Mr. Speaker, we have of course had a typical pre-election debate from the other side of this House. As a matter of fact, they revealed a pathetic concern about the welfare of the railway workers. Of course, all the railway workers have votes and the Railway vote is quite a major factor in any election, and we again have a provincial election in the offing at the moment. Therefore, of course, they must try to gain as much support as possible from those white railway workers who have votes. Strangely enough, however, we hear very little from them about the non-white railway workers and, Sir, there are almost 110,000 non-white railway workers. Yet we have never heard them taking up the cudgels for those workers. But they have no votes, therefore the hon. members have no interest in them. I am quite convinced that if the white railway workers did not have votes, we would have heard very little from the hon. members on the other side about their interests in this House, They have also acquired the habit of raising individual grievances of individual railwaymen here and exaggerating them without ever checking the facts. They want to create the impression that they are the champions of the railway workers, but the information which they receive from the railway workers is usually so incorrect that it is very easy to refute. I personally have never objected to justified and constructive criticism being voiced. Indeed, it is the duty of the Opposition to do so. But when I come up against the type of criticism to which I had to listen for the past two days, I must not be blamed if I react rather strongly to it.

The hon. member for Yeoville, the shadow Minister of Transport—and he will remain a shadow—said at the beginning of his speech—

Why does the hon. member find it so difficult to speak the truth? So often in the past I have pointed out to him and warned him that he must try to speak the truth. A few weeks ago we heard so much about the credibility of a certain colleague of mine on this side of the House, but surely the same applies to a frontbencher of the Opposition? His credibility should also be beyond reproach, so that when he makes a statement or an allegation in this House, it can be accepted as the truth. I am asking why the hon. member finds it so difficult to speak the truth. I am going to point out other cases as well where he proclaimed untruths in his speech. I see he is very busy now. He does not really want to listen.

I have listened carefully every year and I have heard this every year ever since 1964. It is old news.

The hon. member is a split personality. He can read, write and listen at the same time.

And I can remember as well.

And he can remember as well. This is another characteristic, and a very advantageous one, which he has. He said I wanted to buy votes because I announced an increase during the Langlaagte election, although that is untrue, because I did not say it in that speech of mine. I have gone through Hansard. The hon. member could simply have taken Hansard and read the speech I made in introducing the Part Appropriation Bill this year. But when should I have announced this increase? If I had done so before the general election, they would have accused me of trying to buy votes. If I had waited until after the by-election in Langlaagte, they would have said that I wanted to buy votes for the provincial election. For was it not the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who said in a speech during the general election that the reason why I had doubled the holiday bonus was to buy votes? And that was in November last year. In other words, no matter when you announce an improvement in wages, whether it be months before an election or even months after an election, the Opposition says that it is merely intended to buy votes.

Why in Langlaagte itself?

What is the difference?

I could have announced it in Langlaagte or in any other place. But if I had really wanted to influence the railway workers, I would surely have done it before the general election? Two months previously, I had instructed the Management to prepare a basis on which discussions could be held with the staff associations. This was two months before the election, and I could have announced it before the general election. After all, there was nothing to stop me if I wanted to buy votes or influence the railway workers.

The hon. member went further. He said—

But surely this too is untrue. I did not say this. I never made the reflection on the commission that they had allowed themselves to be used by interested parties.

I did not say that.

The hon. member did. I want to quote the hon. member’s words from Hansard. He said—

Ah! That is another matter.

He said that I had said it. but it is surely untrue. I did not say it. I did not insinuate it. The hon. member is telling untruths again. But let me just read what Mr. Joubert’s minority report had to say in this connection. He said—

This is what he said, and he was a member of this commission. I said that those who bore grievances against the Railways made use of this opportunity in order to air their grievances against the Railways before this Commission.

But what is so strange is that the Opposition adopts the attitude that everything the outsider says is always correct; what the Chamber of Industries or the Chamber of Commerce says is always correct, but when an experienced senior official of the Railways says something, it is always wrong. Mr. Joubert’s report was summarily rejected, and he is the only member of that commission who is an expert. He has more than 40 years’ experience in the various branches of the Railway service and, in addition, he was the second highest official in the Railway service, but his report is summarily rejected by the Opposition. I ask whether he could have advanced his own interests. Did he submit this minority report in order to advance his own interests? Apparently the Opposition does not realize, or does not want to realize, that the senior officials of the Railways act in the interests of the Railways and the country, that the Railways is not the personal property of the Government or the senior officials, and that those senior officials do their best to further the interests of the Railways and the country. I completely fail to understand why those hon. members are so antagonistic towards the senior officials of the Railways, because in all their speeches, as I shall point out later, there is always the greatest antagonism towards the senior officials of the Railways.

Are they not carrying out your policy?

They manage the Railways. Did the hon. member not know that? Not the Minister. Of course they carry out my policy. In connection with the Marais Commission, I also said that the inquiry was superficial, but I cast no reflection at all on the status or ability of individual members of that Commission. But I want to give a few examples of the superficiality with which that Commission set to work.

Their most important recommendation was the separation of the Railways, Harbours and Airways. Let me deal with the Harbours first. They recommended that the Harbours be separated from the Railways on the strength of a memorandum submitted by the Durban Chamber of Commerce. Those arguments I heard year after year in this House when Mr. Butcher was here, precisely the same arguments which the Durban Chamber of Commerce now presented to the Commission. But the Commission also admitted that the other Chambers of Commerce do not agree. Yet, without mentioning any evidence about inefficiency in the Harbours, they make such a recommendation, and, what is more, without paying any attention to one of the most important terms of reference, namely that the accounts of the Railways must balance, no matter what they recommend. In this connection, Mr. Joubert said the following in his minority report—

And that statement was made by one of the members of the Commission who was present while all the evidence was given. Can I therefore be blamed when I say that the inquiry and the report were completely superficial?

On one person’s opinion.

On my opinion as well, together with that one person’s.

And you cannot be wrong.

If hon. members want to make interjections, they must do it loudly enough so that I can hear.

Let us take the Airways now. We have one of the most efficient Airways in the world; this is generally recognized. We have an Airways whose safety record is very good, an Airways which provides unsurpassable service. It is generally recognized as one of the most efficient Airways in the world. It is an Airways which keeps pace with the most modern developments in the field of aviation; it has the most modern aeroplanes in service, and no evidence of any inefficiency at all was submitted to this Commission. Not one of those members produced any evidence about any inefficiency in the Airways, yet they recommend separation. Not one of the Opposition members tried to contradict the arguments in the White Paper which I laid on the Table last session. Of course, I never said, as is maintained in this amendment, that I reject all the Commission’s recommendations. On the contrary, I said that there are a number of recommendations which have already become policy and which are being applied. I accept a considerable number of the recommendations, but I do reject certain recommendations. But let us summarize now.

Where did we maintain that you rejected all the recommendations?

It is implied in the amendment. Will the hon. member please reread the amendment which he moved?

Where is the truth now?

Sir, the most important recommendations made by the Commission were that the Railways, Harbours and Airways should be separated. Let us therefore leave those recommendations aside. If the recommendations in connection with matters which are already policy and which have been implemented for years already, are also left aside, and if the recommendations in respect of more concessions to private hauliers and greater relaxation of the Motor Carrier Transportation Act are left aside, what actually remains of that Commission’s report? Very little.

Of course, the hon. member for Yeoville and other members expressed very strong criticism in regard to the problems at present being experienced by the Railways in connection with the transportation of certain bulk goods. Now we hear from the hon. member for Yeoville that these are not due to the drought, the influenza epidemic or the acute manpower shortage, but to “inadequate planning and lack of vision”. Sir, he probably read Mr. Russell’s speeches very carefully, because these are the exact words which I heard from him over the years when he was still the shadow Minister of Transport— “lack of planning, lack of vision and inadequate planning” —but neither he nor his predecessors have ever said where the “lack of vision” and where the “inadequate planning” is. He makes a broad, general statement and then the hon. members on his side of this House are very pleased with it. They make a general statement without adducing any evidence or any proof in support of that statement.

Mr. Speaker, during this winter the Railways have experienced problems for the first time in 15 years. I admitted this in my speech and I gave the reasons for it. In addition, exporters cannot simply conclude contracts for the export of millions of tons of goods and then expect that the Railways will immediately be in a position to transport everything. This has never happened before. No railway system in the world is always in a position to transport all the traffic which is offered. For instance, if a contract is concluded for the export of one million tons of iron ore a year, and the exporters ask us to provide the rail facilities immediately, it is obvious that we shall not be able to do so immediately. A railway line is not built in a day and a locomotive is not bought from a shop window. It is true that there are many ores and other goods which at present cannot be transported to the harbours for export. But in view of the planning which is going ahead and the increase of the carrying capacity of the Railways, the time will arrive when it will be possible to handle that traffic.

Then I want to add that there is also the question of finance. One must have the necessary money in order to bring about these improvements and, in addition, there is the serious manpower shortage, to such an extent that today many of the large contractors are not even prepared to tender any more because they themselves do not have the manpower to carry out large works and because they are fully booked up. The hon. member for Yeoville also said: “For 13 years we were starved of immigrants. In that time South Africa probably lost more than one million good white South Africans.” Note carefully, Sir, in those 13 years, the hon. member said, we lost more than one million white immigrants. The largest number they brought in their time was 35,000 a year. If we were to bring in a million immigrants in 13 years, it would mean 77,000 a year. Is it not ridiculous to make such a statement?

What about their children and grandchildren?

Yes, together with their children; surely they cannot have so many children in 13 years? Sir, if the hon. member used his common sense, he would know that we cannot absorb 77,000 immigrants a year in South Africa.

Pathetic.

No, that hon. member was pathetic in making this the sort of statement, this ridiculous nonsense which he talked here; that is what is pathetic. Sir, let us see what he suggested—and these are the people who say that they are on the road to victory. They received such an injection in the last election that they are very hopeful that they will take over the government of this country in the foreseeable future. When they attack this side of this House about the shortage of manpower, one does expect them at least to say what their solution is, and do you know what their solution is? The hon. member said—

At last, after several years I have succeeded in getting a straight answer from those hon. gentlemen in connection with this matter. I asked them year after year: If the trade unions do not agree, what are you going to do? They never gave me an answer. But now the Leader of the Opposition had to give me an answer when he replied to the censure debate. I once again put the specific question to him: What would you do if the trade unions should not agree? His answer was that if the trade unions should not agree, he would not employ non-Whites in jobs previously held by Whites. This is what he said. Now they stand by that. Of course, there is an election at hand. They would not dare say anything else now.

I said that repeatedly in the past.

No, they did not say it; they refused to say whether they would still do it if the trade unions did not agree.

Read my speeches.

I read them; that is the trouble; unfortunately I read too many of the hon. member’s speeches.

Not enough yet.

Let us take this matter further. The hon. member now says that if the trade unions did not agree, they would not employ non-Whites; this is their solution to the problem. But that hon. member said that they have such negotiating ability and skill that they would in fact be able to convince and persuade the trade unions to agree with them.

That is what you are saying.

This is what the hon. member said. He said it while the hon. member for Houghton was speaking. The hon. member does not always know what he is saying; that is his trouble. They maintain that they have such negotiating ability that they would prevail upon the trade unions to agree to the employment of non-Whites in white positions. Mr. Speaker, in Johannesburg there is a United Party city council. Johannesburg’s transport services are in a chaotic state. The newspapers are full of complaints from people who cannot get bus transport. The reason for that is the serious shortage of white bus drivers in Johannesburg. The Municipality of Johannesburg, which is a U.P. municipality, wants to employ non-Whites as drivers of White buses, but the trade union is vehemently opposed to that. Why did the hon. member not use his negotiating ability to convince the trade union that they should support his policy? It is his own city council; it is a U.P. city council. Eventually the trade union asked the Minister of Labour to appoint an industrial tribunal to investigate the matter. The trade union asked for this because they were vehemently opposed to the proposal. But surely this hon. member could have used his negotiating ability and skill to approach that trade union and to say to them: Look, I am the labour leader of the United Party; I set the tone; I am the man who does all the publicity for the party; I am the man who drew up their labour policy; I am the shadow minister of both labour and transport; let us discuss this matter. I know there are other trade union leaders with whom he does get in touch. I do not want to mention their names across the floor of this House today. Why did he not get in touch with this trade union and persuade them? After all, he is that party’s labour leader, and it is his city council which is in office there. Here he could have given the country an example of his negotiating ability; he could have induced them to appreciate his standpoint and to agree to non-White drivers being employed. But, Sir, he did not do so.

He now wants to know what I am doing. I have stated previously what my standpoint is, but now I want to go further. On the Railways there is a standing committee which consists of representatives of the various staff associations and the Management. All the staff associations are represented on it. It is a standing committee. The hon. member must listen carefully now. Afterwards, of course, he will read Hansard again, but for the time being he must listen carefully now. As I said, this standing committee consists of representatives of the staff associations and Railways trade unions—all of them—and of members of the Management. The terms of reference of this committee are the following. I am reading them in English—

1. (1) To investigate and determine whenever occasion demands the need or otherwise of allocating work normally undertaken by graded staff to semiskilled or unskilled labour;
2. (2) to consider whether in the event of any such work being allocated to unskilled workers, the labour should be White or non-White, and to submit recommendations to the General Manager in regard to the aforementioned matters.

This committee has been in existence ever since 1961 and is therefore not something new. Whenever non-Whites are taken on in posts which were previously held by Whites, it is discussed by this standing committee and if they agree to it, as they often and usually do, it is in fact done. This is the kind of cooperation we already have from the trade unions.

And if they do not agree to it?

Then it is not done, except, as I have stated on a previous occasion, if it is in the interests of the country and no industrial turmoil and restlessness among the workers or unnecessary friction would take place if I were to do so.

You have added a qualification.

But surely this is how matters stand. Surely it is not in the interests of the country to have industrial turmoil?

Hear, hear!

Surely it is not in the interests of the country to have unnecessary friction? That is what we have always been saying.

Then you agree with us.

No. not at all. I have never agreed with you; I do not agree with such a stupid policy. There are certain posts, of course, in which this cannot be done at all, and it is in those very posts that serious shortages exist. There are, for example, firemen on locomotives. I wonder whether hon. members opposite will ever be able to persuade the trade union in question to have non-Whites appointed as firemen. I shall afford the hon. member for Yeoville the opportunity to do so by convening the executive committee of the trade union so that he can meet them. Then he can use his negotiating skill to see whether he can persuade them to do so.

I shall do so after we have defeated you, which will be happening one of these days.

If the hon. member waits for that, he will never meet them. There are also the posts of conductor and station foreman. These are posts in which one will simply not be able to take on non-Whites, for the good reason that the white staff will simply not tolerate it. That is why it cannot be done. And it is in these very grades that those serious shortages exist. But what we are in fact doing is to mechanize, to introduce automation and to increase productivity. In this connection I want to say that I do not think there is any private undertaking in the country whose rate of increase of its productivity is equal to that of the Railways. In addition, as I announced in my original speech, workers in other grades are being trained to help out in certain grades where there are serious shortages. They are lending a hand there by working overtime. For example, they serve as firemen. The hon. member had a great deal to say about overtime payment. In regard to these clerks whose services are being used to help out, he said, “They can get four times the rate of overtime which they get”, i.e. the firemen. But surely that is not true.

I was not talking about firemen.

No matter who you were talking about, it is not true.

That is what they feel.

But why does the hon. member not check his information? He can do so very easily by simply telephoning my office and I shall supply him with the correct information.

It is what the people feel that is important.

It is not a question of feeling; I am stating the truth, and the hon. member is a stranger to that, I am telling the hon. member that it is untrue that they get “four times the rate of overtime”. That is not the case.

Do they get double?

They get one and a third their basic wage and that applies throughout. I have already furnished the hon. member with a reply in this connection; he has it in his possession. The basic overtime rate is one and a third of the basic salary. But, naturally, the higher the basic wage, the higher, of course, the amount the person receives. [Interjections.] But that has nothing to do with the rate. I cannot understand such stupidity. They do not know the difference between “rate” and the actual amount received. The “rate” is one and a third of a basic salary, whether the person is a driver, a clerk or whatever. If drivers stoke, as many drivers do in difficult times, such a driver receives one and a third of his basic wage. Naturally he will receive a larger amount than the fireman, because the fireman’s basic wage is lower. But the rate remains the same throughout.

I was speaking about the amount and not the rate.

The hon. member said they were getting “four times the rate of overtime”. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I can deal with interjections, but I cannot deal with such rude behaviour without using unparliamentary terms. I just want to say that I am very grateful to these Railway officials for their willingness, after completing their normal day’s task, to help us out by standing in as shunters, firemen, and in other capacities. I think we ought to be very grateful for what they are doing.

In addition the hon. member for Yeoville said—and I am quoting him from Hansard here; these are therefore not words which I am putting into his mouth—

Then he spoke of “dissatisfaction and injustices”. Mr. Speaker, there are more than 630 different grades on the Railways. When the hon. member makes that allegation, I must assume that he approached the incumbents of all those grades and established that they were all dissatisfied …

Why do you assume that?

I am not saying that you did so; but why do you make such an allegation then?

Why are you so illogical?

I am not being illogical. He alleged here that the Minister had made many people unhappy. And then he went on to speak of “dissatisfaction and injustices”. And there are 630 grades. In other words, I must assume that he did some ferreting in regard to each of these grades in order to find out how they felt.

How can you assume that? Perhaps I did, but you have no right to assume it.

Does the hon. member know that lengthy negotiations took place between staff associations and the Management in regard to these wage increases? Does the hon. member know that agreement was reached between the staff associations and the Management in regard to these wages? What they said here is a palpable motion of no confidence in all the staff associations on the Railways. That is what it is—a palpable motion of no confidence in the staff associations. After the hon. member had made this allegation, I received the following information from the Chairman of the Federal Council of Railway Staff Associations, Mr. Du Plessis. He said that his name could be mentioned. In case hon. members do not know, I want to inform them that the Federal Council consists of representatives of all the staff associations on the Railways which formed this body. Its Chairman is Mr. Du Plessis. He said (translation) —

I think Mr. Du Plessis knows more about what is going on than that hon. member and the hon. member for Durban (Point). He is after all the leader of the staff. But I want to go further and give them another example. The Salaried Staff Association, for example, stated in this connection (translation) —

The Footplate Staff Association had the following to say (translation) —

Then there is the Trains Staff Association (translation) —

But whom did they speak to then?

Then we have the Artisan Staff Association. They said the following (translation) —

Who are they?

