When the debate was adjourned on Wednesday, I had indicated that there were certain features of the Minister’s speech in regard to which it struck us immediately that criticism should be voiced, but that does not mean that we do not wish to extend our congratulations to the Minister on some of the more pleasing aspects of his Budget. We think it is a good thing for South Africa that this particular Railway Budget this year is very much in the nature of a holding operation. Having increased the rates considerably in the middle of the last financial year, the Minister is being supported by those increased rates for the coming year. He has also had support from nature, in that the drought has been broken. The Government has also accepted, belatedly, the advice of the Opposition and other important bodies in this country, that import control should be relaxed, which has benefited the Railways considerably, and we are indeed pleased that there is on the credit side of this Budget so much that is encouraging, and that it contains no shocks for the people of South Africa. I personally found that the Minister was rather pessimistic in regard to the future. It does seem that these factors I have mentioned, like the breaking of the drought and the relaxation of import control and the general burgeoning of our economy, could have made the Minister a little more optimistic about his chances for the new year. But then we have all learnt that under the Nationalist Party Government, Budget estimates are to be treated merely as wild guesses. If anyone bases his expectations for the year on the Estimates put before us by the Minister of Transport, or even the Minister of Finance, he will be misled and will be sorely disappointed in the outcome, one way or the other. I notice, for example, that from 1948-’49 to 1955-’56 the actual results of the Railway Budget in any year did not nearly approach the Estimates framed by the Government. I want to give a few examples of how things went.

In 1950-’51 the Budget Estimate was a surplus of R89,000. The surplus in fact was R16.9 million. In 1951-’52 the Estimate was a surplus of R360,000, but the actual surplus was R12.7 million. In 1952-’53 there was an estimated surplus of R982.000, but the actual result was deficit of R9.6 million. Taking more recent mars, when the Minister himself was in charge, the find an even more interesting picture. From 1956-’57 to 1966-’67 the Minister budgeted on to fewer than eight occasions for a deficit. He produced a deficit on four occasions. He budgeted for a surplus on two occasions and produced a surplus on seven occasions. He budgeted in all for deficits of R20 million in the eight years, but in actual practice he produced deficits, as I said, in four years, amounting to R34.5 million. Over this whole period he budgeted for surpluses totalling R24.4 million, but in fact he produced surpluses of R114.5 million. That is why I say that one cannot attach very much importance to the Estimates put before us. They are just wild Estimates, and it depends on what the Minister wants to achieve, to what extent he will over-estimate his expenditure and under-estimate his income, or sometimes vice versa. But what is more important is that there was a passing reference in one little paragraph of the Minister’s speech showing that he was concerned about the possible continuation of inflation in South Africa. Again one immediately has to ask whether the Minister was wise to budget for a capital expenditure of R220 million at a time when he fears further inflation. I must state quite frankly that one would almost like to criticize him on this, but it would be unfair of the Opposition to do so. I think it is right that the Minister should spend this amount of money, in spite of the difficulties we are experiencing, on maintaining the transport services of South Africa, the great transport monopoly which the S.A. Railways and Harbours is, at such a peak of efficiency that it should always be a little ahead of the requirements of our developing economy. There was of course a time when this wise policy of the old United Party, particularly under the administration of Mr. Sturrock, was not followed by the Government. We can remember when they took over in 1948 how they accused the late Mr. Sturrock of being a Haroun el Raschid, an extravagant man, and a fool, because he was planning so far ahead for the S.A. Railways and Harbours, and they cut his plans, but within a year or two we had one of the greatest transport crises this country has ever known. Then there was great difficulty and poor Mr. Sauer had to go as Minister of Transport in order to allay public feeling.

We are very glad to see that that lesson has been learnt and that attempts are now being made to plan ahead to keep the transport monopoly slightly ahead of the requirements of the South African economy. Sir, we were also most interested in the Minister’s complaint that the high-rated traffic from the harbours to the inland areas was decreasing because of the tremendous industrial development of those areas, which means that he has to take more raw material to the inland areas and fewer finished products. That is true, Sir, but what a pity that the hon. the Minister did not at the same time show us the obverse side of the medal, that because of this tremendous industrial development in the inland areas, he has high-rated traffic going to those areas on which he is making profits which in the hands of any private concern would be branded as sheer profiteering. I think, for example, of what he is making out of the transport of petroleum products to these inland industrial areas, but that, of course, the hon. the Minister did not mention. I think in fairness to the inland areas of South Africa a more balanced picture should be put before the people of South Africa, and what the Minister gets on the credit side should be shown as well as the debit side. The hon. the Minister should indicate to us how the situation can arise that he is losing the transport of manufactured articles from the coast to the inland areas because of the tremendous industrial development of our existing industrial areas and how this will be affected by the development of border industries.

The hon. the Minister has in the past given us some indication that the prospect of developing border industries leaves him rather cold and that he is not very much involved in this matter. Will his attitude change? Is it one of the objects of the Cabinet now that border industries should be developed so that there will again be heavy transport of high-rated manufactured articles to the heavily populated areas from the developing border industries? The hon. the Minister made no reference to this in his Budget speech. These are the real issues which we hope will be attended to in due course.

Sir, as I say, there is much that we can still criticize although this is a slightly better Budget than last year’s, thanks to the heavy increase in rates, which I still believe was wrong at the time. The hon. the Minister mentions that he is worried about inflation but he gives no indication that he is doing anything as a matter of policy in this mighty transport monopoly to combat inflation or to ease the consequences of inflation for the people of South Africa, and in order to frame our criticism I propose to move the following amendment to the Minister’s motion—

1. (1) assist employees of the Railways Administration to overcome the serious problems created for them by the increases in the cost of living caused to a large extent by the mistaken policies of the Government;
2. (2) come to the relief of Railways, Harbours and Airways pensioners; and
3. (3) lighten the unconscionable and indefensible burden placed on users of motor and other combustible fuels in the inland areas of South Africa”.

In this amendment there is an implicit criticism which we have not emphasized except in the third point. It is the question that arises in the minds of many of us, namely whether the transport monopoly controlled by the Government of South Africa is making its full contribution to the optimum growth of our South African economy.

Sir, I think all of us would agree that it is necessary that all the agencies of government and all the agencies concerned with the economic development of South Africa should strive and should be in spanned to achieve the optimum growth of our national product. Sir, we need it; we are a country which is becoming isolated in many instances. We rejoice at the fact that there are small signs of our breaking through the walls of isolation which have been built around us but I cannot speak about that now. The general tendency in the world to-day is for South Africa to become isolated and the position of South Africa is being endangered. Our strongest means of defence, our strongest weapon, is that we should be economically active, wealthy and productive and that we should have an optimum growth of all our resources in South Africa.

The South African Railways can contribute to that overriding need and should do so; it should do so as a matter of great urgency. What is almost more important, however, is that there should be this optimum growth of our national product for human considerations, because we South Africans here in Southern Africa face a challenge which is unique in the history of a community such as ours and that is the challenge of bringing the fruits and the advantages of our highly civilized standards to the less civilized people in our midst.

Sir, I am not interested to-day in whether we do it by means of apartheid or separate development or separate freedoms or by means of a federal system or a qualified franchise; the fact remains that all of us are agreed that the challenge facing us as South Africans is to bring the benefits of our civilized standards to the people who are here with us and whom Providence has placed in our care. For that reason, too, I think, that all the ingenuity and all the policies of government should be directed towards increasing the national product in South Africa and making more wealth available to more people in South Africa.

I think the two major parties in this House, which both believe in private enterprise, believe that a maximum degree of competition, in so far as the national interest makes it possible, is necessary, and that in our transport organization that competition should be made possible because transport should be seen as a service to the community and not, as I am afraid the Government so often does, as an end in itself. Very often when we speak to the Minister or members of the Government about the railway monopoly and we suggest certain changes and that certain new attitudes should be developed, the answer is: “But what will happen to our Railways?” Sir, that is not the question; the question is: What will happen to our South Africa? That is infinitely more important. We do hope that this matter will receive growing consideration not only from the Minister directly responsible but from the Cabinet as a whole. We know that as a result of previous discussions in this House, the Minister appointed the Marais Commission on the Co-ordination of Transport, which I assume is attending to some of these problems.

We hope that it will also give full consideration to the role which should be played by the Railways per se in our transport organization—the Railways apart from Harbours and Airways, pipelines and private means of transport. In this connection I was interested to notice that the Minister referred once more in his speech to the principle of what the traffic can bear as one of the overriding principles determining his policy. Sir, we do not want to argue; that is a vital, a most important principle. But I do not think we can accept that it is the overriding principle, because equally important is the other principle, the question that we should always have in our minds, and that is how our transport system can make the greatest contribution to the growth of our national product. I think we should begin to realize that it is impossible under a system of private enterprise for any entrepreneur to organize his business properly if he is almost completely denied the right to choose his own transport according to the needs and requirements of his business. We do not believe that maximum efficiency in transport or in industrial organization is possible if we deny this right to the entrepreneur. Indeed, Sir, I have read somewhere that the International Chambers of Commerce have pointed out that in many industries the privately owned transport vehicle is essentially a part of the means of production at the disposal of a particular industry; it is as much a part of his means of production as his labour or his machinery or his other capital equipment. It cannot be separated. Sir, these are things which we ought to be thinking about in South Africa if we want our transport system to make its maximum contribution to the growth of our national product. There is no doubt—I think it would be foolish to deny it—that in respect of many commodities the Railways will continue to be the best, the most efficient and virtually the only means of transport. That is particularly true of many of our bulk commodities. Perhaps the Railways should be given, finally, the sole right to transport in appropriate fields and that the State should then come to the assistance of the Railways where this sole right to transport commodities which are most suitable for transport by the Railways results in a loss to the Railways. But the people of South Africa should be given a greater freedom of choice—and the Railways should take a lead in this matter—in selecting their own form, of transport in the interests of the efficient development of our economy.

I am very glad and I think that the House will also be pleased to know that the hon. the Minister has accepted so many of the recommendations of the Schumann Commission which will rationalize the rating policy of the South African Railways and will make the transport of more and more classes of goods economical. I hope this will in due course make the Railways less dependent upon the income from high-rated goods alone. It is dangerous and unhealthy that the Railways should depend for more than 50 per cent of its income on approximately 17 per cent of the goods it transports. It is unhealthy and it makes the Railways in the nature of things more fearful of competition for that small group of goods. It naturally makes the Railways more fearful and nervous of competition in that field because it is so heavily dependent upon it. If we had a rationalized rating system that dependence could perhaps be minimized and it would become possible to have a more sensible transport system in South Africa. I think that it should be accepted from all sides that from time to time in specific instances assistance to the Railways—that is apart from Harbours and Airways—from the Consolidated Revenue Fund in the national interest must be accepted as rational and necessary. That should not be a strange principle to this House because only a week ago we voted an additional R2 million, pushing the figure for this year up to R8 million, as a subsidy in regard to the guaranteed transport of Bantu urban workers from their places of residence to their places of employment. We have confirmed the principle that in the national interest and the interest of the economy as a whole, the Consolidated Revenue Fund should make its contribution to ease the problems of the Railways as a transport system. The overriding consideration should be the interests of South Africa and the interests of the South African economy.

Therefore I hope that the hon. the Minister in his reply will give us some indication of how the Marais Commission, which is investigating some of these problems, is getting on, how far they have got with their work and when the Minister expects their report to be available and whether their report will be confidential to the Administration of the South African Railways and Harbours or whether it will be published. I should be very grateful to know that and it would be interesting to learn from the Minister when we can expect that report because it may be of vital importance to the future economic development of South Africa.

More directly in regard to my amendment I should like to say that we were interested in what the hon. the Minister had to say about the staff position of the South African Railways. He complained, and he has my sympathy in this regard, about the continuing shortage of key staff in the South African Railways and Harbours. He spoke of shortages of from 8 to 17 per cent, averaging I think about 10 per cent, among people like station foremen, guards, firemen, shunters, motor vehicle drivers, checkers, platelayers and so on. In these circumstances it must be extremely difficult to maintain the efficiency of the Railways and the Administration deserves to be complimented that it is succeeding in maintaining that degree of efficiency with this crippling staff shortage. I believe that this shortage is a reflection of the general shortage of manpower in South Africa. That is a matter which we have discussed in this House before and which we shall discuss again. The Leader of the Opposition has given great personal attention to this because it is one of the great bottlenecks which we face in South Africa. It is nevertheless clear, although we are to explore various remedies, that we must accept that the Railways is not one of the most popular employers of certain types of workers in South Africa. Therefore it is necessary to consider what inducements the Railways can offer to these types of workers so that they will be forthcoming and work for the South African Railways. I think that in many ways that to me was the weakest part of the Minister’s Budget Speech. We know, and the workers know it very acutely, that inflation has gnawed away most of the benefits they got from the spectacular pre-election increases. We know that the responsible trade union leaders such as Mr. Liebenberg of the Artisan Staff Union have pointed out to the Minister that once the cost-of-living index, taking 1958 as the basis, passed 118 the benefits of the increases before the election would be gone and that if the workers wanted to maintain their standards and, as is their just right, raise their standard of living periodically, they would have to make further demands. Since the Budget I think we have had a statement from Mr. Botha of the Salaried Staff Associations.

No.

But it includes a number of Railway workers. The point I wish to make is not directed at the Railways as such.

Mr. Botha is not the Secretary of the Railway Staff Association.

They call it the Federal Staff Association but this is not the point I want to make. The point I want to make is that he has said since the Railway Budget that the time has come that the Minister and the Cabinet should call a conference of the principal trade unions in South Africa to discuss the plight of the workers in South Africa. Mr. Botha made the point that the Cabinet had become too remote from the problems of the people and that this conference should be called so that the Cabinet can be informed of what the problems of the man in the street in South Africa are. That is the point I wish to make. To me that is confirmed by the total absence of any reference to the problems and incipient demands of the workers in the Minister’s Budget Speech. Surely when he reports to the country one would expect some reference to that. I want to say that what has been very pleasing to us who are concerned, as I hope some of the Cabinet may be, with the plight of the ordinary people, is that in the minds of many trade union leaders there is new thinking about how negotiations for increased incomes should be conducted.

It is becoming clear if one reads the trade union journals or if one converses with trade union leaders that they are learning that for them to come periodically with blanket demands for increased wages which are immediately passed on to the consumer is not the final solution to their problems or aspirations, for inevitably the increases are eroded by price increases. They are now thinking in terms of productivity negotiations with their employers. In their negotiations with the Minister they are thinking in terms of productivity bargaining rather than pure collective bargaining. They want to say to their employers, as is done in many parts of the world, “We want more money and rising standards. You want stability of prices and of organization. You want to know that you can plan ahead and you want greater efficiency. You want reduced costs. We want things which are related to these. Therefore let us agree that as we as workers become more productive we shall receive greater rewards.”

I was very interested to hear that a man like Mr. Tom Murray, who is president of the Trade Union Council of South Africa and a member of the Prime Minister’s Advisory Council, which in this regard is even more important, is coming out very strongly with that idea. That may be the answer for the South African Railways. But I think that one should bear in mind the warnings issued by trade union leaders that whereas this scheme does work with great success in many parts of the world, it can only work where the management has imagination and is willing to take the initiative. It depends for its success upon managerial ability. I know that the Minister of Railways in South Africa is blessed with a senior staff which is perhaps unique in any organization of a similar nature anywhere in the world. I do hope that the Minister will avail himself of their knowledge and ability and expertise and bring about a change in the approach to wage relations in an organization such as the Railways and let productivity be the true test of a man or a group’s advance in its employ. The fact remains that the Minister is not going to escape demands in the very near future from his staff because their problems are becoming acute.

I read in one of the Sunday newspapers that he would probably have to face demands soon for R10 or R20 million a year. Everywhere one goes one hears that this is imminent and that the Minister should be prepared. If I can put a thought in the Minister’s mind or in the mind of his management, they should consider the possibility of productivity agreements rather than pure wage and salary agreements. It may then be that we can achieve something in the interests of all concerned with the transport services of South Africa.

In the amendment I mentioned the plight of the pensioners of the South African Railways. One almost wishes that one had the ability and the eloquence to convey conclusively and beyond doubt to the Minister and to the Cabinet the plight of many pensioners, not only Railway pensioners, but so many pensioners throughout South Africa. These are people who have given a lifetime of service to the South African Railways and Harbours. They entered into a contract with their employers that they would contribute throughout their working lifetime certain regular payments to a superannuation fund, or whatever it may be, and that their employers would contribute too; and that when they retired they would receive a pension which, at the time, seemed to be sufficient for them to live on in their old age. Now, when the time comes for them to draw that pension, they find that the pension has been eroded away by continuous creeping inflation, which at times becomes almost runaway inflation, as it was and perhaps still is, in South Africa. They cannot live. Then they have to come cap-in-hand and plead for mercy. I do not blame this Minister. They had the same answer from other Ministers and other parties in the past.

