Mr. Speaker, it is already a well-known fact that at the recent Prime Ministers’ Conference I considered it my duty to withdraw South Africa’s application to remain a member of the Commonwealth as the result of the circumstances which developed there. I hurried back to South Africa in order to make this announcement to Parliament at the first possible opportunity. However, it seems to me that this is not a suitable occasion to make a statement, because I consider that it is only fair to hon. members of the Opposition that it should become the subject of a debate immediately after having given my explanation. Furthermore, I consider it to be my duty towards the Chairman of the Prime Ministers’ Conference not to forestall his explanation to his Parliament. It is his intention, as I have been informed, to make his statement there to-morrow afternoon. Under the circumstances I consider it best for me to give my explanation on Thursday and that a debate should follow on that immediately, which will give hon. members the opportunity to express their opinions. If I were to give notice of such a motion to-day, the motion would appear on the Order Paper to-morrow and the effect of it would be that hon. members would be restricted in the Budget debate to-morrow. I would not like that to happen and therefore I rise to-day to state that I will give notice to-morrow of a motion which will then appear on the Order Paper on Thursday, when the debate can take place. By doing that, according to the information given to me, hon. members will be free to say what they like in the Budget debate to-morrow. I hope, however, that hon. members, if possible, will be able to wait until Thursday when the matter can be discussed here, and they will also have full opportunities for discussion further during the rest of the time set aside for the Budget debate. In addition, I consider it desirable to give the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. the Leader of the Progressive Party certain personal and confidential information according to the usual practice of consultation between the Head of the Government and the leaders of other parties in regard to important matters, without restricting them in respect of anything they might want to say further. I think there is certain information they ought to have before they take part in the debate.

I may just say one word in regard to the merits, and that is that after I had done everything in my power to make it possible for us to remain in the Commonwealth a point was arrived at where I could go no further. Three factors led to that. The first was when the attitude was adopted that in future the colour policy of South Africa would no longer be regarded as being purely its own domestic affair, but as a matter which could be discussed at all times, whether at a Commonwealth conference or on any other occasion, not only in the future but at any stage immediately after the discussion, so that in my opinion it would have meant continual interference in the domestic affairs of South Africa. Secondly, there was the threat that at any time, in a few months or a few weeks or even in a few days’ time—that is, even while the Commonwealth Conference was still sitting—certain members reserved the right to submit a motion asking for the expulsion of South Africa because, as was generally recognized, at no time did the question of a republic or a monarchy have any connection with the subject under discussion, except as affording a convenient opportunity to discuss South Africa’s membership. The third factor which came to the fore was that certain members reserved the right to themselves to reconsider their own position in regard to membership if South Africa should remain a member, and I felt that South Africa did not have the right to place its friends at the Prime Ministers’ Conference in the invidious position of having to make a choice one way or the other. I therefore also regarded it as a good deed done by one friend to another to make the decision myself. I am stating these three points so that hon. members can devote their attention to it at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I have returned from the Prime Ministers’ Conference to inform this House that South Africa saw need to withdraw her request for continued membership under certain circumstances which I felt left us no other choice. At the same time I feel that just a simple statement by me, a short written statement, would not be sufficient on this occasion, but that the importance of the matter makes it necessary for a proper debate to take place immediately after my fuller statement. For that reason I have decided that it would be best for me to give notice to-morrow of a motion which will make discussion possible on Thursday. On Thursday I shall give this House as full information as I am permitted to give in view of the secrecy of Prime Ministers’ conferences, and then a debate can take place immediately. I also thought that this was necessary for another reason namely that it would be the only courteous attitude to take towards the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom who was chairman of this conference of Prime Ministers and who therefore, to my mind, should make his statement first. He will do so in the British Houses of Parliament to-morrow, according to my information. I also thought it necessary and advisable that I should see the Leader of the United Party and the Leader of the Progressive Party this afternoon beforehand if they so wish, in order to provide them with certain additional information which I cannot make public but which I think it is customary and right to supply to the major leaders of the Opposition. I am following this method of not giving notice of motion to-day, because if I should give notice now, the motion would appear on the Order Paper to-morrow and that would debar hon. members from discussing these matters, if they so wish, in the course of the Budget debate to-morrow. I still hope that they will not see any need to discuss these matters to-morrow before having heard my full statement, but they are free to do so if they wish. By giving notice to-morrow, the motion will appear on the Order Paper on Thursday and hon. members will thus not be debarred from following their own desires.

In a few words in Afrikaans, I did give information as to the three final points on which our decision was taken. That should show that the decision was taken on the one hand in the interests and for the honour of South Africa and on the other hand in accordance with the demands of friendship, taking into consideration the most invidious position in which the United Kingdom and our other friends would be placed if they had to chose between members, and had to choose in such a way that bad feelings might have been aroused afterwards, whereas the position is now that it is possible on the one hand to hold together those other members of the Commonwealth, without having to seem to placate us from time to time, and on the other hand to develop and strengthen the friendship of the United Kingdom towards South Africa much more than ever before.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, had the hon. the Prime Minister not made the request he did, coupled with an assurance of an early debate, I would have found it almost impossible to avoid reference to our withdrawal from the Commonwealth and would have had to discuss the impact of that tragic event— especially in view of the confident assurances we were given in advance—on the economic position of our country. Our leaving the Commonwealth must have very grievous effects on our national economy and, as an important secondary consideration, on railway revenue. It would have been almost impossible not to comment in passing on what has recently happened. But naturally we will now pass over that aspect of the matter in accord with the wishes of our leaders. We will wait for the further opportunity to be given to us soon, to discuss the Prime Minister’s full report on what took place at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ Conference in London, the proceedings which we on this side have all watched with great anxiety because the outcome seemed an inevitable culmination of Government policy over the years. We will content ourselves at this stage with a discussion of the much more mundane business before the House, i.e. railway budgets, railway revenues and even the inefficiencies of the Minister of Transport. Sir, I shall just say this one thing, although it may not be of paramount importance to all. We so-called English-speaking South Africans derive no small consolation from the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister has been given assurances of friendship from and with Great Britain. Can the present close ties be fully maintained? We hope and trust, those of us who are of British origin, and those of us who are not but who value old traditions, that we all will find that we can return to a basis of firmer understanding, sometime in the future, in order to surmount the difficult times that lie far ahead. Naturally I am not going to refer, to-day, to anything that the hon. the Prime Minister has asked us to avoid. The opportunity will come soon.

Let me now confine myself to the Railways and their financial future. The welfare not only of this country but of the Railways depends essentially upon the economic progress we make. The hon. Minister of Transport is optimistic about the untrammelled future of South Africa. Let me ask him however to take note of what his colleague, the hon. Minister of Finance, said when he welcomed the Prime Minister at the airport last night. “ Our future road will not be easy … grave storms, more than previous ones, will come.” I note, in passing, that in his enthusiasm he mixed metaphors to praise the Prime Minister as one “who would not allow South Africa to become the ‘doormat’ for the use of people whose ‘ hands ’ were not clean”.

The Minister of Finance says that serious times lie ahead of us. Is that not an added reason for the hon. the Minister of Transport to reconsider his plans for the future and to recast his estimates? He knows more than anybody else the delicate poise of profits in relation to high-rated traffic and its dependence on imported goods. If imports fall away, what is the position of the Railways likely to be? I hope that he country may emerge, from the tribulations which seem inevitable, happier than many of us at the present moment think possible. That is the hope all South Africans share.

I now come to ordinary, mundane railway matters. The hon. the Minister in his previous reply to our amendment failed to deal with three or four minor but important points. I have asked him repeatedly whether he is satisfied that the round figure of R4,000,000, which at the moment is granted by way of subsidy by Treasury to the Railways, for Transport to Native townships surrounding our cities, is adequate. I have requested the hon. the Minister to tell us what formula is employed to calculate the amount due. What is the basis on which the final indebtedness is ascertained? Would the hon. the Minister in his reply kindly inform us? As the House is aware the United Party has always taken the view that a service which is rendered by the Railways for the benefit of the whole community should be paid out of the Consolidation Revenue Fund and should not be a burden on the railway users or the railway employees. I am quite sure that the hon. the Minister realizes that R4,000,000 is not a sufficient contribution by Treasury to the Administration for those services. I think he should tell us that, if it is proved to be inadequate, the subsidy will be revised.

The second point is a minor one, in the sense that it refers to a small amount. But it is a matter of major principle. I refer to the losses suffered by the Railways on the carriage of drought-stricken stock. The hon. the Minister told us that the loss, on an average, for the last few years, has been about R80,000 a year. There is no reason why this should not come out of the general purse of the community at large. It should be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. There is no reason why the railway users or the railway workers should pay these losses and, as a matter of principle, the hon. the Minister should exercise greater influence over the Minister of Finance. He should insist that the Railways have this loss made good by Treasury. There is a third point I want to raise. The Minister made great play of the huge amounts of increased expenditure suggested by this side of the House. He has given all our suggestions a monetary value and then added them together to make a formidable sum. He also taunts us by saying that we were making mere election promises. He upbraids me, for instance, for demanding that the work-week of the artisan staff should be decreased by two hours. I want to remind him that one of the many unfulfilled election promises made by one, Ben Schoeman, in 1943, was that every worker—on the Railways or in Industry—would get a 40-hour week if the Nationalists came into power. Now he refuses to knock two hours off the 46-hour week of Railway artisans.

He referred to the fact that the United Party had suggested that the Rates Equalization Fund should be built up to a sum of between R50,000,000 and R60,000,000. He cited this as evidence of the financial extravagance of our ideas. May I say this—nobody knows better than you, Mr. Speaker, that an endorsement of this suggestion came from the Nationalist ranks in this House. It was no less a person than the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) who recommended those figure as far back as 1956. It was the hon. member for Vredefort who said that a Rates Equalization Fund, which then stood at R17,000,000, was “ totally insufficient”. He said that the Administration should build up its Rates Equalization Fund to between R50,000,000 and R60,000,000. That is exactly the figure which the hon. the Minister picked on and attributed to this side of the House, and said was extravagant and wild …

I did not say it was extravagant, I merely listed it as one of the items suggested. I did not say it was extravagant. Read my Hansard.

I accept the Minister’s word. But, may I suggest to him that it was a conveniently large sum, a nice big item of R60,000,000 to add to and inflate the grand total of rand which the Minister ridiculed as wild and extravagant. It made his total a lot fatter. It enhanced the total, but it did not enhance the Minister’s argument. That figure was endorsed by an ex-Chairman of the Railways and Harbours Select Committee, for whom the Minister has the highest admiration, both for acumen and foresight. So that the hon. the Minister must not suggest that we are being foolish and extravagant. He will find, if he dissects all the suggestions we made, that each one in itself is excellent just as was the idea of a Sinking Fund. We did not expect all of our ideas to be adopted immediately. Taken and added together as the Minister did, to make one colossal sum, sounds ridiculous and impossible, and merely constitutes debating society tactics, out of place in a serious financial discussion and fails to destroy our very good arguments …

The Sinking Fund was also a suggestion from his side.

