I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

Just before you put this Vote, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that we are all very sorry to hear of the accident to the former Minister of Railways, the Acting Prime Minister and Leader of this House. It was with a sense of shock that we read of the accident. We trust that the hon. the Minister of Transport will convey our very best wishes to him and to his family and that he will recover very speedily and will be able to return early to this House.

Before we go on, I think it would be just as well if I just very briefly indicated that this amendment was moved to high-light the fact that as far as the United Party is concerned, the statement made by the Minister in his Budget speech in regard to the manner in which payment for overtime is to take place, is one which the United Party cannot support. We on this side of the House feel that if overtime has to be worked, it should be worked on the basis of the rate per hour plus an enhancement. At the present time it is time and a third and double time for Sundays. We would like that arrangement to continue, and it is because this change has come about as a result of the Budget, I have moved for a reduction of the Minister’s salary to indicate our disapproval of this new scale.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

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

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Head No. 1.—“General Charges”, as printed, put and agreed to.

Heads Nos. 2 to 34 put and agreed to.

The Committee proceeded to consider the Estimates of Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works.

On Head No. 1.—“ Construction of Railways ”, R4,250,176,

It is with considerable pleasure that I am able to get up and say a few words on the Estimates of Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works for the year ending 31 March 1962. This is the first occasion that I can remember where the Committee has got to the stage of discussing what is known as the Brown Book. I think it is a good thing that we should do so in the time that is left under the Committee Stage of this particular measure. The first question I wish to ask the hon. the Minister is in respect of Duff’s Road. Could the hon. the Minister give us some sort of a progress report as to how this work is proceeding. I see that the total estimated cost is R1,142,512 and that this year we expect to spend something like, R255,400. It is a very necessary project, and I am quite sure that as far as the residents of Durban are concerned, it will be a good thing when this line will be completed so that the present congestion and the delay in the transportation of workers from the Duff’s Road Township to Durban will be alleviated. Could the hon. the Minister give us some indication of how this project is proceeding?

I see that in the Estimates provision is made for the new railway line between Hoedspruit and Phalaborwa. There have been quite a number of rumours in regard to this line, as to whether it will be built from Hoedspruit or from Mica. Has final decision now been reached as to the place from where the line will be built, and what are the prospects in connection with the completion of the line? Will a start be made immediately in building that line?

Here we have an item Newcastle-Utrecht—new connecting line from Newcastle station to a point on the Utrecht branch line at 3 miles 41.06 chains. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether any representations have been made to him in regard to taking over the rest of that line. I think that line is about 27 miles in length. Does he not consider that it will be in the interest of the Railways itself to take it over, seeing that the rolling stock used there belongs to the Central Government and the staff also falls under the Central Government? Is it not in the interest of the Railways to take over the whole line in the near future? Will the hon. the Minister be able to tell me when that will perhaps happen?

In reply to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton), I can only inform him that delivery of rolling stock will coincide with the completion of the line. That will be towards the end of 1962.

*In regard to the hon. member for Nelspruit (Mr. Faurie), I have to inform him that complete finality has not yet been reached in regard to the junction. Negotiations with Foscor are still in progress in regard to the guarantee. We hope that the negotiations will be completed within the next month or so, so that we can start building the line.

I can only tell the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) that at the moment there is no plan at all to take over the Utrecht line. I gave the reasons for this on a former occasion, viz. that it is not in the interest of the Administration to take over that line at this stage.

Head No. 1 put and agreed to.

On Head No. 2.—“ New Works on Open Lines”, R65,542,263,

I want to deal with Item 23: Clairwood-Port Shepstone: Permanent Bank Protection, Umpambinyoni River Bridge. R30,000 is made available for expenditure during 1961-2. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the Department is giving sufficient consideration in regard to this work to the constriction of the space allowed to the river in flood time to flow to the sea. We had a big flood in May 1959, and the river banked up because it could not get out to sea, it flooded the sugar mill, that is approximately one mile up the river, it flooded a school, and all the low-lying lands. But it flooded particularly the sugar mill where the water had never come before because the river was virtually banked up by the works at the lower end of the estuary, towards the sea. The work comprises not only the railway bridge, but the road bridge as well, and the approach to the road bridge was very badly breached by the river. Fortunately, the damage to the railway embankment was very small, because it stood the strain. But there was a flood again on the Umpambinyoni only a week ago, and once more precisely the same thing has happened. I am very worried about this, because it is quite clear that there might be heavy claims for damage against the Railways and the Roads Department in respect of damage higher up the river if those works are so constructed as to narrowing up the waterway until water simply cannot escape. Is that taken into account?

I want to deal with a matter under the sub-head “ Relaying and Strengthening ”. We are called upon to vote here a sum of R1,750,000 in toto for the various works set out in the Brown Book. Now a number of new items are included under this Head, and I wish to ask the hon. the Minister one or two questions in regard to the general principle, and the general policy applying to these items as a whole. I ask the question. Sir, because the current General Manager’s report makes reference to new schemes for permanent way maintenance. I refer the hon. the Minister to page 82 of the General Manager’s Report, where he states this—

This is quite an important issue, because in the first instance where this new system is put into force, it becomes a more systemized and mechanized operation of re-sleepering and relaying.

You don’t mechanize re-sleepering.

No, but the further operations after re-sleepering are mechanized, for tamping and for laying the rails. The amount is a large one, but as far as my memory goes it seems less than in former years, and I, would like to know if this lower expenditure is a direct result of these new systems that are now being introduced, and also whether it is also due to the mechanization of these operations on the Railways.

I would like to have a little more information from the hon. the Minister in connection with the purchase of land for departmental housing under Item 3. Can the Minister give us any details as to where the land will be bought and for how many dwellings? Then I also want to ask the hon. the Minister in connection with Item 433: Ladysmith-Harrismith: Deviate line at Danskraal. The hon. the Minister will know that this matter has been discussed several times in the House, viz. that when the trains from the Free State enter the station at Danskraal the heavy coaches are in front, and then shunting has to take place before it can depart to Durban. I would like to know from the Minister whether it is in this connection that the line is now being deviated. Then in regard to Items 713 and 714, the remodelling of the flash-butt welding depot, and the workshop for signal fitter, also at Danskraal, I would like to know how far that work has already progressed, when it was commenced and when he expects it to be concluded.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister a question in regard to Item 34: Pietermaritzburg-Franklin: Replaced bridge over Inkonzo River. According to this Brown Book most of the money has been spent, but in the ensuing year R2,400 has still to be spent. When will that bridge come into operation and the change-over to the new bridge take place? Then I refer to Item 57: Boughton-Umbulwana: Doubling of line and improvement of curvature between Boughton and Merrivale. The amount to be spent this year is considerable, and some RIO,00 will be spent in future years. When does the Minister think that this work of the doubling of the line between Boughton and Umbulwana will be completed?

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood) is not reading his Brown Book correctly. As far as the doubling of the line between Boughton and Umbulwana is concerned, there is no money to be spent in future years, and J am surprised that the hon. member does not know what is happening in the environment of Pietermaritzburg. As a matter of fact I opened the long tunnel there nearly a year ago, and the double line has been in operation for more than a year. These are merely belated debits coming in.

But R10,000 will have to be spent in subsequent years.

No, that is R10,000 out of the Renewals Fund. The hon. member must look at the heading of the column. The hon. member has travelled over the doubled line continually. The work is completed. The same applies in regard to Item 34. This amount of R2,400 is the last amount to be spent. The bridge has been completed and is in operation. There is no money to be spent in future years, but it very often happens that, after a work is completed, some belated debits come in. In other words, all the debits did not come in before the end of the previous financial year. To a very large extent it is only a book entry to close off the accounts.

* The hon. member for Drakensberg wants to know, in regard to Item 3, how much land has been purchased and how many houses have been built. This amount is not for a specific place. Every year a globular amount is voted by Parliament, it is used by the Administration to purchase land when land has to be purchased. The hon. member will see that practically every year a globular amount is voted. It is not a specific amount. As it becomes necessary during the course of the year to purchase land, not only for housing but for other departmental purposes, land is purchased if it is available. It depends on what becomes necessary in the course of the year. In regard to Item 432, I should have thought that the hon. member would know what the position there is.

I asked a question in regard to Item 433.

The hon. member asked a question in connection with the trains coming in from the Free State, did she not?

I asked the question in connection with the deviate line at Danskraal, Item 433.

Yes, that is what I am referring to. As the hon. member correctly said, the trains from the Free State has always entered the station with the locomotive in front, but when the train moves out to Volksrust or wherever it goes, it must proceed in the opposite direction, and that causes delays. But the hon. member is such a regular visitor to Danskraal that I should have thought that she would have known that that line has been in operation for a long time already. This new line has been in operation for more than a year already. It seems to me the hon. member is beginning to neglect her duty. She is not visiting Danskraal as often as she did in the past. Now that all her complaints in connection with the cabins for the shunters, etc., have been acceded to, she is no longer interested in Danskraal. The hon. member should visit Danskraal once again, then she would see that everything is in order. As I say, Items 713 and 714 have both been completed already. The hon. member will see that this year the money spent will be rounded off, and she will see that no provision is being made for next year. Everything is being completed now.

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) is concerned about the lower expenditure on maintenance. As the hon. member knows, no uniform amount is spent every year on maintenance; it all depends upon the requirements of the permanent way. Mechanization, of course, does result in a saving, that is why we have introduced the mechanization of the track and we are extending that gradually. It means that the lengths can be lengthened and the work can be done so much quicker with less personnel. Mechanization does result in the reduction of expenditure on the maintenance of the permanent way.

Is that the reason for so many new items?

Well, it all depends. There is a certain time in the life of the track when it has to be re-ballasted or re-sleepered. It all depends upon the condition of the track. When the track reaches a certain condition then it must either be re-ballasted or re-sleepered or re-railed. Of course, there is no uniform time when that happens. It is examined by the civil engineering department who submit their estimates for the ensuing year on the basis of what they will require for the maintenance of that particular track. But mechanization definitely does result in a saving. It increases the productivity and shortens the time occupied in the maintenance of the track.

What about these specially trained gangs to which the General Manager refers?

Those are the mechanized gangs. I do not want to hold a long discussion on the matter now because we do not have too much time, but as a result of a shortage of gangers and platelayers, a few years ago we reorganized the lengths for which platelayers and gangers were responsible, and as much as possible we concentrated that personnel at the nearest towns so that they could have schooling facilities for their children. We also gave them bicycles for the patrolling of the tracks. This has been in operation for quite a time now and it has resulted in reduced expenditure.

I do not know whether the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) is referring to the same matter as that about which he corresponded with me.

No, most of our correspondence was over the Umzimkulu. I am talking about this one at Scottborough.

In regard to the matter about which we corresponded and which the hon. member still wants to discuss, as he knows, that was inquired into by the engineers after he wrote to me. Their report was that the way the bridge was being built was quite satisfactory, and I can say no more about that. The particular matter he has now referred to, I do not know about and I will have it inquired into.

As the hon. the Minister will inquire into this Item 23 and let me know about it I will then deal with Item 30, the one in respect of which I corresponded with him, and that is the bridge over the Umzimkulu River at Port Shepstone. As the hon. the Minister quite rightly says, he wrote to me and explained that his engineers had been into the matter, they were satisfied that the bridge was being built on proper engineering principles and that it was safe. I accept that the hon. the Minister cannot turn round and say that his engineers are not competent or able to give a proper judgment. The same difficulty arises here, but from a different angle, as at the Umpambinyoni, and that is that the bridge over the Umzimkulu is banking up the water when it comes down in spate. The plans for the lay-out of the marshalling yards on the old level of the wharf shows that that gets flooded; that is because the embankment of the bridge is acting as a dam and banking the water up. I see that under this item there is also a question of deviating the line from 75 miles 53 chains to 78 miles 1 chain. However, I am not certain how far down that goes, whether it goes through the actual railway yard at Port Shepstone, where it is taken as a broad gauge through the actual yards at Port Shepstone to the marshalling yards south of the present railway station. However, I do not expect the hon. the Minister to have all these details in his head so I will simply say to the hon. the Minister at this stage that we are all very concerned indeed, and that includes commerce, industry and the farmers, as to what is to be the precise lay-out now in view of the construction of the bridge and the back water created which has flooded the area set aside for the marshalling yards as we anticipated it. Would the hon. the Minister be prepared to make a statement telling us what is anticipated for the development there as a result of the completion of the bridge and the relaying of the line particularly in regard to the marshalling yards and the tie in with the narrow gauge railway to Harding?

I will have this inquired into and I will advise the hon. member.

I wonder if the hon. the Minister could give us some information in regard to five items altogether. Three of them are on page 6, Items 44, 45 and 46, and then there are two items on page 76, Items 1099 and 1100. Although they are not quite the same, they have a general bearing on the question I want to put. Items 44 and 45 deal with the development of relief lines to the new Native townships whereas it would appear that Item 46 and the two items further on deal with general improvements to the system as a whole. In regard to those five items, I have lumped them together because they cover general improvements to the transport services to the southern end of the Peninsula. From the figures before us it would appear that although a fair amount of this work has been completed there is still an appreciable amount now being provided for and which still has to be done. I want to ask the hon. the Minister if he can give us any idea as to what extent it would be possible to improve the services to the southern end of the Peninsula, particularly from the time point of view. The one item provides for quadrupling the line between Diep River and Retreat. We have already carried out fairly extensive improvements of a similar nature towards the Cape Town end. One wonders to what extent it would be possible to cut down the time of the overall journey to the more distant stations such as Muizenberg, Fish Hoek and Simonstown. I think that one of the factors which to some extent mitigates against the use of the Railways suburban passenger service is the time factor because as a result of the present arrangements so many trains cannot be express, they have to stop at all the stations.

Like the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell), I do not expect a detailed reply to each of these points but could the hon. the Minister give us a general idea of what overall improvements can be expected, particularly in regard to the time factor and also, if it is possible to do so, can he give us some estimate of when he thinks the work will be sufficiently advanced to bring about such improvements in that service?

Under Item 718 on page 54 —Durban Harbour: Acquisition and Improvements to Buildings, Salisbury Island, may I raise certain points. There are two particular aspects of this which I should like to take up with the hon. the Minister. The first one is this: I believe that the buildings mentioned here will include the buildings in which the present Indian University College is now situated. I would like, if possible, to get some information from the hon. the Minister as to what arrangement has been made and whether those buildings are being sold …

That has nothing to do with this item.

Well, it is the acquisition of buildings on Salisbury Island and improvements to those buildings.

Those are merely sheds on the island acquired for the storage of timber.

Well, it does not say so here. It merely says buildings. Are they the wrong buildings?

Yes.

So that this does not cover all the buildings taken over from Defence?

No.

There is another aspect I would like to take up with the hon. the Minister. But I do not know whether this question has been covered because obviously arrangements have been made and all the buildings on the island, to the best of my knowledge, belong to the Railways. Could the hon. the Minister enlighten me on that point?

Only part of the Salisbury Island buildings are going to be used for Railway purposes, and this amount is for the purchase of those sheds that will be used for the storage of timber. I have nothing to do with those utilized for the establishment of the Indian college.

The other question is this: Some of the buildings on the island which do belong to the Railways are, I take it, included here and have been given by the hon. the Minister on short lease to certain yachting clubs and the like, and they are very grateful to the hon. the Minister for that. But they have a very big worry at the moment, and that is the question of how long their occupation is going to last. As a result of this action by the Minister some very fine clubs have been built in the area, and the facilities and amenities made available to them are being used by many thousands of people to very good purpose indeed. It will be a very good thing and it will be very much appreciated if the Minister could give them some idea of some sort of permanency of occupation on a longer basis than they can see at the moment. As the hon. the Minister knows they are there on a month-to-month basis. They have put in a lot of improvements of their own and these people are very, very keen. I think if the hon. the Minister could see his way clear at this stage to give them some idea as to what is going to happen in the future so that they can perhaps make further improvements and build still further facilities, it will serve a very good purpose. They are providing an outlet to the bay for sailing, for Sea Scouts and the like and for many thousands of people from the whole of the southern suburbs of Durban. As the hon. the Minister knows the Esplanade area is not convenient to these people. There are no parking facilities for them there, but this has proved to be ideal. If the hon. the Minister could see his way clear to extend to these people some site which they can call their own, or know that they have some reasonable permanancy of occupation, I can assure him they will appreciate it very much.

The other item I wanted to mention was Item 148, a marshalling yard. I take it that is the bay head marshalling yard and that this possibly provides for the completion of it. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether, with the completion of this marshalling yard, he is going to make any land available to the Durban City Council for the carrying out of their road plans. I know that for some considerable time they have wanted to put a free-way through part of the area of the old Congella marshalling yard to serve the fast-developing southern suburbs and the South Coast, and because they are awaiting developments in the marshalling yards and to see what facilities are available these plans have not come to finality to the best of my knowledge. But with the completion of this scheme I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is going to make land available bordering Maydon Road for the completion of this scheme?

I would like to discuss Item 800, Komatipoort: Fruit shelters, platform and road transport depot. Already in 1958 it was indicated that these improvements would be made. In the Estimates last year an amount of R77,200 was voted, and now an additional amount of R27,100 is being asked for. According to these data, it is expected that by the end of this financial year the sum of R20,960 will already have been spent.

The black figures indicate what will be spent this year.

The estimated expenditure for 31 March 1961 is R20,000. What I want to mention further is that as far as I know, no work has yet been done. In any case, when I left the constituency a start had not yet been made in providing these improvements. I I just want to point out that the traffic at Komatipoort has increased tremendously. Much more traffic in perishable products is being offered to be transported by the Railways. The existing fruit shelters are quite inadequate. Then there is also a much increased traffic on the Selati line, of which Komatipoort is the junction, and where the traffic has to be transferred. The platform there is so inadequate that the work cannot be done conveniently. Then we also have there a whole convoy of lorries with trailers conveying particularly sugar and molasses from Swaziland. It is often very difficult to handle all the traffic at those stations, as the result of lack of space there. We would like to urge that the work should be tackled as soon as possible and be completed speedily in order to bring relief there. Then I also want to mention Item 808, Ten Bosch: Goods shed and fruit shelter. Quite a few years ago already an indication was given that that fruit shelter would be built. In that area quite a lot of perishable products are produced and offered for transport. There are no facilities for loading these products. We should appreciate it very much if a start is made with regard to this item immediately. One realizes, of course, that so many extensions are expected that it is sometimes difficult to tackle them all, but I still think that these matters deserve particular attention in order o relieve the traffic difficulties which exist there.

I should like to refer to Items 958, 959 and 960 on page 67: “ Blaney, Amabele, Toise River and Cathcart: Improve water supply.” I would like to know from the hon. the Minister what he is intending to do in that respect because the lower riparian owners from which he is drawing that water are extremely concerned about the excessive supplies that are now being required for Railway purposes.

Item 959, the Gasela-Amabele is part of the Kubusie scheme and I would like to ask the hon. the Minister, in view of the fact that he now has a consultant working on the Kubusie River what he intends doing about it and whether the negotiations with the Stutterheim Town Council for a source of supply from them has broken down completely.

Then finally, Item 960 “ Kubusie: Replace and electrify pumping plant ”. We experienced quite an extraordinary happening when the hon. the Minister laid the pipeline from Kubusie to Gasela. He had a 6-inch pipeline and he replaced it with an 8-inch pipeline. That 6-inch pipeline was found, when removed, to have a 10-foot long by 4-inch wide log of wood in it making it impossible to get the water through to Gasela. He is now replacing this section of pipeline between Gasela and Amabela with an 8-inch pipeline. I would like to know whether tests have been made to see that that line will not also suffer from the same difficulty as were experienced with the original line.

I wish to pay tribute to the Minister and the Administration for Item 762. I want to pay tribute and say that it is not only the Nationalists but the United Party and every other party that will benefit by this. I am referring to the flush sanitation that has been installed at the town of Elandsfontein. We struggled for years and had great difficulty with the old system. We also know what difficulties there were in regard to the connection with the Germiston Municipality and we are pleased that such progress has been made that the Railway Administration have seen their way clear, in conjunction with the Municipality of Germiston, to solve this problem. The people of Elandsfontein which is a town in my constituency are grateful to the Minister and to the Administration for what they have done.

Over the week-end we again read in the Press of another unfortunate incident at the Faure level crossing near Cape Town. I am discussing this matter under Crossings and Signs, Items 452 and 482, inclusive. A very unfortunate accident took place over the week-end, in which a young mother, travelling by car, was killed at that level crossing as a result of a collision with a train.

Mr. Chairman, I do believe that the hon. the Minister should take this Committee into his confidence and tell us a little more of what he intends to do with the sum of R2,860,000 which appears on the Estimates in respect of the balance of last year’s allotment and this year’s allotment. Admittedly, he has made provision for R3,622,572, in respect of which he gives details of a proposed expenditure of R762,572. I think that we should know a little bit more of what he intends to do with the balance, because the whole country is perturbed about this question. The hon. the Minister knows that, and he has taken the necessary steps to meet the situation by putting a law on the Statute Book and by making provision for yearly allotments of moneys to deal with this work. Nevertheless, we should like to know exactly what he intends to do. I know that last year it was apparently impossible to spend the money, because there was not sufficient time to deal with it. The Act only appeared on the Statute Book last year, the allotment was made in pursuance of it, but the various committees were dealing with lists and orders of priorities, and there was no time to take the matter further. But this year I think we are entitled to know exactly what is taking place.