Let us admit it. The answer they get is: Your relationship as a pensioner with the pension fund is a contractual one. You are no longer employed and what you were owed in terms of the contract you will get. They are then dependent upon alms and mercy in order to make ends meet. Much has been done by the Railways to relieve the plight of pensioners in the lower income groups. Much has been done, subject to means tests of R150 per month for married people and R75 per month for unmarried people. Even beyond that a little has been done, but the last basic increase in pensions was in March or April, 1959, when they received a 10 per cent increase. Since then the cost-of-living index has gone up by something like 15 per cent or 16 per cent. A great many people who are disqualified by the means test are having a hard time. I am distressed that, in spite of the pleadings that have come from both sides of this House in years gone by, the Minister could produce a Budget this year with no relief whatsoever for this hard-pressed, unhappy and very often embarrassed section of our community. Now, these people are being asked to accept responsibilities that were never contemplated at the time when they entered into the contractual relationship with the Railways pension organization. These people need doctors more often than other Railway people. They are old people. Now when they need a doctor, they have to pay a fee. I think it is 25c for every visit. Every time they receive a prescription, they have to pay a fee of 25c. Many of them are in chronic ill-health. They can suffer from high blood pressure and diabetes. They have to have continuous medication. No prescription may last them for longer than a month. They then have to go back to the doctor to get another prescription, pay for it, go back to the chemist, and pay for it there. It seems to me that it is wrong that these people, at their greatly reduced level of income, should have to pay the same as people still in active employment. Surely the Minister should consider giving them some relief. I do not say that they should be totally exempted. I do not think that they want to be totally exempted. There is a case to be made for some payment to avoid abuses, but surely the pensioners should be treated on a different basis from persons in permanent employment, because of the simple fact that they have a much lower income and that they can no longer bargain or withhold their labour if they suffer an injustice. They deserve special attention and that is why, in our amendment, we plead for that special attention.

Finally I want to say something about the unconscionable imposition upon people in the inland areas of South Africa, especially in the Southern Transvaal and the Northern Free State, by this Government, through the burdens imposed on high-rated traffic, especially the cost of transporting petroleum products. I refer specifically to the pipeline. We of the United Party can truthfully say that we pleaded and begged for this pipeline for years. Our pleas were in vain. This Minister and this Government were dead against the pipeline. They would not hear of it. They thought we were mad to ask for it. Eventually, in one of the most difficult operations we have ever had to perform, we entered through the skull of the Minister concerned and we penetrated with the idea that this pipeline should be built. The Minister said—and we can forgive him— that the pipeline would be built, but that it would be built by the Railways. We said: Build it, as long as it is built. So he built it, at a cost of R23½ million. It came into production in November two years ago.

In the first four months of its operation it earned some R4 million. Last year the Minister estimated that it would earn R15½ million against an expenditure of less than R3 million. Now he has found that he has had to revise those estimates for the current year. He now expects to earn R17½ million against an expenditure of slightly less than he originally estimated. No doubt that is great efficiency. I am not arguing about that. Next year, as the pipeline is used more extensively, the Minister tells us that he expects to earn almost R23 million against an expenditure of R3½ million. He expects a profit of virtually R20 million. This pipeline is not yet in maximum use. The profits will rise even more. We find that it now costs the Minister 1c to convey a gallon of petrol from the coast to Johannesburg, but he charges 7c. I put it to you, Sir, as a fair impartial judge: If any member of this House were to start a private business and exploited the consumer to the extent of 700 per cent profit on his running expenses, what would Parliament do?

Make him a Cabinet Minister.

If he was not in the running for a post in the Cabinet, Parliament would invoke the Monopolies Act against him. It would call in the price controller and an army of bureaucrats to stop him from exploiting the people to this extent. But the Government does it with impunity. Surely something is wrong. Half the motor vehicles in South Africa are concentrated in this area. Most of the wealth of South Africa is produced in this area. This community of the Southern Transvaal and the Northern Free State now has to be selected for such exploitation. That is all you can call it—wicked exploitation. The Minister should be ashamed of himself. Surely, with the application of the new rating policy, as suggested by the Schumann Commission, the Railways must progressively become less dependent upon this single source of income and we should be able to look forward to a reduction in the pipeline rate and the Railway rate as well in regard to petrol. I was interested to see a few days ago that an American company operating in the United Kingdom reduced the prices of its products to the people. The result is that the price of petrol in Britain has fallen by 5d. a gallon for some fuels. The comment in the British Press was that this was one of the greatest break-throughs in the fight against inflation and the fight against the economic problems of Britain. Here in South Africa the Minister of Transport has in his hand a weapon to reduce the costs of more than half the people of South Africa in a manner which is not only justifiable, but which is necessary in the name of justice. So again I cannot understand how the Minister can announce this in his Budget speech, how he can tell us about this, without blushing. He does not hold out any prospect for the motorist of the future either. If it was so that the South African road user or motorist is not already making his contribution to the cost of transport in South Africa, one would still forgive the Minister. I remember reading a year or two ago a book by, I think, Professor Verburgh on transport —he is from Stellenbosch—and he pointed out then that the total expenditure on roads in rural and urban areas in 1963—’64 was R98 million, which is a tremendous amount. He also pointed out that highway users, who are mostly the motorists of South Africa, the private transport users—and not the road motor services of the S.A.R. & H., by the way —were contributing to that R80,300,000 through motor fuel taxes and motor vehicle fees. They also contributed another R29 million in customs and excise duties on vehicles, parts, tyres, etc. That is an excess over the costs of providing the facilities they need in order to use their vehicles, of R11.200,000. This community is singled out by the hon. the Minister to solve the financial problems of the S.A.R. & H. I say that it is essentially unjust, it is essentially unfair.

Your proposition is not correct.

Which proposition of mine is not correct? Therefore I say what I said when I started. While there was reason for relief regarding the Budget which the Minister delivered, there was also scope for much criticism. The Minister will hear about that as this debate progresses. In the meantime I want to emphasize the points contained in this amendment, directly and by implication. Firstly, whether this transport monopoly which the Minister controls on behalf of the Government is making its maximum contribution to increasing the national product of South Africa; secondly, whether this Government and the Minister particularly are doing what is necessary to assist employees of the Railways Administration to overcome the problems created by inflation—the Government is not free from blame for the inflationary situation in South Africa; thirdly, I want to highlight the needs of our Railway pensioners, because they should get some relief, being the most deserving section of our people to-day; and finally, I want to call upon the Government to lighten the unconscionable burden placed upon the users of motor vehicles in the inland areas of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, before attempting to reply to the speech made by the hon. member for Yeoville, a speech which did not really contain much, allow me to say that this side of the House, including myself, are as glad as the hon. the Minister is that his important right-hand man, i.e. the General Manager of the Railways, has recovered to such an extent. We want to ask the Minister to wish him strength, fortitude and good health on our behalf in the major and important task which lies ahead of him.

We have been listening to the hon. member for Yeoville for almost an hour. It is interesting to note that when the hon. member said a few words last Wednesday in reply to the hon. the Minister’s Budget, he used these words—

The hon. member has again referred to it very briefly in his speech this afternoon. He went on to say—

I should now like to ask the hon. member whether he still adheres to that statement he made?

Yes.

The hon. member says he does. I think he has, in the meantime, read what the leading article in the Sunday Times had to say. It is no wonder he changed his tune so quickly. The Sunday Times is actually the …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is the hon. member allowed to quote from newspaper cuttings on this debate in the House?

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

One of the English-language newspapers, one of the newspapers which support the hon. member and his Party, was full of praise last Sunday for the Budget introduced by the Minister of Transport. The article pointed out that although the Minister had definitely had the opportunity of becoming Minister of Finance, he had chosen to remain Minister of the Railways so as to render his services to the Railways.

I should now like to elaborate on this and point out to the hon. member what this Budget really implies as far as the attempt to combat inflation is concerned. I can understand that on Wednesday he had been unable to make a study of the Minister’s speech, but I nevertheless assume that the hon. member has in the meantime read through the hon. the Minister’s speech. I want to quote to the hon. member what the Minister said on page 22 of the speech. He said the following—

I repeat, Sir, that the Estimates provide for the lowest per centage of expenditure which has to be voted from revenue, i.e. an increase of 5.84 per cent. The Minister went on to say—

Now I am asking the hon. member whether this is not an attempt to stop inflation? What right does the hon. member have to say that the Minister has not, with these Estimates, done everything possible to try and stop inflation?

I also want to point out to the hon. member that the Railways has over the past few years in every possible and impossible way tried to do everything to increase productivity, to plan ways and means of running the Railways in the most economical way possible. I should also like to point out to him that the following is stated in the report of the General Manager, on page 4—I do not know whether he has read it; I do not think he reads much, he merely has a lot to say—

Here we have the achievements which they attained. They transported a tremendously increased tonnage despite the shortage of staff.

I then come to my second point. The Minister has, where he had a deficit of R5.9 million at the end of the year, made good that deficit out of the Rates Equalization Fund. He did not try and recover that deficit by increasing the tariffs. I now want to ask the hon. member whether that is not an attempt to stop inflation? But the hon. the Minister did it in this way, and not in the way the hon. member for Yeoville advocated he should do. He recovered the amount at a time when the Rates Equalization Fund could afford it, because the Fund at present stands at more than R35 million.

I come now to the point made by the hon. member, i.e. the reasons why he stated that this House should decline to go into Committee of Supply. One of the provisos is, “unless the Government assists employees”, and I take it that that is to be done by increasing wages and salaries. If that is not done the Opposition declines to go into Committee of Supply. I think the hon. member ought to be ashamed of himself for posing here at this stage as the great champion of Railway staff.

He wants to catch votes.

Yes, perhaps. But personally I think that the hon. member is in fact the arch-enemy of the staff. What would the position have been if the Minister of Railways had listened to his advice last year, which was that the tariffs should not be increased but that the deficit should preferably be recovered from the Rates Equalization Fund? Let me draw you a sketch. In 1965-’66 the Rates Equalization Fund, after the deficit of R13.9 million had been recovered from the Fund, stood at R41.225 million. The Minister had a deficit of R5.9 million at the end of the 1966-’67 year. That left the Fund with a credit balance of R35.3 million. But what would have happened if the hon. the Minister had accepted the advice of the hon. member for Yeoville? He pleaded that—and this was actually the main attack of the Opposition last year—tariffs should under no circumstances be increased, and if they had had the power to reject it, they would have done so, but fortunately they were in the minority. What would have happened if the Minister had accepted his advice and had not, over the last seven months of 1966-’67 obtained this increased revenue from increased tariffs, i.e. R27.5 million? We would then have ended up with a greater deficit, a deficit of at least R27.5 million. The Rates Equalization Fund would then have stood at R7.8 million, and if the Minister had not received the increased tariffs for the full 12 months, and if the circumstances had remained the same and we transported the same tonnage as in the previous year, the Minister would not have been able to budget for a small surplus of plus/minus R½ million, his revenue would then have been less by R46.3 million, which is the total revenue from 12 months’ tariff increases. If my calculations are correct, what would the position of the Fund then have been? There would then have been a deficit of R38.5 million. It would have been even greater than that because costs increase every year. But now the hon. member for Yeoville is pleading for higher salaries. I can inform him that a certain Mr. J. R. Benecke, the secretary of the Federal Council of the various Railway trade unions, stated in a Sunday newspaper that they were going to claim R20 million more in salaries as from 1st October, 1967. Suppose the Minister were to consider acceding to those demands—I do not want to say he is going to do so; that is something for him to decide—then we would, during this year, have had an additional expenditure of another RIO million within six months. That would have resulted in a deficit of almost R50 million in the Rates Equalization Fund. That is what would have happened if the Minister had accepted the foolish advice of the hon. member for Yeoville. However, the Minister did not accept it. He was forced to increase the tariffs—he had no option, with the result that on 31st March, 1967. the Rates Equalization Fund will stand at R35 million. I now want to tell the hon. member that he can forget about trying to drive a wedge between the present Minister of Railways and the Railway staff. They know him too well. The Railway staff know very well what they have in the present Minister of Railways, Uncle Ben, as they call him. This is not the first time they have asked for increased salaries and wages. Sir, I can read to you a long list of concessions which have been made to Railway staff since 1948-’49. The total amount voted for increased salaries and wages and allowances since 1948-’49 amounts to the tremendous total of R193 million. No, if I can give the hon. member some good advice, then it is that he should leave this matter to the hon. Minister of Railways and the Railway watchdogs, the staff associations with their Federal Council. I have frequently pointed out in this House that the Minister does not determine the salaries and wages of the staff; he does not ram them down their throats. He meets the representatives of the staff associations; they put their case to the hon. the Minister and the Minister explains his problems to them, and they then come to an agreement. They then decide whether it is time salaries and wages were increased or whether they should remain unchanged. I therefore want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville that the arguments which he raised here this afternoon will make no impression on the Railwaymen. The hon. member for Yeoville said in the second part of his motion that the House declines to go into Committee of Supply unless the Minister undertakes to improve and increase the pensions of Railway servants. Sir, I am astonished at the fact that the hon. member can come forward with a motion like this, because when I recall what the former United Party Government did for these Railway servants as far as pensions and wages were concerned, then I am ashamed to think that a White Government treated fellow Whites in this country in that way. We all know, and the Railway servants also know, that the present Minister has increased their pensions considerably. All one need do is go and discuss this matter with the Railway staff and ask them whether they are satisfied. I have discussed this matter with numerous Railway servants. Of course nobody is ever entirely satisfied; we all continually want more, but I can assure the hon. member that the Railway servants are very satisfied with the tremendous improvements which have taken place. The hon. the Minister has even taken care of Railwaymen’s widows. There was no such thing as a widow’s pension in the days of the old United Party Government. A meagre little pension was subsequently introduced but it was so small that no widow could live on it. In this respect the position has changed considerably. I want to point out that this Government has even taken care of the white railway servants who receive the lowest remuneration …

He did admit to that.

I am surprised to hear it. The railway pensioner receiving the lowest remuneration is to-day receiving a minimum pension of R92 per month, provided he is a married person, but it is not the hon. member for Yeoville or the former United Party Government which he has to thank for that. No, it is the present Government and the present Minister of Railways whom he has to thank for that. Where a railway servant would normally have received a pension of R35 per month, his pension is now being supplemented with an allowance of R35 and a further special allowance of R22 in order to bring his pension up to the minimum of R92 per month. If one compares this figure of R92 per month with the old-age pension of R60 per month for a married man, then the hon. member for Yeoville has no right to say that the Minister is not looking after the interests of the railway officials.

Look at the pensions paid to its employees by the Chamber of Mines.

Yes, compare the pensions paid to railway servants with the pensions paid to mine-workers, who endangered their lives.

Sir, if there is one hon. member in this House who does not have the right to pose here as the champion of the railway servants, demanding higher salaries and wages, then it is that same hon. member for Yeoville, because how can any Minister of Railways increase wages and salaries when the Rates Equalization Fund displays a deficit of approximately R50 million, which would have been the position to-day if that hon. member’s proposal had been accepted? The hon. member has repeated the story here that the tariff should never have been increased. He re-emphasized it here this afternoon. He cannot deny what I am saying here; it is the gospel truth. I now want to ask the hon. member whether he does not think that the amendment he moved here formerly was a foolish, stupid amendment? If he is afforded another opportunity, will he again introduce such a foolish amendment?

The hon. member for Yeoville has attacked the Minister because he has allegedly budgeted so badly. Sir, I want to compliment the hon. the Minister. The hon. member for Yeoville said that there is a deficit when the Minister budgets for a surplus, and that there is a surplus when he budgets for a deficit. We on this side of the House want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the way in which he consulted all the interested parties before drawing up his estimates. Suppose the entire mealie crop were to be destroyed by frost? Would it be the hon. the Minister’s fault if he loses that traffic? I just want to point out to the hon. member that it is not so easy to draw up a budget. I think the hon. the Minister succeeded very well in drawing up his estimates very securely, particularly if one takes into consideration the fact that one never knows what might happen during the course of the year.

