing area, 1 want to thank the Administration for the excellent service they have rendered in this regard. I want to say thank you, not only for the transport of drought stock, but also for the transport of feed to relieve the situation in my constituency.

What about slaughter stock?

I did not say it was only slaughter stock. All this stock included drought stock. On the farming front I also want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that, because of this oppressive and paralysing drought, agriculture will have to go through a period of rehabilitation and recovery for quite a number of years. I know the hon. the Minister is a sympathetic Minister in this regard as well, and I therefore want to appeal to him to be very co-operative in regard to tariff determinations for farmers during these years of recovery. We know that tariffs for farming products and requirements have a distinct and important effect on the farmer’s cost structure.

I also want to make a few observations about the oil pipelines which was completed in October 1965. This pipeline traverses about 450 miles and eight pumping stations have been erected. And where this beautiful piece of work has been completed in virtually only a year— and for this I want to thank and praise the contractors concerned and the Administration —it is understandable that there were also small irritations. I am thinking, for example, of the injudicious cutting of wires, the incorrect reconstruction of contour banks, etc. However, these small irritations were quickly removed by both the Administration and the contractors. In particular I want to praise the Administration’s “trouble-shooter” who was sent to iron out the difficulties. He restored peace between the farmers and the contractors in an admirable way, and saw to it that the farmers were fairly treated.

In regard to this pipeline, I want to raise a matter which, to my knowledge, has not yet been raised in this House. I refer, namely, to the expropriation machinery of the Railways. In the past the Administration generally took over the complete title to the expropriated land, or else it acquired full rights to the use of the land concerned. Now, for the first time, we have had to do with an expropriation where only a servitude over the land was obtained, and the owner consequently retained a large portion of the right of use. Mr. Speaker, I want to make an earnest appeal that the system followed by ESCOM and the Department of Water Affairs should also be applied by the Railways. This means that the farmer who enters into a servitude agreement can see at one glance what his rights and obligations are. In this case the expropriations were made in such a way that the farmer knew that a certain portion of his land would be subject to a servitude, but apart from that, he knew very little about his rights and obligations as regards the servitude. The common law and the statute law doubtless make provision for all these cases, but the farmer, who is as it were a layman in this field, can hardly be expected to know all about the finer points and details. Therefore, Sir, I want to repeat that, in my opinion. it is desirable that in these cases the farmer should be furnished with a complete servitude agreement, as is the practice in the case of servitudes negotiated by ESCOM and the Department of Water Affairs.

When one takes into account that in a country like America even orange juice and coal are transported by pipeline, it can be accepted that conveyance by means of pipelines has a great future in South Africa as well. I therefore appeal to the hon. the Minister to adapt the expropriation machinery so as to keep pace with new developments.

I want to conclude by saying that I also represent a big Railway constituency, and I can assure my friends on that side of the House that the railwaymen in my constituency are satisfied with the hon. the Minister. They are proud of him. He is someone who has risen from their own ranks to the highest position in the Railways. They are satisfied with the treatment they receive. If they are called upon to vote in this election, every single one of them will vote for the National Party.

Mr. Speaker, unlike the hon. member who has just sat down, I cannot claim to have many railwaymen as voters in my constituency. Nevertheless, I have done some observation and there are a few small matters I want to bring to the Minister’s attention, small things that struck me as a traveller on our railways and airways.

Before I come to that, however, I want to refer to one particular point in the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down. When the hon. member for Yeoville dealt with the subject of discipline in his speech, he said that he had noticed a great disparity in sentences for more or less the same transgressions, and that he objected to that. The hon. member for Kroonstad has tried to indicate how few appeals succeed. Of course, that does not prove that there is no disparity in sentences; consequently, the allegation by the hon. member for Yeoville has not been refuted.

I should now like to deal with a few matters regarding the Airways. Let me say at once that it has always been a pleasure to me to travel on our Airways, locally as well as abroad. The minor points of criticism I want to bring up here should therefore be seen against that background. To begin with, I want to say that I sincerely hope that we will be more successful in future as regards the nature of our buildings at airports.

That is actually a matter that falls under the Department of Transport, and not under the South African Railways.

Mr. Speaker, it may be that in doing so I will not be satisfying your requirements on this point; I want to mention one or two things in passing. To me the buildings at the Jan Smuts Airport are uninspiring, but I am pleased to be able to say that there has been some improvement as regards the J. B. M. Hertzog Airport at Bloemfontein. I can only express the hope that this improvement will be carried through to other airports as well, particularly the one under construction at East London. In general, I think. I would be justified in saying that there is too much evidence of Railway thinking to be seen in many of our buildings. If we consider what the modern age demands of us in this regard, we will realize that we can do better. And here and there is in fact evidence that we are fully aware of that. I doubt, however, whether there is adequate forward planning as regards the sites set aside for the erection of buildings. Of course, we all appreciate that there had to be a humble beginning. The number of air passengers has increased tremendously, with the result that larger buildings have to be supplied. Now, one should like to see that such essential extensions planned in advance, but in most cases it seems not to have been the case, and apparently those in charge have not made provision for the expansion which actually occurred. I think I can say that that applies to Jan Smuts and to other airports such as D. F. Malan. Here the building was also done according to a railway pattern. If one thinks of possible extensions, one wonders where any new buildings would come, and whether they would fit in with the existing ones. It is common practice among factory owners, when they build a factory, to buy a large site for the purpose, so that there will always be enough space for subsequent extensions. As regards our airports, I fear that is not the case. I should like to recommend to those in charge that they go and look at the Trans-World Airline building in New York. The facilities there are of such a nature that one can board aeroplanes without touching the ground. Something of that nature is very necessary, particularly here in Cape Town where we sometimes have such strong winds.

A double-storey building is required for that.

I can imagine that that would be required. If that is not possible here, the idea may be adapted to another pattern. That is something which is of great importance to passengers, particularly to the lady passengers. In general, the important point I want to emphasize here is the necessity for keeping abreast with the most recent developments as regards the nature of buildings at airports.

While I am talking about the Airways, there is another small matter I should like to suggest, something which is perhaps not practicable, but which would nevertheless, if it could be supplied, be a very good thing. I am referring to the use of languages in our overseas service. In travelling abroad, one is struck by the fact that in some air services, particularly on the Continent, three or even four languages are spoken. We here in South Africa use only our two official languages. I can appreciate that the addition of a third language would make matters more difficult for our air hostesses, but it should nevertheless be possible to introduce another of the more popular languages, such as French or German. I think it should be possible to train our hostesses so that they would at least be able to read French or German from a prepared note. Passengers will appreciate that, even if the pronunciation of the foreign language is not very good. Where I encountered that on foreign services, it has always struck me as a very friendly gesture. While I am talking about languages, I should like to emphasize the desirability of seeing to it that those people who do broadcasting at our airports, have a sound and exemplary pronunciation of the two official languages—English and Afrikaans. The voice is often quite good, but the accent is bad. That applies to the use of both languages, and I am sure a little assistance will effect a great improvement in this respect.

A while ago I spoke of buildings. In this regard I should like to ask whether it is perhaps not too late yet to prevent the Cape Town harbour surroundings from becoming too unattractive. This is supposed to be the “Fairest Cape in all the World”, and the Railways Administration occupies a special position in this area, namely that adjoining the harbour. In bygone days the bay was beautiful, but I can also appreciate the fact that it necessarily had to be affected by the demands of our time. But surely it is unnecessary for all railway buildings and works to have an unattractive appearance. At the Port Elizabeth and East London harbours the Railways Administration managed to provide the necessary services without spoiling the surroundings of the harbour in any way. I therefore want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to see whether it is not possible to do something about the matter. I appreciate that a railway line and a loco are not two of the most attractive things there are, although some think a loco is very attractive, and they are painted. But in my opinion the buildings and the planning in general leave much to be desired. I trust it will be possible for the authorities concerned to devote a moment of thought to that matter.

With reference to the passenger services on our trains, the hon. the Minister said that the catering service was not receiving the necessary support. Allow me to say in this regard that the Railways Administration has rendered very good service in this respect for many years. There was a time when they served a relatively cheap meal about which nobody could complain. Of course, one can appreciate that as the cost of living rises, it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain such a meal at the same price. We can therefore appreciate the Minister’s problem. Nevertheless, I think that even under the present circumstances more should be done as regards the nature of the meals. One often still finds the same meal there to-day, but with the difference that very little of it is served. In view of the size of the catering department, I ask myself whether the Railways Administration commands the services of the necessary expert advisers on this matter. Even a small restaurant or hotel usually has the services of persons who have gained a great deal of experience of this aspect. Of course, I appreciate that it is also essential to have somebody there who has a good knowledge of administration. Nevertheless, it is generally felt that where such large-scale buying is done, it should be possible to serve a very good meal at a reasonable price. If something can be done to improve the service in this respect, I am sure the Minister will find that the travelling public will make more use of the Railways’ catering service. The question also occurs to me whether this aspect of the matter received enough attention in the past.

In conclusion I just want to say that I have been travelling on our Railways from my childhood days, and if I look at things as I find them to-day, I have to acknowledge that the Minister has succeeded in imbuing a greater spirit of friendliness in our Railways personnel, something which is definitely to the credit of the Administration. I can only trust that this standard will be maintained in future.

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) on the constructive speech he has just made here. He made a few constructive suggestions for improvements, suggestions which deserve further consideration. At the end of his speech he mentioned the spirit of friendliness towards the travelling public which is shown by the railway worker. I am very pleased about that remark and I can confirm that that is indeed the case. He also referred to the necessity for advance planning as regards expansion at airports. I was in Windhoek recently and there I found that new administration buildings were already under construction, buildings which will be among the most attractive ones in our country.

The hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) is not in the House at the moment, and I regret that, because this afternoon he found a tremendous deal to criticize about the amount of overtime railway workers have to do. Now, I should like the hon. member for Maitland to step on to a public platform and declare that he is in favour of the total abolition of overtime work. I have thousands of railway workers in my constituency, and I come into contact with them every day. During the past fifteen years I have come to know the railwaymen very thoroughly. In general the railwayman is easy to deal with if one knows how to handle him. If one went and made a speech such as that made here this afternoon by the hon. member for Yeoville, then I fear one would not gain the goodwill of the railwaymen. He tried his best to catch a few votes this afternoon, but I am quite sure he did not succeed in doing so. He held it against the Minister that he had given private transport contractors the right to transport coal in Johannesburg, and in that regard he complained about the traffic congestion in the streets of Johannesburg. But I submit that the lorries transporting that coal will not make much difference. Is the hon. member aware of the fact that the number of motor cars in our country has increased tremendously? And, incidentally, the cars would not be there unless there were money to buy them with. In other words, the position of the worker has improved to such an extent that he can now afford a motor vehicle. In fact, under the Nationalist Government the number of motor cars in our country has increased by 200 per cent. If one considers that the number of motor cars has increased by 200 per cent, then surely it is not surprising to find traffic congestion in the streets of Johannesburg. That is obvious. But the question I want to put, is what difference would a few lorries make to this state of affairs?

The hon. member for Yeoville also spoke of a transport crisis. Now I ask myself, when did the hon. member see a transport crisis in our country? We have recently experienced one of the most severe droughts we have ever had in this country. Hundreds and thousands of sheep and cattle had to be transported to other grazing. Great demands were made on the Railways Administration because they had to see to it that this stock was transported. Now let the hon. member get up and tell us whether he knows of a single case where a farmer applied for a truck to transport his stock and could not get it. Hundreds of thousands of cattle and sheep have to be transported to the Johannesburg-complex every day to be slaughtered in order to meet the demand for meat. The hon. member has just mentioned one isolated case where a farmer had to wait fourteen days before he could get a truck to transport his slaughter stock.

I know of cases where it took fourteen days before the slaughter stock arrived at the abattoirs.

That hon. member may have been chairman of the Wool Board, but as far as this matter is concerned, he is completely ignorant. He says many things without knowing what he is talking about, just as he has done many other things without knowing what he was doing. I want to deny the hon. member’s allegation most emphatically. I deny that it takes fourteen days, even from Middelburg, the place where he lives, until slaughter stock arrives in Johannesburg.

Last year during the winter season we had some of the most biting cold this country has ever experienced. The snow lay feet and even yards deep and the whole country shivered from cold. The South African Railways had to transport coal in order to meet people’s requirements. Here, too, tremendous demands were made on the Railways, but these were also met most creditably. I am not saying a person could order a whole truck of coal on a certain day and expect it the following day, but I do not know of a single person who needed coal and who was not satisfied. It is therefore my privilege to congratulate the hon. the Minister, the General Manager and his staff on the great task they have carried out so successfully.

If matters were as successful as you aver, why was it necessary for people who wanted a truck of coal to approach you in that regard?

The hon. member has not been in this House very long…

Answer the question, will you?

Yes, I will. I have no intention of not answering it, as you would. I have come to know my voters, and I presume the hon. member who has put the question to me has also come to know his. A voter sometimes seeks the aid of his M.P. on many matters, and I have always assisted them. But there is another matter I want to touch on. 1 am surprised that the United Party has not reacted to the admission the hon. Minister made yesterday, namely that he is expecting a deficit. As a rule we find that if the Minister shows a surplus, he is accused of not paying his employees enough, and when he shows a deficit, of paying them too much. With a view to the coming election, however, they are now afraid of saying anything of that nature. In their time deficits were their stock-in-trade, of course. In fact, they could never show a surplus. This Minister has seen to it that an equalization fund was established in order to cover any deficit. That will make it unnecessary to increase rates in order to meet such a deficit. Why is there going to be a deficit this year? Has there been a decrease in the amount of goods to be transported? Or has the number of passengers decreased? As regards the wool clip, it was 10 per cent to 15 per cent less than the previous year. Wool is an item which is transported at a high rate, and consequently the South African Railways had to lose a considerable deal of income in this regard.

The transport rate is much too high.

I am not talking about that now. Then there was the drought which prevented many farmers from marketing their stock. The Railways therefore had a lower income in this regard as well. In addition, the quantity of export maize decreased tremendously. What I have now mentioned, are a few of the factors which contributed towards the deficit expected by the Minister. But another item which contributed to a large extent towards this deficit, is providing houses. Of course, the United Party never even thought of providing houses to the Railway workers in their time. When this Government took over in 1948 the position as regards houses for railwaymen was critical. The hon. member for Maitland can take that from me. Many of the workers had to live in corrugated iron shanties. But go and see what they are living in to-day.

How many times have their rents been increased?

I do not know, but I wish I could rent a house at the rental the railwayman pays for his house. Because of our flourishing economy, building costs have increased tremendously over the past number of years. The cost of building materials and of labour has increased to such an extent that the revenue of the Railways has to show the effects of that.

While I am dealing with our growing economy, I want to refer to the fact that the hon. member for Maitland alleged this afternoon that there was not adequate planning in this respect. But let us compare the capital investments in their time with those in our time. In 1948 the total capital investment was R508,000,000, compared with R1,890,000,000 in 1965; in other words, an increase of R1,382,000,000. And what was the revenue from these capital investments? In 1948 it was R165.000,000 compared with R587,000,000 in 1965.

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned I had just made a statement about the capital investment of the South African Railways, in connection with forward planning. I said that in 1948 approximately R508,000,000 had been invested in capital investments, compared with R1,890,000,000 in 1965. That means that in the number of years since the Nationalist Party came into power, there has been an increase of R1,382,000,000. The revenue from those investments showed a corresponding increase; for example, in 1948 the revenue was R165,000,000 and in 1965 it was R587,000,000. In other words, there has been an increase of 350%. That is indeed an achievement to be proud of. I am now going to give you the income and investment capital ratio over a much shorter period. From 1961 to 1965 this ratio increased from 27 ½% to 32 ¼%. Through further planning the railway lines were electrified as a result of the fact that there are certain areas where it may be difficult to get adequate supplies of coal at certain times. As an example. I want to mention a huge undertaking of this nature between Cape Town and Beaufort West, and further construction between Beaufort West and De Aar which is being planned. That is, a distance of just over 500 miles. Further planning—unfortunately the hon. member for Yeoville who said that we had done no planning is not here now—has been undertaken over distances of hundreds miles, where the railway lines were doubled in order to expedite transport. More new lines have also been constructed.

The most extensive planning was carried out, however, when there was the possibility of delay in transporting petrol from Durban to Johannesburg. A pipeline was laid to eliminate that obstacle once and for all. It did not cost nothing; it was done at the exceptionally high cost of R20,000,000. Other expansions which were also carried out as a result of planning—because we had a growing economy—were in connection with passenger coaches. In view of the growing economy it was considered that the passenger transport on the South African Railways would increase very rapidly. The General Manager has stated that the hon. the Minister was justified in assuming that. The number of passenger coaches has increased by nearly 2.000 since 1948. The number of goods wagons has increased tremendously. In 1948 there were only 66.700 goods wagons, compared with 121,725 in 1965. In that respect there has therefore also been an increase of almost 100%. As regards planning, therefore, this Government and in particular the Minister did indeed look ahead, and did what was expected of them. As the number of goods wagons increased, the goods transport also increased. In 1948, 53,000.000 tons of goods were transported, and 104,000,000 tons in 1965. That is another increase of almost 100%. The number of persons making use of the Railways has increased correspondingly. In 1948 the number was 244,000,000 and in 1965 it was 425,000,000. In this connection there was also an increase of just over 90%. As regards the harbours, the amount of traffic has increased to a similar extent. Since the Airways are not under discussion now, I shall not refer to them.

The hon. member for Yeoville launched a tremendous attack on the wages of railway officials. We know what their wages were—we know that very well. We know only too well what the wages of railway officials were when the United Party was shifted from the Government benches. In 1948, 98,065 officials were employed by the Railways—I am speaking of White officials—and they earned R89,000,000; that is, an average of R910 per person.

What could one buy with that at that time and what can one buy with it now?

Let me just make my point, then the hon. member will have nothing more to say about what they bought then and what they can buy now. In 1964 there was a White establishment of 114,789 and they were earning R233,000,000, compared with R89.000.000 in 1948. and compared with an average income of R2,029 per person—an increase of 122 per cent. Now I come to my reply to the observation made by the hon. member for Drakensberg—no wonder she is not standing again—namely, what they have to pay for the things they buy? I do not know what the hon. member means by “thing”, I presume the hon. member means what they have to pay for their food or clothing, and how the cost of living has risen since 1948. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon. member, the two of us can sing at the same time, but we cannot speak at the same time. The salaries of the staff have increased by 122 per cent, and the cost of living has increased by only 65 ½ per cent. Now you can see what they have to pay. The hon. member for Yeoville said the Minister had recently announced an increase, and he asked why the increase had been announced so late. But. Mr. Speaker, I want to have it placed on record that quite a while ago the United Party already started making propaganda among the railway workers and the public servants, that wages had been frozen and that there would be no increases. When the Prime Minister visited De Aar, I mentioned that to him, namely that that was then the propaganda against the Nationalist Party, and particularly against the Railways Department, that the wages of the railway workers and those of the public servants had been frozen. His reaction was immediate: there was nothing of the kind. Wages had never been frozen. He also stated publicly at De Aar that as soon as the State had completed the investigation, the increases would be announced, and that has now been done. Apart from this increase, from which each person will receive R229 per year, the railway’s staff have now been offered an increase of R35,000,000.

Do the figures which the hon. member has quoted include overtime and Sunday-time payments?

They include that. I want to deal with an observation made here this evening. During dinner-time I thought about the observation made by the hon. member for Yeoville. He asked: by how much have the rents been increased in the meantime? The Department of Railways has not raised the rents one cent. I want that to be placed on record. There have been increases as a result of increases in municipal rates, Because of that the rents were increased. That was not a result of an increase by the Railways Department, however, but as a result of rates, which may have been a quarter-penny or a half-penny or a penny in the pound, and which were increased to. say 1 ¼d. That is why the rents were raised in respect of certain houses. That was not as a result of the Government’s policy. The Railways personnel are grateful for that. Apart from the R35,000,000 I have mentioned, an improvement in staff salaries to the amount of R155.000,000 has been made since 1948. If we add to that the R35,000,000, we have an improvement of R190,000,000. I just want to state that Railway workers are very grateful for that.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members have also made the observation, as regards the housing conditions of the railwaymen, that they are being neglected shamefully, In this regard I want to mention three points. The first point is that there are various schemes under which railway workers are assisted. Of course, the hon. members will never publicize that from a platform. There is a departmental housing scheme, a house ownership scheme and a scheme which is supported by the building societies and under which the State contributes 10 per cent and the balance is borrowed from the building societies. Under these three schemes the Department has spent R107,000,000 on housing since 1948. I therefore maintain that the condition of housing for the employees of the South African Railways has improved by more than 200 per cent, compared with what it used to be. At present there is a housing scheme in operation at Noupoort, for example. A considerable number of houses are being built there. I am sure the same applies to Burgersdorp. There are probably other places also where houses are being built. I cannot tell off-hand.

