Mr. Speaker, in order that this House and the Minister may be seized of the heads of argument which will be used in this debate I will read out our amendment which is as follows—

1. (a) meet the claim of railwaymen that their standards of living be raised by increases in basic wages, benefits and pensions;
2. (b) place the financial administration and management of the Railways, Harbours and Airways on a strictly business as distinct from a political basis; and
3. (c) appoint a Commission of Enquiry into ways and means of improving existing staff negotiating machinery.”.

I think it is high time this House re-examined with great care the functions and personnel of the Railway Board. Recent changes in its composition and the newly increased salaries of its members have brought the matter into the spotlight of public attention. Neither the Minister nor his Government is revealed in a very creditable light. It is necessary, Sir, briefly to go back to beginnings and examine the original reason for the existence of the Railway Board. The stated aim, at time of Union, was to protect the Railways from undesirable political influences. It was to ensure that the Railways would be operated on business-like as distinct from political lines. I quote Mr. Hull speaking to the National Convention. He said—

Listen to the Hon. R. H. Brand, Secretary of the Convention—

As failed it has, Sir. The whole conception of the Board has failed. In my opinion the Minister can do one of two things. He can either scrap it or reform it. As it stands at the moment it is not worth its cost. He could make it a really useful, business-like advisory board. He could enlarge it and have on it lesser paid but more representative members of all sectors of our economy (including also a legal representative to hear appeals). He could enlarge it, Sir, so that it will really carry out its many statutory functions which it now ignores. He could enlarge it and have subcommittees to study specific problems or specialize in definite departments.

As it is, Mr. Speaker, the Minister has lent himself to the process of making it a Board on which political pals get jobs. He has connived at making it a tool for Government manoeuvering. The Railway Board has retained little of its original power but all, all of its sweet perquisites of office. They have been reduced in all respects, except privileges, to mere pawns of Executive policy. They have their newly-enhanced salary; they have their entertainment and other allowances; they have their railway coaches, saloons and their cars and their chauffeurs; they have 40 days’ annual leave; they have a gold travel-free pass for life and even a supply of the local newspapers free of charge. Why? They have no parallel at all in the Civil Service. They are unique in every way. I have said that they are pampered. Are they not? I have said that they were well paid. Are they not? Six thousand eight hundred rand per year plus all their “perks’’.

Would you not like to have a job like that.

I have said that they are political advisers. Well, Sir, two out of three of them are recent Nationalist members of Parliament, so I think they are justly called “political adviser ”. For all I know the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) would himself like to have a job like that and may be the next on the roster to replace Mr. Botha, should another English-speaking Cabinet Minister be required by this Cabinet. I endorse the opinion of Prof. Franckel when he said—

But worse is to come. This year the Board was made a perch for a displaced politician (displaced, I may say, through no fault of his own). We all know the cynical manner in which this latest appointment was made. First of all let me say that, about a year ago, the Board comprised Dr. van Abo, an engineer and a technical man of acknowledged ability; Dr. Botha, an economist and financier of note. We have no objection, and indeed approve this type of man being put on the Board, because Railway Commissioners should not only be divorced from politics but should appear to be divorced from political allegiances. The third member is a Mr. du Plessis, a pleasant party man, a friendly man, but a politician, significantly placed in charge of staff affairs. The Minister with some justification claimed that this was a well-balanced Board. But now we come to the sordid political manoeuvre in connection with the Board, which upset its balance. The Prime Minister, as we know, wished to reward a newly-enlisted follower with Cabinet rank merely because he was English-speaking. A seat for him had to be found in Parliament. Mr. de Villiers, recently re-elected to Vasco, had been chairman of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours for one year. That was sufficient qualification to use him to create a vacancy in Parliament for the now Minister of Propaganda.

What?

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that appellation.

I withdraw the term Minister of Propaganda and will say Minister of Information. Such people are called “Minnies” in Britain. It was done in order to get Minnie into our Cabinet, called the Minister of Information. That Minister took his post in Parliament and sits here now. Mr. de Villiers could only get on to the Railway Board by the very happy coincidence that Dr. van Abo had apparently become tired of being a Railway Commissioner although he did not wish to retire from the Railway service and although the Railway Administration itself wished to retain his valuable services. He was shunted to a position in the engineering section of the Railways and the whole process was then complete. A seat in the Cabinet was found for our musical-chair Minister of Information. The Railways got another highly paid technical adviser put on the pay roll and the Board got another party politician which upset its balance. The Minister must, of course, take responsibility for this action. Knowing him as I do I believe he would never have done such a thing on his own initiative. He has too much respect for the Railways. He will probably excuse himself and say: “ I did no more than others have done before me.” The fact is that he did it for political motives. He may even go so far as to say that the Board is ideal and really well balanced now. He may feel forced to do even that. But I think I can see behind his facade. I think that he did this thing most unwillingly. I think he must have lost some of his own self-respect. He has certainly lost prestige among all genuine railwaymen. He knows what the staff thinks of the introduction of politics into Railway management in this way. Of course I do not blame Mr. de Villiers. I have long been associated with him. He is a pleasant man and I like him, but that is not a qualification to be a Railway Commissioner. He knows as well as his other partner on the Board does that a party politician should not really be on the Board. His function now is the direct opposite of what was originally envisaged in the Act of Union.

But worse is to come. It was at this juncture that the Minister chose to give a substantial rise in salary to all Board members, two out of three of whom were recently politicians, Nationalist Members of Parliament. A few years ago the Minister made haste to reward with pensionable increases in salaries the “top brass” of the Railways before considering the salaries and wages of the ordinary working man. Meanwhile, the Minister has shown an unfortunate reluctance to meet the reasonable wage demands of the Artisan Staff Association. He only surrenders to the just demands of railway workers for increased pay and allowances after a dour struggle—that is, if he surrenders at all. I think they will not readily forget his preference for rewarding the bosses and the bigwigs and the brass-hats, at the cost of the rank and file. May I make this last appeal to the Minister? He said in his Budget speech—

May I say that there are even more important aspects than those he mentioned, namely the workers, the men. I would like the Minister to give more thought to railwaymen, even if it means thinking less of his machines. Think of the workers who build these tracks he speaks of, who drive these locomotives he is so proud of, and who keep the wheels of progress turning on the railways. They are the flesh and blood—they are the soul of Railway service. A fair and adequate wage, plus the benefits to which they are entitled, must be a first consideration in the running of the Railways. The human element is the most important element. This expensive and impressive machine which the Minister has built upto serve the transport needs of the country will never work to full effectiveness if the workmen feel they are ill-treated or have legitimate but unsatisfied grievances. Many of the workers feel that the Minister is too peremptory and too impatient in negotiating with them. Sir, it may hurt their dignity if he gives them a brusque refusal. That is annoying, but it is tolerable; but when he refuses to listen to their fair demands for an increase in wages, then he hurts their pockets. They will not stand for that because it affects their wives and their children and their standard of living. I have said before that the railwaymen have been almost models of restraint and, if they threaten strike action, I ask the Minister to take serious note of it. He should respond to the desire of all railway servants to have their standard of living progressively advanced and their earnings increased. They should have increases in wages and benefits as the Railways prosper by their sacrifices and efforts. And let us not forget, when we are considering the men, the railway pensioner. His services are past, but his efforts for the Railways over a lifetime should not be forgotten. I believe he should get at least an increase of 10 per cent in his pension. I know the funds are there, and the contribution of the working men towards those funds has been as great as that of the Administration. There is no reason why the Minister should not meet this most reasonable demand by the Railway pensioners.

To come back to the average railwayman, and particularly to the artisan staff, I feel it was more than ill-timed, it was unjust for the Minister to raise so generously the salaries of people in “Joe Plush” jobs like the Railway Commissioners (who only fulfil a quarter of their statutory functions anyway) whilst he turns his back, disdainfully, on the modest demands of the artisans for an increase in wages of some R6 a month. I believe the railwaymen are becoming suspicious of the Minister. Each year he turns down their demands, saying: “ I have to budget for a deficit. I cannot give you the raise you are asking for; there is no money.” Then he produces a fat surplus, and when demands are renewed he says: “ Oh, that was last year; I have to face another deficit this year, so go on your way unrewarded; tighten your belts and do more work.” I believe that this year he will produce another satisfactory surplus, after having refused the modest demands of the workers. I ask the Minister: “ Why did you finalize your Budget, why did you get Cabinet approval of this Budget (which you said could, therefore, not be altered) before hearing the full case of the Artisan Staff Association and before finishing your negotiations with them?” I think it is quite easy to show from an examination of his Budget, and the way he presented it, that in fact the Minister did alter his Budget between Monday, the 5th, and Wednesday, the 7th. It is quite clear, by comparing the printed Memorandum and Statements with his later statements in his speech, that he altered his Budget at the last moment to consolidate cost-of-living allowances with wages—a good and worthy thing. Why then did he tell the railwaymen that he could not alter his Budget; that he was committed to the Cabinet decision …

That is not so.

Well, if he explains his action satisfactorily I withdraw any allegation I make against the Minister. I ask him whether he will not do this. He said he could not give the artisans a moderate rise in salaries because he would have a deficit. Now, supposing he gets a surplus, will he agree, out of that surplus, to pay the Artisan Staff Association what they would have got if he had estimated a surplus? Will he give it to them retrospectively, as he has given the Railway commissioners their raise, out of his surplus. Would it cost Rl,250,000,000 extra? That would be a small price to pay. Pay them what they really deserve and what they have sweated for? The Artisan Staff Association have pressed for a rise in basic salaries for a number of years without success. He now has this surplus of R8,000,000 and it shows that the Minister could obviously have paid the Artisan staff its true worth in wages during the past year. I ask him, how much of this year’s surplus comes out of the leanly-lined pockets of the railway workers? Behind this façade of a R8,000,000 surplus, we can see the disappointment, the disillusionment and the desperation of the artisan staff, who feel that they have been deceived. They feel that they have been swindled.

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

Then I will say “done down”. In last year’s budget debate I said to the Minister—

I pointed out that in the Economic News Letter published by the Government it praised the Minister as follows—

He will have to do some coaxing this year, Sir.

I said then—

No wonder we have had to fight every inch of the way to see that railway workers are not exploited. “When times are good”, the Minister said, “the railwaymen will benefit.” Give them I say, their fair share, and give it to them Now!!

Mr. Minister, let us go now and look behind your false façade of R8,000,000 surplus and examine some of your financial sins. Sir, let us first examine the Renewals Fund. For many years now the manipulation of this fund has been cause for regular comment by the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours, and the principles which should govern its operation have been specifically laid down. A Departmental inquiry was instituted as a result of complaints by the Select Committee and because the solvency of the fund had been affected by the increasing costs of materials and labour. This Departmental Committee recommended the establishment within the fund of a Higher Replacement Cost Account to ensure the greater stability of the fund. The Minister has now seen fit, without reference, may I say, to the Select Committee, to wipe out this stabilizing section of the Renewals Fund.

Where do you get that from?

It is my belief that he has taken this step to avoid the embarrassment of our criticism of the way in which this special account has been handled over the last few years. He has never followed the correct procedure of estimating what appropriations should be made to the Higher Replacement Cost Section. He has never satisfactorily explained whether he has any method at all. The correct principle was that he should take from Revenue an amount equal to the estimated higher replacement cost of works shown in the Brown Book as due to be met by the Renewals Fund. He has never bothered to make a careful calculation. For years he has shown inaccurate results, because of careless estimation. Last year if I remember correctly, he estimated an expenditure of some R7.1 million. Then he appropriated R7,000,000 from his previous year’s surplus and set aside R 1,000,000 from his estimated current surplus. That left about R800,000 to reduce a debit in the fund of some R18,000,000. The account of course, is bankrupt and there seems to have been little attempt to keep it solvent. I remember this Minister saying in last year’s Budget debate that priority would be given to wiping out the deficit in the higher replacement costs section of the Renewals Fund. He abandoned that priority. This year he has not wiped out the deficit, but he has wiped out the whole higher cost account itself. He has done away with the safety device, designed by his own Departmental Committee, to see that Parliament was given a clearer picture of the way in which the Administration managed this, admittedly difficult, Fund. Let us remember that it was mismanagement and miscalculation which caused the fund to fall into arrears and into utter confusion. Now he has strangled his own Department’s brain child and it will be much more difficult for us in future to realize what is happening to Railway accounts and particularly to the Renewals Fund. It will be much easier for him, now, to conceal his methods of working and to evade criticism. It will be much more difficult for us in Parliament to check faulty methods. The serious aspect of this matter is that this action was taken without referring the matter to the Select Committee. Time and time again the principle has been reiterated that in order to see that Parliament is kept fully informed of the use of the moneys set aside under parliamentary sanction in the renewals fund—and I quote now from the Select Committee—

Why was it not referred to the Select Committee? It seems to me that one of the reasons may well be that this Minister wishes to avoid all form of control of the financial administration of the Railways. This is an especially dangerous attitude of mind, I think, at a time when some of the funds of the Railways are in a very precarious state and close parliamentary scrutiny is necessary to guard against slipshod methods.

Let me now take the House behind the façade of the Betterment Fund. Last year the Minister stated as one of his other priorities that he would restore the Betterment Fund to proper order. He had in mind also the redemption of the R 10,000,000 loan which had been made, that questionable financial manoeuvre which was severely criticized by this side of the House. I doubt whether the Minister will ever indulge in such an ill-advised transaction again. What has happened does show the benefit of constructive criticism. Not one member of that side of the House would ever have raised this issue; but we raised it and we forced the Minister to recognize the error of his ways; he is gradually trying to reduce this irregular loan.

But let us come to the Fund itself. The Minister said—and I would like to interpret him here correctly if I can—that he was against a Fund being accumulated for Betterment purposes. This time last year he said—

I wonder what he means by “future commitments”? Does he mean future requirements? The Select Committee deals with future “requirements”. He said—

It seems to me that the Minister is proceeding on entirely the wrong principles. I ask him to remember that after all this is a Fund and he should treat it as a Fund. Any surpluses which are available go towards next year’s works. This fund should not be allowed to go into arrears. The Republic of South Africa Act clearly contemplates that regular annual contributions shall be appropriated from current revenue. I take it to mean: irrespective of whether there is a surplus or a deficit, or whether in the Minister’s opinion it would be placing too great or too small a strain on current revenue. Various Select Committees have laid down a procedure that “regular contributions shall be made from revenue” saying, “contributions shall be based on requirements”. The Minister used the word “commitments” and then said he did not like the idea, but the Committee does, and that is more important. Contributions shall be based upon requirements “and not upon expediency”. Of course that loan of R 10,000,000 was the height of expediency. It seems to me—and I would like the Minister’s reaction to this—that the Select Committee was recommending that he should do what he says he cannot do, that he should base his figures on future commitments and treat this Fund as a continuing Fund. In any case, it is surely not too much to ask that the Fund should at least be kept solvent by seeing that sufficient regular contributions are made to it out of revenue.

The present position of the fund seems to be this: it stands at R 1,250,000. The programme of new works calls for a betterment expenditure of R8,000,000. The Minister will provide R8,000,000 from his 1961-2 surplus, to this Fund, which will then stand at R9,250,000. But there is a loan outstanding of R6,000,000. So that in fact until this loan is repaid the Fund really only has R3,250,000 to finance R8,000,000 worth of new works. It seems to me that the trouble with this Minister’s budget is that when he does fill up one hole he has to dig another hole in order to fill it. The Fund is really insolvent, but other hon. members on this side will deal with this matter more expertly than I can.

Let us look behind the façade of the surplus and see the way in which the Minister deals with the government-guaranteed railway lines to Bantu townships. Here is another example of weird and wonderful estimating and of unnecessarily vague and unsatisfactory methods of estimating revenue. Quite rightly the losses suffered on this service is a charge against consolidated revenue and not on Railways and Harbours Fund. It is a service provided as a matter of Government policy, and after many years of criticism the Government has come to see the rightness of taking on that responsibility and guaranteeing these lines. It is, however, quite wrong that settlements should be made by way of spasmodic lump sums which are apparently estimated on an entirely arbitrary basis. The amount paid over from the Consolidated Revenue Fund is not the result of careful estimation or calculation of the actual costs of operation, as it is stipulated should be done in the various Railway Construction Acts. An agreement should be arrived at on the basis that each year’s losses will be worked out accurately, and after the passage of five years an adjusted settlement should be made in full. This process has never been followed. An arbitrary figure is arrived at by guess-work and not by calculation. Years have passed without the application of any proper system for a settlement of these accounts. I remember in 1959-60 the Minister of Transport explained why his original Estimates of revenue were so much smaller than the final figure turned out to be. He said—

R4,000,000 to help the Minister get a higher surplus. Here is a case where four times the sum expected was provided. Surely it is time that the two departments got together, as they should, and made a firm agreement on the basis of which losses could be accurately calculated.

That has been done

Has anything been done for this year? And will anything be done for next year? There was no mention of it in the Minister’s budget.

The hon. member is right off the rails.

I may be, but I am in very good company with a great “puffing Billy” who says things he does not check. The Minister cannot say that he has ever supplied Treasury with a proper calculation of the actual losses suffered. There has never been an adjustment made on that basis. It has been a lump-sum payment every time. Perhaps the Minister will explain whether it was oversupply last year which has caused Treasury this year, and next year, to deny Railways any contribution? I hope he will deal with this subject in his reply.

My time is getting near the end and I would just like to peer again behind this surplus of R8,000,000 to see another financial irregularity. I refer to the way in which this Minister deals with his Loan Fund expenditure. I must refer to the regrettable, if not the pernicious, habit the Minister has of over-estimating loan requirements. Last year more than R10,000,000 of loan funds were surrendered to the Treasury. These were amounts that had been provided for and could not be used. This year, according to the second Additional Estimates, there was an indication, not only that there would be a saving on new works on open lines of over R25,000,000, which is another matter, but of the total appropriation of R85,000,000 in respect of loan funds for Capital and Betterment services, only R65,000,000 will be used. Twenty million Rand less than estimated. Up to 16 February I think only R54,000,000 of this had been drawn. How much will finally be drawn? I would like to know what Treasury thinks of this process. It must be more than embarrassing to Treasury to have tens of millions of rand of unused loan money handed back to them. I think the Minister owes this House an explanation of why these large sums go unused. I always understood that the system was in vogue for 30 years by which the Railways gave Treasury a month’s notice of their loan requirements. If, in spite of this precaution, these savings on Loan requirements occur, I believe there must have been wild over-estimation of requirements. Does the Minister realize what adverse effects this may have on our economy? The Railways at one time had priority for loans. They needed them to get over their self-created transport difficulties. They may do so still; I do not know, but whether they do or not we know that loan moneys, which are held, unused and have to be surrendered later, deprive other Departments of the necessary loan facilities for their own or national expansion. Only the Minister of Finance can tell us what projects have had to be shelved because the Railways called for loan funds they did not use. The needs of other departments must have been crowded out. Who knows what irrigation works, soil conservation projects or housing or road plans had to be dropped or delayed? Who knows what under-developed regions such as the Bantu areas have been handicapped by lack of funds caused by the unnecessary greed of the Transport Department? Here again, we expect reform in future. Let me say a last word in connection with the third priority the Minister gave us. He has made some progress in building up the Rates Equalization Fund. It is up to R22,000,000. But it is still much less than the Minister stated as his ideal. I hope he will concentrate on building up that insurance fund for the railway worker and the railway user to increased heights. I hope he will follow the wise advice given by you yourself, Sir, that R60,000,000 was not enough for an adequate rates equalization fund. I hope he will not say that we are urging that this be done this year and use it as a debating point. I do not ask that it should happen this year, but I suggest that he aims at a higher target than R22,000,000 and that he acknowledges the wise advice given to him some time ago by you yourself, Mr. Speaker.

I second this amendment, and in doing so I want to make no apology for dealing with what may be. and I think is, one of the most unfortunate aspects of this Railway Budget. I am not referring to the decision of the Minister in connection with the claims by certain staff members; I am referring to the absence in this Budget of any provision whatsoever for railway pensioners. I think it is necessary that the financial position of the Superannuation Fund should be examined, and I want to do that particularly in the light of the plight of the present railway pensioners. At 31 March of last year the total assets in the Fund amounted to R276,927,084 — over £138,000,000—an increase of R19,434,586 over the previous year, i.e. the year ending 31 March 1960. The total income for the financial year ending 31 March 1961, amounted to R33,298,469. The total expenditure for the same year amounted to R13,863,882. The excess of income over expenditure for the year amounted to R19,434,586. An analysis of these accounts reveal two noteworthy features. Of the total expenditure on benefits, for the year 1960-1 of R13,863,882, no less than R12,052,958 was met from interest alone from fund balances.,I want to emphasize that; R12,052,958 was met from interest alone from fund balances. The balance of the expenditure of Rl,810,924 was paid out of the current contributions of R21,231,090, made up of contributions of R10,616,162 from the staff another R10,614,927 from the Administration. Sir, that in emphasizing the amount that is coming in by way of interest alone, I am indicating at the same time how little is going towards paying out benefits from the actual contributions made by the Administration and by the staff. Only R1,810,924 out of the total expenditure of R21,231,090 for the current year 1960-1 was required to meet the cost of benefits paid out during that same period. Sir, 8.5 per cent of the total contributions from the staff and the Administration went towards paying out benefits. The balance came from the interest on existing funds and in the light of these facts I ask whether the time has not arrived for a reexamination of the fund and, secondly, whether we should not now discuss the plight of the existing pensioners, particularly those who were pensioned before 1944. Sir, they are suffering; they are amongst those who are suffering most to-day. The claim that has been put forward by one staff association that benefits should be based on total contributions to the fund and not on the average of the last seven years service, is one which I feel should be examined, but of course it cannot be examined without a full inquiry into the whole fund. The percentage increase in benefits that has been paid out up to now is not considered to be an equitable way of improving pension payments. Too big an increase is enjoyed by top-level staff under that system. Therefore the question of an inquiry into the whole of the Superannuation Fund, the assets of which stood as at 31 March last year at over £138,000,000 is overdue. We should examine the fund completely to see what the future holds for existing pensioners and for those who are to go on pension and what should be done in view of the extremely sound financial position of the fund.