Yes, partially so. After us, the Nationalists tried to borrow our good idea. Another ex-Chairman of the Railways Select Committee, who is now occupying a very much higher post as a Railway Commissioner, did also suggest a Sinking Fund.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to end with this final warning. The hon. the Minister should take serious note of the undoubtedly ominous signs ahead. Can he ignore the words of his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Finance? We do not wish to refer to the recent regrettable and unnecessary failure of the Prime Minister’s “ diplomatic ” mission to the Prime Ministers’ Conference. I know that all on this side of the House, and I hope even some of the members on the other side, are grievously perturbed by the fact that we may no longer be in the Commonwealth after 31 May because of 13 years of wilfulness and …

Is that so?

I suppose that some hon. members on that side will rejoice. I do not know. But the sad fact remains that we have been engineered out of the Commonwealth by the Prime Minister and the consequences may be most serious for our country. All of us who are South Africans will try and overcome the difficulties that lie ahead of us even though we were not the cause of them; even though we lay the blame squarely on the shoulders of this Government. We will try to serve South Africa. To conclude: the hon. the Minister must know, that circumstances to-day are not the same as they were when he planned his Budget. I think he must be aware that forces may come into play of which may seriously upset his calculations. He should, in that light, revise his ideas and make new plans. It is in that hope that I may cause him to do so that I have made these few remarks to-day.

Mr. Speaker, with reference to what the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) has just said, I really do not think that it was necessary for him to bring it to the notice of the hon. the Minister of Transport that we shall be out of the Commonwealth on 31 May, and that possibly there may be other developments which make it difficult for the Railways. I do not think it was necessary for him to bring it to the notice of the Minister, because. Sir, I think every member on this side of the House was honest in his intentions, and the hon. the Prime Minister was certainly most honest of all when he went to the Commonwealth Conference with the one great object in mind of remaining within the Commonwealth. But I am not going to discuss that further now. The hon. the Prime Minister will explain the whole matter on Thursday, and then there will be an opportunity to discuss these things. I just want to add this. The hon. member for Wynberg said that he was proud of coming from British stock. I can also say that I am from British stock … [Interjections.] I thought that hon. member was from Woodstock. I can perhaps also say that I am of British stock, although my ancestors were Germans. But I am now of South African stock. I am a South African and I know that the South African Railways will continue in that spirit. If difficult days come along, the people of South Africa will stand by the Railways.

Mr. Speaker, we have now come to the end of days of debate on the Railway Budget, and I am convinced that even the hon. members opposite must admit that they made a very poor attempt to break through the defences of the hon. the Minister of Transport. I do not blame them for it, and it is a pity that it should be the position that the Railway debates are always been used by members of the Opposition to make election propaganda, and that they should always make use of this important debate when there is a possible election in the offing …

Order! Hon. members should not talk so loudly and they should give the hon. member an opportunity to make his speech.

If possibly an election is held, they have already fired the first shots in this House. Sir, I really think that if some impartial person had sat here throughout all these debates and were to decide as to who had won the fight, there surely would be no doubt in his mind that the Minister of Railways won it. But it cannot be otherwise. The Railways are prospering. That is also the reason why the hon. the Minister could introduce this wonderful Budget. Things are going well with the Railways because the hon. the Minister personally stands at the head of it, and because he has such efficient persons on his Management, and also because the railway-men are at pains to contribute their share in all honesty. But it cannot be otherwise. If I were a Railway servant and my employer looked after me well, as the hon. the Minister has done in recent years, I would at least for my part try to do my share. Sir, I really cannot understand what these complaints and this moaning by the Opposition is all about. What is wrong with the Railways, what is wrong with our Airways, and what is wrong with our harbour services? Things are going well with the Railways in South Africa.

When one has advanced step by step according to plan in past years, and has planned every expansion thoroughly, we must eventually reach the stage which we have now reached, where things are easier on the Railways; where we are now able not only to transport the traffic offered, which in the past we could not do, but that we are able to do it in such an economical manner that it cannot be done more economically almost anywhere else in the world. Commerce and industry are satisfied. I looked through Railway News, and I cannot find anything to show that any Chamber of Commerce complained about the service or said that it had become inefficient. The South African Agricultural Union and the farmers speak with gratitude and praise about the services rendered by the Railways. The ordinary railway user is satisfied. There is only one section which is always dissatisfied, and that is the Opposition when they are in this House.

Last year the Railways celebrated their tercentenary. They did so in a magnificent manner. Now I wonder, if I were to thank the Minister and the Management of the Railways this afternoon on behalf of the whole of this House, whether any laughter would be heard. I want to thank the Railways for the wonderful contribution they made to the Union Festival also. During the celebrations at Bloemfontein there were no fewer than 38 special trains to take visitors from all parts of the country to Bloemfontein, and 21 special trains were arranged to take them back home. Not only did the Railways render that service to take these people to and from the Festival, but I really think that the Railways deserves great honour and praise and credit for the way it rendered that service, and for the way in which school children from all over the country were transported to Bloemfontein, and for the orderly way in which it was done. Sir, I really thought that there would be one grateful member amongst the ranks of the Opposition who would say thank you for the way in which the hon. the Minister and the Railway Management transported on those wonderful trains those of us who attended the celebrations as guests of honour. To me the wonderful services rendered by the Railways are just indescribable. No fewer than three special trains were arranged to transport the guests of honour. There was one train from the Cape Province and one from the Transvaal. Even the ungrateful Natal was not excluded. There was also a train from Natal to the Free State. On those trains we were treated like kings. I really did not realize that the Railways could render such excellent services as they did on those trains. I see before me numbers of members of the Opposition who were also guests and who travelled on those trains. I had hoped that there would be a little gratitude in their hearts. Therefore on behalf of those guests who were invited by the Railways, I want to extend my grateful thanks to the hon. the Minister and the Management for the wonderful way in which they transported and treated us and showed us what the South African Railways are really capable of.

Mr. Speaker, whilst the celebrations were in progress there was also the conference of representatives from the states of Southern Africa. They also attended these celebrations. I remember how the Belgian Manager of Railways one night, whilst we sat in the beautiful drawing-room of the train, told us about the service rendered by the Belgian Government for the Congolese in the Congo. I then told him: I cannot quite understand you; can you tell me why the Belgians do it? He then said that he did not understand it either but presumed that it was due to a feeling of goodwill. But he and all of those delegates who attended the conference spoke with great praise of our Railways. They gave me the assurance that in Africa and in large parts of the world there was no better service than that rendered by the South African Railways. But now the Opposition has to come along, and here I think particlularly of the hon. member for Danskraal, or rather Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) …

Just say Danskraal.

Instead of appreciating what is being done by the Railways, the members of the Opposition try to get in a blow here and there so as to catch a vote here and there amongst the Railway servants. Unfortunately, I was not here last night, but I understand that the hon. member for Drakensberg made a furious attack on me in regard to what I said during the previous session. I did not realize that a lady could be so spiteful. For a whole year she has had a feeling of vengeance in her heart, instead of coming to me like a kindly sister and discussing the matter in the lobby. But, instead of that, she has had this feeling of vengeance for 12 months, and then she attacked me. That is what has happened throughout this debate. Every speaker opposite launched attacks, and then it was always a “ miss cue ”. I am reminded of the hon. member for Wynberg when he launched his attacks here. I am reminded of the attacks made by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) and the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton). But, when the Minister got up, all the arguments disappeared like mist before the sun. But then they came along with the most important attack. They had to try to gain a few votes, or retain them, amongst the Railway servants. Then the great attack was launched because, in their opinion, the consolidation of cost-of-living allowances with basic wages, and particularly Sunday time, is not correct. They now want to prescribe to the Minister and to the staff associations. But allow me to give those hon. members good advice. They are landing themselves deeper and deeper into trouble. They should leave the problems of staff matters to the Minister and the staff associations themselves. There is good co-operation and understanding. As the Minister correctly stated, there is a complete partnership between the Minister of Transport and his staff. I cannot do otherwise than to express the greatest praise and thanks to them for rendering such services to the Railways. I do not doubt for a moment that the Railways has got past its troubles and that in future we will be able, not only to transport the traffic offered, but that, through more efficiency and more mechanization, we shall be able to do it more economically. Where one needs quite a number of Bantu to load up a truck, one needs only one mechanical loading shovel in order to dispense with those 40 Bantu labourers. By increasing mechanization we will eventually be able to transport more economically, and I foresee the day when tariffs on the railways will be reduced because, if the Minister continues as he is doing now, and the service improve as it is doing now, we shall be able to produce and manufacture more economically. I am a farmer, and I know that when one ploughs with oxen as compared with a tractor, one can do better work with the tractor, and eventually produce more economically. The same applies to the Railways. I want to conclude now, because I feel that it is really not necessary to say more about Railway matters. I think that if we want to give the Opposition good advice, it is that, instead of criticizing, the time has arrived for us to regard the railways as a national asset, and not as a political platform from which to catch votes. And if I can give them some more advice, it is this: Appreciate the present Minister of Transport, because he deserves it. In the past he never spared himself. He worked day and night, so that the Railways could reach its present position. He is ably supported by the management and the staff and, on behalf of South Africa, I want to tell them: Many thanks for what you have done for South Africa.

The last speaker has given some advice to the Opposition in regard to how he thinks we should conduct ourselves when discussing railway budgets. His advice amounts to this: That we should not do what the Government members do, but that we, as the Opposition, should concentrate on all of those things that are going to make the Railways an easier concern for the hon. the Minister to control. And all of the things which could be said to encourage and to persuade railwaymen to vote for the United Party we should leave to the Government members to say, because the Government members are convinced that the railwayworkers are their own preserves. That sums up what the hon. member has just said. But if a responsible Opposition were to accept advice of that sort, it would be failing in its duty, not only towards the railwaymen of South Africa, but also towards South Africa itself. The fact is that it is the duty of a responsible Opposition to oppose anything and everything which they consider the Minister is doing or has done that can affect either the running of the railways or the workers employed by the Railway Administration. There is nothing much else that I can say with regard to the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Knobel) and the contribution he has just made, and I will leave it at that.

I now wish to say a few words in connection with the reply that the hon. the Minister of Transport gave on the occasion of the second-reading debate of this particular Bill. The hon. the Minister spoke about the extravagant promises and the touching concern that had been shown by speakers on this side of the House during the debate which has just taken place. I want to deal with, firstly, the extravagant promises. What were these extravagant promises that we are alleged to have made to the railwayworkers during this debate? We have pointed out that, as an Opposition, we do not agree with what the hon. the Minister has agreed to do, with the consent of the staff; that we do not agree that the manner in which overtime payments are to be made, and we have pointed out what it is likely to cost the Administration, and what it is likely to cost the railwayworkers. And the hon. the Minister interprets that as extravagant promises.

Mr. Speaker, I have gone to a little trouble to try and discover what the actual cost would be in relation to the departure from the traditional manner of paying overtime work at time-and-a-third, and double time on Sundays. I have tried to discover what this cost is likely to be, and, although the information that is available to hon. members of this House is neither complete nor up to date, it would appear to me from deductions that one can make from the annual report of the General Manager and the report of the Controller and Auditor-General, that it will be as follows: It appears to me that the employees—I am not dealing with the officers here, but only with the employees—will receive considerably less. The difference in earnings when overtime is based on the consolidated rate without enhancement, and when overtime is based on the consolidated rate at time-and-one-third, the difference per annum, would, in round figures, amount to £1,500,000.

