I move as an unopposed motion—

That Mr. J. E. Potgieter be appointed to act for the Chairman of Committees when the House is in Committee during the absence on Friday, 17 March 1961, of the Chairman and the Deputy-Chairman of Committees.

I second.

Agreed to.

I ask leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz.: The ill-considered action of the Prime Minister in withdrawing South Africa’s application for continuing membership as a republic in the Commonwealth, as a result of which he has broken faith with the overwhelming majority of all the peoples of South Africa whose anxiety to remain in the Commonwealth was well known to him, and to call upon him to reconsider his decision.

In terms of Standing Order No. 33 the hon. member had to give me notice that he proposed to move this motion to-day and I have consequently had an opportunity of considering it.

Although the matter is one of great public importance, I regret that I cannot put the motion to the House for the following reasons:

1. (a) It will revive the discussion which took place during the early part of the Session on the motion for the second reading of the Constitution Bill in regard to which a decision was taken by the House;
2. (b) it will anticipate a matter which is pending in Parliament; and
3. (c) there will be an early opportunity for discussing the matter when the Budget debate is resumed.

I must also point out to the hon. member that his motion calls upon the Prime Minister to reconsider his decision. This in my opinion is not a matter which is contemplated by the above Standing Order.

With very great respect, Sir, may I address you on one aspect of this matter?

No, I am sorry I cannot allow the hon. member to do so as I have given my ruling.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to say that the fact that South Africa will no longer be a member of the Commonwealth, which we all regret, will not make any difference to my Estimates. I have sufficient faith and confidence in South Africa to maintain that loss of membership will certainly not have a detrimental effect on our economy. The ties of friendship with the United Kingdom and certain other members of the Commonwealth will be maintained and trade to our mutual benefit will continue. I cannot take the matter any further at this stage. However, I just want to say in passing that there is not the slightest doubt that even if South Africa had decided to remain a monarchy certain members of the Commonwealth would have made our position quite untenable. No country with any pride or self-respect could have tolerated that impudent interference in its domestic affairs.

You people always run away, don’t you?

Where are you running to, have you thought of that?

You came in by fraud then.

You should have said this before October … [Interjections.]

Order, order!

Mr. Speaker, I think that both sides of this hon. House and the Press Gallery will agree with me when I say that the time allotted for this debate is six hours too long. It has seldom been my misfortune to listen to such a dreary and uninspiring debate. The little worthwhile, serious criticism that was made could have been condensed into a 40-minute speech. I must say, however, that the manner in which the Opposition conducted the debate was vastly different from that of previous years. There was no offensiveness. The two main speakers attempted to deal with the matter on its merits and in a way to which I could take no exception. I will therefore reciprocate and reply, as far as possible to points made by hon. members in detail, even if they are not of real importance.

*On this side I want to congratulate the hon. member for Vasco (Mr. C. V. de Villiers), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours and his team of speakers on their well-prepared and constructive speeches. It is clear they have made a study of the subject and they have replied most conclusively to the little criticism which hon. members opposite have put forward.

I now want to sum up some of the main criticisms and to convert them into rand and cents so that the House can judge just what they are worth.

It was suggested that a redemption fund be created. That is quite a good suggestion, a suggestion that has been made over the years. But to make it worth while, it will require an annual appropriation of at least R20,000,000. It was also stated that the debit balance in the Higher Replacement Costs Account of the Renewals Fund must immediately be liquidated. That would mean an appropriation of R19,000,000. It was also maintained that the balance of the Loan Fund in the Betterment Fund must immediately be repaid, another R6,000,000. It was suggested by one speaker that the Rates Equalization Fund must be built up to R60,000,000 or R70,000,000. To do that it would be quite reasonable to make an appropriation of at least R20,000,000 per annum, if we want to build it up to R60,000,000 or R70,000,000. Hon. members on the opposite side urged that there must be further substantial increases in wages. A 5 per cent increase will mean an expenditure of about R10,000,000. It was also suggested by Opposition speakers that pensioners must be assisted. If that is to be done the least amount that can be utilized for that purpose would be R1,000,000. Totalling all this up, Mr. Speaker, it amounts to R67,000,000. But, on the other hand, certain Opposition speakers— for instance the hon. member for Jeppe (Dr. Cronje)—suggested that rates and tariffs must be reduced. He was, for instance, very concerned about the fact that there is such a difference between the rates on petrol and on coal, and he indicated that there should be a uniform rate, and I take it that the rate must be the rate on coal.

The hon. member also rejected that basic principle in rate making, namely, based upon direct costs plus what the traffic can bear. He maintained that the principle to be adopted in rate making must be direct costs only plus a small contribution for overheads. Again, that would entail a considerable surrender of revenue, The hon. member for Jeppe also suggested that an oil pipe line must be built. That, obviously, will mean the surrender of millions of rand a year in Railway revenue, quite apart from the fact that a large amount of rolling stock will become obsolete and will result in fruitless expenditure. The hon. member further suggested that more traffic must be diverted to the roads—the suggestion that we have heard almost every year from hon. members of the Opposition. It is true that the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Butcher) suggested in his amendment that the South African Railways should be granted relief from the interest burden to the extent of R30,000,000 a year. The hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) suggested that Treasury should bear the loss on the conveyance of drought-stricken stock. This, on average, amounts to about R80,000 a year. But if these suggestions were accepted it would still result in an additional expenditure of R37,000,000 per year. In other words I would have to appropriate, in this financial year, an additional amount of R37,000,000, additional expenditure against a reduction in revenue which will amount to many tens of millions of rand.

I do not think I need make any further comments on these criticisms. I think the House can judge for itself just what these criticisms are worth. I can only say that the hon. member for Wynberg said that a more vast and more dynamic approach to our whole transport problem should take place. After considering these criticisms and suggestions it appears that that statement apparently means that the Railways must be made bankrupt and we will have solved all our transport problems.

I will now deal with some of these criticisms in detail. The hon. member for Wynberg and several other hon. members claimed that the forecasting of revenue and expenditure is not accurate. I fully agree. But that has always been the case. I think hon. members will agree that Railway revenue is absolutely dependent upon the country’s economy, and that Railway revenue is very sensitive to economic fluctuations in South Africa. To give an example: in 1958, when I presented my Budget there was no indication that South Africa would enter a slight economic recession towards the end of that year. But that had a disastrous effect on Railway revenue, with the result that the financial year closed with a deficit of some R16,000,000. Estimates are usually based on the probable amount of different classes of traffic that will be offering in the ensuing year, and if any change in the economic position takes place—over which I, as Minister of Transport, have no control—estimates are thrown out of gear. I have said that before and I repeat it to-day. Before the estimates are framed, all possible information from all interested bodies is obtained. We consult commerce; we consult industry; the mining industry and different department. Every possible body or organization that can give information as to the prospects of our economy for the ensuing year is consulted. It is only after all this information has been obtained that the estimates are framed. I say again, Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult, almost impossible, to predict accurately what the economic position is going to be for the country in the ensuing year.

If hon. members go back some 40 years they will find that in no single year was there accurate estimating. It is just not possible. I want to give hon. members some examples. In the year 1939-40 the Minister of Railways estimated for a surplus of R724,000, in round figures. At the end of that year the surplus was actually R3,300,000. In 1940-1 the then Minister estimated a surplus for the ensuing year of R47.000. At the end of the year there was a surplus of R6,300,000. In 1941-2 the then Minister estimated for a surplus of R44,000. At the end of that year the surplus was actually R12,000,000. In 1945-6 the then Minister, Mr. Sturrock, estimated a surplus of R38,000. The actual result of the working disclosed a deficit of R3,700,000. I can go on quoting these examples, but I do not wish to do so. I am quoting them merely for the purpose of showing that it is virtually impossible for an organization such as the Railways accurately to forecast what the revenue will be for the ensuing year. Even my colleague the Minister of Finance cannot do that. I do not think any Minister of Finance has ever accurately forecast what his revenue would be for the ensuing year.

I agree that in the current year the expenditure was under-estimated, but that was entirely due to financial control getting into its stride. I must say that there was an insinuation that the over-estimating and under-estimating was done deliberately. My reply to that is that I reject it with contempt. There was no such intention or purpose.

Both amendments asked for the establishment of a redemption fund. This suggestion, as I stated earlier, has been raised in this House over a number of years. It is excellent in theory. I fully agree that it would be most desirable to have a redemption fund for the Railway Administration, but I am afraid it is quite impracticable at this stage. I heartily agree with hon. members that a reduction in the interest burden would be most welcome. But hon. members must bear in mind that the loan fund debt is R1,400,000,000, and to give effective relief, annual installments must be a substantial amount, R20,000,000 to R30,000,000. if not more. Hon. members will realize what a serious impact that would have on Railway revenue. Priority must be given to wiping out the deficit in the Higher Replacement Cost Section of the Renewal Fund, in redeeming the loan that was made to the Betterment Fund and in building up the Rates Equalization Fund. If, in addition to this, I had to provide for an appropriation for a fixed contribution of some R30,000,000 to a sinking fund, that would inevitably result in a substantial increase in rates and tariffs. I am sure that hon. members will agree with me that the public would not stand for that.

The hon. member for Berea (Mr. Butcher) has suggested that a substantial portion of the Railway Interest bearing capital should be written off as a charge against the general taxpare. This, of course, would open a big question striking at the basis of the division of financial responsibility between the Railways and the Central Government decided upon when upon was constituted. The hon. member seemed to feel that we might, for instance, write-off the R146,500,000 of pre-Union capital which figures in the Administration’s balance sheet. However, the subject of pre-Union capital is one that has on several occasions been considered by this House, which finally settled the position by Act 64 of 1934, when it was decided that the figure should be R146,500,000. There may be an impression that because reference is made to pre-Union capital that it also connotes pre-Union assets. This is not necessarily the case. With the new development works since 1910, particularly in the last ten years, many pre-Union assets— and for that matter a large number of post-Union assets—have been removed from the assets register. This has been done generally as a charge to the Renewals Fund, which means that capital funds became available for investment in new assets. In this regard, hon. members are aware that every year loan funds become available as the result of the withdrawal of capital assets, and are voted by Parliament as “ capital credits ” to be used to finance new capital assets. In other words, moneys originally obtained by the Administration as pre-Union capital are now represented by new and relatively new assets.

I am as concerned, Mr. Speaker, as hon. members opposite in building up and strengthening the statutory reserve funds. Of course, there is a deficit in the higher replacement costs section of the Renewals Fund. Of course, the balance of loan in the Betterment Fund must be repaid. Of course the Rates Equalization Fund must be strengthened. But, of course, to do that the funds must be available. I want to ask hon. members opposite whether they are prepared to suggest that rates and tariffs must immediately be increased to such an extent as to provide me with the necessary funds to accomplish this admirable purpose? Or do they really think it is possible to reduce expenditure by say, R34,000,000— which will be the minimum amount required for this purpose? I must say it is no use making these suggestions if hon. members do not have the courage to accept the consequences.

Several hon. members wanted to know what the balance in the Betterment Fund was. I will give them that information. At the end of November 1960 the balance was R5,772,664. The expected balance at 31 March 1961 is R4,000,000. The appropriation from the 1960-1 surplus is R6.000,000; a total of R10,000,000 available. The anticipated expenditure for 1961-2 is R9,698,700, which leaves an estimated balance at 31 March 1962 of R301,300.

Mr. Speaker, it has never been the practice to build up a fund on the basis of future commitments. The general procedure has always been to aim at sufficient funds being available to meet the annual requirements. To work on commitments would place an altogether disproportionate burden on current revenue.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Plewman) adheres to his contention that the Administration in the 1959-60 financial year have obtained a vote of R10,000,000 of loan funds to supplement the resources of the Betterment Fund temporarily, but should have increased the net revenue appropriation for that year by the amount in question, and, to that extent, have reflected a correspondingly higher deficit. The hon. member goes so far as to refer to the action taken as a blatant breach of financial practice. The hon. member uses rather extravagant language when he has a weak case to easier. I take it that he is not suggesting that there has been any effort to hide the position that developed as a result of the heavy demands on the Betterment Fund. The fact that there was an inadequacy of funds to meet the 1959-60 requirements was clearly revealed to Parliament, which was also fully informed at the time that it was proposed to meet the situation by the temporary use of loan funds. Apparently on this matter the hon. member and I must agree to disagree.

Although I agree that Betterment expenditure is an annual occurring matter, I cannot see that the procedure followed by the Administration in this matter justifies the extravagant words of condemnation uttered by the hon. member. The appropriation of loan funds was made in this case simply because the resources of the Rates Equalization Fund were exhausted by the 1958-9 deficit, and the revenue prospects as seen at the time were not sufficient to provide for such a substantial net revenue appropriation to the Betterment Fund.

Would you do it again if the opportunity occurred?

That all depends upon what the circumstances are at the time.

It was stated at the time that this would, in due course, be made good from revenue and, in fact, this process has already started.

Mr. Speaker, both the amendments, the one moved by the hon. member for Wynberg and the other by the hon. member for Durban (Berea), contain a clause about the co-ordination of transport. But no speech to elaborate this point was made, and consequently I do not know what the hon. members really have in mind. I do, however, have a shrewd idea when I think back to previous debates in this House. My guess is that they mean there should really be freer private road transport. Of course, co-ordination is actually taking place to-day. There is excellent co-ordination between the different forms of transport in South Africa. Both speakers stressed the importance of Native passenger traffic. To a certain extent I agree with them, but it must be borne in mind that were it not for the Government subsidy this traffic would be carried at a loss. I can tell hon. members that it is the policy to improve the accommodation and to improve service for all passengers, and to make our passenger services, both main line and suburban, for all classes of traffic, as attractive as possible.

Some hon. members also suggested that there was no effective long-term planning. Again, that is not correct. The planning division has been in existence for several years and has done excellent work. One of the fruits of their activities is the fact that the Railways were placed in the position some 18 months ago in which they could carry all the traffic offered. But hon. members must bear in mind that planning is not static. It must be flexible and planning must continually be taking place. One cannot, in a Railway undertaking, have a fixed plan for the next five or ten years, because conditions change from time to time. Planning must, therefore, continually take place. To give one example: Iscor announced, a few months ago, an expansion programme which will eventually cost several hundred million rand To meet Iscor’s future requirements planning had to take place immediately for the increasing of the capacity on those lines, and especially those over which their ore will be conveyed. That could not have been foreseen five years ago. I say again that planning is flexible and must be flexible, and that planning is continually taking place. With the new reorganization we have created a separate post of head of the planning division, and I think that planning will now, if possible, be even more effective than in the past.

Hon. members wanted to know whether there was any co-ordination in regard to the establishment of border industries. My reply is that the South African Railways have a representative on the Advisory Committee and the closest co-ordination takes place. When these industries are established, if rail facilities are necessary they will be provided.

I come now to the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant), who alleges that the Controller and Auditor-General has given a qualified certificate, and who refers to paragraph 3 (1) (b) in this respect. I think the hon. member must have omitted to note the contents of paragraph 1 of the Controller and Auditor-General’s report, which is not only headed “ Audit Certificate ”, but which reads as follows:

That is the Controller and Auditor-General’s certificate. And at the foot of the General Balance Sheet on page 343 of the report he signs the Balance Sheet which is certified in these words—

“Subject to”.

The certificate does not differ from that given in previous years, and the grounds on which a qualified certificate is alleged by the hon. member to have been given are by no means clear. The hon. member bases his allegation on paragraph 3 (1) (b) of the report, but this makes no reference to the certificate at all. All that the Controller and Auditor-General says in this paragraph is the following—

and hon. members must observe that he does not use the word certificate but “ surplus ”—

because of (a), an inadequate appropriation from revenue to the Betterment Fund and (b) no appropriation to the Higher Replacement Cost Section during 1959-60.

Yes, a qualified certificate.

That is not a qualified certificate. That is not a certificate at all. The hon. member does not understand. He should read the Auditor-General’s report.

That makes two of you, then.

The hon. member for Turffontein also alleged that the former General Manager had stated that the Rates Equalization Fund must be built up to R200,000,000. In a Press statement on 16 September 1960 the former General Manager most emphatically denied ever having made such a statement. The hon. member also wanted to know the reason for the delay in replying to queries by the Auditor-General, delays by the management, and he tried to create the impression that there was something seriously wrong. I have taken out some details to show the number of outstanding queries in the Controller and Auditor-General’s reports over the last five years and the following position is revealed. In the report for 1955-6 there were 16 items outstanding for reply. In 1956-7 there were 13 items; 1957-8, 20 items; 1958-9, 34 items; 1959-60, 18 items. Yet in previous years the hon. member never said a word about this.

They were not items relating to finance.

These were queries by the Auditor-General for which replies from the management were awaited. It can be seen that in the 1959-60 report there is a distinct improvement and, in addition, it may be mentioned that most of the outstanding replies have since been given to the Auditor-General. Hon. members will appreciate that in a large undertaking such as the Railways with its many departments, investigations into audit queries of necessity take some time. In comparison with a number of queries raised by audit, the fact that only 18 replies were outstanding at the time that the Controller and Auditor-General’s report was printed is, if anything, more to be commended than criticized.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) referred to the amount of R10.8 million of loan funds appropriated for the purpose of financing stores stock that was unspent as at 31 March 1960. The hon. member is aware that owing to the great increase in the Administration’s activities, together with the many new types of spares and accessories which have to be kept in stock as the result of new assets such as diesel locomotives, electric units, Boeing aircraft, and also the substantially increased cost of such items, it has been necessary to increase the working capital appropriation in order to finance these acquisitions of stores stock. In fact, owing to the difficulties experienced in estimating when deliveries of the many varied types of items will take place, the Administration has been criticized in previous years for exceeding the Working Capital Appropriation for Stores Stock. Steps were, therefore, taken to ensure that sufficient funds would be available for this purpose. It is my intention, however, when the Finance Bill is submitted to the House, to include a provision for the reduction of working capital for stores stock. It is, of course, necessary to allow for a degree of increase over the present value of stocks held. However, it is expected that it will be possible to reduce the Working Capital Appropriation by R9.6 million. I may add that due cognizance of this has been taken already as far as loan fund drawings from Treasury during the present year are concerned.

*The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) has, as we expect of him, made a whole series of wild and unfounded allegations which he could not substantiate. His sole object was to make political propaganda. This is the type of propaganda which has always failed in the past. The hon. member has also made certain other allegations which have simply revealed his unfathomable ignorance. I want to give one or two examples. The hon. member has alleged that trains were held up at Maquassi because the operating staff were at a dance. No one knows anything about this. Inquiries have been made and neither the management nor the staff have heard anything about this party which was apparently held at Maquassi and which the operating staff attended. The hon. member has alleged that the increase in the tonnage carried on the sections where centralized traffic control has been introduced, has been so slight that it does not justify the high cost of introducing this system of control. Does the hon. member know what centralized traffic control is? Mr. Speaker, I doubt it. I think he has heard something about it but he does not have the slightest idea what it is all about. Centralized traffic control has been tested in all other countries of the world over a period of years, and it has been proved over and over again that it increases the capacity of a line tremendously and that it also results in a tremendous saving in staff. But apparently the hon. member does not know what centralized traffic control is. In addition centralized traffic control is only in operation on one section, namely that between Kamfersdam and Silver Streams on the Postmasburg branch line. The final section from Postmasburg to Silver Streams is expected to be completed in April 1961. The first section from Kamfersdam to Barkly West was taken into use on 5 July 1960 and the second, i.e. as far as Ulco, approximately two weeks later. What has been the result of introducing traffic control? The gross tonnage carried on the up-line from Postmasburg to Kimberley from April 1960 to February was 6,686,660 tons. During the corresponding 11 months of the previous financial year 5,651,615 gross tons were carried in the same direction on this section. The increase over the period of 11 months was therefore slightly more than 1,000,000 gross tons. Prior to the introduction of centralized traffic control the maximum tonnage which had been conveyed on the up-line was approximately 18,000 tons per day and since the installation of centralized traffic control, 28,000 tons per day have been moved on many occasions.

By using the existing centralized traffic control facilities on the branch line from Postmasburg to Kamfersdam, 27,000 tons a day can be carried on the up-line and, after the introduction of centralized traffic control on the whole section, the daily tonnage carried can be increased to 32,000 tons, which is not yet the maximum, seeing that the carrying capacity can still be considerably increased by subdivision and the provision of further crossing facilities. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that, as far as the carrying capacity of the section Kamfersdam/Silver Streams is concerned, the system of centralized traffic control has been an outstanding success, and the figures indicate a considerable increase in the tonnage conveyed. In addition, 12 servants could be withdrawn and, as soon as the final section is taken into use, an additional ten can be withdrawn.

The hon. member has also alleged that considerable expenditure has been incurred on the construction of a line between Kamfersdam and Beaconsfield, but that the grading was so poor that an additional line has had to be built, once again at heavy expense. What are the facts? The avoiding line between Kamfersdam and Beaconsfield, with a grade of 1:100, was opened for traffic in 1955. But of course traffic has increased since 1955; there has been a tremendous increase in the volume of ore exports from Postmasburg, and Iscor’s requirements are so much greater. This section, which, at the time, answered its purpose, has gradually become overloaded. Recently, over a period of 14 days, an average of 120 trains per day, including single locomotives, used the line between Beaconsfield and Kamfersdam, of which 83 used the route via Kimberley and 37 the avoiding line. For this reason we have decided to double this avoiding line. The new line has a grade of 1:130 for up-trains. It will remove that bottleneck. But this line has served its purpose completely. There was nothing wrong with it. Traffic has gradually increased, and additional facilities must be provided. To indicate the type of allegation this hon. member has made in all seriousness— as I have said purely for political purposes— I want to give another example. He has alleged that an order for 100 bags of cement was changed to 1,000 bags. The matter has been investigated, inquiries have been made, and no one knows anything about this matter except the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan). He maintains, further, that there was a deficit of 20,000 bags of cement in South West Africa. What are the facts? As a result of a police investigation at the time of the broadening of the narrow gauge line, it was found that a few hundred bags had been stolen from a supply of cement which had been issued to a private contractor, i.e. after it had already been handed over to him, and he was responsible for its safe keeping. But the police took steps against the guilty parties and the matter was finalized to the full satisfaction of the Administration. The allegation that 20,000 bags of cement were supposedly missing is completely incorrect.

Mr. Speaker, I have given these few examples, and I think they are sufficient to show how little value can be attached to the allegations of the hon. member for Orange Grove.

The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. P. J. Coetzee) has urged an improvement in the wage scales of shunters in order to help meet the shortage. I do not think that will help. If that were to be done, there would be overlapping with the wage scales in other grades. In other words, shunters would receive far more than ticket inspectors and conductors, which would, of course, give rise to serious dissatisfaction. Shunting is simply unpopular work. It is dangerous, and people do not simply want to accept these posts.

The hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Badenhorst) has asked that, when concessions are made to the staff in future, consideration should be given to doing so on a family basis. I am afraid that that cannot be done. It would mean that there would have to be various wage scales for the same type of work. It would be practically impossible to determine on what basis such a concession or wage increase should be granted if we were to do so on a family basis.

The hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden) has asked that Coloureds should replace the Bantu in the Western Cape. It is the policy to employ Coloureds in the Western Cape. It is also the policy, wherever possible, to transfer Bantu from the Western Cape, and particularly to transfer Xhosas to Port Elizabeth and East London, because it is in their own interests to be nearer their homes, and to employ Coloureds in their place. Special attempts are being made to do so, but, unfortunately, there are not many Coloureds who are interested in the type of work which is done by the Bantu. I just want to assure the hon. member that that is our policy.

The hon. member for North-West Rand (Mr. Schoeman) has suggested that, if there is a surplus on revenue account, it should be used for capital works. That is a sound idea, and it was done in 1955 when I used approximately £5,000,000 of the surplus for housing purposes.

The hon. member for Parow (Mr. Kotzé) has made an interesting speech on air transport, particularly as regards the increase in the freight carried. I agree entirely with him and, as far as possible, the Airways are doing so. As regards the facilities at airports, this is a matter which he should raise on the Transport Vote.

Various members have discussed consolidation. The original request by the staff was that £57 should be consolidated plus a 5 per cent increase. With the approval of the Federal Council, a committee was appointed on which both the staff and the management was represented. This was a fact-finding committee and, after a thorough investigation, this committee drew up certain schemes. On 27 February I had discussions with the Federal Consultative Council. All the staff associations were represented, except the Artisans Staff Association. The scheme submitted was unanimously adopted by that council in principle….

Did that include the 5 per cent increase?

No, that committee did not investigate a 5 per cent increase, but only consolidation.

Did that matter form part of is terms of reference?

No, it did not form part of the terms of reference of the committee, and the staff associations were satisfied with the terms of reference. These terms of reference were first submitted to the staff associations for their approval and they all approved of them. Those terms of reference did not include a 5 per cent increase. I say they accepted this scheme in principle. I also indicated that they could hold consultations with the management if there were any difficulties as regards matters of detail, which suggestion they also accepted. These consultations are still to be held. Consequently, finality on the whole scheme has not yet been reached, except in principle, and for that reason I cannot give the House any further information in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, the touching concern of the Opposition for the interests of the railwayman is really striking.

They expect an election.

Yes, as the hon. member says, they think an election is in the offing. The hon. member for Orange Grove especially has tried to make propaganda in an attempt to catch votes. This is something which they try to do before every election, but they have failed at every election and instead of getting more votes from the railwaymen they have got less. All their attempts have failed. The House will be interested to hear about one of these examples which occurred just before the Parow by-election last year. I have here a cutting from the official organ of the United Party, namely, the Weekblad, of 3 June 1960; this was two days before the Parow by-election. This is an article written by Mr. Marais Steyn, M.P., the hon. member for Yeoville. It deals with an interview which the hon. member for Yeoville supposedly had with a railwayman. The hon. member for Yeoville says the following in his article—

That is to say the railwayman—

Then the hon. member for Yeoville gave this railwayman the following reply—

The hon. member for Yeoville then said—

This is the hon. member for Yeoville—

And then in his article the hon. member for Yeoville discussed all the grievances of the railwayment and he then said that they should all vote against the Government on 8 June because they had those grievances. The hon. member then concluded his article with the following words—

And Mr. Speaker, after this article appeared we had the Parow result: The Nationalists won Parow with 4,577 votes, that is to say, an increased majority of 280 votes.

I say that this is what has happened to them in the past with their so-called concern for the railwaymen. The railwayman does not trust them; the railwayman does not believe them, and I am afraid that they will suffer the same fate at any future election.

In conclusion I just want to say that the Railways enter the year which lies ahead and the Republic of South Africa with the fullest confidence. Our object is to raise this great State undertaking to new heights, and to make it the pride of every citizen of our country. I do not have the slightest doubt that I shall have the support and co-operation of every member of the staff and the goodwill of the general public of South Africa.

Question put; That all the words after “ That ”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion,

Upon which the House divided:

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. von S. von Moltke.

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

Question affirmed and the amendments dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

House in Committee:

The Committee proceeded to consider the Estimates of Expenditure from Revenue Funds.

On Head No. 1.—“General Charges”, R6,262,234.

I should like to say one or two words about the Minister’s general policy regarding working hours per week on the Railways. I know the hon. the Minister says he is the last person who would make any promise to the railway worker just before an election, which he could not fulfil. He does not interview just one “ Piet ” as did the hon. member for Yeoville; he harangues masses of workers. The hon. the Minister must remember making a very large and expansive election promise some years ago when he said that he would reduce every single railway worker’s weekly work to 40 hours; in fact he promised a “ 40-hour working week to every worker in South Africa”. That was just before an election. But to this day, years afterwards, he has not done it. Even when the Railway Artisans Staff Association asked him to reduce their hours to those of industry, he still refused to do so. But of course any legitimate criticisms or any valid suggestions we make, if they happen to coincide with a period just prior to an election, according to the Minister, are done with ulterior political motives!

Mr. Chairman, it occurs to me that it is unrealistic for us to make debating points like these at this time when outside events of overwhelming importance endanger, not only the future of the Railways, but the whole economic future of South Africa. The Minister says he regrets that we are out of the Commonwealth; but not because it will have any effect on his future policy, which we are discussing at the moment. I am surprised at him, Sir. He does not, it is true, assert that being out of the Commonwealth will have no effect on his Budget or on his estimates with the same suave self-satisfaction of the Minister of Finance, but he does say that in his opinion no set-back will be suffered to Railway revenues and that trade relations within the Commonwealth will continue to our mutual advantage.

Order! The hon. member must return to Head No. 1.

Mr. Chairman, let me put this to you. This great event that has just happened, our exclusion from the Commonwealth, can have a catacylsmic effect on our finances and our economy. That recent sad event when we were led out of the Commonwealth is entirely due to the faulty actions of one man. The Minister should know what will happen to his high-rated traffic if there is a reduction in trade. We can discuss the importance of high-rated traffic under Head No. 1. If we have a falling off in high-rated traffic we know what happens to Railway revenue. The Railways revenues will suffer very adversely if our import trade is diminished to any great extent, or even if our export trade slackens. Both of these events may now happen. I am sure, Sir, you will allow me to follow the line of reasoning which I now propose. I want first of all to ask the Minister whether he will be able to execute his plans for Railway development in future or safeguard the welfare of the railwayman, who is dependent upon the welfare of the Railways, without the help of enough capital from overseas. Secondly whether he now thinks he is going to get sufficient capital from overseas to enable him to carry out the vast schemes which he has outlined in his Budget speech. Will he be able to do that with the same certainty as before …

Why not?

The repercussions of loss of Commonwealth membership on our trade may well be significant; the outward run of capital may well be accelerated; and the inward flow of capital may well dry up. If our reserves drop even further, some form of import control will be absolutely essential. That would mean, as the Minister knows, less high-rated traffic for the Railways and less high-rated traffic means falling Railway revenues. For the Minister to say that our leaving the Commonwealth means nothing to the Railways and their revenue may turn out to be quite wrong. I suggest, Sir, that when he refers to “impudent interference in our domestic affairs ” by nations such as Ghana, he should remember that it is his Government which has made it possible for one African nation to “ blackball ” us and exclude us from the safety, security and prosperity of the Commonwealth “ club ”. Canada, too …

The hon. member must come back to this Head. He cannot now continue the Budget debate.

Mr. Chairman, as I understand the scope of this Head, we can discuss, under it, the Minister’s policy in connection with any one of the following items …

Order! The hon. member is discussing statements made by the hon. Minister in the Budget debate and that is not under discussion.

Thank you for allowing me to make my point with sufficient emphasis. May I now be allowed to say to the hon. Minister that I think he should reconsider the idea of establishing a sinking fund for the reduction and redemption of interest bearing capital. He dismissed the idea of a sinking fund too easily. I want to ask him to reconsider it because other sinking funds have been successfully established …

I said it was a good thing if the money was there.

The Minister by that implies that vast, perhaps crippling, sums of money would have to put aside each year. Other sinking funds have been established with comparatively modest appropriations. The annual amount of R20,000,000, suggested by the Minister as a minimum, is an inordinately large amount. It is used by the Minister to try and prove that he is not in favour of a sinking fund only because it would absorb too much revenue.

R20,000,000 per annum.

He must know that under the Public Debt Commissioners Act, a sinking fund was established by calling for a far smaller fixed statutory amount to be set aside each year, namely only £650,000. They started off with that small amount. He also knows that another redemption fund which was established by Act of Parliament appropriated a modest £1,300,000 per annum. It is the principle which we on this side of the House want accepted—the principle of setting aside, annually, a statutory and fixed sum, which it would be incumbent upon the management to put into a debt reducing sinking fund. As time goes on and times get better, we can legislate that more and more should be appropriated each year, as has been done for other funds. I am sure, Sir, that the Minister will find that he is able to manage his railway finances more efficiently if he saves in this way. He will have more money to spend productively instead of in “ interest ”. I suggest that the Minister reconsider his refusal to follow our advice.

Mr. Chairman, before I sit down, I would like to make certain that it is possible, with your approval, for my colleagues to discuss under Head No. 1 the Minister’s policy in connection with all matters which do not come under one specific Vote but are spread over two or three heads. That has always been allowed in the past and I trust the Minister will also acknowledge that right and you will grant it in the future to this side of the House.

I have no objection.

I would like to discuss some aspects of the Minister’s policy with regard to matters under Item 203 of this Head, where we are called upon to vote an amount of some R2,221,701 for the staff and management of the General Manager’s office. I have to refer to the second reading debate and to all the queries which were raised with the Minister in regard to certain aspects of policy which he purports to uphold in respect to the staff.

You can put them again and I will reply to them. There was no time in my speech to do so. If there are any points which I missed, then you are at liberty to raise them; I will reply to them.

Very important issues were raised during the debate to which no reply was given at all. The Minister simply ignored them. Now we are constrained to raise these matters, in terms of your ruling, Mr. Chairman, in a sense de novo and as if they have not been discussed before. That certainly gives an atmosphere of unreality to the matter. At any rate, I want to refer to two particular aspects of this item. The first is the decision of the Minister to undertake a complete re-alignment of the top level management of the railway administration. The Minister indicated that there would in future be two Deputy General Managers, one of whom would have under his control two assistant General Managers who would concern themselves with staff matters entirely on the one hand and with commercial, catering and publicity matters on the other, while the other Deputy General Manager would have under him also two assistant General Managers, one head of a section and a manager of another section. I now want to refer to the down grading of the head of the Planning and Development section of the General Manager’s office and I hope the Minister will explain the position. Formerly, the functions of financial manager and planning, were under the control of an officer in the General Manager’s department with a status of assistant General Manager. My question to the Minister now is why that has been down graded in responsibility so that we now have such an important section placed, in the first instance, merely under a head of a section and not any longer with the status of assistant General Manager; and secondly, why the functions have been separated so that there will be in future only a financial manager? I ask this question for a very particular reason: According to the latest information concerning the General Manager’s office and the organization of that office, in the General Manager’s Report in respect of the current financial year, I quote—

Now, after only one year of operation of this set-up where these sections were under an assistant General Manager, we now have to hear that one portion of the General Manager’s office is now going to become merely one of those subsidiary sections. Now, when you look at the allocation of responsibility between the two Deputy General Managers it seems to be clear that the one Deputy General Manager is going to have a far-reaching responsibility as compared with the other Deputy General Manager, if it is remembered that the one is only going to have only two additional sections under his control. The need for preplanning is of great importance in the railway activities and has been stressed adequately during the discussion to go into Committee of Supply; I do not therefore intend to cover that ground again, but I ask the Minister with respect to give us a full explanation of what was intended with these changes in view of the fact that, as stated in the General Manager’s report quoted, that this new organization comes only after some months after the introduction of an already revised set-up.

I would now like to deal with another aspect of the Minister’s policy and I will deal with that as briefly as I can. The Minister in his Budget speech made the clear statement that the staff at present employed by the Railway Administration amounted to 218,000 in number. This number coincides with the information contained in the latest report of the General Manager, to the effect that the total number of staff employed by the Railway Administration numbers only 100 or 200 less the number quoted by the Minister. That was as at 31 March 1960. The Minister’s figure was in respect of the position in April 1960. The Minister said that following the policy of retrenchment and greater efficiency and the introduction of new methods, effective retrenchment had taken place; there was no wastage; and that the number of staff had, in fact, within one year been reduced from 218,000 to 214,000 in respect of all races. It is here where the confusion comes in. The Minister addressed a meeting of the staff associations in June last year and on that occasion he made a most emphatic statement, of which I have seen no denial, to the effect that—

Now, Mr. Chairman, if that figure is correct, then the entire staff establishment of the Administration should have been something like 200,000.

Did I say at what date that was the staff position?

When did the entrenchment, the sacking of the 17,000 employees take place? Will the Minister give us an explanation about it?

Yes.

If one looks at the Report of the Controller and Auditor-General, and reads the comments which he makes about the present staff establishment, then a burning question arises. The Controller and Auditor-General points out there that the number of casual staff at present employed by the Railway Administration exceeds 8,000 Europeans alone, and more than 40,000 non-Europeans. I would like, therefore, some information as to what the 17,000 posts represent. Are they permanent posts which have been reassessed? I put this to the Minister as a very pertinent question because from his reply I would like to come back to his policy in regard to employment of officers, normal working employees like rail workers and his policy in regard to the employment of non-Whites. These issues are all issues which have been raised in the discussion on the motion but to which he failed to give us a reply.

In the General Manager’s Report I read the following—

I should like to ask the Minister why this order was cancelled and whether the Administration still intends purchasing these locomotives at a later stage. If the Administration does not intend doing so, I should like to ask the Minister what he intends doing about the smoking steam locomotives here in the Cape Town Harbour and at Culemborg. Mr. Chairman, it is generally accepted that these steam locomotives are mainly responsible for the clouds of smoke which we see hanging over Cape Town at certain times and which emanate from the harbour area when these steam locomotives are being used for shunting. Now that we are developing the Foreshore and magnificent new buildings are being erected— including the fine administrative building of the Railways themselves—of which we in Cape Town are proud, I should like to see steps being taken to alleviate the conditions which are being created by these locomotives. The Railways and the power station in Dock Road have always been the main cause of annoyance. The power station is now being closed but if these 23 diesel shunting locomotives are not to be acquired I do not know what else the Railways for their part intend doing.

I want to point out that in 1955 a committee was appointed to investigate the economic aspect of diesel traction and this committee then found that the utilization of diesel power could be justified for two purposes. In the first place it could be justified for use in areas located far from the coal mines where there were limited water supplies and in the second place for shunting work in the larger centres where smoke and noise were important factors. The smoke emanating from these locomotives here in Cape Town is sufficient justification for their replacement.

Another matter which is bound up with this question, is that of the tugs in Table Bay Harbour. I have been told that the quality of coal being used by the tugs is very poor. The staff complained about this matter and I then raised the matter with the management. Is the use of such a low quality coal not the reason why such vast clouds of smoke always hang over the tugs? Could this position be alleviated by using a better quality coal?

Another matter to which I should like to refer is the question of the smaller suburban stations where the goods sheds do not handle much traffic and where the sheds and the goods yard are located in the centre of the town, as is the position in Parow. There are fine flats, houses and shops only about 25 yards from the goods shed and the goods yard. Whenever the slightest breeze blows everything in the vicinity of the goods yard is covered with a fine layer of coal dust which makes things very unpleasant for the staff and everyone else. Conditions have become so bad in the past that the Department has sprayed the dust with a tar spray. But this only gives temporary relief. I wonder whether it should not be accepted as a matter of policy that such goods yards should be tarred wherever it is at all possible or that some other action should be taken so that the dust is not so easily blown about.

Then I also see the following statement in the Minister’s Budget speech—

This question affects the running of the Railways most closely and I want to say that in Cape educational circles there is great dissatisfaction over this arrangement.

Yes, but that does not fall under my Department.

I just want to say that pressure is being exercised on the Administrator of the Cape to have a different arrangement introduced. If the Administrators ask that these arrangements should be reviewed and the holiday time-table changed, what will be the attitude of the Minister and the Administration? To what extent have train time-tables already been adjusted in advance to the new holiday arrangements and did these new arrangements during the past December/January holidays bring the Railways any financial advantage?

In his reply to the debate the Minister stated that it was the policy of the Administration to replace Bantu labour by Coloured labour in the Western Province as far as possible but he also added that it was not easy to do so because it was difficult to find Coloureds who could do the work being done by the Bantu. I now want to make this submission for his consideration: Is this not the position because the Coloureds and the Bantu are expected to work in the same gangs? It is my experience in this regard that the Coloureds and the Bantu do not work together very easily. The Bantu simply do not have any time for the Coloureds because their customs are quite different. The idea which appears to be generally accepted that the Coloureds do not want to do manual labour is not quite correct. There are many of them who are prepared to do hard work but my experience has been that if a building contractor for example takes two or three Bantu into his employ over a period, whereas he previously only employed Coloureds, the Coloureds very soon leave. The same applies to factories—I have had a great deal of experience in this regard. Many of the Coloureds have come to me in the past and when I have asked them why they are leaving, they say that their employer is engaging Bantu and they cannot work with the Bantu. I should therefore like to submit for the Minister’s consideration that as far as possible the Administration should try to keep the Coloureds in separate gangs. Even when they have to work in harbour sheds it can be arranged that they as Coloureds should work in one shed and the Bantu in another. Of course I do not know whether this will be possible but I am merely submitting it for his consideration. In any case I believe that this is one of the reasons why there is not sufficient Coloured labour available.

I rise to support the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) in his request to the Minister to reconsider his attitude in regard to the establishment of a sinking fund. The hon. Minister used the word “ extravagant ” in relation to myself but I think the figure he gave as to what should be set aside for the sinking fund, is also extravagant. The Minister mentioned a sum in the region of R20,000,000 per annum. I want to draw his attention to the fact that last year he was proud of the fact that the Administration had been able to raise its interest return on investments by selling low-interest stocks and re-invest it in high-interest stocks. Sir, if the Minister had available some money in a sinking fund, that type of transaction would be more easily done.

The hon. member is not discussing the policy of the Minister now. The Minister said that the establishment of a sinking fund was not his policy.

But, Mr. Chairman, I am trying to convince the hon. Minister that that should be his policy.

But the hon. member cannot do so at this stage.

But this refers, Sir, to the question of whether there should be a sinking fund because of interest payments. I am coming now to what the interest charge is of the Railway Administration in relation to the Central Government. This is a matter which the Minister has said that he agreed with in principle and what I am doing is to expound this principle a little bit further in order to persuade the Minister to go a bit further with his agreement.

Only details are discussed in Committee. An hon. member may not reply to statements made during the budget debate, nor may he discuss matters involving legislation.

But this can be done by appropriation.

No, it cannot; you have got to have legislation.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the interest charges which the Railways bear to-day in relation to the Central Government. According to the Estimates of Expenditure, these interest charges for the Central Government is R39,500,000 and for the Railways R65,800,000. If there is therefore justification for a sinking fund on one side, there is the more justification for such a fund on the other side. But I will respect your ruling, Sir, and leave it at that.

I would like the Minister to give us information as to what the estimated amount of loan votes is that is to be surrendered to the Treasury in respect of the current year. The Minister has already indicated that there would be such a surrender and I would like him to give details of the amounts either not drawn or surrendered.

Lastly, Sir, I would like to draw attention to an item on page 93 of the Revenue Estimates, referring to an assistant inspector stationed in Seattle in the U.S.A. Now, I do not know what this gentleman’s functions are, but it appears that he is entitled to emoluments of R1,800 per annum, to overtime and Sundaytime R3,100, and to an allowance of R125,756.

There seems to be something disproportionate somewhere, because if this one official— and in previous years there were two officials —if this one official is drawing the full amount it is disproportionate. Do I understand that he draws the full amount set out here, comprising overtime and Sunday-time as well as the full amount of the allowances, and that he only gets R1,800 per annum as his fixed emolument?

On the General Charges Vote I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he envisages a readjustment of railway tariffs. I should like to refer particularly to one or two anomalies in the tariffs relating to meat products for example. We know that since 1954 the tariff on tinned meat for example has been increased twice, and to-day it is 280d. per 100 lbs. from Windhoek to Johannesburg, for example. This has the result that the total tariff including the tariff on empty containers works out at 3d. per 1 lb. on tinned meat. This represents 18 per cent of the cost price. It is interesting to note that one truck of cattle is conveyed from Windhoek to Johannesburg, for example, for approximately £37, while one truck of tinned meat costs as much as £396. In addition we must bear in mind that tinned meat is loaded in the truck and that is the last attention it requires until one unloads it. But in the case of livestock the animals must continuously receive attention; they must be given food and water; they damage the trucks, the trucks must be cleaned, etc. There is of course the argument that the livestock weighs less, but when one takes one truck as a basis, one finds that 12 or 13 oxen weigh approximately 15,000 lbs., whilst 750 cartons of tinned meat in a similar truck weigh 36,000 lbs. Even then the tariff on livestock works out at 60d. per 100 lbs. while that for tinned meat is 280d. per 100 lbs.

Take another example, namely frozen meat. The tariff in this case is only 128d. per 100 lbs. as compared with 280d, in the case of tinned meat. As we are now dealing with canned products, it is also interesting to note that canned fruit for example is conveyed between Johannesburg and Windhoek at a tariff of 230d. per 100 lbs., as compared with 280d. in the case of tinned meat. We find for example that a case of tinned meat costs more to send from Windhoek to Johannesburg than from Brazil to Johannesburg. I mention this particular tariff because the canning industry is of the utmost importance to us in South West. One company, namely the Damara Meat Packers, for example, converts approximately 40,000 head of cattle annually into tinned meat. In 1960 its turnover was R1,252,000 and of that total, meat to the value of no less than R271,000 was exported. This means that this tinned product is earning South Africa a considerable amount of foreign exchange. But, Mr. Chairman, as a result of this particularly high tariff which is retarding the production of this specific type of meat, the industry in South West is having a difficult time and I ask the hon. the Minister what his policy is in this regard and whether he will not consider a readjustment of these tariffs in the future so that we can encourage our secondary meat industry, because we realize that if we cannot dispose of this 40,000 head of cattle in this way, particularly in times of drought in South West, such cattle will simply represent a loss to us. It will not merely encourage the industry itself, but it will also help us to make this product available to the consumer at a far lower price.

I should like to bring one or two matters which I have already discussed with his Administration to the notice of the hon. the Minister. To a certain extent I have been told that I shall be given satisfaction and that the position will be investigated. But this position has been going on for quite some time and there are repeated complaints that there has been no improvement. The one point relates to the position of Coloured passengers on our main lines. I do not know what the reason is, but there is a tendency amongst conductors, although there are often empty seats on the train, to put Natives together with Coloureds in the same compartment. This is really unsatisfactory, I cannot do otherwise than agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Parow (Mr. Kotzé) when he asked whether the difficulty might not be that the Coloureds did not want to work with the Natives in the same gangs. That is really how they feel. How much more is that not the position when a Coloured is placed in the same compartment with five, six or seven Natives? This is done while the Coloureds can see with their own eyes that there are in fact other empty compartments. I am putting this to the hon. the Minister. I know it is not due to his negligence. I know that this is something which happens at a level which it is very difficult for the hon. the Minister or the Administration to control themselves. But I cannot omit mentioning it because we must give attention to this matter. This unnecessary problem and inconvenience in the case of the Coloureds must be removed.

