I move—

Mr. Speaker, we have objected to this measure in both the Second Reading and in the Committee Stage, and we objected to it last year and the year before also. We have done so, as I have repeated so often in this House, because we object to this measure which applies not only to Sobukwe but to a large number of people. The Minister has taken this opportunity, of course, of making an emotional appeal to the electorate just before the election by using the name of Sobukwe. He has already indicated that that will be the type of appeal which will be made and directed against us, that we supported the freeing of Sobukwe.

That is merely a statement of fact.

It is not a fact and the Minister knows it is not a fact.

It is a fact that you ran after the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman).

That is not a fact either. The Minister of Justice should be more careful of his facts. This is an indication of what is going to happen in the election. The Minister is making use of Sobukwe in order to make an emotional appeal to the people. He will deal with the threat of the A.N.C. and the P.A.C. again. He started doing that in the House here and then he realized of course that he was making a mistake, because he is the powerful Minister and he assured the country that the country was at peace, so he went on to say that we underestimated the influence of Sobukwe. He had to do that otherwise the country would have said that the Minister was afraid of Sobukwe, and of course this Minister is afraid of no one. I say that if ever we have had an example of lack of ‘kragdadigheid’ we have it in this case from this Minister and from the Government. The Minister has had three years in which to find a way of dealing with Sobukwe without keeping this bit of legislation on our Statute Book, legislation which he himself said was drastic and which he himself said was to be of a temporary nature. He told us in the second reading debate that Sobukwe may be released this year. They have not made up their minds yet. If Sobukwe is released this year then this objectionable measure would still be on our Statute Book.

[Inaudible],

The Minister’s facts are wrong again. How can it be 18 months from February this year to the end of June next year? The Minister must be more careful.

You are splitting hairs.

The Minister says there is a possibility that Sobukwe may be released and yet this legislation is going to remain on the Statute Book. The Minister himself has indicated, as I have said, that it is only of a temporary nature and we say that Sobukwe, being a Bantu, is covered by so many laws under which he can be detained that we are not prepared to keep this measure on our Statute Book, unless the Minister can assure us that there is some other threat from which the country must be protected. He has indicated that everything is peaceful; that he has everything under control. We say that if that is so he does not need a measure of this nature.

The Minister says that we are following the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). Sir, the Minister is going to make that propaganda again. How it benefits him I do not know. What benefit can be got out of that? I indicated before the hon. member for Houghton spoke that we were going to oppose the measure and that we were going to vote against it. The hon. member for Houghton spoke afterwards and moved an amendment and you, Sir. put the first portion of the amendment, that the word “now” be deleted. What did that mean? It only meant that the Bill would not be read now. The amendment was negatived and we never got to amendment of the hon. member for Houghton that the Bill be read this day six months; her amendment fell away. What is the difference whether we voted for the deletion of the words after “now” or whether we voted against the Bill? [Interjections.] The Minister is now going to make cheap propaganda by saying that we followed the hon. member for Houghton. It will not help him. The suggestion is that the hon. member for Houghton and the United Party voted together but I would like to point out that for every one occasion on which the hon. member for Houghton and the United Party vote together the party on the other side and the hon. member for Houghton vote together ten times. Is there any objection then? I could prove to the country on how many occasions the hon. member has voted together with the Government, but what is to be gained by doing so? What objection can there be to it if you both happen to oppose a measure and you vote against it or, if you both happen to approve of a measure and you vote for it? I appeal to the hon. the Minister to drop this cheap political propaganda in dealing with a measure which has such serious consequences for the country. A professor from Britain, according to this morning’s paper, who supports the Government’s policy of separate development indicated when he was questioned as to whether he was satisfied with the position in South Africa that there were certain laws which gave him cause for concern. Well, a man like that, who is a friend, would have cause for concern over a measure of this nature. It is Bills of this nature which do us more harm overseas than the discussions at the United Nations. It is the actions of the Government themselves, it is the Bills passed by the Government itself, which adversely affects us, not false reporting in the Press. It is measures of this kind which are kept on our Statute Book unnecessarily that harm us overseas.

I do not think I am called upon to reply to all the arguments which the hon. member who has just sat down, has advanced for the third time. I just want to tell the hon. member that I have noticed that he is very courageous now that the hon. member for Houghton is not present.

I move—

I wish to explain that the proposed amendment, i.e., the insertion of the words “other than an offence relating to the driving of a motor vehicle”, is aimed at procuring for members of the South African Defence Force who drive motor vehicles in the execution of their duties and become involved in accidents, the same protection as that enjoyed by public servants.

The existing sub-section 129 (1) covers damage in general which is caused in committing an offence, and makes it compulsory for a court to place the accused under deductions to pay to the full amount of the damage or. if the offence was not committed wilfully, to such lesser amount as the court may determine. In so far as the section also relates to damage caused by the negligent driving of motor vehicles, however, it is not consistent with the position applying to Public Servants.

Since Government employees who are required to drive Government vehicles in the execution of their duties do not enjoy the protection of motor vehicle insurance, the State has accepted liability for third-party claims and for damage to Government vehicles which would normally be payable by an insurer. In a circular issued by the Treasury, it is provided that the driver of a Government vehicle shall forfeit this protection if the accident is due to his being under the influence of liquor, or if he admits liability towards the third parties concerned before the State Attorney can act in the matter.

The effect of the existing Section 129 (1) is that military courts frequently place drivers of the South African Defence Force who have been convicted of negligent or reckless driving or of driving at excessive speeds, and who become involved in accidents as a result, under deductions of pay in order to make good the damage to the Government vehicles, although such drivers should also be able to claim the protection enjoyed by members of the Public Service. The amendment aims at eliminating compensation orders by a military court in cases of damage resulting from driving vehicles. Driving offences will be heard and punished as previously, but the matter of compensation will be dealt with administratively, as is done in the case of public servants at present.

The Official Opposition will support the hon. the Minister’s motion. He has given a full explanation of what it actually amounts to, and in brief one can say that in principle it places the staff of the Defence Department on the same footing as servants in other Departments of State. At the moment there is a barrier which compels the Defence authorities to take certain more stringent action than applies in other Departments of State. This motion will allow a certain amount of discretion. It introduces a uniform system throughout the Service. It does not in any way conflict with the civil or criminal law where it is applicable, and as far as this side of the House is concerned, we will support the motion.

Motion put and agreed to.

As I said in another context yesterday the Minister and his Administration appear to enjoy a good image because of the fact that the profits which have been earned over a period of years, seem to have increased from year to year, and the Railways seem to have settled down to a period of great expansion and prosperity. This, of course, helps the Minister very considerably in satisfying the public that all is well within the Railways Administration and, more particularly as far as the public is concerned, that all is well in so far as the interests of the users, the members of the public, are concerned. I would like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention, not only in the interests of railway users, but also in the interests of the Administration, to many defects, however small they appear to be, which create quite a different image in the mind of the user of the railways to that created by these globular profits, the tremendous expansion programmes and the very brief but important statements that we find, for example, in the Part Appropriation Bill before us. I must say that the public is not very concerned about the fact that here we have a measure which will provide the Administration with R480.000.000: it does not make any impact. What does make an impact is this: What kind of treatment does the person concerned get when he requires the services of the Administration; for example, when he goes to a station or, for better example, when he travels in a train? May I say that I think I know more about travelling in trains than most hon. members of this House because I am a train user, habitually, rather than a flier—and because of my circumstances, I travel by train at least twice every working day. I would say that in every year I have several hundred journeys, long-distance and short-distance, to my credit or to my debit— which is more, I would imagine, than the average of any member here. I hope therefore that the hon. the Minister will accept that what I say to him is said in good faith—and from personal experience, not merely from hearsay.

For example, hon. members and people who work in this building are supposed to be able to find out the details of the scheduling of trains, whether it is the Cape Flats line or the Cape Town/Simonstown line or any local line, simply by going through that door behind you, Sir; or, if they are outside, by going along the passage and looking at one of the timetables on the outside wall of this Chamber. How can the hon. the Minister, who is based right here, every day during the Session, who has several employees here, and who has a Railway bureau here, account for the fact that if he looks at the timetables on the wall, he will find that the three timetables there are the timetables of 7 December 1964 not December 1965, when the new timetable was introduced. I will tell him what happened just a couple of nights ago. I was asked to meet somebody at Kenilworth station. I caught the 6.30 train from Cape Town because, according to my little notebook, the 6.30 train gets me to St. James at a certain time and should get me to Kenilworth, say, 20 minutes earlier. It so happened that since the Minister and his Administration changed the scheduling in December 1965, that particular train no longer stops at Kenilworth. So Bob’s your uncle!— you think you are going to Kenilworth when you get on that train, but you land in Wynberg, because the first stop is at Wynberg. This sort of thing may sound nonsensical, but here we have an Administration that spends hundreds of millions of rands, that has hundreds of thousands of employees, and here, in the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa, if you, Mr. Speaker, for unforeseen reasons, had to catch a local train, you would be given the wrong information as soon as you walk out of that door! I hope therefore that the hon. the Minister, as he often tells us on this side to do, will clean up his own doorstep, literally, by putting up some new timetables.

May I point out that I am not responsible for putting up these timetables; the staff of Parliament is.

Sir, the hon. gentleman is also the Leader of the House; he holds many offices. Maybe he can give instructions to somebody who works here, and he Can give another instruction to the Administration to provide a new timetable. Be that as it may, I think the timetable oversight is interesting, because it illustrates how small things are overlooked in the best-run administration, in the biggest business. These are the things that the user of the railways knows, and these are the things which should be brought to the attention of the Administration.

Another interesting thing about the Simonstown/Cape Town line is—and I would like the hon. the Minister to check it for himself— that if you were to enter the train at a place called St. James and you look at the indicator board on the platform, you will see that it reads: “Distance to Cape Town 16 miles. Altitude 18 ft.” Sir, the train leaves St. James and heads towards Cape Town—and in due time arrives at the following station which is called Muizenberg, but there the board on the platform reads: “Distance to Cape Town 16 miles.”—in other words, you have not moved at all from St. James—and it goes on to say that “the altitude is 21 ft.” So instead of moving forward, according to the board you have only moved up three feet in altitude—but you have not moved towards Cape Town at all. I have wondered for years (and I have maintained a sort of restraint about this—I say again that I travel this line at least twice a day at least five and sometimes six days a week—when it would dawn on somebody in the Railway Administration that when the train leaves St. James and takes two minutes or so to get to Muizenberg, it has in fact reduced the distance between St. James and Cape Town by several miles.

Small things amuse small minds.

Yes, the hon. member may think this is funny, and that is because his mind is as “big” as it is. The fact remains that there is a difference between the distance from St. James to Cape Town and from Muizenberg to Cape Town, and something should be done to correct this board. It may be a small thing but it is ridiculous, and I cannot understand how this has come about, or why the board has been allowed to remain as it is for so many years.

The Minister will also find, if he travels in the Simonstown trains, that the scheduling in the morning is far from ideal. I have noticed that at the end of each year the timetable changes, and I must say that as to the peak-hour service, it seems to change for the worse every time. The present situation is that the train which leaves Simonstown at 7.49 gets very full by the time it reaches, say, Muizenberg, because there is a big station at Fish Hoek and so on, and surely the Minister cannot take pride in the fact that as many people stand in that train on the way to Cape Town —the 7.49 from Simonstown—as are seated. Having regard to the quantum of rolling stock which we are told has been acquired every year, it is difficult to understand why it should be necessary for so many people to spend 40 or 50 minutes standing in the train. In many cases they are elderly persons. If they want to avoid standing, the next train from Simonstown leaves at 8.45. A difference of almost an hour, as there is between 7.49 and 8.45, is far too great a gap during the morning peak, because the person who wants to get to Cape Town in order to get to work at a reasonable hour cannot take the 8.45 train—it arrives in Cape Town, as the hon. the Minister will know, more than an hour later, which is too late for most of the people, who cannot find seating accommodation on the 7.49. The very fact that there are more trains scheduled later in the day, at short intervals, seems to suggest that the rolling stock is available. I am no expert on the control of traffic on the railway lines, but I would suggest that if the rolling stock is available and the manpower is available at, say, 11 o’clock, to run a train at 11 o’clock from Simonstown—I give this as an example—and then again at 11.30, then surely it should be possible to put one more train on the schedule between 7.49 and 8.45 from Simonstown—to relieve the pressure on the 7.49, enable more people to get to work at a reasonable time, whether at or near Cape Town, and to alleviate the situation in which so many people have to stand in a train every morning of their lives. They get on at a certain station; it is inevitable that there are no seats, and then they stand all the way to Cape Town. Sir, I hope that something can be done to alleviate these not-very-small discomforts, but discomforts from which. I think, the travelling public should be protected.

A point which I think is also interesting is that very often, and for a reason that I have not been able to establish, the toilet in these local trains is kept locked. I do not know the reason, but one finds very often that there are people who wish to use it …

Is there not somebody inside the toilet?

Of course, we assume that when there is somebody inside, that person would lock the door—but that is not the reason That door has been locked, and nobody can get in or out. Of course, one has to get in, in order to get out; we know that, too. I have often watched elderly ladies, particularly, standing in front of the door, having tried the handle, they stand there gazing intently at the door and at the lock, and then I think of the song called: "Wishing won’t make it so” because that toilet has been locked by the Department’s officials! I have asked more than one ticket examiner, and I have been told that they do not know why the toilets are kept locked. I would like to know why, if toilets are provided in one of the coaches, as they often are, they should be kept permanently locked. Sir, I do not want to dilate on this; though it is a rather interesting matter for speculation. I hope the Minister will find out what it is all about, and I will leave the matter in his custody.

So much, then, for what happens in the trains from Simonstown to Cape Town, and from Cape Town to Simonstown. Another aspect of the matter is, what happens when you arrive at Cape Town station? Something that has struck me very forcibly is the very small number of public telephones that are provided in the new station concourse. Unlike the situation in other countries, particularly the United States, where the public is induced by every possible means to use telephones—and the most obvious means is the provision of “pay-phones” as they call them, in such profusion that even in a city like New York, you hardly ever have to wait to use a telephone at Grand Central Station—you find that there is a cluster or row of four telephone booths in the new Cape Town station concourse. 1 have observed this time and time again, and I have experienced it time and again that those four booths seem to be permanently occupied, especially at peak hours. Then, if somebody has to make an urgent call, he or she is placed in the position of standing with the other people who are waiting for somebody to complete a call inside the booth, and taking his or her turn in the queue—and one does miss one’s train that way! The hon. the Minister has heard the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs telling us in this House from time to time about the tremendous increase in the volume of equipment available to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, and the fact that this equipment is being made in South Africa has to some extent helped in the supply of this available material. Is there any reason, therefore, why, instead of four there, should not be 12 public telephones in the central suburban concourse of Cape Town station?

The Postmaster-General has to supply them.

Yes, I know, but if I were to ask the Postmaster-General to provide another eight telephones at the Cape Town station, you know the kind of answer I would get. I think that if the hon. the Minister were to ask, he might even get the telephones! We heard the hon. the Prime Minister here just a couple of weeks ago, referring to the tremendous improvements in various facets of the Government’s administration of South Africa —very soon, according to the Prime Minister, all of us will be able to pick up a telephone here in South Africa and dial somebody in, say, America direct. Mr. Speaker, I have a friend, for example, in a place called Tulsa, Oklahoma, but I am very loath to telephone him because it would cost about R16; yet when I want to make a call from Cape Town station to somebody in Cape Town, or in Hermanus, that is when the trouble starts. What, then, is the use of offering us this enormous and wonderful improvement in the telephone service, by which we can dial direct all the people in the world whom we do not want to dial direct, when we have difficulty in making a local call from Cape Town station?

I hope that the hon. the Minister will see what can be done about the provision of telephones —and I do not want to deal with the position in Johannesburg, it is not as bad as it is in Cape Town—because there should be more public telephones on Cape Town station.

There will be as soon as the station has been completed.

Thank you very much. I hope that the same thing will be done in Johannesburg. I am sure that the revenue of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs will benefit from this service, and I am sure that all users of the railway system here will be pleased to know that one can enter a telephone-booth within a reasonable time and make a call, without all the congestion which exists at present.

Now moving away from the local field, I want to deal with the long-distance trains of which I am a habitual user. Unlike the hon. the Minister, who flies everywhere, I know what goes on on the Trans-Karoo Express— from personal experience. I should like to tell him a few things about the Trans-Karoo Express, which is a “crack” train, which has an excellent safety record and which is usually staffed by the most courteous and helpful people—I say this in advance—but which has some very obvious and glaring defects, considering that people are expected to pay for a first-class ticket and then having been given first-class accommodation, find all kinds of defects which are inherent, not in first-class, but in third-class transactions. For example, in the toilet of the Trans-Karoo Express …

You are an expert on the subject.

Mr. Speaker, I am tempted, but I will not answer the hon. member. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that in such a toilet which is there literally for the convenience of the public, it is not unreasonable to expect the provision of a towel, or one of these continuous towels, or even paper towels. I can remember that just a few years ago there were, at least, paper towels in these toilets. I have asked the people in charge of the trains why this is no longer so, and they have replied that the Administration no longer provides them. In other words, there is simply no facility for washing one’s hands properly, in these toilets on the trains. You may say that it is a small thing— it is, it probably would only cost about R2 per journey to provide paper towels. Why should they not be provided? The Administration is not losing money, it is earning profits. Why not treat people as if you consider them entitled to first-class treatment? There is no towel, there is no soap, there is no tumbler or drinking-glass in any of the first-class toilets on the Trans-Karoo Express. I do not know what the position is on the other trains, but I travel on that one regularly.

Let us consider the showers. Some people, whether they are travelling or not, like to have a bath or a shower every day. I see that my hon. friend for Bethal-Middelburg is not interested in this aspect of the toilette.

I leave the field to you.

True enough, there is a shower in some of the carriages. There was a time when one could hire a bath-towel for 15 or 25 cents from one of the bedding-attendants. Some three years ago I was surprised to find that this service had been stopped—again, the information was given to me cursorily, on the train, that the Administration no longer provide towels for hire. Do hon. members know what happens in the case of the person who is determined to have his shower— and why should he not, because the water is there, the shower-room is there and he has his own soap, since the Administration will not provide any? He simply takes that little towel which is sold on the train for 15 cents—and I defy anybody of any size to have a proper shower and then to dry himself with a towel about 18 inches long—or he is compelled to carry his own bath-towel up and down the railway-line. Who would do it? Otherwise, and this is the last resort, he uses one of the hon. the Minister’s sheets, from his bedding. So where does he score? I have seen this for myself because—and I say it here—I have done it for myself. I am sorry but when 1 board a train and take along a little bag with my over-night things, I am not prepared to take an enormous bath-towel with me every time I go to Johannesburg.

I was wondering what was happening to all my sheets.

What happens to the sheet is that it is used in lieu of a towel, and it is then wrapped up with all the other bedding —and I doubt whether it does any of those articles any good whatsoever. I would therefore suggest, with great deference to the hon. the Minister, that everybody—the traveller in the Trans-Karoo Express and the Administration —would be better off if the Minister would allow the traveller to hire a bath-towel for 25 cents rather than force him to some other means of drying himself.

Sir, the observation or lounge car on a long-distance train has become a very much-used and popular amenity. The observation car is an amenity that is appreciated. As the hon. the Minister knows, most of them are well furnished and colourful, and pleasant to sit in. They are also air-conditioned, which is very important during summer. Around and during the school holidays it is almost impossible for the average adult to enter one of those observation or lounge cars. They are jammed with the youngsters who travel to and from school or university. Parties of 16 or 30 students enter these cars and take up all the accommodation. One of them buys a something-cola and they stay there for the whole morning, so that what I would call the elderly or legitimate user of that observation car does not even get into it. I know that this is a difficult problem. I do not for a moment suggest that young people because they are young or drinkers of cola should be debarred from the observation car—in fact, some of the brandy drinkers should be debarred! But if there were the kind of notices which one sees on trains in other parts of the world—particularly in trains, as well as restaurants, in the United States—on the lines that patrons are asked to remember that there are other people waiting to use this facility, I think it would help. In other words, when you have had your drink or you have sat in the observation car for a reasonable length of time, please make way for somebody else. I think it would help, and a little encouragement from the person in charge of the lounge car would help these youngsters to leave, and so make way for other people. Another thing which could be stopped to the advantage of all users of the lounge car, is the playing of transistor radios in the lounge car. The Minister should travel on one of his trains, one day. He should, for example, sit in a corner of the lounge car. Travelling through the Karoo his compartment becomes very hot …

The atmospherics are very bad, especially where there are electric lines overhead. I have a transistor radio in my private coach.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister that many of the people I meet on the trains have transistor radios, and almost every one of them will carry it into the observation car. Now the hon. the Minister may want to enter the observation car and sit and read quietly while he has a drink, but he is compelled to listen to five radio programmes blaring at the same time through 27 sets.

I thought that the hon. member wanted me to introduce radios on the trains.

No, anything but that! What I am telling the hon. the Minister is that you go into the observation car, and you find yourself a seat—if you are lucky! Then you find that there are 20 or 30 youngsters, and some middle-aged people too, all with transistor radios. One is tuned in to Radio Highveld, another to the English or Afrikaans service of Radio South Africa, another to Springbok Radio—and somebody else is trying to get some other programme. You are compelled to listen to all these sets blaring at the same time on different wave-lengths, and different programmes.

You have quite a choice of programme.

You have indeed—but the trouble is to distinguish one from the other four or five! All this sounds like the voices from the Tower of Babel, and I think that people should be discouraged from taking radios into the public part of the train, be it the dining car or the lounge car.

Do you want television instead?

As long as this Government is in power, I have no prospect of television—but it will not be very long now before we get television, too! I want to say that I think that the Administration is entitled to expect a person who wishes to listen to a certain programme, to listen to it privately in his own compartment, and not to inflict it on the public. I think that this can be enforced without any difficulty whatsoever.

I also want to tell the hon. the Minister, and this is more than an aside, that I have seen that sinkhole near the Oberholzer station several times during the past few weeks. I do not want to deal with the technical aspect of the sinkhole, but merely with the railway aspect. I have here the technical opinion of Dr. Enslin, the Chairman of the State Coordinating Technical Committee on Sinkholes, who said quite recently that the sinkhole constituted no danger to the adjacent Johannesburg-Cape railway line. The official measurements of the sinkhole were 36 feet wide and 35 feet deep. Be that as it may, every time the train crawls past this sinkhole at four or five miles an hour, almost all the passengers gaze at this scene, and there are usually one or two railway employees, at least I think they are railway employees, standing at the sinkhole. Somebody is bound to call out, usually to the Bantu there: “Hoe diep is daardie gat?” The answer comes back: “Baas, hy is ’n honderd voet diep.” This statement here says that it is 35 feet deep. The issue is not how deep the sinkhole is, but the fact is that it is so near the railway line that it is causing concern not only to the people who live and work and mine in that area, but also to railway-users. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister in the interests of his Administration cannot take some steps to stop making this hole the sort of permanent monument that it is at present—in other words, to obscure it. It does not help anybody to see the sinkhole —it does not help the Administration. It simply arouses all kinds of morbid fears on the part of the travellers, and I have heard from several elderly people that they are terrified when the train passes through that area. Why should they be unnecessarily terrified? Terror will not avert a disaster if there is going to be one, and I think that this kind of “advertisement” of the sinkhole is not in the interests of the Administration and should be avoided.