But listen now. I know it is not very pleasant to listen. It is not very pleasant to listen to what the staff themselves are saying. Hon. members do not want to hear this because they have just expressed a vote of no confidence in the staff associations through the foolish allegations of “dissatisfaction”. I shall read the letter from the Artisan Staff Association again, so that the hon. member can listen. It reads—

Here is a letter from Group E, namely the Employees’ Association. It reads (translation) —

Here I have a letter from the Railway Bond. It reads (translation) —

Here I also have a letter from the Police Staff Association. It reads (translation) —

That is what the Railway staff said. Then those two hon. members come along and speak of “dissatisfaction” and “injustices” and say that there has never been so much dissatisfaction among Railwaymen as there is at present. Has one ever heard such rubbish before? In other words, they expressed a vote of no confidence in the staff associations …

The old, old story.

… and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the staff associations of the Railways will take note of this. They will take note of what these hon. members think of them. It will not pass unnoticed.

Then I just want to read one last letter from those people for whom they have never taken up the cudgels. This one comes from the Bantu workers and reads (translation) —

Did the hon. member listen to what I have just read?

Yes, to what the Bantu said.

Then he did listen. I hope he takes it to heart if he did listen. I hope that subsequently he will not again make such—I do not want to use a harsh word— allegations of “widespread dissatisfaction, injustices and people that are unhappy”. They come along here with a few cases of individual railwaymen. Not one of them spoke on behalf of a Railway staff association. That hon. member has already tried to get in touch with certain staff associations. However, he came away empty-handed. Not now, but earlier on, before the election already.

What association have the Bantu got?

They have the same organization as the one provided for in the Labour Bill that I put through this House, namely the Settlement of Disputes Act. In other words, they have their work committees.

*Then there is also the Coloured staff association. They have a staff association. They are also very grateful and very thankful for what has been done for them. The hon. member alleged—which is also untrue—that engine drivers are now working eight hours 40 minutes per day. That is not so. He indicated what an easy time they had of it in Minister Sturrock’s days, and how much work they have to do now. That is also untrue. The hon. member must first check the facts and information he receives, before rising to his feet in this House to make a fool of himself. They work eight hours per day and not eight hours 40 minutes.

They are working eight hours at present. It has been decreased again.

Since I have been Minister of Railways they have been working eight hours per day and not eight hours 40 minutes. His excuse is of course that this was what he was told. I take it that he was told this; otherwise he would not have known about it. But why does the hon. member not check his information before he rises to his feet in this House and says things like this?

He discussed the pipeline again. I am not going to reply to this ad nauseam. He said that I should reduce the profits being made on the pipeline so that the motorists on the Rand can pay less for their petrol.

Then he and other members also discussed the pensions again. Last year I increased the pension benefits considerably. The annuities of all annuitants who retired from the Service prior to 1st April, 1968, as well as those of widows of such annuitants, were increased by 10 per cent. The annuities, with the exception of the quarter thereof which is converted in order to make provision for the lump sum cash payments, of all annuitants who retired or will retire from the Service on or after 1st April, 1968, as well as the annuities granted to the widows of such annuitants or to the widows of servants who die in service, were increased by 5 per cent. The first increase cost R800,000 and the second increase amounted to an expenditure of R850,000. In addition, the annuities were increased by 2 per cent per annum inclusive of the extra 10 and 5 per cent. That cost R2,500,000. Then there are additional increases, which will amount to R180,000. The total increases amounted to R5,757,000. This was done only last year. I think I have treated the pensioners very well. They received better increases than ever before in the history of the Railways.

Then the hon. member again referred to the non-contributory scheme. I have replied to this before, and I do not want to do so again. I just want to point out to the hon. member that the actuarial deficit in the Superannuation Fund was increased to R369 million on 23rd January of this year. Because of that, of course, turning it into a non-contributory fund cannot even be considered.

I want to give the hon. member from Yeoville the same advice I gave him before. I want to tell him that eloquence never conceals a lack of knowledge. Being sneering and resorting to wild allegations and gross exaggerations simply reveal the weakness of your case. Rather make a thorough study of your subject and attempt to offer constructive criticism. Then you will really make an impression on the House.

† The hon. member for Durban (Point) spoke about the lowering of the morale of railway-men. I am afraid that if they had to listen to the type of speech made by him and his hon. friend over there, their morale would definitely be lowered. That is not the type of speech that raises the morale of the railwayman. On the contrary, that lowers the morale of the railwaymen. The sooner hon. members realize that the better. It is the Opposition’s actions and speeches and the imaginary grievances that they raise on the floor of this House to try to get the support of the railwaymen …

Imaginary?

Yes, imaginary. I have just dealt with some of them. [Interjections.] If that hon. lady speaks louder I can reply to her, but she keeps on mumbling and mumbling, and I cannot hear what she is saying.

Then the hon. member again spoke about the disciplinary code. Every year we hear the same story about the disciplinary code. I wonder whether the hon. member realizes that the Service Act was not passed by this Government. It has been on the Statute Book for many years and these people are charged in terms of the provisions of that Act. I do not apply the disciplinary code. The officials of the Railways do that. The provisions of the code are applied by railwaymen for railwaymen. I wonder whether the hon. member realizes that even the General Manager of Railways is also a railwayman just as is a shunter and a driver. All the senior officers are railwaymen. Then the Opposition always only hears one side of the case. If they would only take the trouble to come to my office and find out what is the other side of the case, we will not have the kind of speech we have had.

I have done that over and over again.

Does the hon. member really think that the senior officers of the Railways deliberately victimize the staff under their control and treat them unjustly?

No.

But that is the tenor of his remarks. He is complaining about the application of the disciplinary code. He talks about injustices. Obviously someone must be responsible for them.

They only get the official picture put to them.

That is not correct. The hon. member does not know how the disciplinary code is applied. He does not even realize that when a serious offence has been committed, a disciplinary inquiry is held before any action is taken and that a railwayman who is charged before a disciplinary inquiry has a full opportunity of stating his case. The disciplinary officers are well-trained men. After such an inquiry, they arrive at a finding as to whether they think that the man is guilty or not. Then only does the matter go to the Staff Superintendent. Punishment is then meted out. After that the servant has the right to appeal either to the head of his Department or to the Appeal Board. At that appeal he has one of his own men to accompany him and to represent him. The Appeal Board is under the chairmanship of an ex-magistrate. He also has his own representatives, his own men, sitting on that Appeal Board.

When the Appeal Board arrives at a unanimous decision, that is the end of the matter.

If they do not, there is still a right of further appeal. Eventually the servant can appeal to the Minister and to the Railways Board. Does the hon. member know that the Railway Commissioners assemble all the relevant documents before them? They go into the matter thoroughly. Every aspect of the matter is investigated. In the case of certain offences where discharge or dismissal from the Service is involved, the servant concerned even has the right to appear personally before the board with an assistant. Only after that whole procedure has been completed, is a final decision arrived at. Sir, I think I have told the hon. member before what the procedure is, but he does not seem to realize what takes place. What he said is actually an accusation against the officers who apply the disciplinary code. That is what his whole speech means.

Why did you not listen to what I said?

I did listen. As a matter of fact, I went through the hon. member’s Hansard to see what he said. I not only listened but also read what the hon. member had to say.

You are blind as well as deaf.

Very well, but the hon. member will again have an opportunity of saying what he really meant to say.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) also said that in 1965 I had brushed aside a suggestion of his that the Airways should acquire Boeing 737s. I specially looked up my Hansard to see what I had said. I replied that no consideration had been given to the Boeing 737 and that Boeing 727s would be purchased. Sir, in 1965 there were no Boeing 737s in the air yet. There was only a mock-up of a Boeing 737 which I saw in Seattle in 1965. Not one of those aircraft had yet been built, and yet the hon. member says that I brushed aside his suggestion because I did not want to buy Boeing 737s. That is the type of argument one has to put up with. As soon as they were in the air, we did buy 737s. I did not say that there was anything wrong with the 737. I said that they were not considered at that time. The hon. member should read my Hansard again.

So I was just three years ahead of you, was I?

No, the hon. member was not ahead of me. Mr. Speaker, we once had a member in this House. I shall not mention his name. Hon. members know who I am referring to. But perhaps I can mention his name. It was the late Arthur Barlow, who used to predict every possible thing that could ever happen, now and in the future. Sometimes he was right; because he predicted so many things, he had to be right now and again. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Durban (Point) also produced proof of what he called bad planning. He said that in 1968-’69 there were 4,191 trucks due for delivery, while 7,071 were on order. That is quite correct. In 1969-’70 3,900 out of 7,000 were expected to be delivered, but only 2,837 were delivered. In the 1969-’70 Estimates provision was made for 3,931 new goods vehicles. In the Additional Estimates for 1969’70 provision was made for 2,150 new goods vehicles, which brings the total to 6,081 and not the figure which the hon. member quoted. During the year 2,837 were delivered. The hon. member concluded that part of his speech by saying: “Another year has gone and suddenly the hon. the Minister has placed an order for approximately 10,000 goods trucks.” Again he is wrong. In the Estimates for 1970’71 provision has been made for 7,155 new goods vehicles and not for 10,000. What value can be placed on the figures given by the hon. member for Durban (Point)?

So your Budget speech was wrong.

Read the Estimates. I want to give another example. The hon. member for Durban (Point) said—and now he must listen carefully—that a checker with seven to eight years’ service receives R180 per month and will have to wait another year before he can be considered for appointment to checker, special class. I should like to ask the hon. member for Durban (Point) if it is correct that he said that?

Yes. I said that a checker with seven to eight years’ service gets R180.

And then he has to wait one year before he is considered for promotion.

No, I said it was extended one year.

I can quote what the hon. member said if he wants me to. He said “and will have to wait another year before he can be considered for appointment to checker, special class”.

An extra year.

I am reading what the hon. member actually said and not what he meant to say. He can read his own Hansard.

Do not argue with him. You know he is right. Get along with your speech.

He has never been right.

I am sorry to say this, but the trouble is that the hon. member for South Coast knows less than the hon. member for Durban (Point).

That is why he thinks the hon. member for Durban (Point) is right. [Interjections.] For heaven’s sake, I do not want to argue with you. You had better keep quiet. However, let me explain the position in regard to the salary of a checker. A checker starts with R160 per month.

Is that the new scale?

The MINISTER; Yes, we are talking about the new scale. After five years a checker reaches his maximum salary which is R200 per month. The special class checker receives R210 to R230. What value can be placed on the statements of the hon. member for Durban (Point)? He said that a checker received R180 per month after seven to eight years’ service. And then after another year, or whatever he meant to say, he can apply to become a special class checker. The actual fact is that after five years a checker receives R200 per month. When he becomes a special class checker he receives a maximum of R230. So his statement was entirely wrong.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. Minister a question? May I ask the hon. the Minister whether, if I can produce him a checker with more than five years’ service, he will immediately put that person on a salary scale of R200 per month?

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants me to give him all the rates,

I will give it to him. According to the new scale, a checker starts with R160 per month. After five years he receives a maximum ofR200 per month.

What is the minimum?

The minimum salary is R160 per month. I will try to explain this matter so that even those hon. members will be able to understand. A checker starts at R160 per month. Then he gets his yearly increments till after five years he reaches the maximum of R200 per month. When he receives the maximum of R200 per month, he can apply to become a special class checker. Then he starts with R210 per month and can go up to R230. Is it now clear to those hon. members?

Will you answer my question?

No, I cannot answer that across the floor of the House. If the hon. member writes to me and gives me the particulars, I will reply to him.

I now want to come to the hon. member for Port Natal. I have been in this House for many years and I must say that I very seldom came across a more recklessly irresponsible member than the hon. member for Port Natal. He is even more reckless and irresponsible than the hon. member for Yeoville and that is saying a lot. I will read to the House some of his irresponsibilities.

Are you having a lovely time?

I have already told that hon. member what I shall do if he cannot behave himself. If he continues being so rude, I will have to use very strong language to him, which I should not like to do. It will be unparliamentary. When the hon. member was speaking, I kept very quiet, making only one interjection. The hon. member must behave himself now. [Interjection.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. the Minister a chance of replying to the debate.

On 25th June, 1969, the hon. member for Port Natal said the following: “The underpaid civil servants get in creases before elections and they are moved into key constituencies so that the Government can win those constituencies,” according to a report in the Rand Daily Mail. I will not comment on this statement now. According to the Tribune of the 18th January, 1970, the hon. member for Port Natal was reported as follows: “Mr. Winchester said that South Africa’s high car accident rate was closely connected with the policy of apartheid which extends privileges to the Whites.” In the Natal Mercury of 14th April, 1970, we find another of his jewels, if one can put it that way: “Mr. Winchester continued to say that railway workers were compelled to work overtime. If they refused they were fired.”

I never said that.

Why did the hon. member then not correct the report?

I said “fined”, not “fired”.

According to the reports he said “fired”.

I did not say that.

Then the hon. member should take action against the newspaper and not against me. If he said “fined” I am prepared to accept that, but the report said “fired” and there is a very big difference between the two. A few days ago the hon. member also said in a speech in this House that “railwaymen are deliberately underpaid so that they can be compelled to work overtime”. That is also quite untrue.

It is a matter of opinion.

That type of opinion is not worth a cent. He also said, “The high accident rate on the railways is largely due to the manpower shortage.” What does the hon. member know about railway accidents? Has he ever seen a report by an inquiry after an accident? On what does the hon. member base his contention, or is it only on conjecture?

On the railwaymen who come to me.

In other words, all railway-men involved in these hundreds of accidents go to the hon. member and tell him what the reasons for those accidents were. Has one ever heard such utter nonsense, such absolutely unadulterated tripe, from an hon. member? The hon. member also quoted figures regarding the loading and discharge rate at Durban harbour. I do not know where the hon. member obtained his figures, but the fact of the matter is that in a recent test of four ships the highest rate was 14 tons and the lowest 5.8 tons, the latter being due to rain. 50 per cent of the working time lost was due to delays on ships, which is the responsibility of stevedores. He also spoke about the turn-around of vessels. The time of turn-around of vessels has actually decreased from 4.5 days in February, 1970, to 3.5 days during May, 1970, while the amount of cargo landed increased from 4,800 tons to 6,200 tons. That is the position.

*I listened with interest to the speech made by the hon. member for Maitland. Unfortunately the hon. member said nothing new which hon. members before him had not already said. What he therefore wanted replies to, I have already replied to. The hon. member did, however, ask whether I was prepared to change the labour pattern. However, the hon. member did not say what the labour pattern is.

Yes, I did.

What is the labour pattern?

I shall reply presently.

I shall reply to the hon. member then, because it was not clear to me at all what he was referring to.

†The hon. member for Houghton spoke about the Soweto train service. I agree that this train service is overcrowded, but I am afraid that the carrying capacity of the lines has just about reached the maximum. We cannot put many more trains on that line. In the immediate future we are going to replace 22 sets with swing doors by sets with sliding doors. That will mean 545 additional passengers per set.

The interdepartmental committee that deals with these matters is at the present investigating the feasibility of building a line of 4¼ miles between Jeppe and Faraday. That will mean that there will be a circular route, so that trains will not need to go to and fro on the same line. They are also investigating whether it is feasible to quadruple certain double sections and provide better turn round facilities at Soweto. I want to say that I have no objection to private companies introducing as many bus services as they like between Soweto and Johannesburg. If they wish to make application to the National Transport Commission, I am sure they will be granted the necessary certificates.

The hon. member also spoke about the uniform of the ground hostesses at Jan Smuts. Of Course, it applies also to the other airports. I am afraid that I am not a dress designer. I can always see when a woman is well and tastefully dressed. But in regard to fashions I am afraid that I am quite at a loss. If I look at some of these photographs of women attending horse races, it mystifies me how they manage to put on those clothes. [Laughter.] However, we are going to fit our hostesses with new winter and summer uniforms, and they will be of a deeper orange colour, not such a light orange colour. Orange and blue are the colours of the S.A. Airways. The hon. member has probably seen that the tails of our aircraft are painted orange. These women must be very conspicuous so that people requiring their services can see them immediately at the airport. But we will furnish the new uniforms with a darker orange colour. She spoke about the “nartjie” on top of their heads. What is the English word for “nartjie”?

Mandarine.

I can tell her that we are also going to supply them with new hats which will be much more in fashion and much more attractive. The winter uniforms will be blue and orange, the colours of the S.A.A.

The hon. member for Simonstown spoke about inadequate harbour facilities. The hon. member knows, of course, or he should know, that we are spending quite a lot of money in providing a new outer harbour for Cape Town. It is going to cost many millions of rand. He has probably also heard that we have built a new pier at Durban Harbour. It is Pier No. 1, which will accommodate quite a number of ships. We are continuing to build Pier No. 2, which will provide more berths. There is a cross berth that we use mainly for containers. In addition, Richard’s Bay will be developed. Saldanha Bay will be developed as soon as Iscor obtains the finance. So we are not neglecting harbour facilities.

When will Richard’s Bay be operative?

I will deal with that when I reply to the hon. member for Salt River. He raised the matter. Then he said that ship repairers appealed to the Minister to erect their own dry dock in Durban and that I refused. On the contrary, I suggested to the repairers that they must take over all the dry docks of the Administration and run them themselves. They are quite at liberty, if the necessary space is available, to build their own docks. I have no objection to that whatsoever. But if they take over the dry docks, they must form a consortium, so that all the ship repairers at least in Durban will have equal use of those docks.

He said that only R55 million was spent on the harbours in 13 years. I do not know where he got those figures from. The actual figure is R116.7 million, which was spent in five years on the harbours, including harbour facilities. The hon. member must have misread it. Then he said that we should build a huge dry dock for these giant ships. Sir, all the docks are run at a loss. The hon. member queried the accounting, but the accounting is quite correct. They are run at a considerable loss, as can be seen from the reports. Now why should we spend R40 million to R50 million building a dry dock which might be used by huge tankers or ships passing around the Cape if they are disabled? Surely that is not an economic proposition at all. When they have their full repairs they have them done in their terminal ports. It is only when along the way some defect arises that they will go into a port to have it repaired. And to spend R50 million or more on the construction of a dry dock that might be used occasionally by one of these huge tankers is certainly not an economic proposition at all. In Cape Town especially it means that the harbour will have to be deepened, too, because the draught of those giant tankers is between 60 and 70 feet when fully loaded. With the granite bottom we have here it will cost many, many millions of rands to deepen the harbour sufficiently to accommodate these giant tankers, and that is not an economic proposition at all.

