I move, as an unopposed motion—

1. (1) That on Friday, 20 March, Government business shall have precedence after Questions have been disposed of;
2. (2) that on Thursday, 26 March—
   1. (a) the hours of sitting shall be:
      • 10 a.m. to 12.45 p.m.
      • 2.15 p.m. to 6.30 p.m.;
   2. (b) Questions shall have precedence;
   3. (c) after Questions, Government business shall have precedence until 12 o’clock noon; and
   4. (d) private members’ business shall have precedence from 12 o’clock noon;
3. (3) that the House at its rising on Thursday, 26 March, adjourn until Tuesday, 7 April at 2.15 p.m.; and
4. (4) that on and after Friday, 10 April, Government business shall have precedence after Questions have been disposed of.

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, after having listened for hours to the frivolous and what I can only call the futile criticism of the Opposition, I am convinced that this debate could have been curtailed by another five hours with great advantage. I realize that the Opposition had an extremely difficult task in criticizing this Budget, and as a matter of fact I have a certain amount of sympathy with the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn), particularly since this was his first effort as main Opposition speaker on transport matters. I am not going to be hard on him but I do have certain objections to what the hon. member did. In the first place my objection is that he obviously did not study his subject. My second objection is that he made certain allegations here which were without foundation and others which were devoid of all truth. A third objection is that the hon. member simply cannot get away from the idea that he is on a political platform addressing uninformed people. Lastly my objection is that the hon. member is under the impression that eloquence is a substitute for knowledge. [Interjections.] I always thought that no Opposition member could put up a worse performance than the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant), but now I am no longer so sure. [Laughter.] I want to mention a few examples to support what I have just said in connection with my objections; I want to give some examples of the hon. member’s lack of knowledge and of the unfounded allegations made by him.

The hon. member for Yeoville said that from 1950 to 1960—and I ask you, Sir, to note the dates carefully—the Railways were unable to meet the transport needs of South Africa. I do not think the hon. member was out of the country during these five years from 1955 to 1960; I think he was here in this House. Surely he must have heard what was going on; he must have read newspapers. How can he allege that the S.A. Railways were unable to meet South Africa’s transport requirements from 1955 to 1960? It is simply beyond me. I say again that the hon. member was under the impression that he was on a political platform addressing uninformed people.

The hon. member says that over the past ten to 15 years the coal producers have been complaining every winter that the Railways are unable to meet the transport requirements of South Africa. Sir, can you imagine such a nonsensical allegation by a man who is the main Opposition speaker on this matter today? For 15 years the coal producers have been complaining every year that the Railways are unable to meet South Africa’s transport requirements! Where does the hon. member get that from? He simply sucks it out of his thumb. His allegation is entirely without substance.

Never.

The hon. member is trying to get out of it now but he did say that they complained every winter. He said that for 15 years they complained every winter that the Railways were unable to meet the transport requirements of the whole of South Africa. Mr. Speaker, where does the hon. member get that from? Surely a man who assumes the role of leader does not make such nonsensical statements. What will his back-benchers think of him if he utters such nonsense? [Interjections.] Then the hon. member went on to say that in Port Elizabeth ships had to lie empty for days on end because the Railways, in the case of this harbour, were unable to keep a grain elevator with a capacity of 42,000 tons, filled to capacity. Mr. Speaker, there is no grain elevator in Port Elizabeth. [Laughter.] Did the hon. member not even take the trouble to make sure of his facts? It is true that ships were delayed in certain harbours but not as a result of the fact that the Railways were unable to keep a grain elevator in Port Elizabeth, which is non-existent, filled to capacity. Those delays were caused by the fact that ships arrived before the scheduled time, before the time arranged through the Maize Board, and they consequently had to wait for their loads.

But they had to wait up to 33 days.

Yes, for that reason. The Railways undertook to deliver 26,000,000 bags of maize at the harbours and in actual fact the Railways delivered 27,500,000 bags.

The hon. member wanted to know what was going to happen once we started exporting pig-iron on a large scale to Japan. He wanted to know whether the Railways were equipped to carry this additional burden. Here again the hon. member did not even take the trouble to study the Brown Book. If he had merely looked at Item 124, amongst others, he would have seen what precautionary measures are being taken to ensure the export of this pig-iron. But he did not even make a study of his subject; he did not even take the trouble to obtain a little information, information which is based on facts. The hon. member said in the course of his speech—

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was in this House when I was delivering my Budget speech, but in addition to that he had a copy of my speech before him. I dealt with the Schumann Commission in the course of my speech and I told the House when the commission was going to report. But the hon. member says that I did not say a single word about it in my Budget speech!

That is how we know him.

The hon. member then went on to ask in the course of his speech, “What is the plan in connection with the Beit Bridge-Nicholson line?” He says that we are losing this opportunity because of negligence on the part of the S.A. Railways. Apparently the hon. member expects the S.A. Railways, without the permission of the Government of another country, to enter that country and to construct a line there. He did not even do a little research to find out what I had said in this connection in the past. I gave the reasons in the past as to why the Government was not prepared to agree to the construction of that connecting line. The hon. member then goes on to ask, “When are we going to get the reaction of the hon. the Minister to the report of the Viljoen Commission?” If he had only asked the hon. member for Turffontein, the hon. member for Turffontein would have told him that I dealt with this matter exhaustively in this House some years ago. But here again, without having studied his subject at all, the hon. member comes along and makes this unfounded statement. He did not even take the trouble to consult the hon. member for Turffontein.

The hon. member also advocated the granting of more concessions to private hauliers. Does he not know that the Railways have no control over this matter, that the Motor Transportation Act is administered by the Department of Transport? He says he knows it and yet he asked why this was not being done.

Then the hon. member went on to say that I had nothing to say in my Budget speech with regard to the anomalies in connection with the gap between the low tariffs and the high tariffs. But he did not even read the terms of reference of the Schumann Commission; he did not even take the trouble to ascertain what the Schumann Commission was really inquiring into. The hon. member then asked me to see to it that the reduction in the price of petrol was also extended to the coastal cities.

I said that there was uncertainty.

No, the hon. member asked why I could not apply it also to the coastal cities. Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to look it up in the hon. member’s Hansard and to read out to him what he said, because there is one thing that I do not want to do and that is to put words into the mouth of that hon. member. As it is he says quite enough to give one every opportunity of attacking him. However, I shall look it up and show it to the hon. member later on. I just want to point out that I did grant a reduction of railway tariffs and that petrol used in the coastal cities is not transported by rail; it comes direct from the ships. How I could grant that reduction therefore I simply do not know.

The hon. member apparently got hold of a map and started looking for gaps between certain railway lines, and he then came along and asked why connecting lines were not being constructed between these various points. Amongst other things he asked me—and I have checked this carefully—why a line was not being constructed from Commondale to Glendower. That rather staggered me. Commondale, as you know, Sir, is near Piet Retief and Glendower is near Port Alfred. It would require a very long line indeed to connect these two lines, a line running right through Southern Natal, over the Transkei and past East London to Port Alfred!

Graaff is going to sack him.

The hon. member also asked for connecting lines between Bitterfontein and Karasburg and between Ohrigstad and Woodspruit. Certain other members asked for connecting lines from Protem, to Swellendam, and for the broadening of the Langkloof railway line. In other words, they advocate a capital expenditure running into many millions of rand to construct railway lines which would be entirely uneconomical and which would have to be operated at a tremendous loss. If those lines are constructed and operated at a tremendous loss, then the railway user will have to bear that loss. On the other hand hon. members of the Opposition are very concerned about the interests of the railway users; they ask that tariffs be reduced.

The hon. member also asked why the Minister did not go in for imaginative planning. I must say that if my plans had to be based on the sort of imagination to which the hon. member’s speech bears testimony, then the S.A. Railways would indeed be in a miserable position.

The hon. member also advocated concessions for pensioners, and here he was joined by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton). The hon. member referred to the means test. He did not say clearly whether he objected to the means test. I do not know therefore whether he wants it abolished or whether he wants the limit raised. Let me say at once that I have a great deal of sympathy with pensioners, and I think I have proved that in a very tangible way in the past. Many substantial improvements have been brought about in the past ten years as far as pensions are concerned. Even last year improvements costing more than R1,300,000 were brought about as far as the allowance is concerned. Let me mention a few of these improvements. Provision was made in 1956 for a cash payment and for increased annuities for widows. In 1959 the annuity of widow pensioners was increased by 10 per cent. In 1953 the benefits payable to pensioners who retired between 1944 and 1953 were improved. In 1959 the pensionable emoluments, for the purpose of calculating pensions on the last seven years’ service, were increased by 10 per cent. At the same time the annuities of all pensioners were increased by 10 per cent. The temporary allowances were increased on two occasions, on 1.4.1956 from R22.50 to R24.50 and on 1.4.63 from R24.50 to R30 for married pensioners. The means limit was raised on two occasions, and last year a scheme was introduced to supplement the pensions of married pensioners up to an amount of R54 per month, and, in the case of single persons, up to an amount of R27. I also want to add that as a result of consolidation and rationalization the pensions of the most lowly paid officials were increased by more than 30 per cent. We have demonstrated in a very tangible way therefore that we have a great deal of sympathy with the pensioners.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana made all sorts of unrealistic arithmetical calculations to prove that the Superannuation Fund was able to bear the additional burden resulting from increased pensions. Sir, I have dealt with this matter before and I do not want to repeat what I said previously. That fund is based on actuarial assessments, and it would be improper for the Minister to place burdens on the fund without the recommendation of the Superannuation Fund Committee in the first place and in the absence of a report from the actuaries to say that the fund is able to bear such an additional burden. The hon. member says that the Administration pays the 4½ per cent interest but that the pensioners do not share the benefit which accrues to the Pension Fund from its investments as a result of the appreciation of the capital assets. But, Sir, these funds are invested in Government stocks and there is no capital appreciation; if anything there is a capital depreciation. As I have already said, we have a great deal of sympathy with the pensioners, and discussions are already taking place between the Department of Finance and myself in connection with the question of a concession to pensioners. I was unable to announce this in my Budget speech because those discussions had not yet been concluded. I too feel that something should be done for them in spite of the fact that a great deal has already been done in the past.

Hon. members on the other side go on to allege that I deliberately under-estimate expenditure and over-estimate revenue. But that is not the position. The Estimates are based on all the information at my disposal at that particular time. They are conservative Estimates, that I concede, but they are conservative Estimates such as any businessman would make. Hon. members opposite now allege that the surplus of R86,000,000 over the past five years has been taken out of the pockets of the public, and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) says that this monopolistic exploitation of the public will continue. Sir, if this had been a private undertaking that might have been true, but all profits made by the S.A. Railways are ploughed back, and surely it is a sound business practice to build up a sound financial structure and to strengthen the funds. The S.A. Railways have no reserve funds except the Rates Equalization Fund, and with a turnover of R550,000,000 per annum that Equalization Fund of R40,000,000 is a mere bagatelle. I recall that some years ago when the various funds like the Renewals Fund and the Rates Equalization Fund and the Betterment Fund were in a weak financial position, we were criticized most strongly by the other side. Hon. members opposite wanted to know why the funds were not being built up and strengthened, and now that these funds are strong as a result of surpluses and as a result of sound financial policy, they are not satisfied either; they say that that ought not to be the position because I should not have had those surpluses. They constantly talk about business principles, but it seems to me that they do not have the slightest conception of business principles. They only talk about business principles when it suits them. What the Opposition apparently mean by “business principles” is that on the one hand we should reduce tariffs and that we should transport more commodities at a loss.

The hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) complains about the transport of coal to the Western Cape. Mr. Speaker, the Railways transport coal to the Western Cape at a loss of R1,147,000 per annum. Apparently the hon. member wants that coal to be transported free of charge. The Opposition want us to make more concessions to private hauliers. That is their “business principles”! They want more concessions for private hauliers who take the cream of the traffic, which in the nature of things must reduce the revenue of the Railways. On the other hand, however, they want expenditure to be increased through the building of uneconomic lines; they want concessions to be made to pensioners, etc. On the one hand they want increased expenditure and on the other reduced revenue and then they tell us that they believe in sound business principles.

Mr. Speaker, I have said that the criticism that we have had from the Opposition is trifling criticism. Let me mention an example. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) has tried to prove how inefficient the Railways are and he mentioned certain examples. He said that a sum of R564 had been spent unnecessarily in changing the name of a station from Mupark to Woltemade. He referred to the transport of an abnormal load from Germiston to Wadeville and he said that at a certain stage there was a shortage of mobile containers at Port Elizabeth, which is supposed to prove how inefficient the Railways are. Sir, here we are dealing with an organization with a turnover of R550,000,000 per annum, an organization which transports 95,000,000 tons of goods and which employes more than 200,000 workers. But according to the hon. member these three examples prove how inefficient the Railways are. The hon. member was unable to put forward financial criticism and that is why he had to rely on such ridiculous examples.

Hon. members of the Opposition have asked what my decision is in connection with the Van Zyl Committee. I want to reassure hon. members on this side immediately by saying that it goes without saying that I do not accept the majority recommendations. I have considered both the majority and the minority recommendations, and the reasons why I cannot accept the majority recommendations are the following:

1. (1) The ability and readiness of private enterprise to supply that equipment which the Railways themselves manufacture are doubted. The Railways were obliged to undertake manufacturing work for the very reason that private enterprise was not able to manufacture coaching stock, points and crossings sets, vacuum cylinders, signalling material and cast steel bogie frames.
2. (2) The prices quoted by tenderers for requirements which are also manufactured departmentally disprove the committee’s findings in regard to the relative costs of manufacturing by the Railways and by private enterprise. Tender prices prove that it would be more expensive for the Railways if those stores were purchased by tender.
3. (3) Larger amounts would have to be invested in stores-stock in order to provide for irregular and erratic deliveries by contractors.
4. (4) Assets would become partly or totally redundant and this would result in losses.
5. (5) The efficient utilization of manpower in workshops would be lowered because it would not be possible to undertake manufacturing work as at present to regulate the loading of available capacity.
6. (6) It would not be in the interests of the country to dispense with a national asset which played such an important part during two world wars. Only recently the Railways undertook work for Defence which could not be performed by private industry.
7. (7) If the manufacturing activities in the railway workshops were to cease, it would result in fewer apprentices being trained; there would be large-scale movement of staff with accompanying hardships and private industry would probably not be able to accommodate certain members of the staff who would become redundant, since preference is likely to be given to cheaper non-White labour.
8. (8) Certain centres would be adversely affectted for the reason that manufacturing work at present undertaken at places such as Pietermaritzburg, for instance, would be done elsewhere if the work were to be executed on tender. The number of railway servants would increase and difficulty would be experienced because of the fact that departmental houses and houses purchased under the House Ownership Scheme would become redundant.

I have therefore decided that the Railways should—

1. (a) apply its existing facilities as far as possible to maintenance and repair work with due regard to their efficient and economic utilization;
2. (b) not extend its manufacturing facilities in those cases where there is sufficient proof that private industry will be able to cater continuously and economically for railway needs;
3. (c) in future restrict the supply of depart mentally produced components for rolling stock manufactured by private enterprise.

That is my reply in connection with the Van Zyl Commission.

The Opposition had a great deal to say about planning. In nearly every speech made by Opposition members in recent times one hears about “planning”, about “imaginative planning” and all sorts of planning. The word “planning” is always on their lips. The hon. member for Yeoville even went so far as to make the nonsensical allegation that I was satisfied with plans which were devised two years ago. Again the hon. member did not listen to the Budget speech and he did not even look at the Brown Book. In both these documents he will see what plans have been made, plans which are now being implemented. Does the hon. member not realize that planning is not something which is static? One does not plan only once for the future or for five or ten years. The railway organization is a dynamic one; circumstances continually change and planning goes on from day to day. There has been constant planning in past years. The railway organization must adapt itself to changed circumstances. That is why planning is constantly taking place, and the fruits of that planning are always reflected either in the Budget speech or particularly in the Brown Book. Let me mention just a few examples: It appears from the Brown Book that there are about 200,000 trucks on order; there are hundreds of electric locomotives, diesel locomotives and passenger coaches on order; there are large electrification schemes —Witbank-Komatipoort, Klerksdorp-Beacons-field—which are being undertaken; lines are being doubled, marshalling yards are being built; new forms of train control are being instituted. These are all things which the hon. member will find in the Brown Book if he will only take the trouble to study his subject a little. Hon. members opposite must not only talk about planning. But, Sir, as one of my hon. friends on this side said, what I find so remarkable is the fact that the Opposition are now suddenly very concerned about the future. They say that there is insufficient planning; that not enough capital is being spent. But three years ago the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) made a long speech here about “diminishing returns,” about the large capital expenditure, and the economic expert on that side, the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje), strongly objected to the large capital expenditure of the Railways. What would the position have been if I had accepted their advice and if I had drastically curtailed capital expenditure? But apparently these are the “business principles” to which they subscribe.

Hon. members of the Opposition have moved an amendment, and I want to quote just the last leg of that amendment. Their amendments always have “legs”—sometimes two legs, sometimes three legs and sometimes four legs. This time their amendment has four legs, and the fourth leg reads as follows—

I sat listening attentively for hours and waited for them to explain this leg of their amendment. They did discuss the other legs, but this leg was entirely ignored by them; they did not say a single word about it. I do not know whether they themselves know what it means or whether they merely strung together a lot of fine-sounding words. You know, Sir, the hon. member for Yeoville is very eloquent. When the hon. member talks, whatever subject he is discussing, his words always have a soothing effect on one. These words sound very fine, but what do they mean? Do the words “but will also be a dynamic stimulus to greater growths” mean the building of that railway line from Commondale to Glendower? I do not know; possibly that is what they meant. And then they talk about freedom from “unduly restrictive monopolistic control”. What other control can there be? Because, after all, there is only one railway system in this country and that system is under State control. The only way to break the monopoly is to allow another railway system to come into being. It is not only a question of road transport because as far as road transport is concerned there is a reasonable amount of freedom to-day. Thousands of exemption certificates have been issued to road hauliers. As a matter of fact, private hauliers at the present time are transporting a greater tonnage of goods over the roads than the Railways transport by rail. As I say, I am still waiting for an explanation and I hope we will get more clarity later on with regard to this leg of the Opposition’s amendment.

I want to deal briefly now with a few of the other matters raised by hon. members.

The hon. member for De Aar-Colesberg (Mr. M. J. de la R. Venter) has asked that a level crossing at Sannasbank be eliminated. I just want to point out that this is a matter for the Elimination of Level Crossings Committee. That committee draws up a priority list, and when this level crossing reaches the top of the list it will naturally be eliminated. Then he asked that railway servants who are discharged from the service because of drunkenness or theft should be given another chance. There is no general rule in this regard. Where a railway servant commits theft he is, of course, discharged immediately, and that also applies in the case of misuse of liquor, particularly where the person concerned has anything to do with the safety of the public or of the Railways. There have been cases where young men who have committed theft because of irresponsible behaviour have been given another chance, but the general rule, since the Railways are the custodians of the public’s goods, is that if a man is discharged because of theft he is not taken back into the service again.

The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. P. J. Coetzee) has asked that a scheme should be worked out whereby a monthly bonus will be paid to shunters. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. J. A. Schlebusch) also dealt with this. This is a matter which has already been considered, but I have not vet agreed, because instead of paying a bonus I increased the wages of shunters considerably when rationalization took place. That has not had the effect, of course, which I expected. I do not know myself whether the payment of a bonus will obviate accidents because in the case of shunters the accidents are mostly personal accidents, and I do not know whether the payment of a bonus will help to wipe out the shortage of shunters.

The hon. member for Bethal-Middelburg (Mr. J. W. Rail) has asked that consideration be given to the introduction of feeder air services. Sir, I welcome the establishment of feeder air services and I have already told private entrepreneurs that even if they want to take over some of my own feeder services, they are perfectly free to do so. Every opportunity will be given to them as long as there is no competition on the ordinary established routes of the S.A. Airways. As a matter of fact, as far as the private entrepreneur is concerned, we have gone so far as to give him a certain tax rebate, a step to which my colleague, the Minister of Finance, agreed.

As far as the question of the more rapid conveyance of air passengers from the airports to the terminals is concerned, the hon. members asked whether a helicopter service could not be instituted for this purpose. This is a matter which has already been investigated, but it would be quite uneconomic to do so. It is done by Sabena from their airport in Brussels but they are doing so at a tremendous loss. A helicopter, as my hon. friend knows, can only transport a limited number of passengers. There would probably have to be more than one helicopter, therefore, if one wished to reduce the travelling time between the terminal and the airport. But at this stage it would not be a paying proposition and I am unable to consider it therefore.

The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) has complained about the suburban train services. I fully agree that many delays do occur on the Cape suburban train services. I also concede at once that these delays cause a good deal of inconvenience, but we are faced with a very peculiar thing here in the Cape in the shape of power failures. Our engineers have been examining this matter for years to see whether they cannot discover some remedy. These power failures take place as a result of the fact that moisture gets in between the contact points of switches and then causes a power failure. So far, however, the engineers, unfortunately, have not found a solution. Most of the delays are caused by power failures. I can assure the hon. member that we are continually doing research and investigating the position to see whether some remedy cannot be found for this difficulty.

As far as the harbours are concerned I can put the hon. member’s mind at rest completely. We do not have “old and antiquated” facilities at the harbours, as he suggested. On the contrary our harbours are being modernized and the Cape Town harbour still has ample capacity. It does happen now and again, that there is a congestion of shipping, but even when the capacity is limited we can increase the capacity by working more than one shift. The tonnage landed and exported from Cape Town harbour has dropped very little in recent years; it has practically remained static. There have been difficulties in the Durban harbour and attention is being given to this matter, but to a large extent these difficulties have also been caused by a congestion of shipping, as a result of the fact that ships arrive at irregular times and at a time when we do not have sufficient facilities to handle all of them.

As far as the Norval Report with regard to shipbuilding is concerned, I am waiting for my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, to decide who is going to have the privilege of establishing the shipbuilding yard there. As soon as he notifies me the land will be allocated.

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) has come along with the bright idea of a “management commission” on which he says industry, commerce, the mining industry and the agricultural industry should be represented. We must, of course, have a managerial committee to control these things on the Railways, but in the nature of things it would be ridiculous to ask a commission consisting of outsiders who have no knowledge of Railway matters to manage this vast undertaking. As far as the giving of advice is concerned I can only say that that advice is being obtained to-day, not only from these people but from numerous other bodies. The Planning Council obtains all the necessary information, all the necessary advice in connection with future development, from these various bodies. It already gets all the information which the hon. member has in mind when he suggests the appointment of a so-called management commission.

The hon. members for Berea (Mr. Wood), Boland (Mr. Barnett), and Karoo (Mr. Eden) referred to the wages of Coloured labourers. I just want to point out that Coloured labourers are on a certain scale, of course. It is true that the commencing wage is low; in some cases they start on R1 and in other cases on R1.10 with a maximum wage of R2. For the better class of work—I am not referring now to graded posts such as those of bedding boys, etc.—the scale goes up to R2.50 and in certain cases up to R3. I should like very much to improve these wages, but I know that as soon as I adjust the wages of one group of the staff there will be demands and requests for increased wages from the whole of the staff. Certain improvements were effected recently, but I can assure hon. members that this matter constantly receives my sympathetic attention.

The hon. member for Karoo has asked that more opportunities should be given to Coloureds. Our policy in the Western Cape is to substitute Coloureds for Bantu, and we are having a good deal of success in that direction.

I can assure the hon. member that where a vacancy occurs in a post formerly occupied by a Bantu, a Coloured will be appointed if he is willing to accept the post. That is our policy.

Mr. Speaker, it has been alleged in the course of this debate that I have no confidence in the future of South Africa because I estimate on a conservative basis. That statement was made by the hon. member for Yeoville. Sir, that is not the position; I have a great deal of confidence in the future of South Africa. But that is no reason why I should be reckless and irresponsible and ignore the particularly vulnerable position in which transport undertaking such as this finds itself. A transport undertaking is particularly sensitive to economic fluctuations. Let me mention a few examples, Sir. Last year the transport of maize produced 6 per cent of the total revenue that we derived from the conveyance of goods. At the moment there is a crippling drought in this country and the maize crop might very well drop by 20,000,000 bags. That is a fact which I have to take into account. Last year the transport of various types of ores produced 12 per cent of the total revenue derived from the conveyance of goods. The export of ore is dependent upon a world market which is by no means a stable market. The prices may vary or the market may collapse. That is a fact which I have to take into account. That is the reason why every sensible Minister of Transport has to be extremely conservative. But what has been the outcome of my conservatism in past years? During the 9½ years that I have been Minister of Transport there have been two very small increases in tariffs. Is there any other transport undertaking or any other undertaking in this country which can say the same thing? The funds of the Railways at the present time are stronger than ever before. The Rates Equalization Fund has a record credit balance. The Renewals Fund is strong; the Betterment Fund is strong. The financial position of the Railways is stronger than it has ever been in the past. Staff relationships are better than they have ever been before. Over the past ten years more concessions have been made and more wages improvements, more improvements of working conditions and of housing for the staff have been brought about than in any comparable period in the history of the Railways. The productivity of the railwaymen to-day is higher than it has ever been in the past. Modernization and mechanization have placed our Railways in a position where they can be favourably compared to-day with any railway system in the world.