Mr. Speaker, in the limited time left to me, having examined some of the defects of the railway system from the point of view of the user—both of the local and the long-distance trains—I should like to deal with several general matters. One of these is the level-crossing danger. It was estimated quite recently that at the rate at which the Administration was eliminating level crossings—and having regard to the fact that no new crossings would be created—it would take some 50 years before all the level-crossings had been eliminated. This was, I think, an Automobile Association estimate. If that is the position, then I think that in times of prosperity one can perhaps look to the Administration to spend more time, energy and money on eliminating level-crossings. We know that the death-rate is such that it has concerned the Minister, and I have heard him say so in this House. I wonder whether the Administration should not seriously consider expanding its programme of eliminating level-crossings rather than buying, although it may be necessary, new coaches all the time—and in this way, save lives, facilitate the running of the main line trains, and thereby re-assure the public. Because to look forward to another 50 years of level-crossings in South Africa, with all the disasters which seem to be almost inherent in their existence, and the danger to human life, is not a very happy prospect.

Now, Sir, may I deal briefly with the pipeline situation? I recall what the hon. the Minister said to us when I urged him to give the inland-user the benefit of the saving from the transportation of petrol because of the introduction of the pipeline. But he was not prepared to let them off lightly, as it were, and to give them the benefit of that saving. I would like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the “Federal Laws and other material relating to Highways” of the United States Government. He has seen those highways, as well as the railway system, for himself recently—and the law there in this regard is quite clear. Article 126 deals with the subject they call “Diversion”. The article states:

All these revenues have to be diverted, as they call it, into the construction of highways. Now why should one country which has had long experience in the operation of highways, railways and pipelines, take that view—that the savings from the transportation of gasoline can only be used, under the law, for the provision of new highways—and why should the position be so different here in South Africa, where the Minister says that since there is no such law, he is under no compulsion to do as they do in America? He takes all the revenue, and therefore also the saving from the transportation of petrol through the pipeline, puts it into his general funds, and uses it as he pleases. I would like to plead with him again, having regard to the abnormally high cost which the inland-user has to bear for every item that is railed or sent up from the Coast in one way or another, that at least the pipeline should be of some tangible benefit to the users of petrol in the Witwatersrand-complex, where some 40 per cent of the total petrol consumed in South Africa is used. I hope that the hon. the Minister will think this over again, now that the pipeline is operating, and give us back a couple of cents per gallon of petrol—even if he cannot give us the whole saving of five cents—to show his good faith, and to recognize the fact that it is unjust, even if it is lawful, for him to use this revenue for any purpose, as by putting it into his general funds.

The entire speech made by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) was based mainly on local affairs and on matters which I shall not pursue any further. In the course of my speech I shall try, however, to reply to a few of the points raised by previous speakers. The working results of the Railways during the period under review showed us what the Railways are capable of. I want to refer in particular to five of the most important sections of the Railways, namely, goods traffic, the passenger services, the road transport services, the harbours and the South African Airways. It is indeed a vast organization—the largest single undertaking in our country, and the Railways is not only an undertaking that provides employment to more than 200.000 people, but probably the most important factor in the promotion of the economic growth of our country. The rising revenue of the Railways, which is increasing by the year, reflects the general progress made in the Republic. We cannot neglect paying the highest tribute to our hon. Minister, to his staff and to every railwayman in our country. These exceptional results could only have been achieved by planning ahead, by ordering the necessary equipment timeously in order to keep abreast of the growth and development of our country, and also by having faith in the future and by believing that we do in fact have a future in the Republic— unlike the prophets of doom on the other side. Furthermore, to increase the efficiency of the Railways by according fair and equitable treatment to every railwayman. Several speakers on the other side have called the shortage of manpower a very serious matter. That is true, but we know that in any country—and particularly in a country like the Republic, with its ranid development—that is no more than a fairly normal phenomenon. The hon. the Minister and his staff are doing everything in their power to improve the working conditions; facilities have been provided, salaries have been increased and mechanization has been introduced. A great deal is being done as regards salaries, and in addition to the increase granted last year, the greatest single increase ever granted in the history of the Railways was recently granted to the railwaymen—an average increase of 11.5 per cent. The railwayman is sincerely grateful for what he has received, but the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) spoke sneeringly about the increase. The hon. member suggested that this increase was granted merely to buy votes for the election, and he also spoke rather sneeringly about what has been done over the past years. Now, I think it will be a good thing if we start off by referring to the record of the United Party. It strikes one if one looks at the benches on the opposite side—one of the hon. members made great play of the fact that there are sometimes so few members present during the debates—if I have Counted correctly, that there are only six members on that side of the House—and that during an important debate such as this one. [Interjections.] No, there are only six members. The hon. member can count again. I want to mention that the National Party has an exceptional record as regards salary increases. The National Party’s record over the past 18 years does not consist primarily of increases granted before an election. The hon. member for Durban Point said that we were trying to buy votes. The first increase granted under the National Party régime was granted in 1948-9, immediately after an election. That increase amounted to R14,765,000, but let us go further and see when the next major increase was granted. Increases were granted in the years 1951-2, 1952-3, 1953-4 and 1954-5, and the lareest one was granted in 1955-6—a total of R55,510,170 was granted during those few years, but that was not before an election. We had an election in 1958, and before that election an increase of only about R7,500,000 was granted, but after the election in 1958-9 provision was made in the Estimates for an increase of R14,773,300. But let us examine the present position. In 1962-3, when there was no election, an increase of approximately R13,000,000 was granted, and in 1963-4 an increase of approximately R24,000,000. In 1964-5 and other R20,000,000 was granted, and in 1965-6. R35,500,000. Now those hon. members argue that this increase has suddenly been granted with a view to the election. During the past four years an increase was granted every year. Look at the record of the National Party over the past 18 years—increases to the amount of R190.500.000. That is indeed an achievement. The hon. member for Durban (Point) also spoke sneeringly about, inter alia, the total of R1,600,000.000 mentioned here by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East)—namely the aggregate increase granted by this Government —and said we should divide that and see how much it meant per month. I think that is decidedly ungrateful. Apart from these increases, there have been periodical improvements of facilities and working conditions. The working conditions are being improved from day to day. We are in the process of mechanization, and because of that the working conditions of our staff are also being improved in order to keep the wheels turning. Intensive training is also being provided for the railwaymen. Study bursaries are being granted. Last year 270 students studied by means of study bursaries. Apart from ordinary housing, hostels and homes are provided where unmarried employees can board at a very small charge. We, as a Nationalist Government, have an exceptional record as regards housing. I want to mention that because I believe it to be necessary—the people outside and the railwaymen take note of that. Let us just cast our minds back for a moment to the housing conditions which existed while the United Party was in power. Firstly, they built houses for railwaymen which had no bathrooms, but that was not the worst. They isolated them and separated them from the general public. In their view, of course, it is wrong to let them live among the general public. In their time the railwaymen were fenced off to one side so that they could not join the general public in the social and other spheres. But since this Government came into power—and I have to mention these figures—11,371 departmental houses have been built at a cost of R63,712,608. But over and above that we have spent more than R59,000,000 under the house ownership scheme, and through the 10 per cent contribution a further R7,949,453 under the same scheme, not even to mention the hostels and homes. In the training college in Bloemfontein alone, 500 students have been accommodated. This housing is of exceptional value to the railwaymen and they sincerely appreciate it because these facilities make them and their families happy people, and if you are happy in your work, you also give your undertaking your best. But what are we doing for the pensioners? Increases amounting to more than R50,000,000 have been granted to pensioners. The concession made by the Minister in granting railway pensioners the opportunity, if they are physically strong enough, to return to the Railways and to work and yet retain their temporary allowance, is one of the things requested by these people, and they are deeply grateful for that. We have many of those people in service to-day, and they are rendering good service and are a particular asset to the Railways.

I now want to deal with another matter, namely the matter which has been raised here in connection with employment. We know that the maintenance of the Colour bar has been mentioned here. Certain members of the United Party repeated the statement made by their Leader, but I do want to mention here—and I want to say in advance that we realize that the Industrial Conciliation Act does not apply to the Railways, and that Section 77 of the Act, which relates to work reservation, therefore does not apply—that maintaining a colour bar is traditional policy in the Railways. The question is whether the United Party believes in that. We know they are fond of changing their policy. Last night the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) quoted to us what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had said with regard to the rate for the job, and we know that that is the policy of the United Party. The hon. member for Durban (Point) objected to that, however, and referred to what the hon. member for Bethlehem had said. I think it would be a good thing if I refreshed the memories of the hon. members with regard to what they said only recently in the debates, namely, that job reservation should be abolished on the Railways. I should like to quote from Hansard (Col. 2869) of 11 March 1964, in which a speech by the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden) is recorded. In that speech he discussed the employment of Coloured persons on the Railways. He said, inter alia:

Job reservation on the Railways.

Well, I want job reservation removed on the Railways.

Here it is stated quite clearly, and it has never been repudiated by any hon. member. Why did the hon. members on the other side make such an issue of, and why did they come forward with so many complaints about, the manpower shortage and the amount of overtime that has to be worked? If the United Party kept in close contact with the workers and knew what the workers wanted, they would not come here and plead that overtime and Sunday-time be abolished. The railwayman earns a large extra amount in that way. The United Party would therefore certainly not be doing the worker a favour by recommending that the Minister abolish overtime and Sunday-time. No, Mr. Speaker, all those pleas have only one object, and that is to show that there are not enough Whites to do the work, and that non-Whites should consequently be employed. We can see that that is what they are aiming at. In fact, they themselves state that very clearly. For example, the hon. member for Salt River said that that was the solution. Let us now see what the United Party did in this regard during the last eight years of its régime. We find that during the eight years prior to 1948 the employment of non-Whites on the Railways increased by 67 per cent, while under the National Party the employment of non-Whites has decreased by 8.3 per cent during the past eight years. In 1957, 120,000 non-Whites were employed, compared with 110,000 in 1964, that is to say, a decrease of 10,000. Compared with that, we find that during the past seven years the number of White personnel has increased by 11.1 per cent. That is indeed an achievement. We are on the eve of an election, and if we were to present the electorate with two pictures, one of what the United Party did while it was in power, and another one of what this Government has done, what will we find? We shall find that this Government can look back in pride on what it has done for the railwayman. As far back as 1924 the United Party started a blackening programme when they began importing cheap non-White labour. And from the figures which I have quoted and which reflect the position for the eight years prior to 1948, it is apparent that even then they had not changed their views, and that the electorate of South Africa saved our country from them only just in time. Compared with that, the railwayman feels that he may safely rely on a Government which advocates work reservation and protects the position of the Whites in that way.

The hon. member who has just sat down has followed on the lines of other members on the other side of the House by filling in what the Minister did not tell us what the Nationalist Government had done for the workers. Towards the end the hon. member could not resist climbing upon a political platform by proclaiming that this side of the House wanted to break down all forms of colour reservation as far as the Railways were concerned. But that of course is so much rubbish. First of all, job reservation does not apply to the Railways and, secondly, if he had listened or had bought one of those yellow pamphlets of ours, he would have known what our policy in this connection was. We stand by the traditional colour bar and we accept the existing industrial machinery whereby the admission of Coloured labour into any industry is regulated by negotiation between employers and employees. We have never said that the Railways should be flooded with Black labour. The hon. member quoted a lot of figures in this connection. But that reminded me of a story about General Smuts who when he started quoting figures in the House and was asked by his private secretary where he got them from replied that it did not matter as it would take people at least nine months to establish their correctness. So with this hon. member. He knows that we will be going into a general election shortly and that figures can lie. He quoted these figures to enable him to cart his Hansard round the country and say what a good boy he is and what the United Party was doing in so far as the railwayman is concerned. Let me remind that hon. member that when they came into power in 1948 we had just been fighting one of the most terrible wars in the history of the world. Many things were in short supply but nevertheless we were able to give the railwayman some sort of comfort. There were many to be housed and many had to be put up in military hutments. But we played the game and looked after these people. The Government had to look after its main task, however, and that was to defend our country. But these facts the hon. member forgets. You see, Mr. Speaker, they have very short memories and they think that is also the case with the electorate because now they are trying to confuse them.

Even the speech of the hon. the Minister was a pre-election speech although I cannot say that he descended to the same depth as the hon. member who has just spoken. The Minister also quoted figures to show what has been done in order to expand the Railways during the period 1948 up to 1965. Well, I think it would be surprising if nothing had been done. After all, this Government has now been in power for 18 years. In addition, we are living in a prosperous world although this prosperity struck South Africa only at a very late stage. But how much better could the position have been had we not had that period of muddling by the hon. the Minister’s predecessor in office. It was then that this Minister came forward and placed his political career in jeopardy if he did not put the running of the Railways on a sound footing. Over the years, however, the Minister followed the stop-go method of planning. It seems to me that he has never had that degree of confidence in our country which we all have. In his speech the other day he referred to far-reaching planning. That may be so but we do not see any evidence of it. Throughout the Minister seems to have adopted a stop-go method of planning. Of this the pipe-line to which reference has often been made in this debate is an example as is also the Hex River Tunnel. The Government built a big grain elevator at East London but then all of a sudden found that the line traction was unsuitable and then the hon. Minister suddenly decided to buy diesel locomotives. The same applies to Port Elizabeth where an ore port was built, there were found to be bottlenecks on the rail-route with the result that every locomotive had to be thrown in in order to convey ore to Port Elizabeth. Such things would not happen had there been proper planning beforehand. Let me refer again to the pipe-line. It is being said that this pipe-line is already inadequate and one wonders whether the time has not already arrived for the Minister to start planning for a new pipe-line. You see, Sir, one has to plan years ahead. I know it is not possible for the Minister to plan for peak traffic but he must plan for the development of the country and such plans must be on a long-term basis. We have had with us over the years the old bogey of coal supplies to coastal ports. Year after year we are warned to stockpile coal. One would have thought the Minister by means of long-term planning could by now have overcome the continual shortage of trucks for the conveyance of coal. And it is not only the coastal ports that cannot get coal. The other day I noticed that a certain engineering foundry in Johannesburg had to stop for two days on account of a shortage of coal. So we feel that if there were in fact long-term planning as is contended, then there must have been a slip up somewhere.

There is the question of our harbours. It has been pointed out that the revenue from our harbours last year amounted to R29,300,000 in comparison with an expenditure of R19,000,000. This is one of the revenue producing units of our administration but here again there has been this terrific lack of planning.

It is most difficult to find out and determine what is going to happen. Year after year we have had a piling up of ships in our harbours, in the Durban harbour particularly, but only lately has the Administration entered into a contract for the expansion of the harbour to be completed round about 1970. But 1970 is just about upon us and it can be expected of the Government that it should already have planned further ahead. There has been talk about Richards Bay but developments will not take place in our day.

There is, however, one bright star as far as planning is concerned and that is the Airways. We must acknowledge that we have a very modern airways system at the moment. Airports unfortunately are inadequate to cope with the increasing traffic. We here in the Western Cape are sometimes worried about the expansion going on to the North of us— in Johannesburg, Pretoria, etc. Sometimes we feel that the eyes of the Government are exclusively focused on those areas. Let me in this connection refer to the Railway workshop at Salt River. This was one of the largest shops in the country. It has, of course, become necessary over the years to build Railway workshops elsewhere but the Railway workshops at Salt River, except for minor additions, have been standing still. One seems to gather the impression that it is the intention to cut the activities of this workshop down to a minimum, and to transfer most of the work either to Bloemfontein or to Pretoria. The money which was spent on these workshops is public money. Furthermore, these workshops assist us in the Western Cape. I would commend to the Minister to give serious consideration to the desirability of decentralizing some of these larger units. The workshops at Salt River will then be kept going. I can understand that with the switchover from steam to electricity, some of the shops are no longer required.

As has been said, this side of the House welcomes the wage increase which the Minister has announced but as one listened to the speech of the hon. member who spoke before me, one would get the impression that these increases were granted spontaneously. But that is definitely not the case. If he reads Hansard a little bit closer he will find that this side of the House has over the years had continually to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that Railwaymen were not getting a fair deal as far as wages were concerned. Industry also realizes that the value of the rand has deteriorated and is accordingly putting up wages. As far as the Railwaymen are concerned, they can thank this side that they have received these increases. But let us face it and admit that these increases are already out of date and too late. It is time that the hon. the Minister should start negotiating for the next increase. He has to do that if he wants to keep up to date with increasing costs.

We have heard of the shortage of staff and how this Government abandoned the immigration policy of the United Party of 1948. The Minister himself has had to admit that it is well-nigh impossible for him to recruit workmen overseas. That is understandable especially if it is kept in mind that overseas there is a very high standard of living. Artisans are being well paid and receive all sorts of social benefits. Consequently this country cannot offer him sufficient attraction. So we have to look to our own resources for the building up and maintenance of our labour force. If one looks at the newspapers and the cinema screens we notice that private enterprise is going to great lengths in order to recruit labour. But what is the case with the Railways? They still hold on to an out-dated system. You apply for a job, you get a form which you have to fill in, you get the necessary references, return the form and then have to wait and wait. I think this is a matter which should be investigated, i.e. the method of recruitment of labour. The recruiting section of the Railway should be streamlined. It is not an easy matter to get onto the staff of the Railways. You have first to cross a difficult hurdle. I say it is not an easy matter to get in on the Railways and that despite the shortage of staff. Let me give the House an example of this. Recently the hon. Minister indicated that he would like pensioners to return for temporary service on the Railways. There are quite a number of artisan pensioners who should like to resume work again, but not as artisans. They would like to go in for clerical work. However, very few of them are able to produce a J.C. Certificate with the result that they cannot be accepted. There is a large reservoir of very capable people available if they can be absorbed. If the Minister’s Department is really serious in its desire to recruit staff, it should remove these small headaches. Although there is a shortage of artisans on the Railways, the efforts of the Railways to recruit more artisans result only in a very restricted inflow. Every applicant is subjected to a strict test and not everybody is accepted. Efforts should be made to secure a continuous inflow of apprentices. In this way our artisan staff could be built up. We should not confine our recruitment to fixed periods.

If you listen to hon. members on the other side you will gain the impression that everyone on the Railways is happy. Of course the railwaymen welcome the rises in their wages that they *have had but it is difficult to get a true reflection of their mind because they are afraid to talk out of fear of victimization. They will not allow you for instance to publish their names. I can, however, state that there is a great degree of dissatisfaction in the workshops about the application of the disciplinary code, i.e. these petty fines, etc. There is of course a prescribed code but it is its application which gives rise to dissatisfaction. Many of these men are unhappy. This is another matter for the Minister to investigate as it is a matter for him and the artisan staff association. These little difficulties should be ironed out. There is no doubt about it that many of the resignations that occur amongst the artisan staff result from an unfair application of the disciplinary code.

Overtime has also been referred to. Look at the time ticket examiners have to work on the suburban services of Cape Town. Mr. Speaker, you will be shocked to see the schedule according to which these people have to work. Normally they come on in the early hours of the morning and finish only late at night. The result is that on occasion you have men going off the “rail”. You see, Sir, they have free periods in town, too far away from their homes to enjoy a meal and on occasion they meet a pal and go to the local bar and if they happen to be caught under the influence of liquor they lose their jobs. This constitutes a real problem, one to which the Minister should give his attention. I know the men welcome overtime because they need the extra money.

I have, Mr. Speaker, tried to convey some of the grievances of the railway staff. I have mentioned the real lack of planning. As a matter of fact, this Government cannot claim that it has undertaken any long-term planning at all. Their entire policy proves it. Any claim to long-term planning that it should advance, is therefore not justified.

There are a few matters I should like to bring to the hon. the Minister’s notice, but before I come to that, I want to refer to the fact that the hon. member who has just sat down denied that they are against work reservation. Of course we know that that is not true, but now that the election is at hand, they want to swing round and try to advocate a new policy. But let me tell the United Party this: No matter how hard they try, they will not succeed in gaining the support of the railway worker. The railwayman knows who his friends are, and he knows under which Government he has received benefits. He can still remember clearly what happened to him in the days when the United Party was in power. If it was true that they safeguarded the interests of the railwayman as well as the hon. member claimed, then I want to ask him how it came about that they dismissed thousands of White railway workers without notice and without telling them where they would get their next piece of bread, and then employed non-Whites in their stead? Is that the way to look after the interests of workers? Now they come and court the railwayman’s vote. Let me tell the United Party that in my constituency, Langlaagte, there are only seven United Party voters left.

And yet the Nationalist’s Party majority decreased in the provincial by-election.

With the coming election the majority will show a tremendous increase again. I called on these seven United Party members, and one of them told me that before their father died, they had to promise him that they would vote for the United Party, because he was a Smuts/Botha man. This person has now decided not to vote, however, so that the United Party is losing one of the seven. In the past I have frequently pleaded with the Minister for the interests of the shunters, and now I have the opportunity to thank him very sincerely for what he has done for the shunters. In my opinion it is still far too little to compensate for the dangerous work done by these people, but I cannot see any way in which one can improve their position. I leave that in the hands of the Minister.

Then I want to ask the Minister—I have mentioned this on previous occasions in this House—please to demolish the hovels which the United Party erected in a part of Langlaagte-Noord and in which railwaymen are obliged to live now. There are approximately 30 or 40 such hovels. They should be demolished and replaced by decent dwellings such as those built under the National Party Government. They are situated in a part of Langlaagte North, and are simply unfit for human occupation. I have brought this to the Minister’s notice before.

I also want to thank the Minister for what has been done in connection with unguarded crossings, although there is still a great deal to be done. We hear about accidents every day, and in the past I pleaded repeatedly that gates or something of that nature should be erected there to warn those people until such time as all those crossings have been eliminated—which will take many years.

Mr. Speaker, seeing that I have now come to the end of my political career and this is probably the last time I shall rise to address this House, I feel obliged, firstly, to thank the Minister and the Administration for the courtesy, goodwill and friendliness extended to me during the years I have represented Langlaagte. I have met with nothing but courtesy and they have always tried to assist wherever possible. I cannot emphasize strongly enough that the Minister and the Administration deserve this tribute. Even the railway workers, from the highest to the lowest, are always courteous, which is the way it should be, since these people have been looked after by way of improvements in salaries and pensions. I also want to proffer a word of thanks to the railway workers in the Langlaagte constituency for the faithful support which I have received from them during the years I spent in this House. I trust they will adopt the same attitude in the future.

I rise to take an extraordinary step, and that is to appeal to you personally in my capacity as a back-bencher. We have been engaged in a very important debate for almost two days. I have tried to follow it carefully, and the impression I have gained has reminded me of D. F. Malherbe’s words—

In this case I am applying those words to the dividedness of an ineffectual Opposition. We expect something better from them. Seeing that conferences are so much in the news nowadays, I want to appeal to you, Sir, to arrange a conference among the Whips in order to investigate ways and means of putting some “pep and go” into this helpless Opposition. It really requires an effort to respond politically on the plane on which those people move.