Now I come more specifically to the question of the present pensioners. Sir, there is extreme hardship in numerous cases caused by the high cost of living and the fall in the purchasing power of the rand. We know that there is extreme hardship. The fund itself was established in 1925 and up to, I think, 1932 when South Africa went off the gold standard, contributions were paid by these pensioners in gold, and the gold sovereign to-day is worth, I think, R10. The purchasing power of the rand, compared with 1938 standards, is about 45 cents. These two facts together with the application of the means test in respect of old-age pensioners are the causes of most of the heart-burning amongst old-age pensioners and particularly the pre-1944 pensioners. The means test in many instances deprives the railway pensioner of the opportunity of qualifying for all or part of the old-age pension. The point here is that the railway pensioner paid for a pension as well as being a taxpayer during his working days. There is no provision in the Budget, either for a percentage increase for pensioners or for a cent increase in the pensioner’s cost-of-living-allowance by way of financial relief. Sir, R3,758,054 was paid out in the 1960-1 budget year to present pensioners by way of cost-of-living-allowances. These pensioners are the forgotten men in this Budget. There is no staff association to make representations on their behalf. I understand—the Minister can correct me if I am wrong—that the Minister turned down a recommendation for a 10 per cent increase in benefits from the Joint Superannuation Fund Board because it was not a unanimous recommendation. That is the information I have. No wonder the railway pensioners call themselves forgotten and forsaken ex-railwaymen. There is no relief for them at all in this Budget. Why should the Minister not have provided R1,000,000 from the surplus or from revenue directly or from the current expected surplus to increase the pensioner’s cost-of-living-allowance. I do not think it is a lot to ask for. A sum of R1,000,000 spent in this way would be money very well spent indeed. I know the Minister cannot control the Superannuation Fund directly but he has full control of his Budget surplus and of the Rates Equalization Fund with its credit balance of over R15.000,000 as at 31 March last year, and I am quite sure that the Minister could have found ways and means of providing R1,000,000 to present pensioners to assist them in their hard struggle to make ends meet to-day, for the reasons which I have outlined. I plead with him to reconsider this matter. It would be quite in order for him to come forward with supplementary estimates before the end of this Session to give effect to what I have asked for here on behalf of the railway pensioners. I think they richly deserve this consideration.

Sir, the Press has been giving considerable publicity to the dispute between the Administration and the South African Airways Artisans, or should I say the South African Airways staff. I do not think that we can ignore this issue, but I do think that it is necessary that he should examine the position. I know that there are many members in this House who are not familiar with the issues that are involved in this dispute, and I believe that it is important that these issues should be considered by all members because the public in the long run will demand that some action be taken.

In the early days, prior to this Government taking office, the principle of identity of interests was introduced by, I think, Minister Sturrock. Under this system the staff were divided into groups, and the groups were made up of staff with a broad similarity of interests. Each group is known by a letter of the alphabet. I do not know who is responsible for that, but it has made it easy to recognize the various groups. Group D is the group consisting of artisans and operatives— Schedule A and B men—and this is an important point to remember; Group D, like some of the staff associations, is registered under the Industrial Conciliation Act as a trade union, the S.A.R. & H. Artisans’ Staff Association. The actual congress of this association, like the others, elects an executive committee. Provision is made in the constitution of the Artisans’ Staff Association for a representative of the Airways to be elected on to this national executive, i.e. one executive member to represent the artisans and operatives employed in the Airways section. It is this executive which negotiates with the Minister for improved conditions and in regard to other matters. For the past five years, to my knowledge, the Airways section has been attempting to break away from the Artisans’ Staff Association and have now succeeded in obtaining registration, not recognition, but registration, under the Industrial Conciliation Act as a trade union. The Minister has refused to negotiate with this trade union, and the union has retaliated by instigating a “work to the manual” campaign. This campaign has been called off, but can we afford to leave it at that? What are the issues involved here? What has brought about this desire by the Airways staff to form their own union and to be recognized for negotiating purposes by the Minister of Transport? I think, firstly, the reason is the refusal by the Artisans’ Staff Association to negotiate on the basis of differential wage rates for different trades—I think that is basically what has brought this issue about— and, secondly, the claim by the Airways artisans that their work is of such a nature that they should enjoy a higher status with higher pay. Sir, the Minister faces this dilemma; if he negotiates with the Airways artisans he will be recognizing the principle of different wage rates for different trades, depending upon where they are employed in the service—I emphasize that point—depending on where they are employed in the service. For example, if a fitter is employed in the Airways he will receive more basic pay than a fitter in the mechanical workshops. The place of work will determine the rate of pay, not the trade or the degree of skill employed on the job. Hon. members may not realize what this issue really involves. It is one of the most complicated issues that any Minister or any trade union can face. The Airways artisans will not negotiate on the basis of differentiation of wages between artisans of different trades in the Airways section. I want to deal with this point at length. The problem which faces the Artisans’ Staff Association is that pressure has been brought to bear on them to agree to differential rates of pay for different trades, a request which they have not been able to agree to, because it would destroy the unity of their trade union; but if the same question were to be put to the Airways Association whether they are negotiating on behalf of all the trades in the Airways, they would say “yes”; they in turn are not prepared to have differential rates of pay in respect of trades in their union. We therefore have this position that the Airways artisans will not negotiate on the basis of differentiation of wage rates between artisans of different trades in the Airways section; if they did they would lose the unity which they now enjoy. This is the reason, as I said earlier on, why the Artisans’ Staff Association cannot accommodate the demand of the Airways artisans, and this is a reason which is common to both. Sir, I ask the Minister why does he not appoint a commission of inquiry to go into this real problem facing the members of Group D as a whole. Outside industry meets it by paying wages above the minimum laid down in the respective Industrial Councils’ determination on a “personal to holder” basis. This method has been adopted by the Minister in respect of certain officers on the staff who carry extra responsibility. I do not think the artisans will accept this method of meeting the problem. I only mention it because a precedent has been established in the Administration’s service. You will see, therefore, Sir, that, although Railway trade unions are not prepared, as far as the Railways are concerned at any rate, to recognize that there is a difference in the responsibilities between one trade and another, a difference in the responsibilities in the same trade in respect of one type of work and another, the trade union movement knows that there are, in fact, these differences. I do not know whether the Minister has had an investigation into this issue, but I can tell him that it is a problem that is not going to lessen in the future; it is going to grow, because there can be no question about it that what is happening in the service to-day to some of the most responsible positions in the various trade categories is that, because of the responsibilities involved, it is impossible for the person concerned to earn a higher bonus than those who are in less responsible positions earning much more money. I feel that if the Minister is not prepared to tackle this issue as a real issue, he will not be able to find the answer to the problem facing him in relation to the Airways Association.

What do you suggest? I am not trying to be facetious.

No, I know. I know the problem that we are faced with here, and I am suggesting that the Minister should have a full inquiry into this whole issue.

How will that help?

It would establish what can be done, if anything. I know that the Minister is perplexed over this issue. I know from my own experience how it happens in the workshop. Let me give the House an illustration that comes to mind of a particular artisan who was earning over 40 per cent bonus. He was a first-class artisan. A particular job came into that workshop and the foreman said “Look, So and So is the best man I have; put him on this job. It requires extreme accuracy.” He was put on to the job and his bonus earnings dropped; he was not able to earn the same bonus that he was able to earn on the other work on which he had been employed. The result was that he lost money, although he was doing a more responsible job. Another illustration is where an officer is proved to be not as efficient as another, and he is placed on work which is not so important, and his earnings increase. These are the issues that are involved. In the case of the Airways personnel, they claim that their work involves such great responsibility that they should be paid for carrying that responsibility.

We are missing the point. The Airways artisans are not prepared to be members of the A.S.A. They want their own union, and they want recognition to be able to negotiate themselves. What do you suggest in that regard?

That is the issue as it has been presented to the Minister. I am telling him why it became an issue with the Airways section.

I know why it became an issue. I want to know what you can suggest.

I suggest that the Minister should remove the fundamental reason as to why the Airways will not work with the Artisans’ Staff Association.

What do you think is at the bottom of it?

I have just told the Minister. If the Minister has more information than I have I am pleased and I hope that he will give that information to the House, because this is too important an issue for it to be hidden behind some departmental inquiry. This issue can affect the finances of the Railways to an ever-increasing degree. Sir, if I had a ready solution to this problem I would give it to the Minister without hesitation. I feel it would be my duty to do so, but I am suggesting that it does require investigation; that there are issues here which have to be faced and which cannot be hidden, and I hope the Minister will give effect to what I have suggested.

I have told you that the Airways artisans do not wish to be represented by the A.S.A. They do not want the A.S.A. to negotiate on their behalf. They want to do their own negotiation through the medium of their organization. That is the fundamental difference between the two organizations.

Yes, I know that and I have told the Minister that there are reasons for it.

I know what the reasons are.

But if the Minister were to agree to the Airways having the right to negotiate directly with him …

That is what I refuse.

… he knows that he will have all of the various trade organizations within the A.S.A. asking for that same recognition, and he would not have one association representing all the artisans, he will finish up with many more.

That is what I refuse.

It is not sufficient to refuse. That does not solve the problem.

I know, but what do you suggest?

I have suggested that the Minister should have this inquiry into the basic reasons why the Airways do not wish to have the A.S.A. representing them in negotiations.

I have told you.

No, it is not what the Minister tells me that is important.

That is what the artisans have told me and I am telling you.

It is not what the artisans have told the Minister that is important; what is important is to get to the fundamental reason. The Minister claims that he has this information and I say to him, “What are you going to do about it?”

I will solve the problem; don’t worry about that.

The Minister claims that he is going to solve this problem. I sincerely hope that he is going to do so, but I am also going to suggest to the Minister that it is not as easy as he may imagine; that he may find that he will have to get in outside help before he finds the answer to this problem. I can tell him now that if he does give recognition to this union he is not solving the problem; he is only creating a much bigger one.

Let me turn to the problem facing the Minister in respect of this parent union, the Artisans’ Staff Association. The A.S.A., according to Press reports, has decided to take from amongst their members an expression of opinion as to what they should do now that the Minister has turned down their request for relief during this financial year. I say that the dispute which has arisen between the Administration and the A.S.A. is deplorable, to say the very least about it. What are the issues here? Sir, I do not want the Minister to accuse me of fabricating anything, and I know that I cannot say that the report that I have here which was published in the Daily News is completely factual, but if we are to discuss these issues we have to start with something, and the Minister has made no comment in the Budget speech on the issues involved here, so I am going to rely upon a report in the Natal Daily News of Durban of 8 March. Let me quote the report—

If that is a correct report, then I think what has happened is indeed deplorable, to say the least about it. What are the issues here? Firstly, the claims were submitted to the Minister in November 1961. Presumably the hon. the Minister wished to see what the financial position was likely to be before starting negotiations with the A.S.A. One can understand that the Minister was not prepared to negotiate in November on an issue of this sort when he was not in a position to know what funds would be available. I ask, as the hon. member for Wynberg asked, what is the Minister going to do if his estimated surplus of R8.5 million is in fact increased before the end of the financial year? Will he be prepared to reconsider the claims of the Artisans’ Staff Association?

This would be recurrent expenditure.

The Rates Equalization Fund was established to deal with this very question. It was established to enable the Minister to adjust wages without increasing tariffs.

No, no, no!

If the hon. Minister examines the position of the Rates Equalization Fund.

Read the Act, and then you will see what the position is.

The Act lays down that there must be a Rates Equalization Fund, and originally it was a Rates and Wages Equalization Fund. If the hon. the Minister will examine it he will discover that was the position. The whole idea was that this fund was to be used to protect the railwaymen from having to have a reduction in wages, or that the Minister should have to increase tariffs. It was to equalize this issue.

You want the Rates Equalization Fund utilized for the purpose of making concessions to the staff, to increase their wages? Is that your argument?

Indirectly. If the hon. Minister had met these demands and if as a result at the end of the present financial year he had a deficit of R2,000,000, then that R2,000,000 could have been taken from the Rates Equalization Fund.

But your colleague stated in his speech that I must build it up to R16,000,000.

Of course the Minister can do both. I refuse to believe that this Minister cannot, with all the resources behind him, both utilize the Rates Equalization Fund for the purpose I have outlined and at the same time build it up, as we all want it to be built up.

That would require a sleight of hand then.

What is required is accurate budgeting. If the Minister had to budget for this increase in wages, he would then have to budget correctly, even if it meant an increase in rates. He would have to do it. But as long as he has this haphazard way of budgeting, sometimes having a surplus, sometimes a deficit, we will never be able to finance railway wages and everything that goes with it in an efficient way. The answer, Mr. Speaker, is not a sleight of hand, it is efficient budgeting.

I want to put another issue to the hon. the Minister. The Minister has made it quite clear that he is not going to give effect to the demands made upon him, or I should rather say requests made to him by the Artisan Staff Association, and I wonder whether one of the reasons is not to be found in the concluding paragraphs of the Minister’s Budget speech. The Minister said—

Does that mean that there can be no adjustment in the wages unless that adjustment applies to the entire staff? Is that the real reason why the Minister has turned down this request by the Artisan Staff, because he refuses to give one section of the staff an improved wage and not all sections of the staff? I ask the Minister, because my interpretation of this paragraph would indicate that is the real reason why the Minister is not prepared to give any relief to the railway artisans. I can put it in other words: If an increase in basic wages is to be made, is it the Minister’s policy to agree to such increase only when he can provide for all of the staff?

The next point that arises is the alleged failure of the Minister to negotiate because he had already been committed by the Cabinet to his Budget proposals. If this is so, then I can well understand how members of the A.S.A. feel. The main feature of trade unionism is the recognition of collective bargaining. Once this principle is ignored, trouble must develop. What has the Minister to say in this regard? I do not wish to prejudge the Minister, but I do think we should be told what the position is so that we can debate this point of important policy. This appears to me the main point that has given rise to so much consternation to members of the A.S.A. In regard to the actual request made to the hon. the Minister, I want to remind the hon. the Minister of a statement made by the general manager in his annual report for 1960-1, on page 28. There we find an article dealing with the consolidation of the cost-of-living allowances, salaries and wages, and the general manager has this to say—

And now comes an important part—

I wish to draw the attention of the House to what the general manager had to say, for two reasons, firstly, that I want to say that the general manager should have included amongst the restrictions the actual restrictions in the manner of calculating bonus earnings. That was another restriction which was placed and which the artisan staff, mainly, agreed not to proceed with. The hon. the Minister must realize that sacrifices in bonus earnings and overtime payments were and are felt particularly by the artisan group. But it is not my intention to go into the merits of the claims submitted to the Minister by the Artisan Staff Association, but rather to consider the broader issue: The question of staff and management relations, and this brings me to the third leg of the amendment moved by the hon. member for. Wynberg (Mr. Russell). This portion of the leg asks that the Minister should appoint a commission of inquiry into ways and means of improving existing staff negotiating machinery. The present position is that when staff organizations meet the Minister on major issues, the Minister is supported by members of the Railway Board, the general manager and the assistant general manager (staff) in addition to perhaps one or other of the other assistant general managers, depending on the issues under discussion. The issues affecting all of the staff are discussed, the Federal Consultative Committee is the negotiating body. But the point I wish to make here is that in any case if a request is put forward by the Federal Consultative Committee, or individual staff associations’ executives, the reaction on the staff is usually a call by them for the Minister of Transport to resign. [Time limit.]

I want to sympathise with the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) for not having succeeded with his speech last Wednesday to prevent the Opposition press from praising and congratulating the Minister on his Budget. I think it must have been a disappointment to the hon. member to have found that his words had fallen on deaf ears. The opinions of newspapers which do not support the Government show that the hon. the Minister has submitted a good Budget to the House and to the country. Let me read a few extracts to you, Mr. Speaker—

Coming from a Press which does not support the Government but which is usually only too anxious to criticize that is very favourable comment on the Budget, Sir. It cannot be otherwise, because this Budget testifies not only to the sound economic position in which the country finds itself, but it also testifies to the sound financial position of the Railways. That was why I knew last Wednesday that the hon. member for Wynberg was putting himself to unnecessary trouble in the brave attempt which he made and that he would not succeed in preventing the Opposition Press from commenting favourably on it.

The hon. member for Wynberg had a great deal to say about the unreliability of the Minister’s budgets. He had a great deal to say about the Minister’s record as Minister of Transport. He accused the Minister of wild budgeting. But the hon. member for Wynberg should not forget that for the past five years he, as the main speaker of the official Opposition, has been the main critic of the Railway Budget. During that period he has also built up a reputation for himself which enables us to judge him as critic. Let me say at once that where the Minister has built up himself a proud record of achievement, of initiative and tenacity of purpose, the record of the hon. member for Wynberg is a record of wild prophecies, prophecies which never materialize, of dark futures in which darkness never sets in, and of attitudes and statements which have often had to be changed in order to adapt them to the circumstances. He has had to adapt them to hard circumstances, to the hard reality for him—one achievement after another on the part of the Minister and his management. Let me give a few examples, Sir, in order to show of what failures the record of the hon. member in fact testifies. In 1959 the hon. member for Wynberg predicted that the Railways would close their books with a deficit of R20,000,000. Sir, the Railways closed their books that year with a surplus of R16,000,000. The hon. member also predicted an increase in tariffs in 1959 and he said the following—

Do you know, Sir, that since 1958 there has not been a single tariff increase. The hon. member had hoped and prayed that it would be necessary to increase tariffs and he often said that straight out in this House. He has revealed himself as a real prophet of doom who has lived to see his prophecies of doom completely shattered by the progress and success of a mighty Railway undertaking under the National Party régime, by the remarkable progress of which the present Budget testifies.

Mr. Speaker, you will remember how the hon. member criticized the Minister last year because the Minister said that South Africa’s expulsion from the Commonwealth would make no difference to his Budget. You will remember how the hon. member predicted economic disaster in respect of the financial position of South Africa and the Railways. I should like to refresh his memory a little bit as far as this is concerned. He said this—

Imagine, Sir, that coming from the hon. member for Wynberg—

It has made no difference to the Minister’s Budget. Who had the temerity, Sir, the hon. member for Wynberg or the Minister? Furthermore, he said the following last year—

It so happens that so-called far-reaching statement of the Minister’s has proved to be true, because there has been such an increase in Railway revenue that an estimated deficit of R500,000 has been converted in an expected surplus of R8,500,000. In sharp contrast to the hon. member for Wynberg the Minister has been far too modest! But listen to this—

Mr. Speaker, there you have this prophet of doom at his best. I quite understand the hon. member feeling hurt because these wild prophecies of his have not come true. This Budget has quashed his most fervent hopes. But if the hon. member is hurt and annoyed with himself or if he is annoyed with the Minister, he is not doing the right thing. He should not be annoyed with the Minister but he should be annoyed with his own Leader who during the republican referendum campaign spoke about the catastrophies which would follow in the wake of our becoming a Republic and our expulsion from the Commonwealth. He should be annoyed with his Leader and not with the Minister. The hon. member has believed the wrong Graaff. He should rather have listened to his Leader’s brother, then he would not have been so annoyed. On these wild flights of imagination which the hon. member for Wynberg so often indulge in, he predicted the following in 1960—

What happened then? Only the following year, last year, their cost-of-living allowances were consolidated and once again one of his dark prophecies did not come true and the hon. member for Wynberg was compelled to swallow his own words. Just in passing, how different is the treatment which the Railway staff receive from the National Party Government from the treatment they received from the other side of the House at the conclusion of World War I when their cost-of-living allowances were not consolidated, but when they were reduced by 25 per cent cuts—the well-known “Jagger-cuts”.

You are going back very far.

We are still having trouble with Jagger’s children. You see therefore, Sir, that as far as the attitude of the hon. member for Wynberg over the past years towards Railway policy is concerned, his has been a history of wild prophecies, of conflicting statements and attitudes, attitudes which were so wide apart that you could turn with a wagon and a span of oxen between them, a history of taking up attitudes, changing attitudes, reconsidering attitudes and changing them again. If I have to condense that into one word I can do no better than to condense it into the hon. member’s own favourite word “re-thinking”. Did you not find it curious, Mr. Speaker, that after the hon. the Prime Minister’s announcement in regard to the Transkei, that hon. member was the first member of the United Party to suggest that there should be “re-thinking” on the part of the United Party in respect of their colour policy? Because, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is so accustomed to “re-thinking”. But the facility with which the hon. member changes his attitude to bring it into line with circumstances, is demonstrated by what he had to say about the capital programme of the Railways. In 1959 the hon. member for Wynberg criticized the Minister for having reduced capital works to the tune of R28,000,000 in the following words—

In the same year, still criticizing the Minister for having had to curtail his capital programme, he said the following in another speech—

Take note, Mr. Speaker, that in both speeches he criticized the Minister for having curtailed his capital programme by only R28,000,000. His approach at the time was that the Railways should keep pace with the development of industry, commerce and mining. That was in 1958. But, believe it or not, in 1960 he reproached the Minister for not having applied the brake sooner. His criticism then was that the Minister had poured money like water into Railway development. Listen to what he said—

He had no confidence in the economy of the country at that time. Once again he was the prophet of doom. What would have happened had the Minister been so foolish in 1960 as to listen to the hon. member? We find the answer to that question in this Budget where the Minister states that it is expected that the carrying capacity of the Railways will be put to the severest test next year.

Where do you get that? Read it again.

I cannot help the hon. member to understand plain language. The hon. member for Wynberg complained in 1960 about the ineffectiveness of the Minister in respect of long-term and sound economic planning. All the complaints which the hon. member for Wynberg and the United Party had about planning and lack of efficient planning disappear with this Budget. If this Budget proves anything it is surely that in order to expand the Railway system and to develop and modernize it, planning has never been more timeous, never more efficient and never more effective than it has been in this case. If we want to look for a reason for this success and for this good Budget, we need not look any further than the planning which there has been as far as capital development is concerned. The Minister and those at the helm together with the Planning Board deserve the greatest praise for that.

On the other hand, what would have happend had the suggestions of the hon. member for Wynberg been applied to the Railways during the past years? I am convinced that if all the suggestions of the hon. member over the past five years had been followed and applied to the Railways, the Railways would not have been in the position to-day to cope with the essential transport demands, apart from the financial mess in which the Railways would have been. And what a terrific brake would that not have been to the economic development of the country?

The hon. member for Wynberg has once again accused the Minister of having dragged the Railway Board into politics by appointing Mr. C. V. de Villiers to the Railway Board. Why did the hon. member not complain last year when Mr. P. J. C. du Plessis was appointed to the Railway Board? Both Mr. de Villiers and Mr. du Plessis were members of this House and both were chairmen of the Railways and Harbour Select Committee during their time. Why does he only object to the appointment of Mr. de Villiers? Is the reason perhaps the fact that the hon. the Minister of Information was thus able to stand as a candidate in the constituency of Mr. de Villiers? I think that is the reason. But why does the hon. member try to make us believe that he is concerned about politics on the Railway Board if he is really only concerned and jealous because an English-speaking person was able to get into Parliament in that way and take his place as a member of the Nationalist Cabinet? No, the hon. member bluffs no one with that. The truth of the matter is that he is jealous that an English-speaking person of the calibre of Mr. Waring is a member of the Cabinet to-day because he knows that this fact prevents him from continuing with his propaganda of racial hatred against the National Party.