The hon. member for Salt River wanted to know when the construction of the harbour at Richard’s Bay will be completed. The C.S.I.R.’s results of its model tests will only become available towards the end of August, 1971. Legislation will be introduced in the House for the building of the harbour in 1972. Financial provision will be made in the Estimates for 1972-’73. It will take four years to build the first stage after the tenders have been accepted and a contract has been entered into. The hon. member also asked why we do not build a 4 ft. 8½ inch line to Saldanha Bay. It is for the simple reason that a 3 ft. 6 inch line can dovetail into the rest of our railway system, and we can move as much ore on a 3 ft. 6 inch line as we can on a 4 ft. 8½ inch line. The only difference is in the speed, and having a direct line to Saldanha means that there will be a quick turn-around and speed does not enter into the matter at all. In fact, we have seen in South America that on a metre gauge they are moving up to 14,000 tons of ore. And this will be a very easy grade to Saldanha, of 1 in 200, and we will probably be able to run trains of about 8,000 tons.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) raised the question of the plastic cups in the dining-saloon and in the compartments of the Orange Express. They are not used in the dining-saloons; they were only used in the compartments, but I can set his mind at rest by giving him the assurance that they will be replaced by a new type of container in which the contents are kept warm whilst the outside remains cool, and they will only be used in the compartments.

*In conclusion I just want to say the following. The whole attack by the Opposition was mainly on what I said about the Marais Commission and the fact that I was not prepared to accept certain of the recommendations. In addition, the attack was in regard to the inability of the Railways to move all the freight offered at this stage. But at the same time they said that their standpoint was that one must not employ non-Whites without the permission of the trade unions. They also complained about excess overtime which the workers have to do. They complain because the freight cannot be transported, but they do not want the workmen to work overtime; then they are highly dissatisfied about it. Certain hon. members also asked for better wages and salaries, but at the same time they want to divert the high-rated traffic to the roads, as the Marais Commission recommended. Then the revenue will decrease, but they want to bring about lower tariffs. The revenue of the pipeline must be reduced. In other words, spend more money and receive less in revenue.

And then they come forward with their solution. They say the Railway deficits should be met out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. I must say it would be very pleasant for any Minister of Transport if there was a deficit at the end of the year and he could simply lift the telephone and dial his colleague and say that he needed R50 million or R60 million for meeting his deficit in that year. But the hon. members have never given proper attention to this; they have never considered it properly. It simply means that no control would have to be exercised over expenditure; rates could be reduced and wages could be increased at random, because why should I as Minister of Transport be concerned, since the Consolidated Revenue Fund would in any case meet all the deficits? This is the solution which they proposed for the problems of the Railways.

Mr. Speaker, can the public ever put such an Opposition into power? I do not think so. They may perhaps get a few protest votes, but I do not think they will come into power in the foreseeable future.

Order!

Order!

Order! It is sufficient if I call “Order!”

On a point of order, Sir, may I ask whether an hon. member is allowed to stand when the Chairman is standing?

That is why I called “Order!”

Schedule 1: Revenue Services, and Schedule 2: Capital and Betterment Services:

Heads Nos. 1 to 15 and 17,—Railways R818,139,000 (Revenue Funds), and Heads Nos. 1, R18,455,700; 2 (a), R83,478,500; 3, R24,699,200; 4, R119,900; 8, R13,528,900, and 9, R800,000 (Capital and Betterment Works):

Mr. Chairman, I request the privilege of the half-hour. In this debate we shall try, to the best of our ability and with all the weaknesses from which we suffer, to discuss the role played by the Railways in the economy of South Africa and as the largest employer of all employees in South Africa, and to exchange views with the Minister, as the person responsible for the policy of that mighty organization, on the role played by the Railways. I fear that as the years go by, it will become increasingly more difficult to conduct a meaningful debate with the Minister of Transport. I am not keen to continue the debate on the Second Reading. However, over the years it has become customary for the Committee Stage to be, in many respects, a continuation of the Second-Reading debate. In these circumstances I am entitled to point out and to draw the attention of any impartial spectator of to-day’s discussions to the fact that the hon. the Minister has evaded every important question raised by the Opposition during this debate. He did what he has always done since he has held this office, i.e. he insulted the Opposition, both as an Opposition and as individuals. They are the people who are allegedly indulging in wilful untruths. They are people who are irresponsible, who are grasping, who act with ulterior motives and have no sincerity. Then the Minister proceeds to select a series of petty points which he debates with great prolixity whilst consistently avoiding the subject of the debate all the time; he avoids the points of difference between the Opposition and himself, and he avoids making contact with us. spiritual and intellectual contact. on the situation in which the S.A. Railways finds itself. At the moment I just want to register my protest against it, and I shall return to it later on. The Minister cannot bluff us he cannot bluff the people: and it is increasingly becoming more impossible for him to bluff the railway people. Let me mention a few examples.

He started by saying that we were looking for votes because, allegedly, we did not speak about the non-Whites working on the Railways. But how can the Minister say that? A large part of the debate was in fact concerned with the necessity for non-Whites in the employ of the S.A. Railways to be used in more important posts, in more productive posts, which would result in their obtaining a greater share and better remuneration as their work would be more productive. That was one of the major debating points. The Minister tried to reply to the debate, and I shall come to this later on. But the Minister does not have the slightest right to say that we are ignoring the fact that there are 100,000 non-Whites on the Railways. A large part of the debate did in fact concern their role, their future role, and their productivity in the service of the Railways. Did the Minister fail to appreciate this? Why does he come forward with such allegations? Surely, such an allegation has nothing to do with this debate: in fact, it amounts to an evasion of the debate; it does not promote the debate.

The Minister protested violently in regard to his actions in Langlaagte. At the beginning of this year, in the course of the Part Appropriate debate, he upbraided us for having pleaded for the railway people. He said that we wanted to influence the votes of the railway people, and that it was not necessary for him to do so. He pointed out that there were railway constituencies which had become lost to us. In this regard he mentioned Umhlatuzana and Maitland. But to-day he did not do so. The same Minister who had been so prudish at the beginning of the year, who had been so pious that he did not even want to discuss the position of the railwayman, acted differently after the setbacks the Government had suffered because of his incompetence, his exhaustion and his weariness. Surely, the Minister cannot deny this. He went to Crossby, that part of Langlaagte where one finds the greatest concentration of railway votes, and selected that venue for the purpose of announcing the increase. But that still did not help him. The majority of the National Party candidate was reduced even further—by more than a 1,000 votes. We who were there that day. saw how the railwaymen came in uniform and obtained their numbers from our tables in order to prove that the Minister could not buy them. After all, this is history; these are facts. This is the most expensive by-election that has ever been held. It stands to reason that I am pleased that the railwaymen got this increase, but what Langlaagte had yielded to the Government for that money, was really not a good investment. I am referring to the outcome of the by-election for the National Party. If the Minister still wants to be convinced that he spoke the truth at the beginning of the year, when he said there was no need for him to buy the vote of the railwayman, I hope he believes it now, for this was proved by Langlaagte.

The Minister came forward with other petty things as well. He wanted to make a big fuss of the fact that I had critized him for having said that the Marais Commission had been seized upon by interested persons in order to promote their personal interests. I did not say that the Marais Commission had done that; I expressed the hope that one would not be able to read that into the Minister’s words. It was recorded in Hansard. What I objected to, was that he had said the report of this commission was superficial. Why did he mention this, as though he wanted to suggest that these people were not intelligent enough to realize that other interested people wanted to take advantage of them? I asked him and I am doing so again: If people of consequence, such as the members of this commission, were doing superficial work, and if, in ignorance and unknowingly, they allowed themselves to be taken advantage of by interested parties contrary to the interests of the State, how can the Government be satisfied about Dr. Marais being the chairman of the commission dealing with agricultural matters?

You asked that question the other day already.

Yes, I did ask, but I received no reply. The hon. the Minister must be convinced of his allegations if he levels such accusations against respected citizens of South Africa. In such a case he must be able to keep his word, or else he must apologize.

Did you not listen to what I was saying?

The other thing which became obvious to me from the actions of the hon. the Minister, was the brevity of the alliance—I am glad for her sake—between the hon. the Minister and the member for Houghton. The hon. the Minister ostentatiously challenged us by asking us what we would do if we wanted to change the labour pattern in the interests of South Africa and the trade unions did not want to do so. My Leader said that we would not use sticks against the trade unions. His words were, “We won’t use the big stick against the trade unions.” The hon. member for Houghton jumped up with a motive, which she propagates publicly elsewhere in the world and not always in South Africa, and with great joy she ranged herself on the side of the hon. the Minister and disparaged the United Party. But she always does that. The hon. the Minister left her in the lurch to-day. The hon. member for Houghton is a member who. for instance, granted an interview to the Evening Post, one of the largest newspapers in New Zealand. It was sent to us from New Zealand by a shocked New Zealander.

Are you jealous,

Marais?

No, you will see whether I am jealous. In this interview it was said—

That has nothing to do with the railway debate.

I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, it has nothing to do with it. I want to read the following which she said to the New Zealand newspaper-man—

This is while she was a student at academic level with an academic approach to this world. Then she joined the United Party—

She formed the Progressive Party.

I am not responsible for what he wrote.

What does all of this have to do with the debate?

I want to point out the motive of the hon. member and why she is attacking us in regard to railway matters. I want to point out that she is prejudiced against the United Party and does not have a good word for the United Party.

But we are now dealing with the Committee Stage of the Railways Bill.

It has to do with the hon. the Minister’s challenge to us in regard to the employment of labour.

I am sorry, but the hon. member must confine himself to what I put.

Mr. Chairman, I always accept your ruling.

You said that she …

No, I did not say anything. I was reading what was said in the newspaper.

[Inaudible.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of Transport wants me to continue, what am I to do then?

Then the hon. member does not continue. The hon. member must confine himself to the subject being discussed by the Committee.

The point remains that the hon. member told the New Zealanders certain things. She stated her attitude towards us. In the newspaper concerned it became apparent that she would rather see her unmarried daughter marrying a Bantu than a supporter of the United Party. This is what we have come to now.

Who said that? Did I write it?

Here it is.

Order! The hon. member must obey my ruling now and confine himself to it.

It is important that, in the interests of the railwaymen in South Africa, clarity be obtained. With her anti-United Party standpoint and her bitterness towards the United Party she jumped up and supported the hon. the Minister in this debate.

Order! The hon. member may discuss those matters on another occasion, but not on the votes. They have nothing to do with these votes. That is my ruling. What he is saying has nothing to with the Railways.

Mr. Chairman, in that case I shall come back to the policy of the hon. the Minister and leave the hon. member for Houghton. Sir, would it be in order if I did that?

The hon. member may proceed.

The hon. the Minister challenged us to state our policy in regard to the employment of non-Whites in the jobs previously done on the Railways by Whites. Our policy is clear. We shall do this in consultation with and with the approval and the agreement of the trade unions. Then he issued this challenge: “What would you do if the trade unions did not agree?” My Leader said that we would not put the trade unions into a straitjacket in regard to this matter.

That is what I said.

The Minister told us that he was the big man and that he was doing it without the consent of the trade unions. To-day we hear the qualifications. Today he says that he will do it. He says there is a committee, and they will do it without the consent of the trade unions, provided that it will not cause friction and unrest and provided that it will not disturb the activities of the Railways. Nor will he do it without the approval of the committee. Now I want to know where the difference lies between the hon. the Minister’s policy and ours. We positively believe that if we were to effect changes in the labour pattern on the Railways or in any industry in South Africa and we could not get the trade unions to agree with us, then we would create labour and industrial unrest in South Africa; that is why we say that we shall not do it. But the Minister says that he will do it provided that it does not cause industrial unrest or strife. What is the difference? This amounts to a game of words. What does the Minister have up his sleeve? I must say that I get the idea that the Minister has some plan or other in regard to the white workers on the Railways which he is going to produce after the provincial elections. He wants to lure the United Party into a trap so that he may say after the election that he did nothing which was not said by the United Party. Something must be done on the Railways.

In reply to a question put to me by the Minister, I want to say that he finds himself in the difficult position that, contrary to the ideological colour policy of the Nationalist Party in every other sphere in South Africa, he is trying to implement United Party policy on the Railways. He is finding himself in difficulties, and I have sympathy with him, but he should not try to score cheap points against us. He has my sympathy. He referred to the difficulties which we have with the buses in Johannesburg. We do have difficulties there, because we are trying, just as he is, to implement our policy under a Nat. Government. We are trying to apply our policy with the co-operation of that trade union under the authority and without the co-operation of a Nationalist Party Government, and we do have difficulties. I am very greateful to the hon. member for Houghton for having testified that she knows, as I do, that there are trade unions in South Africa which will cooperate with something of that nature in the interests of their white and non-white supporters. As soon as this happens, all the workers of South Africa will realize what mighty benefits there are for the white worker in permitting change to take place and in bringing about higher productivity in South Africa by making use of the manpower of South Africa.

This is happening at present, but unfortunately such cases are the exception. Do you know, Sir, that under the hon. the Minister’s policy certain sections of the permanent way, and especially in Natal, are at present being maintained on a contract basis by private enterprise. There is a member of this House who can, from personal experience, bear testimoney to the fact that he and others left the service of the Railways in order to work for private entrepreneurs for whom they did the same type of work. These people are doing the same kind of work there. As the private entrepreneurs are not bound by the policy of the Government, but applying another labour pattern, they are going to the private entre preneurs and are doing supervisory work for which they are being paid up to twice and three times as much as the Railways are able to pay them for that work.

How many of them go back to the Railways?

No, they do not go back. I shall tell hon. members what happens. They become so disillusioned, realizing how wrong the policy of the Railways is under this Minister, that they stand for the United Party in the election and come to Parliament to represent Umhlatuzana. This is what happens. Admittedly, this is exceptional. I believe that if this were the general pattern, it would not happen on such a tremendous scale. The Minister is an old Fusionist. He will never be able to shed that. There was a time in his life when he had insight, and that insight comes back to him every now and then. If he were to implement those convictions of his on the Railways and if he were to persuade his colleagues in the Cabinet to make them the policy of the country as well, there would be certain trade unions which would co-operate. If they were to do that, they would derive so many benefits that no other trade union leaders would be able to refuse those benefits to their members. This is the difference, and this is my reply to the Minister. We shall seek agreement with those trade unions, but we shall seek it in the knowledge that we shall get it, for it will have been proved that it is in the interests of the white workers of South Africa. The Minister, too, knows that this is in the interests of the white workers of South Africa. I do not think that he would have placed 1,200 Bantu in unskilled jobs, previously held by Whites, and that he would have placed more than 1,000 non-Whites in graded jobs, previously held by Whites, if in so doing he would have prejudiced the white workers of the Railways. He would not have done it if he would have prejudiced South Africa by doing so. He would not have done it if he would have prejudiced the Railways as an organization by doing so. He did it because it was necessary and in the interests of the country, the people the Railways and the workers themselves.

Why are you complaining then?

I am complaining because the Minister is struggling to implement United Party policy on the Railways, and because he does not have the courage to admit it. He does not have the courage to persuade this Cabinet to do the same for South Africa. Nor can he do it properly, for he is restricted and bound as a result of the lack of insight on the part of the Government. These are the matters we should discuss. I am still waiting for a reply.

We spoke about the manpower shortage. We said something had to be done. The Minister did not deny it. Now I am asking anybody who has an impartial insight into this debate: What did the Minister say in his reply to the debate to intimate that he has the necessary insight to determine what is needed for surmounting this problem? Does he have plans? What did he say? He made use of petty things and insults to disparage us, but he did not say a word about these problems. He does not have a case. He does not have a plan. He does not have insight. He is sitting over there with the experiences of a Fusionist, but he is handicapped because he is a member of a Nat Cabinet. He has my sympathy.

Sir, let us talk about overtime now. I may just say in passing that I agree wholeheartedly with one thing that was done by the Minister to-day. He spoke for more than an hour. He tried to reply to every member of the United Party in a superficial manner, without mentioning the real points we discussed; but he did not devote one minute to any of all the speeches made by his Own members. To my mind this indicates that to a certain extent he still has sound judgment as to what is to be done. They thanked him, but he did not even thank them for their support. We spoke about overtime, and then the following challenge was issued to us: Do you want to abolish overtime? Sir, what has happened in the Railways? At this stage I do not want to express views on the question of whether workers are being paid too much or too little. The Minister knows what my views are in this regard. I want to state a fact. The position in respect of overtime in the Railways is So chronic, and overtime has to such an extent become part of the way of life of the railwayman, that at present the railwayman is permanently basing his standard of living and his way of life on the income he earns as a result of excessive overtime.

That has always been the case.

No, that has not always been the case. To-day, if there is influenza about, the Minister cannot meet the crisis, for he cannot get another hour or two of overtime out of his workers. They are being fully harnessed and exhausted by what is expected of them to-day. The hon. the Minister knows this is true. I often come into touch with railwaymen. The hon. the Minister also testified to this to-day, and I am glad that he did so. We are in touch with the railwaymen. All of them are saying that without those overtime payments, they cannot make a living to-day. Changes must be brought about. However, such changes can only be brought about when these people receive a basic wage which will be sufficient to meet the necessities of their daily lives. They believe to-day that they can no longer afford those basic necessities without their overtime earnings. They are accustomed to overtime.

What is the Minister doing now? I pointed out that the hon. the Minister was doing two things by making use of clerical, administrative staff to do the work of checkers, shunters, etc. I have also said before that this is one of the worst examples of relations between the management and the employees of which I have ever heard. People who are being paid overtime at a high rate, are being used on the Railways to do the work of men employed at a lower basic salary. Although the rate at which overtime is paid may be one and a third or a half, it remains a fact that those people are being paid more per hour for the same work. People from the clerical section are doing the work of checkers and shunters. According to the hon. the Minister the man from the clerical section is worth to him four times or at least twice as much—and I can prove it —as the man whose daily task it is to do that work. Surely, psychologically it is inevitable that shunters and checkers will want to know why it is that, if the man from the administrative section does their work, he earns twice as much as they do. In that case, surely, their work is worth as much to the Railways. They want to know why they cannot earn this as well. This is what the hon. the Minister is doing now.

At the same time he is also creating a situation which, if it goes on like this, will cause the administrative staff to reach a position where their standard of living and way of life will also become dependent, on those earnings derived from overtime. Therefore, if overtime should be abolished one day, the Nats would also want to know from me whether we want the overtime worked by the administrative staff and the people in other posts to be abolished. They will ask this, for they will know that these people will have developed a new way of life from which they will not be able to escape.