I do not want to suggest for a single moment that everything is perfect. Naturally there are still certain defects; there are still some difficulties. We have a very serious shortage of key personnel in particular. We simply cannot compete with the salaries paid to key staff such as engineers by private initiative. I do want to say, however, that we are fully aware of the tremendous demands which are being made and which will continue to be made upon this great transport undertaking. The members of my staff, from the General Manager down to the most humble official, are prepared to put their shoulders to the wheel and to give of their best in the interests of South Africa. One might well ask oneself what the position of the South African Railways would have been under the management of a United Party Government. I think South Africa can be grateful for the fact that she has been spared that disaster.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

Before I ask the hon. the Minister of Transport when the Committee Stage will be taken, I want to inform the House that the hon. the Minister of Labour approached me this morning to grant him leave to make a statement of urgent international importance. I have decided to grant him that opportunity now.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity of making the following statement:

The Government of the Republic of South Africa has decided to withdraw from the International Labour Organization. In reaching this decision it was influenced by an accumulation of hostile acts against South Africa, the more recent of which are set out hereunder—

1. 1. The credentials of the South African workers’ delegate were invalidated at the 1963 Conference on the strength of a minority report by the Credentials Committee, which deprived South African workers of their full representation at the deliberations of an organization established mainly for the benefit of the workers. It has become obvious that the Republic cannot continue as a member of an organization which is supposedly devoted to the interests of the worker but which suddenly, for purely political reasons, allows itself to be manoeuvred into a position in which the workers’ representative of South Africa is no longer acceptable. Since the organization was established in 1919 South Africa, as one of its foundation members, has been represented at all conferences without any of its delegates being unseated.
2. 2. The action against the South African workers’ delegate was immediately followed by the governing body of the organization deciding in June 1963, on the initiative and insistence of its Director-General, to exclude South Africa from membership of certain industrial committees of the organization, the effect of which has been to render South Africa’s participation in the activities of the committees concerned entirely inoperative.
3. 3. Since then further resolutions were adopted by the governing body at its meeting held in Geneva from 13 to 17 February 1964 in pursuance of which the following steps, inter alia, are to be taken against South Africa:
   1. (a) Any objection against the credentials of members of the South African delegation at the next conference is to be dealt with as a matter of priority during the opening days of the conference, quite clearly with the object of excluding South Africa from the conference at the commencement of its proceedings.
   2. (b) The submission to the next conference of an amendment to the constitution empowering a conference to suspend from participation in its proceedings any member which has been found by the United Nations to follow a policy of racial discrimination, apartheid being quoted as the only example of such discrimination. Having regard to certain resolutions and a declaration adopted in the United Nations, the Government of the Republic can have little doubt, in the light of developments in the I.L.O., but that any such amendment to the constitution will inevitably lead to South Africa being excluded from the organization. In view, also, of the vendetta of the Afro-Asian states, backed by the communist states at UN, such a resolution, although based on false premises, is obviously intended to make South Africa’s membership of the I.L.O. untenable.
   3. (c) The next conference will be asked also to approve of a programme for the elimination of apartheid in labour matters in the Republic in the light of various conventions previously adopted by the organization which have not been ratified by South Africa and the acceptance or ratification of which in terms of the constitution of the organization is entirely a matter within the discretion of a member state. Many other countries have also not ratified the conventions quoted against South Africa, while others again have ratified the conventions but are not honouring the obligations thus undertaken without any consequence of the nature now faced by South Africa.
   4. (d) The proposed programme of action against South Africa is to be supported by a declaration calling upon the Republic to renounce the policy of separate development and to repeal all legislative, administrative and other measures inconsistent with the terms of the declaration. This is a clear case of deliberate interference in a country’s domestic affairs, although it is claimed, in this connection, that the policies pursued by the Government have ceased to be solely the domestic concern of the Republic. It is significant, however, that no action is being taken against countries where there has in fact been and still is a grave violation of the principles underlying the constitution of the organization. It is noteworthy also that the organization is acting in complete disregard of the benevolence of the policies pursued in South Africa, the effect of which has been to place its developing peoples on a much higher level than anywhere else in Africa, particularly as far as labour matters are concerned.

It has now become abundantly clear that the I.L.O. will refuse to proceed with its proper tasks and duties, as a non-political international organization, while South Africa remains a member. It is obvious also that it is not intended td retain South Africa as a member functioning fully within its rights. The time has, therefore, come, and more particularly now as a result of the recent meeting of the governing body, for the Republic of South Africa to decide whether it should retire of its own free will or allow itself to be forced out with the resultant harm this will bring to an organization which has already lost so much of its status. The Republic has chosen to leave the organization now so as to give it an opportunity of attempting to return to the objectives for which it was established if that be possible after the unhappy and unnecessary incursion into political recrimination between, and persecution of, fellow members.

In deciding to withdraw from the organization, South Africa considers itself justified in acting on the same unilateral basis adopted by the organization in its attempts to curtail or terminate South Africa’s membership. In view of the denial to South Africa of its basic rights as a member, the South African Government accordingly does not consider itself bound by the provisions of the constitution in terms of which two years’ notice of termination of membership must be given to the organization and as from the date of notification to the Director-General of South Africa’s withdrawal, all obligations towards the organization will be regarded as having been terminated, including the obligation with regard to South Africa’s financial contribution to the organization for the current year.

The Government is not unmindful of the fact that certain Government delegates as well as some of the employers’ and workers’ representatives from various countries have resisted attempts to force South Africa out of the organization and it wishes to express its appreciation of the support thus received from representatives of the countries concerned. The Republic will continue to co-operate with those countries in whatever manner may prove feasible in the field of labour relations and in the interests of the workers in South Africa.

A communication embodying this statement will be delivered to the Director-General of the organization to-day.

Sir, may I claim the privilege of the half-hour? We on this side of the House awaited with very keen interest the reply of the hon. the Minister of Transport to the debate on the question of whether to go into Committee of Supply, a debate which has occupied this House for eight hours. When the Minister asked not to reply to the debate immediately yesterday but to allow him to reply to-day, we thought it was because he had appreciated the nature of the contribution made by the Opposition; we thought he realized that we had tried to elevate the debate on the Railway Budget to something which would give him the opportunity, as the responsible Minister, of making a statement of policy, a statement on planning, a statement to justify the hope we had that we had in control of the South African Railways a man of imagination, a bold man, a man determined to give us a transport system that would meet the requirements of a modern developing state. We can only say, Sir, that we were tragically disappointed in the reply which we had today—tragically disappointed. The Minister’s reply, I am sure, caused great amusement to some of his supporters on minor points. The Minister’s reply, I am sure, was effective in disposing of certain minor points raised by us here on the Opposition. But the Minister’s reply was entirely inadequate as a reply to the debate he was supposed to meet. We can only express our frustration at the inadequacy of that reply.

The Minister started off by indulging in personalities; he tried to play off the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) against me. I want to tell him now that he will not succeed in that, because if there is one friend I have in this team whom I like and respect—I hope the feeling is mutual—it is the hon. member for Turffontein. The hon. the Minister will not succeed in that sort of tactics. He tried to be insulting. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I want to take the hon. the Minister into my confidence. We expected it from the hon. the Minister. We expected the hon. the Minister to be insulting, because we based our expectations on past experience. But I want to assure the hon. Minister now that we shall not react. We prefer to ignore insults. We shall not allow the Minister to set about degenerating debates on the South African Railways into personal slanging matches between the Minister and members on this side of the House. The issues are too important, Sir, the fate of too many people in South Africa is at stake for us to allow that …

Order! The hon. member is now making a second reading speech in his reply to the Minister.

With respect, Mr. Chairman, that I do not want to do, but before you can call upon members of this House, Sir, to vote this vast sum of money, which includes the hon. Minister’s salary, surely we are entitled to consider whether the Minister is worth that salary. We have certain doubts. I do not want to emphasize them, but we have them. We shall ignore that type of argument of the hon. Minister and having said that I leave it permanently. We shall not react to that type of action on the part of the hon. Minister. But one little question arises when discussing the Minister’s salary which is of concern to Parliament and I hope you will allow me to make this one remark about it, and that is the question of the Railway Budget debate under the new Rules. I gather that the hon. Minister seems to think, following certain organs of his Press, that too much time is given to discussions of the South African Railways in these debates. I hope that he made that as a joking remark, that he did not mean it seriously, because I am quite sure, Sir, that if he were to consult members on his side of the House, the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East), for example, and members on this side of the House, he would agree that the new rules of the House, being on trial, as was agreed, for this year, have shown one thing already and that is that not enough time is permitted for the debate to go into committee on the S.A. Railways. We on this side of the House have tried to co-operate voluntarily by cutting our speeches short to enable more members of our side, and in the process more members on the other side of the House, to participate in the debate, but a great many members who are interested in the Minister’s Department have not found it possible to make the contribution which they feel they should make in the interests of their voters and in the interests of their constituencies. So I do hope the hon. Minister has not closed his mind on this issue but that we shall have further opportunities to discuss this very important question.

The other matter that I would like to raise immediately under the Minister’s salary, is the indication the Minister gives that he is only the Minister of Railways, even when we are discussing the Railway Budget. I do not think that the Minister can so rigidly cut himself into two. I do not think that the hon. Minister can be schizophrenic to this extent. Inevitably as Minister of Railways his policies concern the Department of Transport. He cannot ever look upon the S.A. Railways as an entirely separate transport entity operating in a vacuum. It is part of the total transport system of South Africa, and so when we get the opportunity of having a heart-to-heart talk and a friendly talk, in spite of the Minister’s attempts to make it something else, on this question of the role the South African Railways should play in our transport system, he cannot avoid impinging upon his other functions as Minister of Transport. We want to appeal to the hon. Minister to accept that because otherwise life will become impossible for him and for us. I am quite sure when we come to the main Budget debate and we discuss the Vote of the Minister of Transport we are going to be severely restricted because, you, Sir, will quite rightly hold that the Minister’s salary has been voted under this Vote and that we cannot discuss matters of policy and matters of general administration to the full extent that we should in Committee. I do think that we should have some géhtleman’s agreement that this debate should be extended so that we can look upon the S.A. Railways as part of the South African transport system for which the Minister of Railways is responsible in the first instance, but for which his colleague, the Minister of Transport, who happens to be the same gentleman, also has certain responsibilities.

I think now that we are dealing with the hon. Minister’s salary, I should remind him that long ago we asked him to consider certain fundamental principles in his administration of the S.A. Railways. He has recently made a speech in this House, replying to the second-reading debate, but unfortunately he did not give us any clarity whatsoever on those major principles that we asked him to consider in his administration of the S.A. Railways. We asked the Minister to consider certain important principles, but we did not get a full reaction from him. Instead we got a reaction on detail. We found the Minister trying to score points with the assistance of some of the best brains in South Africa who are serving his Department. We found him resorting to debating points at the expense of the Opposition. But we still have not got the clarity on matters of policy that we asked him to consider. They were avoided. I want to tell the hon. Minister that we can all indulge in debating points. If I wanted to I could ask the hon. the Minister of Railways how he could ask this House to accept him as the Minister of Railways or the Minister of Transport in South Africa and pay him the salary that we are voting now when he believes that in South Africa the Railways have to transport something like 250,000 tons of maize a year. That is what he told us to-day. Does the Minister realize that he told us that to-day? The hon. the Minister spoke of transporting some million tons of maize. Let me say at once that the hon. Minister spoke about 20 odd million tons of maize. Everyone of us on this side of the House heard him say it, but we knew that he meant bags, but he said “tons”.

I don’t know where you get that from?

I want the Minister to go and listen to the recording of his speech. He spoke about 23,000,000 tons of maize. That was obviously a mistake.

I never spoke of 23,000,000, I spoke of 26,000,000.

Quite right, he spoke about 26,000,000, but instead of bags he said “tons”. Now I could say that if the Minister makes a mistake like that, everything gets confused, but he made a genuine mistake. Anybody can make a mistake, and we do not hold that against him, but when he misheard me to speak about a railway line in Northern Natal which had to join up with what he thought was Glendower or something, he made a major point of it, and raised roars of laughter from the unthinking members on the opposite side, but in the same way as I know that he did not mean “tons” but meant “bags”, if I made that mistake—I am not sure that I did, because he might have misheard me— but if I made a mistake, surely the hon. Minister could have seen that I referred to Candover.

And the hon. member calls himself a leader!

Why should we when we are discussing a serious matter like the South African Railways lower the level of the debate to these small minor points? Surely the Minister, like me, is more interested in the fate of the pensioners!

I want to say that we appreciate what he had to say about pensioners in his reply to the debate. He was acting as a Minister then for a change, and we are grateful to know that now he is considering some relief to the pensioners, but he did not say that in introducing his Budget. He waited until we raised the matter insistently twice before he found it necessary to say that. I will concede that he may have had that in mind before he spoke. But that is my difficulty about the Budget speeches of the hon. the Minister; and that is why we are so doubtful about voting his salary, because, as I said before, the Budget speech of the Minister is the speech of a computer, a human computer. No questions of policy; we are not taken into his confidence, no leadership, no indication of future plans. We are given mere statistics and we have to drag out of the Minister an important statement like the one he made to-day that he will consider, in consultation with the hon. Minister of Finance, some relief to the South African pensioners. We are grateful for that. But even if the Minister thinks that he need not take us into his confidence, a word of encouragement at the proper time was due to the pensioners of the S.A. Railways. The hon. Minister did not deal either with the important question as to why he refused the recommendation by the board concerned that a 10 per cent increase should be given to these people.

That was all dealt with last year.

Last year is last year, but we are interested in this year. Last year there was no threatening inflation in South Africa. Last year people with fixed incomes were not facing the same threats and the same problems as they have to face this year. The late Mr. Charlie Malan may have made a speech about this 30 years ago, but he cannot expect us to accept that as the final word on these issues. Times change. Especially in South Africa, times change dynamically in one way or the other. We are entitled to have a statement from the Minister on his policy as things are and as they obtain to-day.

The Minister did not make any statement at all about our request that steps should be taken to free the users of the S.A. Railways from unconscionable tariff burdens. We asked him about that in our amendment. What the Minister did was to score debating points about the Schumann Commission. I would now like to ask the hon. Minister again: What has happened about the Schumann Commission? In the Report of the General Manager we were confidently told that the Schumann Commission would report in December, last year, and now the Minister tells us that they are going to report in April. What has happened? Are we heading for another Press Commission? If not, is the intention of the hon. Minister to hide behind the Schumann Commission in order to avoid the charge of the Opposition that he is placing unconscionable burdens on the railway users and the charge that he is over-taxing the railway users in order to produce these large surpluses? Is he postponing action under the pretext that he is awaiting the Schumann Commission’s report? If so, why is he not consistent? Why when he announced in his second-reading speech a reduction in the rate of petrol, apparently without consulting the Schumann Commission, could he not have given a general reduction in railway rates to free the users of the South African Railways of unconscionable rate burdens, as we ask in our amendment? He could have done it. He cannot say that he is not allowed to act in the matter because the Schumann Commission has not yet reported, and then act in the matter in one respect. He cannot escape his responsibilities in that way.

We asked him to give us certain assurances that the harbours of South Africa will be able to meet the requirements of international trade. What was the Minister’s reply? Not only to the general points I raised by way of introduction, but the more important points raised by the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay). The Minister’s reply was to score debating points in regard to the confused statement I made about Port Elizabeth Harbour coupled with the fact that the Railways are not keeping the 42,000 tons elevator in the Durban Docks full. I am sorry if I dovetailed those things too closely.

You should make a better study of these questions.

No, perhaps I should learn to speak more slowly for the benefit of the hon. the Minister. I should allow for the intelligence that I am trying to communicate with. I was speaking about the delay of a ship for 33 days in the Port Elizabeth harbour. Does the hon. the Minister deny that. We must get these points clear. I am keen to debate with the hon. Minister of Railways because I am just vain enough to like to meet a foe worthy of my steel. But then the hon. Minister must not score these petty debating points. On 24 January, in answer to a question by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan), the Minister told him that five ships were delayed at Port Elizabeth harbour recently, and that one was in the port for 33 days, but that eight days of that delay (not my words, but the hon. Minister’s words) were for Departmental reasons. This was delay caused not by the Maize Board, not by the ship, but by his own Department. But instead of telling us what is being done to overcome these problems, the Minister scored debating points. I hope that now where we are discussing the Minister’s salary, he will give us an answer as to what plans are being made to make our harbours adequate for the shipping development which is taking place. To indicate what is worrying us, let me give him one example. We all know that the tendency in the development of tankers, which are very important to the economy of South Africa, is to build ever larger tankers, and what is done to make our harbours adequate to accommodate those tankers. There is a tendency to increase the tonnage of tankers to as much as 85,000 tons.

110,000 tons.

My friend here who knows more than I know about these things, says that they even go to 110,000 tons. But the Durban harbour has just had a concrete bed built under the harbour limiting the draught to about 40 feet which means that unless this job that has been done is undone again, Durban harbour cannot accommodate the tankers of the future intended for the trade with an important country like South Africa. Will the hon. Minister give us a general statement of policy to tell us what his plans are to satisfy us, not for our own sake, but for the sake of commerce and industry in South Africa, that these matters are receiving his attention. Instead we get a quibble about whether the grain elevator is at Port Elizabeth or at Durban. That does not help us, Sir. The Minister can do better. That is why I get up immediately in the Committee Stage, so that the Minister can come back and reply again and again. I want to give him an opportunity to rectify the dreadful mistake he made in his approach to this debate so far. Let us get down to the principles of the planning as far as the South African Railways are concerned.

Then I ask him for some indication about the planning for the future, not only to meet our transport needs, but to stimulate the economy of South Africa. The Minister pretended that he had not heard us. Strange that the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé) seemed to understand much better what we discussed, certainly much better than the hon. the Minister, because he dealt with our arguments and he replied to our arguments, and the hon. member for Parow is much too busy to reply to non-existing arguments. He replied to our arguments, but the Minister said they did not exist. What must we do in such a situation? The hon. Minister will have several opportunities to-day to reply. Let him please tell us, let him please take the country into his confidence: How do the Railways see their role for the future? We are in a country which has now come to the stage of a self-generating economy. Our advances will now be financed and stimulated from and by our own resources, by our own enterprise, by our own skills, by our own know-how. How does he see that the S.A. Railways will meet those demands? I mentioned the question of the contrast between private hauliers and public hauliers. Of course he will say that is the Minister of Transport’s business, and perhaps I should postpone that to the Minister’s Vote in the Main Budget, but then I would like to have advance notice that I will be allowed to raise it there, otherwise will the Minister please deal with it now. But more important, what we wanted to know is how does the Minister envisage this growing cake which is the South African economy. Will the Railways continue to take a monopoly as far as the cake is concerned, of the portion of the cake available for transport, or will he be willing to encourage the private entrepreneur, the “transportryer” to play a greater part in the expanding transport requirements of South Africa. When I say that, I want to say at once that I do not speak to him as Minister of Railways and Harbours only. I want to admit that at once. But, Sir, the Minister of Railways must tell us what his attitude would be, because the Minister of Transport can be frustrated in any policy such as this by the Minister of Railways. That is the point that we have to take into account. If we know that the hon. Minister is prepared to co-operate to give private enterprise a greater slice, not at the expense of the Railways, but of the expansion, then it becomes a question for the Minister of Transport. Whole vast problems open for the future of South Africa, for instance the improvement of our whole road system to meet such a policy of encouraging private enterprise. Then it becomes pertinent for the Minister of Transport, but we cannot go to the Minister of Transport and discuss these vital questions until the Minister of Railways gives us an indication of his attitude. If his attitude is to be dog-in-the-manger, our approach to the Minister of Transport must be entirely different from our approach to the Minister of Transport if the Minister of Railways tells us that he is willing to co-operate to see that private transport plays a bigger part. That was the type of question that we put to the hon. the Minister in a previous debate. We got no answer. We got some very clever debating points. If I were an examiner I would give him 98 per cent in that respect, taking off 2 per cent for the “tons” which should have been “bags”. But we on this side of the House do not want a railway debate that revolves around little clevernesses, little astutenesses. We want a transport debate that revolves around the transport system of a growing South Africa. My charge is that the hon. Minister has failed this House, he has failed the country, but perhaps worst of all, he has failed the organization which has been entrusted to his care. But it is never too late, fortunately, and the Minister will have a chance to show that he is thinking about these matters, that he has plans and that he is not only, as the hon. member for Turffontein said so truly a man who shifts trains and trucks about, but that he is also a man who thinks of the future greatness of this South Africa of ours.

I hope the hon. member will himself have learnt a lesson after having said that “this debate should not revolve around cleverness and astuteness”. If the hon. the member had learnt that lesson before speaking in the Budget debate, we would perhaps have had a worthwhile contribution from him. But that is just the difficulty. The hon. member cannot get away from “cleverness and astuteness”. The hon. member refers to insults. I think the House knows that if I want to be insulting I can be very insulting. I have not insulted the hon. member yet; I have handled him with kid gloves. But now the hon. member asks all kinds of questions. He asks why I did not reply to the question put by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) as to why I did not accept the recommendation by the Superannuation Fund Committee that there should be an increase of 10 per cent? I do not intend year after year dealing with matters again which have already been disposed of and to which replies have been given ad nauseum.

That matter has been raised before and dealt with exhaustively. I am very sorry that the hon. member was not present then, but that is not my fault. If the hon. member expects the same matters to be raised every year and the same replies to be given ad nauseum, he will have to wait a long time. That matter was dealt with exhaustively.

He referred to the Schumann Commission and alleged that I did not say when the Schumann Commission would issue its report.

I said that you had said it would be in April.

Then why did the hon. member refer to the matter again? I said the following in my Budget speech—

And what about petrol?

I said that as an interim measure I was prepared to reduce the tariff on petrol. The trouble with the hon. member is that he has not yet made a thorough study of his subject, because otherwise he would have realized that tariffs is one of the most complicated scientific systems one can possibly find.

But you could add the 10 per cent?

Of course there could be a general increase of 10 per cent, but here we are dealing with the over-all review of the tariff system where many factors have to be taken into consideration, like the gap which he himself indicated existed between low tariffs and high tariffs, the assistance to be given to border industries and the amendment of the tariff structure to promote the decentralization of industries. All these matters must be investigated and considered and they are scientific matters, and surely it would be absolutely stupid to reduce tariffs now when we do not even know what loss of revenue will result from the possible acceptance of the report of the Schumann Commission.

The hon. member speaks about an “unconscionable burden” on railway users. That is my difficulty with the hon. member, that he is so fond of exaggeration. Where is this unconscionable burden on railway users? Surely it is not so.

It is a matter of opinion.

No, the hon. member is not a railway user. That is what he thinks, but the users do not think so. There were a few complaints from certain industrialists in connection with the 10 per cent increase 14 months ago, but there is no unconscionable burden. Our tariffs are among the lowest in the world. There is no unconscionable burden. The hon. member should not exaggerate so much. Let him state his case, but let him do so realistically, and in accordance with the facts.

Then the hon. member complains that I said nothing about the expansion of our harbours. I clearly said what was being done. In my reply I said that in so far as Cape Town harbour is concerned the tonnages to be handled here had not increased considerably in recent years, and that there was sufficient capacity in Cape Town harbour to be able to handle all the traffic. I said that there had in fact been a congestion of ships in Durban harbour. That happens at times. It happens in any harbour in the world that at times there is congestion of ships. I further said that appreciable improvements are being made in Durban harbour and that plans are still being made for additional facilities. The hon. member may be assured that the capacity of our harbours for the present and for the future is continually under consideration, and that is one of the reasons why there is a Planning Council. But do hon. members know that the building of a single quay means the expenditure of millions of rand? Therefore we cannot lightly incur such great capital expenditure without first planning thoroughly and determining whether it is essential or not. Planning continually takes place.

The hon. member spoke about tankers. He says no provision is made for large tankers, because they are now building tankers of 85,000 tons. But if we are to change Durban harbour in such a way that it can accommodate tankers of 85,000 tons, it will not only mean that millions of rand will have to be spent which will be totally unproductive, perhaps to provide for one or two large tankers which will come there over a period of months, but the entrance to the harbour will have to be widened and deepened. The foundations of the quays will have to be broadened, and all the channels will have to be deepened. That would lead to an expenditure of millions of rand, which is not warranted at all. And the general tendency at present is again to get away from these large tankers and to concentrate more on the smaller tankers. So long as there are oil companies in South Africa receiving oil from abroad, they will see to it that they have the right type of tankers to bring that oil here. Does the hon. member now want this great expenditure of millions of rands to be incurred unproductively, just to make provision for a few large tankers? It would be stupid to do that.

Then he asked the broad, general question of how I view the role to be played by the Railways in future.

Can you see it?