The hon. member has also admitted that in the past the United Party have been guilty of appointing party politicians to the Railway Board. It is indeed true that the National Party have also in the past appointed politicians to the Railway Board. But there is a difference and a very important difference between the appointments made by the National Party and those made by the United Party. The National Party have appointed politicians, but they were all politicians who have served in this House for years, people who have made an intensive study of Railway matters, and all of them have served as chairmen of the Railways and Harbours Select Committee; Mr. J. J. Haywood, Dr. F. H. Boltman, Mr. P. J. C. du Plessis and Mr. C. V. de Villiers. But the politicians whom the United Party appointed to the Railway Board during the period 1939-48 were never members of this House. They had no experience of Railway matters. Their appointment was purely a reward for the political services they had rendered. Take the case of Mr. Louis Esselen. He was the chief secretary of the United Party. He has never been anything else in his life than a United Party organizer. His appointment to the Railway Board was an out and out political appointment. Take the case of Mr. Jan Fourie of the Free State. He had no experience of Railway matters whatsoever. He was appointed simply to reward him for the fact that on a few occasions he had stood as candidate in the Free State for parliamentary elections and had lost on every occasion. At the moment that same Mr. Jan Fourie is the secretary of the United Party in the Free State.

They simply caught him in the veld.

Yes, that is quite right, Mr. Fourie was simply caught in the veld and appointed to the Railway Board, because he was incapable of winning an election for the United Party. Mr. Speaker, the National Party has never yet made itself guilty of rewarding its political pals and organizers as openly as to place them on the Railway Board. I challenge the hon. member for Wynberg to give me one example of such a case. He cannot; I am convinced of that.

What about Mr. Teichman?

Yes, there is the case of Mr. Teichman. The hon. member for Wynberg says that the original object of the Railway Board—and he repeated that to-day— was not to have any politicians on it. As usual the hon. member is again ill-informed and his facts are not correct. As far back as 1910 Colonel E. M. Greene, a politician of Natal, was appointed to the Railway Board. Did the hon. member not know that? And if he knew it why does he give these wrong facts to the House? I find no fault with the appointment of Mr. de Villiers as a member of the Railway Board. Seeing that the major portion of the work of the Railway Board consists of matters relating to policy and personnel, I think it is quite proper to appoint members of the House of Assembly to the Railway Board, people who, as members of this House, have made themselves acquainted with Railway policy and who, as representatives of constituencies, have over the years gained experience in personnel matters, personnel problems and personnel complaints. But apart from Mr. de Villiers’ experience. he was a Railway official for 12 years in addition. But the hon. member for Wynberg objects to the appointment of a man like Mr. de Villiers. He ought to be ashamed of himself. He should rather congratulate Mr. de Villiers on the fact that he, as a railway official, has progressed so far in life as to become a member of the Railway Board.

Yes, but the hon. member for Wynberg has no time for a railway official.

The hon. member for Wynberg also objected against the increase in the salaries of the members of the Railway Board. His first complaint is that this has been done at a time when the Minister has turned down the demands of the artisan staff for an increase in salaries. The Minister has already pointed out to the hon. member that he has been misinformed and that this increase in the salaries of the members of the Railway Board came into operation last year already. As far as a comparison between the salaries of the members of the Railway Board on the one hand and those of the artisans on the other is concerned, I wish to point out to the hon. member that since 1948 the artisans have received salary increases in 1951, in 1955, 1956, 1958 and in 1961, whereas members of the Railway Board have received increases only in the years 1951, 1955 and 1961.

What about his own increase?

The percentage increase in the case of the artisans since 1948 to 1961 has been 50 per cent whereas the percentage increase in the case of members of the Railway Board over the same period has been 41 per cent. It is also erroneous to suggest that the privileges of the Commissioners have been extended. Basically the Railway Commissioners enjoy the same privileges which they enjoyed when the National Party came into power in 1948.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to express my gratitude and appreciation to the staff for their outstanding contributions in assisting the Railways over its difficulties. I am convinced that the staff have made a positive contribution in assisting the Railways so far along its uphill climb, it is a contribution which is to their credit. I am particularly pleased to hear from the Minister that there is ever an increasing improvement in the productivity of the staff. Dr. Verburgh says in his book South African Transportation Policy which was published recently, that although the tractive power of locomotives had increased by 28 per cent and the Railway personnel by 16 per cent between 1950 and 1960, the goods traffic had increased with no less than 53 per cent. That indicates an increase in efficiency on the part of the staff. However, Mr. Speaker, I think everyone will readily concede and admit that high standard of efficiency would not have been possible, would not have been achieved, had it not been for the enterprise of and the guidance given by the Minister and his management. I feel, therefore, that the congratulations which the Sunday Times extended to the Minister, the General Manager and the senior officials on 31 December 1961, have been well earned.

They give credit where credit is due.

If only that hon. member would do that. The Sunday Times wrote the following in a leading article—

That is what the Sunday Times wrote on 31 December 1961. The leading article then goes on to enumerate all the impressive achievements of the Railways over the past year and it concludes with the following words—

Mr. Speaker, what does the hon. member who so often gets up in this House and speak about “ministerial and managerial inefficiency” think about that?

I now want to come to the question of the Artisan Staff Association and their demands. The branches of the Artisan Staff Association at Potchefstroom and Bloemfontein passed resolutions last week in connection with wage demands and in those resolutions they also demanded the resignation of the Minister. I want to say this. I have no objection to a staff organization submitting its demands to the Minister. I say it is their duty and their right to do so. Nor do I have any objection to the time that they have chosen to do so. It is the right of a staff association to submit a demand for wage increases to the Minister and his management. They may also feel completely justified in stating their case. I am not denying that at all. But I cannot agree with them and I want to express my deepest disapproval of the fact that they have demanded the resignation of the Minister. I disapprove and condemn that very strongly because I cannot believe that will do their cause any good. I was pleased, Mr. Speaker, to notice from a newspaper report yesterday that the President of the Artisan Staff Association, Mr. Liebenberg, has also expressed his regret about this resolution which was passed at Potchefstroom and Bloemfontein demanding the resignation of the Minister.

I do not have the details of the unsuccessful negotiations between the Minister and the Executive Committee and the Artisan Staff Association. But when I read the summary of the discussion which took place between the Executive Committee of that staff association and the Minister on 14 November 1961, as it appears in their own publication, the A.S.A. Magazine of December 1961, I think that the Executive Committees of the Artisan Staff Associations’ branches at Bloemfontein and Potchefstroom were not justified in demanding the resignation of the hon. the Minister. I find that on that occasion, namely on 14 November 1961, the Minister has adopted an exceedingly reasonable attitude towards the Artisan Staff Association. What were their demands? Let me just deal briefly with those requests and with the Minister’s replies thereto. The first was in connection with wage increases and pay on a monthly basis and the Ministers’ reply was that he accepted the principle of pay on a monthly basis, but that the question of increases had to stand over till the end of the year so that he could determine whether he had the money at his disposal to accede to the request.

1. (2) In regard to the request that the working hours of artisans and machinists be reduced from 46 hours to 45 hours per week without any loss in wage, the Minister agreed to appoint a committee on which the staff would be represented to go into the question of a short working week. According to the summary it is expected that this enquiry will commence in March 1962.
2. (3) In regard to the request that an increase in Sunday-time, over-time and bonuses be granted, the Minister said that he accepted the principle of increased Sunday-time and over-time but that nothing could be done until he knew what the financial position was at the end of the year.

The fourth request was that the non-pensionable allowances should be consolidated, and that the practicability of and the extent to which the pension fund could cover the additional contributions should be investigated. According to this summary the Minister replied that too was a matter which depended on the financial position of the Railways and that he had also received requests from various other staff organizations in connection with the matter. As hon. members know these requests are being acceded to in this Budget without any financial loss to Railway officials, because the Administration will carry the cost of R3,000,000 connected with the consolidation of non-pensionable allowances. There were further requests which the Minister promised to have investigated—I do not want to go into those—and amongst others the Minister also agreed to the travelling privileges for children as requested.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether this is a correct reflection. I take it that it is. But from this summary of the discussions it is very clear that the Minister adopted a very reasonable and sympathetic attitude towards the Executive Committee of the Artisan Staff Association. He stated specifically that the financial demands would have to stand over until such time as he could determine to what extent the financial position of the Railways would allow him to accede to them at the end of the year. Just as it is the right of staff associations to make demands to the Minister, it is equally the right of the Minister to approve or disapprove of them, because the Minister and nobody else in this country, is responsible to the country for the good and sound management of the Railways. He is, therefore, also the person responsible to judge whether the financial position of the Railways permits of any wage increases.

That is the point.

It is true that there is a surplus of R8,500,000 this year. However, of this amount the Minister has to use R8,000,000 in order to strengthen the Betterment Fund. That is absolutely essential even to meet the demands which will be made on that fund this year. That was more or less unavoidable because the credit balance of R 1,242,000 would have been hopelessly inadequate to enable the Betterment Fund to meet the needs of the ensuing year. You must also remember, Sir, that the Minister could not even make provision for the redemption of the amount of R6,000,000 which was allocated from the Loan Fund to the Betterment Fund in 1959-60, although it is the policy of the Minister always to avoid the interest burden attached to funds which derive from loan expenditure. The balance of the surplus amounting to R599,000 goes into the Tariff Reserve Fund because that is a Fund which ought to be built up. This Fund plays an important role in so far as it ensures stability in tariffs. The Tariff Reserve Fund may to a certain extent also be regarded as a guarantee to the railway official. Payments into this Fund can only be made from revenue and it is sound policy to strengthen this Fund annually if it is at all possible to do so. After provision has been made for the strengthening of the Higher Replacement Cost account of the Renewal Fund to the tune of R6.6 million, an allocation of R67,000 is made from the expected gross surplus of R1,067,000 to the Pension Fund and R500,000 to the Fund for the elimination of railway crossings. That leaves an expected surplus of nearly R500,000 which is not enough to meet the costs connected with the consolidation of the non-pensionable allowances, with the result that the Minister is budgeting for a deficit of R2,750,000.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that the strengthening of these funds of the Railways is as much in the interests of the Railway officials as it is in the interests of a sound financial basis for the Railways itself. If the financial position of the Railways is not kept on a sound basis, the Railway official will be one of the first to pay for the consequences.

Mr. Speaker, during the years that they have been in power, this Government and the Minister have time and again shown their gratitude and goodwill to the railwayman. Whenever the financial position of the Railways has allowed it concessions have been made to the staff and they have received thanks in a tangible way. Over the past two years these concessions have amounted to not less than R16,000,000, while over the past 14 years they have reached the figure of R 114,000,000. Over and above that approximately R98,000,000 have been spent on housing for the staff.

I am not in the least surprised that the United Party see political advantage for them-selves in these resolutions of the branches of the Staff Association. They have all along under-estimated the mentality of the railway worker. During the recent elections the United Party came with the propaganda that the salaries of the railwaymen would be cut after the election. They tried to buy the vote of the railwayman in that way. The hon. Leader of the Opposition issued a five-point challenge to the hon. the Prime Minister at Aliwal North, in which he challenged the Prime Minister, inter alia, to promise that the wages of the railwaymen would not be cut the day after the election. Right down from their Leader they tried to buy the vote of the railwayman and in doing that clearly showed what they thought of the railway official. There was no cut in salaries and wages the day after the election nor were any of their benefits taken away. On the contrary, this very Budget provides for further benefits. Let me say this clearly to the United Party that rands and cents cannot buy the railwayman. His work and the salary which he earns have never and will never determine the political disposition of the railwayman in this country. If the United Party would only accept that they will not in future make a laughing stock of themselves in the eyes of the railwayman. We find proof of the fact that his work does not determine his political disposition in the attitude of the chairman of the meeting of the Artisan Staff Association at Bloemfontein. He asked the artisans at that meeting to leave politics completely out of the discussion. The Opposition has now dragged this issue between the Minister and the Artisan Staff Association right into the political arena. By doing that, they are doing a disservice to the artisans and the staff association. [Time limit.]

It has apparently become the custom for that side of the House to make a bitter attack every year on the Artisans’ Staff Association of the Railways. Last year it was the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Badenhorst) who made himself guilty of this, and this year we have had the same type of attack from the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg).

That is untrue.

He is deliberately telling a lie.

Order! Who is the hon. member who said that it was a deliberate lie?

I said so, Mr. Speaker.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it.

On a point of explanation I want to say that if the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) says that I made an attack on the Artisans’ Staff Association it is untrue, because I did not do so.

Let me put it this way then that the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) made an attack on that section of the Railway Staff Association who asked that the hon. the Minister should resign as Minister of Transport, and apparently he agrees with that. One can well understand the feelings of the Artisans’ Staff Association when they come along year after year with reasonable proposals and with reasonable demands and then have to be told, as the hon. member himself read out, that the Minister accepts the principle underlying a certain request but nothing is done in that connection. For example, the hon. the Minister accepts the principle of monthly pay to the artisan, but why has nothing been done in this matter up to the present? They have been asking for it for a long time. He accepts the principle of higher pay for Sunday-time, but why has that increase not yet been given to the artisan staff? These artisans, who form an extremely important part of the Railways, are not trying to exploit the position politically, which the hon. member for Uitenhage accused them of doing last year. They are pleading for their own people by submitting reasonable proposals to the hon. the Minister. And it must be frustrating to be told every year, “Yes, in principle your requests are in order but I cannot do anything about them until I know what funds the Railways have available”.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) made accusations against the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) with regard to certain prophecies made by the hon. member. In order to be able to make those accusations against the old South African Party and the United Party, he actually went so far, to use the old Afrikaans expression, as to go and fetch “die bobbejaan ver agter die bult” (to meet trouble half-way). I would say that not only did he go and fetch the baboon behind the hillock but that he went so far to go and fetch the baboon that he had to make use of a sputnik or go back to Darwin to get hold of the baboon; that is how far he had to go back into history to find some little justification for his attacks.

I agree wholeheartedly with the view which has been expressed here this afternoon that our railwaymen form an extremely important part of our population and make an extremely important contribution to this country’s welfare an to our national income. There are almost 110,000 White railway workers and almost 105,000 non-Whites, all of whom contribute a great deal to the development of our country. We on this side of the House also want to express our appreciation of the great work that is being done by those men in South Africa. When we think of them we do not only think of them as numbers; we think of them as individuals who with their families have to endure hardship because of the present high cost of living and because of their limited wages; who have to endure hardship under certain unjust regulations and under circumstances which need not necessarily be a burden to them. The background against which we should discuss this matter is the question as to whether the railwaymen in South Africa are being treated fairly at the moment or not. Is it not possible to give them better treatment in certain respects? To find the answer we must go to their various staff associations and hear from them why they are dissatisfied to-day. We find that there is a growing measure of dissatisfaction arising from the refusal of requests which are regularly put forward by them. There are complaints in connection with wages, there are complaints in connection with hours of service and working conditions …

What about the Aliwal verdict?

The hon. member talks about the Aliwal verdict. I think what happened in Aliwal is simply that the voters of Aliwal have not yet realized how far-reaching the plans of this Government are in connection with the development of the Transkeian Territories. While I am on this subject, possibly the hon. the Minister can tell us how the development of these separate Bantustans, which will also take place at Aliwal, is going to affect the Railways running through those future States. There has been an investment of millions and millions of rand of the Republic’s capital in those railways. Are they going to be handed over in the future to these Bantu authorities? A large section of the constituency of the hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. H. J. Botha) is going to fall in that independent Bantu State in the Transkei. What is going to become of the railway connections in those areas?

There is dissatisfaction in connection with grading, in connection with deductions, in connection with pensions, in connection with appointments and promotions, in connection with appeals and, not least of all, Mr. Speaker, in connection with political activities in the Railway Service. Let me say a few words in connection with each of these, as far as my time permits.

Let me first say a few words in connection with requests for wage increases and better conditions of service. The Minister of Transport has worked out a system to meet legitimate wage demands, a system with which we have now become so familiar that we practically go to bed with troubled minds when we regularly hear that old story from him year after year. His system is simply this: Every year in October he usually meets the Federal Consultative Council of Railway Staff Associations. When he meets them he comes along with the story that he expects a deficit that year, that he cannot possibly accede to their demands, that he knows that the Railways are going to suffer a loss; that he expects a considerable loss and that it is consequently impossible for him to accede to their demands. The hon. the Minister did this in October 1960 and he also did it in October last year. Last year on 31 October he told the Executive Committee of Salstaff that he expected a deficit, that he could not accede to their demands to considated wages and cost-of-living allowances. Mr. Speaker, does the hon. the Minister want to tell me that the finances of the Railways are in such a mess and such a state of disorder that he did not know on 31 October of last year that he was going to show a profit of approximately a few million rand? If he knew it, why did he come along with the story to the Executive Committee of Salstaff that there was going to be a loss and that he was unable to do anything for them? Here I have his words (item for discussion No. 2)—

This was a specific request in connection with grade 2 clerks. We can only repeat what the hon. member for Wynberg said: “If the hon. the Minister is always going to use that excuse not to improve the conditions of service, is he prepared then to say to the railwaymen: ‘ If I am wrong in my estimate, if there is a profit, I shall increase your wages?’”

I do not want to enlarge upon the case of the artisans. We have had two serious threats in the past few weeks. The one is the threat of a go-slow strike amongst the ordinary artisans, and the other was an actual go-slow strike amongst the Airways artisans. In both those cases I believe that there were in fact grievances which could have been eliminated beforehand, and if that had been done we would not have had that difficulty. The position is that these people are good workers but they are becoming desperate because their reasonable requests are not heeded. Take this simple question of the artisans’ request to be paid monthly. Why should it be so terribly difficult to accede to that request? Why should a commission go into this matter again? In Rhodesia the artisans have been paid on a monthly basis for years. Why cannot it be done here? Does the Minister realize that after 30 years’ service a member of the artisan staff is worse off, as far as pensions are concerned, than a member of the salaried staff on the same notch? No wonder these persons feel frustrated.

I have already mentioned that there are 110.000 White workers and 105,000 non-Whites on the Railways. The non-Whites also have a legitimate claim to increased wages, and I notice that in this Budget, judging by the figures, the Minister has granted a wage increase of between 50 per cent and 60 per cent to the non-Whites. Let him correct me if my figures are wrong.

Where do you get hold of that?

It is an inference on my part. The wages of the 25,000 non-White workers in the Department of Transport in the Maintenance and New Works Division have been increased from R4.4 million to R7.5 million. In the first place I should like to make it perfectly clear that I have no objection to it.

But it is not an increase of wages.

It is an increase in income, if the Minister wants to put it that way. I do not object to it because it is well known that the wages received by the non-Whites on the Railways have always been amongst the lowest in this country. But the increase in the total wages in this one Department that I have mentioned is only 6 per cent. A case can certainly also be made out for an improvement in the wages of the White staff.

I have greatly overrated your intelligence.

I should like to hear from the Minister then how he can justify this matter. If the Minister does not think much of my intelligence because I plead for higher wages for White railwaymen, the railwaymen must reconcile themselves to the fact that the Minister does not want members of this House to plead for them.

In this connection there is another great improvement that can be made in connection with hours of service and working conditions. An investigation is certainly required in that connection. As far as I can make out, the question of hours of service was last investigated 17 years ago. I think the time has come when this matter should be investigated again. The Minister promised in March of this year to appoint a Committee. I should like to hear from him whether that committee has already been appointed, and I should also have liked to have had a further statement from him in this connection. I hope that when a report is brought out the Minister will not shield behind the fact that the Cabinet says that he may not do this or that it depends on what is done in the Public Service. The excuse is frequently relied upon that the Public Service and the Railways are different and that they have different scales of pay for their staff. Surely then there can also be differentiation in this case.

Sir, if I were to go into all the complaints in connection with working conditions on the Railways I could take up a great deal of the time of this House. I want to mention a case, however, where an attempt was in fact made by the Minister to improve working conditions and I want to ask him to go one further step. This is not a very important case but it is quite interesting. As hon. members are aware, there is a huge number of tunnels on the section between Port Elizabeth and Noupoort and also between East London and Queenstown. I think there are 12 tunnels on each section. The drivers and firemen complained that in these tunnels, particularly in the long tunnels, they were exposed to carbon monoxide poisoning because of the enormous amount of smoke in the tunnels. It was then decided to issue gas masks to the drivers and firemen on those sections. One wonders whether that was the best thing that could be done. Is this not a case where diesel locomotives could have been introduced to do away with this inconvenience? I understand that the locomotives have been provided with cowls, with the result that the drivers and firemen are now exposed to less smoke in the tunnels, but all this smoke finds its way to the second and third carriages, with the result that the passengers are almost poisoned. If the Minister does not want to put diesel locomotives on that section, I suppose the time will soon come when he will have to issue gas masks to the passengers.

I have asked the Minister, and I want to ask him again, how the development of the Railways is going to fit in with this great developmental plan under which certain of the Bantu territories are going to be given independence. What is going to become of the Railway connections in those areas? It is important that the country should know whether there is any serious planning at this stage in connection in that regard?

Use your common sense for a moment.

How can you ask him to use something that he has not got?

I do not take much notice of that remark, but perhaps the hon. member over there can reply to the question. I am one of those people who believe that the Prime Minister is honest when he says that those areas are going to become independent.

Do you support it too?

Mr. Speaker would not allow me to reply to that and to start a debate on Bantustans, but I do not believe in that policy. I am pleased that the Minister has brought about one small improvement in the past year. He will recall that we asked last year that the rewards given to the members of the staff for worth-while discoveries or ideas should be increased. I understand that the minimum has now been increased from R2 to R3, which is a good thing, but I hope that the rewards will be stepped up slightly because we save tens of thousands of rand every year as the result of sound proposals put forward by the staff.

I have mentioned that there is dissatisfaction in connection with the grading system. The people who are particularly affected here are the 2nd Grade clerks. They are finding that their numbers are increasing every year and that it is difficult to get promotion to Grade 1. I admit that the Minister has now upgraded 200 Grade II posts to Grade I posts but a case can be made out and has been made out by Salstaff for the regrading of nearly 1,000 posts in this grade. This reminds me of a little poem that I come across in the Salstaff Bulletin, the dirge of a 2nd Grade Clerk in which he says the following. I do not vouch for the literary value of it, but perhaps it is worthwhile quoting it. He writes—

It is clear that there are complaints amongst the Grade II clerks, and I think they are justified.

