Mr. Speaker, when this debate was adjourned last Wednesday I had congratulated the hon. the Minister on the fact that he had been able to announce a surplus of R20,000,000, a surplus which, judging by past experience, will be considerably higher by the time the final figures become available. This is a very great achievement, and we do not want to be unstinting at all in our congratulations, but at the same time the Budget speech of the hon. the Minister revealed certain defects and weaknesses which ought not to be there and which we should like to bring to the notice of the House and of the Minister. So as to make it clear at once under which heads our main criticism falls, I should like to move the following amendment at this stage—

1. (i) to meet the just and pressing needs of railway pensioners;
2. (ii) to free the railway user from unconscionable tariff burdens;
3. (iii) to develop our harbours to meet the requirements of our trade; and
4. (iv) to plan the future of the railways as part of a national transport system which will not only be adequate for a growing economy, but which will also be a dynamic stimulus to even greater growth, and which will be free from unduly restrictive monopolistic control”.

You will observe, Mr. Speaker, that the very first thing that we deal with in the amendment is the position of the railway pensioners. These pensioners are in a very special position; that applies to all pensioners but it applies particularly to those of the railway service. The welcome and much-lauded prosperity which South Africa is experiencing to-day actually represents a threat to their standard of living and their living habits. The more prosperous the country becomes the more expensive goods are inclined to become; there is a tendency then towards inflation, but the income of pensioners is pegged and they are unable to augment their pensions. A period of prosperity therefore is often a period of skimping for these pensioners. The Minister still owes them something, something to which I referred in my opening remarks, and we are astonished to find that so far there has been no reference at all to the position of these poor people. The time has come when we should come to their assistance. Sir, there are so many inconsistencies in this whole situation. The Minister stated last year that he would like every pensioner to receive a minimum income of R50 per month; but why should they be limited to R75 to R100 per month? Many of these people are still strong and healthy; they are anxious to supplement their income but the necessary incentive for them to be industrious and to work is lacking because according to the rules governing the special allowances which accrue to them, these special allowances are reduced to make sure that their income, together with the supplementary allowance, does not exceed £75 or R150.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House have seldom raised a matter which has elicited such an immediate reaction from the people concerned. Hon. members on this side tell me that many of them have received letters and telegrams in connection with the position of these pensioners. I myself have received a certain number. I am not going to say that I received hundreds but I immediately received at least a dozen letters. Here I have a typical letter which I received this morning from an old gentleman in Kroonstad.

What is the date of the letter?

5 March 1964. This letter is available to any hon. member who wishes to see it and who is so petty-minded as to think that I would quote a fictitious letter. This old gentleman writes—

He retired in 1947—

I should like to remind the Minister of the fact that when he took over this portfolio some years ago he made an appeal to the railway-men to work harder and to make sacrifices to put the S.A. Railways on a sound footing again. These men heeded that appeal. Year after year the hon. the Minister pays tribute to the work of the staff and to their devotion and their willingness to work, even beyond the call of duty. But many of those people have retired on pension and what they are asking for now is a certain amount of gratitude on the part of the Minister. This is his opportunity to say “Thank you” to those people in a tangible way. I want to say at once that I personally have every confidence that the hon. the Minister will do something in the near future about the position of the railway pensioners, because I do believe that this is a matter which is near and dear to the heart of everybody. I believe that it is a matter which is also near and dear to the heart of the hon. the Minister. I should also like to believe that it is due entirely to negligence that this has not been done already; I believe that it simply did not occur to anybody to reconsider their position in the Budget. I am sure that he will rectify the position at the first possible opportunity.

Then I should like to say a few words in connection with the railway user, the client of the hon. the Minister. I was surprised and we were all surprised to find that in this Budget, with its colossal surplus, the Minister did not come forward with an announcement immediately that there would be further reductions of tariffs. He did announce, in a very ambiguous statement, that there would be a reduction in the tariff on petrol. My impression was that this reduction would only benefit people in the hinterland, but it subsequently appeared from Press reports that there was a certain amount of uncertainty. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether some plan cannot be devised to extend this privilege to include all consumers of petrol even in the coastal cities. It will be very interesting if the hon. the Minister can clear up this matter in his reply so that we can know where we stand. In any event one is astonished to find that this is the only concession to the public at large who make use of the Railways, who have to make use of the Railways whether they want to do so or not, because we are dealing here, as you know, Sir, with a mighty monopoly which is controlled by the State. This whole situation would appear to clash with the Government’s general policy. As I see it, the general policy of this Government is to combat inflation; to keep costs down: to obviate exploitation of the public, but here we find the peculiar situation that the Minister continues to present Budgets which take very much more out of the pockets of railway users than he needs for the sound management of his Railways. We notice, for example, that in 1962-3 the hon. the Minister converted an anticipated deficit of R2,570,000 into a surplus of more than R12,000,000, a difference of R15,000,000. This year he budgeted for a deficit of something like R219,000, and that deficit, even before the process has been completed, has already been converted into a surplus of R20,000,000. The bulk of this money is spent on funds in order to keep tariffs on a firm, sound basis, to obviate fluctuations and to finance purchases. That is a very good thing and we welcome the fact that the surplus is being used in this way; but is the hon. the Minister not also responsible to a certain extent for combating the tendency towards rising costs as far as the citizens of South Africa are concerned? We know what the Government is doing in this connection; we all helped this Session to place a new Price Control Act on the Statute Book although in taking that step we were perhaps acting in conflict with the declared policy of both parties in this House, that is, to encourage private undertakings. We also placed an Act on the Statute Book which reinstituted rent control over buildings, and we did so although we felt perhaps that it would have the wrong effect in that it would interfere with the normal economic laws which must be allowed to operate if we are to wipe out the shortage of housing; but this step was nevertheless taken because the combating of rising costs is apparently an all-important phase of Government policy. The hon. the Minister increased tariffs the year before last, with spectacular results, but we cannot see that he is doing anything to meet his railway users, the public of South Africa. What is the use of having petrol control over private undertakings; what is the use of having rent control over houses and flats if another Government Department allows the cost of living to rise? The hon. the Minister may perhaps be able to argue in extenuation that to a large extent these surpluses are due to the fact that he is conveying an increased tonnage nowadays, a fact which is largely responsible for his increased revenue. That is true, but in that case our accusation against the Minister is that he is being over-cautious; that he himself lacks confidence in the economy of South Africa; that the authoritative people whom he consults probably give him the correct advice but that he is not far-sighted enough in his outlook on the South African scene to heed the advice of the people who are advising him to look forward to a continued boom in South Africa. I always find it very strange that the hon. the Minister and other members of the Cabinet are unable to see what the economic trends are in South Africa and yet there are many private bodies which are able to foresee those trends and to foresee them accurately. For example, when the hon. the Minister presented his previous Budget a newspaper for whose opinion I do not normally have the greatest respect, the Rand Daily Mail, was able to tell us specifically what was going to happen. I do not like to think that the Rand Daily Mail of Johannesburg has a better insight into South Africa’s affairs than South Africa’s Minister of Railways. On 7 March 1963 after the Rand Daily Mail had summed up the Budget proposals, they wrote as follows—

And here comes the portion which I want to emphasize—

Here we find that the Rand Daily Mail was able to foresee what was going to happen. Sir, I do not want to charge the hon. the Minister with dishonesty but I think I can accuse him of having been cunning in that he did expect these things but that, in agreement with the Minister of Finance, he deliberately under-estimated his revenue and over-estimated his expenditure, with the result that to-day we have this extraordinary and unnecessary surplus.

What has also struck me is the fact that the Minister, as the Rand Daily Mail correctly said a year ago, under-estimated the contribution made by his staff. Both he and we believe that if one treats one’s staff well one can expect better results from them as a result of the stimulus of good treatment, and we did in fact get better results from the staff. According to the speech of the general manager before the Uitenhage Chamber of Commerce towards the end of last year, the productivity of the Railways increased in the preceding year by 4.64 per cent while the staff increased by only 1.92 per cent. Sir, this is a notable achievement which the Minister should have taken into consideration and which he did not take into account when he framed his Estimates last year.

Sir, let us pay tribute to the staff who are making these tremendous achievements possible, and let us ask the hon. the Minister whether he is satisfied that the steps which he has already taken and which he announced in his Budget speech last year will be able to cope with the situation of a shortage of skilled and technical manpower in the Railway Service. To me the situation seems rather disturbing. On 28 February I put a question to the hon. the Minister and he was good enough to reply to it. It appears from this reply that although there is provision for 81 electrical engineers on the establishment of the Railways, there were 30 vacancies in 1963—30 vacancies out of a possible staff of 81! In the case of civil engineers there is provision for 147 and in 1963 there were 58 vacancies. As far as mechanical engineers are concerned there is provision for 78 and in 1963 there were 34 vacancies. In any event more than one-third of the establishment was not available to the Railways—people who occupy key posts in the Railway Service and whose contribution is indispensable in a growing economy such as ours if the Railways are to keep pace once again with the development of South Africa. I want to say at once that it is evident from the Budget speech that the Minister is fully aware of this; that he is doing something in this connection, but according to these figures he is not doing enough. What perturbs one particularly is the fact that there are still so many resignations of trained engineers, many of whom are trained in the Railway Service. In 1963, for example, 11 electrical engineers resigned, 18 civil engineers and 7 mechanical engineers. Let us see what happened in the other ranks. I should say that artisans are absolutely indispensable for the work of the S.A. Railways, and yet we find that in 1961 there were no fewer than 1,191 vacancies for artisans in the Railway Service, as the hon. the Minister also informed me on 28 February last year. Last year, although the position improved, there were still 891 vacancies. This is a matter which gives one cause for concern and it gives one all the more cause for concern when we all know that this shortage of skilled and technical manpower exists to-day in every branch of our various undertakings throughout the whole of South Africa and that the Railways have to compete in a labour market where there is already a tremendous shortage of these men. I feel therefore that the hon. the Minister should give this House more information as to what the prospects are and what further special steps the Railway Administration is going to take to overcome these difficulties. We should not like the S.A. Railways to find itself in the position again in which it found itself from 1950 to 1960, a period which is still very fresh in our memories and during which, because of lack of vision, because of a tendency to ridicule the plans of the preceding United Party Government, the Government failed to allow the Railways to develop as fast as one might have expected in an expanding economy during a period of prosperity. We find only too frequently that railway development does not keep pace with the development of this country. It does happen once in a while, as it did a year or two ago, for example, that the Railways catch up with the development of the country, but they never keep ahead of that development. One expects the Railways of South Africa to take the lead in many spheres, particularly with a view to stimulating the development of certain more backward areas of this country, but we see no evidence of that; on the contrary, there are disturbing signs at the present time that railway development may once again fall too far behind the development of South Africa. We have an expanding economy to-day but the Railways, according to all the evidence in the Budget speech of the hon. the Minister, are still satisfied with plans which were devised two years ago before the present upsurge in our economy.

There is another thing which points to the fact that the hon. the Minister should be wide awake and that is the fact that over the past 10 to 15 years the coal producers have been complaining every winter that the Railways are unable to meet the transport needs of South Africa. Last winter again the position was quite serious. Various coal mines had to work short hours because the Railways were unable to transport their product, and coal reserves dropped to a dangerous level at quite a number of power stations. We should like to be sure that the necessary steps are being taken, as the economic boom in South Africa continues, so that the Railways will not fall behind again as they did from 1950 to 1960, with the result that they will be unable to meet the transport needs of South Africa. It looks as though the butter of the S.A. Railways is being spread too thinly because as soon as we have sufficient transport facilities for one sector of our economy we find that some other sector has to go short. At the moment, for example, we find that our harbours—we refer to this in our amendment— are unable to meet the needs of South Africa. Time and again a critical situation has arisen at our harbours over the past year. In Port Elizabeth, for example, we found that ships which were being chartered at a cost of so much per day had to lie empty for days on end because the S.A. Railways in the case of this particular harbour were unable to keep a grain elevator with a capacity of 42,000 tons filled to capacity. The Railways were unable to deliver sufficient maize at the harbour to ensure that the grain elevator was filled to capacity and that ships were able to load immediately they called at the harbour. In October last year Japan had to issue a threat that she was going to purchase her maize elsewhere unless the S.A. Railways and Harbours showed greater efficiency in delivering maize at the harbours to meet her needs. One asks oneself, Sir, what is going to happen in the case of sugar? At the moment the Railways still have no difficulty in keeping pace with the need for transport facilities to our harbours, but what is going to happen in the near future when the new silos in the Durban harbour are ready and we find that the loading process can be greatly speeded up? Will the Railways be able to cope with the situation? Is the Minister devising plans in this regard? There is no indication of that in his Budget speech. Then I also want to know what is going to happen once we start exporting pig-iron on a large scale to Japan. I think the contract has to be fulfilled towards the middle of this year. Are the Railways equipped to bear these additional burdens and to provide the necessary services to South Africa, or are the Railways once again going to be responsible perhaps for a curtailment of economic activity in South Africa? It is perfectly clear that greater expansion is necessary than is being planned at the present time and that our economy is already beginning to suffer, as it has done in the past, because of the negligence of the S.A. Railways. Sir, I wonder whether we will ever realize what South Africa lost, for example, because the Railways failed to expand after the war in accordance with the plans of the war-time Government, with the result that we lost our markets for coal, markets which we were rapidly building up? I wonder whether we have ever paused to think what that cost South Africa. In 1945, we were able to export 4,250,000 tons of coal but in 1958 our exports dropped from 4,250,000 tons to a meagre 510,000 tons. In its Review of July 1957, Barclays Bank wrote as follows—

The coal mines were able to cope with the situation but the Railways left South Africa in the lurch. I think it was last year that the hon. the Minister announced that an inquiry which had been instituted showed that there was no longer a market abroad for South African coal; we lost these markets because the S.A. Railways were unable to meet the requirements of South Africa so far as an adequate transport system is concerned. We are very anxious to be reassured by the Minister that there is no danger this time that that will happen again. Sir, when we think of the planning of our system of transport so that it can keep pace with the requirements of the South African economy we must also bear in mind the enormous amount of capital which has already been invested in the S.A. Railways. It is staggering to think that whereas in March 1958 the total capital account of the Railways stood at R604,500,000, it had risen to R1,329,500,000 by March 1960; it had more than doubled. The interest burden rose from R15,000,000 in 1949-50 to something like R50,000,000 in 1960. According to the Brown Book we are now committed again to a capital investment of R500,000,000, and that is in respect of planning which was undertaken taken before there was any evidence of the present upsurge in our economy. We should like to know that there is the necessary planning; we should like to know what this is going to cost us and that the Railways have the necessary vision to keep pace with developments in South Africa. We had no indication of that in the Budget speech. The Budget speech is something which could have been drawn up by an accounting machine. We know that in America where they have these wonderful machines, the so-called computers, a series of figures is fed into the machine which then immediately analyses those figures. That is what the hon. the Minister did for us; he was the “computer” of the S.A. Railways —and a very good one; I concede that—but nowhere in his Budget speech was there any evidence of wide-awake planning on the part of the S.A. Railways having regard to what is taking place in South Africa at the present time. At the moment the Minister is getting what I believe is very good advice. For more than a year the report of the Van Zyl Commission with regard to the question of competition between the Railways and private undertakings has been lying in his office. What has become of that report? Has it been pigeonholed; has it been thrown away? Has the Minister lost it? There is not a single word in the Budget speech to indicate to the workers of the Railways or to the private undertakings of South Africa, who have a very great interest in this report, what the Minister’s attitude is in connection with the report of the Van Zyl Commission. The General Manager of the Railways recently came back from Japan and drew up a report containing about 60 to 70 recommendations, mostly recommendations concerning the details of administration—a very interesting report—but the report also contains certain far-reaching findings, although no recommendations were made in this connection. It contains the finding, for example, that in Japan the task of the Railways is to cope with long-distance transport and to leave all additional services to other undertakings. When one reads between the lines it looks as though this fact rather influenced the Commission which visited Japan, but we have not had a single word from the hon. the Minister with regard to this matter and with regard to all the other suggestions contained in that report. The hon. the Minister is being advised at the moment by the Schumann Commission on the question of tariffs, but no single reference is made to it in his Budget speech. He does not tell us whether the Commission has already completed its inquiry. There is not a single word in his Budget speech in connection with the work of the Railway’s own planning division. Judging by the Budget speech of the hon. the Minister there is no planning at all in the S.A. Railways; they simply drift along and try from time to time to make up the leeway so as to be able to meet the transport requirements of private undertakings, of the private sector. I should very much like to hear from the hon. the Minister, having regard to the prosperity that we are experiencing to-day, having regard to the huge surpluses of the hon. the Minister, whether they have any imaginative plans for the future development of the transport system of South Africa.