We had a tremendous tirade from the opening speaker in the debate, the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn). He started off most dramatically by way of a personal attack on the hon. the Minister, and with great emphasis denounced the lack of policy on the part of the Minister and his Department. The task of further motivating his point of view, was left to his supporters, but what did he get? We heard members on this side of the House being accused of blowing up bridges during the war years, while the Railways officials did their duty during the war, in the full knowledge that the General was sitting on their side of the House and not on ours. That is a blatant and objectionable anomaly. It was an effort to substantiate the suggestion that our Minister and his Department have no policy, a courageous effort, but it was clearly recognizable that while he was trying to create the impression that he was approaching the matter in all seriousness, he could not resist laughing at himself. It is a terrible situation, and I think these circumstances call for closer examination. Sir, somebody once asked the late Mr. Churchill what he thought of his possible successor, Wilson. Mr. Churchill replied: “I do not think much of him.”The questioner wanted to know why, and he said: “I actually have two reasons, and the first is his face.” The man then asked what the second reason was, and Mr. Churchill said: “Also his face.” The two-faced mentality of that party sickens those among us who take an interest in politics. We have heard policy statements—I wrote them down—no fewer than 11. In actual fact that party is an 11-faced one.

But that is a cricket team.

And they are out for a duck.

The United Party criticizes the Minister and his possible deficit, and tried to stir up suspicions in this connection, but the fact of the matter are simply these: For the past few. years the Minister’s revenue from transporting maize to the coast alone amounted to R30,000,000 per year. Last year there was practically nothing. This one item alone explains why we may possibly get a deficit. I do not want to go any further by mentioning the increased cost of materials, increased building costs, and wage increases—quite rational and reasonable explanations for the situation. But those people are not prepared to mention these things in their arguments. All they are trying to do is to create a false impression, even by using facts which have been taken completely out of their context. The same speaker tried to say something about the so-called inefficiency of the Railways, about its defective administration and control, and told us most dramatically how he had stood on a mine dump in Johannesburg with a pair of goggles on and had looked down upon a station.

In the first place, he did not complete his sentence properly. He wanted to tell us how he had stood upon an antheap and had tried to count the wagons at Poupan. It is painful to have to condescend to replying to arguments of that nature in deference to the procedure of this House. The truth of the matter is that Angelo is one of the Railways’ large shunting stations where trains go to be broken up and where the trucks are reassembled in new trains, and it sometimes happens that they tave to wait hours for the specific trucks from which the new train is to be assembled. According to this hon. member the locomotives should move aimlessly up and down the railway line while waiting for the trucks, in order to create an impression of good administration. That is the only logical deduction one can make from his argument. To talk about a policy and then to stand upon a mine dump and to try to get a total impression of a station from a long distance, without showing enough interest to approach the station master and ask him a few intelligent questions about the impressions he had received, is to make a caricature of what we call policy. That is ridiculous and petty, and a most unintelligent approach to such a situation. The position at Poupan was that during the Christmas holidays it came about that as a result of the drought and other reasons, many of those trucks were not needed by the Western Cape and by South West Africa and had to be uncoupled north of De Aar.

Furthermore, the coal mines did not require those trucks very urgently at that time, with the quite normal result that some wagons perhaps remained unused for a few weeks. But that had absolutely nothing to do and had no connection with administration and control. The hon. member for Yeoville also made great play of the irresponsibility of this Government, which was competing with private initiative, and said that that was why the Government had landed itself in its present financial position.

That same hon. member and also the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) and others adopted the same attitude only a year ago when they recommended to the Minister that he should leave the transportation of coal to private transport, to people who also wanted to make a living and who had licences and who could easily undertake it without prejudicing the Railways. That was only a year ago, but yesterday they came here with great ado and said that one of the worst sins the Minister could commit would be to leave the transportation of coal in the hands of private transport. When I was a young student, we had to hold a mock funeral for a grasshopper, and on that occasion we had to laugh and cry simultaneously. Here I have seen the mock funeral of a party with 11 heads, 11 personalities and 11 policies. It is a freak; it is something unnatural. That is why they have been laughing and crying simultaneously in this House since yesterday, much to my surprise, and have contradicted one another ten times over as regards their policy. Each one of them had his own interpretation. Another example is the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw). He talked about the rate for the job. He said we were making a mistake; it was a term we had taken over from the international trade union movement. That is not altogether an unintelligent answer, because we are aware of the fact that in their past professions of policy the Opposition revealed sympathy and spiritual bonds with the communist-inspired international trade union movement. It was quoted in the debate—and I want to refer to that again—that they do not advocate the rate for the job, but that it is officially their policy that the non-White in this country should be integrated economically. That was stated repeatedly by their Leader himself. I should like anyone of them who rises after me to explain to us the difference between economical integration and nonsupport of the rate for the job idea. They are quite clever. They advocate economic integration, because they know that that is the most important lever for applying and implementing the policy of the rate for the job. Until they have economic integration, they come into conflict with the traditional policy of this country, namely job reservation. They know they have to break that, but they can only break that after economic integration has become an accomplished fact. [Quorum.] In a further attempt to state their policy in this House, we heard about a few cases of disciplinary action. We heard about mileage signs between Simonstown and St. James, trifling matters which they inflated into matters of policy and inefficiency on the part of the Minister.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) said that the Administration was making cyphers of the Railway officials, and that in the annual Report of the General Manager they found only figures and statistics. Sir, my humble conception of business and good administration is that that those matters are based on three fundamental premises. The first is that one should have a clear conception of one’s task; one should know what one wants to achieve. The second is that one should have a rational basis of labour division, and the third is that one should apply self-control regularly and systematically. Now I should like to know how the General Manager is supposed to comply with these high requirements without using statistics. In contrast with the uncalled-for and unfriendly comments on the Report of the General Manager, I want to give them the assurance from this side of the House that we regard that as sound business control, as the application and the recognition of most important and fundamental business principles.

We congratulate him on that, and we hope and trust that in future, if it is at all practicable, he will break down all data in order to set us, as far as humanly possible, the perfect example of business control we have been accustomed to receive from the hon. the Minister and his Department up to now. I give them my best wishes and congratulate them.

After listening to speeches by members of the Government party, one would think that the Railways was an all-White undertaking, and that diabolical efforts and attempts were being made by us to introduce workers into the Railway Service who are not White, when in actual fact the Railways already has many thousands of Bantu and Coloured workers in its ranks. I want to ask these hon. gentlemen who talk about integration, whether or not a business which employs 100,000 people has those people integrated in its system, or whether they are segregated and out of the system. I have never listened to so much nonsense in my life about these attempts which are being made to try and suggest that the United Party has some deep, cunning plan to oust the White man from his job and to substitute him by Coloureds and Bantu. In actual fact, I want to make a statement to-day to this effect, that no Coloured man wishes to get employment at the expense of his White colleague. But what the Coloured people do say is that this country is developing, particularly the Railways, to an extent where we cannot cope with the traffic which is offered. We hear the Minister say, and correctly, that he is short of staff. In general terms the manpower shortage in this country is common to all industries, so much so that the Minister of Labour has had to agree in various Industrial Council agreements to allow certain types of workers to do semi-skilled work. This means that those people are in the industry; they are not just brought in but are already there. They are part and parcel of it. No matter how much the Nationalist Party may squawk and scream about it, that is a hard, incontrovertible fact. In dealing with the question of labour, my plea to the Minister to-day is that in his search for new employees he should consider Coloured persons. He had a mission overseas which was partially successful and brought people out here—but my information is that numbers of these people find difficulties in this country with the languages, not only with the Afrikaans but also with the English language, because they come from Southern Europe. There are also people who come from the welfare states, and they find it difficult to adjust themselves to a country where there are no free hospitals or medical attendance. Then there are domestic reasons why they leave. Some members of the family do not like it here and want to go back. I want to suggest to the Min ster that he should institute a method of inquiring, as part of his policy, into the finding of suitable avenues of employment in the Railways which could be filled by the Coloured people of this country who number l,500,00( of the population. They are people who understand the country and they speak both the languages. They are South Africans in every respect. They are loyal servants. They have taken their stand with us, when we have had to defend ourselves, and they are as good as any other group or class of persons in the Republic. I therefore make an appeal to the Minister and ask him to consider doing this on a basis of its being a plan and part of his policy, and not on the basis of an expediency. I do not want him to say, as the Minister of Mines said during the week, that he has a shortage of 2,000 White miners but that when the old mines close down those who will be released there can fill the positions. It is quite conceivable that new mines will be discovered yielding both minerals and base metals and that there will always be a shortage of miners. The Railways, however, have no prospect of closing down part of their activities and therefore whatever changes in personnel do take place must be permanent. They cannot be temporary, on the basis of the thinking of the Minister of Mines, which I think is extremely short-sighted. The Minister of Railways, to give him the credit, has not done too badly on the Railways, although there is plenty of room for criticism and he will still be criticized. So my first point is an appeal to the Minister to employ Coloured persons to a greater degree than he does now, in grades and positions where they can be most useful. I know he will tell me that representations have been made to him to employ these people in those areas which have been declared as Coloured townships. But the Railways are not confined to one specific township; it covers the entire country and the services of the Railways are required by everybody all over the country. So I say the Minister should get away from the narrow thinking that he is doing the Coloured man a great favour by appointing him as a station master or as a foreman or as a shunter in some little yard in some remote Coloured township. I believe that the only prospect which will lead us to prosper to the extent that we should, is to utilize every possible source of labour we can.

Do you want a Coloured man to be the station master of Cape Town?

I am not concerned about the station master of Cape Town. That is the kind of ridiculous suggestion made by those hon. members opposite. That is not a valid argument at all, to suggest that because we want to put Coloured people in jobs which are vacant and for which there are no recruits, that by doing so the Cape Town station will be in the charge of a Coloured man. I would go further and say it is not unlikely in the passage of years that such a man will emerge, and if he did, what of it? In other parts of the world, there are people of different colours in high jobs and that is also going to happen in this country. We talk so glibly and lightly about job reservation as though it is the be-all and end-all. when in fact the Minister of Labour has granted more exemptions than he has promulgated proclamations to declare reserved trades and occupations. But that is good propaganda for people in the platteland who do not know what is going on. I can hear Nationalist Party speakers screaming now about what the hon. member for Karoo said in Parliament. The fact is that we have 1,500,000 Coloured people in this country and many of them work on the Railways.

I want to refer to one or two other items in connection with the Railways and ask the Minister for his co-operation and support and for some action. I have asked him before for a contributory pension fund for non-Whites. If my memory serves me correctly his reply was, “where will I get the money? Do you realize what it will cost”? That has been his answer for a long time but I think it is no longer valid because in the year which has just gone by we have had these tremendous increases given to White workers. Good luck to them; nobody begrudges them their increases.

So you admit that it is a tremendous increase?

One does not have to admit that a sum of money is tremendous; its size is obvious. These increases involve globular sums of money and there are many people getting the benefit of these increases and to some extent the non-Whites have been receiving some benefit. The point I wish to make though is that because there is an election coming along, every White worker has been offered a little bit of sugar or bait, a little sugar for the birds. That is the whole simple issue and whether or not it will pay dividends remains to be seen. I think the railway worker is a very sensible person. He knows quite well that his efforts to get more money were conducted through his trade unions, with the assistance of this side of the House, and that that side of the House has steadfastly refused to give them any increases, the excuse being that there was no money. Now we find that money has been found and I think the time has come to plead again for my proposition that there should be a contributory pension fund for Coloured persons in the Railway service. I am being reminded here that there will be a surplus and I have no doubt that that will be so.

Another thing that I want to ask the Minister to do for me is to introduce a cost-of-living allowance for all employees on the Railways and particularly for those in the lower brackets, whatever the colour of their skins may be, because with the rising costs I think it is inevitable that these people are going to be faced with difficulties in making ends meet. I would like to take time by the forelock and provide these people with a cost-of-living allowance before the position becomes serious.

I then come to the question of wages and salaries which, in general terms, are low and I would like to ask the Minister, through his trade unions, to see what can be done in that regard. Generally speaking I think the position of the non-White employees on the Railways could be improved considerably that they could be given more responsibility and that they could be paid considerably more than they are being paid at the present moment.

Then I also want to ask the Minister whether he will not do away with this system of gratuities and make pensions payable instead. There are cases where widows get nothing. I think the non-White staff should also be able to contribute to a pension fund as well as a widows’ and orphans’ fund. In other words, they should be put on the same basis as their White colleagues, or on a similar or appropriate basis. Sir, I say that because there is such a large number of non-Whites employed on the Railways to-day, that they represent a very real portion of the labour force in the entire country as well as within the Railway service. The complaint which is made to me quite often and which I wish to ventilate is the lack of accommodation provided in main line trains as far as reserved coaches are concerned. My information is that the General Manager of Railways has been advised by the Coloured organizations that one coach, which is customarily provided, is insufficient. You know, of course, Sir, that it is possible to book accommodation on the trains three months beforehand when the booking opens. Coloured people complain bitterly that unless they get their names in within a fortnight of the opening day, that is to say, 24 months before they decide to go away, they do not have much chance of getting on the train. The Railways do attempt to a certain extent to assist in times of heavy traffic and during holiday periods, but I have had several experiences which lead me to think that the flexibility at local level is so poor that the Minister could well investigate the position and make some changes to the benefit of the people concerned. I quote as an example a case brought to my notice quite recently where an individual wanted to put a Coloured person on a train from a big station and had to phone through to Durban to see whether there was accommodation on the Orange Express; had to phone Johannesburg to find out whether there was accommodation on the Trans-Karoo and had to phone elsewhere to find out whether there was accommodation on the Rhodesian Express. He had no luck at all. A whole week went by; people came to see me and I took up the matter with the System Manager. I want to say to his credit that this person was on the train the next morning. The point I want to make is this: Who got thrown off in order to get this person on the train? [Interjections.] No, they do not put on extra coaches, and I think that that is something which should be done. The Coloured people make quite extensive use of the reserved coaches on the main lines. They want to move about; they have business to attend to and they also go on holiday, and I think some of the difficulties placed in their way might be removed. I ask the hon. the Minister to give this matter his consideration.

I noticed that the hon. the Minister referred in his opening address to the fact that his catering services were still losing money. Sir, this service is one which I think should be examined with a view to using other personnel since the present personnel are hard-pressed. The dining cars appear always to be understaffed and I think the time has come when the Minister should examine that aspect with a view to employing Asiatic and Coloured people on the dining cars because that is a line of business which they understand and in which they excel. One can go into the best hotels and one finds non-Whites serving meals. I think this is one place where the Coloured man could be introduced with considerable benefit.

I think that in discussing this important and large amount requested by the hon. the Minister, we should not only consider his stewardship for the past year, but should also examine the full five years of this Parliament’s duration, in order to see what has been done and what has been omitted in connection with the Railways of South Africa. From the other side of the House we have heard a good deal about the mark made by the hon. the Minister during these last years, but he has made more than only that mark; he has made holes, and in many places he has also left wounds, and it will be a good thing if we also look at the other side of the picture this afternoon, the side which hon. members on the other side have not presented to this House.

Yes, we have had five years of Nationalist Government rule. In the first place, it was a régime under which dissatisfaction among the Railways staff reached a high-water mark such as this country had seldom experienced before. During the past two years that dissatisfaction grew and nearly came to a head, a seething and justified dissatisfaction among the Railways staff, and the position was saved only because the Minister—one could almost say too late—came forward with the recent increases. If I say that the dissatisfaction almost reached a high-water mark, we should take a look at the best barometer of dissatisfaction, and what better barometer can there be than the number of resignations? In any firm, in any organization, one always finds people who are dissatisfied but the test for true dissatisfaction is when people are driven to the point where they are prepared to resign from that organization, and that is why the régime of the past five years has been a régime of dissatisfaction virtually unprecedented in the history of South Africa, because the number of resignations has never been so high in the history of the Railways of South Africa. The number of resignations rose to 10,000 a year.

How many have rejoined?

The hon. member asks how many have rejoined. I am comparing the position with those of previous years in which employees also resigned and joined. After all, figures have been prepared on the same basis, and the fact of the matter is that the number of resignations under this régime was larger than ever before in the history of the country.

And the staff establishment was also larger.

For a few months the railwayman may now enjoy some relief, but hard on the railwayman’s heels—as a result of the Government’s policy—there still follows the dragon of the rising cost of living, and ahead of him lurks a predator in the shape of the Minister of Finance, waiting to impose higher taxes; though fortunately the present Minister of Finance will not be introducing the next Budget.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, this is the régime under which the Railway Service has experienced its greatest peace-time labour problems. The General Manager of the Railways himself states in his Report that there have been heavy losses of manpower; he writes—

Nobody knows better than the Minister himself of what magnitude those problems were. But not only was it a régime under which dissatisfaction reached a high-water mark, under which the labour problem reached a high-water mark for peace-time, it is also a régime under which particular sections of the Railways virtually fell into chaos. Thirdly, I refei to the shocking example of the catering department. It is well nigh incredible that the catering department is operated at such an astronomical loss of hundreds of thousands of rands per year. The latest figures at my disposal reflect an annual loss of more than R750,000, nearly as large as the previous year’s figure of more than R900,000. The catering department incurred losses which increased from R100,000 to R400,000, to R500,000, to almost R1,000,00 in a single year. Compare that with the régime of the United Party, which is held up to such scorn, under which the catering department did not show a loss but showed a profit, as in the year 1947, of R419,00. As far as we can deduce, the reorganization of the catering department, to mention only one department, has resulted in increased losses. It has not resulted in a major decrease in the number of items, excepting in so far as the Railways got rid of or tried to get rid of its catering departments, and after it had got rid of them, it found that in many cases private undertakings could make a success of them—where it had failed despite the fact that it did not have to pay rents for the premises in which its restaurants were situated. No, I will not be told that the régime of the past five years has been a régime of good government, good management and good stewardship on the part of the hon. the Minister.

Fourthly, this is the Railways régime under which the policy of civilized White labour showed serious cracks, not only among shunters, but also on dining-cars and among railroad workers. One of the hon. members on that side—I think it was the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. J. A. Schlebusch) —quoted a most extraordinary series of figures to us, by means of which he tried to prove that the percentage increase in the number of Natives or non-Whites on the Railways had been larger under the United Party régime than under the present Nationalist Party régime. As far as I can determine, however, the fact of the matter is, firstly, that the number of non-White labourers on the Railways at present is the highest in the history of South Africa, and it is also a fact that under this Government the number of non-White labourers on the Railways has shown a greater increase than the number of White labourers. The hon. the Minister must correct me if my figures are wrong, but according to the report of the General Manager of the Railways for the year 1948, the total White establishment was 98,000 and the total non-White establishment 90,000. According to the 1965 report of the General Manager, the total White establishment was 115,000 and the total non-White establishment 111,000.

But what were they in 1947? Look how they had increased during the last years.

I am taking the last year of the United Party’s régime. You will see, Sir, that during the years this Government has been in power the number of Whites increased by 17,000, while the number of non-Whites increased by 21,000, a substantial difference. I do not know where the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) found his figures; I found mine in the report of the General Manager of Railways.

But are you opposed to the employment of more non-Whites?

Our primary consideration is the efficiency of the Railways, but we must also take into consideration the principle of civilized White labour on the Railways, and the Minister must naturally take the blame for the present situation, since he is making it virtually impossible for the Whites to remain on the Railways, and since they are resigning in tens of thousands and he is forced to replace them with non-Whites. We maintain that anything of that nature should first obtain the approval of the Railways Staff Associations. Personally, I regret to see that happening, but if it is unavoidable under the policy of the hon. the Minister, well, what can one do with such a Minister and such a Government? Of course, if we had had a different Government, the situation would have been solved.

But you are opposed to the employment of more non-Whites on the Railways.

Does the hon. the Minister mean in larger numbers?

Yes.

No, we are not opposed to that. We are in favour of the employment of more Whites and of course more non-Whites as well, but under our regime the increase in the number of non-Whites will not be so very much larger than the increase in the number of Whites as it has been under this Government. Naturally there will be expansion under a United Party Government. We shall have to appoint far more staff, both White and non-White, but I am quite sure that the increase in the number of Whites will be larger than the increase in the number of non-Whites.

Fifthly, this is the régime under which there has been so much boasting about railway houses and what has been done for the railwayman as regards housing. I concede that a good deal has been done. A United Party Government might have done much more. But, Sir, this Government must also be characterized as the one under which hundreds and hundreds of railway houses stood empty in certain years. In 1963 alone no fewer than 786 railway houses stood empty. And, Sir, do you know what was one of the main reasons? One of the main reasons, as furnished to me by the hon. the Minister, was that White railway workers were being replaced by non-Whites. He told me that in reply to a question, and I hope hon. members will look that up in Hansard. Almost 800 railway houses are standing empty because White railway workers have been replaced by non-White workers.

Under your régime Whites did pick-and-shovel work.

In the sixth place, this is the régime under which planning has gone wrong in so many cases. We were glad to hear that the Organization and Method System had been introduced on the Railways, but I know that during the first few months after its introduction, at least, more personnel were used rather than fewer. There was no saving in personnel. I hope the position has now improved. Take a minor example. In the past one had to fill in three forms in order to send a parcel by air from Johannesburg to Cape Town. To-day one has to fill in seven forms after O & M has given thorough consideration to the matter. That has been my personal experience. Consider the case of the laundry here at Culemborg, consider that money was voted for it as long ago as 1951, that machines to the value of tens of thousands of rands were bought, but stood there for years before they were taken into use, until finally there were machines to the value of R217,000, and only 12 years later was that laundry taken into use. Have you ever seen such an example of wonderful planning!

In the seventh place, this régime will be characterized as the one under which the entire financial system of payment nearly broke down at a certain stage. I am thinking of the numerous officials who at one stage did not receive their salary cheques in good time; I am thinking of the tremendous delays in sick fund payments. In 1964 there were no fewer than 1,168 cases of sick fund payments which had been delayed for longer than four months. Think of the misery caused by that. The man who had been ill had to pay his accounts: he had incurred great expenses; his children were at school and he had to buy them clothes and in 1,168 cases the Railways were either so heartless or so inefficient that those payments were not made in good time. At one stage during the past five years the Railways could not even pay its own accounts correctly. In 1961-2, in one year alone, accounts amounting to R400,000 were unpaid—arrear accounts which should have been paid. Where is that wonderful image of the Railways which is presented to us? Why do not the hon. members on the other side tell the country more about these things?

In the eighth place, this was the period in which the Superannuation Fund waxed fat. Yes, the Superannuation Fund grew fat also as a result of the contributions made by the orginary railwayman, but what did the pensioner get? So far he has only received a few crumbs, in spite of the fact that the Government and the railwaymen have paid in up to three times as much as the ordinary railwaymen have actually received by way of pensions.

In the ninth place, this was the régime of vastly inflated Railway Estimates. Yes, vastly inflated, but nevertheless there were also enormous tariff increases which weighed heavily on all who made use of the Railways.