We find those complaints in connection with grading not only on one side of the scale but also on the other side of the scale. Here I am thinking of certain gradings in connection with engineers. There is a large number of resignations from the engineering division and I am convinced that to a large extent the grading system is responsible for this. The system works this way that in certain engineering divisions it is practically impossible for an engineer to reach the very highest rung. Let me take the four grades or branches. There is the chief mechanical engineer, the chief civil engineer, the chief electro-technical engineer and the chief signals engineer. The grading of the first two is the same, while the grading of the last two is lower. I think it is high time the grading of these four was placed on the same basis. For example, I am informed that the chief mechanical engineer and the chief civil engineer may become General Manager or Deputy General Manager, while that is not possible in the case of the other two. I think the Minister should give his serious attention to that matter. When we come to the question of resignations, we are entitled to ask how it came about that a capable person, a brilliant signals engineer like Mr. Golding, resigned last year, four years before he was due to go on pension. One also wants to know why Mr. Jackson, the assistant chief civil engineer, was transferred to a post carrying less responsibility where he has no hope of future promotion. These are matters which I can assure the Minister have not been brought to my notice by these gentlemen; they are matters which are mentioned by members of the staff, particularly engineers, and they would like to know what is going on.

There are also complaints in connection with deductions. I want to mention just one. It has been announced recently that there is going to be an increase in Sick Fund contributions. The increase is 40 cents per month; the Salstaff leading article says 40 per cent but I do not think that is right, and then there is also to be a further charge of 25 cents per prescription to be paid by Railway staff members who make use of the Sick Fund. I admit that the expenditure of the Sick Fund is increasing and that possibly the fees have to be revised, but the railwaymen who have to contribute to the Sick Fund feel that insufficient information is made available to them in connection with the activities of the Sick Fund. It will not help the Minister to say that the Sick Fund is entirely divorced from the Railways. It forms an integral portion of the railwayman’s life and it is necessary that something be done in that connection. I quote again from the Salstaff Bulletin, in which it is said—

I have said that there are complaints in connection with wages, hours of service, grading and deductions. In the same way, as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) has said, there are complaints in connection with pensions. There must be something wrong somewhere if the income of the pension fund increases by R33,000,000 every year and only R14,000,000 is paid out. On that basis a strong case can be made out for increased pensions, and we, on this side, advocate an increase of at least 10 per cent. We find, year after year, that the Superannuation Fund grows by anything between R19,000,000 and R21,000,000. That is the amount by which the income exceeds the expenditure. If this fund increases by R19,000,000 a year, a case can certainly be made out for increased pensions. The Minister knows that it is very easy for him, under the Act, to lend the money that he gets in to the Government at 4½ per cent. This is money on which the Government would otherwise have had to pay a much higher rate of interest. This is an additional burden on the railwaymen, and I think a change should be made in the rate of interest paid on this money.

Sir, there are also complaints in connection with appointments and promotions. The whole system of promotion, and particularly the system of selection committees, is still not working correctly. That is not what I say; that is what the Railway Administration itself says. I have here a circular letter from the General Manager’s office in Johannesburg, No. 1833, in connection with the nomination procedure and the filling of vacancies, and it reads as follows—

One wonders in how many hundreds of cases these mistakes on the part of the selection committees have adversely affected a railwayman’s chances of promotion, and how many of those cases have been rectified.

It is clear that avenues of promotion are not being kept open for the man at the bottom who is keen to get to the top. I could mention quite a number of cases where a person has been brought in from one division to become the head of another division, and he then serves in that division as a sort of stopper preventing the people below him from getting promotion. I want to refer to a few cases, without mentioning the names of the persons concerned. A person who was formerly a parliamentary clerk is Assistant Catering Manager to-day. What are the qualifications of that person—and the Minister will know to whom I refer—for the position of catering manager? Why was he placed in that post while people working under him, who have years of service, were overlooked? I also have in mind another case, the case of a parliamentary clerk who, at one stage was also in publicity, and who is now Chief Accountant. Then there is a third case, the case of a person who was in Customs and Excise, thereafter in the Railway Police, and who has now become Sales Manager of the S.A. Airways. What are his qualifications for this post? There is also the case of the person who was appointed as Chief Stores Superintendent. What better qualifications did he have for that post than the people working under him? Then I have in mind the case of a former newspaperman who has now become Acting Manager of the Publicity and Travel Division. What qualifications did he have except that he was formerly a newspaperman on a Transvaal Nationalist paper? No wonder many members of the staff feel deeply frustrated when they see how promotions take place.

I have mentioned a further aspect in connection with which objections are raised by the staff, and that is in connection with appeals. A member of the staff has the right to appeal against a decision in connection with his promotion. He can appeal to the Railway Board, but the unfair part of it is that he is not allowed to appear personally before the Board. The Administration is allowed to state its case against him, but the man who feels that an injustice has been done to him is not allowed to appear. He is judged in absentia, and frequently also condemned. I regard that as very unreasonable. The only exception that is made is in those cases where people are dismissed.

There are more and more complaints in connection with politics in the Railway Service. We heard the first example here this afternoon in connection with the Railway Board and political appointments to that body, where persons have been taken from this House and appointed to the Railway Board, other than in the case of Mr. Fourie and Mr. Esselen, neither of whom had been a member of this House. [Interjections.] But it is not only at that level that we hear complaints; there are also complaints at a lower level that members of the Railway staff take part in politics where they ought not to do so. Take the posts that were created a few years ago, the post of Native Labour Inspector in the Railway Service. The vast majority of those inspectors are capable officials who do their duty, which is to visit Native labour in the various parts of this country. The best amongst them have a command of some Native language. But now we find, and we hear, that a number of these inspectors are really acting as political agents of the Government party and that when they visit a place, their first visit is not to their offices, but to the local chairman of the Nationalist Party to find out what the political situation is in that area. [Interjections.] I am uttering this warning this year, and I give hon. members the assurance that, unless there has been a change by next year, I shall come along with examples— and there will be more than one example. There are examples in the constituencies of at least two of the hon. members on the other side who are now having such a good laugh.

What can one expect, however, when the Minister himself sets the example by introducing politics into the Railway Service? I should like to mention this case: Last year, or the previous year, the Minister addressed a political meeting near Silverton, but what we find strange is the fact that the Minister took a senior Railway official along with him to the meeting, and at the meeting the Minister said that if these people had any complaints they should go and see this person, that he would investigate and try to rectify the position. Sir, is it right to make use of an official at a political meeting to sit there as a sort of political lightning conductor to ward off criticism directed at the Minister?

Do you say it was a meeting that I addressed at Silverton last year? I have never held a meeting there.

The name of the place is Morgenvloed and the person who accompanied the Minister was Mr. Jordaan.

Do you say his name is Jordaan?

No, pardon me, it was Conradie. I think the Minister knows him. That sort of thing is wrong. If it is right, then we want to know whether our Railway supporters can come to our meetings to rectify matters for us. But the Minister would not agree to that. Sir, I have mentioned these complaints here and I hope that the Minister will go into them.

Do you want me to dismiss all the United Party supporters who serve on your executive committees?

No; but that is a peculiar threat coming from the Minister. He knows that we were never enamoured of the idea that railwaymen should actively take part in politics, but the Minister carried this policy further and also allowed railwaymen to become chairmen of the Nationalist Party branches and divisional chairmen. The result was that some of our United Party people said, “Railwaymen who are Nationalists are chairmen of branches; you might as well become chairman too and if there is any victimization, let us know about it”.

By and large I have dealt now with the problems of the ordinary railwayman. I just want to say a few words now in connection with the Catering Department and possible new lines. The Catering Department is showing big losses. These losses have become greater and greater in recent times, although there are signs to-day of a small improvement, but there is still no justification at all for these losses. A new reorganization has taken place in the Department, and as far as the new arrangements in connection with the bookshops are concerned, these have not had the desired effect. Here we have also a case of Parkinson’s Law; that new posts are created and heavier expenditure then has to be incurred in that connection. We understand that the accounting section of the Catering Department in particular is in a chaotic state. There are accounts there in respect of which payment has been outstanding for six to eight months. These are things which do not improve the good name of the Railways. As far as the Catering Department is concerned I admit that very fine services are being rendered in certain respects, but I feel that even better services could be rendered, particularly in connection with new dining saloons. In the past 19 years only ten new dining saloons have been put into service. I notice that provision is made in the Brown Book for more dining saloons, but in the case of most of these Votes provision is made for only a nominal amount. I feel, for example, that buffet saloons could be introduced between Windhoek and Walvis Bay or between Pretoria and Johannesburg. This is a matter which the Minister would be well advised to think about for the future [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat was formerly the editor of the Kruithoring and then the United Party did not believe him. He later became a United Party propagandist and then the Nationalists did not believe him, and I do not imagine that anybody will believe him in regard to the representations he made here to-day. It is peculiar how this hon. member interprets the Budget. He looks at an amount budgeted for by the Minister for Native wages in the ensuing financial year; he notes that there is an increase as compared with the Budget for the previous year—because more Natives are employed—and then he suddenly comes to the conclusion that the Natives are receiving increased wages. If he looks at page 39 he will find that this year R5,088 is being budgeted for Grade II clerks in the office of the Minister and of the Railway Board, whilst last year the amount was R4,150. In other words, there is an increase of R938 this year. I suppose he will now say that the salaries of these clerks have been increased, but if he looks carefully he will see that their number increased, from three to four. As I say, it is surprising to see the way in which the hon. member reads the accounts, but I leave him there. I want to come back to the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell).

In his amendment the hon. member says that the financial administration and control of the Railways, Harbours and Airways should be run on strictly business lines as opposed to a political basis. Well, let us investigate a little. One of the best proofs that things are going well with the finances of the country and with our economy and that there is development, activity and progress, is the fact that the South African Railways, Harbours and Airways are functioning steadily and that the transportation demands of the country are being complied with. The Railways, with its enormous personnel and the available rolling stock, transported a record tonnage during the past financial year, and from this one must infer that the Railways were effectively used, that the tractive power and rolling stock were properly used and handled, and that it also had an important effect on the economy of the country. Because passenger requirements were properly complied with; proper facilities for passengers were provided, and satisfactory service was rendered to the farmer, the industrialist and the business man who needed transport, and with the development of industries in the various centres of the Republic transport services were provided which were to the benefit of both the consumer and the Administration. It was of the utmost importance to the Republic to learn from the Minister in his Budget speech that “the onus resting on the Railways to keep pace with developments by being prepared to provide the necessary transport has been successfully complied with”. Together with these achievements there will, of course, also be problems and difficulties which will have to be dealt with. But as happened in the past, most of these problems have been successfully solved, and we have the fullest confidence that the Minister will be able to solve any difficulties effectively.

A revenue of the past two years and the anticipated revenue for the present financial year shows the tempo of progress. To be more specific, I can refer to all three services. During the year ending 31 March 1961, the record amount of R226.1 million was earned by the S.A. Railways in respect of goods traffic. This revenue is expected to be increased by the end of the financial year 1962; in other words, it is expected that goods traffic will increase to R232.5 million, an increase of R6.4 million over the previous year. And in the year covered by this Budget, 1962-3, it is expected that goods traffic will show an increase over the revised Estimates for the current year of R6.9 million, i.e. an increase up to R239.4 million. As I have already said, the increase in the revenue earned by the Railways can be ascribed to two things only, namely the efficiency of the staff with the means at their disposal, and secondly, the effective control and supervision exercised by the Administration itself.

A comparison can be made in regard to the harbour services also. Take, for example, the revenue derived from the services under the sub-head Wharfage Dues on Goods and Livestock. At the end of the financial year ending 31 March 1961, these services show an income of R13.2 million, and although the quay dues were deleteriously affected in the year 1961-2 by import control there was nevertheless no appreciable decrease in the income, and it is expected that progress will be made, seeing that the expectation for the year 1962-3 is that there will be an increase of R400,000 in revenue. And here it is noticeable that notwithstanding the small set-back in the year 1961-2, the handling of ships in the various ports was coped with. The handling of cargoes in all the harbours of the Republic was done effectively and satisfactorily. Without being too optimistic I want to predict that under normal circumstances such as prevail at present the increase in revenue in the present year will far exceed the figure of R400,000.

In regard to the Airways, it is encouraging to see that the revenue derived from passengers in the year ended 31 March 1961, amounted to R17.7 million, and that out of the globular figure for the revenue earned by Airways for the year 1961-2 the amount of R1.1 million, which was earned in excess of what was budgeted for in that year, will necessarily show a tremendous increase in respect of passenger services. And this gradual upward tendency in the revenue derived from passenger traffic is confidently indicated in the 1962-3 Estimates, in which provision is being made for a further increase of R1.8 million, i.e. 8.8 per cent, from passenger traffic.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that these comparative increasing revenue figures which I have mentioned in respect of one revenueearning service in each of the three divisions, viz. Railways, Harbours and Airways, seems to prove the statement I made earlier in my speech in regard to the efficiency of the staff and of the Administration. It also seems to prove that the Minister budgeted judiciously, not only this year but also in past years, particularly if we take into consideration the happenings of the past two years. The Opposition may criticize as much as they like, but they must admit that this year again the Minister framed his Budget on a very sound basis and that it is clear and effective for the year that lies ahead. This is an outstanding service to the Republic.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer also to the South African harbours, amongst which we have Durban and Cape Town which compare favourably with the best harbours in the world. These two ports, together with Port Elizabeth, East London, Mossel Bay and Walvis Bay, provide harbour facilities of such a nature that the Republic can boast of having the best harbour facilities in the Southern Hemisphere. Over the years various governments have spent appreciable capital sums on these harbours for their development and to make them effective for any shipping visiting the harbours, and to maintain at a high level the handling of cargoes. The statistics for the year 1960-1 show that our harbours in that year were visited by 6,256 vessels from other countries, the most important of which were the following: The United Kingdom 2,102 ships, Holland 902 ships, the U.S.A. 552, Japan 414, Norway 404, Western Germany 346, Sweden 268, and France 228. With this amount of sea traffic it is not surprising that in the year 1960-1 sea freight amounting to 18,885,810 tons was handled in the main South African ports. This tonnage was an increase of 5.7 per cent or 1,017,340 tons on the previous year. These figures show that our ports were very busy and that with the available facilities the ports could successfully comply with the demands made of them. This Government realizes the very important duty resting on it to make our ports efficient, and in every Budget so far the Minister has allocated funds to provide the most modern buildings and equipment in the harbours, to the extent that such funds were available. The Administration has always been able to render adequate services to the shipping in all our harbours. The show-place of the Durban Harbour is of course the new passenger terminal on T Wharf. Here modern freight depots, pre-cooling chambers, offices and cloakrooms were provided. The spacious customs hall with the excellent restaurant for Whites on the one side and for non-Whites on the other is a great acquisition to the harbour. Facilitating the control of passengers who are embarking or disembarking, particularly where the customs facilities have to be used, is always highly appreciated by passengers, and better service is being provided. Also, the handling of baggage has been speeded up and cargoes are being handled more efficiently and expeditiously. The Durban harbour will therefore be able to offer the travelling public some of the most modern facilities. Then Durban is also the chief port in our country for the handling of petrol and oil and the facilities and the installation at the Island View Quay are surely some of the best in the world. If these modern facilities had not been available for oil tankers, there would surely not have been two oil refineries in Durban to-day. Here, thanks to the action taken by the Government, industries have been attracted to our country which are of inestimable value to South Africa, and with a view to further facilities which may become necessary in future to develop this industry, I believe that the Minister will not hesitate to devote even more attention to further development.

But the Durban harbour has further potentialities. Just think of the development of the ship-repairing industry. In the past ships were repaired, but the demand increased, with the result that the authorities realized that effective facilities should be provided for the execution of this urgent and essenal work. The preparaon of the old flying-boat basin and the building of new wharves to comply with this object is again proof of sound and thorough planning on the part of the Minister and his Administration. The provision of these facilities may lead in future to shipbuilding becoming one of our great industries in South Africa. Although it is realized that sound planning is needed to provide wharves, keelblocks, special dry docks, slipways and workshops, and although power will have to be supplied and dredging will have to be done to provide space in the harbour for the launching of ships, in my humble opinion Durban harbour holds possibilities for such an industry on a large scale. The raw material, power and labour are available in the Republic. What is lacking, of course, is the technical, trained labour and workers who will have to be brought here, because South Africa, which is the most developed country in the Southern Hemisphere, urgently needs a big ship-building industry. In future provision will have to be made for a South African trading fleet which in turn can contribute to the development of our naval force for defence purposes. In this respect, also, it is my humble opinion that if overseas industrialists who want to start and develop shipbuilding here apply to the Republic, the Government should do everything in its power to encourage them by providing the necessary facilities. The benefits which will flow from such an undertaking will be of great advantage in future.

I just want to refer to the harbour in Cape Town. Firstly it is of great importance that the entrance to the Duncan Dock should be widened. After the investigations and experiments which were very thoroughly undertaken by the Administration in that regard, the work is now in full swing, and the wise step being taken here will also be recognized in future as something of inestimable value. The larger entrance will make it much safer for ships entering or leaving the harbour, which have to cope with the range action which is made worse by the wind and/or marine currents. At the present stage pilots find it very difficult on occasion to take ships safely through the entrance in bad weather. This widening of the entrance will make it much safer in any sort of weather, and will ensure that there will be no delay in ships entering or leaving the harbour caused by bad weather. In view of the fact that Cape Town is the oldest harbour in the Republic, it will now derive great benefit from the fact, as was recently announced in the Press, that the Caltex Company intends establishing an oil refinery in Cape Town. According to the report, the Minister, together with his colleague, the Minister of Economic Affairs, have given their consent to this development, which will ensure greater activity in the Cape Town harbour, and the provision of greater facilities to oil tankers by the Administration will also be tackled successfully, as was done in the past. The establishment of this great undertaking is of inestimable value to the Republic. It is an undertaking the benefits of which will be felt in various sectors of the economy of the country.

Then I cannot neglect again praising the Minister’s action a few years ago in rebuilding the pre-cooling chambers in the Cape Town harbour as speedily as he did. A visit to those buildings, and watching the activities there, make one realize that a great service was rendered to the country, and the results achieved have already become history, depicted in the statistics of the past two years. Mr. Speaker, allow me to pay tribute to the harbour port captains of our harbours, together with the pilots and the other personnel, for the manner they handled the traffic in the harbours, and also for the arrangements made for the loading and unloading of cargo. Then there are the harbour vessels, the tugs which do the towing and the rescue work in the various ports. This personnel, including the harbour pilots, have a proud record which they maintain. They render services which allow millions of tons of goods to enter and leave the harbour safely, and they are responsible every year for the safe entry and departure of hundreds of thousands of passengers and crew in our harbours every year. Few people realize what responsible work these people do.

Then I should briefly like to refer to another matter which was mentioned by the hon. member for Wynberg, in regard to the high cost replacement account. In regard to the Renewals Fund, the hon. member for Wynberg spoke about mismanagement, miscalculation, etc., and he said that the Minister should have referred the matter to a Select Committee before dealing with this fund. The Minister explained this matter thoroughly in his Budget speech. He explained why he did it. He said that a proper and thorough investigation had been made, and he told us what would be done in future, namely, that this contribution would be obtained, in the same way as the ordinary depreciation contributions, i.e. directly by regular levies against revenue. Sir, when we look at the two items in the White Book, Head 8 and Head 22, we see that, instead of the amount of R1,000,000 under Head 33 which was voted last year, this year R7,000,000 more is being voted under Head 8, and R429,834 more under Head 22. What is clear to me is that, with the percentage increase, as is now proposed in terms of the new arrangements, there will be a regular income for this fund, the high cost replacement account which will regularly be credited with amounts which are absolutely essential for replacement purposes, and if that does not happen, amounts must in any case be voted from the same account every year. It is much easier to budget if you have a regular income on a percentage basis than to have to take a globular amount from one account every year and to put it into the other fund.

Finally, I just want to say that the Minister has not had any proper criticism of his Budget from the United Party yet. If I am to judge by the speech of the hon. member for Orange Grove, I do not know whether this debate can last longer than to-night. I want to tell the Minister that he has rendered the country a great service, and the Railway personnel and the whole of the country are grateful for this splendid Budget he has submitted to us.

It appears as though the hon. member for Edenvale (Mr. G. H. van Wyk) must have been given the wrong notes to read. I think the notes he read out to the House a moment ago were designed for the Edenvale Chamber of Commerce or some similar organization, but they were certainly no answer at all to the charge made by this side of the House that the Minister in this Budget has failed to give due credit and due reward to the railway worker for his contribution to the position of railway finance. We heard the hon. member for Edenvale deal in his statistical record with the record tonnage carried, and he said that was due to the fact that the railway personnel had done their job properly. Why did he not follow that up and tell us what he proposes for his voters in his constituency who helped to build up that increased tonnage and who have received no reward for that extra work? Why does he not tell us, and why does no member on that side of the House tell us what they recommend in the interest of the railway worker who has helped the Minister to come with a surplus this year. No, dead silence from the Government side of the House when it comes to the welfare of the worker. Why has no member on that side replied to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) who pleaded for an increase of 10 per cent in pensions? Sir, hon. members opposite come with long figures of tonnage carried. Tonnage does not fill stomachs nor does it dress children. It does not help to bring up the family of the struggling worker on the railways. Why do some of them not deal with the practical problems of the railway employee.

Typical soapbox oratory.

No, this is not soapbox oratory. I happen to have railway workers in my constituency. I have here a letter dated the 6th of this month from one of these workers who says that he dare not go through the normal channels because he is afraid of victimization.

That is what happened in your time. You know that perfectly well.

He sets out figures here which show that a married checker trainee over 21 earned a monthly wage; in a 26-day month, of R98.27 before consolidation of cost-of-living-allowance and since consolidation earns R78.80, a drop of R20 in the earnings of a person in the same position. In the case of the intermittent casual worker who is married, his weekly income has dropped from R22.70 to R16.98 and he is not entitled to the 10-year increment. I could go on quoting other examples about Sunday-time and about promises not fulfilled. These are the problems which affect the man working in the Service to-day and who has to bring up a family, but all we get from Government members is “dank die Minister” and long sets of figures of tonnages carried, but no reply to the pleas from this side of the House for attention to be given to a just reward for those who have made this surplus possible and for those pensioners who helped to lay the foundation of the Railway Service—pensioners who to-day are struggling to exist on that pension and for whom no consideration whatsoever is shown. And then we are told that the Minister has budgeted efficiently. Budgeted efficiently when he withheld from the workers, on the grounds, that he could not afford it, R8,500,000 which is now being ploughed back —R8,500,000 which he could have spent helping the workers on the Railways but which he claims he did not have? No, we want to hear from Government members what they are prepared to do to bring pressure to bear on the Minister to help those in the Railway Service who deserve to be helped. They are afraid to criticize.