Bring Russell back.

I should like to know whether consideration is being given to the question of rounding off the railway network where it is clear that there are certain points where a rounding-off process is necessary. Here they have a golden opportunity, Mr. Speaker. Are they going to do anything, for example, about the Orighstad-Woodspruit connecting line; are they going to do anything, for example, in connection with a connecting line between Connandale and Glendower in Natal, where I think there is a very great need at the moment for an expansion of transport services? Having regard to the development in Swaziland, having regard to the development of the anthracite mines there, the Minister has a great opportunity there to show a little imagination, and we should like to know what his plans are in this connection. What does he propose to do in connection with the Beit Bridge-Nicholson line? With the change which has now taken place in the Federation of Rhodesia it is imperative for us, for strategic reasons too, to keep our links with Southern Rhodesia on a firm and sound basis. Is anything being done in connection with those links? We are losing this opportunity to-day because of negligence on the part of the S.A. Railways. Is anything being done in connection with the link between Bitterfontein and Karasburg? Not only is there a great deal to be said for it from the point of view of the development of the North-western Cape, from the point of view of the development of Namaqualand, but I think it is short-sighted to have just this one single railway line between South West Africa and the Republic of South Africa, a line running from De Aar to the North-West. I think it has become a matter of urgent importance, in the national interest, that we should have a second connecting line between the Republic and South West Africa. Are these things being considered by the S.A. Railways and, if so, can the Minister tell us something about it?

Then I should very much like to hear from the Minister, apart from the statistics which he gave us in his Budget speech, what the future plans are with reference to the relationship between the Railways and road transport. We know that the Railway Administration’s own road motor service is causing great concern; we know that the losses on that service are mounting. The General Manager says in his report that this cannot be allowed to continue; that something must be done in this connection. But the matter goes further; there is also the question of the relationship between the S.A. Railways and private transport undertakings. Are we going to continue on the existing pattern? When are we going to get the reaction of the hon. the Minister to a report which is six years old already, the brilliant report of the Viljoen Commission dealing with these matters? In paragraph 369 the Viljoen Commission says—

Then the commission goes on to say that we should make better use of our roads; that we should have better co-ordination between private transport and the S.A. Railways. Is any consideration being given to these things? Is there any hope that the private hauliers of South Africa will get a certain amount of relief from the monopolistic hold which the Railways have on South Africa? In paragraph 402 the Viljoen Commission has something very pertinent to say in this connection; the commission refers to the difference between ancillary hauliers and private hauliers—the people who transport their own goods and the people who hire out their vehicles, and the commission says—

Why cannot private hauliers be placed in at least the same position as the ancillary hauliers, the people who transport their own goods? More stringent restrictions are placed on private people who generally offer their services to any person requiring transport services than are placed on people who undertake transport for their own economic activities as an ancillary service. Why? If we could examine and relax the restrictions imposed on private hauliers, it would be possible for many of our entrepreneurs in South Africa to do away with their own transport services and rather to make use of private hauliers or even of the Railways. This will promote greater efficiency, there will be less duplication of undertakings and less unwieldiness as far as the management is concerned. The whole set-up can be made more efficient and everything will be able to function more smoothly in South Africa. These are pertinent matters and they are going to become more pertinent year after year as South Africa continues to develop. We must remember that according to economists South Africa has reached the stage at the moment where she will be able to stimulate and finance her own development. We are entering an era of extraordinary development, unless Government action impedes it. The natural economic laws will tend to make South Africa develop rapidly. These things must be considered and the hon. the Minister must give a lead to South Africa in these matters. He must not be satisfied simply to be the bookkeeper of a powerful monopolistic railway undertaking.

We would very much like to know the role which the Railways are going to play in the implementation of the Bantustan policy of the hon. the Prime Minister. What role will the Railways have to play in the implementation of the policy of the hon. the Prime Minister to encourage industries to shift to the borders of the reserves? There is no reference to this in the Budget speech and yet one would have thought that this was the main issue occupying the mind of the Government at the present time. The Government steadfastly believes that the image of South Africa abroad can be changed completely by an imaginative and determined implementation of this policy of Bantustan development. We know what the attitude of the Central Government is and we know what they want to do. But the whole of our transport system in South Africa is under the control of the Central Government and we are given no indication of the part that the Railways will have to play in this connection. I want to flatter the hon. the Minister by saying that perhaps he does not believe in this policy but then he must not be silent; he must tell us what role the Railways are going to play in this regard. The hon. the Minister knows that we differ from his Government in regard to this Bantustan policy but we do believe in the decentralization of industries. We would very much like to know what contribution the Railways are going to make towards promoting the decentralization of industries, if that is indeed the policy of the Central Government. Under present-day conditions it seems to us to be a complete waste of natural resources and manpower to encourage new industries on the borders of the Bantustans only when we know that the platteland of South Africa is becoming depopulated as far as Whites are concerned. There are dozens and dozens of towns in South Africa where we do have water available, where we do have power supplies, where railway lines have already been constructed and where industries can be established to bring about decentralization. Is it the policy of the hon. the Minister to encourage that process or is he only going to ensure that industries are established in places out in the Bundu, places like Rosslyn, where new lines of railway, new water works and new power stations will have to be established and built—and that at a time when we already have a shortage of manpower? In this regard the hon. the Minister of Railways can really do something to encourage the decentralization of industries in South Africa in a practical way which will be of immediate benefit to the whole of South Africa.

I know that the report of the Schumann Commission has not yet been published but I do think that the hon. the Minister owes it to the public to tell them what he is going to do during this period of increasing economic activity to ensure that the tariff policy of the South African Railways promotes the maximum utilization of the resources of our country. While we are awaiting the report of the Schumann Commission—perhaps the commission will be able to give its attention to this matter—we would urge in particular that the excessive differences in tariffs be eliminated to a certain extent. I was struck very much by a statement in a book by a certain Dr. C. Verbrugh to the effect that the lowest tariffs on the S.A. Railways amount to one-tenth of the highest tariffs. I think the tariffs on lime and cement are one-tenth of the tariff on household furniture. He could find no other example where the difference between the highest and the lowest tariff was greater than one-third. We are interested to see whether the Schumann Commission will be able to make any suggestion as to how that gap can be narrowed. We realize that it will be extremely difficult because so many vested interests have been built around these tariffs. One would have thought, however, that the time has come in a modern industrial country like South Africa when these old anomalies can be eliminated. But, as I have said, the hon. the Minister, to our disappointment, had nothing to say about these things.

We should like to know whether any attention will be given to the important principle that is being applied with so much success in other countries, particularly in America —the principle of a specially low tariff for full trucks. The immediate effect of this will be that it will be possible to make more efficient use of the rolling stock of the Railways. We should also like to know whether attention will be given to the question of the revision of our harbour dues in so far as to encourage coastal traffic. The harbour dues which are levied in South Africa were apparently instituted with a view to foreign trade only. Has the time not come, in view of our thriving economy, when we should start giving attention to the revision of our harbour dues so that more use can be made of our coastal traffic, thus relieving the Railways of the task of transporting goods at a low tariff, goods which have to be transported cheaply even though they are heavy and awkward to handle?

Mr. Speaker, there is so much that one can expect from the South African Railways during this particular period in the development of South Africa. We on the Opposition benches will be very pleased to be reassured that the hon. the Minister and his advisers are aware of the opportunities awaiting South Africa and that they are prepared and ready to ensure that the South African Railways play their full role in this regard. It is also perfectly clear that the time has come for us to give very careful consideration to the role played by the South African Railways in the transport system of South Africa. To conclude, I cannot do better than quote what was said by Mr. Dirk Meter, the recently retired President of the Chamber of Industries, on the occasion of the Conference of the Federated Chambers of Industries in 1963. This is what he said (translation)—

The hon. the Minister has a golden opportunity here. In the opinion of the experts, South Africa is on the threshold of an era of development and prosperity. Nobody in charge of an organization like the Railways dare allow this sort of opportunity, which may only come once in a lifetime, to pass without making radical changes in our transport system in order to serve a new South Africa, a new South Africa changing over finally from a country whose economy is based upon mining and agriculture to a country whose economy is based on her industries. This gives the hon. the Minister the opportunity to adapt the Railways to the new set-up. But he will have to hurry, Mr. Speaker. This Government, after its blunder in connection with immigration, had a period of 14 years in which to realize their mistake. They have now realized their mistake and they are trying to do something to rectify it. When this Government blundered in connection with the Orange River development scheme they had 14 years in which to discover that they had made a mistake. This Government no longer has 14 years in which to consider these matters. In another few years’ time the hon. the Minister will no longer be where he is to-day. I hope that he will still be here but he will not be sitting there! It will be a pity if he goes down in the history of the South African Railways and in the history of South Africa as the man who was called upon to overcome a temporary crisis and who did overcome that crisis but who left nothing permanent behind him for the future of his country.

We would like the hon. the Minister to take advantage of his opportunities and to do something to give South Africa a really efficient transport system, an efficient transport system geared to the needs of a modern industrial country.

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) because he is now the main Opposition speaker on railway matters. I am afraid that is as far as my congratulations can go. I can understand the hon. member being very ill-informed in this regard because for the past five years he has not participated in any debates in this House on railway matters. But the hon. member was still at the same time a member of the House and he ought to be better informed. He asks what the reply of the hon. the Minister is to the report of the Viljoen Commission? Good heavens, Mr. Speaker, we have discussed that report year after year, and the Minister has given the Opposition a reply year after year. Was the hon. member for Yeoville never here during those previous railway debates so that he could know what the reply of the Minister was? It seems to me the hon. member was not here the other day either when the Minister made his speech. He asks what has happened to the report of the Schumann Commission? The Minister said that the report of the Schumann Commission was expected only in April. The hon. member wants to know from the Minister what his policy is for supporting the Government’s policy of border industries. Does the hon. member not know that this is one of the matters which the Schumann Commission had to investigate? Now the hon. member voices criticism in regard to the tariffs policy of the Railways. That is also a matter which was referred to the Schumann Commission for investigation. He quotes as his authority a little book written by Dr. Verbrugh, but has the hon. member read that book thoroughly? If he had read it attentively he would have seen that Dr. Verbrugh says that most of his propositions have not yet been tested in practice and that it must first be proved that his proposition is practicable. But now the hon. member for Yeoville quotes him as an authority on the matter.

In what connection did I quote him as my authority?

In connection with the tariffs policy. Professor Schumann, who wrote the introduction to that book, also says that this book is theoretical. This book has rendered a good service, but it is all theory; it must still be proved in practice.

The hon. member said the other day that as far as the National Party is concerned we should get a better Minister. Well, Sir, I must say that the hon. the Minister is making progress even amongst the ranks of the Opposition, because a few years ago the hon. the Leader of the Opposition still said that he was just a second-class Minister in the Cabinet.

Of a second-class Government.

I want to tell that hon. member that South Africa is happy and satisfied with the person whom the National Party is able to give this country as its Minister of Transport. I even know of countries like America and England which, in view of their own transport problems, would be very happy and deeply gratified if they could have what the National Party is offering the country. Five years ago the hon. member made a speech in regard to railway matters in this House, and on that occasion he strongly criticized the Minister. He said: “Apart from these measures, which are mainly at the expense of the personnel of the Railways and which he hopes will help him out of his difficulties, what practical constructive plans does the Minister have for putting the Railways back on a sound basis? What assurances can he give us, and what grounds has he for the assurances that the long-suffering population of South Africa will get something back for the millions and millions of pounds which they have given him to invest in the Railways?” I can tell him to-day that the practical, constructive plans of this Minister have since that time given the railway staff, about which he was so concerned, R28,000,000 in the form of salary and wage increases. I want to tell him that the practical, constructive plans of this Minister gave the Railways a surplus of R16,000,000 in 1960; in 1961 a surplus of R23,500,000 in 1962 a surplus of R14,000,000 and in 1963 a surplus of R12,000,000. I want to tell him that the practical, constructive plans of this Minister have given us this splendid budget and a surplus of more than R20,000,000, and I want to tell him that the practical constructive plans of the Minister have expanded the carrying capacity of the railways to such an extent that the railways can meet with confidence the increasing traffic demands. Nor can I neglect to tell the hon. member that the lack of practical and constructive plans on the part of the United Party has resulted in Marais Steyn being given to the already sorely tried United Party in the place of Hamilton Russell.

The hon. member for Yeoville pleads for the railway pensioners, and particularly for those who retired before 1953. Why did the hon. member for Yeoville not again plead for the pensioners this afternoon, particularly those who retired before 1953? What is the difference between the pensions of pensioners who retired before or after 1953? Does the hon. member not know that there is no difference? Where does he get that date, 1953, from? I shall now tell him where he is wrong. As from 1 October 1953 legislation came into operation in terms of which railway officials were allowed to contribute an additional 25 per cent of their pensionable remuneration to the various pension funds in order to ensure that they would receive greater pension benefits. As the same time they were given the choice to contribute on this basis with retrospective effect to 1 April 1944. That is as far as the hon. member for Yeoville thought. He did not think further and investigate the position which then ensued. Because in 1955 legislation was passed in terms of which this benefit was extended to 7,000 pensioners who retired between 1 April 1944 and 30 September 1953. Did the hon. member for Yeoville not know that? Why then does he talk of all the pensioners who retired before 1953? That hon. member is an old member of this House. He is a front-bencher of the Opposition. He is regarded as one of the leaders of his party. Why does he not first make sure of his facts before launching an attack on a Minister on this side of the House?

The hon. member says the Minister has this year allowed the opportunity to pass of remedying the injustice done to these pensioners. In other words, it is an injustice not to pensioners who retired before 1953, but who retired before 1 April 1944. The hon. member is now surely levelling an accusation against the United Party régime of those years. Surely these are officials who retired during the régime of the United Party. It does not surprise me that an accusation is made against the United Party régime of those years. I expected some hon. member opposite to make such an accusation now against the bad way in which the United Party Government treated railway pensioners. What does, however, surprise me is that it should be the hon. member for Yeoville who makes this accusation against the United Party régime of that time.

I want to express my indignation that the hon. member should mislead the House by blaming the present Minister for it. The hon. the Minister is now being blamed for the deplorable and unsympathetic manner in which the United Party Government treated its officials who retired from the railway service under their régime. I think you will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, when I say that that is too bad, and it is an unjustified accusation which this hon. member certainly does not deserve.

The hon. member has not made sure of his facts in regard to what he said this afternoon. This Minister has done a great deal for the pensioners. As recently as last year the temporary allowances of married pensioners were increased from R24.50 to R30 a month and those of unmarried pensioners from R13 to R18.17. But the Minister went even further. He also did his duty towards those pensioners who retired before 1 April 1944 by ensuring that a married railway pensioner should have a minimum income of R50 a month from all sources, and an unmarried pensioner a minimum income of R30 per month. I understand that there were certain difficulties in this regard and that therefore this has not been paid out yet, as far as I can ascertain, but I was glad to learn that in the meantime the difficulties have been solved and that this promise made to the pensioners last year will be implemented. Mr. Speaker, I am even more glad to learn that the minimum pension of a married railway pensioner will now be R54 and that of an unmarried pensioner R32. This is assistance which will be appreciated by all pensioners who retired before 1 April 1944, because they are the people with the small pensions; they are the victims of the United Party régime of those days. I know, for example, of one case where an official retired on pension before 1 April 1944 and he still receives the miserable pension of R12 a month. Such a pensioner will now, together with his allowance and the other assistance he gets from the State, receive altogether R54, consisting of a basic pension of R12 and assistance from the State in the form of allowances, amounting to R42. Is this not great assistance which is being rendered to those pensioners? Then that hon. member still dares to blame the Minister to-day for the great injustice he has committed towards those pensioners! The hon. member knows as well as I do, or ought to know, that the Minister is quite unable to touch the pension of that pensioner, for the simple reason that the Superannuation Fund, the Railway Pension Fund, is to a large extent controlled by the Superannuation Fund Committee on which the personnel of the Railways is represented. This Committee must make recommendations to the Minister for the improvement of pensions, and their recommendations are based on actuarial reports. Does the hon. member for Yeoville not know that?