You are quite wrong.

The hon. the Minister has had numerous opportunities during the series of debates that we have had to give this House information which would enable us to consider what the actual position would be. He has not done so. He has not given us that necessary information, and now, because we have been compelled to work out an estimate of what the cost is likely to be, the hon. the Minister says that we are quite wrong. But there is yet time for the Minister to give the correct information to one of the hon. members on his side of the House, so that we will be able to deal with it before the end of this particular debate.

As I was saying, I consider that the additional cost that would be involved if time and one third were paid instead of straight time on the newly consolidated rate, would amount to £1,500,000 per annum. And in regard to Sunday time the difference in earnings when double time at the new consolidated wage, would amount to a figure of something like £2,304,000. So that the total extra cost to the Administration, if present overtime rates were applied—that is time and one third for weekly overtime and double time on Sundays —if these rates were applied to the new consolidated basic wage that total additional cost would be somewhere in the region, in respect of employees only, of £3,804,000.

Your figures are hopelessly wrong.

Are they too low?

Far too low.

I am glad that I have been on the conservative side because, as I said at the outset I did not have the information which the hon. the Minister has at his disposal. I admit that my figures are on the conservative side as I have worked them out. But the very fact that the figure is in excess of £3,804,000 per annum indicates just what the staff has agreed to in terms of what the Minister has told us; what the staff has agreed to forgo to get the benefit of full consolidation. And, Mr. Speaker, you can well understand why the official Opposition has made such a point of this issue during this debate. If my figures are conservative, it means that as the result of the agreement arrived at between the Minister and the staff associations and the suggestions made by the latter, on that agreement the staff were prepared to forgo at least an amount of £3,804,000 per annum in respect of overtime work, by overtime not being paid for at the traditional rates of time and a third on week-days and double time on Sundays. So that when we speak about a major change in policy, and when we said quite definitely that no matter what the staff associations agreed to or whether all the staff associations agreed to this principle being changed or not, we as the official Opposition were not prepared to support this change. Knowing what it amounts to in £ s.d. we said quite clearly that we did not consider that the Minister should have departed from the old traditional way of paying for week-day overtime and Sunday time. Having said that, it is quite clear that the long-term benefits which the members of the staff will receive as the result of consolidation are mainly in respect of improved pension benefits when they retire. In that regard you will remember, Sir, that we asked for fuller information during the Budget debate, so that we as an official Opposition could be in the position to assess what the Minister has agreed to and what the staff associations have accepted. We asked the Minister whether the new consolidated basic rate was going to be paid when railwaymen went on their annual leave or went off sick, or were off through injuries on duty, and what the basic rate would be for bonus payments and for calculating pension contributions, and whether contributors to the pension fund would be permitted to pay back up to seven years. All of these points are of considerable importance to the staff and to the Opposition, which is doing its best to assess what the actual benefits are involved in the consolidation. If I may just take one of these points I have mentioned on which we asked for full information, the question of the piecework bonus scheme, according to the last report of the Controller and Auditor-General, the payments during 1958-9 amounted to £1,871,448, i.e. the total payments paid out in piecework under the bonus scheme, and the average percentage gain during that year was 45 per cent. In 1959-60 the payments had decreased and the amount shown there was £1,690,753, and the average percentage gain had dropped by 1 per cent to 44 per cent. I mention these figures because we have to understand that one of the problems of consolidation, if the new consolidated rates are to be the basis upon which bonus earnings are to be paid, the net result would be an increase in production costs without a corresponding increase in output. But that is inevitable. It has to happen when consolidation takes place, and although the Minister has said from time to time as Minister of Labour and as Minister of Transport that he is keenly interested in bonus incentive schemes, the main purpose of which is to reduce costs and to increase output, under consolidation it is inevitable that this process will be reversed and it is part of the price that one has to pay for having a system of cost-of-living allowances divorced from basic payments in respect of overtime and bonus work. Despite that, and despite the importance of the bonus work system, when the Minister was asked whether the bonus work payments were to be based on the new consolidated rate, he failed to give an answer. Last night, when he replied to the second reading debate, he said that in respect of overtime rates, all the staff associations had agreed to the new proposals. I ask him again whether these staff associations which are affected by bonus incentive schemes have agreed to any change in the basic rate of pay? Is the new bonus rate to be on the consolidated rate, or is it to remain, as the Sunday overtime payments are to remain, on the old figure? Unless we can get this vital information, how are we to assess what actual benefits the staff as a whole will receive as the result of this consolidation over and above what the Minister has indicated in his Budget speech, viz. benefits to those who are about to go on pension, where the benefit can be as high as 60 per cent?

Is R12,000,000 a small sum?

Sir, R12,000,000 is the figure the Minister has estimated that it will cost the Administration to implement consolidation.

Is that not a benefit to the staff?

The long-term benefit in respect of pensions is likely to be considerable if their contributions are going to be based on the new consolidated rate, but the Minister has not even told us that that will be the position. We assume that their benefits will be based on the new basic rate, but we have not been told so by the Minister, and that is the point I have made all along. The R12,000,000 which the Minister has indicated is the cost of consolidation, plus certain other concessions, is going to be absorbed, if the full consolidation is pensionable, in increased contributions the Administration will have to make, and my estimate is that that will be somewhere in the region of R4,000,000. The increase that will be paid to all the servants so that they will not take home less as a result of consolidation at the end of each month is another R4,000,000. The increased overtime payments appears to be somewhere in the region of R1,500,000 and there are other factors which I am not in a position to mention because the Minister has not told us what the other concessions are. In other words, the actual cash benefit which the railwaymen will take home at the end of each month is as yet an undefined figure. The Minister has not said whether it is equivalent to a 1, 2 or 5 per cent increase in total earnings. He has not said whether as a result of consolidation the pay-packet at the end of the month will be larger or smaller. It is true he said it will not be smaller, but he did not say by what percentage it will be increased, and if members of this House are under the impression that the R12,000,000 will result in an equivalent increase in the total earnings of the staff, they are under a misapprehension. Is it to be wondered at if the Minister gives us so much incomplete information we as an Opposition query the very item which appears to us to be one of considerable magnitude? He will not give us the full picture, and when we criticize him in respect of that portion of the picture which we can see, he accuses us of being extravagant. If in total consolidation, the cost is going to exceed £3,000,000 per annum in respect of overtime payments based in the consolidated rate, at the old overtime rate of time and a third for week-days and double time for Sundays, then the Minister should give us an estimate of what it will cost. He should say to us: If I were to pay time and a third and double time for Sundays on the consolidated basis, the additional cost would be so many million rand, and he should give us the complete picture, but he has not done so. We as the Opposition asked for it, but have not received it.

The Minister has also accused us of undermining the authority of the leaders of the staff associations because of our attitude.

Naturally.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) says naturally, but that is not so. If on this issue of the overtime payments, the change which has been agreed to by the staff associations, all of them, as the Minister said last night, it is still the duty of the Opposition to say whether or not they accept that overtime should be paid for at the same rate as week-day time and that Sunday time should not be at double rate. It is our duty, and if in conducting ourselves in the manner in which we consider it is correct for the official Opposition to do—if in doing that we are undermining the authority of the staff association leaders, that is a responsibility which we will have to accept, but I want to say that these staff associations will be very thankful to the Opposition for making it perfectly clear that they do not agree with this proposal that overtime should be paid for at the same rate as ordinary time, and at a lesser rate than double time for Sunday work. I cannot emphasize more than I have done during this debate what an important departure this is and what is likely to happen as the result of this precedent and the example a State Department is giving to outside industry. I cannot foresee it, and I do not want to be a prophet, but it will not be long before outside employers will seek to introduce the same principle into wage determinations. The Minister has not indicated why he considered that this suggestion put forward by the staff associations should have been so eagerly grasped at by him and settled before the final negotiations in respect of the total consolidation scheme had been finalized. I assume from what the Minister has said that there are still certain details to be determined, and yet on the principle agreement has been finalized. The Minister has taken a very big step forward here in the direction which the United Party is not prepared to go. I say that the staff associations must be aware—I do not know how they can be unaware—of the implications of such a step, particularly when it is accepted by a State Department. I mentioned the recently concluded agreement between the explosive industry and the employees to indicate that in February of this year this agreement was concluded in terms of which overtime will be paid for at time and a half for week-days and double time for Sundays, and where the basic rate of pay as the result of total consolidation is not much different from what the total rate will be for Railway artisans, to take a comparative group, and I say to the Minister: What is going to be the position if as the result of better overtime payments and an equal rate of pay under consolidation, the Minister begins to lose staff? What will he do then? The Minister will remember that in 1944 and 1946 it was the intention of the Administration to make the wages paid to the artisans particularly in the employ of the Administration as near as possible to those paid by outside industry, to prevent the unnecessary movement of artisans out of the service and into the service, seeking to sell their labour in the highest market. I ask the Minister what will the position be now that he has created this imbalance in regard to the wages paid to artisans in and out of the service, particularly when it would appear that the benefits in respect of the short term will be more advantageous in outside industry than in the Railway service. The Minister knows that he depends on an inflow of young men into the service to build up his artisan force for future years, but if it is going to be better in the short-term view— and unfortunately in South Africa, like in any other country—it is the higher initial payments paid to those beginning their careers which proves more attractive, and not the long-term benefits. It is the initial better wages in the early years which will persuade young men to remain outside the service. I say that by this departure in respect of overtime, and whatever the position will be in respect of bonus working, these two important factors play a very big part in determining whether young men will be employed by the State in big undertakings like the Railways, or whether they will be employed by private enterprise. These are some of the factors which, it is evident to me, will become important in the near future as the result of the policy which has been laid down by agreement with the staff in respect of overtime payments. Because of these developments I feel that the ability of the Administration to maintain its present staff will be threatened. I am one of those who have always taken a great pride in the manner in which artisans, particularly in the Railway Service, have been treated. I was one of those who did all I possibly could to see that the conditions and wage payments in respect of artisans were, if not as good, not worse than those paid by outside industry. We have reached a near point of parity in the last few years, but now I do not know what will happen in that regard. But I want to say it is no use the Minister accusing us of being extravagant in our promises, because the Minister must remember that at least some of the staff associations would have been prepared to accept less than full consolidation if at the same time they could have retained the present basis of overtime payments. The amount being consolidated has made it necessary for these other sacrifices to be made. I do not believe that this was the only way out of the problem, but I do believe that in taking this way out the Minister and the staff associations may, in the long-term view, regret the step that they have taken.