Do you want the whole surplus?

Yes.

They are afraid to criticize because if they criticize they might not find a future post as Railway Commissioner in the years to come.

I want to deal with some of the things which I believe to be wrong in the administration of the Railways, the Harbours and the Airways, but particularly with the Airways. Before doing so I want to deal with something else which is symptomatic of the Minister’s attitude. I think it is important that this House should know these things. There is tremendous expansion going on at Durban harbour and there are tremendous plans for the expansion of that harbour. The hon. the Minister was good enough to permit Durban Members of Parliament to attend a meeting last year in Durban on this question, but I take the strongest exception to the attitude of the Minister in what I regard to be contempt of this House and contempt of Members of Parliament in that he refuses to make available to us documents—and I refer in particular to the report of the Moffat Commission —on which he is basing his planning. He is prepared to make that document available to the City Council and to other bodies but he is not prepared to make it available to Members on this side of the House. He says he does not want us to debate it in this House. I say that it is our duty to debate these issues in this House, and I want to make an appeal to the Minister to drop this dictatorial attitude, this attitude of contempt for Parliament as the body which has the ultimate say in and control over the administration of this Department. I want to say to him that Durban harbour is not just the property of the S.A. Railways; it is not just an instrument in our economy but that it is also the property of Durban; it is also an asset of Durban, Durban which in addition to its economic and its industrial potential and contribution to South Africa, is also the playground of South Africa. My constituency has developed a tremendously new housing area,— a new flatland. The hon. the Minister’s plans are bringing piers right across the harbour to within half a mile of the Esplanade in Durban. We want to try as far as possible to make some contribution to achieving not only the maximum efficiency, but also to preserving the maximum possible natural beauty and natural surroundings within which this efficiency must be built up. I hope that the hon. the Minister in his plans—and I quote this specific case—where he is dealing with the natural resources and assets of South Africa, will take into consideration other interests, other than the pure mechanical requirements of the Railway Administration.

I want to turn to another aspect of railway administration, the Airways, and I want to submit that the Minister must agree that there are increasing inroads being made into the Airways of what I call the railway mentality. The hon. the Minister, last year, admitted the importance of Airways. He said that in order to administer it separately, he had decided on a separate post of Assistant-General Manager (Airways). He accepts the principle that Airway Administration is not just a sub-branch of the Railways. An aeroplane is just not a train with wings on it, but it is a special organization of its own, requiring specialized knowledge and specialized background. It is one of our only links with the outside world. And dealing with links with the outside world, may I break my train of thought for a moment to deal with what I believe to be a great disservice which the hon. the Minister has done to South Africa in relation to our Airways. I refer to the deal which has gone on in connection with planes purchased for the South African Airways. The hon. the Minister was asked a question by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) in regard to two Viscount aircraft purchased by the South African Airways, and in his reply the Minister said that these aircraft had been purchased from Switzerland, from Mr. Jerez. Why did he not tell this House the full story? Why did he hide from this House the fact that those planes had come from the Cuban Airlines, a puppet of communist Russia? Why did he hide from this House the fact that Cuba was in a spot over those planes because she could not obtain spares for them and could not get them serviced? Why did he not tell this House that South Africa and in particular the Airways which he controls had helped Cuba out of trouble by taking over those planes? Eventually the third time that we put questions to him, he admitted that these planes had come from Cuba. He had then answered three questions and he had still hidden from this House the fact that it was not a straight deal with Cuba, but that there was an interchange through an agent in Switzerland, an interchange of planes, and that not only had we helped Cuba out of its difficulties by relieving Cuba of two planes which could not fly, not only had we relieved them of their difficulties, but we had provided them with two alternative aeroplanes, ideally suited to be used as troop-carriers, if they so wish. Not only have we supplied a puppet of Russia with two aircraft, but we have provided this communist country with six engines as spares for those aircraft and with 50 per cent of the other spares therefore which South Africa possessed.

Did Great Britain not sell aircraft to communist China?

The hon. the Minister has made an interesting interjection. I am asking him whether he is quite happy that he has helped Cuba out of this difficulty by taking over these Viscounts. Because I want to come to the economics of the whole situation. Mr. Speaker, I asked the hon. the Minister the cost of the planes which South Africa possessed, and the average cost of Viscounts which we have purchased was R881,000 each. We paid for two second-hand planes, one of which has done some 3,500 hours flying, R770,000 each. We paid R770,000 for second-hand aircraft, one of which had done 3,500 hours flying, whereas the average cost of new aircraft, brand new aircraft delivered to South Africa was R881,000. But what is more, Mr. Speaker, in part exchange for those aircraft we gave to the agent of communist Cuba two Constellations whose value in the books of the South African Airways stood at R105,000 each; they cost us R813,937 each, they were in our books at R105,000 and we sold them for R90,000 each plus—free, gratis and for nothing—six engines and half their spares belonging to South African Airways. So not only did we help this communist country, not only have we offloaded from them planes which they were unable to use, and not made a bargain of it— we paid virtually full price for them—but we have supplied to them at less than their book value—and everyone knows that the book value of an aircraft is nowhere near its real value—two Constellations. The hon. the Minister withdrew these Constellations from use because he claimed they were uneconomic to run, but he has suddenly found that they are not so uneconomic, because he is chartering the other two Constellations we still have in South Africa to a commercial firm. That commercial firm must be making a profit out of them, because otherwise it would not be chartering them. And if a commercial firm can fly the two Constellations economically and can afford to charter them—and I assume they are economic charter prices (the Minister refused to reply to a question on that on the grounds that it was a commercial deal and therefore he could not disclose the details)— but either he is chartering those planes to Trek Airways at less than their cost to the Administration, in which case he is showing a loss on that deal, or he is chartering them at an economic price. If he is chartering them at an economic price and that company is making a profit on the deal, then why isn’t South African Airways taking that profit? Why is he not using the two planes that he has exchanged with communist Cuba in order to make more profits for the South African Airways? No, Mr. Speaker, three things about this deal leave a nasty taste: One is the way that it was hidden from this House and from the country, secondly, the way the Minister avoided giving us the full facts when we asked for them. Only when he knew that we had the full facts, was he prepared to give them to the House. And thirdly, the economics of this undertaking—of this interchange of planes—also leaves a nasty taste. But it goes further than a mere principle. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he thinks that it is going to enhance our reputation in the anti-communist world, whether he thinks that Britain and America are going to be pleased with this deal which we have made, and whether he thinks that when we require further help or assistance that we are going to get the same co-operation and the same assistance from other countries, which are anticommunist, than we have had in the past?

Did Britain not sell Viscounts to communist China?

I wish the hon. the Minister of Information would join me in my plea to the hon. the Minister to divorce Airways from Railways so that we can get proper business efficiency in our Airways. I am going to quote what the hon. the Minister of Information himself thinks of this issue. He said—

This Minister of Information instead of making inane interjections, should stand up and support me in my plea to the hon. the Minister to divorce the Airways, to take them out of the strait-jacket of Railway red-tape and to treat them as a separate organization. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, how is he going to inform the world of the efficiency of our airways when he does not believe that they are efficient, when he does not believe that they can be properly handled? How is he going to see that we get decent agreements with B.O.A.C., that we get passengers to use the South African Airways, when that hon. Minister himself does not believe that the Airways are efficiently run?

Tell me did Great Britain not sell aircraft to communist China?

Britain sold Viscounts to South Africa. That is what I am interested in, and yet we had to go and help Cuba to get rid of the planes they could not fly. I don’t know whether Britain sold Viscounts to China. I say that the hon. the Minister has done South Africa a great injustice. But not only externally; internally I believe he has not recognized the place which Airways should take in our transport system in South Africa.

Our Airways have built up a proud reputation, a reputation built up by the loyalty and devotion of the staff. It is a loyalty which has overridden the handicaps, the strait-jacket and the red-tape which often frustrate their efforts, and it is a loyalty which is being sorely tested, because in practice the Airways are being hogtied by the railway mentality which I have mentioned—the goods train idea. Just a little thing in passing: I don’t know who planned the terminal in Johannesburg, but there is not even a clock in the Airways terminal in Johannesburg. I don’t know whether that is symptomatic of the feeling in the Railway Administration that time is not important anymore. But in Airways, time is important.

That has nothing to do with Airways.

But surely it falls under him? Oh, I see, it falls under his colleague, Minister Schoeman, the Minister of Transport. I said that our Airways had built up a proud reputation, an accident-free record of which South Africa can well be proud and I believe that record will be maintained, because of the quality of the staff which we have, the pilots and the technicians—the pilots who fly the planes, the technicians who service them. But they are not getting much help from the Government, or from the Minister.

That is nonsense!

I wish my friends there knew something about the difficulties of airways. Every country in the world recognizes the importance of the airways. If you compare the salary scales of South African pilots for instance, with any airline in the world, you find that they differ from anything from 60 per cent to less than half of the remuneration other airways pay their pilots. Now the Minister’s answer is that conditions are different. My point is that other countries recognize and renumerate and reward the specialist services which are required to fly aircraft as opposed to driving trains.

And they have all the accidents.

Yes, that may be. South Africa, thank God, has got the finest pilots in the world, pilots many of whom were trained the hard way, learning to fight for their country, and they have carried that tradition over into the airways which they subsequently joined, the tradition of flying under difficult circumstances and with that background. I am proud of the type of pilot that we have, but I say that we will never justly reward the airway staff as long as they are a sub-section of a sub-section of the South African Railways and Harbours, without regard to the specialized nature of their services. More and more there is dissatisfaction over the extent to which railways are impinging onto airways. I want to quote for instance from January this year, when a chief engineer of South African Airways, a man only 51 years of age, resigned from the airway service after 28 years of unblemished service, service unquestioned in its efficiency and unquestioned in his loyalty to the Administration. But suddenly, a man who was a locomotive superintendent was transferred from the South African Railways, a special post created for him, that of engineering manager, and he was placed in a senior position to Mr. Scott. Why was it necessary to bring in a person, a locomotive engineer and to promote him over the head of a man who had given 28 years of efficient and loyal service because the locomotive engineer happened to have a technical degree which the other person could not have because it was not in existence when he trained. But the present incumbent had had 28 years of practical experience in the airways, airway engines, not steam engines or puffing-billies, but 28 years of experience with aircraft and aircraft engines. Sir, you are not going to build up loyalty in that way. Another transfer carrying a basic salary of over R3,000 a year was made when Mr. P. M. Botha was appointed as assistant-engineer (Electrical). Was there no airways electrical engineer who could have been promoted to that post? Was it necessary to bring a man from the Railways Administration and promote him to that post? Mr. Speaker, there were 66 persons earning over R1,000 and ten earning over R2,000 a year, basic salary, transferred from Railways to Airways over the last two years, and those people displaced airway personnel, qualified and able to do the job. Is it any wonder that people are starting to say that this is “jobs for pals”? The hon. the Minister evaded a question the other day which asked whether a senior-medical post had been filled. He said there was no such post. But will he deny that a medical officer was appointed in the airways service, that a railway doctor was appointed as the interviewing committee to interview applicants and that when he had interviewed the applicants, he appointed himself to that job? The hon. the Minister hid behind a technicality, trying to avoid answering the question. May I ask him to deny that the interviewer from the Railways gave himself the job? And why? Was he better qualified? Obviously he must have been if he was doing the interviewing. There are other reasons for dissatisfaction. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Lewis) asked the hon. the Minister for instance how much route-check flying the present fleet captain of regional internal routes had done with the South African Airways. It is this official’s job to check the efficiency of pilots. The answer was 1,105 hours since he had taken on the post, and in the last two years let us look at what those flying hours comprised. The answer is 718 hours spent flying in Boeings. Now this is the fleet captain of regional and internal services, and on the whole of the regional and internal services there is one flight per week of a Boeing aircraft, once a week a Boeing aircraft flies from Johannesburg to Cape Town and back. But this person whose job it is to supervise and to route-check the internal and regional services has done 718 hours flying of Boeings. I don’t think he has been flying up and down from Johannesburg to Cape Town. In other words, he has been flying on overseas routes when his job is to check the efficiency of the pilots on the internal run. But whilst there is one flight per week on Boeings, there are 53 flights a week on Viscounts on the regional and internal routes, and the internal fleet captain has done a total of 141 hours flying in two years on Viscount aircraft, 70 hours per year. As far as Skymasters are concerned, there are 12 flights per week on internal and regional services, and the internal fleet captain has flown a total of 32 hours on Skymasters in the last two years. I want to know if that is likely to create confidence among the pilots, a spirit of camaraderie and a feeling for your superiors when the person who is due to check and to test their flying ability has flown 32 hours in two years in a Skymaster? What happens is that those people say: This particular incumbent of the post is flying around the world in Boeings because it is more interesting, and not looking after the internal pilots on the internal runs of South Africa. These are the things which lead to unhappiness and to discontent in the service; these are the I things which do not help to build up a confidence amongst the staff that their interests are actually being cared for.

Another example of railway mentality in the Airways is the introduction of the non-European Sky Coach service. Here the hon. Minister apparently thought that if you can hang a board onto a coach of a train saying “Whites only” and a board onto another coach reading “non-Whites only” and you have apartheid on the Railways, so you can have it on the Airways; you just hang a board onto the one plane and say “Whites only” and a board onto another one and say “non-Whites only”, and then you have apartheid. There were 78 flights planned for the non-White sky coach service from its inception to the time it was cancelled, and of those 78 scheduled flights, 71 had to be cancelled because there were not enough passengers.

Who is to blame?

I blame the hon. the Minister for not knowing that you can’t hang a board onto an aeroplane and say “I have got apartheid in the air”. The number of non-Whites booked on those 71 cancelled flights were accommodated without difficulty and without hardship on the normal sky coach routes. The revenue from those cancelled flights, R4,000 odd, was paid into the ordinary sky coach route revenue, whilst the non-White sky coach route made a loss of over R3,000 on the 14 flights, seven each way, which were carried out. But that is an example of railway mentality: The thought that you can merely take your railway attitude to airway problems, hang it onto an aeroplane and you have got a train with wings on it. There are other aspects, minor and major issues, which require attention. I wonder how many pounds and pounds are wasted by running these great big railway buses from the airports into town for two or three passengers. Surely a little bit of planning could provide two sizes of transport, medium and large.

Are you not making use of them?

I travel on those buses and it breaks my heart to think of the waste of money when one of those buses capable of carrying 30 or 40 or 50 passengers travels in with one or two persons. There is no reason why a little bit of careful planning cannot avoid that. You could have station-wagons carrying six or seven people which could be brought into service when the big buses are not required. These are little things perhaps, but they are things which go towards making up efficiency. I am not happy, I do not know whether the Minister is happy, with the system of reservations to-day, and I am sure not one member on the other side of the House is happy with the system of reservations under which they to-day cannot get onto an aeroplane or know until 24 hours before the time whether they are on or not. [Interjections.] They do not need them, Sir, they still travel by ox-wagon; their mental processes also travel by ox-wagon. I think there could be an improvement, because many is the time when I have tried to book people, not myself, but business people on a plane and have been told that there are no vacant seats on the plane, but when you go to the airport you find that plane half-empty with plenty of vacancies. There must be something wrong with a system whereby planes can fly often half-empty and yet potential passengers can be told that there are no vacancies.

Another slur on the personnel?

No, it is not a slur on the personnel. It is a slur on the system, the system which requires that every booking must be telexed through to Johannesburg, to be handled in one central office and then sent back to the various airports in each town. By the time a cancellation is notified in Durban and has gone up to Johannesburg and has come back to Durban, and Johannesburg has decided who shall take the vacancy that has been created by the cancellation, the plane is on its way and has left already, because planes cannot wait for messages go backward and forward from one town to another.

I would like to ask some questions too in regard to the agreement between South African Airways and Trek Airways which the hon. the Minister refused to give us information on when a question was put to him the other day. I ask this question because I want to suggest that South African Airways have been providing engineers with the Constellations which they have been chartering to Trek Airways—to a company, when their own planes as indeed the Minister admitted in reply to a question, have at times required the services of those engineers. Another question the hon. the Minister tried to evade, because of a typing error the date was given as 1961 instead of 1960, was the question of whether there had been a crash in North Africa and whether South African Airways had provided a charter flight to the scene of the crash he said: “No, and the rest of the question falls away.” But the Minister knew there had been a crash, simply on a different date. Why did he not tell the House …

Why do you not ask the right question?

… that in order to provide a charter flight to go to the scene of the crash no plane and no crew were available at the time and therefore the request for a charter flight was turned down, that refusal was subsequently countermanded from higher quarters and that crew were taken off a training course and sent up on that flight. I want to know whether the South African Airways is operating for its own profit or for the profit of private companies. If the latter, then what is South African Airways getting out of its agreement which the Minister refuses to give us information on? If this is a normal business transaction, Sir, then I feel this House is entitled to the details of that transaction. The hon. the Minister admitted the other day that there had been a number of planes flying close to South African Airways planes in the vicinity of the Rand airport, that he had appointed a committee to investigate. I hope he will tell us a little more about those incidents. [Time limit.]

We have listened to members of the Opposition this afternoon. I have been sitting in this House for a good many years, but never before have I seen an Opposition collapse the way this Opposition has collapsed during this debate. They did not have one new argument which they could advance before this House. Well, that is not surprising because the hon. the Minister has taken the wind out of their sails with this budget of his. They naturally expected to launch their attack from another direction, as has been their practice in the past. They have always been accusing the Minister and his staff of not being able to convey either the traffic offered or the passengers. Well, I have been listening very attentively to this debate and I did not hear any member opposite raising that point. It is very convenient or rather safe for them to sail around it because that is a dangerous point for them to raise at this stage.

We have listened to the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw). He raised minor matters such as the bus service. I want to differ from the hon. member. I myself have travelled in that bus and on occasions that bus is so full that there is hardly room for everybody. Because of a shortage of arguments we must not begrudge the hon. member that argument because he cannot come forward with anything else. He also attacked the Minister because he had purchased aircraft from Cuba. But the hon. member fought with those people, didn’t he? We are pleased to see that at long last his eyes have opened and that he has become converted. They even went so far as to bless the weapons of those people, but to-day he objects to it that the Minister has purchased aircraft from those people.

I am surprised to hear from the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) that he is now the champion of the railway employees. They have suddenly discovered that, with a view to the next election, they should start well in advance, to see if they can get the railway workers on their side. But let me refresh the memory of the United Party a little. The railway worker cannot be bribed. We must compare the wages which the railway workers received under the United Party régime with the wages which they receive under this party. The labour type received 3s. 4d. per day. That was his wage and I think it is a well-known fact that there are officials in the employ of the Railways to-day who will confirm that. There is not a single railway worker to-day who lives below the bread line. On the contrary, they travel about in motor cars to-day instead of walking to work. However, the United Party did not worry themselves about the position of the railway worker in those days.

Are you satisfied with the wages and salaries they receive to-day?

We can leave that to time and circumstances. When necessary and when the time is opportune, that will be attended to. The hon. member may safely leave that in the hands of this Government. The hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) cut the most pathetic figure this year that I have ever seen. Since Wednesday of last week he has been trying to get the Press on his side so that the Press would not paint the picture which the Minister has painted to us in his Budget speech. However, the Press has disappointed the hon. member. For the last number of years we have been attacked year after year because of the accumulation of traffic that could not be conveyed. We did not have a single word in about that to-day because all the traffic offered as well as the passengers can be conveyed. What we did have from various speakers has been an attack on the Railway Commissioners, people who cannot defend themselves in this House. That was the type of criticism which we had from the Opposition to-day on the Minister’s budget. I want to congratulate the Minister, the General Manager and the staff very heartily on this budget. It is probably the most brilliant Railway budget that has ever been introduced in this House. In a moment I shall produce facts to corroborate my statement that this is the best budget which the Railways have ever submitted.

In the past we have had to import units. As recently as last year I still asked the Minister whether it was not possible to manufacture units in this country. The Minister’s reply was that it was not at that stage because certain parts still had to be imported. It was true that 30 per cent of the parts had to be imported. But now that we have reached the stage as far as the Railways are concerned, where we can build units and coaches in this country, we must pay tribute for this to the National Party Government; and not only to the present National Party Government, we should also think of the old National Party Government which was responsible for the establishment of Iscor and thank them to-day for that. If that had not happened—and we know that the United Party opposed it—if the old National Party Government had not established Iscor, we would not have been reaping the fruits to-day, we would not have been able to manufacture the necessary iron and steel in this country to enable us to build our own passenger coaches, our own trucks and our own units in this country. Mr.Speaker, the Opposition which sits there to-day fought tooth and nail against the establishment of Iscor. Will they admit to-day that the establishment of Iscor was definitely the wisest step which the National Party Government could have taken? Had we not done so we would not have progressed the way we have.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Railway budget.

We must also bear in mind the employment facilities which are created in the country by the contracts which the Minister is handing out. In his Budget speech the Minister told us that contracts had been given to a certain firm in the Transvaal for the construction of units and passenger coaches to the value of R16,000,000. Had the position not been that we had the iron and steel those orders would have gone overseas and that is the very thing which the United Party always did in the past. That was the reason why they were against the establishment of Iscor but, I repeat, Mr. Speaker, had we not had the iron and steel, those orders would have had to be placed overseas. Today, however, everything can be manufactured locally.

The Administration and the Minister have deserved the praise of this House for the fact that they can convey the Traffic offered as well as the greatly increased numbers of passengers. We learned from the Minister’s Budget speech, and we notice it from the General Manager’s report also, that in 1960-61 309,418,834 passengers were conveyed and that the number is still increasing. We also heard that the number of long-distance passengers had increased by 546,544 and urban passengers by 14,160,820. But the Railways have nonetheless coped with that expansion. This traffic and these passengers are being conveyed without causing a delay in any service with the result that people arrive late at work. The Minister furthermore told us, and this is in the report of the General Manager as well, that 5,420 new vehicles had been taken into service, of which 1,644 had been constructed in the workshops of the Department. That gives employment to our people. Local firms were responsible for 3,746 without the necessity of importing one single vehicle. I think that deserves the praise of this House and I also think the Opposition should be grateful for that.

