When the debate was adjourned on Wednesday, I had made certain preliminary remarks and I was going to proceed to tell the hon. the Minister of Transport that it is becoming apparent that, like his colleague the Minister of Finance, he is accepting as deliberate policy the principle of deliberately budgeting for a smaller surplus or a small deficit, when in fact a proper regard to the circumstances should induce him to budget for much better results at the end of the year. This practice of over-estimating the expenditure and under-estimating the revenue is becoming a feature of the Budgets presented to the House by the Ministers of Finance and Transport; and it is making it extremely difficult for members of the House and for members of the public to attach the importance and the value to the Estimates made by these hon. Ministers that the country should be entitled to attach to them. I think one should take a look at the Budget and at the almost final results, that we are considering at the moment. Originally the hon. the Minister estimated revenue at R730,966,000, but it has now become R753,834,000. In other words, the Minister’s estimate was R22,868,000 too low. The Minister estimated his expenditure at R730,493,000, and it has now become R718,665,800. In other words, the Minister estimated his expenditure almost R12 million too high, and as a result the surplus which the Minister estimated at between R400,000 and R500,000 a year ago, has soared to more than R35 million. Sir, at the time this was done last year it was a most inappropriate action on the part of the Minister, because we were in the throes of inflation. The country was deeply concerned that anything tending to put up costs should have been avoided. The hon. the Minister was warned at the time, as a reference to the debates last year will show, by many members on this side of the House that his estimates were wrong and that he was doing an injustice to the people of South Africa; that he was causing an increase in the costs of the people at a time when all Government policy should have been directed towards reducing costs. As I have said, he was warned. He was told, for example—and I will come back to this in a moment—that a considerable change would have to be made in his estimates because, in view of the measures which the Government contemplated at the time against inflation it was inevitable that import control would have to be relaxed. And import control was relaxed and this made a major contribution to the increasing income of the S.A. Railways and Harbours. If the Minister had taken our advice last year and had made use of the Rates Equalization Fund, the position would have been much healthier at the moment and the public of South Africa would have been saved an addition of R35 million to the costs of production in South Africa. I do not think that the hon. the Minister can expect to go scot-free on this charge.

As I shall show, this process again seems to be in the mind of the Minister, at least subconsciously, for the year that lies ahead. The signs are that he is again planning to do the same thing to us in the year that is coming. In announcing the increases of R43 million to the staff, the Minister indicated that he felt that inflation was being beaten in South Africa. He made that specific statement in his Budget speech, but a little later in his speech, when he analysed the prospects for the new year, he said—

He put that as a possibility. But when he came to consider his estimates for the new year he took this fear that the restraining influences of deflationary measures may continue to be felt, as a fact. He based his calculations and his expectations upon the expectation that severe deflationary measure would be continued by the Government, at a time when with his wage increases he was committing an act of considerable inflationary influence in South Africa. To show how conservative he was, the Minister indicated in his speech—I am only giving a few examples— that high-rated traffic would diminish on the S.A. Railways and therefore we could expect a lower income. He indicated that he expected revenue on goods, livestock and coal to increase by only 1.99 per cent this year as against 9.98 per cent the year before. For some unknown reason he expected that the pipe-line would earn some R2 million less than it did the year before, and so on and so forth, and the result is a picture which is more pessimistic than it need be.

Sir, may I repeat what I said last year: We have reason to believe, if official statements by the Government and its officials mean anything, that there will be continuing relaxation of import control on high-rated traffic and high-rated goods carried by the Railways from our harbours to the inland areas. We have reason to believe this because—and I am sure the Minister must be aware of these facts too —in November of last year, the Director of Imports and Exports, Mr. D. S. L. de Villiers, told the Assocom conference that the number of items on the restrictive list under the import control regulations would be greatly reduced this year. He said that the ultimate aim of the Government was to do away with the restrictive list altogether. Indeed in December, 1967, a month later, considerable relaxations were gazetted, and if one is to believe Mr. D. S. L. de Villiers—and I do believe him—further relaxations will follow. Did the Minister give due consideration to this important fact when he prepared his Estimates and when he expected these drops in high-rated traffic?

It is interesting if one looks at the latest report of the General Manager to see that he says “The relaxation of import control during July and December, 1966, benefited harbour traffic, resulting in an increase of 3.6 million tons or 12.1 per cent in the tonnage of cargo handled at the various harbours.” Much of that cargo had to be transported in addition by the S.A.R. & H. But the Minister, in spite of the Government’s policy to do away with the restrictive list entirely disregards the effect of this factor. One must expect that some action will be taken in view of the new inflationary pressures created by the Minister in his Budget and, according to a preliminary announcement made by the Minister, still to be created, by the hon. the Minister of Finance. Import control will be relaxed further to counter the inflationary effect of the wage increases. But the Minister totally disregards it in planning for the new year. That, amongst other things, makes one wonder whether the hon. the Minister is not again deliberately budgeting for a deficit which will be much smaller by the time he accounts to this House in a year’s time. He is budgeting for an eventual deficit of R22 million.

Last year when we considered his Budget we on this side warned the Minister that it would have inflationary tendencies. As I have shown, we were fully justified in sounding those warnings, because railway users were forced to pay more than R35 million in excess of the needs of the Railways for that year.

I do not think the public always realize how inflationary some of the policies of this Minister are. To illustrate this, I want to refer to one of the most blatant examples of inflationary actions and inflationary policies on the part of the S.A.R. I want to refer to the pipeline used for conveying fuel, petrol and oil, from Durban to Johannesburg. In his speech last Wednesday the Minister estimated that the final income from the pipeline for this year would be R24.6 million, which is R7.4 million more than he budgeted for a year ago. This is in line with my general charge against the Minister. What we should note is that the total capital cost of this pipeline is only R22,470,000 odd. In other words, in this one year, the profit on the pipeline was virtually equal to the total capital investment in that pipeline, The current expenditure made by the Minister to earn an income of R24 million was only R3,271,000. In other words, the hon. the Minister on current account earned a profit of more than 700 per cent! I have asked this question before and I want to repeat it now: What would the attitude of the Government be to any private enterprise in South Africa that made a profit exceeding 700 per cent on a commodity essential to the good life of the people of South Africa? Such a private enterprise would be execrated, would be damned. Action would be taken against it; the price controller would be put on to that firm immediately to try and smash this evil thing. I want to repeat that I consider the transport of petrol from the coast to the inland areas of South Africa at a profit of 700 per cent, repaying the total capital invested in that pipeline almost every year, is a crime and a disgrace, and the Minister should be ashamed of himself. This one commodity with an investment of R22 million is earning three per cent of the total income of the S.A.R., whereas the South African harbours, with a capital investment of R119 million, handling a wide variety of commodities, through which many varieties of goods are imported and our exports are despatched, can only earn 5 per cent. Our harbours are a most profitable sphere of the S.A.R. & H. They earn 5 per cent of the Railways’ total income. But the pipeline alone, with one-fifth of the investment, and handling only one commodity at the expense of one section of the people of South Africa, namely those who live in the Southern Transvaal and the Northern Free State, makes 3 per cent of the total income of the S.A.R. & H.

Only if one is completely and utterly prejudiced and only if one takes a very narrow and bigoted view from the exclusive standpoint of the Railways, separated from the national interests, can one possibly justify such an act of exploitation. If the Government were to reduce the cost of transporting petrol by the pipeline by 50 per cent, it would have to sacrifice R10½ million in revenue. In relation to the total revenue of the South African Railways, which is now approximately R775 million per year, that would only be .03 per cent of the total revenue. But, Mr. Speaker, can you imagine what this would mean to the inland areas served by this pipeline? What it would mean to Pretoria with the highest cost of living in South Africa, to the Witwatersrand, which is not far behind, and to your own Parys which is one of the most delightful villages in South Africa?

I think that what I have just said—and these are hard facts—will give the House some indication of the rôle played by the hon. the Minister and the South African Railways in pushing up the cost of living for large sections of the South African people. We warned then that these higher tariffs would be inflationary and we warn to-day, not that the increase in the wages of the servants of the South African Railways and Harbours is in any way wrong, but that the method used by the Minister in giving these increases, will again be inflationary. We have spoken about this before but as always our words fall on deaf ears. The Minister will come round to our way of thinking eventually. We have to tell him the same story at least seven or eight times before he begins to understand what we are talking about. I can remember how many years Mr. P. W. Pocock, Mr. Hamilton-Russell and later I myself spent trying to persuade the hon. the Minister that building a pipeline from the coast to Johannesburg would be a good thing, but he had a thousand arguments against it. When it came to the eighth or the ninth year, he was converted and he built the pipeline. Having built one pipeline, he is now rushing to build a second one and it will be completed within a year. I want to give him his due credit. It takes us a long time to convert him, but once we have converted him, that conversion is most thorough.

We say that the manner in which the Minister has given increases to his staff will again be inflationary because it is wrong to give the staff these huge increases in one year and then to sit back with tight hands on the reins refusing them any benefits as the cost of living rises until their position becomes utterly intolerable, as it has become in this instance. He waits until he faces a virtual rebellion on the part of his staff. Then he has to provide for these major injections of new money into the economy of South Africa. To give the House an idea of the jerks which this Minister inflicts upon the economy of South Africa, I should like to refer to figures which show how these increases have been given. In 1962-’63 the staff was given increases of R54½ million. In 1963-’64 the reins were held tight and they got only R6,000. In 1964-’65 when the general election was approaching, they got R20½ million. In 1965-’66 the general election was at hand and they got R36,800,000. In 1966-’67 the general election was past and they got R165. This was merely a small token of appreciation. In 1967-’68 they got R266,000. The Minister must have been mellowing then already. This year they are to be given R43 million. [Interjections.] To judge by the problems of the governing party, that election may be due any moment. I do not know whether the Prime Minister is considering having a general election or not. What I do know is that the Minister has allowed a situation to develop among the staff of the South African Railways and Harbours which he could not sustain for another six months. I know that this was forced upon him by the adamant attitude of the Staff Association. I do not want to bore the House by quoting recent statements by the leaders of the Staff Association of the South African Railways, but everyone made it perfectly clear that they have come to the end of their tether and that the Minister’s ill-considered actions in not giving them relief when relief was due at the proper time, was creating an intolerable situation for the workers of the South African Railways. While we are gratified and happy that this is happening to the staff—and we are, because we felt it was overdue, and we said so—I still want to repeat the attitude of the Opposition in these matters, namely that it would be much better if the Government in the Railways and elsewhere—but let us stick to the Railways for the moment—would follow a policy of regularly adjusting the incomes of its servants. As the cost of living rises, adjustments should follow automatically, so that the workers at all times will be able to maintain the standards of living that they have earned for themselves over the years, and that they will not find that at one moment their incomes are beyond their cost of living, and the next moment they are struggling to make ends meet, as the cost of living overtakes their income level. There should be regular adjustments of the cost of living allowances.

When did that happen?

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure of the date but I think it was some three or four years after the war that this Government repealed the regulation under which the United Party Government adjusted the cost-of-living allowances of civil servants and Railway employees every three months as required by changes in the cost-of-living index. [Interjections.] But now, Sir, you must help me. I want to conduct a useful argument but one of the chief Railway representatives of the opposite side of the House, the hon. member for Colesberg, does not even know that simple fact. Where does one start? Where does one find a meeting place for minds on which to base an argument?

The Minister will accept this suggestion in due course, but if he will do it speedily, he will find that the only matter that will then remain for negotiations between his Administration and the Staff Union, will be to determine by collective bargaining what share the employees of the State, in this case the Railway workers, should get of the growing prosperity of South Africa. But there will never be an argument about how and when they should be compensated for rises in the cost of living, for the creeping inflation, which all over the world, and also in South Africa, has become the deliberate policy of governments. While that is so, why then should the wage earner and the salaried man continually have to pay the price for the actions of the Government? This argument is basic, and I hope the hon. the Minister will give it proper consideration. While the Minister had given this most welcome and generous concession to the workers of the South African Railways, for which he deserves all the praise that he is getting I am not going to stint my praise, except for the qualification that I made with emphasis a minute ago.

I want to express my regret that the Minister could not give us more details of these increases in his Budget Speech. There may be adequate reasons for it, but we are told that in due course the Staff Association will get the details and Parliament will have to wait until the details are worked out. I want to ask him just one question on detail: Will some of this R43 million be used to increase the pensions paid to the contractual pensioners on the South African Railways?

No.

The only concession they will get in other words, is the relief that they will get from the means test if they work for private enterprise.

Yes.

I think that is regrettable, but there was uncertainty, and I am glad to have this certainty.

Now, in spite of this increase the biggest problem that is facing the hon. the Minister and to which he has had no reply in his Budget Speech, no suggestion even of a plan except the increase in salaries, is the question of the staff shortages on the South African Railways and Harbours. I know the Minister and I, all of us, find ourselves on common ground. This is the most troubling and the most disturbing problem facing South Africa; in the case of the S.A. Railways perhaps more immediately so than in any other organization in South Africa. The Minister told us in his Budget speech that the average shortage in certain grades was 13 per cent. But 13 per cent is only the average, so that in certain grades it must have been higher. I wish the Minister would take us into his confidence in this connection. As regards artisans—the creative members of the staff on the engineering side— he told us that the shortage there was 20 per cent. This means that for every five jobs for artisans one is vacant. This worries and perturbs one and I am sure the hon. the Minister dare not relax. He also told us that the position regarding the professional staff was as difficult. He told us that the engineers joining the S.A. RAilways to-day are exclusively those who have been trained at the expense of the S.A. Railways, i.e. through bursaries, and that the S.A. Railways is not getting a single recruit from the engineering faculties of our universities—except, as I have said, those who go through the university at the expense of the S.A. Railways. This is a most serious situation, Sir. But what is more, half of those engineers joining the S.A. Railways resign; half of them do not stay with the S.A. Railways. This is tragic. But I agree with the Minister that in spite of this he should continue with his bursary scheme, because heaven knows where the S.A. Railways will end if they do not get new recruits by these means.

I was struck by an article about the staff position on the S.A. Railways which appeared in the Star, Johannesburg, on 17th November, 1967. I should like the House to listen to this statement so as to be able to assess properly the magnitude of this problem. A senior official of the S.A. Railways Administration said that the shortage of workers on the Western Transvaal System only was larger than the total number of unemployed throughout South Africa. Therefore the total number of unemployed in South Africa would be insufficient to fill the staff vacancies on the Western Transvaal System alone. This is a tremendous tribute to the economy of South Africa—hon. members opposite may take all the joy they can get out of this fact. But it also reveals in stark reality the staff situation on the S.A. Railways. If you read any authoritative statement on the position of the S.A. Railways, any publication by the S.A. Railways, you again and again come across statements by responsible men that they are worried, that they are spending sleepless nights on account of the staff shortage. The General Manager, for instance, on page 4 of his report for 1966-’67 says—

And the Minister in his Budget speech tells us that of the white workers alone, of the people who cause the trains to move, 1,000 disappeared on balance during the past year. This too, is most disturbing. Let me, once again, quote from the General Manager’s report already referred to. On page 80 he says—

That is to say, virtually all over South Africa. Let me say once more that this is a matter of the most profound concern.

This shortage must have its consequences, consequences which are not always apparent. There is one consequence this House should know about, a consequence at which I was particularly concerned and a consequence to which the Minister should give more attention and take us more into his confidence. In his Budget he told us that the works sanctioned on capital account each year could not be completed in the year for which provision was made therefor. He told us that they have on capital account to-day a backlog of work to the extent of R471 million— works which are needed to enable the S.A. Railways to keep pace with the development of South Africa. The annual average allocation is only about R128 million and even, so the Minister pointed out, if no new items were added to the programme the S.A. Railways had enough work to keep it busy for several years. One of the major reasons for this is the shortage of staff. As a matter of fact, this is one of the most disturbing features of the Minister’s Budget speech. I can remember another accasion where the S.A. Railways could not do the capital work required of it. But then it was not due to a shortage of staff but because the Nationalist Government thought the previous Minister of Railways, Mr. Sturrock, was too extravagant in his plans. What was the result? The result was that Paul Sauer disappeared as Minister of Railways. Well, we do not want Ben Schoeman to disappear too, Sir, during the short time which is left for him in the Cabinet I do think he should do something about this.

This brings me to a point where I should like to put a few questions to the Minister in regard to capital expenditure. If the S.A. Railways can spend only about R128 million per annum, where is the urgent necessity which now compels the Minister to spend one-third of that allocation within one year on the construction of a new pipeline? Why is this so urgent, especially in view of the fact that the Minister told us that the present pipeline was working only at two-thirds of its capacity? It seems to me there is a little bit of slack still to be taken up! In his Budget speech he told us that crude oil was being transported through this pipeline. Why then not diesel oil? Further on in his speech he told us that he expected the pipeline to convey less fuel during the coming year which would result in an expected drop of R2 million in its income. This being so, why must this new pipeline be constructed and completed in one year? Or is there a reason of such a confidential nature that we cannot know about it? Or is it due to the fact that he has trouble perhaps with the present pipeline? Is the present pipeline perhaps developing faults so that an alternative line has to be prepared? Is he hiding something from us? I suggest to the Minister that if he expects us to vote one-third of the amount that can be spent within the coming year on the urgent construction of a new pipeline which on the face of it does not seem to be immediately necessary, he will take us into his confidence and give us more information, even though it may hurt him.

I now come to what is for me the 64 million dollar question: What hope does the Minister have, what prospects does he see for relief of the staff shortage on the S A. Railways? The Minister will agree that his problem in this connection is a national problem. Everybody participating in the economy of South Africa is short of staff. We simply do not have sufficient people to go round, especially people with the qualifications required to do certain jobs almost exclusively under the policy in South Africa to-day. What is the Minister going to do?