There is another aspect to which I think the hon. the Minister might give some attention. I do know that the Act does not permit him to deal with the improvement of signs in so far as level crossings are concerned, because the moneys allocated are to deal only with the actual work of the elimination of level crossings. But I do think that the representations made by organizations such as the Automobile Association and other bodies which have studied this matter very carefully, not only here, but also overseas, should not only receive the attention of the hon. the Minister, but I think the Minister should give us some idea as to whether, pending the elimination of this vast number of level crossings, other immediate steps might not be taken to endeavour to alleviate the seriousness of the situation. I do not want to stress unnecessarily that seriousness, because it has been stressed for many years, and it is a problem that is very much to the fore in the mind of the public, not only in the town areas, but also in many of the remote platteland areas of the country. It is on behalf particularly of those far-flung platteland areas that I feel an appeal should be made. Now, in the actual estimates, provision is made for, I think, four new projects. The other moneys are in respect of projects already planned and commenced, in respect of which some expenditure did take place last year. But when one totals up the new projects together with those started, it amounts to just about R750,000, and the other vast sum of money of nearly R3,000,000 is money which, I hope, the Minister will be able to tell us will definitely be spent this year. I hope the hon. the Minister will be good enough to tell us also in respect of what projects that will be spent, so that the public and the country as a whole may feel assured that, whatever money may be available, it will be fully used. We did have a statement from the Minister at one time when the figure of R1,500,000 was questioned as the amount to be allotted annually, and the Minister stated he did not think he could spend more than that in any one year. I would like to suggest to him that he might perhaps enlighten this Committee as to the possibility of obtaining a little faster with this most important problem outside assistance to enable him to proceed that is facing the country. In this particular year that will enable him to spend the amount of money that is still available and might possibly enable him, when he sees how it can be spent, to seek means of providing more money, possibly, in the following year, either by an amendment of the Act or by some other means, so as to undertake a very much larger number of works than have been possible heretofor, and presently contemplated.

Mr. Chairman, I notice something under Head 2, “ Additional Railway Lines ”, which runs like a thread through these Estimates. I do not want to ask the Minister for anything at this stage. I just want to draw his attention to something. We have here a figure of about R100,000,000 which is the total estimated costs mainly in respect of the doubling and the electrification of new railway lines. Practically every item contains some or other expenditure in connection with the doubling of railway lines. It is naturally done with a view to greater speed and the prevention of delays, etc. This, coupled with the large-scale electrification programme and the introduction of diesel tractive power over long distances where water is scarce and where coal has to be conveved, is an encouraging sign to me that we will, within the next few years, have greater speed, greater economy, punctuality and increased capacity on our railway system. I want to ask the Minister this: Is this sum of R100,000,000, which represents the total estimated costs, the initial stage, the embryo, of a general policy of doubling lines wherever possible? Does it mean the doubling of sections between stations only, or is the policy to double longer sections as we go along and thus, and coupled with electrification and the introduction of diesel tractive power, to bring about a complete reorganization in so far as greater speed and increased carrying capacity in respect of the railways are concerned? I merely want to know whether this is the beginning of a general policy? We welcome the principle which glimmers through this whole Brown Book, under Head 2, in so far as additional railway lines are concerned. We are pleased and feel encouraged to note this principle.

I refer to Item 125, “ Sydenham: Three dead ends ”. Mr. Chairman, I must confess that that has rather an ominous sound. I know it is a new item, but it does not look as if it is going to last very long. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister, although it is a new item, to assure us that we will not have any more items of this sort, and that work will be continued in this area. I am sure that every hon. member of this House will agree with me that they would not like to see items of that nature in respect of their constituencies.

I can set the hon. member’s mind at rest. It does not mean that in regard to railway development at Port Elizabeth we have reached a dead end. The three dead ends there are merely provided for traffic purposes. The dead ends are really provided in a yard. It might be a neck or a line off a main line or for siding purposes. It might sound ominous, but the hon. member’s mind can be at rest.

*The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) asked me whether it was our general policy to double railway lines. No, the doubling of lines has been taking place all the years. Before a line is doubled certain other improvements can usually be effected, for example, it may be decided to electrify the line in order to increase its carrying capacity, or diesel tractive power may be introduced in order to increase its carrying capacity, and so that more traffic can be conveyed along that line. It may be decided to introduce centralized traffic control as in the case of Postmasburg, which also increases the carrying capacity of a line, because the doubling of a line is very expensive. For that reason the doubling of a line is the last resort, because, especially in cases where the lines run through difficult territory, the costs of doubling are very high. But when a line has reached its maximum carrying capacity and it may be uneconomical to introduce electricity or centralized traffic control, it is doubled. That has always been the policy of the Railways, and that will be the policy in future.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Miller) wanted to know what our plans were with regard to the elimination of crossings. The hon. member knows that the Act setting up the Permanent Advisory Committee was passed only last year. That committee has already compiled a list of crossings which will receive priority. Obviously as many crossings as possible will be eliminated by the building of road bridges or subways during the course of the year, but the building of a subway requires some planning and also negotiations with the local municipality, and that takes time. I can give the hon. member the assurance that it is a matter which I consider to be of very great importance and that everything possible will be done to expedite the elimination of the railway crossings with the funds available. We also make use of outside contractors to build these bridges. We do not build them ourselves. We call in the assistance of outside contractors to build the bridges and the subways, and we will build as many as possible during the course of the year.

Would the Minister be good enough to give the assurance that, as and when he is ready to commence work and is not embarrassed by negotiations with regard to expropriations, he will make statements from time to time and give assurances to the members of the public?

I do not think that giving assurances will reduce the number of accidents. We are mainly concerned with the accidents actually taking place, and not so much with assuring the public. We try to reduce the accidents. Usually, when a person runs into a train, he will not be there to read any statement afterwards, so it will be of no benefit to him. The hon. member also knows that the Railway Administration is responsible for crossing signs and flashlights. That expenditure does not come out of the Level-crossing Fund. If the hon. member looks at the Brown Book he will see that quite a large amount is being spent in that regard. That is, of course, the intermediary stage, until such time as the crossing becomes so dangerous that a bridge must be built.

The matter raised by the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) in regard to the test to be made about the pipe-line—I will have an inquiry made and give the reply to him in writing.

*The hon. member for Nelspruit (Mr. Faurie) quite rightly said that the work at Komatipoort had not as yet been commenced. The reason for that is that, after it was decided to start with the buildings, the improvements, it was found that a revised scheme would have to be drawn up, and that, of course, took time. The hon. member will also notice that we are asking for more money than originally asked for. However, I will ask the management to expedite the matter, and that a start be made during the ensuing year.

The same applies to Item 808. I will ask that special attention be given to this in order to expedite the matter.

In regard to the roadway to be allocated to the Durban Corporation to lead to the marshalling-yard …

To Congella.

No, I thought it was the road that the Municipality wanted to build through the Bayhead marshalling-yard. There were negotiations with the Municipality and as far as I can remember we were prepared to give them this road, but I am speaking under correction because I do not have the papers before me. The correspondence with the Municipality was conducted some years ago.

Then in regard to the lease to the yachting clubs, obviously the requirements of the harbour must receive priority and as long as those sites are not required for harbour expansion the yachting clubs will have the privilege of using those sites and the leases will not be terminated. It is extremely difficult to say whether they will be required for harbour purposes within two or three years, but they are assured of a reasonable security of tenure for some time to come, until such time as we require the sites.

The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) wanted to know whether it was possible, after improvements had been effected, to speed up the trains. There are many problems one has to solve before trains can be speeded up, especially suburban trains. There is a very dense traffic at peak hours. Unfortunately many of the trains have to stop at all stations, which takes up time. I can only give the hon. member the assurance that wherever possible the trains will be speeded up. Especially, the introduction of the new rolling stock will make the speeding-up much easier.

What happens as the result of deviations—and there are many here—where in most cases there is a shortening of the line between one station and another? How soon after the shortening of the line and its being open to traffic is the mileage measured again so that the cost in regard to tariff rates can be accurately calculated? There appears to be a time-lag and I wonder whether the Minister can tell us what the period is.

I have two points here. The first is on page 43, Item 507, the installation of centralized traffic control between the Natal border and Union. I want to ask the Minister whether he will allow this traffic control also to go south of the Natal border until the N.G.R. takes over. I realize that it is difficult for the S.A.R. to control the traffic on the N.G.R. side, but until that comes, would not the Minister perhaps allow his centralized traffic control to operate also south of the Natal border?

Then there is Item 354 on page 30. It is the re-sleepering and replacement of sand ballast by stone for three miles between Port Shepstone and Harding. I see there is quite a lot of money still being spent and I want to ask the Minister in regard to this re-ballasting by stone what procedure is adopted to obtain stone without a very long haul? In this case I do not know where the stone will come from. It is quite possible that it might come from just outside Durban. I would ask the Minister what the position is. Is he giving the local quarries a chance to provide stone so as to save a long haul?

I refer to Item 468. If I remember correctly, this item has been appearing in the Brown Book for a number of years and I notice that a large amount of money has still to be spent in order to eliminate the railway crossing at Biccard Street. Can the Minister tell me how long that will take because it is a very annoying crossing?

There is just one point. I notice that the Minister said that we could not get a new station in Durban until the mechanical workshops had been removed, and I see he has an item here for three workshops, so I take it that immediately they are completed we will be getting our new station. The point I want to raise is under Item 1119, the provision for electrical workshops at Umbilo. I would like to ask the Minister whether he could perhaps have electrical shunting as soon as that workshop is functioning properly, in the Congella yards As the Minister knows, we have a peculiar problem in Durban of temperature inversion, and the smoke emitted from these yards contributes to a large degree to this problem from which we suffer. I have been given to understand that it is because of the lack of repair facilities for electric units that electric units have not been used for shunting already, and if the Minister could give us the assurance that they will be used as soon as these workshops are completed I would be pleased.

The completion of the electric shed is not tied up with the provision of electric shunting units. Hon. members know that all the lines in the marshalling-yards will have to be electrified before electric units can be used, and all the lines are not electrified yet, but once they have been electrified, and, of course, the suburban lines in Durban also require electrification, which will eventually come, all the steam shunting engines will probably be replaced by electric units. Otherwise, what I intend doing in future is that where it is impracticable to use electric shunting units we will use diesel units, because we want to eliminate the smoke as much as possible.

*The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) asks why it takes so long to complete this bridge. I will get the information and let her know. I do not have the information at the moment.

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) wanted to know whether C.T.C. would be introduced also south of the Natal border. The intention is to introduce it from Newcastle to Volksrust and probably from Glencoe to Danskraal. The planning is at present taking place. The hon. member knows that C.T.C. is designed to raise the capacity of the line. No certainty has been reached yet with regard to the introduction of C.T.C. between the Natal border and Union. That matter is still being inquired into, although there is provision on the Estimates, but the planning is taking place with regard to its introduction south of the Natal border.

You have no objection to Natal having that link with the Union?

Well, if Natal has to break her link with the Union and stand on her own, I am afraid she will become nothing else but a Native and Indian location and they will not have any use for adequate rail facilities to the Union.

In regard to reballasting, the practice is to obtain the ballast stone from the nearest available quarry, and if there are no quarries we often establish our own quarries. I do not know where this ballast will come from, but I will make inquiries and advise the hon. member.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) asked how soon after lines had been shortened the mileage table is amended. That does not frequently take place. It is only when the works have been completed on the whole of the main line, say from Durban to Johannesburg, that new mileage tables are compiled. The line has been considerably shortened between Johannesburg and Durban and I think the mileage tables will be revised in the near future.

May we now move from one head to another as it does not seem as if we will have time to discuss the remainder of the important heads? I wonder whether I can jump the Minister to Head 5 and ask him some questions about the Table Bay Docks tanker berth in particular? It is on page 88, Item 1311. This new tanker berth is being constructed in Cape Town docks and we are very grateful for it. It will greatly facilitate the handling of inflammable fuel, but what is more important, it will increase the safety factor enormously. In 1950 I led a deputation from the Chamber of Commerce to the Minister and we then called for the immediate provision of a tanker berth of this sort to reduce the fire hazard. If I might quote what was then said—

That is true, and I think the Minister knows of the hazard that existed. I would like to ask whether in fact the tanker berth itself will cause ships to be isolated and not put heel to toe, or stem to stern, with other ships in the basin. It is isolation that matters more than anything else. With the constant stream of tankers that we have coming into our ports and the dangerous loads they carry, I think it is very important, not only that they should be separately berthed, but that they should be isolated from any possibility of accidental fire spreading to other shipping in the same harbour. There have been suggestions that they should be moved right out of the harbour altogether and that petrol and oil should be pumped ashore at Woodstock beach. May I say to the Minister that the tanker berth in Table Bay, coupled with Items 1312, the widening of Duncan Dock, which I understand will be completed in two years’ time, shows a ministerial generosity that is almost more than Cape Town can bear. Seriously speaking we are very grateful.

I want to refer to Items 1321 and 1324 in connection with the provision of a marine repair basin in Durban Harbour. I am one of those who for some years have believed that in considering a system of reorganization of the Railway Administration attention should be given to the necessity for giving greater recognition to our harbours by appointing a Deputy General Manager of Harbours, and I regret that the Minister has not taken the opportunity to do so this year. I believe that if that had been the case we would not have had the position which arose recently in connection with this marine repair basin, because there has been a history of lack of co-ordination in completing the work. The work consisted first of all of dredging the basin, then in building the jetty, and then in equipping the jetty. I must congratulate the Minister on the speed in dredging and building and equipping the jetty, but although we have almost reached completion of that work I think I am correct in saying that the necessary 40-ton floating crane and the ten-ton portal crane which was specified for the work have still not been ordered and will not be available to this area for another year or so. I also complained of the delay in the provision for reclaiming the area for the marine repair engineers, because I notice that this amount has only just been placed on the Estimates and the work may not be completed for many years. So although the jetty is there, the equipment is not there, and the area for marine engineers to erect their machine-shops is also not available. I record also that although there has been excellent despatch in the building of the outlet culvert for the waste water from the power station, the filling in of the drain at the back of the repair basin has not yet been completed. It also seems to me that the Administration is looking for a lot of trouble by dumping wood pulp, sawdust, iron filings and all sorts of other unstable materials for the reclaimed area. It will add considerably to the problems of any marine engineer who leases that area and has to erect buildings suitable for heavy machinery on such unstable foundation.

But the most important respect in which the Administration is failing the marine engineers lies in the fact that they still have not finalized the terms on which the areas adjoining the marine repair basin will be made available to engineering companies. This matter was brought up by me in the debate a year ago and yet in spite of that the Administration still has not decided on the terms of the lease. No marine engineering company can possibly make forward plans and decide to move its workshops there until it knows the terms on which land will be available. There is considerable anxiety in Durban that the terms of these leases will be unduly onerous and I might say that the companies concerned have in mind the treatment meted out to the Maydon Wharf leaseholders. Everybody knows that when the Administration was anxious to fill that area, most attractive terms were offered to prospective lessees, and once the area was completely leased, the Administration proceeded to eliminate all the attractive features one after the other. Anybody who had any part in those negotiations knows how the Railway Administration acted, and when lessees were not prepared to accept alterations to their leases, the Minister threatened to put through legislation and have the leases altered. So in respect of the terms of the lease, the rentals and the revision periods, there is considerable anxiety that the Minister may ask for excessively onerous terms which may in turn render the prospect of moving from established quarters elsewhere to these sites, an extremely unattractive proposition. So much of the future of the marine engineering industry in Durban depends on whether the Minister and his advisers are far-sighted enough to see that the whole of the future of that industry depends on his ability to give security and reasonable terms to marine engineers. Unless he is prepared to do so and to cast aside the traditional policy of trying to make as much money as possible out of the leaseholders, the industry will be hamstrung from the day it starts. So I urge the Minister to expedite the finalizing of the terms of the leases and I ask him also for an assurance that the terms will not be unduly onerous and that they will be made on such a basis as to make the marine engineering industry in Durban a highly competitive proposition which will bring inestimable benefits to South Africa.

I want to ask questions in regard to a number of items dealing with the extension of berthing facilities in the ports. In each of the ports we have a large number of dead and derelict vessels occupying berthing space which could well be used for the very purpose for which we are being asked to vote money. These vessels are dead and derelict. They occupy berths and pay a particular low rate for these berths. When I say they pay it usually means that they pay only after long court proceedings. We have had several such instances lately. I wonder whether we could not assist in meeting demands for extra berthage by making a survey of our harbours and rejecting, like any other landlord would do, any unsatisfactory tenants which occupy valuable space while the taxpayer has to spend more money to provide additional space. I think it is of value to the country when live ships carrying cargo come into berth; they are a far greater asset than these derelict vessels. We are looking for means of saving money and it seems to me that here is one avenue which might well be explored.

I wish to raise with the Minister certain items under Head 3, rolling stock, but before I do so I wish to say this. The Minister is aware that from year to year the Select Committee deals with comments by the Auditor-General in regard to the guarantee moneys which lie over in respect of contracts the Railways have entered into with suppliers. A great number of these items have in the past dealt with rolling stock. It has been revealed that in almost every instance the specifications for the type of rolling stock or locomotive where guaranteed money has been withheld has actually been designed by the Administration’s own engineers. The specifications are laid down for fulfilment by the overseas contractors. This year there are two items on the Estimates, in page 84, Item 1232, where in respect of electric locomotives we are called upon to vote the amount of R50,000 for the strengthening of bogie frames. If my memory serves me correctly, these locomotives revealed these defects in the past.

Not the 3E. They have been in service many years. The 4E gave trouble.

The frames had to be strengthened due to some defect in the specifications.

It was not the fault of the specifications, but the locomotives developed that fault after they were taken into service.

Now we have a similar item where we are called upon to vote R118,000 to alter these bogies, and this 3E class has been in operation for quite a long time. Why is it necessary to alter the frames now?

The older they get, the more replacement they require, just like a human being.

That is a fine argument, but these things are made of steel. It talks here about the strengthening of the frame and not alteration. I should be glad of some information, because it is not the only item of that nature. There is also Item 1281, on page 86, where the amount we are called upon to vote is a very much larger sum, the sum of R610,000.

On the conclusion of the period of seven hours allotted for the proceedings in Committe of Supply, the business under consideration was interrupted by the Chairman in accordance with Standing Order No. 105.

Head No. 2.—“ New Works on Open Lines ”, as printed, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Estimates of Expenditure from Revenue Funds reported, without amendment, and the Estimates of Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works reported, without amendment.

Report considered and agreed to, and Estimates of Expenditure adopted.

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT brought up a Bill to give effect to the Estimates of Expenditure adopted by the House.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

I second.

During his reply to the Budget debate, the Minister had the temerity to say this: “ South Africa’s exclusion from the Commonwealth will make no difference to my estimates.” I wonder what makes him so sure of that? He will have seen the immediate effect of the withdrawal of the Prime Minister’s request to be accepted in the Commonwealth as a Republic, on the stock market, for example. Within an hour losses between 15 per cent and 20 per cent took place. This may be a temporary trend, but the Minister should remember that within half an hour some R50,000,000 had to be written off the value of market leaders alone. As I have said, that may be a temporary trend. The market will, no doubt, recover in time. We all sincerely hope, for the good of this country and our economy, that it is so. But, Sir, here is a barometer of business and investment which no Minister of Railways dare disregard entirely. It shows the sharpest set-back we have had since Sharpeville. It is true that, in his reply, the Minister went out of his way to praise the strength of our economy. We should not panic, for our economy is, indeed, strong. It must be strong if it could survive the onslaught of the mismanagement of this Government over a period of 13 years. Although we may be resilient enough to recover, it is certain that it would be a great mistake on our part and on the Minister’s part to expect the recovery of confidence to be quick; especially to expect quick recovery of overseas confidence in investments and in our country.

It seems to me that you do not know what is going on.

We must ask ourselves, and so must the Minister, what will be the possible effect of our exclusion from the Commonwealth, brought about by 13 years of Nationalist mis-rule, on our national finance and on railway revenue. Did the Minister take into any account at all this new development? Did he consider its possible effect, indeed its probable effect, on railway finances? Why is he now so confident that “ loss of membership of the Commonwealth will certainly not have a detrimental effect on our economy ”? This is a very surprising and sweeping statement. I am surprised at his moderation, astonished that he did not suggest it would actually improve railway revenue. Sir, everything will be dependent in future on the capital position. During last year our reserves dropped by some R132,000,000, compared with a rise of R80,000,000 in 1959. There was a net capital outflow of some R162,000,000 which we can compare with R78,000,000 in 1959. The Minister must be aware of the fact that there will most definitely be a further flight of capital as a result of the Prime Minister’s dismal failure in his mission overseas to the Prime Ministers’ Conference.

Order! We are dealing with the Railway Budget now.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

If this is so, are our reserves strong enough to stand the strain? Will not drastic counter-measures have to be taken?

Why don’t you leave the country?

Like our capital? Last year’s buoyant railway revenue coincided with a time when imports increased by some R133,000,000 over the previous year. If shortage of capital and fear of a drain on our resources causes the Minister of Finance to change his mind and to do what he said he would not do, that is, “ drastically intensify import control ”, what will happen to the high-rated traffic of the Railways which means so much to their revenue? The Minister may well have to revise his ideas and his estimates, or does he know that he has so grossly under-estimated his revenue that he will be safe even from a calamity such as I have outlined? Is this the reason for his confidence? The Minister in his reply to the Budget debate said with reference to the Prime Ministers’ Conference in London—

That is a matter of opinion. It is the opinion of somebody trying to see over the horizon. I do not think we would ever, indeed I am positive that we would never, have been thrown out. I am quite sure that if we had stayed as we were or even if the Prime Minister had hung on at this Conference, we could have remained, in permanency, a member of the Commonwealth Association of Nations, a comity which helps our trade and fosters our profits so greatly.