I want to say in conclusion that I think the most disappointing feature of this whole Budget debate has been the manner in which very important details have been withheld from the Opposition. I do not say it was done deliberately. I will say this, though, that I feel that the Minister was in the position to give us more information than he has done, and I think that, when we are judged by what we have said in relation to this debate, it will have to be borne in mind that we have had to criticize and condemn what we found in the Budget, on the basis that we did so with insufficient information at our disposal. It is not that I am making any excuse for anything we have said, because I am not, but I am indicating that it is easy for the Minister to have given us certain information to allow the Opposition to make certain calculations based on that information, and then to say: Your figures are all wrong, and I have no intention of paying this, that or the other. I think that, under these circumstances, we have not failed in our duty to point out what we consider to be the dangers in the proposals the Minister has put before us. We have discharged our duty as an Opposition by pointing out what can and will happen as the result particularly of the variations in overtime payments, and the effect which that will have outside industry.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton), who has just sat down. During the second-reading debate yesterday we listened to two other members of the Opposition, and we were surprised at the weak criticism they had to offer. Small wonder that the Minister told one of them yesterday that he was talking nonsense, and the other one that he did not know what he was talking about. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana made representations this afternoon, but he added that they were merely suppositions, as he had no data. How can he criticize when he comes with stories like that? No, it seems to me that they have no criticism to offer on the Budget or on the Minister, and even less on the legislation which we are about to pass. If we want to analyse the matter thoroughly, we have to adhere to the facts. We have been told that the Railways are in a bad state, and that, during the past ten years, the Minister has made a mess of things, but that does not prove anything, Sir. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) spoke about a number of small bridges. I do not know whether he wants to cross those bridges to go on another “march”, but last night, at a meeting, he had a big mouth about the Prime Minister.

On a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to say that the hon. member for South Coast had a big mouth (groot bek) last night?

Order! Did the hon. member say that?

Yes.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir. Another hon. member had a great deal to say about the Prime Minister, and here I have a telegram which I have received from the railwayworkers in my constituency in which they ask me to issue a challenge to him, and I wish to issue that challenge to the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker), who lives at Germiston. I want to challenge him to resign his seat and to fight me at Edenvale. I want to go further, and prove that, during the past ten years, the facts have proved that the National Government has done very well indeed. When you think of the development which has taken place during the past ten years, Sir, as far as the increase in rail traffic is concerned, you must conclude that the railwayworker is happy in his work. There has to be sufficient traffic to handle. The traffic has to be handled in such a way that it is to the benefit of the people who use the service. If they did not, the traffic would decrease and, according to the General Manager’s report, it is clear that, during the past ten years, rail traffic has increased considerably. I want to give a few examples. Take the railway line from Durban to the north. The gross tonnage conveyed increased by 2,800,000 tons, a 55 per cent increase, and, in the case of Danskraal to the south, Durban and the vicinity, the increase was 42.51 per cent. In the case of Bloemfontein to the north the increase was 104 per cent. From Kimberley to the Transvaal it was 110.38 per cent. Had the Railways not functioned properly, had the Minister not done his job properly, had there not been efficient control, and had the finances not been properly administered, the position would not have been as good as it is. I want to mention something else. In the case of the electrification of railway sections, the National Party Government has electrified a considerable number of sections during their régime. The section from Randfontein to Welverdiend, 31+ miles, was completed in 1951. At Stellenbosch a connecting line of 27 miles was completed in 1953. The line from Bellville to Touws River is 148+ miles in length, and that was completed in 1954; I can mention many more. Every year one or two sections are electrified, and the next section to be electrified is the section between Touws River to Beaufort West, a distance of 179 miles, which will be completed in 1961, and the line from Welgedacht to Oogies, 92 miles, will also be completed this year. Had the Minister not thought that the prospects were good, had he not followed a sound policy in regard to the planning and the finance, he would not have been able to undertake those projects, and it is to his and the National Party’s credit that the Railways have managed to carry the traffic which has been carried, that more passengers have been conveyed, that more tonnage has been conveyed, and, in doing so, he has done a service to the whole of South Africa. The workers are able to earn more; there is more work to be done, particularly by White workers; their purchasing power has increased, and that is to the benefit of the country’s economy. The farmers have also been enabled to convey their products easier and faster to the markets, and, similarly, other users of the railways have been enabled to convey their goods faster. Mr. Speaker, I have another case in mind, namely the pre-cooling sheds that were burnt down at the Cape Town docks. Had it not been for planning on the part of the Railways, had the Minister and his Administration not been so efficient, those new pre-cooling sheds would not have stood there to-day; the export of fruit which is taking place to-day would not have taken place; we would not have had ships touching here in order to get fresh fruit. You should go there and see how the fruit is being handled, Sir, how the ships are loaded, and how the fruit is packed for transport. It is a joy to see what the National Party has done as far as the railways and harbours are concerned. And then the Opposition talks the nonsense which we have had from them. It is clear that they do not even know what the facts are, and that they do not know what they are talking about. I think it is scandalous for a member to get up in this House and to blame the Minister for certain things, with the result that the Minister has to tell him that he is talking nonsense.

I want to go further. Reference has been made to capital. Mr. Speaker, in terms of the South Africa Act the Railways acquired its capital firstly by taking over the capital from the Railways which existed at the time of Union. That capital has been increased from time to time by capital derived from services rendered and loans which have been raised. The question now arises why that capital should suddenly be paid back to-day. Let us examine the position, Sir. All that capital which was invested in the Railways was used for the construction of buildings, for the construction of railway lines, for the purchase of rolling stock and enabling the Railways to operate efficiently. All the capital which has been invested in the Railways belongs to the Union Government. To prove that I want to say this: If property is transferred to the Railways to-day, such property is transferred in favour of the Government of the Union of South Africa (in its Railways and Harbours Administration); in other words, that property belongs to the Government. If Treasury itself borrows money and then, in turn, lends it to the Railways, the Railways pay interest on that money, and that interest is paid from funds earned by the South African Railways through its services. My contention is that we should not build up capital funds at the moment; that we should first of all ensure, as the Minister has said, that our reserves are in a strong position. We have various funds. The Minister said that he wanted to strengthen all those funds. He also said that R6,000,000 had been paid into the Betterment Fund to meet the expenses for 1961-2. He could have paid in much more, but that amount is sufficient for this year, because revenue does not permit of more being paid in. Revenue is derived from the capital of R1,482,000,000 which is invested in the Railways. The revenue of the Railways is R431,000,000. From this revenue the Railways have, in the first place, to meet all its obligations; in other words, it has to pay all the salaries and wages. The Railways have to fulfil its obligations towards the users of the Railways, and it has to make certain payments into the various funds, as laid down by law, and, having fulfilled all its obligations, there was a surplus of approximately R19,000,000 this year. Various funds, such as the Betterment Fund, have to be strengthened from that profit. The Minister must also see to it that certain moneys are voted from loan funds for the Betterment Fund, because the earnings of the Railways are not enough to strengthen that fund sufficiently. Furthermore, he also has to look after the Renewals Fund. Just as in the case of any other business undertaking, there is depreciation of material and of buildings. That material has to be written off or replaced and, for that purpose, there has to be a fund. That fund can only be built up from the earnings of the Railways. The Railways have to earn sufficient money to strengthen that fund and to pay the interest on the capital which it has borrowed from Treasury. If the Railways do not pay that interest the ordinary taxpayer has to pay double interest. For example, if the Railways borrow money from Treasury, it has to pay interest, and that interest has to be paid from the earnings of the Railways. Secondly, once the Betterment Fund has been strengthened from the net profits, the balance has to be utilized for the higher replacement cost account of the Renewals Fund. This fund was created to effect replacements and to assist the Railways in making improvements as far as its capital requirements are concerned. The balance then gets paid into the Rates Equalization Fund, and I want to say something about that. It was stated here that the Rates Equalization Fund was of no value whatsoever, and that loans should be obtained from the Consolidated Revenue Account. The hon. member for Wynberg used that argument, and once again I want to refer him to what the then Minister of Railways, Mr. Sturrock, said in 1946. I have, on a previous occasion, referred to this, but I want to emphasize it. Mr. Sturrock said this in 1946 (Hansard, Vol. 55, col. 2756)—

That is the position with the Railways. Mr. Speaker, hon. members may talk as much as they like about “ managerial and ministerial inefficiency” but facts prove that the Minister and his Administration have established a sound policy; that they have conducted the Railways efficiently, that they have built up the funds and also that the Railways have earned sufficient revenue to strengthen the Rates Equalization Fund, and in so doing have kept the railwayman happy. Sir, we are all human beings. Had any one of us been a railwayman to-day and had we known that the Railways were sound, we would also have like to have a share of those earnings, we would also have asked for more facilities. However, if the Railways continue to carry out a sound policy and if the Administration continues to be efficient the railwaymen will receive further improvements in so far as his salary and conditions of service are concerned. When we think of the days when the United Party was in power we remember that there was no housing for the railwayman on the scale that there is to-day. The railwayman who is able to acquire a railway house to-day is much better off than the artisan or factory worker or mineworker for example because the Railways pays a low rental. In addition to that he receives other facilities, such as a free pass and his emoluments compare very favourably with those of a person in commerce or industry. I am not saying that every railway-worker is happy, there are probably many who feel that they should be receiving more, but as I said in a previous debate, it is also their duty to ensure that the Railways are inherently sound. If the railway worker renders efficient service he helps both himself and the Minister because by doing that he is not only working for the present but he ensures his own future. The employee who also looks to the future is the person who builds for that future and that is what we should do in this country and we should do that not only in one sphere but in all spheres. I am convinced that if the Minister continues in the way he has up to the present, with the effective control that he exercises to-day, with his present Administration and with the type of person he trains, we will find that the Railways will go from strength to strength. I also want to congratulate the Minister on the steps which he has taken to train railwaymen. Selected men take a special course at the Railway college and I am convinced that those men will be of inestimable value to the country and the Railways; they are trained in various directions. They come into contact with the various persons who lecture them on different subjects. They are being taught how to handle the public; they are taught how this great undertaking fits into the whole economy of South Africa and what role it plays. They are taught how to serve the public and emphasis is placed on the fact that the higher the quality of the services they render the bigger the profits that will accrue to them because they are earning more revenue for the Railways. By doing that they safeguard their own position and they assist in building up the economy of the country. Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand what criticism the Opposition can have to-day. I feel very sorry for the hon. member for Wynberg because he has a difficult task. He has performed that task to the best of his ability but his criticism was very weak. Had hon. members opposite come forward with any facts it would have been a different matter, but they do not even know the facts. One expects sound criticism from a good Opposition but if things go on like this and if they do not even know why they are talking and what they are talking about, there is nothing for the Minister to worry about; then he should continue with his present sound policy.

We have now reached the end of our annual parliamentary survey of the workings of the Railways and it falls to me to say a few words in conclusion from this corner of the House; to give a few impressions and to touch upon one or two points which have not been raised during the various debates.

As we see the Railways emerging from these debates, I would say to the hon. the Minister that he commands a most magnificent set of railway lines. The rail routes of the South African system are extremely well placed: they are well engineered and, what is fortunate, they are well situated to take care of economic developments that are likely to take place in the future. Part of the credit for this planning, which has been extremely fortunate, stretches back, of course, over the whole history of the Administration since Union. Whether the original planners of the Railways had great prescience or not, the fact is that in decade after decade we have added to and improved our railways, and they are to-day admitted by almost every impartial observer who looks at them to be a magnificent system of rail routes, strategically extremely well placed to serve our country. That is the first point I want to make. In regard to the engineering side, I think the South African Railways can compare more than favourably with almost any other system in the world. In recent years, particularly, there have been great advances in regard to an improvement of the track, in regard to the use of new types of sleepers, in the engineering of better gradients, eliminating curves, doubling lines and so on and so forth, and there is no doubt that to-day we can be proud and the House can feel assured that in regard to the actual rail routes, our South African Railways are very favourably placed indeed. For that the credit must go to the engineering staff of the Railways over all the different decades right up to the present time.