What prospects are there for the future? I read his speech very carefully, and I even read it twice, but I could not find any positive suggestion that offers the slightest hope of relief to the people of South Africa in regard to this manpower shortage on the Railways. I am very curious to know, seeing that we do not have enough people of the right colour to do the work required, what the policy of the Minister is to remedy this problem. I am not referring in particular to the aspect of colour, although it is important, and the Minister should not ignore it; but generally, what is the Administration’s attitude? I have here an extract from a speech made by Mr. Liebenberg of the Artisan Staff Association, a gentleman whom the Minister on previous occasions described as a most responsible and highly intelligent man, an assessment with which I agree entirely. This is what he is reported to have said on 11th July, 1967—

Then Mr. Liebenberg said this—

Now, it seems clear to trade union leaders and to business managers that a change in the labour pattern of South Africa, whatever the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration may say, is inevitable, and I think the Minister by bis actions proves that he accepts it is inevitable. While the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration is taking Bantu out of Cape Town, the Minister comes with special Additional Estimates asking for thousands of rands to house more Natives to be employed on the South African Railways in the Cape Peninsula. Sir, he does seem to have glimmerings of insight in so far as this problem is concerned, and it is time that we are told by the Minister what his policy is in this connection for the S.A. Railways and Harbours. I want to know what the Minister’s attitude is to one of the most intelligent comments I have heard on this problem over the past 10 years. It is an absolute joy to read a statement like the one I have here before me by a very senior and most highly respected official in the employ of the Government. I refer to the statement made by the General Manager of Railways, Mr. Hugo, before the Federal Consultative Council of the Railway Staff Unions, as reported in The Star of 14th June, 1967. It comes as a flash of light into the intellectual darkness with which the Government is obscuring thinking in South Africa. Mr. Hugo said—

Not a multi-national society but a multiracial society—

Then he concludes by saying—

Here we have a gentleman whom we all respect, seeing in the pressures which will inevitably bring about a change in our labour pattern, not something to fear, not something to dread, not something to run away from, but an opportunity for higher standards for the white people of South Africa as well as others. He sees this as a challenge to the leadership of the white people of South Africa.

Now, what is the attitude of the Minister who is in close association with his General Manager? Has he got the same courage? Has he got the same courageous outlook that here is an opportunity for all the people of South Africa, and not a threat, nor a danger, nor instant disaster? Unless we can get clarity on this, we must all share the growing concern about the future of great institutions like the S.A. Railways when it comes to the manpower position. Wage increases are good and they may be necessary, but they alone cannot alleviate the problem that we have on the S.A. Railways and Harbours with this acute staff shortage. It is quite obvious that the competitors against the S.A. Railways for the manpower resources in South Africa will not sit still. If they find that as the result of this increase in salaries and wages given by the Minister they are running short of staff, they will put up salaries and wages which, like the Minister, they can pass on to the consumer.

There will be more inflation in South Africa and the competition for the inadequate manpower resources in the country will continue, and the Minister and his General Manager and his other officials will complain in public that they are being crippled because there are not enough hands to do the work required.

The time has come when we should have in this Parliament a moment of truth, a moment of realism. I appeal to the hon. the Minister of Transport, because of the respect I have for his intellectual honesty, to stand up and tell us what his attitude and his answer to the problems are. Let us stop playing about with the prejudices of the ignorant; let us seek the truth and face the facts.

I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that if he wants to overcome the shortage of manpower, he will have to do other things. He will have to look at some of the grievances and the complaints of his staff and improve conditions on the Railways for many members of his staff, because there is not the slightest doubt that there are many complaints which come to us as members of Parliament. Now we are in difficulties. I want to take the Minister into my confidence, as he sometimes takes us into his. We are in difficulties because the Minister has laid down, and understandably perhaps, that members of his staff should not come to members of Parliament with their difficulties. The result is that when railwaymen come to us, as they often do, we discourage them, except when it is a case of extreme injustice, where something has obviously gone wrong, and it is necessary to bring it to the attention of the Administration for it to be put right. Then, as the Minister knows, we make exceptions and bring these cases to him. Here I want to express my appreciation to the Minister for the frequent cases in which he grants relief where relief is necessary. Sometimes the Minister is a little obstinate and obdurate; generally, however, he does what is necessary. But the staff who come to us with their problems have to be warned that they are doing this contrary to the wishes of the Administration. I think that is wrong, because the Minister is losing a lot of information he should have. I can tell him that many of the staff will no longer go to a Nationalist member of Parliament. [Interjections.] But there are hon. members opposite who would genuinely undertake cases brought to them by railwaymen, but then they are the type of members who would warn the staff that they are not supposed to approach them because it is against the wishes of the Minister and the Administration.

There is not the slightest doubt that there are a great number of complaints from the Railway staff, which is reducing the popularity of the Railways as an employer, and those complaints relate mostly to questions of overtime, promotion, discipline and appeals. Rightly or wrongly, there is a belief amongst the staff that an appeal is a waste of time, on whatever grounds it is brought. There are other complaints, for example in regard to punishing people after they have been acquitted by the courts. Often the Administration takes it upon itself to find a man guilty and to punish him as if he were guilty of the crime of which he was proved innocent. So I can go on, but I prefer to be concrete. I cannot bring individual cases to the Minister, because that is not done, but I can give a general impression.

I want to give the Minister the example of the case of assistant engine-drivers in the Cape Western system. They have a problem. At the request of the trade unions concerned, the Minister has introduced a system of service-wide promotion. What has happened to these people is that some of them have been on the highest notch of their grade for eight years, but they cannot get promotion before going to the College at Esselen Park. But many other people with only three years’ service at the highest notch have been to Esselen Park from other systems, probably before this service-wide promotion system was introduced, and now people in the Cape have to wait while these people with much shorter service than they take the senior positions in the Cape Western system. I have had cases of men who have been stuck at the highest notch for eight years and more. I think that is the sort of thing to which the hon. the Minister should give his attention. There is much to be said for a service-wide promotion system but when it causes individual injustice the Minister should be astute, or the Administration should be astute, to avoid it.

Talking about that, Sir, I must say that it is shocking and frightening to realize that the S.A. Railways and Harbours pay people who do most responsible work. I was shocked to see what people in charge of trains as engine drivers were paid. This does not include the increases which are to come because we do not know what they will be, but until recently a man who became a learner engine driver was paid R90 per month and, if he was under 18 years of age, R75 per month which, for a start, is perhaps in order. But then when he qualified and became an assistant engine driver he was paid R120 per month, with annual increments up to R140 per month. If he became a senior assistant after some years he was paid R150 per month. When he became a driver in his own right, a position carrying great responsibility, he was paid R165 per month, and a special grade engine driver receives R195 per month—less than £100 per month. I want to know what possible attraction in the long run a job carrying that responsibility can have for people when that is the sort of pay they get.

It seems to me that what is needed in the S.A. Railways and Harbours very urgently is some system of job evaluation. I know that the Government does not like that. I know that the Johannesburg municipality undertook a job evaluation and the result reflected so startlingly upon the inadequacy of pay in the Public Service and in the Railway Service that the Government took away the right of municipalities to pay their own employees what they considered the job to be worth. Sir, when I see figures of this kind I would urge upon the Minister that the time has come to pay attention to job evaluation.

When one considers the staff shortages and the problems associated with them, one begins to wonder whether the increased productivity to which the hon. the Minister referred in his speech—he said that the staff could move 4 per cent more traffic despite their depleted numbers, which is excellent and most commendable—can be maintained. Are there not certain things that begin to warn us; are there not little clouds as large as a man’s hand on the horizon to which we should give attention? Let us look, for example, at the very interesting tables which the General Manager supplied to us in his latest report, at page 93. When one looks at the column “Surplus of earnings over gross working expenditure” one finds that this was R84 million in 1964, R80 million in 1965, R54 million in 1966 and then there was a slight improvement to R65 million in 1967. In other words, the earnings in relation to gross expenditure are decreasing. You also find, Sir, if you look at the ratio of expenditure to earnings that that ratio was 80.37 per cent in 1964, and it had gone up to 87.4 per cent in 1967. When I look at the percentage return on capital I find that in 1964 it was 5.94 per cent, in 1965 5.22 per cent, in 1966 3.36 per cent and in 1967 a slight improvement to 3.50 per cent but nothing like the percentage in 1964. Sir, those are little things that seem to warn us that perhaps the staff cannot maintain the strain to which they are being exposed.

One realizes that in order to be able to live decently, the engine drivers, like many other Railway employees, have to work excessive overtime. There is not the slightest doubt about it that the overtime demanded from the running staff and even certain clerical staff of the S.A. Railways amount to nothing but downright cruelty. Sir, I heard a conversation in one of the air freight offices on the subject of overtime. I was shocked to hear what was expected of clerks in the air freight offices. I heard them say that they welcomed this overtime at first because it meant a higher income and that they could buy curtains for their homes, but how now it was grinding them down; their families were up in arms; their wives were complaining and their domestic life was upset. It is not right and fair that people should be expected to work these hours. Sir, I am talking about the tremendous strain on the staff and again I would like to take one concrete example rather than to generalize. I want to remind the House what has been happening on the S.A. Airways. I am taking the overseas services for the moment. In 1962-’63 the S.A. Airways operated 3 Boeing 707’s and ran five weekly services to Europe. The next year the number of services was increased to six. In 1964-’65 the fourth Boeing 707 was introduced and the number of services to Europe was increased to eight. In 1965-’66, in April and November, the 9th and the 10th services to Europe were introduced. In 1966-’67 the 5th 707 and the Australian service were introduced. There are now 11 flights and there are soon to be seven 707’s; there is a service to the United States in the offing. There are more planes to come and quite soon we will have these huge, spectacular Jumbo Jets flying on the S.A. Airways routes. This is a most wonderful achievement. The heart of every South African beats proudly when he hears of it but, Sir, do we ever stop to consider that this tremendously expanding service, this Jumbo service that is being created in South Africa, has to be run by an inadequate technical staff because of the shortage of manpower, and that they cannot be expected to maintain the productivity that is demanded of them under present circumstances. I am told that the Airways technicians, on an average, are working 19 hours a day to keep the planes aloft. It is unbelievable. Perhaps it is an exaggerated figure, but even if the figure is not as high as that, there must be some substance in this statement about excessive overtime, because, Sir, here are some ascertainable truths: In 1962 the technical staff of the S.A. Airways numbered 1,326, and on the overseas services they were looking after three Boeings and five flights to Europe. In 1967 there were only 1,292 of these technical people, 34 fewer than in 1962. But instead of looking after three Boeings, they were looking after seven Boeings and 11 flights to Europe and a heavily increased internal service. Sir, how long can that continue? Can the hon. the Minister afford to expand and to expand and to introduce more flights to different parts of the world, to buy bigger and bigger aeroplanes and to expect the same small technical staff to undertake all the maintenance work that is necessary to keep the S.A. Airways one of the safest in the world as, thank God, it is? Is the hon. the Minister not taking an undue chance; is he not gambling with the safety of the S.A. Airways? What does he intend to do? What is the answer to this?

You may put up your own puppets.

You can move your amendment now; you should have moved it an hour ago.

Sir, I am being warned by hon. members opposite to move my amendment. I move—

1. (1) in spite of a record surplus, no relief has been provided for the users of the South African Railways and Harbours in order to reduce inflationary pressures;
2. (2) no solution has been offered for the staff shortages on the South African Railways which are assuming most serious proportions; and
3. (3) the unhealthy practice of under-estimating revenue and over-estimating expenditure persists.”.

I made the point that with these conditions obtaining on our Railways, efficiency must suffer. I want to give the hon. the Minister just one example to illustrate what I mean. You know, Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House pick up the most interesting bits of information in the most odd places! In the Salstaff Bulletin for January there is a report of a meeting between the management and the committee of trade unions. This makes very interesting reading, and I was amazed to see that it has now become necessary to appoint on the S.A.R. & H. “emergency squads” of accountants to try and find out what is happening in various parts of the Railways. This is what they told the management—

I cannot agree more. The report goes on—

This is how the report goes. Well, I think this is unbelievable. The General Manager gave a most interesting answer. He said—

It is a counsel of despair, and the General Manager has my sympathy because the Government is not doing anything to meet this problem. The General Manager of Railways, like the manager of every major business in South Africa, faces this intractable problem of what to do about the manpower position.

I also allude in my amendment to the fact that we deplore the fact that there is no relief for the railway users. It would have been wonderful if the Minister had used some of this huge surplus, if he had utilized some of his high expectations for the future, to give relief where relief was due. It is now not possible. Perhaps it is not too late to appeal to the Minister to see whether he cannot give relief to the users of the S.A.R. by implementing some of the recommendations of the Schumann report to which the hon. the Minister is committed in principle already. It may be that in some cases he is committed to a long-term implementation, but he has given us to understand that these things will happen quite soon. Time does not permit me to go into details, but I want to ask the Minister whether he will not consider as urgent reforms for example the charging of a special tariff for full truckloads. I know the Minister will say many of the loads conveyed by the S.A.R. are already conveyed in full truckloads because that is also convenient for both the consignors and the consignees. But there is not the slightest doubt if he were to follow recommendation No. 765 of the Schumann Commission he may find there will be much greater use of full truckloads, greater efficiency on the railways, cheaper transport for the users, and relief of the manpower pressure experienced on the S.A.R. It takes fewer people to convey a truckload from one station to another than it does to convey a number of small consignments in one truck, involving continuous handling, loading and unloading and despatching, as is done to-day. I think it will be opportune if the Minister will give us his views on this aspect.

Then I think the Minister should have considered, and should still consider, the question of wharfage dues, especially for incoming goods, on coastal traffic, if possible. I regret I do not have time to expand on this, but I know the Minister knows about this, he has read the Schumann Commission’s report, he has received recommendations about it, and think the time has come that he should positively react to the suggestions that have been made.

I wish I had time to speak to the Minister about problems which will become quite real, perhaps not this year or next year, but quite soon all the same. I refer for example to the question of containerization. There are, however, other stages of the debate when these points can be discussed. In the minute left to me, I want to ask the Minister the followng. In view of the fact that the passenger services of the S.A.R. are dependent for their profitability to such a large extent upon third-class passengers …

Not for their profitability. No profit is made on third-class passenger services.

Oh, well, Mr. Speaker. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, it seems our country is so privileged we are able to experience various high-water marks. As we heard recently, there were achievements outside this House in the field of medical science. This year we have a festive Budget of the S.A.R. & H. inside this House. I am referring to it as a festive Budget because there are three highlights as regards the achievements of the S.A.R. If the figures in the White Book and the Brown Book are taken into consideration, the White Book which deals with expenditure on current revenue and the Brown Book on capital expenditure, it is clear that the Railways is poised to reach the R1 billion notch for the first time in its history. This is truly a tremendous and striking high-water mark which cannot be allowed to pass unmentioned. We understand that airways passengers have passed the million notch. Almost a quarter of our entire population undertakes at least one trip by air in South Africa each year. That is why I say it is truly a festive occasion and an achievement which is deserving of mention as well as acknowledgment from the general public in our country.

In this House too we have just witnessed the setting up of a new record. We have seen how the main speaker on the Opposition side, in the light of these circumstances and achievements, has had the least to say in the longest possible time. He set up a new record. The hon. member for Yeoville knows that I am not an unfriendly person, but he must forgive me if I express the hope that his successor will at least make a better attempt.

The Opposition set up a second record in this debate, which is that they submitted the longest list of items of gossip here this afternoon which has ever been quoted in this House. It seems to me their new role is to serve as conductors for grievances and criticism from outside. I am referring to allegations concerning cases where people with three years’ experience were promoted above persons with ten years’ service. I want to express my doubt in regard to that statement. To me it sounds far-fetched and rather risky.

We have had a whole series of references, complaints and criticism here. Before I go into it in detail, Mr. Speaker, you will grant me an opportunity, since I am rising for the first time as the successor of my colleague and a friend, to say a few words in his memory. What our deceased friend, Gideon Knobel, did he never did flamboyantly, or with any strong element of drama, he did it with an intensity of spirit. That was how we came to know the late Gideon Knobel. What he offered both outside and inside this House was sincerely his. It was decorated with ribbons of obligingness and dedication to the matters he was dealing with. His basic philosophy of life and its task was always illuminated by a feeling of great piety towards his family, his Government and his nation, and for that I remain grateful to him as my predecessor.

In addition it would also be an oversight on my part if I did not refer to both the form and the language in which the Budget speech of the hon. the Minister, as well as the Report of the General Manager of Railways was expressed this year. I found it particularly striking on account of the choiceness of language, clarity of thought and the attractive and logical setting out of chapters and paragraphs. If definitely redounds to the credit of the tradition of this House and the reputation of the industry concerned. As far as I am concerned, I want to express my thanks and felicitations. An excellent Minister creates an excellent administration, in the same way as a capable management must inevitably achieve good results. That is the main point under discussion here this afternoon.