Even in this budget a special contribution of R3,200,000 is made, over and above the obligation to pay R67,200 into the pension funds anually, in order to keep the pension funds of the railwayman sound and to cover shortages which arose as the result of the rationalization of the wage structure in 1962. I really think that the hon. member for Yeoville owes the Minister an apology.

I am quite sure that the hon. members for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) and Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) and the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) could not have made such a foolish statement in regard to the pensions of railwaymen as the hon. member for Yeoville has done. The hon. member now complains that tariffs were not reduced except for the concession in respect of petrol. But was the hon. member really not here when the Minister delivered his Budget speech? Did he not hear the Minister say that any revision of the tariff structure must, from the very nature of the matter, stand over until the report of the Schumann Commission became available? As an interim gesture, and particularly because it will benefit the country in general and will stimulate progress, the hon. the Minister, however, decided to reduce the tariff on petrol and other types of fuel to some extent. Did the hon. member really not hear that? The hon. member complains about the tariffs which we increased two years ago by 10 per cent. But this increase was necessary to strengthen the funds of the Railways. It is essential to strengthen Railway funds. The exposition admitted the necessity for it. The hon. member himself asked in 1959: “What sort of balance sheet is the Minister submitting? If the S.A. Railways under this Minister had been a private undertaking and had gone to an intelligent bank manager to ask for an overdraft on the strength of the balance sheet handed in by the Minister, and that bank manager had seen that there was no provision for unexpected contingencies, that the Reserve Fund had been depleted or had disappeared entirely, that there was no proper provision for depreciation and the replacement of capital assets, that bank manager would perhaps have been very courteous but he would not have granted an overdraft”. Does the hon. member not know that, without the tariff increases which the hon. member ciriticized, the Minister would not to-day have been able to submit this favourable balance sheet? Does the hon. member not know that, without this tariff increase, the Minister would not have been able to make this sound provision for depreciation and the replacement of capital assets and for building up the Tariff Reserve Fund to the extent he has done? Take the Renewals Fund which provides for the replacement of certain types of capital assets. Five years ago the hon. member for Yeoville complained that this fund was decreasing fast, and then he said: “If the present Minister and the present Administration remain in power, I am convinced that it will not be long before interest-bearing capital will also be required for the Renewals Fund”. Well, the Minister remained in power, and where the fund in 1959 showed a credit balance of R37,000,000, it to-day has a credit balance of R105,000,000. Another contribution will be made from the surplus of 1963-4, and that will bring the credit balance of the fund up to R111,000,000. Two years ago the former hon. member for Wynberg described the Betterment Fund as being insolvent. In fact, the Minister, as a temporary measure, had to make a special contribution of R10,000,000 to that fund from loan funds. That amount of R10,000,000 was repaid to the Loan Fund, and the credit balance of the fund now stands at R4,387,000. Again, because tariffs were increased, the Minister was able in this Budget, from the estimated surplus for 1964-5, to make a contribution of R9,639,000 to the Betterment Fund in order to defray the expenditure of the 1964-5 works programme.

Then there is still the Tariffs Reserve Fund, which is intended, in spite of fluctuations in the economy, as far as possible to maintain uniform tariffs. That is a fund which is also to a large extent regarded as the guarantee fee for the railwayman, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) said in 1961 that R17,000,000 or R18,000,000 was not sufficient for that fund. The former hon. member for Wynberg said this fund should be built up to R60,000,000. To-day this fund stands at almost R31,000,000, and after this contribution is made from the surplus of 1963-4 it will amount to more than R39,000,000.

I cannot help but think of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana when we talk about the Tariffs Reserve Fund. Four years ago that hon. member exclaimed despairingly: “There is nothing in the Tariffs Reserve Fund; no benefits for the staff during the next two years. If we add all this up, it indicates that the railway workers will have a hard time for the next few years, and no relief can be expected until the Tariffs Reserve Fund again has funds. When will that be?” That is what the hon. member for Umhlatuzana said. I wish the hon. member for Umhlatuzana and the Opposition had just listened to me. You will forgive me the little personal satisfaction of reading out what I said on the subject in 1960—

If only the hon. member for Umhlatuzana had listened to me, he would not have had so many sleepless nights in that regard.

The hon. member for Yeoville says that the Railways often lag behind in the development of the country. But hardly had the hon. member said that when he again foresaw a transport crisis threatening the Railways. In other words, the hon. member is now really anticipating trouble. Is it not an excellent testimonial that things are really going well with the Railways when the Opposition, through lack of arguments to criticize the Budget, must now anticipate possible transportation difficulties which may arise in future, as the hon. member has done to-day?

What will he say next year?

If the hon. the Minister had listened to the Opposition during recent years, we would have experienced one transport crisis after the other. Was it not that Opposition which repeatedly pleaded for the reduction of capital expenditure? Was it not the hon. member for Turffontein who complained about the surplus carrying capacity of the Railways a number of years ago?

I did not complain.

You complained about it bitterly in more than one speech. Was it not the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) who complained that the Railways as a transportation system was over-capitalized? Did the hon. member not complain even as recently as last year about the tremendous capital expenditure? But what did the hon. member for Yeoville have to say? To-day he sees a possible transport crisis in future; to-day he says that the Railways are not moving fast enough to keep pace with the developments of the country. What did he say in regard to capital expenditure? In 1959 he said—

He continued to say that we had a shortage of capital in South Africa, which was a developing country, but at the same time the Minister expected the public and the taxpayers to find capital for him to replace the capital he uselessly spent on capital expenditure. As the Englishman says, that does not make sense.

When we think of the words and the criticism of the hon. member for Yeoville to-day, and we compare it with what he said five years ago, we must tell him also; “It does not make sense”. In 1959 the hon. member also complained about the increased carrying capacity and the reduced traffic of the Railways. What does he do to-day? To-day the hon. member again complains that the carrying capacity is not able to cope with the increased traffic. I tell him again, it does not make sense. Supposing the hon. the Minister had listened to the Opposition, we would have had a perpetual transport crisis in South Africa ever since 1962.

Now the hon. member asks the Minister what has happened to the report of the Van Zyl Commission. He asked whether the Minister had lost the Van Zyl Report? I want to put another question to the hon. member: What is the hon. member’s standpoint in respect of the report of the Van Zyl Commission? I challenge him to get up in this House and to say that he supports the majority report of the Van Zyl Commission.

Tell me what your party’s attitude is and then I will say what mine is.

I shall tell hon. members what my standpoint is. Of course,

I cannot speak for the Minister. My standpoint is that the majority report is not a well-considered report, and that the minority report is a much better report which entirely controverts the recommendations of the majority report. I want to tell the hon. member that if the majority report were to be accepted, it would mean that the expenditure of the Railways would increase every year by at least R9,000,000 or R10,000,000, which they would have to pay for supplies manufactured outside the departmental workshops of the Railways. If that report were to be accepted, it would amount to a loss of more than R20,000,000 in unproductive capital expenditure for the Railways. It would also increase the maintenance costs of the Railways. Unfortunately, through lack of time, I cannot discuss this in detail. I have now told the hon. member what my standpoint is. But what is his standpoint?

May I reply?

The hon. member can do so on a later occasion. And the next speaker on his side can also do so. I just want to add that if the majority report were to be accepted, it would mean that the transportation cost of the Railways would be increased.

Why did the Minister not deal with it in his Budget speech?

Are these now the business principles according to which the hon. member for Yeoville wants the S.A. Railways to be run? The tariffs will have to be increased and that again will, as they said last year, have a detrimental effect on the economic development of the country. I ask the hon. member for Yeoville whether these are the business principles according to which the Railways should be run? My time has elapsed, but I wish I had another half-hour in which to reply to all the arguments raised by the hon. member for Yeoville. In any case, I must say that in so far as a great deal of the hon. member’s speech was concerned, he was particularly ill-informed and that it is not worth while replying to it. For the rest, he made a number of propositions which simply do not hold water and cannot withstand any test.

It is quite obvious that the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) was in the unfortunate position that he was unable to get any inspiration whatsoever from the Budget Speech of the hon. Minister of Transport, with the result that he has had to rely entirely on the speech made by the hon. member for Yeoville, to try and convince his own followers that the Minister is right and we are wrong. He should have been able to obtain sufficient ammunition from the Minister’s Budget Speech to convince his own followers that everything is right with the Railways. I cannot blame him for not getting that inspiration from the Minister’s Budget Speech. But in spite of that he has attacked my hon. colleague, the hon. member for Yeoville. Let us have a look at some of these attacks and see what they amount to. In the first place he dealt with the matter of pensions, and he asked: Does the hon. member for Yeoville not know that it is the Superannuation Fund Board that makes recommendations re Superannuation Fund improvements? It is true that that is what happens, but what the hon. member did not say was that the last recommendation of the Superannuation Fund Board was that there should be a 10 per cent increase in the annuities of all pensioners and that the Minister turned it down. You see, Mr. Speaker, it is all very well making these statements. The hon. member said that it is the Superannuation Fund Board that makes the recommendations, but the Minister turned the recommendations of the board down. Where is the 10 per cent? We were also told why the Minister turned the 10 per cent increase down. He said that it was not a unanimous recommendation from the board, it was a majority recommendation. The Minister turned it down. So the hon. member’s whole argument goes up in flames. It was the Minister who exercised his final authority on the question of an increased pension.

Then the hon. member said: Look at the tremendous wage and salary increases that have been granted over the years. There again, he forgot to tell the House …

I said over the last four or five years.

Over the last four years. That suits my argument even better. The hon. member forgot to tell the House that it was only after hours and hours of debate on this side of the House plus the tremendous organized protest by the Railway trade unions that the Minister finally capitulated in respect of the last increase. You will remember how the Minister refused and said that increases to the staff could only be dealt with by way of Railway budgets, yet, six months later, before the next budget was presented increases were granted to the staff. Two of the hon. member’s arguments have not taken us any further and have proved to be not in accordance with the facts.

Then he dealt with this question of the Van Zyl Commission Report. Instead of saying to us “This is the Minister decision”, he asked us as Opposition to say what we would do about it, before the Minister has even given an indication of any sort of what he is going to do. Surely with all the information that the Minister has from the report and from other sources, the Minister should have been the first person to declare what his attitude is in relation to this report. Why does the hon. member want the Opposition to declare its hand before the Minister has declared his? And when the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) says that in his opinion the majority report should be rejected, I am quite sure that that lets the cat out of the bag, and that that is also the Minister’s attitude. But he has not said so. Why should we indicate what our opinion is before the Minister is prepared to give his opinion. I can also give my opinion, but I would rather give my opinion based on what reasons the Minister may have for the rejection or acceptance of the report, because it is the Minister’s reasons that we have to consider, not the report on its own but up to now we have had no indication whatsoever as to what the Minister is going to do. What we have had is the report by his General Manager on a study mission to Japan, and if we are to go by what is disclosed in that report, then the Minister will reject the majority report of the Van Zyl Commission. But as I say, the Minister will have an opportunity during this debate of dealing with this matter. We would like to know and the staff would like to know, outside interests would like to know, what the attitude of the Government is. Such a state of uncertainty is no good for the staff nor is it good for outside entrepreneurs. I say that it is one of the disappointments of the Budget speech that this matter was not dealt with so that we would be in a position to deal with the matter during this Budget debate.

I, however, have intervened in this debate really to deal with the position of our pensioners. I make no apology for dealing with this matter again. I dealt with it last year, and the Minister in reply said that this was a matter for the actuaries, that he acts on the advice of the actuaries. Well, I think it would be as well at the outset to give the background to this matter and what the position of the fund is at the present time. At 31 March, last year, the balance in the fund was R332,435,657 and the estimated balance at the end of this month, a year later, is R365,000,000. The total income for the year ending 31 March 1963 was R45,337,573, and the total expenditure for the year ending 31 March 1963 was R15,364,848. The increase in the Fund’s balance for the year ending 31 March 1963 is R29,972,725. I have given these figures because of the numerous letters which I have received from all over the country expressing appreciation of the fact that these figures were available by way of Hansard. It is not all the pensioners who are able to get the reports that are laid before members of Parliament, and because of the continual interest pensioners have in their Pension Fund, I have given these figures so that an appreciation can be made of the Fund’s position by pensioners.

In dealing with this question, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it quite clear that I am not attempting to usurp the function of the Pensioner’s Association that has been formed. I want to put forward the case as I see it and hope that the Minister will deal with it in more detail than he did last year, because it is of considerable interest and importance to the pensioners themselves. I make no claim to be an expert on financial matters, and I do not think that the Minister claims that distinction either. So perhaps we can both approach this problem from the point of view of old railwaymen firstly, and secondly from the practical rather than the theoretical aspect.

The Minister has relied on the reports submitted to him by the actuaries when replying to requests for improvement in the lot of pensioners by way of the Super Fund itself. Now I want to make this point, Mr. Speaker, that what I am going to say now is in relation to the Super Fund itself. It is important that we should remember that this fund is a fund that the pensioners look upon as an investment. They take the attitude that it was an investment while they were in the service, and what is happening to the Fund to-day is of considerable importance to them, and from an investment point of view a matter in which they take the keenest interest.

According to the annual reports of the Controller and Auditor-General, the General Manager and the memo submitted by the Minister when he introduced his Budget, it is clear that the consolidation of the cost-of-living allowance and the non-pensionable allowances in April 1961, and 1962 respectively and the rationalization of the salary and wage structure with effect from 1 September 1962 that the estimated actuarial deficiency in the Super Fund will be R20,000,000 in excess of what the actuaries considered a safe figure. I might explain, Mr. Speaker, that the actuaries consider that R58,000,000 would be a safe figure for deficiency purposes, but now they consider that R20,000,000 in excess of that requires some action from the Minister. The estimate is in the region of R78,000,000, and the Minister has decided to ask Parliament to vote R3,200,000 towards reducing this deficiency in the present Estimates before the House.

When I referred to the practical approach to this question, I had in mind the following five points:

1. (1) The improved benefits that mainly future pensioners will receive, will increase the deficiency in the Super Fund by an estimated R58,000,000;
2. (2) the Administration has accepted the suggestion made by the actuaries that R100,000 per month be paid from Revenue towards eliminating the deficiency of R20,000,000, this being the figure in excess of the R58,000,000 maximum deficiency the Fund could carry without it being necessary for the Administration to make a special contribution in redemption;
3. (3) the fact that the Minister has decided to provide R20,000,000 from Revenue is a clear admission that the improved benefits that future pensioners will receive from the Super Fund is considerably in excess of what the Super Fund can bear. In other words, increased contributions made by members of the Fund as a result of the improvements in basic salary and wages together with the consequent increased R-for-R contribution made by the Administration were not sufficient to pay out the increased benefits to future pensioners;
4. (4) the ¼ per cent reduction in the percentage rate of contributions did not help in this regard. Mr. Speaker, you will remember that I said at the time that it would be wiser to increase pensions rather than to decrease the percentage rate of contributions;
5. (5) if we bear in mind that the Administration pays 4½ per cent interest on the Loan Funds provided by Superannuation Fund balances, it will be appreciated that pensioners as such do not receive any benefit as the result of the appreciation of capital assets bought by such Loan Funds. This is an important matter, Mr. Speaker, as I will indicate as I go along. I might add in passing, as I have already said, that by the end of this month R365,000,000 will have been invested in this way.