I think, particularly in the last five years or so, the engineering staff has been very well supported and has done a very fine job of work in overtaking deficiencies that did exist. Perhaps I should just say this in passing that it may be that the engineering side of the Railways finds itself in somewhat of a—I won’t say water-tight section—but it finds itself in a section of the Railway Administration which I think is subjected to less in the shape of pressures that may fall upon other sections. I think it is given its head to a greater extent perhaps than other sections, and perhaps that is one of the reasons why this section has been able to produce such good results. That comment, of course, applies not only to the present régime but it applies more or less over the whole history of the Railways. I would also say that with regard to another aspect of the track, that is to say the provision of mechanical devices, signalling and all the modern scientific equipment that go with the employment of railways, as far as I have been able to ascertain from discussions with people who know what they are talking about, our Railways are very well situated indeed.

Then, as far as the harbours are concerned, we have ample harbour capacity. Some constructive suggestions in regard to harbour improvements have been put to the Minister during this debate, and I hope he will bear them in mind. I hope he will indicate that he is prepared to accept some of these suggestions. In regard to our airways, our airways are extremely well equipped and it would seem that they are set fair to take care of developments in the future. We also have the necessary locomotive capacity at the moment, and it would appear that with the purchasing programme set before us, there is also sufficient vehicle capacity to take care of the future.

Now I come to the human side of the Railways. The hon. the Minister in his speech announced a re-organization of staff which has taken place and the only comment that I can make is that this re-organization has probably been well timed and was obviously due and we hope that benefits will flow from this re-organization on the managerial side. Then there are just one or two points that I would like to make. One thing was, I think, a little disappointing. One had hoped that the Minister in presenting his Budget would have given the House something in the nature of a long-term plan in regard to transport, not merely for the coming year or even the coming two years, but that he would have attempted to give the House an idea of what he visualizes in regard to traffic trends, both in regard to passengers and in regard to goods over the coming decade. I doubt whether one can go very much further than ten years ahead. Developments are so swift that it is difficult to look further ahead than that. However, I had hoped that at least he would give us a long-term plan, and I feel that we did not get that in the Budget. I would ask the hon. the Minister whether his advisers and planners have thought about future trends in regard to passenger traffic, for instance? What type of passenger does the Minister or do the Railways visualize as being likely to be carried in the future more and more by aircraft, and in what way by aircraft? What types of passengers are likely to be carried more and more by the Railways; or are the Railways likely to give up carrying certain types of passengers? What classes of passengers are to be attracted more and more to the Railways and what type of passengers are the Railways not really interested in attracting because perhaps it is felt that they are more likely to be diverted and eventually carried by aircraft? The hon. the Minister spoke of planning, and I am glad to see that the Planning Section has been raised in status. He emphasized the importance that he attached to planning, but as I understand it this planning is not really what I had in mind when I talked about a long-term plan. It is more a type of planning for the immediate requirements of the Railways. Let me say at once that I believe this planning to be good. I know that the Railways have very close contact with commerce and industry and various other bodies and other people who are likely to assist them in forming an immediate estimate of requirements. That is done, and as far as I know it is done efficiently and I think it is done on a good basis of co-operation with the different bodies concerned. I can say—and here I speak with authority—that the liaison between the Railways and commerce is very good in regard to this question of estimating immediate requirements; so when I speak of planning I am not speaking of that type of planning; I am speaking of long-term planning. I believe that this is primarily the responsibility of the Minister himself and of his advisers. I do not imagine that it is the task of this planning body of his, except to assist him by giving him certain figures. When I talk of this long-term plan I have another question in mind and here I want to pose a question. I do not want to be categorical on any of these matters, but it has seemed to me and to many with whom I have discussed this matter, that the Railways are not doing quite enough in regard to public relations and advertising the Railways. Sir, the Railways spend quite a lot of money on advertising. We have the figure for this year in the Estimates, which is an increase on the Estimates for 1960-1. I must say that the quality of the advertising which the South African Railways puts out is good. It can be judged by professional standards, and I have very little criticism, and I imagine that that is mainly the task of the advertising department of the Railways. But the question I wish to raise is this: Is the Minister satisfied that he really has sufficient professional advice and sufficient professional facilities in regard to public relations? You see, Sir, almost every concern to-day, especially the very large concerns, the vast world-wide concerns, concerns like the international petroleum companies and some of the biggest Railways in the world such as the National Railways in Britain, attach tremendous importance to public relations and advertising which go hand in hand. There is much more to public relations than simply a chance creation of goodwill between individual sections and the Railways. I spoke of the goodwill existing between commerce and the Railways. That is a very tangible thing and there is no doubt that the contact that may exist between the Railways and other sections of the community in their own specialized spheres may be good, but a public relations department of any organization has to do much more than that. These contacts cannot be just left on a haphazard basis. A public relations section plans these things, plans these contacts, puts forward ideas and has its finger all the time on this question of public relations, right from the very highest person down to the ordinary man in the street. It has a long-term concept of what it is really planning for. I ask whether the hon. the Minister is satisfied that on this score the Railways are sufficiently organized, or whether that side of his set-up does not require some attention and putting on a more efficient basis than it is working to-day. I repeat that in almost every modern business that has to deal with the public to-day the most vital importance is attached to public relations and to advertising which are co-ordinated, and I wonder whether the Railways—I put it in the form of a question; I do not want to be categorical—are sufficiently organized in this regard. And, of course, when I raise this point I do so because again I am somewhat concerned as to this long-term concept of the whole passenger situation, because such a department or such public relations activities should work to a plan and should know precisely what it is aiming at. If the hon. the Minister and his advisers have a plan, shall we say, in regard to passengers, then they have an idea as to what types of passengers they are going to attract by public relations and by other methods. They may want the airways to continue to carry more and more people, perhaps even at lower rates, so that the transport of first-class passenger traffic on the railways will be developed only to a certain point and perhaps no further. That would be acting according to a plan, and then of course, the public relations department and the advertising department should bear that in mind and should be working in that direction so as to educate the public to fall into this particular trend.

There is another factor too, talking about long-term planning. I believe that a very important aspect of passenger carrying, an aspect in which I believe that the Railways have a role to play, is in regard to this problem of carrying passengers in and around our cities. This is going to be one of the biggest problems that is going to face this country in the next ten years. Almost every major municipality in South Africa is falling into serious troubles in regard to carrying people in and out of the centre of the city and I wonder whether the Railways have given sufficient attention to this problem and the role they can play in assisting to overcome it. I wonder whether there has been adequate consultation between the Railways and the different municipalities in regard to this particular problem. I know what is being done in regard to carrying Native passengers, the Bantu section, but I do not want to touch upon that. As far as the other sections of the public are concerned, I realize, of course, that the Railways have to think in terms of £ s. d. but I do believe that if the poorer section of the community have to be subsidized, it may be possible to work out methods of subsidizing even the carrying of other types of passengers as well. After all, a municipality which is faced with tremendous losses on its transport system, may well find it worth while financially to guarantee some sort of development in which the Railways may co-operate. I know that some years ago a proposition was examined by the Railways—the possibility of a ring railroad in regard to Johannesburg and some of the Witwatersrand towns. It was investigated and discarded at that time. Have there been any other investigations of a similar kind directed at improving the passenger system in some of these major urban areas, getting people in and out of the cities, and also possibly to develop new residential areas in and around some of our major cities? This is part of the sort of long-term planning which I wanted to touch upon.

May I just say too that it seems to me that the hon. the Minister—and I hope he does not mind my saying this—lacks imagination in regard to our coaching policy. I have touched on this subject before in this House in a different capacity perhaps, but it does seem to me that if there are these long-term plans for attracting passengers, a different and more imaginative coaching policy should be followed. The Minister has a great deal of coaching stock on order and a lot of new coaching stock has been brought info operation in recent times. We are building coaches ourselves, but even in regard to design I think there is a lack of imagination. There has been no really important advance in coach design that I have seen in the last 25 years.

I have been pleading, and some hon. members regard this perhaps with levity, but I have been pleading for a new Blue Train. I do not want to go over this question again. That is our crack passenger train. Hon. members who travel about in the world will know of some of the remarkable trains that have come into operation in other countries. Why cannot we produce something novel, a new concept in passenger travel, particularly in regard to long-distance travel in South Africa? I wonder whether enough is done in regard to air conditioning. Mr. Speaker, 25 years ago, I travelled in the Dutch East Indies, long before tragedy overtook that place, and. Mr. Speaker, every single train which travelled a distance of more than 25 miles was air conditioned. If they could do that in the Dutch East Indies in those days, why can’t we do it in South Africa to-day? Why can’t it be done in respect of our long-distance journeys, not merely in respect of the Blue Train? Why can’t our ordinary fast trains between Johannesburg and Cape Town for instance be air conditioned? Air conditioning is not as expensive and not as difficult a technical problem as it used to be. To-day with modern devices, it is a very simple matter relatively speaking; almost any single office in any town can be air conditioned, quite cheaply nowadays. Is enough attention given to air conditioning our railways, which would make such a tremendous difference to the comfort of passengers? So, as I say, it seems to me that perhaps not enough imagination has gone into the coaching side with a view to getting some long-term planning in regard to carrying passengers generally. These then are the only comments I wish to make. To sum up, I repeat that on the mechanical side our railways are very far advanced indeed, on the track side we have nothing to complain of, and a great tribute is due to those responsible; on the harbour side, the harbours are well equipped and the airways too. It is only on the human side that I feel there are deficiencies, and of course on the financial side, which, however, I do not want to deal with now. The hon. member for Berea (Mr. Butcher) and the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) both have brought very sound and constructive suggestions, and I am quite sure that in regard to the financial side, the hon. the Minister, although he professed to brush off the criticism in regard to the financial side, has taken those observations to heart, and perhaps in our next Budget he may come with some improvements in that regard. In conclusion, I would just plead with the hon. the Minister just to think perhaps in his next Budget a little bit more about the long-term basis particularly in regard to passengers, although that also applies in regard to goods and the relationship between the Railways and road traffic as well. And let him have a little bit more imagination. It seems to me that that is the one thing, as far as I am concerned, in respect of which the Railways are falling back a bit.

In spite of the fact that we have reached the final stages of this debate I feel obliged, in the interests of the railway workers in my constituency particularly, and in the interests of the railway officials generally, to object to the blatant attempt made by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) to represent to this House and the public in general that the railway officials constitute a class of citizen or proletariat who live below the breadline and who are very aggrieved because of their inferior working conditions and the remuneration they receive. It is unfortunate that in their enthusiasm to court the vote of this group of workers in our country, a group of workers who hold their own in society in every respect to-day and who are doing so honourably, hon. members have gone too far. Those railway officials hold their own in society to-day, in the social field, in the cultural field and in all fields, and I regard it as an insult for the hon. member to represent them in that light. This group of honourable citizens is not only upholding the honour of one of the biggest industries in our country, but developing it into something of which we can all be proud. I regard it as an honour to have quite a number of these officials in my constituency and I can assure the House that I regard it as a pleasure and an honour to see the rôle they are playing in ordinary social and spiritual life, and people who do that are certainly not people who bear a lifelong grudge against their employers or who have a grudge against a society which supports and represents the Government of our country to a great extent. On behalf of the railway workers, I cannot help but register my deepest disappointment with the manner in which hon. members opposite have tried to belittle them and have tried to represent them as a group of people with a grievance, as constituting a kind of proletariat in this country.