How many railway houses are unoccupied?

Where are the unoccupied houses? There are unoccupied houses in small towns like Noupoort and Hanover, but it is not necessary to have them occupied. There are no longer stations. There are merely ordinary wayside stations. Why do people have to live in those houses? People do not want to be isolated there. It is difficult to have their children transported to school, and there are no social facilities, and I fully agree that those houses should be unoccupied. Why should people live there in isolation?

Now I just want to make a request to the Minister. In the Railways, as everywhere, there is the human factor. Here and there contraventions occur. A railwayman may not commit a contravention. That is also correct. If he contravened, the confidence of the public may be lost. The penalties imposed on railway workers are therefore fairly strict. Now I want to ask the Minister: if a person has served his punishment, if he was fined, suspended, or whatever his punishment was, and he applies again for work on the South African Railways, I ask that he be given another chance. [Time limit.]

Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to some of the figures quoted by the hon. member for De Aar (Colesberg) (Mr. M. J. de la R. Venter) and, coupled with them, similar figures quoted earlier by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. Van Rensburg). He should have known better. He is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Railways. He should at least have known what he was talking about. When one comes to study these impressive figures—and they sound impressive as given by these two hon. members— and you analyse the real value of them, they are completely valueless. Unless those figures take into account the depreciation in the value of money during the period they have quoted —in the early days the pound was worth 20 shillings, and is now worth about nine shillings —and the increase in labour costs, the cost of material, the rocketing cost of living, and the large increase in the number of Railway personnel, these figures are valueless. Unless those figures are reduced to accurate percentages, they are just meaningless in making comparisons. They may be very good figures for use on a public platform at a meeting where people do not have the background to be able to judge them, but to put them over here in an attempt to convince people in this House that this is something to the credit of the Government, in fact really belittles what the Government has done. It does so because those hon. members are trying to put a false face on to what steps the Government has actually taken to effect improvements. I think it is just as well that we explode that fallacy right at the beginning.

In the last session of Parliament, and in a number of previous sessions, the Opposition has time and time again called for realistic improvements in the wages, the general working conditions and the salary scales of Railway employees. You will find the pages of Hansard studded with such requests. You will also find the pages of Hansard equally studded with the at times fairly scornful replies of the hon. the Minister in rejecting any such proposals; rejecting them until he himself and his colleagues found it convenient to give effect to them. We pleaded for a wage and salary scale sufficient to enable the officials and their families to live in decent comfort without being compelled to work excessive hours of overtime and Sunday-time—to spend the hours that heaven sent, away from home in order to keep the wheels turning and in order to earn sufficient to make ends meet and to keep their home together in ordinary common decency. Those are the things that we pleaded for, Sir. And with what result? As I say, we often got a scornful rejection of our pleas. Requests from the Railways Staff Associations in the main met with the same replies. Until the hon. the Minister felt that it was expedient to acquiesce to them, the answer was an emphatic “no”. Railwaymen and their families were left to struggle along as best they could, making ends meet by having to work the excessive overtime reflected in the figures just quoted by the hon. member for De Aar (Colesberg). This was time that they should not have been expected to work long hours in order to earn a living wage. During those same times, the Railways were producing record surpluses year after year. It became common-place for these hidden millions or rands to come along as surpluses. They were those buoyant years when the staff might justifiably have expected to experience some relief—some relief as their share of the extra income the extra wealth which their efforts had helped to earn for the Railways. It is in times of such buoyancy and big surpluses, even when such surpluses are to some extent the result of planned surplus budgeting, that the staff have a right to expect some increase. But this is not such a time, Sir. In his speech introducing this Part Appropriation Bill, the hon. the Minister had a very different story to tell. He told us of the progress still being made, but he also told us that he was unable to make any reliable forecast of the financial results of this year owing to the change which has taken place in the last few months. He told us of the general decrease in income in certain sections of the Railway’s activities. He also told us that any deficit would be met from the Railway Rates Equalization Fund—funds themselves substantially increased during the buoyant years by money earned to a large extent as a result of the loyalty of the Railway staff and put away into these funds instead of a portion of it at least being allocated to the relief of the men who helped to earn it. If these increases had been awarded earlier, they might well have relieved those men of much of the worry and hardship which they and their families are being called upon to endure. I should like to warn those families even now that—fine as the position may seem at the moment—these advances are only a very temporary loan that they are being granted. They will soon be more than swallowed up by the rocketing cost of living which is, to a large extent, due to the ineptitude of the present Government’s management. Is it because there is a general election only eight weeks ahead that the hon. the Minister has used this advance Budget speech—an advance Budget speech in which the Budget itself was not forthcoming—to paint the brightest possible picture of the Railway position, calculated to win support for the Government on election day? It may be a natural thing for any Minister in office to use these things to the best advantage. I am not quibbling about that. But is that one of the reasons that has brought about this change of mind? The hon. the Minister has painted rosy pictures of the increased services and the improvements in the majority of the principal departments of the Administration. The actual position is, of course, not quite so rosy as the Minister painted it. What actually happened was that the tremendous economic and industrial expansion in the Republic over the first half of this year, coupled with the vast expenditure which has taken place to put the Railways in a position to cope with such increased traffic, compelled the increased transport services to carry the extra load of traffic. The extra load was there as a result of the boom. The State provided the extra money to allow the Railways to be in the position to meet that. The Railways were really carrying the extra load as their part of the boom. That demand on their services continued, as the Minister’s figures showed, until the Cabinet, of which this Minister is a senior member, found themselves quite unable to deal with the problems of national prosperity. What did they do then? They took urgent and clumsy measures to put brakes on the boom. The second portion of the hon. the Minister’s speech reflects the application of those brakes—brakes on the boom of prosperity which, I will have you remember, Sir, the Government, through the hon. Minister of Finance, claimed that they had planned, and that the Cabinet had planned. This is the boom the Cabinet claim to have planned, a boom which one of the Prime Minister’s several economic advisory bodies not only forecast, but advised the Government of the anticipated annual percentage expansion to be expected. So that they should have been in a position to meet the boom and to deal with it. They had all the advance information of the experts for a boom that they themselves had planned. With this pre-warning and advice, this House voted the Minister and his Administration all the money necessary for them to play their part in it. I want to give a couple of examples to contradict the hon. the Minister’s claim. The Minister stated that the Railways were equipped to transport coal in the country over long distances. This is not a new claim. The country has heard that claim not once but many times, but the country from one end to the other will not lightly forget the annual coal crises which have been created despite these promises, due mainly to the Administration’s failure to transport at any time the coal that the country needed. The public will not lightly forget the dangerous state to which power stations and industrial organizations are reduced every winter and the chaotic conditions created in the Northern Provinces nearer the coalfields when the Administration was forced to throw open the transport of coal to road traffic as they were incapable of handling it by rail, and the conditions which that caused, leading to major public inconvenience narrowly skirting danger in many spheres. These inconveniences and risks are what the public will set against the Minister’s reassurances that they are now in a position to meet the demand for the long-distance transport of coal. There is also the failure of the Railways to pursue an active policy of stockpiling coal at strategic points at times when the coal is not being heavily consumed, e.g. in summer. In this city the bins provided in the new power-stations many years ago have never been filled to capacity to this day, either in summer or in winter. One would expect them to be filled in summer to help carry the winter increased load, but that is not done and the City Council has been unable to stockpile the necessary amount of coal during the summer season. That is the information which has been given to me.

I want to deal with the harbours, which are a key point in our national development. They are the gateway to exports and imports without which the whole of the Republic’s economic life would soon come to a standstill. The Minister said that harbour requirements were under constant survey. I have not the slightest doubt that that statement is correct and that they are under constant survey. There have undoubtedly been certain improvements. They form portion of the forward planning of the Government. The Minister quoted Richards Bay as an example of this forward’ planning, but Richards Bay itself is a very special case. Basically it is being developed as a strategic port, in view of the Republic’s over-all defences towards the east. Special facilities will be provided there for the bulk handling of coal and ore, to be exported eastwards, a demand which is growing very urgent. It is not to be considered on the same plane as the normal commercial ports of the country at this moment. It may be that at a later stage it will. But I want to come to our other main ports which are already in use, and on which the country has to depend.

The Minister gave what appeared to be imposing percentage figures of the increased cargo dealt with, ranging from 15 per cent to 20 per cent over the various ports, but again the public, commerce and industry, cannot get the Government to take action in time, they cannot forget the pressure needed to get action when there were queues of ships lying off our ports day after day unable to get alongside and cargoes were held up due to port congestion. The public cannot forget the delays in landing urgently needed materials and the attendant serious hold-ups of development work for which they are required. Commerce and industry and the public cannot forget the transhipment of cargo over-carried because the vessels could not put into port and the cargoes had to be taken somewhere else and then had to be transhipped back at increased cost. The need for that expansion also was not unforeseen. Warning after warning has been given to the Government and the Administration that this demand was inevitable, but the answer came too little and too late. This is also part of the boom planned and forecast by the Prime Minister’s economic advisers. The Railways should have been ready for it. They had the advance information. Yes, there is expansion taking place in our ports, valuable expansion, and I do not want to belittle that for a moment, but it is expansion forced on to the Administration when it is no longer able to ignore the existing demands and port congestion. But, in many cases, as I say, it is too little and too late. Take the example of our own development here in Cape Town, the new oil berth. If you study Hansard, Sir, you will see that from the very first day that scheme was spoken of, the Official Opposition warned the Government that the berth was too small to deal with the tankers already in existence and plying off our coasts. Now it has been generally accepted that it is too small before it has even been completed. We are faced with the trouble of having to find berths for the bigger tankers which are coming along every day and which will continue to come here whether we want them or not. In an earlier session the Minister said that the oil companies would have to suit the ships to the accommodation available. But companies do not do that. Within reason one should provide the accommodation for the ships one needs.