Finally, in this regard I think the hon. the Minister has given the country a new meteorological sign, a meteorological sign which the Weather Bureau would do well to adopt. In summer we have the sign of the sun; in spring we have the sign of the trees; in autumn we have the sign of the falling leaves, and in winter we have the sign of the coal crisis on the Witwatersrand; as inevitably as the flowers and as inevitably as the sun and as inevitably as the falling autumn leaves, we have had coal crises in 1965, 1964, 1963. I do not want to bore you with a list of all the years. I want to predict that unless a new Government comes into power within the next month or two, which is, of course, what we are all hoping for and expecting, the Witwatersrand will experience another coal crisis in June. Mr. Speaker, one can understand it if there is a coal crisis in one year; one can forgive the second year’s; but when comes to the third and the fourth and the fifth and the sixth year, and that crisis persists, I refuse to be told by anybody that the Government is a capable and efficient one.

What about the railway records?

Oh yes, records have been set up.

You found that speech in the Kruithoring, of which you yourself are a former editor.

Yes, records have been set up, records for train mileages, records for passengers transported, etc. But there are other records which are more sinister than those, other records of which I am now going to tell the House, for example the record number of accidents which have occurred on the Railways.

Far fewer than previously.

I suppose the hon. member means fewer than in 1958 and fewer than in 1954. Will he tell us which Government was in power then?

During the period which the hon. member calls the “Sap-tyd” (the United Party period), the Auditor-General could certify every year that the Railways of South Africa were safe. He issued such a certificate each year. But today that certificate is no longer being issued. For some reason or other—good reasons, for all we know—that practice has been abolished. The number of persons who died in railway accidents increased from 288 six years ago to 457 last year. That is a large increase, an increase of almost 100 per cent.

[Inaudible.]

That hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling), who says that I am stupid, should rather start investigating the safety of the Railways in the Carletonville area, which falls within his constituency. Grave danger is threatening there. Sinkholes under the railway lines present a serious danger in those parts. In looking up the Railways’ records regarding accidents, we must realize that not nearly all the accidents which occur are recorded. In fact, nowhere in this report could I find the number of railway accidents that occurred last year and the year before last. The report does contain a very fine graph. The graph fell, and last year it rose again, quite sharply too. But the actual accident figures are not furnished. I put a question to the hon. the Minister in respect of one area only, namely the new hump marshalling yard in Bloemfontein. This yard was taken into service approximately 15 months ago, and in this period there were no fewer than 440 accidents. I repeat, Mr. Speaker: 440 accidents in one railway yard. And do you know how many derailments have occurred there? At this one place 62 derailments occurred. Do you think this report reflects all accidents? Do you think they are all taken into consideration? Certainly not!

If there in one aspect which should give us all much food for thought, it is the large number of injuries, quite serious injuries, suffered by railwaymen. I wonder whether the House and the country realize how many staff members were injured on the Railways last year, and injured to such an extent that their injuries had to be reported? Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of 1,000 or 2,000. Oh no, it is a matter of no fewer than 24,000 railwaymen who were injured to such an extent that the injuries were reported. And in respect of those injuries, compensation amounting to almost R2,000,000 had to be paid. Our railwaymen are the ones who have to endure that suffering. They did not suffer minor grazes. Many of them suffered broken limbs. Some of them had to go to hospital. In some cases they were so seriously maimed that they could not go back to work. Some of those accidents even resulted in deaths.

Mr. Speaker, I am not satisfied that the safety measures taken on the Railways are quite effective. I am not satisfied with a state of affairs in which our railwaymen incur 24,000 injuries in one year.

Did you say 24,000 a year?

Yes, the hon. Minister furnished this figure in his reply to me. On 25 January I put a question to him in this connection. The figure is 24,000 per year. I asked the Minister how many drivers, shunters, firemen, guards and other staff employed by the South African Railways were (i) killed or (ii) injured on duty during each year since 1961. The figures which he furnished in respect of 1964-5 were: drivers—528 (injured); shunters—1,678; firemen— 1,284; guards— 800; other staff—19,749. That comes to a total of approximately 24,000 injured persons.

I want to say here—and I think the public will agree with me—that the services rendered by the Railways to the public at present are not the best, or nearby as satisfactory as they can and should be. Of course the quality of the service depends upon who is in charge. The services can be improved in many respects. In this connection, Sir, I wonder—despite the reasons furnished—why the electrification of the railway line between Beaufort West and Beaconsfield cannot be continued. Why cannot the railway line be electrified from Cape Town right through to Johannesburg? We now find that the line from Kimberley to Postmasburg is being electrified, and also the line to Hotazel. But I should prefer the other, more important section, the one between Touws River and Kimberley, to be electrified completely, even if it costs more than the other section.

Is it also an indication of good services being provided to the public if one finds that under this Government the average age of passenger coaches used on the mainlines is 45 years? I admit that new coaches are being bought. But not enough of them are being acquired to replace the old coaches to any appreciable extent. It should be borne in mind that these old coaches become another year older every year.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a great deal about this new Blue Train. We have heard about two new Blue Trains. The two of them are going to cost R2.6 million. I suppose they will be very fine trains. I hope my children will be able to travel in them one day. But you know, Mr. Speaker, when I studied the Estimates, I found that only R200 of the R2,600,000 was used in this year. This side of the House approves of those two Blue Trains. We hope that one day they will mean as much for the transport service of South Africa as is expected of them, particularly from the point of view of tourism. But why all the delay with those prestige trains?

There are major errors which have to be corrected, and there are minor anomalies which are quite unnecessary. As regards the latter, I am thinking of parking areas on the platforms of the Johannesburg station. Originally those parking areas were laid out, but later they were removed again. And for the third successive year the hon. the Minister is still unable to tell me when motorists will be allowed to park on the platforms of the Johannesburg station. Then there is the gallery tearoom at the Johannesburg station which has ceased to function. The Railways could not continue running it. We have the long oil pipeline to Johannesburg, and the fact that every time a motorist in Johannesburg buys a gallon of petrol, he has to pay 4c extra, as a result of the hon. the Minister’s policy and actions. It is simply called the “Ben Tax”!

Unfortunately I do not have the time to deal with all the points I wanted to mention. Before sitting down, however, I want to ask the hon. the Minister the following question: Does the Minister have any further information regarding the alleged commission which was alleged to have been paid in respect of the Boeing aeroplanes? When I asked the hon. the Minister about that, his reply was that the Railways did not pay one cent in respect of commission.

No commission was paid.

I accept that. In any event, I have written to the Boeing company and their letter to me, which I have before me, states that they have no agent in South Africa. A certain company in Vereeniging nevertheless, alleged that they had received a certain amount as commission on the sale of these aeroplanes. Well, that is quite a serious matter. I have submitted the matter to the Auditor-General, but I think it is the hon. the Minister’s duty to find out what the real state of affairs is. And if commission has been received, by which person or body has it been received? [Time limit.]

I knew it was just a temporary phenomenon when the hon. member for Orange Grove began speaking very quietly, because I knew he would not continue in that strain. One must just give him a chance and then he again refers to everything under the sun in the superlative degree. The hon. member referred to the previous United Party régime, and according to him everything in the garden was rosy as far as the Railways was concerned. The rolling stock was brand new—there was not so much as a little speck of rust to be seen anywhere. And what has happened under this Government? Alas, everything is going to rack and ruin. The trucks are empty. The funds have dried up. And in that strain the hon. member continued. But what I find very strange, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that although—as the hon. member wants to give out—Railway matters flourished under the United Party régime, and after that fell into decline under the Nationalist Party régime, just the opposite has happened in this House, because here the National Party has grown tremendously, while the numbers of the members on that side have been reduced repeatedly. If he could clear up this anomaly for me, I would be very glad, for if wretchedness has been prevailing under this régime for so many years already, we should no longer have been sitting on this side of the House.

I recall that quite a few years ago I read about certain things which the hon. member had had to say about Railway housing. I think it was in 1946 that photographs were shown in this House of a White foreman’s dwelling under a pepper tree next to the railway line, a dwelling measuring only six feet by nine feet and built of corrugated iron. A mile away houses had been built for non-White railway workers which had wood block floors, four rooms and built-in baths. And now hon. members on that side of the House want to boast about what they did in respect of railway housing while they try and decry what has been done for the railwayman under this hon. Minister.

Many aspects of transport in our country have been discussed in this debate. The Opposition touched upon many matters. They found fault with everything. They criticized railway finances, carrying capacity, capital works, staff matters, train time-tables, and so one can go on. If I remember correctly, their criticism in the past was at least a little more confined within certain limits, within specific channels, and it dealt more with specific matters. But on this occasion they merely took all these matters, threw them into a pot, stirred violently and whilst stirring added even more matters to the contents of the pot. They did this because they did not want the impression to be gained outside this House that this Government might perhaps have done something good. The tactics of that side of the House were to throw everything they could lay their hands on into the pot—yes, even the hon. the Minister had to be dragged in. They wanted to leave nothing untouched because they were afraid that at this stage, shortly before the election, the impression might be gained outside this House that there were a few matters which this Government had handled correctly and with which they could be satisfied.

As I have said, even the hon. the Minister was dragged in and thrown into the pot of criticism, notwithstanding the fact that the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) had said two or three years ago that if the United Party should one day come into office, the hon. the Minister should consider joining them so that he could manage railway affairs for them! I am satisfied that the hon. member was serious when he made that statement. Other hon. members condemned the hon. the Minister indiscriminately, until the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden) had second thoughts and admitted that the Minister had not acquitted himself of his task too badly. He at least admitted that we could praise the Minister for what he had done. But apart from that, the hon. the Minister was criticized indiscriminately. They had forgotten what was said on that side of the House a year or two ago in regard to the hon. Minister’s able handling of the country’s Railway affairs.

Let us take a look at what the hon. member for Durban (Point) said here. What a long detour the hon. member made! He raked up hoary old stories and took his stand on blown-up bridges and railway lines. He said that that was the state they found the Railways after this side had tampered with them. Hon. members on that side allege that bridges which had had to be used by Whites had been blown up by people on this side, and that they had had to make the repairs. Mr. Speaker, not one of us, even in the days when that sort of thing was taking place, approved actions of that nature in any way whatsoever. If we look back to 1949, i.e. shortly after the National Party came into power, we find that there were also delays in the transport service of the Administration. There were many transport problems. The then hon. Minister said that we should bear in mind, however, that transport problems, including delays, were not only due to a shortage of trucks and tractive power. He explained that there were other causes. Platforms were too short; loading ramps were too small; marshalling-yards did not meet the requirements; goods-yards could not accommodate the desired amount of traffic; and loop lines were too short. These things, and many more besides, created great problems, Mr. Speaker. We had to overcome these difficulties. The short platforms were not the work of a few irresponsible persons who had been guilty of violence. They did not tear up the rails on loop-lines and carry them away. The marshalling-yards were not blown up into useless piles of rubble with dynamite. These things were the legacy in 1948 of the hon. members on that side. And this Government had to begin rebuilding from that point, not only as far as the expansion of the Railways was concerned, but also as far as rectifying staff matters was concerned.

When hon. members complain here about the congestion taking place in the harbours because the freight offered is too great for the available facilities, the reasons cannot be sought in the dynamite fumes which the hon. member once more tried to conjure up here. That was also something which this Government had to apply itself to and rectify from scratch. That had nothing to do with the actions which were committed on a few occasions and which did not meet with our approval.

It is of course a well-known fact that South Africa’s participation in the Second World War caused disruption in the country, and when I say this I am not reproaching anyone and I am not picking a quarrel with anyone. At some stage or other of this disruption a new start had to be made in order to set matters right, particularly as far as staff matters were concerned. The necessary adjustments had to be made and discord amongst the staff had to be eliminated. We had to remove suspicion. All these things had to be tackled. All these things were accordingly done, and where do we stand to-day? I firmly believe, Mr. Speaker, that the position to-day is such that there is a degree of co-operation amongst the staff as there has never been before. There is good co-operation between the hon. the Minister and the various staff associations. There is mutual respect and trust which enables them to discuss and endeavour to solve the problems which have still to be overcome. What a tremendous building-up process it was just to place staff matters on a sound footing. One must also take into consideration the enormous quantities of rolling stock which had to be supplied, as well as all the other bottle-necks which this Government has had to get through since taking office.

Furthermore I want to refer to a matter touched upon by the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman), namely the question of over-time payments. This problem does not date from recent years. It is a phenomenon which has cropped up over all the years, and it is something, Mr. Speaker, which cannot be easily solved. During his Budget speech in 1947 the then Minister, i.e. the late Mr. Sturrock also expressed his concern in regard to this matter. He said the following, inter alia—

Even then the staff position was difficult. Of course, it was a few years after the war. At that time more than 14,000 White volunteers who had not worked for the Railways previously were employed by the Administration, as well as more than 8,000 Bantu, but even with all that extra staff, the Administration had at that time paid out this tremendous amount in overtime. I want to agree with the hon. member that this matter should continually be watched. Officials must be prevented from being overcome by fatigue as a result of overtime work, which could easily lead to accidents. I am convinced, however, that the Administration keeps a very watchful eye on this matter. However, we can forget about a formula for the easy solution of this question. This subject of overtime payments is tied up with so many factors that it will certainly not be easy to decide where overtime should be removed, where it should be limited to an extent and where it should remain unchanged.

Mr. Speaker, I now want to touch upon another little matter. As hon. members probably all know, the remuneration associated with a position offered by an employer is probably the most important factor as far as applicants for the post are concerned. Another very important factor is the relevant working conditions. Even if the remuneration were very good, a person would nevertheless leave a post quite readily if the working conditions are not to his liking. He would decide not to work there any longer as the working conditions were unsatisfactory. That is why I want to say that the Administration should be thanked for the way in which they have always taken care of the working conditions of the staff. They must also be thanked for what has already been achieved in this respect. I want particularly to refer to one specific matter, a matter with which I concerned myself and in regard to which I was in communication with the office of the hon. the Minister during the recess. I am referring to heating facilities in our goods train guard’s vans. Of the 2,997 vans in service at present, 1,615 have already been supplied with stoves. It is expected that the other vans will also be supplied with stoves before the onset of the winter months. In other vans, alterations are being made which include, inter alia, toilet facilities. Unfortunately I do not have the relevant figures at hand. I know however, that good progress is being made in this connection. These heating facilities are, of course, a great comfort for our conductors. They are not only of inestimable value in the cold winter months, but also in the summer months when officials who are out of doors may get wet in the rain, for then they can dry their clothes near the stoves. We are greatly indebted to the Administration for these kind of facilities which make the working conditions of the railwaymen much pleasanter.

In conclusion I want to refer to the cordial co-operation which exists between local authorities and the Administration. In this regard I am also thinking of certain large local authorities in the Transvaal who are busy with enormous road-building programmes. With these projects the Administration also comes into the picture as some of the bridges have to be built over railway lines and so on. I investigated the matter a little and my information is that the co-operation between the Administration and these local bodies is of the best. Whenever the Railways is approached in regard to some matter or other, the matter is dealt with briskly without any unnecessary delays. There are no unnecessary delays as far as the financial aspect of these matters is concerned either. It is, of course, important that there should be cordial co-operation between the Administration and our larger local authorities in particular. There is no doubt that a good spirit of co-operation has developed between the two bodies over the years, and there is no doubt about the appreciation for that on the part of the local authorities.

I want to say something in regard to our agriculture, but before I come to that I want to refer to what the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Cruywagen) said. He said in the beginning of his speech that all that this side of the House contributed towards this debate was criticism and yet more criticism. He said sarcastically that under the United Party regime everything in the garden had been rosy as far as the Railways was concerned, there was not so much as a speck of dust to be seen anywhere, but that when the Nationalist Party came into office, they had disorganized everything. The hon. member is probably aware that we have already given the South African Airways credit for the good services which they are rendering and for the treatment the public is receiving from the service. Mr. Speaker, this side of the House has meted out praise to this hon. Minister and the Government for a whole lot of things.

Only in one case did you mete out praise.

No, not only in one case. In the course of my speech I shall also mete out praise to the hon. Minister. But what do we hear from that side of the House? According to hon. members on that side there is absolutely nothing wrong with this administration. No improvements are needed. All that one hears is, “thank you, thank you; it is the best service in the world; once again thank you, thank you and thank you once more”. [Interjections.] Now I would very much like to know: What is so wonderful about the Railways?

You are ungrateful.

No, I am not ungrateful. All that we heard from that side was a comparison between what the position had been in 1948 and what the present position is. It was the same old refrain—1948 and 1966, 1948 and 1966. I want to give the hon. member for Germiston credit for admitting that after five years of war a certain degree of disruption was to be expected and that quite a good deal of reconstruction was necessary. In any case, if we want to draw comparisons as far as statistics are concerned, why do we not take the years 1938, 1948, 1958 and 1966? What would the picture look like then? But not a single member on that side would ever compare these years with each other. No, they steer as clear of 1938 as a hare from a hound. And yet such a comparison would be very useful.

While I am on the subject I want to elaborate a little on the pre-war position. The hon. member spoke of the disruption which arose. Well, of what use are all these effusive thanks? Would it not be better to help solve the Administration’s problems? Surely there will be problems when such a tremendous undertaking is being dealt with? Surely there is always room for improvement. But instead of that side of the House giving a hand in order to see what can be improved, to see what further overhauling can be done, they are doing nothing more than to say “thank you”one after the other. As I have said, this country was involved in a war for five years.

What was your attitude then?

Order!

South Africa was not subjected to bombing attacks and the railway lines were not destroyed to any great extent, except for some cases of destruction to which I shall return in a moment. But let us take the case of Japan or Germany. We know how efficient the Japanese railways are. The hon. the Minister has told us about a mission— costing a lot of money—which paid a visit to Japan. Many of the mission’s recommendations have already been accepted. We know how fast the trains in Japan are. We know how efficient the service there is. And this is a country which had to endure severe bombing attacks in the Second World War. Terrible damage was done to the railways too. The same thing applies to Germany. Tremendous progress has been made in those countries as far as railways are concerned. Is it therefore only this Government or this Administration which, over a period covering 18 years, was so wonderful that it was able to achieve the reconstruction work which was achieved? Or was it the economic growth in every country —including the two I mentioned—which gave rise to the present position? In Japan and Germany the position after the war was much worse than it was in South Africa. In post-war years reconstruction had to be commenced in a badly disrupted country and on a badly disrupted transport structure. But all that notwithstanding their economic giowth reached far greater heights than what the case has been in this country. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I have been so disappointed to hear the arguments which hon. members on that side were raising, instead of their asking themselves what could be done to try and improve the Railways—which are good—even further.

Mr. Speaker, while the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) was arguing the same point and saying that it should be borne in mind that we had been involved in a war for five years, in the course of which supporters and sympathizers of the Government party had inter alia blown up bridges an hon. member on that side said, “Yes, and the O.B. General is sitting on that side.” Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the fact that I was an O.B. General. I became one in 1940. I shall never conceal the fact. I am convinced that, in the light of circumstances prevailing at that time, I acted correctly. And I am equally glad that I left the movement in 1943, because the movement then did certain things for which certain hon. members on that side are being blamed to-day. The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) and the hon. member for North-West Rand (Mr. J. C. B. Schoeman) also threw stones, although they are both living in glass houses. I am sorry the hon. member for Heilbron is not present, for I very much wanted him to hear this. If I—according to the information at my disposal—had been treated by the O.B.’s in the same way as that hon. member was treated, I would have hated them for many years to come. The hon. member for North-West Rand should at least remember that there are ex-generals of the O.B. sitting on that side of the House too. The General on this side did not have the dubious honour of sitting in a prison or a concentration camp at the Government’s expense.

Order! The hon. member must return to the subject.

I am only reacting to allegations made against me as an individual. Let me just say the following in this connection: Most of the hon. members on my side of the House took part in the war effort, and I am proud of the fact that I am sitting on this side of the House. As far as the opposite side of the House is concerned you can count on the fingers of one hand the number of hon. members who helped to keep this country free.

I now want to say a few words about the railway tariff on the transport of wool. The hon. member for De Aar-Colesberg (Mr. M. J. de la R. Venter) also referred to it yesterday. It has been years now and representations are still being made to the Minister to decrease the railway tariff on wool. I want to give the hon. House a few figures in this regard. For grease wool the tariff is 56 cents for 300 lbs. over a distance of 250 miles. That means that for a statistical bale of 300 lbs. the tariff amounts to R1.68. That is for right-angled bales and if the grease wool has in addition not been compressed in a press, the tariff is even higher. For wool the tariff is 41.8 cents per 100 lb., or R1.25 for a 300 lb. bale. The difference between the transport tariff of a bale of wool and a bale of cotton is therefore 43 cents per bale. Can the hon. Minister justify this discrimination between two types of fibre which are both produced and processed in this country? He has never done this. I have said that discrimination at the expense of wool is taking place in regard to the transport tariff to an extent of 43 cents per 300 lb. bale or R430,000 on a clip of 1,000,000 bales. It therefore costs R430,000 more to transport 1,000,000 bales of wool over a distance of 250 miles than it costs to transport the same quantity of cotton of the same weight over the same distance.

What is the difference in price between the two articles?

Unfortunately I do not know what the difference is at present. In any case the price of cotton changes from day to day. Let me just point out that one of the norms used by the hon. Minister in the calculation of railway tariffs is whether the industry in question can carry it. Now the hon. Minister should bear in mind in this connection that what the industry could afford five years ago, it can no longer afford to-day. The wool industry has also had its hard years, years of drought, etc., and livestock have diminished considerably. That is why I believe that today, more than ever, a case can be made out for a reduction of the transport tariffs on wool. I can also take my comparison further and compare the position of wool with that of other commodities. If we compare the position of wool with that of wattle-bark the picture becomes very strange. One gains the impression that wool is regarded as being the real gold of the country as far as railway tariffs are concerned. The Minister is probably aware that representations have been made to the Railways Administration for a change of the basis upon which the transport tariff of wool is calculated, namely from a weight basis to a bale basis. That is what is done in Australia and New Zealand. Once again, therefore, I want to make an appeal to the Minister to take the whole matter under revision, not only in order to bring about a decrease in the transport tariff, but also to change the basis of calculation from a weight basis to that of a bale basis. The industry would really welcome it because the present basis of calculation, namely a weight basis, causes much inconvenience. If bales are made the basis of calculation, all farmers will try to bale their wool themselves.

Many reasons can be given in support of a reduction of the transport tariff on grease wool. One of those reasons is that a consignment goes directly to the harbour from the loading point. In addition it is one of the easiest articles to off-load and one which can be off-loaded the most rapidly of all. A third consideration is that a truck cannot be dirtied. Usually a truck is fully loaded at the loading point so that it is not necessary to load or off-load again en route. If all these factors are taken into consideration there is surely a strong case for a reduction in the tariff. I want to ask the hon. Minister if he really thinks that the producer will in the long run be prepared to pay R168 for the transportation of a 100 bales of wool over a distance of 250 miles? Or will the producer eventually when he has reached his wit’s end, have to use his own truck to transport his product and in that way deprive the Railways of revenue? Does the hon. Minister want the revenue of the Railways to be prejudiced?