You are living in a fool’s paradise.

The dire and dreadful results of the policies of this Government would not have been visited upon our heads if only the Prime Minister had surrendered his ill-timed republican projects.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

I am dealing with the remarks made by the Minister. Sir, I must remind you that the Minister went on to say—

May I reply in passing to that remark of the Minister’s? He must not identify South Africa with the Nationalist Party. It is his tendency always to identify the good of the Railways with the good of South Africa, and there one excuses his railway enthusiasm. But he must not identify the good of South Africa with the good of the Nationalist Party. South Africa was not in the “ dock ” at this Conference. It was Nationalist “ baasskap-apartheid ”, of a brand intensified by the Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd, that was up for trial. Thanks to him alone we became the world’s polecat and the Commonwealth’s reject.

What does Menzies say to that?

Menzies says the same.

Before I get on to other subjects, I will say something more at this sad but most important juncture in our history. My indignation may have temporarily got me off the railway rails, but may I say that the Minister should be conscious of the fact that economic retrogression, as a result of this unnecessary and unfortunate happening, may set in with dire effects on the Railway revenue. Considered from that aspect alone, he should think seriously, and think anew, over the problems created. The Minister should know that if our trade is affected, his revenue is affected. I ask him whether, as a basis for his assertion that “expulsion from the Commonwealth will have no effect on Railway revenues or on my Estimates ”, he has received any official assurance to that? Does he know of any official assurances coming from Britain, either by way of Mr. Macmillan or Mr. Dun can Sandys, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relation, or Mr. Maudling, the President of the Board of Trade? Has our Government received official guarantees that trade relations will continue normally in the future or that bilateral trade agreements will be renewed on a permanent basis? All we know is that they will not be terminated automatically. Even in the case of Canada they will require at least six months’ notice if indeed there is any intention to terminate …

That is what you are praying for.

Nonsense! I wonder whether either the Prime Minister or the Minister of External Affairs has been given any definite assurance that our withdrawal from the Commonwealth will make no difference to our trade relations not only with the Commonwealth but with Great Britain.

Who was expelled from the Commonwealth?

All we know is that Mr. Macmillan said—and he said it most sincerely: “ there will be many sad people in South Africa, our friends, our relations who have lived there for several years, apart from those who have recently gone out.” Referring to trade he adds this—and I wonder if the Minister had it in mind because it is the only assurance of which we know.… In the House of Commons on 16 March he said—

Sir, it needs a strenuous stretching of those words, “ intends to co-operate fully in matters of common interest ”, in order to make the assured statement that the Minister does. I hope he does not make it just on the basis of a guess; I hope he will be able to tell us in reply to this debate that he has some definite assurance that he can pass on to us. Perhaps some guarantee was given outside the Conference room. The Prime Minister or the Minister of External Affairs may have received some subsequent assurance? We are all most anxious to know. We hope that he Minister himself is sufficiently “ in the know ” to be able to tell us. If so, contrary to the suggestions made opposite, it would be good news indeed for South Africa —news in which we would all rejoice. We are also certain that all our fruit farmers and wool farmers and industrialists and commercial men who use the railway system; all our exporters and importers; our Railway Administration and our railwaymen, too, will rejoice if this is so …

Have you read this morning’s Cape Times?

Sir, with us South Africa comes first; above party affiliations. Certainly it is more important to us than the dignity or the “ kragdadigheid ” of the Nationalist Party or the Prime Minister who comes back in artificially created public triumph after a tragic, deplorable diplomatic failure, brought about by a rejection of his policies by the Commonwealth.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Sir, if the Minister were wise, he would consider the effect of our changed economic condition on Railway revenues. He himself has said—

He proceeded to give an example in his Budget speech of 1958 and said—

We know that he ended up with a deficit of R16,000,000. I call your attention, Sir, to these key words, “ when I presented my Budget there was no indication that we would enter upon a slight economic recession ”.

A “ slight economic recession ” had a disastrous effect on our Railway revenues because it cut down our high-rated traffic drastically. Is he sure that the present position holds no threat of a similar occurrence? I sincerely hope that, for the good of the Railways and for the good of our economy, we will not have even a slight recession. For it may have disastrous financial results for us. This year the Minister said in his Budget speech—

Did the Minister ask them what their estimates of our future economic state would be, what the future prospects of the year would be on the basis of our being excluded from the Commonwealth? Perhaps the answer would have been a less optimistic estimate than the Minister received from them under the conditions in which he asked them.

Sir, I broached this subject to-day merely to sound a note of warning; to ask the Minister to reconsider the new facts which have come suddenly to light so tragically since he introduced his Budget. I had hoped that he would be prepared to take these new circumstances into account; that he would be able to give me some assurance that my apprehensions are far too seriously expressed. Sir, in the course of the Budget debate we dealt, adequately, I think, with finance. I have now dealt with the new problems caused by the present circumstance of our tragic withdrawal from Commonwealth membership. We also made representations for the welfare of the staff and particularly in relation to the method and manner of the consolidation of their cost-of-living allowances with basic wage. Sir, I described consolidation as one of the “ crumbs ” that fell from the rich managerial tables. Some unduly sensitive members took exception to that expression. It was suggested that, when the Railways were giving away between R11,000,000 and R12,000,000 to the railwaymen, I was using insulting terms in mentioning the word “ crumbs ”. I would remind the Minister that, in the new and most up-to-date translation of the Scriptures, in the new translation of the Bible, the word has now been translated from the Hebrew as “ scraps ” and not “ crumbs ”. Perhaps “ scraps ” implies something larger, and fits my meaning better, because I certainly did not mean that consolidation was a worthless gesture. It is something for which we have asked for years, something that the railwaymen welcome and something that will really advance their eventual welfare. But, Sir, we have very serious objections to the manner both in which the negotiations were carried out and the method by which the Minister proposes to introduce consolidation. There are many aspects of its implementation which will run contrary to normal trade union principles. The manner in which overtime and Sunday time will be paid is repugnant to trade unionists generally throughout the world as well as in South Africa. The usual and accented and time-honoured system of paying the rate for the hour plus an enhancement—one-and-a-half times the hourly rate for ordinary overtime and double time on Sundays—should have been adhered to. We feel it is necessary to move an amendment to reiterate our interest in this matter and to restate our views. We do not feel that the Minister is correct or fair when he says we are prejudicing present negotiations. As he knows, owing to no fault of their own the Artisans Staff Association were not present at that final interview which the Minister had with many other staff associations when, according to his Budget speech, he came to a “firm arrangement and understanding ” with certain groups of the staff. He knows that the artisan staff saw him on separate but previous occasions and asked for other benefits which I think, now that he has shown this big surplus, he might well have given them. They were in a state of dispute with him when he had this final conference with the other staff associations and could not be present at those negotiations. I believe that before he made this firm agreement, as he says he did in his Budget speech, he should have left the door open to negotiate with the Artisans Staff Association. He should have left the door open before coming to final arrangements. He should have left himself free to negotiate with them on the manner of the consolidation. I know he is meeting them next Thursday and I am certain he will be the first to admit that nothing that has been said in this House can be calculated to upset the negotiations, however delicate they may be. Sir, I think I, without any axe to grind, should remind the Minister of the principles of trade unionism. He was once a firm trade union member himself. I think we should see that the long-established principle of enhanced payment for overtime worked by railway workers, as well as by other workers, should be adhered to. The Minister unfortunately has not answered the series of questions put to him by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton). He has not told us what arrangements he has for adjustments regarding sick pay and leave pay and things of that kind, with his consolidation plans. He has failed to answer those questions. Maybe it is because of impending negotiations? But I think we would be more satisfied if we got something other than nonchalant indifference from the Minister. At least he could tell us that these aspects were in his mind and would be adequately considered by him and discussed with the trade unions.

Lastly—because there are many other members who wish to take part in this debate I will now close—we feel that the Minister is guilty of very sad neglect in not giving some relief to pensioners. We feel he could well have afforded to do so. He has had two successive surpluses, but that is not the point. The real point is that the Superannuation Fund now stands at some R138,000,000. It is growing by about R20,000,000 a year, and the annual interest alone is enough to pay each year’s benefits. This fund has been built up largely by the railwaymen’s own contributions. I know that consolidation will help future pensioners, but it is the old ones we are thinking of; those who are in the age of the sere and yellow leaf; those who have done their best work and now deserve a more fitting award. Especially are they entitled to it as their funds could well afford it. Last time, when partial consolidation was carried out, it was made retrospective for seven years, and in terms of those days a man retiring just a few days after the financial year ended could, by making back payments, derive the benefit. I ask the Minister whether he intends giving similar concessions on this occasion to the railwaymen. I do not propose to say anything more. These matters have been well enough canvassed and well argued, and, in any case, I know that my seconder will examine them in greater detail. I move—

1. (a) concluded an agreement with certain groups of the staff thus prejudicing the interests of the staff as a whole;
2. (b) departed from the long-established principle of enhanced payment for overtime worked by railway workers; and
3. (c) failed to provide relief for pensioners”.

I rise to second the amendment of the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell). Sir, it has become almost a national characteristic in our country, when we come up against anything that is a little bit difficult to explain, to claim it as being in accordance with the traditional South African way of life, and I would think that in dealing with this Appropriation Bill which is now before us, it is a term which might well be applied. It has certainly become traditional Railway practice in its specialized form of switch-back budgeting, which we have seen over the past number of years, budgeting where we provide for a small deficit and at the end of the year, with almost a look of pained surprise, produce a spectacular amount which is erroneously described as a working surplus. Sir, the hon. the Minister entered the year 1959-60 with a surplus of about R16,000,000. He showed some lack of confidence in the ability of the country to maintain that pace of development and he budgeted for a deficit of £3,500,000. Despite a very difficult year—widespread droughts as well as other limitations—he came out of that with a glorious surplus of something like R19,000,000, a total increase, if you take into account the estimated deficit, of something like R23,250,000 over the estimates. Sir, on the evidence of the past year, it can be considered with justification that the budget we are dealing with here, the type of appropriation that we are dealing with to-day, is to a large extent a calculated system of planned surpluses, by which the transport system of this country can be utilized as a taxing machine in order to produce the money required for capital expenditure which the Government finds it difficult to raise by other means. It is becoming quite apparent that that is the method to which the Minister resorts. When the Estimates are framed it might well appear that we are just going to struggle through, but at the end of the year we come out with another astronomical surplus. Apart from its bad effects on the country as a whole and apart from its very bad effects on the Railway administration, two particular groups of people have to pay for that type of budgeting—the rail users who pay more than is necessary for fares and railway rates and other services and the Railway staff and workers who have to submit to a pattern under which they are compelled to forfeit what they might consider as justifiable increases in their emoluments and pensions, until the Minister can no longer resist the pressure that builds up amongst them and then hands out some sort of increase to keep them quiet for another lengthy period. I must say in passing, Sir, it reflects the greatest credit on the staff and the personnel of the Railways that they have so loyally accepted these conditions over the past ten years. Sir, this Appropriation we have got now before us maintains the same penalizing feature to which we have so consistently objected and continue to object to-day, as has been made clear by the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) in the movement of his amendment. The hon. the Minister has at last accepted the soundness of our United Party policy and advice and in this Appropriation provided for the consolidation into basic and pensionable emoluments, the total cost-of-living allowances which have hitherto been paid. He has also provided to meet in consolidated basic salaries and wages the cost of any increased pension contributions consequent upon this consolidation, so that, as the hon. the Minister has put it in his Budget speech, nobody will be worse off than he was prior to consolidation. To cover the cost of this consolidation, this Appropriation provides plus/minus R11,000,000, but once again, running right through it, although taking the forward step that consolidation undoubtedly is, the hon. the Minister could not resist the opportunity to impose as a condition applicable to that consolidation, which introduces a new and in our opinion very dangerous feature into the structure of railway salaries and wages. Using the hon. Minister’s own words in his Budget speech, he announced this fundamental break-away from the Union’s basic salary and wages structure by stating “ that the agreement reached between the Administration and the staff in the acceptance of this scheme is, to a large extent, due to the willingness of certain groups of staff to accept restrictions on miscellaneous extra earnings, such as overtime payment at the new consolidated scales merely in respect of actual time worked and payment for Sunday time at the present scales”.

Sir, it is a world-wide principle, accepted by employers and employees alike, outside of the communistic countries, that any man called upon to work beyond his statutory working hours is paid an extra bonus over and above his basic hourly or daily rate of pay. That has been built up and accepted as a principle over the ages. The amount naturally varies from industry to industry, or from case to case, according to the circumstances appertaining to a particular job. The rate at which a man is paid, whether he is a seven-day week man or a 42 or 44-hour week man, all these things have a bearing on it.

Then the other principle which has been universally accepted right throughout the working world is that whereas the normal overtime bonus ranges from time and a third to time and a quarter or time and a half, again dependent on the duration of the overtime, etc., Sunday time as a general rule has been based on double pay for the time worked, double the rate of the basic pay for each hour of work. That basic principle is enshrined in practically all South African legislation dealing with wage determinations and hours of work in the various industries. And amongst other things, the object of making overtime more expensive, based again on world-wide experience over the years, is to impose a limitation on the working of overtime by making it more expensive and in that way assisting in enforcing the statutory working hours which are laid down for the various industries and trades, and thereby making a fairer spreading of the amount of work available over a greater number of working people possible. Instead of concentrating the volume of work amongst a smaller number of people and paying them extra overtime for getting the work done, you give employment to a greater number of people, and that is the basic reason why the extra pay for overtime was adopted in the first place. Now the hon. the Minister has been unable up to now to give any satisfactory assurances in regard to the numerous questions we put on this side and also made it clear that only certain sections of the staff have up to now accepted his proposals. I would remind the hon. the Minister that the South African Railways, on his own figures, on his own showing, to-day employ approximately 214,000 persons, of whom, again according to his figures, approximately one-half are Whites. With the mining industry, the Railways are the largest employers of labour in this country, and there cannot be the slightest doubt that any pattern of this type of remuneration set by the South African Railways, any such pattern set for the payment of overtime work adopted for the Railway staff, will set a general pattern for the country as a whole, and will cut right across long-accepted principles, long-tested principles, both as regards pay and eventually through pay the working hours of the people concerned. It is inevitable. You cannot stop it once you start a thing like that. It is no good the hon. the Minister, as he did in his reply to the Budget debate a little while ago, blustering that by raising this issue we are doing a great disservice to the staff. I wonder what the hon. the Minister really means by this contention that we are doing a great disservice to the staff. Sir, that by implication is a veiled threat. Does he imply that if the staff require the accepted principles of overtime payment to be adhered to, they will not get consolidation? Because that is the direct implication of what the hon. the Minister told us, and that seems to be the only implication we can attach to it. If salaries and wages are consolidated, as they are to be, the new rate becomes the new basic pay, and it should not be tied up with any dangerous condition which undermines the long-accepted principles of the salary and wages structure, or standard working hours. To us it appears a much greater disservice to the staff, and not only to the railway staff, but to the working people right throughout this country, if we as an Opposition were to sit quiet and allow a matter of such high principle to go through without any discussion. Then we would be doing a much greater disservice to the people concerned than we are likely to do by raising the issue and by recording our strongest objection to the use of a Railway Appropriation for such a dangerous undermining of the security of the workers. That is the motive underlying the amendment, or part of the amendment, which has been moved by the hon. member for Wynberg, and which I had every satisfaction in seconding. The objection will be amplified by later speakers, but I have endeavoured to cover the general grounds as far as it is possible to do so.

I want to refer to another important feature in this Appropriation and that is that growing use of the Railways by non-White passengers and their valuable contribution to the Railway revenue. The hon. the Minister in his introductory speech, very rightly, linked this increase of something like 17,500,000 third-class passenger journeys for the year, about 12 per cent of the total, to the various settlement schemes for Africans in the various parts of South Africa. That is undoubtedly the position. But to put it more clearly, and I think this needs clarification, it simply amounts to the fact that under this particular type of legislation, under its policies with regard to group areas and Colour legislation and the Natives Resettlement Schemes, the Government is compelling huge numbers of these people to live further out of the towns, forcing them therefore to travel longer distances to and from their work, and that consequently means that their fares must naturally be a larger factor in the build-up of passenger revenue for the Railways. But, Sir, I think one of the things the hon. the Minister forgot to explain when he dealt with that matter, was to say that due to the many millions of capital required to build these Native railways to the resettlement areas and the long journeys which are entailed to and from their work, the Native passengers to-day find it impossible to pay an economic fare to cover those rail journeys. That loss to the Railways, which is reflected in its revenue, is now made up by a subsidy paid in accordance with legislation passed and paid by the taxpayers through general revenue. In other words the general taxpayer of the country to-day subsidizes rail transport of the non-Whites from and to the resettlement schemes and therefore contributes pretty substantially to the revenue. I think that should be made clear to the public. It has not yet been possible really to assess the amount of that subsidy, but as far as it has been done in respect of the two years, this year and the previous year, that it has been in operation, a sum of something like R4,000,000 per year has been contributed by way of that subsidy towards this non-White passenger service. So it is not only the use of the rail service by the non-Whites that they are contributing to revenue, but the more they make use of that particular type of service the greater the loss and the greater the revenue will be through the ordinary taxpayer’s subsidy in respect of uneconomic railway services. That is a feature that has to be considered when dealing with the Appropriation before us, that in order to carry out Government policy, we are assisting the Railways by subsidizing that type of traffic. In regard to that particular matter, I want to refer to something rather strange that happened during the last few days, because it does seem to me that the Cabinet is speaking with two voices with regard to this type of rail transport. I want to refer to a statement by the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. We had the hon. Minister’s Budget statement and he gave us facts and figures, backed up, I think, by a realization of what lies ahead of us. But I want to quote a statement made by the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development in the course of last week when he spoke at Bellville on 13 March, as reported by the Cape Times of 14 March. He was addressing the Afrikaanse Sakekamer and said that if a calamitous clash between Coloured people and Africans were to be averted, the Africans must gradually and systematically be withdrawn from the Western Cape. He went on to quote figures showing the number of African workers registered in 1958, 1959 and 1960, showing that in 1958 there were 48,000-odd and in 1960 there was a decrease in plus-minus 2,000. He ended on the note that the flood has been stemmed and “ may the ebb begin ”. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Transport in view of that speech by his colleague, who after all, speaks with the authority of the Cabinet on behalf of his own Minister, who is right and who is speaking for the Government? You see, Sir, in the Appropriation which we have before us and the one we had before us last year, and undoubtedly will have before us in subsequent years, we provide very large sums running into millions of rand, for the provision of these resettlement Railways, and many more millions are provided on other Votes, which I cannot deal with now, for the resettlement areas as such. But if the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is correct in what he says, that the only answer is for an eventual clean-out altogether of the Natives, and that they must be withdrawn from this area, then it seems to me that we are appropriating millions of rand to-day for what eventually will become dead railways serving ghost cities. Because if they are all going to be withdrawn, what is going to happen to the assets that we are creating to-day? Who is right? Who is speaking for the Government? It is merely another example of the completely inadequate discussion which takes place between the various sections of the Cabinet and of the speaking of the Cabinet with so many voices. It is almost as bad as the Muizenberg railway clock which shows a different time on each face—it is not going, but still if you look at the clock you see a different time on each face. Here we also get it from the various members of the Cabinet. I have no doubt in my own mind that the hon. the Minister of Transport himself is correct in what he is placing before the House. He, as an old United Party member, has accepted United Party policy to the effect that the urban Native is essential to the nation and that as they are going to stay he is providing the facilities to transport the Natives back and forward to their work. But it does seem strange that the country as a whole must get these conflicting statements and that when we are being asked to pass budgets containing many millions of pounds for these railway lines we are faced with these conflicting statements. Can the hon. the Minister in his reply tell us as to who in this case is correct, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development at Bellville, or what we see on paper before us here in this Appropriation.

The Appropriation before us includes approximately R13,000,000 for work in connection with harbours and shipping, an increase of just over R750,000, particularly in connection with harbours. In the introduction of his Budget, the hon. the Minister referred to certain new works, including the provision to provide sites at Durban for the construction of small vessels. The Minister used the words “ small vessels ”. I want to ask the hon. the Minister: Who are the technical advisers who guide the Minister’s decisions in regard to the development of these sites, and this harbour development work? I want to urge with all the sincerity at my command that any such facilities to be provided must from the very outset provide for rapid expansion, to be not only for small vessels, but to permit the construction of large sea-going vessels, which will very soon be well within the capacity of the shipbuilding industry of this country to build. Any small development plan which is envisaged today, is going to be another serious blunder in the development of our ports, and one which is going to produce a very real headache in the future, quite apart from stultifying the development of shipbuilding, which is making tremendous progress. You see, Sir, the shipbuilding industry in this country to-day is very much more advanced than the Minister appears to be aware of, and certainly, from recent evidence, very much in advance of what his technical advisers appear to be aware of. Given encouragement and the necessary facilities with regard to developing berths and slipways, this industry can very speedily take its place among the major industries in the Union. Therefore, I would urge the hon. the Minister that this matter be given, not only most serious consideration with regard to sites, but also most urgent consideration with regard to the very early provision for the necessary facilities. I would also ask that, when he comes to the allocation of such sites, the sites be not only confined to Durban, but that other ports be taken into consideration also. Cape Town, for instance, has also a very alive and progressive and satisfactory shipbuilding industry. But there is another port along the coast, East London, one of the little backwaters, but which, by its natural layout, is a sheltered port with a deep berthage close up to the shore and with a bank immediately adjoining that deep water. It is a natural shipbuilding harbour, where, given the necessary encouragement and facilities, a very fine shipbuilding industry could be built up. I believe the time has arrived when the whole of this question should be examined in its broad perspective, both with a view to speeding up the provision by the State, of the necessary facilities and the security which the firms require, and the provision of these facilities themselves. The hon. the Minister is a Minister with a reputation, I think rightly earned, of being able to think big as far as the railways are concerned, and as the railway development is coming to a climax, I would ask him to think big now in regard to harbour development. You, see, Sir, South Africa has not yet experienced anything like the real crux of the shipping giants, especially the tankers, which is the trend in modern shipbuilding. Any harbour development which fails to take full cognizance of that factor in regard to the shipping berths we are providing and the other facilities which are to be provided, is again going to be a blunder as far as the development of our ports are concerned. Our ports have had a good reputation, and the hon. the Minister now has the opportunity to continue that reputation, and to now provide these facilities, not only in the berthage, but also in the equipment, and the wherewithal necessary for the quick discharge and turnabout of ships and the handling of the cargo once it is ashore. They must be able to make the fullest use of modern equipment and modern appliances, so as to maintain the good name of the harbour, and to encourage the development in South Africa of a shipbuilding industry which, in its ramifications, must inevitably be a most valuable secondary industry to our basic industries up in the north on the Rand, where basic materials are manufactured, which lend themselves so well to this particular type of industry. It would form a most valuable market for them.