Then I want to say a few words about the suburban travelling facilities of the Coloureds, particularly during the peak periods and over the week-ends. During the week-ends it is the Coloureds particularly who go to the platteland or the sea. Then we find that to a large extent they must stand. Over the past week-end and the week-end before that many Coloureds had to stand all the way from Wellington on the return journey to Cape Town while there were no people in that part of the train which was reserved for Whites. Once again I do not hold the hon. the Minister responsible. The Administration has told me that they have given their inspectors discretion to change the notices on the sides of the carriages so that this position can be avoided when necessary. But for one or other reason it is not being done. I have had the temerity to ask one of these officials why they do not do so. His answer was: “ No, sir, we are afraid that we, will get into trouble. Although we have been told that we may do so, we are afraid to do so because we have not been told so in writing. People complain to the Administration and then we get into trouble.” I am mentioning this to the hon. the Minister. I do not like submitting complaints in this House until I have tried to have them remedied through the Department itself, but I thought that I should just bring these two matters to the notice of the Minister. Then in conclusion I want to refer to the statistics which we are given relating to the number of employees on the Railways. There are two classes. Whites and non-Whites. I know that it may entail a lot of extra work, but I really think it would be a great convenience to hon. members here and particularly to the Coloured Representatives, if we could be given an indication of how many of the non-Whites are Coloureds and Indians. It would help us tremendously. I do not think it would cause the Administration unnecessary additional work. I shall be very glad if the hon. the Minister could just give his attention to these few matters.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words about the protection of the White workers on the Railways. I should like to do so with reference to the appointment of the Van Zyl Committee two years ago. The House will remember that the Van Zyl Committee was appointed to inquire into the economic advantages from the Administration’s point of view as well as that of the country’s interests, to be derived from the transfer to private industry of certain manufacturing at present being undertaken by the Railways. In the nature of things, it can be understood that this caused a measure of concern, particularly amongst the White artisans of the mechanical department. They became concerned as to what their future would be, particularly if the Administration, on the recommendation of the Van Zyl Committee, should decide to transfer additional manufacturing work to private industry. The Minister then made a statement that this was a fact-finding committee that had to report to him, and that he would then decide on the report, and would ensure that the interests of the White artisans on the Railways would be protected. It is true that this statement re-assured the White artisans. But this whole matter caused an understandable reaction in the mechanical department. That department soon came to believe that the only way to prevent a possible curtailment of its activities was to keep its costs of production as low as possible, so that its manufacturing costs could compare favourably with those of private industries outside. Mr. Chairman, I want to say at once that I have no fault to find at all with the principle of bonus work. The whole intention is that the artisan should increase his productive capacity, and let us admit frankly that, if we want to maintain ourselves as Whites in this country, and this does not only apply to the mechanical department, but to all branches of our national life, then we shall have to try at all times to increase our productive capacity and our efficiency as workers. For that reason I welcome the system of bonus work as an incentive for increased efficiency. But I do want to issue a warning and to ask the hon. the Minister to ensure that the principle of bonus work is applied in the mechanical department in such a way that bonus work will not eventually become the slave driver of the artisan, which will drive him on to such an extent that the artisan will feel obliged to resign from the service because of the tension and for the sake of his own health, and, perhaps, take an attractive post in private industry. I say the danger may arise that, as a reaction to the possibility of a curtailment in the activities of the mechanical department, the workers concerned will concentrate to such an extent on achieving cheaper production that it will oust the White artisan. I raise this matter for two reasons particularly: In the first place, to bring this matter pertinently to the notice of the Minister and, in the second place, to obtain a reassuring statement from the Minister in this regard, a statement which will not only reassure the White artisans, but, at the same time, will act as a warning to the supervisory officers that they should apply the system of bonus work on as reasonable, fair and humane a basis as possible. I should like to have a statement from the Minister on this matter, because the artisans in that department regard it as being of the utmost importance.

Then, while I am speaking, I should just like to put this short question to the Minister. The Minister will remember that a little while ago I brought to his notice the question of an improved and more regular air service for Bloemfontein. I should like to ask whether any progress has been made in this regard, and whether we can look forward to having an improved air service in the future?

Mr. Chairman, it seems to be my role in these debates to bring to the hon. the Minister’s attention matters that are really of minor importance in the general context of things, but which are, nevertheless, a source of considerable annoyance to the travelling public. I must say that, on the two previous occasions, I have been successful with the hon. the Minister in my requests, and I hope that this time I will be equally successful. What I want to raise with the hon. the Minister to-day is this question of the new system of booking in the South African Airways. I believe that this system was introduced towards the end of last year, and since that time there have been a number of complaints to me personally, and I have had personal experience of this matter, in so far as the fact that it appears that there is no proper co-ordination between the Central Booking Office—which, I understand, is now in Maritime House in Johannesburg—and the local airports. It appears that there are no longer any passenger manifests. Instead of one getting to the airport and finding that an actual seat has been booked in one’s name, one arrives with a ticket duly endorsed for the correct date and the correct plane, but, on arrival at the airport—and, indeed, this happened to me last week, and it has happened to four constituents of mine, who have complained about this to me—one gets to the airport and finds that no seat is available on the plane for which one is properly booked. Now whether this is a matter of bad co-ordination between Maritime House and the local airports, I am not in a position to say, but l do know that these occurrences are happening much more frequently now than they did when the old system was employed. I understand that this is a system which is used elsewhere in the world, this co-ordination and centralization of air booking services, but something has gone wrong here, and I hope the hon. the Minister will investigate this matter. It is a matter which is causing considerable annoyance to the users of the South African Airways. When their tickets have been booked beforehand and have been properly endorsed, people are entitled to know that when they arrive at the airport there will be a seat waiting for them on their particular plane. I do not blame the officials themselves. I have seen the difficulties to which the local authorities have been put; I have seen their agitation when confronted by two or three passengers whose tickets are correctly endorsed but who are unable to get on that plane. The officials have to take the brunt of the irritation of these passengers, although, quite obviously, it is not their fault. People arrive with their tickets, the plane is booked up and additional passengers arrive for whom there are not enough seats in the plane. Somewhere or other there is a breakdown in the co-ordination of this system, and I hope that the hon. the Minister will investigate this matter.

The other matter I want to raise is on the more parochial subject of the Jan Smuts Airport. I say parochial because it is the airport of Johannesburg, but, again, this is a matter of national importance and also, I think, a matter of international importance, since this is our greatest international airport in South Africa. I know that a lot of building is going on at Jan Smuts Airport at the present stage and, maybe for that reason, the airport is as dirty as it is. But if you get there at 7 o’clock in the morning or 7 o’clock at night, the Jan Smuts Airport is in a dirty condition. The cloakrooms are dirty, the concourse is dirty, and the steps are dirty, and I hope that the hon. the Minister will see that something is done about this.

I now wish to raise another matter which I raised with the hon. the Minister last year.

I want to tell him that the situation as far as trains to serve the Bantu population in the urban townships is concerned, that service is still very far from satisfactory. I know that additional trains have been provided. I know that the lines have been doubled in some cases, and I know that a lot of capital expenditure has gone into this. Nevertheless, the amount of traffic which those lines have to bear is enormous and the facilities are quite inadequate. I talk now particularly of Johannesburg and the South-Western complex, the Orlando area where, as the Minister knows, at the present stage something like 500,000 Africans live, practically all of whom work in the City of Johannesburg. These people have to get to and from work and they sometimes spend as much as three or four hours in getting to and from their places of work. That means a loss of manpower, it means inefficiency and it means exhaustion, which in turn means the loss of productivity. All of these are factors which are obviously going to affect the whole of our economy in South Africa, quite apart, of course, from the human angle of causing tremendous dissatisfaction to the Bantu users of the Railways. I hope that something will be done to increase still more the availability of coaches for those services, particularly in the peak hours.

Another point to which I wish to refer is the lack of safety on those roads. When I say that I do not refer to the physical safety of the users from the point of view of accidents, but I refer to the fact of over-crowded conditions on these trains which still leads to a tremendous amount of tsotsism and robbery taking place on the trains. Law-abiding Africans travelling home are in danger of their lives and are certainly constantly being made the victims of robbers on these trains. This, incidentally, does not happen only on the trains but also in the stations. Johannesburg Station itself, at peak hours, is the scene of a number of robberies. I know of one case in particular where an African was robbed of his entire life’s savings just before going home to his family who lived in the reserves. It appears that the over-crowded conditions in the stations themselves and the lack of policing is something that needs investigation, and I hope that the hon. the Minister will consult with his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Justice, and ask him whether he cannot see about proper policing of the trains and of the railway stations, particularly at peak hours. And these policemen, when they are sent to the stations, are to be instructed that it is not their tasks to look for Natives who are not keeping to the regulations as far as the Pass Laws are concerned, that it shall not be their task to seek for pass offenders, in other words, but that it shall be their task to protect the customers of the hon. the Minister of Transport. The hon. the Minister himself told us that a large percentage of his revenue was entirely due to the increased use of the Railways by Bantu customers, and I do think that these people are therefore entitled to know that they are going to travel in comfort and in safety.

Mr. Chairman, when the new station at Brandfort was erected, the plans did not provide for a footbridge for non-Whites. In the meantime the necessary provision has been made and I should like to convey my sincere thanks and appreciation to the Minister for these facilities which have been made available. An overhead bridge has been erected at Shannon and a few months ago it was left half-completed. The tarring was not completed and the connection with the main road has not been completed either. In the first instance, this overhead bridge has made traffic conditions difficult because of a narrow path which runs along the walls of the bridge and which is dangerous to use in certain instances. But the main danger—and this is the matter I actually want to discuss—is represented by the crossing. This is a dangerous crossing. At the moment, as the result of the overhead bridge, trains coming through the tunnel cannot be seen. Two fatal accidents have already taken place recently. I really feel that every day the public use that road— and the traffic is very heavy—and that every time the public cross that line, they are endangering their lives. I therefore urge that in the meantime the Minister should place someone there with a flag to give the necessary warning, and that he should accelerate the completion of the overhead bridge. We shall appreciate this greatly.

I should like to discuss with the hon. the Minister the question of his policy regarding harbours. I want to discuss this particularly in relation to Durban Harbour, because I think that the same applies to the other harbours as well.

We do not have a lot of discussion on harbours and therefore it is not always very easy to get as much information as one would like on the subject of our harbours and their development. From time to time I have asked the hon. the Minister if he would not make available to us the Moffat Commission Report which, I think, would be a source of useful information, particularly to those members who are interested in the development of our harbours. That report would perhaps help them to make better contributions towards programmes of developing the harbours. I have m mind at the moment one particular example for the hon. the Minister, and that is the question of the development of the Island View Channel m Durban and the provision of an extra tanker berth and the reclamation of land on the other side of the Causeway. I do not even know whether this is being done in terms of the Moffat Commission recommendation, and that is how little we know about those recommendations. But one thing we do know is that when work is undertaken in the harbours on the scale that it is being done in Durban Harbour at the moment, it usually entails very large capital expenditure. That is work which, once done, is hardly likely to be undone. I therefore think it becomes very important to the hon. the Minister and to those concerned with the development of the harbours to know what is happening, so that they might be able to help. For example, in this particular job of work the opinion has been expressed that the land which the Minister is about to start reclaiming might very well be required, in the very near future, for the provision of yet another tanker berth If these matters were brought to our attention in good time we could perhaps get a cross-section of opinion, and we could perhaps discuss with and consult the Minister on these particular matters. But here is an example where, if the beliefs of people who have been connected with the Durban Harbour for many years are correct, the Minister is going to be faced in the very near future with the necessity for dredging out a large portion of reclaimed land in order to provide another tanker berth.

There are many aspects to this matter. In addition to the Island View Development there is the reclamation taking place at the head of the bay on a very large scale. Part of this is to provide repair facilities for ship building firms in Durban. We have had an example recently where a tender for a ship has been given to a foreign country when I am quite sure that there are at least two firms in Durban who, had they known what facilities were going to be made available might have been able to approach the Minister, and perhaps that work would not then have left this country But the point I want to make is that not so long ago when I consulted with these companies, they had no idea of what area was to be provided for them. They had no idea of what facilities they themselves were to plan for, because no such information was available. As far as I am concerned I know that when I want information on the harbours the staff are very courteous and do try to help I do not approach them with a view to being destructively critical, because the Durban Harbour means too much to us people in Durban and to South Africa as a whole, so that our object is to help. But it is not very pleasant when, on every occasion that you want information on the Durban Harbour you have to try and get it in various ways, part from the Department and part from outside sources and you end up with a picture which might be so untrue that you would probably be better off not to have it at all. For that reason I believe it would be fair of the hon. the Minister to make available to those people who are interested—and rightly interested because it is part of my job here to be interested in the harbour—to make available to us, without us having to beg for it, at least sufficient information to know what development he has in mind. We would like to know what development has been recommended and which portions of those recommendations the hon. the Minister is prepared to carry out.

Mr. Chairman, I ask the hon. the Minister this question from time to time but he obviously is not keen on giving us this information. I cannot honestly think why that should be so. The recommendations are made by a commission. The development will take place on land which is owned by the Government, that is now Government land, so that there can be no speculation on the release of the information. But I am sure that the information contained in that report would help in the development of Durban; it would help those concerned with the development of the harbour, in no uncertain terms. I am sure that in the long run the hon. the Minister would find that it would be of benefit not only to himself and to his Department but to the harbour service if certain people were given that information and were able to come forward and discuss these items frankly with him.

I will not take the matter any further at this stage because I am sure that when the hon. the Minister deals with it he will see my point of view. If he will offer to let us readily have information as it becomes available on the development of harbours generally throughout South Africa, and particularly the harbours of special interest to us, we can make some progress on this subject and be of assistance in the development of these harbours.

I don’t think it would be advisable to make any report on the expansion of harbours available to the public.

Why not?

For many reasons. First of all, it is purely a technical matter. Durban Harbour does not only cater for the people of Durban, but is there for the benefit of the whole of the country. It is not the practice to consult with all the different bodies and individuals in regard to improvements effected either in the harbours or on the railways. What would the position be if I decided to double a line, say from here to Touwsrivier, and I would have to consult with the Chambers of Commerce and Industry and with the Agricultural Union before I start doubling a line?

Have they not got harbour advisory boards?

Yes, and they know what is happening. They have an opportunity of advising the Minister. The functions of the harbour advisory committees embrace quite a number of things in addition to improvements that might be effected, but the main difficulty is that one cannot accept a report as being the be-all and end-all of future development. We have had numerous reports on Durban Harbour, but conditions change continually, and after a report has been in our hands for a certain time, conditions may have changed to such an extent that a new committee has to be appointed, and the new committee might find that as a result of changed circumstances, the former reports have become quite obsolete. In other words, a report cannot be accepted as a fixed plan for a number of years for the expansion of a particular harbour. In this particular case, this report was sent to the Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber of Industries and the Harbour Advisory Board. We made an exception on this occasion, and these different bodies have an opportunity of commenting on the report. The hon. member must realize that conditions change continually.

May I ask the hon. the Minister: If he is making a report available to the Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber of Industries and the Harbour Advisory Board is he not prepared to make it available to, or take in his confidence those people like myself who are vitally concerned?

Many people are vitally concerned. What would happen now? We would have a conflict of opinion in regard to certain improvements that are contemplated, and then the Minister and the management must be there as umpires to decide between the conflicting opinions. I do not think the people of Durban have any cause for complaint in regard to the development of that harbour.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) referred to the half-finished bridge at Shannon. I will give instructions to go into that matter.

The hon. member for Houghton complained about the lack of co-ordination in regard to the booking of passengers for the S.A. Airways. I have had numerous complaints over the past few months about booking, and as a result of that I instructed the management to appoint a committee of inquiry. I think that we will have to reorganize the whole system of booking passengers for the S.A. Airways. The committee is at present busy with its inquiry, and I hope the report will be of such a nature that considerable improvements can be effected. The hon. member complained that the Jan Smuts Airport was always dirty. I will bring that to the attention of the Minister of Transport. The Minister of Railways has nothing to do with that.

I hope he will make a clean sweep of it.

As far as Bantu trains are concerned I agree with the hon. member that the position is unsatisfactory, but there is a large number of coaches still on order, and a large number of coaches are also being converted from second class to third class. I hope when those coaches have been converted, the position will improve.

Does that conversion mean that they will have to accept very inferior facilities?

Why should that be an inferior type of transport? The hon. member referred to the policing of trains. That is quite impracticable. Even if you had one policeman on every Native train, he would be able to do very little to prevent crime. When he is in one over-crowded coach, a criminal can go ahead with his job in another coach. You would have to have a policeman in every coach and that of course is quite impracticable. On the stations we have our railway police, but when there are crowds of hundreds of Natives leaving trains at a certain time it is almost impossible for one or two policemen to see that nothing takes place. We have to police the stations, not the South African Police, but of course we have nothing to do with pass offenders—that is not a job for the railway police.

*The hon. member for Bloemfontein East (Mr. van Rensburg) has referred to the Van Zyl Committee. As I have already said, this is a fact-finding committee. When I have received its report and the facts are before me, I shall have to decide what is to be done, but I have already given the assurance that no action will be taken which will harm the present staff of the Railways or detrimentally affect their working conditions. The bonus work system is being applied on a reasonable basis. I do not know what complaints there are, because no artisan is obliged to earn a certain amount by bonus work, and the schedules relating to bonus work have been agreed upon in consultation with the Artisans Staff Association. The association ensures that the schedules are complied with, and it depends on the individual how hard he works and what bonus he earns. This is a sound system which has already been in operation for many years on the Railways and which to an ever-increasing extent is being extended in private industry because this is the only way to increase the productivity of the worker, i.e. by giving him the incentive of additional wages.

The hon. member has urged the introduction of a more regular air service to Bloemfontein. A new timetable will come into operation on 1 April and the management assures me that considerable improvements have been effected.

The hon. member for Karoo (Mr. le Roux) has complained that Coloured passengers are put into the same compartments as Natives on the main line trains. I agree entirely that there should be separation if it is at all possible and practicable. The main difficulty is experienced when they travel third-class. As far as reserved accommodation in the second- and first-class compartments is concerned, these problems do not arise to the same extent. But the instruction is that whenever possible Coloured passengers and Native passengers should be separated. The Coloureds desire it and I think they are entitled to it. I shall once again ask the management to issue an instruction in this regard. As far as the overloading of Coloured coaches is concerned, this position arises because there is a shortage of these coaches, but as the hon. member knows, more and more of these coaches are coming into service and I shall ask the management to go into the matter once again to see whether the position cannot be alleviated. I think it will also be possible to provide separate statistics relating to Coloureds and other non-Whites and I shall ask the management to go into the matter.

The hon. member for Middelland (Mr. P. S. van der Merwe) has advocated a reduction on the tariff on tinned meat. This matter has already been brought to my notice from time to time in recent years, but I am afraid that I cannot grant that reduction. I cannot make an exception in the case of the factory in South West. If the tariff on tinned meat is to be reduced, it will have to apply to everyone and from the point of view of competition South West’s factory will then be in exactly the same position as to-day. The hon. member says that the tariff on livestock is so much lower. That is true, but the tariff is based on the principle of what the traffic can bear, and livestock is worth far less than tinned meat. In other words, the value of tinned meat which is a concentrated product is far higher proportionately than that of livestock and that is why the tariff is much higher. I have given careful consideration to this matter but I have found that there is no justification for reducing the tariff on tinned meat because it would create a precedent and I do not know what the results would be. There are many tinned goods in respect of which the manufacturers could advance the same argument and who would then rightfully be able to claim that their tariffs should also be reduced.

I am afraid that I cannot consider that suggestion at this stage.

May I point out that in comparison the tariff on canned fruit is very low.

Because its value is quite different. Every article is considered on its merits before the tariff is laid down.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Plewman) wanted to know what the amount of Loan Funds is that is going to be surrendered to the Treasury. The amount is between £16,000,000 and £17,000,000. I have all the reasons here why those Loan Funds were not utilized during the year, but it would probably take me half an hour to read them all. There are very good reasons why we were unable to utilize all the Loan Funds that were allocated to the Railways last year. A sinking fund does require legislation. There is no provision in the South Africa Act for the redemption of Loan Funds, and if I wanted to create a sinking fund I would have to amend the Act. As I said, I have nothing in principle against a sinking fund. The question merely is whether it is practicable. I stated in my reply to the Budget debate that it would require the appropriation of at least R20,000,000 to be worthwhile.

Why?

When you have a capital already of R1,400,000,000 and you want to redeem some of that capital, and you have an annual expenditure of £30,000,000 to £50,000,000, it would take about 100 years before you would have sufficient in that redemption fund to make it worthwhile if you were to appropriate say R500,000 a year. It would be of no practical value. To make it worthwhile you would have to have a large appropriation. What I have tried to do is to reduce capital expenditure by utilizing revenue, as I did in 1955 when I took £5,000,000 from my surplus for capital expenditure on housing. But when I did that, there were many complaints about it and the public said “ Why must we pay for future generations?” They probably would come with the same argument in regard to redemption, but I am quite sincere when I say that it would require a very considerable annual contribution to make it worthwhile and we simply have not got the funds to do that. The hon. member pointed out that on page 93 of the Estimates, provision is made for R125,756 for allowances for one assistant-inspector. These allowances are for all the staff employed outside the Union, not only for the inspectors. The hon. member will see that among the staff employed outside the Union, there are quite a large number of representatives of the Airways who are sent to the different places in different countries, and they receive of course much higher allowances than the staff employed in the Union away from their home depot.

*The hon. member for Parow has asked why I have decided to cancel the purchase of 23 diesels. We originally decided to purchase 75 for shunting purposes, but later it was found that 52 would be sufficient. I agree that the shunting locomotives here in Cape Town and in other ports cause unpleasant smoke. Eventually they will probably be replaced by diesel locomotives, but I am afraid that quite some time will elapse before that can be done. As far as the inferior coal being used by tugs is concerned, I shall ask the management to go into that matter. The hon. member has referred to yards which are near residential areas and which are very dusty. It will involve very heavy expenditure to tar these shunting yards. No shunting yards are tarred. It will involve tremendous expenditure, and I am afraid that we will not be able to consider doing so in the foreseeable future.