I mention these five points because I believe that the considerably increased annuities that future pensioners will receive as a result mainly of the big increase in pensionable emoluments, together with the lower rate of contributions, has resulted in the increase in the Super Fund’s actuarial deficiency by R58,000,000 since the valuation as at 31 March 1959.

I have not forgotten that pensioners received a 10 per cent increase in 1959. This has been calculated to have cost the Fund not more than R4,000,000 to date.

Mr. Speaker, one can now see why old pensioners are unhappy about their fund, their investment, and why I asked the Minister to amend the Pensions Act so that pensioners could be represented directly on the Super Fund Joint Board of Management. We had the opportunity of doing this last year or the year before, but the Minister turned it down at that time. I understood, however, that he was going into this question. He shakes his head now, to indicate that he is not prepared to consider it. But I make this plea to him that there are now so many pensioners and their interests are so vitally tied up with what happens to the Fund that it is important, and I think imperative, that they should have direct representation on the Joint Superannuation Fund Board. Many of them have served on the board during their time of office in the Administration and they are familiar with the set-up, and in their interests and in the interests of all old pensioners, I think it is desirable that they should get representation on this joint board.

I consider that a justification exists for a further percentage increase from the Super Fund despite the large actuarial deficiency.

My main argument here is that in outside enterprise, whether it is a pension fund, or whatever it may be, the assets that are bought from contributions made by members or shareholders, over the years increase considerably in value. With the result that shareholders have been able to obtain a bonus from time to time. But as far as the Superannuation Fund is concerned, the fact that the Fund balances earn 4½ per cent per annum only and that no recognition is given of the fact that the assets bought over the years by the Administration by way of loans from the Fund balances have appreciated considerably since they were purchased, should persuade the Minister to recognize the basic fact that the existing pensioners have a stake in the fund and Railway Capital assets which they helped to build up over the years. They have a right to expect, as well as those in the Service who are due to retire in a short while, that their interests will be safeguarded. The latter are going to receive far better pensions, not only because of higher contributions, but because the Minister is prepared to pay in R20,000,000 into the fund, to make it possible for those higher pensions to be paid to future pensioners. The extra R20,000,000 he proposes to transfer from Revenue to secure the position of future pensioners means that such pensioners are going to enjoy a higher rate of pension than the fund could afford to pay them had the Minister not decided to make this extra contribution. But existing pensioners are not going to get any additional benefit. I think the House will appreciate that the pensioners have got a case.

I now want to deal with the special allowance paid to pensioners, which they refer to as their cost-of-living allowance. This is apart altogether from the points I have made in relation to the Super Fund itself. This is the other side of the story, and this is where the burden has been eased by the Minister, although the position has not been completely met. This allowance was paid to pensioners at the time when a non-pensionable cost-of-living allowance was paid to servants of the Administration as a result of increases in the cost-of-living at that time. One cannot blame pensioners for the fact that there had been such tremendous increases in the cost-of-living index, particularly those who retired prior to 1940, because they were the victims of the increase in cost of living, and to meet that position, this special allowance has been paid by way of the Benevolent Fund.

I want to make a claim here on behalf of the old faithfuls of the Administration, those old pensioners whose pension contributions in the past helped to provide capital assets which to-day are partially responsible for making it possible for the Minister to make huge surpluses. They are entitled to their share of the profits, but the Minister has made no mention of any relief for them in the Budget. Is the Minister not in a position to do anything for them? I have some hope, because the Minister has indicated that he is budgeting for a R10,000,000 surplus for 1964-5. I think this is the first time that any Minister of Railways has budgeted for such a large surplus. There must be a reason for it. The Minister has not given the reason, but I hope that the reason is that his colleague, the Minister of Finance, is going to make an announcement next Monday which will make it possible for the Minister to fall into line with relief of some sort for Railway pensioners. I do not know, and I cannot ask the Minister to indicate whether my assumption is correct or not. But it would be, I think, reasonable to suppose that the Minister, in providing for this anticipated surplus, had in mind the position which would develop if the Minister of Finance made some gesture towards improving civil pensions, and that he would then not be in the position to follow suit because he did not have the money, and that is why he made this very comfortable provision. So I am hoping that as the result of the provision of this surplus some relief will be granted to Railway pensioners by way of an increase to what they call their cost-of-living allowance. I make this plea because I am sure that I, together with many members on both sides of the House, have received representations from pensioners who did not get the benefit of the relief granted last year.

This brings me to my final thought which I would like to leave with the Minister, in the hope that he will bear it in mind when he takes part in discussions with the Minister of Finance. The fact is that the vast majority of Railway pensioners do not qualify for any of the social pensions which cost the State some R40,000,000 a year, because of the application of the means test and the fact, of course, that they were contributors to the pension fund is the reason for that. Their pension precludes them from getting any assistance by way of social pensions. As taxpayers, pensioners are called upon to make their contributions by way of income-tax. It is not generally known that the pension fund contributions made by a pensioner during his working days are not subject to income-tax, but the pensioner today is liable for income-tax the same as anyone else because his pension is regarded as income. Because of that fact they cannot possibly get any benefit from any social pensions. So I can only say that their thrift in the past is now penalizing them in regard to relief in time of need, because they cannot get social pensions. This is a very important fact because they are often faced with the fact that their neighbour, who made no contribution whatever towards his old age, can receive up to R50 a month by way of pension and they, who have made some measure of provision for their old age, find that they are debarred from any assistance of that sort because of the pension they receive from the Superannuation Fund.

Mr. Speaker, I leave it there. I hope that when the Minister replies to this debate he will deal with this matter in detail, because I can assure him there are thousands of pensioners who want to know what the position is now that the Minister has accepted the recommendations of the actuaries and has made a token payment in this Budget of R3,200,000 towards the deficiency in the fund brought about as the result of the improved pensions which future pensioners will receive, whereas there has been no suggestion that they, the present pensioners, will get any share of this considerable amount of contribution towards the deficiency, by way of increased pensions. It is their fund and they are entitled to look to this fund for relief in the same way as pensioners in the future. I do hope that the Minister will take this matter seriously.

Mr. Speaker, I can almost congratulate the hon. member who, has just sat down, on his speech, a speech which he practically makes annually in this House and in which he pleads for the pensions of railwaymen. We are always very pleased when pensions are improved and that has been done from time to time. He also tried very hard to try to rescue the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) from the embarrassing position in which he finds himself but unfortunately he could not succeed in that.

I wish to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the Estimates. It is not a disgrace to finish with a surplus; it is an honour when the Minister can announce that he has a surplus. Had there been a deficit of R20,000,000 the Opposition would have said that the country was in a very poor economic position. But instead of congratulating the Minister on his surplus and the good conditions which prevail in the country, he blames the Minister for having a surplus. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (Central) (Mr. van Rensburg) said that it seemed that it was a long time ago since the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) had given any attention to railway matters. He devoted the major portion of his speech to the question of pensions and he pointed out how badly the pensioners were supposedly being treated. Had the hon. member only taken the trouble of reading last year's speeches in Hansard he would have seen how the pensions had been improved under this Government and then he would have left that part out of his speech He tries to bring the people outside under the impression that nothing has been done for the pensioners. I want to quote the figures I quoted last year to the hon. member, and these are the correct figures in 1947-8 under United Party régime. A Grade I clerk received a pension of R550 per annum, but under this Government, who has done nothing for the railwayman, that same person received R1,275 in 1963.

Has that money the same purchasing power?

That is an old question. The hon. member who has just sat down took it for granted that the cost of living had risen but remember, Sir, wages and salaries have also been increased. I do not say for a moment that we should not give these people more money, but the hon. member says nothing is being done for them. An engine driver who received a pension of R443 in 1947-8 receives R1,122 to-day. I do not want to waste the time of the House by proving that the pensions have been increased while the cost of living has increased. Pensions have from time to time been increased in order to meet the rise in the cost of living, but the party who is to blame for the low pensions sits on that side of the House.

The hon. member for Yeoville also referred to the staff and planning. The United Party also planned prior to 1948 but they never put those plans into effect. They now expect the Minister to make his plans known. He does not do that always, but he carries out what he has in mind, and he does it on such a scale that the traffic requirements of the country are met. The party of the hon. member for Yeoville used him to visit large railway centres from time to time and amongst others he held a big meeting at De Aar, and he had such a good reception there that my majority went up from 2,500 to 3,500. That was the kind of speech he made there.

That is a brilliant argument.

But I want to return to the planning. This Minister has planned and made provision in various respects, because the National Party Government has confidence in the country. I shall give the House a few amounts that have been spent in order to make that provision. In order to convey the travelling public, coaches were built and purchased in which they could travel. I must congratulate the Department on the type of coach which is produced to-day in the Republic. It is of exceptionally high quality. Coaches and trucks were provided and road motor services were also provided on a large scale. In 1902—I am only talking about the previous year—there were only 900,000 passenger coaches.

Passenger coaches?

No, passenger journeys. I can give the correct figures. The figure was 922,351. In 1963 there were 936,352. That was the extent to which the travelling public had made greater and greater use of the railways. That is travelling first class. There had also been an increase in the number of second class passenger journeys and the improvement has been even greater in the third class. There has been an increase in the first class of 14,000, 33,000 in the second class and 304,000 in the third class. An enormous number of people have availed themselves of the passenger transport facilities, and that had to be planned, but not a single person was left standing on the platform. Everyone was conveyed at the right time. Suburban runs have increased even more, by over 2,000,000. The goods traffic has also increased tremendously, by not less than 4,000,000 tons. I live in an area where there are very large railway towns such as De Aar, Noupoort and Burgersdorp, and I have never heard any complaints about people not having been able to get trucks for the conveyance of coal from Johannesburg or to send away their wool. Shortly after my election to this House there was a great shortage of trucks because of the good planning of the United Party. In 1962, 55,000,000 tons of goods were conveyed and 60,000,000 tons in 1963. That shows how the traffic has increased, Sir. In other words, the Minister has planned for sufficient trucks to convey the goods. When we look at the mileage which the goods trains have travelled you find that it was 25,585 miles in 1962 and nearly 2,000,000 miles more in 1963. The correct figure is 26,685,000. Nor was there any delay. You get the usual delays which you usually get, but trains did not stand on stations for days and weeks.

All those figures appear in the report of the General Manager.

Take the service on the passenger trains, Sir. I wish to extend my hearty congratulations to the catering staff. It is a pleasure to travel by train to-day. The service you receive from the chief steward and the conductor is of the best. Throughout the journey they inquire whether you are comfortable and whether you need anything, and if you should perhaps require anything they immediately attend to your needs. I want to pay a special compliment to those who are responsible for the dining cars on the trains, in spite of the fact that many meals are served. In 1963 1,200,000 meals were served and the service was of such a standard that having been in the dining car once you wanted to return a second time.

But the hon. member for Yeoville said there should also be harbour planning so that the goods can be shipped. But there are no delays. There are days when ships arrive at the same time, days when they cannot all dock at the same time and when some have to lie outside. They can perhaps come into the harbour but they prefer not to because they want to save the harbour dues. But not a single ship has turned back with its cargo. Recently a few ships remained outside because they could not come in on account of rough seas. But now we are told that the Minister has planned badly and that that is the reason why they could not come into the harbour. Even the Airways is supported to such an extent that the number of passengers has also increased. Nor has the staff been overlooked. I am not going to give the figures in detail. In conjunction with the increase in the passenger and goods traffic there has also been an increase in staff. During the previous year the staff has increased by nearly 4,500. There may be a shortage in certain sections, as the hon. member has said, but you will always have that, Sir. Some section may perhaps be over-staffed and others may be under-staffed, but the Minister is trying to wipe out the shortage as much as possible. Take wages. The hon. member for Yeoville says enough is not being done for the staff, but the position of the railwayman has been improved by a tremendous amount since 1948. Since 1948 up to 1963 the wages of all railway workers have been increased by an amount of R137,918,285. That is a large sum of money. Since this Government has come into power the position of the railwayman has been improved every year.

What is the point in giving us all these figures? They all appear in the report of the General Manager.

The hon. member did not listen to the speech of the hon. member for Yeoville. His attack was that enough was not being done for the staff. Not only have the wages been increased but the people themselves have been looked after.

I remember what the housing position of the railwaymen was in my constituency when I came to this House. It was scandalous. It seldom happens to-day that a railwayman asks me for a better house. Why are the people satisfied? From 1948-63 11,248 departmental houses were erected at a total cost of R63,000,000. It is not the policy of the Minister to build the hovels which the United Party built. We demolish them one after the other because people cannot live in them. The more houses we build the more houses built by the United Party are demolished. A person is satisfied if he lives in a good house. Anybody, even the Minister, can go to the house of any railwayman and relax there and the owner need not be ashamed of his home. When you page through the Brown Book, Sir, you see the number of houses that is to be built in the current financial year. Then we also have the house ownership scheme. From 1 April 1961 up to 30 April 1963, 4,707 loans were granted and those loans were used to build houses. Together with the 11,000 I have already mentioned, 16,000 new houses have been built over the last number of years.

I wish to make a few general remarks. When I travelled down to Cape Town I noticed that they were now constructing the railway crossing at Beaufort West. I am glad that that is being done to-day. It is a very dangerous crossing but I do want to ask the Minister please to improve the crossing at Noupoort.

Recently the mayor of Port Elizabeth was nearly involved in an accident there and just prior to that a motor car collided with a train and all the people were killed. I want to ask the Minister whether it is possible to improve that crossing because it is on the main road and it carries all the traffic to Port Elizabeth and East London. During the season, at least 16,000 to 20,000 motor cars pass there weekly. It is very dangerous at night particularly in view of the goods trains there.

Another point I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister is this: He recently paid a visit to De Aar. A number of people came to see me and I asked him whether he wanted to go with us. He said, no, he would not go with us but that if there were anything serious I should bring the people to him. It was not necessary for me to do so because there were no serious complaints but I do want to ask him something. Many contraventions are committed on the railways, people may perhaps steal something or people over-indulge in liquor. In most cases they are dismissed which is right but they are then without work. I think those persons should be given another chance of working on the railways but not in a position where they will be responsible for human lives. But give him another chance and if he again does something wrong he will not have the right to ask to be reappointed.