I want to touch on the portion of the amendment dealing with pensions. Sir, the staff pensions appropriation before us provides for anticipated increased expenditure on pensions consequent upon consolidation. That I think is an important factor, because it is going to be quite a substantial factor when it comes to the individuals concerned. But I want to ask the hon. the Minister what action he proposes to take to make the increased pension benefits after consolidation applicable to those age groups who are now nearing their pensionable age? I know it is customary in these matters to fix a date, a certain period from which they can pay back, five, seven, ten years, whatever date is fixed, from which they can pay back their arrears on the new scale and thereby benefit from the increase in pensions. But whatever date is fixed, you, unfortunately, come up against a deadline, whereby people just over that deadline can no longer enjoy those benefits. As the hon. the Minister will well know, we have had last year and the year before, considerable discussions over this very issue when it came to discuss increased bonuses which were granted to pensioners. I would ask the hon. the Minister to give consideration now, in whatever final arrangement is reached, to these age groups. Would he endeavour to work into this system some form of relief, either by way of a cost-of-living bonus or some bonus increase, so that the people who are just over that particular age, and just passed that particular time ban, but who have served the Railways faithfully and well, during a long period in which they were actually receiving the same emoluments, cost of living, etc., which will now become pensionable, but would lose the benefit of those payments for pension purposes. Will he try and ensure that they will also receive some benefit, some relief? Possibly it may not be the same as the pension, but would he consider some commensurate relief for those people to enjoy in their old age? I would ask the hon. the Minister to give that position his most sympathetic consideration and afford whatever relief is possible to that particular group of persons who certainly deserve well of the Administration and of all of us.

I want also to touch on one other particular matter. We are dealing with an Appropriation to-day under circumstances which, I suppose, have never been paralleled in the history of our country. The financial stability of the Railways and the transport services in general is of the highest importance to every person in South Africa. It can be classified as a national barometer on which the financial stability of the country as a whole and the individual well being of all South Africans can be assessed. Now I think it is correct that never in the history of South Africa has either the Minister responsible for the production of the Budget on which this Appropriation is built, or Parliament which is asked to agree to the Appropriation, been called upon to agree or approve of an Appropriation of plus/ minus R500,000,000, under circumstances such as exist to-day, and which, in fact, if you examine them carefully, would completely justify the withdrawal and the recasting of the entire Railway budgetary proposals. The only sound basis on which such budgetary appropriation can be built and judged must be a realistic appreciation of the probable development, the probable trade prospects and financial trends that lie ahead for the year to be provided for. Yet since the very day on which this Budget was first introduced and placed before Parliament, the entire foundation upon which it has been constructed, has been completely destroyed. The Minister himself is in the position to-day that in effect he has produced what he at the time, on the evidence available, felt was a sound Budget, and now has had his feet kicked from under him by his own Prime Minister. That is really the Budget’s position. The adverse effects on our trade and finances, as the result of the loss of Commonwealth membership, have yet to be assessed, and have yet to be faced in the year covered by the budgetary appropriations with which we are dealing. The man who caused that complete change in our financial position according to the Press is to be granted a hero’s welcome. I wonder what sort of welcome he would have had if we had stayed in. It makes one wonder. The figures in the Appropriation given to-day are ample evidence of the natural hazards which have to be faced in a country such as ours; natural hazards like droughts, fires, storms, floods, all the things which nature brings upon us. But this year, in dealing with the Budget in addition to those natural hazards, we have to face a new, unknown and completely unnecessary hazard, namely, the disaster brought about by the intransigent attitude of one man, who, by his refusal to accept well meant and sound warnings, has exposed the country to the position where those who wish to do so could attack us, has put them in the position which in no other way they could have achieved without his approval and without his active support, by raising the issue that he did. Sir, the adverse effects on our trade and finances, as a result of our loss of Commonwealth membership, have yet to be faced in the year before us, and I want to say that it does make it very difficult indeed for one to attempt what should be a rational survey, knowing full well that as a country we are going out into a void, we are going out in what one could almost call a vacuum, into a situation never contemplated by the hon. the Minister when he framed his Budget, a situation which quite likely can end in a calamity for this country, and which can throw the whole of this appropriation completely to the winds.

It is on that note that I want to conclude that, in facing the position to-day as a responsible Opposition, we are being compelled to face a position of which no man in this House is able to judge the outcome, not even the man who is flying back to Cape Town to-day. We will have to wait until the end of this year to realize how right or how wrong this particular Budget has been, and that is a shocking thing, a shocking state for a country to have to face up to when dealing with an Appropriation of plus/minus R500,000,000 for running your transport services. Sir, it is a thing right out of the realm of normal finance. It is almost what one could well call the Jules Verne’s type of fiction. But it is the position we are forced into by our own Prime Minister, and on that note I will conclude.

The last speaker as well as the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell), have contended that the Railway Budget has not taken into account the fact that in the year ahead South Africa will be a republic outside the Commonwealth as against a republic within the Commonwealth. The hon. member for Wynberg who is the supreme prophet of doom in the United Party, has described the fact that we shall be outside the Commonwealth as a “ cataclysm ” and has added that the Budget is now of absolutely no value at all. Mr. Speaker, I want to say at once that the fact that South Africa will be outside the Commonwealth is not a “ cataclysm ”, that this is by no means a day of doom. On the contrary I believe that this is the beginning of a new period of glory in the history of South Africa. Seeing that South Africa is now outside the Commonwealth, we shall be able to enter into trade agreements with all the states of the world, but particularly with the great friendly powers of Europe, such as France, Italy, Portugal, Spain and Germany. These countries are anxious to establish trade relations with South Africa. But in the past they have always regarded South Africa as an area where Great Britain and the Commonwealth had preference, which was in fact the position. These states will now feel more free to do business with us as a country outside the Commonwealth. I just want to indicate to the House what the continental reaction has been. Mr. Speaker, you will remember that last week under the influence of panic-stricken minds like that of the hon. member for Wynberg, who regards our non-membership of the Commonwealth as a “ cataclysm ”, as a day of doom, a foolish and injudicious fall occurred in prices on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. But let us examine the reaction of the European continent. I read a Sapa-Reuter report of 17 March from Paris, i.e. last week, which appeared in the Cape Times—

In this regard I also want to pay tribute to Mr. Fergusson, the president of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, who has warned against the attitude of such panic-stricken people as the hon. member for Wynberg, and who has said that it will not affect our financial and economic position and that it will certainly not affect our Railway Budget either. Mr. Sneaker. I want to discuss this matter in detail because the allegation which the last speaker has made, cannot be allowed to pass unchallenged because it will create concern amongst our railway workers. To-day we only find these panic-stricken elements in the United Party. Else where the panic has been of short duration. The hon. the Prime Minister wasted no time in stating that we would remain a member of the sterling area and Mr. MacMillan also soon made it apparent that it was also the United Kingdom’s desire to maintain our reciprocal economic links.

What does that have to do with the railwaymen?

The hon. member should put that question to the hon. member for Wynberg because it is he who said that for that reason this Railway Budget was of no value at all. Because, he said, the position will now be quite different as we shall be outside the Commonwealth. Mr. Speaker, last Friday evening the Cape Argus correspondent was already reporting from Johannesburg—

In the hon. member for Wynberg we have had an outstanding example this afternoon, of a “ man selling his country short ”. That is why he has expressed doubts about this Railway Budget. He has no confidence in his country. He is panic 1-stricken. Mr. Speaker, there is one comfort for the hon. member, namely, that the local English Press has not let him down and that the Cape Times and the Cape Argus are both trying to encourage this panic. But neither the Cape Argus nor the Cape Times have any grounds for their attitude. I just want to give one example. The Cape Times has said that there will be “ serious economic consequences ” for South Africa because she will now be outside the Commonwealth, and consequently the Budget we are now discussing is no longer in line with facts. It then quoted two foreign correspondents, namely, the Daily Mail and the Manchester Guardian. The Daily Mail said—

This is the only criticism the Daily Mail had The Manchester Guardian said—

Even the Cape Times has already undergone a change over the week-end. Over the week-end it recovered from its fright. On Saturday its financial editor was still writing in the following terms—

It is clear that the economic ties between South Africa, and the United Kingdom can be maintained in every respect. I can once again quote a report by the Cape Times London correspondent of what Mr. Eric Louw has said, namely, that he has already been in contact with the British Minister of Economic Affairs and that they would do everything in their power to allow the present position to continue unchanged. He wrote as follows—

In other words, still closer to Great Britain than Ireland. Even the Commonwealth countries who are not friendly to South Africa— and here I am referring to Canada—are prepared “ to continue to extend Commonwealth preferential tariffs to South Africa after 31 May ”. This appeared in a report which emanated from Ottawa last Friday. Mr. Speaker, I must point out that the major proportion of our trade, that is to say 52 per cent, is with Commonwealth countries. But only 2.2 per cent of our trade is with Commonwealth countries which are not friendly towards us. Only 2.2 per cent of our exports, that is to say, of the 52.2 per cent of our trade with all Commonwealth countries goes to Nigeria, India, Malaya, Pakistan, Ghana and Canada. Mr. Speaker, the unavoidable conclusion to which I come is that our leaving the Commonwealth will have no or very little influence on our economic prosperity, as far as the Commonwealth countries are concerned. As far as countries outside the Commonwealth are concerned, the position is quite different. As I have already said, the countries outside the Commonwealth are anxious to trade with us.

What does this have to do with the Railway Budget?

Don’t cry because you are now being punished and because you are now hearing how the hon. member for Wynberg put his foot in it. Together with this reciprocal trade which we shall maintain with the countries of the Commonwealth, both friendly and unfriendly, I also prophesy that we shall increase our trade with the non-Commonwealth countries who are anxious to trade with us. But the hon. member for Wynberg says that there will be a recession or a depression.

I did not say that.

He said that the probability that there would be a recession was great. I now want to state emphatically this afternoon that if a recession comes in South Africa, it will be an artificial recession which the United Party and the people who think like them and particularly the capitalists who are under their influence will have engendered and created.

Order! The hon. member must now come back to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I come back to the Bill and I want to state that I stand by the statement of the hon. the Minister of Transport that our membership or otherwise of the Commonwealth has absolutely nothing to do with this Budget—it will not add to or detract from it, with the possible exception, I should like to add, that this position will result in the surplus being far greater than we expect at the end of the year.

I now want to turn to a second matter which hon. members opposite have raised, and I just want to refer briefly to this because there are other speakers who will discuss this matter more fully. The hon. member for Wynberg has stated that this consolidation of the cost-of-living allowance with the basic wage constitutes “ crumbs from the managerial table ”. This afternoon he has said that “ it is scraps from the managerial table ”. He describes this R12,000,000 which is being voted to help the railwaymen of South Africa as “ crumbs and scraps ”. Has there ever been a South African government which has put R12,000,000 into the pockets of the railwaymen in one single year?

Yes, more than that.

I challenge the hon. member to quote me one example.

I shall do so.

In 1945.

They have no criticism on this point itself. All he says is “ the manner in which the negotiations were carried out was wrong”. Must we disapprove of something because a different method has been used to achieve an object which he claims he too wants to achieve. He then discussed overtime and Sunday time and said that a different basis would be used in paying for such overtime. But the railwayman is no worse off. He will be in exactly the same position as he is to-day, except that he will receive a bigger basic salary and wage.

I come to another point which the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) has raised. He has said that it is wrong to subsidize the losses incurred on transport of Bantu to the resettlement areas. He has criticized this principle and stated that this is a system aimed at keeping an insolvent railway system solvent by taxation. This is the allegation he has made. I maintain that that is not the position at all and that it is a very sound policy, based on the general national policy, to compensate the Railways when they suffer losses as a result of that general national policy. I actually want to advocate an extension of that principle this afternoon, and this is why I have risen. The Opposition have criticized the rating policy of the Railways and have stated that it does not encourage industrial development in our country. I say that to a certain extent this is true, but that it is not the fault of the Railways nor of the Government. It is solely and simply due to the historical development of South Africa as an agricultural country. Up till the end of the previous century and even as late as 1925, South Africa’s main revenue was derived from her agricultural production, and everything was, and is still to-day, aimed at achieving the maximum possible agricultural production. And seeing that the prosperity of our agricultural industry was dependent on foreign markets, South African agricultural products had to be, and still are, conveyed as cheaply as possible to the various harbours. That has always been what the South African economy has required. But, Mr. Speaker, now that we have become an industrial country, this system is resulting in anomalies which were not foreseen at the time. One of these anomalies is that the final form of the agricultural product —or let me rather say the processed agricultural product—costs far more to convey by rail than the unprocessed agricultural product. The result is that the locally processed agricultural product cannot compete with the agricultural product which is processed near its market. Because this state of affairs has a particular importance as far as the development of industries in the border areas is concerned, I want to devote myself particularly to this aspect of the matter this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, because the Bantu at this stage of his development can only contribute his labour to South Africa’s industrial development, and seeing that it is our aim under our policy of separate development to keep the Bantu rooted in his homelands, it is obvious that industrial development in the border areas is the most important factor as for utilizing Bantu labour in those areas and keeping the Bantu labour rooted in the Bantu homelands are concerned. Industrial development in the border areas must therefore really be seen against the background of the development of the Bantu areas themselves.

If this policy of separate development is to succeed, the tempo of industrial development in the border areas must be accelerated, and one of the main contributions which can be made is that which the Railways as the greatest single undertaking in the South African economy can make. This is one of the great undertakings which can accelerate that tempo of development.

The basis of South Africa’s overall industrial policy is and remains that the establishment of industries rests with private enterprise, while the authorities only promote that development by providing basic services. The Railways constitute one of these basic services. Industrial development in the border areas must also take place on this basis, and consequently a climate favourable to the establishment of industries must be created, in which process the Railways as one of the basic services provided by the authorities can play a decisive rôle.

Because this attraction exercised by the markets for industrial products plays a particularly important rôle in determining where industries are established and because these markets are found in our large cities such as Johannesburg and Pretoria, our industrial goods are produced mainly in our cities. The establishment of industries in the border areas requires that we should provide more than merely compensating attractions in the border areas. The authorities will deliberately have to favour these industries in the border areas. The rating policy of the Railways will therefore have to be designed to achieve this object. It has always been the policy of the Government to bring about the establishment of industries in the border areas as well as in the Bantu homelands in such a way that it causes the least possible disruption in the overall industrial development of the rest of the country. It is therefore obvious that the adjustment of the Railways’ rating policy to encourage border industries must not have a disruptive effect on the remainder of the country nor on the Railways themselves.

There are four requirements for the establishment of industries: Raw materials, capital, labour and basic services. All the raw materials are available in the border areas. The agricultural raw materials are all available; stock, dairy products, wool, hides or skins, vegetables, citrus, tobacco, oil-seed, grain, fibres, and sugar-cane. The timber raw materials are also available, that is to say, timber and timber by-products. There are minerals such as lime, granite, asbestos, coal and various types of clay. These are all raw materials which are to be found in the border areas. But these raw materials are not being properly utilized and where they are in fact being utilized, they are conveyed to the great industrial centres such as Johannesburg, Vereeniging and the harbour areas. The utilization of these raw materials at the source of supply is most essential for the development of industries in the border areas. As I have said, the present Railway tariffs are to a certain extent responsible for this position and I want to give one or two examples. The fact that the Railway tariffs on fresh vegetables is lower than the tariff on processed vegetables has resulted in a canning factory in the Eastern Transvaal which cans vegetables and fruit in the form of chutney, tomato sauce, etc., ceasing its activities because it is cheaper to convey the unprocessed vegetables to Johannesburg and Pretoria, to process them there and to sell them on those markets, than it is to process the vegetables at Kaapmuiden and then to convey them to Johannesburg and such markets for sale.

The second example I want to give is the following. It is cheaper, for example, to convey 100 lb. of fat 713 miles from Port Elizabeth to Johannesburg than it is to convey that fat from Port Elizabeth to Vryburg which is 100 miles nearer. But fat is one of the products which is processed in the Vryburg area. The fat can be produced where the stock is bred and sold. The hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) has mentioned the example of the cotton gins in Johannesburg as an example of this process. I concede to him that the position is in fact as he has put it. It is true that the cotton ginning concerns at Barberton maintain that they would save 16s. 7d. per ton if their factory had been established in Johannesburg. The difference between the tariff for conveying fibre and that on the processed sacks and rope has also resulted in factories being established in Johannesburg and elsewhere for processing fibre. The contention that Railway tariffs discourage the processing of agricultural raw materials in their final form at the source of supply is also true of the timber industry. As examples I want to give the following. The Railway tariff on unpainted hard-board favours the establishment of a factory at the market instead of where the raw material is available, to the extent of 5s. 7d. per lb. If the hardboard is painted, the difference is 1d. per lb. According to a saw mill at Sabie, the difference between the tariffs on sawn timber on the one hand and the processed products on the other hand, such as doors, frames, floor-boards, etc., is 13s. 4d. per ton.

Minerals are also conveyed more cheaply than the processed product. Thousands of tons of ore are conveyed at very low tariffs from the north-western Cape to our harbour cities, while the source of those ores is located near the border areas.

The establishment of most of our industries near the marketing centres, that is to say the Southern Transvaal and our harbour cities, has undoubtedly been encouraged by our Railway rating policy in the past. It is here that our Railway comes into the picture as one of the basic services. Mr. Speaker, I now ask: What is the solution?

It is definitely not the solution which the hon. member for Jeppes has suggested. The hon. member has suggested that there should be a general revision of the rating policy so that the tariffs on manufactured goods will be generally lowered. Mr. Speaker, that would throw our whole Railway machine out of gear; that would be heading for insolvency. Seeing that the development of industries in the border areas is the general national policy and seeing that the Railways cannot change their general tariffs, it is unfair and unjustifiable to expect that the Railways should suffer losses as a result of a general national policy. The establishment of these industries in the border areas should be encouraged by the payment of a subsidy similar to that now being paid to the Railways in respect of the losses which they suffer on the transport of Bantu to the resettlement areas. This is in line with the whole pattern of our national policy. The establishment of these industries in the border areas is also in line with our national policy and this is the only way in which this object can be achieved. It cannot be achieved in the way in which the hon. member for Jeppes has advocated, namely, by a general revision of tariffs. Mr. Speaker, with this I want to conclude. Two points have been made this afternoon; I can say that there were two points in the weak speech of the hon. member for Wynberg. The one was the fact that we have left the Commonwealth and the other that the correct method has not been adopted in giving the railwaymen benefits. The way in which the Opposition have criticized this Railway Budget shows that they have no answer to a Railway Budget which is of an unprecedented standard.

We have had the privilege of listening to the pros and cons of this debate and allow me to say at once that it was an easy task for the pros to ward off the attack of the cons. When the debate was opened on behalf of the Opposition by their shadow Minister of Transport, the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell), one expected blood and tears to flow.

Coming events cast their shadows before them.

We knew in advance that the whole Budget was unassailable, and we on this side have felt at ease all the time. We have known that we would get words and yet more words and arguments from hon. members opposite, but it was no effort, nor was it a difficult task for members on this side of the House to disprove these arguments one after the other. I do not intend devoting my time to the Opposition. They have submitted criticisms and they have talked about criticism, but if one wants to be honest towards the Opposition, who have the right to raise their voices here and to criticize constructively, then one really does not know in which respect one can give them any points. They have stumbled about in the administrative sphere; they have stumbled about in the agricultural sector; they have stumbled about in the labour sphere and in all the spheres which this debate has covered. They have stumbled about as far as Railway and transport matters are concerned. They have even stumbled about in discussing farming matters as far as the Railways are concerned, and we have been told about station-masters who have been at dances while two trains loaded with livestock waited. All these petty little matters have been mentioned and no one can possibly regard this as constructive criticism. This is what one would normally describe as rubbish. The Opposition have failed hopelessly in every respect and as far as I am concerned that is as much of my time as I can devote to them.