As far as the changed holidays are concerned, this system was only introduced at the beginning of this year and will apply until the end of this year. I shall therefore not be able to say before the end of the year of what benefit or advantage it has been to the Administration. I hope that the Provincial Administrations will not change the system. I know that pressure is being exerted on the Administrators, but I am certain that if they do not change it, the general public will become accustomed to it within a year or two. It does cause a little inconvenience but on the other hand it is to the advantage of the general public. I am now once again able to grant excursion fares. It spreads the passenger traffic over a longer period. We can therefore provide improved services and in addition the hotels give rebates at certain times of the year. This is not only in the interests of the Railways but in the interests of the general public as well. Furthermore it is in the interests of our tourist trade. There are certain times of the year when all the holiday centres are so crowded with South Africans that it is in effect hopeless for tourists to try to find accommodation during those periods. It is in the interests of our tourist trade that the holidays should be spread. I personally should like to see the school year being divided into three terms. This would be of even greater assistance but hitherto the provincial administrations have not been in favour of it. As regards the replacement of Bantu by Coloureds, I can just tell the hon. member that according to my information, the difficulty is not so much that the Coloureds and the Bantu have to work in the same gangs. In May 1960, the System Manager, Cape Town, was instructed to fill vacancies in the interior by transferring Bantu from the Cape Peninsula and replacing them with Coloureds. At the same time a recruiting office was opened in Cape Town and a recruiting official was appointed to recruit as many Coloureds as possible, in co-operation with the Department of Labour. Recruiting offices were established and officials of the Department of Labour assisted with the recruiting, but Coloureds did not offer themselves for employment. In order to expedite the employment of Coloureds still further, the system managers in Port Elizabeth and East London were requested to consider favourably all applications by Bantu workers in the Western Cape for transfers to their divisions. This was done because the Bantu in the Western Cape prefer to go where they are nearer their homes rather than to the interior of the Western Cape because most of them come from the Transkei and Ciskei. The reason why the Coloureds are unwilling to accept employment on the Railways is because they are accustomed to being paid weekly while the Department’s non-White workers are paid monthly. Because of accounting problems it has unfortunately not been possible to pay the staff concerned weekly. A new clocking-in system which will be introduced shortly in the Table Bay Harbour will however overcome this problem. In addition it is the position that there are certain types of work which require a fair measure of physical exertion, for which many Coloureds are not suitable—it is very heavy work. But as I have already stated in my reply to the Budget debate, it is our policy to employ Coloureds instead of Bantu in the Western Cape.

The hon. member for Turffontein complained that I did not reply to all the points raised by him during the Budget debate. If I had to reply to every point that was made during the Budget debate, I would have had to keep the House busy for 2½ hours. I replied to all the main points that were made, and other points that were made and not replied to by me, will be replied to in writing. The hon. member was concerned about what he called the downgrading of the head of the planning division. He also said that the one Deputy-General Manager will have less responsibiliy than the other. I have merely given a broad outline of the new reorganization. Formerly the Deputy-General Manager was merely a canal through which the Assistant-General Managers reached the General Manager. He had practically no executive power and it worked unsatisfactorily. By the appointment of two Deputy-General Managers, they will have executive power and direct responsibility for the officers immediately under them. The one Deputy-General Manager, as I have explained, will be responsible for the Assistant-General Manager (Staff) and the Assistant-General-Manager (Commercial Catering and Publicity). He will have certain other duties. He will for instance remain as chairman of the Conciliation Board, he will remain as chairman of the Executive Council of the Sick Fund, and chairman of the Joint Superannuation Committee. So his time will be fully occupied. There were very good reasons for this division of responsibilities. The other General Manager will have under him the Assistant-General Manager (Technical) and the Assistant-General Manager (Operating and Road Motor Services). The Head of the Planning Division, and the Financial Manager will be directly responsible to the Deputy-General Manager and not to an Assistant-General Manager. The reason for abolishing the post of Assistant-General Manager (Planning and Finance) is that that has now been divided into two sections under two separate heads, which I think will lead to increased efficiency.

Will you explain why the General Manager’s Report points out…

Yes, but I am not concerned about the General Manger s Report. I talk about my reorganization.

Mr. Chairman, planning does not entail the same work as it did two or three years ago. When the planning division was originally created, the South African Railways were in a crisis and very large schemes had to be planned and executed, but we have completed most of the large works, and now it is a question of the usual expansion of the Railways to keep pace with economic development. Therefore there is considerable justification for the abolishment of the one post which combines the two departments and the creation of a new post at a lower grading. In spite of the fact that the grading is R3,100 instead of R3,300, it does not lower the status of the heads of those two departments. They might receive a lower salary than the Assistant-General Manager receives, but they have precisely the same status, because they are directly responsible, the same as any other Assistant-General Managers to the Deputy-General Manager.

In regard to the figures of the reduction of staff, I gave the figures of 17,000, but that includes the abolition of posts, and many of these posts had not been filled. The figure given now of 214,000 is the actual number of workers in the employ of the Railways. That does not take cognizance of the number of posts which were not filled.

Can you clarify that please, because the particular question I put to the hon. Minister was: These 17,000 positions to which the hon. the Minister referred in June last year, are they actually posts on the establishment that are now being abolished?

Posts that have been abolished. Both posts that were not previously filled where vacancies existed plus posts in which people retired— some of them whose services were dispensed with after new works were completed for instance. There were any number of casual non-Europeans whose services were terminated. There were a number of casual Europeans who were employed for the specific purpose of working on certain projects and their services were dispensed with after these projects were completed. Then as a result of mechanization many posts became obsolete and redundant. All these combined amounted to the total of 17,000.

The hon. the Minister has covered a fair amount of ground in his reply so far, but the issue I wish to put to him I think will clarify what we are expected to do as Members of Parliament in so far as the Minister himself is concerned. It has been the practice over the years for Members of Parliament, particularly those who have a large number of railwaymen in their constituencies, to make representations to the Minister in the way in which the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) has done this afternoon, and as I have done on many occasions over the years. Now the hon. Minister indicated in reply to the earlier debate that negotiations in respect of the consolidation were still proceeding, but he did not indicate anything in regard to the various points which I have raised and he has also not alluded to them in his reply up to now. I want to know, and I think the Committee wants to know, whether the Minister is prepared to discuss items affecting the staff in this Committee?

Not consolidation, no, because finality has not been reached and I think it would be most improper to discuss it here.

Now the definite statement the Minister made in his Budget speech was such that I think we are entitled to be heard: “ The agreement reached between the Minister and the staff in the acceptance of this scheme (that is consolidation) to a large extent is due to the willingness of certain groups of staff to accept restrictions on miscellaneous extra earnings, such as overtime payment at the new consolidated rate merely in respect of actual time worked and payment of Sunday time at its present scale.” What does that mean? Is there agreement or is there not? Is the Minister prepared to discuss this question of overtime payment or not?

No.

The Minister says he is not. Now I ask hon. members who represent railwaymen throughout the Union of South Africa on the Government side as well as this side, are they prepared to allow the Minister to lay down a policy of no enhanced payment for overtime work? Because that is what the Minister has indicated in his Budget statement as the accepted policy as far as he is concerned. This is laid down here as an agreement, but it is only an agreement with certain sections of the staff. Other sections of the staff, as far as I know, are yet to be consulted. But I cannot believe that the Minister is going to accept an agreement in respect of one section of the staff and have another agreement introducing another policy in respect of the other section of the staff. I say that it is the duty of every Member of Parliament who has any railwaymen in his constituency, to tell the Minister now whether they agree with this policy that he is laying down that overtime payment should be at the same rate as ordinary working hours.

Surely it is a matter for the staff to agree on and not for you.

When the staff argues this matter with the Minister in future, the Minister then will turn round and say, “ Parliament has agreed ”.

No, I will not. Parliament has nothing to do with it.

I know how these things are handled. I have had personal experience. The Minister will tell the other staff associations when they approach him on this matter: “ I can’t do anything about it, Parliament has accepted this.”

I never said that in the past and I will never say such a thing in future. Parliament has nothing to do with it. Parliament votes money.

Parliament is voting money and we are voting R18,000,000 for overtime payment, and surely we are entitled to ask the Minister what is going on. Surely Parliament should declare the policy in regard to overtime payment! That is our function! Over all the years up to now, overtime on the Railways has never been paid for at less than time and one-third for weekly overtime. Now the Minister has said in his Budget speech that an agreement has been reached where overtime will be paid at straight rates. If a man now works two hours overtime, he will be paid the same rate per hour as he is paid during the whole of the day, and there will be no enhancement for overtime payment. This is contrary to everything that has ever been before by any of the governments or any trade union in South Africa. And this very important departure from the accepted practice, has according to the Minister, nothing whatsoever to do with Parliament. I think that we have got to be very firm. If members on the other side accept this proposition of the Minister to-day, they will have to defend it when their own constituencies approach them and ask them what is happening in the railway service. I know what is at the back of it. I know the problems. But I say that it is not in order for the Minister to lay this down by way of a Budget statement and then will have the power to say that Parliament has accepted this policy.

That is nonsense!

What is the meaning of this? What does it mean when the Minister tells us in his Budget statement that he has this agreement with the staff, with certain sections of the staff? Why did he tell us that? We are now asked to approve of the Budget and I assume the statement that he has issued with the Budget, and surely to goodness the Minister has laid down as a policy that he is not prepared to say—and I asked him in very moderate language in the form of debate—whether this is a temporary measure or a permanent measure, but he has given no reply. If it were a temporary measure one would have been able to understand it up to a point, Sir, but I think that this is an issue that we cannot allow to pass by without the fullest discussion so that the whole of the country will know that a State Department, the Department of Transport, which is one of the largest employers of labour in this country, is now introducing this principle into the labour field. I think it is the duty of the Government members who claim that they represent the workers, who claim that that is why they are sitting there, to tell the Minister that this should not go on. It is not too late. This agreement will not come into effect until 1 April and if the Minister knows that he has not got the support of Parliament in doing this, he will be very unwise to continue with it. I think we ought to test this position somehow or other so that the Minister will know that he has not got Parliament behind him in his determination to introduce this new principle into labour relations in the Railways. Because this is something which is going to be followed by outside industry once the example is set by the Government. I am surprised at the Minister. The Minister has not made any attempt to conceal this agreement that he has arrived at with certain staff associations. He has made no attempt to hide it and yet he says it has nothing to do with Parliament, that it is a matter for himself and the staff associations. We will be failing in our duty if we did not take the strongest exception to this departure from recognized trade union principles. The point in regard to bonus workers was raised by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg). I want to know at what rate bonus workers will be paid under consolidation. Will they be paid at the consolidated rate or not? And this has tremendous bearing on the point which has been raised by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East). If the bonus workers are to be paid at the consolidated rate then it will obviously make the work which they do more expensive. Will the Minister use the argument when he discusses this matter with the staff associations that he cannot allow bonus workers to be paid at the consolidated rate because that will increase the cost of the item and if that happens the Railways will not be able to compete with outside industry. You can see, Sir, how important this factor is. I raised this by way of ordinary question to the Minister and I got no reply and yet it is important that we should know. The Minister says that no artisan in the workshops will be dismissed as a result of any recommendations which may come from the van Zyl Commission. [Time limit.]

The hon. member is doing the staff no service by this type of discussion. The leaders of the staff organizations are quite capable of looking after the interests of their members. They have done very well up to now and the staff organizations certainly do not thank Members of Parliament for raising matters of this nature during a debate. These matters are matters which are subject to negotiation and especially when the negotiations have not been completed, hon. members do nothing else but embarrass those organizations. In other words, with this type of discussion they are undermining the authority of the leaders of those organizations; that is what they are doing. These hon. members who are so concerned about trade union principles are doing their best with this type of discussion to undermine the authority of the leaders of those staff organizations. So they must not talk about trade union principles.

And talking about trade union principles, since when has it been a trade union principle to pay a time and a third? The hon. member does not know what he is talking about. There is no uniform rate for the payment of overtime or Sunday time. It often varies from industry to industry and from one undertaking to another. That is a matter for agreement and the Minister has never and will not force a lower rate on these staff organizations. The staff organizations to which I referred in my Budget statement came forward with that suggestion in order to obtain consolidation as a whole. The only reason why I do not give more information now, as I have already indicated, is that these matters are still being discussed by the staff organizations with the management and it will be most improper on my part to give any indication of what the negotiations are about. I have been dealing with those staff organizations for the past seven years and if there is one thing that they do not thank hon. members for it is this sort of debate that we have had to-day. I have received numerous telegrams thanking me for this consolidation. They, however, are not grateful to hon. members of the Opposition when they arrogate unto themselves the right to be the champions of the workers and to go over the heads of the staff organizations. As a trade unionist the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) should try to strengthen the hand of the leaders of those organizations instead of trying to undermine their authority.

Mr. Chairman, I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to this fact that the Railway Administration is the largest employer of labour in this country, and, as such, it will be setting the pattern for industry in the whole of the country. We have been able to keep very free of industrial strife in this country. I think we have the best record in the world in that respect, but this type of agreement will not carry that principle much further. We can expect labour trouble if we start tampering with a principle that has been established down the years in practically every country in the world, namely, that if a man is employed outside his normal working hours, he is entitled to receive something in addition to his normal pay, but this will not be the position under consolidation.

You don’t know what you are talking about.

I think the boot is on the other foot. When the Minister’s proposals are put into effect and the consolidated rate is established as the basic pay of employees, that will become his normal every-day pay and, if he is employed over and above normal working hours, then, Sir, he is entitled to expect some percentage increase proportionate to what he got on the old basis. If that is not going to be the position, it only means that we are breaking down the wage hours legislation, let alone the wage pay legislation, because you will be extending your working week by whatever overtime the man works at the same rate of pay. And over and above that, to make confusion worse confounded, hon. members had better study this fact, instead of telling me that I do not know what I am talking about, that when it comes to Sunday work you come on to a different basis of pay again. I solidly support the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) that this matter should be examined from every angle by this House, because it not only affects the associations that will enter into this agreement, but it also very gravely affects the working man of the country as a whole.

But I want to pass on to another matter. In this very exhaustive statement which the Minister presented with his Budget, he did deal with the subject of the passenger suburban traffic, the difference between the high-rated traffic, namely, the first class, and the third class. The hon. the Minister gave some information in that respect which showed that there has been a substantial development in the volume of third-class traffic. I want to ask the Minister whether it is not time that the whole question of train travel by passengers should be re-examined from a different angle altogether? It should be approached from a more psychological angle, and not only from the technical angle, which is the provision of the necessary coaches and rolling stock, but the general character of suburban traffic should be investigated.

Sir, we have reached an age where, when the business man wants to sell his wares, he has to display them in an attractive manner. Yet that is the last word that can be applied to the greater majority of the older sections of the system. I want to deal particularly with the section I know—that is the suburban train service of the Peninsula. I want to refer the Minister to the dirty, drab and uninviting condition of many of these stations. There is apparently a set time for renovating and repainting these buildings, and that time, like the laws of the Medes and Persians, cannot be altered. The premises are allowed to deteriorate and become most unattractive; they drive people away. I want to refer to one station in particular, and that is the station at Fish Hoek and also to the Muizenberg station. During the season these stations have to cope with very heavy traffic from all over the Union. The station at Fish Hoek has only recently been re-decorated after many years. We are voting money here in Parliament for the maintenance of the Railway premises, but I want to tell the Minister that that money is not being well spent. I want to give the Minister a couple of examples. Corrosion and rust have been allowed to develop in some of these first-class waiting rooms until it becomes so heavy that it falls off. And that is not the worst feature, Sir. I have samples with me and according to engineering standards, to judge by the thickness of this corrosion, it must have been accumulating over a period of seven years at least. If you examine this rust taken from Fish Hoek station you will find that it has been re-painted at least twice in that period. The people who did the painting painted over the rust. The station premises were not properly-cleaned before painting, which meant a waste of so much good material. I do not blame the hon. the Minister for that. I do not expect the Minister or the General Manager to be chasing around supervising this type of work, but I want to ask the Minister whether he cannot exert some of his undoubted dynamic force and ensure that the people who are responsible for this type of work give value for the money they receive. These places should be made more attractive to the travelling public.

I want to refer the hon. the Minister to the Muizenberg Railway Station clock. That clock gave up hope three years ago, and it has never ticked since. I thought one of the main objectives of the Railway Service was to keep the wheels turning, but the wheels in the Muizenberg clock have not turned for three years. About three months ago a deputation waited on the Minister in Cape Town and, as a result of that, the glass face on one side of the clock was taken out, but nothing further was done. The general opinion now is that the Railways have given up all hope for that clock, and that they intend turning it into a bird sanctuary, because that is what it looks like to-day. There again I want to ask the Minister whether he cannot apply his powers of persuasion and see that the wheels of the clock start turning again. It is the laughing stock of the public at the moment. All these things have an adverse effect on the travelling public.

Take the first-class ladies’ waiting-room at Simonstown. We have not had a lot of rain in that area for three years, Sir, but yet the walls are covered with blisters and dilapidated paint caused by damp. If we want to encourage the public to use our suburban train services we must encourage them to do so because they want to use them, and not merely because they have to.

There have been quite a number of new appointments to the staff of the Railway Service at top level, and there is also the axiom that new brooms sweep clean. I want to suggest that there is plenty of room for sweeping up some of these aspects and making our stations on our suburban service an attraction both as regards the colour scheme and the state in which they are kept, rather than to allow them to fall into the unprepossessing state in which they are to-day, driving passengers away instead of encouraging them.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) has said that we as a Parliament should decide on the question of payments for overtime and Sunday time, and that we should say how we feel about the matter. But this is not a matter on which we should decide. As the hon. the Minister has said, this is a question for negotiation between the staff associations and the Minister.

The agreement is before us.

The hon. the Minister has stated clearly that he is still engaged on further negotiations and we have every confidence in the ability of the staff associations and the Minister to come to the correct decision. It is not for us in this House to prescribe to them.

The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) has alleged that workers will be paid the same rates for overtime and Sunday time as for ordinary time. But that is not so. If a railwayman works one hour Sunday time, he is paid for two hours, that is to say he is paid double what he receives in the week for an hour on Sunday. The only difference which is under discussion here, and agreement has still to be reached, is not a foregone conclusion as yet. But if it should be agreed that they will be paid at the pre-consolidation wage, the worker may be paid at the rate of 10s. per hour while previously he was paid 11s. per hour. That is to say, if he works for an hour on Sunday, he will be paid for two hours at 10s. instead of two hours at 11s. That is the only difference.

That is not double pay.

Double pay at 10s. and not double pay at 11s.; and now the hon. member says it is not double pay! That is the only difference and I repeat that this is not a question about which we should quibble here. The hon. the Minister has said that a final decision has not even been taken yet. Why should we now quibble over something regarding which a final decision has not yet been taken and on which the staff associations together with the Minister will have to decide? There will always be a few people who will not be satisfied. When the day comes that all the railwaymen are satisfied we shall know that there is something very wrong with the Railways. We are not satisfied either. But the majority of the staff are satisfied.

Are they?

Of course. The hon. the Minister has stated here that he has negotiated with the staff associations. I now want to go further and say this: Hon. members are acting here as the spokesmen for a certain section of the staff. There is only a certain section of the staff who are making demands and throughout the debate hon. members opposite have only acted as the spokesmen for those workers. Hon. members have asked why the hon. the Minister has not granted the demands of the artisans; They have not mentioned the lower-income groups; they have only spoken on behalf of a certain section of the staff; I do not have any objection to that; hon. members can do what they like, but I say that the overwhelming majority of the staff are satisfied and we must remember that the hon. the Minister is still engaged on further negotiations.

The hon. member who has just sat down does not seem to understand what is at issue here. As far as Sunday time is concerned the rate is to remain the same, that is double time. But if there is a variation in the basic rate of pay then obviously he is not receiving double time on his hourly rate and what do we then arrive at? The Minister can say, “ I will continue to pay double time for Sunday. But to take the matter to the extreme instead of making it 10s. an hour for Sunday I will make it 5s. an hour on Sunday ”. Then he will still be able to say that he is paying double time on Sunday. The Minister said quite clearly that in this agreement which has been arrived at Sunday time will continue to be paid at double time, but the past hourly rate will apply. That is what it means, therefore, in effect they will not be receiving double their pay for Sunday time; it is not double time. In respect of week-day overtime the issue I want to put to the Minister is this: In his Budget statement he said that he had reached an agreement with a section of the staff. He did not say the whole of the staff. Therefore, I say to the Minister that in announcing that it means that he has come to an agreement with a section of the staff and that that agreement is now to be extended to the rest of the staff. Is not that the issue? The issue is that the Minister has concluded an agreement with a portion of the staff according to which if they receive 8s. per hour in the week and they work overtime during the week they will only receive 8s. per hour. The other section of the staff has yet to enter into negotiations with the Minister and the Minister is trying to convince us on this side that, in respect of the other section of the staff, he is going to say, “ If your hourly rate is 8s. I am prepared to give 10s. if you work overtime during the week”. I do not think it is reasonable to expect us to believe that, Mr. Chairman. The principle of whether there should be an enhancement for overtime payment during the week is a principle which must apply to the whole staff and not just to a section of the staff. Let me put the position as I see it. I do not know which staff associations have come to an agreement with the Minister in respect of straight time for overtime. I do not know. Say, for instance, the running staff have agreed to that and the Minister concludes an agreement with the artisan staff under which they are to receive time and a third for the overtime they work, what is going to be the reaction amongst the running staff who have agreed to be paid at straight rates? I say the position is preposterous. The Minister cannot tell us that he has come to an agreement with a section of the staff and then at the same time tell us that the other section of the staff will be free to negotiate in relation to what they should be paid on overtime. The Minister has committed himself; he has told the artisan staff association that, because he has an agreement with a section of the staff, they will have to comply with that agreement whether they like it or not. There will be no negotiation on that point at all, otherwise he is going to introduce difficulties into the service where a certain section will be paid time and a third for overtime or time and a quarter or time and an eighth and the other section will only be paid straight time. I will put the position to the Minister in simple terms. Do I understand from the Minister’s Budget statement that these staff associations which have come to an agreement with the Minister, if among those associations there is an employee who receives 8s. per hour during the week and he works one hour overtime will be receive more than 8s. for that hour? That is the simple question I am putting to the Minister. The Minister will have to tell me that I interpret this Budget statement correctly and that in respect of that person he will receive no more than 8s. per hour for an hour of overtime work. I want to ask the Minister whether my interpretation is correct or not. There is complete silence, Sir.

He will be paid for an hour and 20 minutes.

That is the very point I am making. According to this statement it says: “ overtime payments under consolidation merely, in respect of overtime worked ”. He will only receive the consolidated rate for the overtime which he works. And that is the same rate that he receives for ordinary time during the week. That is the principle which the Minister will be laying down here and I say that is a principle which we should not accept. We say in no uncertain terms that we do not accept this principle in respect of the workers of South Africa, not even a State Department should lay down this principle and I hope that the Minister will make it quite clear to members on his own side of the House that what I have said is the position as it will apply. If I am mistaken it is the duty of the Minister to tell me and I will apologize but I do think it is correct and right that this Committee be told exactly what the position is and be told by the Minister that the interpretation which I have put on this particular clause is the correct interpretation.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very important issue and representatives who represent railway workers throughout the Union should be quite clear in their own minds what the Minister is attempting to do, if my interpretation is correct. And the Minister remains completely silent. I suggest that we give the Minister an opportunity of making this position completely clear before we get involved in any further arguments, because it is an important issue. This is something in respect of which we should have complete clarity and I hope the Minister will clarify the position before we go any further.

I do not know whether the hon. the Minister is going to reply to the previous speaker, but I can do so. If a worker earned 8s. per hour prior to consolidation and he works on Sundays he will receive the same overtime pay as he received prior to consolidation.