Then there is the other matter of the transportation of livestock. I want to convey my sincere thanks to the Minister and his Department for the capable way in which livestock has been transported from one point to another during these drought conditions. I myself had to have some of my cattle transported and I can testify to the fact that it was almost fantastic to see with what speed the Administration were able to deal with a train load of livestock. It was done almost as rapidly as in the case of a passenger train. But I cannot make the same compliment as far as the transportation of slaughter-stock to the controlled market areas was concerned. Mr. Speaker, you will recall that yesterday when the hon. member for De Aar-Colesberg was speaking I intimated by means of an interjection that it took up to 14 days for a trainload of livestock to reach the abattoirs in Johannesburg. Well, I must admit that it did not take 14 days. Let me say, however, that it easily takes five days between Middelburg and Johannesburg. It sometimes takes seven days to Durban.

But they have still to be off-loaded and fed en route.

I know that, but the hon. Minister knows it too. That is something which may just as well go by the board because they will not even drink, let alone eat. Animals being transported to markets for slaughter do not necessarily deserve worse treatment than animals being transported away from drought-stricken areas. And yet we find that animals destined for the abattoirs have to stand for long periods in open trucks, sometimes under the most desperate circumstances. That is more particularly the position over Christmas when everybody wants to reach the market. It is absolutely essential that care should be taken that such animals are in transit for a short a time as possible, and definitely not from six to seven days. This is an anomaly to which a stop must be put.

Furthermore, does the hon. Minister know how much weight such an animal loses if he has to stand for days on end in trucks while in transit? That is a very important point. I want to illustrate it. I have here a report sheet on January before me. The railage for the transportation of 150 sheep over a distance of 250 miles is R50. The cost of marketing 150 sheep is almost R200. If this is the case you do not want your animals to lose weight as well because they have to spend days in trucks while in transit.

There was a report in South West Africa in connection with the loss of weight in transit. It was found that the loss was minimal. Did you read it?

In the time remaining at my disposal I want to say something about our manpower. In East London there are two places where trains go across a street. I brought this to the attention of the hon. Minister last year, too. There is very heavy traffic on one of those streets. What struck me was that each time I went across, two very young men, they must have been between 20-25 years of age, stood at the level crossing to stop the traffic while a train was going through when shunting work was being done. Is it a reserved job? Is it work for very young men?

They are usually the shunters operating the train.

Then I accept that. But as far as the other level crossing is concerned, that is definitely not the case. Another employment I want to talk about, is that of porter. In many places one finds that porters are middle-aged White men. Now I want to ask whether these people are all not competent to do other work? Must I accept that all of them have medical certificates stating that they are not capable of doing other work? If not, why are we wasting labour in this way? As far as I am concerned I would have no objection to a person other than a White person taking my baggage from the train to the taxi. I did not have time to obtain details from the Administration in regard to the number of White porters working on stations, but I am certain that it is a very great number. In conclusion I just want to repeat what I have already said in my speech, namely to thank the Minister from the bottom of my heart for the skill with which cattle and fodder were transported during the recent drought period. I want to go even further in my expression of thanks. There is a saying which goes in the kingdom of the blind the one-eyed man is king. Well in the existing Cabinet this hon. Minister is by far the best. But of course this does not detract from the fact that the country has become tired of this Government and I am full of confidence that we shall learn after 30 March that there is another Government with the same Administration.

I do not intend reacting to what has been said by the hon. member who has just sat down, because I have a few matters of my own I want to deal with. This debate, which is now drawing to a close, has revealed a number of distinct features. In the first place it has become clear that hon. members on the opposite side are fighting for their political survival. In no debate has it ever been so clear that the matters raised by them were intended for the information of their voters, particularly the voters under the railway people. As far as they are concerned, it is not the welfare of the railwayman which is at stake, but merely the number of potential votes from railwaymen.

That is the usual story.

No, that is not the usual story. Because the election is at hand they are employing every means of creating some sympathy for their own Party among those people. Their efforts to conjure up an image of being champions for the cause of the railwayman, remind me of a drowning man clutching at the proverbial straw. From the mine dumps at Angelo station, from where the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) had a panoramic view over railway activities, and from behind the kraal wall from where the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) summed up the situation at Danskraal, from these positions they seem to spy a few votes. As a matter of fact, they were so moving and so full of feeling that I feel obliged to describe the hon. member for Yeoville as the “angel of Angelo.” Unfortunately I cannot continue with this comparison, because it would not be quite appropriate to call the hon. member for Drakensberg the “draak van Drakensberg”—neither the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan).

It is of course the right of any opposition in a democracy to do anything in its power to hold itself up as being a champion for the cause of the electorate. But what did we get from the side of the United Party in this debate? We on this side of the House know what we got, but does the electorate know? For that reason I am of the opinion that we should draw the electorate’s attention to the fact that the United Party was actuated by the sole desire of gaining a few votes. As a matter of fact, I am surprised that the United Party has so grossly underestimated the intelligence of the voter. But unfortunately for the United Party it has displayed more zeal than common sense. That is particularly true when it comes to the increase in the railwaymen’s salary, because one simply cannot get away from the fact that certain economic principles have to be observed in salary adjustments. As I have said, one can understand that the United Party is trying to create an image of being champions for the cause of the railwayman, but fortunately they are not fooling anyone. Certain definite economic principles have to be observed in any undertaking, and even more so in a large undertaking such as the South African Railways. It is absolutely essential that one should remain true to those economic principles. Let us examine the salary structure of the railwayman and let us relate it to the prevailing circumstances in industry. Salary increases may be financed from three sources. In the first place tariffs may be increased, which mean that the public would have to pay for the increased salaries. For obvious reasons, which have been made very clear in this debate, it is not desirable to take that step under present circumstances. The South African Railways plays an important part in the South African economy. As a matter of fact the South African Railways sometimes exercises a determining influence on the cost structure. The South African Railways is the yardstick by which we can measure the economic position of our country very clearly. Should one therefore set about things in an unrealistic way, a lack of balance could easily arise which could create many problems for us, particularly in a period of inflation such as we are now experiencing. If we should deal unrealistically with our tariff structure, we could create a vicious circle, which would entirely eliminate any benefit intended for the railwayman. That is why we should set about things very cautiously when it comes to our tariff structure.

A second method which could be employed for financing salary increases, is to increase the productivity per worker. If this method succeeds it is in itself a justified method of financing salary increases. In South Africa we have specific labour problems which are inherent to our country and which have to be faced. The composition of our population and the numbers in each group are of vital importance in discussing this problem. The Minister of Finance has already pointed out that we are up against an over-heated rate of economic development in South Africa. Consequently one is faced with certain problems if one wants to employ this method.

Thirdly, there is the Rates Equalization Fund. In this connection I am of the opinion that the hon. the Minister deserves a compliment from both sides of the House for the manner in which this Fund is being maintained. The function of the Rates equalization Fund is—to put it in everyday language—to serve as a buffer in times of economic fluctuation. That is why it was possible to make certain adjustments to the salary structure of the Railways without that having had any detrimental effects on the economy. Let us now examine what has been done for the railwaymen over the years. The salary and wage account for the year 1960-61 was R184,000,000; for the next year it was R196.000,000; for the year following that it was R215,000,000; and for the year 1964-65 it was R250,000,000. If we examine the increases granted, it appears that they constitute a continuous scheme of salary increases. That is why hon. members on the opposite side of the House blunder so badly as regards the contributory causes of those increases. In 1958 an additional allowance to an amount of R11,500,000 was paid as a non-pensionable allowance. In 1961 the remaining portion of the cost of living allowance was consolidated with basic salaries. That entailed additional expenditure of R11,500,000. In 1962 the consolidation of non-pensionable contributions demanded an additional R3,800,000, while in the same year a rationalization of salary and wage structures was responsible for additional expenditure of R17,800,000. In 1964 the railwaymen received a vacation bonus at a total cost of R9,000,000 while an increase in the rates of Sunday time and overtime payments was responsible for expenditure to an amount of R5,500,000 in the same year. I can continue in that vein, but to summarize I may point out that a total amount of R224,000,000 was spent for those purposes during the 10 years since 1954. As I have said, salary adjustments have been effected from time to time and that was done within a complex situation in which problems were encountered which could not be solved effortlessly. The point I want to make is that those adjustments were not effected arbitrarily. Discussions first had to be held with all staff associations concerned and the balance among the various staff groups had to be taken into account. Salary increases for the railwayman cannot simply be effected overnight. On the contrary, that is something which demands research and negotiations. Therefore it is an essentially slow process. And because the entire matter was handled with great caution it was possible to effect certain adjustments in the course of a number of years.

But apart from these improved conditions of service for the staff, or in spite of that, the Railways have gone from strength to strength and not in a single sphere has there been any retrogression. Thus we find that the tonnage of goods transported last year, was the highest ever, namely 104,500,000 tons. That was the first time the 100,000,000 mark was exceeded. This tonnage is 5| per cent higher than that of the previous year. The number of passengers transported amounted to 41,500,000, in other words more than 10 per cent higher than the figure for the previous year. At the same time a tremendous programme of development was carried out. Recall for instance the 800 miles of railway line which were electrified, the doubling of 128 miles of railway line, and the construction of 66 miles of new railway line. A total number of 16,252 new trucks was put into service, 633 carriages, 187 electric and diesel locomotives.

When we come to the South African Airways, we also notice tremendous progress. The South African Airways deserves our thanks not only for having maintained their disaster-free record, but at the same time having maintained their record as the safest airways in the world. As regards disasters, the South African Airways has the proudest record in the world. The purchase of Boeing 727 aircraft enabled us to introduce various parts of the country to developments in the field of aviation. For the first time various centres in our country could get acquainted with an aircraft which is almost capable of achieving the speed of sound. This is a tremendous step in the right direction in South Africa’s aviation. Allow me to mention a few advantages brought about by this development. It is now possible to cover the distance between Johannesburg and Cape Town in a time of 1 hour 40 minutes as compared with the 3 hours it took previously. The distance between Johannesburg and Durban is now covered in 50 minutes as compared with 1| hours it took previously. It is interesting to know that on its flight between Johannesburg and Durban the Boeing 727 flies level for a quarter of an hour only and that the remainder of the time is taken up by ascending or descending. The Boeing 727 has an increased passenger capacity, namely 98 passengers as against the 56 of the Viscounts. Five years ago the South African Airways conveyed a total number of 279,000 passengers on its internal services. For the past financial year this number totalled 625,000. The introduction of the Boeing 727 aircraft on our first-class services, brought about a further benefit to the air traveller in South Africa, namely the fact that it was possible to make Viscount aircraft available for the popular air-coach service. Thus regular flights with turbine-screw aircraft on the air coach service became possible for the first time. The results of that are evident from the number of passengers transported on this service. During the first year of the introduction of that service only 31,600 passengers were transported in comparison with more than 103,000 in the past financial year.

I have already pointed out that the South African Airways is one of the safest airways in the world. It is intersting to note in passing that our airways forms part of a larger international organization and consequently it will also be interesting to note how safe air journeys generally are all over the world. According to the International Aviation Association, to which 108 airlines, including our own, are affiliated, the disaster figure decreased to 0.61 per 100,000.000 passenger miles. That is 221 per cent lower than in 1963 which was the previous record year. If one compares that with other overseas institutions and any form of transport, it appears that flying to-day has become the safest means of transport by far. If one examines the facts regarding Boeing aircraft—the South African Airways uses the 707 on its external services and the 727 on its internal services—one finds their safety remarkable. Boeing aircraft have completed more than 5,000,000 flying hours throughout the world. This means that a single aircraft would have had to remain in the air for 570 years if it were to cover this air distance. Throughout the world 535,000 passengers are transported each week by Boeing aircraft alone, and during the 5.000,000 flying hours completed by Boeing aircraft throughout the world, 90,000,000 passengers were transported.

I should like to quote other figures in connection with the South African Airways in order to illustrate that ours is one of the few airlines in the world which has produced very favourable operating results. It is a feature of some of the major airlines, particularly in Europe, that they are heavily subsidized by their governments and that they show considerable losses each year. According to the Annual Report of the General Manager, the South African Airways showed a surplus of R2,200,000 as compared with a profit of R602,000 in 1963-4. This is a remarkable increase and a proud achievement on which we want to congratulate the Airways, because it has succeeded in producing very favourable operating results in spite of tremendous development. Revenue increased by R3,000,000 or 4.8 per cent from R31,000,000 in 1963-4 to R34,500,000, and that is a figure which inspires confidence in the future of the South African Airways. At this opportunity we should therefore like to conclude by wishing the South African Airways many flights and many safe landings.

The hon. member who has just sat down will forgive me if I do not join him in the air. I would like to come down to earth for a while. Although my main interest in this debate is in regard to the Coloured people, I should like to say that we in this country must be particularly proud of the Blue Train that serves this country. I do not think there is a train which can measure up to the excellence of that service. I want to say that I think the food and the service are excellent. We should all be proud of it. But having said that in regard to the Blue Train, I want to say that it is like a man who has a beautiful suit for Sundays but wears rags during the rest of the week. I think one can extend for the benefit of the travelling public some of the benefits of the Blue Train, some of the better features such as air conditioning, because I think it would tend to make our Railways one of the best services in the world. The Minister knows the difficulties encountered in some trains overseas and then when we come back to our own country we find what a pleasure it is to travel in the Blue Train.

I have listened very attentively to the laudatory remarks which have come from hon. members opposite in regard to the railways and how wonderful they are, and they thank the Minister, but not one of them has ever mentioned the part the Coloured people play in this great service and how thankful we must be to the Coloured people of this country for assisting in making this service what it is to enable those hon. member to praise the Minister. It is quite clear that what I said last session is coming true and will continue to come true, and that the Coloured people of this country will have to be employed to a greater extent in this service, as indeed in the other services of the Government. I do not agree with some speakers who say or imply that there are too many Coloureds in the Railways. I do not think there are enough. There are not enough Coloured people in those branches of the Railways where they can help to relieve the shortage of manpower in the skilled or semi-skilled occupations. They should go to the workshops and learn to be useful workers in the more skilled aspect of the Railways. The same position will occur in the Railways as has occurred on the mines, where there has been a lot of discussion in respect of the Bantu. The Minister of Labour has found it necessary to relieve the position in regard to the Bantu employed in the building industry in the Transvaal and this Minister will, and has, I think, acknowledged the necessity for employing more Coloureds. 1 cannot speak of the Bantu because I do not know enough about them. I do not know what jobs they do, but I say he will never be able to arrest the progress of the Coloured man in this country who, despite adversity, has progressed and must play a greater part in the administration of all branches of the Government because they will be the saviours of South Africa as far as manpower is concerned. The quicker hon. members opposite realize it, the better it will be for the country. The sooner they realize that job reservation, this apartheid in work, is merely an election cry and not in the interests of the country, the better. I sincerely hope that the Coloureds will find their place in our economy, as they deserve to do. I can speak at greater length on this subject, but I understand there are still many speakers and I shall curtail my remarks. Finally, I want to raise one matter which I feel glad about but also a little disappointed about. The Minister gave certain replies to questions and indicated that there has been an increase in the wages of the non-Whites. The Minister will remember his reply on 1 February. He said that increase was 11.2 per cent It seems a reasonable increase, but what is disturbing about it is that according to that reply there are still 8,053 Coloured people who receive less than R2 a day including rations and allowances. Now I do not know what figure or values the Minister places on the rations and allowances. Those who receive less than R2 a day including rations and allowances number 8,053. I want to refer to this number of 8,053. I want to tell the Minister that despite the increase in the wages I do not think any Coloured man can live reasonably well in this country at this wage, which includes rations and allowances. I raised it last time and I raise it again. While I am happy about the improvement, I very much regret that it is not yet commensurate with the services rendered. We cannot expect these people almost to carry the Railways in this country and not be paid sufficient to live well.

Then there is another point. There seems to be a considerable number of casual employed by the Railways. I refer to the Annual Report of the General Manager for 1964-5. I notice that there is a total of 9,000-odd White casuals in the Railways and Harbour Service, which is an increase of about 1,500 over last year. As far as the non-White casuals are concerned, I see there is a total of 40,690, which was more or less the same as for the year before. What I want to ask the Minister is this. How long has a man to be a casual worker before he can get on to the permanent staff? I ask this because I notice that the report says that a compulsory savings fund was instituted for Coloured servants who had completed at least five years’ service. How long must a man be on the casual staff before he can become a member of the permanent staff? I take it that the reference to five years’ service does not mean in a casual capacity, but means that he is on the permanent staff. That means that there are a considerable number of Coloured workers who are casuals and who apparently can never qualify for this, but I do not know for sure. Perhaps the Minister can tell me how long a man has to be on the casual staff and how many of these casuals have in fact served for more than three or four years. My time has expired and I only want to say that 1 hope I will have other opportunities to deal more fully with certain matters affecting the Coloured people on the Railways. But one thing I would like to say to the Minister. You will never find betters workers than the Coloured workers who, knowing how difficult it is for them to keep a job if they do not do it properly, put themselves out and have proved that they are outstanding workers. I hope the Minister will continue to use them and that he will increase the scope of their employment and put them in other departments of the Railways where he will find them to be excellent workers who will help to maintain the high standards the Minister has to maintain.

There are various aspects that one can bring to the notice of this House in this debate. I think one of the main issues raised by hon. members opposite has been in connection with the administration of the Railways, the conditions of service, and they have tried to paint a picture that the garden is very rosy indeed and that the conditions of service of the staff are excellent. But one important factor remains, and that is that in spite of the claims by hon. members opposite in regard to these conditions, it is surprising to note that perhaps the most important and serious problem facing the Railway Administration is that of the shortage of manpower. Hon. members opposite have quoted various figures, and last year the Minister replied to a question and he gave certain figures about resignation from the service. The only figures which were available were in respect of Whites. The picture that this presents is quite different from the picture presented by hon. members opposite. For instance, in 1964 there were 14,757 resignations of Whites from the Railway Service, 228 retired and 996 were discharged. That makes a total of 17,981. Now the figures for those persons joining the service as new employees total 17,014, so in actual fact for 1964 there was a loss of 967 White employees. This shows, in a breakdown of monthly figures, that in some months, as many as 1,400 resigned. I feel that this is a matter which should have received the attention of the Minister and of this House, to try to ascertain the main causes of the resignations. We know that it is imperative to the developing economy of this country that the Railways must keep pace with the economic development. It is also to the interest of the economic development of the country to see that as many skilled people as possible are in the employ of the Railways and play their part in the economic development. It would appear that this serious problem of the manpower shortage, particularly in regard to White persons joining the Railway Service, is a matter which requires very serious consideration. The Minister indicated when he introduced the debate on this Bill that he regarded it as a serious problem and that certain steps had been taken, but it did not appear to meet the challenge in regard to recruiting more White employees particularly. It appears that there are various alternatives the Minister has open to him, such as immigration, which I believe on three occasions has not proved to be very successful. Secondly, there was the question whether certain avenues should not be open to non-Whites where there are no Whites available to take certain posts; and then there is the question of the improved conditions of service, and finally, an intensified recruitment campaign. I feel that perhaps the last avenue open to the Minister is one which should be still further explored by him. I believe that if an intensive recruitment campaign could be commenced in the schools indicating the various advantages there are in being employed by the Railways, an all-out publicity campaign to ensure that there is a large influx of employees to the Railway Service, that will have good effects. I know that various vocational guidance bodies such as the Juvenile Affairs Board do their best to assist the Railways in the aptitude tests undertaken by those persons registered with the Juvenile Affairs Board, and wherever possible the Railway Administration receives a certain amount of priority in placing those young people in employment. It has been noticeable that many of these young people are unaware of the advantages of being employed by the Railways.

Another aspect which I believe might also assist the Railways in its manpower shortage is in connection with the young persons who are performing valuable services to the Railways and who are continuing their nine months’ military training. I think it will be in the interest of the Minister to make an approach to the Exemptions Board, which falls under the Minister of Labour, to see whether it is not possible that those persons who are employed on vital jobs should receive sympathetic consideration from the Exemptions Board.

That is being done.

I am glad to hear that. We know, too, that it is the practice of some young persons to join the Railway Service and then to go on their nine months’ military training so that they can receive full pay while they are at camp.

The main item I wish to discuss with the Minister concerns the Railway pensioners and other pensioners. Here I realize that the Minister is placed in a difficulty in that a number of the issues which affect the Railway pensioners also affect other civil pensioners, so it is not a matter which is entirely in the hands of this Minister. However, the Minister is responsible for the Railway pensioners, and 1 believe they number about 25,000, and they look to the Minister to present their interests when it comes to any concessions or improvements in their position. Let us face the fact that the spiralling increase in the cost of living results in these pensioners having to face a great deal of financial difficulty in the twilight of their lives and many of them are unable to fend for themselves and therefore they have to look to the State to assist them. The first point is the question of the temporary allowance. Several speakers on this side of the House have already dealt with this matter. It does appear to discriminate against those Railway pensioners who find employment outside the Railways, in the private sector. They are then faced with the loss of their temporary allowance. It has been suggested by some members opposite that it would be a case of subsidizing the private sector should the Minister continue to pay the allowance to these pensioners. However, I believe that these people who served the Railways loyally and who are trying to assist the country in its general manpower shortage should also receive some consideration from the Minister. I believe that if the Minister is unable to continue the payment of the temporary allowance to those persons who have taken employment in the private sector, he should at least give some consideration to the question of raising the means limit which is placed on these people. I believe it is possible to raise the means limit in those cases so that these people will then find that it is worth while to take up employment. There are certain important tasks that these people have undertaken at present. There are many others who would like to take up some form of employment, but they are discouraged from doing so. I believe that the more people who are productively employed the better it is for the economy of the country. Consequently we must find means of encouraging these people to remain productively employed rather than unproductively receiving the pensions to which they are entitled. The emphasis should be placed rather on encouragement than on discouragement. On the question of Railway pensioners I particularly want to raise the question of those pensioners who are to receive a small increase in terms of what the Minister has mentioned when he introduced this debate, and that is the person drawing the minimum pension, the married person or the single person with dependants, whose pension will now be increased from R88 a month to R92 a month, and for the single person without dependants from R44 to R46 a month. At the very outset I want to say I am sure that many of these people will gratefully receive these increases. However, at the same time we have to realize that they are receiving a very small reward when we take into account that large increases in salaries and wages have occurred in the various sectors and that consequently the effect of these increases will bring about further inflationary trends which must inevitably affect particularly these people who are struggling to exist on fixed and small incomes. They are the ones who feel the brunt and they are the ones who will have to live on the minimum amount of pension. I know that this concession which was made assisted many of the old pensioners who retired many years ago before the consolidation took place and who were entitled to very low pensions. When this minimum pension was introduced they received a good increase, but since then the increases have been very small. I should just like to cover this question of the increases because it does affect other pensioners and also these pensioners who are drawing a minimum pension. On 1 October 1965 these pensioners also received a small increase. The R42 a month for a single pensioner without dependants was increased to R44. I quote the single pensioner because it is a basis of calculation as to whether a person qualifies in terms of other laws for a social pension. We know that on 1 October 1965 a new means test came into operation for the social pensioners.