I now want to confine myself to the criticism expressed by the Opposition in the person of the hon. member for Yeoville. Before dealing in detail with a few of his statements, I want to refer in passing to the extremely superficial remarks which he made here so casually. He referred, inter alia, to the large profits which were being made on the pipeline and in regard to which our domestic taxpayers were allegedly being taxed unnecessarily. Inter alia, and I give him one point for this, he referred to Pretoria where the people there have to make the best of a rather high cost of living. He was doing so with a view to the coming election at Pretoria (West) of course. I would just like to react briefly to that by giving him the assurance that the voters in Pretoria (West) would rather prefer to pay the present price of petrol than to have to pay more for important and essential provisions. That is my reply, which will also be confirmed by the voters of Pretoria (West) in the near future. He made an equally pious reference to a double pipeline which must suddenly, within a year, be completed. He wanted to know where the sense was in that. He expects the Minister to supply a statement and a reply in this regard. I really did not think the hon. member for Yeoville would put forward such elementary arguments. After all, it was made very clear in the Press and elsewhere that the entire purpose of the second pipeline was to differentiate between raw products and refined products, and also to alleviate the pressure on the Durban harbour. All innocence, he pretended to know nothing about that. He made a tremendous point of it. In contrast to the clarity which we have had up to now in our reports and discussions, we are saddled with the turpidity and vagueness of the thoughts of the Opposition side. It puts me in mind of a joke which I heard, if I may take a page from the book of our former State President. In the thirties Jan Visagie went to look for work on the “Railways”. He arrived at a small country station and on a certain day he had an appointment there with the section manager and the station-master. They thrust a lantern with red and green glass panes on the sides into his hands and took him to a railway crossing. Then they said to him, “Jan Visagie, if a wagon with a load of mealies drawn by a team of red Africander oxen should cross here on its way to the grain elevator and a train is bearing down from the left, show us what you would do with the lantern”. He then said, “I shall take my lantern and wave the red side three times in the direction of the engine driver”. Then they said, “Very well, but if the red oxen belonging to Oom Koos are on the rail way line and the train is bearing down from the right, what will you do then?” He then replied, “It is easy. I shall simply flash the red light to the right-hand side”. They then asked him what he would do if the red oxen were on the railway line and there was a train coming from the left side and another train coming from the right side and his lantern had no paraffin in it. Then Jan looked down at his old friends, his veldschoens with the turned-up toes, and he swallowed and said, “Oom, if there were two trains coming and the red oxen of Oom Koos were on the railway line, I would run home as fast as my legs could carry me and call my sister Sarie and tell her that if she had never seen a ‘royal smash’ before, she must come and see one now”. This is the kind of mentality displayed by those people. Their function is to spread sensational stories amongst families and unenlightened people. They supply the voters of South Africa with the proof that they cannot offer a solution for a specific and difficult situation, but that they are people who run away.

I should like to elaborate for a moment on the inflationary implications of the Budget, as the hon. member for Yeoville tried to put those implications across here. In the first instance we are dealing here with a wage increase which will go hand-in-hand with increased production. The Budget speech showed that on the civil engineering side the mechanization of track maintenance has enabled the Administration to decrease the number of its white and non-white staff considerably, despite an increase of almost 60 per cent in the gross ton-mile traffic hauled on our lines. According to the report of the General Manager the number of platelayers has been reduced by 600 and Bantu labourers by 10,000 in this respect only, which points clearly to increased production—something which we would all like to see as a counteraction to inflation. This is not a gift, it is well-deserved compensation which our Railway officials have earned themselves here. It is not a present from Father Christmas as the hon. member for Yeoville tried to imply here. I want to go further and point out that in the field of Railway repair work there has been an increase from 20 million to 33 million freight ton-miles over the past ten years, that is, an increase of 62 per cent. The number of coaches in service have only been increased by 40 per cent. The staff in the artisan’s and handyman’s grades, which the hon. member for Yeoville is so fond of rubbing in, have decreased from 1,180 to 871, in other words 26 per cent, during this period. I want to assert that this is truly a remarkable achievement. To me this does not look like the achievement of frustrated people who are working themselves to death doing overtime, and who, as the hon. member asserted here, are having sleepless nights. No, Mr. Speaker, these are happy, dedicated people, with a clear grasp of their task, who can accomplish these kind of achievements.

During 1956 workshop expenses totalled R6.4 million. In 1966 it was R9.9 million. That gives us a cost structure in cents per coachmile of .585 and .52 respectively, which means a decrease of 11.1 per cent in repair costs per coach-mile over a period of ten years. This is one more example of increased production, and the dedication, acceptance and utilization of more scientific methods by our railway staff.

I want to mention a further interesting example. If we compare the safety index of 5.6 with 24 outside industries, Mr. Speaker, it serves as additional proof to us that, comparatively speaking, the railwayman and his Management is achieving five times more than is the case in outside industries.

The productivity of the railway employee has increased consistently, and comparatively rapidly, during the past few years. According to the staff particulars in the annual report of the General Manager (Addendum 38, page 137), the Reports of the Controller and Auditor-General (paragraphs 61 (2), page 129) and the labour statistics which appeared in the quarterly report of the Reserve Bank (December, 1967, page F.73), the total number of staff in the employ of the Railways since 1958 has decreased by more than 5 per cent, while the goods transported per ton-mile, increased by 51.6 per cent, and passenger journeys by 74 per cent. Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Yeoville and those with him should try and make me believe that this is not a record, that this is not an achievement which is deserving of acknowledgment and which calls for higher compensation on moral and economic grounds!

Conditions during the first few years after the war (the time of the United Party Government) taught us that labour had become a bottleneck which we would apparently always have to contend with and that it was therefore necessary to ensure that the available people were more rapidly and more efficiently trained so that the best possible use could be made of their services. This is precisely what the Management and the hon. the Minister have done during the past two decades.

This view of the matter, plus the bonus system which was introduced in 1960 has ensured a production which is almost 50 per cent higher than the normal production of existing workshops. Mr. Speaker, these are considerable achievements, and these are things which we ought to take into consideration before we enter a debate in this House. There is a saving here of R50 million on Administration and capital expenditure, which would have entailed the costs of at least two new workshops, as a result of this increased production, better mechanization and organization. These individuals and these departments deserve praise and acknowledgment of our country and this House.

Further interesting particulars, Mr. Speaker, are those in regard to safety measures and the protection of workers against accidents and injuries, factors which play such a consider able role in the smooth functioning of our workshops. The measure of success achieved appears clearly from the fact that accidents are now being counted in hundreds per year instead of in thousands, as was the case during the time of the United Party. Mr. Speaker, I emphasize “in terms of hundreds per year instead of thousands during the time of the United Party.” I go further. Time lost amounts to only 6,000 days per year instead of the 45,000 days 20 years ago in the time of the United Party. The achievement in this field is six-sevenths better than it was in their time. The railway employees have for these and other reasons complied adequately with one of the most important requirements, that is to ensure that wage increases do not cause inflation.

To come nearer home, Mr. Speaker: In regard to the harbour staff in Table Bay we read in Die Beeld of 28th October, 1967—

A whole year’s contribution was made in four and a half months in the form of increased production, the most important means of combating inflation. It was made possible and delivered by the staff of the Railways themselves. From 6th June, 1966, to 27th October, during the same year, a tonnage of 37½ million had already been handled as against 43 million during the entire year up to June. That is sufficient proof that the wage increases of the officials could be justified in terms of acknowledged economic as well as moral laws, and for that reason ought to be welcomed and praised. The Minister and his Department are undoubtedly on the right path and deserve our support and acknowledgment in this.

Talking of inflationary tendencies: We must take into consideration that a large percentage —between 8 and 12 per cent—of these salary increases are being earmarked each year for pension contributions and for investments with public debt commissioners for the general development of this country. This is money which is indirectly channelled to the benefit of the officials. That in itself, together with the increased income tax assessments of the more than 115,000 white employees on the Railways, comprises quite an important neutralizing factor against inflation. In addition there is in any case less danger that the extra money which will come into circulation will increase the demand for consumer goods to such an extent that it will exceed the supply. We read in the quarterly report of the Reserve Bank of December, 1966: “At the end of September this credit was R177 million, or nearly 10 per cent below the permissible level.” That is the ceiling set by the Reserve Bank in regard to credit provision by the ordinary commercial banks. This report stated that in December, 1966, this amount was already 10 per cent below that ceiling. Since then it has improved even further. In December, 1967, it was only R162 million as against R177 million a year previously. I maintain that the argument that these salary increases are conducive to inflation is rendered groundless by counter-arguments such as these.

I spoke about high-water marks. We have the assurance of the Minister that these increased salaries will not be derived from increased tariffs, but will be drawn from the Rates Equalization Fund. The Minister saw fit to increase the Rates Equalization Fund to R74.8 million, the highest balance in the history of the Fund, and not with a view to luxury but with a specific purpose, in accordance with economic laws and in accordance with a sense of responsibility towards the future of this country. This Fund is intended to form a buffer in a slack period as an insurance premium for difficult times in order not to cause disruption in the other sectors of commerce and industry. It is in conflict with all economic laws to draw from this Fund in times of prosperity, and to decrease the Fund for the sake of increased profits amongst the private sector only. The hon. member for Yeoville and those with him stated here, while he was waxing lyrical and trying to intimate that the professional staff of the Railways was being drained away, that they were exacting increased tariffs and increased costs from the consumer. Then it was not sympathy for the railway worker or arguments against inflation. No, then they were looking for something sensational: Sarie, come and look at the “smash”. Then they did not entertain this sense of responsibility and this balanced concept in regard to this matter. No, then they had other motives. They are being reproached with this and the election in Pretoria (West) will confirm this. This contribution to the income of the railway officials constitutes no danger that they will live extravagantly; it merely enables them to make up a backlog. If we also take into consideration the fact that this advance is being paid in 12 instalments, spread throughout the country, and distributed amongst 220,000 officials, then it is no argument to say that it may possibly be conducive to inflation. As regards the argument in favour of tariff decreases which was raised by the hon. member for Yeoville, I merely repeat that there is no sector of our economy in the country which is to-day experiencing a slack period. The Railways, as the national transport industry, and the building industry are the most sensitive barometers for any signs of recession, but there are none. That is why a consideration of a decrease in tariffs is misplaced and would be poor policy, typical of the Opposition. We are used to that, but it still does not mean that we should follow such an unworthy example; we know our responsibilities. We foresee difficult years. In regard to devaluation, tariff protection by Britain, competition on the overseas market as far as our minerals are concerned, we foresee difficult times. We stand to harvest less than half the previous year’s mealie crop. The Railways must in its policy make provision for all the unforeseen circumstances, and it has done so. it has done so to an appreciable extent. It has done so in such a way that it inspires confidence for the future, by bolstering up its Rates Equalization Fund until it stands at the highest level it has ever been. This is no coincidence. It is leadership. It shows comprehension, understanding and an insight into the future, and of one’s own responsibility. We praise the Minister and his Department for that.

My time is running out and I want to conclude by expressing my dissatisfaction at the democratic system which, in this modern time in which we have a prestige state such as the Republic, expects us to bear the responsibility for the ineffectiveness of the Opposition. After all, they form part of this Parliament and they do in fact have a national responsibility towards this country and its people, but what do we find? A lot of little boys, with a stocky little leader at the head, tramping about in a pool of water to see who can leave the biggest mud tracks, the hon. member for Yeoville or the hon. member for Durban (Point), and what is the result? A pool of mud and the sediment in that pool obliterates the tracks and the result is a quagmire. [Time expired.]

I think it is just as well that the last speaker’s time expired before he dragged the level of the debate down more into the mud. Even if the hon. member is accustomed to dragging things into the mud, I do not intend to follow him. His trouble is that he prepared a speech based on the expectation of an attack on the inflationary effect of the Budget, but when he found that that was not the theme of the hon. member for Yeoville he had nothing left to say other than a few sneering remarks, meaningless and unfounded, about the level of the speech of the hon. member for Yeoville. But he made little or no attempt to answer the points raised. After all, if the speech of the hon. member for Yeoville was so poor, it should have been no problem for that hon. member to answer it. But instead of that, he tried to spin out time by telling pointless stories, waffling around and eventually giving up and following his prepared speech which had very little to do with the speech of the hon. member for Yeoville.

Let me deal with one or two of the points made by the hon. member. He spoke of a “feesbegroting”. I will come back to that in a moment. The jubilation of the hon. member and the other hon. members opposite is understandable. We do not begrudge them their jubilation. They, like us, must have heard the pleas of the railway workers. Even they, blind as most of them are to the realities of South African life, must have been able to see the hardship pressing down on the railway worker.

They must have seen the tension building up and the strain coming to breaking point. No wonder, after their frustration, that they are now able to relax and hail the belated relief which has been given to the railway workers in this Budget, as we do who pleaded for it and asked for relief a year ago, while those hon. members sat dumb … [Interjections.] Sir, they can laugh. Last year I challenged any member of the Government to get up and join us in our plea for assistance to the railway worker to enable him to meet the rising cost of living without working incredibly long and unbearable hours of overtime. Not one of them got up and joined us then. Now they rub their hands and say: Look what we have done. But a year ago, when we pleaded for it, they shouted us down and said we were just playing politics. The hon. member for Randburg said that this was not inflationary because the railway worker has earned the extra increases by his greater productivity. But that is exactly what we said a year ago. The hon. the Minister himself—and I have here his Budget speech of last year—said—

We agreed, and we said: Make it a tangible recognition, something that can be of benefit to them, other than the “Dankie, Baas” speeches of the members of the Government. A year ago the Minister recognized, and we recognized, the greater productivity of the railway worker and his right to an improvement. Now that it comes a year late, the hon. member for Randburg says it is deserved. [Interjection.] What were the other points made by the hon. member? That the inland user would happily pay more for petrol rather than for other essential items. We did not ask them to pay more for other essential items; we asked for relief in the inland price of petrol, and we will tell that hon. member’s constituents that he thinks it is a good thing that they should pay more for petrol. Then he spoke of accidents and the reduction in the number of accidents. Last year the Minister took exception when I referred to reports almost every day in the Press of accidents. I claimed then that there must be some correlation between the long hours of overtime and the strain on the personnel and the number of accidents. The Minister took exception and criticized me very strongly for doing so. Because these reports have continued, I asked a question in the House earlier this year, asking the number of accidents and the injuries caused to the staff and to the public last year. The Minister thought he would be very clever, I presume, and referred me to the report of accidents tabled in the House, which is not available in printed form but which one has to study in the office of the Clerk of the Papers. It is a report of 178 pages, listing each accident individually, with no summary whatsoever. He assumed that nobody would take the trouble to plough through it to get the figures out. Well, I did. I ploughed through it for hours and I summarized the accidents of the first three months of 1967. These figures are not available and do not become available in this form. I found that in 1967 there were 1,663 accidents on the Railways. The hon. member who has just sat down said that the accident rate had dropped to a few hundred.

In the workshops.

He is picking out one particular section. I divided these accidents into level-crossing smashes, comprising a total of 71 in the first three months, collisions comprising a total of 18, falls from trains, 85, shunting accidents, 57, and so it goes on. Over 100 persons were hit by trains. If you multiply this by four to give an annual figure, you get a total of 364 people killed and 1,248 injured. The total killed in the first quarter is 88, and the number of injured is 312. I have broken this down further into staff and public to see the further effect that it has, but I do not intend to go into those details at this stage. However, I quote these figures because the hon. member who has just sat down, had the temerity to talk about the “vast reduction” in accidents. If he compares that figure with the accident figures shown in Table 39 of last year, he will find a somewhat different picture from the year before. If he wants to say that this is only in regard to the workshops, then it is typical of the attempt on the part of the hon. member to run away from the broad issues and to hide behind particularizations.

Sir, I said that hon. members on the other side were entitled to jubilation because of their relief. But I want to charge the hon. the Minister with brinkmanship. Last year we referred to the increasing strain on the Railway personnel; we pointed out the danger to the Service as a whole of expecting them to go on and on carrying a greater and greater burden. Our views were strengthened during the course of the year, but the hon. the Minister played a dangerous game of brinkmanship in that he tried to hold the position as long as he possibly could without giving relief. He tried to hold it until he could hold it no longer without risking a break-down of the complete Railway Service. The people who were the victims of this brinkmanship were the Railway personnel. I want to pay tribute to those Railway officials in positions of responsibility in the Railway Service whom I had the opportunity of meeting last year. The Minister is aware that the General Manager arranged a tour by the Select Committee where we had an opportunity of meeting most of the heads of the Railways and of the Airways. I was certainly deeply impressed by the sincerity of the people in whose hands rests the responsibility of making this vast organization work. I was impressed by their dedication, but I was also impressed by the frustration of these officials and by the fear which was expressed so often that their dedication and sacrifice would be in vain because the structure upon which they had to operate was in danger of collapse through lack of trained staff. Sir, the hon. the Minister knows that that is the position particularly in the engineering department, and particularly in the specialist departments. It is no good having a few dedicated heads if they have not got the staff to carry out the job. It is that structure with which the Minister has been gambling for the last year. I believe he has waited too long. He may think that it is 23.59, a minute to midnight, but for many, many people it is a minute past midnight; it is too late for those who have already left the Service, and for those who have committed themselves to leave the Service. Those people have gone; we cannot get them back again, but if attention had been paid to their problems a year ago, then I believe that many of them might not have left the Service and that we might not have had the present serious situation. I think it is common cause that the situation to-day is serious and it is not necessary for me to try to prove it to-day.

I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister, now that he is doing something, not to forget the vital middle group in the Service, the group with 10 to 15 years’ service. So often in the past the man at the top has received recognition, and inducements have been given by big improvements at the bottom of the pay scale, inducements to attract the necessary new personnel, accompanied by rewards for people at the top for good work done. But I believe that the middle group, the group with 10 to 15 years’ service, is a group which has been tragically mishandled both in the Railway service and in other Government departments. Sir, this middle group is a group with established responsibilities. They have homes and families. They have children at school; they have committed themselves to liabilities within the family structure. They have contributed to pension funds, contributions which they cannot afford to sacrifice. They are therefore more or less a captive group of workers. It is impossible for them to make a new start. They are too old to start again without risking the security of their families. Sir, the Railways know it, and when it comes to recognition these people are often the last people to get any reward because, as I have said, they are a captive group of workers. I have so often heard the complaint from this group: “When are we going to get recognition; we who cannot do anything else, who have no other future except in our present field of employment and who are always overlooked?” Sir, these people in the middle group are the bosses of tomorrow. It is no good having people at the top who are efficient if you have not got below them a sub-structure of people to take over. I am not going to deal with particular fields here this afternoon. The Minister knows that there are certain fields where all the people in the top positions are approaching the point of retirement over the next year or two. The Railways have simply not got the trained personnel to replace them. If many of these people at the top do not carry on for the additional period after retirement the Railways will not have substitutes with the necessary training to take their place. People have been resigning from the middle group because they have been neglected, with the result that you have a vacuum in a vital part of the structure of Railway personnel.