But there is another matter which I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister, namely, the question of fire-breaks. Mr. Chairman, this whole matter was reviewed many years ago and something the farmers still cannot understand is that when a farmer makes a fire-break the Railways pay him at the rate of £3 per mile. In other words, the Railways, by so doing, admit that it is their function to provide these fire-breaks and if the farmer does so on behalf of the Railways, the Railways pay him £3. But when the Railways do this work themselves, the farmer has to pay the Railways. The farmers simply cannot understand this. I should like to ask whether the Minister cannot review this matter.

What I really want to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister is this. The procedure which is followed to-day when entering into the necessary contract between the Administration and the farmer is simply impossible. Previously the procedure was that the ganger came with his workers to the farmer. He had a form on which he filled in the number of miles and the tariff per mile. Then the ganger told the farmer what the work would cost, the farmer signed the form, and he gave the ganger a cheque; the matter was then finalized. But to-day the contract is drawn up in the office of the System Manager at Bloemfontein and this causes tremendous delay. I should like to ask the Minister to help us simply and facilitate this procedure for the benefit of the farmers.

Then I want to mention another matter about which the farmers in general are complaining. I hope the Minister will not tell me this is a minor matter, because it is very important to us as farmers. This is the number of thefts which are being committed all along the railway lines by Native women and Natives who walk along the lines between the wires. They are usually the wives of Bantu who are in the employ of the Railways and who live along the branch lines and at sidings. They have an idea that they can pick up all the coal which falls along the lines and that it belongs to them because their husbands work on the Railways. At the same time the products of the farmers are being stolen on a large scale all along the railway lines and I should like to ask the Minister to give an instruction that particular attention should be paid to this matter.

Then, Mr. Chairman, I want to raise a third matter. I want to ask the Minister whether the old first class coaches which have given many years of wonderful service but which are now too old and worn out, cannot be used as second class passenger coaches. In many cases these passenger coaches are in such poor condition that if I must travel, I prefer to do so in a new second class coach because they are neater and more attractive. I am now not speaking for myself as an M.P. who travels on that train free of charge, but I am pleading for the passenger who pays for a first class ticket in order to travel first class. One really feels that it would be better for him to travel in a new second class coach.

Then I come to the final matter to which I want to refer, and this is an important matter. We often find older people who have reached the age of 60. In the Eastern Free State there are many cases of farmers who for one or other reason, such as climatic conditions, etc., have had to give up farming. Such a person is 59 years old; he would like to work but he cannot find employment. Nor can he obtain employment on the Railways. The argument is that he is too old to enter the service of the Railways for the first time. I should like to point out that such a person, if he is in need, can only obtain the old-age pension on reaching the age of 65. It takes another five years before he reaches the age of 65, and during that period he cannot live on nothing. In many cases these people are physically still quite fit. I know that sometimes there is the difficulty that there are gangs of Bantu who are temporarily doing the work of rail workers on stations. There are not always enough Whites to replace such a gang completely. I agree that one does not want to have Whites and Bantu working together in such gangs; but I do urge the hon. the Minister to give attention to this matter. I have encountered several cases in Bethlehem of people who would like to work but they cannot obtain employment, yet there are posts which are being held temporarily by Bantu.

I should like to ask the Minister very courteously whether he cannot give me any information regarding the runways of the Kimberley airport. Every week approximately 14 aircraft land in Kimberley.

Order! The hon. member should rather raise that matter on the Transport Vote.

Then there is one other matter which I should like to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister, and this relates to the fencing of railway lines. I do not know whether the Railways have changed their policy, but in the past the policy was that when a new line was laid, the Department fenced it in. But there are lines which were built in the earlier days and which are open on both sides. When representations are made that such a line should be fenced, the attitude of the Department has been not to do so because the line was constructed before a certain date. For that reason the Department refused to accept responsibility for fencing the line but enforced the policy that the owner of the farm had to pay part of the fencing cost. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will go into this matter and in cases where the railway lines are still open and the owner wishes the line to be fenced in, the Department should accept full responsibility. Seeing that the lines are open, fencing those lines will prevent the severe losses which the farmers are suffering to-day. It will also remove a cause of infinite unpleasantness.

Then I should also like to associate myself with what the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Knobel) has said about the railway coaches. I have brought this matter to the notice of the hon. the Minister on a previous occasion and he was kind enough to address a personal letter to me on the subject. But I am afraid that there has not really been any change. I am referring to the passenger train from Cape Town to East London and from East London to Cape Town. The passengers have to spend a long time on this train and steel coaches are practically never made available for the passengers travelling from Cape Town to East London or from East London to Cape Town. A steel coach may be brought from Aliwal North, joining the train at Stormberg, and from then on a steel coach is available to De Aar, but no further. The train journey from Cape Town to East London or from East London to Cape Town takes a long time, and I ask that such passengers should also have the advantage of travelling in steel coaches whenever possible. I do not know if there are too few steel coaches, but this is something that causes inconvenience to the passengers on the trains travelling between these two centres. I shall appreciate it if the hon. the Minister will go into this matter and see whether conditions cannot be improved.

In discussing the health section of the Railways I want to make it quite clear, as I tried to make it quite clear last year, although the hon. the Minister did not apparently understand me clearly—I want to make it quite clear that I am not discussing the Railway sick fund. I know quite well the difference between the Railway sick fund and the health department of the Railways, and I am now discussing the health department of the Railways.

In the late 1920s or the early 1930s—I am a little doubtful of the time—there was a very grave outbreak of malaria in Zululand and the North Coast of Natal. This affected Durban as well. It happened by a curious coincidence of atmospheric conditions that the breeding of mosquitoes was most favourable on that particular occasion, and the morbidity rate was high. The condition was such that the country was caught on the wrong foot, as it were, in the health department, and a great number of railwaymen were stricken with malaria, to the extent that the running of the Railways at that time must have been seriously incommoded. In order to meet the situation the Railways appointed a health officer—one health officer—who, in conjunction with the sugar factories and the sugar planters, and with the Health Department of the Union, took whatever steps he could to remedy the situation. But it was difficult to judge whether that did remedy the situation because the same atmospheric conditions have not recurred since that time. However, it has resulted, generally, in malaria largely disappearing as a morbidity cause in the railwaymen.

That was the origin of the health department of the Railways. I now want to go further and to say that I must assume that about that time that same officer was probably given the loan of a clerk and a typewriter. We have all heard of Parkinson’s Law, and I just wanted to show what has come from this one fortunate officer who was appointed and given the loan of a clerk. The health department of the Railways now contains 228 officials. From this, so to speak, humble beginning which solved the problem which has not recurred, we now find 228 people appointed to the health department of the Railways. This department is spending something in the nature of R300,000, all or most of which money is an unnecessary expenditure, because there is such a thing as a Department of Health in this country. There is no area of the country which is not controlled by that Department of Health, and most of the railwaymen work in cities where there is a Medical Officer of Health. I do not want to talk particularly on technical grounds, but the health department of the Railways does not have a laboratory, although I suppose that this will be created in the near future. Curiously enough, speaking in a professional sense, the one department where, I think, there could be possibly some excuse for health inspectors and health officers, namely, the catering department, has no health service whatever, unless it is occasionally lent a health officer. Some of us will remember that grave, fatal epidemic of food poisoning which occurred a few years back. I think that having a health department in the Railways is an example of people meddling in affairs about which they know nothing. The controlling officers of the Railways cannot possibly have any influence whatever upon its doctors, because they do not know how to do it. The only people that can handle the health department are those in the Department of Health. The Department of Health knows how to do it and knows what should be done, and it tries to avoid overlapping. But this expenditure by the Railways is spent unnecessarily and the sooner the department of health of the Railways is handed over to the Department of Health of the Union Government the better it will be for everybody.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) has pretended to be very concerned this afternoon and has asked that we on this side who represent Railway constituencies should speak to the Minister. But it is not quite clear what he wants us to speak about. I might tell him that I am prepared to go and defend in my constituency the agreement which the Minister and the various Railway staff associations have reached. He has made a great fuss about the fact that the Minister has entered into an agreement with a section of the Railway staff associations. What are the facts? With one exception all the Railway staff associations were present at that meeting.

I do not know that.

The hon. member should know it; they were all represented there except one. It is certainly not the fault of the Minister or the other staff associations if this particular staff association was not represented. I believe that they were also aware of the fact that a meeting was being held for this purpose.

They were invited.

The hon. the Minister says they were invited. I do not want the hon. member to act as though the heavens are going to fall because this one trade union, which was also invited, was not represented.

More than one was absent.

Only this one union was not represented. If the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) would only make sure of his facts, he would be able to make a far more effective contribution to our debates.

Only the Artisans Staff Association was not represented. All the others were there.

I just want to tell hon. members that through its secretary, Mr. Basson, the Artisans Staff Association has also expressed its satisfaction with the consolidation of the cost-of-living allowance with basic wages. Why then are they making all this fuss? Do hon. members expect that we as members of this Parliament should work out a formula for the railwaymen which will lay down how their cost-of-living allowances should be consolidated? I do not see my way clear to doing that, and I think the hon. member for Turffontein is quite incapable of doing so. Mr. Chairman, I say that I believe that we can have sufficient confidence, as I have, in the Railway staff associations and in the hon. the Minister and his management that they will work out a formula which will satisfy everyone. Let us leave this matter in the safe hands of these people who know what they are doing. I cannot see what the hon. member wants and it seems to me he does not know himself. Does he want to tell me that he does not trust the staff associations?

I do not trust the Minister.

I do not expect the hon. member to trust the Minister. When the day comes that he trusts the hon. the Minister, then I shall definitely lose all my confidence in the Minister. He should at least trust the management of the Railways and the various staff associations. I trust them, and if he does not do so, it is a great pity. I repeat: I believe that these people will be able to make a good job of the consolidation of the cost-of-living allowance.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) has raised the question of bonus work with the Minister. I should like to associate myself with the hon. member. Although the hon. the Minister has already replied, I still feel that there is another aspect of the matter to which I should like to refer. Like the hon. member for Bloemfontein (West), I have also found that certain artisans are not sure that some of their work may not be handed over to private industry the Van Zyl committee reports. As a result, they may be overworking and they may be producing more bonus work than they normally would. This may be a good thing for the Railways. The fact of the matter is that not all artisans can produce bonus work to the same extent. It varies from workshop to workshop. In one workshop an artisan may easily be able to produce 25 per cent bonus work, while in the other one it may be very difficult to achieve 5 per cent. My difficulty is the following, and I should like to bring this to the notice of the Minister. I believe that somewhere something is wrong. If a man produces 5 per cent or less in bonus work, then he can argue: Why should I do bonus work at all; I can do without it. I think the reason in the case of certain workshops is that the facilities are not the same in all workshops. The time is, of course, determined by the average throughout the Union. We now find the position that in certain workshops there are facilities and conditions; which facilitate the work greatly, while in other workshops this is not the position. The result is that in some workshops better time can be made than in others. I believe that this may be the reason why in some workshops the artisans find it difficult to produce bonus work.

Then I turn to the work itself, as it is divided between the various workshops in the Union. It seems to me that there are cases where the work is not spread evenly enough. It seems to me that in certain workshops there is more than enough work while in other workshops there is not enough of the same type of work at all, that is to say there is not enough to enable the artisans to work at full pace throughout the day. I do want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to go into this matter because it is not only in the interests of the Railways but also in the interests of the worker that this should be done. It seems to me that this state of affairs also results in workers sometimes having to be transferred while this could perhaps have been avoided by providing sufficient work to the workshop concerned. Hon. members know what a transfer means to any worker. Once a man is established, he may have incurred debts in order to buy a house, he has his social connections and other ties which keep him there. When such a man is transferred, it means his life is disrupted. I believe that this could perhaps be avoided by ensuring timeously that there is an even distribution of work between the workshops.

Then there are just one or two other matters which I should like to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister. The one relates to the gangs of workers on the Railways who clean along the lines. We know that it is the policy to use non-Whites for this purpose. But it happens that in certain areas Whites are used. We appreciate this because in most cases these are people who have been taken into service because they were unemployed. We are very grateful that the Railways are using them for that work and that they have in fact been given employment. But I now find that these people have to work in certain areas and under certain conditions in the presence of non-Whites who hold far better positions than they do. I believe that it is perhaps not the best policy to make these Whites work in the presence of non-Whites when those non-Whites hold far better posts than they do. I wonder whether something cannot be done about this matter.

I do not say that they should be replaced altogether. If they can be replaced by non-Whites and placed in better positions, I should like to see that done. But that is not always possible. Where possible, I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister will go into the matter to see what can be done. If it is not possible to replace them, then I ask the hon. the Minister should try so to arrange matters that they do not need to work under those conditions in the presence of non-Whites. For many of them it is humiliating. [Time limit.]

I am surprised that the hon. the Minister has not yet risen to reply to the very simple question put forward by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton). That hon. member brought his question down to the simplest possible form, not even dealing with agreements which are yet to be decided upon. He asked whether it was true or not that the agreements which will come into being on 1 April will mean that the ordinary daily rate of pay in the form of the consolidated rate of pay, will be the same as if overtime were worked during that period. It is a simple question and the hon. the Minister can quite easily tell us what the position will be. When he last referred to it the hon. the Minister said that he could not give us the details because that would not be correct or right in view of the fact that further agreements have yet to be made. But the Minister himself told us that these agreements had been arrived at and that they would come into force on 1 April. If that is so why can he not tell us exactly what pay that staff will get per hour for the ordinary daily work they do and what they will get for weekly overtime? And we are not, at this stage, dealing with Sunday overtime. Surely that is a simple question, and this House wants a straightforward reply. I can also assure the hon. the Minister that there are tens of thousands of railwaymen throughout the Union who are very interested indeed to hear his reply.

When the hon. the Minister was last dealing with the question of re-organization he said that the large scale works were almost completed. He was then dealing with planning and economic developments. I would now like to ask the hon. the Minister if he will tell us whether the Planning Committee is to deal with the narrow gauge railways of Natal. If there is one section of the Railways which serves an area of great potential and where a broad gauge is needed it is parts of Natal. Development is being held up because of all the difficulties being encountered in areas where we have narrow gauge railways in Natal. These railways go through a very rich agricultural area which cannot easily be served by road transport because of the very steep hills and difficult country. Yet this is one area which will benefit tremendously from good rail services, and I refer to that area in the bulk of the Midlands and Southern Natal which is served by the narrow gauge railway. But the service is not anything as good as the service which could be given by a broad gauge railway. In addition there are extra handling charges, and many goods are damaged as a result of the necessary transhipment at certain points such as Umlazi Road and Umzinto on the South Coast. We have had meetings with various senior officials of the Railways in this area, and we feel it is high time that the Planning Committee really went into this question and brought out some plans for conversion to broad gauge.

This may involve additional expense, but I am positive that in the end it will pay the Railways handsomely. This rich area will give the Railways all the goods they can handle, always provided that the Railways in turn can provide the necessary services. As I have said, in many other areas one can rely upon road transport but this is a very hilly part of the country where we are dependent upon the Railways. The State Forestry Department itself has huge holdings there and they have to use the most expensive forms of road transport in one section. From Wiersa they actually go up the Drakensberg and deliver at Kokstad because of the unsatisfactory rail facilities, or because of the insufficient facilities available at Harding itself.

I have raised this question in the past but I think that now that the larger schemes have been completed and the Railway Planning Committee has been extended the time has come when consideration can be given to this aspect. I hope that the hon. the Minister will tell us what his policy is in this regard and that he will direct his Planning Committee to investigate the requirements of that area.

There is one other small point which I should like to put before the hon. the Minister, and that is this: perhaps he can tell us what the position really was with regard to these Boeing aircraft. When he purchased these aircraft he did tell us that they could use the Jan Smuts Airport satisfactorily with a full load, and that was at the time when we queried it.

Expensive additions have been made under the Transport Vote with which I cannot deal here, but in respect of which it was stated that the Boeings needed these expensive extensions in order to enable them to take off with a full load. It is unfortunate that more efficient planning was not done at the time …

That has nothing to do with it.

Oh, yes, it has. The hon. Minister told us at the time that there would be no extra cost on any aerodrome when Boeings were bought.

Where did I say that?

You said it and I think it could be found in Hansard. The Minister told us categorically at the time when we queried this particular factor, that the Boeings would be able to take off from Jan Smuts aerodrome with full loads.

And I still say it.

Yes, but now you have extended the aerodrome …

Even before that they could.

… but at that time you told us that the acquisition of the Boeings would bring no extra cost. I would therefore like to know what the position is in this respect but especially do we expect a categorical answer to the question raised by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana in connection with weekday overtime.

Apart from the excellent service which the Railways have rendered to the north-eastern Free State and is still rendering, in regard to the transportation of slaughter and stud stock, the experience over the years has been that on numerous occasions when slaughter stock have been conveyed to the abattoirs at Newtown and Berea Road, they have received bruises along the road. The position has become so serious that a farmers’ organization wrote to me recently asking that further representations be made in this connection. It has already been found that this bruising is so extensive that 80 per cent of a consignment of slaughter stock has been affected. I do not blame the Minister or even the Railway staff for this, but it is peculiar that numerous consignments have been conveyed without the slightest percentage of stock showing any signs of bruising, whereas in other cases a large percentage has been bruised. One can conclude from that, Sir, that it is not the facilities which are available for the transportation of the stock that are responsible for this bruising, but that it is due to the manner in which the consignments are handled. I want to point out for example that there are facilities for farmers to insure consignments of fertilizer but as far as I know there is no scheme under which farmers can insure their stock against loss as a result of bruising. You know, Sir, when such an animal is slaughtered the bruising becomes apparent. Bruising has a tremendous effect on the condition of the animal and it must cause such an animal terrific pain.

I am asking the Minister therefore to have this matter investigated in order to ascertain whether the position can be improved by introducing some preventive measures, so that the animals will not be subject to so much bruising. There are cases where it is inevitable that the animals will get bruised as in the case of cattle, etc., but when small stock get bruised as well one can only come to the conclusion that insufficient care is probably taken in the handling of that stock in transit. I am convinced that if statistics were compiled they would show that this bruising costs the stock farmers tens of thousands of rand every year. I want to suggest to the Minister that he looks into the question of introducing an insurance scheme whereby the producer will be safeguarded against these losses.

Another matter that I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister is in regard to goods trains that pull up at railway crossings. The provincial authorities erect danger signals and at some places there are red lights but there is nothing on a train that warns an oncoming motorist that there is a train on the line where the crossing is. We know of many fatal accidents that have already happened at crossings because of that. In view of the fact that trucks are in any case painted to indicate their numbers, the carrying capacity, etc., the use of luminous paint might be effective. I want to make an earnest appeal to the Minister to give this matter his attention, so that road accidents at these crossings may be eliminated.

Mr. Chairman. I would like to come back to the question of staff, because the Minister, whether during discussions in Committee or during the debate on his budget, has carefully evaded answering questions put to him in regard to staff. I hesitate. Sir, to take the step of accusing the hon. Minister of deliberately misleading the railway staff. Several pertinent questions were put to the Minister by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana on the agreement which has been reached between the Administration and certain staff groups. Why cannot we discuss the terms of that agreement. The Minister in his reply seemed to imply that no agreement had been reached and that we should not discuss the matter here as it was a very delicate subject …

I said that an agreement had been reached in principle. Do not put words into my mouth which I never said. I said that an agreement had been reached in principle and that certain details were still being discussed.

The principle which was agreed upon, Mr. Chairman, I take to be the principle of consolidation but are we now to understand from the Minister that the principle in respect of what rates of pay should be paid to the staff in respect to overtime has not been agreed upon?

No, that has been agreed upon.

Does the Minister now say that agreement has been reached with all staff associations with the exception, perhaps, of a few, that there will be no extra percentage paid for weekday overtime? That is a direct question …

I told you already that I was not prepared to discuss those matters at this stage, but once finality is reached, I will give the House all the information.

In other words, what the Minister said previously was not correct because he tried to create the impression that finality had been reached. Now he says that finality has not been reached. In other words, there are many staff associations who are not prepared to accept the principle in connection with weekday overtime that there will be no additional rate than that existing at present, namely time and a third. So where do we stand in regard to these matters? It is right that we discuss these matters here. I am beginning to get the impression that the Minister is resorting to a colossal bluff in playing one group of staff off against another group and in this connection I refer particularly to the Artisan Staff Association; he is doing this in order to be able to go back to them and tell them that Parliament has accepted this in principle and that they therefore have no alternative but to agree. It is a sort of bluff game which the Minister is playing. Quite clearly, he is trying to play one group of staff off against another group. What does it mean in money to the staff? The hon. member for Vasco (Mr. C. V. de Villiers) asked what the lower income group was going to lose.

I said why did you not plead for the lower income groups.

We all are pleading for them; that is what we are doing right now. The hon. member for Vasco is the chairman of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours. Surely he knows what provisions exist in respect of the payment of weekday overtime at present? Surely he knows that an embargo was placed on the payment of overtime except on essential transportation services and that that must, of necessity, affect the groups to which he refers? The truth is that the hon. member, like other hon. members, is frightened of this issue. They profess to uphold the rights of the railway worker but now they sit mum in their seats and try to whitewash a game of bluff which the Minister is at present playing between one group of staff associations and another group. If one looks at the report of the Controller and Auditor-General, one would find that in spite of the embargo having been placed on the working of overtime, something like R9,000,000 was still paid as overtime, and if we accept the implication of what the Minister now says, it means that another R2,500,000 will be taken from the pockets of the workers on the transportation services alone. That is what it means, in cold cash, to the railway worker, namely that at least R2,500,000 will be taken from their pockets if they agree to proposals from the hon. Minister in this regard. I have never seen the Minister to be so upset as when the hon. member for Umhlatuzana raised this issue with the Minister in the course of the afternoon. He was upset because his game had been exposed. I hope the Minister will now give this House fuller information than what it has been given hitherto on the agreement which he mentioned in his Budget speech.