If a person was receiving an income of R42 a month, he would qualify for a social pension of R2 a month. The point is that the minimum pension was raised to R44 a month. It therefore excluded those persons from drawing a social pension. It appears that it was the policy to see that these people would be kept above that means limit of R42 a month; because as I said earlier the R42 would entitle a person to R2 a month social pension. Now my contention is that the system now being employed of increasing this minimum pension as a globular sum is not in the best interests of these pensioners. For instance, if a pensioner receiving R42 a month qualified to receive the R2, he then had various other advantages. He has the advantage of delaying his pension and as from 1 October 1966, in terms of legislation passed last year, he could then qualify for a higher rate of pension with a supplementary allowance. In the case of a man over 69 years of age he could then qualify for an extra R10 a month. By not qualifying for the social pension he is not able to enjoy that extra R10 a month which he could enjoy if he could qualify for the minimum R2 social pension. Similarly, if he qualifies for a social pension he could also be entitled to an attendant’s allowance. Should he be unfortunate enough to suffer an illness which renders him incapable of looking after himself, he can apply for an attendant’s allowance, which is another R10 a month. So these people are at a disadvantage through the system which has been adopted and the manner in which the minimum pension is being increased, as one globular sum, placing the person just outside the means test for a social pension. In actual fact, if the person was a war veteran, between 60 and 70 years of age, he could also lose the extra R8 per month which war veterans enjoy and which is to be increased to R10 per month from 1 April 1966. He therefore loses R12 plus the attendant’s allowance of R10 per month, a total of R22 per month. Sir, these are matters of importance to the Railway pensioner living on a minimum pension, who is now debarred from qualifying for a social pension.

Your quarrel is with the Minister of Social Welfare, not with me.

Yes, I realize that. I said when I started to deal with this aspect that it was a matter of negotiation between the Minister of Social Welfare, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Finance, but these 25,000 Railway pensioners look to the Minister of Transport to represent their interests in the Cabinet and to try to obtain the best financial advantage for them so that they can enjoy just a little bit extra in their old age, and that is why I am raising the matter with this Minister because he is the man who is responsible for the welfare of the Railway pensioners. I do hope that the hon. the Minister of Transport would be able to take up this matter at an early date on behalf of these people. I believe that the best system as far as Railway pensioners are concerned, would be rather to allow them to receive a minimum pension of R42 per month plus the additional amounts which are granted from time to time. In this instance it will be going up to R46 per month. That additional amount should be classified as an additional amount and the pension should not be treated as one gloubular sum so that they will then be able to qualify for a social pension and if they did not qualify for a social pension under the means test, they should then receive this additional amount, bringing them up to a minimum Railway pension of R46 per month. Sir, I believe that that would be in the best interest of these Railway pensioners and it would also make them feel far more satisfied.

Then there is another matter in which I believe that the Minister can assist Railway pensioners. I refer to those pensioners who also qualify for a war veterans pension. The increases which have been granted disqualify a number of these people from receiving a war veterans pension. It was then agreed that people who lost the war veterans pension, because their total pension would be less than they had received in the past, would receive a special allowance which would be paid by the Department of Social Welfare. Now, however, the taxation difficulty has arisen. These people who receive this special allowance have become liable for taxation on the full amount, whereas before no P.A.Y.E. deduction was made in respect of the war veterans pension, that part of the pension being exempt from taxation. I understand that this matter is still the subject of discussion between the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions and the Minister of Finance. As far back as 18 June 1965, the Minister of Finance stated in this House in reply to a question that discussions were still taking place between the Departments of Inland Revenue, Social Welfare and Pensions and the Railway Administration. Here too it is a question of assisting these people since they are at a disadvantage now because of the adjustments which have taken place.

There is one matter in regard to which 1 would like to make a plea to the Minister for assistance to the old-age and the Railway pensioner, and that is in connection with the concessions which are made to Railway pensioners. The hon. the Minister gave details in the House this morning of the travelling concessions which are granted to Railway pensioners. In certain municipalities such as the Municipality of Durban assistance is given to the old-age and social pensioners by giving them special travelling facilities on the buses. I would like the hon. the Minister to consider the question of extending the same sort of concession to those pensioners who utilize the Railways. Many of these people have had to move out of the main centres to the suburbs so as to have the benefit of lower rent and possibly lower cost of living. Many of them have to travel fair distances into town to attend hospitals and to receive treatment. Railway pensioners are granted special concessions; they are given free passes for themselves, their wives and dependants who have to attend hospitals, etc. I believe that the Minister would be doing a great service to these older people if he would favourably consider the question of granting some concession of this kind to social pensioners. I appeal to the Minister favourably to consider the question of extending concession facilities to these people in respect of a certain number of tickets per month.

There are other matters affecting Railway pensioners some of which have already been raised and which are of deep concern to these people, who look to this Minister for some assistance. I do hope that the Minister will be able to use his influence to extend greater assistance to these people to make their lives just a little happier.

The hon. member who has just sat down, must forgive me for not following up what he said. I only have a few minutes at my disposal, and I should like to confine myself to a few accusations made by the Opposition in general during this debate.

Mr. Speaker, you will agree with me that the subject of this debate has been discussed not only to a point of exhaustion, but to a point of extinction. Practically nothing remains for me to discuss. Therefore I shall try to scratch about among the dry bones, as so many members of the Opposition have done. They have tried to dig into the past to find proof for their accusations. At the beginning of this debate, I sat here listening, attentively to the main speaker on the Opposition side, the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) with all his dramatics. I expected him to charge from his bench and attack someone and then I thought to myself that the hon. the Minister would have to watch his step this year because the Opposition intended breaking through Now towards the conclusion of the debate my summary of the efforts of members of the Opposition is that they have failed hopelessly. The ironic factor in the attack by the Opposition is that it is an old habit of theirs to go back to the distant past to look for something to rake up, because as far as the present is concerned, they are simply powerless. They launch an attack and in due course they land up in a period long since past and there they try to look for accusations. I just want to tell them that if we were to follow those tactics in order to attack—because we on this side do not defend, we attack—then we would be able to keep them busy here for the entire afternoon and the entire week-end …

But we want to go home.

I agree with the hon. member; we want to go home. Sir, in what way do the Opposition’s accusations enter into the present, into the affairs of the day, into the world in which we live, into the circumstances and conditions of to-day, etc.? One simply has to confine oneself to the circumstances of the day. The Opposition is entitled to put forward constructive criticism and to tell us about the things we may not know about, because, we on this side, have never pretended to be omniscient; we have never claimed that we were present when the Lord created the world. We are always prepared to listen to anybody’s reasonable judgment and criticism. I want to ask members of the Opposition whether they have forgotten the years of Marshall Clarke, when he then Minister, Mr. Paul Sauer, had to buy out Mr. Marshall Clarke’s contract of service in order to dismiss him from the Railways, and had to appoint a grievances commission? Have they forgotten those days? If that piece of history was written into my book, then I would have destroyed that book; I would not want to possess something like that. This is only one of the many things of which we can remind hon. members on that side, and then they come along here and want to throw mud at a Minister and a general manager who has served the country in general. I am speaking here as a farmer in one of the major farmers’ constituencies in the country, and I know how they feel. Even supporters of the United Party admit that, and then they create a great deal of noise here and try to tell the world and the gallery over there that a great deal of dissatisfaction exists. They also forget that the railwayman has passed judgment against them in one election after the other; they now try to tell railwaymen that the increase in wages granted to them was a political decoy. Sir, that is foolishness; that is childishness. They know as well as we do that those increases in wages cannot be calculated overnight. One is dealing with expenditure amounting to millions of rands; one has to take the tariff rates into consideration, and increases in salaries can only be granted very judiciously so that we on this side and members on that side will at all times be able to justify and defend them. Now on the eve of the election they try to tell railwaymen that their increases were political bait and that the Minister granted them in an endeavour to catch votes. They know very well that that is not true and they know very well that the railwaymen will not believe that. The judgment passed by the Railway vote on 30 March will confirm that.

Another accusation made here was in connection with accidents. I have never heard anything as ridiculous from grown men as I heard in this instance. If one takes the fact into account that more than 200,000 people are employed on the Railways, White and non-White, then the low incidence of accidents is a blessing. In relation to the number of workers the number of accidents is minimal, but nevertheless railwaymen are told that their lives are endangered recklessly, that they are maimed and killed and that the Minister and the Management are to blame.

Take the question of appeals about which the Opposition have also made a great deal of noise. What is the position in this connection? How many appeals were there and how many succeeded? That is the test. The number of appeals rejected proves that those complaints were unjustified. Hon. members cannot possibly doubt the judgment of the Railways Appeal Board. That would be an injustice to the Board, but that is exactly what the Opposition does here in public and then they lay claim to the support of the railwaymen. Take for instance the question of the 100 per cent housing loan on the Railways. Two or three years ago they accused the Minister of having made that concession to the railwaymen as a result of pressure exercised by them.

Mr. Speaker, I have said that there is nothing more to be said. I just want to say that as far as my constituency is concerned, I do not know of a single railwayman who is dissatisfied or unhappy. ’We know that they work hard; they work overtime. The country appreciates that and this House should have particular appreciation for that. This House is the place to educate the nation to be appreciative, but also in this respect the Opposition has failed hopelessly. The railwaymen work hard; we know they are conscientious. I have a strong Railway community at Coligny. The Minister and the General Manager are familiar with conditions there. Everything is in order at Coligny and there is satisfaction. Our railwaymen will do their duty and I want to add that many of them have told me that they appreciate the increase in their wages.

Furthermore, I want to express my appreciation here for what the Administration has done at the pretty rural village of Coligny. A number of years ago its buildings were very obsolete. That too was a legacy of the United Party. We went to work there and we have created utopian conditions. In passing I just want to tell the Minister and the General Manager that the dam which they have had constructed there for us is almost full. This must be good news for them. We have experienced difficult years there in supplying water to the Railway community. A beautiful dam has now been constructed there. Of course, we still do not know what it will look like once it is full, but it will probably be full one of these days, and then we are going to put a boat in the water and invite the Minister and the General Manager to join us in water sports.

Just before I sit down I want to bring one matter to the attention of the Minister and the General Manager, a matter in respect of which I have made representations before. As a result of the new delimitation, the railway station of Syferbult, now falls in my constituency. The hon. member for Ventersdorp, (Mr. J. C. Greyling) in whose constituency it used to fall, has made representations in regard to the station, and public bodies have made representations to the Administration. The station building there are obsolete; they are nearly as old as the mountains and they really are a disgrace to the community which uses that railway service. I want to bring this matter to the serious attention of the Minister and the General Manager, and I want to express the hope that they will build us a station there which will be as beautiful as the station at Lichtenburg.

The hon. member who has just sat down said at one stage that he had nothing more to say. Having listened to his speech I would like to know whether he has said anything at all that will be of any assistance to the railwaymen. He did thank the Railway Department for building a dam and he said that the dam was nearly full. The railwaymen, of course, will notice too that in extending an invitation to officials to come and make use of the dam and enjoy themselves on the dam, he only extended the invitation to the Minister and the General Manager. The ordinary railwayman, on whose vote he has to rely, is not even considered in extending an invitation to people to come and enjoy the pleasures of the dam! The hon. member said that the United Party in this debate had put up an attack which did not impress him at all. I would like to ask that member and any other member which member on the Government benches got up and criticized the Department in any way for its treatment of the officials. Do they all pretend that the railwaymen are so happy that it is not necessary for a single member on that side to put forward any complaint? According to them the railwaymen have got all they deserve; they deserve nothing more than they have been given. True, they paid tribute to the railwaymen for the hard work they do and for their loyalty to the Department but they have not put forward a single plea in the interests of the railwaymen. Sir, hon. members on this side of the House have made appeals on behalf of the railwaymen. If hon. members opposite knew anything about the complaints of railwaymen, they would know that a great injustice is being done to them especially in one part of the country and that is in the Transkei. Not one of them knows what is happening there. Let them go down there and find out whether the railwaymen there are satisfied. Sir, in 1963 the Transkei Constitution Act was passed here and self-government was given to the Transkei. In furtherance of its policy the Government seconded hundreds of White officials to assist the Transkeian Government in the administration of the Territory. The majority of these officials were brought in from outside of the Transkei; they were completely unfamiliar with conditions there. There were other Government officials in the Transkei—policemen, post office officials and railwaymen. They had been in the Transkei before; they were old Transkeians. Many of them had bought their homes in the Transkei. They were working in the Transkei and performed just as essential tasks as the other officials who have now been seconded to the Transkeian Government and brought in from outside. While we all agree that the White Government officials who had been brought into the Transkei are needed to help with the administration of the Territory to avoid chaos, we say that these other officials who have been seconded are just as necessary. No matter how efficient the Department of Bantu Administration may be, and no matter how efficient these officials who have been seconded may be, without the railways and without communications there would be chaos in the Transkei but those officials in the Railway Department have been excluded from the special benefits which have been given to the other White officials who have been seconded to the Transkeian Government. These old officials have been there for years. The seconded officials are given special allowances; they are given territorial and housing allowances, not small allowances. They get a territorial allowance of between R20 and R40 per month, depending on their grade. They get a rent allowance of between R33.5O and R45 per month. Those members using Government houses are given a reduction of 80 per cent in their rental. Sir. how do the Railway officials feel about it? Admittedly they have not been seconded to the Transkeian Government; they are still working for the Government of the Republic. Without them business would come to a standstill. Those men are living, in many cases, under worse conditions than the officials who have been seconded. The officials who have been seconded have had houses provided for them. The Government has bought houses for them, but these railwaymen do not get that. Some of them have had to buy their own houses. Some of them are living in isolated spots. The majority of the seconded officials are living in the towns and the villages, near schools and hospitals; the railwaymen are living at sidings out in the country, away from civilization, isolated by themselves. They do not get these allowances. Sir, I say it is quite unfair to allow these men to work there under those conditions. Surely all civil servants in the Transkei—post office officials, police and railway officials—should be placed on the same footing. A lot of ill-feeling is caused amongst these other Government officials who are not getting the allowances which are being paid to the officials of the Department of Bantu Administration. I have made an appeal to this Minister before to give his officials these additional allowances. I understand that these allowances are being paid in South West Africa where a territorial allowance is paid. Those officials are working for the South African Government. Why cannot they get the territorial allowance in the Transkei? I ask the hon. the Minister to remember that these people do not always live in big towns. Some of them are living in isolated spots. They have to endure hardships; they have children to educate; they have to send their children to boarding school; some of them have bought houses in the villages and the towns which have now been zoned Black. They do not know what the future holds in store for them. They do not know how they will be able to dispose of their properties. They have not been told by the Government yet whether they are going to be paid compensation or not. With the zoning of Umtata, for instance, a large number of houses now occupied by railway officials are being zoned in the Black area. I want to ask the Minister whether his Department is giving this matter consideration and whether they are going to furnish these railwaymen in the villages with separate railway houses in the White area? I ask the Minister to give this matter his serious consideration.

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) says that the railwaymen are very dissatisfied. I want to concede at once that there are persons who leave the Railway Service for reasons which I shall indicate in a moment, but in general the railwaymen of South Africa are satisfied to-day. We all have large numbers of railwaymen in our constituencies, and we can speak from experience. We deal with the affairs of those people day after day. It is highly improbable that in so large an organization one will not find one single dissatisfied person, but a general statement that the railwaymen as such are dissatisfied is very far from the truth. On the whole one can say that our railwaymen are very satisfied under the present Government, with this Minister and with the Administration under which they fall to-day. As a matter of fact, that is proved by what the railwaymen have achieved during the past year. There is a shortage of staff, but we nevertheless find that with a smaller staff the Railways have broken all records of previous years—and with a dissatisfied staff one cannot succeed in doing that. The Opposition are merely trying to use this Railway debate for political gain. They are now suddenly posing as persons who bear the railwaymen’s interests at heart. They are posing here as the greatest friends of the railwaymen, but we know that it only happens before elections that they suddenly become the great friends of the railwaymen. They know that they can make a large number of irresponsible promises here which they will never be called upon to carry out. The Government has displayed the very greatest responsibility as regards taking into consideration the requests made by the railway workers, and as a result the railwaymen have been granted increases from time to time. I say that the United Party, in pleading here to-day for larger concessions to be made to the railwaymen, are most certainly doing so with ulterior motives—they are doing so for political gain.

If we look at the General Manager’s report for the period ended 31 March 1965 it gives us an idea of the importance of the Railways and of the expansion which has taken place over the past year. It also shows that the South African Railways have kept pace with the general development of our country. If we look at the revenue we find that of a revenue of R526.000,000 no less than 43.6 per cent was spent on wages. That in itself indicates what a large percentage of the total revenue is spent on Railway wages, and that the Government has done its duty as regards granting the railway worker his fair share. This amount of R233,000,000 which is placed in the hands of the railway worker gives him large buying power, which in turn has a wholesome effect on the South African economy. In the year 1948 the total amount spent on wages was only R89.000,000, as compared with R233,000,000 in 1964-5. In 1948 the average income of a railwayman was only R910 per annum, as compared with an average of R2,029 in 1964. That represents an increase of 122 per cent, whereas the increase in wages for the factory worker was only 83 per cent, and the cost of living increased by 65 per cent in the same period. That shows that the position of the railway worker is more favourable than it was when we took over.

Our Railways began in a very modest way, more than 100 years ago. We call to mind the difficult times when railways were built in the Northern Transvaal and how the people died in those malaria-stricken areas, how they risked their lives. To-day the Railways has developed to one of the finest undertakings in this country, an undertaking of which all of us are proud. To-day our railway workers are also proud of the undertaking in which they are employed. That is the reason for the success which is being achieved in the Railways. That is why the Railways are able to handle larger tonnages. The policy of the Minister and the Administration is that the railwayman should get his fair share, because a satisfied official gives better service. In this connection I want to appeal to the Minister to continue looking after the interests of our railway workers in a fatherly way, because they are people who perform important work for this country. They are people who are prepared to work over-time for very long hours in the interests of the economy of South Africa.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that certain persons retire at the age of 55 years. I am thinking of railway drivers in particular. I recently found that some of those people would like to re-enter the service. They say that it is not easy for them to be placed in employment, while there is said to be a large shortage of Railway staff. I should like to bring this point to the hon. the Minister’s notice.

Another point that I want to make is in connection with the tariffs in respect of the products of the farming community. I think the Minister should pay special attention to that in the future, so that our farmers, particularly in the drought-stricken areas, will not be burdened with extra tariffs for the conveyance of their products. I am in close contact with those farmers, and I know what difficult times they are experiencing. I want to appeal to the Minister to take steps in the future to see to it that the tariffs in respect of our farmers are not increased unnecessarily.

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to a few observations made by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) earlier in the debate. In his speech to-day he surpassed the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) with his jeremiads. He mentioned the resignations from the Railways as allegedly taking place as a result of dissatisfaction. I have partly dealt with this matter, (but is it not a sign of the general growth in the economic conditions in this country that when people resign from the service of the Railways they can be placed in employment elsewhere? That is one of the reasons for people resigning from the Railways. They are perhaps called upon to do night duty in the Railways, and can get a position elsewhere in which they need not do night duty. There are various reasons for their resigning, but one of the main reasons is the very fact that economic conditions in the Republic are better than they have ever been before. In other words, these people can be placed in good positions elsewhere.

The hon. member also referred to more than 700 Railway houses allegedly standing empty. The hon. member is being wilful. It may be that there are Railway houses standing empty at outlying stations here and there, but surely he knows that as a result of planning and electrification certain stations are becoming less important and others more important? As a result of electrification it happens, for example, that at places where locomotives were previously used the people who worked in the locos leave. The houses occupied by those people then stand empty. But, as I have said, the hon. member is merely being wilful. He referred to accidents, and then blamed the railway worker for the fact that there were so many accidents occurring in the country.

No.

He blames the South African railway worker for the fact that there are so many accidents in the Railways and he says that accidents are increasing. What he did was no less than to blame them for the large number of accidents.

Never.

Who has to see to that? The Administration has certain measures, and there are persons in the Railways who provide first-aid services and attend to that type of thing. He did not blame the Minister, but blamed the railway worker, who has to take the necessary precautionary measures and carry out the instructions issued to him. He also referred to the ratio between White and non-White staff. He is trying to suggest to the electorate that it is the policy of the Minister to dismiss Whites and to appoint non-Whites in their stead. Surely he knows that that is not true? The Minister has found it difficult to recruit sufficient staff, and we know that non-Whites have in fact been employed in certain posts. The hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) said a moment ago that he welcomed the fact that non-Whites had been appointed in certain posts, because he could not see why it was necessary to appoint Whites in those posts. The Minister has not been able to fill the large number of vacancies in the Railways. Even if there has been an increase in the number of non-Whites, it was not the intention to replace the Whites. As a result of the expansion which has taken place in the Railways, it has been necessary to fill certain of the posts with Bantu.

I should like the Minister to tell us what progress has been made with the link-up of the Rhodesian railway line. This is a subject which I have spoken about on various occasions in this House. Does the Minister expect that our trade with our neighbouring state will increase considerably? It was recently stated in the Press that the Minister was to have an interview with the Rhodesian Minister of Transport. I should like to hear what progress has been made in that regard, because that link-up is of the utmost importance to us and to that country as well.

Mr. Speaker, I want to avail myself of this opportunity to express my sincere thanks to the Management of the South African Railways. I have had dealings with them in connection with a large number of matters over the past five years, and I can testify that my association with them has been an extremely pleasant one and that I have received the most courteous treatment from them. I want to thank them very sincerely for that.

The last speaker got so confused over the issues that we have been discussing. that if I were to try to put these matters straight, it would leave me no time for my own speech. For instance, he accused the hon. member for Orange Grove of blaming the rail waymen for the accidents. The hon. member did nothing of the sort. He indicated quite clearly that the safety regulations seemed to be at fault. He never said that the railwaymen themselves were the responsible bodies. He also spoke about the wage increases. We have heard a great many estimates and guesstimates and, I think, a very few authoritative statements on what the relative position is in regard to the purchasing power of wages in 1948 as against the purchasing power to-day. I think the guides that we should accept—they are not 100 per cent correct, but they are more reliable than calculations that are made—are the figures that are obtainable in General Managers’ reports. I find that in 1948 49.76 per cent of all earnings were paid out for labour. In the report just issued by the General Manager that figure has dropped to 43.66 per cent.

What does that prove?

It proves that the allegation that the wages of railwaymen in 1948 were out of proportion to the earnings of the railways is completely wrong. These figures show that in 1948 railwaymen were receiving a bigger percentage of the railway earnings as wages than they are to-day.

As I have said, Mr. Speaker, we can use figures whichever way we like. The test is: What is the actual purchasing power of money to-day as compared with what it was in 1948? One does not have to go to General Managers’ reports for that. One has to go to the homes of the railway workers themselves, and ask the wives. Those of us who have railwaymen in our constituencies have done just that and we know that to-day the purchasing power of money is so much less than it was in 1948 that although they may be getting a great deal more in actual money, they are not able to purchase as much as they were able to in 1948. That is, I think, the truth of the matter, and to try to argue by way of calculation and giving figures to this House, which can be misleading to the uninformed, is not of great assistance to the Minister in his attempts to meet the problems that face the Railways.