I want to quote another example, the fishing harbour for Table Bay, which has been bandied about between one Department and the other for over two years now, one Department passing the buck to the other. It is something desperately needed to clear the main commercial dock for shipping and to provide for the much-needed expansion, a harbour which will cater for deep-sea fishing craft, vessels of from anything up to 3.000 tons, including the carriers and the parent ships, and of trawlers of 500 or 600 tons. These are things which are urgently needed, but there seems to be very little progress made. If this is part of the forward planning, it is time that we got a move on. It is a sort of departmental “over to you. Jack”. Each Department dodges the issue. The Minister may well plead that the expansion and the development have been delayed by his acute shortage of staff. He can well claim that because it is a fact, especially the shortage of experienced engineering staff which is essential for planning and carrying out the development. But our charge is that the Minister as a senior member of the Cabinet must accept his full share of responsibility for this shortage. He was one of the Cabinet which made the decision which rendered this shortage inevitable, the decision to destroy the already operating United Party immigration plan which was in full swing when this Government came into power and for which the country is paying the price to-day. Something which this Government has done its best to try to revive. The Minister himself told us that on three occasions he sent missions overseas to try to recruit staff and that these proved failures. That is not a valid excuse; it is something for which the Government itself must take the responsibility.

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) in his opening remarks referred to the unfortunate fate of the Government’s attempt to build up the immigration scheme they initially destroyed, an action for which the whole of the Republic is paying a bitter price to-day. The national life of the country is suffering, and the public will not lightly forget that.

Order! That is irrelevant.

I could give other costly failures of the Cabinet of which the Minister is a senior member, but I want to refer to two other matters. The first is a matter which has already been discussed briefly by previous speakers; I just want to touch on another phase of it, and that is the penalty which Railway pensioners suffer through the application of the means test to their special allowance which augments the Railway pension. The pension of the railwayman is his own property. It has been bought and paid for by his deductions and by his years of loyal service to the country. He should be like any other man. This country is in need of skilled technicians and many of the Railway pensioners are the right type of people who can give that skilled assistance. But if they go to work outside of the State employment they are penalized by this deduction from the special allowance. The special allowance is given to bring the money value of the pension into line with the value of money to-day, and in that sense it becomes a portion of the man’s pension which he has bought and paid for. Any tax applied to that is equivalent to a tax on his pension. To me it is a shocking thing that at a time when we are in such desperate need of the additional services of such men, they are prevented from earning that little extra money they so desperately need to have comfort in their old age, and they are also prevented from providing the additional services the country so desperately needs because the money they earn is then reduced by this deduction, a practice which does not apply in any other sphere. It would not apply if they worked for the State. Why should it apply if they work elsewhere? They may work for a contractor working for the State and building a railway line which is desperately needed. If the man works on the railway line for the Administration there is no deduction, but if he works on the opposite side of the fence for the contractors he suffers this deduction. The hon. member for Yeoville said it was discrimination, but in fact it goes a long way beyond discrimination.

Then I want to touch on one last point. It will probably be the last time I shall be able to make this request of the Minister in this House. It deals with two very old friends of the Minister and I. That is the suburban railway system and its passengers, and I refer particularly to the suburban railways in the Peninsula and the Northern Areas. One of the Railways’ most important assets is the suburban railway passenger, even though the Minister’s figures show that in the books these lines are run at a loss. But it is a very valuable loss, because it eventually promotes very sound gains nationally for the country. Despite the progress made in the Peninsula, and there has been progress made on the suburban lines, there is room for much greater improvement in our suburban railway system including in the northern areas as far as the Strand there are still too many trains running late at peak times of the day, there are still far too few express trains to the more distant areas. There are still too many suburban railway stations which qualify better as national monuments than as modern railway stations. These national monuments of the past have long outlived their service and they have long been overdue for replacement. They are far too unattractive under present-day conditions to attract passengers to them. Through their condition including their lack of parking facilities they chase away customers, and the Railways should be a business attracting customers. They force people to travel into the city by car, instead of parking their cars at the stations and going into the city by train I can quote stations in my own constituency of which I have personal knowledge, where the Administration completely failed to keep abreast with local population development in the areas they serve. They might have been good enough 50 years ago, but these stations are quite obsolete to-day. Commercial and industrial development are faster and faster driving residential development southward towards Simonstown and northward towards Bellville. With it there is the demand for residential property, for housing the people who now have to travel backwards and forwards. Coloured passengers, according to the Railway returns, are a most valuable asset on the suburban lines, quite apart from our Whites. In the Retreat-Steenberg area in my constituency there are approximately 4,000 nonWhite workers employed in factories which have developed in that area over the last ten or 12 years. At Retreat there are some 1,500 or more Coloured families working all over the Peninsula but living there in the big municipal housing scheme. But the Retreat station and others are so dangerously overcrowded at peak periods that the train staffs are unable to cope with the crush of passengers trying to get in and out of the trains. I asked that the railway police should help on the stations, but I was told it was not their duty to keep order on the stations. If this is so then Heaven only knows what their duties are. But dangers which affect both White and non-White passengers are developing in this respect in that area and in others. The Minister’s engineers have reported for a long time that the first thing that has to be done to bring the suburban services into a proper state of efficiency is for another pair of tracks to be laid at least as far as Plumstead and for another single pair of tracks from there on to Simonstown. Unless that is done, the engineers have reported that it is quite impossible to provide the express service necessary for the more distant areas and to cope with the traffic demand which is developing in those parts. With that must go a comprehensive rebuilding and modernization of the railway stations themselves, including parking facilities. This will be costly but it is essential for railway development to cater for the growing passenger demand in those areas which are not served by any other form of public transport. I want to put this suggestion to the Minister, that he makes this a long-term plan and that he appoint a special committee from amongst his professional staff to work in collaboration with the local authorities and the other interests concerned in those areas. To put forward a planned development of the railways in those areas so that the Administration can develop a five-year plan, or whatever you like to call it, to carry out that development and put the railways in those areas on to a sound footing. It has to come and only such a report can lead to that development. I commend that to the Minister as something well worth doing.

Sir, if you will permit me, I want to say a few closing words. I have spent many years as a member of the Select Committee on Railways of this House. I should like to take this last opportunity I will have in the House to convey to the staff and that Committee itself my appreciation for their co-operation and assistance at all times, and to congratulate the Minister on having such a loyal, experienced and efficient staff without whom the railways in this country could not function. They have given their best as Railway servants in the best interests of the country.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is with appreciation that we can all bear witness to the dedication with which the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) has fulfilled his functions as member of the House and in particular to the exceptional interest he has taken in Railway matters as a member of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours. We can bear witness to the fact that he has always done his duty, that he has never been bitter in his criticisms and that he was never a person who fought offensively.

The hon. member touched upon a few matters which have already been replied to in full by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. Van Rensburg) and other colleagues on this side, there was the question of the increases in salaries and pensions for example, and I do not intend spending any more time on those matters. The hon. member also complained— or so it seemed to me—about the fact that there has not been a serious transport crisis in the country during the past few years. It is a fact that the Railways have in recent times been and are to-day able to transport everything offered to them. We here in the Cape, who are the furthest removed from the coal fields, experienced a very severe winter last year, and there was no coal crisis. It now seems to me that the hon. member for Simonstown found it a pity that there had been no coal crisis.

Then I would just like to refer to another point made by the hon. member, i.e. in respect of harbour development. Since 1954 tremendously great amounts have been spent on our country’s Railways and Harbour system in respect of capital development, and since 1954 the tempo has never slackened. Of the R1,890,000,000 capital investment spent by the Railways, R101,000,000 went towards harbour development, and since 1950 when 12,000,000 harbour tons were handled in all our harbours collectively the tonnage increased until last year it was 13,500,000 harbour tons. The revenue from our harbours increased from R2,400,000 in 1950 to R28,000,000 in 1965. This gives an indication of what a tremendous increase there was in traffic. But there was attendant development. Anyone going through the country with open eyes could bear witness to the tremendous development which there has been in the harbours. But the remonstrations of the hon. member and his party here, where they come forward with an argument—practically a reproach—against the Minister that there has been a stoppage in the harbours, are inconsistent. I want to tell the hon. member that a few years ago when the Railways, as a result of this tremendous capital development, were a little ahead of the country’s economy and practically had reserve carrying capacity the Opposition said: We should now invest less capital in the Railways and Harbours; we should keep the development in check. But where would we have been to-day if we had followed their advice?

Owing to the dearth of arguments on the other side of the House. I want to dwell for a moment on one matter raised by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn). This is the accusation levelled at the hon. Minister that he had neglected to inform this House fully of all the activities of the Railways, and had neglected to draw a picture of the possibilities for the Railways in the immediate future, particularly in the financial sphere, and that the Minister, instead of doing that, had made use of his speech to make a pre-election political speech. Sir, we are faced with an election. Nobody can get away from that fact. We are coming to the end of a term of government by this side of the House and I think it is no less than right that the Minister should, on an occasion such as this, a last occasion before the election, give an account of his stewardship and the activities of his Department. I think the hon. member for Yeoville would be very much in the wrong if he did not see this matter in the same light. All that the Minister did was to tell this House, and it was for the information of the country too, what the Railways have done over the past few years; how they have acquitted themselves of their task and what the development was in every department. The United Party does not like that however. The United Party does not like hearing where we picked up the Railways in 1948, and they do not like hearing about what achievements the Railways has been capable of over the past years under the Nationalist regime. That is why I want to dwell on a number of these aspects to-night, and in particular I want to point out what an important role the Railways has played in the development of South Africa during recent years. The development of the transport system of Africa is intimately connected with the development of our country’s economy and its progress and in the economic field and to-day we are having it good. In recent years under the Nationalist regime there has been an unprecedented development in the industrial sphere. Our country’s transport system played a decisive role in this progress and prosperity. In this process of industrial development and economic growth our national transport service was not a mere camp-follower. The transport service was not carried on the back of economic progress. The Railways was an important tool which was used to initiate, extend and carry on the development in our country. Wherever it went in our country the Railways carried along with it prosperity and development. It made a real and vital contribution to the development of every sector of our national economy, and under this Nationalist regime it performed this comprehensive and responsible task with great distinction.

This national transport system of South Africa of which we, together with the United Party and every railwayman, can be justly proud to-night played its part in various different spheres and I cannot go into all the aspects, but there are a few aspects in regard to which the United Party and ourselves took up diametrically opposed stands, and I want to deal with one or two of them to-night.