I would like to come to another point now, a point which the Minister has studiously avoided in spite of certain very pertinent questions having been put to him. I refer to the questions put to him in respect of the policy which he was going to follow in relation to the employment of non-White workers. We have been told about the tremendous degree of dependence of the Railways on non-White traffic. If we look at the Capital Estimates, we find that, at a conservative estimate, at least R100,000,000 has been spent in the last three or four years in order to provide additional services for non-White passengers. We have seen that the Minister is going so far as to raise the status of non-Whites in some cases to that of accountants, clerks, cashiers, etc., at railway stations and we have the Minister’s admission that he had no option in some cases in the past but to use non-Whites in semi-operative capacities. I would now like to ask the Minister to give a clear-cut statement of his policy in connection with the future employment of non-Whites. According to the report of the Controller and Auditor-General, there are to-day something like 43,000 casual non-White workers on the Railways. We have been left under the impression by the hon. Minister in the past that this increase of non-Whites was partly due to the large capital works programme which has developed in the last four or five years. But what is the position to be in future? Are steps now taken to give these people permanent employment or to house them under adequate and proper conditions? I can inform the hon. Minister that during the inspection which the General Manager so kindly arranged for us last year to the Koedoespoort workshops, the chief mechanical engineer said that if he could have a stabilized staff—non-White staff—at those workshops, it would make a tremendous difference to the economy and production of these workshops. He would like to see a stabilized staff in the sense that the non-White workers should be allowed to be accompanied by their wives and families. I would like to ask the Minister what his policy in this regard is? Is he going to lay down a stabilized employment policy for non-White staff where these have been trained for employment in semi-operative jobs and other higher levels of occupation in the service? It is a fundamental fact to-day that we cannot any longer run our Railways on a White-labour policy—that is clear. That policy has been thrown overboard by this Minister because never in the history of our transportation services has such a large number of non-Whites been employed in relative key posts. We have had non-White clerks and cashiers attending to non-White passengers on the Johannesburg railway station. You will also find that while Europeans are cleaning out coaches on Bloemfontein station, this work is being done in Cape Town by Coloureds and in Johannesburg by Natives. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the unsatisfactory state of affairs in regard to the loading of base metals in the Marico district as well as at other places where base metal is mined and loaded. The position is that the Railways expect the firms that rent the floors to cement them themselves. In the past this rental used to be 4s. per month per floor but it has now been increased to £1 10s. per month. Such a floor is usually 25 × 50 feet in extent. I want to refer in particular to the railway station Lusern. Approximately 5,500 tons of fluorspar is loaded at this station every month yielding a monthly revenue of over £8,000 to the Railways. These people argue that it is unfair that they should cement these loading floors. It happens in some cases that a firm requires such a floor for only six months or a year. It must now incur the costs of cementing the floor only to leave it just like that for the Railways. Conversely, the position is that if the Railways do the cementing, they again can let such an improved floor at anytime without loss to the Railways. I plead in particular for the stations Ottoshoop, Zeerust and Lusern. I have not given any figures in regard to the chrome manganese and andalusite that is loaded at Zeerust and Woodbine where there are no floors either. Individual firms have, however, improved the floors which they rent, but in spite of that the position remains very unsatisfactory and some concession on the part of the Railways will be appreciated.

Then I should also like to ask that more DZ-trucks be made available in place of the bogey trucks for the loading of these metals. The last-mentioned truck is a very awkward type of truck to load; it is high and it only has two doors. Where six labourers can load three DZ-trucks in a day they can only load one and a half bogey trucks in the same time. It is felt that the bogey trucks should rather be used at stations and sidings where there are platforms from where the loading can take place. This type of truck causes delay, a great deal of trouble and high costs and makes the position of the workers who have to throw these heavy metals from the ground into the truck very difficult. If loading floors are not cemented the ground level alongside the railway line sags, as a result of prolonged loading, and the distance that the metal has to be thrown increases.

A third matter I want to bring to the notice of the Minister is that when in future railway lines are constructed or extended, special attention should be given to the North-Western Transvaal, the well-known “ vleispens ” of the Transvaal. Farmers’ and other organizations have already submitted various applications to the Minister asking for the extension of the railway lines from Middelwit, Tsabazimbi, Beestekraal, Groot Marico and from Zeerust, etc. The idea is to plan for the construction of a railway line more or less parallel to the Krokodil River and the border of the Protectorate; a line which will offer proper connection at the stations and termini which I have just mentioned. That will mean a great deal to the stock farmers who wish to send their stock to marketing centres. I know it will be very costly to construct such a railway line and I am not insisting that it should be constructed immediately, I am merely asking that in any future planning special attention should be given to the Rustenburg-Marico area. If such a properly worked-out plan could be drawn up, according to which a five- or ten-year programme can be started, the people generally will be more satisfied.

My last request to the Minister is in connection with the existing locomotive yards at Zeerust. There are persistent rumours that because of the decrease in the services at Mafeking, the locomotive yard at Zeerust may possibly be made smaller. The Minister has already assured me that that is not the idea but representations are repeatedly made to me and if the hon. the Minister could see his way clear to make a statement in this House in this connection it will greatly assist in setting at rest the minds of the people at Zeerust.

There are one or two issues which I would like to bring to the attention of the hon. Minister in connection with the road transport system. It will save time if I read what has been represented to me—

This is said to be most unfair because, except in the case of perishables, it is illegal in terms of the Road Transportation Act to have goods conveyed to people by carriers other than the Railways. This is the first time this particular problem has been represented to me and I hope, therefore, that the hon. Minister will either confirm or deny the allegation which is being made here. It would be most unfortunate if the allegation is true because the user has no option—he has to use the R.M.T. services and if breakages occur, no compensation is paid out by the Railways.

Other representations have been made to me to the effect that on the South Coast, the Railways are now fencing the line along that coast. At the moment work is being done from Park Rynie southwards. A five-stranded barbed wire fence is being constructed which, I am informed, can only have about eight years of life.

Mr. Chairman, when we adjourned for the dinner break I was dealing with an item which was giving considerable anxiety to a number of people along the Natal South Coast, and that is the decision that has been taken and the work that is now in progress. I refer to the erection of a five-strand barbed wire fence parallel to the railway line. It appears that the beach cottages that are situated on the other side of the line are so situated that the residents of those cottages are unable to get to the beach unless they go right up to the station. I have been asked to make representations to the hon. the Minister to find out if this is going to be the policy in respect of the whole of the Natal South Coast, or if there is a specific reason for this policy being pursued in relation to this specific area. The owners of these beach cottages feel that it is going to prejudice their interests most severely if the residents, whether they be holiday makers or permanent residents, have to go to the nearest station to enable them to get to the beach. The suggestion has been made that there should be openings in the fence to enable pedestrians to have access to the beach. I hope the hon. the Minister will deal with this matter in his reply.

The other issue I wish to deal with is one that is causing considerable concern as well as loss of money to certain timber merchants. This is in relation to the shortage of timber as delivered to purchasers ex-harbour areas. Timber is imported into the country, loaded on to the trucks and sent to the various destinations. On arrival the correct number of pieces of timber are present, but the lengths are wrong. In other words, the footage of timber is not as per consignment note. The loss occurring from this is now considerable. Although in some instances claims have been established and paid out, the position is gradually getting worse by the day, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether, in the checking of timber put on to the trucks there could not be closer scrutiny to ensure that the correct footage is there and not just a check of the correct number of piece of timber. As the hon. the Minister will appreciate, with the heavy timber imports into this country a shortage of six or seven feet on one log of timber, multiplied by the many hundreds that come in can result in a very considerable shortage of footage, even though the number of pieces of timber is correct.

These three issues I have raised have been brought to my attention to put before the Minister. I now wish to return to the issue I raised earlier on in connection with overtime payments, and I want to put a question to the hon. the Minister in this regard. I am one of those who appreciates the difficulties that there are in negotiations between employers and employees. Now, although I am satisfied that the interpretation I have put upon the hon. the Minister’s speech is the correct one, I want to ask him, in the light of what he has said by way of interjection to the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Badenhorst), whether the interest of the staff associations—and I had no idea that only one staff association had not taken part in these earlier consultations—whether the interests of that staff association are not going to be prejudiced by the fact that this agreement has been arrived at with the other staff associations. I ask the hon. the Minister whether, in his reply, he will be quite clear that the agreement in relation to overtime is not as yet final and binding, and if, at the completion of his negotiations, he can give some uniform agreement in respect of all staff associations and, therefore, all the servants of the Administration. He is still in a position to vary what might be a temporary understanding in relation to the question of overtime. I put that to him because I take a very grave view of this whole position, and I would not like to see the interests of the association that obviously has yet to see the Minister prejudiced. If the hon. the Minister is satisfied that the way is open for an agreement to be reached on this question of overtime, I think we can leave it at that. But if the position is now so settled that no change can be brought about, that, of course, will be a different position altogether, and I would like to know just what the position is.

What do you actually want?

I would like to see overtime paid at either time-and-a-third or time-and-a-quarter or whatever the staff associations will agree to. But I do not wish to see the principle accepted that week-day overtime should be paid for at the same rate as ordinary time. That is the principle that I fear is in danger here. I ask the hon. the Minister if, in his reply he will indicate to what extent the Administration is committed in respect of overtime being paid for straight rates.

The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) complained about drab and dirty stations in the Peninsula, and he mentioned the Fish Hoek station. He also stated that the Muizenberg station clock stopped three years ago and is not yet going, and he spoke about the condition of the waiting-room at the Simonstown station. Now I know a lot about the Railways, but, of course, I do not know the condition of every waiting-room and station on the South African Railway System. All that I can reply, therefore, is that I will have the matter inquired into.

*The hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Knobel) spoke about fires that were caused by locomotives and the agreements in connection with fire-breaks. He is not present at the moment, but, for the sake of the records, I will tell him what the position is and he can then read it in Hansard. In 1956 a committee, on which the South African Agricultural Union was represented, investigated the question of grass fires. As far as fire-breaks were concerned, the committee recommended that the principle that property owners were responsible for fire-breaks on their property should be retained, but that the Administration should co-operate with property owners by assisting them with the making and the maintenance of fire-breaks. In cases where assistance cannot be given, the Administration pays the property owner according to a recognized scale with a maximum of £3 per mile. If the Administration makes the fire-breaks, the farmer has to compensate the Railways on the same basis. Of course it costs much more than that to make the fire-break, and this is, therefore, regarded as a concession to the farmers. I notice the hon. member for Bethlehem has just entered the Chamber. He also spoke about the Natives who picked up coal along the railway line, and who, in the process of doing so, pilfered the farmers’ products. I am not so sure that they would not pilfer the farmers’ products even if there was no coal to be picked up. However, they are not supposed to collect that coal. The trouble is that we cannot have police all along the line to prevent the Natives from picking up coal. There is a strict rule, of course, that coal may not be thrown off locomotives, but with the motion of the locomotive, coal does sometimes fall off the coal trucks, and if the hon. member can suggest how that can be prevented, I will consider his suggestion seriously.

As far as the old passenger coaches are concerned, I just want to say that that is a complaint that is made annually. There is simply not enough new passenger coaches. On branch lines in particular, where the traffic is not heavy, mostly old coaches are used. I can assure the hon. member that, as soon as other and better coaches are available, the old coaches will be replaced.

The hon. member also asked that older people, round about 59 years of age, should be employed. I agree that the Railways have a socio-economic duty to perform, but it is asking a great deal to expect the Railways, which have to be conducted on business lines, in addition to that, to employ people, irrespective of their ability and the work they can perform, people who can no longer do a day’s work. However, these older people are not completely overlooked. They are employed as casual labourers when vacancies occur. We try to help them in that way. As a matter of fact we have quite a number of old people of 65 years, and some nearly 70 years of age in our employ. We try to help them purely from a humanitarian point of view. But when younger people are available, we have to give preference to them. It may be that they can replace Natives, but, as the hon. member himself said, we cannot have mixed working gangs of White and non-White. For example, we cannot have a mixed gang of Whites and non-Whites in a goods shed. In that case the Whites are the first to complain. But when there is a sufficient number of White workers to make up a gang, we employ them instead of Natives. All the Natives who are employed as railway workers are employed on a temporary basis until such time as they can be replaced by Whites, because it has always been the policy to employ White labour on the Railways. However, I want to say this to the hon. member: that these older people are treated with the greatest measure of sympathy. Whenever we have an opportunity to employ them we do so.

The hon. member for Kimberley (North) (Mr. H. T. van G. Bekker) spoke about the fencing of railway lines. In terms of the Fencing Act, No. 17 of 1812, the Railways are obliged to fence railway lines, except where it is relieved from this obligation by way of proclamation. Where a farmer wishes to have a railway line over his property fenced, it is done on the following basis: (a) The farmer pays 50 per cent of the fencing costs, according to the specifications of the Land Bank; (b) the Railways erect the fence according to their standard specifications, irrespective of the difference in the costs between the specifications of the Railways and those of the Land Bank; and (c) the Railways maintain the fence. There are thousands of miles of railway line that have not as yet been fenced. The policy is to do the fencing gradually, but that, of course, will mean very heavy expenditure. In the meantime, however, in cases where we are not obliged to erect fencing, we are prepared to help the farmers by paying 50 per cent of the costs.

The hon. member also complained about the fact that there were hardly any steel coaches in use on the line between Cape Town and East London. There is a scarcity of these new steel coaches, and we are unable to provide every train with them. We try to attach steel coaches to the most important trains. I will ask the management to go into this question and to ascertain whether it is possible to have steel coaches on that train occasionally.

I now want to deal with the point raised by the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford). He is not here but he made his excuses and I promised to reply to him in his absence. He gave me the undertaking that he will read my reply in Hansard.

Will it be reported in full in the Press?

The hon. member stated that he thought that in his opinion the Health Department of the South African Railways was quite unnecessary and that we should utilize the services of the Union Department of Health. Apparently the hon. member is not aware of the functions of the Railway Health section, and he might be interested to know what those functions are. Among other things the Health Department of the South African Railways is responsible for anti-malaria control measures. It is responsible for anti-plague measures, including rodent control. It has to keep a check on notifiable diseases such as typhoid, smallpox, tuberculosis, etc. Furthermore, it is responsible for industrial hygiene and accident prevention; for the enforcement of the Factories, Machinery and Building Workers Act of 1941 in so far as the activities of the department are concerned. Those, of course, are functions that cannot be performed by the Union Department of Health. The Railways Health Department is also responsible for general hygiene such as, for instance, inspection of catering premises, dining-cars, domestic and train water supplies. Furthermore it is responsible for all first-aid services on the Railways and, lastly, in regard to aviation medicine, attendance at annual and other meetings of the Aerospace Medical Association. This was attended at Miami, Florida, in the U.S.A. in 1960. The chief Railway Health Officer, Dr. du Toit, attends these meetings. The hon. member will therefore realize that there are a number of functions performed by the Railway Health Department that cannot be performed by the Union Health Department.

*The hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Badenhorst) referred to bonus work and said that certain workshops only did 5 per cent bonus work, whereas in the case of others it was higher. That is mainly attributable to the to the amount of work available. At the moment there is quite a number of workshops where the percentage of bonus work is fairly low. There is not sufficient work. Big stocks are being built up with the result that many of the artisans earn less in the form of bonus to-day than they did in the past. I want to say this to him that the test for bonus time is the average ability of the worker. In cases where the grade representatives are not satisfied with the times, new tests are tried out and applied. Artisans are consequently not placed in an embarrassing position because conditions at one specific workshop do not compare favourably with those at another workshop. A Schedule was drawn up of which the Artisan Staff Association approved. The grade representatives are the watchdogs of the artisans and they see to it that that schedule is adhered to, that there is no exploitation, and that the artisans do not work too hard, but that they are given the opportunity of earning extra money because of their high productive ability.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Some artisans earn 25 per cent and other 5 per cent because of the distribution of the work and my question was whether this position could not be rectified.

The reason for that is this: Every workshop is fitted out for the manufacture of certain articles. For example we have a workshop where they only manufacture signals. Then there is another workshop where they only do foundry work and where they manufacture brake blocks. The brake blocks cannot be manufactured in the workshop where they make signals. Each workshop manufactures his own particular article.

But in the cases where work can be taken from one workshop to another?

That is being done as far as possible in order to have a fair distribution of the available work. The hon. member also referred to White workers who worked in the presence of non-Whites. In this regard I merely want to say that as far as railworkers are concerned, every one who is physically fit and who has the necessary qualifications, has the opportunity of reaching graded posts. I am very anxious to have as few White people doing unskilled labour such as pick and shovel work as possible. That is why I even appointed a committee a year or two ago to approach all the White labourers and to persuade them to accept graded posts, posts which carried a much higher pay than unskilled work. But the majority of them do not want graded posts. They are quite satisfied to do unskilled labour. In those circumstances it is very difficult always to prevent their doing work which is also done by non-Whites and their doing that work in the presence of non-Whites. If they are fit they have the opportunity of improving their position but the majority of them do not want to do so. I have even gone so far here in the Western Province where we have the largest number of unskilled White workers, as to offer them semi-skilled work at Bloemfontein, with a house as well, yet not 1 per cent of them accepted it. They prefer to remain here; they do not want to leave; they are quite satisfied to do unskilled labour.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood) wanted to know whether there could not be planning in regard to the broadening of the narrow gauge lines of Natal. My reply is that it is not a question of planning, it is a question of finance. To broaden those lines will cost a lot of money, many millions of rand, and at the present time that it not economically justified.

But they will pay if you build them.

I do not think so. That has been inquired into, but most of those lines are built in very difficult terrain and the expense to broaden them would be unjustified. It will not be a question of broadening them, it would mean building completely new lines and that would cost a lot of money.

The hon. member also stated that I originally said that the Boeings could take off with a full load without any additional expense or extension of the runways. I still say that. For instance, when Boeings go overseas and have to land at Salisbury and Nairobi they can take a full load of passengers and baggage but not a full load of fuel. They do not require a full load of fuel to go to Salisbury or Nairobi because they refuel there.

But when we asked the question we were talking about a full load including fuel.

No, there is no air service in the world where, when a plane has to fly only a thousand miles, it is filled up with fuel for five or six thousand miles. That is not done. It takes sufficient fuel, plus the reserve, to take it to the nearest airport.

A full load, in terms of the Air Force or Airways includes a full load of fuel.

A full load means a full load of passengers and baggage, a full pay load of passengers and baggage.

The hon. the Minister did not say a full pay load of passengers and baggage.

The hon. member misunderstood me. The reason why the runway has been lengthened is, as I stated previously, that in the event of our Boeings not being able to land at any airport in Africa we can overfly them and fly as far as Rome. For that purpose we required a full load of fuel in addition to a full load of passengers and baggage, and that requires a long runway.

*The hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Rail) spoke about the bruising of livestock. A certain percentage of animals get bruised in transit. The matter has been investigated and it was found that the percentage was not very high. However, in order to prevent bruising, we carried out tests recently by lining the trucks with cushions. The results of those tests became known recently and it was found that the percentage of bruising in trucks that were not lined with cushions was no higher than in the case of trucks that were lined. I want to give the hon. member this assurance, however, that very strict instructions have been issued concerning the handling of trucks and trains conveying livestock. Bruising often takes place as a result of bad handling or rough shunting. Where it is found that an official has handled a truck with livestock in it roughly or has been guilty of rough shunting, he is in trouble. A year or two ago special inspectors were appointed to watch the position in this regard. I agree with the hon. member that farmers sustain losses if their stock reach the abattoirs in a bruised condition.

The hon. member also asked that luminous paint should be used on trucks. That suggestion has often been made in the past but it is quite unpractical. In the first instance, it will be very expensive to paint something like 100,000 with that type of paint. Trucks are not painted every month or every six months. The period in between is much longer. The second reason why it is unpractical, is that it will not be effective because a large number of these trucks are covered by tarpaulins and even if they were painted with this paint the tarpaulin would cover the paint. The third reason is that the number of accidents where a motor vehicle runs into a stationary train is infinitesimal. The majority of accidents are caused by collisions at railway crossings. As I have said this question has been investigated in the past but it has been found to be quite unpractical.

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) wanted to know what my labour policy is in regard to the employment of non-Whites. Mr. Chairman, there has been no change in policy. The policy has been well known for the past 13 years. That is the policy followed by my predecessor and by myself. There has been no change in policy and I do not know what he wants to know. It has been the same consistent policy throughout the years.

Your predecessor never used Native or Coloured clerks.

That has been the policy throughout the years. As a matter of fact my predecessor introduced the employment of Coloured clerks in the Cape Town booking office before I became Minister. The policy has been that where it is practicable and acceptable, non-Europeans should be employed to serve their own people.

What about on the running staff?

I said where practical, where feasible and where acceptable. Only in those cases can it be done.

May I put this question to the hon. the Minister: With the extension of the re-settlement areas and with the building of new lines for those areas will a policy of using non-White station staff, or signal men or anything of that nature, be employed, where they are mixing continuously with non-White passengers?

At the moment that is not the position. All that has been done at the moment is to employ Native booking clerks in predominantly Native areas such as Native locations, and to employ Coloured booking clerks to serve Coloured passengers in the Western Province. Furthermore, we have employed Natives as ticket collectors on certain stations. But there is no intention of employing non-Europeans as members of the running staff at the present time. That is the policy.

Do you envisage it for the future?

I have no powers to bind any successor of mine. I cannot bind my successor.

That sounds like the shape of things to come.

The hon. member for Marico (Mr. Grobler) spoke about the people who load ore and who have to cement the floors, in addition to paying rent for them. Normally the Department only lets the floor. If the Department were to cement the floor as well a higher rental would have to be charged. The fact that the floor is cemented is in the interests of the person who loads the ore. It facilitates the loading of the ore. As I say, the Department is quite prepared to do it if they are prepared to pay a higher rental in order to cover the additional cost of cementing the loading floor.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? May I ask the Minister whether the 3s. increase to R3 is not a reasonable argument on their part, namely, that they are already paying more, but that they are receiving no extra service for it?

There are a number of other lessees of loading floors who do not load ore, people who load timber and coal for instance, who do not require a cemented floor, and the increase also applies to them. This is, therefore, an additional service, and if the loaders of ore want it they will have to pay more for it.

As far as the D.Z.-trucks are concerned— making more of them available—I will ask the management to go into that. Because of the big demand for this type of truck, on account of their doors dropping open, it is not always possible to supply them. The hon. member also asked that when planning in future the extension of the line along the Krokodil River should be borne in mind. Representations have on numerous occasions been made for new railway lines in the North-Western Transvaal. At the moment, however, the expenditure is not justified. Surveys have been made on numerous occasions to ascertain what traffic will be available for conveyance by rail. Up to the present there are no mines; there is no industrial development and the traffic will consist mainly of agricultural products which are already being conveyed at a very low tariff. This is done at a great loss. At the moment the construction of that railway line is not justified, but we are of course providing a road-motor service in its place in order to assist the farmers and in order to encourage the development of the country.

The hon. member also spoke about the locomotive depot at Zeerust. In this connection I have to tell him that there is no idea at the moment to move that locomotive depot. The interests of Zeerust will be considered. An investigation is being conducted at the moment in connection with that and other locomotive depots, but. I just want to give him the assurance that that locomotive depot will not be moved at this stage.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) spoke about the conveyance of goods by road-motor services at owners’ risk only. The position is that goods consigned to places on the R.T.S. are conveyed at owners’ risk, and that applies to the through journeys. It is, however, the policy to meet claims according to merit if (a) the damage occurred on the rail portion of the journey and (b) if it is proved that the goods were damaged during transhipping from rail to R.T.S. and (c) if investigations prove that the damage occurred on the R.T.S. due to negligence on the part of the Railway staff. But of course if the goods are privately insured the claims are not paid.

In regard to the fencing of the line on the South Coast, I will have inquiries made into that. I know nothing about it but I will see what the position is.

Also on the question of the shortage of timber delivered to purchasers ex-harbours, I will ask the management to go into that question and see whether improvements can be effected. The hon. member complained that it was not the number of logs but only the footage which is affected. I will have inquiries made to see whether a check is carried out as to the actual footage, apart from the number of the pieces of timber.

The hon. member also wanted to know whether the agreement with the Federal Consultative Council would not prejudice group (P), but I have told him I am not prepared to discuss that now and he very well knows my reason for that.