I want to extend my hearty congratulations to the General Manager and the staff on the way in which the Railways are managed today. It is a pleasure to come into contact with a railwayman to-day, and the service and courtesy they extend to you is of the best. Once again I wish to congratulate the Minister on the very efficient manner in which he administers the Railways, so much so that all the complaints and difficulties have practically been reduced to a minimum.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for De Aar-Colesberg (Mr. M. J. de la R. Venter) has put up a modest and quiet defence for the shortcomings of the Railway Administration. I respect his sincerity. He also said that he is one of the fortunate people who received no complaints about shortcomings. I will deal with that aspect later. The hon. member commenced by congratulating the hon. the Minister, saying it was a good thing and an honour for a Minister to have a substantial surplus, but what the hon. member obviously overlooked is that too much of a good thing is bad, and that is precisely the case here. Over the five years from 1959-60 to 1963-4 the surplus revenues or profits of the Railway Administration have been forced up to well over R86,000,000. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (Central) (Mr. van Rensburg) spoke with great admiration about these surpluses, but what has happened is that well over R86,000,000 has been extracted from the pockets of the railway users in excess of planned revenue and expenditure programmes presented to and approved of by Parliament each year. This mulcting of commerce and industry and the travelling public each year by the Railway Administration under this régime has gone on for five years now, and this monopolistic exploitation of the public still goes on. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) looked quite kindly on a R10,000,000 surplus for 1964-5, in the hope that some good may come out of it, but one must be realistic about the matter in other respects as well. The outlook, as far as the railway user is concerned, in respect of the coming year is rather bleak. You see, Sir, instead of announcing the usual modest deficit or small surplus with which the hon. the Minister lulls the House and the country in his Budget summary at the beginning of every year, this year the hon. gentleman has budgeted quite brazenly for what he calls “a substantial surplus”. I must say that looking at it from the point of view of the customer, of the railway user, one must be clear about what to expect when he speaks of a surplus of R10,000,000 at the end of 1964-5. Exactly a year ago in March 1963 this hon. Minister, with his hand on his heart, spoke about the year ending with a small deficit which he now turns into a profit of more than R20,000,000. King Midas himself could hardly have done better. But the really serious aspect of the matter is that the indictment by organized business against the Minister’s handling of the finances of the Railways, is now more than conclusively established. I quoted that indictment last year; it stands re-established to-day, and I will requote it. It reads as follows—

I say that this remains a very grave indictment against incompetency and inefficiency. Because what the charge of businessmen actually amounts to is simply the inaccuracies of the Minister’s estimates are no longer in doubt. Moreover, because of the regularity with which the hon. gentleman is able to announce substantial annual surpluses for six years in succession, based on estimates so obviously inaccurate as to be wholly and justifiably unacceptable to businessmen, he has now squarely placed these surplus revenues into the category of monopoly profits. I do not think it is unfair to say therefore that in doing so the hon. the Minister himself now assumes the role of the monopolist. Sir, monopoly profits of the Railways running into R100,000,000 in six years must surely be the envy of great business anywhere. But here that envy must be even greater because the hon. the Minister and his Administration can operate under certain advantages which are not available to private enterprise. In the first place, unlike the Railways, every other big business in South Africa is responsible for raising its development capital on the open money market, and accordingly it must plan its development programme and its operating charges on a competitive basis. I know of no other business that can get money as easily and can spend it with such carefree monopolistic ease with which the Minister runs the Railways and treats the customers. Let me just quote two examples to illustrate the monopolistic ease with which the statutory injunction to run the Railways on business principles is being avoided at the present time. It is in this regard that I come back to what the hon. member for De Aar-Colesberg said. In the first place, towards the end of last session, the House was given evidence of how easily public money can run away from good business sense under the present régime. No less a sum than R564 was wasted—and I say was extravagantly wasted—by substituting a six-letter name “Mupark” for a nine-letter name“ Woltemade” on the main Cape line and then changing it back again to the original name. No one apparently asked for or wanted the change of name except the Minister or someone in his Department, and I hope the Minister will tell the House why he or his Department allowed R564 of the customer’s money to be poured down the drain in that way, because that is precisely what has happened to it. Perhaps he will also tell us why the public was taken for a ride on this rather costly return trip from “Woltemade” to “Mupark” and back without moving anything an inch ahead in the process.

The second example of the way in which the present monopolistic trends in the Railway Administration are operating adversely for the account of the customer is perhaps more alarming. Before I come to that example I will preface it by quoting from a writer in the Round Table who recently was discussing modern trends in transportation development in European countries, and who made this comparison in an article headed “Future of the Railways”—

Let me then give evidence to show how restrictive the choice of transport has become under this régime and how little regard is had at the present time to “special circumstances and personal taste”. Sir, the story I am about to tell is rather a long one but I shall try to be brief. An industrialist at Wadeville near Germiston had to move a 108-foot-long piece of machinery to Sasolburg where it was urgently needed for production purposes on 15 October 1963. This gentleman set about his business in good time; he set about the business (a) of plotting the route by road since the machinery could not be conveyed by rail; (b) of fixing the day and the time for moving this awkward piece of machinery; (c) of getting permission from the road authorities to use the selected roads for the purpose; (d) for arranging traffic police escort and (e) of finding a road haulier who specialized in the transportation of abnormal loads of this kind. Apparently this gentleman was able to negotiate those five steps quite successfully, and then his troubles commenced. An application had to be made to the Road Transportation Board for a permit to convey the load to its destination with the aid of a private haulier. The board, it is said, refused the application on the ground that the Road Motor Service could do the job. So the job went, per force, to the Railways who undertook to deliver the load at Sasolburg at 2 p.m. on 15 October. I quote now from a commercial journal to show what followed. I have only the authority of the journal for the facts set out here, but I have seen nothing to indicate that the facts set out here are not true. I quote—commencing under date 15 October:

16 October

the report then goes on to indicate that the application to the local board was renewed when it opened at 8.30 a.m. on the 17th; that a permit was granted and that the load departed for Sasolburg where it was placed on the site at 11.30 a.m. on 17 October, i.e. three hours after the permit had been acquired. As I say, this information in a commercial journal does not seem to have been refuted. Sir, I mention these two cases, to show how easily and readily monopolistic trends can beget administrative incompetency and inefficiency, particularly in an undertaking of the size and importance of the Railway Administration. I hope, Sir, that no one in the House will argue that what I have quoted here are simply isolated cases which can easily be remedied, because the journal from which I have quoted goes on to say this—

But in any event, both cases that I have quoted are glaring examples of administrative incompetency and inefficiency in respect of which I feel that assurances of correction are essential before money can justifiably be voted for the coming year. For these and other reasons I support the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn). I say this quite emphatically because I have a more recent instance to quote. On the very day that the hon. the Minister was giving this House a glowing account of what he called the gratifying operating results of the administration, a Press report appeared in a Port Elizabeth newspaper, on 4 March. The report is headed “S.A.R. Unable to meet city transport needs. Big backlog of finished goods await delivery.” Then the report goes on to say—

The report then goes on to give specific instances which I have no intention of reading out, although, of course, the report itself is available to the Minister or members of his Department if they wish to see it. It represents, obviously, an uninspired and seemingly exact statement of a situation which exists at an important railway centre, I mention it because of the need for re-emphasizing the difficulties with which the customer has to contend, because delays of this nature and other delays which I have mentioned are for account of the customer; they are not for the account of anybody else. When I emphasize this statement I do so for another reason as well. When the hon. the Minister presents estimates for spending just under R90,000,000 from loan funds in the coming year, we must have regard to the fact that the actual commitments on Capital and Betterment Works as at 1 April 1964 will be very much greater. The commitment involves the spending of some R500,000,000 over the next few years, most of it on railway expansion. Sir, I do not have the time to enlarge on that aspect of the matter but the fact is that once again beyond a rather jumbled mass of detail in the Brown Book, the House and the country are left quite in the dark as to how long it will take to complete this development programme; what it is expected to produce in the form of revenue and expenditure, for instance, and whether or not future capital commitments will be needed to cope with expected economic expansion at the present rate of growth. Those are matters which are vital if there is to be competency and efficiency and planning, but the House and the country are not informed about this. Sir, I mention the amount involved because betterment funds are so important in railway expansion. Although the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) mentioned that the various reserve funds were now in a good state, which is true, he rather slurred over the Betterment Fund. I deal with the Betterment Fund because although there has been the improvement to which the hon. member referred, this fund remains this skeleton in the Minister’s financial cupboard. Twice in recent years the Betterment Fund has been saved from insolvency by extraordinary financial manoeuvres instead of by normal appropriation. In 1959-60 it was saved from insolvency by a special contribution of R10,000,000 from Loan Funds, and in 1961-2 it was saved from insolvency by a still more extraordinary financial manoeuvre. By retro-active means a part of the surplus for 1961-2 was diverted back into the Financial year which had already been closed, and the books had to be reopened to accommodate the amount involved, i.e. R12,000,000. Only by that strange financial juggling was the fund kept solvent. For the coming year it is observed that no more is being appropriated to the Betterment Fund than is likely to be charged to it during the year. In other words, the fund is just being kept going. But experience has shown—and the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) confirms it by quotations which he made from Hansard of 1959—that this fund, amongst others, suffers when finances become strained. Accordingly it is short-sighted policy not to build up the funds to adequate proportions in times like this which the hon. the Minister has described as a period of “sustained quickening in the tempo of economic activity”. To leave the Betterment Fund in the rather precarious state in which it still is, in particular, but even more so in relation to other funds, calls I think for more explanation from the hon. the Minister than he has given the House, and I hope that he will deal with that in his reply. On the other hand, one gets the feeling that perhaps the hon. the Minister has by this time acquired a certain affection of his own for this skeleton in the cupboard and would like to keep it there. Either way I hope he will be able to satisfy the House as to why its fund is being kept in this almost precarious state in which it is.

I am pleased that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) who has just sat down eventually touched upon something serious in his speech because at the beginning he gave minor examples of instances where the railways had been unable to convey certain traffic offered. Mr. Speaker, if I were to give the instances where the railways have conveyed goods under even more difficult circumstances than in the case mentioned by the hon. member I shall still be standing here to-morrow morning. Nobody will deny that there are sometimes delays in the conveyance of goods but that also happens in the case of the private conveyer and perhaps much more often. I do not think, therefore, that there is much in the argument advanced by the hon. member.

But I want to return to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn). The hon. member tried to be very smart to-day. He took the right unto himself to accuse the Minister of not being in a position to plan ahead to meet the future economic growth. I should like to know in what a state we would have found ourselves had the Minister listened to Opposition advisers in the past. I think, for example, how in 1954 the former member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) who was the shadow Minister of Railways at the time, predicted that the Railways would close the year with a deficit of R20,000,000. What actually happened was that the Railways closed their financial year with a surplus of R16,000,000. Far from the Railways closing the year with a deficit the Railways closed with a large surplus and that hon. member made a total failure of his political career. In 1961 Mr. Russell wanted the Minister to revise his Estimates because we had left the Commonwealth. You will recall, Sir, how he carried on here as though the end of the world had come because we were no longer a member of the Commonwealth. He predicted that it would mean economic retrogression for South Africa and that it would have a very adverse affect on Railway revenue and yet the estimated deficit of R500,000 for 1961-2 was converted into a surplus of R14,000,000. There you have an example, Sir, of the unreliable predictions of the Jeremiahs on that side. I wonder what our position would have been had we followed their advice. You will remember, Sir, how they predicted last year that the 10 per cent tariff increase would have far-reaching affects on our economic growth and yet our economic development has been maintained at such a high level that we have this colossal surplus of R20,000,000 this year. In spite of that the hon. member says to the Minister: “Yes, we told you you would have a large surplus.” No, had the Minister listened to the Opposition it would not only have been necessary for him to increase the tariffs by 10 per cent in 1962 but he would have had to increase the tariffs every year in order to balance his books. If the Minister were to have listened to the gloomy predictions of the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) he would have had to increase the rates by at least 20 per cent per annum. The hon. member is playing the role of the clever person who always knows everything. He had the temerity to criticize the Minister for having been wrong in his estimates. The Opposition always knows everything except how to put a stop to the continuous deterioration of their own party. If they were to give a little more attention to that and plan a little further ahead, I think they would do much better, because I am afraid if they continue to budget as they have in the past year, we shall eventually be without an Opposition in this House. I think the time has arrived that they started to wake up.

I now come to last year’s Estimates and the hon. members’ criticism of the mistakes made in estimating the revenue and expenditure for the year 1963-4 incorrectly. I can only remind the hon. member that in 1941-2 Minister Sturrock …

You are now going very far into the past.

Why do you not reply to the points made by us?

In 1941-2 Minister Sturrock budgeted for a surplus of R89,000 and he closed the year with a surplus of a little over R24,000,000. He was, therefore, more than R24,000,000 out in his budgeting. That is nothing strange. It is very difficult for a Minister of Railways to estimate in advance what his revenue and expenditure will be because a great many factors influence his Estimates. For example the hon. the Minister budgeted for an income of R507,000,000; the actual revenue was R541,000,000. In other words, he was only 6.8 per cent out in his calculations. [Interjections.] Sir, if that hon. member is not interested in what I have to say he need not listen. I have every right to repudiate the accusations made here by the United Party and to defend the hon. the Minister. I think the United Party have been unfair towards the Minister. The Minister budgeted for an expenditure of R506,000,000 and the actual expenditure amounted to R523,000,000. That is a difference of 3.4 per cent. And what is so peculiar about that Mr. Speaker? A tremendous number of factors influence that. For instance the increase in the tonnage of traffic conveyed of necessity brings about increased expenditure. After the wages had been rationalized there was a consequent increase in expenditure. We had the increase in departmentally manufactured goods and so forth. That is nothing peculiar. I really feel, therefore, that the accusation levelled by the hon. member for Yeoville at the hon. the Minister is absolutely without any foundation. I think the hon. member for Yeoville should rather congratulate the hon. the Minister on having been so nearly correct in his budgeting.

However, I do not want to waste any more time on the Opposition. I want to raise a few points which I think not only we on this side of the House but the whole country appreciate and that is that in spite of the terrific economic upsurge in the country the railways have been able to convey practically all the traffic offered except in the case of coal, a matter which I believe will shortly also be put right. The hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. M. J. de la R. Venter), has already given the figures to indicate to what extent the tonnage of goods offered for conveyance has increased. He also referred to the terrific increase in the number of passenger trains and the increase in the number of passengers. I do not know when last you travelled by train, Mr. Speaker, but I can assure you that not only I, but numerous members of the public, when they have to undertake a long journey, prefer not to travel by car. They rather travel by train and in doing so they do not expose themselves to the risks they run on our public roads. They do it for that reason and also because they can really relax in that train. It has become a holiday for them. Recently I travelled for the first time in these South African manufactured passenger coaches to Durban. I really want to express the highest praise and appreciation to the Minister and the manufacturers of those coaches. The passenger coaches have improved to this extent that I think those South African manufactured passenger coaches are better than the coaches used for the Blue Train and the Orange Express. It is a pleasure to travel in them, and as the hon. member for Colesberg has said, the service in those coaches can definitely not be improved upon. Anybody who wants to relax can really take my advice and rather travel by train.

I cannot let this opportunity pass without conveying the gratitude and the appreciation of the maize farmers of South Africa to the Minister. We must remember what a tremendous increase there has been in the production of maize over the past few years. I may just say that the figures I have here I did not get from the Railways but from the Maize Board.

[Inaudible.]

I can assure the hon. member for Turffontein that the Maize Board is not a producer but I am a producer and the farmers whom I represent are producers. I have the right on their behalf to congratulate the Minister and the Administration on what they have achieved. In 1961-2 the maize crop was 53,000,000 bags. Local consumption was 24,250,000 bags and the railways had to convey 22,000,000 bags to our ports for export. In 1962-3 the crop was 64,000,000 bags; local consumption 27,000,000 bags and 26,270,000 bags had to be exported. In 1963-4, i.e. the past season, we harvested 64,900,000 bags; local consumption had increased to 28,000,000 bags and when the season closes we shall have the enormous number of 31,000,000 bags for export, and that is what the railways have to convey to the harbours for export. I want to point out that the Railways have given an undertaking to the Maize Board to convey 25,000,000 bags to the harbours for export. The railways ultimately conveyed 31,000,000 bags to the harbours. That includes the byproducts which are exported.

You have not read the Minister’s Budget speech.

I said a moment ago that these figures were supplied to me by the Maize Board in respect of their export season. Their year does not close on the same date as that of the Railways. I wish to point out to hon. members what it has meant to the maize farmers that the railways have been able to convey all the surplus maize to the harbours for export. In other words, we do not have to carry a surplus over to next year. It costs 34.5 cents to store one bag of mealies for a year. If we have to carry over 1,000,000 bags it will cost the maize farmers an enormous amount of money. It costs R345,000 per annum to store 1,000,000 bags of maize.

As far as the point made that a greater percentage of the traffic should be allocated to the private sector I am very sorry but I think we shall be creating a position dangerous to life. I think of the huge furniture vans which we already have on our roads and when the private sector has to convey more industrial products they will of necessity have to convey those in large vehicles. Such big vehicles are a great danger to the travelling public. When I think of the railways with its safely demarcated tracks and with its wonderful record as far as accidents are concerned, because there is proper management and administration, I think the safest way of conveying goods in this country is by rail.

I want to go further and point out what the South African Railways mean to the economy of this country. With the development to the level to which the railways have developed over the years the Railways have been the biggest single buyer of industrial and agricultural products in the country.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, it is there.

Order! The hon. member for Turffontein must not interrupt too often.