In the first place I want to mention the tariffs policy of the Railways. This is a matter on which the United Party and ourselves never saw eye to eye. There is no doubt that the Railway tariffs policy which was implemented under this Government made a valuable contribution to the development, not only of our secondary industries, but to our overall national economy. With its tariff policy of “what the traffic can afford”, the Railways succeeded not only in benefiting individuals and limited groups and interests, but also in serving the country as a whole.

Namaqualand as well?

Yes, with its road transport system. Against this policy of what the traffic can afford, the United Party stood by the so-called principle of “the costs of the service”, whereby there has to be a separate tariff covering the transport costs for each separate article. I now want to point out how, as a result of the tariffs policy which was pursued under the Nationalist Government, the country’s economy benefited and the development we have to-day was able to take place. In the first place I want to mention agriculture, and in this regard every farmer and anybody who looks around him and takes in what he sees, can bear witness to the fact that the Railway tariffs have made a considerable contribution to the promotion of our agriculture and the stabilization of our agricultural products. Nobody can deny this. For example, there were special tariffs to promote maize exports; there were special tariffs for export fruit; there were other tariffs for agricultural machinery and fertilizers. There were also special tariffs for fodder, for the transportation of cattle from drought-stricken areas, and without these special tariffs agriculture would not have been able to develop to the extent it has developed. In these difficult times through which agriculture is going to-day, where would it have been without these special tariffs which the Railways introduced for agriculture?

Are you now fighting for the farmers?

Take the mining industry for example. We know to-day what an important factor coal is in every industry. During all these years the Railways delivered coal through the length and breadth of South Africa, sometimes under very difficult circumstances …

Sometimes not at all.

…at tariffs for which no other cartage contractor or private body could do so. No other member on the opposite side can dispute this fact. Bring me anybody to-day who would transport coal from the Reef to Cape Town at the same tariffs. But this is a service which the Railways rendered to the country and all the industries. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Yeoville must not come along here as he did this afternoon, with the criticism that the private cartage contractors should be allowed to undertake more transport. Private cartage contractors do not want to render these services to the nation. The Railways have been called to do so and over the years they have performed this task magnificently. But apart from coal, there were also low tariffs for the transport of export ore and in this way our mining industry was encouraged by the tariffs structure of the Railways, as carried out under the policy of the hon. Minister.

Take our secondary industries for example. We know that during the pre-war years, when South Africa was beginning to develop in the economic sphere, the Railways had special distribution and preference tariffs in order to encourage young industries, to enable them to sell their products in South Africa in competition with imported products, and if it had not been for that, many of the flourishing industries which we have in South Africa to-day would never have existed. They owe their present existence to this stimulus which they received from the national transport system under the policy of this Government.

Mention one.

The hon. member does not know what he is talking about. The hon. member should not try and make my speech for me; he will hear all about it from me before I resume my seat! Mr. Speaker, even to-day there are special low tariffs on the transport of raw materials intended for manufacturing purposes. Even to-day the industries are being helped in this way by the national transport organization of our country, and in order to promote exports, there is still a special system of export tariffs as a result of which the Railways sacrifices an estimated R3,000,000 in revenue each year.

Who wrote that speech for you?

I do not come from Danskraal! I am saying that our industries have been encouraged by all these means, by means of this tariff structure policy of the Railways, so that it could reach the level on which it is standing to-day. But there are other aspects as well. The Railways has made itself felt in our national housekeeping, in our national economy and in other ways as well. Just take for example the Railways’ role as consumer. The Railways, as hon. members all know, is one of the largest consumers in our country, and, true to the policy of the National Party of putting South Africa first, of purchasing South African products first, the Railways has over the year spent enormous amounts in our country.

How many steel rails did it have to import?

I shall come in a moment to that aspect of imports. Railway purchases at the moment total approximately R150,000,000 per annum. That is proof of the tremendous buying power of the Railways. It is proof of the tremendous influence which the Railways has on our country’s economy. The purchases of locally manufactured goods total approximately R125,000,000 per annum. In its policy of preference for South African goods the Railways even went so far as to purchase locally manufactured goods at a price which in many cases was 10 per cent higher than the price for which it could be imported—something which the Opposition would never have done.

We come to another field, the field of industrial development, and here I can tell hon. members opposite that many industries in South Africa came into being as a result of, and are to-day still totally dependent for their existence on the orders they get from the Railways, and if it were not for the Railway orders and the fact that the Railways had those industries manufacture its requirements, then those industries, some of which are vital to our economy, would never have come into being and would never have been able to survive. In this way the Railways is, for example, one of the major purchasers of steel goods in our country.

Tell us something about imported steel.

I shall come in a moment to things we imported. Ten years ago we still imported ore, passenger vehicles and electric locomotives. It never occurred to United Party men that these things could be manufactured in South Africa. To-day the Railways spends millions of rands each year on the manufacture of Railway vehicles, passenger vehicles and electric locomotives here in our country. The United Party men, if they had been in office, would still have been importing those things to-day. That is my reply to the hon. member for Orange Grove.

I inquired about steel rails which were being imported.

There is another aspect which we cannot refrain from mentioning. The Railways has a tremendously great staff, and each month the staff earn approximately R25,000,000, thanks to this Nationalist Government which does not make them work for starvation wages as the United Party Government did in its day, and that R25,000,000 reaches the remotest corners of our country and every little shop in the remotest corners of our country is benefited by the buying power of the railwayman. But I want to make another point here: The Railways to-day is the largest employer in the country; the Railways to-day affords many White people coming from the country districts who have very little education and no vocational training, people who could find a refuge nowhere else, the opportunity of making a decent living, and that is why we are grateful for this tremendous role which the Railways has played in the development of our country over the past 17 years. Ten per cent of our national income to-day derives from the Railways and from our joint transport services.

This is a brief sketch of the Railways’ contribution to the stimulation of our country’s economy. Every Railway servant can be as proud as we are to-day of the achievements of the Railways over the past 17 years under the Nationalist Party regime.

The Government despite.

Why were the Railways able to meet the high demands made of them during those years? I shall tell you: It was because this transport system of South Africa, under this Nationalist Government, was built up into the most modern and most effective national transport system in the world. It has always been the aim of the Administration and the Management to strive single-mindedly to achieve the greatest measure of success as well as of efficiency and modernization, and they have succeeded in carrying out properly, this important, primary function which the Railways has to fulfil, namely to promote the national development by means of cheap transport. They have succeeded in making available first-class transport services at the lowest tariffs. Efficiency and modernization was the watchword of the Administration, and in order to achieve that they strove to maintain certain fundamental policy principles. I want to mention just one of them, and that is the policy of the electrification of our railway system. More than 4,200 route miles of our tremendous railway network have been electrified to-day and more than 1,000 route miles of electrified line is under construction. On the other hand, the Railways made a start with the introduction of diesel power on certain lines to replace steam power. This policy of the introduction of electrical tractive power and diesel power has brought about a revolution in our railway transport system.

Why are you no longer purchasing diesel locomotives?

The hon. member for Orange Grove will have an opportunity later of raking all kinds of difficulties out of the ditch; he will have the opportunity to do that; I shall treat him with the contempt he deserves.

To prove what a revolution took place as a result of the use of tractive power I can mention that over the past ten years the use of steam tractive power remained practically constant. Electrical tractive power on the other hand, which was 4,897,000 lbs. in 1951. increased to 21,887,000 lbs. last year.

A lot of money.

Mr. speaker, if we spend money on the railways in order to modernize the railway system so as to be able to comply with the transport requirements of the country, then hon. members on the opposite side say that we are spending a lot of money; if the railways fails to comply with the high demands made of it, then they say on the other hand that we neglected to invest sufficient money in the railways. that is precisely how a united party man argues! the joint diesel power in 1951 was 17,000 lbs., in 1965 it was 7,192,000 lbs. in 1950 we only had two diesel locomotives, and now we have 168 in operation. in their day this sort of thing never occurred to the united party: In this way this Government has built up the Railways so that it was and still is able to supply in full the transport requirements of the country.

I just want to mention in conclusion that the National Party can come along here at the end of its term and make a proud report of its stewardship. Thanks to the primary actions of the Railways, the Railways can to-day transport all the traffic which it is offered. Things are going well with the Railways and for that reason things are going well with South Africa too. But things would not have gone so well if the Railways had had to operate under a United Party regime, for it is the Nationalist Government which protected the national transport system of ours against being demolished by the Opposition; it is the United Party who agitated over the years that some of the best sources of revenue of the National railway system should be drawn away to private bodies. In this way they wanted to break the so-called transport monopoly in South Africa, but what they really had at the back of their minds was that they wanted to break the Railways—and they could not succeed in this because the Nationalist Government took our national transport service under its protection. The United Party wanted to go further in its process of demolition. At a certain stage some of the pre-eminent members of the Opposition said that the Minister was wrong in his policy of investing as much capital in the Railways as he in fact did.

Who said that?

It was said by the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje), by the former member for Wynberg. Mr. Russell, by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) and by other members on that side. I quoted it chapter and verse last year and laid it as the door of the hon. member for Yeoville. I am saying that the Opposition wanted to break the Railways by curtailing the development of the Railways and by drawing off the best sources of revenue of the Railways to private interests. The United Party wanted to break the Railways because they are not fond of the Railways; because the railwayman votes Nationalist. The United Party is therefore quite welcome to woo the officials of the Railways Administration like cooing doves. They, however, will know who their friends were in the past and who their friends still are to-day. Under all economic circumstances South Africa has been able to rely on the contribution of the national transport services. In times of prosperity it was there to do its share, but in times of economic setbacks too, as in the early 60’s when South Africa had its back to the wall and was being attacked both from within and without and when attempts were being made, with the approval of hon. members on the opposite side, to bring it to its knees, when they were doing everything in their power to place obstacles in our way, when they were putting their seal of approval on the attempts which were being made to break South Africa economically, then the Railways were there, in times of need, too, to do its share. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just sat down made a speech which was illuminating at least in one respect. Until the last three or four minutes of his speech, it indicated one thing which I had never known before and that is that the hon. member is able to read. He has obviously read the report of the General Manager and he has summed up that report by extracting from it certain isolated statistics which he thought would make an attractive-sounding election speech. [Interjections.] Well, obviously I have misjudged the hon. member. I am sorry, if he has not read the report then it is a strange coincidence; then someone must have told him what was in the report, because his speech was nothing but a summary of the highlights of the General Manager’s report until in the last five minutes of his speech he accused this side of the House of trying to sabotage the Railways. He used the words “waar ons die Spoorwee opgetel het in 1948”. Sir, I will tell them where they pick it up in 1948. They picked up a Railway Administration which had on the Brown Book £231,000,000 (R462,000,000) of planned, approved development. Provision was made for that development in the Brown Book passed by Parliament, passed by the United Party Government. And what did his Government do with that developmental project? They cancelled it; they “scrubbed” the lot and having “scrubbed” it they then appointed a commission to investigate why they had “scrubbed” it. It was something like the grievances commission they appointed at the same time. They were going to show in what a shambles the Railways were and, by political incitement and nothing more nor less than political incitement, they got 3.000 people to lodge complaints before their grievances commission, and even their own commission—and that is saying a lot for a Nat commission—could only find a handful of justifiable complaints. Even their own commission, appointed to investigate the capital development programme—and the hon. member cannot deny it; he knows it is true—found that apart from a few pictures and a couple of hotels every single cent of that R462,000,000 developmental project was urgently needed. I challenge the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé) or the member who speaks after him to produce the figures in this House of the developmental programme of the United Party and the amount spent on capital development by that Government from the time they came into power.