When we consider the fact that a newspaper like the Sunday Times, from which the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) quoted, praises the Railways, I want to crave the indulgence of the House for a minute because I want to read this leading article which appeared in the Sunday Times of 31 December 1961. This is the New Year’s message of the Sunday Times and they congratulate the Railways. Mr. Speaker, I repeat and say that this comes from the Sunday Times, which is surprising because that newspaper is not well disposed towards the Government. We should nevertheless appreciate their honesty and openheartedness. If only we could have said that about the Opposition. The paper writes—

This is important—

The articles concludes with this—

That was the Sunday Times, Sir, a newspaper which is not well-disposed towards the Government but it was honest and decent enough to say that the Railways had made the progress which they had made, which is a fact. When we think of the fact that we do not have complaints or the accusations from the Opposition which we had in the past, we have to agree that the Railways have progressed.

Mr. Speaker, as far as the removal of the black spots in Johannesburg is concerned—I shall confine myself to Johannesburg more particularly—you know that the accusation was levelled at the Government, and all sorts of wild stories were sent into the world, that those poor Africans would be dumped in the veld without any transport facilities or whatever it was—even without housing. What is the position? When we think of the new lines which have been constructed, most of which are already in service or about to be placed in service, and we consider the sums of money that have been spent, if the Opposition want to be honest with themselves, I think they will admit that they were wrong and that they had under-estimated the Minister of Transport of this Government. I want to mention the amounts which have been spent at the various places and this is important. R3,300,000 was spent; at Doornkop Crown West and West Street R2,634,000. So it goes on. In the case of Langa and Nyanga together, near Cape Town, more than R5,000,000 were spent.

R50,000,000 altogether.

Yes, the hon. member has quickly added them for me. My argument is that hon. members opposite are always too quick to say something with the result that they eventually have to agree with us and say: “Yes, that is right, it is quite in order now; we did not look at it in that light.” I can give numerous instances.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the railwaymen I want to thank the hon. Minister for the housing that has been provided for the opportunities that have been given to railway employees to acquire their own houses. Our experience in the past has been that people have been employed by the Railways for years and when they leave the service they have nowhere to live. To-day the railwayman has the opportunity of acquiring his own home. I want to make this request to the Minister. There is a terrific backlog as far as housing is concerned. There is also a great hunger to possess property. The worker wants his own house. Some of them have been on the waiting list for five years and longer but cannot get houses because none are available. I shall be pleased to learn from the hon. the Minister how he intends meeting this shortage in future. There is another important need which is a general complaint namely the shortage of garages. There is a long waiting list in that respect as well. Some of those people have bought new motor-cars. This is news, of course, to the United Party who allege that these people find it so difficult to make ends meet, that they live below the bread line and that they are so badly treated by the Government! Many of them are driving new motor cars and those cars have to stand outside. I shall be pleased if the hon. Minister would attend to this.

Now I come to consolidation. In this connection I want to tell the United Party that R10,000,000 were allocated to the workers last year and not one of them went home with a smaller pay packet than previously. This year the amount is over R3,000,000— R13,000,000 altogether.

They are getting nothing extra.

It is nevertheless to the benefit of the Railway worker. Everything goes to the worker and I can assure the Minister that the worker appreciates it. I also want to thank the Minister and the Administration for providing lounges on the long distance routes. That is very important. I think we who avail ourselves of the train service are all very pleased and welcome that news. Even the air conditioning in the dining saloons is very important. About a week or two ago I travelled to Johannesburg with somebody from England. He often comes to South Africa. We were travelling in the Blue Train and he asked me how it was that the Opposition in South Africa never said a good word for the Railways. He assured me that he had travelled throughout the world and that the best service and the best trains he had come across were those in South Africa. I was sorry that Opposition members were not present to talk to him. Perhaps they would have changed their opinion after that. I also want to thank the Minister for the elimination of crossings which is progressing fast.

Thank the Minister.

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) jokes about it, but that is one of the most important projects which have to be tackled with expedition today on account of the number of accidents, although I notice that the numbers of accidents are on the decline. 93 persons were killed and 134 injured in 1959-60 and in 1960-61 the number killed was 85 and injured 118. It is clear, therefore, that with the elimination of crossings the number of accidents has decreased. I shall be pleased if the Minister could expedite the elimination of crossings.

In conclusion I want to know from the Minister whether he does not think that the Blue Train service between Johannesburg and Cape Town can be shortened by two hours. You find that the train sometimes stops at certain stations for as long as half an hour. When I travelled to Johannesburg recently in the Blue Train I studied the position carefully and I came to the conclusion that the train could save at least two hours. It will mean a great deal to a businessman if he could arrive in Johannesburg at 12 p.m. instead of 2 p.m.

There is one small point which I want to raise before I sit down. There is, of course, a reason for it but I should like to know why Diesel units cannot be used on the trains between Klerksdorp and Beaufort West, so as to eliminate the discomfort caused by steam engines. It is particularly uncomfortable during the hot summer months when you dare not open a window. I am informed that Diesel units are used on the Johannesburg-East London route and that it works exceedingly well indeed. There must be a reason for it but I should like to learn from the Minister what the reason is.

In the course of his address the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. P. J. Coetzee) who has just sat down and who comes from a very important Railway constituency, took the occasion to thank the hon. the Minister on three separate occasions, not that I say the thanks was undeserved. But it is surprising to find the representative of such an important Railway constituency not making use of the occasion of his speech to once thank the Railway staff for the work which they have done, the staff he represents in this House.

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

Evening Sitting

When the debate was adjourned I was commenting on the fact that the hon. member who had spoken immediately before me (Mr. P. J. Coetzee), as the representative of a very big Railway constituency, had completely omitted amongst the other eulogies he gave the Minister and the Railways, to congratulate or thank the Railway staff whom he so largely represents. The hon. member did quote from an article in the Sunday Times which gave considerable credit to the Railway staff, and one would have thought that at least that would have reminded him of his duty to his Railway constituents, but even that failed to get past him. That is an indication of the lack of consideration in certain quarters of the work done by the staff. The hon. the Minister himself never hesitated in his Budget speech to pay tribute to the services of the staff, but hon. members whose constituencies consist largely of railwaymen fail to mention it.

I want to deal with the staff position for a moment. Our own amendment clearly indicates our attitude towards the railwayman— and I refer to railwaymen at all levels. At the very top level I suppose one would put the opulent posts of the Railway Commissioners, but I want to refer to all railwaymen from the top ranks to the bottom. When I refer to the Railways I also want to make it quite clear that in that term I include all the four sections known generally as the Railways and Harbours Administration, i.e. Airways, the Railways, the Harbours and the Road Motor Services, because between them they form the basis of the Republic’s transport. I want to touch for a moment on one particular section of the staff, not in any sense of belittlement of other sections but because I feel that they are a section that at the moment warrant attention, and that is the general artisan staff. I want to say at the outset that the foundation on which the whole of the great transport service of the country rests in the long run is the loyal and unstinting service given to it by the four staffs, from the highest to the lowest, and that in particular, however worthy the other sections of the staff might be, the foundation of their ability to render service rests upon the artisan staff, the people who are responsible in the long run for the actual mechanical perfection of the machines that keep the wheels turning. I want to say that the men and women of this staff as a whole have responded magnificently to the Minister’s call to accept hardship, to tighten their belts and make personal sacrifices of no small nature when the Railways were in financial difficulties. I think I am right in saying that now of all times they have the right to expect to have their long-deferred adjustment of pay sympathetically dealt with, the more so in view of the fact that by their loyal acceptance of the Minister’s request they have helped him to produce another substantial surplus out of the year’s working. No matter what other factors contributed to it, it would not have been possible to capitalize on those circumstances had the staff not done their work. Having helped to produce this result, I think it is fair to say that largely as the result of their loyalty and devotion to duty that they have the right to expect the decision which had been deferred by the Minister to be dealt with now. I particularly want to refer to the present request of the artisan staff because no matter how efficiently the rest of the Railways function, it is in the long run the work of the artisan staff that they have to depend on. These are the men responsible for keeping the Railway machine working, men whose job it is to see that the locomotives run and that the aircraft actually fly and that the road motor transport wheels keep turning, and to see that the harbour service is actually functioning. The functioning of these services depends in the end on the work done by these artisans. It depends on the fact that their workshop production is up to the standard necessary to keep the machines working. Like many of the other big industrial concerns, and there are many industrial concerns in this country which adopt almost the same policy, the artisan staff is usually the last to share in the benefits when it comes to the up-grading of salary and improvement of conditions. The artisan staff is usually the last to have their claims rectified. It is an old and unhappy saying amongst artisans generally—and I speak from personal experience—that the artisans are the Cinderellas of any organization to which they belong. I would have expected better of the Minister, although no one can say he is not a very practical man when it comes to staff matters. I would have expected the Minister, who himself came up the hard way to the top to have remembered the people lower down who have not been able to advance as far as he has and who still have to depend to a large extent on him for what benefits they now receive. The artisan staff, like all other sections, have helped to produce the surplus the Minister has now been. able to announce and I believe he is in honour bound not to brush off their reasonable demands but to grant them the very just relief they ask for from the surplus they have helped to create. To me it seems a perfectly sound and logical proposition—relief in basic wages and staff benefits, the raising of pensions to a reasonable level, increases to the men and women who played their part in building up this surplus and who are now dependent on a hard-earned pension for security in their old age. These are things which are covered by our amendment, and we have moved this amendment to try to bring to the Minster’s attention more clearly the claims of this section of the staff. We know that an increase in pensions was recommended, but not a unanimous recommendation. It was referred back for further consideration, but the pensioners who are dependent on that increase are not to be assisted yet. The fact that there was a recommendation and that it was referred back pays none of their Bills. It gives them no increased benefits and they need the increase now, and not after months of waiting. They are not in the position of the Railway Commissioners, who received a big increase backdated for some months. They want their money now to pay their rent and their debts. We feel that it calls for much more sympathetic attention from the Minister.

Now I want to turn to another aspect of the Railway Administration, our ports and harbours. The very nature of the services they have to carry out make our ports and harbours a key factor in the every-day life of the nation. Practically every phase of the life of the nation is in some way linked up with our harbours, whether it is as a port of entry for the goods we have to import to build up South Africa, or whether it is the point of exit through which our raw materials are moved out of the country to find an export market. They are vital from the point of view of industry and agriculture. What would our wool farmers do if they could not export their wool through the ports, and the maize farmers, and the other farmers, like the fruit exporters? What would they do without the facilities offered by our ports in handling their crops? The mines and the industries have to find an external market. Every one of them in the long run depends on the ports. I would say that the whole of our economic life would collapse very quickly if it were not backed up by very efficient harbour services. To touch on only one aspect of the inflow through the ports, there is the Republic’s petrol and oil imports. That could be justly termed the jugular vein of our whole economy, and unless those imports flow through uninterruptedly, in the long run the country will suffer. With the increasing demand for oil, it is a vital factor in the whole set-up of our economy. I want to say that the development of our harbours, with the exception of Durban where the new refinery has to a large extent influenced developments, the development of our ports is taking place too slowly to keep pace with both the increasing volume of sea-borne oil traffic, and it is also lagging behind coping with the great growth in the size of tankers. We are moving behind the development which is taking place when we should be moving just ahead of it. We have had long enough warning of it. We should not wait until the crisis is on us. We should be prepared to meet the position as it arises, and it is arising. I know the Minister will tell us that they are doing this here and that there, but these things have largely been done as a matter of compulsion when the demand for it is already there. We knew that this demand was coming. It must now be six or seven years ago that the warning was first given in this House that the larger oil transport ships would be coming and that we had to be prepared for it. The whole of the development taking place now was foreshadowed some years ago by this side of the House and still to-day we are only slowly moving in the direction in which the development of the oil companies is practically forcing us to move to meet their demand. The fulfilment of that demand will probably be held up because we cannot cope with it in time. South Africa’s ports lie practically right in the key centre of the East-West oil route of the world. We saw what happened in the Suez crisis, and in the case of hostilities it can happen again overnight. Have we learnt anything from that? Have we learnt fast enough? It does not appear to be so, from what we see. At Cape Town, and to a lesser extent at Durban, they can handle only some of the giant oil tankers if they are in light load condition. Our shore resources can do a magnificent job of work in repairing these vessels, but we can only handle them if they are in light load condition, because in some places the water in the harbours is not deep enough. We are unable to handle those ships in a loaded condition, due to the lack of draught in our principal harbours. A port worthy of its name must be considered as a ships’ hospital port as well as being a commercial port. You must be able to deal with a casualty which can easily develop and which, if the facilities are not there to deal with it, can mean the loss of a valuable ship and cargo and jeopardise many lives. These are some of the things our ports still lack. Fortunately we have been very free of these emergency calls, but we cannot trade on that. Oil transport by sea in large ships along this route has come to stay. We have to accept that and do the development necessary to meet that new position.

The question of oil transport should not be restricted only to the question of a quay alongside which the tanker can tie up, with an oil pipe-line to transfer the oil to the refineries or to storage tanks. There are a large number of other requirements which go with a well-equipped oil basin, facilities which we have to have if we are to have an oil basin which is both safe and suitable and which will make the big oil lines of the world accept us as one of their focal points of call. It can bring to this country a large amount of additional trade, and much foreign exchange can be earned if we set out now to provide the facilities to deal with these ships here. It is not sufficient merely to provide the quays. We need an adequate basin. These tankers convey highly inflammable and explosive fuels, and this sort of basin does not really mix with the rest of a commercial port. That has to be considered and the ancillary problems which they bring with them, the special needs of a tanker fleet, must be considered. The development of an oil port also emphasizes the need for a much more energetic and speedy provision of sites and facilities for ship repairs. Here again I know the Minister will tell us that in Durban this, that, or the other scheme is envisaged, but some of these schemes have been envisaged for a very long time and ship repairs cannot wait. We have the classic example of our own country. We could not produce a ship required and had to have it built in Japan, because we did not give the ship-building industry here, in time, a site on which they could have done the job. These are things which call for a much more dynamic approach. These commissions of inquiry and the committees which sit to decide on the sites are taking far too long. The grass is growing under our feet, while we are deciding to proceed with this type of development. You have ship building firms which are prepared to invest their capital and they should be given the most sympathetic treatment. We have here the commencement of a great new industry which will become one of the major industries in this country, the ship-building industry and a major ship-repairing industry, which in turn will provide a ready market not only for our steel industry but for so many of our other basic industries. A lot of their manufactures can be diverted to ship repair work. We have had much talk and many promises. Now it needs serious consideration of the advice given by some of the ship-building firms themselves and a much speedier development and allocation of the sites required for ship repairs.

It will provide also for other classes of ships which use our ports to-day, but for want of facilities in our ports they have to go elsewhere for repairs. I want to touch on another section of shipping requirements, not associated with big ships but with small ones. It is the fishing industry. I am not referring to the ordinary in-shore or pilchard fishing Industry, but to the deep-sea fishing industry. It has been many years that the cry has gone up: When are we going to have a proper fishing harbour for the trawling industry? There have been all sorts of schemes. I have heard of probably ten schemes in the last ten years, but we still have not got the fishing harbour. There again, the world trend in regard to deep-sea fishing has changed. It is no good providing a harbour to-day only for the small type of trawler. The modern trawler is a much bigger ship and lands bigger catches. The shore facilities have to be extended to deal with bigger catches and should be able to handle the catch with the least amount of physical handling, the least amount of exposure to the atmosphere, and for the quickest possible transfer of the catch from the ship either to the factory or to the conveyances which carry fish throughout the country. These are all things that in many modern fishing ports to-day have transformed the outlook of the port, but we are just jogging along. The companies themselves do quite a lot to provide these facilities, but we jog along with one hand tied behind our backs due to lack of modern facilities. We have off our coasts some of the richest fishing grounds in the world. We see them being exploited by other nations to-day whilst our own country does not provide the harbour facilities to enable us to take full advantage of them. That is another matter which is calling for a much more active policy. Again, like the oil trade, the fishing fleet does not mix well with the ordinary commercial shipping harbour. It is a specialized job which should be dealt with as such. Then I want to comment on the development of our coastal trade. That again is a trade which has come to stay. I know it was not very popular in its early days, because the Railways regarded it as a competitor. It need not be a competitor. It can be an ancillary service to the Railways, but it has come to stay. The coaster provides certain special problems which are not parallel with those of the bigger ships. You can get a much quicker turn-around and quicker handling of the cargo if these little ships are given the equipment on shore to enable them to handle their cargoes, goods which are moving between Republic ports, goods largely produced inside the Republic and which can be most conveniently moved by sea. I appeal to the Minister to give some attention to these matters because they are vital matters. The coastal trade has come to stay and it is up to us to do all we can to give them the facilities they so greatly need.

I want to take the Minister back a few years when we first discussed across the floor the cartage of coal by sea. In those days the Minister was not enthusiastic. He condemned that service bell, book and candle, and said it would never pay and it would put the Railways to great expense. But I was glad to see, in an answer to a question put recently in connection with the Hangklip, the Minister said that there was no profit or loss account kept. That was in answer to the part of the question as to what profit or loss was made on the Hangklip, but the Minister went on to say that the conveyance of coal by sea was profitable to the Administration. That is a long distance away from the days when the Minister opposed our suggestions that coal should be carted by sea. But the point is this, that if carrying coal by sea has come to stay then one of the first priorities in the ports is for the Minister to equip the ports with machinery and equipment for the handling of such bulk cargos. We are now using the grab system. This is an improvement on the old bucket and pick-and-shovel system in force not many years ago. But it is a system which brings dismay to any decent and clean ship lying in the vicinity when the south-easter is blowing. They are plastered with coal or phosphate dust. Part of the cargo is blown away by the wind and the whole dock area becomes dirty and unpleasant, and the whole system is antiquated, slow and out of date. If the coal-by-sea trade has come to stay I think it is time that the Minister took the next step forward and not only provided the necessary bulk unloading facilities …

What bulk facilities?

There are bulk unloading systems for things like coal and phosphates. You have suction pipes and conveyor belts. They are used in many of the overseas ports, but they are not a success with the type of ship we are using. You must have a ship which is designed for bulk cargo loading and unloading, and if we are going to continue to run this service—and apparently from the Minister’s reply we will—then I say it is the height of folly to spend the money we have just spent on repairs to a ship like the Hangklip. With the ship market as it is to-day, the best thing to do would have been to have cut our losses on Hangklip and gone in for a vessel which we could have equipped our ports to serve efficiently. A proper coal carrier, thereby improving the port facilities as a whole.

It will not be economical.

Yes, you also told us it would not be economical to carry coal by sea, but you changed your mind, and the day will come when you will change your mind about this also. You will learn. In the handling of bulk cargo I want to exclude maize. From the way maize is handled in the elevators, much can be learnt about the handling of other bulk cargoes. I want to say right away that I know that when the Minister first took over one of his first priorities naturally was to carry out the urgent development of the Railway Service itself, which had lagged so far behind and had to be developed in order to deal with the demands of the country. But the Minister has done that now. He has told us that himself, and the reports of the General Manager have told us that phase of development is approaching its end and the Railways are now more or less in a position to deal with the traffic offering. I want to put this to the Minister, that as he has caught up with the backlog of rail traffic he should now turn his attention to the next thing, and that is the more speedy development of our ports. The ports have been used over the past years as one of the sources of revenue to assist the development of the Railways. They have earned healthy surpluses over the years, surpluses which have largely been diverted to expanding the Railways. It is time now that some of those surpluses should be ploughed back into the ports and the ports developed to keep pace with the new standards set by the Railways. They are part of the transport system of the country and I believe the time is here when as the Minister is being relieved of the problem he had with the Railways, he can now turn his attention to this important feature the ports. The goods landed in the ports bring trade to the Railways. We are talking about developing our country for the exporting of large quantities of raw material like steel and iron ore, for which we are building up export markets. If we are going to meet anything like the possible capacity exports of the country, our ports must be prepared to handle their share of that traffic. The Railways are now able to carry the stuff to the ports, but it is no use doing that if the ports cannot deal with it quickly. That is a feature also to which the Minister should now devote considerable attention.

But the ports can deal with all the traffic.

Yes, up to a point, but you have not yet got the load of traffic at the ports which you must expect if the export trade develops as is envisaged. I hope the Minister is right, but there is such a thing as dealing with the traffic economically and expeditiously, as opposed to dealing with it in an antiquated way. The Minister has to a large extent modernized the ordinary cargo-handling equipment in the ports, and I will say this for the Minister that he is not slow to take advice. We have given him considerable advice in that respect and he has profited by it, although he will not admit it. The fork-lifting trucks, etc. found their birth due to advice from this side of the House. The Minister then sent a commission overseas and started to buy them. Just as he has proved to his own satisfaction the value of that development, so I am convinced that the day will come when he will again accept the recommendations we are putting to him here. As a sound Government our policy would be to develop our ports to keep pace with the Railways, and to plough back into the ports some of the revenue they earn and which is now required to modernize certain sections of the ports. Our South African ports are held in the highest regard overseas. They have a well-deserved record, but that record can only be maintained by constant vigilance. If we are going to keep pace, we have to get more speed into the development of the ports. We must develop in order to keep ahead of the demand, and not lag behind it. That is my plea to this hon. Minister. He should now switch, his. budgeting to deal with that section of the Republic’s economy—air services, railway services, road services are all absolutely necessary. They should all receive attention, but I am particularly pleading for port development. The Minister will find that is one of the arteries on which this country can. thrive and I appeal to him to give that matter his very serious attention.

The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) has made a constructive contribution to this debate and I have no fault at all to find with it. I want to commence by saying a few words about the demands being made by the Artisan Staff Association. I want to do so in a very good spirit. I feel it is my duty towards my electorate and my constituency to say that many artisans in my constituency—and there are many of them; and I am in very close contact with them every day—feel very dissatisfied and disappointed with the executive of the Artisan Staff Association in certain respects. One of the reasons why they are dissatisfied is because the executive allowed this association last year to break away from the Federal Consultative Council. They regard it in this way, Mr. Speaker, that in the past concessions were made to the staff as a whole and not to sections of the staff separately. Whenever there were consultations about concessions to be made to the staff as a whole, the Consultative Council was the mouthpiece through whom the hon. the Minister could negotiate. Another matter in regard to which they feel dissatisfied is the lack of co-operation between the executive and the associations of other branches of the Railway staff, and the fact that the Artisan Staff Association in their representations advance only their own selfish interests and do not consider the interests of the other branches of the service. I personally am of opinion that the artisans throughout the service are the persons who have least need to complain. I really think it would be an injustice if their demands and requests are complied with without concessions being made also to the other members of the staff, particularly the labourers and the lowly-paid railwaymen.