Anyone can put such a broad, general question: What is the role of the Railways now? It will play the same role it has always played in the transportation of the country. The hon. member is evidently under the impression that private transport is being handicapped to such an extent that private hauliers have no opportunities and that industrialists cannot make use of their own transport. There is a continual expansion of private transport, but there is proper co-ordination between road transport and rail transport, and that is the object of the Road Transportation Act. From the very nature of the matter, private transport will play an ever-increasing role. Every year there is an increase in the tonnage transported by private hauliers, and that will continue. The private hauliers will provide a supplementary service for the Railways, but there must always be proper co-ordination in terms of the Act. In other words, we can never allow unlimited competition between private hauliers and the Railways. There must be some measure of protection, and also co-ordination, because as soon as we allow unlimited competition our Railways will land in the same mess as that in which the British Railways are, where to-day they sit with an accumulated loss of over £400,000,000. But in actual fact there are no serious complaints about the restrictions imposed on private transport. From the very nature of the matter, there are applications for expansion, and that will increase in future. There is continual development and therefore there will be increasingly more road transportation, but co-ordination will remain.

I find myself in somewhat of a difficulty in handling the Minister, because one comes up against a stone wall when the Minister is prepared to see so far and no further. The Minister is very proud of the fact that he is an ex-railwayman, and I understand that he was a very highly efficient engine-driver. It would appear to me that the approach of the Minister in relation to the points we have tried to place before him in this debate is limited to the same vision as that of an engine-driver, because an engine-driver’s future and the direction his train is taking are not only in his hands. He sees only the rail in front of him, but he cannot see around the next corner. What happens around the next corner is in the hands of others, and that is the approach of the Minister in this debate. The Minister can only see just in front of him. All he can see is that he can load some trains and build some more lines and get some extra trucks, and when he has done that he had fulfilled his obligations to the whole of the transport requirements of the country. Let me give one or two examples of the type of debate we have had from the Minister here. Let us take the volume of maize conveyed in the past year. The charge against the Administration was not that they did not fulfil their obligations to the Mealie Industry Control Board; the charge was that the Railways had failed to transport an even flow of grain to the ports, thereby causing delays at the ports. Yet the Minister in his reply seems to create the impression here that everything went in a perfectly uniform and excellent manner from the point of view of Railway Administration. I cite this as an example because there were other statements subsequently made by people expressing dissatisfaction with the manner of operation on the ground that it was lack of vision on the part of the Administration. That is the essence of the case we have attempted to make against the Minister, that he displays no vision for the future in regard to the role that the Railways have to play in our expanding economy. We have tried to make one or two suggestions. The Minister to-day told us not to come along with suggestions of new management control, because he already has a Planning Council and he is adequately advised. But what does the Minister’s Planning Council do, and who does it consist of? To my knowledge it consists of railway officials, railwaymen concerned with the operation of trains, railway-men who make an assessment of the traffic that the Railways has to cope with for the year. But they are not men who are concerned with the future assessment of the potential volume of business that may have to be handled by the Railways. I make no excuse for coming back to this, but I want to ask the Minister whether he can tell us how his Planning Council operates? Whom does it consult, and what are its assessments? Does it make assessments of the future industrial and agricultural developments of South Africa? On what basis does it make its plans? Does it advise the Minister for the next five or ten years, or does it work on a year-to-year basis, from hand to mouth? Who else gives it advice? Are there any outside interests represented on the Planning Council, or does it consist only of railwaymen? If the Minister is not going to act only as a railwayman, but he considers the future transportation needs of the country, it is obvious that the question of business promotion and the volume of traffic to be conveyed by the Railways must be taken into consideration, and we want to know how he makes those assessments? Is it left entirely to the General Manager? Is the advice of the Planning Council given directly to the Minister, and does the Minister then give a directive to the General Manager in regard to what he wants done? On what basis does it operate? That is why I come back to the suggestion I made earlier that the time has arrived for a complete review of the entire management structure of the Railways as a business concern in a developing economy, and not as a railway concern only. The Minister is often pleased to cite examples of what happens in regard to other Railways. He cited the position of the British Railways. If he is so well informed about losses on the British Railways, he must also be informed in regard to the steps taken not only by the British Railways but in every other modern Western transportation system, where they recognize that they have railway problems and not merely operating problems, and that their railway problems revolve around the question of what is good business for the Railways and what is payable in itself, and how to make low-rated traffic more payable by increasing the capacity that can be carried at any one time by any train. Those are business aspects, and that is what we are concerned with. We accept that the Railways have increased their carrying capacity and that there is efficiency of operation, and that additional tonnages are being carried. It would be a poor state of affairs if that were not so, in the light of the vast capital expenditure undertaken, but what about the future? Is the Railways going to stand still, or will it operate as a business concern which dovetails into the general economic needs of the country? We are not standing still as a country and I am sure the Minister will not let the Railways stand still. We want to know what will happen in future. It is no good passing these things off, as the Minister tries to do, because we only have to look at the increasing interest-burden, from 5.93 per cent ten years ago to something like over 15 per cent of the entire revenue of the Railways to-day. According to all the indications we have been given in this debate, it is going to rise to much greater heights. When one talks about the interest burden, it should be realized that of every rand paid by the railway user, 15 per cent goes towards the interest burden, and where will that end. We are attempting to obtain from the Minister some vision for the future, but all the Minister can tell us is that he has a co-ordinating system; there is the Transportation Act and he will see that a balance is maintained between road traffic and rail traffic, but there is no thought in the Minister’s mind that there may be types of traffic carried by the Railways which may be unprofitable. There is no thought at all that it is possible on short hauls for bulk traffic to be taken by road and not by rail. We do not hear a thing about these aspects, but the Minister says he has a Planning Council, and we must look at the Brown Book; millions of rand have been voted for more rolling stock and for doubling the lines. But we hear nothing about the potential payability of any particular line in the country. The Agricultural Union has pointed out that a line can be developed with an eye to future business potential in an expanding economy; you do not have to develop a line only because it is payable to-day. That is a shortsighted view. The Minister picks on a few cheap debating points in reply to my colleague, but if he only takes the railway map of South Africa and studies it he will find, in relation to developments already announced by the Government, that there are areas in which new Railways can be constructed for he benefit of our economy in future. [Time limit.]

Time will not permit me to reply to the remarks of the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant), except for this only. The hon. member for Turffontein must not think he can get away with referring sneeringly to the hon. the Minister as an ex-engine-driver. Let me just tell the hon. member that the Minister personifies the quality of the locomotive drivers in South Africa and has shown to what heights they may climb. The hon. member must not say sneeringly that because the Minister has been a driver, he is incompetent to administer the Railways properly. On the contrary, I should like the staff of the Railways to take note of this insinuation by the hon. member, namely that the train personnel are incompetent to exercise any control.

However, I have risen to mention another matter, and I have neither the time nor sufficient ointment to try to heal the wounds of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn). I wish to ask this question: Why do these two hon. gentlemen come along and concern themselves, during a Budge debate, with a local matter such as the possible railway line between Candower and Commondale? Is it because they had beforehand asked a poor voter in Pongola to go to the Press with a report to open the door for them, a report such as appeared in Excelsior in which these words were used: “By the way, when last has there been any railway expansion in the rural areas?” Or is it this little paper which is dictating to them to make out such a case in this Budget debate? Has the hon. member for Yeoville not referred to the Hansard reports and seen that the matter was raised in the House of Assembly in 1959, and that the Minister replied and stated what investigations had already been made, namely the alternative route, the one through Swaziland and the one from Candower to Commondale via Pongola, and the other from Pongola to Vryheid? Did the hon. members not see that on 15 March 1962 the matter was once again raised here in the House, and the Minister then replied and pointed out that the Railways are being run as a business concern, and has first to have the traffic and the tonnage before they tackle such a new railway extension? But no, the matter is being raised merely to catch a few political flies because in a little local paper there appeared a report based on wrong premises and by means of an irresponsible letter, merely to sow a little local dissatisfaction. What is the truth? [Interjection.] The hon. member says it is nonsense. She does not even know where it is. She will also, like the poor member for Yeoville, have to go to East London to search for the place first. What is the truth? I wish to place it on record, as it is being connected with a little report that the Railways are doing nothing for the rural areas. If the Brown Book is referred to, the capital expenditure, it will be found that merely to handle the traffic in connection with only one constituency, Wakkerstroom, only the section touching Volksrus at the one end and Piet Retief at the other end, there is an amount of R14,430,600 on the Estimates for one year only. Hon. members should not come here with the idea of a railway line between Pongola, Candower and Commondale merely because they think they may catch a few votes with it. It merely shows the complete inability of the Opposition to form an opinion. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Wynberg is extremely pitiable.

However, I have risen to raise another matter, namely in regard to the policy of the Minister in connection with electrification. I know the matter has been raised already and the Minister has already dealt with it, but I should like to mention it to have it on record. We know that the electrification of the line between Volksrust and Germiston will be effected this year. That is another example of how the Railways are not only the barometer in keeping pace with the progress of South Africa, but it will mean that the line will now be electrified from Durban to Johannesburg in order to handle tremendously increased tonnages. In this way the Railways are keeping pace. This sometimes results in certain transitional difficulties, such as the taking away of workshops from one place and the centralization of workshops at another place. I should like to thank the Minister, the General Manager and the Administration on behalf of the rural areas for the judicious steps they are taking, not only in establishing this fast and economic traffic, but also for retaining in the rural areas as many as possible of the members of the railway personnel in order to prevent the depopulation of the rural areas. I should like to mention an example. The Minister and his administration instituted a special inquiry to see to what extent they could replace the loco staff who had to handle the maintenance of the steam locomotives in the past with other Railway personnel in order to prevent the depopulation of a town such as Volksrust for instance, and as a result of this inquiry they came forward with tremendous concessions whereby it has been made possible for the traffic on that section to be operated by Volksrust staff and not by staff from Braamfontein, because the population of Braamfontein is too large already. That is only one of the examples of how the Railways are keeping pace with the development of South Africa and are seeing to it that they can handle all the traffic offering and at the same time also assist the rural areas. I should like to place on record that Volksrust is grateful to the Minister and the Administration for what they have done.

I should like to conclude with this final request. The Minister has repeatedly told us that he has a Railway Board and that there is proper planning. Seeing this new irrigation project at Pongolapoort is coming into being, there is a matter that has not been disposed of as yet. The railway line between Candower and Gollel will be partly submerged when the new dam has been completed. It has been requested that consideration should be given to the suggestion that when this line is reconstructed, Pongola, which actually is the southern focal point which can ensure the greatest volume of traffic for that area, should be linked with the new line to Candower, and that it should lie in a circle, that is to say, that one should be able to go to Durban from Germiston via Volksrust, but that one could possibly proceed to Piet Retief and the Eastern Transvaal through Ermelo along the North coast via Candower and possibly via Commondale. Then there will be a complete circle. [Time limit.]

I want to come back for a moment to the remarks of the Minister in his reply, and I want to say that it is the last thing that we on this side of the House can be accused of, asking for millions of rand to be spent lightly on harbour works. Our whole emphasis in the debate up to now has been on careful planning with a long-term vision based on three main factors, the three main factors being the trend in world shipping with the need to eliminate delays, the need to cater for large-scale industrial expansion in the Republic, which will entail a tremendous increase, we believe, in our heavy export trade, as well as other exports, and thirdly, the strategic position of the South African ports both in times of peace and war as the result of changing world conditions. That is the gravamen of the demand we made, and no one can constitute that as a lightly made appeal for the expenditure of millions on unnecessary port development. But I want to ask the Minister a few specific questions and I shall be glad if he will answer them.

Durban Harbour can be accepted as the harbour developing as the Republic’s main oil port, oil of course being the lifeblood of this country in time of war as well as in peacetime. The Minister knows as well as I do that the principal limiting factor in Durban harbour is the depth of water near the entrance to the harbour. That must govern the entrance or exit of deep loaded vessels, and as Durban harbour is an oil port deep loaded ships go in and out. We have a two-way traffic there. I want to ask the Minister whether the statement made is correct viz. that within the last two years or so a sewerage pipe and tunnel was laid across the harbour entrance from the city side, to the Bluff in order to convey a pumping line for pumping the sewage of the city out to sea. Is this correct, and is it also correct that as the result of the concrete tunnel and pipeline the depth of water at that point of the entrance of the port has now been restricted to a maximum of 46 feet? In other words, a ship drawing 46 feet, which is quite a medium draught for some of these big tankers, cannot get in or out of the harbour at certain stages of the tide. You get a flood rise or fall of plus or minus 6 feet, but that extra depth is usually taken up by allowance for surge. Is it also a fact that since this pipe tunnel has been laid silting up has reduced the safe depth of water in that area to something like 39 feet? That is a statement which was published widespread throughout the country by a most responsible journal. I do not know myself whether it is correct or not, but I take it the Minister is well aware of this feature, if it exists. If it does exist, I want to know what on earth his Department was doing to allow the construction of such an obstruction across the entrance of one of our principal ports at a time like this? What evidence is there of any careful foresight or planning when such an obstruction is allowed to be placed there? If that is so, then it is one of the very features we are criticizing in this debate. It is one of the faults we are asking to be eliminated from the planning of our harbours. There should have been more foresight, and if that obstruction has been permitted all I can say is that somebody was caught napping.

Why is the hon. member raising this under Head No. 1? There are a number of Heads in respect of “Harbours”.

Yes, but the Minister of Railways is also the Minister of Harbours. Once we come to the different heads there is a strict limitation placed on what we can debate. I am dealing with this matter as part of the Minister’s policy and his control, and that has been the whole trend of the debate up to now.

The hon. member can discuss this in detail later.

Yes, but I am now discussing the policy of the Minister in permitting such an obstruction to exist.

That cannot be discussed now. That is also a matter which the hon. member can discuss under the other head.

Well, I have put the questions which I wanted to ask the Minister and I will not go on with that particular point. But I would like to know if it is correct regarding this sewer tunnel and, if so, what happened there to permit it? The hon. the Minister in his earlier reply stated, in dealing with Cape Town, that he was quite satisfied that the port facilities here were adequate to cope with the present position or with the position which may exist in the future. Sir, I do not propose to go into any detail here; I am dealing with the general question. One would accept the hon. the Minister’s statement when it comes to the overall capacity of the port …

Order! I am sorry, the hon. member cannot discuss ports under this head. The hon. member can discuss it under the heads to which I have referred him.

On a point of order, are we not going to be restricted to the actual provisions under the Harbour Heads in discussing the items covered by those provisions?

Anything relating to harbours can be discussed under the Harbours Heads. If the hon. member refers to that Heads he will see the details there.

There is no financial provision there for the point which the hon. member is raising.

That does not make any difference: He can still discuss it there.

Can we have an assurance that it can be raised there?

Yes, I can give the hon. member that assurance. The hon. member may proceed.

Am I to understand then, Sir, that in dealing with this Head in which provision is made for the Minister’s salary, we are confined to the particular items listed and that we cannot discuss policy?

As there are special Heads for Harbours the hon. member can discuss anything which falls under those Heads when they are under consideration.

But then we are confined to the particular items under those Heads, which is something quite different from what has been the custom in the past.

Order! The hon. member must abide by my ruling.

I abide by your ruling, Sir, but it certainly does limit us in debate. I want to say, Sir, that we accept the Minister’s assurance from the overall point of view. I do not withdraw anything that I said earlier, that there is in our ports that mixture of the old and the new, and there is also evidence that sufficient attention has not been paid to the change in the trend of world shipping …

The hon. member must try to be more specific; he must not make general statements.

Well, I have just been told that I cannot be more specific. The hon. the Minister says that I must be more specific and the Chairman has ruled that I cannot be more specific.

The hon. member misunderstood my ruling. I said he could discuss everything in detail under the Harbour Heads but he cannot discuss that now under this Head.

Do I understand then that I can only discuss the items which appear in the printed Estimates?

Order! I am sorry, I cannot be more specific. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat asked the hon. the Minister certain specific questions, and I do not propose following him in that direction.

I should like to make a few remarks in connection with the Minister’s policy in relation to engineering matters. One has gathered from the Minister’s Budget speech, and read in the Annual Report of the General Manager, with pleasure and great interest, of the special opportunities being created for serving railway officials for further study. In fact, the Minister has also stated that the productivity of the railwayman at the present time is as high as it has ever been before. The productivity of the railwayman has been increased to such an exceptional extent because of this very policy. Opportunities have been created for railway officials to take a variety of courses at the Railway College, Esselen Park, at Kaalfontein. Here railway officials are not only being given an opportunity to study further in a particular direction, but they are also given the opportunity to create better prospects for themselves as regards promotion in the service. In addition to the great variety of courses offered, whereby they can better qualify themselves, the Administration has also instituted several bursary schemes to give railway officials a further opportunity for training. In this connection I refer to the B.Com. bursary scheme for administrative personnel. This scheme has already produced very good results. I should like to refer particularly to the laudable …

On a point of order, with reference to your previous ruling, Sir, is there not an item “study bursaries” under Heading 17? Should the hon. member not discuss it there?

I am here discussing the policy applied by the Minister in connection with bursary schemes.

The hon. member will see that provision is made for that under another heading, namely Heading 17, and the hon. member should discuss the matter under that heading.

Then I should like to raise another matter under this Vote. In the constituency I represent, there is a compound in the vicinity of the Koedoespoort engineering workshops. Promises that this compound will be removed have been made for several years. During the recess, while I was holding report-back meetings in my constituency, I was asked by people at various meetings to inquire into this matter and to ascertain when this particular compound will be removed. The number of inhabitants of this compound at the present time, I am informed, is 1,800. This number has not decreased during the past four or five years, although a promise has been made in the past already that there would be a gradual clearance of this compound. The complaints of the voters in that vicinity is that the Bantu are causing a nuisance during their visits to Bantu employed by those voters. I am aware that there is a possibility that those Bantu will be removed to a railway compound at Eerstefabrieke. That compound is included in the Vlakfontein location. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether there is a possibility of that compound being removed within the foreseeable future, as it is an area which has been declared an area for White occupation.

Order! I should just like to inform the hon. member that he may, if he so wishes, discuss the question of the bursary scheme under this Vote.

Then I shall just dispose of this point first. This compound could also possibly be removed to a place called Denne boom where provision is being made for bachelor quarters by the City Council of Pretoria at the present time. I should like to make an earnest appeal to the hon. the Minister if possible please to remove as soon as possible the large number of Bantu employed at the engineering workshops from that area which has been declared an area for White occupation.

Continuing with the first part of my speech in connection with the training of engineers, I should like to repeat what I said just now: I said it is a great pleasure to refer to the laudable bursary scheme for engineers and other technical personnel. These scholarships are being made available to promising young men who choose the S.A. Railways for their careers, and because the Railways have been experiencing a steadily increasing shortage of qualified engineers, a course is being provided at the present time which is called a staple course for the training of technicians by the Department of Education, Arts and Science. This course is being provided at the larger technical colleges in our country. The course has been instituted for matriculants who, immediately after they have passed the matriculation examination and who can offer mathematics and if possible science also as subjects, wish to receive training. The duration of the course is 18 weeks full-time at a technical college, and for the rest of the year the students are given practical training at the various railway centres. This group are called engineering assistants, the tuition fees are paid by the Administration, and they receive their salaries while studying. But I should like to emphasize that these persons do not attain a university degree in engineering. Persons who wish to attain an engineering degree, have to go to a university, and they take a four-year university course. I may say here that if a student is particularly bright, he can complete that course in four years. Experience has shown that even pupils who achieved a first-class pass in the high school with distinction in mathematics, have been unable to complete that course in four years, and had to take five years, despite the fact that they were industrious and intelligent persons. I should like to emphasize that it is an exceptionally difficult course. After their training, those persons are then bound to work for the Railway Administration for seven years, to which I have no objection. After their training, their commencing salary is R1,950. If one takes this picture by itself, it sounds like a fairly attractive salary, but when one compares that salary with what the successful engineering assistant receives—the person who immediately after matric has taken that training at a technical college—after the individual has passed a four-year course, then the picture is not quite so rosy. [Time limit.]

The hon. the Minister asked me to be more specific and I will try to be more specific within the limits of the rules of the House. One point I want to make is that there has been a complete change in regard to ship transport as a result of the introduction of the principle of specialization. The cost of ships has gone up to such an extent that it has been necessary to speed up not only voyage time but also the turn-around of the ships. One of the complaints made in Cape Town is that the ships, some of the newer and bigger ships, are to some extent specializing in the type of cargoes that they are carrying and in their loading and unloading methods, and that there are only certain selected berths which are equipped to cater for those ships quickly. It is complained that these ships are held up in the bay waiting for a particular berth. I am not referring now to the main run of ships.

Be moré specific. To what type of cargo are you referring and to what type of ship?

I refer to general cargo and to the fast cargo ships which one might almost call the cargo liners which are now using the port. The hon. the Minister knows that there has been a complete change in that direction, and every hour they lose costs them money.

What is the trouble? Why cannot they be accommodated in any berth?

Their claim is that they require the special facilities, for which certain of our berths are fitted …

Which berths?

I cannot go into all those details at this moment. The hon. the Minister with the staff at his disposal should be well familiar with this particular problem which undoubtedly exists.

We are not aware of it.

The Minister says that he is not aware of it, but he has surely seen the ships lying in the bay and he knows the reasons why they are lying there. That is one of the charges we make. We understand that representations have been made in this connection. It is a case of moving with the times as far as shipping is concerned.

The other point I want to make is with regard to the development of the coastal shipping trade and the facilities in the harbour for handling those ships. They are a much simpler job to deal with, but they do require what you might call permanent berthage, instead of being shifted about from pillar to post. In the Cape Town harbour the difficulty undoubtedly has been that those parts of the harbour which might be developed in this direction are at present cluttered up with deepsea trawlers and smaller fishing craft, and the hon. the Minister is in a quandary there; until he can get rid of those he simply has not got the space. The hon. the Minister in dealing with the ship-building position at Durban— and the same principle applies to Cape Town —said that the matter was being dealt with by one of his colleagues and that he as Minister of Railways could move no further until such time as that particular Department had finished their examination. Sir, this Minister has gained a reputation—I think with a certain amount of justification—as a man who is able to apply a certain amount of drive when it becomes necessary to apply such a drive. I would ask him in this case, to use a Railway term, to put on one of his Diesels to give a Diesel push to the Departments which are holding up this job so that they will get a move on and come to a decision and enable the whole scheme to move ahead, instead of dilly-dallying as they are at present. If any vested interests or any other interests are standing in their way those interests should be pushed aside and a decision come to in this matter without delay. I think the hon. the Minister will be just as happy as many other people will be, if some solution can be found which will clear certain parts of his harbour for the development, which he so badly needs, and that is to provide for the needs of the commercial side of coastal shipping. I also want to ask the hon. the Minister to tell us in his reply whether arrangements have already been made, as announced in the Press, or are being made, or are contemplated, to utilize certain areas of sheltered water, which are being created by the construction of the tanker dock, either as a temporary or a permanent solution for some of his harbour problems. For use as a temporary or permanent anchorage and harbourage for this particular type of small craft, which will thus ease the pressure on his commercial docks. You see, Sir, these are things which are important not only from the point of view of the interests of the port, not only from the point of view of the working of the port, which will facilitate the operations of the Minister’s staff in other directions, but also from the point of view of the economic development of this area as a whole. It will also be a very valuable source of income for the country as a whole. That is why we are raising this matter at this stage. The same applies to the provision of ship-building facilities at Durban harbour and Cape Town. There you have something which is bogged down. The Railways have moved a certain distance so far as the allocation of sites is concerned but then the matter appears to be bogged down by another Department. There again I believe that it is time that there should be a push from someone high up in that direction also. A break through the private squabbles which are going on. Sir, one sees shipbuilding firms springing up like mushrooms—people one has never heard of before and who will probably end up just as quickly as mushrooms do. These new mushroom firms are battling with long-established firms whose names are household words in this country and who are experts in shipbuilding. It is time the authorities in charge of that sort of job began to push a little harder to get decisions instead of allowing the matter to get bogged down until some vested interest gets its own way. If you look at the plans which are laid out, you see wonderful plans there for future dry docks, floating docks and all sorts of other things which, unless something very, very unexpected happens will just remain pretty pictures on pieces of paper. That is a long way ahead. What the established companies, who have carried out negotiations with overseas shipbuilding firms, who have got agreements to commence the work, are clamouring for is that they should be given the piece of land on which they can start the job. It has already been reported—I do not know whether that report is correct or not— that we had a chance to land an order for this country for about a dozen deep-sea trawlers. That chance had to be missed because we had to wait for decisions with regard to the allocation of sites for the ship-building industry. These are things which affect the economy of the country to a tremendous extent, because like an octopus, their feelers go out in all directions to the various industries in the country which will have to supply them with the basic materials for ship-construction, materials such as steel and engineering and electric equipment and all the other things that go with shipbuilding. These are the things in regard to which we want to see a certain amount of drive. I do not consider that that desire warrants the charge against us that we are lightly asking for an expenditure of R1,000,000 or so on the development of harbours. What we are doing is simply to look ahead. Let us get these developments under way so that they can start bringing revenue to the harbours and to the Minister’s Department. We feel that these things are not being pressed hard enough. There is this division of authority as far as sites in the harbours for the shipbuilding industry is concerned, but such a division must no longer be used as a smokescreen to cover up delays. Those delays must be eliminated and the answers for which the country and which our shipbuilding industries are asking for must be given. These industries are being bogged down because they cannot get an official answer. Even at this late stage there is still talk of instituting certain tests and inquiries in regard to matters which have been on the cards for the last two or three years. Those are some of the charges that we are laying against the Government.