Your priorities were all wrong.

What they took over from us was a railway system functioning effectively and efficiently and meeting the demands of the country’s transport, but what is more, it was a railway system which was functioning despite the fact that for six years some 35,000 of the Railway employees were serving their country in its armed forces; were building bridges and tunnels and roads in North Africa, in Italy. On the Continent of Africa, on the front doorstep of the White man’s security in South Africa. The railwaymen of South Africa were doing their duty to South Africa while the supporters of that party were blowing up the very railway bridges which we handed over to them. Not only did we have to keep the railways going, we had to have guards on every bridge and on every station. We had to have civilian guards on every set of points guarding them against the supporters of that party, who were not using words to sabotage the Railways but who were using the bombs of the enemies of South Africa to blow up the bridges over which the White people of South Africa were riding in the trains of this country, endangering the lives of the people of South Africa, endangering the lives of women and children; yet the hon. member asks: “Waar het ons die Spoorweë opgetel in 1948?” [Interjections.]

Sir, I want to come back from the past; I want to come to the present, to this afternoon, and I want to refer to two speeches made by hon. members opposite. [Interjections.] I am not referring to the bleating of the goat of Cradock—I mean the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker), who may soon be back in his little kraal amongst his sheep. I want to refer firstly to the speech of the hon. membor for Bloemfontein (East) Mr. van Rensburg) who accused us on the United Party benches of making political capital by pleading for an increase in the wages of railway servants. When we pleaded for the railwaymen last year and the year before and said that it was in the interests of South Africa that the railwaymen should receive an increase they accused us of making political capital; they accused us of trying to buy votes. I want to put this to that side of the House: If to ask for an increase is bribery, if to ask for an increase is trying to buy votes, then what is giving an increase? The hon. member says it is in order; it is O.K. to buy the voters—to give the increase—but it is wrong to plead for an increase. I want to say to every member on that side of the House—and I say this without fear of contradiction—that if the United Party had not fought tooth and nail for two years for an improvement in railway salaries and in conditions of service, they would not have got the increase before the election. The railwaymen have got their increases because of the fight that we put up, because of the demands that we made and because of the knowledge of hon. members opposite that eventually they would have to accede to our demands. Now they come along and say: “Look what we have done; we have given the railwaymen an increase”— three years too late and too little, because for three years the cost of living in South Africa has crept up and up, ahead of the salary and wage increases of the railway servants, and now that the increase has come on the eve of an election, what is the position? We note that the election is so close the the railwaymen will probably still have a few cents of that money left before they pay the debts which they incurred over the last few years. For three years the Railway servants and the Public Servants of South Africa had to incur debt and more debt. This increase will do no more than pay what they have already incurred in the way of debt. It will not put them on the road to a better future; it will only help to meet the liabilities which they have already incurred. The hon. member for Parow spoke here in glowing terms of the wages paid to railwaymen; he said “Ons gee hulle nie ’n hongerloon nie”. Sir, this is the fishy thing about the hon. member’s speech: He represents a Railway constituency but apparently now he is not interested in the welfare of the railwaymen. He referred to railwaymen once in his speech and that was to indicate how much they were contributing to the economy of South Africa What is fishy about his speech is not only his lack of concern for the poor man, the railwayman, the man who has to live and struggle to exist on the salary he earns but that he called it a wage which is not “ ’n hongerloon”. Now, I do not know what railwaymen he has in his constituency, Mr. Speaker. But the week before I came to Cape Town I dealt with the pathetic case of a man with a wife and four children living on a pathetic £35 per month. I repeat, Sir, a mere £35 per month nett. Out of that he had to pay his rent, buy clothing and food and send his children to school. Is that not a “hongerloon”? Why, I pay my Bantu driver almost more than that. He receives £35 a month, and yet hon. members opposite say they do not pay a “hongerloon”, and that a hunger wage was paid by the United Party. What does that hon. member regard as a hunger wage, Mr. Speaker? [Interjections.] Or has he become so far removed from the troubles and struggles of the ordinary man that he no longer feels for them? Has he grown so far away from the men who have to battle to make ends meet that he can no longer feel for them? I say to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, if I were a member of the Government party, and the Government made people live to-day on a mere £35 per month, a man with a wife and family having a responsible job in the Government Administration, I would not get up and thank the hon. the Minister and the Government. I would get up and demand a better life and a better future for those people. My charge against this Administration and this hon. the Minister is that the lower-paid worker on the railways is not treated as a human being. He is treated like a cypher, a number fed into a calculating machine or computer. The only interest which the Government seems to have in the worker, Mr. Speaker, is how he comes out as a statistic. Look at this report of the General Manager of the Railways. In it the worker is treated as a statistic. We read here how many workers per thousand are killed; how many passengers per million are injured; how many tons per mile are transported. Read this report and it becomes clear it is but the calculations of a computer. The human element is missing. It is the human element which regards people as individuals as human beings which is missing. I want to give the House an example of what I mean. I have recently written to the hon. the Minister about the matter, but I have not yet received a reply from him because it is too soon. I will give a striking example of how workers are treated as mere statistics, strangled by the red tape of the Administration. I have had three cases this year of men who were charged with offences in civil courts. They alleged that they were victimized by a railway policeman whom they had annoyed. He charged them but they were found not guilty and discharged. They were completely exonerated from any blame. In the process they were suspended from duty for between six and eight months each. In the process one of the men incurred over R1,000 legal expenses, whilst the others incurred R300 and R400 each in legal fees. As I said, they were found not guilty and cleared of the charge against them. They were not charged departmentally for contravening any railway regulation. They were not subjected to any disciplinary action. They were reinstated but told they were not going to be paid for the period of suspension. Last week one of those men was notified that his period of suspension was being regarded as unpaid leave. The Administration said that because of that leave of absence he would have deducted from subsequent salaries the usual pay-sheet deductions which would have occurred had he been paid a salary during the suspension, namely stoppages for insurance, housing, pension, and various deductions. This means that at the end of his first month he will probably draw no pay at all. At the whim of one person who laid a charge against him he has in effect been fined six months’ pay. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider this regulation which lays down that if a man is suspended and reinstated in the service with no railway conviction against him he nevertheless loses his pay for the period of suspension. It has been a proud principle of South African justice that a man is innocent until he is proved guilty. But as far as the hon. the Minister of Transport is concerned, we have a new principle, namely that a man is guilty until found innocent. And having been found innocent, there is no reinstatement with retrospective effect. I want to plead that where a man has been found innocent by the courts, he must be reinstated and be paid for the full period of his suspension.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. members for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé) and Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) came here with a multitude of figures to illustrate what the Government was doing and has done for the worker. But I allege that the figures quoted by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) were nothing else but a political trick. The hon. member had the temerity to inform this House this afternoon that the workers on the South African Railways had received R1,600,000 in increases since 1948. I challenge him at the time by way of interjection. Do you know how he calculates his figures, Mr. Speaker? He takes the increase granted in 1949 and multiplies it by 17, because the workers have had it for 17 years. Then he takes the 1950 increase and multiplies that by 16, and he adds it to the previous figure. So he takes year by year and multiplies the increase by one figure less and then he adds all the figures up. So he ends up with a figure of R1.600,000.000. He divides it by 18 years. That figure is divided by 200,000 employees-—both Black and White—giving one a figure of R440 per year. Now, Mr. Speaker, ask any railwayman whether he has received R440 per year increase for 14 years. The hon. member makes such a statement, well knowing that very few people are going to check on it. He knows very few railwaymen will take the trouble to sit down with a pencil and piece of paper and work it all out. He believes he will thereby mislead the railwaymen of South Africa into saying, “Look what the Government has done for us. it has given us nearly R500 a year increase.” The correct figure is something like R4 per month. A mere R50 per year. That is the figure for a period extending over 18 years. And that is the measure of the immense generosity of the Nationalist Party! This is how they try to mislead the workers. This is how they try to make them think what a wonderful time they are having. Because already people are beginning to forget their debts of last year and the previous year Their wives have had to go out and work to make ends meet. If not, they have had to borrow money or find it in some way or other. Somehow they have managed to struggle through at a lower standard of living. They have managed to keep going.

Do you believe that?

Yes. And I not only believe it but 1 know it. [Interjections.] And the tragedy is that people like the hon. member for Somerset East, the hon. member for the non-existent constituency … [Interjections.]. No wonder it has disappeared. They have come with the most shocking exhibition I have seen in this House for many years. I refer to the scandalous allegations by the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Knobel). This hon. member stood up this afternoon and said he would go to his voters and tell them that this side of the House intended to put Black men in to work beside them, side by side, on the basis of the rate for the job. [Interjections]. Now, apart from the question of whether he is going to have a constituency when Basutoland is finished with him. the hon. member ought to know—and if he does not, he does not deserve to sit in this House—that the United Party has stated its policy over and over again. [Interjections].

Which policy?