Mr. Speaker, we have had one theme going right through this debate. I think it is understandable that that should be the case, because of the manpower position in the Railways and because of the election which is to take place next month. Normally we should have discussed the manpower problem in the way in which we have discussed it in former years. But this year, because of the pending election, an issue has been brought in to try to confuse the electorate as to what the policy of the United Party is in the employment of persons in the S.A.R and H., and what the policy of the Government is. Before I deal with this question, I should like to say that I believe there is also another factor that has to be brought to the attention of hon. members. I think we should go back to a report that was published by the General Manager in 1945. It makes some very interesting reading, and the portion which I am going to commend to hon. members, particularly on the other side, is the postwar plan of the United Party Government. I am just going to take one or two items to indicate their significance to-day. The first has to do with the question of electrification—

The second item deals with the provision of Railway facilities to serve Native townships. Anyone listening to debates in this House over the last few years will imagine that the whole of the Native housing development around our large cities was something planned by the present Government. What do we find in 1945?

This was in 1945, Mr. Speaker. Another item deals with the provision of airports:

This happened 21 years ago. Anyone coming to this country to-day and listening to debates in this House would imagine that all these things have come about as a result of the planning of this Government. And yet the proof is here in reports of the General Managers’, indicating what was on the go as far back as 1945. In the same report there is an item dealing with the establishment of a central training institute—

If you look at later reports you will find how very valuable Esselen Park has become in the training of manpower for the Railways. I mention this, because it is necessary to get a background.

Yes, but you were a member of the Labour Party then.

At that time I was not a member of Parliament at all. I was employed by the Railways at the time.

And then you joined the Labour Party?

Yes, and what is wrong with that?

I did not say it was wrong, but that is the fact.

He is still serving labour very well.

One issue, which I have not yet mentioned, and which has particular significance in relation to the manpower problem, is that in 1942 the United Party, under the guidance of the hon. member for Turffontein at the time (Mr. F. C. Sturrock), introduced the Staff Associations Identity of Interest principle. In other words, he brought about the recognition of Identity of Interest as far as the railways staff was concerned, which recognized the trade union principle and brought about the recognition of railway staff associations as trade unions. The Minister may say: What has that got to do with the present position? I shall tell him. Without this development in 1942 and the subsequent tremendous increase in the number of railway workers who became members of the staff associations, and without the development of the trade unions, the method used by the Minister in meeting the manpower shortage to-day would not have been possible. I shall deal with this matter as I go along.

When I listen to the hon. members on the other side dealing with the manpower question, I ask myself: Who are they trying to help? Are they trying to help the Minister? Are they trying to put the United Party in a spot? The truth of the matter is that the members on the Government side who are dealing with this problem of the manpower shortage are doing a disservice to the Minister and a disservice to this country, because the fact is that the Minister either has to employ non-Europeans in the Railways, or he has to curtail his services. That is the simple choice. Any steps that the Minister takes in the direction of maintaining a proper Railway service as far as manpower is concerned, should be looked at very carefully by members of his own side before they start making the type of speeches they have made to-day. This matter has been dealt with by so many speakers on the other side, and the majority of them have tried to interpret job reservation, the colour bar and all that in such a way as to make out that the United Party policy is wrong and that the policy that they consider that they support on the other side is right. It is necessary, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, to get the record straight, so that you will know exactly what is happening. I know the Chief Whip on the other side is particularly interested in this question because he has listened to some of the speeches of his own members and he has shaken his head. He realizes that it might be good political stuff, but he also knows that it is far from the truth.

I should like to deal with this question of a traditional colour bar and job reservation. I want to say right away that in terms of section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act, which deals with safeguards against inter-racial competition, generally known as job reservation or work reservation, we have for the first time in our legislation, measures to deal with interracial competition other than the traditional method, namely negotiation between employers and employees.

What about the Mines and Works Act?

The Mines and Works Act is not of general application to the whole of our labour field.

It had application to the mines.

Yes, but what was the position under the Mines and Works Act? There it was a question of negotiation between the employer and the employee. But interference by the Government led to all sorts of difficulties last year. I admit that the Mines and Works Act did lay down a colour bar, but I am dealing now with the introduction into the Industrial Conciliation Act of section 77, which does not apply to the mines. The Minister will remember that the mines were specifically excluded from the provisions of section 77. I am dealing with the provisions of the Industrial Conciliation Act which gave rise to the term “job reservation.” I am dealing with it because the Government members have, I believe deliberately, gone out of their way to link job reservation and the traditional colour bar as one and the same thing.

What about the Native Building Workers Act?

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with job reservation in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act.

But you said it is the first time that there has been a legislative colour bar.

Yes, it was brought into the Industrial Conciliation Act. It may have exis ted in other Acts, but as far as the Industrial Conciliation Act is concerned, this was the first time it was introduced. That is the point I am making.

The second point is that section 2 of the Industrial Conciliation Act specifically excludes the South African Railways and Harbours from the provisions of section 77, which deals with job reservation. We therefore have the position that job reservation as it is generally known does not apply in the S.A.R. What we have there is the traditional colour bar, controlled without legislation. The question that next arises is: How has the traditional colour bar been maintained in the Railways over the years? I mentioned earlier that the United Party had in 1942 introduced the principle of identity of interest, under which staff associations were able to register as trade unions under the Industrial Conciliation Act. The staff were divided into groups on the basis of identity of interest. It was this principle which brought about a tremendous increase in the membership of the trade unions or staff associations as they are to-day referred to. The membership increased to 58 per cent in the three years from the inception of the scheme in 1942. I mention this point because it is important. Without the strong representation of staff associations in the Railways the Minister would not be in a position to negotiate as he has done in respect of the employment of non-Whites in the Railways. To-day the membership is—I speak subject to correction—in the neighbourhood of 85 per cent. The staff associations therefore have developed from this recognition in 1942 to the position where all the staff, with the exception of about 15 per cent, are represented by recognized trade unions or staff associations. Last year and in former years we pleaded with this Minister to utilize this machinery to overcome his manpower difficulties. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that when we suggested this method to him last year, the Minister said: What if they will not negotiate? What did we tell him? Try them and see, and if you do not succeed, then it will be better if you resign and let us try, rather than have curtailment of the industrial expansion as far as the Railways are concerned. You know, as a matter of history, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister did approach the staff associations and he did agree to …

Not all of them.

No, but he did get agreement for the utilization of non-European labour in positions formerly held by Whites. This is why I say that members on the Government side are not doing the Minister a good service when they criticize the employment of non-Europeans in the Railways, not because it is a matter of policy, but because there are no Whites to do the work

The hon. member for Orange Grove criticized that.

He is one—I did not hear that criticism—as against at least eight members on the other side. The point I want to make is that over the years there has been roughly speaking one non-White to every White employed in the Railways. That has been the pattern. What is happening to-day? The Minister is unable to recruit the necessary number of Whites to do the work.

It is in this respect that we have had these most amazing statements made by the hon. member for Bethlehem. And, Mr. Speaker, you will no doubt have noticed that most of this criticism has come from hon. members representing O.F.S. constituencies. What difficulties in the labour field can they speak of? The members for Transvaal constituencies have not said much, and hon. members for Natal constituencies have not taken part in the debate. Hon. members from Cape Province constituencies have not referred to this matter to the same extent as the O.F.S. members have. I just mention this in passing.

Then we also had the cry: “what about the rate for the job?” I do not understand why there should be this confusion. I want to say that where there are workers of all races with equal skill who are subject to industrial council agreements laying down different rates of pay on racial basis, inter-racial competition becomes possible and the rate for the job principle applies. Now, this is not possible on the Railways because the hon. the Minister by means of negotiation sets the wage pattern. Because of the identity of interests principle there is only one staff association representing those people engaged in doing the same type of work. There is only one staff association with which to negotiate when it becomes necessary to introduce other than traditional labour patterns in the service. The hon. the Minister has to choose between sufficient manpower and the curtailment of services, notwithstanding the working of excessive overtime. As I said earlier on that is the choice that has to be made. And in meeting this challenge the hon. the Minister will have to fall in line with outside industry. The day before yesterday the Chairman of the Artisan Staff Association, Mr. Liebenberg—who also happens to be the President of the Federation of Trade Unions, a very strong organization in this country— indicated quite clearly that we will have to recognize that there is no alternative but to utilize non-European labour if we want to maintain our industrial expansion. There is no alternative, Sir. We will have to get down to providing the necessary machinery to enable the White workers to be protected as in the past, and at the same time allowing non-Europeans to be used. And what has happened in the building industry in the Transvaal is a forerunner of what will have to happen throughout the country. In the Transvaal an agreement has been entered into between the building workers’ trade union on the one hand and the employers on the other. I understand the hon. the Minister has signed the agreement, and it has in fact been gazetted. Considerable numbers of non-Europeans are now going to be employed on work traditionally done by Whites. The reason therefore is not because the employers do not want to use the Whites, but because they cannot obtain Whites to do the work. And if the Minister is prepared to take these steps, why should he be criticized by hon. members on that side? Why should his own side say to hon. members on this side of the House that we are on the wrong track? As I said, the hon. the Minister is using the machinery which forms part of the policy of the United Party, a policy we have had for years and years. Why, Sir, is this bogey being introduced? I think I know why. I think it is specifically because of the election to be held next month. Why will hon. members on that side not face up to the truth and say to Railwaymen, “We cannot continue to run the Railways efficiently and properly unless we obtain a considerable number of White workers.” I should like to remind the hon. the Minister that when he was Minister of Labour and I raised this issue with him many years ago as to what he was going to do if he failed to obtain sufficient White workers to do traditional White work, his reply to me was: “Immigration.” This Government at that time did not have an immigration policy, because they did not want White immigrants. The story being told at that time was that the United Party was in favour of immigration because we wanted to plough under the Afrikaner.

Yes, you wanted to plough under the Afrikaner.

We did not say so. Propagandists on the Government side said so. But that no longer applies because the Government either has to get immigrants or it will have to make use of the services of non-Whites. That is the position that has developed. That is why 1 feel that the greatest disservice that Government members can do is to criticize the latest development in this field, a development which has taken place as of necessity. I believe they would be doing South Africa a big service if they were to explain to railwaymen and others throughout the country why it has become necessary for the hon. the Minister to take this step. They should cease blaming the United Party for the fact that more and more non-Whites are being employed on the Railways.

Before I resume my seat I should like to refer to one or two things which, if not attended to at an early date, will, I believe, cause difficulty in the Durban area. I am namely referring to the position obtaining at Rossburgh station. The hon. the Minister no doubt knows that Rossburgh serves the equivalent of some three or four constituencies. And yet not one of his main-line trains stops at Rossburgh station. Rossburgh is to Durban what Bellville is to Cape Town, or Germiston is to Johannesburg. I believe it will be to the advantage of all the residents and all the workers in these areas if the Minister were to take urgent steps to make Rossburgh a compulsory stopping place for all the principal main-line trains, particularly once he gets his new station at Greyville. I think the hon. the Minister must go into this matter at an early date, because it will require careful planning. Linked thereto is the greater utilization of the suburban services in that area now that the quadrupling of the lines between Durban and Booth has been completed. A former Mayor of Durban said that the Minister would expect the Durban Municipality to introduce feeder services to the suburban stations once the electrification took place and the quadrupling was completed. Well, these steps have now been completed, and I feel the hon. the Minister should now say to the Durban Corporation. “what about those feeder services being established?”, so that the Corporation bus service will not operate in competition with the Railways suburban services. All these things are linked up with the utilization of Rossburgh as a proper station. [Time limit.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) has two characteristics of which I am envious. I am referring to his eloquence and his wonderful imagination. When facts are lacking, when his facts are insufficient, and when he has not made a study of his case, he relies on his imagination. The hon. member talked about the excessive overtime certain members of the staff had to put in. He referred, inter alia, to a case of an engine driver and a fireman who worked non-stop for some 102 hours. At a later stage I shall deal with this matter again. Sir, figuratively speaking, when the hon. member’s imagination really gets into its stride, he entirely eclipses those officials.

The hon. member predicted an interesting debate. Well, there were certain matters I really found interesting. For instance, I found it very interesting to see how the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. Van Rensburg) bullied the hon. member. It was also interesting to see how the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) demolished him. Apart from that I must say that part of his speech really sounded like a James Bond thriller. I am referring to his mine dump story. He secretly scaled a mine dump near Angelo in order to have a better view of his surroundings from there. I do not know whether this was in day-time or at night, because the hon. member did not say. But apparently he scaled the mine dump from the back and eventually he reached the top. And. Sir. these mine dumps are quite high. It requires considerable effort on the part of the person who scales them; consequently it causes a reasonable amount of fatigue.

He probably drove up in one of those cars.

Yes, that is indeed a possibility, but I do not believe that the hon. member drove up. The hon. member wanted to make a sacrifice, he wanted to struggle to show that he was doing his duty. At any rate, the hon. member reached the summit of the high mine dump and from there he spied on Angelo. And what did the hon. member see? He saw how a few shunters ran in order to apply the brakes of moving trucks. He also saw something which he had apparently never heard of before, namely, “fly shunting”. The hon. member alleged that in doing that those people were breaking Railway regulations. From the summit of the mine dump he also saw 300 trucks—he counted them all—standing in the railway site. He alleges that only five of those 300 trucks moved in the half-hour he spent on the summit of that mine dump. Well, Mr. Speaker, if “fly shunting” had taken place there, and only five trucks moved in the period of half an hour, the General Manager will have to go into the matter. I do not know precisely what happened there. I do not know whether they have perhaps been moving the same trucks to and fro. At any rate, that is what the hon. member supposedly saw there. And now he maintains that that is a sign of the ineffectiveness of the Railways because, so the member says, he was there last year, too. He was at Angelo and also at two other sites. The hon. member says that last year he visited a certain site where he counted 40 trains which were stationary and waiting to enter the site. I do not know how far the member could see on that occasion. Apparently he did not have the use of a mine dump to be able to see that 40 trains were standing one behind the other for miles on end. He must have been able to see for quite a number of miles in order to see all of the 40 trains he counted as they were standing there, waiting. Mr. Speaker, is it not pathetic that the hon. member should come out with such stories, with such arguments?

I should like to refresh the hon. member’s memory by reading to him what he said in this regard. However, the hon. member talks so much nonsense that he does not like to remember what he said on previous occasions. The hon. member for Heilbron also referred to the stories the hon. member spread last year about all the stationary trains and trucks he saw, a story he repeated this year. It is, of course, a paucity of facts, a lack of something to say.

At any rate, the hon. member was not satisfied with merely looking at what was happening at Angelo. He sent a friend of his to Content and Poupan. This friend had to see what was happening on the Railways. The hon. member told the House what his friend had seen there, and I want to quote his speech now. He said—

Recently I asked a friend of mine to look at the notes on the trucks at Park Station.

That is a mistake of Hansard’s. I said a few stations.

I assume that is what the hon. member actually said. In any case, I am not making a point of that. What follows is really the point—

Then the hon. member’s friend went to Poupan. I do not know whether hon. members know where Content and Poupan are situated. Content is a small station situated beyond Warrenton and Poupan is an even smaller station situated between Kimberley and De Aar These two places were selected—why, I shall never know—in order to observe how badly the Railways are functioning. At Content the hon. member’s friend saw fourteen trucks which had been standing there for ten days. He probably remained there for ten days in order to see how long they stood there. But at Poupan conditions were even worse. According to his friend’s observation no fewer than thirty-five empty trucks had been standing there for an entire month. Yes, they were empty and there were manganese mines nearby! Well, at least the hon. member sacrificed a great deal to travel so far in order to see how badly the Railways handle their traffic. But the member also said other things in his speech. He said—

That is some 26 miles in all. In other words, the hon. member wants to suggest that all the trucks on the Railways do not travel further than 26 miles. He spoke of 8.39 days and they cover only three miles a day.

That is what the General Manager said.

No, the General Manager said that the turnround time of the trucks was 8.39 days. The hon. member did not read correctly. It is typical of that member. The hon. member does not make a study of his case. [Interjections.] Every year I wait for the hon. member to put up a better performance, but instead of doing better, his performance becomes worse every year. The hon. member thinks that he can get away with it as a result of his eloquence and his vivid imagination— “he thinks he can get away with it,” as the English say. If fourteen trucks had in fact been standing at Content and thirty at Poupan, and if it were true that all these thousands of trucks of the Railways merely covered three miles per day and travelled for 8.39 days, would that have been evidence of ineffectiveness? Is it a sign of ineffectiveness when the Railways transport 100 million tons of goods a year?

The hon. member and other members also maintained that winter after winter the Rail ways have not been able to do their work. The Railways can supposedly not provide for the wants of the public. There, too, the hon. member talked a great deal of nonsense. One of the hon. members alleged that for six consecutive years there had been coal shortages. Is that not the greatest trash ever? Because, Sir, there simply were no coal shortages. The newspapers blew up the situation and predicted that there would be shortages. But nobody had a shortage. Despite the predictions of the hon. members on the opposite side, not a single power station came to a standstill.

The hon. member also dealt with the application of the disciplinary code on the Railways. He attacked it and said that something was radically wrong. He then quoted a few examples. I shall now deal with his examples. I do this in order to show how faulty the hon. member’s facts are. Often he has no facts at all. Then he wants to try to get away with it by making use of his imagination and his eloquence. The hon. member is under the impression that he is addressing a lot of U.P. supporters in a faraway hamlet where they believe everything he tells them. He often forgets that he is speaking in the House and that even the people of Poupan will not believe him. When the hon. member speaks in this House, he must bear in mind that the House requires facts of him.

I want to refer to a few instances now and I quote from his speech again. He spoke, inter alia, of alcoholics who were in the employ of the Administration. He complained of the inexplicable manner in which discipline was applied on the Railways. One would be able to write volumes on that, according to the hon. member. Well, I think if the hon. member had confined himself to writing books instead of making speeches, he would have had a far better and larger audience. In any case, the member said the following—

Apparently the stationmaster was dismissed because one of the members of his staff had made a mistake. I do not know what that mistake was. I do not know whether the stationmaster drank, or whether he was an alcoholic,, because the hon. member referred to alcoholics. He said further—

Well, something is decidedly wrong with the hon. member’s statement. There is something seriously wrong. It is a pity that the hon. member did not give me this case, because I have really not been able to trace such a case. He also quoted other cases to show how wrong the application of the disciplinary code was. He said that there were people who had to be transferred and who refused to accept transfer. According to him the Minister could have applied Section 13 of the Act of 1960, but he did not. This section provides that when a man is dismissed, not having been guilty of dishonesty, it can be decided that instead of paying out his pension, he will be given an annuity. The hon. member maintains that this section could have been applied. I know to which case the hon. member is referring. Once again he has not made certain of his facts. I do not want to mention the name of the person concerned unless I am compelled to do so. The person concerned was a clerk who was dismissed because he refused to accept a transfer. However, that was merely the technical reason. The truth of the matter is that this clerk was running a large “call-girl” organization in the head office. He used certain prostitutes. For this reason this clerk did not receive an annuity. [Interjections.]

Order!

It is a pity that the hon. member did not even take the trouble to verify his facts. That is all that is necessary. He merely had to put a single question to me before he made his speech, because I really want to set him right. I really want the hon. member to make sensible and proper speeches during the discussions of the Budget. I have told the hon. member in the past that if he wanted any information, an offer of which his predecessor availed himself, he should simply come to my office. I have instructed my secretary to tell the hon. member everything he wants to know. There is nothing which has to be hidden. I really do wish that the hon. member would make a decent speech. Indeed, he is the deputy leader of his party and it is expected of him to maintain a certain status, even in this respect. But he does not do that. He makes these wild allegations—

Well, Mr. Speaker, even as far as the courts are concerned, there is no uniformity for the same offences. However, let us leave it at that. I quote further—

Those were the allegations of the hon. member. Once again he did not take the trouble to put his facts correctly. He did not take the trouble to obtain the correct information. What is the real position? I had this case traced. It appeared that a senior clerk who acted as companion on a train tour, had allowed his wife, his brother-in-law and the latter’s girl friend, all of whom had no tickets, to accompany him on that journey. The cost would have been R177.03. The matter was brought to light, and what happened then? He was not allowed to resign. But, as is often the case on the Railways, he himself tendered his resignation—owing to the disciplinary charge outstanding against him-—in order to escape those charges. That is what happened. The Management did not dismiss him. He himself resigned before any disciplinary charges could be laid against him. He was asked for an explanation, he admitted the irregularities and he was suspended immediately. But he tendered his resignation simultaneously. That is the normal procedure. It often happens that an official resigns when disciplinary charges are pending against him. And these are the charges the member quoted as if to show how ineffective and how poor the application of the disciplinary code is.

That is a weak defence, surely.

The hon. member is talking of a weak defence, but it merely goes to show how ignorant the hon. member is.

Were no steps taken against this man?

Those are the regulations, and there is no regulation authorizing me to do that. The case was referred to the State Attorney who refused to prosecute. If only the hon. member would read the Service Act to see what the provisions are, he would not perpetrate such absurdities.

Does the man get his pension money back?

The money he has paid in, is returned to him, yes. That is in accordance with the regulations and in accordance with the Act. I wish the hon. member would read the Act. If he does that he will do me a great favour, because then he will at least know what he is talking about.

Then the hon. member talked about the wages of railway officials. And what statements did he make in this regard? He said—

And what proof does he adduce to corroborate this statement? He mentioned pensions without the means test—which is found in other countries, in Britain, for instance—and free medical services. He also referred to other advantages of a welfare state. But our Railway people also receive pensions. It may be a contributory pension scheme, but it is there. But will a man come to us because he will receive an old-age pension, to which he has not contributed, for nothing? Such are the absurdities the hon. member perpetrates. He condemns South Africa’s general standards in this regard, he condemns the wage structure. I have been abroad, and I can inform the hon. member that in the countries I visited, the position is such—except in the U.S.A, where the wage and cost structure is so much higher—that I am convinced that our position in this respect does not only compare well, but in many respects it is even much better and much higher.

[Inaudible.]

No. How absurd the hon. member is! He did not make sure of his facts. I said that our attempts had failed, not because we could not get hold of the people, but because the people did not come up to expectations. We appointed more than 100 shunters, but when they saw what the nature of the work was—because over there they had no experience of shunting and they had to be trained here—they did not see their way clear to doing the work. They received good treatment, but the nature of the work was too much for them. They deserted one after the other.

The hon. member also alleged that the shunters’ allowance of 50 cents had been taken away. But that is not the case. It was consolidated with the increase they received. Instead of only 50 cents per day for every day they worked, the amount was consolidated with their increases. Where a worker previously lost that amount for every day he was absent, it is now included in his wages. He receives that amount for the entire month, which is, of course, a very great improvement.

They do not receive R20 per month as the other men do.

Everybody does not receive R20. The hon. member did not check that either. If he asked me for them, I should have shown him what the concessions and new wage scales are for all officials. Then he would not have talked such nonsense here.