There is more than sufficient proof that the policy of the hon. the Minister has throughout been to place the interests of these people first. The fact that 58 per cent of the surplus revenue for the previous year has been utilized for consolidating the cost-of-living allowance with the basic salaries of the railway officials is the most recent example of this. Does that prove that the employer is disinterested in his employee or indifferent towards him as far as this is concerned? Is that all that matters? Is this another attempt, something which has practically become traditional, to turn the electorate of South Africa into Mammon worshippers? Is this another policy of worshipping the golden calf? There are many more things besides salaries which are important to the workers and which make them happy. There is, for example, the improving of working conditions; there is for example, the increasing of the staff with a view to eliminating superfluous over-time; there is the improving of housing conditions. What has the Government done in this respect? There has been an increase in salaries to the tune of over R100,000,000 since 1948. During the same period R57,000,000 was spent on housing. Think of what has been achieved, Sir, in respect of the establishment of training colleges, improved workshops where the people are happier and where they work under healthier conditions, all in the interests of our country. Bursaries have been made available to the children of railway officials. I can mention the engineering field, R94,000; architecture, R4,000; chemistry R1,300, marine engineering R5,000; there are bursaries to the tune of R22,500 for the administrative staff to take the B.Com. degree and to undergo commercial training. That is the interest that is shown to-day in the railway workers. We regard these people as belonging to us and we do not wish to differentiate between our children and theirs. We would like to see that their children have the opportunity of developing their own potentialities normally and naturally. In conclusion I want to repeat that I would have been neglecting my duty, and my constituents would have blamed me for it, had I not risen in this House and registered my protest in the clearest terms and as effectively as possible against the approach of hon. members of the Opposition during the course of this debate, to our railway officials and railway workers and for having represented them as a kind of proletariat who is only interested in salary increases and who harbours grievances, grievances which have more or less, up to the present, remained undefined and unspecified.

The last couple of speakers, rather than deal with the subject of our debate, seem to have followed the pattern of dealing with what is considered to be the attitude of the Opposition with regard to the railway staff. In the few minutes that are left, it is perhaps just as well to clarify that position a little, because certainly the hon. members who have spoken from the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Knobel) onwards, seem to have been on the wrong railway track, as it were. There is no question of belittling the work or belittling the welfare of the railway staff. That is the last thing that anybody who has constructively followed this debate, can accuse the Opposition of. As an Opposition, I think we give credit to the hon. the Minister for the fact that in his work in connection with the Railways, he has certainly provided a much more dynamic lead, a much more constructive lead than we have observed in general coming from other Government Departments, and for that we give the hon. Minister full credit. At the same time, it is our duty as the Opposition to criticize the hon. Minister’s policies where we differ from them, and where we think that the hon. the Minister is not putting forward the correct policy as we see it. But that cannot be construed or should not be construed into an attack on the railway staff. The line we take in regard to the railway staff is that they are to-day being asked to accept yet another very great sacrifice in order to achieve what might be termed a partial advance towards the maximum amount it might have been expected they were entitled to. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) when he spoke said that at an estimate, he had assessed the overtime and Sunday rate collectively and the effect of this consolidation, as it would be applied if the normal bonus rates of overtime had been paid, and he assessed it at approximately £3,750,000. The hon. Minister in reply interjected by saying that the hon. member for Umhlatuzana’s figures were far too low. If they were far too low, then it is a very, very clear example of just what the railway workers are sacrificing in order to attain consolidation. You cannot tell me, having been through the mill myself, that any band of workmen, any band of employees, willingly sacrifices that amount, unless there is a certain amount of pressure put on them in order to encourage them to do that. We are quite right in criticizing that aspect not only from the point of view of the sacrifice that they are called upon to make, but also from the very serious point of view of the effect that that principle will have on industrial legislation, on wage legislation in general throughout the country as a whole. Because that effect will follow as sure as day will follow night. There again, I think that we would not only be justified in drawing attention to that, but we would be failing in our duty if we did not draw attention to that fact. You see, Sir, in the 1960 Auditor-General’s Report, it is stated that the cost of overtime under these same particular headings worked out at about R4,500,000.

The cost of overtime and Sunday pay amounted to £12,000,000 a year.

Not last year.

I am not referring to overtime as a whole, but only to this particular feature of overtime. There again it gives point to our criticism that a little deeper thinking is required on this particular matter. And then, as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana has pointed out, there are so many unanswered questions, important questions which are still awaiting answers, questions which have a most important bearing on the amicable working of the railway system in the future, because no man with a chip on his shoulder, no man who has a little grievance—and this is not a little grievance—gives of his best. These things have a habit of growing as the months pass, so that there are these many important features, many important questions that have not yet been answered. But I say in fairness to the hon. the Minister that the whole question of consolidation in an organization as large and as extensive as the Railways, with all the ramifications of the transport service— because it must eventually affect all branches of the transport service—that the many ramifications which will flow from consolidation are so vast that it would be unfair to expect the hon. Minister to have the answers at his fingertips right off. It will take time. But at the same time, whilst admitting that, it does give room for plenty of concern, considerable concern, that these points are as yet uncalculated, that these points have not been answered as yet, and that there still is this unknown potential which can cause the smooth working of the Railways, which we are all working for, to be detrimentally affected.

The hon. Minister will admit, I think, that this has been a long debate, but a fairly constructive debate as far as this side of the House is concerned, and winding up the debate, I want to say that actually we consider that there is very little to answer in regard to the criticism that the hon. the Minister levelled at us on the last occasion when he replied to the second reading debate. Although the Minister in his usual manner, his airy-fairy manner in some respects, has slipped over the rough points, he has made very little real criticism on the points that we raised and has given very little in the way of constructive answers to these points. So we end this debate feeling that we have attempted and have indeed conveyed sound criticism on the propositions put before us, criticisms which if accepted in the spirit in which they were made and examined in that light, must result ultimately in good, not only for the running of the Railways, but for the staff.

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

I will start with the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Cope). They say those who are last very often come first. The hon. member for Parktown was concerned about a lack of long-term planning, especially in regard to passenger services, and he suggested that there should be planning for at least a decade ahead. That is really quite impracticable. I already dealt with this matter in my reply to the Budget debate and showed that planning cannot be static, because conditions change from year to year, and sometimes even from month to month. A good example of how difficult it is to do long-term planning—and when I speak about long-term planning, I mean planning say for the next five or ten years—is the following: In 1955, the Planning Division formulated a five-year plan, based on what they thought would be the trend of economic development and the increase of traffic that the Railways would have to cope with. After a very thorough inquiry and a very intense study of the problem and after getting all the information that it was possible to obtain from all sources, they predicted that there would be an average increase of say 5 per cent in the amount of traffic that the Railways had to convey annually. Within two years that was thrown right out of gear. Nobody could have predicted in 1955 that there would be a slight economic recession in 1958, or that the tempo of industrial development would slow down, and you can only base long-term railway planning on the future trends in our economy and the possible annual increase in traffic. That is almost impossible to predict. But that does not mean that there is no planning going on to-day. For instance Iscor is planning extensions which will only be completed in four or five years, but the planning is already taking place so that the Railways can cope with that increased traffic when that traffic has to be conveyed. The Shell Refineries are erecting a new refinery in Durban. That refinery will only come into operation in about two years’ time. But the planning is already taking place in regard to the increase in the carrying capacity of the Natal main line to cope with that additional traffic plus the other natural increase in traffic that is taking place annually. So planning is continually taking place. As regards passenger traffic, Mr. Speaker, the loss in passenger traffic is not only confined to the South African Railways. It is the experience of all railway systems in all the countries of the world. More and more passengers are diverted to the roads and to the air services, and one of the big problems is how to attract those passengers back to the trains. I have no objection to passengers being diverted to the air services, because after all the revenue goes into the same pool. But the one thing that does worry me is the passengers being diverted to the roads, and it is almost impossible for any railway to compete with the roads. The hon. member will realize that a family of a husband and wife and two or three children travelling by car from Johannesburg to Cape Town on their annual holiday, travel very much cheaper than the Railways can ever hope to convey five persons at. That is the attraction of the roads. Economically we cannot compete with the road. But I agree with the hon. member that suburban traffic will come back to the railways more and more. The more our roads in the cities become congested, the more people will be compelled to utilize the railway services again. I think today on the Witwatersrand it takes a person with a motor-car probably longer to get to the centre of Johannesburg from Florida than it does take him to get there by train. That will happen more and more and these passengers will come back to the rail services. But we are also trying to make our railway service as attractive as possible. The hon. member said that I lack imagination in regard to this matter. The trouble, is, Mr. Speaker, that my imagination is rather restricted by factors that are entirely beyond my control, and among those factors are the following: First of all, the narrow gauge of the South African Railways which limits the speed of our trains; in other words, we can’t supply the same fast passenger service as other railway systems can which have a broad gauge. The speed is limited. The narrow gauge also limits the height of our coaches. The hon. member knows that some of the trains in the United States and Canada, the Inter-Continental trains, have a double type of coach with an observation car on top. We cannot do that. The centre of gravity would be disturbed if we were to heighten our coaches.

Your tunnels would also be too low.

That is so, and that is why originally those tunnels were not made higher and the bridges were not made higher, because you cannot make your rolling stock and your coaching stock higher. Those are all restrictive factors we have to contend with. We try and give the public a good service and try to attract them to the railways. I think the Blue Train is really our show-window, and from unsolicited testimonials from people from other countries who visit South Africa, from the Diplomatic Corps for instance, it is clear that they regard the Blue Train as one of the best trains in the world. That is not what I say, but what people from outside say. It is an air-conditioned train, comfortable, with an excellent service, excellent cuisine and if I compare it with some of the de luxe trains overseas, I think the Blue Train stands head and shoulders above them. But our South Africans don’t make use of the Blue Train. Does the hon. member know that in the valley periods we sometimes have 12 or 13 passengers in the whole of the Blue Train between Johannesburg and Cape Town, in spite of the fact that I reduced the fares a year ago?

They go by air.