Another aspect of the campaign with which many artisans do not associate themselves is the bad habit of the executive in recent years of coming forward with demands before every election and before every budget and then adopting a threatening attitude. Personally I do not think that this is the right time to make such representations. It seems too much like blackmail. What my voters, and other railwaymen, Nationalists or United Party supporters, really deprecate is the crude manner in which certain sections of the association pass resolutions in which they demand the resignation of the Minister. Over the week-end I received numerous telephone calls from artisans who said that they did not wish to associate themselves with this type of behaviour. and that they deprecated it. They asked me to state so here.

Now the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) and the Opposition are trying to fish in these troubled waters. They are trying to exploit the situation and to pose as people who have always protected the interests of the railwayman. The hon. member for Wynberg should be the last person to hope to achieve anything by this kind of behaviour. There is no sheepskin to hide the cunning of that hon. member. The railwaymen will not forget how this hon. member in 1947 and at Port Elizabeth advocated that they should be replaced by non-Whites.

On a point of explanation, I have explained the whole position to the Minister. That is not true.

Order! Will the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé) allow the hon. member for Wynberg to give an explanation?

No, Mr. Speaker, I have often heard that story already.

Your own Minister admits that it is not true.

Do not start squealing now; I have not finished yet. I want to tell hon. members opposite that they should not forget that it was their Government which during the last few years before this Government came into power appointed a commission to investigate the circumstances under which the railwaymen were working, and that it was that commission which found that conditions were simply deplorable, and recommended that certain things should be done immediately to alleviate the conditions under which these people were working. And what did they do? They did not spend a penny. They did nothing to improve the position. They carried on until the Nationalist Government came into power and spent thousands of rand to make the railwayman’s life bearable.

The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) now comes along with his sweet blandishments for the railwayman. They know him also. Does the hon. member remember how in 1947 he ran around with his camera during the by-election in Hottentots Holland to take photos of the dirty hovels in which the railwaymen and their families were living? Does he remember how he exploited the position, and does the hon. member remember that as the result of the type of conditions under which the railwaymen lived his leader received a sound trouncing in that by-election? What is the position to-day? To-day more than half the married staff is being housed with the assistance of the Railways. But that is the type of thing the hon. member for Orange Grove does. Then I want to ask the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) what he means by talking here about “the railway mentality”? Is the hon. member trying in this way to hurl a blatant and flagrant insult at our railwaymen?

It is just a different outlook.

Of course that is what he is doing. It is this type of provocation towards the railwaymen which has totally estranged those people from the hon. member for Point and his colleagues. The question was asked to-day what we are doing and what we have done for the railwayman. I think that what has not yet been sufficiently emphasized in this debate is the tremendous advantages given to the railway staff last year with consolidation. This matter cannot be emphasized enough, Sir. Through the consolidation of the balance of the cost-of-living allowances, by the up-grading of posts, by reorganization in the Airways and reorganization of the motor vehicle drivers, by improved leave facilities, by regrading for clerks and station masters and by other concessions, the Railways spent altogether R13,291,949. It is true that many of them did not take home more money, but what is true also is that the pension benefits of these people were greatly increased by these concessions in some respect up to 40 per cent. Just consider what it means to a railwayman and his family if there is a Government which suddenly improves his pension benefits by 40 per cent. Now hon. members opposite ask why the Minister does not do something in connection with the pensioners; why do they not make some concessions to them also? It is very nice to ask that question. I should also like to break a lance for those people. But I want to know from hon. members opposite what they did in that regard when they were in the position to do so. Is it not because they paid the railwaymen such starvation wages that their pensions to-day are so low that they cannot live on them?

May I put a question to the hon. member?

No, I have not enough time. I think hon. members opposite should desist from this wooing of the railwayman.

I now want to come to the budget. In his budget the hon. the Minister said, inter alia—

Now we can go further and state a few propositions based on that. The first thing we can say is that an efficient transport system is a basic prerequisite for unobstructed industrial development in a country. The second proposition we can state is that the development of the transport system of a country goes hand in hand with its economic development. The third is that the financial position of the Railways generally gives a fairly good indication of the position of that country’s economy. In other words, the Railways play a cardinal role in the economic and industrial development of every country and particularly of South Africa. I want to point to a few aspects of the important position the Railways occupy in our national economy. I want to emphasize that the Railways is the largest buyer of products manufactured in South Africa, and as such the Railways has practically made various South African industries what they are to-day. Through regular Railway orders, through regular support, those industries grew and they could become established to the extent that they are established. Furthermore, in order to be able to compete for Railway tenders, many large industries made huge capital investments in machinery which assisted the economy of South Africa. And what is more, large Railway orders and the preference the Railways gave to South African-manufactured products of a competitive nature was the incentive for numbers of foreign industrialists to transfer their factories to South Africa, thereby making large financial investments in the Republic.

On one occasion the General Manager said the following—

In order to emphasize the scope, the nature and the variety as well as the value of these South African-manufactured products I want to mention a few examples of orders placed by the Railways in South Africa last year: Firstly, 130 electric locomotives to be manufactured in South Africa for the first time to a value of R16,184,738; goods trucks, R3,716,500; rail equipment, R2,250,000; ore loading installations for Port Elizabeth, Rl,443,894; spare parts for electric locomotives; 80 passenger vehicles for the road motor service; cement tanker trucks; turntables; electric running cranes; steel loading bogies; spare parts for couplings; copper cables; underground telephone cables for use at Durban: insulating material; tools. The value of the 15 orders I have enumerated here is R26,488,776. If we analyse these orders more closely, it brings to light also another important fact, namely the tremendous impetus the Railways is giving our steadily expanding iron and steel industry. To-day the Railways, next to the mines, is the best supporter of our steel and engineering industry. The increasing demand for iron ore by our iron casting works is an indication of the development and progress in this respect. During the year 1960-61 the Railways conveyed 286,960 tons of iron ore more than in the previous year to our steel works. What is more, in the first nine months of the present financial year it increased by 425,014 tons above the figure for the corresponding nine months of the previous year. All main line steel passenger coaches are, for example, already being made in South Africa. In 1961, 71 of these coaches were taken into service. What is more, 90 per cent of the material used for these coaches consists of products manufactured in South Africa. It is also important to point out that for the first time in the history of South Africa on 15 December 1961 these orders for electric locomotives to be manufactured in South Africa were placed. I want to praise the Railways from this side of the House for the role they play in making South Africa increasingly more self-supporting also in this respect. But also in another sphere the Railways stimulate our industries in South Africa, namely as consumers. The Railway consistently apply the slogan: Buy South African. Over the past 20 years the local purchases of the Administration increased from R31,000,000 to R171,000,000 a year, i.e. by 552 per cent. The annual local purchases of South African products amount to R165,000,000.

But, Sir, I also said that an efficient transport system is an absolute prerequisite to the unhampered economic development of a country. That brings me to another point. It brings me to the onus resting on the Railways to keep pace with the transport requirements of the country, irrespective of changing its economic circumstances. Now the question arises: How did the Railways manage since 1959 to keep pace with the transport requirements? The reply is: Successful and effective advance planning. In 1954 when the Railways was faced with a crisis, when it was faced by a tremendous challenge, and when the hon. member for Wynberg and members of the Opposition and the industrialists demanded the head of the Minister on a platter, a planning board was appointed, which, as the Minister said in his speech, played an important role in the design of the present transport pattern and enabled the Administration successfully to discharge the onus resting upon it to keep pace with developments. That board had to evolve a five-year plan in order to catch up with the backlog in the carrying capacity of the Railways. It also had to make provision for increased traffic in future. New works were then tackled systematically and as the result, by 1959 the Railways could keep pace with the demand of the country for transport services. At the same time an intensive modernization campaign was tackled further to improve the carrying capacity and efficiency of the service. Diesel traction was introduced as the result of a commission appointed in 1955 to investigate the economic aspects of diesel traction, followed by a departmental mission abroad in 1956. That led to the introduction of diesel tractive power in the service, particularly in South West Africa where it has since eliminated tremendous losses. In 1958-9 the transport of coal for locomotives constituted 28 per cent of the traffic to South West Africa. Then the coal consumption by locomotives in South West Africa was 1,300 tons a day, whereas to-day it is only 300 tons a day. Mechanization projects were also tackled. In 1956-7 a scheme was tackled to modernize the handling of goods by mechanical means. A system of mechanical locomotive control was extended to most of the large centres. Railway line maintenance in certain sections was mechanized, as also office and accounts procedures. A whole series of new services formed part of the programme of mechanization. Fast goods train services were introduced and gradually extended. Specially designed container trailers which are very popular have been put into service. At the moment there are approximately 350 such vans. Road and rail tank trailers have been employed since 1958 to transport fuel in bulk. Various services were also improved. The delivery services were improved by the introduction of bonus schemes for delivery service drivers and through direct deliveries. Passenger services were improved by making suburban passenger coaches more attractive and convenient, and also those for the increasing number of third-class passengers. Main-line passenger coaches have been made more convenient by, inter alia, introducing showers, air-conditioned dining-saloons and observation coaches, and just lately by the introduction of that little notice-board saying “Do Not Disturb Tremendous costs were also incurred to expand the services to the resettlement areas for non-Whites. More stringent financial control measures were also introduced. As the result of a mission sent abroad in 1958 in connection with financial control, organization and procedure, improved methods were adopted to regulate Railway expenditure. A committee was established to apply budgetary control. Thrift and efficiency committees saved the Administration further millions of rand. Other measures were adopted to make the service effective through staff training. Bursary schemes and training courses were established even for non-White labourers in the handling of goods. On various sections centralized traffic and remote control were introduced. But there was also the elimination of a whole series of uneconomic services. For example, on 1 September 1954, a new balanced tariff structure was introduced which eliminated uneconomic preferences and special tariffs. In 1955 the Government undertook to bear all losses on new and improved lines to resettlement areas. Airports were transferred to the Department of Transport, including the losses resulting from maintenance. The smaller fishing harbours were transferred to other Government Departments. The rebates on the transport of certain agricultural products were taken over by the Government. An Act was passed to relieve the financial burden on the Railways in connection with the elimination of railway crossings. In addition, the Treasury was persuaded to take over 50 per cent of the subsidy paid to the S.A. Tourist Corporation. The elimination of all these uneconomic services relieved the Railways of a tremendous financial burden they had to bear in the past.

Another aspect of the service with which I want to deal is the policy in respect of electrification. Electrification contributes tremendously towards enabling the Railways to attain its object. The cheap and plentiful coal supplies we have in South Africa will, it is true, still keep the steam locomotives in the services for many years to come, but there are indications, Sir, that they are being used to a decreasing extent on the main lines. The number of locomotives in the service indicates that there is a decrease in steam tractive power. Whereas the number of electric locomotives increased by 42 between November 1960, and November 1961, and the number of diesel locomotives by 41, the number of steam locomotives decreased by 55 in the same period. Electric tractive power has increased to such an extent that in the year 1960-1 34,600,000 miles were travelled by electric locomotives and 23,800,000 miles by motor units. Over the past five years the tractive power of the Administration was increased by 15.8 per cent and that is mainly due to electric and diesel locomotives. Since 1954-5 approximately R40,000,000 has been invested in this electrification programme of the Railways. On 18 December 1961, a milestone was reached when the 179-mile section between Touws River and Beaufort West was taken into use. I want to congratulate the Railways on that. It is the biggest project of its kind which has ever been undertaken in South Africa. The scheme cost R7,000,000 and it brought the route miles of the S.A. Railways which are electrified up to 1,483. This year there is again R3,786,737 on the capital account for the electrification of lines. When the present programme has been completed, more than 1,689 route miles would have been electrified. Furthermore, the hon. the Minister announced that later in the Additional Estimates he would also provide for the electrification of the line between Witbank and Komatipoort. The policy of the Administration in this respect is to employ electric traction on all the busy sections where the traffic is heavy and the grades are steep. By means of this policy of electrification the Railways are on the right road. It is in line with the world tendency in respect of modern rail transport. In the U.S.A. and Australia, with their great areas, increasing use is being made of electrical traction in order to promote passenger traffic. Already 46 per cent of the Italian Railway system has been electrified, and 40 per cent of the Norwegian system. In France already 5,000 miles have been electrified in 1960, and the Russian Minister of Railways, when he was in America recently, stated in a Press interview that electrification was being accepted as the basic policy for the Russian Railways, and Russia wants to electrify its whole railway system. The alternative modern traction is of course diesel locomotives. but then of course we would increase still further the consumption of imported fuel in our country, and our national transport system will become increasingly more dependent on fuel, which we have to import from other countries. The continual increase in fuel consumption can be ascertained if we note that in 1961 the Railways transported 442,350,000 gallons of fuel, which is 2,740,000 gallons more than in the previous year. In these times in which we live we must bear in mind that in this country we have no guarantee for a regular supply of fuel. In addition, there are in South Africa about 1,500,000 motor vehicles and about 120,000 tractors whose wheels are kept turning by fuel. With the cheap electrical power we can therefore generate from our unlimited amounts of cheap coal, it is therefore quite correct that the Administration should concentrate increasingly on the electrification of the Railways to keep pace with modern developments.

In conclusion, I want to say a few words about the S.A. Airways. The small profit the Airways showed this year, R578,000, is good news to us and speaks volumes for the S.A. Airways. During the past year airlines found things very difficult and many of them suffered serious losses. It is estimated that the interior airlines in the U.S.A. in 1961 for the first time since 1947 suffered a combined loss of R20,000,000. The K.L.M. of Holland suffered a loss of R16,000,000 last year. Everywhere airlines experienced that there was a decrease in the number of passengers, whereas the S.A. Airways was fortunate enough to convey an increased number of passengers. What is more gratifying even, Sir, is the increase in postal ton miles of 19 per cent, and particularly of freight ton miles of 62 per cent in respect of our Airways. As the result of the increased carrying capacity with the advent of jet aircraft, the freight factor has fallen tremendously. In 1960 the freight factor was lower than at any previous time. In South Africa, however, increasingly more traffic and a greater variety of goods was transported by air. For example, perishable fruit like paw-paws, asparagus, pineapples, peaches and mangoes were successfully flown overseas. There is, however, still much room for development and exploitation in the sphere of air transport, chartered flights and transport services.

I should like to make use of the opportunity, Sir, to congratulate the management of the S.A. Airways on its very successful publicity campaign in regard to the Boeing service. I make bold to say that is the reason why our Airways this year made a small profit instead of a loss. There is widespread praise for the advertising scheme of the S.A. Airways, inter alia, by “Travel and Shipping News”, which wrote as follows—

For that reason I am glad, Sir, that under the head “Sales, Advertising and Publicity”, an amount of R3,245,180 is being budgeted for again this year, which is R313,180 more than last year. Mr. Speaker, civil aviation has trebled in the past decade. It is the transportation of the future, and we shall simply have to bear that in mind. The competition between airlines is tremendous to-day and is becoming even greater, and therefore it is only right to make an appeal to all South Africans to give preference to the S.A. Airways when making use of air services, whether for purposes of conveying passengers or goods.

When I bear in mind that what is being done in South West Africa by the Railway Administration in respect of rail, air and road transport services, I must admit immediately that the Government of the Republic of South Africa is making a very great contribution to the development of South West Africa. South West Africa is a very young country which is still in its developmental stage, and I should like to make use of this opportunity, in my first speech in this House, to thank the Government and particularly the hon. the Minister of Transport for the services which are being rendered there. I must say that South West Africa has no reason to complain about the good services that we are getting from the Railway Administration, just as little as we have reason to complain about the services rendered by the staff in South West Africa. We are particularly grateful for the great improvements which have been brought about there in the past few years and which are still being made. We know that since the taking over of the railway network in 1922, great losses have been suffered on the South West Africa division of the Railways. I do not want to weary the House with figures this evening but the losses are enormous, and we know that the public of South Africa carried all those losses, except in a few exceptional cases where South West Africa contributed smaller amounts. I want to emphasize to-day that South West Africa is entirely dependent on the assistance of the Republic of South Africa, not only as far as transport is concerned but in all spheres. If there are people who say that South West Africa should become independent, they can forget about it; we cannot stand on our own legs. We cannot under our own steam and with our own funds do what is being done there by the Republic of South Africa. And here I do not even want to talk about all the other services which, of course, do not fall within the scope of this debate. It is perfectly clear that South West Africa is entirely dependent on the assistance and the services that we receive from the Republic of South Africa. As far as betterment works are concerned—I am not talking now about the works at the Walvis Bay harbour where large sums are being spent to extend the harbour facilities and to build it up into a modern harbour capable of handling the traffic that has to be handled there. I should like to refer in particular this evening to the broadening of the narrow-gauge lines which were used there for many years, from 1906 to the end of 1960. In that connection I also have in mind the introduction of diesel tractive power. Everybody who knows South West Africa, particularly the narrow-gauge lines in the north from Usakos, will agree with me that improvement means a very great deal to us. The cattle farmers in the northern parts of South West Africa where cattle farming is practised, found themselves in this position throughout the years that they had to transport their livestock over the narrow gauge line, and the livestock then had to be transferred at Usakos on to the broad-gauge line, which meant that the animals were manhandled. Not only did the cattle farmers experience enormous difficulties and delays but it was extremely difficult also to transship at Usakos the copper ore transported from Tsumeb to Walvis Bay. With the introduction of this improvement all those problems of transshipment and delay in the handling of goods are things of the past, and this means a great deal to us in South West Africa. I want to mention here that the narrow-gauge line which was broadened was 353 miles in length. This line was converted into a line of standard width at a cost of a little more than R 14,000,000 Moreover, this huge undertaking was completed in the record time of three years. Hand, in hand with the broadening of the narrow-gauge line, new station buildings were also erected, new platforms and other facilities, as well as loading pens at most of the stations, which also made things much more convenient for the farmers and the other authorities concerned. The introduction of diesel tractive power is a great asset to us and a great improvement. We were very grateful when we learned from the hon. the Minister that he was going to provide South West Africa with diesel tractive power. Because the traction power of the diesel locomotives which are being used there is so much greater than that of the steam locomotives which were used in the past, they are able to transport heavier loads more rapidly. I might also mention here that with the replacement of the steam locomotives and with the broadening of the narrow-gauge line, train traffic in South West Africa has been reduced by almost two-thirds because the diesel locomotives are able to cope more easily with the loads that were formerly carried by steam locomotives. As I have said, very great losses have accumulated throughout the years since the taking over of this railway network, but personally I believe that with these improvements, and particularly with the diesel tractive power which is now at our disposal, these losses will be converted into profits. The previous speaker has just mentioned that 1,300 tons of locomotive coal had to be transported every day to South West Africa. This coal was transported from the Transvaal coal mines, and the transportation and handling of this coal will also fall away now. The present consumption of coal is so small that it is insignificant. Then there was another matter which always caused headaches and that was the scarcity of water in the days of the steam locomotive. This was a problem with which the Railways had to cope and it was one which gave them cause for concern. I know that there were times when this problem of water scarcity became so serious that there was a danger that the train services would have to be curtailed or brought to a standstill altogether. To-day that is no longer a problem either. Naturally, of course, diesel fuel also has to be transported, but there is this advantage that diesel fuel is transported from the depot in Walvis Bay to the various diesel depots in the territory, which means that it has to be transported over short distances only. Moreover, the Administration is now engaged in replacing the lighter rails in South West Africa by heavier rails and more and heavier sleepers are being provided. This will also mean that it will be possible to accelerate our train traffic from and to South West Africa. Already there is a great improvement and our trains are travelling much faster from South West to the Republic, and once the lighter rails have been replaced by heavier rails it will be possible to accelerate the train traffic even more.

Another matter that I want to mention here is the question of road transport services. These services are not operating at a profit either. In South West Africa they are operated at a loss. But it was some consolation to me to notice that it is not only South West Africa that shows a loss on these services; other divisions in the Republic are also showing a loss. I do want to say that South West Africa with its vast areas cannot do without road transport services. These road transport services are very necessary to us, and I am thinking particularly of the remote towns and farms from which goods have to be transported. Without those services I believe that it would not have been possible for this development to take place so quickly. Here I should like to re-assure the hon. the Minister. Although he might have had to incur heavy expenditure in former days on repairs to his vehicles and trailers because of poor roads, the roads which are now being used by the bus services are all being improved. I am also aware of the fact that before the Administration introduces a bus service the Administration of South West Africa first has to give an assurance that those roads will be built to facilitate the introduction of that bus service for the Administration and also for the farmers.

I do not want to be long, but I should like to make a very serious plea to the Minister not to curtail any of these bus services. Such a step would affect South West Africa very detrimentally. Even if there is a loss I feel that these bus services do serve as feeders for train traffic.

In conclusion I just want to say that as far as the building works of the Railway Administration in South West Africa are concerned, a great deal has also been done and we appreciate it. As you know, Sir, we have had droughts in the past few years as well as foot-and-mouth disease. This has been a tremendous blow to the territory, and the building activities of the Railway Administration provide employment to many South-Westers. Here I am thinking particularly of the Administration offices which are being constructed in Windhoek, but while I am on the subject I do want to ask the Minister to make sure that sufficient office accommodation is made available, because I know that in South West Africa, with the rapid development which is taking place there, the problem will always be that there will not be sufficient office accommodation. I think it is necessary at this stage, since the construction of this building is in its initial stages, to determine whether there will be sufficient accommodation for the purpose for which the building is needed. I mention this because I know that the Railway Administration in Windhoek hires a great deal of its office accommodation from private concerns. In conclusion I want to say that although great losses are still being suffered on the Railways, we in South West Africa are making our contribution in our small way. In particular I want to mention here that where we are tarring our main roads, we are building overhead bridges or subways at our own expense. In making that small contribution we want to show the Railway Administration that we also want to make some contribution and that we are appreciative of what the Republic of South Africa is doing for us in South West Africa.

It is indeed a pleasure to congratulate the last speaker with his speech. He has made an intensive study of the subject and judging from his maiden speech, I would say that we look forward to his continued contributions to the debate of this House. I also want to congratulate the hon. member on the fact that he was the only one of the last three speakers who did not read his speech. It was a maiden speech, yet he did not read his speech. He spoke from his notes in the normal way, but did not refer to them too much. I am sincere in my congratulations and I hope that he will spend a long time in this House.

The hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé), who spoke just before him, will forgive me if I don’t follow him as far as the latter part of his speech is concerned. I must say that I thought it most interesting that the hon. member brough a synopsis of the General Manager’s Report, and worked that into his speech. It was a synopsis of the annual report of the General Manager for 1960-1. He was not the only member who has done that, because the hon. member before him did the same thing. I would suggest that if they have nothing to say and they want to draw their material from the General Manager’s Report, they should mix it up a little bit and they should not go from chapter to chapter—I was actually following as he was speaking from the index the one subject after the other as he went from one to the other, and I would suggest that although it sounds very impressive to a person who has not yet read the General Manager’s Report, it was extremely boring to members on this side of the House who have made a study of the General Manager’s Report.

As I say, I do not wish to follow the hon. member in this synopsis that he made, but I do wish to say a few words about the first two-and-a-half minutes of his speech, because he was the first member on the Government side to spend two and a half minutes on the staff position and on the position of the railway artisans. He was the first one to refer to the difficulties existing there. Of course he said things I cannot agree with. He said that the Artisan Staff Association “het die minste nodig om te kla”, that they had the least reason to complain, and then he carried on to say that the Minister could not possibly grant them any relief if he did not grant it to all other sections of the railway staff. And of course he went on and expressed his disappointment with what they have done and he talked about the “platvloerse manier” in which they had framed their resolutions. I hope that will reach the ears of the Artisan Staff Association that the resolutions which were taken by them in earnest, are being called by the hon. member, who tells me that he has a railway vote in his constituency a “platvloerse manier”.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) quoted from speeches made by the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) in the past, saying that the Railways would lose because we were out of the Commonwealth, and with great joy the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) said that we had lost nothing. Is that so? If it is so, why did the hon. the Minister when he was addressing the Federal Consultative Council of the Railway Staff Association on 8 June 1960 say—

He went on—

He spoke of boycotts in particular and said that we would have to tighten our belts. Mr. Speaker, he found it necessary to say to the Artisan Staff Association on 8 October 1960 who at that time were asking for an increase and better working conditions, that we would have to tighten our belts, because we were alone in the world. If this has had no effect whatsoever on the Railway economics, why did the hon. the Minister use that as a reason to refuse a rise to the Artisan Staff Association when they were asking for a rise? It is quite interesting to trace the whole history of this request for an improvement in wages. On 17 August 1960 the Railway Artisan Staff Association met the Minister and asked him for a two-hours shorter working week, and for an increase in wages of 3d. an hour, and the reply was that he had to cushion a loss the nation might suffer as a result of boycotts. On 18 August 1960 he rejected all these requests, that is the three penny rise, the reduction to a 44 hour week and the consolidation of the cost-of-living allowance which they had asked for. They only asked for a consolidation of R114 per year into their basic wage. The association was notified of the flat turning down of all their requests by the Minister. As long ago as that, that is on 18 August 1960 the Minister was notified of the gross dissatisfaction of the Artisan Staff Association. The association then pressed for the appointment of an impartial commission. They could not get that. The Minister refused. They then decided to send a petition to the Governor-General asking for a commission to be appointed. The Governor-General rejected their petition although it had 12,000 signatures, and the amazing part is that the rejection came through the Minister’s administrative secretary, surely not a very courteous way in which to reply to a petition of 12,000 strong. However, the artisans were still willing to bide their time, and they were still going to negotiate with the Minister in an attempt to prevail on him through reasoning, proving their claim and that they had a just cause._t They discussed the whole matter again at their annual congress on 19 March 1961. At the annual conference in March 1961 they found that the Minister had appointed a fact finding committee to report on consolidation. Now note the hon. the Minister’s attitude. He had shortly before turned down flatly all their requests, he had flatly turned down a petition signed by 12,000 people, a petition calling for a commission to be appointed. Yet, quietly the Minister goes and appoints a fact-finding committee on consolidation, although it was notable that the Artisan Staff Association was not represented on the committee. In the meantime the Artisan Staff Association had said to the Minister that if he would consider their claim, they would consider substantial restrictions in respect of overtime, Sunday-time and bonus rates. On 1 March 1961 just before they were going to hold their conference (on 19 March), the Minister announced full consolidation, not of the R114 for which they had asked, but R598 consolidation.

Four times as much as they had asked for.

Yes, full consolidation, but at a price! They had to undertake substantial reduction in overtime and bonus rates and Sunday-time.

They did so voluntarily.

Yes, they had volunteered to do so an they were prepared to do so, and they had told the Minister so before he turned them down flat. They had told the Minister so because 18 August 1960, when he turned them down flat they had told him before he turned down their petition for a commission of inquiry.

Another drop, another drop! (nog ’n sopie, nog ’n sopie!).

Mr. Speaker, I hope you heard what that hon. member said? May I inform him that I believe nothing stronger than water is to be had in the House.

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Yes, Sir, but I must protest against remarks of that kind.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member for Edenvale (Mr G. H. van Wyk) entitled to say, referring to the hon. member “nog ’n doppie, nog ’n dop-pie”? That has a clear inference, and I want to ask you, Sir, to make him withdraw that remark.

Sir, in the meantime one must notice that the A.S.A. had to put the emphasis on the consolidation of the cost-of-living allowance. They had found that there were too many appendices attached to their wages and the consolidation of their cost-of-living allowances was of great importance to get a clear picture of any person’s salary, and the basic wage at that time did not give the true picture of what a man’s salary was. They felt that it was indeed necessary to get a true picture of the basic wage. But before the hon. the Minister gets away with saying that he gave them four limes as much as they asked, one must remember that at this time nearly all government departments or all government departments have already consolidated the cost-of-living allowances. So that when they came and they asked the Minister for this to be done, it had already been done in nearly all government departments. He agreed to have all the cost-of-living allowances incorporated and he also agreed that the Administration would bear the added costs in regard to pensions. The hon. the Minister also agreed at that time to a monthly rate instead of an hourly rate. But he rejected altogether all their requests for an increase in pay.

But that was a year later.

No, he had already done so when he refused the 3d. per hour.

That was the year before.

Let me try to speak in words of one syllable. When the Minister offered to consolidate the cost-of-living allowance, the artisans were satisfied to take it at that time, although they felt that at that moment they had had no pay increase, and immediately after that they started again by asking that a pay-increase should be considered. Now the hon. member for Parow said that they had better pensions as a result of the consolidation. That is perfectly true. He said that they had better security. That is also perfectly true. But that is something for the days to come, something in the far future, and especially for a young man it is something in the very far future indeed, a young man who has got a family and small children to raise, and the position is that they have no more money to take home, that they are still struggling to keep on the breadline with the increasing cost-of-living. One must realize that strict supervision has cut the extra earnings of the railway-workers absolutely to the bone, and one must also realize that in the difficult days which the Railways experienced, these railway-workers themselves offered their help to the Minister and helped to bring the Railways back on an even keel again, so much so, that I noticed that the hon. the Prime Minister when he spoke in September, last year, praised the railwaymen for their work. He was speaking at Heidelberg and he said that it was with gratitude that one had noticed an increase in the Railway earnings during the past months, partly due to the excellent work of the railwaymen.

Are you enjoying yourself?

I am not. I looked up my speech last year, and I find that I said this—

So if the hon. member there thinks that I am enjoying myself, I say I am not. I am not enjoying myself when we have to come to this House year after year and have tediously to repeat what we have said the year before, because we are speaking for the railway people. But no notice was taken of it. Now I want to quote what the reply was which the hon. Minister gave me on that occasion and I am certain that I will get the same uncouth reply this year.

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

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. Can I say it was an unhelpful or undignified reply? At any rate, he replied as follows—

The hon. member for Drakensberg had certain complaints. I really do not know what reply to give to the hon. member. She received a little information here and there from people and from workers. My advice to her is this “Tell those people that they have excellent staff associations which will cater for their interests and that those staff associations will do much more than what the hon. member will ever be able to do, because they know the conditions and they know their people and they are able to look after the interests of their members. They do so very effectively”.

Hear, Hear!

I am glad to hear that because that is exactly what is not happening. The staff associations are making representations to the Minister, but instead of taking notice thereof, the Minister does what he did in the past, namely send them away with a flea in their ear. On 28 August he told them that he would grant them absolutely nothing. They asked for a commission of inquiry but that he turned down in an undignified manner. He sent them away but a couple of months afterwards he announced that he was going to incorporate their entire cost of living allowance in their basic wages—something for which they have not particularly asked for. If the hon. Minister had the intention of granting them their wishes, why did he not do so in a proper way? Then the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) asks me whether I am enjoying myself. How can I do so in the circumstances? It is interesting to note that there were so far four speakers from the other side and of those four speakers only 2½ minutes were spent by the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé) on this matter. I already quoted what he said. He talked about “platvloerse besluite”, and said that their pay demands were unnecessary, and that they were the people with the least reason for complaint. I want to come back to the artisans and to tell the hon. Minister that these people feel that their basic pay must rise. It is amazing to note that only one out of every six artisans can get promotion because they can only get promotion within their own ranks. The scale for artisans is laid down, namely 74.40 cents per hour. After ten years this is increased to 75.706 cents. It was in 1955 that artisans got the last pay increase. Since then every conference asked for more pay.

That is not true. It is nonsense.

It is absolutely true. The hon. member can find that out from the artisan staff association. It seems as if the hon. member is taking so little notice of the artisan staff association and of its conferences that he does not even know what they are paid. Perhaps that is why the Government is so deaf to their demands. I say that since 1955 every artisan staff association conference has asked for increased pay. Its executive committee has approached the hon. Minister in serious vein. The position is that in 1951 the pay of artisans was increased from 3s. 6d. per hour to 3s. 11d. per hour, and in 1955 to 4s. 3d. The consolidation of portion of their cost-of-living allowance in 1956 brought this hourly wage up to 4s. 9d. This did not mean any increase in his basic wages however. Since 1955 the artisan could not take any more money home.

What about the N.P.A. in 1958—the non-pensionable allowance?

Or was it a National Party allowance? That non-pensionable allowance was, at any rate, so little that they continued with their demands. And, Mr. Speaker, they have reason for asking for an increase in their pay. The expenses of every worker have gone up. It costs more for him to live; it costs him more to build a house; it costs more for him to educate his children. It was most interesting to read that the General Manager, when addressing a meeting of Spoorbond in October 1961, said the following—

The same General Manager, when addressing the Kaapstadse Afrikaanse Sakekamer, said that R85,000,000 had already been spent on housing for railway men. If it is true that he said “Can White South Africans, and particularly members of the Spoorbond, stand aside and watch the non-White advance further every day and so threaten their work and their very existence”, then I think he should have said it to the Minister, because that is the very reason why they want a better salary, i.e. to educate their children so that they would be able to compete with the non-Whites. Most of them did not have opportunities for education themselves. I hope that the hon. Minister will open his mind so that this can enter.

The General Manager also said, as I quoted, that the sum of R85,000,000 had been spent on housing for the railway man. That is true. Houses have been built in various areas— quite a number in Natal particularly in Ladysmith. But what do I find now? I find that these houses are being built and given to workers only for the time they live at a particular centre. When they are transferred to another centre, they cannot get another house unless they buy it. I wonder whether hon. members have thought about the position this is going to place the railway worker in. In order that he may have a roof over his head, he has to buy whilst at most railway centres houses are just not to be had for any amount of money. But in order to have a roof over his head, the railway worker has to buy a house. Now, it is common knowledge that a railway worker is subject to transfer. Even when he gets promotion he is liable to be transferred. Let us take the case of a worker in Ladysmith who has had a house there for three or four years and then gets transferred to Cape Town. The Railway Administration will then let his house in Ladysmith for him but any reparations which might become necessary to that house, have to be done out of the pocket of the owner. So the poor railway worker sitting in Cape Town has to pay for any repairs to be done without his being able to go and see what is happening and why he has to face a bill of may be R600. This has now become the avowed policy of the Railway Administration, i.e. no longer to let railway houses but to sell them if that is at all possible. Speaking about houses, it is interesting to note the position of operators in this regard. There is a severe shortage of operators in Natal and particularly in Pietermaritzburg—so much so that the Administration has to employ non-White operators. The relevant staff association has informed the Administration that if enough houses were made available at Pietermaritzburg, it would be possible to get enough White operators. So a certain number of houses was built but instead of these being given to White operators, they were allocated to people who were on the waiting list. The position, therefore, still is that there are many non-Whites employed as operators in many centres in Natal. In the past an artisan had a certain status and he was proud of that status. This has, however, changed on account of falling wages. I wonder whether members opposite are aware of the fact that the most junior clerk in the Railway Administration to-day gets more pay than an artisan and that the policemen who waves artisans in at the gate in the morning and out in the afternoon is higher paid than artisans? An ordinary Railway constable is a higher paid man than an artisan. The railwayman is an intensely loyal person. He is one of the most loyal human beings that I have ever seen.

That is why they vote for the Government!

The railwayman realizes that when he was saving the Railways, he was also saving himself. That was the way in which they looked at it and that is why they succeeded in pulling the Railways out of the doldrums so quickly. I think it was during the speech of the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) that a member opposite asked why one class of railwayman was being singled out for an increase in pay. But the pay of other classes have been increased. In this connection I think of the Railway Commissioners. Railway workers look on these commissioners as ordinary railway men and not as something peculiar. They forget that they were politicians in this House. Another class which has had an increase in pay is draughtsmen. Assistant foremen have also been given increased pay. So there are others who received an increase in pay. The fact is that the Western Transvaal provincial council of the Artisans Staff Association has passed a resolution asking the hon. Minister of Transport to resign. The Bloemfontein Branch passed a resolution asking the hon. Minister to resign. The Durban Branch has asked him to resign; the Windhoek Branch has asked him, and I am quite sure the Cape Province Branch will also ask him to resign.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to say that what the hon. the Minister has done for his railwaymen has not been appreciated. I think the hon. Minister seems to have failed to judge the temperature and the temperament of the people with whom he is dealing. I think because they have been patient, and I have traced the steps they have taken—slowly, and year by year they have asked the same thing; they have been very patient and very long-suffering indeed—but I think the hon. Minister has misjudged the temperature and temperament of the people with whom he is dealing. I would suggest that in future he should be a little more helpful, a little bit more … Well, Mr. Speaker, you have told me not to use that particular word. Anyway, the hon. Minister knows what I mean.

And now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to come to Danskraal, because no speech of mine will be perfect unless I say something about Danskraal. I want to say there is a shortage of shunting staff at Danskraal. The shunting staff at Danskraal are on extended hours. There is a terriffic strain on their strength. Leave is difficult to obtain because there is no relief. There is a difference between serving an electric unit and serving a steam engine, because they have to be so much quicker. There are occasions when some of these shunters have to be on their feet for 12 hours. The guards staff have long hours because in their case there is a shortage too. They have long hours and they have short rests. They must work and they must do this overtime because their basic salaries are not high enough. They must submit themselves to these long hours and short rests.

The tin shanties about which I spoke in 1957, for guards and shunters and yard controllers, are still there.

Shame!

It is a shame Those tin shanties in which these people have to eat, are full of rat-holes; they are full of cockroaches; they are dirty; they are too hot in summer and too cold in winter. They are not fit for pigs to live in, let alone decent, upstanding, hard-working Railway workers.

The men on repair jobs to engines have to work out in the open, and it is no fun when it rains and it is cold; neither is it fun when the sun is very hot. But hon. members sitting over there and enjoying organizers’ allowances evidently do not mind. The flash-butt depot people also still work out in the open. I say that for the edification of the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Knobel) because, Mr. Speaker, you will remember that in 1958 when I said this, the hon. member got up and told me I did not know what I was talking about. Fortunately he was reported very full in the Transvaler. This copy of the Transvaler was sent back to me, together with a petition from the flash-butt welders at Danskraal, accompanied by three photographs, and they were very outspoken about what they thought of the knowledge of the hon. member for Bethlehem. There is still no flash-butt depot, in spite of the fact that it has been on the Estimates for three years. Nothing has been done about it. I know that some enlargements at Danskraal have taken place—new railway lines and things like that. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Danskraal—I mean Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Nierkerk) will forgive me if I do not, as is customary, react to certain of her remarks. I do, however, want to react to certain remarks which were made earlier this afternoon in this House by the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw). It was indeed strange this afternoon, Sir, to get complaints from that quarter about certain aircraft transactions; it was indeed strange to get the type of complaint which we did get from that quarter. I want to tell that hon. member that we had complaints from his side of the House about the Constellation aeroplanes. That happened as far back as 1957 and the hon. member for Drakensberg who has just sat down was one of the members who complained and said that the seats in the Constellations were too small and that she could not fit properly into them. The then hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) complained about the same thing at the time and I can take this argument of the hon. member for Durban (Point) further as to the principle of which countries, to which type of country, things like these should be sold. He made an issue of the letting of the Constellation aeroplanes and he objected vehemently to it. But it is interesting to see that somebody on that side of the House said the following last year about the letting of the Constellations—

The person who said that was Mr. Hymie Miller, a former hon. member of this House. But apparently he displayed too much intelligence so it was found necessary to replace him. Furthermore another hon. member who was formerly a member of this House said the following—

That was said by Mr. Cope, a former member of this House who also at a later stage did not feel at home on that side of the House, not at home in the company of those members from whom we have had these remarks. The hon. member for Durban (Point) spoke this afternoon about “strait-jacket, red tape, hogtied, goods train mentality” etc. when referring to the S.A. Airways. He must not say that he was praising the Airways. The same Mr. Hymie Miller said the following about the Airways, the Airways which the hon. member for Durban (Point) calls a service which is governed by “a goods train mentality” or a “hog-tied” services.—

He refers inter alia, to certain aspects of the S.A. Airways and he says—

But as I have said, Mr. Speaker, he displayed too much intelligence for the liking of that side of the House so they got rid of him. They negotiated an exchange and whether they got anything better, I leave to history to decide.

I want to return to a few of the remarks which have been made about the S.A. Airways and I want to associate myself with those hon. members who have already expressed sympathy in regard to the recent unfortunate incidents which have claimed the lives of a number of South Africans. I want to sympathize with those who have perhaps lost next-of-kin or friends in those very unfortunate incidents. Let me hasten to add that although great publicity is given to these accidents. flying in South Africa in particular is the safest form of travel. This is only the second accident in the history of the S.A. Airways in which human lives have been lost. Although it is tragic and shocking, because we are not used to accidents in our safe S.A. air service, our air service remains one of the safest in the world to-day. The scope of air travel has expanded to such an extent and has assumed such terrific proportions, that you are surprised at the measure of safety which still exists Sir. Mr. Speaker, do you know that they expect to handle 12,000,000 passengers in the year 1965 at the Idlewild Airport at New York. More passengers than the total population of the Republic of South Africa will be handled in one year at one airport in the United States. As far back as 1959 London already handled 4,000,000 passengers and a total of 127,000 aeroplanes had used that airport. The air services of the world, Russia and China excluded, handled 21,000,000 passengers in 1947 and 87,000,000 in 1957. When we look at those figures and we consider the very low percentage of accidents which do occur, we can say without fear of contradiction that air travel has become the safest form of travel in the world to-day. And our South African air service more so than the air services of any other country in the world. There are various reasons why the S.A. Airways is one of the safest, if not the safest in the world. In the first place we are using the best type of aircraft available. It is interesting to think that one of our Boeings can to-day take all the members of this House and get them to London before tea-time to-morrow morning.

That is not a bad idea at all.

The hon. member should not allow himself to be diverted by the interjections of that hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, with reference to that hon. member, may I tell him research is already being conducted in the United States into rocket space travel and there have been space travellers before Col. Grisom went up and we do not want a repetition of that in South Africa. During the past five years the S.A. Airways have flown 40,000,000 miles and conveyed 1,500,000 passengers. That means that the total population of the Johannesburg complex, for example, have been conveyed within a period of five years by the Airways. In other words an eighth of our population has been handled as passengers by our Airways over a period of five years. The Jan Smuts Airport will in any case probably handle 500,000 passengers this year. But in spite of this and in spite of the tremendous progress which our Airways have made, and in spite of the fact that air services overseas are being subsidized by their governments so as to operate on an economic basis, our own air service have succeeded in showing a surplus of R4,500,000 on their operations during this period of five years. That testifies of the best administration that you can find in any air service in the world. When we look at other competition air services and some of the air services with which we co-operate, we find that they have to depend annually on considerable government assistance in order to balance their accounts. Our air service in South Africa, in spite of tremendous progress and development, have succeeded in showing a surplus of R4,500,000 over this period of five years.

Mr. Speaker, there are various reasons why our S.A. Airways are the safest. Fewer lives have been lost on our Airways during the whole of its existence than are lost in one particular week in accidents on the De Waal Road near Cape Town. The reason for that is to be found in the type of aircraft which is used by the S.A. Airways. Firstly, we have the Viscount which travel at 365 miles per hour. It carries the best equipment available in the world to-day. I mention that in particular in order to illustrate the precautionary measures which are taken to ensure the safety of our air service. They are equipped with weather radar, they are equipped with engines which are regarded as the most reliable aircraft engines in the whole world, namely the Rolls-Royce Dart Turbine propelled engines. They are regarded as one of the most infallible engines in the world and it is moreover interesting to learn that those engines still presented some minor problems, problems which were solved by our own personnel at Kempton Park and at the Jan Smuts Airport.

For the rest we make use of the Boeing 707, series 344 which were purchased for the S.A. Airways. They are of the most modern aircraft in the world to-day, and not only of the most modern but of the safest. Do you know, Sir, that in spite of the terrific size of the Boeing, it is capable of remaining airborne with only one of its four engines going, a fact which may make the difference between an accident and safety. Because of that it is the safest and its engine is the safest used for air travel to-day. Hence we find that the Boeing is not only an extremely fast machine and easy to manage, but it is also one of the safest in the world to-day. Before the Boeings were acquired for the Airways they were first properly tested in the United States. Those tests were carried out before the first jet aircraft was certified by the Government of the United States as suitable for passenger service. Those tests were carried out over a period of three months, during which period most intensive tests were carried out in all circumstances. They were flown at speeds far in excess of their maximum speed. They travelled at 670 miles per hour, a speed which is never flown normally. The aircraft was taken to a height of 42,500 feet to see whether it complied with everything that was demanded of it at that height. A total load of 130 tons was loaded into the aircraft. That was how they were tested. Only after the aircraft had undergone all those tests, were they bought for the S.A. Airways.

Mr. Speaker, there is another reason why our air service is so particularly safe and that is because the training which our air personnel undergo is of the highest standard in comparison with any other country in the world. I refer in particular to one section of that training, namely the simulators which have been acquired to make the pilots accustomed to the controls in the cabin of the Viscount, for example. The senior Airways instructor in link training was sent oversea. He visited, inter alia, the B.O.A.C., the B.G.S. and the K.L.M. in order to ascertain how this method worked and how it could be applied most effectively.

At 10.25 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned until 13 March.