We accept without equivocation the traditional colour bar in industry, laid down by negotiations between employer and employee. The hon. member knows that this hon. the Minister of Transport has in the last few months—indeed over the last year—diluted White jobs by taking in non-Whites. And a slip of the tongue, when I referred to “night jobs,” was perhaps not intentional but that is what they are. In the day-time you have White shunters on duty, and at night you have Abdul, the Black shunter, shunting trains. And so they call them the night shunters because they only appear at night. The hon. the Minister is diluting White jobs, and he is doing it correctly in terms of United Party policy, in terms of the United Party’s law. He is using a law which we put on the Statute Book in order to negotiate with the employees’ organizations. He seeks their agreement, he obtains it, and that. Sir. is how the thing should be done. In other words, the Minister is using both our policy and our machinery. And that hon. member knows what his Minister is doing. He is employing non-Whites on a temporary basis, a basis which we know to be a matter of for ever and ever.

Explain the rate for the job.

This is not a labour debate. In a labour debate … [Interjections].

Order!

In the next labour debate I will try to bring a few blocks containing words of not more than four letters, single-syllable words … [Interjections]. That hon. member knows very well that is has never been, nor is it now, the policy of the United Party to endanger the standard or to challenge the position of the White worker with uncivilized or low-paid labour. The “rate for the job” is an industrial expression used in international trade unionism, something which is so far removed from the knowledge of the hon. member that we cannot expect him to understand it. And I say to the hon. member now, if he goes out and spreads that story he will be telling nothing but a lie. [Interjections], I say, Mr. Speaker, if after this denial he repeats that story, it will be a deliberate lie. [Interjections], I hope he will accept our word in that regard.

I had hoped to deal with some other matters concerning our Airways. Because here too, I believe we have a forgotten group of the staff. I refer to the ground staff, the maintenance staff and the cabin crews. These people, like the middle group of the Railways, are I believe, being taken for granted. Whilst I have not time to develop the theme, I want to plead with the hon. the Minister to recognize that these people are as important to the proper functioning of the Airways as the flying crews. The maintenance staff have in fact grown less since last year. Their numbers have decreased from 1,335 to 1,329. And that despite the fact that more aeroplanes, many of them having a complicated and involved structure, have entered the service.

Only six less than the previous year.

Yes, only six less, but how many new aeroplanes have not been taken into service? And are those aeroplans not of a more complicated nature? These people are being asked to carry out far more responsible duties. They are working on planes with a greater passenger capacity. And while hon. members on that side crack jokes about the lives and safety of the Airways passengers, I take the matter seriously. I plead with the hon. the Minister to think again about the status and pay of those people working on the ground who ensure that our aeroplanes keep flying, those workers who handle the passengers at the airports, and the staff who serve them in the air. I believe there is still a leeway to be made up and the hon. the Minister can do something for those who are doing so much to make our Airways service the proud service that it is.

I hope the hon. the Minister in his reply will also deal with the questions put to him concerning the breakdowns experienced on the new Boeing 727 aircraft. Brake difficulties have been experienced and there have been several break-downs. I believe that to be another matter to which the public of South Africa are entitled to a frank answer from the Minister.

On other occasions we can deal in more details with some of the minor problems. But I have only dealt with these affecting people.

I wish to conclude by saying that our appeal to the hon. the Minister is to look upon the workers of the S.A.R. not just as cyphers to see how much profit they make, not just as figures and pawns in a business undertaking. I ask him to regard them as human beings, as fellow South Africans with pride and feelings of their own. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to lift the bottom grades, the ungraded railway workers, the lowest paid employees of the service, to help them to rise to higher positions and with those higher positions to a higher standard of living. Because I believe it is unworthy of South Africa that many of our White people should live as they do and carry out the tasks which the Railways expect of them.

Mr. Speaker, according to information I have received, the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) suffers from a nightmare in which he dreams that a voice repeats as regularly as a train on the rails, “Medwin, Medwin, Medwin, Medwin …”

You are just like the Prime Minister—a stranger from a foreign country. [Interjections.]

The hon. member reminds me very much of the story of the little boy who whistled loudly as he passed the graveyard. Of course, the hon. member realized that that was his swansong and that he had to impress. That is why he beat the wardrum again to-night and said, inter alia, that the Nationalists blew up railway bridges during the War. Well, perhaps he got this information from the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) … [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Perhaps the bridges were blown up as a result of orders given by the General. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member for Durban (Point) also mentioned the brilliant plan the United Party is supposed to have left behind in 1948. I suppose the transport service had to be carried out by means of fine paintings and magnificent hotels, for that was the planning we inherited at that time. Well, with beautiful paintings and luxurious hotels, one would not be able to transport a single parcel from one place to another. [Interjections.] The hon. member insinuated here that railwaymen can be bribed with money to vote in a certain way. I want to tell the hon. member that it is a terrible insult to the Railway workers if he pretends that their votes can be bought by increasing their salaries. It is not and has never been in the minds of the Government or members on this side to grant railwaymen increases in order to get their votes. Let me substantiate this statement by an example.

In 1960 the hon. the Minister said in this House that he would increase the wages and salaries of railwaymen when the time was suitable. That was before the election. And he did not increase them. In 1961, after the election, the time was suitable and then their salaries and wages were increased accordingly. Last year, when they insisted on increases, the hon. the Minister said once again that it would be done at a suitable time. If the increases were granted last year, they would have added to the inflationary tendency. But the measures taken then by the hon. the Minister of Finance curbed those tendencies. That is why the increases could in fact now be granted without harming the country’s economy. No member on this side would dream that it is possible to buy a railwayman’s vote, but we shall make a point of telling the railwaymen at every election meeting that that side of the House is of the opinion that the railway officials can be bribed. This side of the House rejects that insinuation with the contempt it deserves. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban (Point) had a great deal to say about the rate for the job, as though it were an industrial term. It is no longer a matter of policy with them. It is merely an industrial term for integration. Let us see what the hon. Leader of that side had to say in this connection. According to the publication Skietgoed which covers the year 1964 to 1965, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said the following in Bloemfontein in 1963 (page 1967)—

[Interjections.] Now the hon. member comes and tells us that the rate of the job is merely an industrial term, and that it would be a lie if it were pretended here in the House or outside … [Interjections.] The hon. member said it would be a lie if we spread the story. Well. I want to tell the hon. member that I am going to repeat that. I am going to repeat it at every meeting I hold. For their policy is one of the rate for the job. Now an atrocious allegation is made against the hon. the Minister. The hon. member alleged that the hon. the Minister now wants to carry out the policy of that side. I presume the hon. the Minister also wants to implement the policy of the rate for the job, according to what that hon. member alleges. That is not at all what the hon. the Minister said. I shall quote from Hansard what the hon. the Minister said last year in this connection. The Minister said the following—

But those are not reserved jobs.

We are now talking about policy. It is the policy of the Nationalist Party that these skilled artisans should not be replaced in the Railways. Where does the rate for the job come into it now? That is what the hon. the Minister said in that connection last year. The hon. member should stop misrepresenting matters.

I now want to refer to what the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) said. He went into a lamentation for our harbours, which are supposedly not enjoying the necessary attention. I am dumbstruck by his argument. Only this morning the hon. the Minister for Finance said the following—

If during the past five years there has been an increase of 60 per cent in the import trade handled by our harbours, how can the hon. member now aver that our harbours cannot do the necessary work? The harbour have contributed their share to the tremendous boom in the country’s economy. How can the hon. member complain that the harbours are not receiving adequate attention? The export figures are even more imposing—I do not even want to quote them here.

Sir, the Railways, like any means of communication in any state, are the lifeblood of this state, for no country’s economy can flourish if the communication system is not in first-class condition. And surely that is the case in South Africa even more than in any other country. In fact, I want to state to-night that the Railways are virtually entirely the lifeblood of the South African economy. Without this lifeblood the boom to which the hon. the Minister of Finance referred in this House this morning, would not have been possible at all.

I just want to ask hon. members on that side a few questions. If the Railways and Harbours had not kept abreast with developments, would there then, for example, have been an average growth rate of 6 ¼ per cent per year in this country? Would we have experienced that if it had not been for the Railways’ share in that economic boom? Would we have had that boom at all without the Railways? For example, take the predominating role of our industries to which the hon. the Minister of Finance referred this morning. Would industry have risen to those heights if it had not been for the Railways, which were organized so efficiently to carry out the necessary work? I want to give the hon. member for Yeoville one specific example. In 1953 the station Coalbrook. near Sasolburg, was a small station with only two railway lines. But let him go there to-day and see the amount of goods being sent by rail from there. Let him go and see the role our Railways play at just that one small station in South Africa.

A man would have to be blind not to see that our Railways have played an exceptionally important role in the development of our economy. But I now want to come to a few other points made by the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. member’s speech here this afternoon was merely a repetition of his speech last year. In fact, he repeated his speech of last year virtually word for word. Let me quote a few phrases from both speeches, then you can see for yourselves. Last year he said—

This afternoon he said—

It is significant that the hon. member should take up a position at Angelo station to gather inspiration for all his speeches in this House. The only difference one finds is that he takes up a position on a different dump every time. I do not know on which dump he is going to stand next year.

Down in the dumps!

In any event, he said the following with reference to the people there—

That is what the hon. member said this afternoon. Now look what he said in his speech last year—

On one occasion he counted as many as 40 trains.

Is he still at Angelo?

Yes, he is still at Angelo. This year he comes up with the same story. Last year he also came up with the story that there was a time when shunters had to work long shifts of up to 12 hours. This afternoon he came here and said the same thing, except that this time he increased it to 14 hours. These, Mr. Speaker, are things he noticed while standing there on the mine dump. From there he sees what long hours have to be worked and how the regulations are infringed. The only difference between the speech this year and that of last year is that last year he did not stand on a mine dump. On that occasion he also referred to refreshments, and alleged that workers could not get refreshments there because there was no restaurant. Because he was standing on a mine dump at this time, he could not see whether or not they now have a restaurant. He does not know; that is why he did not refer to that again this year. Apparently that hon. member wants to assume the image of a sentinel on the walls of Zion, or rather, a sentinel on Angelo station. This year he noticed only 35 trains there, that is, a difference of five, for last year he had noticed 40 trains.

As regards pensioners, this afternoon he repeated his speech of last year on the same point virtually word for word. He actually comes here and repeats the same allegation made by him last year, and that despite the fact that the Minister gave a complete and satisfactory reply to that last year. I have his two speeches on that matter here, and I find that last year he only spoke a bit longer than he did this afternoon. I suppose that is because this Session is rather short, and he is in a hurry to get to his constituency.