I want to raise one important matter here, i.e. the shortage of water which had arisen in the country. I should very much like to know how much extra it cost the railways to transport water to stations and points where locomotives could refill with water. It must have been a considerable amount. There was a shortage of water at numerous stations, with the result that load after load of water had to be conveyed per train to those stations, to keep the wheels of the railways turning. The Administration solved that problem and I want to congratulate the Administration for succeeding, under these difficult circumstances, in keeping the wheels of the railways effectively in motion. [Interjections.] Apart from water which was conveyed by train, water was also conveyed to the various stations and points where locomotives must take in water, by farmers, municipalities, etc. I return now to the argument raised by the hon. member for Yeoville that the tariffs should not have been raised. His argument is that the increase in tariffs brought about a tremendous increase in the cost of living. Let us just consider briefly how increased railway tariffs contributed to the increased cost of living. The hon. member must bear in mind that there was a drought and that these were difficult years. I myself am a potato farmer and I received almost R3 for a bag of potatoes. The index for foodstuffs increased tremendously. It increased from 100 in October, 1958, to 122.3 in December, 1966, but it decreased again in January, 1967. It is at present standing at 121.9 That is in respect of foodstuffs. I admit that the index for ordinary commodities also increased. In 1958 it was 100 and in January, 1967, it stood at 119.8, but did the railways contribute to such a great extent to that increase? I want to mention a few items here. I just want to point out that the increased tariff in respect of a 25-lb. bag of wheat flour was increased by 7 per cent. Do you know what this increase resulted in? It resulted in an increase of .075c. In respect of meat the tariff was not increased, but the drought occasionally caused the price of meat to soar. That is not the Minister’s fault. There were no tariff increases. The tariff in respect of a 10-lb. bag of mealie-meal was increased by 5 per cent, and the price was increased by .15c. Is that much? The tariff in respect of butter was increased by 19 per cent and the price of butter was increased by .77c per lb. The hon. member for Durban (Point) is probably very fond of cheese, eggs and milk. Let us take the case of eggs. The price of eggs was increased by .58c per dozen. I therefore think that he will be able to eat dozens of eggs. As a result of the tariff increase, the price of rice was increased by .031c per lb. Potatoes increased by .014 per lb., and tomatoes increased by .013 per lb. Sugar increased by .220c per lb. I want to mention further examples to prove that the arguments of hon. members are unfounded. It is true that petrol was increased by 2.61c per gallon. In the proposed tariff it increased by .874c. That is one point which the hon. member for Yeoville made, but I am convinced that when the Minister replies to him, he will have a good reply ready. [Interjections.] Personally I am able to give a reply but I do not think that it falls to me to do so. I think the Minister should afford that reply, but I have a good idea why it is being done. I now want to refer briefly to the other bread and butter items. The tariff on cloth material was increased by .01 per cent. I now want the hon. member for Yeoville to listen to this interesting figure. The tariff was increased by .01 per cent. Do you know what that means? It means that if a man’s suit cost R40 he will, as a result of this increased tariff, have to pay R40 plus 1c. But now, the question arises— and I think this could be profitably investigated by the Government, whether commerce is playing the game. Is commerce not exploiting the consumer somewhat? I read an article in one of the English language Sunday newspapers in which a housewife wrote a long article about how they were being exploited. That is another matter. [Time Expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I waited for half an hour for the hon. member for Bethlehem to start making his speech. Towards the end of it I realized why he was not making a speech. He said that the Minister would answer this side of the House and he was waiting for the Minister to answer and it was not his job to answer. It was, of course, quite clear because he was obviously waiting for somebody else to answer the hon. member for Yeovilie because he was not able to answer himself. In fact I have to say that the hon. member’s speech was so weak that it needed two crutches to get off the ground. Let us look at the points that the hon. member made. He started off by saying that the hon. member for Yeovilie had referred to inflation last Wednesday when he made a few preliminary remarks, after the hon. the Minister had delivered his Budget speech. Since then we have been hearing reams and reams of figures to show how little the Budget had affected the cost of living. Except of course for an odd 2c here and an odd ½c there which will all accumulate. What he carefully failed to answer was the claim of the hon. member for Yeovilie that the railwayman and the railworker were struggling against inflation and the rising cost of living and that the hon. the Minister and the Government were responsible for assisting these Railways employees in meeting the rising costs of living and in meeting the inflation which was pressing them down. We did not get a word from the hon. member on that except to say how well the railwayman was being treated. No Government has done so much for the railway worker. He has never been so well off. That was the implication of the hon. member’s speech. He attacked this side of the House and said, “What right have you to plead for the worker? Look what the Government has done.” He then quoted some globular figures of what had been done for the railway worker. Mr. Speaker, I will tell you what would have happened if this side of the House were in power. The railway worker would not be struggling as he is to-day. [Interjections.] I am going to deal with that in some detail. I cannot hear what the hon. member for Brakpan is saying. He is obviously worried about “Kaffirs”. I do not know why, but I am dealing white railwaymen. I am not interested in his “Kaffirs” at the moment. I am dealing with white railwaymen and their interests. Then the hon. member for Bethlehem said that it was not the Minister’s fault that there was a drought and that for that reason less mealies had been transported.

I did not say that.

The hon. member said that he was surprised that the United Party did not blame the Minister for the drought.

Last year.

Yes, last year. I am talking about last year’s drought. That hon. member is so far behind in his thinking, the hon. member who is making so much noise behind me, that he will never catch up anyway. The hon. member for Bethlehem made a clear and specific reference to the drought and its effect on traffic which had to be carried. He referred specifically to maize. Does he deny it?

Last year.

Yes, that is correct, out he made the speech now.

No.

He referred to it this afternoon. Sir, I know it is difficult for a man who is 12 months in arrear with his thinking. It takes him a long time to catch up. I suggest that if the hon. member waits a few hours, he will be able to look at his Hansard. He will then catch up with himself and he will realize what he said.

I said at the time of the drought that water had to be carried.

The hon. member can look at his Hansard and then he will find out what he said. I realize that it is difficult for him to remember, but I made a note at the time which reads: “droogte, mielies”. If the hon. member thinks that by conveying more maize it will help railway finances …

I did not mention that.

We shall look at the hon. member’s Hansard. If he did not say it, Sir, it is quite obvious that he did not know what he was talking about either, because it does not make sense unless he said it.

I want to deal with the other aspect raised by the hon. member, with specific reference to the Minister’s Budget. I do not want to waste more time on the hon. member for Bethlehem. It is a rather unproductive investment, trying to follow his so-called argument. The hon. the Minister has laid before the House a Budget with which it is our responsibility to deal this afternoon. When one has studied the Budget, it appears to be a Budget of “noes” and “nots”. It is important for what it does not do.

Noughts and crosses.

Yes, they are all noughts. There are not many crosses. If one studies it, one finds that the first thing the Minister says is that he is anticipating no slow-down in the national economy. He anticipates approximately an 8 per cent increase in consumer demand for manufactured products, and a 9.2 per cent increase in the gross domestic product. In other words, he starts off with a vote of no confidence in the measures being taken by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Economic Affairs to slow down economic development and to cope with inflation. We accept that vote of no confidence. I shall leave that for the moment, because that is not the point I want to make. The point I want to get to is the Minister’s complaint that the Railways will not share in this continued economic development to the same extent that it used to. The comparison he used was that the Railways had always been a barometer of South Africa’s economic progress, but that that was no longer so. Whilst there was an expectation of approximately an 8 or 9 per cent increase in consumer demand, the Railways only expected to benefit by some 4 per cent in their revenue as a result of that progress. In other words, we start this Budget with an acknowledgment that the Railways do not anticipate getting their fair share of the benefits of progress and of economic development.

I was referring to high-rated traffic.

Yes. the hon. the Minister tied it to high-rated traffic and then went on to say that one of the reasons was that factories were moving close to the markets. They were moving the production centres to the concentrations of population and therefore that affected high-rated traffic. That meant that the Railways would not get more than approximately half of the benefit of the development which he was anticipating. Surely the fact that factories are moving to the concentrations of consumers is the Minister’s own fault. It is his own rating policy, which has low-rated traffic for raw material and high rated traffic for the manufactured article which has led to this.

Do you want me to reverse it?

I want the Minister to find a balance. The Minister must not complain when his own rating policy creates a response from industry which harms the Railway economy. It is a vicious circle. The Minister’s policy has resulted in factories moving to the concentrations of population, which has harmed the Railways—always in a circle. The Railways will just go on losing more and more unless, as the hon. member for Yeoville said, the Government intends to force decentralization of industry to assist Railway finances. I do not believe that that is the motive, but it may have some slight effect. The point is that the Minister cannot expect an improvement through something which his own rating policy is causing. That is the starting point from which he approaches his Budget. When you study it, you find that there is no change in his anticipation of traffic growth. There will be continued expansion in volume, although not in high-rated traffic. Thirdly there will be no slow-down in the economy. There will be no improvement in Railway finances as a result. There will be no change in traffic growth, no increase in staff, in fact a decrease in staff. There will be no wage increase, other than a .1 per cent increase, in salaries and wages, no decrease in the overtime burden of the staff and no solution of the staff shortages. There will be no relief from the cost of living burden, and despite all the pretty words about productivity no really imaginative productivity programme. There was a 3 per cent increase in productivity despite all the modern mechanical aids which were introduced last year. Productivity is not due solely to the amount of work done. Mechanical aids come into the picture. The hon. member for Bethlehem referred to the General Manager’s report. It quotes a productivity increase of 3 per cent. That includes the effect of mechanical aids. There is no relief for pensioners as the hon. member for Yeoville mentioned, and no relief for the user of petrol. There are the “noes” and “nots” in the Budget. It just seems to puff along on the same old track. The staff keep it going. The Minister thanks the staff and that is all they get. They get a word of thanks at the end of his Budget speech for the work which the staff is doing. They get a raise every five years just before the election and then there is a battle whilst that raise is swallowed up by the rising cost of living, and ultimately the wage earner is left behind, a situation already reached now as we debate this Budget. The cost of living has overtaken and left behind the increases which the Railwaymen enjoyed.

Let us look at the position of the staff. As I have said, they get the thanks, but the Minister is forecasting an increase of 7.4 per cent in Railway revenue, of 5.3 per cent in Harbour revenue and 12.2 per cent in Airways revenue. In other words, he is anticipating an increase in traffic and in revenue as well. Let us see what it means to the staff. There is a .5 per cent reduction in the total number of staff to carry this greater burden and this greater traffic which they are going to have to handle according to the Minister’s own Budget speech. There is not even an economic reward for the extra work which those people are going to be required to do. The increase in total wages is R787,000 or .1 per cent. That is the total increase in wages. That works out for the 242,000 Railway workers at the princely sum of 25c each per month, i.e., R3 per year. Yet the Railway worker is expected to handle 7.4 per cent more traffic. That is taking the revenue figure, because that is the only figure we have in the Budget speech to go by. There are, however, fewer workers who will have to handle it, and they will receive the magnificent extra remuneration of 25c per month. Yet, in the Minister’s memorandum before the foreword to the Estimates of Expenditure, almost every single head shows the increase in budgeting as being due to wages.

Let us look at these heads. In Head No. 1 there was a decrease of R460,000. According to the Explanations of Variations, “These decreases are offset by additional provision for salaries and wages, mainly as a result of annual scale increments and allowances.” That was in respect of General Charges. Head No. 2 deals with Maintenance of Permanent Way and Works. The Explanation says that “The additional provision is due to an increase in the salary and wage bill, mainly as a result of annual scale increments and additional staff (R3,478,822)”. That is an increase of R3i million. Head No. 3 refers to “Maintenance of Rolling Stock.” The Explanation reads as follows, “The increased provision arises from … (various items) … and an increase in the salary and wage bill, principally as a result of annual scale increments and bonus payments.” Head No. 4 refers to Running Expenses. The Explanation says that “an amount of R2,776,150 of the additional sum required under this head is accounted for by the salary and wage bill”. The Explanation to Head No. 5 says that “The increased provision is required principally to meet an increase in the salary and wage bill …” The explanation regarding Head No. 6—Superannuation Fund— states that the contributions increase is “mainly due to increased membership”. The Head No. 7 Explanation refers to “Overtime and Sunday time payments and changes in personnel.” Head No. 8 refers to Depreciation and does not affect personnel. Head No. 9— Catering and Bedding Services—refers to “annual scale increments, and overtime and Sunday time”. So it goes on, Head after Head. Virtually every head shows an increase, and the reason given for the increase is an increase in salaries and wages.

Let us look at the Grand Summary of Staff at page 38 of the Estimates. What do we find? We find a total decrease in staff of 1,289, whilst there is a total increase in pay of R787,295. Where are all these increases? We read of them in head after head, one of them being as much as R2½ million—I quoted one of R2½ million. I take Head No. 12, where annual scale increments reflect an increase of R70,847. Yet the Estimates show that there is a wage decrease of R116,000. In other words, Sir, who is trying to bluff who? We are being asked to vote more money for salaries and wages, and yet when one comes to study these documents one finds that the overall picture is one of a reduction in the number of staff whilst there is but a 0.1 per cent increase in wages. Let us take “Engineering”. In “Engineering” there is a drop of 2,500 in staff. That is the one specialist department which requires highly-trained people. There we have 2,503 less employees, whilst there was a drop of R1½ million in salaries. Yet, if one looks at “Maintenance of Permanent Way and Works”, one finds there is an increase of R3½ million in salaries asked for according to the Explanatory Memorandum. So I can take head after head. What it all boils down to is that we are being asked to approve increases whilst the Budget shows only an infinitesimal increase in salaries and less total staff, a position which is completely at variance with the explanation of why increases are being asked for under all these heads. I feel that this is something which the Minister is going to have to explain to this House very carefully indeed. I know what he is going to say. He will say that there were increments paid to these various people while others were reduced. But, Sir, there are fewer people, therefore that increase is shared amongst fewer and the overall figure is less. If the Minister studies the various heads he will find that they refer to increases in staff.

You are a bad accountant.

I may be a bad accountant, but I happen to be able to read a total figure which we are being asked to vote for staff and wages. That is a figure specified, clear and unequivocal.

Let us look at what makes up that figure. Nearly 18 per cent of the total wage bill is in fact overtime and allowances. There is an overtime bill of R48.3 million, simply for overtime, in these Estimates of Expenditure for the coming year. That is 13 per cent of the total. An amount of R21 million is estimated for allowances, which gives us a total of 18 per cent. In other words, 18 per cent of the total wages paid to the Railwaymen of South Africa is for the extra time which they are required to work. The exact figure is 17.9 per cent. Overtime alone is 13 per cent. What it means is this. Workers who are already being strained to the maximum at present are going to be asked to work longer hours harder than ever before, because they are going to be required to handle up to a 7 or 8 per cent increase in traffic with less staff. Therefore their overtime work must go up. The strain on them, the demands made on them, are going to become greater and greater. Already in some departments the amount of overtime demanded of the workers is more than the human frame can stand. I will quote an example which caught my eye as I went through the Estimates. With reference to the tarpaulin depots, 35 per cent of the wage bill is for overtime. The total wage bill is R475,000 whilst the overtime alone is R169,000. I say that an impossible load is being placed on many thousands of Railway workers to-day. Many of them could not exist, they could not come out financially if it were not for the overtime that they are earning. But in order to live, and in order to keep the Railways going, they are being asked to make an effort which the human frame cannot continue to stand. It is affecting morale; it is affecting the number of accidents. I would be interested to know what the accident figure is for the current year. The total accident figure is down for the previous year, although the number of deaths has risen to the highest figure that they have ever been. We have the highest death and injury figure on the S.A.R. that there has ever been. I have not time to quote the statistics which I have here. They are shown in Addendum No. 39 to the General Manager’s report. We have the highest recorded figure for deaths and injuries as a result of accidents on the S.A.R. If one reads the newspapers, virtually every day there is a report of another derailment or accident somewhere. I say that this is part of the toll of over-straining the physical limit of endurance which is demanded by overtime in the Railways.

If one goes on to analyse the staff breakdown, it seems that the preponderance of supervisory staff is growing. In the General Manager’s Office alone, for instance, there is one person per 100 staff employees; 1 per cent of the total employees on the Railway are in the General Manager’s Office. There are 2,392 in that office, as against a total staff of 242,000. In Airways the administrative and superintendence wage bill alone is R2½ million, and flying wages amount to R1.5 million, just over half the cost of superintendence, and that leaves out of account ground staff, field staff, maintenance and everything else. One must be careful that in trying to cut down one does not cut down productive employment, but these figure would seem to indicate that here is a field in which greater care could be taken in keeping down the figures.