I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister sincerely on what we can justifiably describe as a masterly Budget. We think back to a few years ago, and our friends opposite are witnesses to this, when the hon. the Minister, in effect, entered into a contract with this House by forecasting and by promising this House that in five years’ time he would have remedied the Railways’ position. And we have experienced this pleasant year. That is the position to-day as far as the Railways are concerned. We congratulate the Minister wholeheartedly. I am pleased to do so, not only on behalf of our railwaymen who have been through these difficult years with the Minister, but also on behalf of the farming community who are really the most affected by our transport system, something of which we have heard very little hitherto in this debate. I not only want to congratulate him but I also want to thank him for the services which the Railways have provided to agriculture in general. We remember the difficult years when we could not have our fertilizers and fuels conveyed. It was during these years that the Minister entered into a contract in this House and promised to put everything right. In addition to the Minister I should also like to thank the staff most sincerely on behalf of agriculture and my constituency in particular for the good faith which they have revealed in helping to achieve the heights which the Railways have reached this afternoon. I also want to address a few words of thanks to the recently retired General Manager. He has gone through very difficult years but he has been able to get his staff to render service which has yielded these great results. In his place I welcome the new General Manager. I should like to tell him that he is now taking over a very difficult post. The mantle of his predecessor, who achieved tremendous heights, now falls on his shoulders. Climbing the heights is not as difficult as remaining there once one has reached the top. We offer him our good wishes and we hope sincerely that things will also go well with him.

I also want to convey a special word of thanks to the Minister and Railway staff on behalf of the farmers in general. We remember the severe drought. We are still faced with this position, but we remember particularly this time last year when thousands of head of stock had to be transported and we remember how faithfully and helpfully the Minister and his staff stood by the farmers in their time of need. This is something for which every farmer is grateful. Even the United Party farmers in my constituency are not complaining. If the Opposition were to make these allegations at Lichtenburg, they would be laughed to scorn, and this applies to anywhere in the country. We cannot accuse the Railways of not having sympathy for the farmers nor can we claim that the assistance which they required was not forthcoming. All of us as farmers, both United Party supporters and Nationalists, are grateful for this great service which we received from the Railways during these difficult years.

On behalf of my railway constituents, I also want to convey a particular word of thanks to the Minister for the increased pensions and for the consolidation of the cost-of-living allowance for which this Budget provides. I have telegrams here which I shall show to the Minister and which express appreciation and thanks.

I now want to proceed to discuss one or two matters affecting my own constituency. In the first place I just want to remind the Minister that a few years ago he received many deputations which asked for the establishment of a railway link between Lichtenburg and Mafeking. I have once again been instructed by all the main organizations in my constituency to bring this matter to the notice of the Minister and to urge that the necessary action be taken. In view of the proposed establishment of industries on the borders of the reserves, the possibility that factories will be established in those areas has become still greater which will still further increase the railway traffic.

I want to bring another matter to the notice of the Minister, namely the erection of a grain elevator at East London. If a grain elevator could be erected at East London, to serve the mealie farmers in the interior particularly, it would make a considerable contribution to lowering our costs of production. On behalf of the mealie farmers, I just want to urge that the Minister, in co-operation with the Department of Agriculture, should give this matter his serious consideration, because this is something which would make an inestimable contribution towards lowering our costs of production.

Then there is the Lichtenburg station building. We have brought the Kimberley system manager to see that station on two occasions. He has attended a conference of all the public bodies concerned and has admitted that there is no other platteland station which yields a greater revenue than Lichtenburg. At that meeting the system manager admitted that the station building was not at all commensurate with the status of our own town and that the accommodation was quite inadequate. On the instructions of all these organizations I just want to bring this matter to the notice of the Minister and to urge that he should give it his serious attention.

Then there is the great need for housing for our railwaymen at Coligny. Furthermore, I also advocated last year that the subsidy to private flying clubs should be restored this year and I obtained some sort of promise from the Minister—he held out the prospect that this would be done.

Order! That is not relevant at the moment.

I have finished. I just wanted to mention it and I hope that the matters which I have brought to the notice of the Minister will all enjoy his serious consideration.

Mr. Speaker, listening to the hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. M. C. van Niekerk) one was tempted at times to think that one was attending a thanksgiving service, but it was nice to hear that he also had some constructive suggestions to make in regard to East London which we support. It seems that the suggestion the hon. member made about the provision of a grain silo at East London goes hand-in-hand with the suggestion made by this side of the House that the Cape Eastern line should be re-graded so as to provide better facilities for connecting the Free State maize-fields with the coast.

I want to return to a remark I made in the debate regarding the lack of any future planning. When the Estimates were debated, there were so many limitations that it was impossible for me to deal with it in great detail, and therefore I now want to concentrate on one important aspect relating to harbour development. The matter has already been referred to briefly in this debate by the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) and I want to elaborate on the case he put up, and that is in respect of the prospects for the development of shipbuilding. It has already been established that the hon. the Minister of Transport, by reason of the fact that he controls harbours, is responsible for providing all those facilities which can reasonably be expected of a harbour organization. That was established in the case of the provision of the marine engineering basin in Durban, in regard to which there was an argument which carried on for some years as to whether it was the responsibility of the Railway Administration, of Defence or of Commerce and Industry. I suggest that as that was settled at a Cabinet meeting, we should now proceed a stage further and discuss the question of the building up of a shipbuilding industry in South Africa as a natural corollary to provision of the marine engineering repair basin at Durban. It has been quite obvious for many years that the development of marine engineering was the logical precursor of shipbuilding, particularly in Durban and Cape Town. For many years, particularly during the last war, it has been demonstrated that our marine engineers are so highly developed that there is virtually no marine engineering work or even shipbuilding work of which they are not capable. I am not going to repeat what was said in a previous debate on the Loan Estimates in regard to the building of a research vessel which was given to Japan, but the hon. member for Simonstown gave us some details of the remarkable achievements of marine engineers in Durban, particularly in keeping the Allied Navy and convoys afloat, and towards the end of the war constructing and floating a 10,000-ton floating dock. During the war and even before that marine engineers in Durban and in Cape Town pleaded for Government support in constructing facilities for shipbuilding. Initially, of course, they had in mind only small craft, but ultimately the idea was to proceed gradually to build larger ships. It is unfortunate that these appeals fell on deaf ears and nothing was ever done either in Cape Town or Durban to assist marine engineers to take this further step forward. In Durban for many years marine engineers worked under considerable difficulty with the restricted and limited facilities available by reason of the fact that the T-jetty was uncompleted. It was only due to the completion of that jetty and the fact that the marine engineers had to make way for the new passenger terminal that the Administration agreed to the advances made by the engineers, and provided the marine repair basin at the head of the bay.

Of course, the war was the perfect opportunity for this country to start shipbuilding, because then economics did not enter into the matter at all and there was a fantastic demand for small craft like escort vessels, minesweepers, landing craft of various types and harbour craft, and had a start been made at that time all our deficiencies in regard to supplies of steel and engineering requirements would undoubtedly have been made good by the U.S.A. Yet the Government gave no encouragement to the industry and a glorious opportunity was lost. On the other hand, in countries like Australia, New Zealand and Canada full advantage was taken of the opportunity offered by war conditions and there a start was made, first of all, with building small craft and a flourishing shipbuilding industry was built up. They proceeded from small craft to large craft and in Australia they are turning out frigates and destroyers and merchant ships. There is no reason why we should not do the same, but a start must be made, and I suggest that this is the proper time to make that start. One would have thought that the Defence Resources Committee would have seen to it, in the light of their experience during the war, that the establishment of a shipbuilding industry was an urgent necessity. It is, therefore, unfortunate that 16 years after the end of the war these facilities are still not being made available. Yet despite that lack of encouragement a shipbuilding industry has started in Cape Town without any subsidy whatever. A tremendous tribute must be paid to marine engineering firms, particularly in Cape Town and also in Durban, who have been responsible for the construction of small craft under extremely difficult conditions, particularly due to the lack of suitable launching sites. Here in Cape Town the Globe Engineering Company have achieved wonders on a site which was originally set aside, when the Duncan Dock was constructed, for boat-building. Because of the restricted space of water and the limited facilities, it is necessary there to launch ships sideways and vessels are limited in length to approximately 280 feet. Moreover, by reason of the limited space it is not possible to construct more than one small craft at a time. To-day the Globe Engineering Company has sufficient work on their books to keep them busy for two years in Cape Town, and had they the facilities in Durban, through their associated company, Gilbert Hamer and Co. Ltd., they would start building ships in Durban also. Quite apart from this, there are excellent facilities for building small craft in East London. There is a slipway which can take vessels of up to 204 feet in length and 40 feet in beam, and I believe that the slipway has been constructed in such a way as to lend itself to the construction of such craft of up to about 1,000 tons.

At this stage I want to deal with developments that have taken place all over the world since the war. There has been a fantastic development of shipbuilding in numerous countries. It has not been confined to the traditional shipbuilding countries such as Britain, Germany, Holland and Sweden, but quite a number of other countries have come into the field including the Argentine, Brazil, Pakistan, India, Ghana, and even smaller countries than that. It is also a fact that there has been a tremendous increase in the number and tonnage of ships launched mainly to replace the damage during the war years, and also to take account of the tremendous growth in international commerce since then. But some of these countries that have built ships have done so rather as a manifestation of their self-sufficiency, which one expects from small nationalistically-minded nations. I am not suggesting that South Africa should follow that example. I do not believe that we should establish a shipbuilding industry simply to show that we are an independent nation and should therefore be self-sufficient. On the contrary, I believe that the economic aspects and the defence aspect establish an irrefutable case for the establishment of a shipbuilding industry now, and I ask the Minister to consider the following points which I think prove the case I am putting up.

In the first place, let me remind the Minister that we have technically trained men in the marine engineering companies in South Africa to-day to do any work that might be required in connection with shipbuilding. It is a fact that in recent years large numbers of highly skilled shipbuilding technicians and artisans have migrated to this country from Indonesia, Holland, Germany and elsewhere in Europe, and that they have found occupation with the marine engineering companies. Even if it were not a fact that we have adequately skilled people, it is a fact that many of the marine engineering companies are associated with well known shipbuilding firms overseas. I have in mind the case of James Brown Ltd. in Durban, which is associated with Vickers Armstrong, and there are others as well. Quite apart from the trained men in the engineering industry itself, we also have a well-known company, the Naval Architecture and Research Organization Ltd., which has been established as shipbuilding consultants, which not only has the technically trained men but also the resources for research into the designing of ships. So the resources in respect of technically trained men are available. I may also say that both in Cape Town and in Durban the marine engineers have all the technical equipment required to do all the work that it is possible to do in this country at present. So we not only have the men and the equipment, but we also have many years of experience.

In the second place, I suggest that initially, if we make an advance into shipbuilding, on a scale which will enable us to build considerably larger vessels than we have been constructing so far, a start should be made in Durban, because there we have adequate available space, which not only adjoins the marine engineering basin but it is also in close proximity to the South African Railways and Harbours fitting basin and their workshop No. 24, and to the graving dock which is one of the largest in the Southern Hemisphere. Moreover, this site, which is almost unlimited in extent, and certainly more than adequate for anything we may require in the next 200 years for shipbuilding, is a very suitable place for building ships. I am given to understand that the Moffat Commission reported that the area adjoining the marine basin should be set aside for shipbuilding, and it has this tremendous advantage, that the area can be very economically and quickly reclaimed because it has the advantage of having deep-water access from the Maydon Channel. I want to say that the cost of providing these facilities by reclaiming this land is a cost which could be spread over a considerable number of years, because for the first two or three years our requirements in the way of slipways and an adjoining area of land will be comparatively small, and therefore the reclamation could be spread over several years, and thus the financial burden on the Administration could be eased. I would suggest that initially what we require are slipways to take small craft, and such slipways do not have to be equipped with expensive cranes and equipment because all the work required to be done on craft up to 1,000 tons or so can be adequately catered for by mobile cranes instead of the extremely specialized and expensive cranes normally associated with larger ships. That could come at a later stage. I do not suggest that this development should for all time be confined solely to Durban. I believe that eventually there should also be similar facilities provided in Cape Town, but it is very hard to see that those facilities can be provided until an additional basin has been provided for Cape Town Harbour, which would give the adequate space and room to manoeuvre which a shipbuilding industry requires.

The third point I want to make is that quite apart from the technical men and a suitable site, we also have a highly developed steel industry. I believe that shipbuilding is the natural sequel to the development of our steel industry. Those who have the necessary technical experience say that our steels are second to none and can compete in price with steel produced in any other country. It therefore seems folly to ignore the possibilities of using our own steel to develop our own industries when we have these facilities available. Not only would shipbuilding give a tremendous impetus to the demand for South African steel, but it would also give tremendous encouragement to other industries, because it is quite obvious that in shipbuilding there are innumerable other industries which are interested. There are iron and brass foundries, the alloy industry, the pipe industry, the paint industry, the glass industry, the shopfitting industry and dozens of ancillary industries which will also get this tremendous stimulus if shipbuilding were developed on any scale. Initially, of course, we would have to import certain specialized equipment like engines, navigational equipment and radar. But unless we make a start the necessary engineering industry required to manufacture these articles will never start at all. I believe that once we get the industry started, engineering industries like the Vanderbijl Engineering Company, James Brown and others would soon find it an economic proposition to start tendering for the manufacture of engines and other specialized equipment on licence from overseas patentees. I believe there is a unique opportunity to help a tremendously large cross-section of South African industry and also at the same time to encourage the growth and development of those specialized skills and techniques which are inseparable from the building up of a highly technical industry like shipbuilding. After all, the motor car industry started from small beginnings, simply assembling parts made overseas. We can start shipbuilding at a much further advanced stage than that. I believe that very much earlier than the motor car industry cap build a complete motor car in this country, the shipbuilding industry will be building complete ships. Sir, I appeal to the Minister to take this opportunity of making use of these fantastic resources that we possess in South Africa.

The fourth consideration is whether we have in point of fact sufficient demand to warrant expenditure on shipbuilding yards. This opens a field on which I am not technically equipped to speak with any great authority, but I do want to place certain facts before the Minister because it is apparent that there is a growing demand for craft of all sorts in South Africa. In the first place there is the fishing industry and here let me remind the Minister that in the last four years the Globe Engineering Company of Cape Town have either built or have taken orders for the construction of no less than 20 vessels of a total value of R1,500,000, and that without any subsidy at all. That surely shows that there is this growing demand from the fishing industry. We have also had two research vessels built here already, and possibly there may be a growing demand for specialized craft. Then, on top of that, we have a very flourishing coastal shipping industry. African Coasters Ltd., operating from Durban operate 11 coasters, many of them over 1,000 tons dead weight. Thesens Coasters operate nine ships, Smiths’ Coasters operate five ships and there are others as well. These ships have either been built specially to order overseas or they have been chartered or they have been bought second-hand. But the point I want to make is that if one studies the figures which the Minister gives us year by year of the tonnage handled by coasters, one is struck by the fact that every year since the port to port rates were abolished, the tonnage handled by coasters has steadily increased, and therefore it is reasonable to suggest that this is a vital and a growing industry and that there will be a growing demand for ships that can quite easily be constructed in South Africa. Furthermore, we have in South Africa a comparatively small merchant marine. The outstanding, of course, is Safmarine which is very largely financed by the I.D.C. They operate, I believe, seven ships and have seven other ships on time charter. I understand that of the seven ships of their own, a number are due very shortly for replacement, and I am informed—and I stand open to correction—that they have on their books a programme for the replacement of no less than ten merchant vessels. Surely, Sir, this is a golden opportunity for the Minister, in conjunction with industry and the Treasury and with the I.D.C. to investigate the possibility of those ships being built in South Africa. There are other lines. There is the Springbok Line which is registered in South Africa although the capital is wholly overseas capital, but it is possible that other South African lines may start in the near future. I see also that recently a company entitled the International Petroleum Transport Company, backed by the Stanvac-Mobil International Organization has formed a company registered in Durban with a capital of R2,000,000 to buy tankers to carry oil between the Persian Gulf and Durban, and with the building of a third refinery, the Caltex refinery, either at Durban or Cape Town. It is becoming apparent that more and more tankers will be operating between South Africa and the Persian Gulf with no intervening ship repair basin to resort to and therefore it is reasonable to expect that they will be making increasing use of South African marine engineers. This surely holds out the prospect that we may eventually be able to start building tankers for our own trade in this country. Apart from that I do not have to remind the Minister of his departmental requirements of specialized harbour vessels such as tugs, pilot vessels, dredgers, colliers and barges. I would suggest that in his own interests in order to swell harbour revenue, he should encourage the building of these small craft in South Africa. Furthermore, of course, there is the growing demand of our Navy for small craft, because the South African Navy is a navy of small craft. It must obviously be a matter of tremendous security to South Africa to know that many of these small craft could in point of fact be built in this country. I am quite certain that with our defensive alliances with the Western nations the greatest possible assistance would be given in respect of armaments and all the specialized equipment that go on these naval vessels. But surely with the growth of the demand for mine sweepers and corvettes and other specialized items which do not require very highly technical equipment, we could provide for our own requirements in South Africa. With these growing demands, there is surely ample justification for believing that we could keep our shipyards busy once the necessary facilities are made available. I suggest that initially, because we would be faced with the added expense of importing engines and such technical equipment, such as navigation equipment and radar, etc., not yet manufactured in this country, our construction costs will be abnormally high, and, therefore, the Treasury should contemplate some system of subsidizing shipbuilding so as to keep these yards busy. In the first place the Administration should have the slipways made available— and there, I think, the Minister has a case to go to the Minister of Finance and ask for financial assistance without the burden of interest. I believe he has a very good case for that. I accept his point of view that his function is to make the Railways pay, and if he is expected to operate non-profit making activities, then he should receive assistance from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. But when one compares the advantages to be obtained with the smallness of the amount of the outlay in building a ship, then surely it is not an excessive demand to make on Treasury, particularly when the Government itself is contemplating vast schemes for expanding Sasol and Iscor and Foscor and all these other vast public utility companies.

In the second place, I suggest that the Minister of Finance could very easily be persuaded to hold out inducements to shipowners to have their orders for shins placed with South African shipbuilders by offering either a cash subsidy or else by special taxation provisions entitling them to write-off the cost of the vessel in a very short time or some other inducement to make it worth their while, without even having to outlay any cash subsidy. I believe it should be possible to do that. Furthermore, as far as naval vessels and Railway harbour vessels are concerned, the Government should be prepared to subsidize building to the tune of at least 25 per cent. After all, recently the Railway Administration placed an order in Italy for seven small tugs and pilot vessels, and I think it is well known that the Italian Government subsidized the building of those vessels to the extent of 15 per cent. If we are going to buy craft from overseas from countries that subsidize shipbuilding, why should we not subsidize the building of our own ships with our own material by our own men in this country? After all, virtually every shipbuilding country in the world to-day, with the exception of Great Britain, subsidizes their shipbuilding yards and if they do it why should we not do it here, and benefit the whole country’s economy in so doing?

I also want to make this point that the very fact that in recent months two well-known overseas shipbuilding companies, including the Nederlandsche Dock Company, have been out here investigating the potentialities of shipbuilding in South Africa, shows that other people are aware of the potentialities for shipbuilding in South Africa. What the results of those inquiries are I am unable to state, but the very fact that these inquiries are being made, shows that people overseas are watching the position here. I would therefore urge the Government to accept the principle of adopting a policy of directly assisting and encouraging the old-established companies in this important industry. I believe that this is a case where a far-sighted encouragement of an industry could pay very handsome dividends to South Africa. After all, the I.D.C. could well assist the Administration in creating the necessary facilities. I believe that they would be fulfilling the objects for which their organization was formed very much better than they are doing at present by negotiating for the purchase by an Afrikaans finance house of the controlling interests in a large chain of retail shoe shops. I believe that this is far more the sort of occupation that the Government had in mind when the I.D.C. was originally founded.

Finally, Sir, let me suggest that there is no time like the present for a start. We cannot afford to wait for the next war; it may be too late then. So let us make a start now and let us also remember that whether we are Afrikaans-speaking or English-speaking, we both come from nations with traditions of the sea in our blood. I believe that by developing this industry we would be true to our traditions I appeal to the hon. the Minister to give this matter his careful consideration.

Just as in the Budget debate, the Opposition is revealing the same lack of criticism in regard to the management of the Railways. The question of the effect of the consolidation of cost-of-living allowances has again been brought up for discussion. Mr. Speaker, I ask myself: Why does the United Party try at this stage to discuss the details of the consolidation of the C.O.L.A. when the Minister gave them the assurance that in regard to the question of overtime and Sunday time no finality has yet been reached between him and the staff associations? They are now trying their utmost to stir up trouble between the Minister and the staff associations, or what else are they trying to do? Do they actually think it is in the interest of the Railways and in the interest of the staff to try to cause trouble between the Minister and the staff, or what precisely is their object in wanting to discuss this matter at this stage? It is very irresponsible of them. I want to accuse them of trying to cause trouble deliberately between the Minister and the staff associations in regard to this matter. It is not in the interest of the staff to take over the duties of the staff associations. Hon. members opposite say that they also believe in the principle of collective bargaining, but they are now doing their utmost to weaken the force of collective bargaining. I am sure that the staff will seriously blame them for trying to interfere at this stage and trying to cause trouble.

In the second place they are acting neither in the interest of the railway user nor of the country as a whole, because they are trying to cause dissatisfaction amongst the staff in regard to a matter in connection with which consultations still have to take place between the Minister and the staff. I want to ask the Opposition, and particularly the United Party, in this connection at least to try to act responsibly sometimes in regard to these matters.

The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) objected to the train services for non-Whites in the resettlement areas being subsidized out of the pocket of the taxpayers. But it has always been the policy of the United Party that the losses on uneconomic services rendered by the Railways in consequence of Government policy should be paid for out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. That was said in the House only last year. Have they now run away from this part of their policy also, just as they have run away from their tariff policy? Or does the hon. member for Simonstown object to the subsidy now being paid as a result of Government policy, in other words, that the Bantu should not live amongst the Whites, which is the policy of the Government, and that separate residential areas should be provided for them? As far as I know, it has always been United Party policy to have separate residential areas in South Africa. Why then object if subsidies are paid out of the pocket of the taxpayer in respect of a service the Railways have to undertake in order to implement the principle of having separate residential areas in South Africa? I simply cannot understand the hon. member for Simonstown in this connection.