Sir, this Budget will go a long way towards assisting railwaymen in the financial field, and the Minister will doubtless be thanked by hon. members opposite. We have only had three “dankies” in the last speech from that side, but as hon. members on that side run out of ideas I forecast that the number of “dankies” will increase rapidly. The Minister will take the credit. He created the situation in which the railwaymen found themselves but he is now being hailed as a hero for rescuing the Railway servants by giving them pay increases. But, Sir, it is not just the question of pay that is the trouble; economics is only one of the problems. I believe that the problem of overtime, to which the hon. member for Yeoville referred, is one of the issues to which the hon. the Minister will have to give his very, very serious attention. The strain which is being placed on many workers is becoming unbearable. Only yesterday morning I was talking to a man who had a breakdown last week. He said to me: “I just cannot carry on any more. I work every week-end, every Saturday, every Sunday, and every week-day until 7 p.m. or 8 p.m. I cannot go on but I have to because the whole of my section depends upon my being there. If I am not there it will collapse.” Sir, this is the position in department after department. Men are loyally carrying a burden which physically they cannot carry, a burden which they cannot continue to carry without physical and sociological breakdown. When you talk to the wives of railwaymen, you find that they are the ones who are suffering.

The lonely women.

My hon. friend correctly says “the lonely women”. There are many women who are lonely to-day because their husbands are having to work 14 to 16 hours a day. Sir, this question of overtime is not something which the Minister can shrug off. He cannot expect to compensate the railwaymen for overtime by just increasing their pay. Something will have to be done. Then there is the question of promotion. I do not have the time to go into that question this afternoon. I hope to be able at a later stage to deal with certain aspects of it. There is considerable dissatisfaction over promotion. The disciplinary system is another issue which is creating a great amount of hardship, bitterness and resentment. Other speakers on this side will deal with that, but I believe that is another factor which requires attention. Another issue is the question of unnecessary transfers. People are transferred simply for the sake of transfer. In other cases railwaymen are not given promotion unless they are prepared to accept a transfer. People who are thus affected are often the most valuable workers. They are people who have bought themselves a house, who have families and children at school, and they are then faced with the choice either of accepting a transfer or losing promotion. Many of them resign rather than disrupt their families and their social life. They resign rather than give up the social circle and sport clubs to which they belong. They have to choose between resigning or losing their chance of promotion because they cannot get promotion in their own area. That is another ground of complaint. Then, Sir, there are certain inconsistencies, which I do not have time to deal with at the moment. I refer, for example, to the Natal allowance, a special allowance which is paid in order to attract people to fill vacancies in Natal, but that allowance is not payable to all the people in Natal. It is only payable to some. Then there is the lack of recognition of initiative. I believe that initiative is not rewarded as it should be. There is also the lack of reward for inventions. People feel that they do not always get the recognition which they should for applying themselves conscientiously and with dedication to the job. Then there is the question of training and losses of staff, a matter that we will have to go into further. The situation as far as apprentices are concerned is very serious indeed. There is the question of engineers, to which I have already referred. There is the question of housing, where at least an effort has been made this year. I want to draw attention to the Minister’s attempt to make out that large numbers of houses were provided last year.

Not last year. I gave the total number of departmental houses.

What the hon. the Minister did not mention was that last year only 35 additional departmental houses were provided. A globular figure was given here but no mention was made of those which had been withdrawn from service. The net increase for the whole of last year was 35 departmental houses. There are some 2,400 people on the waiting list for homes and only 35 houses were provided last year.

Then there is the question of pensioners to which other members will refer. Sir, these are the human problems facing the staff. They are problems which will not be wiped out simply by a 10 per cent or 12 per cent increase in wages. I believe that the hon. the Minister will have to give us far more details about these other issues which require his urgent attention if he is going to solve this staff problem, if he is going to plug the gaps which otherwise will make it impossible to carry on with the administration. Next year a smaller number of staff will have to carry an even greater burden than they did this year. This year a staff reduced by 1,000 carried an increase of some 4 per cent or 5 per cent in revenue-earning ton miles. You have fewer people carrying a bigger burden. These people cannot be expected to go on and on carrying this load as they have been doing.

Finally, and in the few minutes left to me, I want to refer to the fallacy that this is a good Budget. The hon. member for Yeoville dealt with this fallacy at some length but received no reply whatsoever from the now absent chairman of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours, no doubt because he did not expect to have to reply to that type of question. Mr. Speaker, it is common knowledge that any managing director or any sales manager of any firm who forecasts a small profit or a small loss only so as to be able to give his boss a pleasant surprise at the end of the year is likely to get his boots shot off. I myself was a sales manager and the first time I produced an unexpectedly high sales figure compared with the forecast I was just about fired. The boss said he did not want a pleasant surprise at the end of the year but accurate figures on which to work on. He pointed out that if I gave him figures which could lead to a wrong costing of the product the firm would have to overcharge and resultantly lose customers.

Just think what a pleasant surprise it would be for the United Party if they could win Pretoria (West).

We shall worry about that when the time comes—and about Swellendam too. There is one thing I want to say to the credit of the chairman of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours, the hon. member for Randburg, and that is that he is a good sportsman. But he is not a good estimator of votes. In regard to Johannesburg (West) last year his forecast was nothing better than the hon. the Minister’s financial forecasts. So, if that is an indication of his expectations in regard to Pretoria (West), then I am afraid he is in for a shock. The error the Minister made in his financial forecast is an error which, as the hon. member for Yeoville pointed out, has been loaded off onto a captive users’ market. In a firm a sales manager or a managing director would be sacked if he overcharged his customers, and thereby lost customers. But in this case the customer is a captive customer. There is a monopoly and, consequently, he has to buy from the S.A. Railways. He has got to use the S.A. Railways. So, where you have this kind of bad budgeting the effect is to penalize the railway users of South Africa. The Minister, however, said this surplus was fortuitous; this was due to fortuitous circumstances—in other words, to something unexpected, to something fortunate which cropped up. But on the very first page of his Budget last year he said: “The prospects for the coming year are encouraging and there is considerable optimism after the copious rains”. But this year he regards it as being fortuitous. Let us see what these fortuitous circumstances are. Firstly—“the resuscitation of the agricultural section”. Last year the Minister in his Budget said that: “good financial results would be aided by a resuscitation of the agricultural sector”. Another fortuitous circumstance is, he has told us, “the relaxation of import control”. Yet last year in his Budget he said: “The administration’s finances will be effected principally by maize exports and the extent to which advantage is taken of the relaxation of control to increase imports.” Another fortuitous circumstance he said was the “building up of trade inventories”. But last year he already said that “the building up of trade inventories would contribute to a better financial result”. Stocks of strategic commodities, he says, are also fortuitous. But is he not a member of the Cabinet and had the Cabinet not decided to stockpile? Does the S.A. Railways itself not stockpile essential spares? The Minister knew about this, but now this is “fortuitous”. The last fortuitous circumstance is the increase in harbour activities arising from the closure of the Suez canal. So, what do we find, Mr. Speaker? In four of the five fortuitous circumstances are the matters which the Minister last year already expected to contribute to an improvement of the financial position of the S.A. Railways. If that is not bad budgeting I should like to know what is.

Mr. Speaker, I move, as an upopposed motion—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to make a brief statement.

The Government has taken cognizance of the decisions of the Governors of Central Banks contributing actively to the Gold Pool, as announced in the Press after their meetings on 16th and 17th March in Washington, D.C.

While the Government, a founder member of the International Monetary Fund, continues to fulfil its obligations in terms of the Articles of Agreement of the Fund, it reserves its rights in regard to the above-mentioned decisions of the Governors of the Central Banks until greater clarity is obtained concerning events affecting the marketing of gold.

Bearing in mind its international obligations, the Government will, as ever, determine its policy with a view to securing the maximum long-term advantage for the country as a whole.

It has already been announced that the Government considered it advisable to close the Johannesburg Stock Exchange for to-day and to prohibit any dealings in stocks, shares and unit trust shares. The particular reason for this decision is that South Africa finds itself in a special position due to the importance of transactions in gold shares on the Stock Exchange. Banks, however, have been permitted to continue their normal foreign exchange dealings.

In so far as South Africa henceforth obtains a higher average price for its gold output on the free market, it is of importance to point out to investors that the gold mines will not retain the whole of the additional profits. Firstly, the effect of the existing tax formula on the gold mines will, inter alia, be that for the industry as a whole, the major share of any additional profits will have to be paid over to the State by way of higher income tax and lease payments. Secondly, the Government will, if necessary, consider further measures to contain the inflationary consequences which may flow from increased earnings on gold sales.

In conclusion the Government wishes once more to emphasize that it continues to adhere to its position that a formal revaluation of all currencies in terms of gold is a fundamental prerequisite for the solution of the present international financial problems.

The Government is watching the position closely and will issue further statements in this regard when necessary.

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his speech the hon. member for Durban (Point) made a very derogatory remark about the new chairman of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours. I do not think it is worthy of a front-bencher and someone who has so much experience as the hon. member to treat a person who has just—and quite justly— been elected to chairman of the Select Committee.

What did I say?

You know what you said.

Yes, but what did he say about “dragging into the mud”?

The hon. member began his speech by saying that the National Government had, through the hon. the Minister of Transport, put great pressure on the railwayman from time to time by not conceding to the demands of the United Party for increased wages and alleviation of overtime. The hon. member for Yeoville stated that the one minute the Government was drawing the reins tight, and the next giving them slack as far as the railwaymen were concerned. That amount of R165 which the hon. member mentioned was ridiculous. That was not for wage increases.

It says so in the White Book.

It was in the Minister’s statement.

Not only is the hon. member making an incorrect statement, he is also making himself ridiculous. As regards the complaints about the overtime which is being worked, I want to invite the hon. members for Yeoville and Durban (Point) to stand up in their benches and say: “We suggest that overtime and Sunday time be done away with.”

They must not work excessive overtime.

The proof is there, Mr. Speaker. Although hon. members on the opposite side pretend to be such champions of the railwayman, how many of them represent constituencies in which there is any considerable number of railway officials?

The hon. member for Yeoville also alleged that this side of the House did not receive correspondence from railway people, but that the letters were addressed to members of the Opposition. This is not so. The barometer of anybody representing a railway constituency is the quantity of his correspondence. Since as long ago as 1950 I have been representing such a constituency and my barometer still stands at the same level.

Are those people allowed to write to you?

Of course. Look, I am not prepared to reply to nonsensical questions.

The hon. member also made a great fuss about the accidents. Did the hon. member ever take into consideration the number of train miles being covered, and the number of passengers being transported, and compare those particulars with road accidents? If he did that he would find that our railway accident figure is the lowest in the world. Because that side does not have anything with which to conduct a railway debate, they come forward with complaints of that nature.

The hon. member for Yeoville also spoke of the numerous “complaints” from our railway people. In that regard he referred to overtime. I must admit that I have received complaints in regard to overtime, but the complaints were that the men were sometimes working insufficient overtime. The railwaymen maintain that they want to work more overtime so that they can have a better and easier life. Why can they not be allowed to do so? Any healthy man can put in two hours overtime after working eight hours. If the United Party worked longer hours there would not be so few of them sitting on the opposite side.

The hon. members for Durban (Point) and Yeoville also complained about railway housing. I shall refer to housing figures later on.

I welcomed the concession.

That is so, yes, but you said that there was so much still to be done. I shall indicate in a moment how the housing position has improved over the past few years.

Hon. members on the opposite side also criticized the Budget. Apparently they do not want to be surprised! The hon. member for Yeoville also said that wage increases were being granted from time to time but only when something was in the offing. He implied that they were only being granted before an election. But the fact of the matter is that wage increases are granted whenever circumstances have allowed, and not when an election is in the offing. The National Party is not concerned about increasing salaries just prior to an election because the National Party has the support of almost 100 per cent of the railwaymen.

When I think of the hon. the Minister and his staff, as well as the General Manager to my left here, I feel I must congratulate them on the excellent results they have obtained during the past financial year under difficult circumstances.

Hon. members on the opposite side stated that the hon. the Minister’s Estimates were unnecessarily low. But it puts me in mind of a golfer …

Like the Prime Minister!

No, that is uncalled for. It is unmannerly of you. It puts me in mind of a golfer who had only one idea in his head, and that was that he would make a hole in one, and discovered in the long run that he had to pay seven or eight strokes.

I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Transport. No man in the world would be able, in such a big undertaking, to predict within R10 to R15 million what the actual results would be. It is impossible. It depends upon local and national circumstances; when one draws up Estimates there are so many circumstances that have to be taken into account. One does not know what can happen. I want to make special mention here, Mr. Speaker, of the fact that during 1967 we received the greatest degree of co-operation from the S.A. Railways when that tremendous drought was prevailing. During this present drought which is again prevailing in many parts of the country, we once again received co-operation from the Minister and his Department. The criterion to-day is: Can all the goods be transported? I made inquiries from the heads of Departments, and I do not think they will furnish me with incorrect information. The information I have is that, with the exception of a few isolated cases during peak periods when everything could not be done at once and there was a small delay, calculations have shown that all traffic was handled rapidly and properly during the past year.

As regards the shortage of manpower. The hon. member for Yeoville levelled tremendous criticism at the Minister in that regard. It is true that there is a shortage of manpower. We do not deny that. This is particularly the case in the Railways, but we must now find the causes. The hon. member for Durban (Point) also mentioned causes, namely that of a house-owner living in Noupoort or Parow who has to take his promotion in some other place. The hon. member’s request was that he should be able to accept his promotion in the same place. That is not always possible.

If there is a vacancy!

Yes, you should have added that “if there is a vacancy”. One cannot simply transfer a person and put another in his place. The man holds the same post. But the hon. member is now trying to make propaganda by saying that obstacles are being placed in the way of promotions. There are cases where people, because they are happy in one place, prefer to stay there and not to accept promotion. But that is not what that man was complaining about.

But he does not get it even if there is a vacancy.

As I have already said, despite the shortage of manpower, the Railways have been able to deal with the traffic. Of course, it is necessary to think along certain lines. The hon. the Minister, with his staff and the General Manager with his staff, thought along those lines, i.e. of mechanizing large sections of the work …

And leave the capital works.

We understand. It is for that reason that the Railways to-day is still able to handle its traffic without any delays. Then this must be added to that. The productivity of each railwayman has meanwhile improved and increased a great deal. The people are render ing better services to-day. A man will not render better services if he is not being properly treated. He is being treated well; that is why he is eager to work. As for me —if I am not treated well by my chief, I will have no desire to work. That is why these people are keen to work.

Are you being treated very badly?

No, I am not being treated very badly. I do not want it like that. Mr. Speaker, with the rapid development in our country, economic and otherwise, traffic has of course increased proportionally. I should like to mention a few figures here. I wanted to do so just now in regard to accidents, but I did not have the figures in front of me then. But now I want to furnish you with the figures, Mr. Speaker. In 1964-’65 425.5 million passengers were transported by rail. And that is quite a lot of passengers. In 1966-’67—this is the latest figure I have been able to obtain from the Department—the figure was 464,380,000. That is an increase of almost 38 million over a period of two years. That is why I say that, as a result of this tremendous passenger traffic on the Railways, the accidents—we are sorry about those which took place—are still at a minimum in comparison with those in other countries.

As regards air traffic, the position is the same. The number of passengers in 1964-’65 was 625,000. In 1967 almost a million passengers were transported—an increase of almost 270.000. All traffic, by rail or by air, has, as I have mentioned, with the exception of a few cases in peak periods, been dealt with in the minimum possible time. There were no delays in regard to goods such as livestock, wool, coal and others.

In order to show further how air traffic has increased: In 1962-’63 the figure was 93.5 million tons. In 1963-’64 it was 99.2 million tons. In 1965-’66 it was 106.76 million tons. In 1966-’67 it was 111.69 million tons. That is to say, since 1962-’63 there has been an increase of almost 20 million tons. That is why we, and I think the same ought to apply to that side, find it a privilege and a pleasure to congratulate the persons who are responsible for that transport.

The hon. member for Durban (Point), as well as the hon. member for Yeoville, mentioned wages. I stated at the outset that I would return to the discussion of wages, because I expected hon. members to mention that topic. I want to state candidly now that representations for increased wages were addressed to the Minister last year, by the Railway staff associations in fact. He then said “No.” “This is not the appropriate time.” He did not promise to do so and then neglect to do so. He told them that it was not the appropriate time to give them wage increases. “You must help to combat inflation.” The railwaymen did so and we are grateful to them for that. We congratulate the railwaymen in contributing their share to that. Now that we have practically—I do not want to say finally— coped with inflation …

Where do you get that from?

Try and find out; then you will also know something. Now that the situation has improved, the Minister sees his way clear to doing so, and we are grateful for that. I have just been to one of the railway towns in my constituency, and I can assure the Minister that his Budget met with a very favourable response. They are very grateful. I just want to point out that in 1964-’65 railwaymen earned R294 million in salaries and wages. Sunday time and overtime was included in that. According to the latest figures for 1966-’67 they received R342 million, that is to say, an increase of R48 million since 1964. These figures are in respect of wages. The hon. member for Yeoville has said that the railwaymen are having such a hard time. We are all having a hard time. Things are not always as we would want them to be, but sometimes we have to cut our coat according to our cloth. I also want to say that the United Party must examine its own conscience. They were also in power years ago and I do not think that they will come into power again soon. How did wages then compare with present wages? I shall take the lowest grade, namely that of a grade one clerk. When they were in power a grade one clerk received R1,408.