On behalf of my constituency I should like to place on record my thanks to the hon. the Minister, the General Manager and the staff of the Railways, not only for the considerable allocation to my constituency, but also for the courtesy and the readiness to serve accorded us by them at all times. So perhaps I would be a modern Oliver Twist if I were to ask for more. Firstly, I should like to refer to the policy of the hon. the Minister and his Department in connection with departmental housing. It is quite clear that at the present time it is the policy of the Administration, particularly in the larger centres, to discourage departmental housing for married staff and to encourage some other housing scheme—the 100 per cent housing scheme or the 10 per cent housing scheme—or to persuade city councils to go in for this type of housing to an increasing extent. Proof of this new tendency is to be found on page 16 of the memorandum of the hon. the Minister, from which it appears that departmental housing has shown a sharp decline. For instance, in the year 1956-7 a record number of houses were built or purchased, namely 2,437, and during the financial year 1962-3 only 226 units were built or purchased. The result of this policy has been that at a place such as Kroonstad there are 103 departmental railway houses that can no longer be repaired economically, and therefore do not provide pleasant living conditions, but in spite of that the Administration hesitates to replace these units. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister very respectfully to reconsider this policy, and step up the percentage of departmental houses in the larger centres too in comparison with houses that are being acquired under the various schemes at the present time, for the following reasons: In spite of the low rates of interest payable on the scheme houses, and therefore the advantageous terms under which the houses are purchased, scheme houses often remain a burden to servants who are subject to transfer and removal, particularly where those houses have been purchased by servants under inflationary conditions, and subsequently have to be sold under deflationary conditions. In this connection, for instance, a priority list could be drawn up for certain officials who are entitled to departmental houses. In the second place, city councils cannot be expected to bear the whole burden of housing in future. We have the example in the national economy, that in other spheres employers are expected to bear a certain portion of the burden of housing too. In the third place, we can under stand that in the past, because of the shortage of artisans, the Administration was loth to go in more extensively for departmental housing. I should like to suggest that in view of the new methods of building that are being developed, this no longer presents such a great difficulty. For instance, we have had the perfection of timber houses; houses built of prefabricated blocks, etc., which could move the Administration to consider going in for these types of building programmes to a greater extent. Then, as is the case in my constituency—the particular case to which I am referring—houses on undivided land are condemned by the Railways, and the Railways are both to replace those. That is to say, land which cannot be alienated for housing purposes; it cannot be sub-divided in plots and transferred to servants. In my opinion this kind of land should enjoy a high priority for departmental housing.

In conclusion I should like to mention only one further matter. In regard to the reference by the hon. the Minister to the serious shortage of engineers, I should like to ask him whether the bidding for students should not be stepped up in this regard. I appreciate that the Administration cannot make a higher bid in competition with private enterprise, for engineers who have already graduated. As acting Minister of Defence, the hon. the Minister in my view at the present time provides considerably better facilities to prospective engineers in his Department of Defence than are being provided for prospective engineers in his own Department. For instance, a person who has joined the Defence Force and has undergone selection, and who takes the engineering course at Stellenbosch, is in the fulltime service of the army. When he has passed his second year course as engineer, he receives the rank of assistant fieldcornet; he receives the salary of an assistant fieldcornet, and all his tuition fees are paid for him. I am speaking subject to correction, but I do not think students who are studying under the aegis of the railways enjoy facilities approximating these. The question that is exercising my mind is whether the Railways should not bid at least as high as the Department of Defence in order to get hold of these pupil engineers.

The hon. member who has just sat down has made an appeal to the Minister for better benefits for railwaymen. He dealt mainly with housing. I also want to make an appeal to the Minister in regard to railwaymen in my constituency in the Transkei. Since annexation the Transkei has been administered as an integral part first of the Cape then of the Union and subsequently of the Republic. The railwaymen working in the Transkei have received the same consideration as all other Government officials working in that area. There has never been discrimination against or in favour of railwaymen in the Transkei. Officials of the Department of Railways and other officials have also received the same consideration as all other officials employed in the Republic outside the Transkei. The officials have been quite satisfied with that position. They regarded themselves as South Africans working in South Africa. The only discrimination in favour of railwaymen elsewhere, I understand, has been in South West Africa where railwaymen do get certain allowances. So do other departmental officials, such as the police, for instance.

With the granting of self-government to the Transkei in regard to certain Departments of State it has been necessary to second certain officials to the Transkeian Government. These officials who have been seconded—mainly from the Department of Bantu Administration but from other Departments as well—have been given special allowances and privileges. This was done, I understand, because they were originally not prepared to come down from Pretoria to the new offices. Having made these promises to the officials coming from Pretoria it became necessary to make the same allowances and to grant the same privileges to all the officials working in the same Department in the Transkei. Not only were certain allowances given but houses were also furnished for occupation by those officials. I shall deal with that in more detail in a moment. However, railwaymen, postal officials, policemen and others who have not been seconded to the new Departments in the new Government, are not getting those allowances and privileges. They, as State officials, have a serious grudge. I can assure the hon. the Minister that there is great dissatisfaction in the Transkei, amongst railwaymen because of this development. I raised the question with the Minister earlier in the year. I asked him whether there was any difference in the living conditions between railwaymen and other Government officials and why these allowances were only being paid to certain officials. He replied that it was not a question of living conditions but that it was a question of those officials having been seconded to another Government.

The feeling of railwaymen and other officials who have not been seconded is this that they are supplying essential services in the country administered by the other Government. They feel that without their services the development which is necessary in that area if it is to become completely self-governing, independent and a viable state, cannot take place. Without the services of railwaymen the economy of the Transkei will come to a standstill, and they are just as essential there, Sir, as the officials of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development.

When the Department of Bantu Administration and Development started buying up houses in Umtata for their officials—they had to buy houses for them otherwise the officials would not have come down from Pretoria— they bought over 50 houses. I am not sure of the correct number, but I think they bought over 50 houses. Railwaymen and other officials found themselves in this predicament, Sir. Some of them had saved and bought their own houses. If they live in the locality in which the Government is buying up houses for the officials of the Department of Bantu Administration they face the prospect—if they do not offer their houses for sale—and are transferred later on, of not being able to sell to anybody because at the moment the Government is the only buyer of property in the Transkei. On the other hand had they offered their houses for sale they would have found themselves without homes. The Government has overcome this difficulty in the case of the officials of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development by buying the houses occupied by those officials and letting them to the previous owners. The houses were sold on those conditions.

The allowances and privileges granted to the officials of the Department of Bantu Administration are quite considerable. They vary from R15 per month to R40 per month. In addition those who have private accommodation are given rent allowances of from R33.50 to R45.00 per month. If they live in official residences a reduction is made of 80 per cent of the rental. You find that these officials are living in beautiful residences for a mere pittance. They are hardly paying any rent at all. Some pay about RIO per month for large houses, with beautiful gardens and surroundings. On the other hand the railwaymen are compelled to find their own houses. There are a few railway cottages in Umtata and they are occupied by railwaymen. Some railway-men have bought houses. I think it is most unfair that certain officials of our Government should be prejudiced merely because they happen to be in the wrong Department. Some years ago the Minister made an appeal to railwaymen in the Transkei not to resign from the service. The hon. the Minister will remember that when they applied for transfers from the Transkei he appealed to them not to apply for transfers. They wanted to leave because of certain disturbances but in response to the Minister’s appeal they stayed on. Some of them are stationed in isolated spots. It is not like other White areas in the Republic where stations are surrounded by farms. I maintain that the Government should treat all its officials in the same way. I am not going to deal with police officials or post office officials now. I am only dealing with the Department of Transport. I can assure the hon. the Minister that wherever I go railwaymen have approached me on this issue. I want to appeal to the Minister to reconsider his decision. If the Transkei is to be developed the officials must be keen. And if the railwaymen working in the Transkei have a grudge and not keen on staying on in the Transkei, because they feel they are being discriminated against, the Minister is not going to get the service from those people that he wishes to get. I hope the Minister will be able to tell me that he has re-considered the matter. He has had representations from railwaymen living in the Transkei. I hope he will tell me that he has now agreed to accede to their request to extend those privileges to them as well.

It is a privilege to me to rise here and to thank the hon. the Minister of Transport for everything he has done. I want to congratulate him and the General Manager and the staff of the Railways. If it were not for the General Manager and the railway staff, the hon. the Minister would not have been able to submit this splendid Budget. I want to thank the hon. the Minister for what he has done for my constituency. Last year I asked him for certain things. I, inter alia, asked him for a new roof for the station at Swellendam. That roof has already been put on and the surveys for the expansion of the goods shed there have already been conducted. I want to thank him for the refrigeration facilities he has provided at the station. That is for milk cans. Inter alia, I also asked that the station at Bonnievale should be shifted because of the delays taking place on the line there. That I could not get. Now the Agricultural Association and the Chambers of Commerce have approached me and have asked me to get up here again to ask for a new station at Bonnievale or for the improvement of the present station. The New Cape Central System was built in 1887. It was built in four sections. The first section was from Worcester to Ashton. The second section was built from Ashton to Swellendam. That is 65 years ago. The present station building was then a farm dwelling which was converted into a station building. Ever since that time practically no facilities were added. Not only is the station inconvenient, but it is also too small. They have four walls which serve as a goods shed. At one time the walls wanted to fall down. Now I see that they have put iron rods through the walls to hold them together. If one thinks that it is 65 years ago that that line was built one realizes that at that time there was no place like Bonnievale. There were only flats with thorn trees. One could have bought that whole area for R1,000, together with a lot of boer goats. But then the Brandvlei dam was built and tremendous development took place. To-day for miles and miles one just sees development. The farmers in the Bonnievale district paid thousands of rands into the Exchequer in the form of excise, not even to mention income-tax.

Those farmers now feel that the time has arrived when they should have a larger station. They called upon me to inspect the position there. The loading facilities there are shocking. There are farmers who breed racehorses. The loading pen there is very primitive. It consists of iron standards and wire fencing. The farmers do not make use of it because they are afraid the horses will be bruised. I measured the little platform. It is not longer than ten or 12 yards. The horses now have to be loaded there. If the horses do not want to enter the trucks the farmers must bring along some manure and spread it in the truck so that the horses may be persuaded to enter the trucks. It is all very inconvenient. Nor have they a decent loading place for heavy machinery.

There is also a large cheese factory at Bonnievale. Much of the cheese is railed, and it lies there in the hot sun if the train is not there yet, and sometimes it becomes spoilt. Much liquor is transported from there, mostly in bottles, and they ask for refrigeration facilities because the liquor deteriorates if it stands in the sun too long.

Finally, I just want to ask this. The other day there was a deputation here in connection with Buffeljagts Station. The Minister then instructed his officials to investigate the position. I now want to ask the Minister to instruct those officials who have to go there to touch at Bonnievale, which is on their way, to investigate the station there.

I think we all have much sympathy with the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. van Eeden) in regard to his request for a new roof for the Swellendam station and for improvements at Bonnievale station which under this Administration is on the point of falling down. It is just a pity that he did not make that plea earlier.

I also want to congratulate the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Dr. Otto) on his suggestion that young engineers should be treated better after they have spent so many years completing their courses. I think that is a very good idea, and I hope the hon. the Minister will pay heed to it.

Having said that, I think we must come to the Minister himself and to his speech this afternoon in reply to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn). I ask any hon. member opposite: Has there ever been a case in South Africa where so many millions and millions have been taken out of the pockets of the public of South Africa and so very little has been given? What has been given? Nothing has been given to the railwayman; practically nothing to industry; practically nothing to the mines; nothing to agriculture and nothing to the general public except that small concession in regard to the tariffs on petrol. The hon. the Minister knows that he makes about 300 per cent profit on the transportation of petrol. Is this such a wonderful concession now?

Last year I told the hon. the Minister that it was not necessary to increase tariffs in order to pay increased salaries to railwaymen. That was his excuse last year. He said that he had to increase tariffs to pay wages. Today he ought to realize that with the surplus of R20,000,000—which would have been R25,000,000—he could very easily have paid those wages without increasing tariffs. In other words, he raised tariffs unnecessarily. He taxed the industrialist, the passenger, the farmer, the mines, etc. unnecessarily. The hon. the Minister now says that he can do nothing to reduce tariffs immediately; he must first consider the report of the Schumann Commission and see what they recommend. But when it comes to increasing tariffs nobody is consulted; then tariffs are increased by 5 per cent, per cent and 10 per cent.

The poor pensioner has been sorely affected by this tremendous increase in the cost of living during recent months. The ordinary railwayman is affected by it, but it is particularly the pensioner who is seriously affected. Now I put this question to hon. members opposite: Do they remember, when the United Party was in power, how they kept this House busy for hours and hours on end because there was a deficit in the Pension Fund of the Railways of between R6,000,000 and R8,000,000? Do you know where that shortage is to-day, Sir? It is not R6,000,000 or R8,000,000 or R10,000,000 or R20,000,000 R50,000,000, but R78,000,000. That is the biggest it has ever been in the history of South Africa. Actuarially there is a shortage in the Railways’ Superannuation Fund, i.e. the pension fund, of almost R80,000,000. What will the railwayman say when he hears that? What will the pensioner say when he hears that last year R45,000,000 was paid into the Superannuation Fund, whilst a meagre R15,000,000 was paid out to them? Three times as much was paid in as was paid out. Surely this is a matter where the Minister can do something for the pensioner.

I really want to say something in connection with the administration of a certain section of the Railways which is being administered worse than other sections. I refer here to the Catering Department. I refer to the fantastic and scandalous losses incurred by that Department. Losses which were incurred not because the service to the public was improved but because there was inefficiency, overlapping, nepotism and waste on an unprecedented scale in that Department.

If we go back to 1946 we find that that Department under the United Party Government made a nice profit of almost R500,000. What has the position been during the last three years? In 1961 there was a loss of R570,000; in 1962 the loss was R818,000, and in 1963 there was a loss of R970,000. And then the blow fell in the Budget speech when the Minister told us that this loss would now be more than R1,000,000. He said it would be more than R1,000,000, but I expect it to be far more than R1,000,000. The position in the Catering Department is so bad that the Auditor-General had to institute a special investigation. It is so bad that the section making the payments was placed under the General Manager’s office. The General Manager took it over because things would not go right. It was so bad that the hon. the Minister had to appoint a special committee to investigate the Catering Department. Do you know, Sir, that the Catering Department is such a jungle that one of the members of that committee of inquiry had to be fetched from the Kruger National Park? [Interjections.] Yes, he is the commercial manager of the Kruger National Park. The hon. the Minister has already received the report of that committee. We demand that he tell us what that report contains. He has read it. He knows of some of the shocking things revealed in that report as to what went on. He knows of the urgent recommendations made in that report, and we demand to be told what is going to be done in that regard.

Now that the bookstalls fall directly under the Administration, their number has been reduced from 236 to 95. The number of refreshment rooms remained constant at approximately 35. The number of dining-cars was approximately 61 or 62 and remained at that figure. With this tremendous decrease in the number of bookstalls we find that the staff is still the same. We find that there are too many people in the higher posts—it is top-heavy. It started when the Catering Department took over the bookstalls. The position became worse when a certain person who later left the railway service was appointed as Catering Manager. The report of the Auditor-General mentions the fact that for months and months accounts amounting to hundreds of thousands of rands which the Catering Department had to pay were not paid. At one stage there were no fewer than 162 large accounts in arrear, I think amounting to almost R500,000. The Auditor-General says this is his report for 1961-2—

This is one of the only organizations in the world which introduced mechanization and then found that it still required practically the same or more staff. Mechanization was introduced, and what was the result? Instead of there being a saving, and that essential manpower could be transferred to other sections of the Railways, they still have the same staff of between 2,000 and 3,000. This is the only organization in the world where mechanization has resulted in no saving of manpower. Bookstalls were closed; the number was reduced from 236 in 1959 to 231, and then to 219, and to-day there are 95. I think this is the only organization where it has ever happened that a shop was closed when there was the greatest number of clients. I think of an incident which happened on the Cape Town station when the Trans-Karoo train departed and passengers tried to buy periodicals and reading matter and the bookstall was closed because they were taking stock. In all fairness,

I want to say that this was brought to the notice of the General Manager. He went into the matter and admitted that they had made a mistake. But, Sir, would Mr. Sam Cohen of the O.K. Bazaars ever close his doors on a Saturday morning when he has the largest number of customers? But that is what happened in this department. It is only one of many incidents.

We ask: What is going on in regard to Jan Smuts Airport? According to a reply to a question put by me there is a loss in the cafeteria and the restaurant at Jan Smuts Airport of altogether R80,000 per annum. Now the hon. the Minister is trying to make up for it by charging visitors too much in the way of parking fees. There is, I almost want to say, the mess which took place in regard to the pre-planned meals in dining saloons. Before the trains depart from Cape Town and other large cities, all the meals are planned in advance. [Time limit.]

We know the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) as a sombre, pessimistic man who makes an elephant out of a gnat. After the Opposition has been drubbed so thoroughly, I can only say that his ingratitude knows no limits.

I want to discuss two matters and bring them to the notice of the hon. the Minister, but before doing so I want to place it on record that it is a pleasure to me to be able to say that wherever I find myself in my constituency and elsewhere there is great satisfaction to-day in regard to what this Minister does, not only among the general public but also the railway officials, and that there is loyalty to the heads of the Railways. I believe that with this personnel of the S.A. Railways the Minister can move mountains. In fact, I believe that the success of the Railways is to no slight extent due to the efforts and the loyalty of the railway officials of this country.

The first matter I want to mention for the consideration of the Minister is the small difference in the compensation for ordinary overtime and Sunday time. We know that Sunday is a particular day for the people in this country. It is a day on which one likes to be with one’s family. I want to mention a few figures as an example. A first-grade clerk received 107.5 cents per hour for overtime and 112.5 cents for Sunday time. That is a difference of 5 cents per hour. A special class driver with a salary of R173 per month receives 90 cents per hour for overtime and 97.5 cents per hour for Sunday time. A ticket examiner, special class, with a salary varying from R135 to R155 a month, receives 82.5 cents per hour for ordinary overtime, and 85 cents per hour for Sunday time. It is true that if one makes the payment for Sunday time very high it might lead to malpractices in any undertaking, but I still feel that the difference between ordinary overtime and Sunday time is too small if one considers what value the ordinary worker attaches to Sundays, what it means to him to be able to visit his church or in any case to stay with his family. We have every sympathy with those people who have to work on Sundays, but I do feel that we should show our sympathy for them in a more tangible way. The second matter I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister is the attire of certain railway officials. I think in particular here of the ticket examiners. I want to ask the Minister to consider devising clothing for these people which will be more suitable to the climatic conditions of the Republic of South Africa. I think particularly of the warm areas where the present clothing on hot summer days saps the energy of these railway officials. I cannot make a suggestion, but I think attempts should be made to make matters easier for the workers in the railway service. I want to say immediately that the present clothing is very neat, and I also believe that the dark colour is very serviceable, and that it is probably necessary for these clothes to be dark in view of the fact that these people work in the vicinity of steam locomotives. But the question is whether one cannot find a lighter material, not lighter in colour but lighter in weight, a thinner material and whether a summer uniform cannot be designed for the people working in the warmer areas, which will be more suited to our climatic conditions. I believe that if the Minister can comply with this request, a large number of railwaymen will be very grateful to him. I just want to bring these two matters to the notice of the Minister, better compensation for Sunday time, and secondly, clothing which is better suited to our climatic conditions, particularly in the warm areas.

I think the hon. Minister should take note of the criticism that has been directed to him with regard to his failure to give us some more comprehensive policy statements with regard to the future of the railway undertaking. I think it has been made very clear indeed, not only by some of the members on his side of the House, but certainly by members on this side of the House, that the tremendous undertaking of the Railways with all its ramifications is playing a very important and valuable and effective part in the life of our country. But one is sometimes constrained to be concerned of the fact that it may become a colossus that will in time become so top-heavy and that unless the hon. Minister and his department are planning ahead for this occurrence, it may be too late when breaking point is reached. This is not an original point because the hon. Minister has mentioned it himself in his speech when introducing the motion yesterday, and it is something that the General-Manager has also mentioned. The Minister said in the House the other day—

The General-Manager in his report for 1962-3, virtually makes the same statement—

The point is for how long can we continue to meet this challenge only under the umbrella of a state-run railway department. Some of the matters that have been raised with regard to the difficulties that have been experienced, have been criticized by members on the other side as perhaps extracts from economic newspapers and so on, but one must go by the reflection of opinion of the industrialist and the user of the Railways, those undertakings which help to contribute to the general economy of the country and to the tremendous economic progress of this great undertaking, and if one finds for instance in the Financial Mail, in its issue of 17 January that there are hold-ups at the ports which have become a matter of grave national concern, one is bound to take notice of such statements—

And the further statement—

The Department has answered and given its point of view, and I think it has been a very sound reflection of the attitude of both the railway-user and the Railways. But even great empires, and we have examples in this country of tremendous financial empires, have subsidiary organizations which have taken over the Administration for instance of one sector of that particular empire, and developed it satisfactorily in the common interests of the community and the country. That is one of the main factors in one of the legs of an amendment that was moved to the Minister’s motion the other day, and that is to ensure whether the Minister and his Department have planned sufficiently to meet that day when it will be necessary to ensure that there are other subsidiaries in the economy of the country that can play their part in this tremendous development which is taking place. I would like to agree with what an hon. member on the other side said, that the Railways have come to be virtually the backbone of the homelife, the social life of the community throughout the widespread areas of our country, areas far from the large cities, villages, hamlets and so on. This is not an uncommon incidence. In other countries which have such vast spaces as ourselves, countries like the United States and Australia, the railway system has come to mean all that as well in the social and business life of the community, and obviously one wants to see it continued. It is a great undertaking and our country is proud of it. But that does not deny the fact that it is necessary not merely to give what one might almost call an accountant’s review of the year’s activities, and accountant’s analysis of the year’s activities, a statement of the fact that haulage has increased and that demands may increase and that provision will be made and that additional carriages are going to be built—it is not sufficient to say that. I believe that the proper approach would be to give some statement of policy not only in regard to an aspect like rating, but policy in general, so that the country knows and the user, and the economist and the industrialist, the commercial man, the farmer, all know what lies ahead for them in view of the difficulties which obviously will be encountered in an expanding economy. There is no question that we all look forward to a tremendous expansion of our economy, and the Railways are obviously endeavouring to make provision for that expansion, but can you continue to load those rail-lines, can you continue with the doubling of lines throughout the country, do you continuously have to have the bugbear of faster haulage which is calling for electrification—can you serve every section of the country satisfactorily under this one umbrella? I think that is the question which the hon. Minister should answer.

I would like to turn to another aspect with regard to the railway accounts and that is to put in a plea for the railway artisans, the clerical workers, those people who are regarded as middle-class earners in this country, and I am thinking particular of the R1,500 to R2,500 per-year-earners, in common with many of the other earners. I would like to appeal to the Minister to perhaps plough back some of the surplus that he showed into the earnings of the railway-workers. Sir, in all reports, and I quote from the General-Manager’s recent report on page 1, where in dealing with better patronage of long-distance trains, he says—

If you look through all the reports, you will find tributes being paid to all sections of the railway workers. I know that the department has taken some very sound steps to improve the efficiency, to provide additional training, to give refresher courses, to give men opportunities to become more closely acquainted with improvements in railway administration so that they can play a fuller part, a more efficient part, and possibly even earn a little more money, but I do think that in an organization which has this fantastic turnover, where the entire efficiency and success of the organization depends on every worker in that organization, money should continually, particularly if there are large surpluses, be ploughed back, not only educationally, not only for housing, but also for real earnings, so that the middle-class-earner who has the burden of endeavouring to enable his children to play as useful a part in the social life of the country and in the general economic life of the country, should not constantly have the fear that he may not be able to meet his commitments. I believe that without specifically typifying any category, which is rather difficult. In this particular aspect, the hon. the Minister should tell us whether that cannot be done, which in a sense also provides a greater measure of incentive, a greater measure of planning and a greater measure of hope for the worker himself. I know that economically incentive bonuses are not the most desirable things in bringing about a higher standard of efficiency and I think that the best way would be to continually, year by year, even if it is merely a percentage, a small percentage perhaps at the commencement, growing as time goes on, plough back for the benefit of that worker whose devotion to duty and whose loyalty is making a success of this great undertaking. This is one of the undertakings in which the efficiency of manpower, the devotion of manpower is as important, if not more important, than the actual physical equipment that is made use of in maintaining this great industry. [Time limit.]

In reply to the hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller), I want to say that surpluses are not used to increase wages and salaries of employees. Increases in salaries and wages are recurrent expenditure and must be budgeted for in the ordinary way. I want to suggest to the hon. member that he can leave it safely in the hands of the staff organizations. They make representations if they want improvements in working conditions, and they make very effective representations. They are representative. On the whole the staff are quite satisfied with the concessions that have been made in the last year or two. It is only 14 months ago that the rationalization of wages took place, which conferred considerable benefits on the staff, and I have received no requests for any general increase in wages since then.

Was there not a meeting of the clerical staff in Cape Town in November last?