These are the matters we discussed. These are the matters which the hon. the Minister did not touch upon. With pettiness and trivialities he tried to amuse the House and to hurt us on this side of the House. However, he did not say a word about these fundamental matters. We tried to conduct the debate with him on these matters, because we are concerned about them. Time and again we said that the Railways was becoming a bottleneck in the economic development of South Africa. I mentioned examples as well. I also have other examples with me now. We said that the inability of the Railways to keep pace with the progress and the new spirit of enterprise of the people of South Africa was becoming a bottleneck. This is borne out by impartial observers such as the Bureau for Economic Research of Stellenbosch. What did the hon. the Minister say in his reply to this debate to reassure us in this regard? What did he say to give, us, the assurance that the position that there will not be sufficient people on the Rail ways to do the work of South Africa, will not continue? What did he say in regard to the fact that there would not be sufficient railway lines and that the harbours would not be adequate? The hon. member for Durban (Point) pointed out here that the hon. the Minister had recently said that the Saldanha Bay harbour would not be developed and that the railway line to Saldanha Bay would not be constructed in his lifetime. But when the Japanese come along and want our ore, they may have it. They may have Iscor, to build it. They may finance it.

They are taking the risk.

Yes, they are taking the risk. That is why Japan is developing the fastest of all the countries in the world and South Africa is lagging behind. And then it is still being said that we are developing too fast. They are the people with the daring and the insight. They can even develop South Africa in the interests of Japan. In spite of that the hon. the Minister declines to develop South Africa in the interests of South Africa. I referred to this earlier on in this debate. I mentioned examples, but the hon. the Minister failed to say a single word in reply to them. He occupied himself with petty matters. I hope and pray that he will in fact reply to this later on, because we are conducting the debate on this matter. We want to conduct a debate which is in the interests of South Africa and not in the interests of the hon. the Minister so that he may hurst, disparage and insult other members of this House. If we on this side of the House were to make mistakes, we would admit them, but let us now conduct a debate on those matters which are in the interests of the railwayman and in the interests of the future development of South Africa. Our charge against the hon. the Minister was that in introducing this Bill, he admitted that he was not getting sufficient capital for doing what was necessary for the Railways. What is the answer to that? What is the solution going to be? Is he going to land once again where Mr. Sauer landed in innocence? Mr. Sauer had to become the victim of Government policy when the Railways had such a shortage of capital that they lagged behind, as is again the case with the Railways to-day. What is the reply of the hon. the Minister to this? We have received no reply.

We pointed out that there was not sufficient manpower for doing the work of the Railways where it had to be done. To this we did not receive any reply either. We complained about the inadequate vision of the Government. The hon. the Prime Minister said that he visualized South Africa as a medium-class country at the end of this century, whereas my hon. leader, with expert support for his standpoint, pointed out that with greatness of vision South Africa could become one of the ten greatest countries before the end of this century. We did not have any response from the hon. the Minister to the question as to what role the Railways were going to play in rendering this possible. We are still waiting for the hon. the Minister to say even one word about it. However, he occupied himself with reproaches, such as “you are a liar”, “you are speaking untruths”, “you are irresponsible”. Was it irresponsible to ask such questions in the interests of South Africa? Where is the reply?

I do not want to be personal, but the hon. the Minister knows that I hold him in very high esteem. Heaven knows, he does not always deserve it; but I do hold him in high esteem. I have a soft spot for him in my heart, but he can do better than he has done to-day. He can do better than he has done in this debate. The hon. the Minister should have been Prime Minister of South Africa. However. he stood back and in doing so gave us an inadequate Prime Minister. Therefore, a greater responsibility now rests on him than was the case before. He has to meet the deficiencies he caused in South Africa because he had failed to persevere when he should have done so. Let the hon. the Minister show us that he does have the vision and insight. Let him make the Railways an example to South Africa and to the Government. He is trying to do this with his labour policy, but he does not defend it. Why does the hon. the Minister not report to us?

I should now like to suggest something. The hon. the Minister is very fond of suggesting what we should do, but now I want to make a suggestion to him in all amiability. Let the hon. the Minister rise and report to us on what he is doing in regard to the labour pattern in South Africa. He must not come forward with challenges, but with facts. Let him mention to us in how many cases—and the number of workers affected—he appointed non-Whites to do the work of Whites, contrary to the wishes of the trade unions. Let him also motivate his actions. He may say: “Look, the committee considered this matter, and in this case these were the reasons why they did it and this is why we did not encounter opposition from the trade unions.” Then we would know. The hon. the Minister says that he is doing this, and he says, “I am doing this without the consent of the trade unions.” Where is the hon. the Minister doing it, and in how many cases? Will he give account to us? We are entitled to ask him this. If he did this, he might bring insight and intelligence to the hon. the Minister of Labour and especially the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, who are implementing that part of the Government’s policy which is binding and yolding back South Africa, and which is doing an injustice to all the workers and employers in South Africa. I hope the hon. the Minister will be magnanimous enough to seize his opportunity.

Mr. Chairman. this is my first speech as the hon. member for Langlaagte, and I think it is fitting that I should on this occasion pause for a few moments to pay tribute to the former representative of this constituency in this House. I think this House will miss him, particularly in a debate such as this which concernes Railway matters, because the part played by Abraham Raubenheimer in these discussions was always of importance. He was a man who during that time looked after the needs and the conditions of the railwaymen in that constituency in general very thoroughly. It is for me a pleasure to follow in his footsteps in that constituency. I undertake to do everything in my power to ensure at all times that the interests of the railway worker in particular will be looked after, and that his interests will be discussed in this House.

I have been sitting in this House for quite a number of years now. I have often listened to the hon. member for Yeoville. I am interested in him. We have known each other for many years. I have always regarded him as a very gifted person and a person with sound common sense. But I must really say that I was disappointed in him in this debate. The Minister indicated this afternoon that the hon. member for Yeoville did not really do the important things an Opposition should do, i.e. offer constructive criticism in an important debate such as this. He spoke with such gusto again that the froth flew from his lips while he was trying to belittle the Minister. That is what his entire argument amounted to. I am convinced that we who are sitting here and who followed what the Minister was saying will agree that the Minister went out of his way to try to reply to what the hon. member for Yeoville had said. He tried to say that the Minister acted in a rude, insulting way towards them. I think that if the Minister had done that, then he was simply doing what the United Party and the hon. member for Yeoville in particular, deserved.

The hon. member mentioned what took place in Langlaagte. He mentioned sneeringly that the Minister had announced at a public meeting at Crosby that an increase of R60 million would be allocated to railway workers. But what I want to say now, I can prove. Our survey in Crosby, and in particular in those parts where railwaymen live, indicated that 100 per cent of the railwaymen, with few exceptions, voted in that polling district. I want to concede to the hon. member for Yeoville that I myself saw some of these railway people who came to vote in their uniforms fetch their numbers from the United Party tables. But, Sir, who am I to say that among the railway people there is not here and there a supporter of the United Party? I am aware of the fact that in Langlaagte and in the vicinity of Crosby there are a few of these people who support the United Party. But I also want to say that in that polling district there are almost 4,500 voters. Of those 4,500 voters the United Party received 385 votes.

How do you know that?

I know. After all, we have a means of checking. We have an organization an, after all, we were there when the votes were being counted. [Interjections.]

May I ask the hon. member a question?

After all. that is proof …

Order! The hon. member is not prepared to do so.

That is proof that the railwaymen are deeply grateful and thankful to the Minister for these salary increases which he announced. Since we are dealing with these posts now, where these salary increases were approved, I just want to say this, and in my constituency I go among the railway people and I have tested the feeling of those people. I now want to issue a friendly challenge to the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. member said that with this concession of R60 million by the hon. the Minister, he made more people angry than he made people grateful.

I did not say that. I said no one has ever with R60 million made so many people unhappy before.

Let us accept those words. But now I want to challenge the hon. member for Yeoville. He had a lot to say here about Langlaagte: Langlaagte was supposedly the proof, after this expensive election of R60 million was held, that the policy of the National Party had been rejected as a result. I challenge the hon. member for Yeoville to bring me a single person from any category of the Railways, who lives in Langlaagte and who will say that he is not grateful for these salary increases which were announced. I challenge him to do so. Sir, it is easy to base that kind of allegation on letters. After all, the methods of the United Party are familiar to us. It is very easy for those people to inspire someone to write a letter and submit a long list of complaints simply so that they can bring it to this House. But I want to say that despite the fact that the United Party applied the most reprehensible methods in the election campaign in Langlaagte in order to get people to vote against the National Party, we still achieved that success.

What about the photograph in which you falsified Cabinet faces? Do you remember that?

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the allegation that the hon. member falsified something.

I withdraw that, and say that he put other faces on the photograph of Cabinet members.

I did not put other faces on those of Cabinet members. I shall deal with that pamphlet later.

Order! I want to ask the member to return to the Vote.

Yes, Sir, I just want to say thank you for these salary increases. I say that in that election campaign in Langlaagte they went to fetch the hon. member for Umhlatazuna and he went about among the railway people of Langlaagte, and what did he tell them? These are the kind of wild tales we had to scotch two nights before the election. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana and others went around from house to house telling the people that this R60 million salary increase which had just been announced was only for the “white collar” workers on the Railways. Did be not say that? [Time expired.]

The hon. member who has just spoken admitted that his advent here resulted from the most expensive election ever. He talked of it as the R60 million election. [Interjections.] Sir, the answer to that hon. member was given to him at Benoni where he got his trek pass and it was given to him in Langlaagte where the majority was reduced by twice as much as the average for the whole of the Witwatersrand in the general election a month or two previously.

Order! I must ask hon. members to confine themselves to the Vote.

I am, Sir. After that he comes here and does not say a word …

Order! Where does that appear in the Vote?

The hon. member for Langlaagte has spoken for ten minutes and has not said a thing about the problems of the railway workers whom he is supposed to represent. He challenges us to produce railway workers who are dissatisfied. Mr. Chairman, I am going to issue a challenge, not to that hon. member because it would be a waste of time: I challenge the hon. the Minister to appoint an impartial commission to investigate whether in fact there are grievances or not on a large scale amongst the personnel of the S.A. Railways and Harbours.

Because of the R60 million?

I challenge him to appoint a commission and to allow every railwayman in South Africa to give evidence, if he so wishes, before that commission. Sir, I will tell you who will be leading the queue— one of his own assistant managers. Am I incorrect in saying that the Minister told one of his assistant managers that he was “onbe-voeg”? I refer to a person who, when the hon. member for Yeoville complained about his meteoric promotion, was defended by the hon. the Minister.

What did I say?

When this person expressed his unhappiness about lack of promotion, he was told by the Minister that he was “onbe-voeg”.

Who is he; is he a system manager?

I said he was an assistant manager.

Assistant what?

An assistant manager of the Railways.

But there are dozens of assistant managers.

No, I am not going to name the man. The hon. the Minister knows who he is. I say that he will be leading the queue to give evidence before an impartial inquiry.

I do not want his name; I only want to know in what department he is.

Sir, each assistant manager has a section. He is an assistant manager. If I mention the Department, I might as well give his name. The hon. the Minister knows who it is. I challenge the hon. the Minister publicly now to appoint an impartial commission of inquiry to which railwaymen will have access. Sir, what he does is to hide behind the trade unions and the staff associations as he always does. Anybody who gets anything is grateful for it. A man who is dying of thirst in the desert will welcome even slimy, stinking water. A man who wants something and gets a half or a quarter of what he thinks he is entitled to, will say “thank you”, but that does not mean that he is satisfied. Because the staff associations have the courtesy to thank the hon. the Minister—the simple human courtesy which unfortunately the hon. the Minister lacks—he says that everybody is happy. Here is an opportunity to prove it. I moved a private member’s motion a few years ago calling for an inquiry. The Minister and all his members here have said that the railwayman is content and happy and that there are only a few isolated grievances. I give the Minister the undertaking that if he appoints a commission of inquiry and that inquiry shows that there is no dissatisfaction on the Railways I will stand up in this House and eat humble pie; I will apoligize to him as humbly as I can. But I will not have to apologize, Sir.

The difference is that the Minister hides behind officialdom, behind the official face. We, Sir, talk to the rank and file, and when we quote them the Minister wants to find out who they are; he wants to know who told us this. Time and time again he has tried to find out the sources of our information. He can now find out for himself; let him appoint an impartial commission of inquiry under a Judge and give the railwaymen access to it. Then we will find out what the position is. What do we get, Sir? The hon. the Minister spoke for nearly an hour. He started off by accusing my colleague, the hon. member for Yeoville, of telling untruths, of not knowing how to tell the truth, of being far from the truth—pure personal insults. But he named only one little minor issue on which he disputed the facts. The rest were all questions of opinion, not questions of fact. Yet on the strength of the Minister’s difference of opinion he accuses the hon. member for Yeoville of not telling the truth.

Sir, I accuse the hon. the Minister of not knowing what the truth is because he attacked me and asked why I did not read the Estimates. He said that according to the Estimates there are so many trucks on order and that I had not told the truth because I had said that there were approximately 10,000 trucks on order. Now, here on page 49 of the …

I never used the word “truth” in connection with this.

You said I did not know; that I was wrong. You accused me of being wrong but here in the Minister’s own speech I found the following figures. I even called in a person more acquainted with figures than I am to add them up. The figures in the Minister’s speech are 2,000, 1,086 and 7,155 which add up to 10,241. And when I quoted a figure of 10,000 the Minister accused me of not given correct facts.

I should like to issue another challenge to the hon. the Minister now and to repeat what I have said by way of interjection, i.e. if I can bring him checkers with more than five years’ service earning less than R200 per month, will he see to it that they are put on the scale R200 per month? It is a simple question I put to the Minister. He said that after five years’ service a checker would reach the top of his grade and could then apply for special grade checker. He said the salary then would be R200 per month. He stated this as a fact—recorded here in Parliament, as one of his “truths” as against our alleged “untruths”. Therefore I ask him now whether he would put any checker I can bring him with five years’ service and earning less than R200 per month onto the scale of R200 per month?

Now the hon. the Minister remains “tjoepstil”; now it is “zip”. Yet it was good enough to attack me and to tell me that I did not know what I was talking about. Well, if I did not know what I was talking about, then let him accept this offer, because if I was wrong, then he must be right, and if he is right, then he must be prepared to back his words with deeds. He can remain silent now but I promise him that this is not the last he is going to hear of it.

Whom are you threatening?

I am not threatening anybody; I am promising the Minister something. The promise is that this will not be the last the Minister is going to hear of it. He made a statement of fact and I am going to test it whenever I get the opportunity. We shall have other debates in this House and the Minister will then have to stand by his word; he must then stand up and say that he gave the House wrong information and apologize to the hon. member for Durban (Point). [Interjections.] I will not say that it was deliberate.

The Minister talks of the disciplinary system and of how wonderfully fair, correct and impartial it is—the usual tactics. I am not talking out of the sky. When I dealt with the case of a driver who was punished for having refused to work overtime, the hon. member for Colesberg and others said that I did not know what I was talking about. They said that all he need have done was to have asked for relief. But here I have the actual documents of the case and amongst them is a stamped and signed request: “Reel vir aflos na 12 ure op diens— 1.40 nm.” This was signed, stamped and acknowledged. [Time expired.]

I do not want to continued in the same vein as the hon. member for Durban (Point). It is clear to me that for a long time to come he and the hon. member for Yeoville will still be licking the wounds they received from the Minister in this debate to-day. Personally I am of the opinion that the Opposition is allowing a golden opportunity to pass by; i.e. the opportunity it has at this stage of the Bill to lay its finger on the details of the complaints the Opposition raised in general during the Second Reading debate. I do not want to to go into this matter any further.

I should like to raise a matter concerning my constituency. I am doing it at this stage as it really affects general policy. It concerns the cancellation of wagons and more specifically the cancellation of wagons for livestock. The position is that mine is the largest constituency as far as supplying livestock is concerned. As a matter of fact, more than twice the amount of livestock is supplied by my constituency to the controlled areas in South Africa than the amount supplied by the constituency that runs us a second. I am speaking of the districts of Windhoek, Okahandja, Gogabis and Otjiwarongo in my constituency. Farmers in my constituency make their livings mainly from stock farming. Therefore, if they cannot market their livestock, things cannot go well with them. As things are we are at present experiencing the severest drought within living memory—as a matter of fact, there are places in my constituency where no rain has fallen for the past seven years. The average rainfall at places in Otjiwarongo is nearly 500 millimetres per annum, but this year they have not had one-tenth of that rainfall.

In my constituency there are farmers who are facing the possibility of complete bankruptcy. For that reason it is essential that they should be in a position to market their livestock. In South-West Africa we have a kind of quota system—in other words, we may only market a certain amount of livestock per week. In the event of that quota not being supplied, it falls away and the following week the normal quota simply applies. Quotas are determined weekly. Let me now refer to the number of applications for these quotas. Usually the number of applications exceed the quotas by at least 20 times the number, especially in these unusual conditions of drought.

Now we find, however, that during the past week, for example, farmers had brought their livestock over distances of 100 to 200 kilometres to stations where they put the livestock in kraals. Only then do they find out about the cancellation of the wagons. It should be borne in mind that they might have been feeding this cattle for two or three months and had possibly invested all their available money in that. Now they have to take their livestock back to their farms as they cannot market the livestock because of the cancellation of the wagons. They are unable to obtain another permit immediately as the permits for that months have already been issued.

The result is that they can only apply for a permit the following month, and then the chances that they will get a permit, are very slight. The fact of the matter is that farmers feel very disturbed when they learn about the cancellation of their wagons. This is a major complaint in South-West Africa to-day, i.e. this sudden cancellation of wagons when the livestock is at the station. We in South-West Africa are, of course, very grateful to the Railways in all respects. We have no complaints whatsoever. As a matter of fact, when we in South-West Africa think of the Railways we can only do so in a spirit of gratitude. It is this Government that gave us the wide railway lines as well as all other developments.

Who gave you South-West Africa?