In the course of his speech the hon. member also said that railwaymen were only granted relief in election years. He said—

But what are the facts? What are the facts now? I only want to deal with the years since 1953. On 1 April, or rather, to be exact, on 15 April, 1953, there was an election, but there was an increase, an improvement of R2,200,000 in pensions and remunerations on 18 September of that year, after the election. In 1954, in June and November, there were improvements to the amount of R821,000. There was no election in that year. In November of that year there were improvements to the amount of R1,800,000. In April 1955 there were salary and wage improvements to the amount of R8.200.000, after the election and not before it. If the hon. member remembers correctly, I was threatened in 1958 with a go-slow strike by one of the staff associations if I did not grant them increases before the election, and I refused to do so. They did not go on strike then, but after the election I did in fact do it and I granted them the increases. But the hon. member alleges that this only happens in election years; in other words, it only happens before an election, as was the case last year, that increases are granted.

I said in an election year.

The hon. member is slipping out again. I can name all the hon. members who said that these increases are only granted for one reason, and that is when an election is in the offing.

I still say so. I say it again.

Mr. Speaker, what should one do with a member such as this one, who says one thing one minute and a totally different thing the next? In February 1958 there were improvements again. After the election of 16 April there were improvements to the amount of R13,000,000, and that was not even an election year. So I could continue. Neither was 1964 an election year, but there were improvements to the amount of R672,000. In June of that year, after the Provincial Council elections, there were increases of R1,200,000 In July 1964, after the election, it was R773,000. In August 1964, once again long before the election, it was R710,000. In October 1964 it was R500,000. In November 1964 there was a holiday bonus of R11.000.000, That was not an election year. At that stage the election was still two years ahead. In October of last year there was an amount of R35,000,000. My reason for mentioning this, is merely to show up the hon. member’s dearth of facts and how they use any possible thing to try to make propaganda and to benefit themselves, particularly to obtain Railway votes.

I want to point out another matter in the speech of the hon. member for Yeoville which hon. members will find interesting. He referred to a case where an engine driver and a fireman worked for a period of 102 hours, and in that period they only rested for six hours.

They were travelling from Germiston to Kroonstad and back and then to Klerksdorp. Of those 96 hours they only travelled for 37 hours and they rested in the locomotives for 59 hours. Now he says, if the train has to remain stationary for hours on end, surely they could be taken off and used for other work. In the first place, I should like to know where they stood for 59 hours. If, for instance, they had been standing halfway between Johannesburg and Klerksdorp, should we have sent a motor car to take them off in order to do other work? Those are the absurdities hon. members perpetrate. And remember, that period of 59 hours during which they remained stationary, amount in actual fact to a period of two days and three nights during which they sat on the locomotive. They are super-humans! If one takes the total number of hours they supposedly worked, the 59 hours, plus the 37 hours, it means that in all the driver and the fireman spent four days and four nights on the locomotive. I do not even want to comment on that. Even members on the opposite side are able to realize how absurd it is and what trash these allegations are. It seems to me that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has made a rather unfortunate choice with the appointment of the hon. member for Yeoville as his shadow Minister of Transport. But you know, Sir, to a certain extent I have been instrumental in that. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition found himself in difficulties after the resignation of the previous member for Wynberg. I asked him one day whom he was going to appoint, and he said that he did not know. Then I said: Appoint Marais Steyn; surely he is your best man. Now I am guilty, together with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, of the fact that the hon. member for Yeoville was appointed.

I should now like to deal with a few of the matters which were raised by some of the hon. members. Allow me to say immediately that some of the hon. members of the Opposition had constructive criticism and I shall be glad to reply to that. But some of them, did, of course, only do what was to be expected of them, and I shall deal with them briefly. Is the hon. member for Drakensberg present? No, she is not present, but I really have to reply to her speech, and therefore I shall deal with her later. The hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) followed the example of the hon. member of Yeoville. If he wants to take my advice, he would not do that. He will land himself in the same wretched position. He should rather turn over a new leaf. I am now giving him paternal advice.

He will not even have the opportunity.

The hon. member touched upon two or three small matters. He says that there are only two considerations for overtime worked by the staff. Those were their loyalty and their poor wages. I agree with the first one, of course. I agree and it is with pride that I can say that railwaymen have been loyal all these years since I became Minister and since this Government came to power, and I think the previous Government can say the same of them. But he maintains that it is also due to poor wages. But does the hon. member not realize that it is a minority of the staff which works over-time? There are tens of thousands of members on the staff who never work over-time. Therefore it cannot only be as a result of poor wages, because the others never work over-time. Then there are members of the staff who work over-time, such as the engine drivers who, together with the artisans, are virtually the most highly remunerated workers on the Railways. Surely that is an absurd allegation. They do not work over-time because they like working excessive over-time. I myself do not like excessive over-time at all. If it is possible I shall cut down on over-time as much as I am able to. They do not like over-time, but they simply work because they feel that it is their duty to do so, and I admire them for that. They realize that we have a manpower shortage, and they put their shoulders to the wheel to help keep the wheels turning. That is the reason for their working such long hours. I agree that that is the reason, but under the circumstances nothing else can be done, because they put the interests of their country first and they know what will happen if a serious crisis should develop on the Railways.

But a good Management does not allow such things.

Just listen to that absurd interjection. Does the hon. member expect that the trains should come to a standstill?

No, you must get enough people.

You cannot even get enough candidates?

Where must I get the people? The hon. member for maitland spoke of the labour shortage, and a few other hon. members also touched upon that matter. They asked that, in spite of the fact that the income of pensioners working for private employers exceeded the means test, they should nevertheless receive the same treatment as the pensioners who re-entered the Railway service. As far as the pensioners are concerned, there was only one reason for my making this concession to them, and that was to see whether I could move them to return to the employ of the Railways in order to alleviate the manpower shortage. That was the only reason. It was not to do them a favour or to accommodate them; it was to move them to return to my service, and for that reason I am not going to extend it to private employers, for otherwise it will be of no value to me; I want to draw those people back to the Railway service.

Will you employ everybody who wants to work?

Yes, those who are physically capable and who can do a good day’s work, and, of course, provided that there are vacancies in that particular grade. For instance, one cannot appoint as clerks pensioners who were artisans. They have no experience as clerks, and they probably do not have the qualifications. They may perhaps have Std. VIII, but they have no experience, and one cannot employ such an elderly man in a clerical post of which he has no experience.

The hon. member as well as the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) asked that the consumer of petrol on the Witwatersrand should obtain petrol more cheaply, because it is cheaper to transport the petrol by means of the pipeline. I have dealt with that matter previously. If I were to lose that revenue I would simply have to increase the tariffs on other commodities, because I have to obtain my revenue somewhere.

But you are now making a greater profit than before.

No, I am going to have a deficit this year.

You are making a greater profit on petrol.

Yes, on petrol, but if I have to sacrifice that revenue, I shall simply have to increase the tariff on other articles in order to recover that revenue.

Why should there be a higher tariff on petrol?

Because petrol is one of the commodities which can bear that, on the basis of what the traffic can bear. Petrol in South Africa is cheaper than in most countries of the world, and our people are very fortunate in being able to obtain petrol at the current price. Therefore it is out of the question that that tariff can be decreased so that there may also be a decrease in the price of petrol.

The hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Dr. Otto) pleaded for more study bursaries to be awarded by the Railways. That is a matter which always receives consideration.

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) on a good, constructive speech. His criticism was good and deserves attention. Concerning the Airways, he touched upon matters which do not fall under this Department, because the Department of Transport is responsible for the buildings at our airports, and he will therefore have to raise that matter once again when the Vote “Transport” comes up for discussion during the next session. Then the hon. member suggested that our air hostesses should speak more languages on our overseas services. I should very much like to do that if I could find ladies who have a good command of more languages than the two official ones, but they are simply unobtainable. We have tried to obtain their services as announcers at airports, but we have not been able to do so. It is very difficult to obtain the services of ladies who can speak French or German and English and Afrikaans. If they were obtainable, we would certainly avail ourselves of their services. As regards the announcers over the loud-speaker system, the hon. member said that the pronunciation of the announcers should be improved. I agree. At the moment I do not want to refer specifically to one particular airport, but I get a pain in the neck each time I hear that announcer. It is very difficult to obtain the services of these ladies. We cannot give elocution lessons to all of them. 1 agree with the hon. member that ladies with better pronunciation ought to be appointed. However, the hon. member lays no charges against our travel hostesses. The pronunciation of our travel hostesses is very good. Sometimes their accent is just a little too “Oxford” to my liking.

The hon. member for De Aar-Colesberg (Mr. M. J. de la R. Venter) asked that servants who had committed some offence or other and who had been sentenced, should be re-employed in the Service. We do that. We are very accommodating towards these people when we feel that they have really been rehabilitated.

The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) rather surprised me. I have never seen him so aggressive, and this in his valedictory speech. I was quite surprised. I had to open my eyes twice to see whether it was the hon. member for Simonstown talking or not. I do not know why the hon. member was so aggressive. I do not know whether he suddenly developed some action against me or whether he has a quarrel with me.

The provocation is terrific.

I have given him no provocation. I have already dealt with the so-called chaotic conditions in the North. That, of course, is quite untrue. There were no chaotic conditions. As to the other matters which he raised with regard to the suburban train service and the uncomfortable stations, those are matters which are dealt with year after year, and the hon. member knows what the position is.

I know only too well but I am trying to get you to know what the position is.

In spite of the hon. member’s aggressiveness I want to pay a tribute to him—because he will not be coming back again next session and we are all sorry to lose him— for all the very good work he has done for the Parliamentary catering. For years now the hon. member has really been the manager of the catering section and he has done a very good job, as every member will agree, and I think it is only right that I should pay this tribute to him because this is probably the last opportunity I will have of doing so.

With regard to the speech of the hon member for Point (Mr. Raw) I can only say: So much bark and so little bite. We can expect that type of speech during the election campaign, of course. I do not mind if the hon. member speaks that way when he gets on to a platform during the election campaign. I know it is not going to help him to make all these wild allegations. Just listen to what he said—

That is no lie.

You should have heard the Prime Minister last year.

Sir, is there any individual in the whole of South Africa, unless he suffers1 from mental aberration, who would agree with that, who would believe that this Government would do something because the United Party fights for it tooth and nail? Do they really seriously believe that? I do not think hon members opposite believe it; they are merely trying to comfort themselves.

What about the Orange River scheme and the Hex River tunnel?

And, Sir, do you know who would believe it least of all? The people who will believe it least of all are the Railway staff. They won’t believe and, after all, they are the most important people. As a matter of fact, they have already told me that they hoped the United Party would rather shut up about their working conditions. They say that they are trying to undermine the prestige and the status of the staff associations. The staff associations have said time and again that they are man enough to deal with their own problems and to negotiate with the Minister. I challenge those hon. members to go and ask any of the presidents of the staff associations or the secretaries whether what I have said here is not correct. Everywhere I have gained the support of all these men. As a matter of fact, the year before last…. Well, I do not want to blow my own trumpet.

What has happened to you after all these years?

Are you not feeling well to-day?

I have always been very modest. There was very little in the hon. member’s speech to which I can reply. His whole speech was just blatant propaganda. He said that where a railway servant is found not guilty of an offence in a court of law and is not charged departmentally and is reinstated in the service, he should be paid during his period of suspension. He has written to me in that regard and the reply is lying on my desk. This has been the practice for all these years. In terms of the regulations if a railway servant is charged with anything that has nothing to do with ihs work, for instance, if the police charge him for theft outside railway premises or for contravening the Immorality Act, he must be suspended immediately and he is suspended until such time as the case has been concluded. The Railways cannot pay him during the period of his suspension. They are not responsible for his suspension.

He is guilty although he is found innocent.

No. If he is guilty the court will find him guilty and punish him. But we cannot allow that man to work and he is suspended.

Why suspend him?

That has been the regulation for all these years.

He is an innocent man.

Hon. members have asked about the Boeing 727. I have already answered that point.

Then I do not know what the hon. member for Durban Point meant when he spoke about shunters who are White by day and Black by night. I shall give him an opportunity to explain what he means if he would like to rise and do so. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I think we had better leave it at that.

The hon. member for Hospital has raised quite a number of matters which will receive our attention. I am sorry about the toilets. I can understand that the hon. member frequently has to use the toilet and that it is embarrassing when it is locked. I understand that the reason why these toilets are kept locked is that non-Whites also enter these coaches either when entraining or detraining and they very often use the European toilets. European passengers complained very strongly and so the ticket examiner now keeps the key. The hon. member must remember that when he needs to use a toilet, he must just ask the ticket examiner for the key.

The hon. member for Salt River has raised an important point and I think I had better knock it on the head immediately. He has said that production at the railway workshops at Salt River is being kept down with a view to transferring the workshops to Bloemfontein or Pretoria. There is no truth in that statement at all. There is no intention nor is there any plan to transfer these workshops to Bloemfontein or Pretoria.

Production is not expanding.

Production will expand if there is any need for it to expand; if there is no need, of course it will not expand.

I now want to say to the hon. members for Karoo and Boland in respect of the matters which they have raised; matters which they have raised before, that I am very sympathetic towards the Coloured people. Hon. members may rest assured that I do my best to create more opportunities and many opportunities have been created for the Coloured people over the years. That policy will continue.

The hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. A. L. Schlebusch) asked that the actual rights and privileges of the owners on whose land a servitude is taken, should be indicated on such servitudes. I have been assured that this is in fact being done. On the back of the servitude it is indicated what privileges, etc., the person in question has.

As regards the hon. member for Orange Grove I should like to say that his speech is of the same quality as the articles he writes in Ons Land, the Opposition’s official publication; one of these articles was referred to by the hon. the Prime Minister during the no-confidence debate. Everybody who has read those articles, knows of what quality they are. They are not very savoury.

Unsavoury.

Quite. I know that the hon. member is going to use the type of allegation made this afternoon as propaganda, and should hon. members perhaps read that magazine at some stage in the future, they will find everything that was said here this afternoon, with something extra added. There is, of course, the hon. member’s allegation that the number of resignations from the employ of the Railways has never in the history of the Railways been as high. This has to serve as proof of how dissatisfied the staff of the Railways is. That is the norm. He maintains that the increases I granted were too late. Mr. Speaker, what are the facts? In 1965 there were 18.826 resignations, and not 10,000, as the hon. member had said, but 21,130 former railwaymen applied for re-instatement in the employ of the Railways. The hon. member’s allegation is not true. There are many other reasons for officials resigning. Sometimes we investigate them. It is not a question of general dissatisfaction with the service. Sometimes servants resign because they want their pension money in order to settle debts. Others resign because they think that they have found a better job, and after a few months they find out that it is not the case. Others resign to go farming. Others resign because they are unable to obtain a transfer. There are hundreds of reasons for which servants resign.

In any case, the number of resignations is greater than in the past.

However, the fact is that 21,130 servants reapplied in order that they might come back to the Railways. We do not take all of them back either. We look at their records. Approximately one-third only is employed again. The records of some of them are so bad that one simply cannot risk employing them again.

The hon. member also referred to the large number of non-White labourers. In this respect the position is a very strange one. Once again it is the old story that there has been an increase in the number of non-White labourers. The Opposition is going to make propaganda out of this: “See the number of non-Whites who are taken into service all the time! ” They will say that outside in the country and also in their little newspaper. They will not say that here. The hon. member almost contradicted himself. When I asked him whether he was opposed to non-Whites being employed, he gave me three replies. At first he said yes, and that they stood for civilized labour. Later he hestitated and did not know what to say, and later he said that they were in favour of it, but that they would see to it that the White workers increased to the same extent. Mr. Speaker, why is it that there is such an increase in the number of non-Whites on the Railways, and that they increase more rapidly than the Whites? Because we try to see to it that the White man need no longer do pick and shovel work. We said that the Bantu should rather do that work and that the White man should do better work. Would the hon. member prefer those thousands of White workers to continue doing that pick and shovel work instead of our employing Bantu?

If you send the Bantu back to the Bantustans, you will have to do that.

That is the propaganda that will be made. Now, when this propaganda is made, we must remember that the hon. member, who is a propagandist for his Party, would prefer those thousands of White workers who have now been replaced by Bantu workers, to return to doing that pick and shovel work. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Orange Grove also alleged that 800 houses stood empty, and do hon. members know why? Because White workers had been replaced by non-White workers. Which are the houses that are standing empty? Along the railway line where there always used to be a White ganger with a team of White labourers who used to have houses there. We have replaced those White workers with Bantu workers, of course. That is the reason for those houses standing empty, and in addition to that we have a new system of mechanical rail maintenance under which one platelayer with a team of Bantu workers managed five or six sections of the line, where previously we had a White ganger with a team of White workers for each section of the line. That is the real reason. But I say that is the type of propaganda we are going to find. Then the hon. member also spoke of the 24.000 Railway servants who are injured annually in the Railway service. But do hon. members realize that those figures include a man who has injured his finger and is absent from his work for one day. The slightest of injuries are included in this figure, and with an organization such as the Railways, with a staff of 200.000 people, it stands to reason that numerous people will be injured. 90% of these cases can be attributed to the human factor. In my reply to the hon. member’s question I told him what we were doing to prevent these accidents. I referred to the excellent safety organization which had been built up. We are trying to make workers safety conscious in order to prevent accidents.

Then the hon. member spoke of the commission which had supposedly been paid to an agency in Vereeniging. 1 have said before that the Railways did not negotiate with them. The Railways negotiate directly with the manufacturers. I also said that no commission was paid. But do hon. members know what the hon. member has done? He does not take my word for it.

No, I take it.

He writes to the Boeing Company.

I asked whether they had agents.

Mr. Speaker, that reveals the hon. member’s character. That shows exactly what his character is. Do hon. members for one moment think that I would tell an untruth in Parliament by saying that we do not negotiate with those agents and that we do not pay them any commission, while it is in fact the case? The hon. member writes to the Boeing Company to confirm whether or not I have told the truth.

The Boeing Company could have had agents.

[Inaudible].

The hon. member for Yeoville should not talk, because as soon as that hon. member is in a sewer, he also jumps into it.

Here is my letter; you may see it.

The hon. member for East London (City) advocated a decrease in the tariff on wool. He has done that before. In this regard I should just like to tell him that I am very grateful to him for the fine words he said about the Railways. I appreciate them and I thank him on behalf of my staff. I should just like to point out that the tariff on wool is not too high. The tariff on wool works out to .64 cents per pound and the average price of wool is 34 cents per pound. Railage of .64 cents per pound is a very low tariff. The hon. member also pointed out the difference between the tariff on wool and the tariff on cotton. The reason for a lower tariff in the case of cotton, is the fact that the price of cotton is so much lower. The average price of cotton is only 22 cents per pound, as against the price of wool which is 34 cents per pound. In the case of wattle bark the tariff is low, too, but the average price of wattle bark is only 1 cent per pound. Here once again it is the old tariff policy which is being applied, namely that tariffs are determined on the basis of what the traffic can bear, on the one hand, and on the other hand the cost of transporting that article. Further I should just like to point out to the hon. member that in 1958 when the 10% levy was introduced, wool was exempted so that during all these years wool has had the advantage of not being subject to that 10% increase.

As regards slaughter-stock, I can only assure the hon. member that the Railways is doing everything in its power to speed up the transportation of slaughter-stock. However, there are regulations which provide that after a certain number of hours on the train, such stock has to be unloaded to be given fodder and water. Those regulations have to be complied with. Therefore it often happens that by that time there is another train on the line and that the train with the slaughter-stock cannot get away immediately. However, I think that the average through-transportation time of the northern parts in South-West Africa is approximately seven days. That is very quick for such a long distance when provision has to be made for fodder and water.

The hon. member of Drakensberg has a weakness—as I expected, of course, and as all of us expected, because she is fighting for her political life and she had to do what she could by means of a speech in this Parliament to see whether she could not obtain a few votes amongst the Railway people; I do not blame her. The weakness is that her facts are not always correct, and the Railway servants know what the position is. For that reason they will not believe everything she says here, because they work there. They know what the position is. I should just like to refer to a few other matters she touched upon. She said that despite the fact that a new welding depot appeared on the Budget for three years, it has not been built as yet. I want to give you the facts so that they may also be placed on record. As regards the flash-butt welding depot at Danskraal, the position is that provision has been made under Items 588 and 589 of the Brown Book for the necessary work. The statement that these items have appeared in the Brown Book for years, is not correct, Tant Sannie.

Refer to me as “the hon. Member.”

In 1964-’65 Item 588 appeared in the Brown Book for the first time. It makes provision for drainage at the non-White ablution block and machinery at the flash-butt welding depot at a cost of R70,800, 95% of the work has been completed. We are only waiting for the necessary machinery in order to install it.

The part intended for the non-Whites has been finished.

I shall deal with the others. In 1965-’66 Item 589 appeared in the Brown Book for the first time. It makes provision for a new workshop, a mess and ablution block for Whites and a stores stacking area at the flash-butt welding depot. The total cost is R427,400. Construction commenced in July 1965 and progress is being made according to plan. All of this is for the Whites. If only the hon. member had taken the trouble to consult the engineer in command, instead of personally making enquiries on the site, she would have obtained the correct facts. [Interjections.] The hon. member should not move on the same level as the hon. member for Yeoville. [Interjections.] He was on top of a mine dump. The hon. member walked through the site.

Then the hon. member referred to houses in Pretoriusdorp and she kicked up a terrible row about the fact that the houses were in such a bad condition and that the railway people had to live in such circumstances. The position is as follows: The houses are indeed rented by the Railways. In 1938 a contract was entered into with the municipality to rent 30 economic houses at Pretoriusdorp for a period of 40 years. All of the houses were new then. They were situated close to an industrial area. The maintenance is undertaken by the municipality. They are responsible for the maintenance. The municipality has to renovate the buildings now, but they say that they are going to increase the rentals. At present the rental is only R9 per month and the occupants are not prepared to pay more. The names of the occupants are on the departmental waiting list for houses, and as they are attended to, the houses are allocated to other persons and they know what the position is.

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that I have reached the time limit. In conclusion I should just like to thank the hon. member for Langlaagte for the fine words he directed at my staff. We are all sorry that he will not return. We all know about his state of health and it is for that reason that he will have to retire. We have always appreciated him here. The hon. member always did his best to serve the interests of his voters.

Now I only want to ask this, Mr. Speaker: Is the Opposition going to gain any advantage from all these stories they are spreading. Are they going to attract any additional votes? I do not think so. I believe that this is the most futile attempt we have ever seen. A few hon. members, inter alia, the hon. member for Orange Grove, predicted that the United Party would be in power after 30th March. What a rude awakening there is in store for them! I am afraid that at the next Session of Parliament all of them will have a great deal of indigestion as a result of all the words they will then have to swallow.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—69: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, J. A.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Wet, J. M.; Dönges, T. E.; Fouché, J. J.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Henning, J. M.; Jurgens, J. C.; Knobel, G. J.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Loots, J. J.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Odell, H. G. O.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rail, J. J.; Rail, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit. H. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. 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.; Viljoen, M.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

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

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

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.

House in Committee:

Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.