As far as I know there was no meeting held of the clerical staff. Obviously certain sections of the staff would like to have more than what they receive. I do not for a moment suggest that every employee in the whole of the South African Railways is satisfied with his salary or wage, but I say that on the whole they are satisfied, and the staff organizations know that they cannot come along every year and ask for concessions, and that there must at least be some intermediate period in which no demands are made. The hon. member can safely leave the matter in the hands of the staff organizations.

The hon. member wants to know about policy. What is my policy in regard to our expanding economy and the continually increasing demands which are made on the Railways and will be made on the Railways in future. The hon. member quotes the Financial Mail. I want to suggest to him that he must not regard the Financial Mail as an authority on these questions. The editor of the Financial Mail has only one object and that is to criticize the Government and everything the Government does, and he is certainly not an authority. He often makes similar wild statements and unsubstantiated allegations as hon. members on the other side sometimes do. But the hon. member wants to know the policy. Let me tell him this, that comparatively speaking the S.A. Railways transport a small tonnage compared with certain other railways in the rest of the world. The British railway system transports a considerably higher tonnage and has almost twice the number of employees. In other words, there is room for considerable expansion and development in the S.A. Railways. The policy should be clear and simple for all hon. members to understand, namely that the S.A. Railways must keep pace with the development of the country by increasing its carrying capacity continually and that is being done. What other policy is necessary? The hon. member talks about hauliers and other subsidiaries? There are only two forms of transport, apart from air transport: Either by road or by rail. There is no other form of transport in South Africa. Now what is the hon. member actually getting at? The rail capacity can be increased, considerably increased in future. You can increase rail capacity by doubling of lines, by introducing new forms of train control, by electrification, by new forms of attractive power. There are dozens of ways by which to increase carrying capacity and that is being done continuously to meet the increasing demand. If it is necessary that more traffic should be conveyed by road, that will be done. But what hon. members do not realize is that the Railways never have any difficulty in the transport of high-rated traffic, which only forms a small proportion of the total tonnage transported every year. There is no difficulty in transporting high-rated traffic which is the cream of the traffic. The difficulty is the transporting of low-rated traffic that is quite unremunerative for any private haulier. I am transporting millions of tons of coal to the Western Cape at a loss of R1,470,000 per year. If private road transport wants to transport that coal, I will give it to them to-morrow. They do not want to do that. I am transporting 27,000,000 bags of maize to the ports. If private transport wants to do that, I am quite willing to allow them to do that. But it will be quite uneconomic for them. I am transporting millions of tons of ore to the harbours. Private transport is not interested in that. They want the cream of the traffic, the high-rated traffic which I have no difficulty in transporting. Even if more concessions are made to road hauliers, it will not get the S.A. Railways out of that difficulty, because the overwhelming majority of capital spent to increase the capacity, is spent for the purpose of conveying low-rated traffic.

May I put a question to the hon. Minister? Is it not a fact that during the past four years the revenue received from bulk traffic has exceeded the revenue from high-rated traffic?

That is not the argument. I am speaking of the tonnage of traffic, not the total amount of revenue derived from traffic. I am trying to explain to the hon. member that the greatest tonnage of traffic transported by the Railways is low-rated traffic, and that most of the improvements that are necessary have to be made as a result of the demands for the transportation of low-rated traffic, and I am trying to tell the hon. member that even if the high-rated traffic is given to private hauliers it will not make any difference to the difficulty the Railways are experiencing in transporting the bulk of the traffic. To give a few instances. Considerable improvements have to be made on the Postmasburg line as a result of the transport of ore to Iscor and the transport of manganese from the Postmasburg area. I have to electrify the line from Klerksdorp to Beaconsfield, which is costing millions of rand. I have to double the line from Beaconsfield to De Aar. I have to introduce centralized traffic control from Klerksdorp to Midway, costing millions of rand, merely so that I can meet the demands of Iscor and the demands of ore exporters. The sooner hon. members realize that the better. The Railways’ difficulties are in the transporting of low-rated traffic in which the private haulier is not interested. When there were difficulties in the year 1954 and private carriers had to transport coal from Witbank to the Witwatersrand they had to receive a subsidy otherwise they would not do it.

So as far as these requests for policy statements are concerned, I repeat again that the policy is to provide the necessary capacity and to enable the Railways to meet the demands of our expanding economy, to keep pace with the industrial development in South Africa.

But there is another thing. Our roads are not built for heavy lorry traffic. What would be the position if for instance on the Durban-Johannesburg road during the season you would have hundreds of heavy lorries on the road. We are talking about road accidents, we are trying to make people safety-conscious, we are trying to combat the slaughter on the roads, but what would be the position on our single-lane roads if you were to have hundreds of heavy lorries the way they have them on the autobahnen in Germany for instance.

What is the position on the autobahnen?

There they are limiting heavy lorry traffic to certain hours during the night, and in spite of that they are still having accidents. We cannot do that. If we had to limit heavy lorry traffic say on the Durban-Johannesburg road to certain hours during the night it would become quite uneconomical for the transporter. It would mean that during the day they would have to lie over at certain places and wait for the few hours during the night in which to continue on their way. Hon. members when they talk so easily about making concessions to private hauliers should bear these facts in mind. Now the hon. member knows what the policy is. As I told the hon. member for Yeoville, concessions are made to private carriers, they are continually being made. A greater tonnage is to-day transported by road than by rail. Those are the facts of the matter. These concessions are continually made. There are thousands of exemptions in existence to-day, there are thousands of transport certificates, but a measure of protection is given to the Railways to protect them against losing all their high-rated traffic. At the same time there must be co-ordination between road and rail transport. We are the envy of many other railway systems in the world. I have had requests from other railway systems to give them information in regard to the co-ordination of road and rail traffic in South Africa and the measure of protection given to our Railways. That is why we are still in a position to show surpluses every year, instead of having accumulated deficits as most of the other railway systems in the world. I hope hon. members will stop that parrot-cry about policy and about subsidiaries and all the rest of it, because they now know what the position is.

I would still like to debate this point of the percentage of revenue.

This has nothing to do with the percentage of revenue. If the hon. member still does not understand my argument, then I cannot help him. The question is not whether the revenue from low-rated traffic has increased beyond that from high-rated traffic. I am talking about the tonnage of commodities transported.

Surely you do not contend that all low-rated traffic is unprofitable?

I never said that.

That is the impression you have created.

No I do not create such silly impressions.

*The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Niemand) complained about the small difference between Sunday-time pay and ordinary overtime pay. In this connection I just want to say that it has been agreed, and it is with the concurrence of the staff groups themselves, that these specific scales apply and they are quite satisfied with it. I am afraid I cannot make a change in that regard. As far as the uniforms of ticket examiners are concerned it has already been decided to introduce a lighter uniform and I understand the specifications have been drawn up and that they are before the Bureau of Standards at the moment. Everything is being done to ask for tenders during August/September of this year for the manufacture of this lighter type of uniform.

I just want to say to the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) that the large catering staff will be grateful to him for all the insults he has hurled at them. He spoke about the shocking and inefficient way the staff of the catering department did their work, the nepotism and the overlapping. He is a propagandist of his party who is continually trying to curry favour with the workers, but I am sure they will be disillusioned when they hear what the hon. member has accused them of. You must remember, Sir, that more than one person is responsible for the management of the department. The manager of that department is a very able official, Mr. Humphreys; he was only appointed a year or two ago. His assistant, Mr. Oelofse, is an efficient and able official.

But a poor Minister.

The Minister does not manage the department. I administer the Railways. I lay down the policy. But the hon. member hurls insults at those people who work in the department and he talks about the shocking state of affairs, inefficiency, overlapping and nepotism, and I do not know what else. I leave it to the officials to deal with him. As far as the losses are concerned I just want to say that there is a very good reason for the losses in the catering department, namely, that we offer services which do not pay at all. No private undertaking can offer meals of the quality the Railway Catering Department offers at the same price. I have travelled overseas in their best trains and when I think what I had to pay for an ordinary meal there! To give you an example, Sir: I travelled in the Trans-Europe Express and they had Chateau Briand steak on the menu. It was a tasty steak. They served a bread-roll with it and a cup of coffee and the price was 30s. Just think of the meal that hon. member gets on our trains for the price he pays! But we are trying to meet a need. When an undertaking serves such good meals and gives such good service it cannot make a profit. We can place the catering department on a profitable basis but then we shall have to increase the price of meals very considerably. If we do that we lose our clients. It is only part of the duty of a railway undertaking to offer these services even if it is at a loss. If the hon. member talks about inefficiency and the appointment of a committee I can only say that I have appointed a committee which has reported but there was no finding in regard to ineffectiveness or inefficiency.

Table that report.

No, why should I? It is a departmental report which is not tabled. There are numbers of departmental reports because committees are continually appointed. That is a managerial matter.

But members would like to study it.

I can give hon. members the assurance that there is no finding in regard to ineffectiveness or inefficiency on the part of the staff. They did make recommendations. What I am prepared to do is to let the hon. member for Yeoville have insight in that report personally, because he is a responsible member and he can then confirm what I have just said.

The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. van Eeden) asked for a new station building at Bonnievale. I would very much like to give him a new station building but we have a priority list and when it is Bonnievale’s turn a new station will be built there.

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) made an appeal that railway-men should receive the same bonus as public servants. I have already replied to that. Public servants have been seconded to another Government, and that is why they receive an additional allowance, but the railwaymen are part of the railway organization and they suffer no more severe disabilities than railwaymen in other Native territories. There is no justification for giving railwaymen in the Transkei a bonus and not giving them a bonus in Zululand or any other Native territory.

Why do you allow it in South West Africa?

Because they suffer certain disabilities and that has been in operation for many years. It is no new thing, and it has been accepted by all the railwaymen. I am afraid I cannot accede to the appeal made by the hon. member and give the railwaymen in the Transkei the same allowances as those public servants. The hon. member also spoke about the railwaymen who own houses under the house ownership scheme and might be transferred.

I was referring to railway-men who owned houses privately.

I have already given the assurance before that railwaymen who own private houses and who are transferred and who cannot sell those house will be sympathetically treated.

The hon. member for Kroonstad asked that more departmental houses should be built. That is the policy. More houses are built every year. I have specifically earmarked R2,000,000 of my surplus for the building of departmental houses. I know there is a number of very old houses in Kroonstad which are in a very bad state of repair and I trust they will soon be replaced by better houses. Naturally a limited sum of money is available and I cannot, therefore, build as many houses as I would like to build, but we build every year.

As far as engineering students are concerned, we have no difficulty in getting students. There are many more applicants than the number of bursaries available and we select only the best matriculants to whom to award bursaries. My problem is therefore not to get applicants for the bursaries but my problem is to get qualified engineers. I simply cannot compete with private undertakings because they offer exorbitant salaries. They may perhaps only have one or two engineers on their staff and they can offer any salary whereas I have hundreds of engineers and we have a definite salary structure which we have to follow. The hon. member for Pretoria (East) also raised that question. It is true that the maximum salary of an engineer’s assistant is higher than the starting salary of a qualified assistant engineer. That matter has now been put right. I decided recently that the salary scales applicable to engineers should be improved considerably. Efforts have already been made to remove this anomaly. The new scales will be announced one of these days.

As far as the compound is concerned which has to be moved I am informed that there have been negotiations with the city council moving the Bantu. The city council indicated originally that they would make accommodation available in three phases at Eerste Fabriek. That was not acceptable to the Railways, in view of the fact that it would still have been necessary to keep the compound going. The position to-day is that since September the city council has been moving the Bantu and accommodated them elsewhere. They will now foe moved immediately.

The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) wanted to know whether it is correct that a sewerage pipe has been laid across the entrance of Durban harbour and that as the result of silting the depth of the water has now been reduced to 39 feet. My information is that that is not so. This sewerage pipe was laid in 1956 and it was laid in a tunnel. The top of the tunnel is 49½ feet below water level leaving a play of 7½ feet at low water. The Harbour Advisory Engineer does not accept that silting is due to the sewerage pipe. He describes that statement as completely wrong.

What is the depth of the water over the top of the pipe at low tide?

I think it is 42 feet. The hon. member also stated that certain ships were lying outside in the harbour and could not berth because they required special handling facilities. Well, no one knows anything about that. No harbour official knows anything about it, nor does the management know anything, so I think that story has no foundation at all. The ships were lying outside waiting for an ordinary berth, but there is no question of ships requiring special facilities being detained.

The hon. member wanted to know whether a permanent berth for coasters could be provided. That cannot be done. Like all other ships, they must take their turn. The only ships that received special berthing are the Union-Castle mailboats. Not even the passenger ships of other lines receive any special treatment. I agree that the Victoria Basin is cluttered up with whalers and other small vessels, but the hon. member knows that we are waiting for the fishing harbour to be built, which is the responsibility of the Department of Economic Affairs and not of the Railways. They are responsible for all fishing harbours. I understand that the tests being conducted will be completed in a short time and then a decision will be taken as to where the fishing harbour will be built. I can tell him, however, that provision is being made to the east of the tanker berth for a basin where whalers and other ships now being moored inside the harbour will be transferred. We hope to be able to complete it by the end of 1964. That is to the east, next to Woodstock.

But at present it is half-filled with sand.

I am telling the hon. member that provision will be made and that it will be ready by the end of 1964.

With regard to shipbuilding facilities, I said in my reply to the Budget debate that the Department of Economic Affairs is negotiating with certain shipbuilders. There are only a limited number of sites available in Durban. We do the reclamation work, which has been almost completed, and then allocate the sites, but the Department of Economic Affairs must decide which firm or which consortium will have the right to obtain a site, and directly I hear from that Department the site will be allocated. We are in continual consultation with each other and they are bucking up, but the Department of Economic Affairs has to see to it that they get the right people, people who are able to establish a shipbuilding yard, which is a very big undertaking. Certain conditions have to be conformed with. For instance, such a firm might require Government assistance, a subsidy for the building of ocean-going ships, and those matters must be decided before it is decided which firm will receive the site.

The hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) asked that the deviating line between Candower and Gollel should be built in such a way that it joins Pongola. The route has already been laid out and I am afraid that cannot be done. The intention is to build a connecting line from the northern coast to Piet Retief but that has not yet been finally decided upon.

I think these are the points I had to deal with.

I must say that the hon. Minister presents the case of the co-ordination between the private road hauliers and the Railways in a very favourable light. He speaks of the large number of permits issued to private enterprise, presumably in competition with railway transport. I can only say that the case which I brought to his specific notice in the second reading, which was one of six, creates a very different picture from the one the Minister presented to the House in respect of the co-ordination between the Railways and the specialized private hauliers. It seems to me that the circumstances in which the Minister explains the position and the need we have stressed from this side for proper co-ordination makes out a good case for a commission of inquiry so that the full facts can be ascertained.

The Minister rather brushed aside a matter which I brought to his notice, the big backlog of finished goods awaiting delivery in factories at Port Elizabeth. I pointed out to him that it is a current matter. The report was that some thousand of rands’ worth of products were lying in warehouses and could not be moved because the Railways were unable to effect delivery. One of the agents mentioned that the undelivered goods were worth about R100,000. The Minister brushed that aside, but I think it warrants further consideration and a helpful reply from the Minister. The fact is that whenever these delays take place it is for the account of the customer. He is involved in all the additional expenditure. and where there is a delay of this nature I think the railway user is entitled to an explanation of the difficulty, and I hope the Minister will give it.

The new ore-loading plant at Port Elizabeth harbour came into use in May last year and one can understand that in the beginning there were teething troubles and that there were possibly difficulties in the co-ordination of the transportation services with the harbour services. This is one of the cases where there was considerable delay of shipping due to difficulties in ore loading. I understand that the main difficulty has been overcome. Diesel traction is now being used for the whole length of the line, and that has brought about a satisfactory change and the delays have been eliminated. But I gather that there is not yet this complete co-ordination between the two services which there should be, in that arrangements for fuelling and servicing of diesel traction at Port Elizabeth are still of a temporary nature. I hope the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but if I am right I hope he will give some assurance that this fuelling arrangement at the harbour will be adjusted and brought on to a more permanent basis. My information is that a mobile tank is used for fuelling purposes.

Then there is the second aspect which I think deserves the Minister’s consideration, and that is whether the diesel traction can be used right up to the ore berth. There is a certain amount of confusion or delay, I understand, in this regard. I understand that there has to be a changeover from diesel to steam traction. I hope the Minister can give me information in regard to that, and if anything can be done to improve the position, that he will give me that assurance.

Lastly, the Minister justifies the financial administration which has produced surplus revenues running into R100,000,000 over six years by saying that those surpluses have been ploughed back into the Railways. Of course it would have been monstrous if that had not happened. Nobody objects to surpluses being appropriated to the Reserve Funds. The gravamen of my criticism of the financial administration is that these funds have been built up not by normal business management and financial administration, but purely by chance and by expedience. If the Minister relies on building up reserve funds from surpluses, it leaves the impression either that he relies on fortuitous surpluses or that these surpluses are not quite so fortuitous. It is a question of budgeting. I think I must put the record right, because the justification advanced by the Minister is not a valid one. As I have said it would indeed be monstrous if the surpluses were not used for those purposes. But the question is why they should have been created to the extent they have been in six consecutive years.

I am not getting up to talk about the Weather Bureau but in view of the fact that the Weather Bureau falls under the Minister of Transport I think we shall be right when we predict that a cyclone is moving in the direction of the United Party threatening them with complete annihilation. I do not know what the cyclone is called, but I think a very proper name will be Helen. She went through the United Party like a cyclone and threatened to annihilate them. Had the United Party wanted to do anything in this debate they should have thanked the Minister very much for the very satisfactory way in which he and his officials have closed this year.

We do not crawl. You crawl.

Like every right-thinking person in South Africa I greatly admire the service which the South African Railways render to South Africa. You are grateful, Sir, when you look at the work these people do. They are not perfect human beings, but they give good service. There is a particular group of people for whom I want to plead this afternoon. And when I do so I want to make it very clear that I am not in the least belittling the work which is done by other officials. The Railways is a sensitive machine and the one type of work cannot continue without the other. The people I have in mind this afternoon are the shunters. We all know them. Those of us who use the railways and sit on the stations at some time or other and look what is happening see the shunters in action. He has to do his work in all possible climatic conditions. He cannot seek shelter when it rains. He has a task to do and it must be done at that particular moment, irrespective of the circumstances. They are on duty 24 hours of the day. We appreciate the work they do. These shunters do dangerous work. They run a great risk in the execution of their duty. They go between the trucks to (couple or uncouple them and that is an exceedingly responsible job. I humbly wish to make a suggestion to the Minister for his consideration.

One would like the shunters to enjoy the necessary peace of mind and I want to ask the Minister that over and above their ordinary remuneration we should insure their lives; that the Railways should impose a levy on itself to pay the premium on the policy which we take out for this shunter; firstly, an insurance on his life and secondly to insure his limbs because it often happens that a shunter gets hurt and loses an arm or a leg, although he does not lose his life. Cannot we consider giving these people a greater feeling of security and greater peace of mind, not only to the shunter himself but to his family? Because when they go on duty his wife and children at home must of necessity be very worried until he returns. I want to ask whether we cannot insure the lives of these people and that the South African Railways and the users of the railways, directly or indirectly, pay that premium. We know it is not easy to get shunters because the work is dangerous. Perhaps we shall be able, along these lines, to encourage people to make themselves available as shunters.

I am sure the hon. the Minister is able to guess what subject I want to raise, because I have done so in three previous years. I am doing so again because there has not been a very great improvement since I last raised the matter.

I want to talk about the inadequacy of the train service between that vast complex of townships to the south-west of Johannesburg, Soweto, where more than half a million Bantu live who have to travel into Johannesburg and back every day. The Minister himself said in his speech that non-White passengers yielded more than R9,000,000 more than White passengers, and I know he is fully appreciative of the tremendous size of the non-White passenger traffic to-day. I know, too, that the Minister has done his best to improve the situation. I know that 126 more suburban coaches for non-Whites have been ordered, although not necessarily for this particular service, but the position is still very inadequate in so far as the facilities are concerned between Soweto and Johannesburg. There was a tragic incident last year which the hon. the Minister will remember when several people lost their lives through a stampede at one of these stations just outside Johannesburg. But apart from these dramatic incidents, every single day the trains are dreadfully overcrowded and people are injured, and according to reports both in the Star and Dagbreek, something like 150 Bantu a year lose their lives on these journeys. Dagbreek mentioned the following—

All the Johannesburg papers last year carried stories of the terrific overcrowding on the stations and in the trains at peak hours. Railway officials who were asked to comment on the position stated that the Railways were doing their best, that lines had been doubled and trebled and even quadrupled in the last couple of years and that more coaches were constantly being ordered, and one of the senior officials remarked that attempts were being made to try to persuade commerce and industry to stagger their hours of work so that the peak hours would be stretched over longer periods and this tremendous rush would be avoided. I want to ask the hon. the Minister how far he has got with negotiations with the Chambers of Commerce and Industry to see whether something cannot be done from their side so as to make it unnecessary for the entire working force to report for work roughly between an hour or an hour and a half each morning and to leave their work during the same period, between say 4.30 and 6 p.m. This is a situation which is not only important from the race relations point of view, because nobody likes to have to get up at four o’clock in the morning in order to get to work at seven, and nobody likes to return home at nine o’clock at night after working all day because there is simply no adequate railway service. Because of the fact that the trains are so grossly overcrowded, many law-abiding African citizens are the prey of tsotsis and thugs who rob them in these overcrowded trains and coaches and steal their pay-packets. Apart from that there is also the question of national income and efficiency, because naturally if people can get to work on time without having to get up so much earlier and if they can get home sooner than they do at present, their efficiency must be increased. I hope, therefore, that something is being done in this connection, apart from simply saying that more coaches are being ordered and that lines have been quadrupled. Possibly something can also be done from the other side, that is to say by commerce and industry, to see that this terrific overcrowding on the trains, which is really a disastrous situation in many cases, is avoided in the future.

That is one subject I want to raise with the hon. the Minister. The other is of less general importance but affects the air hostesses. This information was given to me on one of my numerous flights between Johannesburg and Cape Town by Airways. I am one of the Minister’s most regular customers and would like to compliment him on that service. In conversation with one of the hostesses on one of my trips this year, I discussed working conditions and so on with the young lady and she informed me that one of the complaints which the hostesses have at present is that the old service which used to be rendered to them by the South African Airways, of being collected at their home and taken to the terminus where they then took the Airways bus out to the airport, has been discontinued. They are now finding, especially when they are on the early morning flights, that they have to get themselves to Kempton Park by train and there they are picked up by the South African Airways combi which takes them to Jan Smuts Airport. In some cases this entails young women leaving their residences at four or five o’clock in the morning, when, as the hon. the Minister knows, it is pitch dark in Johannesburg in winter, and then making their way down to the station, either by taxi at considerable expense, or walking to the station if they live within walking distance, in what I think is a dangerous area in the early hours of the morning. The difficulty now is that apparently they have to report one hour before flight time instead of half an hour before flight time as they did previously, when passengers also have to report. There is no transport for these girls from the terminus out to Jan Smuts Airport. I wonder if the hon. the Minister could have this matter investigated. He might perhaps reinstitute the old system under which the air hostesses were picked up at these hours when it is not possible to get public transport to convey them to Jan Smuts Airport.

We had many complaints from the Opposition but one has to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the way he has planned ahead. The farmers are very grateful to him for what he has done for them during the past maize harvesting season. As hon. members know there were times in the past when we did not have sufficient transport facilities at our disposal, but the hon. the Minister and his Department went out of their way to supply the necessary transport facilities. with the result, that we were in a position to export our surplus maize. I also want to extend my grateful thanks to him for the arrangements he has made at East London by constructing a new grain elevator there. All these are works which he had planned ahead before it was too late. I just want to tell him that the farming community is very grateful to him for what he has done. However, Sir, what was the position in the days when the United Party was in power? In those days our maize lay and rotted on the stations under old tarpaulins. Their old trucks were so old that we could not use them when we took over. In this respect, too, we want to thank the Minister for the steps he has taken to provide transport facilities suitable to the times in which we are living.

I also want to thank him for the planning he has done ahead in connection with the Orange River Scheme, a beautiful and large scheme, the largest in the world. Here, too, steps are taken timeously to provide the necessary railway facilities once that scheme is in operation. I also want to thank him for the provision he has made in the Estimates for a new station at Steynsburg, inter alia. We farmers are very grateful for all the assistance the Minister and his Department have given us during the drought to convey our stock. The railway staff did everything in their power to assist the farmers. Did the United Party during their time ever dream of doing anything like that? They could not even export our surplus maize. The facilities the Minister has now made available are quite adequate to meet the transport needs of the country. There was a time, Sir, not long ago, when hon. members opposite predicted that we would lose our export markets. But what do we find to-day? We are exporting so many bags of maize that the hon. the Minister has to acquire thousands of additional trucks to make the export of that maize possible. I just want to tell him that we as farmers are very grateful to him and his Department for the good work they have done. We assure him that we appreciate it very greatly. Compare that with the position that obtained under the United Party regime. In those days we did not even have port facilities. This Government came into power and as soon as it was practicable they improved the port facilities at Port Elizabeth and elsewhere. Who created those new facilities at East London? It was this Minister. The United Party did nothing. In the earlier years the United Party had an old cracked harbour basin in East London. The United Party have in actual fact done nothing. Are they the people who can afford to criticize to-day?