I want to take up two points with the hon. the Minister. The first one is on the lines adopted by the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) but it concerns a different part of the country, and I speak now of Durban. In Durban the hon. Minister is going to a lot of trouble and expense to establish a new terminal for mail services by sea, and I believe that when that terminal is finished, it will be a very nice terminal indeed. We are looking forward to the time when it comes into use. But there is another terminal in Durban and that is a terminal of which we are not at all proud. I am now referring to the Durban railway station.

Do you call it a railway station?

Well, it is used for a railway station. The facilities there are shocking, and I refer particularly to the booking facilities for mainline passengers. These facilities are so shocking because of the accommodation available that I wonder anybody takes the trouble to stay there to book a seat to travel on the main lines of the service. It is a shocking station, and I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me. For years we have pressed this Minister, but he will give no indication at all as to what plans he has in mind for Durban as far as a new station is concerned. I believe that it is more than high time that the hon. the Minister made a statement to us giving us some indication as to whether we can hope for improved facilities there. The provision of this station not only will provide us with better facilities for booking seats on the main lines, but I think also that it can be the beginning of a revision of a local service in the way of fast electric trains for Durban and its environments. At the moment I believe that of all the bigger cities in the Union—I speak now of Cape Town, Johannesburg and Durban— we are worse off in Durban for suburban passengers services than any of those other centres. And when I speak of suburban passenger services, I have in mind particularly the line which we popularly refer to as “ the Banana Express ”. Sir, we have put up with that for a considerable time, but now the development on the South Coast, both industrially and residentially, is taking place at such a rate that I believe the time has come when the hon. the Minister must make some definite provision and give us some definite assurance as to when we can expect that service. I know that he has put quite a lot of money on the Estimates for providing certain facilities in the way of strengthening bridges and approaches during the coming year, but I say that that is not enough. We have heard in the past that the hon. the Minister wanted to introduce possibly a diesel electric service on the South Coast, and I believe that if he wants to do that, he should do it in the very near future. I would like to ask him to please expedite that matter as much as he can. You know, Sir, this Government has encouraged people to establish their industries on the South Coast, and amongst other things we are now going in for the establishment of a new refinery at Isipingo, which will involve an expenditure exceeding £25.000,000, which is not chicken feed, and I believe that in the same way that the hon. Minister has indicated he must supply services for Iscor, so it is up to him to provide fast and modern services for industries of this type which are established by private capital, as well as those which are established by State capital. The position in Durban, coming back to the railway station, is that attempts have been made by various people in the course of years to get some improvements there, and this Government has resisted them from time to time; they have not only resisted them, but they will give us no indication at all as to when the facilities we wish to be provided, will be provided. Where the Minister has now found himself obliged to provide a proper ocean terminal there, to match up with that it would be a very fine gesture indeed from him if he decided at the same time to provide a sister terminal for the Railways in the City of Durban

I rise with the intention of bringing three matters to the notice of the hon. the Minister. In the first instance I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us what his policy is in regard to the Volksrust-Germiston section. I am asking this because whenever there is an election the Opposition exploits the doubt which exists in connection with the locomotive unit and the steam-section there and they try to make people believe that those works will disappear. As you know, Mr. Chairman, Volksrust is the terminal where you switch from electricity to steam; the line from Durban also ends there and it goes from there to the Western Transvaal. The story is continually being spread that the time has arrived when all the railway works at Volksrust will disappear. This is a serious matter because I think Volksrust is the most popular place amongst railway workers in South Africa. The hon. Minister knows that nobody likes to be transferred from there and applications come in continually from railway workers who ask to be transferred back to Volksrust.

Why?

I will tell the hon. member. The railway staff at Volksrust is an established community Most of them have their own houses and other interests there. They play a prominent part in the cultural, educational and social life at Volksrust. Not only that, in the Eastern Transvaal they are really the people who are most willing and anxious to join the commandos. Because these railway workers at Volksrust play their part in the social and cultural life of the town—this is not the only reason why we have this request—we should like to have this doubt removed. This change in policy in respect of the electrification of the whole line will also mean a great deal, financially, to the municipality, and for that reason it is desirable that the true position be recorded if possible.

The second matter that I want to bring to the notice of the Minister is in connection with new railway lines. With the construction of new lines, with the deviation of lines, it often happens that the Railways can no longer use certain houses, houses which are in some cases now removed five, six or seven miles from the new line, whereas in the case of the previous line they may have constituted a station or a siding. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider making such houses available to the Department of Social Welfare, and that he does so as soon as possible. I am talking about brick houses which have been properly constructed, houses which if you were to demolish and remove them, or offer them for sale by tender, would fetch so little that it would not be worth the trouble. You find that, as a result of circumstances, these houses are often unoccupied for months, there is no supervision over a place which was formerly a station, and those houses get ruined by vagrants who break the windows and sometimes even pull up the flooring boards. I believe that if those houses were made available to the Department of Social Welfare at an early stage, they could be used by pensioners who often find it difficult to get houses. In that way these houses will serve a national purpose. While I am asking this as far as the construction of new lines is concerned, I cannot omit asking whether another investigation should not be made into the tunnel position, and I think in particular of the tunnel near Balfour. Because the trains have two engines railwaymen, especially stokers and engine drivers, find it difficult to pass through that tunnel safely. It gets so hot and there is so much smoke that those people often have to lie on a wet bag on the floor of the engine in order to get through the tunnel. You even find that in some cases the stoker and engine driver have to get off the engine and run in front of it, when they get to the end of the tunnel, in order to get away from the smoke. It is not only the safety of the railway staff that is involved, but you want the personnel to work under the most favourable conditions.

The other matter which I wish to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister is in connection with the policy of the Railways, namely, that it has to be conducted as a business undertaking, but a business undertaking which is not a profit-making business but which conducts its business in such a way that it just comes out square. The Government does a great deal to encourage border and platteland industries. We find, for instance, that provision was made in the last general Estimates for a special amount and special tax concessions were made to encourage the establishment of those border industries. I want to ask whether the Railways cannot adapt their policy somewhat to this policy. The policy of the Railways at the present moment is, as it has been all the years, that when a new industry is established at a certain place, and that industry requires diversion lines or branch lines, it has to pay for those lines. I understand that. But it is also the policy of the Railways that when, as a result of the construction of a deviation line, the station has to be extended if it is outside an industrial area or away from a big town, then that industry has to contribute towards the costs (often a great portion) in connection with the extension of the station. It may be that an additional line has to be constructed at that station or siding. My request to the Minister is that he should seriously consider meeting these industries. I want to give an example. At Piet F Retief, for example, a big paper industry is being constructed, which will attract other industries. This is going to cost the Railways a great deal of money but the cost of extending that station will be recovered from that industry. I want to ask the Minister to approach this matter from this angle that even if extra costs are involved, if the Railways are a business undertaking, their approach should be that they sell their services to the public, and in order to sell their services to the public they should be responsible for the necessary capital investment to enable them to sell those services.

The final matter I want to raise is this. I should like to see greater co-operation and consultation as far as development is concerned. I want to give an example. A dam is being constructed at the moment in the Pongola Pass. There will be tremendous development in the Makatini plains. A total amount of approximately £36,000,000 appears on the Estimates. It will mean that the railway line from Gollel to Candover will be under water in certain places and that will necessitate deviating the line. In view of the tremendous development that will take place I want to ask that consideration be given to-day already to the possibility of connecting the northern route with the line to the Eastern Transvaal at Piet Retief. [Time limit.]

I want to return for a moment to the matter I was dealing with before I was interrupted by the time limit, in regard to the attempt to attract back to the Railways the higher paying passenger service, particularly on the suburban lines which, according to the Minister’s report and the General Manager’s report, show a very large fall-off, and I want to refer to the state of some of the stations which certainly do not lend themselves to attract back the passengers the hon. the Minister wants to get. I want to carry this a little further in connection with another matter which has without any question a detrimental effect on the passenger service, and this is a matter also which has been represented to the Administration at intervals now for the last three or four years. That is the height between the floor level of some of the newer type coaches and the older type station platform. I have taken the trouble during the last month or so to check up on certain of these platforms, and I find that there is a step-down from the carriage level to the platform, in some cases of 2 feet 3 inches and at the same time there is a gap between the edge of the platform and the side of the coach at the doorway of anything up to between 12 inches and 14 inches. A deputation waited on the Administration, the local system manager in Cape Town recently, and in the past several deputations have approached the Administration in this regard, and each time the reply is given that this is to be remedied, that it will be provided for when other more urgent work has been dealt with. In this particular case I can conceive of nothing more urgent, both from the point of view of the safety factor and from the point of view of assisting particularly the older type of passengers, women and children, who find it most difficult and almost impossible to get in and out in the time allowed for it without assistance.

I would, therefore, like to ask the Minister to have the position examined with a view to removing this disability. This disability, Sir, is a very real one. I understand that factors like coach clearances, safety, etc., play a role in the matter but at the same time it appears to me as if there is that very great need for improvement.

The other point I want to raise with the Minister is this: On the opening page of the General Manager’s report there is a picture of the Muizenburg Flyer arriving at Cape Town station in 1880. I want to draw attention to some station buildings along the line which must date from about the same period and with little improvement having been made on them since that time. I wonder whether it would not be possible for the Minister’s planning department, when it has some time on its hands, to examine these stations with a view to modernizing them because, as I said earlier, if you want to sell the goods, you have to make the package attractive and these buildings are certainly far from attractive to-day. Therefore these stations should be examined, stations like Kalk Bay, Retreat, Simonstown, and others. I am sure much room for improvement will be found. The station at Glencairn has now become the travelling venue for the 250 to 300 South African naval families occupying the naval township De Gama Park. It was originally an old siding and is still very primitive. There is considerable scope for improvement there in view of the large number of people using that station to-day and especially in view of the large number of school children using it. These improvements are one way by which I think the popularity of railway travel can be made more attractive.

Then I would like to refer to the lighthouse at False Bay, the Roman Rock Lighthouse, which is deteriorating very rapidly for lack of attention. The need for this lighthouse is as urgent to-day as ever it was in view of the development of Simonstown port as our naval base and especially in view of the use made of it by sometimes up to 60 or 70 of the larger ships of the fishing fleet which operate there during the night. The upper tower of the lighthouse is a steel tower and is, I should say, one of the oldest in the country. If you examine it, you will find that it is in an advanced state of corrosion due to the fact that it has not been attended to, as far as my memory serves me—and I see it every day and live practically opposite to it— for the last three or four years and all the time it is exposed to the full blast of the wind and gales and the lashing of the waves. Under these circumstances, it should not be left unattended for such a long time and I wonder if the Minister could get this section of his Department dealing with buildings such as this, to give attention to the matter. It is something which is not only essential for the safety of the people who work out on the sea at night, but money is being provided and the most should be made of this money.

Mr. Chairman, I think the fact that their activities are no longer criticized, and that every member is merely asking for something for his constituency, is a compliment to the Minister and to the Railway Administration. I have listened to the criticism which has been levelled at the Railways, and, in this connection, I want to ask the Opposition to name one organization which employs such a large number of people where there are fewer grievances than amongst the staff of the Railway Administration. There are few organizations where everybody will support a campaign, but, as far as the Railway staff is concerned, I want to assure the Minister that very few of them do not support him. The majority of them are loyal workers, and they appreciate what the Minister and the Administration have done for them. To prove this, I want to point out that, in cases where railwaymen resign from the service, it seldom happens that they do not return at a later stage. By doing that they admit that their future and their prospects are better in the Railway service than anywhere else. This Government is also grateful to the railway worker for having made it possible to get rid of the United Party Government. Do you know, Mr. Chairman, why we have so many pleas in regard to the salaries and working conditions of the railway worker? The reason is that rumours of an election have been circulating. They now ask for higher salaries for the workers, for better provision for the aged, etc., and the people who are doing this are people who have never in the past concerned themselves with the lot of those people.

There is another big service which the Railways have done to the country as a whole. The Minister has already referred to it, and it is this: that, apart from the fact that the Railways are conducted on business principles, employment is offered to people who will find it difficult to get employment anywhere else. In cases where people like that go to the Railways for employment, everything possible is done to assist them to be able to make a living, irrespective of whether they are semi-fit or unfit to work. In spite of that, the South African Railways give the country a service which is probably one of the best in the world.

I want to bring something to the notice of the Minister, which, I think, should receive his attention. He said that fewer people were making use of first-class accommodation on the trains than in the past because more people were using motor cars. In this connection I wonder how many people have free passes to travel in first-class coaches. It was my privilege recently to meet some visitors from overseas, and I asked them to compare the South African Railways with those of other countries abroad. All of them spoke in laudable terms of the manner in which they had been treated by our Railway officials, but, as far as I could gather, they had the wrong impression about the behaviour of our people on the trains, because so many people have free passes to travel in the first-class coaches. The water supply runs out, for example, and small children make a noise in the corridors. I want to ask the Minister that, when we have visitors from overseas, people who spend a great deal of money, whether it is not possible to issue instructions to the booking offices that such visitors should be placed in separate coaches.

Another matter I want to raise is in connection with the high cost involved in sending animals, particularly small animals, to shows. Usually 50 per cent of the normal cost of transport is added when those little animals are sent by passenger train. You will be surprised to know what the cost is, Sir, with the result that other means of transport are employed to transport those exhibition animals. That, of course, means a loss of income to the Railways.

I want to say something in connection with the train from Port Elizabeth to Cape Town. I often travel on this train, and you will be surprised to know how long this train stops at stations, Sir. They change engines at Worcester, but the train stands there for 45 minutes; at Robertson it stands for ten minutes to a quarter of an hour; about three-quarters of an hour at Ashton; it stands for about 40 minutes at Mossel Bay; this applies to practically every station. I should like to know whether it is necessary for the train to stand for such long periods at stations. I have been assured that the train cannot make faster time between the stations, and I wonder whether the Minister cannot reduce the times that the train stands at the various stations. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to follow the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) in his thank yous for the Minister. I am sure he enjoys courting the Minister. The hon. member was very anxious that a new form of apartheid be introduced in respect of overseas visitors but I want to assure him that after what his Government is doing to the country, he need not worry to get separate coaches but to get visitors from overseas at all. But I do not intend to follow him in the manner of his speech. After the isolation into which this country has been plunged by the foolishness of our Prime Minister, I want to deal with that one link which this country will still have with the outside world, and this link is the South African Airways. I want to appeal to the hon. Minister once again that he should treat the airways as an independent unit and not as a subunit of the railways. The South African Airways, Sir, has a very high reputation and a very high standard. A high standard is demanded of it; it is expected of it and it is one of the transport services of which we can well be proud. But I feel that those who are employed in the airways deserve better of the Government and of the Minister. If you compare the conditions of service and the salaries of the South African pilots for instance with that of the pilots of any other air line in the world to-day, it makes us look as though we are already a fifth rate republic, unable to remunerate our people as they should be remunerated for specialized work. A pilot carries the lives of his passengers in his hands at every moment that he is flying. He has to be fit, he has the full responsibility of the life of every person in his plane and every second that he is in the air he must pay attention to what he is doing. I feel that with the 1,400-odd employees involved, we should be able to regard that unit, the airways, as a separate organization and treat it accordingly. Not only the pilots but the others who are in the airways, the stewards, the hostesses should receive better treatment. Take the case of a hostess for instance. I think she earns something like £40 per month and yet she is expected to work from early in the morning until late at night. I want to make a special plea to the Minister and ask him whether he does not think that the time has arrived for him to give consideration to this issue and to do something about raising the remuneration and improving the conditions of employment of those who are employed on this the pride of our transport system in South Africa.

While on the subject, Sir, I would like to raise one specific problem at the Jan Smuts Airport where I understand that the regulation establishment for vehicles is 50, but that there are 68 vehicles at the moment …

That comes under Transport.

I shall then leave that over. The other point in connection with the Jan Smuts Airport is a matter of policy and I trust the Minister will guide me in respect of whether it falls under Transport or Airways. I am referring to the proposed hotel …

That is also Transport.

Thank you. The third point which I wish to raise is the problem which has arisen in connection with examinations in the Railways. You find that persons pass those examinations and they become eligible for promotion but then they find that the qualifications which they have obtained are worthless to them unless they pass a meritrating examination as well.

To which examination are you referring?

I am referring to the works foreman’s examination which qualifies a person for promotion to the graded position of works foreman. In the specific case to which I am referring the person concerned passed this examination in 1952 and persons who have passed the examination have since been tested by the merit-rating examination and have failed that. They now find that having passed an examination they are nevertheless unable to enjoy the fruits of the promotion to which that examination has entitled them. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he feels that he could now write the matriculation examination. I certainly do not think that I could do so. Once a person has achieved a qualification surely that qualification should be his passport to promotion and he should not have to be reviewed and reviewed again for life. I would ask the Minister to attend to that question please.

Lastly, there is another group or railway employees who sometimes—and I recognize that this happens despite the desires of the Department to help them—become medically unfit. I refer particularly to persons who have failed an eyesight test and therefore are excluded from the work that they have been doing. I know it is the policy of the Department to place them in work on a similar scale of pay but that does not always happen. There are many cases where persons through no fault of their own, after 20 to 25 years of service, have found their scale of pay reduced because the Department has been unable to provide another position for them on the same scale of pay. I would like to urge upon the hon. the Minister that when a person finds himself in that position through no fault of his own, and has a clean and a good record with the railways, that even if he is doing inferior work he should continue to draw the scale of pay which he received before he was so boarded because of one or other disqualification, and so recognize that a person who has given his life to service in the Railway Administration is entitled to be looked after by that Administration and not penalized in his old age and when he is approaching pension time and will have to live on the pension determined by the salary he received during the last few years of his employment. I would ask the hon. the Minister please to attend to that issue.

I rise not to ask for anything but to say thank you by way of a change.

That is not a change.

The other side of the House always has the habit of laughing ironically, Sir, when you want to express gratitude to a Minister. Unfortunately this is a word which they do not know too well, Mr. Chairman. They probably have reason to say thank you more often than they do in this House but the word “ thank you ” is foreign to them.

I rise, as I have said, to express my gratitude. I and Boksburg as well, will be guilty of lack of gratitude and appreciation towards the Minister, if I did not say “ thank you ” to him this evening. In the first place then, my thanks to the Minister and his Department for the courteous manner in which they receive you when you approach them with representations, for the attention they give to those representations, for the investigation they institute into the matter and for the actual action that follows. I personally have experience of what is done in this respect and I am extremely grateful for it.

In the second place Boksburg has reason to be extremely grateful to the Minister for the policy which he follows in connection with the elimination of dangerous railway crossings. I am able to say this evening, with gratitude and pride, that as far as Boksburg is concerned, all dangerous level crossings have been eliminated and replaced by either a subway here and a subway there or a bridge here and a bridge there. But all dangerous level crossings in Boksburg have been eliminated, and the public of Boksburg, as well as myself, are very grateful to the Minister for what has been done at Boksburg in this regard.

In the third place I am grateful to the Minister for the separate facilities for White and non-White which have been introduced at the stations in the constituency of Boksburg. The position at the Dunswart station, at the Boksburg East station, the Boksburg station and the East Rand station was very bad in the past. Particularly as far as the Dunswart station is concerned the people are very grateful to the Minister for what has been done there, because there is a concentration of factories round the Dunswart station. Thousands of non-Whites are employed in those factories; those employees travel to and from their work every day and they use that station together with a small number of White people, most of whom are women who also work in the factories. There was a time when those women, when they got off the train, found themselves on the same bridge with a stream of non-Whites. They were carried away in the stream and practically trampled underfoot by the non-Whites. That position has been rectified. To-day there is a bridge for the Whites and a bridge for the non-Whites. The position at the East Rand station is also being put right to-day. That was our problem in the past. We used to have a subway there which was used by both White and non-White. We consequently want to say thank you to the Minister for the manner in which he has given effect to the policy of separate facilities and in doing so given effect to the apartheid policy at our railway stations.

There is a small matter I wish to raise with the Minister. The Minister may consider it small but I consider it of great importance. I think, Sir, at this stage the position is as I see it, since his capital works programme have now more or less been completed as I understand, that the Railways are able to carry all the traffic offered and consequently assured of buoyant revenue. With the surpluses that we have experienced and with further surpluses on the Estimates, it seems to me that the time may soon be approaching that consideration be given to a general reduction in tariff rates, all with a view to being able to reduce the cost of living of every person. This, I realize, is probably not possible just now. I feel, however, that there is one matter which is far more serious to me and it is a matter to which I think I should draw the attention of the House. It is the question of the very high rate which is to-day payable on wool. Since 1944 there have been periodic increases in the tariff on wool with the result that to-day farmers pay an increase of 88 per cent on their transport costs. This is the tariff he has to pay on the transport of his wool from his farm to the market and to the processing centre. While this is a service for which the farmer pays direct, it is a fact that the harbour charges have been increased by a similar amount and while it is a fact that the purchaser of the wool pays those charges, it nevertheless is a charge that is considered before the price for the wool is determined.

I do not think I shall carry this matter any further except to say that there has even been a heavy increase in the freight rates overseas. Our farming community is feeling—and many of them have discussed this matter with me— that the transport charges that they are called upon to pay is out of keeping with the price received. When we look back to 1940-1 there has been an upward trend in wool values and we agree that once the price level is sufficiently high the commodity should make its full contribution to a massive development such as the Railways but we had the position that while the price increased to the high level of 95.8d. per lb in 1950-1: it is also a fact that the price has to-day dropped to an average of 37d. per lb. This drop represents the sum of 52.8d. per lb. The Minister will agree with me that that is a substantial decline in a commodity of this kind. Those of us who take an interest in that particular side of agriculture realize that our farming community are not facing such good times these days and it is one of the charges which they feel weighs very heavily on their product. I would like the Minister to give some serious thought, although he may not be able to do so immediately, to take this matter into consideration. The country is facing a precarious time at the moment; we do not know just how good our markets are going to be but I do feel that any relief that can be brought about in respect of rail charges on this primary product which is one of the large exports of this country, will be of great value to our producers and I would like to ask the Minister to give this matter his early attention.

I am tangled up between Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, but I think I have the hon. Dr. Jekyll at the present moment.

Mr. Hyde is easier.

The hon. the Minister of Transport is Dr. Jekyll one day and the other day Mr. Hyde.

Which do you prefer?

Dr. Jekyll. I do want to join issue with the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. H. Lewis). I do not think he could ever have been to Port Elizabeth, otherwise he would never have said that the Durban railway station is the worst in the country. I do not know whether the 1820 Settlers had anything to do with the building of the station at Port Elizabeth and as far as I can remember it is many, many years ago that the South African Railways have had anything done to that station. I saw the actual plans of the new railway station many years ago and I would like to know what has happened since that time with regard to the building of a new railway station at Port Elizabeth.

There is another matter I wish to raise here. I have already spoken to the hon. the Minister about it but I think it is just as well that hon. members know about it too. The other day at Port Elizabeth there were 14 passengers waiting to get on to the plane. Eight of those passengers were called to take their place in the plane; the other eight were left standing at the airport and it was subsequently found by a passenger on that plane that there were eight empty seats on that plane. This happened on Friday, 3 March. I think it is essential that whoever is responsible for the error, should be given a severe dressing down because it is not really desirable that people should be left standing at the airport while there are vacant seats on the plane.