The National Government. What I want to ask is that when wagons must be cancelled, all other kinds of wagons should rather be cancelled. Leave other goods which have to be transported, even if it is for a month. Let even passenger traffic come to a standstill. But please do not cancel wagons for the transport of livestock. It affects the animals themselves. Only yesterday an agency informed me that whereas wagons from Okahandja to Cape Town usually took five days to arrive, they now take as long as ten days to arrive. That means that the livestock had to spend ten days in the wagons. For that reason I want to make a serious appeal to the Minister. We are aware of the problems the Railways have to face. The very figures furnished by the hon. the Minister the other day proved that South-West Africa had been favoured in special respects. However, when consideration is being given to the cancellation of railway services, let those cancellations be passenger trains and other goods trains, and not livestock trains. This is the live blood of the largest section of the population of South-West Africa. I shall be pleased if the hon. the Minister will give his attention to this matter in order to see whether an improvement cannot be effected in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a word to my friend the hon. member for Langlaagte. The hon. member took the occasion just now to attack the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, who is a new member. He has not made his maiden speech.

I did not attack him.

Yes, you did.

I did not.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, he attacked him. I think that he at any rate should tender his apologies to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. When the time comes the hon. member for Umhlatuzana will be able to deal with him. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana has forgotten more about Railways than the hon. member will ever know. He is a new member and has not made his maiden speech. I therefore think that the hon. member for Langlaagte, who is an old member in this House—although he is the new member for Langlaate—should have kept the ordinary courtesies of this House in mind when he made that speech just now.

Now, Sir, I should like to say something in regard to the hon. member who has just sat down. At last we have an hon. member on that side of the House who is prepared to criticize the hon. the Minister. This is very unusual. I would like to say that I think it is the sign of the times, namely that we are now getting Nationalist Party members criticizing the hon. the Minister. I think it is a very good sign.

Keep it up.

We will pay a great deal of attention to his Hansard when the appropriate time comes, because we think he made a very valuable contribution to this debate.

I want in particular to deal with one matter this afternoon and that is in connection with the farmers who are timber growers and who have been suffering from a shortage of trucks, presumably along with other railway users. This has now become a matter of life and death to the economy of these people. When the timber grower to-day has his timber at the station together with the necessary labour and has not been warned of the non-availability of trucks, that labour is wasted. It is completely fruitless expenditure. The timber waits, the labour waits and eventually labour has to be sent back home again. It cannot perform any other temporary job as it is waiting for that particular purpose. On the branch line between Pietermaritzburg and Greytown alone the actual figures which have been produced by the S.A. Timber Growers Association show that over a 12-month period those people are losing R500,000 in revenue, let alone wasted costs. This is due to the inability of the Railways to supply them with trucks. The S.A. Railways are manufacturing a special kind of truck for timber growers, which we hope is going to assist us in the transport of our timber.

Here we have a matter which should have enjoyed very high priority, because at the present time the private timber grower in South Africa is competing with the State itself through the Minister of Forestry and State plantations. The State plantations are getting their share of the trucks. At a time like this it does not matter to the State plantations whether they get trucks or not, but it means insolvency for the farmer who cannot get the trucks and transport his timber to his market. Why do the Railways play their part in granting this special privilege to the State plantations? Let them wait. If they do not get the trucks, let them wait. What difference does it make? The tax payer is behind them. We have to pay in any case. I say it is most unfair that the State plantations are getting trucks at a time like this, when there is a shortage of trucks. Let whatever trucks are available go to the private sector and let the private sector, at any rate, get its timber to its markets. That is only fair.

On this score I should also like to say that at the present time the policy of the Minister, in my opinion, is very short-sighted. I suppose that to-day we would say it is cent wise and rand foolish, as against the old penny wise and pound foolish. We must bring our sayings up to date as well. The high rates charged by the Railways on sawn timber have this practical result, namely that timber in the round is sent by rail. The trucks carry a great deal of sawdust, moisture and blank spaces because timber is loaded in the round. Not all that timber is used. All the off-cuts, the sawdust and the extra moisture are waste. Railage is paid on it and space is taken up in the trucks from the point of loading to the user at the end, because it does not pay the primary grower to trim his timber and square it and take up all the space in a truck with dry timber which is going to be used at the other end by the user. The high Tate on timber which has been sawn as against the Tow rate for timber in the round is simply a very wasteful way of dealing with the available room in the trucks at the present time.

I hope that the hon. the Minister will investigate these two matters and see whether he cannot make adjustments in such a way that when there is a shortage of trucks of a temporary nature, as apparently there is at the present time—because we are told by the Railways that it is only of a temporary nature—he will hold back the trucks that he would have sent to his colleague the Minister of Forestry, because that is going to hurt nobody, and let those trucks that are available go to the farmer, so that he can get his timber to the market. I also want to ask the hon. the Minister to review the rate that is charged on timber which has been sawn as against timber in the round.

I want to put my last point, because I very rarely speak in railway debates. I want to deal with the question of manpower and the use of non-Whites. On my railway line from Durban to Port Shepstone there are Bantu doing the work of White gangers, because there are no White gangers. I do not think that the hon. the Minister will deny that.

That is quite correct.

This lets me out, because the Minister admits it. He says that is quite correct. That line is now being electrified. If we have spread rails on that line and a bad accident occurs, who is responsible?

There are continual patrols on the line.

In the past the ganger went on his trolley and travelled over every yard of that rail. He does not do that any longer. He leaves home in a motor truck and travels along the main road until he arrives at a point opposite where he thinks work should be done on that rail. He then leaves the main road and drives down to this point on the railway line. He then has a look at the line; if he has Natives with him, he puts them on the job and he goes back to the main road. He travels along the main road for miles and then goes down to another point on the railway line. He no longer travels along the line-itself on his trolley.

We have patrolmen on the line itself.

How do they travel?

They walk along the line.

Are these White patrolmen walking along the line?

No, Bantu.

This is exactly my point. There are Native patrolmen walking along the line seeing that the ballasting, the dog spikes, the fish plates and everything else are in order so that we will not have spread rails. That will not do. This is the very point I am making. Can one really say that the responsibility resting on those Bantu in respect of that job is resting fairly on the shoulders of people who are capable of carrying that responsibility? That job has always been done by white men.

What is the alternative? We do not have white men to do it.

My alternative is to get another Minister of Transport.

That will not help you.

If we have a manpower shortage and we are to change our manpower policy, let us start with the Minister. I am not concerned with the people lower down. The officials can handle a job. What is wrong is the Minister and his policy at the top. There are white men available. As my hon. friend said, white men who have been doing that job can now earn three times as much with private contractors. Where does a private contractor get that white man from? They are white men who are doing the job. This is no job where you can place the responsibility on the shoulders of one of our Bantu people, good as they are, respectable and responsible as they are. That responsibility is too great. If we have an accident as a result of spread rails on that railway line, the Minister knows perfectly well that he and his policy will be to blame. He and the Government will be to blame. Such an accident will happen, as sure as the sun rises again tomorrow, because some of those sleepers are rotten. If the Minister cares to delegate an official to come along with me, I shall show him the rotten sleepers where the dog spikes are not holding any longer. Patrols of Bantu are going up and down, doing what? Are they watching, as a white man would be watching, the precise positions of all those sleepers? No, Sir, they are not. They have not yet reached the stage where they can carry that responsibility. I pin that responsibility on the shoulders of the Minister, because he admits that these Bantu are now doing the jobs that white gangers and platelayers have been doing all through the years. It was a most responsible job and it still is. With the greater number of trains using those lines and with the bigger and heavier trains which carry heavier metals on those lines, it is a more responsible job even than it was in the past.

Mr. Chairman, I am completely at a loss now as to the policy of the United Party. They and their newspapers have been agitating for us to give our non-Europeans, our Natives, more responsible jobs. They have said: If you do not have white men, use Natives. It was said again to-day that if we have the concurrence of the trade unions, we should take in Natives. They have never said that we must give them unskilled work. They have asked us why we do not give them better work and more skilled work.

Tell me about the work on my railway line.

I am going to tell you about that. Sir, that hon. member is completely contradicting his own party’s policy. He is so concerned about the fact that Natives have been taken in as gangers, who really do semi-skilled work, that he said we must employ a white man even at three times the wage usually paid to a ganger. Is that the type of thing we have to deal with? That is the United Party, which talks about changing a Minister. I think that they should change the hon. member and not allow him to be a spokesman on matters such as this. He is completely denying everything that they have stood for.

Are you accepting responsibility for that railway line?

I am accepting responsibility for everything that happens on the Railways. This is not something new. We have had Native patrolmen for many years. There is nothing new about that.

You are accepting responsibility for the state of that line?

Yes, of course. I accept responsibility for everything that happens in the Railways.

No, I am talking about that line.

Yes, I accept responsibility for the state of that line and everything else. As the Minister of Transport, I accept the responsibility. What I cannot for a moment believe—and I hope that the newspapers are going to report this—is that this hon. member who is the leader of the party in Natal and a frontbencher, should completely contradict the policy of his own party. He does not want the Natives to do any responsible jobs on the Railways. He said that a Native was not capable and competent to do such work. That is his attitude. That is what he has said to-day. I hope that that will be taken note of. I do not know what those hon. members are going to say about that statement.

He did not say that.

I listened to what the hon. member said. Do not tell me that he did not say that. He does not want a Native to do the job of a ganger. He does not want a Native to do the job of a patrolman. He said that it was too responsible a job for a black man to do. Sir, it is a very strange thing when you find that black men are doing much more responsible work than that, not so much in the Railways, but in private enterprise. One finds in the whole of the engineering industry on the Witwatersrand that the semi-skilled work is all being done by Natives. Even on the Railways Natives have far more responsible work. It is strange to hear that sort of thing from that hon. member. I do not want to be rude, but that is why the newspapers said that they wanted to get rid of the hon. member because he is a verkrampte. I think he is really a verkrampte when he makes speeches like that.

I am a realist.

So am I. I have been blamed for not taking in more Natives to cope with the manpower shortage.

I was talking about a railway line, and you have accepted responsibility for it.

Speakers on that side of the House have been attacking me because I have no solution to the manpower shortage, but when I employ a black man to do certain work which was previously done by a white man, that hon. member attacks me for doing so. How in heaven’s name can one accept such a speech, when the general policy of the United Party has been enunciated by other members on that side?

I said that the patrolmen on that line are not doing their job … [Interjections.]

No, the hon. member did not say that.

… and I said that I would show your officials that they are not doing their job.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member should ask his own members sitting there what he said if he does not want to believe me. Every member of this House heard what he said. He attacked me for employing Natives to do that particular job.

Did I offer to show your officials the place?

It makes no difference whether he shows me the place or not. The hon. member attacked me because the Railways employ Natives as gangers and patrolmen, which are jobs which were previously done by Whites. That is what the hon. member said. Why does he run away from it?

I was speaking of the patrolmen on that line.

The hon. member spoke about the spreading of the line. He said it was an electrified line and then he wanted to know about the employment of non-Whites. I know that hon. member and be was never afraid to stand by what he had said. Why does he run away now?

I shall show you my Hansard.

I should like to see that Hansard. I think that when the hon. member sees his Hansard, he will have to apologize for the interjections he is making now. As I have said, I am surprised. I know that hon. member and he never runs away from what he said. Now he is trying to run away. I have not known him to do so before.

You are tempting providence.

Sir, the hon. member is straightforward. When he has said something, he stands by it come hell or high water. Why does he run away now?

I shall show you my Hansard. Come to the question of the timber now.

Order! The hon. member will have another opportunity of addressing the Committee.

The hon. member says that we are giving full quotas to the State plantations. I shall immediately instruct the Management to go into the matter.

I did not say “full quotas”.

The hon. member said that they get more trucks than the timber growers. I shall tell the Management to go into the matter because I agree with him that the private growers should receive priority.

In regard to the shortage of space, the hon. member knows that the Schumann Commission was appointed to go into the whole question of tariffs. They dealt with this type of thing. As soon as an article has been processed, the rate is higher. This applies not only to timber, but to all products which are processed. The rate is always lower in the case of raw materials. The same applies to timber. That is why the rate for raw timber is lower than that for sawn timber. While I am on my feet, Sir, I may as well reply to some of the other members.

*The hon. member for Middelland spoke of the cancellation of trucks. Where is he?

Here I am. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, it is true that cancellations of cattle wagons do occur, but, as you know, we are now using open wagons in South-West Africa. These are covered by tarpaulins when used for transporting livestock. Because of the tremendous demand for wagons to drought-stricken areas and the transport of livestock to the markets, and not only from South-West Africa, but from all over the country, we are at times forced to cancel wagons. I agree with the hon. member that wagons used for the transport of other goods ought to be cancelled rather than wagons used for the transport of livestock.

†The hon. member for Durban (Point) wants me to appoint another grievance commission. I thought the hon. member had enough of grievance commissions after the one appointed during the 1950s. Can the hon. member still remember that grievance commission?

How many of those grievances were justified then?

I do not remember, because I do not keep those figures in my head. In any case, a grievance commission was then appointed. Imagine appointing a grievance commission now and inviting every railwayman in the country to come and give evidence as to whether they are dissatisfied or not. That is what the hon. member is suggesting.

It will sit for many years.

Yes, it will sit for many years. Obviously there are railwaymen who are dissatisfied. During my days as a railwayman it was always said that a railwayman without grievances is no railwayman. Of course there are many railwaymen with grievances and of course they will make use of that commission to give evidence. That will not be the solution to the problem, however. I have never denied that there is dissatisfaction among railwaymen in regard to certain matters. Every man who is charged in terms of the disciplinary code is dissatisfied. Hon. members only hear one side of a case. When they only hear his side of the case, they think he has been unjustly treated. They must hear the other side of the case as well. Of course many of them are dissatisfied with the long hours overtime they have to work. In my days I was dissatisfied when I had to work 16, 18 and 20 hours per day too. It does happen and I have never denied that there is dissatisfaction. My argument is that the wholesale dissatisfaction as a result of the recent wage increases cannot be so when I receive these reports from all the different staff associations. They are in touch with their members and know what is happening amongst them. The hon. member also said that I am always hiding behind staff associations. Surely the hon. member must admit that the staff associations are the spokesmen for the railwaymen. Does the hon. member not know that more than 80 per cent of all white railwaymen are members of staff associations, that their leaders are in continual touch with their members, that they have annual meetings and that executive members must be re-elected by the members? If the ordinary members think that the executive members do not do their job, they will not be re-elected. Surely, I must then accept what the staff associations tell me. They are the spokesmen of their members. What I read out here, namely what the Chairman of the Federal Council, who is the leader of all the staff associations, said was unsolicited. I read out what Mr. Liebenberg said and he has been quoted frequently by hon. members opposite. They were satisfied. There will, of course, always be individual cases. What has happened with every wage increase that I have granted is that directly after the men start comparing and say “A received so much and why should I receive less?” or “C gets so much, why should I get less?” They are then dissatisfied. There is no other effective method of giving increases than the one we have adopted recently.

And if I tell you that a staff association with a thousand members has not been consulted before or after the allocation?

They are not consulted individually. The leaders of those associations, the executive council together with their president and vice-president have the responsibility of negotiating with the management on behalf of their members. It is impossible for them to go around to every single member before these negotiations take place.

But not even the chairman of that association was consulted.

Then these members still have the usual recourse open to them. At the next general meeting they need not re-elect these members representing them on the executive if they are dissatisfied.

I should like to refer to the truck story. I have just read that part of my Budget speech which deals with the trucks. I should like the hon. member to tell me where he read about the 10,000 trucks. Let me quote from my own Budget speech. I said:

That was for the past financial year, 1969-’70. Then I went on to say that provision was made in the Estimates for the current financial year for a further 7,155 bogie vehicles involving different types of wagons. Now where did the hon. member read about the 10,0000 wagons?

But the 2,000 plus the 1,086 together with the 7,155 wagons make a total of approximately 10,000.

The 2,000 and the 1,086 wagons were ordered last year while the 7,155 wagons are provided for in this year’s Estimates. The hon. member’s accusation against me was that an order for approximately 10,000 trucks was placed this year. He said “Another year has gone by and suddenly the hon. the Minister has placed an order for 10,000 trucks.” That is what he said. I think the hon. gentleman should apologize. He accused me of not telling the truth.

I should now like to refer to the checkers’ wages. I do not want hon. members to put words in my mouth. What I said is that the new wage scale was a minimum of R160.

The checker gets yearly increments and after five years he receives a maximum of R200 per month. That is what I said and that is the position. I did not speak about the adjustment of wages or the notches that they are placed on after the wages were increased. I referred to the wage scale of a checker. Let me explain again. A checker starts with a minimum of R160 per month. Then he receives his yearly increments until after five years he receives a maximum salary of R200 per month. That is the new wage scale. I added that when a checker becomes a special grade checker he starts with R210 and can eventually earn the maximum of R230 per month. That hon. member should read my Hansard when it is available.

How is it then that there are people with seven years service who earns under R200 per month?

I told the hon. member that he should give me the particulars of the case and I will give him the information as to what notch those persons were placed on and why it is that they earn less than R200.

*Mr. Chairman, I shall be pleased if I may have the attention of the hon. member for Yeoville, because I now want to deal with this speech. I have listened to the hon. member for Yeoville every year for 22 years. I enjoy his speeches. He is so eloquent that he allows his eloquence to carry him away completely. It is a pleasure to listen to him. I am not being sarcastic now. It is the truth. The late Mr. Hofmeyr—the hon. member was here for a year or so during the time the late Mr. Hofmeyr was a member—made equally fine speeches. He, too, was so eloquent that he could simply carry one away with his eloquence. But when one analyzed his speech, one found that he had said as little. That always was the difficulty. The hon. member again spoke for half an hour and said that I had not replied to anything which they had allegedly said. And I especially went out of my way to reply to all the important points which had been made by each member. I devoted most of my time to the hon. member for Yeoville and I tried to reply to everything he had said. I could not deal with the “vision”, because I did not know what he had meant by that. For the same reason, I could not deal with the so-called “inadequate planning” either. I do not know what he means, because the planning does exist. There is a special division that has been doing the work for years, i.e. the division of planning, research and co-ordination. The engineer in charge is a very senior man. This division plans and draws up estimates not only for to-day, but for five to ten years in advance. The planning does exist. But when one tables a Brown Book in Parliament, one does not reveal one’s plans for the next 10 years. When one submits something like this to Parliament, one asks for funds to carry out the plans for the next year. If the hon. member cannot indicate to me instances of inadequate planning, I cannot reply to him. Consequently it is simply impossible for me to reply to his questions on “vision” and planning.

He alleged that I had not said a single word about what I was going to do in connection with the manpower shortage. Why does the hon. member again allow his tongue to run away with his common sense? I did not simply say it. I made special reference to it and dealt with it. I pointed out to him the standing committee which exists. Did he want me to say I was going to erect a factory specially for producing workmen? What else can I say? I told him that we were engaged in mechanization and automation. I can explain all these things to him. For example, we are saving staff by means of signalling, the introduction of central traffic control, which eliminates all operating servants on a line 300 miles in length. Then we have also introduced the walkie-talkies, which save us dozens of shunters.