In the few moments left to me I want to touch on the aspect of Airways where, for the first time in many years, I feel it is not possible to congratulate the hon. the Minister, as it has been my privilege to do year after year, on what the Airways are doing. Last year I warned the Minister and questioned him on whether he was planning for the increase the Airways could expect. The Minister answered me in Col. 986 of Hansard of 18th August, saying that he thought they would be able to cope with passenger traffic for a considerable number of years. That is a matter of five months ago. Already the Airways are unable to cope with internal traffic. Here I want to keep a promise. I promised to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister, and I want to thank him sincerely, because only on Friday he was able to secure a seat for me on a plane when I was unable to obtain a reservation. But we are not all so fortunate as to have such generous and friendly acquaintances. I thank him for it publicly, but I feel that it is an indication of the extent to which the Airways is unable to cope, if one has to go to a Minister to get a seat in order to keep an urgent appointment. [Interjections.] I feel that we are failing to make provision far enough ahead. Every day, and particularly over weekends, the average person cannot get a booking unless he books well ahead of time. The solution which the Minister gives is not borne out by the Brown Book. The Minister spoke of the planes which would be coming in, but according to the Brown Book there is a different picture. I have not the time to deal with it now. but we will deal with it in the Committee Stage and then I hope the Minister will be able to reconcile what he is asking us to vote and what he has told us in his Budget speech we can expect. This is an unsatisfactory state of affairs which I believe will require further consideration during the later stages of this debate.

I therefore support the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville because I believe that this Government has not played the game with its employees or with its pensioners, and this budget is an unimaginative and an unjust budget.

The hon. member who has just sat down did not have many kind words for the hon. member for Bethlehem after the latter had made his speech. I do not want to be equally unkind to him. I think the best part of his speech was when he thanked the hon. the Deputy Minister for having done him the favour of obtaining a seat for him.

Those were the only words you were capable of understanding— “Thank the Minister!”

He said in his speech that if they had had the opportunity, i.e. the United Party, Railway employees would have found themselves in a much better position. That statement was tested not even one year ago and I think the United Party was extremely disappointed with the outcome of that test. Instead of that party, the grand champions of the Railway employees, having received more support from those people, it received less. [Interjections.] That belies the words of the hon. members for Durban (Point) and Yeoville that there had been no increases for Railway employees. It is not important whether there were increases prior to the election. They were in fact given increases, but you alleged that they had not been given increases. They received R35 million prior to the election, and that is a tremendous increase.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) said that there had been no retrogression in our economic development. In that he is correct; there has been tremendous progress, but in spite of that our Railways have always been able to cope with all traffic and there has never been any congestion of traffic. If the hon. member had taken the trouble to find out what the position was during the critical times brought on by the severe drought which we have just experienced, he would have known that there had been no congestion of traffic. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Durban (Point) supported the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville as far as salaries and pensions were concerned. Very well, he had to do so because he is a member of the Opposition and could not do anything else. However, when it came to the cost of living, we heard a plea for tariffs to be reduced. The hon. member for Bethlehem furnished a considerable number of figures in order to prove that the effect of the increase in tariffs was really minimal. However, hon. members opposite pleaded one after another for a reduction in tariffs and in the same breath they pleaded for increased wages. How is it possible to reconcile these two things? Surely it is an economic impossibility to do so. Had they wanted to increase tariffs as well as wages, I would have agreed, but to plead for reduced tariffs and for increased wages is nonsensical; it cannot be done.

The hon. member also spoke of overtime and Sunday time. It is true that the railway man is asked to work a considerable amount of overtime and Sunday time.

Much too much.

I represent a constituency, and there are many other members here who also represent constituencies, in which more than half the number of voters are railwaymen. If the railwaymen felt that they had to work too much overtime or Sunday time, one would surely have expected them to address letters to their representatives in which they stated: “Sir, we cannot keep it up any more; we are tired; more staff must be appointed to assist us.” I do not know what the experiences of other hon. members in this regard are, but I can assure you that not one railwayman has complained to me that he has to work too much overtime or Sunday time. On the contrary, there are a few people who would like to work more overtime and Sunday time.

The reason for that is that they cannot live on their wages.

The wages of railwaymen were increased prior to the last election and the time will arrive when their wages will be increased again.

Prior to the next election.

Yes, if necessary.

No, the hon. member is now being very unfair. It will be possible to increase wages again when the national economy can support it, when there is a large surplus, but one cannot increase wages when the Railways show a deficit of R11 million. However, I do not want to react more to the interjection made here by the hon. member for Durban (Point). To my mind the important question is whether the railwayman is satisfied at present. My reply to that question is a short and to the point, “yes, he is satisfied”, because we as representatives of constituencies in which there are large numbers of railwaymen do not receive any serious complaints from them. One does in fact receive less serious complaints in regard to matters such as transfers. A railwayman may want a transfer from, say, Kimberley to De Aar or to East London, and if he does not get that transfer he complains to his parliamentary representative. One receives a considerable amount of correspondence of that nature, but one does not receive complaints of a serious nature. As I said before, the question is whether the railwayman is satisfied at present. I often travel by train, and at each station I get off to talk to the station master; I invite conductors and ticket examiners to come and talk to me in my compartment, and when I ask them how things are going, I always get the reply that they do not have any complaints.

The hon. member for Yeoville said that the members of the Cabinet did not come into contact with the man in the street, Sir, virtually every day the Cabinet comes into personal contact with people who are in distress. Recent examples of members of the Cabinet conducting personal investigations are those which were conducted at Upington, at Malmesbury, in the Transvaal and in South-West Africa.

The second question with which I want to deal is whether the Railways are able to convey the traffic offered. To my mind that is the important question. If the hon. member for Yeoville were to make proper inquiries, he would find that there had been no delay in the conveyance of a single animal or of one single ton of goods. I made special inquiries in regard to the conveyance of stock during the drought, and I found that such stock had been conveyed with the utmost dispatch.

Yes, I agree with that, but I find that delays do occur in the ordinary conveyance of animals to the markets.

No, the hon. member is wrong again. Unfortunately for him I dispatch many sheep and I always know exactly when they will arrive at their destination. I am informed two or three days in advance. But let us consider for a moment the extent to which traffic has increased. In 1960 the tonnage of traffic conveyed was just over 70 million; in 1966 the tonnage was just over 93 million. This is the figure for all livestock; it includes slaughter stock and stock conveyed from the drought-stricken areas, and there has never been any complaint about any delay. Then I just want to give the hon. member the figures as regards stock. In 1964-’65 just more than 1 million head of stock were conveyed; in 1965-’66 300,000 more head of stock were conveyed. In other words, great demands were made on the S.A. Railways and the Railways met those demands. Then I come to the question of passenger traffic. Are train passengers satisfied or dissatisfied? My experience has been that they are satisfied. There is an increase in the number of passengers every year. In 1964-’65 425½ million passengers were carried—first, second and third class passengers—and by 1965-’66 the number of passengers had increased to 451 million. In other words, there had been an increase of 25 million within one year. What was the position in regard to passenger traffic in 1948? In 1948 the number of passengers was only 244 million.

That was 20 years ago.

Yes, but over a period of 18 years the number of passengers increased from 244 million to 451 million. That is a tremendous increase.

In order to meet traffic demands the hon. the Minister has launched various schemes from time to time. In this regard I want to refer to the doubling of lines. Lines which used to be single have been doubled and on various sections where trains have had to pull into sidings, the lines have been doubled. In recent times more than 80 miles of new railway links were constructed. On many sections gradients were decreased for the speeding up of traffic. I have in mind the section between Noupoort and De Aar, for instance, the section between Noupoort and Norvalspont. On those sections gradients were decreased and sharp bends were eliminated. Then there is another matter which I should like to mention here, and that is the bridge to be constructed at Bethulie. That will be the largest bridge in the Republic if not in the world. The bridge will be 3,680 feet in length and will be 160 feet high. [Interjections.] No, we are building the dam below the bridge. The dam must be below the bridge. The hon. member probably does not know that water rises in a dam.

I should like to say a few words about staff conditions. We were told here that shortage of staff was being experienced; that is true; there is a shortage of staff, and it is also true that the S.A. Railways experience tremendous competition from the business world. That does not only apply to the Railways but also to the Public Service. It is a daily occurrence on the Railways and in the Public Service that they lose employees who are offered higher wages in the private sector. If a private employer offers a Railwayman on increase of, say, R300, it is obvious that the S.A. Railways cannot offer him an increase of R300 in order to retain his services, because that will mean that increases have to be given throughout the Railway service. It is impossible to do so and for that reason the S.A. Railways are losing some of their best people. When Railway employees leave the service those vacancies must be filled, and that is done by engaging the services of pensioners who still enjoy good health and the services of married women. Railwaymen who retired at the age of 63 are re-employed. But in spite of a shortage of staff, the wheels of the Railways have been kept turning and there have been no delays.

I have already referred to the fact that the United Party strongly objects to the increased cost of living. The United Party wants Railwaymen to be compensated for the increased cost of living by an increase in their wages. The hon. member, who unfortunately is absent at the present moment, referred, inter alia, to petrol. That is true, but a profit is not made on all items which are conveyed. High demands are made on any surplusses which the Railways may show. Wages constitute one item which makes demands. Profits are not squandered, but are used in the interests of the Railway staff. I can assure you of that. In that way their incomes are placed on a basis which they deserve, and I may say, fully deserve. It was said here that nothing had been done in regard to the wages of Railway employees. Let us examine what the wages of certain staff were in 1958 and compare that to the wages they are paid at present. In 1958 a Railworker was paid R47.50 as against R105 at present; a shunter R65 as against R160; a clerk R1,330 as against R2,775; a grade I clerk R2,220 as against R3,900; an assistant superintendent R2,460 as against R4,200; a fireman R61 as against R140; a driver R90 as against R185; a station foreman R67 as against R160. These figures give us an indication of the extent to which wages have increased since 1958. Let us compare these increases to the increase in the cost of living since 1958, an increase to which the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Durban (Point) objected so strongly. If we take 100 as a basis for 1958 we find that the cost of living increased as follows in subsequent years: 1959— 4 per cent; 1960—1.8 per cent; 1961—3.7 per cent; 1962—5.3 per cent; 1963—5 per cent; 1964—9.2 per cent; 1965—13.2 per cent; and 1966—17.3 per cent. If we compare these increases to the increase in wages we find that as far as wages are concerned there has been an increase of 100 per cent throughout. We are not denying that the cost of living is increasing—as a matter of fact, the cost of living must increase because wages are increasing; prices of land are increasing, rentals are becoming higher and it is more expensive to build houses. Under those circumstances the cost of living must increase. Therefore we are not denying that the cost of living is in fact increasing, but to allege that the increase in wages has not kept abreast of the increase in the cost of living is simply not true.

Let us consider housing. Housing conditions for the Railwayman in this country used to be very poor. Better provision had to be made for them. Since 1960 this Government has built 15,954 houses. Also in this regard therefore we are looking after the interests of the Railwayman in that attempts are being made to ensure that he will live in a decent house. His standard of living is improving and for that reasons he is entitled to live in a better house. In addition dozens of hostels for young men have been built in all the large centres. Thousands of young men live in these hostels under the supervision of a housefather and a matron who see to it that the residents get good food and lead a good life. I have two such hostels in my constituency and I can bear testimony to the fact that the young men there are very happy.

The United Party maintains that Railway pensioners, too, are being neglected. I naturally admit that they do want higher pension benefits—as a matter of fact, I myself and my hon. friend opposite would most certainly also accept higher pensions if we could get them. The hon. member who made an issue of pensions is not present in the Chamber at the moment and I am sorry about that. I should like to mention a few comparative figures to this House in this regard. In 1948 a grade I clerk received a pension of R550 as against R L275 at present; a driver R433 as against R1.122 at present; a shunter R315 as against R692 at present; an artisan R483 as against R1,181; and a checker R355 as against R1.004 at present. What grounds do hon. members opposite therefore have on which they may allege that pensions have not been improved?I have just mentioned a few examples here and in each case the pensions have been improved by more than 100 per cent. I, too, say that if we can afford to do so, we must give them more, but hon. members opposite should not maintain that nothing has been done in regard to the pensions paid to the Railwaymen. It is unfair to do so.

There is only one request I want to address to the hon. the Minister before I resume my seat. I want to address a friendly appeal to the hon. the Minister, to the General Manager and to his staff to give persons who have committed transgressions—and there are a considerable number of them—another chance. If they transgress again, they will of course not be granted any further indulgence. That would put paid to their further chances.

Now, in concluding my speech, I want to do what the hon. member for Bethlehem did at the beginning of his speech, and that is to congratulate the hon. the Minister on this Budget. It was alleged that his estimates were poor—that he budgeted for a deficit of R11 million whereas his deficit merely amounted to R5 million. For that reason, they said, his estimates were poor. However, any practical person knows that when he has sown a bag of mealies he does not know whether that is going to yield any crop. It is better to understock one’s veld than to overstock it. For that reason I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on having made a conservative estimate instead. If one were to do so and subsequently received a pleasant surprise, we would be delighted. I also want to express my appreciation to the General Manager, his staff and to all Railwaymen who contributed to making such a great success of this undertaking during the year 1966-’67.

Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear the speech of the hon. member for Colesberg. In the time I have been here, he has always followed the same pattern. There is no doubt about the fact that he reads the General Manager’s report very closely. He then quotes it to us most religiously. Both he and the hon. member for Bethlehem appear to be worried about the personnel on the Railways as far as their wages and cost of living allowances are concerned. Both the hon. member for Colesberg and the hon. member for Bethlehem went to great lengths to tell us about the contented staff they have on the Railways. There is no doubt about it. There are numbers of Railwaymen who are very contented. I, like the hon. member for Colesberg, also have a Railway constituency. Quite a number of them are however discontented.

Members of Parliament are not always contented.

That I will admit. When you have a staff such as you have on the Railways, a staff of 242,000 or 243,000, you are likely to find quite a lot of discontent. We have been told of the increases in salaries and wages Railwaymen have had over the years, but I think the hon. the Minister himself will admit—and we know it—that these increases were negotiated over such a long period that by the time they were granted, they were completely out of date. The last time that increases were given to Railwaymen, we told the hon. the Minister that he could sit down and start negotiating immediately for the next rise in wages. The hon. member for Colesberg says: Higher wages, higher rates. That does not necessarily follow. There are other ways of cutting down expenditure. It is not correct to say that, when you pay higher wages, you have to increase the rates. They do not necessarily go together. The hon. member stated that he goes around whilst travelling on the trains and he talks to the Railwaymen. Naturally, because they know the hon. member as they do and they know his position in Parliament, I can well expect any Railwayman speaking to him to say that he is quite happy. He would be a fool if he said anything else, because the hon. member is well known in his constituency. He travels around and he meets many Railwaymen. The hon. member must remember that the last rise in wages was just prior to the election.

It was not taken away after the election.

They have not had anything since. I now come to the hon. the Minister’s Budget. The hon. member for Yeoville has said, and I agree with him, that it is a holding Budget. It is a conservative Budget. The Minister is expecting something good to turn up. He told us last year of the restrictions on import control which affected his Budget as far as high-rated traffic was concerned. This year he tells us that the results of working have not come up to expectations. He said that many products which had formerly been imported were now being manufactured in this country. Of course, there is a lot of truth in that. Rates were increased in the Budget last year. But there is still a deficit of close on R6 million. When one examines the Budget, one finds that provision from Revenue has been made for a sinking fund and a reserve fund. If those funds had not been provided for, the Minister may have been able to present a surplus to this House. The Minister however is hoping to come forward next year with a surplus of R473,000. I agree with the hon. member for Yeoville when he says that it is going to be higher. I think it is going to be very much higher.

I hope so.

The Minister says he hopes so, but I think it is going to be very much higher. Of course, the Minister is rather tied to the main Budget and what the hon. the Minister of Finance is going to do. When he presents his Budget to this House, he may kill the goose that laid the golden egg. We do not know. We just hope that he does not. The Minister has told us that he runs the Railways on business lines. I think that is the policy of his Department, but one is disturbed when one finds that last year he operated the Railways with a loss of something like R25 million. This year he is expecting to operate at a loss of close on R22 million. To make up for the deficiency and to come forward with the surplus he is going to have this year, he is expecting the Harbours, the Airways and the pipeline to make up that deficit. He is expecting to get some R14.594.000 from Harbours, over R5 million from Airways and nearly R20 million from the pipeline. The position is of course not sound. It is a matter to which the hon. the Minister, will have to give serious consideration. One might say that the operation of the Railways is sick. They have run into the red. He has to pull it out of the red. If the Minister were running a public company, he would look for a buyer and off-load his shares. He cannot do that. If he did not have the Harbours under his control, or the pipeline or the Airways, he would be in a very sorry position. He must look at the Schumann Report and he must off-load some of the burden he carries. He carries an extreme financial burden for this country. He will have to look to the Minister of Finance to assist him.