Yes, as I said already, narrow gauge limits the speed of our trains. If we could have a Blue Train to run from Johannesburg to Cape Town in say 10 to 11 hours, it would be very popular, but we cannot speed up that train more and at present it takes about 24 hours from Johannesburg to Cape Town. Consequently passengers who can afford to travel by the Blue Train are travelling by air. Those are all the difficulties that we have to contend with. It is not merely a lack of imagination, but it is merely the trend of events in all the countries of the world that passengers are being diverted to the roads and to the air. I do not think there is one railway system that shows a profit on passenger traffic. As a matter of fact some of the United States rail roads have stopped carrying passengers altogether, because it is such a losing proposition. The hon. member said that we are also not doing enough in regard to public relations. I think there is a lot in what he says. But we do advertise, but my standpoint has always been that it is no use merely to advertise a service when you have not got something to sell to the public. In regard to our railways we have got something to sell and that is why our advertising is successful. But it is no use advertising and telling people “ travel by train ”, or “ send your goods by train ”. That sort of thing has no effect on them. You have got to have the goods to sell. They don’t even read those advertisements. We have this fast goods express service, where we guarantee delivery within three days from Johannesburg to Cape Town. A slightly higher rate must be paid by the consignee. That is something we sell and advertise, although the response so far has been very disappointing. But we advertise when we have something to sell. But the South African Railways are taken for granted. We have a monopoly and people know that the trains are always there, they can make use of them whenever they want, and whenever they are in need. But I agree with the hon. member that quite possibly something can be done in regard to improving our public relations.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzuna (Mr. Eaton) is the next on my list for a reply. I do not want to repeat what I said in my previous replies in the different debates except to point out that the staff are not asked to forgo anything in regard to consolidation. You cannot forgo something you have never had, and the staff has never earned full overtime rates on the cost-of-living allowances. Even under the new arrangement they will receive more for overtime than they received originally merely on basic pay and no overtime on cost-of-living allowances. The hon. member maintained that the staff will get nothing in their pockets from this R12,000,000. In this regard I want to give him some figures. The administration will, on the rand for rand basis, pay R2,300,000, into the Pension Funds. The staff would have had to pay their contributions amounting to R2,300,000, but that is being paid by the Administration. That gives a total of R4,600,000 for the improved pensions, and the balance of the R12,000,000 goes into the pocket of the staff.

But you did not give us the details.

I am going to give the hon. member and the House all the details and all the information required directly the matter has been finalized, as I said previously.

What sum goes to make up the basic difference between the increased pension amount and the basic wages?

Well those are the adjustments that have to be made in the different salary scales and wage scales.

Now the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell), the last speaker to whom I have to reply, said that because South Africa will no longer be a member of the Commonwealth I must be aware of the fact that conditions will not be the same and he again suggested that I should revise my Estimates. Let us be practical. Does the hon. member seriously suggest that merely on vague assumptions I should withdraw the Estimates and reframe them and reduce my expectations of revenue by a sum of R5,000,000 or R10,000,000 or R20,000,000? Surely that is not practicable, merely on vague assumptions that conditions are not going to be as good as we expected. And what will be the effect on the economy of the country? The hon. member must realize that I would immediately create a panic if I had to do anything of that nature, quite apart from the fact that I see no necessity for that. So I say, apart from other arguments, I think that a suggestion such as that will be quite impracticable.

I want to apologize to the hon. member for not replying to one matter earlier on. It was not with intent, it was merely due to an omission that was not deliberate. I refer to the guarantee and the Treasury subsidy, on the lines to the Native areas. The hon. member is aware that the Administration is guaranteed by the Central Government any losses incurred in conveying this traffic, and provision to this effect is made in the various Railway Construction Acts. Apart from the new lines that are being constructed, expenditure is also involved in providing additional facilities on existing routes such as double tracks and junction remodelling. Train services scheduled to serve the resettlement areas must also operate over existing tracks which are of sufficient capacity to take this traffic without additional expenditure being incurred. In determining the amount to be paid by Treasury under the guarantee, cognizance must obviously be taken of the financial implications arising from these varied factors. To determine the results of working of the new lines constructed does not present any new problems because, as hon. members are aware, the accounting instructions for dealing with new line guarantees have existed for many years.

As regards improvements to existing routes and facilities to enable additional non-White passengers to be handled, the matter becomes more complicated as the operation of trains carrying non-Whites over existing lines must take place in conjunction with the other train services. From the expenditure point of view, therefore, a clear distinction has to be made between the assets utilized in handling traffic for non-White re-settlement areas and trains handling other traffic. Obviously, also, the operational and maintenance costs pertaining to the portion of assets used for non-White traffic as well as interest and depreciation charges and running costs of the trains must be brought to account against the guarantee.

The agreement covering these matters between the Administration and the Treasury has not yet been brought to finality as there are a number of detailed aspects which have to be settled. Consideration is also being given to as simple a method as possible being determined. Hon. members will realize that with the millions of transactions in the way of fares involved each year a tremendous amount of documentation is involved, and if this has to be separately dealt with each year a great deal of labour will be involved together with the associated expense. Some experience has now been gained of the practical implications of the matter and it is hoped to produce a suitable simple procedure whereby the deficit can be determined reliably and, at the same time, at reasonable expense.

In the case of new lines, the total maintenance and operating costs were assessed in accordance with normal railway expenditure costing procedures inclusive of interest and depreciation charges accruing on permanent way and works and rolling stock assets.

Regarding the improved lines, as trains normally operated by the Administration also make use of these lines together with the trains serving the non-White resettlement areas, the expenditure determined as for new lines has to be apportioned on a pro rata basis to total number of trains. With unimproved lines, however, the additional expense involves mainly operating costs.

As the agreement has not yet been finalized, the payment of R4,000,000 made by Treasury to the Administration in 1959-60 was calculated proportionately to the loss expected to be incurred when all the resettlement scheme train services are in operation. The basis of the proportionate calculation is the number of passengers conveyed daily over the period 1957-8, 1958-9 and 1959-60 in relation to the daily number anticipated ultimately, with a deduction in respect of the losses already being sustained on non-White services in operation before the non-White resettlement schemes were introduced. The figure of R4,000,000 was accordingly determined as the amount due from Treasury in 1959-60, and for the year 1960-1 the amount has been determined as R2,000,000.

I thank the hon. the Minister for that explanation. I just had a feeling that the Railways were getting the worst end of this deal and I wanted them to get the better end.

If we do get the worst end of the deal I will call in the assistance of the hon. member. The losses on drought-stricken stock, as I have already explained is a matter I am still negotiating with the Government and with the Treasury. I also feel that the Government should bear those losses and not the Railway Administration.

You will find the Government very intransigent.

They are. I am hoping to persuade them to my point of view.

Will you call me in there again too?

I am afraid I would not get anything from the Government were I to call the hon. member in because he is not very popular with my colleagues.

That is a compliment I have never had paid me before.

There is one other matter. The hon. member said I made a definite promise that the working week would be reduced to 40 hours. What I did say, and I still say, is that I would like to see that if it was practicable. But on the South African Railways there are no uniform hours of work. The artisans are very lucky, they work 46 hours a week. Other grades of staff work 48 hours, some work 54 and a few work 60 hours a week. The ideal is to reduce all those hours of work to a 48-hour week. But in regard to a further reduction of the 46 hours for the artisan staff to 44 hours when a large number of other grades are working more than 46 hours, I consider that not to be justified at this stage and therefore I refused it.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister why he is making this clause of retrospective effect as from 1 January 1961.

The reason why the date is 1 January is because the Tygerberg Commercial School was taken over on 1 January as the hon. member will recall. There was a difference of opinion as to whether, in terms of the old Act, we could take over continuation classes. The Tygerberg Commercial School was not taken over in the ordinary course of events, but it developed so rapidly that it was taken over immediately as a continuation class with 100 students. That is why this clause is of retrospective effect and so as to remove any doubt as to the legal position.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

I move as an amendment—

In moving that amendment I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that the object of this Bill is to try and establish foundation seed from somewhere. We are faced with this fact, that this Bill provides only for better quality seeds, and the last part of the clause deals obscurely with what is wanted. I have always maintained that we want research in this country to find better types and varieties of seed, and it is with that object in view that I have moved this amendment. I want to take as an example the grass coverage of this country, and its seeds. And every other type of seed in this country can fall under the observations I am about to make. While we have this wonderful grass in South Africa, grass that is the envy of many countries in the world, I personally do not think that we are making sufficient use of them in the way of trying to adapt them to the different types of country and the different climatic conditions that we have in the country. As I indicated in the second reading, we should undertake research in order to establish seeds better suited to the various climatic and other conditions to be found in this country. To me that is the most important aspect of this Bill, that that research should be undertaken.

I have spoken only of grasses, but everything I have said applies equally to maize, wheat and other types of cereal that we have in this country. I want to assure the hon. the Minister that all I am asking for in this amendment is the establishment, by research, of new types and varieties of all the cereals and grasses that we have in South Africa. And that may also be applied to horticulture, to fruit and that type of thing. I would earnestly plead with the hon. the Minister to give consideration to this amendment because I think it should be one of the major bases of what he is asking for in this Bill.

I think the amendment proposed by the hon. member is based on the wrong assumption. He has said that this Bill only makes provision for seed of a better quality, but that is not correct and his proposed amendment will not make any material difference to the Bill. The clause as printed provides that one of the objects of the board, apart from carrying out its purely administrative functions, will be to—

That means cultivated plants which derive from seed. The hon. member now proposes to delete the words just quoted, and in place thereof to insert the words—

That, read in comparison with the clause as it stands to-day, namely—

read in conjunction with Clause 4 (e), which provides that this board may—

But not better types and varieties.

Well, this is the only clause that has really stuck in the hon. member’s mind, and he is paying no regard to the clause now under discussion, which lays down the functions and the duties of the board, namely, to promote the development of new and better varieties as well. On the other hand, it is not the duty of the Foundation Seed Board to undertake research work. That is done by departmental plant breeders and by individual plant breeders. The function of this board is to increase the breeder’s seed produced by the individual plant breeders and by the Department. For those reasons I say that this last sentence to which I have referred the hon. member and which lists another function of the Seed Board, namely, to—

will make it possible for the board to render financial assistance for a particular research undertaking or, for example, the training of sufficient officers required for plant breeding projects, or for the seed inspection service. Grants of this nature will naturally depend upon the funds of the board. But to attain the ideal of the hon. member may mean that we have to go all out to produce plants and seed from which grasses can be grown to suit the different areas of this country, and I think that is covered, in any event, by the clause as it now stands. I hope the hon. member will agree with me on that point, because there is really no difference in attitude between us as far as this clause is concerned. We both aim at achieving the same object, and I think we shall do so by letting the clause stand as it is. For that reason I say that no material difference will be brought about by the amendment and I am sorry I cannot accept it.

May I just ask the hon. the Minister to give me some idea of how he intends going about this? He will recall that in the second reading I particularly asked him about the subject of organization. I want to know about the experimental farms, the research stations, and the agricultural colleges for the production of this type of seed that would form a foundation seed. Officers specially trained in this particular line can establish foundation seed for themselves as well if not better than some of the plant breeders we have in South Africa. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he intends giving specific instructions to those institutions that are already established and are better suited in every respect, including research, for the purpose of producing foundation seed for our future requirements. If the hon. the Minister is prepared to give me a reply on that point I am prepared to let the amendment fall away.

I can give the hon. member the assurance that, as far as I and my Department are concerned, we are not now only entering into a new field of activity. Seed breeding and supplying, and research into seeds of all varieties has been one of the major functions of my Department at several of our agricultural institutions, such as the one at Stellenbosch.

Do it at all of them.

I wish I could do it at all of them. But we have found it better to concentrate rather than to decentralize our work as far as this side of research is concerned. For that reason we do the winter cereal research work at Stellenbosch. For example, too, just outside of Pretoria, at one of our research stations, we are doing research into various vegetable seeds.

May I ask the hon. the Minister one question? Take the seeds that are produced in the grass-veld areas. Why bring them down to the foreign conditions at Stellenbosch rather than carry out research at one of the experimental farms where they are at home in their own climatic conditions?