Disgraceful!

It is a disgrace, I admit, that they do not congratulate the Minister on the good work he has done. They only try to make cheap propaganda by occasionally pretending to be pleading for people. They are not sincere when they do that; they have no sympathy with those people. They are only trying to catch a few votes. I am convinced that the officials of this Government are so loyal to the National Party that they will never pay any attention to the nonsense that comes from that side.

Sir, the speech by the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) was nothing but a typical “bedank-die-Minister” speech. I think he actually thanked the Minister on five occasions. I think it was a pity that he had to waste the time of this Committee to thank the Minister. He could quite easily have written a letter of thanks to the Minister which would have been more effective, I think.

I wish to raise two matters of policy with the hon. the Minister. The first is in regard to the design of important buildings of the Department of Transport. I refer particularly to the design of the air terminal building at Durban and also to the new ocean terminal building at the T-jetty in the Durban harbour. Both these terminals are attractive-looking buildings with a large amount of glass. However, Sir, they appear to be impractical in their design particularly during the summer months. Several complaints have been received from persons using both the air terminal and the ocean terminal of the tremendous heat in those buildings during the summer months. One of the reasons for this terrific heat in these buildings is the fact that due to all the glass in the building very few windows open. The result is that the ventilation is very poor indeed. I believe that in regard to important buildings which are vastly used by visitors to this country as well as by our local people, the design should be such that adequate ventilation should be available to the users. If it is not too costly I think the Minister should explore the possibility of air conditioning at such terminals. I understand several people actually fainted during the last few weeks in the air terminal at Durban and also at the ocean terminal. I think it is only fair to the staff as well who have to work long hours at these terminals to see to it that they are adequately provided for in regard to ventilation and their working conditions.

The other matter I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister is in connection with the development of our harbours, in particular with the development of the premier port in South Africa, namely, Durban.

Cape Town.

If one looks at the latest annual report of the General Manager of the South African Railways and Harbours one will see on page 73 that the cargo handled by the Durban harbour is more than double the cargo handled at Cape Town, and certainly more than the other harbours combined. There is no doubt that Durban harbour is playing a very important, indeed a very vital, role in the development of South Africa. The increasing tempo of economic development, particularly in the provinces of Natal and the Transvaal, has meant that there has been an increased load on the Durban harbour. We know that the Moffat Committee has made recommendations to the Minister concerning the long-term plans for the development of the Durban harbour. We also know that the Chambers of Commerce and Industries have also made important recommendations to the Minister in regard to the development of the Durban harbour.

Earlier in this Session I asked the hon. the Minister whether his attention had been drawn to a report by the Chairman of the Railway Planning Board to the effect that the harbour facilities at Durban were proving to be inadequate and that urgent steps should be taken to increase the facilities there. The Minister replied that the matter had been investigated and that the recommendations were being examined.

My plea to the hon. the Minister is to expedite the development of the Durban harbour so as to obviate the crisis which might easily arise if the Durban harbour is unable to meet the requirements of that harbour. We know that at times they are working almost 24 hours per day to cope with the cargo that has to be handled at that harbour. Unless these facilities are improved we shall eventually reach the stage where the staff at that harbour will be required to work at full capacity for 24 hours a day. The Chambers of Commerce and Industries have put forward various recommendations which could perhaps bring about a position where there would not be a recurrence of these long delays in the handling of ships.

I think I should mention to this Committee that there are six main points which the Chambers of Commerce and Industries believe should receive the attention of the hon. the Minister and his Planning Board. One is the construction of a pier at Salisbury Island to get additional deep-water berths for the handling of bulk cargo. If we refer back to the annual report of the General Manager of 1957 we see that this matter was mentioned. They state the following in that report—

I know that if one refers to the Brown Book there are vast sums which have been allocated for the development of parts of Durban harbour. However, the point remains that these deep-water berths are now a matter of urgency in regard to the development of the Durban harbour. We realize that many millions of rand are involved to provide these additional facilities, but I believe that the State must face the fact that it has now reached a situation whereby a degree of urgency has arisen in regard to the development of Durban harbour. The second recommendation of the Chamber of Commerce and Industries was that a further T-jetty should be constructed. This, too is a long-term solution to the problem involving vast expenditure. However, I believe that this is a step which will have to be taken inevitably. The third point is the removal of the Cato Creek goods shed to another site, to improve the staging yards and the extension of marshalling yards in the Point area. Item 4: was the refacing and deepening of wharfs G and H at the Point; Item 5: The improvement of facilities for coastal traffic and particularly the accommodation of larger vessels at Wharf 12 at Maydon Wharf. Finally, the construction of an additional dry dock. I wish to dwell on the development of the Maydon Wharf, not only because that area actually is in the constituency I represent, but also because it is an area of the harbour which can be far more extensively used and can be developed to a great extent. Wharf No. 12 in regard to coastal traffic is being extended by the Department, but let us hope that this matter is receiving urgent attention. We have seen that the replacement of timber wharfs in the Maydon Wharf area took a very long time to complete. In regard to Berths 1 to 4, the work was actually started in 1953, and was not completed until 1960, seven years later. Similarly Wharfs 13 and 14 at Maydon Wharf also took a period of seven years to complete. Having watched the work in that particular area over a number of years it was apparent to me that this work was not receiving any form of priority. Often work would not take place on this particular aspect for three or four days. Often two weeks would pass without any work being accomplished on that particular project. Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, it was also observed that convict labour was used to a great extent and perhaps that is one reason why the work was so slow in that area. Large industrial concerns, in the Maydon Wharf area also had their operations considerably disrupted during the period that these timber wharves were beinq replaced by concrete wharves. Large industrial concerns that use these wharves considerably had sections of the wharves closed in front of their businesses and had to make other arrangements in regard to access to their business premises.

The other aspect in the development of the Durban Harbour which affects the whole of the Republic is the question of an adequate dry dock. The present dry dock was constructed, I believe, some 30 years ago with some dimensions of 1,150 feet long and a coping width of 138 feet. Thirty years is certainly a long time and I think that the persons who designed the dry dock and placed it in its present position did not have much forethought because it means a tricky procedure in the docking of ships in that dry dock in that they have to travel up the long Maydon channel and then make a difficult turn into the dry dock. Obviously the solution to the problem would be to build a new dry dock which would be able to take the larger vessels which are now being utilized. Sir, the ordinary freighter to-day is almost the same size as what a passenger ship was 30 years ago. [Time limit.]

In spite of the tittering that usually comes from hon. members on that side of the House I think it is proper to express appreciation to the hon. the Minister and the management of the Railways for the considerable improvement that has come about in the Railways over the past few years. We know that years ago the Railways found it exceedingly difficult to cope with the goods traffic offered. Hon. members know that as a result of the war years a backlog was created because rolling stock and rail material could not be obtained. That caused great difficulties to the Railways because they could not handle the traffic properly. As a result of proper planning on the part of the Minister and the Management considerable improvements have come about and to-day the Railways can boast about the fact that they can handle all the traffic offered. It is fitting that the users as well as hon. members show their appreciation for the improvement that has come about. As far as the Transvaal Lowveld is concerned we too can say that whereas in the past there were considerable delays in the delivery, for example, of perishable products, there is to-day such an improvement that those products are delivered in proper time. That is of great value to the farmers. They suffered heavy losses in the past because deliveries were delayed. Because the delivery time has been speeded up their vegetables and fruit are delivered in a proper condition and consequently they receive much better prices. Provision has been made for the fast transportation of vegetables and fruit and that has brought about a considerable improvement. On behalf of the vegetable farmers on the Lowveld I also want to convey our thanks to the Minister for the concession in regard to the tariff on the transportation of vegetables. As you know, Mr. Chairman, tariffs were increased by 10 per cent. The vegetable farmers of the Lowveld and I myself on their behalf made representations to the hon. the Minister to assist us. When it appeared that the revenue of the Railways was satisfactory, the Minister was accommodating and he did away with the 10 per cent increase in respect of the conveyance of vegetables and those vegetables were again conveyed at the old tariff. That was no mean concession and the vegetable growers appreciate it very much.

There is something else, namely, the transportation of timber. As hon. members know the Lowveld is a part of the country where most of our timber is produced. The experience is, particularly during the winter months, that it is difficult to convey that timber. During that time the Railways have to handle maize and there is also a greater demand for coal. We appreciate those difficulties but those people who grow the timber also have their difficulties. If the timber is not taken away soon enough they definitely have problems. The sawmill owners build up their stocks and they have to find a market and the timber must be delivered to the users. The same applies in the case of mine timber and box wood for the farmers. If the timber is not taken away it causes inconvenience, not only to the growers and the sawmill owners but also to the users. We trust that special attempts will be made during the coming winter months to bring about relief so that no more inconvenience will be suffered. It must be appreciated that these people employ labour. They have to carry on with their production and cannot pay off their workers for a period of time. The smaller growers and sawmill owners do not have a large capital. They have to have a regular market in order to obtain working capital. We trust that in this respect too the position will be considerably improved in the coming season.

I should like to bring two matters to the attention of the Minister. Both are in connection with two stations in my constituency. I think the Minister knows the background of both these matters, but I just want to give him the facts briefly. In both instances I refer to subways, in the first place, the one at Observatory station. At Observatory there are two subways belonging to the Railways and they are used by a considerable number of people, not only people who want to use the station as such, but also by pedestrians who want to go from one part of Observatory to the other. To make matters worse you have the position that the office of the Bantu Commissioner is about 200 yards from the station with the result that all the Bantu who have to go to that office get off the train at Observatory station, and they plus the Coloureds and the White people, school children and women, use those two subways any time of the day and night. Robberies have already been committed in those subways as well as serious assaults. The people think the Minister should do one of two things. He must either replace the subways with overhead bridges so that people will at least be able at night to see what is happening, or the Minister must provide a permanent police service there. Unless the hon. the Minister can suggest something else, one of these two seems to be a possible solution.

The second matter is in respect of the Maitland station. There you have only one subway. North of the station you have a residential area and to the south you have a factory area and the subway connects the two. People of all races use that subway. Over and above that there is an overhead bridge which runs from the one side to the centre of the railway lines, but the subway is the only connection between the factory area and the residential area. I want to plead with the Minister to construct an overhead bridge there as well. I must be honest. I do not like subways. I think they are bad things to have in cities and if the Minister can possibly assist those people the best thing will be to build an overhead bridge.

There is another small matter I want to raise. I raised it yesterday and the Minister told me my figures were wrong and that he could not provide the Western Cape with coal free of charge. I just want to point out that I raised the question of coal by way of illustration, but I think the Minister will agree with me that the Western Cape can make out a good case as far as transport is concerned. If the Minister agrees with me I want to ask him whether he will not go into the matter and make a real attempt to assist the Western Cape.

Business suspended at 7.0 p.m. and resumed at, 8.5 p.m.

When the House adjourned for dinner, the Minister had indicated that he did not agree with me in regard to my basic proposition that transportation is one of the most important factors affecting the industrial development of the Western Cape. I do not want to quarrel with the hon. the Minister on the subject, but I do want to tell him that almost every industrialist of repute supports me when I say that transport costs to-day are a key factor in the development of the Western Cape. I think I can say that, even though the Minister does not agree with me, he is nevertheless aware of the importance of my statement and also of the necessity that the Western Cape should develop in order to assist its growing population, White as well as non-White. What I want to ask the hon. the Minister is perhaps something which does not fall under the Railway Administration but under the State. However, I direct my request to the Minister in the hope that he will help me by giving a lead. If he thinks that the Railways cannot bear the cost, I should still like to see the Railways playing a leading role by investigating the matter. Then he must go to the Cabinet and say that, as Minister of Transport, he feels that he can in fact assist the Western Cape but that the Consolidated Revenue Fund must help him to bear the costs.

I am aware that coal, for example, is transported to the Western Cape at a loss, and I was aware of the special tariff. As I mentioned it only by way of illustration. I hope that the Minister will not avoid answering my question by simply telling me that I am wrong in regard to coal. I realize that that is not the whole story. I said in the beginning that there were numerous factors, in so far as transport is concerned, which have a bearing on this matter. Therefore I feel that it is in the interest of the whole of the Cape Province, but particularly in the interest of the Whites and the non-Whites in the Western Cape, that the Minister should give an indication as to whether he will assist us.

Whilst I still have time. I again want to emphasize that the local circumstances in regard to Observatory and Maitland, although they are small when viewed against the background of the broad national interest, are nevertheless of great importance to the people concerned. If he can render assistance in this regard, the inhabitants of these two suburbs will be very grateful to him.

It has become clear to me in this debate that hon. members of the United Party are no longer reading or interpreting their Bible correctly. The Bible tells us that we must not let our left hand know what our right hand is doing. However, there is something else that has become clear to me and that is that the left wing of the Opposition does not always know what the right wing is going to say. For example, the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) asked the hon. the Minister to take action against private enterprise. After him, members of the other wing asked the hon. the Minister to protect private enterprise. The hon. member for Maitland said that it was the duty of the State to ensure that the people of Namaqualand were given cheap transport. What the hon. member has said can have no other meaning than that the hon. the Minister should take action, because how else can he provide cheap transport? As I have said, it is clear to me that the left wing of the Opposition does not take into consideration the attitude adopted by the right wing, and vice versa.

Nevertheless, I am pleased at what the hon. member for Maitland has said. He broke a lance for Namaqualand which is very welcome. At the same time this proves that there is not very much consultation in the United Party caucus. Indeed, I do not think that they can afford to have consultation.

But I do not want to discuss this matter any further. I want to refer to the Schumann Report. I do not know what procedure will be followed in dealing with that report in this House. I believe that certain policy statements will have to be made in connection with that report. I want to take the liberty of bringing one or two aspects of the tariff policy to the attention of the hon. the Minister so that he can give them his serious consideration. These are important as far as the whole economy of South Africa is concerned. The first pertinent statement that I want to make is that, as a national transporter, the South African Railways must handle all long-distance traffic. In this connection I categorically reject the attitude of some members of the Opposition. I believe that the South African Railways as our national transporter must handle all long-distance traffic in the country. Of course, I have no objection to use being made of private enterprise as far as transport is concerned but I feel that the state of affairs that we have in our country to-day is having an unhealthy effect upon the economy of our country. I want to say—and if I had the time it would not be difficult for me to prove it— that no single factor has played a more important part in the depopulation of the platteland than the tariff system has done since 1910. I refer here to the great differences that exist between certain tariffs and others. I know that the aim of the original designers of this system was that certain articles which would stimu late the economy of the country should be transported more cheaply than other goods. But in contrast to this, private enterprise has one uniform tariff and we now find that the tariffs system of the Railways simply does not work out. We are grateful that the hon. the Minister himself has realized that there is something wrong and has resorted to the appointment of a commission of inquiry to investigate the whole of the tariff structure. That is why I ask that once the report of that commission has been made available, we will be given sufficient time in this House to discuss the findings of that report in detail because the economic future of our country is affected thereby, particularly our industrial future. In some parts of our country we have a uniform tariff and in other parts of the country the tariffs differ. I think that the areas in which we have a uniform tariff are not keeping pace with the economic development of the country. That is unavoidable. For example, the railways transport artificial fertilizer and other articles at very low tariffs to stimulate development in a particular area. There are other transporters who are dealt with in the same way and have to compete with the Railways as far as the transport of these articles is concerned. I admit that we also have higher tariffs and that they can derive the benefit of these higher tariffs. But I want to confine myself to the question of the transport of those articles that can be regarded as capable of giving a stimulus to the development of a particular area. For this reason they are transported at low tariffs.

Our development association adopted a resolution at its last congress asking the Government to appoint an inter-departmental commission of inquiry in that area. I informed the Government of this resolution by way of a memorandum and I also raised the matter during the discussion on the Part Appropriation Bill. The Department of the hon. the Minister of Transport is one of the key departments in this regard and that is why I want to ask him to ensure that this inquiry is held. I want to ask him to do his best to ensure that effect is given to the request contained in that memorandum. We are not asking for rail connections, only for an investigation, a thorough investigation, in order to promote planning in the area concerned. And so I want to ask the hon. the Minister very courteously please to make this investigation possible, particularly in view of the fact that his Department will play a key role in an inquiry of this nature.

I also want to ask the hon. the Minister to compare very carefully the tariffs of the Road Motor Transport Service with the tariffs charged by the Railways. The South African Agricultural Union has adopted a very definite attitude in this regard to the effect that because we in South Africa are in the position that every section of the Railways cannot be run economically but that some sections have to be run at a loss, the Road Motor Service should use the same tariff basis as that used by the Railways. I know that this is a great deal to ask all at once but I have another suggestion to make. By the way, we submitted this proposal to the Schumann Commission on behalf of both the South African and the North Western Agricultural Unions. In it we asked that the same tariffs as those applied on the Railways be applied in those areas which are unfortunate enough to have no railways. We drew up a table of the differences between the tariffs charged by the Railways and those charged by the Road Motor Service and from this table it is quite clear that the position in certain instances is untenable. When we compare the tariffs of the Road Motor Service with those of the Railways, we find that the tariffs of the first-mentioned are, on the average, one and a half times to twice as high as the tariffs of the last-mentioned. When we take the question of livestock, we find that it costs 131c to transport seven sheep by rail as against 581c by Road Motor Service. For oxen the figure is 131c per oxen as against 550c per ox. It must be remembered here that the farmer in the north-west makes his living from livestock. It is clear that where no railways exist, the farmers are being penalized. I do not blame the hon. the Minister in this regard because he is not responsible for the position. I am pleased to be able to say that this is not the tariff structure of a National Government. The hon. the Minister now has the opportunity to take note of these anomalies. In some respects the position is untenable and it is a position which I think ought to be rectified. In any case, I would like the hon. the Minister to give serious attention to this matter.

When we take the case of other products, such as lucerne and cotton, we find that the tariffs vary from 169c to 373c, that is to say, the one is about twice as much as the other. On the other hand, there is very little difference in regard to certain other products. But when we come to certain essential articles, such as coal, which is so necessary for the development of any area, we find that the tariff is 125c by rail as against 373c by Road Motor Service. And what is more, the longer the distance, the greater the difference. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just sat down made points which we hope will all be considered by the Schumann Commission of Inquiry. If we, when we see its report, are not satisfied, we shall tell the Minister so.

Mr. Chairman, at this stage of the debate the Minister may feel like Father Christmas handing out gifts. I should like to make a plea concerning the rerouting of S.A.A. flights via D.F. Malan. I asked a question about this some time ago and he said that consideration had been given to the matter, but that it was considered uneconomical to do so. Here I think we must accept that a new service, and especially a new air service, would be uneconomical. At the present moment people from the Western Cape wanting to fly overseas, or executives of business houses wanting to come to the Western Cape from Europe, find that there is no direct flight. They first have to fly to Jan Smuts airport. Sometimes their flights do not connect and they have to stay overnight or suffer other inconveniences. We do have a Boeing service connecting up with an overseas flight but the inconveniences of having to have custom and immigration check up’s at Jan Smuts have to be put up with.

Now, the Minister, through no fault of his own, was forced to route his planes via the West Coast. I should like to ask the Minister to give consideration to the question of rerouting alternate planes via the Cape. In the past Cape Town was the doorway to Africa, and especially South Africa, because most people came by sea. As a result the Western Cape thrived. Overseas investors could see what the tailend of Africa looked like. Today, however, you find business executives from overseas get only so far as Jan Smuts. They remain in the Transvaal because they do not want the inconvenience of having to change planes in order to come down to the Cape. It would be vastly different if they could catch a plane, for instance, in London and fly from there direct to the Cape. Seeing the Minister of Tourism here, I should like him to note that by routing flights via the Cape we give our tourist industry here a big boost. A new era would be opened if that was done. I know the Minister will say that the plane service between Cape Town and Johannesburg is ample and that those people who want to go overseas can go by these planes to Jan Smuts and catch overseas flights from there. But the Minister would be surprised to learn how many people do that and how many people would make use of the S.A.A. if direct flights are scheduled. Such flights are necessary because everything seems to go against the Western Cape. We are, for instance, losing our Bantu labour and are getting further and further away from the country’s main industries. But we want to make of the Cape once more the gateway to Africa.

Then I should like to make a plea on behalf of the Bantu workers in the docks at Cape Town. Years ago there was a train service from the docks direct to Monument Station which the workers could use to go backwards and forwards. Later this service was replaced by a bus service but this service is inadequate to handle the vast number of labourers working in the docks at present. Those who go off duty late at night have to walk to Cape Town station in order to get a train to get home to Nyanga or Langa. Bantu are now being replaced by Coloureds and these Coloureds live at Bonteheuwel. I wonder whether the Minister could not arrange a train service direct from the dock area to Langa, going through Bonteheuwel. I know he has provided station facilities along the new line in order to provide facilities for the industrial workers of Paarden Eiland. He recognized the fact that there was a vast horde of industrial workers there and so he made provision for them. Now I should like to see a direct service to the docks allowing labourers to report to the docks direct from their homes.

Finally I should like to make a plea for a new line. I know the hon. the Minister is not happy when it comes to building new lines because these are expensive to construct. If he could provide road traffic, he would rather do that than to construct a new railway line. I think we all accept that the laying of a new line is very expensive. However, the plea I made for the lengthening of the line from Protem to Swellendam was not with the intention of opening up a farming area only. We have also a growing fishing industry along that coast and in order to reach rail facilities the fishing products have either to come via Cape Town or travel by road to Worcester. It is not very economic if you have to unload and load fish, especially when refrigerated. I admit the line I ask for will not pay at first. It will, nevertheless, serve a useful purpose. And what is more, an area tends to prosper wherever there is a rail link available. Consequently, I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to the building of this rail link. I regard it as very necessary, and because that is so I do not ask for money to be wasted when I ask for this link.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat made certain representations in regard to the provision of more services. I have no quarrel with that and I think that in so far as the Minister considers these services to be essential he will devote attention to the matter.

But I want to come to the case I want to put up. A few days ago I asked the Minister whether we in the North-West were going to get a certain thing. He then referred me to the Brown Book, and I had a look at it. On a few pages I found an imposing list, which I can summarize in a few words: Replacement of rails and sleepers, replacement of sand ballast by stone ballast and the addition of extra ballast. Now I want to admit readily that these things are very essential. The line between Prieska and Upington and further on to South West Africa was originally built practically overnight and the train could never reach a speed of more than 20 to 25 miles per hour. Therefore, when the ballasting has been completed, we shall perhaps be able to travel faster.

However, I am not yet satisfied with what I saw in the Brown Book, and now there are two requests I wish to repeat. One of them will not lead to any extra expense costs. It concerns the schedule of trains from De Aar to South West Africa, and from Hutchinson to Calvinia We know that the speed of the trains between Cape Town and De Aar has been increased to such an extent that the time taken for the journey has now been reduced by about two hours. Therefore, whereas previously we had to wait at De Aar for three or four hours for a connection, we must now wait from five to six hours. The position has therefore deteriorated, and we had expected that with the new schedules we would be better off! The position in regard to trains from Hutchinson to Calvinia is still worse. Sometimes one has to wait for a day there before getting a connection to the north or to the south. Many children from the north-west go to school in the Western Cape, and the delays cause quite a lot of trouble and inconvenience. I therefore ask the Minister to see whether the schedules of these trains cannot be improved. It is not always clear why trains should remain waiting in the stations for so long. At De Aar we once waited six hours before the train which was in the station departed. I then made inquiries and discovered that there was no other train for which our train had been waiting.

My second request will in fact involve expenditure. It concerns the removal of the station at Prieska to a place outside the town, I have already discussed this matter with the hon. the Minister. The town must expand in that direction. The present position is that the train from De Aar first enters the town, makes a turn inside the town and then goes out. I admit that it will cost quite a lot of money to move the station, but we must think of the future of the town. The area around the station is a popular residential area. My request to the Minister therefore is that the station should be moved outside the town as soon as possible.

I was very pleased to see in the Brown Book that provision has been made for several works to be undertaken in the eastern section, works which will assist to cope with additional traffic which we expect will develop there. Especially will this be the result of the additional sidings and crossings, etc. Further assistance will be rendered by the diesel electric locomotives which it is planned should run there in future. There is also the grain elevator already in the process of construction and which will be completed within a year or two.

I am filled with a certain degree of optimism when I recall an earlier reply of the Minister in regard to the commission at present investigating the tariff structure. The Minister said that one of the factors which was contributing to the delay in the submission of the report was the fact that the commission had to investigate the effect of revised tariffs on border industries. That made me optimistic enough to think that a revision of tariffs might cause more border industries to come to the area I am concerned with. All this adds up to an expectation of very heavy increased traffic at the end of the line, i.e. near the terminus at East London. When I raised this same question a year ago, the Minister said the question of constructing an avoiding line to obviate traffic destined for the docks to pass through the city, was under consideration. I understand that one survey has been made already but that this survey has been found not to be entirely satisfactory. Consequently, the area has to be resurveyed. There is a strong feeling in East London that on account of this delay and the resultant delay in the building of the loop line, a serious bottleneck will develop especially when the grain elevator is completed. The feeling is, therefore, that matters should be expedited. I hope the Minister will be able to give me some reassurance in this regard.