But that is not adequate.

Of course, it is not adequate. We still have a serious shortage. But I already said that in my Budget Speech. There is a very serious shortage, but the Railways are not alone in experiencing a shortage. There is a general manpower shortage throughout the country. It is the same manpower shortage which is being experienced by private enterprise, the Public Service and the Post Office.

What about the unemployed?

What unemployed?

There are unemployed.

Where is the unemployment?

You ought to know.

No, there is no unemployment. Where does my hon. friend get that from? Where is the unemployment?

Yes, there is.

Oh no, but now he is really being foolish. He does not know what he is talking about now. Does he know what the unemployment rate is in South Africa? It is below 5 per cent. Do hon. members know that according to all the economists, when there is an unemployment rate of 2 per cent, there is full employment?

†Does the hon. member know that the only people who are unemployed are the unemployables? If the hon. member brings me any man who has the necessary qualifications and health certificate, I will give him a job in the Railways. Bring them along.

*The hon. member spoke of the Marais Commission. I now have his Hansard and this is what he said—

But that is what you suggested.

But I did not say it. Why does the hon. member try to put words I never used into my mouth? I read to him what Mr. Joubert had said in his minority report, and this has never been denied. Mr. Joubert said numerous people had come there with their grievances with the sole object of obtaining more concessions for road transportation. He said it as a member of the commission …

That is his judgment.

But other members of the commission have never denied this.

But you condemn the report because of that.

I do not condemn the report because of that. I said the report was superficial and I proved it, and I indicated why I said it was superficial. The hon. member should not distort these things.

Read page 59 of your speech.

But I said it was superficial. I said people with grievances availed themselves of the opportunity. [Interjections.]

You have allowed your tongue to run away with you.

Let us see now whether I have allowed my tongue to run away with me. This is what I said—

I was speaking of the “parties”, not of the commission. [Interjections.] What point is there in arguing with such a man? One cannot get anything into his head. In any event, I have now replied to everything the hon. member said. I thoroughly dealt with the manpower shortage as far as it was possible for me to do so. But there is no sudden solution to the manpower shortage. The hon. member himself admits that one cannot throw open the doors to non-Whites, and apart from that, where is one going to get the skilled and trained non-Whites from to do that work, even if one wanted to do so? Does the hon. member know that at Kazerne I have private contractors undertaking the transport there and that they use Bantu drivers on their lorries? Does he know that a number of these lorries is not being operated because those people cannot get Bantu drivers? They are unobtainable. Is the hon. member of the opinion that I should go to the Transkei, take a primitive Bantu from there and let him do a skilled job on the Railways? [Interjection.] The hon. member over there says, “Ah!”. That is another example of the stupid things they usually say. They know exactly what the policy is and what the position is in connection with manpower.

With all the unemployment among the non-Whites, you can still say a thing like that?

Where will you get qualified non-Whites to do these jobs?

There are plenty of qualified drivers amongst the non-Whites.

I am telling you what the position is in Johannesburg where these private contractors who use non-White drivers cannot get any.

That is because of the policies of your Government.

That is nonsense. These are private contractors. They use Native labour but they cannot find enough. [Interjection.] You will have an opportunity to make your speech after I have finished. Mr. Chairman, I have replied to all the important points made by the hon. member. What more he wanted me to say, I do not know.

It was pleasant listening to this debate, because we had the United Party in their element as far as chopping and changing is concerned. A moment ago the hon. member for South Coast raised a storm here because Bantu gangers are being used on a certain section, and what has the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) now just asked? If one does not have them in Johannesburg, one goes and fetches them elsewhere. We must now even throw influx control overboard. So we could go on. [Interjections.] And for what posts must they be used, if I may ask the hon. member for Yeoville, if the hon. member for South Coast even objects to gangers? It is very interesting in this House to see the hon. member for Yeoville’s face when that Party is in a quandary. While the hon. member for South Coast spoke, he was watching out for the stars, a customary gesture when they are in a quandary. But they will have to extricate themselves from that problem.

But speaking of chopping and changing, I want to come to another member. There was a terrible lot of noise here about the question of overtime, excessive overtime, because the Railways officials were not getting an adequate salary. That was the slogan of those hon. members. I now want to tell you, Sir, what the hon. member for Salt River said only last year. This year the salaries are inadequate, but last year the hon. member said “notwithstanding the fact that he (the railwayman) gets a fair wage”. After the salary increases they are now suddenly getting an unfair wage, but last year, when there was talk of overtime, the hon. member for Salt River said—

This is proof of the chopping and changing.

But in connection with this entire question of labour on the Railways, the hon. the Minister tried last year to elicit from those hon. members what their actions would be if the trade unions refused to employ non-Whites—-you may read this up in column 2338; it extends to column 2342. I read through those columns, and at places I even made pencil marks, but there was not a single reply. But now we must hear them carrying on this year about this matter. Let us listen for a moment to what the hon. member for South Coast said then, altogether in a muddle again; and then they ask the Minister what his policy is. He stated it very clearly each time; he even does not hesitate to say that if it were in the interests of the Railways and of South Africa, he would do such and such. But not those hon. gentlemen. We can go back to last year’s Hansard for the proof.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) asked for the appointment of a special commission or committee to investigate grievances. I think it is reprehensible to ask for that, because have you ever seen greater undermining of the trade associations of our Railway officials? He does not encourage those people to go to their trade union, the Railway official’s mouthpiece, to tell the leaders of the trade unions what their problems are. He does not encourage them, he tries to keep them away from the trade unions. He tries to undermine the Railwayman’s confidence in his own trade union and says they must forget those trade unions, even though they have been in existence for how many years and even though they have done good work over the years. Appoint a commission, that is that hon. member’s request. [Interjection.] The hon. member is now asking me another question, but he does not even understand the contents of the Budget. He adds up the wrong figures, and then he wants to come to blows with the Minister about that. In respect of this matter, we are right again and those hon. members are wrong. But, notwithstanding this Opposition, with whom one does not actually know whether one is coming or going, I should like to bring another matter, railway housing, to the hon. the Minister’s attention.

You know, Sir, there is an important contributory factor to the possible housing shortage. It is a generally accepted rule and therefore does not only affect the Railways. It concerns a process of obsolescence which is taking place, and according to which certain dwellings must be demolished and replaced after a number of years. It is simply a natural process. But one must note that one must actually separate replacement and demand. If houses are demolished they must be replaced, and then, in addition, one still has to take the normal demand into account. I am now speaking of a case in my constituency, having in mind 50 Railway houses in a particular area. Some of them have already been replaced, but my question is just this: Are we providing sufficient funds to provide for the normal demand as well? I think that we must clearly separate these two factors. Where replacement is necessary we must provide the means for it, but we must also be able to supply extra money for the additional normal demands. In the same connection we know that there are several factors to-day which, generally speaking, present us with certain problems in respect of housing, and I believe that the general factors also create problems for us as far as Railway housing is concerned. I am thinking specifically of two problems. The one is the availability of suitable building sites, and the second is the cost of those building sites. Sir, we know that land is expensive and that it is getting more expensive by the day. I am not going to analyse the reasons for that, but the Railways probably do not escape the effects of this problem. The Railways must continually obtain building sites for departmental houses, and they must take the costs of those sites into account. I just want to ask the hon. the Minister if he would not indicate to us his policy in respect of the acquisition of building sites. Is it that one just looks around in a particular, suitable area when there is a demand for building sites, or are building sites purchased in advance in a particular area, particularly where we have a concentration of railway people, so that we can also take the cost factor into account when we eventually need those sites? If I must now point the way, I would say that this was actually a proper way to provide in advance for these needs. We have already learned over the years that we pay dearly for land which we only look for afterwards. I would be glad if the hon. the Minister would just enlighten us on this matter, which is of some importance in certain centres.

I hope the hon. the Minister whose Bill is under discussion now will padron me if I depart from the subject and go on to something else which I consider to be very important. The area at Umhlatuzana, i.e. from Rossburgh to Pinetown, a distance of about 12 miles, is particularly heavily populated and at Pinetown itself there has been tremendous industrial growth and there is no sign where that growth is going to stop. Sir, I feel that there is a lot lacking there. The line itself is a single line and in order to cope with the industrial growth there I think the hon. the Minister should consider the doubling of that particular line. I think the hon. the Minister is aware of the development there, because he has sanctioned the expenditure of certain moneys for the remodelling of the yard at Pinetown and the lengthening of the goods sheds. In view of that I feel that some consideration should be given to the doubling of the line, not only in the interests of the freight, which might be carried in a faster and smoother way, but also in the interests of the people living in that area. Sir, the passengers who use the train there really travel under a handicap, for the simple reason that the platforms there are all low-level platforms. I think that is one aspect which should seriously be considered in view of the fact that you have these modern coaches running there and the fact that the low-level platforms do not lend themselves to the easy boarding of trains.

There is another aspect which I would like to mention and that is a station called Escombe. Behind Escombe station they have quite modern shopping centres, and about 200 yards from there you have one of the latest and most modern civic centres that you could possibly wish to see. Then from there you look down on to a wood-and-iron station, possibly a relic from the N.G.R. days. Sir, I do feel that this is something that should really be considered.

I know that the doubling of the line would be a tremendous undertaking and it might sound as though one is asking the hon. the Minister for something impossible, but it is something which I think would be in the interest of the Railway Administration from the point of view of speeding up the service. Of course, where you have a single line, once one train is delayed you automatically find that three or four later trains are also delayed with the result that your commuters get to work late. That is one reason why I think it would be a boon for the people living in that district, and I think we must face the fact that 90 per cent to 95 per cent of the people living there are workers and possibly about 55 per cent of those are railway employees. You can imagine the result when they get to work and find when they clock in that they are ten or 15 minutes late. They are not compensated for that lost time, of course. I feel that these are things which the hon. the Minister should consider. The people there also feel very strongly about it. As a matter of fact, we have large numbers of complaints from elderly citizens who find it difficult to board and to disembark from the trains at these various stations.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think I have a great deal more to say at this stage. I feel that I have broken the ice slightly now. I do hope that hon. members on the other side are going to support me fully in this appeal to the hon. the Minister for improvements on this particular section of the line. As a matter of fact, if they would support me we might get in the hon. the Minister’s hair; he might get tired of my appeals and agree to the development of this particular section.

It is a pleasure for me to congratulate the hon. member for Umhlatuzana warmly on his maiden speech. He is obviously an authority on his surroundings, his province. He will obviously also be able to make very constructive contributions to Railway debates, which will bring about a considerable improvement in the ranks of the Opposition. We trust that his stay in the House will be a very pleasant one, and we look forward to his co-operating with us in the same vein as that in which he started off to-day.

Sir, the Opposition, who made such a high bid for the Railway Vote in this debate, obviously did not see their way clear to making any onslaught worth speaking of in Bloemfontein. For example, the hon. member for Yeoville did not see his way clear to holding a well-advertised meeting in Bloemfontein. To be sure, we did hear at a later stage that he was there, but there were so few people that we understood it to have been a tea party.

More than at the Minister’s meeting.

No, the hon. member was counting with ten pairs of glasses. I detect a considerable anomaly in the Opposition’s appeal for our co-operation in making South Africa one of the great countries of the world. We have received no contribution worth mentioning from them. Negativeness is their breeding ground. They live in the expectation of a crisis. If we take this away the Opposition falls flat. The hon. member for Yeoville wanted to supplement South African Railway deficits from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Are we to understand by that that he wants to ask the ordinary taxpayer to help carry S.A. Railway deficits? He wants to use the ordinary salaried man’s taxes to do it with.

Have you read the Republic’s Constitution in that connection?

He wants that to be done, instead of having it paid for by those persons and bodies making use of these more sophisticated transport services, as is actually being done. He must now tell us if that is how he wants to offend the ordinary taxpayer. As far as the staff shortage is concerned, the Minister and his staff have clearly proved that they can surmount any crisis by leadership and coordination. However, from the Opposition we get only destructive criticism. By implication they move a motion of no confidence in the ability of the railway personnel to surmount crises. They will take note of that. Over the years the Minister has planned in such a way that he could remain at the forefront of our technological development. Here I am referring more specifically to the railway workshops. In the space of a year, i.e. 1968-’69, it became possible to construct a locomotive within 14.6 days, where it previously took 28 days. This was made possible by mechanization and standardization and by eliminating accidents in order to reduce losses in working hours. It is interesting to note that over the past 10 years accidents in the case of Whites decreased by 90.2 per cent, and by 73.4 per cent in the case of Bantu. Then the Opposition is indignant when the Minister ends up with a surplus, while having budgeted for a deficit. That is their greatest disappointment.

I want to request the hon. the Minister’s attention for a matter concerning the Free State and Bloemfontein. I note that it is envisaged that an amount of R32 million will be spent. In fact, a large portion of this has already been spent at Bloemfontein. Railway activities constitute 25 per cent of Bloemfontein’s economic activities, and a large portion of Bloemfontein’s inhabitants are connected with the Railways. There are certain sections of the service that do not have a restaurant service for their midday meals. The need for this has come to the fore particularly since the lunch period was made ¾ hour in length. If sandwiches are taken, there is the possibility of food poisoning in summer, or else they will have to partake of less nourishing food in cafés. In winter, again, they would have to do without the privilege of a warm meal. By comparison with the facilities for other services in the public sector, there is also a need here. In the H. F. Verwoerd Building there is an attractive restaurant for provincial officials; at the university there is such a restaurant; and the Post Office also has one. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to round off this considerable capital expenditure in Bloemfontein by also making provision for restaurant facilities where these are necessary.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (West) said that we on this this side said that we had no faith in the Railways of South Africa. But speakers on this side never said that. On the contrary, we have absolute faith in the ability of the railway worker in this country but we do not have as much faith in those who must plan the destiny of the Railways. Members from this side pleaded for rational use of all the labour resources of the Republic but the hon. member did not reply to that at all. When the Government adopts a policy that makes provision for that, the Railways will never find themselves in a crisis.

I want to raise a matter which particularly concerns the area I represent. The Government has recently decided to support a scheme for the construction of a line from Sishen to Saldanha Bay and to develop Saldanha Bay for the mass export of iron ore. This brought to end a long period of speculation about where an ore exporting harbour would be established. We in the Eastern Cape have a tremendous interest in this decision. We had hope that this harbour would be established at Algoa Bay and naturally we were disappointed when we heard that the lot had fallen to Saldanha Bay. The Minister during a previous visit to Port Elizabeth said that a decision when reached would be in the best interests of South Africa. Well, if this decision is in the best interests of South Africa, we accept it as such. Then the people of the Eastern Cape will have no quarrel with it. However, we believe strongly that Algoa Bay has a very strong claim that in the interim the ore project envisaged there should be developed.

Order! Harbours cannot be discussed now. That falls under the next Vote. The development of the harbour cannot be discussed now.

On a point of order, Sir, the hon. member wants to discuss the railway line to the harbour and not the development of the harbour so much.

That is true. The most important aspect of the development of Saldanha is, in fact, the railway line to serve that harbour. The expense involved is somewhere in the region of R180 million. The great advantage of exporting ore from the Algoa Bay area is that you already have a railway line serving that area and thus very little extra expense will have to be incurred to ship ore from there. Furthermore, we see a tremendous development in the Eastern Cape once the Orange River project has been completed. If the Railways increase their carrying capacity between Kimberley and Port Elizabeth, then this extra carrying capacity will be there to take up the extra goods that will be offered when the Orange River project is in full production. I want to appeal very strongly to the hon. the Minister to reconsider the decision taken by the Cabinet, in terms of which the P.E. area is to be shelved and Saldanha alone is to be used as an ore exporting harbour. The development of this railway is of great economic significance. We do not know at this stage from where the labour will be obtained to build this railway, which will be some 500 miles long. It is well known to hon. members that the route this railway will take crosses an area where Coloured labour has preference. We wonder whether the Government intends to deviate from its policy of using Bantu labour in the areas specially reserved for the Bantu people, or whether it intends shifting large numbers of Bantu people to assist with the building of this particular railway line. This is a project of some magnitude, involving many millions of rand. We are fully aware too that there is a shortage of capital for development projects in the country. Will the capital which is to be used for the construction of this railway line be obtained locally, or has the Government already made financial arrangements to obtain the capital from overseas sources?

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to follow the direction the hon. member for Walmer took. I have nothing to do with the dispute as to whether the railway line should go to Saldanha Bay or to Port Elizabeth, but as an outsider I just want to say that it is, a good thing and that the Minister is planning to advantage to have the railway line constructed to Saldanha Bay.

Sir, I want to come back and speak about a few local matters, with particular relevance to the Witwatersrand. The hon. the Minister will, of course, say that it is an old song I am singing, but I want to give him the assurance that as long as I am in this House I shall speak about this matter. Someday he may perhaps relent. I also want to contribute my share in congratulating the Minister and the staff of the Railways on this Budget. I am convinced that they have handled this phenomenal growth of our industries throughout the whole country excellently. However, I looked in vain in the Brown Book to see what had been done for the Witwatersrand in particular. If we think back, we will realize that it is actually the Witwatersrand that brought the Republic of South Africa to where it is to-day. It was there that the gold was extracted. It is the gold that earned us the foreign exchange for such line developments to our country. If we look at the suburban traffic on the Witwatersrand, we find that the increase in the number of passengers takes place most rapidly there. The increase is about 4 per cent a year. There are thousands of workers who make use of the suburban services of the Railways every morning, and we are very grateful for that, because it relieves the traffic on our roads. However, in noting the amenities offered to travellers, we find that those amenities date back to the days when the Witwatersrand Railways began. I want to support the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. Let us look at the platforms. The standard height of the platforms is 2 feet 10 inches. This varies on the Witwatersrand from 2 feet 3 inches to 2 feet 4 inches. In 1967 the hon. the Minister told me that there were 150 stations where the platforms were not of standard height. He also told me that the estimated cost of bringing those platforms to the standard height would be R1½ million. I want to say that the Witwatersrand is probably one of the most neglected areas. I should like to know from the Minister what has, in fact, been done, and whether work on this has been commenced. If a start has been made, then I should like to make a plea to-day for Brakpan’s platforms to be brought to the Standard height. It causes us a great deal of embarrassment. The non-white section complies with the standard height requirements, but not the white section. I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister to grant us some relief in that connection.