I want to show that the Railways is one of the most important, if not the most important, purchaser of our industrial and agricultural products. It is one of the buyers on whom commerce and industry can depend that they will at least be paid. I just want to raise a few matters briefly. The policy of the S.A. Railways is to buy South African wherever possible. During the financial year 1963-4 therefore the Railways bought no less than R35,000,000 worth of commercial goods from private undertakings, such goods as building material, iron, steel, etc. The large orders placed for rolling stock such as trucks and passenger coaches have led to the erection of new industries in South Africa, industries which specialize in railway requirements. The Railways also assisted those industrialists with technical advice so that they have been able to make a real success of their undertakings. Hence South African undertakings started in 1954 to manufacture rolling stock for the Railways. Up to six years ago every passenger coach, every truck and locomotive, etc., had to be imported and to-day every passenger coach, main line as well as suburban line passenger coach, and electric locomotive is manufactured in South Africa. That is the contribution which the S.A. Railways have made to the development of our industries.

I want to conclude by again pointing out that in 1962-3 purchases by the Railways amounted to the enormous amount of R136,000,000 of which R131,000,000 was spent on South African purchases. Mr. Speaker, you can gather from that what the South African Railways have actually meant to our industries. I just want to add that the huge salary cheque which the Railways pays to both its White and non-White workers means a tremendous amount to the economy of the country. I think for example of the benefit our smaller towns derive from it; towns which are served by the Railways. I want to mention my own town, Bethlehem, as example. It is only a small little place with not more than White inhabitants. Of those 10,000 no fewer than 1,000 are White railway servants. If you add their families it means that the railway servants of Bethlehem easily constitute one-third of the total population of that town. When I add that their annual cheque, together with that of the non-White workers, amount to R1,650,000, we can form an idea of what the Railways really mean to the economy of our smaller towns. If you were to take the railways away from Bethlehem, Sir. I can assure you it would mean a catastrophe to that town from which it will not easily recover.

I want to conclude by wishing the Minister and the General Manager and the staff strength and courage in the year that lies ahead, a year that will hold a much bigger challenge for them to meet. I want to give you the assurance, however, Mr. Speaker, that we on this side of the House and the public outside have confidence in the Minister and in the South African Railways.

Of course, I do not find it surprising that the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Knobel) and the hon. member who spoke before him found it necessary to thank the hon. the Minister a few times. I think that hon. members’ speeches must all be seen against the background of the considerable railway surplus. That surplus does of course give hon. members opposite cause for joy. I am sorry to say, however—and hon. members opposite know it just as well as I do—that this railway surplus is after all not exactly a matter of which one can rightly be proud because the Railways, as a monopolistic undertaking, ought not to find it at all difficult to fabricate a surplus—to put it plainly. Of course, I do not attribute anything of this nature to the hon. the Minister but the fact remains that a Minister like the present Minister may find it very simple, as a careful economist, to keep his revenue figure low and to increase his expenditure figure slightly—also, once again, as a careful economist—and in this way to show a considerable surplus. I say therefore, Mr. Speaker, that I do not resent the fact that hon. members opposite show a certain amount of pleasure under these circumstances.

I want now to discuss a matter which has nothing to do with the surplus. I believe that the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa imposes a particular obligation upon the Railways and Harbours Administration of South Africa. That duty requires in the first instance that the Railways be run on business lines, but not only on business lines; the Railways must also be run with due regard to the development of industry in the country. I believe that that responsibility that is placed on the Railways is vitally important. It will become even more important in the future for the simple reason that it is generally admitted to-day that large numbers of people in future generations will have to look for employment to our industries in the first instance. That is why it is so necessary that we should develop industries and that is why I say that it is very necessary for the Railways to give particular emphasis to this responsibility which the Constitution has placed upon them.

If the Railways want to fulfil that obligation it appears to me that its prime responsibility is to keep pace with the economic development of the country, or, to narrow it down more, the industrial development of our country. This appears to me to be the primary duty of the Railways. But there is also to my mind a far more important and far-reaching duty, if I am interpreting the Constitution correctly, resting upon the shoulders of the Railways. That duty is not simply to keep pace with development but to plan transport in such a way that it will encourage and promote the industrial development of the country. This to my mind is an extremely important obligation which rests upon the Railways. I do not think that we can expect the Railways to fulfil that obligation on its own. I do believe that it ought to be within the ability of the Railways to get the bodies and State Departments concerned to co-operate with it in order to fulfil that particular responsibility. It must have liaison with those bodies and I believe that the responsibility for having that liaison rests upon the shoulders of the Railways. In that respect I believe that the Railways has perhaps not done its duty up to the present to the extent imposed upon it by the Constitution. For example, I find nothing in the present Estimates to indicate to me that the Railways intend to do very much more than keep pace with economic development. When I read the Budget speech, I gain the impression that the Railways are prepared to follow on behind our economic and industrial development. Hardly anywhere do I find signs that the Railways realize that they are a dynamic factor in the economic and industrial development of South Africa. What would I like to read in the Budget speech when I think of his dynamic factor? I think particularly of the Western Cape. I would like to hear from the hon. the Minister what he intends doing to give assistance to this area which is being heavily hit at various levels as a direct result of the railway transport policy. We have here a population of about 1,200,000. This includes the Coloured population of about 650,000. We are the second largest industrial area in South Africa and on the basis of production and employment we are already responsible for ±16 per cent of the industrial activity in the country. We are making a valuable contribution towards the earning of foreign currency. The wine, fish and canning industries alone bring between R60,000,000 and R70,000,000 into the country each year. What is more, Sir, the largest clothing manufacturing centre in the whole of the Republic is situated in the Western Cape. Over and above this we also have numbers of industries. It is not necessary for me to mention all of them. We have the engineering industry; we know that boats are built at our Cape harbours and at other places; we know that articles are being produced in a variety of industries here in the Western Cape.

In spite of all this progress we in the Western Cape are nevertheless unable to offer our growing population employment—I am speaking of the White people in the first instance. We find that a gradual exodus of Whites is taking place northwards. lust look at the figures for the latest general registration, Mr. Speaker. This exodus has been going on for years and I think that the time has come for us to put a stop to it, otherwise the Western Cape will be the step-child of the Republic of South Africa within a few years.

I mention these things because I believe that the Railways have the key to one of our difficulties. Take our Coloured population. I believe that the Western Cape has a specific duty towards the Coloured people. My hon. friends opposite talk about homelands. The Western Cape is the homeland of the Coloureds. In the first instance, we must give them work here. They have shown over and over again that they are primarily suited for the light type of industry that is coming into being here in the Western Cape. [Interjections.] If the hon. member will give me a chance, I shall tell him what I want.

What does the Western Cape need? When we discuss the question with industrialists, the people who know more about these matters than I do, the first thing they tell us is that of all the factors adversely affecting industrial development in the Western Cape, transport is the most important. I do not have the time to deal with all the factors that hamper us in this connection; they cover a wide field. I just want to discuss a few of the more obvious of them. The first one that I want to mention is the geographical fact that the industries of the Western Cape have to compete on the largest market in South Africa—the north— from a distance of about 1,000 miles: they have to compete although they are hampered by extremely high transport costs. In the second place, we have the position that products that are essential for industrial development, such as coal and steel, have to be transported down here over a distance also of about 1,000 miles.

Whose fault is that?

The hon. member knows whose fault it is. If I had been speaking in English I would have said: “What a profound thought!” We know that coal is one of our most important sources of power to-day. It comes from the Rand and surrounding areas, a distance of more than 1,000 miles. The fact of the matter is simply that when the coal reaches Cape Town it costs us about three times as much in transport costs as the basic mining price on the Rand. I want to give the House the figures, Mr. Speaker. I have the figures here for 1961 and I take it that these figures have increased in the meantime. In 1961 the Cape Town Municipality took delivery of ± 543,000 tons of coal. The Municipality paid the mines R638,000 for this coal but the transport account for that quantity of coal was not R638,000 or less; it was R1,965,000—more than three times as much as the cost of the coal at the mine!

Are you advocating lower tariffs?

Will the hon. member please listen. I am advocating something which is of very great importance to me. I know that the hon. member is not from the Cape but I hope that he will be silent until I have concluded my argument. Escom at Salt River ordered approximately 393,000 tons of coal. They paid R452,000 for the coal and the transport expenses amounted to R1,494,000, once again, more than three times as much. When we add up these amounts we find that the transport expenses are three times as high as the cost of the coal at the mines. I can go on in this way. And coal is not used only for generating electricity. Industries and trade in Cape Town use about a further million tons of coal for trade and industrial purposes. If we keep these figures in mind we will realize the tremendous cost factor which we in the Western Cape have to contend with when we speak about transport. It is unnecessary for me to emphasize, Sir, the great influence that this has on the ability of the Western Cape to compete on the Rand markets. There is the question of steel. I do not want to deal with this matter. Here again one has to deal with high transport costs. As we all know, steel plays a very important role in industrial development.

There are other factors that have just as adverse an effect upon industry in the Cape. When one considers these factors it is not surprising that the industrialists maintain that transport is to-day one of the most important factors adversely affecting industrial development in the Western Cape. The hon. the Minister cannot tell me that he is unaware of these facts. Neither can he also be unaware of the necessity for the Western Cape to increase its industrial production in order to provide employment for its increasing population. The hon. the Minister ought to know quite well that if the Railway Administration wants to take positive action, it can alleviate this position. The hon. the Minister ought to know that too. This is not the first time that this matter has been raised. Nevertheless, to my sorrow as an inhabitant of the Western Cape, I find nothing in the Estimates to indicate to me that the Railways are even aware of this assistance that they can give, nothing that indicates to me that the Railways are going to do anything in this regard. I admit that the solution is not obvious. I know that it is an involved problem but it ought not to be beyond the ability of the Railways to find a solution to this problem by giving the lead to and having liaison with other bodies concerned in this matter. It is only when they give that guidance and have that liaison and plan ahead that the Railways will be able to play a dynamic role in the economic of South Africa and not simply keep pace with that development or follow on behind it.

I want to mention another part of the country which is affected in this way. Unfortunately, I did not tell the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. G. de K. Maree) about this. There is a similar position there, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Namaqualand knows about it and I hope that he will support me. There are no railways there for hundreds of miles. The whole of the transport system of Namaqualand is under the control of, I think, two firms. The most important transport route from Bitterfontein to Springbok up to Port Nolloth is controlled by one firm, a firm which, while the Railways showed a transport loss of thousands of rand on their Road Motor Transport Services, paid a dividend of 17 per cent to its shareholders in 1962. That firm has sole transport rights on the main arterial road of Namaqualand. That area in which the mining of minerals has scarcely been started is an area in regard to which the hon. member for Namaqualand waxed lyrical on previous occasions. He waxed lyrical in regard to the potential of that area. I do not blame him for doing so. It may perhaps be an area about which one can wax lyrical. It is an area which has to-day been left to the mercy of one, or possibly, two, transport firms which control its entire transport system.

Apart from the economic position, Mr. Speaker, there is the strategic position to which the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) referred. This is a matter for advanced planning. This is where the Railways have the opportunity to play a dynamic role in our economic development—a line to run from Bitterfontein with a possible junction at Karasburg. What is wrong with that? It cannot be beyond the potential of the Railways. It is for this reason that I say that when I go through these Estimates I find that the Railways are prepared to tell us that they are trying to keep pace with the economic and industrial development. I have no fault to find with that. But I am disappointed in the Railways in that they do not plan further than the day ahead even though we are on the threshold of tremendous economic prosperity. I believe that if the Railways want to fulfil the obligation imposed upon them by the Constitution, they must look further than a day ahead; they must act dynamically, they must take the lead. They must not be prepared simply to sit still and allow industry to take the lead and be content to follow on behind. The Railways must take the lead.

The hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) suggested that the Railways were doing nothing to promote our economic development. I think that is the worst distortion of the facts that I have ever heard.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “distortion”.

I withdraw it. Had it not been for the Railways, we would not have been able to progress to the stage that we have reached to-day. The hon. member for Maitland also mentioned the question of wages. He was anticipating the report of the Schumann Commission. We know that that report will be tabled soon. It would have been better for the hon. member to have given evidence before the Commission than to have wasted the time of the House in regard to a matter in regard to which finality has not yet been reached.

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) suggested, I might say, that the hon. the Minister had made the expenditure of the Railways higher than its revenue in order to show a reasonable surplus. I think that that is absolutely untrue. I am sure that the hon. member is aware of the fact that that is not so. Hon. members also showed a sudden concern about pensions. Why did they not during all the years in which their Government was in power show so much concern about this matter? What did they care what a person received when he retired on pension? What is more, they were never concerned about the White employees either. The White worker had daily to run the risk of being retrenched and being replaced by a Coloured or a Bantu. I do not want to discuss this matter but we know that it happened, and on a large scale. The hon. member for Yeoville also said that it would only be the interior of the country which would benefit from the decreased railway tariff on petrol. I am sure that the hon. member is aware of the fact that for many years the public at the coast have had the advantage of cheaper petrol while we in the interior have had to pay more for our petrol. Do not begrudge the interior that concession. Mention was also made of the number of resignations from the Railway service. It is true that there have been a number of resignations from the Railway service. We find that 32,951 Whites resigned during the past three years and that 15,216 were reemployed between 1961 and 1963. We must take into consideration the fact that there were many more applications for re-employment but many of the former employees were not considered for re-employment because they did not give satisfaction or were paid off for some reason or other. During the time that I have been a member of this House many people admitted to me that they had resigned but had been re-employed within a month. I know of numbers of cases of people who admitted that they had acted stupidly in resigning from the Railway service. They also applied for re-employment in the Railway service. The reason for this is obvious. There is no undertaking today which gives better privileges to its employees than the Railways. Mention was also made of a staff shortage. According to the latest figures, 37,543 immigrants came to South Africa during 1963, 19,282 more than in 1962. The Government is doing its duty in regard to immigration and the Railways are also receiving their rightful share of these immigrants. Some of the immigrants to this country are also joining the Railway service.

What percentage of them?

During the period of nine years from 1956 to 1964 the Railway Administration made 463 bursaries available for the training of assistant engineers, of whom there was a shortage of 124, at a total cost of R735,621. There are a further 83 who have not been taken into account. The result was that 174 of the 181 who completed their courses, joined the service of the Administration. During the period April 1962 to March 1963, 1,454 matriculants were employed by the Railway Administration in comparison with 764 the previous year. This is of course due to an improved recruiting campaign. The training facilities that are available at Esselen Park are amongst the best in the world. A total of 2,780 officials were trained there during 1962-3. This is something which ought to attract staff. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether more of these colleges cannot be established —for example, in the Cape or in Natal. I think that this is of the greatest importance. Once these people have been trained, even in the case of the non-Whites, they become far more competent than they were previously. One notices this, for example, in regard to the loading and off-loading of goods and the fact that less damage is caused than was previously the case when unskilled non-Whites were used for this work. Bursaries were also made available for the training of engineers, chemists and other technical staff. As far as housing is concerned the Railways merit the highest praise. There are good pension benefits and attractive starting salaries and these factors ought to attract more people to the service. Indeed, in his Budget Speech the hon. the Minister said (translation)—

I cannot neglect to congratulate the General Manager and the hon. the Minister and staff, from the most senior down to the most junior, on this Budget and the manner in which the work has been done to ensure that everything has gone off smoothly. They must all be given the credit in this regard. The United Party adopts the attitude that the only thing they have to do is to criticize although we never have constructive criticism from them. But the United Party is gradually becoming aware of the fact that this hon. Minister is the right Minister in the right place. I remember how the former hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) told the hon. the Minister last year that he was convinced that the hon. the Minister would have a far larger surplus this year. Previously they branded the hon. the Minister as a second-class Minister but they are now beginning to realize that the Railways are in good hands.

When we think of the orders that are being placed in the Republic to-day for rolling stock, we feel that if the United Party were still in Government to-day, the bulk of these orders would be placed overseas. I make so bold as to say this because it was the policy of the United Party to say: Why should we develop the industries of the country on a large scale? Why should we have iron and steel factories? We can obtain all these goods from overseas.

That is not true.