No, there was no such thing as a rand.

I have the correct figures before me. You can check them yourselves. [Interjections.] Hon. members must not be silly now. In 1967 a grade one clerk was receiving R2,875.

What could he buy with it?

I shall tell the hon. member. The hon. member probably wants to know how the cost of living increased, Because that is the crux of the whole matter. I want to tell hon. members that the cost of living increased to a far lesser extent than wages did.

But by how much did the national income increase?

Unfortunately, I do not have the figures in this regard. In 1948 a stoker received R64. To-day a stoker is receiving R147. An assistant foreman received R1,558 in 1948, and today he is receiving R3,350. A first-grade clerk then received R2,228 and to-day he is receiving R4,000. We should therefore not always be ready to throw stones and say that nothing has been done in the meantime for the railwayman. He is being looked after in so many other fields as well.

I come now to housing. If I were to compare the situation in regard to housing as it was when I came to this House for the first time with the situation to-day, then one must congratulate the former Minister and this hon. Minister. There is still a shortage of housing. It is not yet the case that there are houses which are standing empty. There is still a shortage of housing, but it is being gradually supplied as circumstances allow. Since the introduction of the house-ownership scheme, 15,555 railway houses have been registered and the amount spent on this was R97 million. Between 1954 and 1967, 12,138 loans were granted at a cost of almost R120 million. At present approximately 1,300 houses are being constructed. On 31st March, 1967 there were 23,108 departmental houses for Whites. But I have even more figures. Under the house-ownership scheme during the period 1962 to 1967, more than 4,000 properties were purchased to an amount of R30.5 million. In terms of the proprietary right assistance scheme, 7,328 loans have been granted to an amount of more than R8 million. From 1962 to 1967 1,539 departmental houses were built at a cost of R13.5 million. We see therefore that in spite of the fact that there is still a shortage of housing, the Department has in this respect done as much as it could.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) and the hon. member for Yeoville said that the railwaymen had so many complaints. I just want to mention that the complaints on the part of the railwaymen to-day are at a minimum. In my opinion most complaints to-day arise in respect of transfers. A person no longer wants to live in a certain town and wants to go to another place and ask for a transfer. But since the necessary vacancy is not always available, he may perhaps have to wait until a vacancy occurs. There are many people on the Railways who also makes mistakes. Such a man is suspended and then he wants to return to the Railways after a few months. Those are the sort of complaints the Railways are receiving to-day. But there is no general complaint of dissatisfaction. I do not know whether hon. members read a letter which appeared in one of our daily newspapers. It was written by a Mrs. Wakefield of Rossburgh, Durban. She wrote to say how satisfied the railwaymen there were (translation)—

This deals with the productivity of the railwayman who is not keen. Any man can at any time enjoy a good life if he wants to work. This is how she concludes her letter—

So, thank you very much, Mr. Schoeman, for everything you have done for us. I only hope you read about the uniforms.

In regard to the uniforms, I just want to ask the hon. Minister this. It is a general desire amongst our railwaymen that they should be given a lighter type of uniform for the warm weather to enable them to resist the heat to better effect. The present uniform is good for the winter months, but in my opinion it is too warm for our warm weather. In addition I want to ask that since houses are being built to-day, garages should also be built for the railwaymen. Many of them live far from their work and most of them have motorcars today. In my opinion it does not do the motor cars any good if they have to stand outside during the summer as well as the winter months. It is the general request, particularly from Noupoort Rosemead and Burghersdorp that provision should be made there for garages. In conclusion I should like once again to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his brilliant Budget and also the General Manager and his staff for the work they have done.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the hon. member for Colesberg and I take it in turn to follow one another in rising to speak in this debate. I should like to correct something he said about the hon. member for Yeoville. When the hon. member for Yeoville was quoting the increases in the salaries of Railway staff he was actually quoting from the Minister’s memorandum. He did not get the points he made out of the air. These figures actually appear in print, if the hon. member cares to look at page 33 of the memorandum. The increases appear there for everyone to see. It might have been purely through coincidence, but if you examine when the increases were granted, you will find that they invariably came when an election was approaching. That is why we surmise that there may soon be an election during this year. [Interjection.] This is a world full of surprises and the Government might be in for a great surprise. They say the strength of the chain depends on its weakest link. I do not see the weak link here to-day, so anything can happen.

Much has been said about overtime. One hon. member opposite asked whether we would support a motion to do away with overtime on the Railways. Of course that is a silly question. It is like asking a man whether he has stopped beating his wife. The position is that the whole of the economy on the Railways is developing into an overtime economy, which is unsound. You find that under the Factories and Building Work Act and in the industrial agreements there is a limitation on the overtime that can be worked. It is an offence to let a man work more than a certain number of hours overtime. If he wants to work more than 10 hours overtime a week you have to get permission. But working over time on the Railways is becoming a habit; it is an overtime economy, and you find that the railwayman over the years has been budgeting on the basis of the overtime he earns, which is quite wrong. If that is the case, one should look at his salary. Is he earning enough, or is he living beyond his means? I do not think any of them live beyond their means because, besides having an overtime economy, the majority of them have a husband-and-wife economy; one finds that the wife has to go out to work and still they struggle.

Then the hon. member referred to the number of accidents. A considerable amount of research has been done into the reasons for accidents. The C.S.I.R. is doing research into road accidents at the moment. It is interesting to note that they put the cause of most accidents down as being liquor, but they also say accidents are caused by people getting tired and dozing at the wheel. The Road Safety Council says people should avoid driving at night when they are tired. So you see the relationship as far as the Railways are concerned. I think that is an item that has to be watched.

The hon. member also spoke about housing. I agree with him, but I have one complaint. We find that very fine railway houses are being built, but the rotation of repairs takes so long that you find good houses deteriorating. The houses are repaired over a number of years, according to a fixed budget. I would also like to add my plea with his for garages to be built at these houses. I think that is a necessity. I think if you build these houses, money should be set aside for their upkeep.

As far as uniforms are concerned, the railway uniform is a standard one which is more or less the same all over the world. I believe that if you were to change the uniform radically so that the uniforms are lighter, they would look scruffy. I think we have to be very careful there, but that certain grades should be given protective clothing or coats. After listening to the hon. members for Randburg and Colesberg, one feels that they think this side of the House has no sympathy with the Management and the railwayman, but that is not so. We are very proud of what they have done. With the shortage of staff, we are proud of their achievements. They have increased the turnover on the Railways with a greatly reduced staff.

As we meet here to-day, a cloud has come over world currencies due to the gold problem, and to some extent we meet in a situation that is unreal. The Minister produced a Budget here which is like the curate’s egg, good in parts. I have said before that the Minister seems to lack confidence either in the country or in the Railways. He produces a conservative Budget. He always plays safe. As the hon. member for Yeoville has said, he over-budgets to make sure that he will not be in the red. He always says in his Budget speech that the past year was favourable, but he must put on the brake for the coming year. He says we must be careful and he budgets for a deficit which turns into a substantial surplus. Last year when I told him that he would have a substantial surplus, he said he sincerely hoped so. It has turned out that we were correct. If the Minister looked at the past record of his budgeting, he would find that over the last 18 years he produced surpluses on 10 occasions, so he really has nothing to worry about. But he must keep out of the red, and he runs a monopoly in that he has no competition. He feels that he should be on the safe side, and he budgets accordingly. Now he has a surplus of R35.2 million, but we have not ended the year yet and possibly this surplus may go up to R40 million. He has used this money in the way we advised him to do. He is going to put money into the Rates Equalization Fund to write off his possible losses next year, although I do not think he will have a loss. [Interjection.] Over the years we have advised him to make more use of the Rates Equalization Fund instead of passing it on to the consumer. The hon. member for Yeoville said that the last increase in rates and fares could not have come at a more unfortunate time. To-day, when we look at the drop in first and second-class passengers, one wonders whether the public has not felt the pinch and that is why there has been that drop in the number of passengers. With the surplus that he has here, one would have thought that the Minister—he has now a fantastic amount of R78 million in the Rates Equalization Fund —would have done something to reduce fares and tariffs.

I want to make a plea again for the Western Cape, because I do not think the Minister really has much confidence in the Western Cape. When he built the line to Montagu Gardens and I asked him to extend it to Saldanha Bay, he said he did not think I would see anything happening there in my time. However, things have changed and the Minister may find himself in the position of having to continue that line because of the enormous development taking place there. But in the Western Cape we suffer. There is so much legislation dealing with the restrictions on Bantu labour and the Minister knows that he has had to import Bantu labour to carry on his work here. Moreover, we do not have the advantages of a border industrial area, although I would say that we are a Coloured Border industrial area. We do not have the advantages of the port rates at East London and Port Elizabeth, and something should be done for us. If the policy of the Government is to decentralize industries, one would have thought that the Minister would have considered what he could do for Cape Town. We are losing industries by the day. A number of the larger industries are considering moving from this area on account of the high railway rates we have to pay. We have just lost a big motor-car works and there is a major industry in Blackheath which I hope we will not lose, but I have been told that the railway rates will be the decidng factor there, due to the extra cost of moving raw material from the Transvaal and transporting the finished goods to the Transvaal. I would plead with the Minister to give consideration to the Western Cape and see whether he can relieve us of this great burden because of our distance from the market on the Rand. We suffer in this way because if you look at the Budget you will find that very little is being done even in regard to cutting down ton miles. The building of the Hex River Tunnel has been shelved for financial reasons, but we see in other parts of the country that they are building railway lines. We have no grouse against that because we in the Western Cape feel that the country must go ahead, but at the same time we must not forget those parts of the country that require assistance. The North-west Cape for example. They are building a line in Natal to transport ore to Richard’s Bay. Yet we have a huge mineral complex in the North-west Cape and the line finishes up three-quarters of the way and a request has been made to the Minister from time to time again to have a look at the line in the North-west Cape and to see what he can do about it. The method used in judging whether a line will pay or not is wrong; it depends on the potential. You cannot tell me that the line between Empangeni and Richard’s Bay is going to pay immediately, but eventually the development that takes place will make that line pay. So I hope that the Minister will do something about the North-west Cape.

Now we come to the increases to the Railway staff. As was said by the hon. member for Yeoville, we welcome these increases, but we feel that they came with too much of a bump at one time. We have suggested to the Minister over the years that if he had a graduated cost-of-living allowance tied to the cost-of-living index, and if he had given the members of the staff increases from time to time, that would have been much better. When we had the last major increase we told the Minister that he could practically go back to the negotiating table and start negotiating new increases, and we were quite right. Now we have given them this increase at present, and the Minister will be faced within a very short time with a request for adjustments and further increases. We have not had the details of these increases placed before us, but I would like to join with the hon. member for Durban (Point) in making a plea for the railworker, right at the bottom of the rung, and for some substantial increase in his wages.

He earns very little; he has to bring up a family and in nine cases out of ten his standard of living is very low and he does not work the same amount of overtime that is worked by people occupying higher positions.

Then I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should look at the salary scales of his professional officers, the key staff, the young executives, the future managers, the future chiefs, the future system managers of the whole Railway organization. He can ill afford to leave these people and he must look at their remuneration once again. If their salary scales are not sufficiently attractive he is going to continue to lose these people. We are continually told by members on the Government side that commerce and industry take away our best men, but commercial and industrial people are not philanthropists; they are there to make money and they pay their employees according to their worth and that is what should happen in the Railway service. Sir, I was one of those who went on the tour which was arranged for the members of the Select Committee. Wherever we went we heard that the Railway service was continually losing men occupying top positions, and one became rather depressed at the thought as to who was going to take over the running of the Railway service in a few years’ time, because the older people are getting older and their places will have to be taken by younger people. I think the Minister will have to go into this question very carefully. He may be tied to fixed salary scales but I think he will have to go to the Cabinet and impress upon his colleagues the necessity of keeping these people in the service and of keeping them happy.

This question of loss of staff is one which must be causing grave concern to the hon. the Minister and the management. It is difficult to run the railways when there is such a serious shortage of staff. It is costly to train specialists in the Railway service. It is not always inadequate wages which cause a man to leave the Railway service. I come into contact with quite a number of railwaymen in my constituency and elsewhere, and when you talk to them about their problems you find that they have very strong feelings about the application of the disciplinary code. Cases are continually brought to Members of Parliament but it is difficult to quote names because of the fear of victimization on the part of the staff. Like the hon. member for Yeoville, I too have found that when individual cases are brought to the notice of the Railway administration, their representations are treated very sympathetically, but what distresses members of the staff is the petty little pinpricks that they have to put up with. Notwithstanding the bonuses and the fringe benefits that they receive, it is these little pinpricks which are making many railwaymen leave the Service, not only artisans but other railwaymen as well. What do you find when you speak to people who are about to retire from the Service? I have been to a number of parties which have been arranged for people who are about to retire, and invariably when you ask them whether they should like to return to the Railway Service, their answer is, “Never again; not under present conditions”. These people, however, will not come forward with their complaints because of their deep-rooted fear of subtle victimization.

Sir, when the hon. the Minister looks for staff he must look at his own house and ask himself whether it is in order. I know that there is the closest co-operation between the railwaymen and their representative associations. Their complaints are put forward by their associations but the trouble lies with the application of the disciplinary code. When an artisan or another member of the staff leaves the Railway Service, he probably not only earns more money, although he may not get the same fringe benefits, but he does not have to put up with these pinpricks. I would like to prevail upon the hon. the Minister to consider the question of appointing a commission—not a departmental commission because I would not like the staff to feel that there is any fear of bias—to go into the operation of the whole of the disciplinary code. I am sure that such a commission would find that there is a great deal of room for improvement and that the application of the code leads to lots of trouble. I think this is something which is lowering the morale of the whole of the Railway Service, and which must be dug out by the roots before it ruins the whole of the Service. Sir, there was a time when people were very proud of the fact that they were railwaymen. To-day you find that there is not that deep loyalty to the Service amongst the majority of the members of the staff that one would like to see. Sir, I say this without in any way reflecting on the Management. I know they do their best and that they try to help in every way. There is a terrific amount of paper work involved in going on appeal, and it is very disheartening for railwaymen, when they have done all this work, to find that their appeal is rejected and that they have no further redress. The result is that their dissatisfaction grows into a cancer.

Sir, those of us who went on the tour arranged for the members of the Select Committee regarded it as a great privilege to go on this tour. We were taken through Railway headquarters and looked after very well. As the hon. member for Durban (Point) has said, we met senior staff members; we visited all the establishments; we saw the very large workshop at Koedoespoort we saw the airways workshop and the various operating sections of the railways. Like other members, I was very impressed with this very vast organization that has been built up over the years and the loyalty of the senior staff. When you go through the Planning Section, you realize what great difficulties they are faced with. They approach things in a practical, businesslike manner, but then they are also faced with political aspects over which they have no control. These people try to plan to the best of their ability; they collate information from all over the country, but then the Railway Service is such a colossal machine. You have the railways, the road motor transport service, the harbours and the airways and now you have the pipeline. It is such a colossal machine that one wonders whether the time has not come to reconsider the whole set-up. It is like the house that Jack built, the Railway Service gets bigger and bigger every year, and I think the time has come to have a new look at the whole organization. After all, commercial firms have a look from time to time at their organizations, and I think the time has come to do the same as far as the Railway Service is concerned. I was very interested to read a newspaper report of an interview with Dr. Marais, Chairman of the Marais Commission, in Pretoria. The report reads—

Sir, from this one gets some idea as to what the report of this commission will be like, and one gets rather depressed when one finds in the Brown Book that we are still going to buy or that we have built coaches and steam engines for two-ft. narrow-gauge railways. Sir, has the time not come to scrap these narrow-gauge railways? Let us face the fact that it is going to be expensive but in the long run it will pay. Is it not time we scrapped the two-ft. gauge railway and advanced with the times? Let us have another look at some of our branch lines which do not pay. Let us examine the whole of the Free State complex with the various branch lines and see whether we cannot link them up. The complaint that one gets from people in the Free State is this: They say, “The railway line finishes five miles away and I have to go all that way round to get to it”. Surely it is time we had a good look at our whole system and scrapped those lines that have to be scrapped. I think the Government would get all the necessary support from this side of the House if they decided to do so. If we thought that the scrapping of certain lines would give us a brighter economic future, we would have no hesitation in agreeing to the scrapping of those lines. Sir, this is being done all over the world. The hon. the Minister told us here some years ago that no more steam engines were being built, and yet the Brown Book tells a different story. It shows that we are not going forward; we are going backward. I think Dr. Marais is correct in saying that we must think along new lines. We would like to see the General Manager of Railways as the chairman of a big transport organization. Let us split our Harbours and our Airways and put our pipeline under the Minister of Economic Affairs. Let us run them as separate entities. You cannot mix them up in one big conglomeration such as we have at the present moment. Those, Sir, are my thoughts as far as the Railway Budget is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to listen to each of the Opposition speakers who spoke here. Each one came forward with the same complaint. The complaint of the hon. member for Yeoville was that the Railway people are not allowed to complain, and yet all the hon. members come here and tell us of a great many complaints of which they have knowledge. This shows that these people are in fact complaining, but hon. members said that they were not allowed to complain.

Do you never do anything that you are not allowed to do?

According to hon. members of the Opposition the Railwaymen are complaining about promotion; they are complaining about salaries which are too low; they are complaining about overtime which they must work and which they regard as a cruelty. Actually, each hon. member on that side monotonously repeated the same complaint here. The Railwaymen, according to them, are complaining about housing; they are complaining about the discipline being imposed, and the hon. member who has now just spoken, asked for a commission of inquiry into Railway matters. He also complained about appeals.