There really remains very little criticism for me and other speakers on this side to reply to. As I said the other day, when we were busy with the Budget debate, what is of importance is not what is contained in the amendment moved by the United Party, but the things which were omitted from it. In the past we had much criticism of the so-called inefficiency of the Minister and of the management. Every member in this House still remembers the words of the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell), “ managerial and ministerial inefficiency”.

Then it must have made some impression.

What is the reason why this year we have heard no more about this managerial and ministerial inefficiency? Since 1958, when the hon. member for Wynberg became the chief critic of the United Party on railway matters, the amendment he moved every year always stated that the House refuses to go into Committee of Supply because of managerial and ministerial inefficiency. The hon. member has now run away from that accusation also. I want to ask him whether the Minister and the management have now become efficient in the space of one year?

A little more.

I think that the truth of the matter is rather this: that the hon. member for Wynberg and the United Party are really admitting this year that there was no substance in their accusations of ministerial and managerial inefficiency. The view of the United Party was—and the reason for it is understandable—that only the staff was efficient. How the hon. the Minister and the management, who stand at the head of affairs and control the finances and all the activities and the staff of this huge undertaking, play no rôle in the efficiency of the staff is something which only the hon. member for Wynberg and other hon. members opposite can understand. Surely the facts are that the Railways to-day, thanks to the initiative of the Minister and the great expansion programme he tackled in 1954, when he became Minister of Railways, is successfully carrying out its duties as the transport system of the country to-day. There is no piling up of traffic; there are no transport crises; all the traffic offering is being transported, and there is even a surplus capacity. Even organized commerce and industry, which, in the past, were quick to complain about inefficient service, have no complaints any longer. I think that if we want to look for another reason as to why the hon. member for Wynberg to-day no longer talks about ministerial and managerial inefficiency, we should seek it in the fact that commerce and industry in the country no longer have any complaints about the progress as such. It is clear that the Railways is now beginning to derive the full benefit of the expansion programme which is nearing completion.

Let me show, by way of comparison, what tremendous progress the Railways has made during the past 21 years in regard to more efficiency than it ever had before. I take the year 1939, because that was the year the Second World War started, and because the demands made on the Railways ever since then as a transport system has been increasing since that year. During the war years the Railways developed a backlog because, due to the war, no attention could be devoted to its expansion. After the war an unprecedented industrial development took place in the country, and the Railways was placed in the position that, apart from the backlog from the war years, with which it had to catch up, it also had to keep pace with the tremendous industrial development after the war, which, under the Nationalist régime, rose to unprecedented heights. It was an almost impossible task, but, seeing that we are now on top of the hill, we can look back and determine how difficult that task actually was. During the period of 21 years, from 1939 to 1960, the number of train miles increased by 67 per cent; the number of locomotives increased by 36 per cent; passenger vehicles by 34 per cent; goods trucks by 107 per cent; and the staff increased by 73 per cent. Whereas train miles, rolling stock and the staff increased during the past 21 years by percentages varying from 34 per cent to 107 per cent, passengers, on the other hand, increased by 159 per cent, and goods traffic by no less than 234 per cent. I think that is a wonderful achievement on the part of the Railways, and this comparison also shows what progress the Railways has made in regard to efficiency. Whereas the average percentage increase in the staff, the train miles and the rolling material was 63 per cent, the increase in traffic was approximately 191 per cent. It was interesting, during a recent tour made by the Select Committee on Railways, to learn that suburban passenger journeys on the Rand increased from 16,000,000 in 1931 to 150,000,000 in 1960. Although it is hard to believe, 831 trains pass through Johannesburg station every day, or a train almost every two minutes. During the peak hours of every working day, i.e. from 4 a.m. to 8.30 a.m., 65 passenger trains from the Bantu residential areas enter the Johannesburg station bringing 100,000 non-Whites to their work. I mention these figures because it is not always realized that it demands organization and planning on the part of the Administration to ensure the smooth running of these services, particularly in the urban areas.

The achievements in the financial sphere are equally impressive. The capital investment on the Railways has been increased by 290 per cent since 1939. As against that, the revenue has increased by 435 per cent over the same period. Since the war tariffs were increased by 65.7 per cent, in comparison with an increase in wholesale prices for locally manufactured goods of 108.7 per cent. So, also, in the financial sphere the Railways to-day derives full benefit from the programme of expansion launched by no less a person than the present Minister.

Hon. members opposite complain about the treatment meted out to the railwayman. I just want to make this comparison: The average earnings of the White railwayman in 1936 amounted to £229 per annum; in 1948 it was £439; and, in 1960, £842. The average earnings of the White railwayman, in other words, was nearly doubled during the past 12 years from 1948 to 1960. The hon. the Minister and his Management, together with the staff, deserve the thanks of the country for having, with efficient guidance and teamwork, expanded our transport system to a more efficient undertaking than ever was before in its history. The hon. the Minister will, however, be the first to admit that there is still room for improvement. In fact, this Budget submitted last week is evidence of that because in it so much attention was devoted to efficiency in the service, and in view of the splendid progress made. I just briefly want to mention these achievements.

Firstly, almost 6,000,000 tons more goods were transported by the staff, which had decreased by 4,000; there was efficient planning and implementation of the programme of expansion. The scheme was implemented sooner than was originally estimated and planned. In the third place, there was greater efficiency as the result of the institution of a development course for administrative officials. Furthermore, steps were taken to make all grades of the staff conscious of efficiency and costs, something which certainly contributed largely to the reduction of expenditure in recent years. Attempts were made to increase the efficiency and productivity of non-White workers. The abolition of posts as the result of the efficiency campaign resulted in various types of work now being performed by fewer staff. Although a larger amount of traffic is being transported, that was done at a lower cost, and lastly, there was the institution of more effective financial measures of control. I say that this can really be called an efficiency Budget, which is evidence of a series of achievements in the sphere of efficiency, drafted by an efficient Minister and an efficient Management, assisted by an efficient staff, which has made the Railways an efficient transport undertaking. A huge undertaking like the Railways can surely never attain maximum efficiency, but I still think that the foundation for it was built soundly in recent years, so that in the years to come we can continue building on that foundation. I definitely want to say that it is due to the initiative, guidance and tenacity of the Minister and the Management that the Railways to-day is the efficient transport undertaking it is. It is equally true that the staff through teamwork and by making great sacrifices and through devotion to duty without any doubt made an important contribution, but any person must admit that without the necessary guidance and control of the Minister and his Management, the sacrifices and hard work of the staff would have been in vain. No undertaking can attain these achievements, however efficient the staff may be, if the persons at the head of affairs apply the wrong policy and do not exercise proper control.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Evening Sitting

The high principle of the security of the worker is one that every Government must take very seriously indeed, but unfortunately we on this side of the House have found that the security of the worker has always been the plaything of Ministers under this Government and especially of the Minister of Railways. They have used the railwayworkers to serve the country. When they were in difficulties, they have called upon the workers to do their best, they have adopted the slogan “ to keep the wheels turning ” and at all instances they have told the workers that whatever happens, they must not fail South Africa. The workers of the South African Railways have done what the Minister has asked them to do. All the Minister’s efforts and all the efforts of the managerial section would have been fruitless, if the staff had not been motivated by this very high ideal. We must take into consideration that there are 217,000 employees on the Railways, of whom 124,000 are White. Mr. Speaker, I have said that most loyally has the railway-worker done his bit. The railway-worker has displayed loyalty that has been unsurpassed. Deficits arose and their overtime was cut; there have been personnel shortages all through the years, yet loyally they have carried on, urged year after year by this side of the House to do justice to those people who have served them so well, what happened? We have urged the Government to do justice to the 10 per cent of the people of South Africa who are employed on the Railways. This year the Minister has come with certain announcements. He has announced a consolidation of the total cost-of-living allowance into salaries and wages. He has said that basic salaries of workers will be increased to cover increased pension contributions, and he has said that the increased pension contributions will bring increased pensions to the staff. He has also said—

And then he went on to say what, to us, shows very clearly indeed how little this concession really means to the railwaymen—

I say that the apologetic tone of the Minister himself shows that there is, indeed, very little being given to the railwayworkers. The workers appreciate fully the advantages of the consolidation of the cost-of-living allowance, and they fully appreciate that their pensions will be higher. But that is not what the worker wants. The worker wants an improvement in his basic salary which he is getting to-day. His pay packet which he is going to take home has not been enlarged at all. He is going to take home exactly the same money as he did before 27 February, when the hon. the Minister announced this new scheme. I have said that he wants an improvement in basic salaries. He wants a part of the newfound riches of the Railways, of the newfound wealth, because, first of all, the worker has for years suffered a pegging in the cost-of-living allowance. While the cost of everything that he needed was going up, from the price of a house to the rent of a house he was renting from the Administration, to a pair of shoes for his child, for a pound of steak for his dinner table, whilst everything was going up through the years, his cost-of-living allowance was pegged. I have said that he is going to be as short as he was last year. Last year, wherever I went in the area where there were lots of railwayworkers in my own constituency, the legal men told me that hire-purchase agreements had been cancelled, that they were taking back the things, the motorcars, the household goods that had been bought by railwayworkers on the hire-purchase system, and that the railwayworkers were in a very bad position indeed. I want to say to-day that that position has in no way been changed.

Of course that is not correct.

I will deal with the hon. member presently. It happens all too often when one discusses the position of the railwayworkers that we hear from the other side that what we say is not true. I will come to a particular case just now. I have said that they appreciate the fact that their pensions are going to be higher. But even their pensions are not going to be as high as they should be. Had the cost-of-living allowances not been pegged, and had the proper cost-of-living allowances been incorporated into their salaries, their pensions to come, would be much higher. But there are many other things that worry the railwayworker. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister how many men are there who are well in their 40s to-day, who are sitting on a maximum scale? I would like the hon. the Minister to tell me whether he is giving attention to this matter. I would like him to give this honourable House the statistics, telling me how many people are in the various grades in the salary posts, and how many of these people are well in their 40s, sitting on their maximum pay. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the grading is everything that he thinks it should be or is it hopelessly bad? We have heard that there has been a cut of some 4,000 in the railway staff. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether that cut of 4,000 has not brought hardships with it? What about the clerical staff, people on the stations who have no overtime? I am told that some of these people have to work until they are on the verge of collapse.

Where is that?

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether this cut of 4,000 in the staff has not brought drastic suffering with it for the people working on the Railways? Only clerks who work in shifts are paid overtime when called upon to do so, but the ordinary clerical staff working on the stations and in the depots are not paid overtime. There has been an abolishing and a regarding of certain posts on stations and depots. Has this not dried up the avenues of promotion? Is the chance of promotion not much smaller than it used to be? Certain benefits have been given to the railway staff this year, but I object to the manner in which this was done. We know that the Railway Artisan Association have for a long time been fighting for a rise in their pay of 3d. per hour and a reduction of two hours in 46 working hours. They have also asked for the incorporation of the cost-of-living allowance. To this the hon. Minister’s reply was a flat refusal. When a petition signed by 10,750 artisans was submitted to the Cabinet, no notice of this was taken at all. And that is always the way, Mr. Speaker, whenever representations are made in this House in regard to the working conditions of the people, working on the Railways and in regard to their salaries. Just now an hon. member said to me that that is not true when I was speaking of the hire-purchase system, and I was sketching the position in which the people were finding themselves. Mr. Speaker, you will remember that last year and the year before that and the year before that and the year before that, I spoke in this House about working conditions at Danskraal.

Ah!

Mr. Speaker, I like to hear that noise. The word “ Danskraal” stands very high indeed under the names of the nation from which I stem, and if those people hold it in contempt, then I can just say that I am very sorry, but I am very proud indeed to speak about Danskraal. I have only one regret and that is that they are not calling me the hon. member for Danskraal to-night. Mr. Speaker, this was said by the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Knobel), after I had spoken in this House, and his was also the tune “ not true ”. He said—

This is from the Transvaler that was sent to me by the flash-depot workers from Ladysmith as I hold it up here, and attached to it there are three pictures here which I would like hon. members to say are not true and which they can come and see after I have finished speaking.

Pass it round!

Mr. Speaker, I will not deal with the impudence of that hon. member.

He is only a baboon.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may an hon. member refer to another hon. member as a “ bobbejaan ”?

Order! That is not parber for Turffontein say that?

Mr. Speaker, is one not entitled when referring to the intelligence of an hon. member to refer to him as a “bobbejaan ”?

Order! That is not parliamentary.

I withdraw that the hon. member is a “ bobbejaan ”.

At the time when the hon. member for Bethlehem, who is supposed to be one of the senior members on the Select Committee of Railways and Harbours and one of the senior speakers on that side on Railway matters—he is not here tonight, he is probably attending to the wants of the railwayworkers at D. F. Malan—but at the time when he was saying this, there was a sum of £50,000 on the Order Paper that had been approved and part of which had been spent on the installation of a new flash-butt welding machine, runways for welded rails, cables and sub-stations for added electricity, all at Danskraal and, Mr. Speaker, you will notice that the hon. member for Bethlehem stated that he had heard that the railway line at Danskraal was going to be shifted. That is the way hon. members deal with railway matters. It will interest hon. members to know that this is what these people say about the hon. member—

That is the habit of hon. members on the other side whenever anything is brought to their notice regarding the workers and their working conditions, they either shout that it is not true or they say that one is ignorant.

That is why they vote for the National Party.

Mr. Speaker, this has been signed by the flash-depot workers there. Their signatures are here for everybody to see. These people at Danskraal have sent a full memorandum and they point out that they were on bonus-time work. Now I want to bring to the notice of the honourable House that the General Manager in his report said—

And these people, Mr. Speaker, have been working on the bonus conditions, and they say the following in regard to a depot that was referred to by the hon. member for Kimberley (South) (Dr. W. L. D. M. Venter) who is also not here to-night—

These are now the people from Danskraal who suggest that the depots at Kimberley and Elandsfontein should be visited—

These people have been working for years under the bonus schedule, and whilst the building is completed now, according to the hon. the Minister, the other facilities are not all there, although a big number are on the Estimates this year. They say further—

They go on—

An hon. member said to me just now “ that is why all the railway workers vote Nationalist ”. How does he know? I thought the voting was secret. In any case let me tell them that as far as the railway workers in Natal are concerned, they do not vote Nationalist according to the majority. But whenever we speak about the legitimate demands of the railway workers we meet with ridicule. The hon. the Minister is a party to it. He does it by giving fantastic figures of what it will cost to give the railway workers the things that we say should be given to them. But the Government must squarely accept the blame if they have not got the necessary funds, they must squarely accept the blame if there is a slow-up in expansion, in agriculture and in the industrial field, they must squarely accept if lack of capital is hampering expansion and therefore the Railways cannot get all the high-rated traffic they should get. We were told this afternoon by the hon. member for Heilbron, who is also attending to the railway workers’ needs at D. F. Malan Airport that the economic position would in no way change. We were told by him that the economic position of the railway workers was not going to be any worse than it is to-day. I have tried to show that it is bad enough as it is to-day, and that it is much worse than it need be. I have pointed out that the pensions are too small and that the salaries are not high enough to cope with the present high cost-of-living; and when hon. members on the other side tell the railway workers to-day that the economic position is not going to worsen, then I remember that the following pronouncements were made: On 4 September the Minister of Bantu Development said that we would remain in the Commonwealth; on 6 September the Minister of Justice at Florida said that we would be retained in the Commonwealth; on 9 September at Somerset West the Minister of Lands said that the White countries would not allow us to be kicked out; on 15 September the Minister of Finance said the same at Pretoria; on 29 September the budding politician, Dr. Carel de Wet, said the same. We hear from the hon. member for Heilbron that the economic position of the country is not going to worsen. Well, when I hear that, I indeed fear dire results in the future.

I want to tell the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) that if she wishes to know how the railway workers vote, she merely has to look at the number of members on this side of the House who represent constituencies where the majority of the voters are railwaymen. When I listened to the hon. member when she was saying how little the Government was doing for the railway workers I wondered whether the hon. member was speaking like that through sheer ignorance or whether she was doing it deliberately, as women sometimes do. When I deal with staff matters later on in my speech I shall revert to the argument advanced by the hon. member for Drakensberg in connection with the staff. Before I go further I want to deal with an argument which the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) advanced earlier this afternoon. The hon. member said there was division within the Cabinet ranks. He said that the Minister of Transport was building railway lines for the Bantu, that houses were being built for them and that it was the policy of other Ministers to remove the Bantu from the Western Province. I want to tell the hon. member that it is the policy of the Government gradually to reduce the number of Bantu here. It will not happen suddenly, but that is our policy. I also want to say to the hon. member that the railway lines which have been constructed through the Cape Flats run through an area which is fast developing also as far as the Coloureds are concerned. Railway lines have to be constructed there in future to keep pace with that development. It is contemplated to have large Coloured communities there, in the vicinity of the Bantu areas. Furthermore these new Bantu housing schemes are schemes that can easily be converted into housing schemes for Coloureds. It is no argument therefore to say that the Minister is incurring expenditure which, if the policy is correctly interpreted, is useless expenditure.

Which areas are you talking about?

I am talking about the railway line to Langa and Nyanga. In view of the fact that the United Party did not fare so well in the Railway debate because there was no real ground for criticism, they are now trying to divert the attention at this late stage from that subject. The hon. member for Wynberg and other hon. members now come along and misrepresent the position as to what effect our withdrawal from the Commonwealth will have on the Railways and on the economy of our country. It is a pity that the hon. member for Wynberg was so hasty and that he did not wait until he had all the facts before sending these misrepresentations into the world outside, and before trying to create panic. I do not want to say much in that regard …

You are scared.

That hon. member is the last person that I am scared of. It is not our membership of the Commonwealth that creates our economic problems and which will adversely affect the Railways. The problems which may confront us in the economic field and which may also affect the Railways, will not be problems that may arise from our non-membership of the Commonwealth, but from our refusal to sell out the White man in this country. We may have trouble because we wish to maintain White domination. I want to ask this question: Are hon. members prepared for the sake of the so-called economic benefits that they talk about, to follow a policy which will satisfy Ghana and the other African states? Is that what the hon. members of the United Party want? If that is the case then the South African Railways will suffer, then our economy will collapse and then the Railways will ultimately no longer be in the hands of the White man in South Africa.

I want to return now to a few arguments which will have been advanced during the past few days by the United Party. One of the points which they emphasized and on which they are quiet now, was the question of the Redemption Fund. Hon. members of the United Party in their wisdom thought that they had at last found a solution, a simple solution that nobody had thought about till to-day, to the problem of reducing the increasing capital and interest burden. But it is not as simple as all that, Sir. The hon. Minister pointed out what heavy additional expenditure was involved in the suggestions of the United Party not only in regard to the Redemption Fund but also in connection with further concessions to the staff. The United Party is asking for increased expenditure but at the same time they are not willing to allow an increase in tariffs, on the contrary they are still pleading for a reduction in tariffs. The hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) stated once again that the tariff in respect of high-rated traffic should be decreased. On the one hand the United Party pleaded for increased expenditure, a Redemption Fund and concessions to the staff, and on the other hand they ask that revenue should be sacrificed. A redemption fund will be of no value unless considerable amounts are paid into it. In order to make a success of such a fund tariffs will have to be increased. When the Minister of Finance takes money from revenue for Loan Account the United Party objects and says that the taxpayer is being over-taxed. But as far as the Railways are concerned the United Party want to burden the railway users by establishing assets for future generations.

I maintain that sufficient provision is being made for depreciation by way of contributions to the Renewals Fund to replace those assets when necessary and to maintain them in good running order. Although there is a continual drain on this fund, the Renewals Fund to-day stands at over R63,000,000. Provision is made in the Betterment Fund for enhancing the value of these assets. These assets are not a burden therefore, as is sometimes alleged, because they get replaced when necessary and enhanced in value. I agree, however, that one is concerned about the increasing interest burden but the fact remains none the less that this capital investment as far as the Railways are concerned is paying satisfactory dividends to-day as I have pointed out during the Budget debate. When conditions are favourable provision can be made other than the establishment of a Redemption Fund to ensure the economic stability of the Railways, and one way is to strengthen the existing statutory funds of the Railways. The hon. the Minister has said in the past that if the position permitted it, that would be done. Considerable amounts are this year being paid from surplus revenue into the Betterment Fund and the Renewal Fund, which have become exhausted as a result of developmental works. We agree that if possible it is essential that a fixed amount be paid annually from the annual revenue into these funds. Hon. members of the United Party have, however, said in the past that the Rates Equalization Fund was the fund which had to be built up as a safety valve, as a guarantee, as they called it, also in respect of the staff. It is undoubtedly true that if a new fund were established the other funds would suffer. The amount which is available annually for allocation to the various funds, will not be increased if an additional fund were established. The amount will not be increased whether there is one or five funds. The amount available will remain the same unless tariffs are increased. That is to say if another fund had to be established less will be paid into the statutory funds. That is an important point.