As the hon. member for Yeoville has already said, there is a precedent for this. It has happened as regards the Bantu in the resettlement areas and in the case of the border areas, and he gets various other subsidies from the Central Government. I think the hon. the Minister should go to the Central Government and say Do you expect me to carry the drought and the farmers? One cannot expect the vast sum of money which is needed to operate the Railways to come from one small sector. It must be spread over the whole population. The whole population of this country must be expected to pay for times of distress. He should get some relief. It is interesting to read from the General Manager’s report. Notwithstanding the profit at which the hon. the Minister operates the harbours, the ratio of earnings was only 5.38 per cent. In the case of Airways, it was 6.8 per cent. In the case of the pipeline the figure was .79 per cent. In the case of the Railways, running at a loss, the figure was 87.11 per cent. When one examines the General Manager’s report further, one sees the relationship of expenditure on the graph he has produced. It is interesting to note that 46.98 per cent of the expenditure goes to labour in salaries and wages. He also pays 14.24 per cent on interest on capital.

Let us get back to the hon. member for Colesberg. When the hon. member for Yeoville was asking for better conditions for our labour, he was thinking of a productive wage incentive. It is nothing new as far as the Railways are concerned. We have it in our workshops. They have labour incentives and job evaluation. In order to obtain greater productivity for the money he is spending, the Minister should go into the question of offering the staff some sort of incentive. That is the modern thinking to-day in commerce, where we have to pay such very high wages and salaries. In order to obtain greater productivity, we do offer the worker these incentives. There are no two ways about it, with the shortage of labour and the conditions which we have today—not only on the Railways, we find it everywhere—we have the position that we do not have the productivity which we should have. The Minister has to put up with staff difficulties—in the Western Cape this applies also to the Bantu—he has his difficulties there. I would ask the Minister to give some consideration to the matter of labour incentives. We must realize—as I said at the beginning of my speech—that the last wage increases which he gave the railway staff have become out of date. The increased cost of living has caught up with the increases. The value of the rand is dropping daily. The Minister knows that.

The railwaymen live under the greatest difficulties. These are fixed-salary people. The only relief that they have—and in this regard I listened to the hon. member for Colesberg— is one which is against both the interest of the Railways and of the individual, namely the working of overtime. They have to work overtime. These people have fallen into a system of having to work overtime. Outside the service we have the husband-wife economy, and on the railways we have the overtime economy. Because, Sir, without his overtime the railwayman finds that he cannot exist. So the railwayman, for instance the engine-driver, is forced to look for as much overtime as he can get. The results are to be seen in the newspapers—a train capsizes or some other accident takes place. There it is. Many of the individuals on the railways, including members of the operating staff, are tired men because they work very long hours. I do not say that they are forced to work these long hours. But they do feel the strain of the long working hours.

I now come to the position in the Western Cape. The Minister probably gets tired hearing about it, I notice that a number of deputations have been to see him in this regard. I am referring to the position as far as the Western Cape is concerned regarding the terrific load this part of the country has to bear as a result of the new rating policy. We have the Schumann Commission report on the question of decentralization of industry. But the rating policy of the Minister during last year did not encourage decentralization. He said so in his speech when he said that industries were moving closer to their markets. That is of course a fact. In the Western Cape factories are not really closing down, but instead of expanding they are opening branches very much nearer to their larger markets in this country. It is interesting to know what the effect is on industry in the Western Cape. If one travels about in South Africa and sees the development in industry taking place it makes depressing reading to find that in the Western Cape last year the per centage of new industries established was only 7.4. Figures show that in Cape Town itself 45 per cent of industrial land is still available, land which has not been developed. In Parow the figure is 40 per cent, whilst in Bellville the figure is 80 per cent. In our divisional council area 36 per cent of the land is undeveloped. This position is the result of the very high costs involved, caused mainly by the very high rating policy. Certain figures were extracted by the Chamber of Industries, and they show that the position in the Western Cape as regards railway rates had worsened. As regards the railage from Cape Town to Johannesburg the increase on rate I was 7.9 per cent; from Port Elizabeth it was 3.8 per cent; from East London 3.9 per cent—without allowing for the ten per cent rebate granted to the Ciskei as a border area; and from Durban it was 4.1 per cent. On rate I the gap in railage costs to Johannesburg from Cape Town had been increased by 18.6 per cent, from Port Elizabeth by 17.9 per cent, and from East London—plus the ten per cent rebate in favour of East London—by 17 per cent. The other rates had similarly been affected. In the Schumann Commission report in paragraph 755 it was recommended that the special port rates that apply to Port Elizabeth and East London be done away with. The Minister does not agree with that, and I want to ask him to give some consideration to the Western Cape by also giving us the relief which East London and Port Elizabeth enjoy. Originally this special rate was granted to encourage the use of those harbours. I think that one can say to-day they do not really need any further encouragement because they are both very busy harbours, especially Port Elizabeth.

Talking about harbours, I want to say a few words about our Cape Town harbour. Over the years we have been battling for harbour development in Cape Town. Here we have an enormous commercial fishing industry trying to house itself in this harbour. The Minister has told us over the years that he should like to get rid of this industry. At one stage the Minister was planning the harbour, but then the matter was taken out of his hands and handed over to the Minister of Economic Affairs. Then the Minister of Economic Affairs, whose department was reorganized, was relieved of the matter and it was handed over to the Minister of Planning. There has been much testing. A number of tests have been done in Pretoria, but still we have got no further. As a matter of fact, amongst commercial people the building of the harbour in the Cape is becoming quite a joke, because one sees statements in the papers from time to time. One day one reads that it is to be Rietvlei, the next day that there will be an addition to the present harbour. I think that it is about time we had a decision. A decision is overdue as to what is going to happen to Cape Town harbour. In this year’s Brown Book we read about a major repair berth and a few rand for possible development of the harbour. Apparently nothing much is going to be done. It takes years to build a new harbour of the size that is required in Cape Town. I think that it is about time that the Minister divorced himself from the Minister of Planning and got on with building his harbour. We find that private enterprise is probably going to build a harbour at Saldanha Bay, an outsize dry-dock and an oil-port. I have not seen the figures and I will not argue.

That is a pipe-dream.

I think so too. But notwithstanding that it is a pipe-dream, it shows up the importance of developing Table Bay harbour. I understand that certain overseas companies who own these large tankers actually offered the Government money to build an outsize dry-dock in Cape Town.

No, that is not correct.

Well, we have not seen it denied by the Government.

I am denying it now.

Well, it is about time that we started to build this outsize dry-dock. Because, Sir, our friends the Egyptians are already widening their canal and deepening it because they say they want to pinch the trade we have at Cape Town. Every ship that calls here, even if it only lies out in the Bay, means revenue for the Minister’s department. He knows what happened last year when he levied a very heavy rate on the transhipment of fish. He found he had killed the goose that lays the golden egg and he had to change the levy. But there was a considerable loss of revenue because it took some months before the fishing fleets came back. If one goes into Cape Town harbour to-day one sees the use that is made of the harbour by foreign trawlers. The Minister is earning considerable revenue as a result. But not only the Minister benefits. Industry in Cape Town also benefits because these people buy all sorts of things. Repairs are done. The total revenue from the trawlers does not go into the pocket of the Minister of Transport; the hon. the Minister of Finance gets his share of the money indirectly as well. So I would ask the hon. the Minister to give some consideration to getting on with the building of the Cape Town Docks. As far as the outsize dry-dock is concerned, I know the Minister said that if they wanted to build these large tankers they could not expect him to provide the dry-docks for them. That may be true, but overseas we find that these large dry-docks are also used as wet docks. In Cape Town we have an oil basin for the transhipment of oil. There again it is a wet dock. Overseas these large dry docks, when not in use as such, are used as wet docks. So he can receive a certain amount of revenue from that.

Also, in the Western Cape there is the question of using D. F. Malan Airport as an international airport. We have been told, in answer to questions I put to the Minister, that they have gone into the question of using D. F. Malan and found that it was not necessary.

Order! I do not think airports fall under this Department.

I am talking about aircraft. The reason why they probably do not use D. F. Malan as an airport for the proposed South American and American routes is because of the length of its runway.

Not necessarily.

We find that the Boeings can take 27,000 lbs. payload per aircraft from Jan Smuts as against 7,000 lbs. at D.F. Malan. That makes one think that perhaps that is the trouble, but the position is that these planes flying to Johannesburg have to fly 600 miles more. When a plane is flying over the ocean it must have some safety factor somewhere, and if such a plane got into trouble it would naturally make for D.F. Malan Airport, but we find that this airport probably is not suitable.

The landing offers no problem.

The point I want to make is that if the runways at D.F. Malan are made longer, the plane can carry a bigger load. The plane could then refuel at Cape Town and with the difference in altitude it could carry a bigger load. That does not only apply to S.A. Airways. There are other airlines very anxious to use D.F. Malan. The hon. the Minister uses Windhoek, which has only a 9,000-foot runway. It is used on the international run from Jan Smuts, and apparently 9,000 feet is quite long enough to take a pay-load from there. Surely it is time for him to look at D.F. Malan and to lengthen the runways? On the one side of it there is a big Coloured township being built, and on the other side there is a big national road being built, and so you will be jammed between the road and the township. Now is the time to look at that airport, because you will have to increase the length of the runways.

I think you will have to discuss that with the Minister of Transport.

The Minister of Railways operates the aircraft and we are thinking of the revenue that can be earned. I want to remind the Minister that at one time Cape Town was the gateway to South Africa, and we want it to return to that position. We want to see the Americans who come to this country landing at Cape Town first. The Minister has a Transvaal complex, and as far as he is concerned he leaves from D.F. Malan and flies to Pretoria, but we in Cape Town would like the gateway to South Africa for Americans to be the D.F. Malan Airport.

Order! The hon. member has been out of order now for about five minutes. The matter does not fall under this Department.

Then I hope that the Minister will take it into consideration, and when he discusses it with the Minister of Transport I hope we will get something for the Western Cape.

I thought the hon. member for Salt River would be fair to-day and would confess to the House which of us was wrong last time. Then the argument was whether the rates should be increased or whether, as the hon. member for Salt River and his colleagues then said, we should trust blindly, we should not increase the rates and we should merely wait, and if it was not a good year and the rains did not come, we should simply take the deficit from the Rates Equalization Fund—which of course would have resulted in what the hon. member for Bethlehem told us, a bankrupt Rates Equalization Fund and a colossal loss of some R50 million. But now there is not a word from the hon. member. Last year he told me that I was showing a tremendous lack of confidence in the future of the country. It is not a question of confidence in the country’s economy as far as the hon. member for Salt River and his colleagues are concerned. When did they show any confidence in the future of the country? No, last year it was purely a question of shortsightedness and of not having regard to the realities facing us. It was nothing but ruthless political irresponsibility. But to-day here is not a word from the hon. members, because nothing has gone well for them as far as this debate is concerned. This year they could not put out their tongues at the Minister and say: Look at your surplus; you have over-taxed the people. They could not do that. It rained and the economic conditions improved, and as far as the Opposition is concerned the debate is as dead as a dodo. Even their inflation horse will not trot. Some days ago the hon. member for Yeoville thought that if he gave the old nag another wack, it would at least trot, but over the week-end that horse left him in the lurch completely. The hon. member must have heard what was said here earlier in the year, when the hon. the Minister of Finance told the House that the Financial Times of London wanted to give South Africa the “Oscar” for the country with the best achievements in combating inflation. Now the inflation horse refuses to run. What does the Opposition have to say now? Now the hon. member for Salt River says the Minister should do something to encourage labour productivity in the Railways. But that is in fact one of the outstanding characteristics of the service, the extent to which productivity is achieved. He need only read the reports. If the hon. member had only read the report of the General Manager, he would have seen that in the course of the past five years the labour productivity of the Railways rose from 100 to 110.6 per cent. The hon. member also spoke about the adverse effect the rates structure was having on the Western Cape industries. On that score I should also like to say a few words later, but first I want to come back to what was said by the hon. member for Durban (Point). He made a song and dance and said what a terrible time the poor people were having; the cost of living had exceeded the increase in salaries by far. But that is not so. Only on 18th February a lengthy article by Professor C. G. W. Schumann appeared in the Cape Times, and in it he demonstrated that from 1962-’63 to 1966-’67 the per centage increase in salaries in respect of railway-workers represented 37.89 per cent, whereas the retail index figure increased by 11.86 per cent. What is more interesting about these figures is the fact that apart from the construction industry the increase in the salaries of railways employees for the past five years was higher than in any other industry. In the mining industry it was 25.78 per cent, in the manufacturing industry 30.11 per cent, in the public sector 19.61 per cent, but in the Railways it was 37.89 per cent, compared with an increase of 11.86 per cent in the retail index. Therefore that argument holds no water either.

Then I want to come back to what was said by the hon. member for Yeoville. It seems to me the hon. member is suffering from political amnesia. He said he was grateful that the Minister was not curtailing the capital expansion on the Railways to a large extent; he was pleased that the Minister was undertaking such expansion, because that was in accordance with the pattern established by the United Party in the days of Mr. Sturrock. They did not allow difficult circumstances to deter them; they continued the expansion of the railways. But the hon. member has a conveniently short memory. Can he not remember the attitude adopted by the Opposition in 1960 and 1961, when there was an economic recession in the country, and how one after another the hon. member for Wynberg and the previous member for Jeppes, and the previous member for Port Elizabeth (South), got up and said that we were overcapitalizing the Railways and that we should invest less in it, and that more should be invested in private transport? The hon. member has a most conveniently short memory. But it is hard to follow the hon. members in their criticism, because in the past few railway debates there was so little in their criticism, also in the sense that there was so little that was fruitful and to which the Minister could respond, so much so that lately one has almost felt that one might as well forget about them and go and look elsewhere to see what people have to say about the management of the Railways; one has to go and look for criticism elsewhere. So I went and saw what the newspapers had to say. What do the people say who actually use the Railways? This time the newspapers have also left the United Party in the lurch. All the United Party newspapers are praising the Budget. All that is left now is organized commerce and industry, which have stood by the Opposition fairly steadily. They have always echoed the criticism of organized commerce and industry on the Railways. To-day I want to refer to the criticism from the people outside, in accordance with what we have heard again to-day. I read a few captions which appeared in various commercial publications. In Manufacturer there was an article under the heading, “Railway Rating Policy—a Profound Disappointment”. In Commercial Opinion the following captions appeared: “Industry’s Leader Attacks Railway Rating System,” “Increased Efficiency needed in South African Railways.” The hon. member for Yeoville complained to-day that consignors did not have the right to choose their own form of transport. Six or seven times he referred to the Railways system as a monopolistic transport system, and he asked that the maximum private competition should be allowed. He asked a question with regard to the Marais Commission of Enquiry, and said that the Railways should rather concentrate on the type of traffic for which it is most suitable, namely bulk commodities. He said, furthermore, that not too much emphasis should be placed on the principle of what the traffic can bear, and furthermore he pinned his hopes on the recommendations of the Schumann Commission. The hon. member is probably also under the impression that many of the grievances of organized commerce and industry against the rating policy of the railways will be eliminated if the recommendations of that commission are implemented. Sir, in this regard I should like to read a paragraph from a memorandum submitted to the Marais Commission by an expert committee of the Handelsinstituut (translation)—

Do you see, Sir, here you have the same old United Party argument.

But that opinion was expressed by the Handelsinstituut.

Yes, that is correct; this memorandum comes from my people. I spoke about organized commerce; I do not know whether the hon. member wants me to draw a political distinction between them. This is an old United Party story; all it amounts to is that the Railways should not transport certain goods. What goods should the Railways not transport? Most certainly not the low tariff goods; most certainly not the less profitable freight. Nobody is interested in transporting the less profitable goods. No, what is actually said here by implication and what hon. members of the Opposition say time and again in this House, is that the Railways should give up even more of the small per centage high tariff traffic it is carrying at present. But the very people who advocate that will not be prepared to allow the Minister to meet the losses incurred as a result of giving up revenue from high tariff traffic by increasing the rates on coal and other low tariff goods. No, as it is they are complaining about the increase of 7 per cent in the coal tariff; I shall come back to that later. I should like to class the criticism levelled at the Railways as a whole, both by commerce and industry and by hon. members of the Opposition, under two headings. The first is their criticism of the so-called undue protection enjoyed by the national transport service, and the second is their criticism on the Railways rating system. I want to say to-day that the degree of protection enjoyed by the national transport service enables it to render basic services of the utmost importance to the day-to-day national economy, at a rate which is much lower than it would have been if the national transport service has to compete with the private sector. That is why the rating policy of the Railways is in absolutely close correspondence with the degree of protection enjoyed by the Railways service. The common complaint about the rates structure is that there is an excessive disparity between high tariff classes and low tariff classes; that is one argument. Secondly, it is regarded as unfair that goods should have to carry such a high tariff in order to subsidize other uneconomic freight; those are the two points of criticism as far as the rates structure is concerned, and it is bolstered by the argument that only 17 per cent of the total freight carried is high tariff traffic and that it produces 51 per cent of the revenue. But in the first place I want to point out that in terms of the constitution the national transport service has to render certain basic services. In this regard I want to quote what is said by the Schumann Commission itself—

To fulfil its national task the Railways found it necessary in the past—and I believe they will also find it necessary in future—to render uneconomic services in the interests of South Africa and in order to stimulate economic development. The Railways had to render services at rates which covered only the direct costs to the Railways. If the Railways can cover only its direct costs it actually loses, because the Railways, like any other business concern, also has its overheads, and the overheads of the Railways are tremendously high as a result of the magnitude of the service. Before a rate can be economic, the indirect costs involved in the transportation of the particular traffic should therefore be taken into account. As regards these indirect costs which are to be included in the rates, the Railways have, from many years of experience, developed a most efficient and flexible rating system, a system founded on a simple principle, namely what the transportation of the freight is worth to the consumer.