The Railways, as the hon. member for Salt River said, is a formidable organization; this no one denies. There are more than 113,000 white persons in the service of the Railways and 107,000 non-Whites, a total of 220,000 for whom the Minister and his personnel are responsible. What does the Railways offer its officials? The hon. member for Yeoville said that the time had come for the hon. the Minister to do something to satisfy these people; they have grievances, and unless these grievances are removed, the Railway officials will not be satisfied and the service will eventually collapse. I can assure hon. members on that side that the hon. the Minister, the administration and I are as concerned as they are about the staff shortage, not only in the Railways but in the whole Public Service. There is also a staff shortage in the private sector, and it is the employer’s task to try and satisfy his employees as far as possible. Salaries and wages are not the only considerations. One cannot satisfy any man simply by paying him a salary or a wage.

It helps.

That is why the railway service offers its officials so many other additional benefits, which I want to mention here. In the first instance there is the superannuation fund, financed by the administration on a rand-for-rand basis. No railway employee, especially those who enter the service at an early age, need concern himself about what will happen to him when he retires one day. The money which he receives from the fund may not afford him a large income, but he does know that he will have something on which to live when he retires one day. There is also the widow’s pension fund. The official’s wife knows that when he passes away one day, she will be cared for. There are also the sick fund benefits: these are tremendous benefits for the officials. If any of us, or a Government official, should take ill, there is always the anxiety about whether the medical expenses can be met. Good provision is being made for the railway official by means of the sick fund. They also have travel concessions. There is the free pass for the employee and his family. They also enjoy concession facilities. This is a very great privilege. When a person wants to relax, when he wants to go on holiday for a while, he and his family can make use of these benefits, benefits which people in the private sector do not enjoy at all.

But it does not help if the man cannot obtain leave.

The official can obtain leave. Each year every railway employee must take a specific or certain period of leave. I therefore maintain that every railwayman can obtain leave every year. No one is prohibited from taking his leave when he has a right to it. In addition there is sick leave. Ample concessions are made when an official takes ill and can no longer render service. Actually, these sick leave benefits are more generous than in any other sector of the Government Service. They also enjoy good benefits if they are injured on duty. They are covered by the Workmen’s Compensation Act, it is true, but more is done for officials who are injured on duty than is provided for in this Act.

I am now returning to the official’s leave, and the benefits of his vacation savings bonus. The official receives this money before he goes on leave and it enables him to cover his expenses.

Then there are the house ownership schemes. I make so bold as to say that if there is one Department which really cares for the housing needs of its officials—more so than any other Department—it is in fact the Railways. I have a large number of railway employees who are voters in my constituency. If I think back to what the housing position was earlier and I compare it with the present position, I come to the conclusion that there is no comparison to be made. When I see what attractive houses our officials are obtaining to-day, I am forced to concede that this is indeed an inducement. Many of their houses are better than mine on the farm—and I think I have a good house. I do not begrudge them that. I do not begrudge them those houses.

Another benefit is the Railway recreation clubs, a benefit which the ordinary person does not have and for which ordinary people in the cities and towns envy the official.

Next I come to the protection of their rights. Since I have been dealing with railway matters and files have been coming to me, I have been really amazed to see that each railwayman, from the lowest to the highest, has the right to take his case even as far as the hon. the Minister, if it is necessary. They have their staff associations, six or seven of them, that serve the interests of each group of employees. When the employee feels that his rights are not being served there, he then has the right of appeal, even as far as the Minister, if it is necessary.

As far as the board.

As far as the Minister. He can appeal to the board, but the Minister makes the final decision. I am on the board myself and I know what goes on.

The matter only goes to the Minister in certain cases.

When any employee in any service has the right to air his grievances to his superior, to his organization, and if need be to the head of that organization, namely the Minister, then he is satisfied. They are making use of this right, and they are making good use of it.

Please explain the procedure which is being followed.

He submits his complaint and the complaint goes from one person to another, all the way up, until it reaches the Minister. [Interjections.] The railway employee has the right to request an interview, and it is granted to him. He can state his case. If that channel is open to him, then nothing further is necessary. I want to say that our railway people would be bitterly disappointed if the Minister should, for example, appoint a commission to investigate complaints in the S.A.R. I think that they will be bitterly dissatisfied because they are satisfied with the present system. They are satisfied that they can bring their problems before the trade unions. They can report their common problems to this quarter, problems in respect of their salaries and their conditions of service; they can take any matter affecting their interests as far as the Minister. They can also appeal against any ruling.

There has also been talk here of victimization. No, I do not believe that they have reason to be afraid of victimization. I know the Minister; I know the General Manager, and I know that if there is anyone who insists on seeing every letter which comes to the Railways with a complaint, it is in fact the hon. the Minister. I wonder if any hon. Opposition member has ever addressed a letter to the Minister upon which he has not received a courteous reply and to which the Minister has not devoted his full attention? This being the case, one feels that each employee has the right to take his case as far as he can.

Let us discuss this question of the employees further. Hon. members opposite asked that the people be better trained so that they can work better. But we do have a training system for our railway employees. There is the in-service training where each employee is trained in his trade in his chosen direction by properly qualified persons within the service, and where he receives the necessary guidance. Then we have the training college at Esselen Park. I have a report here in my hand dealing with the achievements there over the past year, and it appears that there were 74 instructors at Esselen Park, while 2,450 employees registered for a large variety of courses in all the different divisions of the service. They received their training there. A great number of them were exempted from writing examinations because this was not necessary after they had completed their training. Others again had to write examinations. That is how the people receive their technical training there while in the service.

Then there is the bursary scheme which the hon. the Minister mentioned in his speech. Each year a large number of bursaries are made available, not only for students who wish to study engineering, but also for other avenues of study in which students wish to qualify themselves for service in the Railways. There are many branches in which qualified people are needed. They are not only sought on the technical level, but also on other levels. There are facilities for the training of persons for degrees in Economy, people whom we need. We need lawyers too, and they are also being trained. Even post-graduate bursaries are granted to graduates who wish to study further, even overseas. These are ample bursaries. I have been informed that certain persons have already obtained their Master’s Degrees in this manner. These are all people whom the service needs. The time is past when the attitude prevailed that the railwayman was the porter on the station, the engine-driver, the station foreman or the station master. That time is past. The railway service has become a scientific service. The ordinary worker can no longer be employed in the service unless he is properly qualified and trained to do the work which is expected of him. All this is being done to qualify our people for service on the Railways, and the training is being done thoroughly.

The railwayman’s standard of living has increased tremendously. I have relations who were in the railway service, I often visited them and I saw what standard of living they maintained. I often visit my voters who are employed on the Railways and it is always such a pleasure for me to see what decent houses they live in. Inside the house one finds decent furniture, even an attractive radiogram. They have all the conveniences they need. Their standard of living has improved with the years, and I do not begrudge them that because they have earned it. I therefore do not doubt that the people are happy. They can give their children the necessary education and learning. The Railways even assists them with the education of their children. The railway employee’s prospects are just as good as in any other branch of life. The Speaker of the House of Assembly was a railway employee and he has advanced to the position of Speaker of this hon. House—and he is a capable Speaker! Our Minister was a railway employee, and he is a capable Minister! There are other hon. member here as well who were railway employees. I have no doubt that where the Speaker keeps order here and the hon. the Minister is the leader of the House, the Minister concerned is just as capable of coping with the railway service. To-day a man need not be ashamed of being in the railway service. The training of the railwayman is specially directed towards enhancing production. While we have less people in service than we should like to have, the production per unit must be increased. This is what is happening in practice, and that is why the services continue to operate.

I wonder if we are expressing sufficient appreciation for what the Railways are doing. Considering that every imported article and every article manufactured in South Africa is handled by the Railways, from the docks to the most outlying regions of the country, every pound of sugar, every match, as the saying goes “from a needle to an anchor”, thousands of packets and millions of tons, we can only stand amazed. And yet we are so inclined to find fault and to complain if a package is lost. Think of all the post and the large number of passengers being transported, not only by train and bus, but also by aeroplane. During the past year almost a million passengers have been transported by our Airways. But if one man’s seat should be incorrectly reserved, the fat is in the fire. Then he complains that the S.A.R. is not worth anything and is not fulfilling its function. Then complaints are made that the trouble is the result of a staff shortage. In this connection I think that the hon. member for Yeoville said something very disgraceful. He asked who was going to man the new aeroplanes which the Minister is buying.

I did not say “man”; I asked who would maintain them.

The aeroplanes must be manned in order to be maintained. Very well, the hon. member asks, who is going to maintain them? He said that the staff would be technically insufficiently equipped and that this would then be hazardous.

He never said anything of the kind. He said that they did not have sufficient time.

The hon. member should go and consult his Hansard.

I am quite capable of hearing and understanding, and what is more I also know a few words of English. I also write down what hon. members say. His words were “they will be technically insufficiently equipped”.

I deny it immediately.

His words were: “They will be technically insufficiently equipped”.

The technicians.

Yes. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, whether the technicians are inadequate or whether the pilots are inadequate, it would point to a flaw in our service. May I use the words “it will be dangerous”. [Interjections.]

Order!

Did you use the word “dangerous”?

Yes. Mr. Speaker, you now know what the hon. member said, and he must now deny it. He said that the Minister was gambling with the safety of the Airways.

Yes.

I deny it.

Very well, Mr. Speaker, with a view to the excellent record of our Airways through all the years, is it now fitting to say to the outside world that the Minister is gambling with air safety?

That’s not nice.

That’s not nice. Mr. Speaker, when I think of the thoroughness of our officials, when I see how thoroughly they are doing their work here and prepare it for us and I see how thoroughly they are doing their work out there …

You are demanding too much!

… I think it is something we should appreciate. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says that we expect too much. I want to point out, in connection with overtime, that no official is compelled to work overtime and that that story concerning the accidents which result from the fact that the officials are overtired, too exhausted, is incorrect. I have made inquiries. We also deal with complaints and disciplinary appeals every day. It is a fact that, for example, after an engine-driver comes off duty he should rest for 12 hours before going on duty again. Well, six hours is sufficient sleep for me and four hours is sufficient rest. He is not compelled to go on duty before those 12 hours have elapsed, but I will tell you how things stand. They request to go on duty. That is the position. They are not compelled, because we feel that it is necessary for them to rest. They request to go on duty. I want to say that when we abolished overtime a few years ago, many complaints were received because we had done so. It was simply too much to have to listen to! I said the following to my voters: “I do not know what to do now. When you do have overtime you complain that you are working yourselves to death, and when you do not have overtime you complain that you cannot subsist. Then you want it again!” This is also the Opposition’s position.

It is the position with the Railways!

Mr. Speaker, I feel that notwithstanding the staff shortage, which we all admit exists, we have done everything in our power to provide for the needs of the staff and to equip them as well as we possibly could. Before I conclude, I should very much like to say this: Even the Cape Times is very satisfied. In their leader the last sentence reads as follows: “… but the Railways are in good hands”. And if they say that, it is saying a great deal.

Not in the hands of the Opposition! [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, before I resume my seat I should like to refer to the announcement by the hon. the Minister of Transport about the split tariffs which are now to be abolished in South West Africa. Split tariffs are as old as the Railways in South West Africa and have been a grievance to everyone, under the previous Government as well as under this Government. I am very glad that the Minister and the Government have now seen their way clear to abolish that split tariff. For South West Africa—I think I know—it will mean a great deal. You know that it is a far-off country and that the freight charge is sometimes as much as what the article costs here. The freight charges on a bag of cement of 100 lbs., was 61.75 cents. It is being decreased by 36 per cent. The tariff on mealie meal is being decreased by 31 per cent; on salt by 31 per cent; on corn meal by 29 per cent; on fencing material by 30 per cent, and so I can mention a whole list, with which I do not wish to bore the House. But I can tell you that I understand that it is to amount to about R4 million per annum, by which South West Africa is going to benefit. I only have this concern, however, and that is that the consumer in South West Africa may perhaps not benefit from this; that the dealer will pocket it. Therefore I should like us to make arrangements with the administration of South West Africa to take the necessary steps timeously in order to ensure that these benefits will go into the pockets of the consumers.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. the Deputy Minister, who has just sat down, has rather condemned his own criticism of this side of the House by his own speech. He has acknowledged and, quite rightly, that there is a manpower shortage in the South African Railways and Harbours Administration. If there is a shortage, then it must result in either the Department not undertaking the work that it should do, because it does not have enough people on the staff, or alternatively work that should be done by the staff which they do not have, must be done by the present staff. If it is being done by the present staff, then that staff is being asked to do more than the Railways themselves have considered sufficient for that man’s chore. Because, if he could do it, if it did not mean more work, a greater load, why create the other posts? Then there would be no shortage of manpower.

The Deputy Minister also dealt with the superannuation funds, pension funds, sick funds, etc. Sir, those are nothing unusual in the modern business world. There would be something very wrong if they did not exist in the Administration. They exist in any well-organized industry or any well-organized undertaking in the private sector. Surely, they should exist in the public sector, as they do. But the hon. the Minister has failed to deal with one matter that I wish to deal with and which, unfortunately, again is rather passed over in this Budget. That is that the security of an employee or the inducement for an employee to work for a certain undertaking is correctly influenced by the existence of superannuation funds, pension funds and sick funds. But, Sir, there is another matter which concerns all employees, especially those who have entered State service. What is their position to be when they no longer can work? What is their position to be when they no longer can earn an income and they are on the pensioned list? We find this position cropping up again of a concession which is now being given in so far as civil allowances to pensioners are concerned. But let us examine what this concession is. There is the elimination of the means test in so far as these civil allowances are concerned. When last year in the Budget debate I raised this matter the hon. the Minister said it was quite impossible to consider doing away with the means test. He explained that this means test was applied so as to induce back into the Railways as many as possible of the old employees, and that they can go back into the Railways without losing the benefits of these civil allowances. But then the hon. the Minister went on, and I quote from Hansard (col. 2933, 14th March, 1967):

The hon. member also asked that the means test be raised. That cannot be done either, because it would cost a few million rand, that is if that test were abolished, which would in any event be an unsound principle.

That was what the hon. the Minister told us last year. I have no quarrel with him. We have convinced him that in principle it is not so unsound, but what do we find in regard to the budgeting and estimating? Last year the hon. the Minister told us that this would cost millions of rand but now he tells us that the means test at present applied in determining the temporary allowances payable to them would be abolished. The estimated cost of this concession is R800,000. I raise this point because I want to say to the hon. the Minister that we on this side of the House feel entitled to say that he has treated the Railway pensioners in an unreasonable manner in the last 12 months. With its surpluses the Railways could have carried this R800,000. These people would then have been assisted out of the difficulties under which the hon. the Minister knows and we know they have been labouring. But I want to go further. Whom is the hon. the Minister helping? What concessions are the Railway pensioners receiving? According to the figures given to us last year there were 1,206 Railway pensioners who had been reemployed in the Railways. They were all right because they had no deduction from their civil allowance. The total deductions made in regard to people employed outside the Railways amount to R800,000. These people are now rightly put in the position that they can now re-enter employment in the open market and they are free to supplement their incomes. But what about the class of pensioner, and there are hundreds if not thousands of them, who because of advancing age or ill-health cannot work and who have served the Railways? We know of them and I have quoted examples of them before. I think for instance of those men who served on the tugs and other branches of the Railways who because of ill-health or other physical handicaps cannot now re-enter employment? What aid do they receive from this Budget? Where is any provision made for assistance to them? Where is there any hope for them in the autumn of their lives as far as this Budget is concerned? There is nothing for them. These people are concerned because the Minister, through the very fact that he has decided to grant the salary increases to the staff of the Railways, realizes that the present rate of remuneration is not sufficient to meet the present cost of living. I again wonder whether the hon. the Minister cannot look to these loyal pensioned servants and find a formula whereby their pensions can in some way be equated to the cost of living so as to give them proportionately some increase as far as their allowances are concerned. I refer to those pensioners who are unable to work and supplement their pensions. There are many of them.

I come now to another matter which was touched on by the hon. member for Salt River, namely the question of rates. In this regard I want to refer to the report of the Schumann Commission and certain of its recommendations which have not yet been adopted. I make no apology for raising this matter again with the hon. the Minister. There has been a change in the position as far as the Western Cape is concerned. Certain policies have been imposed upon the Western Cape by the hon. the Minister’s colleagues which are placing the industries in the Cape in some difficulty in competing with the rest of the country. They are competing in a difficult labour market because they are deprived of Bantu labour. Industrialists are not as fortunate as the hon. the Minister who is able to obtain Bantu labour in the Cape Peninsula for work in the docks and elsewhere. The hon. the Minister is able to do this because he obviously has more authority. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could not give further consideration to the recommendation of the Schumann Commission which he has said before he was not prepared to carry out, namely that present port rates between Port Elizabeth, East London and the Transvaal should be abolished. In other words, the Cape Peninsula and the Western Cape should be put into a more equitable position in regard to the transport of manufactured goods. I mention this because circumstances have changed in the Western Cape. This area is regarded by the Government as a White Coloured area without Bantu labour. It is expected and intended that Bantu labour here should be reduced. That inevitably brings to us in the Western Cape additional costs in the running of industries. I think that this concession which was recommended by the Schumann Commission is overdue.

I come now to another matter which I raised with the hon. the Minister as a question of policy because I have not been able to follow the logic of an answer I got to a question which I put to the hon. the Minister. I am referring to the control of the access to harbours. What exactly is the policy of the Government in this regard? What exactly is their policy in regard to the right of the public to enter harbours in order to view the harbours, ships or whatever may be going on there? The people of the Cape and visitors to the Cape are greatly inconvenienced and upset by the fact, according to the answer given to me by the hon. the Minister on the 12th March, 1968, that in the interests of efficient port working and for safety and security reasons, the Table Bay Harbour must be closed over week-ends and on public holidays. On what authority is such a decision taken? Does he have the power to say in a generalized way that the harbours must be closed and that the taxpayer and everybody else who contributes to the cost of the running of the harbours can have no access merely because the hon. the Minister or somebody else feels that the Cape Town Harbour is so lacking in security measures that it would be dangerous to allow visitors into the docks. The hon. the Minister of Tourism has said that tourism should be encouraged so that people can spend money here. When they come to Cape Town they cannot enter the docks.