The second matter that I want to bring to the hon. the Minister’s attention I have already mentioned several times in this House. I am going to ask for this again to-day, and I make no excuses for doing so. I refer to the canopies that should be covering the platforms. In my town, Brakpan, thousands of people make use of those platforms every morning and evening. In the Transvaal, with its thunderstorms every evening and every morning when we have those early rains, thousands of workers are literally drenched to the skin. They must make use of the available facilities. It is not fair to those workers. I want to make a plea to the hon. the Minister in that connection. If we look at the facilities available on our suburban stations, we do not feel proud. We are proud when we look at Cape Town and Johannesburg stations, but if we look at our other stations we really feel that the time has come for attention to be given to these small changes we are asking for. The people look at the small things that are done in a town in One’s constituency, and this is one of the matters we should like to bring to the Minister’s attention. I have now been asking for this since I have come to this House. I hope and trust that this time I shall get a reply in that connection, and that Brakpan will, at least, now be taken into consideration.

Yes, tell him.

I do not need that hon. member’s help. I am man enough to fight my own battles, and I shall not fight them the way those hon. members do. Neither am I afraid to stand up in this House and to ask the hon. the Minister for certain things, because I am not muzzled. I want to tell those hon. members that I shall ask for them in this House and not behind the scenes. Those hon. members must not tell me what to ask for Brakpan.

I want to go further and tell the hon. the Minister that we are grateful for the fine office accommodation in Johannesburg, Pretoria and elsewhere. I also want to express my thanks to the various system managers of the Western Transvaal. They are willing, but they are also muzzled at a higher level. I want to tell the hon. the Minister to-day that he should go and have a look at the office accommodation, on the Brakpan station and on other stations, for these officials that have to work there. If these were the offices of an industrialist, the department of Labour would not have allowed him to have that accommodation there.

Hear, hear!

I do not need that hon. member’s “Hear, hear!” On the contrary. By doing that the hon. member is weakening my case. I have a very good case. I hope the hon. the Minister is not taking any notice of those “Hear, hears”.

It looks as if you are complaining?

I am not complaining. I am not in the habit of complaining. I am in the habit of stating my case. Neither am I afraid to state my case. I shall state my case straight from the shoulder, and not like that hon. member who does it behind the scenes. Neither do I do it by going and telling lies in my constituency, as certain hon. members did. That is what hon. members are doing.

I have another matter in respect of which I want to lodge a plea with the hon. the Minister. To-day we have coal yards throughout the entire Witwatersrand …

First the hon. member must just withdraw the word “lies”.

If the Chair desires it, I shall do so.

Have you got another complaint?

No, I am making a plea for the progress of our country. We have these coal yards which are disfiguring our stations. At the beginning it was necessary for these coal yards to be situated nearer to the stations. But now more than 80 per cent of the coal is no longer transported by rail. It is done by lorry today. With our stations to-day situated in the hearts of our towns, those coal yards are just a burden. I therefore want to advocate that the time has come for us to remove these coal yards. I know that the colliers have always said that if this were to happen the price of coal would have to be increased. That argument no longer holds water. Eighty per cent or more of our coal is transported by road to-day. It makes no difference where they have those premises, because they no longer make use of the Railways to-day as they did in the past.

The Railways cannot carry it.

That is not what I am advocating. I am not making a plea for that. Does the hon. member then not want more road transport? One moment hon. members want it and the next moment they do not.

I want white coal.

Those are the matters I want to bring to the Minister’s attention. I ask the hon. the Minister please to take no notice of the support I received from the Opposition in connection with these matters.

Mr. Chairman, as I address this House for the first time I am very conscious of the responsibility that rests on the shoulders of new members who are in a position, by virtue of their newness, to contribute new angles to old problems, new angles that are unaffected by commitments to past standpoints. I hope that in this respect I shall be able to make a modest contribution.

During this debate I have been very conscious of the fact that hon. members on both sides of the House are aware of the vital part which is played in maintaining the transport infrastructure of our country by the staff of the Railways and the need for establishing salaries and conditions of service which will ensure a contented and a stable staff. One of these conditions of service which has a direct bearing on the attitude to work of members of the staff and one which has a more direct bearing on the older and more experienced member is his pension rights. I have therefore made it my business to study the provisions which govern the Railways and Harbours Superannuation Fund. I did this not only on account of the importance which it plays in labour relations, but also because of the continual lengthening of the expectation; of life and the continuous increase in the cost of living on account of inflation. As a result of these factors the provision for a person’s retirement is assuming increasing importance. I believe that the biggest social problem that is still unsolved and which affects white people in this country is provision for their retirement. There should be provision so that they would not have to face the sceptre of poverty in their old age.

I believe that the provisions of the Railways and Harbours Superannuation Fund as it affects the basis on which pensions are arrived at, conforms with the most modern and best practices of pension schemes. In fact I would say that these provisions are in advance of those which are normally provided by privately administered schemes. The formulae by which pensioners are related to length of service are fair, realistic and reasonably liberal. The fact that pensions are based on the average pensionable emoluments earned during the last three years of service does mean that pensions do embody the increases in salary scales which have been granted over the years. It thus takes account of inflationary trends. The fact that pensions once granted are subject to an automatic 2 per cent compound interest increase for 20 years does to a large extent also take care of future inflationary trends. I would say that these provisions are admirable, desirable and that they take account of present-day economic conditions. Providing the base on which the pensions are calculated is a satisfactory base, those pensions should go most of the way towards meeting the problems encountered by pensioners.

There is one thing in regard to the Superannuation Fund which concerns me. As I see it, this Fund, as at present structured, is likely to come under continual and probably increasing financial pressure. This is so on account of the fact that on the one hand pensions are based on emoluments earned during the final years of service and therefore on rising salary scales whereas the income of the Fund by way of contributions and interest on the other hand lags a long way behind that inflationary trend. I think it is self-evident that if contributions are based on salaries as they exist at the time the contributions are made, as they must, then those contributions, if they are to provide pensions that are based on a higher level, i.e. a level after the increases in salaries have been granted, must be at a relatively high rate unless other provisions are made to deal with this shortfall in the Fund. In practice this is what has happened.

The rates of contribution are in fact relatively high in relation to the rates of contribution to other pension funds. In addition the Administration has had to make special grants to deal with the actuarial deficiency. I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that there is one way in which this position of financial pressure of the Fund could be dealt with and if he deals with it in this way, better conditions generally with regard to pensioners could possibly be granted. He should consider whether the rate of interest which is being paid on the Superannuation Fund, and which has been fixed in the Act, at per cent, should not be revised. This rate of interest has been applied for a long time. Most privately administered funds and, I think, most underwritten pension funds are these days investing a portion of their funds in equities with a view to providing a cushion against inflation. I think this practice, despite the recent happenings on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, is a sound practice, provided sound investment practices are followed. In the long run—and investments in pension funds are made for the long run—there is growth in equities.

I do not in any way consider that the Railway Pensions Fund should be invested in equities; I think that would be quite inappropriate. However, this does highlight the fact that every rand of the pension fund is a non-growth rand. The fact that it is a non-growth rand would indicate to me that there is a case for a higher rate of interest, rather than a lower rate of interest, to compensate for the lack of growth. In addition, the per cent at present being paid on investments in the fund hardly compares favourably with the yields being enjoyed by privately administered and underwritten funds. According to the latest report of the Registrar of Pension Funds, the average yield of privately administered and State-controlled pension funds is in the vicinity of 6 per cent. The larger life funds are earning on their funds something in excess of 6¾ per cent. I would appeal to the hon. the Minister to give this matter his consideration, probably in collaboration with the actuaries. I feel that if the most benefit from a pension fund in regard to labour relations is to be obtained, there must be no suggestion that contributions to the fund are being held at a high rate because the rate of interest being paid on the fund is a low rate.

Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege for me to congratulate the hon. member for Constantia on his well-thought-out maiden speech on a topical subject. However, since my arithmetic is as good as that of the hon. member for Durban (Point), I want to leave it to the hon. the Minister to investigate and reply to the technicalities of that hon. member’s speculations about the pensions. I want to wish the hon. member for Constantia a very successful career in this House up to the end of this five-year period!

Mr. Chairman, my hon. colleague referred to the Brown Book. I also have that book here. Before I refer to a few matters concerning Pretoria (District), I should like to mention that there is a mass of information, concerning one of our largest industries in the country, summarized in these two publications.

One could hardly think that so much information could be summarized in these two publications. I should very much like to congratulate the officials responsible for the drawing up of these two publications very warmly on the excellent piece of work they submitted here, work that is most certainly of great importance to us. In this Brown Book there is a concession which the hon. the Minister made for my town, Verwoerdburg. It is a matter which has for many years been dear to the hearts of the residents of my town, i.e. the supplying of a new fly-over bridge for non-Whites on Verwoerdburg station, at a total cost of R30,400. As a result in my constituency, with the exception of Irene station, there are now separate footbridges for non-Whites on stations from Verwoerdburg to Kloofsig. This is something we welcome very heartily because possible points of friction are thereby eliminated. I want to convey the heartfelt thanks of my community to the hon. the Minister.

I should like to take the liberty of bringing to the hon. the Minister’s attention that Verwoerdburg station is the main station of a very rapidly growing new residential area between Pretoria and the Rand. At the moment Verwoerdburg has about 20,000 inhabitants, and it is estimated that by 1980 it will have a population of about 50,000. This increase will, in the course of time, place very great demands on all the stations from Irene to Kloofsig on the way to Pretoria. This is because this area is such an important feeder area supplying employees to both Pretoria and Johannesburg.

On behalf of that large community I therefore ask the hon. the Minister that planning keep pace with this expected growth, particularly in respect of amenities at Verwoerdburg station, and in respect of passenger amenities and work amenities for our local railway officials. For example, in time the platform at Verwoerdburg station will have to be lengthened since, because of its present length, white passengers on many of the long mainline trains sometimes have to alight where there is no platform.

As a result of the increasing commercial activities in my area it is clear that planning will also have to be done for a modern goods shed for the handling of packages, etc. My short-term plea is consequently for the provision of additional office accommodation and staff amenities for our railway officials at Verwoerdburg station, to keep pace with the growth that is taking place there. Since this station is one of the few on the Johannesburg-Pretoria section that is still operated by hand signals, I should like to make a plea for their substitution by an electrical signalling system. The main railway line to the east cuts through the Pretoria (District) constituency at Rayton, and since this station is becoming an increasingly important passenger boarding point I should also like to thank the hon. the Minister, on behalf of that community, for the recent improvements to the station building there, and for the improvements which are still in progress. Since this town has recently received electricity, it would also be appreciated if this station building could receive electricity as well.

I have not previously in this debate heard anything about the railway police. I should very much like to mention the fact that after representations were made to the hon. the Minister, sufficient railway police were made available for my stations, and that these men set an example of neat, loyal and reliable service to the Railways Administration. At the same time they also furnish a very important service to the public. I should like to pay homage to them in this House. for their unselfish service.

Sir, in connection with the manpower shortage I should very much like to mention that railway officials, who have only just retired on pension, came along to discuss the possibility of re-employment in certain posts on a half-day basis. I know that this is not railway policy at present, but I should very much like to submit it to the hon. the Minister for consideration.

Lastly I want to say, and I believe that other members representing railway constituencies will agree with me, that we want to express our very great appreciation to the hon. the Minister for his approachability when we put the interests of our voters and our constituencies to him. This was once again the case with our representations in respect of salary adjustments. I want to thank him sincerely, on behalf of all the thousands of railway officials, for the way in which he considered the merits of these representations, and for the fact that he usually makes a very quick and accurate decision.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pretoria (District) has dealt mainly with matters affecting his own constituency, upon which the hon. the Minister will undoubtedly reply to him.

I would like to deal with the question of railway pensioners, particularly as far as the hon. the Minister’s policy is concerned and in connection with the present situation as far as the Railway Superannuation Fund affects the railway pensioners. I think the most important aspect of the debate so far has related to the question of manpower and manpower shortage in the Railways Administration. There is a relationship between the present pension situation and the large number of members of the Railways Administration who leave the service due to resignation. Earlier this session the hon. the Minister, in reply to a question, indicated the seriousness of the situation as far as resignations and abscondments are concerned. If one looks at the figures, particularly for a three-month period of this year, 1970, one sees that during the months of March, April and May, no fewer than 7,637 white employees left the railway service, which is an average of over 2,000 per month, due to resignation or abscondment. The number of white employees joining the service during that same peroid was 5,424. This means a net loss of white employees of 2,213, merely during the three months period from March to May of this year. What is significant, is that in the number of resignations which during that period averaged over 1,000 per month, are resignations which can also be attributed to the fact that a number of railway employees, when they reach a certain stage of life, due to financial pressure resign their position so as to obtain immediate financial benefit by cashing their pension rights and pension accrual benefits that have accrued to them during their term of employment. This, we believe, is not in the interests of the hon. the Minister’s intention to retain existing staff. It is therefore interesting to look at the situation as far as the present pension position is concerned affecting the railway employees. During 1969 the hon. the Minister made an announcement and put into effect a new basis of calculation as far as the railway pensions are concerned. He mentioned earlier this afternoon the increase of 10 per cent in the basic pension for those who retired before the 1st April, 1968, and a 5 per cent increase for those who retired between April, 1968, and April, 1969, and in addition, the 2 per cent per annum compounded interest increase in the basic railway pension. This means that there are a number of pensioners who are receiving this increase based on the 2 per cent per annum compounded, and those who are already pensioners have been taken into account in regard to the number of years they have already completed as pensioners and thereafter there is still a further period up to a maximum of 20 years during which that increase will continue. At the time we indicated that this was a move in the right direction. However, there are certain other aspects concerning this matter to which we on this side believe the Minister should give further attention. That is that in many cases these basic pensions are extremely low. As far as the older pensioner is concerned, in spite of the 10 per cent bonus and the 2 per cent per annum compounded for every year of service, it only resulted in a small increase in his basic pension. For those who receive a minimum pension, it merely meant an increase in the basic pension and a reduction in the supplementary allowance. In order to assist particularly the older pensioner, the Minister no doubt realizes that the increase in salaries and wages that he has announced will be to the benefit of persons who still have to go on pension, or in other words those who are still employed in the service; when they go on pension they will receive an increased pension. However, it is to the older pioneers of the Railways that I believe the Minister should give further consideration. If one considers the position that an actuarial report is submitted to the Minister, we know that a committee investigating the whole structure of the present pension system as far as the Superannuation Fund is concerned, has made certain recommendations, one of which the Minister has accepted in regard to this 2 per cent per annum compounded. But there is another aspect which I believe will increase the benefits of that 2 per cent that is given on a compounded basis, and that is a consolidation of the temporary allowance with the basic pension. At present this temporary allowance, which is paid from revenue in terms of the Vote before the Committee, is paid to all railway employees and railway pensioners without a means test. It is therefore no longer really a temporary allowance. Many of the railway pensioners consider this a cost-of-living allowance. I believe it will be in the interest of these older pensioners if this temporary allowance is consolidated with the basic pension. This would mean that a greater increase would be afforded to these people as far as the 2 per cent per annum compounded is concerned. The hon. the Minister indicated the deficiency as far as the running of the fund is concerned and at this stage the Administration is making a special contribution towards that deficiency of R1.2 million per annum. However, the overall credit balance of the fund and its investments now stands at R532 million, according to the latest figures available to us. It is therefore important that the Minister should give further consideration to other aspects which will benefit the older pensioners. As far as the existing pension scheme is concerned, the hon. member for Constantia has raised an important point in regard to the pegging of the interest at 4½ per cent which is paid in respect of funds held by the Superannuation Fund. However, the question of the resignation of persons in order to get immediate benefit is one which should give the Minister cause for a great deal of concern. We had the benefit two years ago of having had laid on the Table of the House the report of the committee of inquiry into pension fund matters. This committee of inquiry, also known as the Cilliers Commission, also made certain recommendations concerning State funds, and although the Superannuation Fund is a fund administered entirely separate from any other pension fund administered by the State there are important recommendations which I believe could be adopted by the hon. the Minister in consultation with the actuaries and the committee, which is a joint committee, that has jurisdiction over the question of the fund. And here are the recommendations made which concern the person who makes a contribution to the fund being able to preserve the accrued pension benefits. Here the preservation of the accrued pension benefits is of the utmost concern to these people, particularly where they have resigned prematurely so as to obtain immediate financial benefit and then rejoin the Railway Service and have to start again contributing to the fund, which means that their pensionable service is reduced by a number of years, and when the time comes for them to go on pension they receive a pension far below the pension they would have received if they had not resigned earlier. The preservation of these funds provides that a person would not be entitled to a refund of his contributions if he leaves the service within the first five years of having made contributions to the fund. Here there is the question of stipulating a period whereby the person who has made contributions which are now developing into a worthwhile accrued benefit should be able to have that benefit preserved for him, so that it is utilized for its main purpose and object of providing security for that employee when the time arrives that he must retire from the service and obtain a pension. [Time expired.]

Both the hon. members for Constantia and Umbilo have now gone into the matter of pensions here. For our railwaymen pensions is a very important matter. We believe that a railwayman, on the day he retires, must receive a decent pension. Over the years we have had the pension fund which has by now built up strong reserves, but we have found that even that was not enough to compensate our railwaymen with properly when they retire. The Minister of Transport followed a policy which in my eyes was very sensible. He supplimented this pension with an allowance, and an additional allowance, which to-day ensure the pensioner a pension of R104 for a married person, a very reasonable pension to-day. We believe that a man can live reasonably on that. But now I want to point out that an unmarried person must come out on R52. Should it happen that his wife dies and that the pensioner then remains on in his house, he has a very hard time of it. I was wondering whether it was not possible for something to be done where a widow or a widower is left behind, and then has to come out on half of the pension. Since we are now discussing pensions, I wonder whether one must not go further than the hon. members for Constantia and Umbilo were prepared to go. The Minister has already created the principle of supplementing pensions from revenue. I wonder whether the time will not come when we will pay all pensions out of the revenue account. This is perhaps a very revolutionary idea, but it will eliminate all these problems. We will then be able to pay according to the man’s salary on retirement without taking into consideration what his starting salary was. It might perhaps be difficult to work out a scheme which will be basically fair towards all, but I believe that if we were to think in this direction, we would perhaps find a solution to many of our pension problems.