The other point I wish to raise is in connection with the trucking of valuable horses. When a member of the public transports valuable horses from one point to another and takes the trouble to send two of his own grooms to take their places in the bogey with the horses themselves, I do feel that those people should not be charged. After all said and done they are doing a job of work for the Railways in looking after those horses, and I think where valuable animals are sent by truck, if the owners take sufficient pride in them to send their own grooms along at their own cost, the least the Railways can do is to grant them free transport provided of course they are in the truck.

The first matter I wish to raise is in connection with the bookstalls at the stations. I do not know who is responsible for these bookstalls and who is responsible for buying the literature which is sold there. The only sort of literature which is offered there is, I can almost say, pornographic. It is true there are a few good periodicals but the majority of the books are light detective stories and other literature which is anything but selective. It is very difficult to obtain the right kind of literature at these bookstalls. I want to ask the Minister whether more attention should not be paid to selling South African literature at these stalls such as books dealing with our animals and South African plants. That will be much better than the kind of literature which is being sold to-day; the “ Wild West ” type of literature, which is certainly not constructive in character. I know when you travel by train you prefer light reading matter, but this is not light reading matter, it is pornographic literature.

The second matter I wish to raise is in connection with the telephone service at the Johannesburg station. I know this is not important, but like Langenhoven, I want to say: “ Wys my hoe ek mistrap; dan wys jy hoe ek altyd regtrap.” (Show me where I am wrong; and you show me where I am right.) These may be small matters but they should nevertheless be raised some time or other. The telephone service at that station is extremely poor. I do not know whether the postmaster is responsible but there is simply no public telephone service at that station. If you wish to use a telephone you have to go into the street because the public telephones on the station are always out of order. I have often been there and whenever I have wanted to use a telephone I have always found the telephones out of order.

This brings me to the third matter I wish to raise and that is the lack of porters at the Bloemfontein station. In the evenings especially when many trains arrive there, there is simply not a porter to be found on the third and fourth platforms. Usually there are only one or two porters on duty and once they are busy taking the luggage of certain passengers to the station entrance the rest of the passengers have to manage as best they can. I have on numerous occasions seen elderly ladies carry their own luggage at that station.

I now come to two other local matters. I am aware of the fact that the Minister of Transport is very concerned about road safety and I know road safety comes under him, but I am not so sure that the Minister of Railways is always so concerned about road safety. I will give you an example, Sir. There are two stations in my constituency where the position is very dangerous. The one is Coalbrook station. There is a railway crossing just to the north of that station. The road over that crossing is the road from Vanderbijlpark and Sasolburg towards the southern Free State. The traffic over that crossing is very heavy, especially at night. People who go to Vereeniging or to drive-in cinemas, etc., use that crossing. It is a dangerous crossing and there have been numerous accidents. I know the reply will probably be that railway crossings are placed on a priority list and that the various crossings are dealt with in accordance with that priority list, and that the crossing at Coalbrook is not as yet at the top of that list. But human lives are in constant danger at this crossing and I want to direct a friendly request to the Minister to move this crossing higher up on the priority list. There is another railway crossing near Heilbron; I think it was constructed under the National Road Board plan. I think that crossing cost more than £70,000 but I do not think more than two or three trains cross that bridge per day. But at this crossing over the double line between Vereeniging and Kroonstad, a train passes practically every half an hour and a motor car practically every five minutes. The only warning are the lights that go on and off. It is an extremely dangerous crossing.

The other case is the Frankfort station. There were two crossings at the Frankfort station, one to the south and one to the north. The one to the south has been completely closed and in the case of the one to the north there are obstructions in the road and you cannot see a train when it leaves the station unless you go right on to the railway line. Only when you are right on to the line can you see whether a train is approaching that particular crossing. That is a particularly dangerous crossing. I am not asking for a flyover bridge because that would cost too much but I think it is necessary to move that crossing at least 200 yards away from the station.

As I have said, like the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. G. L. H. van Niekerk) I also feel that it is time that we said thank you in spite of the hollow laughter on the part of the Opposition. The time has arrived that we expressed our gratitude to the Railways. These minor matters which I have mentioned because there is nothing serious to complain about only emphasize the efficient manner in which the Railways are run. If one has to complain about such unimportant matters, Sir, it shows you how efficiently the Railways are being conducted. I want to support the hon. member for Boksburg most heartily, because we have to express our gratitude to the Minister and his Administration for what they are doing in the transportation field in South Africa. Had it not been for the Railways in this country I do not know what would have happened to us, or at least what would have happened to us under a United Party management.

I think both the hon. member who has just sat down and the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. G. L. H. van Niekerk) are going to be surprised because I want to express my gratitude in connection with a minor matter. I think the Railway Administration is on the right track in respect of the innovation they have introduced of having only one ticket examiner or one conductor— whatever he is called—on a long journey. I refer in particular to the fast trains between Pretoria and Cape Town and vice versa. Whereas previously there was a change of ticket examiners on no less than six occasions, I think, there is no change to-day on that train—there is only one ticket examiner. As far as I understand the people who have to do this work are quite satisfied with the new system. One man looks after the train from Johannesburg as far as Cape Town; he is relieved during the night, of course. The result is that a passenger is not required to show his ticket every three or four hours. In the past the position was that a passenger was asleep during the night and woken up and asked for his ticket.

Then there is something else. Not so long ago we used to have a train manager, a refreshment inspector, apart from the ticket examiner, and it often happened that you were disturbed every ten minutes. To start off with the ticket examiner wants to see your ticket, then the refreshments inspector wants to know whether you are satisfied with the service and then the manager comes along and asks whether you are quite comfortable and whether he can do anything for you. This reminds me of an incident I witnessed myself. After this person had been disturbed on about four occasions within an hour—I am not even talking about the steward who came in and asked him whether he required anything—the manager came up to him and asked: “ Sir, is your journey comfortable; are you quite happy?” This person replied: “ Yes, I was quite happy up to the present but now you are becoming a damn nuisance.”

Although I have said “ thank you ”, I also want to lodge a complaint. This is something which I have raised on a previous occasion and it helped then. And that is the way in which Pretoria, the administrative capital of South Africa, is being neglected compared to Johannesburg. If you want to travel to Cape Town on the fast train and you come from Pretoria you have to wait an hour at the Johannesburg station in order to get the connection. On other occasions you have to wait more than half an hour. In the case of ordinary trains you have to wait practically a whole hour to get the connection from Johannesburg to Pretoria. That seems incongruous to me, Sir. The line between Johannesburg and Pretoria is a double line and it should not be very difficult to speed up the service between those two places. Why cannot the Pretoria coaches be uncoupled immediately at Johannesburg and go off to Pretoria; why cannot the Pretoria coaches be at the front of the train so that they can immediately proceed further? Why this delay? I do not want to take up the time of the House by giving the times, but if you look at the timetable, Mr. Chairman, you will know what I mean—the time-table speaks for itself. I do think that a great improvement can be effected in that respect. I do not even wish to mention the delay that people experience if they travel from Johannesburg to Pretoria. When the train arrives at the station it stops and waits for someone to pick up the signal.

My last complaint is also one which I have made on a previous occasion. I hope that the new General Manager who lived in Pretoria for years, will be more sympathetic. This is the question of the steel coaches to which another hon. member has already referred. There are usually two or three Pretoria coaches on a train but not one of them is a steel coach on any occasion. They are always old coaches with no warm water in the compartments. Why should Johannesburg have all the steel coaches?

Johannesburg is bigger.

Mr. Chairman, I realize that Johannesburg is entitled to the majority but give us one only and Pretoria will be satisfied. I do not think my request is unreasonable. I think I can ask the new General Manager to attend to this matter and if he does he will have earned the gratitude of the administrative capital of South Africa.

I have no complaints to lodge on behalf of my constituency as far as railway stations, etc., are concerned, but I want to say something this evening in regard to our air service. As far as our air service is concerned I want to raise three matters which I think deserve the attention in future of the Minister and the Railway Administration. The first matter is this: Our air service will have to prepare itself to meet the ever-growing competition on the part of the other air services of the world. I do not want to prescribe to the Minister what should be done neither do I want to ask him any question in that regard, but I want to analyse our position in so far as we are able to meet this competition, this ever-growing competition. Before doing so, however, I want to say that in countries abroad, in England, America and elsewhere, the competition between the various air services is very keen to-day. When we see how these various air services compete with one another and how difficult they find it to keep their head above water, we see that they found a solution in amalgamation, in the amalgamation of the various air services. They pooled their capital resources and were thus able to reduce fares. By doing that they increased their capital power and were thus able to keep their head above water. We in South Africa are in a particularly favourable position for two reasons. The first reason is coupled with the efficiency of our air service. I maintain that South Africa has an excellent and an efficient service, that the safety record of our air service compares very favourably with that of any air service in the world. I am not exaggerating when I say that. Through the years we have maintained a high standard of efficiency and our air service has been exploited in the interests of the country. As far as our staff is concerned our technical staff and running staff are all experts, they keep pace with the most modern developments, they are in constant touch with other air services and they have obtained excellent results and achievements in tests. I think, for example, of our pilots who were trained to pilot the Boeings which had been purchased. They did wonderfully well abroad. What they achieved was most encouraging and a great honour to our country. The particular methods that have been applied in running this service have been the result of efficient management. I maintain that we are able to meet the competition from abroad, competition which is becoming keener, because in so far as our air service is concerned, in the carrying out of their duties, they are well equipped both as regards staff, technical knowledge and as far as their record is concerned. But there is another reason why we will in future be able to meet this competition and it is the fact that our air service forms an integral part of our railway system. Our air service rests on a well-equipped, experienced administration, with the result that the cost structure in regard to keeping our air service going, is as low as it can possibly be. Our air service is in a position to use the experience and existing facilities within our Railway Administration. Our air service which is linked in that way to our railway service and which forms an integral part of the South African Railways, is therefore in a very fortunate position in that it enjoys a preference which other air services do not enjoy, because they have to compete to a large extent with their own railways. Our airservice is able to make use of the knowledge, and other facilities of our railway service. Take, for example, the refreshment service on our airways. I challenge any other air service in the world to compete with our South African Air Service when it comes to its refreshment service. I am not even talking about our charming and attractive air hostesses. That is only one aspect in regard to which our air service has an advantage namely that it forms an integral part of our Railway Administration which has years of experience in the catering line. I think of the accountancy side where the air service can exploit the experience which the railways have gained over the years. That must in the long run have an effect on the running expenses. I am convinced that the cost structure of our air service is very economical. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Durban (Umlazi) (Mr. H. Lewis) wants a new railway station for Durban.

So do we.

So do I, but I am afraid that it will be some time before Durban is blessed with a new railway station. The workshops have to be removed first before the new railway station can be built, and that is not contemplated in the immediate future. That station is not so bad. I have been there frequently, as a matter of fact I was there only a short while ago and compared with many other railway stations, I think Durban is very lucky to have such a railway station. I wish I had a magic wand which I could just wave, because I think that at least about 60 per cent of the members present here want new railway stations in their constituencies. But Durban will get its new station one day. I must also say that Durban is particularly fortunate in all the new works that it gets, all the money that is being spent in Durban and in Natal. As the hon. member has rightly stated, we are providing Durban with a new terminal for the shipping service, we are spending a lot of money on the South Coast line, harbour expansion is continually going on, we are spending money on the North Coast line—as a matter of fact in the Province of Natal more money has been spent by the Railway in the past decade than in any other province of the Union. Mind you, that does not mean that Natal is so important. We spend money there just as much in the interest of the rest of the Union as a whole as in the interest of Natal. The suburban services are inadequate and will be improved. The hon. member knows that we are busy building the new lines to Kwa Mashu providing for Bantu services. I agree with him that there is room for improvement and that is a matter that will be borne in mind. The South Coast services will also be improved. Specifications for five new diesel electric rail sets will be completed by the end of this month, and then tenders will be called for. The line itself is being improved, as the hon. member knows, and by the introduction of the diesel electric sets, which are in the nature of an experiment, I think passenger services will be considerably improved on that line.

*The hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) asked me what our policy was in connection with the Union/Volksrust section, because there were rumouurs that the depot at Volksrust was going to be removed. My reply is that no finality has as yet been reached as to whether we should electrify that section or whether centralized traffic control should be introduced. That matter is still being investigated and I expect a decision to be reached in the near future. It will then be decided what is to become of the locomotive depot at Volksrust, but I am unable to give a reply at this stage. The hon. member also asked that houses which were standing empty at the moment, as a result of the diversion of railway lines, should be handed over to the Department of Social Welfare. I do not know whether he has consulted the Department of Social Welfare and ascertained whether they would take these houses over and whether they would be prepared to play the role of lessor and let these houses. I doubt whether Social Welfare will do this. We naturally want to get rid of these houses. We wish to sell them or if we cannot sell them, they should be demolished and the material sold. As far as the tunnel at Balfour is concerned where the train staff suffers as a result of the smoke from the locomotives, according to the hon. member, I think the only solution will be to electrify that section, something which is not under consideration at the moment. He also referred to the contribution which factories should make when they receive facilities in the form of branch lines and that they should also pay towards the costs of extending the stations. That is so. Where branch line facilities are provided resulting in an extension of the station so that it can cope with the additional traffic, the industry for whose benefit these facilities have been established is also responsible for the cost connected with the extension of the station. As far as the Pongola pass dam is concerned and the development of the Makatini flats, the closest co-ordination is maintained in that regard and we will ensure that the necessary facilities are provided timeously. It may be years before the dam is constructed and before the land is allocated to settlers, but that is part of the scheme of the Railways to construct a line between Piet Retief and the northern coast and to have the connection there.

The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) spoke about the height between platforms and the new type of coaches. He is correct, and it is a matter that will receive attention in time, but there are numerous places, stations and sidings, where there are no platforms at all, and the hon. member must bear in mind that stations that still have platforms, although not quite adequate, are better off than those without any platforms at all. But we cannot do everything at the same time, and I am afraid that the heightening of those platforms will have to wait their turn. He spoke about the old station buildings. I can only say that there are so many old station buildings throughout the country that the old station buildings on the Peninsula line also will have to wait their turn.

They are becoming historical monuments.

That may be quite a good idea. As a matter of fact, quite seriously, a number of railway stations built prior to the Anglo-Boer War, should definitely be regarded as national monuments. I want to suggest to the National Monument Commission that they should inquire into this to see whether they cannot do something about it. The hon. member says that the Lighthouse in False Bay is deteriorating very rapidly. I will ask the management to go into that matter.

*The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) complained about the unsatisfactory conduct of certain passengers. I think that is the exception to the rule. I do not know whether other hon. members also have complaints in that respect, but I do not think that that is the rule, it is only the exception. The ticket-examiners are there to see to it that such things do not happen.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) is very concerned about the salary scales of our airways personnel, especially the flying crews. As a matter of fact their earnings compare very favourably with the earnings of overseas aircrews. The hon. member must realize that comparisons are very difficult. Standards of living, the cost of living in other countries differ from those in South Africa, but on the whole I think, our men are paid fairly well. Hon. members may be interested to know that on the overseas Boeing service, a fleet captain earns £4,360 a year, which is more than a Minister gets; the senior captain in command on the overseas service earns £4,114 a year, the chief flying instructor £4,340. This is the basic salary together with allowances. A senior flying instructor £3,814, a senior captain, that is a co-pilot on the overseas Boeing service, £3,506, and the first officer £2,265. I do not think these earnings are bad at all.

What is their flying life?

On the regional services, the internal services, a fleet captain’s earnings are £4,364 a year. As I say, it must be clearly understood that these are basic salaries together with allowances; a senior captain on a D.C.4 Skymaster £2,787; first officer £1,855 a year; a senior captain on a Viscount £2,909 per annum; first officer £1,928; A captain on a Dakota £2,298.

Rand?

No, pounds. If the hon. member wants the figures in rand, he must double these amounts. I think that these earnings are not so bad at all and I do not think there is any cause for complaint.

In regard to the works foremen examinations, it is correct that in 1952 works foremen, or people aspiring to that post, had to write an examination, but after that the merit-rating system was introduced and that supplanted the examination system. The merit-rating system was introduced with the concurrence and support of the staff. The merit-rating does not entail the writing of examinations. It is an oral examination to establish the applicant’s personality, his organization ability, his knowledge of his job, and one thing and another. Then they are rated and placed on the priority list, and those of course who receive the highest marks under the merit-rating system, receive promotion first. In regard to the medically unfit, I have every sympathy for these employees of the Railways when they become medically unfit, but private employers usually discharge people who become medically unfit. We try to retain them in our service. Where it is not possible, however, to give them an equivalent job carrying the same wage, they have to accept a job at a lower wage. It is better to retain them in your service even at a lower wage than to dispense with their services. As I say, I have lots of sympathy with them, but I am afraid we cannot do anything else in this case. I appreciate the kind words of the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. G. L. H. van Niekerk). The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Mr. Dodds) is concerned about the rate on wool and he wants a reduction. The rate on wool is only 69c per lb. for transport over a distance of 314 miles. That is the average distance over which this commodity is railed. I do not think this rate can be regarded as unreasonable if the present market value of wool per lb. is taken into consideration. According to the hon. member that is 37c per lb. If I had to reduce the rate on wool by 5c per 100 lbs., or 5c per lb., it would mean a loss of R172,000 to the Railways. I do not think that there is a real cause for complaints. In this regard I want to say that the wool-farmers should always bear in mind that in times of drought the railways come to their assistance by bearing 75 per cent of the loss on the conveyance of drought-stricken stock. The wool-farmers should also consider the benefits they obtain from the Administration, especially in times of trouble and not always complain about a rate that I consider not to be too high. In addition to that big wool-farmers are making use of private transport to transport their wool. If they expect the railways to consider them, they should also consider the railways and use the railways for the conveyance of their product and not use private transport. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Frielinghaus) is also concerned about the railway station there. I want to say that I am giving Port Elizabeth a new administrative building as a first instalment, and in the meantime they must be satisfied with that. In regard to passengers being left at Port Elizabeth on 3 March, I shall ask the management to inquire into that. He asks that grooms attending horses, attendants travelling with horses, should travel free of charge. Let me point out that they travel at a reduced rate. A liberal concession is made, namely single fare, plus 20 per cent for a return journey. I don’t think that allowing them to travel free can be justified. After all, the conveyance of livestock takes place at a very low rate.

*The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) spoke about the pornographic literature at bookstalls. Unfortunately I have not read those books and am therefore unable to judge but I shall be pleased if the hon. member would persuade a few of his colleagues to read some of those books and give me their opinion afterwards, so that I can judge. As far as the porters at the Bloemfontein station are concerned, I will ask the management to go into that, as well as the matter of the defective telephone service at Johannesburg. As far as the crossing at Coalbrook is concerned, the hon. member knows that this House passed legislation last year according to which a permanent committee was established to control a fund to which the Railway Administration, the National Roads Fund and the Provincial Administration contribute. This permanent committee draws up a priority list and the Railways have to act according to that priority list. That is the law. I do not know what position Coalbrook occupies on that priority list but I have the list in my office and if the hon. member would call at my office some time or other we can see where Coalbrook appears on that list.

The hon. member for Pretoria (Rissik) (Mr. de Kock) spoke about the delay in connecting the Pretoria coaches at Johannesburg and Germiston. That connection must unfortunately fit into the ordinary service. Usually there are only one or two passenger coaches to Johannesburg and Germiston and vice versa, and we cannot have a special train just for the one or two coaches.

It does happen.

Those are exceptional cases, but usually they have to fit in with the scheduled train service and it will mean a disruption of the service if a special train had to be run merely for the sake of these few coaches. It would cause a disruption of the entire train service, because the train service is so heavy that any additional train which is put into service can disrupt the entire service for a long period. However, passengers no longer have to wait such a long time and I am afraid little can be done to reduce the time that they have to wait for their connection any further. As far as the steel coaches are concerned, I will ask the management to ensure that Pretoria gets a steel coach now and then.

We all appreciate the manner in which the hon. the Minister has replied to the numerous questions which had been put to him during the Committee Stage. The only blot on the whole debate has been this issue in regard to the overtime payment that was raised earlier on, and, Mr. Chairman, I do not know what the final outcome of this issue is going to be. The artisan staff, from what the hon. the Minister has said, is the only staff association that has not come to an agreement with the Minister in respect of the details of consolidation. Whether or not the artisan staff accepts the principle of straight-time payment for overtime, is beside the point as far as the United Party is concerned. We take a very serious view of this position and it is desirable that the country should know where the United Party stands in relation to this issue. For that reason, for no other reason, it is my intention to move to reduce the amount of the Minister’s salary I move—

By doing that we want to indicate that as far as the United Party is concerned, the principle that is involved here, whether or not it is agreed to by staff associations in consultation with the Minister and the staff as a whole accept straight-time payment for weekday overtime, whether that is the position or not, we want to make it quite clear that this principle is one which the United Party is not prepared to countenance.

When I spoke a few moments ago I was telling the House that there were three problems which confronted the air service. The first was the competition from air services abroad and I said that because of our efficient management and our excellent service and the application of technical methods and the low cost structure, supported by the Railways with their greater experience, we should be able to meet the ever-increasing competition from other air services. I want to add this, that in this respect our air service is rendering valuable services as far as the new demands which are being made upon it by this modern world in which we are living are concerned. We are living in an era where man demands speed. Speed means time and time means money and speed to-day is also regarded as comfort, and speed has become a factor in the entire production process of our country. I want to put it this way that a manager of an undertaking is to-day able to travel fast as a result of the speed which aircraft attain. Speed reduces distances and it saves time and it places more time at the disposal of the man and of the labourer within the entire production process. The importance of the development of our air travel lies in that and I wish to congratulate the Railway Administration on the manner in which they have considered the new demands which are being made upon it. In spite of the terrific costs involved in the purchase of these new Boeings the Railway Administration has placed the South African Air Service on an equal footing with the best air services in the world by having ordered these Boeings which epitomize speed and comfort.

But there is a second problem which confronts our air service and that is the question whether our air service will not eventually be competing with our train service and in this connection I want to say a few comforting words. There is no danger of harmful competition between our air service and our train service. I want to give the House a few figures. In the first place our air service is not used by the same type of person who uses our train service. In 1958-9 there were 243,000 air passengers, whereas the trains conveyed 8,000,000 passengers over long and short distances. I say therefore that our air service is not in danger in that there will be competition between the train and the aeroplane. I come to the third problem and that is that provision should be made for feeder air service. The peculiar circumstances of South Africa with her peculiar transport problems and long distances pose a problem to our air service. Fortunately, as far as our air service is concerned, the South African Railways are not compelled by law to maintain uneconomic service, as in the case of the railways. I honestly think the time has arrived that we introduce air feeder services between big centres. I know a start has already been made with air feeder services between various centres but I want to concentrate on one area in particular and that is the western Transvaal. It may be true that the western Transvaal consists of barren plains and it may be true that we only produce maize, but allow me, Sir, to inform this House that western Transvaal is and will become one of the most densely populated areas of the Union of South Africa. Within the next 15 years we expect to have at least 400,000 people within the Carltonville, Potchefstroom, Klerksdorp area.

At 10.25 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.