Do overseas tourists come to South Africa to view Table Bay Harbour?

No, I am not talking about overseas tourists. I am talking about the general tourist trade in this country. We do not cater only for overseas tourists. The hon. the Minister may regard this matter as unimportant, but I want to ask him or one of his officials to spend a morning, even now that most people know that the docks are closed, over a week-end at the gates and see how many people want to enter the docks because they are interested in the sea and our seafaring activities. They are stopped by the policemen on duty and cannot enter the docks. Some of them are a little shrewd and say that they are going to the Yacht Club and so get in very easily but it is an irritation to people who do not think of saying that they want to go to the Yacht Club. I do think that the hon. the Minister should give consideration to this matter, especially when it comes to a city such as Cape Town, to terminate this state of affairs as far as entry to the docks is concerned.

Finally I should like to talk about the question of the construction of railway lines which are not in themselves self-supporting. The hon. the Minister has dealt with this question in his statement of policy. I gather that the Minister’s attitude is that it is accepted as a matter of principle that the railway lines to be built by the Department will only be built if it can be guaranteed that they will not be run at a loss. I believe the other aspect is that railway lines can be built to implement Government policy. Generalizing again on the situation in this country, there are innumerable places, and there are plenty of them in the Cape Province, where there is not sufficient public transport to deal with the Government’s policy of separation which it is trying to impose. I want to give an example of this in the Cape Peninsula, and that is the crying need for transport facilities to take our non-White people to the seaside which has been set aside for them, not by their own choosing but by the authorities. It has been suggested that municipalities should bear the cost and subsidize it. These resorts are not only for our particular municipal area, or for the non-Whites of any particular municipal area. The resort at Strandfontein is utilized by non-Whites from the whole of the Western Cape. It would be utilized by more of them, if they had the means of transport to it. The policy which the hon. the Minister has stated in the past and which is adopted in regard to railway lines to mining industries and other places like Hotazel where they have guarantees, cannot apply when a line like this one for which there is a crying need, and needs to be provided in the implementation of Government policy. I hope that the hon. the Minister will find that this matter can be dealt with, and that there can be a clear differentiation in his policy in regard to these two aspects relating to lines which might be otherwise regarded as unpayable.

Mr. Speaker, when one studies the Estimates the hon. the Minister has tabled, the White Paper that goes with it as well as the General Manager’s Report, one arrives at the pleasant conclusion that the South African Railways, Harbours and Airways, taken as a whole, is at present indisputably one of the best administered and best managed undertakings in our country. What is more, for an undertaking of its magnitude, I do not think that it has an equal in the world. It is a feather in the cap of a Minister who has already for more than 13 years been developing the national transport service systematically so that it has become to-day something of which our country can justly be proud. It is the pride of a dedicated General Management composed of men representing the best brains of our nation. It is the joint achievement of thousands of Railway servants, white and non-White, who have often under very difficult circumstances rendered their unselfish services to the Railways. This is also why the South African Railways have achieved at present such a high degree of efficiency that it compares very favourably with the best railways in the world.

In an article written by Professor C. Verburgh in the South African Financial Gazette dated 1st March, I read that the volume of South African railway traffic was growing steadily at a rate which cannot be equalled by some of the greatest, most highly developed countries of the world. Professor Verburgh pointed out that during the past decade goods traffic on the South African Railways has never experienced any setbacks. On the contrary, from 1956-’67 to 1966-’67, there was an increase of almost 50 per cent, whereas in the 18 most important countries of Western Europe, goods traffic increased by only 12 per cent during the same period and has, in actual fact, been on the decline since 1964. As regards the number of passengers transported by the Railways, there has been an increase of 77 per cent over the past ten years, whereas the railway systems in Western Europe have merely been able to retain the number of passengers they had.

If we look at the South African Railways, we see that the comparison is much more spectacular still. During the financial year 1966-’67, the number of passengers conveyed by the Springbok and Wallaby services increased by 37 per cent and 41 per cent respectively, whereas inter-European passenger traffic increased by only 12 per cent and general world passenger traffic by only 14 per cent.

Several kinds of criticism on these Estimates were raised here to-day. The first of these with which I want to deal, is that the hon. the Minister’s Estimates are not keeping pace with reality. Allegedly the Minister is continually under-estimating his revenue and over-estimating his expenditure. The reply to this argument is contained in the hon. the Minister’s Budget speech. According to the relevant part of the Budget speech, you will see that the Minister and his Department are in very good company. They are in the company of a body such as the University of Stellenbosch Bureau of Economic Research, an organization adapted to making advance estimates year in and year out. The advance estimates made by the Bureau last year tallied exactly with those of the Railways. How can our members come forward and say that the hon. the Minister’s Estimates take no account of reality? Another argument advanced here, was that the hon. the Minister had waited too long before he granted increases to the staff, and that the harm had already been done. According to hon. members on the opposite side of the House, thousands of people have over the past few years left the Railways because they did not earn enough. But before I deal with that, I just want to point out that those hon. members are giving out that it is only the South African Railways which is experiencing a staff shortage in South Africa. They forget that shortages are being experienced in every State Department to-day. Why are the Railways being singled out? Recently we had figures in respect of the Post Office which were just as bad. This is also found in several of the private sectors. It is a general country-wide phenomenon. But in listening to hon. members, one would fully believe that these staff shortages are confined to the Railways, and that the shortages may be attributed to the fact that these people have been horribly underpaid all these years. This salary increase is not intended to prevent people from resigning from the Railways. It is a salary increase which is granted on merit. R43 million cannot solve for the Railways this problem of resignations and loss of staff. Another R43 million cannot prevent this either. But let us go into that matter. Why do the Railways have a shortage in certain grades at the moment? For instance, there is a shortage of engineers. The private sector is simply buying the services of the men that are being trained by the Railways. The Railways cannot compete with the private sector. It is easy for a private body employing one or two engineers to buy the services of a person at the price he asks. It is easy for them to offer a person R1,000 per annum more so that he may resign from the Railways, as well as to pay over to him the amount he requires to buy himself out of the Railways. It is merely R1,000. But the Railways cannot follow suit by granting all of a sudden a R1,000 increase to their hundreds upon hundreds of engineers in order to keep them with the Railways. That is not the point. We shall not solve this problem by granting the engineers a 10, 12 or 15 per cent increase. These people will still be leaving the Service, since their services are being bought by the private sector. Neither the Railways nor one single State Department can compete with the private sector in this regard. Take the question of shunters. Do hon. members on the opposite side of the House think that one would obtain enough shunters if their salaries were increased by a further 10, 15 or 20 per cent? That is not why these people are leaving the Railways. Amongst other things, they resign from the Railways because they are doing very dangerous work; because they have to work very difficult shifts; and because, as was said here, they do not have much of a home life and great demands are made upon them. The solution is not to be found in paying them a little more money. Generally speaking these people, with their Sunday time and overtime, draw very big salaries. I think that this whole story is being blown up out of all proportion.

In the olden days they talked about general unemployment prevailing in the country.

Yes, that is true. Now we come to another aspect, namely the increase in tariffs. Hon. members advanced the argument here that nothing was being done to grant just relief in tariffs to the users of the Railways. Hon. members are saying that what the Minister actually did, was to take an inflationary step, in that he simply took R43 million and gave it to the Railway workers. They are suggesting that this amount of R43 million is simply taken on one day and brought into circulation in the general economy. They do not view the matter in its correct perspective. They do not explain to the country that this amount of R43 million will systematically and month by month, at approximately R3½ million per month, be distributed all over South Africa. The whole matter is being blown up. Then they come forward and say that if the Minister wanted to counteract inflation, he should have effected a reduction in tariffs— even if it is as the private sector, organized commerce and the industries are saying outside: a selective tariff reduction. What has our experience been? However, first of all I want to ask hon. members where the Minister was supposed to have obtained the money? The hon. the Minister is in fact budgeting for a loss of R24 million. If a year or two ago the hon. the Minister had followed the advice of the hon. member for Yeoville and other hon. members opposite by not increasing the tariffs, the Rates Equalization Fund would not have stood at R75 million to-day and would not have been able to meet any deficit which may occur at the end of the year. Where would the hon. the Minister have obtained the money to reduce the tariffs? If we had followed the advice given by hon. members on the opposite side of the House in 1966, there would have been a meagre R14 million in the Rates Equalization Fund at the end of last year. If the hon. the Minister had not increased the tariffs last year, there would have been a deficit in the Rates Equalization Fund at the moment. Then we would not have been in a position to offer salary increases to Railway servants. Then the Minister would in these days of downward economic trend have had to increase tariffs in these Estimates. Not in order to grant increases to the Railways staff, not in order to make the Rates Equalization Fund solvent, but simply and solely to make his Estimates balance. That would have happened if we had followed the advice given by hon. members opposite. But now hon. members say that we must give something to the Railway servants and reduce the tariffs as well. If that would reduce the cost of living, I, too, would have given consideration to supporting hon. members. But. after all, we have had experience of that. A few years ago this hon. Minister reduced tariffs to an amount of more than R5 million. He reduced them particularly in respect of foodstuffs. At the time the hon. the Minister made a plea to commerce and industry to use this opportunity to bring down the cost of living by reducing the cost of the article in accordance with the relief offered. Did they do so? Not a single one of them responded to the appeal made by the hon. the Minister. That R5 million which they received, the capitalists and the industrialists put into their pockets just like that. Now hon. members are asking that we should once again do the same sort of rash thing. The hon. member for Salt River once again came forward here with an old United Party story which had already been told here by the former member for Simonstown, Mr. Gay—the story that the Railways, Harbours and Airways should be divorced from one another. The hon. member for Durban (Point) also took a hand in that. The hon. member for Durban (Point) said that one had to rid the Airways of the “Railway mentality” of the Railways. These services are simply indissolubly connected with one another.

Why then is there a Marais Commission?

We have not yet received the report of the Commission. In the meantime I am expressing my opinion. I am merely drawing attention to the foolish opinion the hon. member quite presumptuously expressed. The fact of the matter is that South Africa has benefitted tremendously as a result of these three services having fallen under one management in the past. We cannot compare ourselves with the rest of the world. South Africa’s circumstances are very different from those in the rest of the world. I want to make the frank admission here that the Railways have benefitted by the profits yielded by the Airways and Harbours. But, on the other hand, we must not lose sight of the fact that the Harbours and particularly the Airways are the flourishing and profitable services they are to-day, in view of the fact that because of their connection with the Railways they are enjoying the same measure of protection the Railways do. Remove that protection and see whether these services will still be able to continue on such a flourishing basis. The Airways has grown out of the South African Railways into the flourishing concern it is to-day. That was possible because it enjoyed the protection when it was in need of it and received it owing to its connection with the South African Railways. That is why one should repudiate with contempt the fact that this idea, i.e. that these services should be divorced from one another, can be expressed by the hon. member for Salt River at this stage. I really think that no other points of criticism were raised. On looking through my notes, I cannot find any others. There is another matter I want to touch upon in the rest of my speech. I think the Opposition is no longer capable of rousing our fighting spirit in this debate. I am longing for the debates of seven, eight, nine, ten years ago. Then the U.P. supporters still gave us something we could fight against. But they have laid down arms. I want to sympathize with them. I want to admit frankly that it has become a “darn” difficult task, for instance, to make any capital out of these Estimates. I do not want to be in the hon. member for Yeoville’s position. But he is also making the position difficult for us on this side of the House. What must we talk about if we do not get anything out of them? Just as it is with us, so it is with the hon. the Minister. Hon. members are no longer putting forward any constructive ideas and criticism to stimulate and influence the Minister to do certain things. That is why I want to avail myself of this opportunity to-day, and the hon. the Minister must kindly bear with me in conjecturing about the future. I should like to ask a question here to-day. I want to ask where the combined national transport services can still play an important part in the development of South Africa. I think that members on both sides of the House will agree that South Africa’s future is more and more to be found in developing our industries to a greater extent and in increased exports. In that sphere we are engaged in fierce competition with the old established countries of the world.

I was pleased to read in an article recently that the increase in the exports of the Republic for 1967, was the second highest in the whole world. Only the exports of Japan were comparatively greater in volume than South Africa’s 12.7 per cent. But the fact remains that we still had a balance of trade deficit of R562 million. The biggest increase in exports was to be found under the item “manufactured goods”. Here the increase was 20.2 per cent. We are therefore making progress in respect of our exports as far as manufactured goods are concerned. I note that there is an indication of major expansion possibilities in respect of the export of our ores and minerals. The statistics, if one analyses them as furnished in the White Paper that was tabled, show that the various kinds of ores and minerals conveyed by rail over the past four years have increased from 11.9 million tons to 18.7 million tons, i.e. by 6.7 million tons. This is a substantial increase, and during this period the revenue from the conveyance of these ores and minerals has increased from R16.2 million to R30.6 million, almost by 100 per cent. I have read in an issue of Tegniek dated January, 1968, that Iscor is at present considering the possibility of exporting within the next 30 years roughly 500 million tons of iron-ore from Sishen, and that the present estimate of the iron-ore reserves in the Sishen-Postmasburg area is roughly 4,300 million tons. At the moment the iron-ore is being conveyed to Port Elizabeth, to be exported, over a railway line of 650 miles, and that is a great distance. The cost of conveyance must necessarily influence the overseas marketing in a competitive world, and particularly in competition with Australia. We must therefore consider the matter and see whether a shorter route cannot be found along which we may convey the iron-ore to the coast. Various alternatives have been mentioned. There is already speculation about the idea of building a pipe-line from where the iron-ore is mined to a west coast port, but that would be an expensive process, and apart from that, such a scheme would involve many problems. The first problem is that the only possible port along the west coast, and the nearest port at the moment, to which the pipe-line can be built, is Saldanha, and to my mind that is altogether too far away from the ore deposits. The other problem in connection with the pipe-line is that one needs water for washing the ore, and the Northern Cape cannot spare a single drop of its own water for that purpose. One would therefore have to pump sea-water to the ore deposits in order to wash the ore down to the sea again. That is why I want to make a very strong plea today for an alternative, i.e. for the construction of a railway line from Postmasburg via Upington to Boegoeberg Harbour on the west coast. Such a line would hold many advantages for South Africa.

In the first place, it will shorten the distance the ore is conveyed by at least 220 miles. Whereas a pipe-line cannot give rise to any secondary development, this railway line will ensure tremendous development to an extensive under-developed part of our country. According to an economic survey carried out by the University of Stellenbosch Bureau of Economic Research, this railway line will be an indispensable prerequisite for the proper utilization of the development potential of the Lower Orange River area. But such a railway line will also give rise to the possibility of a link between Bitterfontein and the Boegoeberg-Upington section of the line, which would considerably shorten the link between Cape Town and the North West and South West Africa. This is a long-felt need. Apart from that the railway line will generally be a very great asset to the Railways because it will shorten the route between South West and Kimberley, which goes over De Aar at present, by 100 miles, and this will considerably facilitate the marketing of the produce of South West on the Rand markets. It will also make the enlarged airport at Upington more productive, particularly in respect of the feeding of airfreight, which is a flourishing new development in the S.A. Airways. That is why the consideration of the construction of a railway link should, to my mind, have preference to the construction of a pipe-line for conveying the ores from Sishen and Postmasburg to the west coast. I want to submit that this railway line is just as much in the national interest as is the proposed line from Vryheid to Empangeni which is envisaged to serve the proposed new super-tanker harbour at Richard’s Bay and to stimulate the development in the Tugela Basin and the border industries in Northern Zululand. I am aware of the policy of the Railways Administration in respect of the construction of new railway lines. I am aware that the Administration does not undertake such lines if they are not justified economically or unless somebody guarantees the losses on such a line, In respect of the approach that such lines must be economic, I want to plead for a measure of leniency and a measure of flexibility in this policy, particularly where there is indisputably every indication that the line will in fact be a paying concern later, in view of the fact that the potential is there and that it will also alleviate so many other problems of the railway service itself. I want to plead that during the initial years they should not pay such close attention to the loss that may perhaps be suffered on such a line, but that they should look ahead at the tremendous development of a part of our country which has been neglected for a long time. If the Railways Administration says that it is not its function to take this task upon itself, as it may rightly do, I want to plead that the State should guarantee this line. The Government can no longer ignore the rightful demand on the part of that large area, which is inhabited mainly by Whites. This undertaking is a grand project which should in the national interest be undertaken with faith and imagination, just as the mighty Orange River Scheme was undertaken. The principle of guaranteeing such a line has already been adopted by the Government. It is already being done in respect of certain suburban lines to Bantu areas in respect of which the Government pays approximately R20 million per annum to meet the loss suffered on the conveyance of suburban Bantu passengers. Furthermore, if serious consideration is given to the construction of a pipe-line to convey the ores, I shall certainly argue that the money utilized for that purpose should rather be used for guaranteeing this line. Such a link will open very many doors and it will create tremendous new points of growth in a large part of our country. It will go even further than that. This railway line will make Boegoeberg Harbour of national importance. The Railways Administration will have to participate in the construction of the harbour to make it accessible and suitable for ore ships, and within the foreseeable future provision will have to be made at the Port Elizabeth harbour for more harbour facilities for ore ships weighing more than 100,000 tons. In my opinion this may just as well be done at Boegoeberg Harbour. The world trend is simply to build super-ships for the conveyance of oil, ores and bulk products. We cannot arrest that trend. The Cape route is a long one and the greater the tonnage of the hold, the more profitable the transportation, and we must take that into account. This will also relieve the pressure in our other harbours. The expansion of our harbours is one of the most nagging tasks the Administration has to-day. In many respects existing harbour facilities are already being utilized to the full. Our economic and industrial growth is becoming more and more dependent on imports and exports, and it is making greater and greater demands on the available harbour capacity. In addition to that the pressure on our ports is being increased as a result of international circumstances—the closure of the Suez Canal, the fact that this Canal will at any rate be shrouded in uncertainty in the future, and the fact that it will at any rate be impossible for large super-tankers to make use of the Canal. In the military sphere, for our fleet, we also have a need for a harbour situated between Walvis Bay and Saldanha, and that is why we want to plead very strongly today for this railway line which will involve the expansion, in the national interest, of Boegoeberg Harbour on the west coast.