The United Party had a great deal to say about the manpower shortage, but if we look at the figures over the past seven years as they appear in this report of the Railways, we see that there has been tremendous progress, though, and that the Railways did in fact keep well abreast of the development of the country as a whole. The Railways’ revenue in 1963 was R489 million, and the estimate for 1970 is R744 million, in other words, almost twice as much in seven years’ time. We find the same tendency in the other branches. As far as Harbours are concerned, the revenue increased from R24 million to R50 million, almost double in seven years. The revenue of the Airways increased from R4 million to R95 million, and then the Opposition wants to allege that the Railways is not keeping abreast of the country’s development.

What do you want to prove now?

The total revenue increased from R454 million to R951 million in those seven years. I think the Railways are in fact keeping well abreast of the development of the country. We will overcome this temporary labour shortage as well.

Temporary?

Yes, it is temporary. For 15 years we have not had a manpower shortage; we have one now for the first time as a result of a coincidence of circumstances.

Another matter which the United Party advocated, is that we should administer each section of the Railways Administration separately, as recommended by the Commission on the co-ordination of transport. Sir, if that were to happen, we would have to subsidize farmers on a much greater scale than is the case at present because the oil pipeline, the Airways and the Harbours already subsidize Railways to a very large extent.

Sir, in the Second Reading debate yesterday the hon. member for Salt River discussed the narrow gauge railway lines, and the degree of improvement which had been effected. I have always been concerned about the fact that there is a narrow gauge railway line in my constituency. We would very much like a broad gauge railway line, but in the mean while definite improvements must be made to the narrow gauge railway line. I want to thank the hon. the Minister for making himself thoroughly conversant with our requirements there even though he was unable to give us a broad gauge railway line. Ours is a fruit producing region, and I want to say here today that the Railways has succeeded in transporting all our fruit without loss—a very considerable achievement with that narrow gauge railway line.

You are fortunate; there are many other regions which were not so fortunate.

In addition major capital expenditure, very necessary expenditure, is being incurred, and I want to thank the Minister for that. I want to thank him for the goods shed at Assegaaibos which is now going to be improved, for the loading facilities for cattle at Loerie and for a new station building at Patensie. For many years we have been obliged to get along with a corrugated iron station building, and I want to thank the hon. the Minister for the fact that these station buildings are now going to be replaced. In addition the Railways decided to replace 20 diesel locomotives on that section, which will be a great improvement and which will mean that we will be able to make use of those services for a long time. There are also 360 new trucks on order, and 200 fruit trucks. I am pleased that the hon. the Minister went so far to make our line an efficient one for us. He gives us good services, and we appreciate them. In addition I just want to say thank you for the major expansions to the Port Elizabeth Harbour. [Interjection.] I may not discuss harbours now, and I shall therefore not do so, but do nevertheless want to refer to the great progress which the Minister has now announced in regard to containers. He announced that certain stations were going to be equipped to handle containers. Sir, for exporters it is very important that we remain conversant with new developments, and since the Minister has now announced that faster trains are going to be introduced in order to transport containers, I think that this is the beginning of great things for the future. Sir, it will not only be necessary to provide facilities for containers on large stations; we will also need them on the smaller stations and I want to ask the hon. the Minister to keep himself informed of this new development, because we are going to need it on the ships as well. I know that a commission has been appointed to institute a special investigation on this matter and I want to thank the hon. the Minister for keeping himself informed of new developments in this direction as well. Sir, containerization is one of the things we will need if we want to compete in the world markets. It is an economic method of packing. It is a method of packing by means of which you afford your product proper protection; where you do not handle it unnecessarily; and where you can load and offload it cheaply and easily. I believe that in that direction lies great possibilities for us. We as exporters must make use of all methods to maintain our place in world markets, and I believe that the Railways Administration is also doing its duty to keep us informed of this kind of development. Sir, I believe that the Railways is in fact keeping well abreast with the development of our country.

Sir, I can assure the hon. member for Humansdorp that if he raises an issue which benefits the pensioners of the S.A. Railways, he will have the full support of this side of the House.

I want to join issue with the hon. the Minister this afternoon. Earlier the hon. the Minister made a remark which I believe was neither accurate nor true. He said that during this debate the United Party had taken up the cause of the white railway worker but had made no mention of the plight of the non-white railway worker, and he implied that the United Party was not interested in the salaries of the non-White railway workers because they were not voters, whereas the white railway workers were. I feel that it is my duty this afternoon to correct this impression and to tell the hon. the Minister just how wrong he is in this respect. I would draw his attention to the fact that to my certain knowledge, this matter has been raised in the Railway Budget debate during the last six or seven years, on three or four occasions. The Minister has not always been sympathetic. He has acknowledged that there have been difficulties but he has not shown any great sympathy. I want to deal with this matter on the basis of a survey which I have conducted since 1963. I will quote the figures in detail to show that we in the United Party have watched this position and have expressed our anxiety in this regard. I want also to remind the Minister that only in the last short session of Parliament this year also before the general election, this same matter was raised under the Minister’s Budget. For his convenience I will quote to him the column number, column 774 of 11th February, 1970, and read out to him just one short passage in which I said—

Sir, I submit that this figure of R2 per working day was a norm which was arrived at, almost ten years ago. If, therefore, one takes it as the standard figure, one can say that it is a figure that is well out of date; it is a figure which in the light of modern living conditions could be regarded as one which is below the poverty datum line. Sir, what have we in so far as the payment of non-Whites on the S.A. Railways is concerned? For the year 1963, we find that 97.9 per cent of the total number of non-White S.A. Railway employees were earning all told, together with other advantages, a salary of less than R2 per working day. In 1964, according to my records, they received a 10.17 per cent increase but the percentage of those earning less than R2 per working day was 96.6 per cent. Sir, I have no mechanical computers to back me up on these figures, but they are figures which have been supplied by the Minister and his Department and I believe that my analysis of them is accurate.

We come to 1965. There was an 11.26 per cent increase, but the total percentage of non-white workers in the South African Railways earning less than R2 per day was 93.5 per cent.

In 1966 there was no general salary increase and the percentage was 92.3 per cent. In 1967 there was no general salary increase and the percentage was 92.1 per cent. In 1968 there was a 10 per cent increase and the percentage of non-White workers earning salaries of less than R2 per day was 88.3 per cent. In 1969 I understand that there was again no general pay increase, but the percentage at this time was 88.5 per cent. The actual benefit, or decrease in percentage, is more apparent than real, because the figure has been produced basically by an increase in the number of Coloured workers whose wages have increased. On the basis of the latest figures for 1969, taking Bantu only, we find that there are 91,083 Bantu who are still in receipt of salaries and allowances of less than R2 per day. This is a percentage of 95.2 per cent. I do not believe that this is a record of which the hon. the Minister can be proud. I do not believe that these figures compare favourably with those in respect of commerce and industry.

A great deal has been said concerning the crisis in the Railways labour position. I believe, as many speakers before me have said, that it is due to the job discrimination policy adopted by this Government. Credit has, however, been given to the hon. the Minister where credit is due, because he is the Minister who has breached the wall of Nationalist ideology and he is the only Minister who has kicked over the traces. The partially enlightened outlook which the Minister has adopted, is not enough, and the figures which the Minister has supplied in regard to this question of labour shortages, reveal this. Let me quote some more figures. In February, 1966, there were 686 non-Whites performing work formerly reserved for Whites. By July, 1970, this figure had increased to 1,418. In 3½ years the figure has more than doubled. And then we learnt that, in July, 1970, owing to staff shortages, 14,209 non-Whites were performing work formerly done by unskilled and ungraded rail workers. The distressing aspect of this particular figure is that only 19 per cent of these people were earning the low figure of R2 or more per working day. This is a figure which, as I have said, is more than 10 years old as a norm. This means that, of these people who are fulfilling an important and vital role in railway work and its administration, 80 per cent can be regarded as living below the bread line, under our modern conditions and circumstances. I do not believe that this is good enough, or that it will help to over come the critical situation which now exists.

As far as the white workers of the South African Railways are concerned, I believe that human endurance is being tested beyond the point of safety, in so far as the overtime which they are called upon to work, is concerned. If one looks at the figures for accidents—the hon. member for Port Natal referred to this aspect—one finds that the outlook is a gloomy one. If one takes into account the damage which has been done to locomotives, rolling stock, tracks, signalling and overhead equipment for the years 1967, 1968 and 1969, one finds that it is the highest for the last eight years. In the past year, 1969’70, the damage to the particular items I have mentioned, exceeds R1½ million.

I should like to deal briefly in the limited time at my disposal, with the comfort of the staff. I know that reference has been made to the dismal housing position. I know that reference has been made to the hours of work, but for years I have highlighted in this debate the ox-wagon approach adopted by the hon. the Minister and his Department in regard to the running of long-distance passenger trains. The running times are outmoded. There is a waste of time which results in unnecessary overtime. I believe that this overtime is coming, in part, out of the pocket of the taxpayer. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban (Point) asked me for certain information regarding checkers. I have now received that information from the Management. I have been told that a checker with seven years-service was previously on a salary scale of R175 per month. That salary scale has now been adjusted to R200 per month. If the hon. member knows of any cases where this new salary is not being paid, he can write me a letter and I shall see that the matter is rectified.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana asked whether the Pinetown single line could be doubled. I am afraid that the topography of that area is such that it will be a very expensive operation. I am informed that the traffic is not yet sufficiently intense to justify the expenditure. I can only tell the hon. member that the matter will be borne in mind. When the funds are available and when it becomes necessary, attention will naturally be given to the matter.

*The hon. member for Germiston asked whether sufficient funds were being made available to meet the normal demand for housing. We are providing as much as we can, but funds are very scarce. What we can possibly provide, we do provide. We are making the largest possible amount available for that. There is, of course, a house ownership scheme, for which large amounts are provided, and in addition there are the departmental houses. Many of the houses are outmoded. They have to be demolished. They can no longer be renovated economically. New houses have to be built, but if the hon. member consults the Brown Book, he will see what amount is being provided for this purpose for this year. As regards building sites, I may just say that we buy pieces of land on which a number of houses can be built, as well as individual stands in already developed areas.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (West) asked whether a cafeteria could be provided for the staff in Bloemfontein. Refreshment facilities for staff members now form the subject of an investigation instituted recently. The possibility of buying an old hotel and of using it for office accommodation as well, is being investigated. At present there is not sufficient accommodation, but if such accommodation does become available, we shall probably be able to provide those facilities.

*The hon. member for Walmer raised the question of the St. Croux scheme. I may say in passing that, in the nature of things, I have a very soft spot for Port Elizabeth. I am Chancellor of the university there. Obviously, if I can benefit Port Elizabeth in any way, I shall do so. The Cabinet has, however, considered this matter very thoroughly and they came to the conclusion that it would be in the interests of the country to support the Saldanha scheme instead of the St. Croux scheme. I do not want to go into details now, but the hon. member knows that I am not financing this line. If it were left to me to build that Saldanha line, I would not have built it. Iscor has to finance the line and the construction of the harbour. I am quite prepared to operate it for them without incurring any losses.

The carrying capacity of the Port Elizabeth-Noupoort line is of course being increased. Centralized traffic control is also being introduced apart from other improvements that are being made to that line. Port Elizabeth will remain an ore harbour. We have the ore loading equipment there and that will not be abandoned. It will still be used in years to come. The main consideration at the moment is to see whether Iscor can obtain the necessary funds for the building of the Saldanha line. If they cannot obtain the funds, we will talk about St. Croux again. I have not explained the position here before but I have explained privately that the St. Croux scheme is a calculated risk. No models have been constructed and no tests have been made to see what the wave action, the wind action and so on are. Even the consulting engineers have found that there will only be an 80 per cent occupation if an ore loading harbour is built there. I think I have replied to all the points raised in this connection.

Mr. Chairman, will the hon. the Minister reply to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana about the question of low platforms?

There is a programme for raising low platforms but again it is a question of whether we have the money or not. The hon. member for Brakpan raised the same matter. There are hundreds and hundreds of low platforms throughout the country. This is a progressive improvement that will be made over the years directly the funds become available.

*While I am dealing with this matter, I want to inform the hon. member for Brakpan about this as well. There is a programme for raising these low platforms, but it is a gradual process. I suppose Brakpan, too, will get its turn. We must do it, particularly where trains fitted with sliding doors are being used on the Witwatersrand. There especially, it is essential. But there are other capital requirements and as a result of that priority must be given to the more urgent works. The same applies as regards the canopies over the platforms. As the hon. member himself said, there is a large number of platforms without sufficient cover. This again is a question of available funds.

The hon. member also referred to the office accommodation on Brakpan station. I do not know what the position there is, but I shall ask the Management to go into the matter. I have already replied to the question of the moving of coal yards. The hon. member knows what my answer was in the past. We cannot move them summarily, because the coal merchants still receive coal by rail, although it may represent only 20 per cent of their purchases. If they do not have the yard, coal cannot be offloaded at their premises. For that reason the coal yards cannot be moved now.

The hon. member for Pretoria (District) asked for electric lighting on Rayton station. I just want to tell him that the Witbank-Eerstefabriek line is now being electrified with the result that Rayton station will have to be rebuilt completely. When the station is rebuilt, attention will, of course, be given to the provision of lights. As regards the longer platform at Verwoerdburg, as well as the goods shed and the office accommodation, I want to say that that, too, will receive further attention as soon as the necessary funds become available.

† I want to congratulate the hon. member for Constantia on a well thought-out and well studied speech. One thing is quite plain to me and that is that he knows what he is talking about.

We always do.

Very few of you do. What the hon. member suggested in regard to the Superannuation Fund, is a matter worth considering. There is a sub-committee of the Joint Committee of the Superannuation Fund dealing with this matter at the present time, namely the increase in the interest rate. The hon. member knows that the Administration guarantees it at 4½ per cent. If it has to be increased to 6½ per cent, the Administration will have to pay out of revenue. That matter is, however, being considered by the subcommittee of the Joint Committee of the Superannuation Fund.

My reply to the hon. member for Umbilo is that the Superannuation Fund is controlled by the Joint Committee. All improvements are initiated by and originate from the Joint

Committee. I have told the hon. member over the years that I do not take the initiative myself. I would have thought that he knows it by this time. Any recommendations for improvements usually come from the Joint Committee of the Superannuation Fund. The Fund belongs to the staff and consequently they control it. In spite of what the hon. member for Yeoville says, they must take into consideration what the actuarial position is. I told hon. members to-day that there is a deficiency of R369 million. Whether we like it or not, that is the basis on which we must work. We must take into consideration what the actuarial deficiency of that fund is. The Joint Committee must therefore take that into consideration before they make any recommendations in regard to pensions. There are certain recommendations that are being considered by the sub-committee at the present time.

The hon. member for Berea had just started the most important part of his speech, namely that part dealing with the running of trains, when he ran out of time. As he could not complete his speech, I shall give him the opportunity to deal with the matter again.

Mr. Chairman, we have listened attentively during the past few days to the criticism of the Opposition. I do not want to be sidetracked into another discussion of the manpower shortage, which was actually the main point at issue in the discussions. In the first place I want to confine myself mainly to the contributory factors which made it possible for the hon. the Minister and his staff to show these exceptional achievements of the past years. I want to mention particularly the fact that the worker has gone out of his way to show that he is prepared to contribute his share towards making the Railways a success. The factors which contribute to making these people content and happy and ready to make those sacrifices, are to a large extent attributable to the services which have been rendered to them, to the fact that their working conditions have been improved and to housing.

In his Budget speech the hon. the Minister indicated how many houses had been built in the past year and how many loans had been made available. I want to quote the relevant figures because I should like to tie them in with another point of discussion. In the first place 553 new loans and 112 loans were granted to applicants who have been moved elsewhere as a result of transfers. In addition, staff members were able to buy 952 houses in terms of the 10 per cent House Ownership Scheme. This year an amount of R9 million was also made available in respect of 517 departmental houses and 421 other houses. All these amounts indicate that provision is being made for the railway employee to own his own house. We are grateful that this is the policy. We have here in the Brown Book an amount indicating that additional facilities are going to be made available at our hostels in Bloemfontein. These hostels which provide accommodation for more than 500 of our young men are of particular value. The parents of those young men are quite happy because they know their sons are accommodated in a home and in an area where they are being looked after. The hostels are situated close to their places of work and are quite comfortable. We are grateful that provision has again been made for this amount in the Brown Book to provide these additional facilities. I want to say that it contributes towards a happier family life for a man to come home from work and meet his wife pottering about in the garden. In our case in Bloemfontein, the houses for which these people obtain loans, are well looked after. It is a pleasure to visit these people. Every one of them has a fine lawn and a fine garden. These workers can go home in the afternoon and relax completely; there is a pleasant atmosphere in their homes. In this way goodwill is being created so that these people are prepared to make sacrifices.

In Bloemfontein we have what is possibly the second-largest Railway centre in the country. Recently, particularly large amounts have been made available for new extensions to the Bloemfontein Railway centre. Among other things, a new goods layout and cartage depot are going to be provided at a cost of more than R5 million on completion. According to the Brown Book the new stores buildings in the workshops area are going to cost an additional R3 million. The capacity of the automatic exchange is also going to be increased, while additional underground cables will be laid. All this is necessary for the promotion of a proper service. Also, an additional R3 million has been made available for replacing the railway line on the Bloemfontein route. A further R1,200,000 has been made available for improved power supplies and distribution. A further amount of between R13 million and R14 million has been made available for the erection of additional workshops, the steam heating and the ventilation of those workshops as well as the construction of new railway lines. When considering these amounts, we feel and appreciate that everything is being done to streamline the Railways and to provide all the necessary facilities for the railway employees in order to enable them to do their best. We are very proud of the work that is being done there. We appreciate that this work is of great importance to our Railways generally. In the same way it is important to our whole country. As I have said, a great deal has been said about the question of manpower. Also, many arguments have been advanced as to whether non-Whites should be appointed in posts for Whites or not. It seems to me the United Party is finding itself in a rather difficult position. The United Party does not quite know what to say in this regard. I have a booklet here in which the policy of the United Party is set out. We all know the name of this booklet; it is “You want it—we have it”. I should like to quote a few sentences in connection with this matter. On page 7 we find the following—

Then they go on to say—

We find that labour is not discussed here in any way. Then they go on and say—

Here the first principle is stated, i.e. that a pegging of wages, a freezing of wages, is laid down. We realize of course that this is not in the interests of the worker and the Railways generally. On page 33 of the memorandum of the Minister of Transport we find an indication of what has been done over the years since the wage increases came into effect. [Time limit.]

Chairman directed to report progress.