The hon. member knows that is true. The hon. Minister told us that an order has been placed for 130 electric locomotives costing R16,000,000 most of which would be manufactured from South African materials. There is a further order for 100 locomotives costing R13,000,000. It is undeniable that this country is becoming self-sufficient and the Railways are to-day one of the undertakings enabling thousands of people to find their niche in life and to live a decent life, White as well as non-White. These people do not run the risk of being dismissed at any time, as happened during the period of office of the United Party when 22,000 Whites were paid off and 22,000 non-Whites were employed in their place. I also want to congratulate the hon. the Minister and the Administration on the new coaches and dining-cars. I have not travelled in more comfortable coaches and I am convinced that this fact will attract tourists and will also have the result that our own people will make less use of their cars, particularly having regard to the fact that our roads are so dangerous to-day.

The amount spent on Railway stores totalled R136,324,891, of which goods to the value of R131,247,708 were purchased in our country. This means that goods to the value of only R5,000,000 were purchased abroad. This gives us an idea of the progress we are experiencing. One thing I cannot understand—perhaps the hon. the Minister can explain it to me—is why losses are still being incurred on the bedding and catering services. Each year there is a loss. When I travel by train and I see the number of people who make use of the dining-cars and the bedding service I simply cannot understand why these services always show a loss.

The hon. the Minister mentioned the shortage of shunters and said that this shortage was a disturbing factor. The hon. the Minister will remember that I have broken a lance for the shunters each year simply because in my opinion these people perform some of the most dangerous work that is performed in the country. Not only is it dangerous work but they have to work under all sorts of weather conditions, rain, hail or snow. Other people can seek shelter but the shunting work has to be done because the trains have to leave on time. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister and his capable staff cannot work out some scheme or other, perhaps in the form of a bonus that can be paid to these people each month, in order to make the work more attractive? I know that they were recently given an increase in salary which compared well with the increase given to ticket examiners but I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that I heir work is certainly far more dangerous than the work of a ticket examiner. The hon. the Minister is aware of this fact and I do not think that any of the Railway staff will take umbrage if the hon. the Minister assists those people in some way or another, even if it is by way of a bonus.

I would like to make a few remarks in regard to level crossings. I have here a memorandum by the A.A. which gives us a clear picture of the position. In his Report the General Manager states [translation]—

We know that the Administration is doing its best in this regard with the funds at its disposal. Unfortunately, my time is almost up, but last year I suggested that we should make use of flashing lights and half-arm booms, and I am still convinced that if we do so, we will be able to reduce the number of accidents. These precautions are taken in other countries with great success. What is more, it costs R50,000 to build a good bridge or subway, but this amount of R50,000 could be used for the purposes of erecting flashing lights and booms and half-arm gates at about 30 level crossings so as to afford more protection to the public. I hope that the hon. the Minister will give his attention to this matter. I raised this question last year as well. It is a matter which is very close to my heart because of the number of accidents that occur at level crossings, although the number of these accidents cannot be compared with the number of accidents on the open road. The reason why accidents at level crossings are given more prominence in the Press is because they are often gruesome accidents. I hope that the hon. the Minister will consider the suggestions that I have made.

Listening to the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. P. J. Coetzee) it was difficult to follow the thread of his argument, as he left the rails quite often, but he did get back now and again. As a member of the United Party I would like to nail down one of his statements, that when we were in power it was our policy to replace Whites by Natives and Coloureds. That is not so. The hon. member should not get up and address this House and make wild statements. He should withdraw the statement.

The hon. Minister of Transport in his Budget speeches in 1962, 1963 and 1964 followed a very similar pattern. In 1962, he said—

In 1963—

Then the other day he told us—

That I think is the whole gist of the three Budget statements. Mr. Speaker, when you examine the Budgets closely, you realize the hasty step that the Minister took in September 1962 when he increased the railway tariffs by 10 per cent. It now is clear that that was quite unnecessary. As he said, he would have met any possible short-fall from the Rates Equalization Fund, but he told us he was not prepared to do so. As it turned out, the 1963-4 Budget shows a surplus which could have been used to cover any short-fall without touching the Rates Equalization Fund. These three Budgets, and particularly the last one, notwithstanding the statement that he made about the increased tempo of industrial development in this country and the great confidence that industrialists have for the coming year, shows that the Minister himself has not got that confidence in South Africa’s economy. His whole approach to the Budget has been one of lack of confidence. I do not know whether he is expecting a sudden upheaval somewhere. It is a conservative approach to the whole financing of the Railways. This year he produces a record surplus of R20,000,000— it may be even more—and then he promptly ploughs it all back into the service again. There was no announcement by the hon. Minister of any tariff relief other than the one cent per gallon to the motorists. I would like to ask the hon. Minister: What about industry, what about the users of diesel fuel, the users of coal? I would like to say this: The hon. Minister’s whole approach to the 10 per cent increase was unrealistic. It has, as the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) pointed out, affected the Western Cape very heavily. At a meeting of the Cape Chamber of Industries, Mr. C. S. Marx, a past president of the Cape Chamber of Industries said—

That he said at a meeting convened to seek ways of encouraging industrial development in the Western Cape. At the same meeting, Mr. D. Benade, the vice-President of the South African Federated Chamber of Industries said that it was transport costs which were stifing industries in the Western Cape. He said—

He mentioned the fact that it cost 36 cents less per 1,000 pound to rail manufactured goods from the Transvaal to Port Elizabeth than from Transvaal to Cape Town, although the distance was 37 miles longer. He added that this was unjust discrimination.

Mr. Speaker, this is in line with another report we have. Mr. R. M. Lee, director of the Cape Chamber of Industries, said that the “tapering” in railway rates in South Africa was much less per 100 miles than it was in other large countries, like Australia and the United States—

We can only hope in the Western Cape that the hon. Minister when he delivers his reply will make some announcement that he is going to give us some relief as far as the railing of coal is concerned so as to reduce the cost of power for industries and when the Schumann Commission’s Report is submitted, I hope that the unequal and unfair rates which discriminate against the Western Cape will disappear.

The hon. member for Maitland quite rightly drew attention to the constitution of this country relating to the communication of the Railways. According to my interpretation of the Constitution, the Railways are to be run for the benefit of the whole of the country, not necessarily at a loss, but they should offer the cheapest possible transport to the user. The Minister has said that in South Africa we have the benefit of probably the cheapest rates in the world, but that is no argument. It is the duty of the Railway Administration to offer the cheapest possible rates to the user. It has been said that the Railways are a monopoly. Well, of course that is so. The Railways control not only rail and road traffic, but also sea traffic to a certain extent, through controlling the harbours. They can dictate the tariffs to be charged and there is very little that the public or industry can do about it. On the other hand, industry has to plan economically and if they cannot cope with the costs they have to go out of business or move their factories nearer their markets and supplies. Of course this whole tendency is against the line of the policy of decentralizing industry in this country. It is one of the points being examined at the moment by the Schumann Commission and we are pleased to hear from the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) that this report will be available in April. We have been awaiting this report and it will be interesting to see what its recommendations are. I do not think we should wait until then. With the tremendous surplus the Minister has, the country will expect him in his reply to this debate to give some indication that he is prepared to reduce tariffs all round. The Minister, in ploughing back his surpluses year after year, considers that this is sound business, but if he were running the Railways as a private concern and the people of South Africa were the shareholders, they would like some return on their money. But the Minister ploughs back this money and the shareholders, the railway users, get very little for it. The Minister of Transport is following a pattern that we have seen on that side of the House over the years, that from revenue considerable sums of money have been used for capital undertakings. I feel that to-day, with the money market being what it is, and subscription lists being oversubscribed forty times, the Minister should take a tip from that and let posterity pay for some of the capital development on the Railways and let the present users have some relief in the way of reduced tariffs.

Over the last year we have seen build-ups of ships in the various harbours. We have also seen ships waiting in Cape Town and other ports for maize. There has been a shortage of trucks. We have also seen what happened in Port Elizabeth, where a quick switchover of traction had to be made from steam to diesel, and in the Supplementary Estimates we had to vote large sums of money for the purchase of those locomotives. One gets the impression that the planning of the Railways over the years has been piecemeal. I think the Minister, in his conservative approach and his anxiety to come to this House with a surplus every year to prove that he is a good Minister, is rather stifling the development of the Railways. I feel there should be a completely new look as far as the planning on the Railways is concerned. They should at least put forward a plan to us in this House of what they are going to do over the next ten years. I think the Minister should have confidence in the country that the prosperity we see to-day is not just here to-day and gone to-morrow but will be with us for some time. Financial journals throughout the country have predicted that the prosperity will last for some time, and I think the Minister should plan accordingly and not do this piecemeal planning.

I think the Minister should also re-examine the position of his road motor transport services. The rates charged by that service, should be the same as those charged on the Railways, and there should not be this difference between the two. It should be treated as one service. As the Minister is looking at some of the unprofitable services on the Railways, I think he should look at some of his road services and see whether private enterprise would not be interested in taking over some of these services.

I wish they would.

Well, I think the Minister should let them know that. When the oil companies some time ago offered to deliver petrol throughout the country, this offer was rejected. At present the Railways have capital invested in road tankers to deliver petrol, whereas the oil companies offered to do it but the Railways turned it down, and they offered very favourable terms to the Railways. I am certain that if it were known generally that the Railways were prepared to hand over some of the road motor services to private enterprise, there will be quite a number of takers. Because one has to remember that a private concern can operate very much cheaper than the Railways because they do not have these terrific overheads of capital investment. The hon. member for Maitland quoted the example of the North-West Cape, where one of the biggest transport concerns outside the Railways operates at a profit, so much so that one cannot buy their shares. That gives us some idea of what can happen when road transportation is operated by a private concern. I am sure the Minister could hand over certain routes to private enterprise. But at the same time I think the Minister, in his very strict ruling as far as new lines are concerned, should relax and take note of the fact that the Railways are there to expand the economy of the country, and he should give consideration to linking up and opening parts of the country. I can think of a line near Cape Town, between Pro tern and Swellendam, which was laid but never completed. It should be linked to Swellendam. It might be uneconomic, but at the same time it will be of the greatest assistance to the farmers in that area. I also think of the fruit-growing districts round about Port Elizabeth, where there is a narrow gauge line going right up to Avontuur. The Minister should give consideration to widening it. All these things will assist our economy and the Minister should give consideration to them.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat said the Minister is suffering from a lack of confidence. I think hon. members opposite have now grown into the habit of saying things and then dropping them without elaborating upon them. I was anxious to hear why the Minister lacks confidence, but I could not find anything in the hon. member’s speech to give us any indication of that. A little later he said the Minister should reduce all tariffs. I think that is the greatest nonsense in the world. When one is in business, and begins to make a profit, one does not, knowing that those profits may be of a temporary nature only go and cut one’s own throat.

R30 million? What a neck!

The position is that the Railways have gone through a difficult time, and we know why; we know who controlled the Railways before. The National Government placed it on a sound footing, so that it is now developing into a stable business which is not there just to stimulate the economy, but also to provide employment for a large part of our population. It is no good gambling here with a business such as that. You have to plan carefully.

However. I wish to proceed. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) this afternoon proposed his amendment that the House declines to go into Committee of Supply on the Railway Estimates unless and until the Minister has satisfied it that he has a policy designed to do certain things, and then he made certain submissions. Two of those have already been dealt with by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg), but the other submission he made was to develop our harbours to meet the requirements of our commerce. I should like to ask the hon. member for Yeoville whether he is convinced the statement he made here is true. Is he prepared to say unequivocally that he wants to reject the Estimates for this reason? I shall like to say this to him: If he undertakes a little trip, beginning at the harbour of Durban, and visiting Island View, he will see what the National Government has done to improve the oil storage places there. If he goes a little further and looks at the second refinery there, and sees what the administration has done to assist in the development of those places, and the capital that has been invested in them, and if he goes a little further and looks at the dock facilities that have been established, and if he looks at the telescopic gangway that has been provided for the convenience of passengers passing through the customs, he will see everything that has been done. I think if the hon. member were to go and look at those places, he would find that the Government and the Minister and his Administration as such are keeping abreast of the development of the economy of the country.

The hon. member could also go further and look at the facilities provided at Maydon Wharf and at other wharves for loading maize and coal, etc. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Timoney) pecked here and pecked there, and he said the ships are lying in the harbours and cannot get all the maize they have to load, but that is not true. The Railways bring along the maize gradually throughout the year, but one never knows just when the ships are going to arrive. Some of them arrive late, and the shipping space is obtainable only when they are in port, and all those things have to be arranged, and that takes time. How can he say maize is not being conveyed properly from the harbours?

We can go a little further, to East London, but before leaving Durban, I should like to say this. If the Report of the General Manager for this year is referred to, it will be seen that the cost of certain facilities at the wharf to handle traffic is approximately R1,735,000, according to the Estimates. But if we refer to the Brown Book, we see the total estimated cost is R42,000,000 for work already in hand, of which R22,000,000 has already been spent, and now the Estimates provide for a further R6,500,000 from loan funds, and there is an extra R2,500,000 for renewals from the Renewals Fund. So approximately R9,000,000 is being provided, to be spent on the various harbours for overhauling, etc. in connection with the development of our harbours. But the amounts I have now mentioned relate only to works not completed as yet. There are other works that have been completed already.

If we go further to East London, we find a turning-basin made for ships to turn in, and we see all the facilities that have been provided for loading maize, as well as the wharfing facilities for the discharge of goods and various other facilities. There is the dry dock too. We know these dry docks are not worth very much except in time of war, for in normal times they show a loss, but we also realize these dry docks are there to perform a great task. Many ships call at our harbours which unfortunately cannot be repaired in other parts of the world, but here they are able to obtain those facilities.

If we proceed further, we come to Port Elizabeth, and we see the facilities provided there for the loading of wool and maize, as well as the new wharfing facilities. At Mossel Bay we find a new oil pipeline leading from the sea, also a facility provided for the development of our economy by the Minister. But now we come to Cape Town, and we find that because of the improvement of the dry docks, this dry dock at the present time is one of the best in the world for accommodating and repairing the great oil tankers. Some of the very biggest ships make use of the docks for repairs, and this provides employment for numbers of our people, and we are keeping pace with the developments in any modern harbour. Moreover, in Cape Town we have the widening of the entrance to the Duncan Dock to enable bigger ships to enter. We know how much money is being spent there. We also know that an amount of approximately R880,000 is being spent on this new Duncan Dock, according to the Estimates. New oil tanker berths are being provided and a new refinery is being built and oil pipes have to be provided for it. We know also that in Simonstown certain facilities are being controlled by the Administration, and in Walvis Bay too. Now I should like to ask the hon. member for Yeoville, in view of all these developments, which are keeping fully abreast of the development in our economy, does he really think he ought to level all this criticism at the Minister? We know that our harbours are of such a nature that they can deal adequately with the handling of ships. It does happen occasionally that we see ten or 12 ships lying outside the harbour, even at Durban, but with all the modern facilities provided those ships are all unloaded and loaded again within a very short while. Such congestion frequently occurs as a result of bad weather. But the harbours of South Africa are of such a standard that they are doing good work, and we can only say to the Minister he should carry on because he enjoys the confidence of the country. During the last recess I visited several industrialists and I found there were very few complaints if any, in regard to their imports and exports at the harbours. There simply are no complaints, and that is only as a result of the good planning and the good work done by the Administration.

Then I should like to touch upon another small matter in connection with the fourth point mentioned by the hon. member for Yeoville in regard to the national transport system and the monopolistic role played by our Railways in our transport. The hon. member for Yeoville desires, in view of our continuing economic development, that the so-called monopolistic role played by the Railways in the transport of South Africa be reviewed. The dominant role of the Railways is as follows: I think it must be accepted that the Railways as a Government undertaking, is playing a dominant role in our transport. In numerous other countries of the world the same thing occurs. But although the Railways may be playing a dominant role, the role of road transport is not negligible. It must be remembered that the Motor Carrier Transportation Act places the Railways and the private carrier in exactly the same position under the Act. In other words, the Railways are subject to the provisions of that Act to the same extent as the public. What is the position now? Do the Railways monopolize transport in South Africa? I do not think so. A right of existence is undoubtedly being granted to the private carrier. In spite of all the restrictions, the number of commercial vehicles doubled itself during the period 1930 to 1943 from 16,000 to 32,000. From 1943 it has increased from 32,000 to 230,000 in 1960. In other words, over a period of 17 years, the average annual increase of commercial vehicles was 11,647. Surely that is not possible in a country in which Railways monopolize transport.