That brings us to the Schumann Commission report. Sir, not only the hon. member for Yeoville and other Opposition members but many of our businessmen and many of our industrialists pin their hopes on the implementation of the recommendations contained in the report of the Schumann Commission, thinking that their objections to the rates structure of the Railways will then be eliminated to a large extent. As long ago as October, 1964, the congress of the Association of Chambers of Commerce adopted a resolution subscribing to the principles contained in this report, and asked that the recommendations of the Commission be implemented as soon as possible, At that very congress a spokesman for Assocom said the following—

Last year the hon. the Minister intimated that apart from certain specifically mentioned exceptions, these recommendations would be accepted; that some of them would be implemented immediately and that others would be implemented gradually, in course of time, as the Commission had in fact recommended. But we are aware of the fact that when the rates were increased in September last year the Railways gave very serious consideration to the economic conditions prevailing in the country at the time. The rate adjustments were done most judiciously and selectively. Amongst other things it had to be borne in mind that agriculture would suffer tremendously if all uneconomic transport were eliminated immediately, particularly in view of the drought conditions, and that is why we still have Railway rates on the transportation of vegetables, for example, which cover only 75 per cent of the direct transportation costs. The hon. member for Bethlehem has already pointed out that in general the rates on foodstuffs were not increased. Apart from the service rendered by the Railways to agriculture, therefore, it also rendered a wider service, for by these means the cost of living of every household was virtually subsidized. Sir, last year, when the first phase of the implementation of the Schumann Commission’s recommendations was to take place, various factors were taken into consideration. There was, for example, virtually no increase in the rates on export goods. The influence on price levels had also to be taken into account with a view to combating inflation.

It is nevertheless becoming apparent to us that in certain spheres of commerce and industry it is already appreciated that the consistent implementation of the recommendations of the Schumann Commission would not bring them unmixed blessings. Industries in the Western Province have now realized for the first time what a tremendous service the Railways has rendered to them in the past years. Unfortunately the hon. member for Salt River is not in the House at the moment, but I wanted to bring it to his attention that the average increase as regards low tariff goods represented 15.4 per cent, compared with an increase of 10.4 per cent on high tariff goods, and in contrast with that the per centage increase as regards the coal tariff was only 7½ per cent. But even this increase has a tremendous impact because coal is a basic production factor, and for that reason these people felt that the shoe started pressing. The Chambers of Industry started complaining at once to the hon. the Deputy Minister about the effects of these and other increases. After they had been to see the Deputy Minister and had made representations to him, an article appeared under the heading: “No concession on Railway Rates.” Sir, I should like to say a few words about these rates. There was some mention of how the increased tariffs affected the industries in the Western Province. I want to take the highest tariff, tariff No. 1. One of the most important industries in the Western Province is the garment industry. Cape Town’s major market for garments is the Witwatersrand. If one despatches a suit weighing 5 lbs. from Cape Town to Johannesburg, and one takes it that the suit costs R40, the increase in the price of the suit is exactly l½c or .03 per cent.

But let us deal with the coal question, because that is actually the source of complaints. The Railways transports coal at a special tariff —between No. 13 and No. 14, which are among the lowest tariffs. Prior to September, 1961, it was 110.3c a ton. That means, and I say that for the special edification of the hon. member for Salt River, that the Railways transported coal from Witbank to Cape Town at a loss of R1.50 a ton. That is due to the fact that the tariff I have mentioned is profitable only over a distance of 550 miles. Besides, the increase of 7½ per cent did not improve the position. The Railways makes no profit on the transportation of coal—in fact, it does not even cover its expenses. What is the true state of affairs? After the increase of 7½ per cent, the rate is now 143c a ton. Even at that rate the Railways is still transporting coal from Witbank to Cape Town at a loss of almost R1.35 a ton. You see, Sir, that people are only now beginning to appreciate the tremendous service rendered by the Railways to industries in the Western Cape. In an article on transport in Volkshandel of December, 1966, the following was said with regard to coal (translation)—

From what I have said here, it is clear to all of us that when the shoe presses, the argument that one may not levy a rate in such a way that the loss on the transportation of one item may be recovered on another, falls away. Then the slogan we hear so frequently, of “away with all special rates, away with all uneconomic rates”, falls away. It is as plain as a pikestaff that unless the Railways defrays a vast portion of its overheads from its revenue from the small per centage high tariff traffic, it would be compelled to increase all low tariff traffic rates without exception. If the Railways were to abandon the flexibility of its rates structure and it were expected that the indirect costs on each consignment should also be recovered, production costs and prices in South Africa would increase without exception, because Railway rates in South Africa are such an important item in our cost structure. It so happens, and one cannot get away from that, that as a result of the rates structure of the Railways, a structure based on the principle of what the traffic can bear, a tremendous service has been rendered through the years to stimulate development in our country—in particular development in agriculture, in mining and in certain aspects of the manufacturing industry. If one listens to hon. members on the opposite side of the House and to organized commerce and industry, it is clear that these blessings are not always counted. I foresee, however, that if we implemented the recommendations of the Schumann Commission in their full consequences, we would find that many of those who welcomed the recommendations so enthusiastically would be disillusioned. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Parow and the hon. member for Bethlehem seemed to derive much joy from the fact that Railway tariffs were increased last year. Today they are throwing across the floor of the House that last year we of the Opposition objected to it while nothing is heard from us now. They also seem to derive joy from the fact that we did not use the Rates Equalization Fund last year to a greater extent than we did. But I should like to ask the hon. member for Parow whether he is happy because to-day there is still R35 million lying in the Rates Equalization Fund, money which is not being used, while the Government and, for that matter, everybody in the country, is trying to halt inflation? Does the hon. member not agree that the non-utilization of the Rates Equalization Fund was a purely inflationary move?

Nonsense.

Now it is nonsense. The hon. member will be telling us just now that there is no inflation in the country. It is no use hon. members on the other side of the House being so delighted with the rise in rates last year and with the non-utilization of the Rates Equalization Fund, because these two factors were two of the most important factors in increasing inflationary pressures in the country.

Hon. members seem delighted also with the productivity of the Railways. They have quoted certain figures in this connection, figures which show, and quite rightly, that there has been an increase in productivity. However, the question is whether that increase has been sufficient. The hon. member for Parow dealt at great length with the tariff structure, with the principles of rating and with the services rendered by the Railways to the public. But there is a far more fundamental question underlying all these questions posed by the hon. member. I want to deal with the Railways as railways. We are apt to get mixed up in this country because when we talk about the Railways we unthinkingly include many services that are not Railways. When we listened to the speech of the hon. the Minister this year one thing became quite clear, namely that the basic problem is that the Railways are operating at a loss. As a matter of fact, there is very little chance of them operating at a profit. That is so, unless, as the hon. member for Yeoville has said, the hon. the Minister is again pessimistic. This is quite possible but even with a maximum degree of pessimism he cannot in his next Budget change the loss on the Railways into a profit. Until we deal with this problem and straighten it out we shall never be able to meet the point raised by the hon. member for Yeoville that the Railways must make the maximum contribution to the national growth of this country. What now is the factual position? Last year the hon. the Minister budgeted for a deficit. The actual deficit was R5.938 000 —R3.7 million better than he had hoped for. I suppose he is reasonably happy about it.

But we must go a little bit more deeply into the matter and look at the breakdown of this deficit. We find firstly that there was a gross surplus on Railways, Harbours, Airways and the pipeline of R5.718,000. This was derived from a loss on the Railways of R25 million, a profit on Harbours of R13 million, a profit on Airways of R3.47 million and a profit on the pipeline of R14 million. But then we find another breakdown, Mr. Speaker. We find an item: Expenditure on net revenue appropriation accounts of R11,700.000. When you deduct this expenditure on Net Revenue Appropriation Account from the gross surplus we get a deficit on the Budget of R5.9 million. On page 8 of the Green Book there is a breakdown of the Net Revenue Appropriation Account. I think it seems to have got lost on many occasions. What does it all mean? The first item is a contribution to reduce deficiency in pension and superannuation funds of R1,200.000. I think the hon. the Minister of Transport will agree that practically all of this item is applicable to the Railways. The Railways started their first pension fund somewhere around 1912, I think. The Airways and others came into being long afterwards. In any case the greater number of employees of the overall transport association belongs to the Railways.

The next item is a contribution to the Level Crossings Elimination Fund; an amount of R500,000. This, Mr. Speaker, is part of the total annual contribution of R1,500,000 made by Consolidated Revenue, the Railways and the National Road Fund. All this expenditure is basically Railways. It has nothing to do with Harbours, neither has it anything to do with Airways nor with the pipeline. The next item is the contribution to the Betterment Fund: R10 million. What is this Betterment Fund? It is a fund that is provided for financing from revenue certain works where assets are improved. Such expenditure is not interest-bearing. It deals with such things as the additional value of material in laying tracks with heavy rails, better types of sleepers, new material in the place of second-hand material, additional capital involved in strengthening bridges, improvements and additions to quarters, etc., remodelling of station yards, regarding the lines and improving curvatures. Everything under this head, or practically everything, has to do with the Railways. And I think the hon. the Minister will again agree that the R10 million contribution voted to the Betterment Fund really and rightly belongs to the Railways. The next item is a contribution to the Sinking Fund redemption account to the value of R5 million. The redemption fund as we know relates to the capital expended over the different sections of the transport organization. And the Railways is by far the biggest user of capital. I think that in 1965-’66 the proportions were something to the order of R103 million in capital for the Railways and R11 million for all other parts of the transport organization. And this year we have R157 million of which about R16 or R17 million will belong to sections other than the Railways. So that the bulk of this R5 million therefore again is applicable almost entirely to Railways. And the same applies to the contribution to the Sinking Fund reserve account of R900,000. What is the answer? It is that the deficit of the Railways in 1966-’67 was not R25 million but in effect it was very nearly R36 or R37 million. That amounts to a big difference. And if you look at the position for 1967-’68 you find that it is no better. The loss on the Railways is estimated at R21.7 million for 1967-’68. But you have Rl7,661,000 in the Net Revenue Appropriation Account which rightly belongs to the Railways. And you have the same situation that whereas you have a gross surplus on the workings of the Railways, Harbours, Airways and pipeline of R18 million, when you deduct the expenditure on the Net Revenue Appropriation Account you are left with a small surplus of R473,000. So the real deficit on Railway working—and when I talk about Railways I do not mean anything else but Railways—is not R21.7 million but it is very much nearer R39 million. And this is what we are faced with. We are faced with a loss of R39 million and we are expecting the Harbours with their profit of R14 million and the Airways with its profit of R5 million and the pipeline with its profit of R20 million to take care of the loss of the Railways of R39 million and show a small surplus of just under R500.000.

Very often in this House it has been suggested that Airways should be divorced from Railways because railwaymen do not think as airmen do. I do not wish to deal with that aspect. I think the time has come that in the presentation of the accounts we should have a differentiation between Railways, Harbours. Airways and pipelines. We get them in certain details and in certain totals. But they should be treated as entirely separate organizations if we are ever going to know exactly what goes on in each arm of these four services. We do not know how the hon. the Minister allocates his overhead expenses, for instance the general managers’ salaries. We do not know what he does. And we never will know. We are being presented with figures year after year which are completely inexplicable to all of us. It is quite clear that there is one thing that cannot be allowed to happen and that is for the hon. the Minister to go on running his Railways and milking the other arms of his services indefinitely. We have to face up to the issue that the Railways per se can be expected to make losses. Now, what are the hon. the Minister’s problems regarding the Railways he mentioned in his Budget speech? But I want to re-analyse them to draw certain conclusions. His first problem is the question of the increase in the volume of traffic which is mainly low-rated, with very little growth in high-rated traffic. He told us that 83 per cent of his total traffic was low-rated and that only 17 per cent was high-rated. But there is a further problem, because if the volume of low-rated traffic, as the hon. the Minister anticipates, continues to grow disproportionately to his high-rated traffic, then his problem becomes progressively worse. It is not going to help him. And if you carry it to a logical conclusion, he may find that in the future low-rated traffic will become an embarrassment and a burden to him, and that he could well do without it. Because all that is going to happen is that his losses will be greater. Now what is the hon. the Minister’s second problem? His second problem that is posed year after year, as he rightly said in his Budget speech, concerns additional capital expenditure. And the capital expenditure is in the main interest-bearing, with the exception of odd items such as the Betterment Fund, the Railway Crossings Fund, and so on. He has to find the money to pay the interest on it every year. Last year the hon. the Minister’s capital requirements were R190 million and this year it amounts to R157 million of which R139 million is interest-bearing. Now, the interest charges in 1967-’68 are estimated at R87.4 million. This is an increase over last year of just under R6 million. And if we compare the picture ten years ago —that is in 1957-’58—we find that the hon. the Minister is now faced with a yearly increase in his interest rates, that is to-day as against ten years ago, of R49 million per annum. If low-rated traffic is going to be the order of the day then this constant increase in interest charges becomes from the Minister’s point of view intolerable. He cannot go on incurring capital expenditure which is interest-bearing. He cannot stand the consequence of increased interest rates year after year and expect to run the Railways on any sort of a reasonable basis.

What do you suggest?

It is not for me to make suggestions, because I am coming to that issue in a moment. When the hon. the Minister made his Budget speech, he only made half the speech. Now I want the other half from the hon. the Minister. I will point that out to him in a moment. The hon. the Minister must not stop in the middle. Because that is what the hon. Minister did and I am leading up to it. The third factor is that the hon. the Minister cannot expect any great increase in profit from passenger traffic. He has already told us that most of his increase in passenger traffic is in the third class where last year there was an increase of 5 per cent in suburban journeys and 11 per cent in main line journeys.

The Minister knows, though he did not tell us, that passenger traffic throughout the world is one of the greatest problems of the railway owners. He knows that in the U.S.A., although there have been mergers and super-mergers and all sorts of steps taken, the railway owners would jettison their passenger traffic overnight if they could. They live on their goods income, not on their passenger income. Their passengers are a hindrance to them. So the Minister can expect the position to be no different in this country and he cannot expect any help from his passengers.

Fourthly, as has been mentioned previously here this afternoon, the Minister is going to be faced from time to time with ever-increasing demands for wages, plus the fact that he is operating with a serious shortage of staff at the moment. The Minister told us that he was short of about ten per cent, on an average, in certain grades of staff. I want the Minister in his reply to tell us what the effect would be on the finances of the railways if he filled his entire complement. Would his wage bill be higher than it is at the moment or would it be lower? The only compensating factor would be that he may be able to pay a little less in overtime. My belief is—and the Minister can correct me if I am wrong—that if he filled his complement of workers—and this is one of the strange quirks of the situation—his position would be worse. His deficit would be greater for last year or his surplus smaller for this year if he were able to fill all the posts and have to pay a full complement of railwaymen.

Now I come to the sixty-four dollar question. I said just now, when the Minister asked me what I suggested, that we on this side suggest nothing. It is not our job to suggest. [Interjection.] There is my hon. friend for Brakpan off again. It is not our job to suggest. It is the job of the hon. the Minister of Transport to tell us his problems, as he did, but it is not for the Minister of Transport, when he has finished telling us his problems, to put on his hat and go home.

In other words, you do not know what to do.

No, you must tell us how you are going to solve these problems. This is the Minister’s job. It is for us, as the Opposition, to tell him whether he is going the right way about it. I am going to refer to certain ways in which the problems can be solved, not as suggestions but as possibilities. I want the Minister to tell this House—because I think we are entitled to know—which, if any or all, of these methods he is going to use. Because, Sir, I think that the public are entitled to know. What can he do? First of all, in his Budget speech the Minister said this—

I want to emphasize the past tense used, namely “have been taken”—

I was speaking of the past year.