He also asked what the hon. the Minister was doing to meet the shortage of labour. Last year he asked the same question and the Minister then replied to it. The Minister then pointed out to him that there were three methods which could be used to meet the shortage.

But not one of the methods was of any use.

Apparently the hon. member did not listen, or else he would have realized that the methods applied have indeed been of considerable use. If I can give the hon. member any advice, then it is that he should rather spend some time on studying the Minister’s speeches, instead of taking up a position on the mine dumps at Angelo station. As I said, the hon. the Minister last year mentioned the various methods which could be used to meet the shortage of labour. Inter alia, he pointed out that salaries would be increased when the time was ripe. Since then, we have had that increase. Considering the fact that those increases are not even in full operation yet. how can the hon. member come and allege that they have been of no use? Or is he first going back to the mine dump at Angelo station to try to determine what the effects of the increase are? How can the hon. member aver that mechanization has been of no use, when mechanization is still being introduced on the Railways every day? The Railways Administration is continually mechanizing work methods. If all these things have been of no use, how could the Railways possibly have been able to transport all the goods which resulted from a growth-rate of 6 per cent in the country’s economy? Another method referred to by the Minister was the providing of facilities. These facilities are being provided. For example, study bursaries and housing are being provided. On housing alone, R5,000.000 is spent every year. That is a remarkable achievement. Not only does providing all these facilities help to retain the services of the Railway’s staff, but it makes it possible to meet the demands made on the Railways. In fact, the Railways are flourishing in the fullest sense of the word.

Then there is the matter of the R35 allowance which pensioners can receive if they return to work on the Railways. Why should the hon. the Minister be expected to subsidize private firms for whom pensioners work, in that way?

It is not paid to the firms, but to the pensioners.

The hon. member requested that pensioners should not be deprived of this allowance as a result of their decision to enter the employment of private firms. The hon. member is forgetting that this allowance is not part of the basic pension, but is a cost-of-living allowance which has no connection with the basic pension. Now the hon. member wants the Railways Administration to subsidize private firms in respect of ex-railway workers employed by them, workers who spent all their lives in the employment of the Railways and can be of much more use there.

But I want to come to the hon. member for Maitland, who unfortunately is not here at the moment. He made certain statements in connection with job reservation, and I want to take him up on that. He, too, was most indignant about what the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Knobel) had said in this connection. I now want to repeat what the hon. member for Bethlehem said, namely that those members on the other side are advocates of integration and that they want to do away with job reservation. The hon. member for Maitland no longer likes the rate for the job either, because the rate for the job is catching up on them. It is now their policy to do what the trade unions prescribe to them. If the trade unions said, for example, that a certain type of work should not be done by non-Whites, they would see to that. That is now their policy.

But that is what the Minister is now doing.

As far as that is concerned, the hon. the Minister also replied at length last year. On that occasion he said that even if trade unions recommended that a certain type of work be reserved for non-Whites, and he did not consider it advisable, he would not do so. That was as far as skilled labour was concerned. As regards unskilled and semiskilled labour, the hon. the Minister said that he would comply with such a request on the part of the trade unions, and the Minister gave a few examples, such as firemen on ships …

And shunters.

He said “possibly also” shunters. But the Minister added to that that there were certain skilled labour spheres which he was not going to award to non-Whites. The hon. the Minister put that very clearly. I want to recommend that the hon. member for Maitland read that speech once more. In that speech he will find an answer to his misrepresentations of our policy, namely that we are now following in their footsteps in that regard. That is certainly not the case. In fact, he avers that there is even mention that we are going to introduce the rate for the job! We are much more courageous than hon. members on the other side. We first lay down principles, and then we build our policy on those principles. They, however, now want to hide behind trade unions, and whatever the trade unions prescribe to them, they assent to. Has their policy been given over completely to the prescriptions of the trade unions? Do the trade unions prescribe to them what their labour policy for the country should be?

May I ask a question?

No. When I wanted to ask him a question while he was speaking this afternoon, the hon. member was not prepared to grant me the privilege. Now I shall not grant him that privilege. If he had been courteous to me this morning I would have been courteous to him now. The hon. member took the hon. member for Bethlehem severely to task for what he had said in connection with pensions, but the hon. member for Maitland’s attitude is the same as that of the hon. member for Yeoville. I have already replied to that.

If we survey this whole debate we will see that it is a most unrealistic debate. As far as the Opposition is concerned, it has neither rhyme nor reason. At no stage did they penetrate to the crux of the matter. All that was done was that the hon. member for Yeoville went and stood on a mine dump from where he observed certain things. As far as essential matters and policy matters were concerned, they had nothing to say.

The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman), has delivered a speech which is noted more for its oratorical vacuity than for its constructiveness. He seemed to derive a considerable amount of amusement from the fact that the hon. member for Yeoville has found it necessary to repeat this year certain arguments he used last year. But it seems, Sir, that tedious repetition is a very necessary attribute of this side of the House if we are to engage the full attention of the Government and goad them to implement some of the constructive suggestions emanating from this side of the House. On reflecting upon the amount which the Minister is asking for in this Bill, I was led to two hypotheses. The first of these is by how much could this amount have been reduced if full advantage had been taken by the Minister and his Department of the many facilities which are at their disposal. What in fact would have been the position if the Railways had been functioning on a competitive instead of a monopolistic basis? Secondly, I ask myself how many people benefited as a result of the Minister’s largesse in granting an increase in salaries? How many of these people are among the electorate and how many among the under-privileged? The Minister said he required R400,000,000 for expenditure out of revenue. As items of expenditure he listed amongst others: concessions to staff, rising cost of materials, increases in operating expenses and payments to meet overtime and Sunday time payments having to be incurred as a result of the shortage of staff. There is one aspect of the shortage of staff and of the ever-increasing expenditure with which I should like to deal.

I submit that full advantage has not been taken of all the facilities being provided by the Railways at very great expense. I am referring specifically to those facilities provided for long distance passenger train services. If one takes the Durban-Johannesburg route, one sees on the basis of information given by the Minister’s Department itself, that during the past 20 years an amount of R22,000,000 has been expended on various improvements to the line. Only recently another R9,000,000 was expended in effecting improvements between Pentrich and Umlaas Road. One has every right to expect that some of the advantages derived from these improvements would be passed on to the travelling public. But one finds that that is not the position. If one compares the position as it is to-day with what it was 30 years ago, one finds that there has been a decrease in travelling time between Durban and Johannesburg but that at the same time there has been a large increasing in stopping time. Thirty years ago a journey between Durban and Johannesburg or vice versa involved an average of 80 minutes stopping time compared with 140 minutes to-day. The Minister gave this information to me in reply to a question. Let me say here that we appreciate the completeness, thoroughness and courtesy with which questions are answered by the Minister’s Department. I feel that this is an example which may very well be followed by other Ministers. I asked the Minister what the reason was for the increase in stopping time and he said—

This is very interesting, Sir, It is very interesting to think that adequate times are allowed for passengers to en-train and de-train at stations like Ladysmith, Glencoe and Volksrust, all of which are reached either late at night or in the small hours of the morning. I find this consideration of the Minister in regard to the convenience of passengers quite touching in its solicitude but I also find that this is costing the country a great amount of money, money which I believe could be put to better use. I also asked the hon. the Minister last session a question on the cost per mile and per hour of operating passenger trains. In reply thereto he informed me that the cost of operating the Blue Train per hour was R117 and R101 in the case of the Trans-Natal Express. I must admit that I am unable to assess what the cost of stopping time at stations amounts to, although I believe that it must have some relation to the cost of running time, which averages for the four trains in respect of which information was given at R110 per hour.

As far as the Trans-Natal train is concerned, there are to-day as compared with 30 years ago two hours longer stopping time on the double journey. On that basis I believe I am correct in putting the unnual figure at 730 hours for this one train or a total of 2,920 hours for the four passenger trains operating each day. Taking the cost of running a train at R100 per hour, then we find that R300,000 is being wasted in this way. In arriving at this figure, I have not yet taken into consideration numerous special trains that are being run. Another loss involved is a loss of man hours. This is a point which should cause concern especially in view of the fact that the Minister has admitted that there exists a serious shortage of staff and that he is unable to recruit the necessary labour. Yet we find that train crews are required to spend many hours in unproductive work whilst waiting at stations in order to fit in with the convenience which the Minister considers to be necessary to the passenger. While on this subject of train crews, I should like to express my appreciation of their unfailing courtesy at all times and at the same time appeal to the Minister to make some provision to give these train crews, especially the crews attached to dining saloons some form of summer rig more fitting to the conditions under which they have to work during summer. I believe it is a great hardship for them to work in their present uniforms.

I have dealt with just the one section from Durban to Johannesburg and have indicated that possibly an amount of R| million is being wasted needlessly because I submit that this time can be taken up by train crews by work on other duties, thereby relieving to a certain extent the shortage of staff and the high Sunday and overtime payments. But what figure will one arrive at if one takes the Durban-Johannesburg line as an example and applies it to all lines right throughout the Republic. I believe the amount will be considerable and it could be applied to much greater advantage in other directions. I do not believe that it is so particularly important or convenient for people travelling from Durban to Johannesburg necessarily to arrive at Johannesburg at 9 o’clock in the morning. I do not think a business man who has business to do in Pretoria finds it very convenient to arrive in Pretoria sometime after 10 o’clock.

The same principle applies to the airways.

Yes, and I was coming to that. There the travelling public have become used to the necessity for rising early and returning late that night if they want to put in a full day’s business. I have already calculated what I believed to be the man hours lost on the South African Railways through stopping at stations but I hate to calculate the loss of man hours caused thereby to the travelling public. Many may find that the time available to them at their place of destination is not sufficient for them as a result of the time wasted en route. For reasons of economy and finance, I believe that many business men still prefer to choose a train journey instead of the more expensive air journey.

I have mentioned certain respects of the Durban-Johannesburg line. The same applies to some extent to the Orange Express. On this train I would say three or four hours are spent in stopping time. While I am on the subject of the Orange Express, I should like to commend to the Minister a request that he should try to avoid passengers having to travel through the Karoo during the hottest time of the day. Anybody who has made this trip will understand what I mean. The trip could be much more pleasant to the traveller if an adjustment to the schedule is made.