For once I am able to agree, to a certain extent, with the hon. member for Parow, who has just sat down, and who put forward a plea for a railway line to the West coast. I want to develop that a little bit later in the course of my remarks because there is no doubt that there is a need for some examination to be made of the requirements of the Northern and North-Western Cape in regard to rail facilities. Sir, the theme which I wish to develop is the position of the Coloured community in relation to the Railways, the Airways and the Harbours, bearing in mind that the Government’s attitude is that for the Coloured community the sky is the limit. First of all, I would like to say that I think this hon. Minister is one of the Ministers who is really on the ball. I think he does know his portfolio and he is never at a loss to give an answer to any question put to him. Having made that acknowledgment I do not wish to detract from it by saying something unkind, but what I would like to say is that I do not think the Minister is budgeting any more. These are not budgets which are put before the House; they are a series of figures which the hon. the Minister knows full well are nowhere near the actual figures that will ultimately result from a year’s operation. Sir, in private business, in big business, how would shareholders respond if a manager forecast a deficit of R400,000 and produced a surplus of R35 million? I think a lot of searching questions would be asked and somebody would be fired. To my knowledge the Railway Administration has a more or less weekly accounting system, and it must have been obvious to the hon. the Minister earlier in the year that he was heading for a surplus. He says himself in his speech that in the first few months of the year there were inordinate increases in revenue. What I can not understand is how the hon. the Minister, with the experience that he has had in the Railways Administration, could get himself involved in two declared industrial disputes before he took any action. Did he do this to be a good fellow or was it done for political reasons? I do not propose to probe into that, but what I would say is that I think it is extremely unfortunate that the Airways technicians were compelled to have a dispute declared. The Minister himself has said that he has had difficulty with artisans. Why does he get himself into this position and then come along at the end of the period and, with a magic wand, say that he is going to give away something in excess of R40 million in additional salaries? I cannot understand the thinking of the Minister in this direction and why these people were allowed to get into this unhappy state, so much so that they had to resort to the ultimate in their relationship with their employers by having disputes declared before the Minister took any action.

Everybody is patting the Minister on the back. I want to ask him whether the railwaymen, even with the present increases which they are going to get, are adequately paid? I wonder if the General Manager of an undertaking of such magnitude that it can produce a profit of R35 million is adequately paid at R11,500 a year. If he was in private practice in an industry with which I am familiar and turned in profits of that magnitude, he would be a millionaire if he got only 5 per cent of the profits. I believe that half the trouble in the Railway service is that the men in the top brackets are poorly paid as well as the men in the bottom brackets.

The hon. member for Yeoville complained that the middle group were poorly paid.

My reason for saying this is that unless the whole pay structure rises, the people for whom I plead can get nothing and that is the Coloured community, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the Coloured man in the Railway service is going to get his wages doubled, or is he going to get the same 13 per cent which is being given to those in the top brackets earning R8,000 to R10,000 a year? I think you will find, Sir, that the whole Railway structure needs overhauling. I do not think it is so much a question of shortage of staff. I think there is far too much top hamper of expensive people whereas higher wages should be paid to those in the lower orders. Sir, that is the suggestion I offer to the hon. the Minister. I think he has far too many employees at the top earning big money but not big enough for fewer men. That would be the stream-lining effect if this undertaking was run on real business lines; you would have fewer men in the top brackets; they would be far better paid and those who are right at the bottom, namely the Coloured men, who have so few openings made for them, would come into the vacuum and receive a better deal. Some two years ago I asked the hon. the Minister to consider a pension fund for Coloured persons in the Railway service. He told me that it would cost too much. I want to ask him whether he would not reconsider the attitude which he then adopted and institute a pension fund for these people, because I find that the amount of money involved would not nearly be as much as the hon. the Minister thought. We have had some figures here to-day in other directions which have indicated that his estimating was bad, and therefore I ask him whether he will not please investigate the possibility of instituting a pension fund for the Coloureds in particular who are employed in the Railway service.

Sir, I have had occasion to correspond with the hon. the Minister on various matters affecting the Coloured people and the gist of the replies I get is that Coloured persons are employed in a temporary capacity in the particular jobs which I queried. How long does a man stay “temporary” in a permanent post, and when, if ever, does he qualify as a member of a pension fund so that like his white colleagues he can say, “At some time in the future, at such and such an age, this is what I will get?” I believe that the hon. the Minister has taken the bull by the horns, really in conflict with the policy of his colleagues, by employing more non-Whites or Coloured persons on the Railways because he knows that these people do a good job, that they are available and that that is the only type of employee that he can get. So, he employs them. According to his figures, there was a reduction in white personnel by 951 and an increase of Coloured personnel by 1,000. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether or not the time has come to face up to the realities of the situation. Where vacancies are filled by Coloured persons on the Railways, they will not be filled again by Whites, because they are all in the low-brackets. The Minister will remember that I had correspondence with him in regard to berthing attendants in the docks. The extraordinary position arises that in Table Bay, berthing attendants are white men. These are the chaps who throw the wire and cables from the wharf up to the ship and see that the ship is safely moored. At other ports—East London is one and there are also others along the West Coast —this work is done by Bantu. Surely, in view of the fact that there is this tremendous shortage of white personnel on the Railways and people leaving the Railways and Harbours, the time has come when that type of job should be filled by Coloured persons or by Bantu, if you wish. I do not think that it is fair to leave that particular job exclusively for Whites because I think the white man has every possible opportunity of being trained and of being able to fill posts of some other person higher up the scale in the service.

We then come to the situation which I also raised with the hon. the Minister, where the tugs operating in Table Bay docks are fired by white men, heaving picks and shovels. That is because stokers on the Railways must be white. I put it to the hon. the Minister quite fairly and squarely, and I appeal to him and his party also to realize, that this is a job which can quite easily be done by a Coloured person or by a Bantu, and done well. Then these white men are released for more important work. Because surely, the basis of employment in the Railways, or in the Department of Transport, must be that if a white man leaves a job like that of a coal heaver, he is going to get a better job and better pay in other sections of the service.

I have here a reply which I received from the hon. the Minister. He will not mind me just discussing this with him. My final point was to inquire how he envisages—and this is the point which I want to ask him to-day— separate development on the Railways, in the air and on the sea. Coloured people ask me regularly what is the correct procedure for them to follow to ensure that their young people can obtain jobs and get on. The hon. the Minister replied quite nicely and very friendly. I appreciate that. He said: “In addition, provision is made for non-White clerical posts (that is a very minor grade), in booking offices in the larger centres, where the non-Whites may serve only non-White passengers. Other branches of the service provide for policemen, barmen, chefs, cooks, female laundry attendants, cashiers, etc.” But none of those jobs, Mr. Speaker, really earns a first-class salary. All the top jobs, and the higher grades, with higher scales of pay on the Railways are filled exclusively by white people. I believe the hon. the Minister should tackle this. I saw a report in the paper about the dilution of employment on the Railways. The hon. the Minister said it was not true. I accept that, but I think that possibly this might have been anticipating what should be happening. Only the other day I attended the opening of the new courts at Athlone by the Minister of Justice. He said, with tremendous applause and acclaim from everybody present —it was a mixed gathering—that these courts were going to be staffed ultimately and eventually by Coloured personnel and by a Coloured magistrate. That is fair enough. I ask the question: How are you going to train them? The answer will be the Whites and the Coloureds will work together until such time as the Coloured man can take over. That is wonderful. I want to know however why they have to work together if eventually they are going to be separated? The Coloured Affairs Department employ Coloured people and they are doing a good job of work. Therefore I say to the Minister that his problem concerning insufficient staff should be approached scientifically. I know there is prejudice and bias amongst the staff. As I say, the dilution of labour on the Railways should be approached scientifically and intelligently by people who know and understand the problem that they are trying to solve. These tactics of sort-of sneaking these people into certain posts should come to an end. It should be the Minister’s policy to allow a certain number of Coloured people to enter the service and they should be taught to work alongside and with Whites, even if only to be separated later. How are these people to learn what to do unless somebody sits down alongside and shows them what is required? They cannot obtain the knowledge necessary to do their duties by reading books or by looking through the grille at a booking office window. They must get behind the counters to see what is going on. Therefore I say to the Minister the time has come for the evasion—and I use the term kindly—of admitting that Coloured people are necessary for the smooth running of the Railways, should be discontinued. Their acceptance should be accepted as a matter of policy and be pursued actively.

He referred in his speech to the scholarships and bursaries granted to railwaymen. I should like the Minister in his reply to indicate how many Coloured persons enjoy those scholarships and bursaries. I am convinced that if Coloured men could enjoy bursaries and scholarships from the Railways to qualify, for instance, in engineering they would not leave the service but would be so thankful and grateful that they would stay. Moreover, the Minister would have good and loyal servants, people who would be interested in their work and carry out their duties efficiently.

The alternative to what I suggest is, of course, the old idea of “algehele apartheid”, a policy which went by the board years ago because it was impracticable and absolutely nonsensical. But, assuming the hon. the Minister does not agree with what I say, I want to ask him a straightforward question. If the Coloured community of two million people decided the hon. the Minister was not running the Railways as he should, would they be permitted to build their own railway alongside his on the basis of “separate development” and “the sky is the limit”? If this question is posed, then the whole policy as pursued by the Minister is seen to be absolutely ridiculous. This is the sort of stuff on which the public is fed. The fact is that the Railways is a national project, an undertaking which concerns the entire country, and it should employ as many people as qualify for the vacancies, irrespective of the colour of their skins. If that is not done, and it is not accepted as being a proposition, then the Minister must realize that as far as the Railways are concerned, separate development is a myth and a farce.

What gauge have you got in mind?

A bit broader than yours because it is a broad-minded one. I should like to direct the Minister’s thoughts in that direction.

Let us look at another facet of the Railways, namely the catering service. I use the Railways quite a lot as I travel about in my constituency which, as hon. members know, is enormous. I also make use of the R.M.T. and I also fly a little. Often when sitting in the train’s dining car I see the chief steward struggling with three inexperiencd youths to serve meals and refreshments to the passengers. Surely the time has come when we as adults in an adult country should appreciate that Coloured and Indian men would make first-class waiters and stewards to cater for the needs of the white passengers in railway dining units. Often I am asked why, if a non-White can make a passenger’s bed, he cannot in the name of Heaven serve him with a bowl of soup? This is something I just do not understand. I have made inquiries to see if I could find some unknown deep underlying reason for the non-employment of these people as stewards and waiters, but I could find none. I am convinced that in that section of the S.A.R. the hon. the Minister could show his goodwill towards the Coloured community by making provision for their being employed there.

One is similarly curious when one flies in an aeroplane. When one sits in a Boeing, whether it be the jumbo jet which we will get, or the smaller version, or even when flying in an old Dakota, one finds highly educated and intelligent people handing out sandwiches and tea. Yet we talk about a manpower shortage in this country! Surely these men and women could be used to better advantage, bearing in mind their educational standards, their training, their background, and their traditions. In this sphere I feel the Government, and particularly this hon. Minister, can also show goodwill towards and good faith in the Coloured community or our country.

I had occasion recently to look at a few matters affecting white workers on the S.A.R. When I talk about stokers in the docks, my mind naturally turns to stokers on the railways. I speak subject to correction, but my information is that white men are preferred as stokers in the docks so that they can be used elsewhere on the railways, if necessary, and also that they do not upset the white stoker’s grade. Anybody would think that a stoker’s job is a sort of a sinecure, a job which is much sought after. Recently I saw that a certain system manager was contradicted because of a statement he had made to the effect that firemen were paid double time on Sundays. He also claimed that they only worked seven hours per day. Shortly afterwards a few letters appeared in the Press, all written in a very friendly spirit but purporting to put him right on his facts. One letter was from a fireman who had been on the line for 11 years, whose basic wage before stoppages amounted to R143, and who received a net pay packet of R118 for the upkeep of his household, his wife and children. He did not complain about that, but his grouse was the following. He said that if he works on Sundays he gets paid 7½c per hour extra and he does not work a seven-hour day, as alleged, but a day if 8 hours 40 minutes. He said he seldom got a week-end off, and if he did it was only through a bit of manoeuvring in the running shed. He also said if he was unwilling to go on the line then the loco foreman, I think it is, makes things a bit severe for him. Accordingly they turn out and do their shift. I was in business for nearly 30 years during which time I sold automobiles to many railwaymen. When the agreement form for the purchase of the vehicle was filled in, the railwayman had to divulge his income, and these people never relied wholly on their basic wages to finance the deal. They would say to me, “You need not be worried, I earn £70 to £80 per month more than my basic wage with all the overtime that I do”. This was the case particularly when it came to drivers and firemen. I put it to the hon. the Minister that such a situation is bad for all concerned. It is obvious that if these men have to work that much overtime then there is either too much to do or there is not enough time in which to do it. I therefore say to the Minister if he would increase these basic wages to something reasonable and do away with the overtime, he would get people to do the work and he would not find himself saddled with a situation where he complains of a shortage of personnel on the railways.

These are the things I want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister, and I do plead with him sincerely that, with this tremendous surplus on his hands, he should give serious consideration to giving special treatment to Coloured workers on the S.A.R. He should also seriously consider, or at least investigate, the possibility of a pension fund for Coloured personnel on the railways.

Finally, instead of employing these people somewhat surreptitiously on the basis of their being temporary hands, which more or less suggests the existence of a hope that at some time or other suitable Whites will appear, when these temporary people will be discharged, the Minister should accept these workers as being part and parcel of the Administration. They should be employed as permanent workers, and the matter be “finish and klaar” and done with. I say we must get on with the job of accepting Coloured people on the Railways as part and parcel of the Government’s policy.

Before I sit down, I want to refer to the remarks made by the Minister concerning the anticipated drop in traffic to the new port of Richard’s Bay as a result of the competition encountered from Australia in respect of iron ore to Japan. The hon. member for Parow has appealed for a railway line to Boegoeberg. However, the hon. member waves away with an easy wave of the hand the possibility of a pipeline from Postmasburg or some suitable point such as Sishen, to a point north of the Orange River. I do not propose to develop this theme now except to say this. I spent some time during the recess reading the speeches by Dr. Van Eck and I would say to the Minister that before the traffic reaches such volume that he cannot cope, it would be as well to investigate the possibility of a pipeline from the iron ore fields at Sishen to the coast in which the ore could be pumped in the form of a slurry. The hon. member for Parow just waved this aside and said it could not be done. That part of the country …

Don’t you want the factory nearer in the Northern Cape?

I do not mind where the factory is situated, as long as the products are handled properly. Does the hon. member mean the iron factory? If the hon. member is talking about a steel works then I wish to say I am going to talk about that when another Vote is under discussion. I hope the hon. member will be in the House when I do talk about it. I am now talking only of the transportation of the ore to the coast. At the moment the S.A.R. is carrying trainloads of iron ore and manganese not only to Vanderbijlpark in the Transvaal, which is quite nearby but also to Port Elizabeth and down to Natal. I believe my scheme would be wiser in view of the fact that supplies for the East are going to come from places like Australia. Therefore I say we should now consider the feasibility of making some outlet on the West Coast, but not at Saldanha Bay. I shudder to think what will happen to the gentlemen holding options on the land there, but I think they can take care of themselves. I would like to see the scheme moved northwards, in the direction of South West Africa, because I think our future lies in the West as far as the use of manganese and iron ore is concerned.

I say this to the Minister in the earnest hope that he will, in his reply, indicate whether or not an investigation has been made to ascertain whether my suggestion is a feasible one. Much thought is being given to the development of the ores and other base minerals as well as precious stones and other things, in the area, and I ask the Minister whether he would care to give some indication as to what his thoughts are regarding the possibility of developing the West Coast, which would be of tremendous value to us all, either by way of the construction of a harbour, or the construction of a railway line, or the laying of a pipeline, or a combination of these.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place the hon. member for Karoo voiced his dissatisfaction with the hon. the Minister because the latter’s estimate had not been correct. He said that if the manager of a private company made such an erroneous estimate he would probably be dismissed. Well, I am sure that if that manager could show such a big surplus as the Minister has done, he would not be dismissed, but would rather be promoted. In addition he would receive a bonus and an increase in salary. His second objection was that the salaries for the two groups mentioned by him were inadequate. He explicitly referred to the top and the bottom layers. One of those who spoke before him, I think the hon. member for Salt River, pleaded for the middle group. In other words, the United Party is now pleading for an overall increase in salaries. The hon. member for Yeoville referred to the tariff increases to the amount of R55 million as having been unnecessarily taken from the pockets of the public. Now I cannot quite understand how one can blow hot and cold at the same time, because one moment that side is asking for an overall increase in railway salaries and the next they are criticizing the tariff increases, which have in fact made it possible to grant the recent increases in railway salaries. I am afraid I do not follow that United Party logic at all. In the third instance the hon. member pleaded for greater employment of non-White labour in the S.A.R. I shall have something to say about this at a later stage. Seeing that it is almost time for us to go home now, I move—

Agreed to.