This indicates to us that the Railways are now running at 100 per cent efficiency.

No.

That is what the hon. the Minister said. The Minister said that “all possible steps have been taken …”

I was referring to the past year.

Every time we have a debate in this House we find that the spoken word as understood by hon. members opposite and as understood by us has two different meanings. I then understand from the Minister that the Railways are not running at 100 per cent efficiency.

No, of course not.

We read on page 35 of the General Manager’s report for 1965-’66 that losses from claims have risen from R1.3 million in 1964-’65 to R1.75 million in 1965-’66, whilst the net loss ratio, which is a more important figure, has increased from .28 per cent to .36 per cent, which is the highest since 1961. Well, we are certainly not impressed that all steps have been taken. Because, here is a worsening last year. We accept what the Minister says, that he is still going to improve matters. But last year he was perfectly happy. We want to know this from the Minister: What efficiency surveys has he done on the Railways? I think that this House is entitled to know what has been done to create this efficiency that we all want. Has consideration been given to the use of outside consultants? Have outside consultants perhaps been used? This is the modern trend. The hon. the Minister has problems, and we on this side do not wish to hinder him. We rather want to help him. But these are some of the things that are done in modern business. I am glad to hear that the Minister is not saying that this remark only applies to last year.

There is another factor. When one talks about the efficiency of an organization one does not only mean efficiency in the actual running of the organization. More important perhaps is the efficiency in planning the operation. Well, when we look back on the history of the pipeline which was mentioned here this afternoon, we cannot be very impressed with the Minister’s planning. He has suddenly found himself with a little gem where he gets back more than 100 per cent of his capital investment every year. He is probably going to get three times as much back. But up to three years ago he told this side of the House that we did not know what we were talking about discussing this pipeline. We are not encouraged that this planning is efficient if that sort of thing can happen.

There have been other suggestions. There have been suggestions that the loss of the Minister should be met from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. I want to ask the Minister what his reaction to that is. Is he perhaps going to—and if so, when—implement the balance of the recommendations of the Schumann Commission? Last year the Minister implemented some of them in full, some in part, and some he said he would implement in the future. Some he turned aside. The Minister must tell us what his future plans are. Is he perhaps going to follow the pattern of Great Britain and start closing down branch lines or sections of lines that do not pay? This has had to be done in great Britain. There was a terrible uproar about it, but it had to be done to enable the railways to continue. What is the Minister going to do? Is he going to do anything along those lines? Is he perhaps going to continue to raise tariffs from time to time? That is another method he can use to balance his Budget. The Minister must tell us—we want to know what his plans are for the future. Or is the Minister going to use the pipeline to take care of all the losses on the Railways? Because, Sir, if he is going to do that, I want to tell the Minister that he is only beginning to hear to-day from the people of the hinterland, particularly those in the Witwatersrand complex. Those people are a little tired of being the milk cow to take care of the Minister’s problems. It costs him, so I understand, .92 cent to deliver a gallon of petrol to the Witwatersrand, and he charges 7 cents. I wish I could be in that business. I am surprised that the Price Controller has not been on to him yet. We have told this Government year after year that if they want the public to do certain things, they must set the example. We told them that if they want to curtail inflation they must stop spending. We say to the Minister to-day, apart from what the public of the Witwatersrand will say, that if he wants to set an example to this country as far as non-profiteering is concerned then he must stop charging 7c for what costs him .92c. It is unfair, it is unjust, that a small segment, however important they may be—as they are to the Republic of South Africa—should be burdened with expenditure to the tune of R20 million, as they are at the moment, expenditure which does not rightly rest upon them.

I understand—and again the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that the pipeline could, when fully utilized and if it were fully utilized, show the Minister an annual profit of some R60 million. If this is the case, and if he is going to utilize these profits to cover his other losses, then, of course, his problems are very limited. But I repeat, as the hon. member for Yeoville has said, that to do this is completely unjust and unfair to the people of the Transvaal and the other inland parts of the country. He is differentiating between one section of the public and the other, because the Minister will not get down to solving his problems in any other way. That is the position on the Railways to-day. But, as I say, the Minister gave us half the story. He has told us what his problems are and we appreciate that, but now we want to hear from him the other half of the story. What is he going to do to bring the Railways into line with his other three ventures? How is he in future going to deal with the R39 million loss that he had this year on the Railways? That is what we want to hear from the Minister, so that the public and this House can know where we are going. I hope the Minister will give us the information we want when he replies to the debate.

The hon. member for Park town referred once again to the matter of productivity on the Railways which has already been raised by virtually every speaker. He also said he admitted that there had been increased productivity, but added that the increase was inadequate. If the hon. member had only listened to what the hon. member for Parow had said, he would have heard that over a period of five years there had been a per cent increase in productivity on the Railways, which I consider to have been very satisfactory. The hon. member also conjured with figures in the greater part of his speech. In his arguments he tried to isolate the Railways as such. According to the hon. member neither the pipe-line, nor the harbours or the airways should be connected with the Railways. To me that is a strange sort of business concept, something we shall only find in the United Party. I am not an economist such as the hon. member for Parktown claims to be, but I nevertheless think that, if in any business undertaking one branch shows a loss, the other branches should make up for it. That is also how I view the various branches of the Railways. The Railways as such renders a service to a much larger and broader section of the public than is the case with any of the other services.

I should also like to refer to a remark made by the hon. member for Durban (Point). He almost became lyrical, as he alone can succeed in doing so well, when harping on the same old string he said, “There is still no solution to the staff shortages.” Now I want to ask him a question. Where in any sector of the economy of South Africa is there a sphere to be found in which the man-power shortage has been eliminated? As a matter of fact, we know —and it has been said here time and again— that in countries in which an economic boom prevails, a man-power shortage is always to be found, and we prefer that to a depression when unemployment develops. But let us leave it at that. In connection with the Railway Estimates I want to say that the impression which is to be gained from the present Estimates, is that of major technological and operational improvements. In spite of what the Opposition said, it reveals the dynamics in this comprehensive undertaking. It is once again the result of positive and constructive thinking which stimulates judicious planning. The Estimates are once again a realistic reflection of the steady economic growth in the Republic. More purposeful and faster transport and competent administration are factors which in the long run stimulate and promote the economy of the Republic in such a way that all sectors derive profit and benefit from them. I should like to emphasize that the Railways is a business undertaking and that it should be run on business principles. But the Opposition wants to approach the running of the Railways with a sort of Santa Claus mentality. As far as the United Party is concerned, there should not be any tariff increases. There should not be any increased expenditure for the public or for commerce and industry. In other words, according to the Opposition there should not really be an increase in revenue, but, on the other hand, provision should nevertheless be made for the normal as well as the abnormal demand for transport. There should always be sufficient potential in the Railways so as to cope with peak periods; capital works should always continue; improvements should be effected; facilities should be provided; salaries should be increased on demand, and inflation should be combated. To my mind this is really the most unrealistic approach imaginable.

During the past year there has been an increase in goods as well as passenger traffic, and in spite of that the establishment remained almost constant in comparison with the previous year. In order to analyze that, I want to mention a few figures, and these exclude South West Africa. On 31st March, 1965, the total establishment was 225,733, and on 31st March. 1966, it was 227,568, an increase of a meagre 1,835 or .8 per cent, according to the report of the Manager. It is striking that the non-white establishment was actually decreased by a total of 630, and that the white establishment was increased by a total of 2,465. In other words, the establishment has virtually remained constant, and the Administration admits that a serious shortage still prevails in certain operational grades. But we also know that the Administration has made many attempts at increasing the staff in those grades and at recruiting more staff. The fact that the same number of workers were capable of making the Railways operate efficiently and of absorbing the increase in traffic, should most definitely be attributed to certain factors, and I should like to mention a few of them.

In the first place they aimed at effecting mechanization. We know that mechanization saves manpower, and wherever it is possible mechanization is being introduced in many sorts of work. But it is also a fact that in many sections it is not possible to introduce mechanization. Mechanization has nevertheless been introduced in respect of the maintenance of the permanent way and in connection with accounting systems. A second contributory factor is the recruitment of staff by the Railways, the screening and effective placement of prospective Railway servants. At present this is already being done on a much more scientific basis than in the past, by means of vocational experts who are in the service of the Railways. This is being done in order to utilize the labour potential of every Railway servant in the most economic way. A third factor which assisted in making it possible to cope with the increasing volume of traffic, is the very factor which has been mentioned here time and again, namely the fact that the Department effected higher productivity by enhancing the efficiency of its staff, but that efficiency could only be achieved by concentrating on thorough and functional training. This training was given, in the first place, to those persons who had been recruited for the Railways in order that they might be placed in the right positions, but in addition training facilities were also made available to the serving staff in order to make them more productive workers. The Railways Administration has very successfully achieved this object. As far as the large establishment of the Railways is concerned, persons were screened for the purpose of receiving training, particularly training in the techniques of organization and methods.

This training enabled those who had received it to inquire into the activities of the various branches of the Railways and to make recommendations in regard to the simplification of work, the elimination of unnecessary work and the elimination of what I want to call the bureaucratic red tape one often finds in such a large organization. But other enterprising persons, taken from the ranks of existing Railway servants, were also afforded the opportunity of improving their qualifications and consequently rendering better service to the Railways as such. But there is always another side to the matter as well: These persons who improved their qualifications in this way, could also claim promotion, and as a result of promotion they could also claim higher remuneration.

The staff are being provided with a large variety of courses, and we are also grateful for the large number of bursaries which are being made available. On a previous occasion I elaborated on this matter and at present I do not want to do so again, but I should like to emphasize an important fact of which mention is being made in the General Manager’s report for 1965-’66, namely that during the year under review 3,372 servants received training in a variety of courses offered at the Railway College at Esselen Park. Hon. members will readily understand how this training will greatly benefit the Railways. I am also very pleased to be able to refer to the fact that these training facilities for trainees and junior members of staff were also extended in that training for these groups was intensified. I am referring here to training centres which were established on the Cape Western, Cape Midland, Orange Free State, the Natal Western Transvaal and Eastern Transvaal Systems, where servants receive training in subjects other than those offered at the Railway College Esselen Park.

But in addition to the factors already mentioned which contributed to keeping the thousands of wheels rolling, I should like to mention the loyalty of the Railway servants. With minor exceptions, the majority of which unfortunately occur in the ranks of the younger servants, we find that the servants’ corps are proud of their labour and that they perform their work in the right spirit. These are people who adopt a loyal and faithful attitude towards the Railways. It is in their blood to serve the Railways with loyalty. It often happens—and each of us who represents a constituency in which there are many Railway servants, knows that this is so—that a Railway servant accepts a position outside the Railway service and that he subsequently feels unhappy in his new surroundings; then he may apply for re-employment and to me that proves decisively that he was happy in the Railway service before he left. Sir, in view of the fact that generally speaking Railway servants feel happy in their work, experience few frustrations and are particularly interested in their work, the number of disciplinary cases are also relatively small in comparison with the large number of employees. Further proof of this is the fact that in 1965-’66, the year under review, only 333 appeals were heard by the Disciplinary Appeal Board in comparison with 644 the previous year. Hon. members will find these statistics on page 78 of the annual report. These statistics give the lie to what the hon. member for Durban (Point) said in regard to the terrible state of tension in which the Railway servants are supposedly finding themselves as a result of over-exertion.

Sir, from what I have only just said, it can be deduced that the Railways Administration has succeeded in keeping pace with the country’s increasing transport needs, because in the first place—as the General Manager puts it in his annual report—it succeeded in effecting “optimum labour productivity and a minimum manpower turnover”. In the second place, the Railway Administration succeeded in doing this because it realizes the value of the individual in the service. At a function held on 1st August, 1966, on the occasion of the 21st anniversary of the Railway College Esselen Park, the acting General Manager, Mr. J. A. Kruger, said that the Administration considered its manpower to be much more valuable than its machinery, and that the Railways could only fulfil its function by equipping its staff to the highest extent possible, and he added (translation)—

There is a further factor which has definitely, although perhaps indirectly, also contributed to the fact that Railway servants accomplished greater productivity and increased efficiency in their labour on the S.A. Railways, and this factor is the purposeful and unceasing efforts of the management to prevent industrial accidents. As the biggest employer in the Republic, the Department is aware of the necessity of protecting and retaining its manpower by eliminating industrial accidents amongst its employees, hence the extensive campaign for the prevention of industrial accidents. As far back as 1953 the Railways Administration started to follow a definite programme for the prevention of industrial accidents. Safety officials, who fall under a high-ranking health official, were appointed in the various workshops, and at the end of March, 1961, the safety programme had already been introduced in nine of the depots of the mechanical department. These people also attended the Esselen Park Railway College where they were trained to make people more safety conscious. Every year this programme for the prevention of accidents in the department’s workshops was applied intensively and developed even further. The appointment of information officers as well as the attempts of the management at eliminating accidents in the mechanical worshops, did not only eliminate and reduce the number of injuries and accidents, but there has also been a marked decrease in absenteeism amongst Railway officials. For the success of this scheme it was and still is essential that the Railway staff should be safety minded and that they should not only co-operate with the information officers, but should also co-operate with their colleagues in applying these safety measures. Therefore it was not long before the staff also showed an increasing interest in the implementation of safety measures. In order to stimulate these servants further and to effect orderliness in the workshops, competitions were held and a floating trophy was awarded to the workshop which showed the greatest decrease in accidents during the year in question. Apart from the promotion of safety and the suitable competitions which were organized, a wonderful team spirit has also developed amongst Railway servants. These high standards of safety are testified to by the fact that some of these depots have already won the national awards of the National Vocational Safety Association.

I want to conclude by saying that the success achieved with this scheme is evident from the fact that the average monthly accident rate in respect of white workers in these mechanical workshops, showed a decrease of 76.4 per cent during the period 1956-’57—the year when this programme was introduced—to 1963-’64, while the rate of absenteeism showed a decrease of 73.3 per cent during the same period. The same trend was also observed in connection with non-White workers. I want to say that the success in connection with the prevention of industrial accidents in these workshops, where tens of thousands of servants are employed, definitely depends on the active guidance and the interested assistance provided by the management. I am raising this matter because the thousands of servants who are working untiringly in this large complex of mechanical workshops at Koedoespoort, have benefited and will in future continue to benefit from these safety measures. They and their families will definitely appreciate it very highly if these safety measures in the depots concerned are never relaxed, but are rather intensified until they have attained the optimum or 100 per cent level of success, if that is possible.

Mr. Speaker, I can quite understand the position of the hon. member for Koedoespoort when he says that he is not an economist because I too am not an economist but on one matter I can agree with him. namely that the Railways should be run on business lines. He said that we on this side of the House want inflation halted. He is perfectly correct because that is what the Government wants us to do. If productivity on the Railways had been increased on account of highly qualified staff, then surely more staff of that quality should be engaged to deal with that increased productivity.

As far as the staff’s loyalty is concerned, may I say here and now that that has never been questioned on this side of the House. As far as departmental trials and appeals are concerned, I should like to deal with that a little later. Despite the strict Government control over spending and other measures to control inflation, the Railways Administration is at present engaged in a vast multi-million rand expansion programme, needless to say, to improve carrying capacity. In that respect I should like to speak about a particular line, namely the new line from Vryheid to Empangeni. I am only too glad that the Minister has decided to lay down this line. I only hope that he has chosen the correct route, because I understand that this particular route goes through a large Bantu area. Had he taken another route it would have gone through a European area which, no doubt, would have improved considerably, and attracted more, business once the line was established. I am told that in a few years’ time the old line to Durban via Ladysmith and Pietermaritzburg will no longer be able to cope with the traffic. It is reckoned that by 1970 or 1971 it will carry approximately 82 per cent, which is the peak of the safety limit. What I do not understand is that the hon. the Minister has allowed only R3 million for this line on the Estimates this year, when it will cost over R33 million and the line should take approximately six years to complete. What I want to know from the hon. the Minister is what future the existing main line has, especially when both lines will be working to that capacity, and especially when Richard’s Bay is completed and in operation. How will this difficulty then be overcome, as there is already a terrific congestion on the main line? I must mention what the position actually is. I understand that there was a firm order from an Eastern country for 100,000 tons of coal, but it had to be delivered over a period of three months. I understand that the Railways could arrange for two months delivery, but not the third month. This shows us the extent of the congestion on railway lines. As a result of the lovely rains we had throughout the country I understand there will be about three million bags of maize to be exported. One wonders how the Railways are going to handle that, are going to get that to the ports.

Twenty-six million bags.