Then there is the proposed doubling of the line from East London to Blaney. If this is not carried out, it too may cause bottlenecks if it does not coincide with the completion of the grain elevator and the expected increase of traffic in the area. I hope the Minister will give me a reassurance that the creation of bottlenecks there will be avoided.

I should like to ask the Minister to devote attention to the suggestion that the passenger traffic between the Transkei and the Western Cape should be regulated more effectively. To the extent that we are making progress with the removal of a settled Bantu population from the Western Province, we are gradually shifting over to a system of migrant labour in the form of seasonal and contract labourers. I am of course aware that a special tariff has already been introduced, but a need exists for a more regular and more effective service between the Transkei and the Western Cape. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to consider whether it will not be possible to facilitate this traffic still further. We should like to see every Bantu worker in the Western Province going back to his homeland at least once a year. I think we shall get the co-operation of the majority of employers in this regard. At the same time it will encourage the Bantu worker to remain in contact with his family in his homeland. With this object in view I want to ask the Minister two things. The first is that he should give consideration to the institution of a concession tariff for a group of workers—in other words, a group concession. It sometimes happens that sixty or more workers are recruited in the Transkei and that they are all accommodated in one coach. I am of the opinion that this form of travelling should be encouraged by instituting a group concession. My second request is for the introduction of a social return tariff, not from the Western Province to the Transkei and back … [Interjection], An hon. member opposite asks whether they may then come back again. We know that migrant labour, from the very nature of the matter, may come back. My approach is that the Bantu worker should be encouraged to retain his links with his homeland by returning there now and again. I ask that the Minister should consider introducing a special return tariff from the Transkei to the Western Province and back, but not vice versa.

Then I want to express the hope that it will be possible to make such a return ticket valid not for three or six months, but for at least twelve months. The period of three or six months is usually too short. It will not pay the contract worker to come here for such a short time and then go back again. In asking the Minister to consider this matter, I want to suggest that he should consider introducing a special return tariff from the Transkei back to the homeland. The Railways are already making a very important contribution in our urban areas not only to the development of the country but also to the implementation of our national policy, viz. the policy of separate development. I feel that this is a sphere where the South African Railways can once more make an important contribution by making travelling between the Bantu homelands and the areas where the contract and seasonal workers go to work as cheap and as convenient as possible and to encourage it. It will encourage employers to take out such a special return ticket, and in that way it will ensure that the employee again goes back to his homeland after having completed his labour contract.

On 11 February this year the hon. the Minister, in reply to a question I had put to him, told us that there were 1,996 flights between Johannesburg and Cape Town and from Cape Town to Johannesburg during the seven months ended 31 January 1964, and that of these flights 1,746 had been on time and 250 had been late, for various periods varying from up to 15 minutes to over 30 minutes. That means that one flight out of every seven was late. But the position has worsened very considerably over the past two or three months since the hon. the Minister has put more flights on the run between Cape Town and Johannesburg. We who use the Airways very considerably are grateful for this. There are now an operative average of 10£ flights a day between Cape Town and Johannesburg. That is a big help to the travelling public but these flights are continuously coming in late. Of the ten flights that I took from 25 February until this morning each one was a cocoanut, because every one was late, without exception. I had occasion on one of these flights to travel with the hon. the Minister himself. I was sure, the Minister being on board, the flight would be on time, but even that flight was late.

I put a question last year to the hon. the Minister as to when he was going to replace some of the old planes with new planes. We were told that the matter was under consideration, that it was being investigated and that a number of alternative types of planes were being examined. I understand the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Timoney) put a similar question on the Order Paper this morning and he, a year later, is told the same story that planes are being examined, that planes are being looked at but that the Airways have not made up their minds. We all know that in the modern age of flight and the constant improvements which are taking place in respect of the sneed and the safety of planes and the economy of planes, it is not easy to decide which and when to purchase. But there comes a time when one has to make up one’s mind. Sir. Whether the hon. the Minister might be waiting for supersonic planes from Johannesburg to Cape Town and back, I don’t know. But I think he will have to make up his mind very soon because I am sure he realizes, as all of us do, that there is a necessity for additional planes or for more modern planes. When you travel two or three times a month one does get the feeling that the planes are being pushed. A new time-table came into being a few months ago and we get the impression that the planes and the crews are being used to their maximum and perhaps a little over their maximum.

Here I don’t want to be misunderstood, Mr. Chairman. I am not at all being critical in so far as the safety of the planes is concerned. Here I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the fantastic record of safety the S.A. Airways has had and is having. I am not worried on that score at all. Those of us who fly regularly do not mind coming late if safety is the factor that makes the plane late. It seems to me there is perhaps an overloading on the planes, a too quick turn-about, and not enough time given to change their schedules. I hope the Minister will come to a decision quickly in this matter. We don’t want the S.A. Airways to have a reputation for safety and lateness; we would prefer them to have a reputation solely for safety. It is generally accepted that the policy of the Minister permitting the employment of Coloured persons on the Railways is making some progress. I would like the Minister’s policy to evolve in the direction of finding more and better jobs for Coloured persons on the Railways. The Railway is the biggest employer of labour in this country in which there are 3,000,000 Whites and 1,500,000 Coloured people. It would, therefore, seem to me that in view of the fact that the Coloured man is part and parcel of the European or White community and the Western way of life, in the proportion of three to one-and-a-half, there should be one job in three on the Railways occupied by Coloured persons. I, therefore, put it to the Minister that the possibility of improving the position in regard to the Railways could be advanced to a considerable degree if the procedure which America adopted during the war were followed. That was that active attempts were made, successfully, to introduce Coloured persons at all levels of employment. I think that a similar procedure could be followed in this country with advantage, advantage to the Coloured community as well as with advantage to the Railways. There is no question that there are jobs available on the Railways for Coloured persons, but these are mainly in the lower brackets such as labourers and in the catering and bedding departments, plus a few clerks. I believe the possibility exists for the hon. the Minister to take steps to introduce Coloured persons at all levels and so to carry on the policy he has followed during the years he has been Minister of Railways.

Job reservation on the Railways.

Well, I want job reservation removed on the Railways. The problem of the Minister is to circumvent these difficulties and to make it possible for Coloured persons to enjoy the full fruits of this very lucrative avenue of employment, namely, in a State Department which is the biggest employer of labour in the country.

May I point out that large numbers of trucks, pantechnicons and lorries are to be found on the roads of this country in charge of Coloured persons and in charge of Bantu persons. I submit that a fair percentage of such jobs in the Road Motor Transport services could be reserved with advantage to Coloured persons. If that were done the Minister would earn the gratitude of the Coloured community and the rewards would be his. I believe that he has handled his portfolio as the Minister of Transport in a reasonable manner.

Another point I should like to make is this. It is in connection with the manufacture of supplies for the Railways and other services controlled by the hon. the Minister. He might follow the procedure adopted by a certain motor company in this country, which, realizing that the locally manufactured content in all automobiles offered to the public in this country, could be increased, took active steps to analyse in detail, by physical and visual presentation, the parts that were required by the motor industry for the manufacture of vehicles. The Minister’s policy could be, shall I say, broadened to the extent that a similar procedure might be followed and that private enterprise could be encouraged, with the assistance of the technical and scientific staff available to the Railways to manufacture these parts, and to manufacture them cheaply, for the benefit of the community. I say, Sir, that if private enterprise were to handle the manufacture of miscellaneous parts that are required, a large number of Coloured persons would be employed in lucrative employment in private enterprise. In that case the hon. the Minister would not find himself in the position of meeting with that wall of prejudice that this sort of work must be done by White labour in the Railway workshops.

The final point I wish to make does not deal with Coloured persons but with the question of branch lines. I believe that with the vast sums of money that have accumulated in the coffers of the hon. the Minister, the time has come when the pleadings of local authorities should come to an end. I believe all branch lines should be connected to the nearest point on the main lines in the vicinity. I say that, because there is no question that the attitude of no traffic, no line, is untenable and fallacious. One hears the story that because there is no traffic between point A and B, no line can be built. The fact remains, that if there is no line on which to convey the traffic there can be no traffic to convey. That is the essence of the whole story. If one cares to study the map of the railways in this country, maps which are displayed in the compartments of all coaches, one will find dead ends and branch lines sticking out like sore thumbs. I suggest that the hon. the Minister could with advantage to the revenue of his Department and with great credit to himself, connect these deadend lines to the nearest main lines. There are numerous examples, but I shall not bore the House by mentioning them. Every member present here to-night has some case in mind where a branch line should be connected to another point on an adjoining main line. I therefore submit that the hon. the Minister could, with advantage, spend some of these huge surpluses and so extend his policy to make this country a real network of railways. I submit that the criterion of the traffic between points A and Z is not the measure by which the matter should be decided. I know many experts say, that because there is nothing to convey, a line should not be built. I agree with the hon. member for Namaqualand who said, that road motor services were not satisfactory where a railway could be available. The tariffs of the Railways for all classes of goods are very much cheaper and lower than those which apply to road motor transportation services. I commend these few suggestions to the hon. the Minister. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) made the charge that products were lying in warehouses because the Railways could not take delivery. He based his charge on a newspaper article which appeared in one of the Port Elizabeth newspapers. The facts of the matter are the following. I have here an extract from a letter from the Acting System Manager at Port Elizabeth. He writes as follows—

Further information obtained was that the complaints emanated largely from two Port Elizabeth firms, i.e. Dunlop Foam which requires five per day, and South African Woodworking Company whose orders average two per day. Those are the facts of the matter. The hon. member should not base his criticism on unsubstantiated newspaper reports.

I said it was a newspaper report.

That is why I say the hon. member should not base his criticism on newspaper reports without verifying his facts.

In regard to the ore-loading plant at Port Elizabeth we did experience some teething troubles but the latest report is that it is now working quite efficiently. Diesels have been introduced on that run for the transport of ore and possible additional Diesels will be introduced directly the electrification between Volksrust and Union is in operation. The servicing of the diesels at Port Elizabeth will be uneconomical and not advisable for the simple reasons that the diesels run through trains. They turn round directly at Port Elizabeth on their way back. That is why they are not used to transport the ore traffic to the docks. They have to turn round immediately; they are disconnected from their trains in the Port Elizabeth yard to take a return load. Steam traction is used between the marshalling yard and the docks.

Fuelling?

Yes, they get fuelling there of course, but that does not involve much time.

*The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Mr. G. P. van den Berg) suggested that the lives of shunters should be insured. The fact is that of course all workmen are covered under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. As the hon. member knows, if a workman loses his life in an accident, his family is compensated under that Act. Whether an additional insurance will have the result of encouraging more people to become shunters I do not know. In this regard I may say that the Department is at the moment investigating to see what can be done to improve the conditions of work and other conditions of shunters. What the reason is for the tremendous turnover, I do not know. That turnover is about 270 per cent per annum. It is of course out of all proportion. An investigation is now being made to see what can be done to improve the conditions and to ascertain the reason for this large number of resignations. In addition, I have also set aside a portion of the amount voted particularly for houses for shunters. In this way we want to see whether we cannot only retain the shunters we have, but also encourage others to become shunters.

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) has apologized for her absence. She again complained about the inadequacy of the Bantu train service on the Witwatersrand. My reply is that trains are of course still crowded during peak periods. As from Monday, 17 February 1964, two additional trains of 11 coaches each have been running in the afternoons during peak periods. During March a further four trains will be introduced in the morning and afternoon peak periods which means an extra four trains in the morning and six in the afternoon. Delivery of 11 sets of 11 coaches each and two sets of eight coaches each, presently on order, is expected to commence during June 1964 at the rate of approximately two sets per month. All these train sets will be used between Johannesburg and the South Western Township and Tembeza and Daveyton. Tenders have also been invited for a further 10 sets of 11 coaches each and four sets of eight coaches each for non-White train services in the Reef and Pretoria areas. Delivery of these sets will commence during June 1965 and March 1966 respectively at the rate of approximately two sets per month. I can only give the hon. member the assurance that the management is perfectly aware of the difficulties experienced by Bantu travellers on those services. The matter is continually under consideration and everything is done to alleviate the position.

The hon. member also complained about the hostesses who are not collected at their homes when they have to go on duty. She says they now have to make use of their own conveyance, in the very early morning while it is still dark, to reach the air terminal building. I believe, however, that the position is this: Departmental transport is provided for air hostesses on the overseas service. During the hours of darkness, i.e. between 6 p.m. and 7 a.m., departmental transport is provided for air hostesses on the internal services.

The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) complained about the design of the Ocean Terminal and the air terminal at Durban. As the hon. member probably knows there are many thousands of buildings in Durban that have no air conditioning. Frankly, I have visited both terminals during the summer months and I never experienced terrific heat. If the ventilation is bad that can be improved, but I have not had any complaints. But I shall ask the management to go into that matter. This is the first complaint I have had.

Nationalists always get cold receptions at Durban.

In the past; to-day the reception is very warm. The hon. member also asked whether we could expedite the improvement to the Durban harbour. I can give him the assurance that this matter is under consideration. Improvements are being effected and plans have been formulated for the provision of additional facilities at Durban harbour.

The hon. member also asked for an adequate dry dock. I don’t think that is justified. Dry docks operate at a considerable loss and I don’t think it is justified that an additional dry dock should be built in Durban harbour. So I cannot give the hon. member any assurance in this particular matter.

*The hon. member for Nelspruit (Mr. Faurie) complained about the shortage of trucks to transport timber at certain times of the year. The position is that when the seasonal traffic is very heavy the Railways has to ration the trucks. Unfortunately it is the people who send away timber who usually suffer. It is obvious that no transport undertaking can have enough trucks available to supply all its needs. In the season there is a much larger demand for transportation than during the rest of the year. If there are to be enough trucks to supply all needs, i.e. seasonal traffic as well as normal traffic, it simply means that a tremendously large amount of unproductive capital will have to be locked up in it, because for the rest of the year these trucks cannot be used. That would of course be uneconomic and to the detriment of the Railways. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that everything will be done to ensure that the people who want timber transported during the next winter will get enough trucks, but I can make no promises.

The hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) referred to the subways at Observatory and asked that they should be replaced, or that police should be put on duty there to ensure that no assaults take place on Whites, etc. I will ask the management to investigate and to see whether something can be done. In regard to the one subway at Maitland, I shall also inquire whether investigation has already been made to see whether additional provision can be made for a bridge, so that there may be effective separation between the races. The hon. member also said that one of the main things which hamper industrial development in the Western Cape is the Railway tariffs. That is not always so. It has repeatedly been proved that tariffs play only a subordinate role in connection with the decentralization of industries. In some cases it is in fact so but, as the hon. member knows, the tariff policy hitherto has been to transport the raw material at a particularly low tariff, while the manufactured product is carried at a higher tariff. That definitely has a hampering effect on industries which are far from their markets. They do get the raw material at a low tariff, but when their market is far distant, as in Johannesburg, for example, and the industry is in Cape Town, there is a high tariff on the manufactured article. That is one of the matters being investigated by the Schumann Commission. They will see whether adaptations cannot be made, so that industries which are decentralized and are far away from their markets can obtain certain benefits in order to enable them to compete on an equal footing with industries which are near to their markets. The hon. member will therefore just have to await the report of the Schumann Commission.

That is also my reply to the hon. member for Namaqualand. I agree that there is a great difference between road motor tariffs and rail tariffs. The reason for that is of course that the cost of road motor services is much higher than that of train services. In spite of the high tariffs, there is still an annual loss on the road motor services of more than R250,000 a year. In any case, that is also one of the matters being investigated by the Schumann Commission. We want to see whether something can be done to road motor service tariffs to lower them and also to attract more traffic to those services.

The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Timoney) asked that the overseas South African flights should be re-routed via the D. F. Malan Airport. That, of course, will be quite uneconomical.

Not all flights; only one.

Even if it were only one it would be quite uneconomical. The flight will be lengthened by about 1,200 miles. That will entail considerable expenditure. The passengers will not be prepared to pay higher fares, and in any case it would be most inadvisable to charge higher fares because we have to compete with other international air lines. Thirdly, there are insufficient passengers from Cape Town to justify it. As the hon. member knows we have one Boeing flight per week direct from the D. F. Malan Airport and the support we are getting for that flight is most disappointing. I am afraid I cannot give the hon. member any comfort in regard to his request that overseas flights, or even one flight, be re-routed via the D. F. Malan Airport.

Then the hon. member wanted to know whether it was possible for Bantu trains to run direct from the docks to Langa. I am afraid that is also quite impracticable. The docks are so congested that apart from other operating considerations it will be quite impracticable to run Bantu passenger trains from the docks. In any case, it is not very far from the docks to the station. They can easily walk that distance. He also asked for a new line from Protem to Swellendam. I received a deputation under the leadership of the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland (Mr. de Villiers) in regard to this matter. I promised I would have a survey made of the amount of traffic that is available and of the potential traffic in order to ascertain whether it would be economical to build such a line. I have not yet received that report. The hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden) also asked that all branch lines be connected up. He asked that where there were dead ends they should be connected up with the main line. The policy in regard to the building of new lines is as follows: First of all a survey is made to see what traffic is actually available. At the same time an inquiry is also made in regard to the potential traffic, whether more traffic will be generated by the building of a new line, and what the prospects of development are. All these matters are taken into consideration before a final decision is taken whether or not to build a new line. It is only when the present traffic available together with the potential traffic is insufficient even to cover the costs of operating that line that it is decided not to build the line. As I explained in my reply to the Budget debate the Railways cannot embark on a policy of building uneconomical lines. It entails the expenditure of millions of rand and it also entails a consider able operating loss which must be carried by the users of the railways. I might say in passing that there are over 300 applications in my office for new railway lines. The policy is that a line must at least pay its operating costs before it is built otherwise it must be guaranteed against losses or it must be required for departmental purposes. Otherwise we provide road motor services which we run at a loss in the interests of the agricultural community in particular and to open up the country for development.

*The hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Stander) asked that the train schedule between De Aar and South West Africa and Calvinia and Hutchinson should be reviewed. The schedule between Calvinia and Hutchinson is under consideration at the moment. I do not know whether I have replied to the hon. member in that regard yet. He made certain representations. In regard to De Aar and South West Africa, I just want to say that the passenger train has been speeded up appreciably. The difficulty is of course that time passengers have to wait at De Aar for their connections to the Cape and the Transvaal. That is a matter which is also being considered. In regard to the station layout at Prieska. I may say that the expansion of the existing terrain in order to be able to cope with longer trains can only be done at very high cost. A scheme has been submitted to provide two deviation lines of 1,850 feet each alongside the main line approximately 11 miles from the Upington side of Prieska for the exclusive purpose of providing train crossings. These two deviation lines have been planned in such a way that they can form part of a scheme for a future new station layout at Prieska with full station facilities, but no final decision has yet been taken in this regard.

The hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. Field) wanted to know what is being done in regard to the avoiding line at East London and the doubling of the line to Blaney. Those are matters which are still under consideration.

I can give the hon. member the assurance that all operating difficulties experienced on any part of the system are continually under consideration and measures taken to eliminate such difficulties.

*The hon. member for Piketberg (Mr. Treurnicht) asked for more effective arrangements in regard to the passenger service between the Western Cape and the Transkei. He asked for special concessions for groups of workers and for special return tariffs from the Transkei to the Western Cape which will be valid for 12 months. But the hon. member knows that it is the policy of the Government gradually to remove all the Bantu from the Western Cape, and surely I cannot now do anything to encourage even more Bantu to come to the Western Cape. That would have just the opposite effect. But apart from that, I just want to say that I cannot grant special concessions to only one specific class of passengers, and it will be impossible to grant special concessions only to Bantu, because migratory labour does not come only from the Transkei to the Western Cape. The mines employ a much larger number of migrant workers, and there are other industries which also make use of migrant labour, including the Railways, and if I grant such a concession it must apply to all, and that would lead to a considerable loss of revenue.

The hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Emdin) complained about South African Airways flights, and said that they were frequently late. There are various reasons why they arrive late at their destinations. I think hon. members will agree with me that when there are unfavourable weather conditions it is better to be late than not to arrive at the destination at all.

Or to arrive at another place.

Yes, it happens that they have to go somewhere else, but it is better to be late than not to arrive at all. The flight the hon. member was apparently referring to was delayed for a considerable time at Bloemfontein. The reasons for that were that the clouds were so low at Jan Smuts that it would have been extremely dangerous for the plane to land there. I don’t know whether the hon. member would have liked the pilot to take a chance to see whether he could get down at Jan Smuts or not. As the hon. member for Yeoville said he might have arrived at some other place and not at Jan Smuts. Very often passengers are also the cause of a plane being late. I, myself, think that the South African Airways are much too courteous and too considerate. They wait for passengers who arrive late. I have found on occasion that all the passengers were waiting for one who had not yet turned up. I told the General Manager a week or so ago that they would have to take sterner measures in respect of late passengers. If they are not there in time, the plane should leave without them.

In regard to the type of plane, I want to say to the hon. member that the Viscounts will not be replaced by any other type of plane. The Viscounts are good for many years of service. They are excellent planes. As a matter of fact I think for internal use they are probably the best planes that the South African Airways could get. Unfortunately, Viscounts are not being built any more, and we require additional planes. Consequently, additional planes will have to be purchased, but we cannot decide in haste and repent at leisure. It is better to make sure which is the most suitable type for our purposes in South Africa. Many planes which are quite suitable for overseas conditions are unsuitable for South African conditions. Our technical officers have already examined various types of planes, and I expect to receive their report within a short time, and then a decision will be taken.

The hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden) asked for more and better jobs for Coloureds. I am sympathetic to the Coloured people, and if possible I would like to give them every opportunity, but the hon. member knows that we have certain conventions, and it is extremely difficult to upset those conventions. I have to take into consideration the reaction of the European staff. I have to take into consideration the reaction if there is mixed work. I can only give the hon. member the assurance that this matter will always receive my sympathetic consideration, and if any opportunities do arise, where Coloured people can be used in better jobs, I will certainly make use of such opportunities. The hon. member suggested that private enterprise should be allowed to manufacture spares for the South African Railways. I can give him the assurance that private enterprise do manufacture a large amount of spares for the South African Railways. Our own workshops manufacture a certain amount, but private enterprise have full opportunity to tender for quite a lot of spares from time to time.

There is one item in the Railway Estimates that I would like to draw the attention of the hon. Minister to, and it is a matter of policy, and that is the Level Crossings Elimination Fund, where he has a provision of R500,000, a considerable amount of money. But let us for a moment look at what is happening. I understand that the number of level crossings is at present somewhere about 3,739. It leaves a figure of unprotected crossings, except for static signs and posters— static signs, not flashing lights or automatic arrangements as a warning—it leaves 3,545, or 94.8 per cent which are treated in that way. They are unprotected except for the warnings erected on the sides of the roadways. These are not capable of being seen readily at night time. They are not the most ideal way of warning the motorist of what is happening, and if I may say so, the fact that there is a crossing there is probably not the danger—the danger is that there is a train approaching that crossing and crossing the open space which creates the danger and also the fact that a motorist approaches the same point, and then you get the trouble, with the result that you have on our level crossings killed on an average 80 persons per year, injured 130, and 350 accidents each year. That gives you a significant figure of 52.5 per cent of the railway fatalities on railway operations, so the major portion of the fatalities result from level crossing accidents, resulting in a loss of approximately R1,264,000 per annum. It is true that is an estimate, but it is a reasonable figure to use. And if you were to apply the rate of progress under the Elimination of Level Crossings Fund, the money that is voted, and if you were to eliminate one-third of the level crossings at the present rate, it would take 50 years, which is a long time, and in the meantime there is going to be the loss of life and the damage to property. I believe that if the Minister would consider a change of policy, and that is by not only using this fund for the elimination of crossings, but also for protection, and if he were to take positive action to protect the level crossings, a lot might be achieved. The experience of other countries has shown that, even although you may lack electricity on the spot, that it is possible under new electronics and new methods that can be used that you can provide flashing signs giving adequate protection. It has been shown that in other countries the rate of accidents has been reduced very considerably, and if, for example, it were possible to use the present money voted for the elimination of, say, 25 level crossings per annum, which is the average, and the Minister were to apply half of the fund for positive protection of level crossings and also the elimination of 25 level crossings, he would be dealing with 234 crossings per annum. There is a growing feeling outside, particularly among the motoring public, and I may say the motoring organizations as such who have made a contribution to the suggestions I am making, I believe much more could be achieved. I think the hon. Minister should give his serious consideration to this matter. He is aware in another capacity of the accident rate and I know he is sympathetic, he is endeavouring to do his best to forward prevention work. Here is a field in which he can show a positive example where he has the authority untrammelled by anybody else, and I would ask him in this matter to act in the interests of the safety of the people who use the roads.