Let us consider the road transport services of the Railways. In 1960 the Railways owned a total of 8,296 units, including 5,256 used exclusively for delivery services, as against 198,500 vehicles owned by private road carriers. Surely that does not look like a Railway monopoly. Let us consider goods traffic. In 1957 the finding of the Bureau of Economic Enquiry was that in 1957 67 million tons of goods traffic were carried by road carriers, as against 75 million by the Railways. The motor Carrier Transportation Act has not given the Railways any extended powers since then. What happened in fact was that in 1954 certain concessions were made in favour of private road carriers, inter alia for carrying coal, fresh fruit and other commodities. In 1959 a start was made with the withdrawal of these concessions, and it may be assumed that private carriers had to forfeit a considerable amount of traffic. Since then they have definitely benefited more by the higher level of economic development since 1961. Railways goods traffic has increased to 94 million tons. Informed circles, however, consider that 75 million tons of goods is a conservative estimate of the goods traffic carried per annum in South Africa at the present time. Dr. Verburgh says in his book that both railway and road traffic increased by approximately 55 per cent during the years 1950 to 1960. Under such circumstances surely there cannot be a question of a railway monopoly.

Let us proceed and see what protection the S.A. Railways offers us. However, there are no good reasons why the Railways, from the point of view of general national interest, ought not to be protected against unrestricted road competition or even against a considerable relaxation of the Motor Carrier Transportation Act. Firstly, South Africa cannot afford that a capital investment which on 31 March 1963 amounted to R1,695,000,000. and which at the present time surely must be close on R1,800,000,000, should not be utilized to the full. Secondly, the effect of that could mean a serious blow to Railway finances It is known that road transportation is interested only in the high tariff traffic, in other words, the more profitable traffic. The Viljoen Commission confirmed this in its report. Moreover, the Railways as a State undertaking, is also obliged to carry non-paying traffic.

Thirdly, there are the national roads and the incidence of accidents. Our national roads have not been constructed to carry exceptionally heavy traffic. When we look at the serious accidents that have occurred in our country during the past month, we find that two were caused by big lorries carrying furniture. If we were to open up the roads to all these big lorries and buses for the conveyance of such traffic, we will find that the roads would become much more dangerous and the incidence of accidents would greatly increase.

But what is the point of view of the United Party? I think the hon. member for Yeoville should tell us whether he is advocating a free choice of transport. Is he in favour of the cheapest form of transport being preferred for the carriage of our goods? If he says yes, I should like to ask the hon. member whether he is in favour of unrestricted road competition. If he says no, I should like to ask him whether he is in favour of the Railways not enjoying any protection? It does appear to me that his reply may be summarized as yes and no, in the same way that his party has become a yes-and-no party.

Mr. Speaker, I think we have now arrived at a stage where the Opposition are having difficulty in criticizing the Minister of Transport. The four points they have put here in their amendment will be torn to shreds by other speakers on this side, and have already been mangled to such an extent that I do not know how they can ask the electorate outside to put them in power. I cannot see how they can improve upon the good work of the Minister; I cannot see how they can overhaul the Administration in the way the Minister has done. They had the opportunity in the past, when they were in power, to do so. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Timoney) asked just now that the Minister should please tell him what is going to happen in the course of the next ten years. If they are so dense that they are unable to see what has happened during the past 15 years, they will certainly not be able to discern what is going to happen in the course of the next ten years. Those hon. members would be amazed if they could foresee what is going to happen in the course of the next ten years.

The hon. member for Edenvale (Mr. G. H. van Wyk) has discoursed learnedly this afternoon on the question of harbours, and bearing in mind the distance that his constituency is from the sea I cannot help thinking that with his nautical knowledge he will make a very welcome addition to the Swiss Navy. I trust that he will forgive me if I do not follow his voyage around the harbours of the Republic; I know that there will be other members on this side of the House, who, I am sure, will deal more than adequately with harbour aspects in this particular debate.

During the speech of the hon. the Minister earlier he referred to the fact that the South African Railways and Harbours Administration was the largest employer of labour in the Republic, and I think that is a claim that is well-founded because the numbers of people employed by the South African Railways and Harbours exceed the quarter million mark. I wish to speak on behalf of almost half this number comprising the non-White members of the staff employed by the hon. the Minister. I feel that in this matter of the salaries which non-White employees are receiving, the State could give the country a lead, but instead of doing that it is tagging along in the wake of private enterprise. I wish to quote certain figures to demonstrate my opinion on this matter, and I make no apology for going into figures because many of the figures which I am going to quote, unlike those which have been quoted by hon. members opposite this afternoon, do not appear in the Report of the General Manager. If we take the latest figures —and I am quoting from the publication Commerce and Industry—we find that there are 106,489 non-Whites (this is the September 1963 figure) earning R3,261,000 and if one does a simple arithmetical calculation one arrives at an average earning figure of R30.6 per month. Working on the same basis, from the same publication, if one takes the earnings and the number of Whites employed one finds that the average earnings of a White person amount to R172 per month. Sir, in reply to a question which I addressed to the hon. the Minister earlier this Session, I received certain figures in connection with the number of non-Whites employed on the Railways, and here I am including the Bantu, the Coloured and the Indians, but I am referring particularly to the Bantu in this matter. The hon. the Minister gave me figures in respect of the non-White employees in the Railway Service earning under R2 per day and those earning over R2 per day. The figure given to me by the Minister was that the total number of employees was 107,920, of whom 105,731, approximately 98 per cent, were earning less than R2 per working day. Sir. I am aware that certain non-White employees are in receipt of rations or allowances for rations and quarters, but the number in receipt of these advantages is only 44,000, so that although their actual total earnings may be in excess of R2 per day, it does not affect the overall figure because the total number earning less than R2 per day is over 100,000, as I have said. But if we make a comparison from industry and commerce—and here I refer to the January copy of Bantu—it would appear that in so far as non-White wage earners in the south-western townships of Johannesburg are concerned, only 12.6 per cent, against 98 per cent on the Railways, are earning less than R3 per day, and that there has been a marked improvement in the position of these people because in 1957 41.8 per cent of them were earning less than R2 per day. I would like to trace the position briefly from 1962 because figures are available from that date. In 1962 I addressed a question to the Minister asking him how many non-White employees were in receipt of salaries of between R30 and R40 per month. The answer was that there were approximately 11,000 and that there were 6,086 earning salaries between R40 and R50 per month, which means that 84 per cent of the non-Whites were earning under R30 per month at the time. Here again one must be fair, some of them may have been receiving a certain amount by way of rations and an allowance for quarters. I go back to 1962, Sir, in order to try to establish some sort of relationship between earnings and living costs. At that time professor Horwood disclosed as the result of a survey which he had conducted that he considered that the minimum for a Bantu urban family of five—and five seems to be an average which is accepted by most surveys as being a reasonable figure for an urban family—required to live just above the poverty line was about R52 per month. In 1963 further questions were addressed to the Minister, and it appeared from the answer given by him that at that time there were still nearly ‘74,000 non-Whites out of a total of about 107,000 earning under R30 per month and only 33,254 were earning between R30 and R40. The Minister in his reply added this rider which I quote because it is, I believe, germane to the matter under discussion; he said—

I have mentioned the difficulties in regard to establishing a fair living standard wage for these Bantu people. Professor Horwood gave it as R52 per month, the Institute of Race Relations gave it as R48.50 and the Pretoria Market Research figures was approximately R43. From an average of these figures it seems that R47 per month is reasonable. But as far as the Government itself is concerned no figures are yet available. A question was addressed to the Minister of Bantu Administration in connection with this matter because it was felt that he might have some figures concerning the Bantu people over whom he has jurisdiction. The answer came back that he had no figures for the expenses of a single male in a hostel in a Bantu township nor had he figures for the family unit of five which is apparently accepted as a norm but that they worked on the assumption that the rent should not exceed 20 per cent of the income. The Minister of Labour had no figures at all to assist the position.

Now, Sir, we come to the year 1964, the year of booms and surpluses. But it seems as if the booms and surpluses are passing by quite a number of people in our Republic. I refer again to Bantu and in the January 1964 issue of Bantu it described itself as an “informal publication on Bantu Affairs compiled by the Department of Information.” The article to which I want to refer had pride of place in this particular issue—“Two Rand a day Move Gathers Impetus.” It seems almost, from the way Bantu emphasizes this aspect, that it was more or less a tacit admission that perhaps this R2 per day was becoming accepted as a reasonable standard. The article goes on and refers to a chain reaction and to the fact that industry and commerce have apparently joined this chain. The hope is expressed that in the not too distant future approximately 200,000 Bantu employees would be receiving this figure of R2 per working day. But it also says that R2 per working day is almost equivalent to the so-called poverty datum line of R46 per month. This is the Chairman of the Bantu Wage and Productivity Association speaking—

So it would seem that the majority of non-White employees in the South African Railways are pretty near the dire poverty line, because in 1962 84 per cent of them were earning R30 per month or less. It is interesting to note what the Market Research team of the University of South Africa indicate in their recent survey as being the mean income for certain Bantu households. In the south western areas of Johannesburg it was R59 per month; in Pretoria R46 and Benoni R52. They also make this statement bearing those figures in mind, that the average monthly expenditure is in excess of the average monthly income by approximately R4. In other words, these people are forced to live beyond their means.

I have also referred to the fact that commerce and industry have accepted this challenge. The Minister of Labour during a previous session gave an indication in the Other Place of the amount of money which commerce and industry had added to the wage packets of various workers. I don’t propose going into those figures now, Sir, but it is quite obvious from them that commerce and industry in general are concerned in this matter and that they are tackling it in a workmanlike way. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister and his Department can measure up to that. I see in the Estimates that the estimated expenditure on emoluments is R293,000,000 approximately and that this is an increase of nearly R15,000,000. I hope that some of this will be made available to the non-Whites who make up almost half the number of employees of the Minister’s Staff. If you refer to an article which appeared in the October 1963 issue of Daily News you will see that the article claims that the wage gap between the races is widening. This article was written by the industrial correspondent of the newspaper. I quote this and perhaps the hon. the Minister could either confirm or refute it—

The Minister made it clear earlier this Session that he was his own Minister of Finance. He said it no less than three times when the salaries of certain high officials in his Department were under discussion. He said: “I am my own Minister of Finance—and I thought it was only fair to bring the salaries of Railway Commissioners in line with the salaries paid to members of boards.” So I think it is only fair for the Minister to consider seriously bringing the salaries of his non-White employees in line with the salaries which are now accepted in South Africa as being necessary for them. I believe that a full stomach and a contented mind will be a very good bulwark against Communism, which we know is threatening our land. I then wish to refer to the Minister’s remark in regard to the Planning Council. On page 11 of the Report he says—

Then further in the Report we see that capital investments over the past ten years amounted to R924,000,000. Then he went on to deal with the question of main line traffic, passenger traffic that is, and he referred to the increase of 7.3 per cent in the number of passengers carried. The hon. Minister laid emphasis on three aspects in his speech. He emphasized service, courtesy and passenger comfort. I have no comment to make on the service and the courtesy. That has been made by hon. members opposite this afternoon, and I endorse what they say in regard to the courtesy which is extended I think to all people who travel on the South African Railways. What I am referring to is passenger comfort and on that aspect I would say on the credit side that we now have a few air-conditioned lounge cars, we have some very well-built and comfortable saloons on the main line traffic, but one jarring note, a small one, but which needs attention, is that in the toilet facilities provided in the saloons there is no supply of soap and no provision for paper towels Sir, these saloons are catering for a select number of travellers who have no other means apart from buying a towel and buying some soap from the bedding boys, of observing the ordinary rules of hygiene. I would point out to the hon. the Minister that in the waiting-rooms at any airport in the country, these particular facilities are supplied to all and sundry at no cost at all, and I believe that it would be fair for long distance rail travellers to be afforded this convenience. I realize that there has been an improvement in the reservation facilities, but I would like to ask the Minister if he has ever travelled through the Karoo in mid-summer, not in his own private coach or in the Blue Train …

I have travelled on the footplate on locomotives.

Time marches on and I think the South African Railways should march on with the times. We do not expect the present generation to have to put up with what our forefathers did. I wonder whether the hon. Minister on his journeys to South West Africa has heard the complaints of some of the travellers to South West Africa, that they don’t go into the dining-saloons because the butter is liquid, they can’t put it on their bread and they don’t go into the dining-saloons because it is so hot that they prefer to take with them a cool bag with a frozen chicken and a beverage to have with it, and that when it gets cooler at 11 or 12 o’clock at night, they open the cool bag and have their supper in their own compartment, because the dining-saloons are unbearably hot. I wonder if the hon. Minister has experienced such conditions recently?

Have you?

I know a bit about it. I have travelled on the Orange Express through the Karoo when it was extremely hot and I want to tell the hon. member that on my last journey through the Karoo, there were two people who indicated quite definitely to me that it was the last time that they would undergo such an experience. The Department puts out beautiful advertisements: “Travel in comfort by rail”, but travelling in the Orange Express through the Karoo in mid-summer, they felt was not an experience they would willingly subject themselves to again.

It brings us to the question which is exercising the minds of many people nowadays, and that is air conditioning. I believe, and I have reason to think that I am correct, that 76 per cent of the long-distance passenger trains in Australia are air-conditioned. I was very interested and I got this information indirectly through the Minister’s own publication “Railway News”. I refer to the issue some time in 1963 where it said that Australia was finding that luxury trains boost travel. They have three luxury trains between Sydney and Melbourne a day in each direction and they say that passenger travel can be sold against the keenest competition. The trains which cost nearly R2,000,000 each are provided with the most luxurious fittings, speeds have been increased and great store is set by right time running. I was curious and I wrote to the General Manager of Railways in New South Wales. I asked him certain questions and I received some very comprehensive replies together with certain other details in connection with the running of railways in Australia. These details I think, warrant examination, and possibly the South African Railways could gain some useful information from the Railways in Australia. I asked the General Manager first of all whether there had been an appreciable saving of time by express train running over the last years. He said, “Yes, up to three hours saving”. Another piece of information which was supplied was that with the advent of diesel-electric traction 30 per cent of the time had been saved in long-distance running times. I asked him what distance the normal steam trains travel without having to re-water. The answer came: 150 miles. Here in South Africa we find that locomotives have to stop every 30 or 40 miles in certain areas in order to fill up with water. So it went on. There were many indications that travel in Australia is far ahead of what we have in South Africa. I would ask the hon. Minister seriously to consider the introduction of some form of air-conditioning on the trains in South Africa. Nowadays, we have a self-contained unit, a lounge car, and I believe that as an experiment some of the saloons could be equipped on that basis to judge the response of passengers who have to travel in South Africa during very hot weather.

I hope that the hon. member will pardon me if I do not reply to his remarks because I want to discuss another matter in the short time at my disposal and that is the question of air services. The South African Airways celebrated their 30th birthday on 1 February this year and on this occasion I want to convey my heartiest congratulations to the hon. the Minister, the General Manager and the staff of the South African Airways on their numerous excellent achievements and particularly on the service that they have rendered to South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, flying did of course have its origin in South Africa. In saying this I am not following the practice of the Russians who nowadays are laying claim to all sorts of discoveries and developments. I want to prove my statement. This happy event took place in Natal, where all sorts of interesting things are happening to-day. It is nothing unusual for Natal to make history. History accepts the fact that flight was actually born in the year 1895 when a man by the name of Otto Lilienthal flew for the first time in a primitive glider from the top of a hill in Germany.