The first step that can be taken to ensure the financial stability of the Railways is to strengthen these funds. But in the second place, if the financial position allows it, it is possible that revenue may be used in reducing the interest burden on capital, without creating a redemption fund for that purpose. That has already been done in the past. If we did that we would not be introducing a new principle because that has already been done in the past and it is being done. During 1954-5 an amount of R6,000,000 was taken from revenue for the construction of departmental housing. Had we not done that, interest bearing capital would have had to be used for that purpose. Also in 1955-6 R7,000,000 was used for the construction of departmental housing and for the establishment of certain facilities for the staff. That was taken from revenue. In 1957-8 also R4,000,000 was taken from surplus revenue for the same purpose. All those amounts were used in reduction of interest bearing capital.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that this matter was discussed by the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours as far back as 1926. Because it covers the whole principle I should like to read to the House what happened at that time. This principle, which we have been applying all these years, namely, that revenue can be used to strengthen various funds and to reduce interest-bearing capital, was accepted as far back as 1926. I will not read the whole resolution; there was a difference of opinion as to whether revenue could be used for this purpose and the legal advisers decided that it could well be so used. The reply of the Administration at that time was as follows—

The principle was therefore accepted at that time already—

It is not a redemption fund, therefore. The same purpose can, therefore, be served in this way as was also done in the past. It is not necessary to redeem old liabilities. The best way is not to incur fresh liabilities; in other words, to pay portion of the capital outlay in cash, or rather, from revenue. Once we raise loans we are involved in the costs connected with such loans, such as raising fees and administrative costs, costs which are eliminated if we pay for those works from revenue, as has been done in some cases in the past. It is useless therefore creating further funds in view of the fact that we are finding it difficult as it is to keep the existing funds financially sound under unfavourable conditions.

The United Party asked for greater concessions to the staff. As I have already said, they ask at the same time that heavier financial expenditure and greater obligations be incurred. My contention is that if these suggestions were accepted, there would be little hope that we would be able to do anything for the staff. To say that more should be done for the staff and then to ask in the same breath for increased expenditure by establishing a redemption fund and for less revenue as a result of a decrease in the tariffs, Sir, is nothing more than political eye-wash. It is a political game. I can tell hon. members that the Railway staff is wise to their game. As their so-called advocates, those hon. members have made themselves the laughing stock of the staff. The hon. members for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) and Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) want the Minister to negotiate with them and to give them assurances as to how consolidation will be applied. They said that after the hon. the Minister had said that they were still negotiating with the staff. The hon. member for Turffontein held it against me when I asked them why they were not pleading for the lower-income groups as well. I want to give him the facts. What has happened during the course of this debate, Sir? The hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) and the hon. member for Umhlatuzana and others asked for wage increases for the artisan staff, apart from consolidation. That is the only group in respect of which they have asked for an additional increase.

No.

I have the speech of the hon. member for Wynberg before me and, apart from consolidation, those are the only people to whom he has referred. I have in the past asked, and I ask again: Why should the artisan staff get preference above the rest of the staff? It has always been customary in the past that when concessions are made to the staff such concessions are divided equally amongst the entire staff and one particular section is not selected for those benefits.

That was not what we asked for.

We were asked to pay the artisan staff a certain amount more per hour. In the past when we negotiated with the staff associations, it was a principle to do so through the Federal Consultative Board of those staff associations. We find, however, that last year the Artisan Staff Association approached the Minister and negotiated with him on their own and I can tell hon. members that the other members of the staff are dissatisfied with that because they do not think that that was right. I want to go further and say that the rest of the staff would have been very dissatisfied had the Minister conceded to the demands of the Artisan Staff Association without at the same time doing something for the rest of the staff. It is not merely a question of what the hon. the Minister is prepared to do for the staff. Had that been all, we would all have said: Give as much as you want to. But surely the financial stability of the Railways should be taken into account. The question arises as to what you may allow and what you can give without disrupting the financial stability of the Railways. A concession of over R11,000,000 is being made in one year. This is a big concession which must have an effect even on future budgeting. It is also in the interests of the staff that the finances of the Railways be kept sound and that we do not act injudiciously and unwisely. It is in their interests that no bigger concessions are made than are in the interests of the Railways. The United Party is acting in an irresponsible manner. They lack a sufficient sense of responsibility. If the hon. the Minister did anything wrong and the Railways get into financial difficulties next year they will be the first people to blame the hon. the Minister.

The impression is being created here that the staff has been very badly neglected in the past and in this regard I want to return to the speech of the hon. member for Drakensberg. We have even been told that the staff had made sacrifices for years without having received anything in return. But that is not true, Sir. Not long ago, in 1958-9 concessions to the value of over R14,000,000 were made to the staff. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Turffontein must listen to this. During that year concessions were made to the staff to a value of over R14,000,000, and that is not a century ago. There is a long list, but the hon. member can look it up in the 1960 Hansard where the hon. the Minister replied to a question put by the hon. member for Wynberg. The hon. member will then see that during the régime of this Government more than R100,000,000 has been spent on the Railway staff in wage increases and other improvements in regard to conditions of service. What right have hon. members to say that the Government has not done its duty? The hon. the Minister has made concessions immediately prior to general elections; he has made concessions after general elections. He did not do so with the object of catching votes, as hon. members opposite are so fond of doing with their propaganda.

Give one example.

The hon. member can read the Hansard report himself, I shall give it to him. It is clearly set out there. I do not wish to say anything further about those benefits. I do say in all honesty that this Government and this hon. Minister have done their duty towards the staff and they will continue to do so in future. He has, however, also to keep count with the financial stability of the Railways and that is why he cannot act in a reckless and unwise manner, as hon. members opposite wish him to do. Those hon. members do not mind if there is a crisis in the Railways. They would welcome that because that would once again give them an opportunity of making propaganda. They would welcome another financial crisis in the Railways.

I want to conclude, Sir, by dealing with another argument which members opposite have advanced this year. They complain about tariffs and because the Newtown Commission’s report is not being implemented. It is always necessary for hon. members of the United Party to have some report or other to cling to. This committee reported over 11 years ago. The Railways have undergone vast changes since they conducted their investigations nearly 12 years ago. But for the next 10 or 11 years the United Party will still be clinging to that report. Furthermore, as we have so often said in the past, many of the important recommendations of that report have been carried out. I do not want to go into that but it is well known that many of the important recommendations have been carried out.

Mr. Speaker, this Budget that we have been discussing for days, is a sound Budget which takes all circumstances into account, which does justice to the staff and to the users of the Railways and which ensures that in future the finances of the Railways will remain sound.

I do not think that in the past ten years that I have sat in this House and listened to speeches by members on the Government benches has there ever been an occasion when there has been so little support given by Government members to the interests of the railway workers of South Africa. Neither do I think there has ever been an occasion when there has been such a weak reply given by a Minister of Transport to the legitimate criticisms offered by this side of the House in the interests of railway transportation.

In the closing stages of these discussions, let me give a few examples of the type of interest we have had. The amendment moved by this side of the House to the second reading of this Bill, is an amendment which is moved in the interests of the railway workers of South Africa, and is a sincere effort to make the hon. the Minister see that by his attitude in respect of the consolidation of basic wages, he is prejudicing the income levels of railway workers. Although that amendment is worded in parliamentary language, let me put it in the language of the man in the street, in a so-called colloquialism. What the amendment really is is a message from the Opposition to the many thousands of the railway workers of this country telling them that they should not be suckers and accept what the hon. the Minister has said in this Budget. We have had, for example, the incredible situation where, in a major debate, the first speech of the Opposition benches on this most important amendment is not handled as one would expect by the first major speaker on the Government benches, the Chairman of the Railway Select Committee, the hon. member for Vasco (Mr. C. V. de Villiers). Instead of that we had to listen to a comparatively insignificant member such as the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) delivering a diatribe on the Railway finances and how he thinks they should be organized. A speech which he practically read from page to page. I am sorry that the hon. member for Heilbron is not here. He should be in this House if he had any interest in railway workers at all, and he should not be at the D. F. Malan Airport to-night. This is the type of observation we had from him, and I noted his words very carefully. He asked “ Has there ever been a Government that has granted such an increase to railway workers?” And he was referring to the R12,000,000 which is being made available for consolidation. But the hon. member for Heilbron was not the only member guilty of such an approach. Even the hon. member for Vasco runs away from our amendment. Not a single hon. member on the Government benches has dealt with the merits of this amendment in this sense: “ Is the railway worker entitled to the payment of overtime benefits such as he has had before and in the same ratio?”

The hon. the Minister handled that aspect.

The hon. member says that the Minister has handled it already. Let me remind the hon. member that the speech he has just made should properly have been made when we were discussing the motion to go into Committee of Supply, and not on this occasion. That was also handled by the hon. the Minister. But perhaps the hon. member for Vasco thought he could give a better reply than that of the hon. the Minister of Transport. The hon. member for Vasco is looking uncomfortable and cross, but let me give the facts to the railway workers of this country. The hon. member quoted page 16 …

No I did not.

A minute ago the hon. member referred to the increase in 1959 of some R14,000,000.

I quoted from Hansard.

The hon. member then obviously supports me in my contention which I made earlier to the effect that the White Paper was nothing more than a propaganda bluff by the hon. the Minister, because he himself does not want to quote the figures listed in the White Paper. But what are the facts? In answer to the statement made by the hon. member for Heilbron that the railway men have never had such benefits in their lives as they are now getting from this R12,000,000 in terms of pay consolidation, let me say this: quite clearly they are not taking any increased pay packet home. That is the first point. I took the trouble to look these things up because one or two other hon. members made the same contention as the hon. member for Heilbron during Committee of Supply. These are the facts. Under the United Party Government, in 1944-6 there were two increases granted to railway workers. There was an increase of 10 per cent in the tariffs in both of those years, and in terms of the Auditor-General’s report for 1946 there is confirmation of the fact that out of the increased revenues of that time, of some R45,000,000, the railway workers received R44,000,000 of the surplus for that year. R44,000,000 was given back to the railway workers by a United Party Government running the Railway. A United Party Minister of Railways showed a surplus of R45,000,000 and paid R44,000,000 to the railway workers. What are the facts now? In the past two years 1959 and 1960, we have seen a gross surplus of some R35,000,000 of which the railway men received a measly R8,000.

In what year was this surplus of R45,000,000?

In 1946. But when the Nationalist Government took over a couple of years later there were further surpluses declared but the railway workers received none of it at that particular time.

There are many examples, Mr. Speaker, of complete evasive tactics adopted during these discussions by Government members, and I want to give one perfect example of that. During my speech on the Railway Budget debate I referred to certain statements that were made by the retired General Manager of the Railways. I referred the hon. the Minister to a statement reported in the Press to the effect that the then General Manager had stated that in order to have adequate reserve funds in the Railways he considered that the Reserve Fund should be built up to a sum in the vicinity of R200,000,000. In his reply the hon. the Minister indicated that that statement made by the General Manager had been corrected in the Press. Now I do not want to do the ex-General Manager any injustice. The hon. the Minister was kind enough to show me that correction and I accept it. But in his reply to the Budget debate the hon. the Minister used that in order to avoid the very point which I put to him, because that statement made by the then General Manager, in September of last year, was a statement made to the Handelsinstituut. When one reads that statement in toto, the impression was clearly given by the then General Manager that he considered that adequate reserves had to be built up. He referred, for example, and I quote—

The whole implication of that speech was that these reserve funds should be built up to adequate figures. I asked the hon. the Minister a direct question about this, but he used avoiding tactics in his reply. Let me quote from my Hansard—

But the Minister ran away from that issue and gave no reply. I went further and quoted to the hon. the Minister another statement made by the then General Manager, and I will quote it now—

And I asked the Minister whether he agreed with that statement. I went further and I quote from my Hansard, and I would like to know what the Minister’s reaction is. I said this—

But the hon. the Minister chose to ignore those particularly direct questions I put to him; questions which have never ceased to be the concern of organized commerce and industry since those statements were made.

I now ask the hon. the Minister whether, in his reply to this debate to-night he will give a clear statement of policy in respect of those particular observations? Is the development and the future expansion of commerce and industry in this country going to be entirely dependent upon the capital requirements of the Railway Administration?

I don’t understand what you mean by that.

Then the hon. the Minister does not understand his own General Manager. Must I quote it again?

Yes, please.

The General Manager said this—

If anything is clear that is. The hon. the Minister says he still does not understand, so that he must have misunderstood the General Manager at that time.

Now let me give this House a more important example. In my speech on the Railway Budget debate I referred to a statement made by the hon. the Minister when he met the Federal Consultative Council of Staff Organizations in September last year. The Minister stated to this representative gathering of railway workers that more than 17,000 posts on the Railways had been abolished, and of these 3,745 were filled by Europeans. He said —“the saving has been brought about by not filling vacancies as these occurred ”. Now the hon. the Minister has not denied this statement because I referred to it again in Committee and in an interjection the Minister said to me “ Over what period of time were these posts abolished?” Well, since those discussions I have had an opportunity of looking up the respective figures since the first year in which this hon. Minister was in his present office, and I find an extraordinary situation. I say to the hon. the Minister, as I said it in my earlier speech, that the hon. the Minister was misleading the railway workers. He was creating a false impression. In fact by this statement he was creating the impression that he was holding an axe over the heads of the railway workers and that wholesale axing was going to take place. He put fear into these railway men. And let me show why. In no single instance since 1956—and I take that date as being the completion of the first full year in office of this Minister—when I look at the figures of staff establishment as shown in the Auditor-General’s report and the General Manager’s report, I find that at no time has there been a decline in the total staff establishment of the Railway Administration anywhere near the figure 17,000.

I asked the hon. the Minister a direct question: How did he arrive at that figure? Because in the Budget figures of this year the hon. the Minister quoted a total staff establishment of 318,000 in 1960, and in March of this year he said that that figure had declined to 214,000. Let me give this House the exact figures. I assume that the figures quoted in the General Manager’s report are correct. In 1956 there was a total staff establishment of 221,775, of which 107,341 were White workers and 114,434 were non-European workers. Then, on the figures quoted by the hon. the Minister for 1960, the establishment was 218,992, of which 109,966 were White workers and 108,026 were non-White workers. Mr. Speaker, one sometimes feels that the hon. the Minister of Transport has no interest whatsoever in any observations made by this side of the House, because he is continually in consultation or having discussions with the Whips on the Government benches. What do these figures reveal? They show that between 1956 and 1960 there was a decline in the total complement of workers on the Railways, White and non-White, of something like 4,000 only in round figures. But the interesting thing about these figures is that whereas the non-White staff complement declined by some 6,000, the White staff complement in actual fact increased by some 2,000. I have tried to reconcile these figures, and I have also looked at the General Manager’s report for 1960. We find that there is a decline between the total staff complement of 1959 to March 1960. But there is no decline so far as non-White workers are concerned. The decline of nearly 4,000 workers is purely White workers, and those are not White workers employed on construction work or anything of that nature, they are White workers employed in the running of the Railways. It might have been a legitimate argument had we been told that as the capital development programme reaches completion there is a necessity to retrench temporary or casual workers. But that is not the position. These sackings have taken place amongst the workers concerned with the running of the Railways. The figures in table 41 where the table is given showing the breakdown of staff personnel employed in the Railways show that perfectly. I quote the exact figures on page 230 of the General Manager’s report, table 41 where it states that at March 1959 the number of workers employed on the Railways open lines—not construction work but the actual running of the Railways—was 102,140; by March 1960 that figure had declined to 99,151, which is certainly not commensurate with the decline of White workers employed on the construction works of the Railways.

One therefore asks oneself how it is possible that this can come about. The Minister does not deny that he went to such an important body as the Federal Consultative Council of Staff Associations and made the clear-cut statement that there had been a total reduction of some 17,000 in the establishment of the Railway Administration. I repeat, at no time in the period of office of this hon. Minister has there been any decline of any such proportion as far as the staff complement of the Railway Administration is concerned.

I have raised this matter because it has this significance: we were concerned and we are concerned about the future employment policy of the Railway Administration. We are concerned about their policy with regard to the employment of White workers on the Railways. The men who are most unfortunate in the Railway Administration are those who are classed as rail workers, and those are the men who are concerned here. What is the position in respect of the rail workers? In 1956 there were 13,208 rail workers employed by the Railway Administration. In 1960 there were 11,949, a decline of something like 1,200 workers. I raise the issue for this reason, that in the past we have had certain statements made by this hon. Minister and by his predecessor in respect of the interests of these lower paid and unskilled White workers, dealing with the policy of employment adopted by the Railway Administration. I can assure the hon. the Minister that the figures I have quoted are correct, if we are able to accept the veracity of the statements made in the reports of the General Manager and the Auditor-General. May I direct the attention of the hon. the Minister to a statement made by his predecessor in 1954 in his Railway Budget speech when he said this—

Then the hon. the Minister went on and said this—-

I want to ask the hon. the Minister this: Because of the narrowing gap between the employment of non-White workers and White rail workers in the lower paid occupations, what is the Minister’s policy with regard to the raising of the level of this class of worker? Is he to be given an opportunity to train for higher grades? Is he being given an opportunity to raise his income level in that he can be employed in some semi-skilled capacity?

Who, the non-European or the European?

I am talking about the White rail workers. It is clear that in respect of this class of worker, which probably comprises the lowest income group level as far as White workers are concerned in the Railways, this is a diminishing pool of labour upon which the Railways can draw. The figures clearly indicate a decline from year to year. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister if the income levels of these men are to be raised, are they being given the opportunity to train for higher posts and get jobs in which their income will be commensurate with their standards of living? And if that is to happen what is to replace the labour pool? We have had a statement from the hon. the Minister in the past in respect of the employment of non-Whites in semi-operative and semi-skilled jobs. Will it now be the policy of the Administration that non-Whites may undertake this type of employment at a lower level? Hon. members on the Government benches cannot run away from this fact, that the income gap between the semi-skilled non-White worker and the unskilled White worker is narrowing, but the White worker still has to maintain a considerably higher standard of living than the non-White worker. [Interjections.] You see, Sir, the sort of inane interjection one gets from the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) indicates the limits of his knowledge of Railway matters and his lack of interest in the railway workers. I have never yet heard a positive contribution from the hon. member as far as the railway workers are concerned. But I raise the issue because it is a matter of considerable concern to many thousands of railwaymen, and that is why I ask the Minister again what is his employment policy in regard to White workers? It is no use talking about millions of pounds of capital development, of centralized traffic control and new types of coaches and diesel trucks, because in the end it is the efforts of the workers which decide whether the transportation system is going to run efficiently or not, and if the staff is discontented and if there is a feeling of uncertainty in regard to their future and their security, whatever the Government may do in regard to capital development and technical improvements will be of no effect. That is why the amendment moved by this side of the House is of such importance. The Minister has perpetually throughout the whole of these discussions run away from the principle that has been stated by this side of the House, and it is a principle which is accepted in every single industrial agreement throughout the country, that where the worker is concerned, and the daily paid and the weekly paid man, if it is demanded that he should work over and above the statutory hours laid down, he should get additional compensation. This is an established principle that has operated for years, but the Minister is seeking to overthrow it and he says we must not discuss it here because it will embarrass him, and we are not working in the interest of the railway workers by discussing it. But what security has the railway worker other than this House, where their interests can be protected by free and open discussions? Parliament gives security to any State official or railway worker because it is in Parliament that his interests are considered and weighed in the balance, and it must be clear now to the workers that there are efforts being made by the Minister and the Government in order to overcome their financial difficulties to take it out of the pockets of the railway workers.

Nonsense!

It is no use the hon. member saying it is nonsense. He made a political gamble in 1958 when he said he would not give an increase. The fact cannot be escaped that here a definite effort is being made by the Minister to strip the interest of the railway workers, to exploit their interest, to come to the stage of sweated labour and hold threats of dismissals over their heads by the introduction of improved methods, but it is no use the Minister rising again and saying: You are simply embarrassing us; I am carrying on negotiations with the railwaymen which are not finalized yet. The fact is that we do not know what the final conditions will be, but one thing stands out clearly, that as far as maintaining the interests of the railwaymen and the exploitation of labour is concerned, you have it in the proposition placed before us by the Minister, and I hope that when the opportunity occurs the railway-men will say to him: No longer are we prepared to be exploited; no longer are we prepared to have our Nationalist sympathies exploited and treated as suckers in the interest of the Nationalist Government.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to react to what the hon. member for Turffontein has said. The Opposition has referred to the consequences of the Union leaving the Commonwealth, and in that regard asked what the position would be in regard to our Railway finances. I just want to say that our strategic position and our sources of raw materials are strong enough to allow us, after leaving the Commonwealth, to maintain the same position as we did before. We have plenty of goods for export and the world needs our goods, but certain countries need a little more honesty and less hypocrisy and falseness, and I think we should also export a little of those things.

In discussing the Budget, one would have expected the Opposition to confine itself to certain principles of policy, the financial structure, the conditions of work of the workers, traffic control, the carrying capacity of the Railways, etc. All that has been exhaustively discussed in the debate and I do not wish to repeat it. I just want to state certain problems and principles of policy affecting the Railways. I want to commence in the first instance with the composition of our Railways. I think that administratively and in regard to his policy our Railways is probably unique in the world, and it is subject to one centralized control, under one Minister. I say there is integration between the three sections, the Railways, road transportation and air traffic, and as a result of this integration we have the elimination of many problems with which other railways systems in the world are faced. I plead for the maintenance of our existing system on the basis of the following facts: Firstly, because as the result of this integration and close co-operation and the centralized control, the competition between road transportation and rail transport is controlled to a large extent. When we consider what tremendous competition there is in a country like Britain between road transportation and rail transport we realize what terrific problems are created by this competition for rail transport. We find, e.g., that the Railway Conversion League in Britain submitted suggestions to the British Transport Commission and said that the Railways in Britain should practically be abolished, and they made out a case for the expansion of road transportation, and they proved by statistics how undesirable it was to allow rail transport to be the dominating partner in the transportation system any longer.

On a point of order, is an hon. member entitled to listen in to the radio in this House?