That poses even greater difficulties. I understand that one exporter alone has already invested more than R¼ million in tarpaulins in order to enable him to store his maize out in the open. Coming to passenger traffic, we find that the number of passengers in the first class increased by 5 per cent and passengers in the third class by 11 per cent whereas the number of passengers in the second class decreased by 1.5 per cent and by 4 per cent on the suburban lines. A new type of passenger has come to his own in South Africa, namely the person who flies. Passengers making use of air transport have increased by 30 per cent while passenger services have increased from between 37 and 44 per cent on the various services. I should like to ask whether the time has not arrived when we should consider the question whether we are not, in fact, operating too many rail services for too few passengers. Is it not time that we should operate only two classes of passenger trains, viz. one for Whites and one for non-Whites? Here I am reminded of what a Swiss said to a tourist when that tourist wanted to travel first class. The Swiss then said to him it was only fools and Americans who travelled first class! Thereafter I feel this is something which should be seriously considered.

Is that not a reflection on members of Parliament?

The hon. the Minister seems to forget that it is a Deputy Minister who arranges flights for Parliamentarians. But with that we can deal afterwards. The hon. the Minister said that he had ordered two Blue Trains each of which, I believe, carries approximately 72 passengers. As against that a small aircraft can carry ten times that number in the time a train takes to cover the distance between Johannesburg and Cape Town. So it seems to me that this investment of the hon. the Minister is an unnecessary investment.

I should now like to come to cartage services. I understand that both commerce and industry have not been willing to co-operate, in large centres like the Witwatersrand, to take delivery of and dispatch their goods after the closing hour of the shops. Is it not time that these cartage services are handed over to private enterprise who runs it at a profit? After all, Mr. Speaker, every department of the Administration should pay for itself. As far as I am concerned, there is too great a disparity in this connection between the various departments. As a matter of fact, it has already been said that everybody now looks towards the pipeline to balance off one department against another. The hon. member for Koedoespoort referred to departmental inquiries. I should like to know whether these inquiries cannot be conducted in the same way as departmental inquiries are conducted in the Police, for instance, where the ordinary rules of courts of law apply. In the Railways, I believe, the present system is that should an employee commit a criminal offence a docket is opened, an investigation is carried out by the Railway police and thereafter the matter is submitted to the public prosecutor. If a prosecutor refuses to act against a private individual, such individual is cleared. That is, however, not the position with a Railway servant because he still has to face a departmental inquiry. Should he be found guilty he has the right of appeal but whilst that appeal is pending the servant concerned will remain suspended from duty. Surely he should be kept in service until such time as his appeal has been decided upon? It is factors such as these which create dissatisfaction amongst the employees. And it is necessary that we keep in mind in this connection that there is a tremendous shortage of staff.

Then there is the question of pensioners. In Pietermaritzburg we have homes for pensioners in a few garden townships. Several Ministers have already visited these homes and have spoken very highly of them. These are houses with one or two rooms with two pensioners, usually friends, if not husband and wife, living there paying only a nominal fee, a fee like 10c per annum. These are people who are incapable of taking up employment. I should like to commend to the hon. the Minister that he should put money aside for the purpose of providing this type of home for Railway pensioners, especially the old ones.

Then there is another matter I should like to raise. A while ago a passenger, I believe it was a lady, was arrested for smoking in a non-smoking compartment. Surely, Mr. Speaker, it is ridiculous to arrest a person for such an offence because I am quite certain that if she was warned by a person in uniform she would have extinguished her cigarette. But to go so far as to arrest such an offender, and a woman on top of that, is stretching things a bit too far.

Another matter is the wastage of oil by Railway transport. Consequently, I should like to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that these drivers have been properly trained. The hon. the Minister is, no doubt, aware that there are one or two companies, PUTCO is one of them, operating a satisfactory transport service in Johannesburg. These companies employ psychologists and welfare officers to look after their drivers. I submit that something similar could also be done on the Railways with a view to improving the driving capabilities of motor vehicle drivers, whether white or non-white. At the present moment there is a certain amount of wastage which is due to bad driving. There is a certain oil company which has investigated this question very thoroughly and have issued a useful booklet on that subject. I think this is something which the hon. the Minister could very well investigate. Then there are complaints at various depots throughout the country, minor complaints—such as the conditions under which servants have to work, excessive smoke in buildings, coldness in buildings during winter, excessive heat during summer. I think if these minor complaints are investigated and put right it would contribute to more satisfactory working conditions.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the speeches made here earlier to-day. I listened with particular attention to the one made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City). I do not know whether I should congratulate him on coming in again, although it was only with a smaller majority. Apparently he has made his second maiden speech. [Interjections.] I have now listened to all the objections which have up to now been raised by the Opposition. I have tried to make a note of all the points of objection. I think the hon. the Minister must have had an extremely difficult task in drawing up these Estimates, because when one has reached the stage where the greatest degree of efficiency has been achieved, one finds it extremely difficult to improve on that. Now the Opposition has the unenviable task of criticizing the Estimates while there is nothing to criticize. They mentioned a few minor matters. They referred, amongst other things, to the increase in the cost of living. The hon. member for Parow proved with statistics that that argument was not very well-founded. The fact that the salaries have increased by 37.89 per cent since 1960, while the increase in the cost of living has only been 11.86 per cent means that their argument in respect of the increase in the cost of living, as compared to the increase in salaries, is an invalid one. Mention was also made here of pensioners. When I think of how pensioners who have already left the Service are being treated, when I think of how pensioners in my constituency were being paid a poor salary when they left the Service, then I appreciate all the more what this Government is doing for those people. I can mention the names of quite a number of people who, when they left the service on a pension, were receiving a pension of only R8.40 per month. That was in the days of the United Party Government. That amount has to-day, under this Government, been increased to R92. Then it is hon. members of the Opposition who complain about pensions!

As far as high tariff goods are concerned, which comprise 17 per cent of the goods transported by the Railways, it was said here that this traffic should be handed over to the private sector. It was also said that it was unfair that 51 per cent of the Railways’ revenue should be derived from those goods. That objection has also been effectively dealt with, and I shall not go into that.

As far as the working of overtime is concerned, I want to say that what has been said by hon. members on the opposite side, just goes to prove that those people are quite out of touch with the railwaymen. Those people are earning a lot of money with overtime, and if it were to be done away with tomorrow, one would just hear their complaints!

Why should they work so hard to make a decent living?

Those people use their salaries, and it is only the man who is prepared to earn something extra who does that overtime work, work which they are eager to do. I maintain that the United Party has lost contact with the people if they recommend that those people’s overtime should be done away with. They do not know how the people outside feel about that matter.

I feel sorry for the hon. the Minister if he were to take notice of the proposals which are being made by hon. members on that side. Last year they fought step for step against the tariff increases. Now they are silent. I remember that a similar thing happened a few years ago. In 1964 the hon. member for Yeoville expressed his indignation here. According to Hansard, Col. 2647, the hon. member said the following—

In Col. 2898 he said the following—

The Opposition pleaded at that time for the tariff to be decreased. When the tariffs were increased last year, they pleaded that the money should be taken from the Rates Equalization Fund. If the hon. the Minister had taken notice of them and listened to them, where would we have ended up? The Rates Equalization Fund would have been bankrupt, and not only would we have been bankrupt, we would also have had a large deficit. We would have had to increase tariffs now, and that after we had exhausted the Fund completely. I really think that there was very little from that side of the House which was constructive.

However, I now want to deal with another little matter. Why is it that the United Party is taking such retrogressive steps as the ones they have been taking over the past number of years? I want to state unequivocally that it is a result of a lack of faith, confidence, idealism, patriotism and opportunism.

And jingoism.

Yes, that can be added too. If one does not believe in one’s own future, there will surely never be planning in advance. There will surely never be long-term planning. That is the key to the success which the hon. the Minister has achieved. The United Party, and in particular the hon. member for Durban (Point), said here repeatedly that if they had been in power they would have shown us a thing or two. I wrote down the hon. member’s words, which I found so significant. What they amounted to was that the railwaymen would receive higher salaries. I think it would be a good thing if we glanced back into the past for a while. I think it is a good thing that we put these things on record. I think that if anybody wants to write a book about this, that book’s title should be “The Black Railway policy of the United Party”.

A black record.

Yes, a black record. In the days when the United Party were still in power, two things happened. The first was that those days were dark days for the railwayman. The second is that they were literally blackening the Railways.

The hon. the Minister was this year able to budget for R730 million. The reason for his success is mainly attributable to far-sightedness, planning in advance, vision, faith in the future, idealism and confidence. If we look back to the past then we see that a Jeremiaic policy, a policy of defeatism, one having no confidence and faith in the future of ones country, was the policy of the hon. Opposition. In 1912 the late General Hertzog said at De Wildt that South Africa must come first. Even at that time he had this vision for the future.

Order! Is the hon. member not going a little far back into the past in his discussion of the Railway Budget?

I want specifically to prove that if a Government plans ahead for the Railways, then one must have that vision for the future, that faith and confidence in the country’s future. That is why I am saying that we had already found it in those days. After that we had a Prime Minister, the late Dr. Malan, and if he had not had that far-sightedness and faith, it would not have been possible for years in advance for the Railways. The Railways would then have ended up in the position it was in when we took over from the Opposition in 1948. At that stage the Railways was heading for bankruptcy. I want to mention Dr. Malan’s words here: “Believe in your God, believe in your nation, believe in yourself.” Consequently we have the position that our Minister of Railways can come to the Cabinet with a Budget and with planning for years in advance. That is the case, Sir, because they believe those winged words.

Over and against this I want to place the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. member for Durban (Point) said that if they had been in power, they would have increased the railwaymen’s salaries. Now we think back to the years 1960, 1961 and 1962, when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that we were standing on the brink of a precipice, on the brink of recession and bankruptcy, and that the banks would close down. There was a lack of faith and confidence.

I challenge you to state when we said anything like that. When did we say that? [Interjections.]

I accept the challenge.

Prove it then.

Order!

Mr. Speaker …

Order! The hon. member must return now to the Railway Budget.

I shall, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. Leader’s party had been in power, what would our Railway Budget have looked like? Would there have been planning in advance? Would there not have been a lack of faith and confidence? Would they have had that far-sightedness, that vision, which our hon. the Minister revealed, to plan as effectively as possible for the future?

I now want to return to practical things. [Interjections.] I am glad that hon. members on the opposite side are so glad. I shall not go back as far as 1924, only as far as 1948. I shall now mention a few things which we found when we took over the Government in 1948. I shall tell hon. members what the Railways looked like under the United Party. I referred to the United Party as such, I mean these hon. members, when we took over from them. That brings the matter closer to the point. Mr. Speaker, there was no planning in advance. There was not even enough money to buy essential spares. There was not even enough money to pay the salaries of the workmen with. The Treasury had to advance R300,000 to pay the salaries.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, you will have your chance. The Treasury had to borrow R300,000 from the State coffers to be able to pay the salaries of those people. That was how bankrupt the Railways were. But that is not all.

You have had to cancel orders to the value of R60 million.

I have said that there was not enough money for the purchasing of essential spares. There was no planning. Even the protection funds of the Railways were used irregularly. The funds were depleted to such an extent that this Government had to pay money into the protection funds of the Railway workers in order to get them solvent again. Up to date more than R500 million has been paid into those funds.

However, that is not all. It was not only a bankrupt Railway system that we inherited from the United Party. Neither was the position merely that the safety of the guarantee funds of the Railwaymen was in jeopardy. The industrial growth and development is very closely lined to that of the Railways. Thanks to planning in advance this Government was able to place orders to the value of millions of rand with our industries. That was an incentive by our Railways, and in that way the industries were encouraged to develop even further. The effective transport system also contributed to promoting our country’s industrial development.

I want to go further and deal with the position of the white man on the Railways. We know that the question of work reservations has been raised here repeatedly. The traditional policy of the National Party is to protect the interests of the white worker. We know that Opposition speakers have pleaded repeatedly for, “the rate for the job”. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has asked here why there is not equal pay for the same work. That was the United Party’s solution to the labour shortage. According to Hansard of 11th March, 1964, Col. 2869, the hon. member for Karoo had the following to say—

The United Party was therefore clearly and unambiguously advocating a policy of integration here. They are pleading for equal pay for the same work. They were pleading that work reservation should be removed.

What work is reserved on the Railways?

I know that section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act which deals with work reservation, does not apply to the Railways. But I also know that the maintaining of the colour bar has always been our traditional policy on the Railways.

That is another matter.

I said earlier on that the dark days for the Railwaymen were those days when the United Party was in power. The same applies in the financial sphere. If we think about that, we unwillingly recall how bad the working conditions were in the days of the United Party. We think back to the poor housing conditions, to how the people had to live in shanties. The housing programme of the United Party was probably one of the darkest spots in their black programme. Contrasted with that, the present housing programme is the pride of the Government. The protective funds were shaky because the United Party had depleted them, they did something similar when they pleaded last year that the Rates Equalization Fund should also be depleted. That was their policy in the past. The salaries were extremely poor, and because that was so, the pensions were also poor. Those are all legacies from the Opposition. Those were dark days for our Railwaymen. That is, figuratively, the black past of the United Party. I now want to come to the literal side of the matter. We know how the process of blackening the Railways in 1924 led to the victory of the National Party. It was a deliberate blackening process. What was the situation in 1948? Let us compare the situation which arose during the last eight years of the United Party Government with the past eight years under this Government. I am now going to let figures do the talking, otherwise hon. members on that side will refuse to believe me again. In the last eight years prior to 1948 the number of non-Whites on the Railways increased by 67 per cent, while the Whites on the Railways decreased …

How many were there before?

I am making use of percentages. The numbers have nothing to do with it.

How many Whites were there?

The percentage remains the same. But during the past eight years the number of non-Whites in the service of the South African Railways decreased by 8.3 per cent.

How many were they?

If percentages are quoted, the numbers are irrelevant. Under the United Party Government the non-Whites increased by 67 per cent while, in the past eight years under the National Party they have decreased by 8.3 per cent. Those are the percentages for the non-Whites. If we glance at page 133 of the annual report for 1966 we would see the numbers in question. In 1957 there were 120,000 non-Whites in the employ of the South African Railways, whereas in 1966 there were only 110,000. The number of non-Whites in the employ of the Railways has therefore decreased by 10,000 during the past eight years. Is that not a record? In the period 1965-’66 the number of non-Whites decreased by 630. Nevertheless, it is stated disparagingly on the opposite side that we are employing more non-Whites on the Railways. Over the same period, that is to say from 1965 to 1966, the number of Whites in the employ of the South African Railways increased by 2,465. That is indeed a record.

I am mentioning all these things because the National Party has demonstrated in the past that it is the friend and protector of the white worker. The white worker also knows that the National Party ploughs back the profits and surpluses of the Railways to the benefit of the workers. It is the National Party which has tackled housing schemes which are the pride of every white person. In contrast to that the position in the days of the United Party was such that the houses were built in a huddle all on the same pattern. It was merely a huddle of double-decker houses, off to one side. Some kind of complex attached to that neighbourhood as well. After all, people did speak about a “railway complex”. To-day our railwaymen’s houses are being built in the best parts of our cities. For years a railwayman was mayor of Bloemfontein. He was able to hold that high position. Houses are to-day being built for the railwayman in our best neighbourhoods, and they are in this way being enabled to occupy an equal place with the other citizens in society instead of there being a stigma attaching to them. The National Party has over the past years shown that it is the friend of the white worker. The party protects him so that he is not ousted, as happened under the policy of the United Party, a policy of integration which threatened the white man, with which his survival was threatened. That is why the National Party is receiving the support of every railwayman in the country. He knows that when the cost of living rises, as it has done over the past few years, the necessary salary adjustments will from time to time be made. His pension is also being protected. The National Party has over the past years proved that it has had the interests of the white worker on the Railways very much at heart.

Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure that the hon. member who has preceded me will forgive me if I do not deal with the points he has raised. I believe that he needs the attention of a specialist and I sincerely hope that somebody will deal with him as we go along. Sir, I want to deal with the Cinderella of the services, the Railway services …

Order! What kind of specialist does the hon. member have in mind?

Somebody who specializes in figures, such as those figures the hon. member has given, Sir.

The hon. member may proceed.

I want to plead for the Cinderella of the Railways, and to put my point of view and the point of view of South Africa, I think, regarding the harbours and ports of our country. This Budget of the hon. the Minister of Railways has true to form shown a lack of vision and a lack of forward planning once more in regard to our harbours and our ports. I want to repeat a plea which has been made time and time again, namely to divorce the harbour administration from the administration of the Railways. I make this plea in all sincerity, because it is quite obvious to me that the outlook which is necessary to plan and run our ports and harbours properly is lacking. Railway thinking will not run a port; it will not run a harbour.