That is our objective. That is what we want to do. But we do not have sufficient trained staff in all our agricultural research stations to do all the work in the fields in which research should be done. I regard the production of food for our stock in this country as so important that I can assure the hon. member that we shall go out of our way to foster the breeding of all types of good quality seed and of as many varied types as possible.

Amendments put and negatived.

Clauses, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

I move as an amendment—

1. (3) There shall be payable to the board upon each registration and in respect of every renewal of registration the fee prescribed;

and in line 60 to omit “ and the Minister’s decision shall be final ”.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On new Clause 7,

I move—

1. 8.
   1. (1) The board may from time to time with the approval of the Minister impose a levy on the sale of foundation seed which shall be payable to the board by such persons, in such manner and at such times as may be prescribed.
   2. (2) Different levies may be imposed under sub-section (1) in respect of different kinds or varieties of foundation seed.
   3. (3) Any levy imposed in terms of subsection (1) shall be made known by the Minister by notice in the Gazette and shall come into operation on the date specified in that notice.
   4. (4) For the purpose of enforcing the payment of the levy, the board may authorize any person at all reasonable times—
      1. (a) to enter any place where any quantity of foundation seed is or has been, or is suspected to be or to have been kept or stored by any person;
      2. (b) to inspect, weigh and mark any foundation seed found in such place and examine all books and documents thereat which are reasonably believed to relate to such foundation seed;
      3. (c) to demand from the owner or custodian of such foundation seed the name and address of the producer thereof and any other information relating thereto;
      4. (d) to demand from the owner or custodian of any book or document referred to in paragraph (b) an explanation of any entry therein; and
      5. (e) to seize any books or documents which may afford evidence of the non-payment of the levy.

Agreed to.

On Clause 10,

I move—

In the second reading I informed the Minister that I would move this amendment because there is no necessity for it, in my opinion. If you look at Clause 9 (1) (a), (b) and (c), which are really affected by Clause 10 (2), we find that Clause 9 (1) (a) says that four persons to represent producers of plant seed appointed from a panel of eight persons submitted by the S.A. Agricultural Union shall be members of the Board. Clause 9 (1) (b) says that two persons who represent dealers in plant seed, other than co-operative societies, shall be appointed from a panel of four submitted by the Seedmen’s Association, and (c) says that one person representing co-operative societies dealing in plant seed will be appointed from a panel of two persons submitted by the cooperatives. Clause 9 (d) is not affected, because these persons are nominated by the Minister under the Marketing Act, so it is really sub-sec. (1) (a), (b) and (c) which are affected. Now if the S.A. Agricultural Union is called upon to submit a panel of eight names to the Minister for him to select four, we say that is sufficient and it should not be necessary for the Minister to call for another panel of eight names, and then if he does not like those people to call for another list again, or to say he will not call for any further nominations but will make his own appointments. The S.A Agricultural Union is the head of all the agricultural organizations in S.A. and if the Minister has the right to appoint four out of a panel of eight names submitted by them, that should be sufficient, and he should not have the right to turn down the whole lot. We feel that organized agriculture will put forward eight names from which the Minister can find four suitable persons. The same applies to Clause 9 (1) (b), where he will appoint two dealers out of a panel of four. Now the distributors of seed are organized through a central organization which must be recognized by the Minister in the first place as the organization representing these people, and surely if they submit four names of which he will choose two, that is reasonable, and we do not think he should have the right to turn down all four and call for another panel of four and then have the right to say that he is not appointing any of these people on the panel but will make his own appointments. Then the co-operative societies are on the same basis. In all these three sub-sections, twice as many people as are required will have their names submitted to the Minister and he will have the right to choose his board from these people. We feel that that is reasonable, but that it is not reasonable to give the Minister the right to turn the whole lot down and appoint whom he wishes, people entirely outside these recognized bodies. Therefore I move the deletion of this sub-section and I hope the Minister will accept it.

I also want to plead with the Minister to accept this amendment. These powers are quite unnecessary, which are sought by the Minister in this clause. This selection by the Minister of the nominations put up to him has in practice worked very satisfactorily for many years. On soil conservation committees, e.g. a panel is put up to the Minister and he selects from the panel. I think it is a vote of no confidence in recognized organizations if the Minister wants to assume these extraordinary powers. We do not want our Minister of Agriculture to appear to be a dictator, and this clause certainly aims at giving the Minister dictatorial powers to ignore the usual channels through which he is advised. Take the South African Agricultural Union. They have an advisory committee to advise the Minister on all agricultural legislation and in this clause he seeks power to ignore all the recommendations put up to him. I appeal to the Minister and I think that a very good Bill will be improved if the Minister accepts the amendment.

In reply to this amendment I wish to state that the nominating bodies referred to in Clause 9 were all represented on this committee which, together with the Department of Agriculture, is really responsible for the framing of this Bill. In other words, the Agricultural Union, the co-operative societies, the seed producers and the dealers in plant seed all had representation on this committee which I appointed to frame the Bill and they have no objection to this clause whatsoever. But the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) really intends to do away with the provisions in the Bill that the Minister may himself make recommendations to the Governor-General in cases where he cannot agree with the nominating body, or where the nominating body fails to submit names of persons for appointment to the Foundation Seed Board. I dealt with the matter fairly fully in the second reading, and for the benefit of the hon. member who moved the amendment I think I shall again summarize my reply as follows: The clause provides that the Minister may exercise that power only after he has referred the matter back to the nominating body, and if he can then still not agree with the nomination submitted. If the nominating body acts in a responsible manner, it can be expected that the Minister will take note of their nominations. Secondly, a nominating body may for some reason refuse to submit nominations, in which case the Minister must have the power to act on his own. The hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) in his speech in the second reading debate expressed the hope and the wish that specialists would be appointed as members of the board, specialists in all fields of activities that this board will have to deal with, and I think it is a very logical and reasonable request. Say, for instance, that the nominating body does not take account of the fact that its representatives should have experience and knowledge of seed production, then I think it is just as well that the Minister should have the power, after again having consulted them and having brought it to their notice, because you do not just turn down nominations; you tell them the reasons why you do so. For instance, they may nominate two persons living close together and representing practically just one or two varieties of seed production. You may think it better and more feasible to have the members of the board not all living in the same part of the country, but that the Transvaal and the Cape should also be represented. So I can produce many good reasons why the Minister should have these powers. Similarly, this clause is included in practically all the schemes of all the control boards under the Marketing Act, and it is also included in another Act in which the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) is very interested, the Artificial Insemination of Animals Act, and because it works well under that Act I think the committee and these organizations and interests mentioned in Clause 9 have all agreed to its inclusion in this clause. That is why I cannot accept the amendment.

The Minister’s argument sounds very plausible but it is not very sound. As I have pointed out, the South African Agricultural Union, the body which appoints the advisory committee, are responsible people, and they do not just give one or two names. They must submit a panel of eight names, of which the Minister has the right to choose four. We feel that the South African Agricultural Union will put up producers whom they think are not only interested in the production of foundation seed but who have the knowledge. We have experience of certain boards where people who fight for the producer, are ousted, or say e.g. on the transportation boards where the representative of a certain local authority has stood up for the people he represents, and the members representing the Department do not like it and do their best to keep them off in future. We have had that happening in the transportation boards to the detriment of transport in the local authority area. We do not want that to happen here, because it would be detrimental to the production of crops for the whole of the Union. I am quite certain that if the South African Agricultural Union submits, as they have to do, a panel of eight names, double the number of people required, that will be sufficient, and the Minister chooses whom he likes. If they are not suitable or do not have sufficient knowledge, he can leave them out. But we have had proof in the past on certain boards that representatives who fight for the people they represent are excluded thereafter. I appeal to the Minister. If he does not accept the amendment, it is a reflection and a vote of no confidence, as the hon. member for Albany said, in the South African Agricultural Union and the co-operative societies and in the national body representing the distributors of seed. I appeal to the Minister again to reconsider it; and even if he will not accept it here, to give it consideration in the Other Place.

We would like the clause to be withdrawn because the powers the Minister seeks are too autocratic. In spite of what the Minister has told us, that these bodies have agreed to this particular clause, we in Parliament believe in democratic legislation. I support the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) in saying that the Minister has twice as many names put up to him as he requires to select from. This clause empowers the Minister to go back to the various bodies twice, and then after that the Minister has the right to make his own appointments. I think those are powers which should not be sought to such legislation which applies to the agricultural community. I do not regard the producers of seed as likely to be a lot of criminals. I want members to be put on the board who will act according to the objects of the Bill. I think the Minister should leave an opportunity for more consultation and I appeal to him to accept this amendment because I think it is very reasonable.

I feel that this clause as it stands negatives the whole intention of the Minister. The Minister says it is his intention to consult with these various bodies, and the very act of consultation lies in the fact that they have to submit these names. Now this clause negatives it all because when they have submitted this panel of names, the Minister can firstly say that he is not satisfied. Then they submit another panel of names, and for the second time he can say that he is not satisfied, but in calling for this panel of names surely he can give instructions to these bodies to submit to him a panel of names spread out in the way he has explained in his speech. I believe that people like the South African Agricultural Union will give heed to what the Minister tells them, and he has two opportunities of telling them that. If the Minister in this clause only takes unto himself the right to appoint where they fail to submit names, then I would agree with him, but that is not what the Minister does. If the Minister means what he says, he should amend this clause to read that only in the case of their failure to submit a panel of names, will he have the right to appoint the members of the board. I appeal to the Minister to give this amendment a second thought. If he is really sincere in what he is saying, then he must amend this clause.

Question put: That sub-section (2), proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and J. von S. von Moltke.

Tellers: H. C. de Kock and A. Hopewell.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 24,

The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNICAL SERVICES: I move—

To insert the following new paragraph to follow paragraph (b):

1. (c) the fee which shall be payable in respect of registration or renewal of registration under Section 6;

and to insert the following new paragraphs to follow paragraph (e):

1. (f) the persons to whom, the manner in which and the times at which the levy imposed under Section 8 shall be payable;
2. (g) the payment of interest on any outstanding levy.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Amendments to be considered on 22 March.

I move—

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 13,

I move—

To insert the following new paragraphs to follow paragraph (c):

1. (d) to the cleaning of seed by the producer thereof, provided the seed is intended for sale to a registered seller of seed;
2. (e) to the sale of seed by the producer thereof, provided it is seed which has been certified under a Seed Certification Scheme or Export Seed Scheme introduced in terms of this Act and it is sold to a registered cleaner or seller of seed;

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 15,

I move—

1. (i) prescribe the fees or charges to be paid to the organization responsible for the administration of the scheme by persons to whom the provisions of the scheme apply and stipulate that the rendering of any service may be refused to any person who is indebted to such organization for any amount in respect of such fees or charges;

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 30,

I move—

1. (n) prescribing the fees to be paid in respect of the testing, examination or analysis of samples of seed, the sealing of containers of seed by an officer in terms of paragraph (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 19 or sub-section (4) of Section 21, or the testing and examination of the seed of any variety with the view to recognition thereof by the Minister;

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

I move—

More than two members having objected, amendments to be considered on 22 March.