The hon. member may continue.

On a point of order, would you instruct the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. Bootha) to stop listening in?

Is the hon. member listening in?

Not at the moment.

I can understand it because the speaker is so boring.

I say that the system of control, the policy of centralized control and of controlled competition which is being applied, in many respects keeps our cost structure very low. We find, e.g., that this low cost structure enables our Airways to compete favourably with overseas airlines. I wish to refer to a second matter. As the result of this, and unlike anywhere else in the world, our Railways is still the dominating partner in the transportation system in our country. In the beginning of the nineteenth century, as the result of the absence of this system, the British Railways was still the dominating partner in the transport system there, but to-day the ratio between road transportation and rail transport is 5£ to 1. That means that the capital investment in our Railways constitutes no problem to us. During the Budget debate I indicated that our capital investment is really a field of investment for the State, and that the capital borrowed by the Railways from the State is really an investment by the State as the result of which the Railways earn interest for the State and is a source of revenue to the State. In that way the State enables the Railways to play an active role in the production processes of the State, and by means of the various funds the Railways has established reserves in which these funds can be invested. Therefore we have no such problem as exists in Britain and elsewhere, that the Railways are burdened with too much capital investment as the result of the increased competition from road transportation.

The next matter is that the capital investment in our Railways is not coupled with the problem of competing with increasing road transportation. In Britain, e.g., as the result of the absence of centralized control the main roads are controlled by no fewer than 1,250 different authorities and that results in confusion and unnecessary competition, and forces the British Railways to incur tremendous capital expenditure. It is estimated that the British Railways will annually have to make an extra capital investment of £350,000,000 in order to cope with the increased competition by road transportation. The South African Railways, in spite of a dynamic economic system in which times have changed and new technical developments have come about which have made equipment and certain practices obsolete, have kept pace. We are reminded of the various efficiency measures which were applied, like the electrification programme, the dieselizing programme, the programme for doubling of the lines and the improved system of control and the elimination of uneconomic practices. In South Africa, more than in any other country, the Railways is faced with the problem of not being able to utilize its equipment to the full because the traffic offered cannot absolutely be regulated according to plan; it varies from time to time because it is subject to many factors. The fact that the Railways, without a State subsidy and standing on its own feet, could cope with the problem of the fluctuation in the traffic offered and the fluctuation in weights and the classes of goods offered for transportation, and the total absence of homogeneous traffic offered—that in spite of that, coupled with long distances, a sparse population and the peculiar character of our transportation problems, the Railways could keep its head above water, is due to our system of centralized control of transportation. If we take into consideration that in the past 25 years our cultivated soil has increased in volume by 86 per cent, that our horticultural production has increased by 135 per cent, and that cattle breeding has increased by 71 per cent and that our population has increased by 50 per cent, and we take that as the background against which to view the increased work of the Railways, and we take into consideration the small percentage of the population who have to bear that capital burden, it speaks volumes of praise for our Railway system and the success the Railway Administration achieved in solving those problems.

Thank the Minister now.

Hold your tongue! I want to say this in regard to our workers …

On a point of order, is it permissible for an hon. member to say “ Hold your tongue ”?

I have already told hon. members to address each other through the Chair.

I want to reply to the arguments used by hon. members opposite. There are no signs of an election yet. I do not know whether we will have an election, so hon. members’ plea is somewhat misplaced, but I want to pose this question. I know of no country in the world where there was such a total absence of strikes amongst railway workers as in South Africa. But I want to say further that I know of no country in the world where there was such splendid co-operation between the Administration and the Minister and his workers as we have had in South Africa during the past year. Therefore our financial structure, the control of the Railways, our financial control, our parliamentary control, the auditing of the accounts of the Railways, the fact that we can pay all our debts, the fact that the Railways has kept pace with developments, proves to me that our policy is correct. Contrary to what was suggested by the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw), that there should be separation and that we should separate Airways from the Railways, I want to say no, I advocate the maintenance of our existing system of control under one Minister in order to enable us to cope with our problems in future as we did in the past, and the main reason for that success, apart from the effective administrative measures and control, lies in the system in terms of which the Railways is controlled.

On a point of explanation—I discussed it with Mr. Speaker—I find that on referring to my notes when I quoted certain figures about the Budget speech, I used the word “ surplus ” instead of the word “ revenue ” in referring to the excesses in the years 1944-6. My colleagues advise me that I used the word “surpluses”, but I intended to use the word “ revenue ”. If I may quote the figures again, I said that increased revenues of £22,500,000 and wage increases in those years exceeded this amount by the sum of £22,800,000. I just want to correct it.

Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes left before the time that this debate expires, there is just one point to which I would like to reply in regard to what was said by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) in connection with the views of this side of the House on collective bargaining. The hon. member said that in introducing an amendment of this sort we were interfering with the old principle of collective bargaining, that is employees on the one hand, the Minister on the other. I think the point we have to make here is this, that the employees are represented by their various staff associations, but who is the employer? Is it the Minister or the State? If it is the Minister, then the remarks made by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) is correct, but if it is the State, who represents the State? Are we not as Members of Parliament the employers of the railwaymen? Is it not our function to say to our representative, who happens to be the Minister of Transport, that we as the employers are not satisfied with the decision of the Minister?

On the conclusion of the period of four hours allotted for the second reading of the Bill, the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 105.

The hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) is getting a reputation as the prophet of doom. The hon. member usually makes the most dire predictions of what the future holds in store for us. It has become quite a habit and a very bad habit, because he always proves to be wrong.

I predict a happy future for you.

In 1958 the hon. member predicted a deficit of £10,000,000.

No, I did not.

I have a cutting of his speech and I will show it to the hon. member. I quoted it in the House last year, but that year ended with a surplus of £8,000,000. Last year the hon. member was also a prophet of doom; the reserve funds would never be rehabilitated, the staff would never receive any benefits, and as a matter of fact, when the Budget was under discussion the hon. member was even dissatisfied with the fact that there was a surplus; he said the books were manipulated and there was really a deficit. As I say, he has become a prophet of doom and he has always been proved to be wrong. This afternoon again he was a prophet of doom when he spoke about the cataclysm and what was going to happen to South Africa because we are no longer a member of the Commonwealth. He tried to paint a very dark and dreary picture of our future, and to support his contention he referred to what happened on the Stock Exchange. Well, there was a downward move in the price of shares on the Stock Exchange on Wednesday, only in the morning, but in the afternoon the market rallied again. I have taken the trouble to compare some of yesterday’s prices with those of 1958, and I find that a number of gold shares are higher than they were in 1958. I challenge any hon. member to disprove that. I will give them the names of shares. Shares such as Western Holdings and Free State Geduld, are actually higher than they were in 1958 and they are rising. But that is by the way. I would like to debate this matter with the hon. member, but I know the rules of the House will not allow me to do so. I only want to tell the hon. member for Wynberg that he has shown that he has very little confidence in his own country. [Interjections.]

Sir, there is very little to reply to. The hon. members managed to get hold of one thing where they thought they would get some support from the railwaymen, namely this question of consolidation. I must say at the outset that it is the easiest thing in the world when you are in the Opposition and have no responsibility to make the most extravagant demands on behalf of the staff. The Opposition can make the most extravagant demands because they know they have no responsibility, and this Opposition particularly knows they will never be placed in an opportunity to implement the promises they make. But the workers know precisely what value to attach to those promises and this touching concern for their welfare that hon. members of the Opposition are revealing. The railwaymen know that the United Party have been in office before and they are under no delusions as to what to expect if the United Party ever happens to come into office again. But that is one of those possibilities which is so improbable that one cannot even take it seriously. Now, in regard to consolidation and the amendment moved, the Opposition takes very strong exception to the fact that there will be a change in the rate of overtime payment, but what hon. members do not realize is this, that I have not forced anything on the staff organizations; they took the initiative; that this suggestion originated with the staff organizations without any pressure from my side. In fact, I was surprised that the staff organizations were prepared to make this concession. They were so anxious to obtain full consolidation. The staff organizations realized that if this concession was not made, full consolidation would be out of the question because it would be financially impossible. These staff organizations which hon. members opposite are doing their best to undermine …

That is not true.

It is true, and I will prove it. These organizations are the following: There is the Salaried Staff Organization, the Locomotive Engineers Association, the Running Staff Union, the Artisan Staff Association, the Employees Staff Union, Spoorbond and the Police Staff Organization. I do not know what politics the leaders of these organizations favour, but they are responsible organizations representing 80 per cent to 85 per cent of the White staff, and these staff organizations took the initiative and they made the suggestion in regard to the payment of overtime so that full consolidation could take place.

All of them?

Yes, all of them, without exception.

But one section was not represented.

That makes no difference. That section also made suggestions.

That is difficult to believe.

Is the hon. member suggesting that I am not telling the truth?

Order! Will the hon. member withdraw that remark?

I withdraw.

Now surely these staff organizations, whose leaders are men with a high sense of responsibility, are capable of looking after the interests of their members. I am quite convinced that the leaders of these organizations will certainly not thank the Opposition for doing their utmost to undermine their authority and to create distrust among their members. They have done nothing else during this debate and the previous one than to sow suspicion amongst the members of the staff associations and to create the impression that those leaders of the staff actually misled their members. Hon. members opposite have done nothing else but to try to create dissatisfaction amongst members of the staff.

That is not true.

It is the truth. The whole tenor of the arguments of those hon. members was to sow distrust and dissatisfaction amongst the members of the staff. [Interjections.] Sir, the whole tenor of this debate was nothing else but the creation of distrust and dissatisfaction and suspicion amongst the members of the staff. The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) said this. Now remember that this is a suggestion which came from the staff organizations and not from me in regard to the payment of overtime and Sunday time, but the hon. member for Turffontein had the impudence to say this—

He was referring to this consolidation that they asked for, and he was just trying to sow suspicion. I am very pleased that the staff organizations through their leaders can see how much they can depend on the Opposition to maintain their authority and leadership. They realize now that these hon. members, in their efforts to catch the votes of the railwaymen, are quite prepared to sacrifice the leaders of the staff associations, and that now stands on record. I want to say categorically that more has been done for the staff during the last 6y years than during any comparable period in the history of the Railways by way of the improvement of working conditions, the position of housing, increases in wages and salaries, etc. That is the position and the staff know that. That is why I have received the support and the cooperation of all the railwaymen whatever their political affiliations might have been during the past years. Even during the most difficult time in 1954 I had the support and the co-operation of all the railwaymen irrespective of their political views, and I still have that support to-day and I have that co-operation to-day. The staff is thankful for this consolidation. I have received numerous telegrams from different parts of the country thanking me for having decided to consolidate the full cost-of-living allowance, in spite of the fact that the staff was prepared to make certain concessions in regard to Sunday time and overtime. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, the staff know that they have a sympathetic Minister who has in the past and will in the future look after their interests. So much as far as consolidation and the staff are concerned.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? When the Minister made his Budget statement, he said that certain sections of the staff were willing to accept the proposition in respect of overtime rate. What did he mean by “ certain sections ”?

I meant this: All sections of the staff do not work overtime and all sections of the staff do not work Sunday-time. It is only a small minority of the staff that is actually concerned with overtime. Is that clear?

It is misleading.

It is not misleading. If the hon. member knew anything about railway working he would have known that and it would not have been necessary for me to tell him.

*The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) spoke about encouraging border industries. He suggested that we should make certain concessions in regard to tariffs. He is not here to-night unfortunately, but I promised to reply in his absence.

Where is he?

Where you also are.

Where they ought to be. My reply is that we cannot have any tariff manipulation. Encouragement will in fact be given to industries which establish their factories on the borders, but that encouragement will have to take another form. If it were to be decided to grant them a reduction in tariffs so that they can be in a competitive position vis-à-vis similar industries which are near to their markets, the Central Government will have to assume responsibility for it by way of a subsidy, and I think the hon. member agrees with that. He also referred to the difference in the tariffs on manufactured articles and those on raw materials. That is so. There are certain industries which are affected by it, e.g. industries which if they are established near the source of their raw materials have to pay such a high tariff on the manufactured article that they find it difficult to compete with other industries which are near their markets. It is, however, applicable only in exceptional cases and railway tariffs cannot be manipulated in such a way as to make concessions to each individual industry because it is established in a particular place. It will also be very unjust towards industries which have already been established near to their markets if another industry which is now established near the source of its raw material is to enjoy a lower tariff on its manufactured article. That would lead to unfair competition and therefore we cannot manipulate tariffs in this way.

The hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. M. C. van Niekerk) spoke about a rail link between Mafeking and Lichtenburg. This matter has repeatedly been investigated in the past, but it would be quite uneconomic to build that link. There is no industrial or mining development in that area, and the only traffic available will be agricultural products. After having investigated the matter in the past, it was found that the volume of traffic which would be available for transport over that connecting line would not be enough to pay the interest on the capital costs involved in building the line. Therefore I am afraid there is no hope that such a connecting line will be built in the immediate future.

In regard to the grain elevator at East London, I agree with the hon. member that it is very desirable that an elevator should be built there. It will facilitate the export of maize, and as he says, it is possible that it will also reduce the production costs of the farmer, because the ships will be able to be loaded so much faster when grain is loaded en masse instead of in bags. At the moment negotiations are in progress with the Department of Agriculture. I have informed the Department of Agriculture that I am prepared to build that grain elevator subject to certain conditions. That is still being considered and I have not received their reply yet.

The station building at Lichtenburg will not be able to be built this year. I do not know whether it will receive attention next year; it depends on what position it takes on the priority list. I shall ask the Management to go into the matter. Nor will the houses at Coligny be built at present. In comparison with other places, Coligny is still reasonably well off in so far as housing is concerned.

The hon. member for Berea (Mr. Butcher) spoke about shipping. It was really a pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to listen to an hon. member who has made a thorough study of his subject. The hon. member’s approach is quite different from the approach of the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell). The approach of the hon. member for Berea was one of optimism and faith in the future of South Africa which was just the reverse of the approach of the hon. member for Wynberg. The hon. member spoke about the development of the shipbuilding industry. I think the hon. member realizes that I cannot establish a shipbuilding industry; all I can do is to provide the necessary facilities. I think he should make the same speech when the Vote of my colleague, the hon. Minister of Economic Affairs, comes up for discussion, in regard to Government assistance and one thing and another. I can only give him this assurance that if the demand is there I will consider providing the facilities but you cannot very well provide facilities when there is no demand for such facilities. I know there are overseas firms interested in establishing shipbuilding yards in Durban. I have already had consultations with them. They want to do so in collaboration with a local engineering firm in Durban. I was very sympathetic and that particular firm is considering the matter as to whether they should establish a large shipbuilding industry in South Africa. I give them every encouragement and I agree with the hon. member that it is important and in the interests of South Africa that the shipbuilding industry should be developed in this country.

The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) had certain complaints. Sir, I really do not know what reply to give to the hon. member. She has received a little information here and there from people and from workers and my advice to her is this: Tell those railwaymen that they have excellent staff associations which will cater for their interests, and that those staff associations will do much more than the hon. member will ever be able to do, because they know the conditions and they know their people and they are there to look after the interests of their members. They do so very effectively, and they also know much more about these matters than the hon. member. I do not blame the hon. member for Drakensberg; she simply received a memorandum setting out these matters, and to someone who does not know precisely what is going on it is absolute Greek. But if the hon. member were to ask them to work through their staff associations, or if they cannot work through the staff associations, through the ordinary official channels of the Railways, they will achieve much more than by having these matters discussed over the floor of the House. This is very sound advice.

That will be the day!

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) accused me of using evasive tactics in my reply. I do not think that I used evasive tactics. The trouble is, Sir, that that hon. member speaks such unutterable nonsense on occasions that one simply cannot reply to him. I do not think any other hon. member has ever accused me of trying to evade an issue. I am always only too pleased to reply if there is any sense in an argument. When the hon. member uses some common sense and makes good points I have always been and still am prepared to reply to him. Let me give you an example of the type of argument he advances, Sir. The hon. member spoke about the surplus of R45,000,000 and the R44,000,000 which the staff received. He realized that those figures were quite wrong, so he corrected himself and said that he had meant revenue. But even if he talks about a revenue of R45,000,000 that is still wrong. Here I have the report of the Auditor-General from which he is always so keen to quote. This is the report for 1944-5. The total earnings for that year in round figures were £58,000,000 for the following year, 1945-6, in round figures, it was £64,000,000, an increase of £6,000,000, and not £22,500,000 or R45,000,000 as the hon. member said. This is according to the Auditor-General’s report; so even those figures of his were wrong. And where did the hon. member get the figure of R44,000,000 from which he said the staff received? Figures in the hands of that hon. member, Sir, become very dangerous. I said on a previous occasion that figures cannot lie and the hon. member knows the rest.

The hon. member wanted to know whether I agreed with the General Manager that R200,000,000 was adequate for the Rates Equalization Fund.

No, I did not say that.

What did the hon. member say; I do not want to misquote him.

The hon. the Minister will recall I apologized for the fact that I had not noticed the correction. Then I put the direct question to the Minister as to what he considered was a satisfactory figure at which the Reserve Funds should stand. I asked him whether he considered that R200,000,000 would be a satisfactory figure.

Mr. Speaker, if it was practicable to build the Rates Equalization Fund up to a credit balance of R200,000,000 it would be a very good thing but it is quite impracticable. It is quite impracticable even to attempt to build up the Rates Equalization Fund to a credit balance of R200,000,000. It would require an annual appropriation over a number of years of a very large amount and on the understanding that there will not be any deficits during that whole period otherwise the fund would become depleted again.

I was not speaking about the Tariff Reserve Fund.

I am speaking about the Rates Equalization. That was the fund which the hon. member mentioned originally and when he quoted what the General Manager had said. I am coming to the general reserve funds. He wanted to know what I would consider an adequate amount in the Rates Equalization Fund.

I never mentioned the Tariff Reserve Fund.

There is no question of building up the Renewals Fund; depreciation is on a fixed scale and depreciation is not made by way of appropriation but only one section of it, namely the Higher Replacement Cost section—that is strengthened by way of appropriation. As soon as the debit balance of about R18,000,000 is wiped out and the appropriation is sufficient every year to cover the expenditure for the ensuing year that would be quite adequate. There is no purpose in building up a reserve in that Fund; it is simply not done. You do not build up a reserve in a Betterment Fund. You appropriate sufficient money for the ensuing year’s expenditure. I explained in my reply to the Budget debate that we never build up on the basis of future commitments. I do not see the purpose of the hon. member’s question. There is only one fund that can be built up and that is the Rates Equalization Fund, not the other funds, and if the Rates Equalization Fund can be built up to £20,000,000 I shall be perfectly happy. But whether it can reach that without making a fixed contribution, is impossible for me to say; it all depends on the finances of the Railways.

Did you say £20,000,000?

Yes— R40,000,000. I will be quite happy if we can build it up to that but that all depends on the finances.

The hon. member also said that not until such time as the Funds had been stablized should any concessions be made to commerce, industry and agriculture. That was the allegation he made.

The General Manager said that.

He said that and I agree with him. I am not prepared to make any concessions until such time as the debit balance in the Renewals Fund has been paid off, until the loan that is still outstanding in the Betterment Fund has been repaid and until I have an adequate reserve in the Rates Equalization Fund. That is quite right and I agree with the General Manager.

Then the hon. member also juggled with figures in regard to the staff position. What he hopes to gain by that nobody knows. These figures are easily obtainable. I can give the hon. member the figures in respect of the staff complement since 1948. In 1957 the staff in the Railway service numbered 234,000 in round figures and in 1960, 217,000 in round figures. That is a difference of just under 17,000, but that was the actual staff in service apart from posts which were vacant but not filled and abolished. That was how I arrived at the figure of 17,000. The hon. member spoke about the 4,000 White workers that had been “ sacked ”. I do not know what kind of businessman the hon. member is. Does he really expect, in spite of increased efficiency, in spite of mechanization, the staff complement to remain the same? What on earth is the use or raising productivity, what is the use of increasing efficiency, of introducing mechanization if we have to retain the same number of staff to do that work? If he asks any businessman on his side of the House he will tell him that that is just absolute nonsense. That is the purpose of raising the efficiency of the staff, but these men on the fixed establishment have not been paid off or “ sacked ” as the hon. member put it. It was only when vacancies occurred that we did not fill them. In the case of the casual workers we dispensed with the services of a number of them.

Then the hon. member also wanted to know what opportunity was given to rail-workers to improve their position. Every opportunity is given to railworkers to do so. Every encouragement is given to them to accept graded positions. As a matter of fact, a few years ago I appointed a special committee to contact the rail-workers, to make the necessary inquiries and to try to persuade them to accept graded positions but unfortunately the response was very disappointing. The overwhelming number of them prefer to remain railworkers, they do not want promotion to graded positions. We actually offered semi-skilled positions in Bloemfontein with housing facilities to a number of rail-workers in the Western Province but they refused those positions; they did not want to go away. They all have the opportunity to improve their position. Those who are fit and who have the necessary qualifications have the opportunity of being promoted to graded positions. It is entirely up to them. Those who are unfit and who lack the necessary qualifications will probably remain rail-workers. I am afraid that as a result of the concession that I have made, namely consolidation, which will result in an increase of up to 60 per cent in their pensions, the inducement to accept graded positions will be less than it was previously.

How do you replace the shortfall?

By Natives, of course, if we cannot get the White men. We have about 14,000 Bantu doing unskilled work to-day. Obviously if you cannot get the White men to do unskilled work you employ Natives. As a matter of fact, I would like to see all those European workers do semi-skilled work and allow the Bantu to do the unskilled work.

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 amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a second time.

House in Committee:

Clauses, Schedules and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.