Before making a few requests of the hon. the Minister I would like to refer to a few remarks made by the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden). The hon. member for Karoo told us that there were 1,500,000 Coloureds as against 3,500,000 Whites in South Africa but that nothing like this proportion was maintained as far as employment on the railways was concerned. I do not think that any of us begrudge the Coloureds any employment that they are able to obtain, particularly as far as the Railways are concerned. But I want to ask the hon. member whether it is his policy or whether it is his party’s policy as far as employment is concerned that people of various races should be employed in proportion to their numbers. The hon. member for Karoo is a back-bencher here but is not an irresponsible person in the ranks of the Opposition. The hon. member was the leader of his party in the Provincial Council: he has a share in the executive of the United Party, and when he makes a statement we must accept the fact that the United Party accepts responsibility for that statement. I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) whether it is the policy of the United Party that the numerical strength of the various races must determine the number of people of each race to be employed. But there was another statement which the hon. member made earlier when an interjection was made while he was speaking. He replied to the interjection in this way: “What we want is the removal of job reservation on the Railways.” Did the hon. member say that?

I said “I”.

Then I must accept the fact that he said “I” and not “we” and that the United Party does not accept that policy.

What did Daantjie Scholtz say?

He is not under discussion at the moment and he is not a member of this House. We are dealing here now with a matter of party policy. The hon. member for Karoo holds a responsible position in the United Party. The hon. member said: “We want job reservation removed from the Railway Service” I want to know now whether it is the policy of the United Party to have job reservation on the Railways abolished. If so we must accept the fact that non-Whites and even Bantu can become locomotive drivers, ticket-examiners, conductors and so forth, that non-Whites can even become station-masters, because if job reservation is abolished, any position will be available to the non-Whites. Job reservation would then be non-existent. The hon. member wants no colour bar on the Railways.

Why should it not be so?

That is the question put to me by the hon. member. When I travel on the platteland, and I do go to the platteland, to Klipplaat and to other places where there are a large number of railway workers, and tell the people there that the policy of the United Party is that they are prepared to allow non-Whites to become ticket-examiners and station-masters or conductors, then the hon. member must not resent that fact. The hon. member said that he did not restrict it to the Coloureds only so I must also accept the fact that he wants to include the Bantu and Indians as well. He wants job reservation abolished. This must of necessity also mean that members of the other race groups can be appointed to these same positions in the Railway Service. The hon. member who is a Coloured Representative is not in the same position as, for example, the hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland) who sits in this House as an Independent. The hon. member for Karoo is a member of the caucus of the United Party. The hon. member for Yeoville nods his head. He accepts responsibility for what the hon. member for Karoo has said. I must accept the fact that the hon. member for Karoo supports the policy of the United Party. The hon. member for Karoo went on to say—I take it that he was speaking on behalf of the United Party—that the report of the Van Zyl Commission should be adopted because when private undertakings were given the orders for railway spare parts, more and more Coloureds would be employed. I have no objection to the employment of Coloureds, but I want to ask the hon. member at whose expense they should be employed.

At nobody’s expense.

Does the hon. member realize that some of our workshops will then have to close down? He said that this would not be at the expense of anybody. I want to ask him: If job reservation is removed, will it also be done at nobody’s expense?

You were not listening.

The hon. member has not answered my question. Job reservation cannot be removed without its being at the expense of the Whites who have a higher standard of living and who have to work for a higher salary.

That is “bunkum”!

I do not want the United Party to complain and tell us that we are exploiting this matter when we go to the platteland and tell the railway workers there what the policy of the United Party is in connection with employment on the Railways, in connection with job reservation and in connection with the allocation of work. I must accept the fact that what has been said here by a responsible member of the United Party, a man who was the leader of that party in the Provincial Council, is the policy of the United Party. (Interjections). I hope that the next speaker on the other side will reply to this question in connection with the policy of the United Party as far as the employment of Coloureds and Bantu is concerned and tell us whether job reservation on the Railways must be maintained or not. I want to express my thanks to the hon. the Minister because I notice in the Brown Book that provision is being made for an improved water supply at Cookhouse and Klipplaat.

Thank the Minister!

That is what I am doing. The hon. member need not be afraid that I will not show gratitude when something is done which means a great deal to the people in my constituency. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider having a new station building erected at Somerset-East. I cannot find provision for this in the Brown Book. I raised this matter on a previous occasion. The station was built in 1897 or 1898. That station building is of wood and iron. Somerset-East has progressed a long way but our station building has certainly not progressed and no longer fits in with the town. I hope that the hon. the Minister will have a new station built there as soon as possible. Once that new station has been built I think that he can also give consideration to the question of building a new station at Wolwefontein because the present station there is also inadequate. [Time limit.]

Shortly after I was elected to this House as a Coloured Representative for the Outeniqua constituency, one thing worried me, a matter which I brought to the attention of this House time after time until I had eventually progressed so far that the hon. the Prime Minister himself showed me the courtesy of being present when I raised the matter and of giving me a personal reply in that connection. The matter to which I refer is the question of the fate of the Coloured in the Transkei which is now to become a Bantu area.

What has that to do with the Railways?

I am happy to be able to say here this evening that the Railways are primarily responsible for the fact that slightly more than 300 families who did not want to stay in the Transkei under Bantu Government are now settled in Cape Town—at the Bishop Lavis Township. The Railways sent recruiting agents to the Transkei and these people accepted work on the Railways and at the Cape Town docks. I contacted those people when they arrived here. I also visit them from time to time and I want to say here that this removal was carried out in a very nice way. These people did not even have to move the furniture which they brought with them. It was loaded on lorries and taken to the nearest station for dispatch to Cape Town. The furniture was then off-loaded at Bellville and delivered to their homes. These people were brought to Cape Town by luxury bus. Everything was done for them very nicely. They have attractive and neat homes at the Bishop Lavis Township and they were brought down here without suffering any inconvenience. But there is one aspect that worries me, an aspect of a very, very urgent nature. It is that these people simply cannot make a living by working at the docks or on the Railways for R1.10 per day. One man expressed it to me in this way. He said: Sir, I lived at Upper Roza near Qumbu. I could walk out of my house and pick a cabbage and with a small piece of meat my wife was able to make a stew for the whole family. Here, however, I have to pay 15c for a cabbage and then on top of everything else it is mouldy. I think that I can say with every justification that it is impossible for a man with a wife and five or six children speaking our language and having our religion, our way of life, our culture and our background but whose level of education is perhaps equal to that of the poor-Whites of the ’thirties, to live on R5.50 a week besides having to make provision for rent. He cannot possibly make a decent living. I heard the reply of the hon. the Minister in this regard when the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) raised this matter earlier in the debate. The fact has just been emphasized by the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) that as far as the rates of pay oh the Railways are concerned, a distinction is drawn between the standard of living of the White man and that of the other population groups. Has the time not come for the hon. the Minister to get away from that grading system that they have and realize that the standard of living of the Coloureds, who want to maintain our standard of living as soon as they reach that economic level, must also be raised and that assistance must be given to them? I say most sincerely that I congratulate the hon. the Minister on being able to show the surplus that he has shown, but then I ask that the people who I represent here and for whose removal from the Transkei to the Cape I was co-responsible because they did not want to stay there under a Bantu Government, should also be given a share of that surplus. I have investigated certain cases myself and I say that it is impossible for those people to live on the wages they earn and to maintain a decent standard of living. I came across the case of a promising young Coloured girl who was in Std. VIII in Kokstad last year. She was at the hostel there and passed her Std. VIII examination very well, but she now has to work in a factory. Her family moved to the Bishop Lavis Township in December of last year and I was upset when I discovered that the parents were compelled to put that young girl to work in a factory where she is now working for a few rand per week, instead of allowing her to carry on with her schooling to enable her to pass her matriculation and so raise her standard of education.

I came across another case of a man who saw no future in the Transkei under a Bantu Government and who moved to the Cape. He is a bricklayer and he has now been working for the Railways for six months at a wage of R1.10 per day. He lives in a neat little house in the Bishop Lavis Township. Their removal down to the Cape went off very well and very smoothly. Things could not have gone better for them, but that man simply cannot support his family on his wages. He is a bricklayer by trade but of course he cannot obtain work on the Railways as a bricklayer because one of the oldest forms of job reservation still applies on the Railways. All parties, including the old South African Party, have maintained that form of job reservation, and so this man has to work for R1.10 per day. I want in all earnestness to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to give some attention to these people while we are discussing future plans here. I appreciate the fact that these people were removed from the Transkei, accommodated here and given employment, but consideration must be given to the fact that we are dealing here with Coloured people. They are people who speak our language, who have our religion, our cultural background and who must be dealt with accordingly. Sir, a Coloured family cannot live on one ox head and half a bag of mealie-meal per week. They eat the same food we eat. The hon. the Minister is in the position of being able to do something for these people and if he does something for them he will be showing positively that the Government is in earnest in wanting to help these people to raise their socio-economic and educational levels to those of the Whites. I do not want to speculate now on what will happen then. I leave the matter there.

It was very interesting to my mind this evening that the hon. member for Karoo said that he was opposed to job reservation on the Railways. I do not know what will happen in the United Party caucus to-morrow.

I fought the election on that point and you lost.

The hon. member said that he would abolish the job reservation established by the Nationalists. During the election campaign he did not say a single word about the oldest forms of job reservation, that which exists on the Railways, in the mines and in the Public Service, although to-day he has said too much. He has improved. During the election campaign he did come into contact with the Coloured people and he was able to appreciate their problems. If there is one thing that this Government has now taken further than the stage which it had reached at that time, it is the question of job reservation which has a hampering effect and which is humiliating and unjust towards the Coloured people, the people who have to stand together with us Whites and face the future with us. I am a Coloured Representative and I can say what I want to say. I am not bound by party policy. I do appreciate the fact that once people have come into contact with the Coloureds, they are able to appreciate the problems of the Coloured people.

I want to go further and I want to put this to the hon. the Minister: As the result of the group areas policy—I say this with appreciation—as a result of the housing programmes of the Government which have been given effect to under our nose over the past three years, a Port Jackson jungle on the Cape Flats has become a town of such a size that 13 schools are needed to accommodate the children in that township. One wonders when one drives out to the D. F. Malan Airport and one crosses the railway bridge and one looks to the left, where all the people lived before those houses were built and under what circumstances they lived there. I know Cape Town because I grew up here but we have now reached the stage where we can say: “We are grateful for the houses.” These houses could be better, but so many are built at the same time that we have to accept them as they are. We can only hope that there will be an improvement in this regard at a later stage. There are railway lines serving those areas, there are stations serving those towns. I want to ask whether it is not possible to relax the policy of job reservation to a certain extent in order to make provision for Coloured staff on the trains serving those areas. If this is done, a Coloured can become a conductor on a train plying between Bonteheuvel and Cape Town; a Coloured can advance to station-master on that station, or to ticket-examiner or ticket-seller or whatever the case may be (Time limit.)

We were on the point of having a very interesting discussion here in regard to job reservation. The hon. member for Somerset-East (Mr. Vosloo) suddenly took a new lease on life, as did the whole of the Nationalist Party because they saw an opportunity to discuss the Colour problem. This gave a tremendous stimulus to a debate that threatened to become boring. The debate suddenly took a new lease on life and it was interesting to see the way in which it was revitalized. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Somerset-East on his perspicacity in being so quick to seize the opportunity to make some political capital out of the Colour question. It was not my intention to reply to him, and it is not necessary for me to do so. The hon. member who has just sat down, who represents the Coloureds, has given him his reply. I should very much like to know to which professions and in what respects Section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act is applied as far as the South African Railways are concerned?

The Industrial Conciliation Act does not apply to the Railways.

That is my whole point. I am pleased to hear that interjection from the hon. the Minister because by saying that he has saved me at least five minutes of my time. The hon. member for Somerset-East spoke the most arrant nonsense. Section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act does not apply to the Railways and I am afraid that it was his excitement that caused him to talk such arrant nonsense. I do not want to deal with him any further.

Since we are now dealing with details there are a few matters and details that I want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. I hope that we will have sufficient opportunity —I hope that both he and I will be spared for some time yet—to discuss matters of policy, even in debates such as this. There are one or two matters that I should like to raise as far as details are concerned.

You are being rather pessimistic.

There is one matter which I should like to raise and that is in connection with air freight. This is a new service and I think that the South African Airways are making a great success of this service. I think that we do not always devote sufficient attention to the increasing role that air freight is playing in South Africa to-day. It so happens that I have to make use of the air freight service once or twice a week when I am in Johannesburg. Sometimes I go to Main Street and sometimes to the new Rotunda and sometimes I have to race out to Jan Smuts Airport to deliver air freight articles there. I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the conditions prevailing at Jan Smuts. I am not accusing the hon. the Minister of anything because I am sure that he does not know what is going on there. I want to bring a matter to his attention which may perhaps not have been mentioned to him by his staff and that is that the air freight staff at Jan Smuts Airport have to work under the most difficult conditions. They work in an underground cellar. There is no sunshine there at all. They work under artificial light for 24 hours a day every day of the year except for Christmas Day and Good Friday.

Is that in Russia?

No, it is not in Russia; this is the position at Jan Smuts Airport, one of the prides of the South African Railways.

The Department of Transport controls the Airport.

Let us understand one another clearly. I am not only talking about the buildings there. I am talking about the staff under the control of the hon. the Minister of Railways. I do not want to exaggerate but I had occasion to go there in December of last year and I want to say in the first place that the smell there was unbearable. People from all walks of life and of all races go there, space is restricted and cramped and the supply of air is inadequate. But that is not all. The thing that shocked me most was to see the blood-thirsty parasites that are to be found there! I do not want to say any more about this but that state of affairs is intolerable. I think that the only reason that those conditions persist is that the staff are too loyal to complain to the hon. the Minister. But now I am complaining to the hon. the Minister. I am not asking the hon. the Minister to improve conditions there because I am not accusing him of anything. I should be very grateful if the hon. the Minister would undertake to have an investigation made there, if he would send somebody there to investigate those conditions. I think that once the hon. the Minister realizes how serious and how bad those conditions are, he will take immediate action in one of his two capacities but particularly as Minister of Railways who controls the people working there.

I also want to ask the hon. the Minister very briefly whether he will take advantage of the opportunity to state his point of view in connection with the payment of bonus incentives to the staff of the Railways. We discussed these matters when the hon. the Minister was Minister of Labour and he evinced a great deal of interest in this type of bonus. We have heard hon. members expressing well-founded criticism to-day of the control and management of the Catering Department. It appears to me that the introduction of this type of bonus may have very good results, particularly in the Catering Department. Quite by chance I have heard that a refreshment car is sometimes attached to the train on the long journey from De Aar to Windhoek and that between R30 and R40 worth of goods are sold to the passengers during the journey. On the next journey the catering manager may be more resourceful and he may sell between R400 and R500 worth of goods. This is the sort of thing that makes the difference between a profit and a loss as far as the Catering Department is concerned. Is it not possible that extraordinary efforts of this nature having these extraordinary results can be acknowledged by means of the payment of special bonuses? I want to recommend to the hon. the Minister in all good faith that he consider this matter, particularly in relation to the Catering Department, but not in relation to that Department alone. He should consider this matter in relation to other Departments as well.

The suggestion made by the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Higgerty) will receive my consideration. I must say that I gather that even in spite of flashlights, we still have accidents taking place on these crossings. It is due to the human factor again. People disregard the flashlights and come into collision with trains. But there is a fairly big credit balance in the fund relating to crossings, and our capacity is limited in regard to the elimination of crossings. It is a question of manpower and discussions and negotiations have to take place with the municipalities because they have to contribute a certain amount. Consequently only a certain number of crossings can be eliminated, and it is almost impossible to eliminate more. But as there is a considerable credit balance, I shall certainly give this matter my consideration. It will of course require an amendment of the Act, but I will consider whether some of this money can be used for the provision of flashlights or gates or some other protective measure. There are, of course, technical difficulties also. It is necessary, in spite of what is stated to the contrary, that electricity must be available for flashlights. It can be done by way of batteries, but I believe there are technical difficulties. However, the matter will be investigated.

*The hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) has asked for a new station building at Somerset East. He says that the station at Somerset East was built in 1899. The other day I met a deputation from Buffelsjagtsrivier and they contended that their station was even older! If I had to replace station buildings on the basis of their age, I would not know where to begin. I just want to say that there are, of course, many station buildings in the country which are completely obsolete and which ought to be replaced but the capital that is available is fairly limited and we must first replace those buildings where the conditions are worst. I do not know what the position of Somerset East is on the priority list. I shall make inquiries but I am afraid the hon. member and Somerset East will have to exercise a little patience.

The hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland) spoke about the low wages of Coloured labourers. I must say that I did not know what the position was. I realize that it is almost impossible for Coloured people who are developed and who maintain a reasonably high standard of living to live decently on the minimum wage that is paid by the Railways to Coloured labourers. The wages for Coloured labourers are of course higher than those for Bantu labourers for the very reason that the standard of living of the Coloured is higher than that of the Bantu. But I have a great deal of sympathy with these people and I shall consider the matter to see whether some improvement can be brought about in this regard.

As far as the employment of Coloureds in a better type of work is concerned, this does present a problem. When he considers the difficulties which are experienced in England with a small non-White population in certain areas where non-Whites are employed together with Whites and the repercussions to which that has given rise, the hon. members will realise that our problem in South Africa is far greater. The practice is to make use of the services of non-Whites to serve their own people as far as possible. That is the reason why this Government was the first to employ Coloureds as station clerks. Coloured labour will be used as far as possible on stations in Coloured areas. It is possible, because of the serious shortage of White labour in certain grades, that more Coloureds may perhaps have to be employed. There are certain grades in which we have always made use of the services of Whites but in which we may have to make use of the services of Bantu in certain areas to-day as a result of the serious shortage of White labour. This can also be applied perhaps to Coloureds. But the hon. member can rest assured that these people have my sympathy. The Coloureds form part of our population. We are responsible for them and we must make provision for them.

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) has asked that more attention be given to the question of the conveyance of freight by air. I agree with him. Air freight is increasing to such an extent that a special aircraft has already been set aside for the sole purpose of conveying freight by air between Cape Town and Johannesburg.

For the Sunday Times?

No, we also have a DC-7B which is used for the conveyance of other goods by air. Air freight is increasing not only in this country but to places outside the country and this is a matter which is receiving our attention. We will have to make available more space and more facilities for people making use of this service. This is a matter which is receiving the attention of the Administration at the moment. As far as the staff conditions at Jan Smuts are concerned, if they are as described by the hon. member, I shall certainly have the matter investigated. In certain respects that airport is completely inadequate of course, and plans are being drawn up by the Department of Transport to enlarge it. The architects have been working on plans for a new wing, for some time but it will take a little time before the additional building has been completed. As far as these conditions are concerned I shall certainly have the matter investigated.

Is there any intention of improving the facilities?

This matter has not been brought to my attention before but I can assure the hon. member that it is in the interest of the Railways to have the matter investigated. Air freight is a profitable business and if additional facilities are required they will be provided.

As far as bonus incentives are concerned I may say that it has always been my policy, where possible, to introduce bonus incentive schemes with a view to increasing productivity, and this scheme is at present in operation in various Departments of the Railways. It has been in operation for decades in the workshops, of course. We have also extended it to include certain other activities. But the introduction of wage incentive schemes is a scientific matter. To a large extent it is actually based on time and motion studies. It has to be done in such a way that it satisfies both the employer and the employee. It must be to the advantage of both. In other words, it must be an incentive to the employee to work harder but it affects the employer as well because he gets the benefit of the increased productivity. In addition to that there must be some sort of yardstick. We apply it wherever we can. We are trying, for example, to apply the scheme to shunters but we are faced with the problem that the work of a shunter is so dangerous that we are hesitant to introduce any wage incentive scheme as a result of which these men may become even more exposed to danger. As far as the catering staff is concerned it will be very difficult to fix a yardstick because the sales on the various trains differ. How can we say that if a man sells so much more on train A he will receive a bonus? One does not know how many passengers there are.

Base it on the number of passengers.

That will also be very difficult. If the hon. member can make any other sound suggestion to reduce the losses on Catering Services I shall be only too pleased to consider them.

I want to raise a matter under Head No. 1, the proposed new Kensington-Bellville railway line. This line was actually planned about 20 years or more ago to relieve the traffic on the present main line between Cape Town and Bellville. At that time there were only two lines on the main route. It is estimated that the expenditure in connection with the construction of this new line will amount to R1,478,000 of which slightly more than R317,000 has already been spent. This year there is a further amount of R4,000 on the Estimates for this purpose. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to have an investigation instituted at this stage to ascertain whether the building of this line is actually still necessary. I do not expect the hon. the Minister to reply to me this evening but I do think that this is the proper time for the hon. the Minister to have a very thorough investigation made to see whether that line is still really necessary. The line cuts right through the whole length of Parow from one end to the other, and apart from the awkward way in which the line has been planned through the urban area, it runs through all the best new residential areas of Parow. This has really become a problem because new developments are being planned next to that line. Numbers of streets are intersected by the line. Land is being frozen along the full length of the line with a view to the building of bridges and crossings that may be necessary, and this is causing a number of problems as far as town planning is concerned. The Railway reserve which now intersects the residential areas is neglected and overgrown with bush. It is an eyesore and it is often used as a hiding place for undesirable elements. It is physically impossible to keep that area between the decent residential areas clear of bush. I do not expect the Administration to do it because it is impossible. The Municipality has it cleared as far as possible from time to time and the Railways have to pay for it but the position is unsatisfactory. We have now ascertained over the past few years, to our dismay, that the line is not going to be built there for the convenience of passengers in the residential areas which are springing up there. That line will be used for fast passenger traffic from Cape Town to Bellville but chiefly for fast goods traffic, and this will hit that community very hard. They are afraid of the effect of the smoke from these steam trains on their health. I want to say this evening that I do not think it is necessary at this stage to build that railway line there and that is why I want to ask for an investigation at this stage. Not very much money has been spent on this up to the present time. It may have been necessary to plan this railway there 20 years ago, but the line is no longer needed to-day. Since that line was planned the main line has been trebled and the construction of a fourth line has practically been completed. In the meantime the Langa-Bellville connection which has cost the Administration R3,750,000 has been completed and I am convinced that in due course this new Langa-Bellville connecting line will convey all the non-White passengers. This will draw the non-White passengers away from the main line and, furthermore, the demand for non-White passenger services on the main line will decrease as a result of the resettlement of these people in areas some distance away from the main line. What is more, with this deviation line goods traffic to Cape Town and the southern suburbs can be conveyed rapidly and quite easily from the Bellville shunting yards which are connected with the Langa line. The Administration will not lose money by abandoning this proposition, by not having this line built, because the value of land in that reserve has increased considerably. It has probably increased tenfold since the Railways expropriated the land. If the Railways released that reserve for residential building purposes to-day, they would make a large profit out of the sale of that land. There is a critical shortage of space in that urban area, particularly in the part which is intersected by that railway line. Some years ago we even sent deputations to the Railway Board, but I think the time has come for the whole matter to be thoroughly investigated before this project is proceeded with.

The service between Eerste-rivier and Somerset-West and the Strand was electrified during the past financial year when the first electrified service from those two towns to Cape Town was put into operation. I want to make use of this opportunity this evening to thank the hon. the Minister and his Administration for those excellent services which make it possible for people working in Cape Town to travel in great comfort. To a certain extent train timetables have been upset but unfortunately I cannot discuss that at this stage.

On this occasion last year I drew the attention of the hon. the Minister in view of the electrification of the line to these Boland towns, to the condition of certain platforms, particularly the platforms at Stellenbosch station. I pointed out that the platforms were much too low for elderly people to board the train and that they were also too short for passenger trains from the interior. The hon. the Minister then told me that there were many stations in the country where the same conditions prevailed, which is also the reply that he gave this evening to other hon. members who pleaded for improved station facilities. He said that in terms of his policy attention would be given to these matters in due course. It is my privilege, this evening to thank him for the fact that this year the station platform at Stellenbosch has been raised. The entire Stellenbosch public are very grateful to him and to his Administration in this regard. But I want to make use of this opportunity to draw his attention once again to the fact that the problem in connection with long-distance passenger trains from the interior still exists and that many people have to disembark from the trains amongst the signal wires at the top end of the platform.

I also note that considerable sums of money are being spent on the signalling system at various small stations in my constituency. I am very grateful for that and I want to express the hope that that signalling system will be just as good as the system which has been introduced at Vlottenburg station at a private crossing leading to a co-operative wine cellar, where the owners of this wine cellar decided to put an elderly non-White on duty with a red flag to stop farmers’ lorries which bring in grapes and to warn them of approaching trains. On a certain day the old man saw a train approaching as well as a few lorries, he took up his position between the tracks, held up his flag and brought the train to a halt.

I just want to refer briefly to item 588 in the Brown Book. Under the second head. I would like to tell the hon. the Minister that the railway staff at Elandsfontein are very grateful to the Administration and to the Germiston Municipality for providing them with waterborne sewerage. The installation of this sewerage system is greatly appreciated and will be of great value to them.

I shall comply with the request of the hon. member and have the matter investigated again. It is part of the long-term planning policies of the Railways to make provision for the future and which the Opposition are continually asking about. When certain railway lines become so overloaded that new alternative lines have to be built, we know that we have the land on which to build these lines. But I shall have the matter investigated once again. The only money that has been spent up to the present has been for the purchase of the land. This land was purchased at low prices so if we decide not to build the line we should be able to sell the land at a profit.

Stellenbosch has had one of its requests granted and now it must be satisfied to wait until its platform can be lengthened. This work will be done as soon as the necessary money becomes available.