Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville did not make a bad speech. He is improving every year. As a matter of fact, the lessons I taught him in the past few years, are now beginning to have good results. However, there is only one more lesson he has not learned—he simply cannot get away from his role of political propagandist and deal with a matter purely on merit.

No, he is too honest. That is the trouble.

I notice that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is very concerned. I shall have to say a few words about him too. He must just have some patience. I say the hon. member for Yeoville simply cannot get away from his rôle as political propagandist. I want to furnish only one piece of evidence. True enough, this was not said in the speech he made the other day, but the hon. member says many things outside this House where he knows nobody can contradict him, things which his audience usually accept as the truth. In this case he addressed a meeting in the Free State, at Ficksburg no less, and in The Friend of 2nd September, last year the hon. member was reported to have said—

Was the hon. member reported correctly?

I shall have to check that. I cannot tell you now. [Interjection.] Yes, the bridge will be under water.

We shall put the matter in the Suspense Account for the time being.

No, the bridge will be under water. There was no planning and it will be under water.

I shall now give the facts. I hope hon. members remember what the hon. member said, “A bridge was built for R2 million.” The bridge cost R221,360. The regarding cost R264,060, a total of R485,420, but the hon. member said it cost R2 million. The hon. member also said, “It has just been completed.” I emphasize the words “has just been completed”; he said it would be covered by water and, “Now they will have to build another one for R3 million.” The fact of the matter is that the bridge was completed in 1957. That is 10 years ago, but he said, “It has just been completed.” I do not know whether the hon. member measures his “just” in periods of 10 years.

But will the bridge be under water?

This is only one case. I shall draw attention to more in the course of my speech. This proves that the hon. member unfortunately cannot get away from his rôle of political propagandist, and this in spite of the fact that he, with his political propaganda, has chiefly been responsible for the sad position in which that party finds itself to-day. But he has not learnt his lesson yet. I must add, however, that the hon. member did his homework better this time. On the whole his facts were correct, except when he got carried away by his own eloquence. Then he disregarded the facts to some extent, as I shall show in a moment. I want to add that if the hon. member continues to learn his lessons this well, he will be able in three or four years’ time to make a good speech on the Budget after all.

How long will it take you?

Well, I judge from what the House says in this connection, and the overwhelming majority says I have been making good speeches for the past 14 years. I have been listening to the Opposition’s criticism on Budgets for the past 14 years. Truly, there has hardly been anything new during those 14 years. They come along with the same old story each year. If there is a deficit, there is criticism. If there is a surplus, they feel dissatisfied. If I increase wages, they say I have given too little, and if I do not increase wages, they say I should have done so. This year was no different. I listened very carefully to this speech of the hon. member for Yeoville, and after having separated the chaff from the wheat, I found the following to be the points which he had really emphasized. The first, which was obvious, was the question of the so-called incorrect estimates. Secondly, there should have been no tariff increases in 1966. Thirdly, the wage increases were good, but were going to promote inflation. The fourth point concerned the profits on the pipeline, namely that excessive profits were being made on the transport of fuel from Durban to the Witwatersrand and the Northern Free State. Then the hon. member advocated the introduction of a cost of living allowance; he dealt with the shortage of staff and finally he referred to the grievances of the staff. Of course, these things sounded very familiar. I have been hearing them here for many years.

And you are not doing anything about them.

To a great extent this was a mere repetition of what had been said before. Many of the suggestions were so unpractical and so impracticable that I could not have done anything about them; that is quite correct. I agree that the Opposition had an extremely difficult task this time, because they had to criticize a good Budget, and as a result I shall have to be a little tolerant.

Let me, first of all, deal with the question of incorrect estimates. This is the point of criticism that has been raised year after year over a period of 20 years, and when we were on that side of this House, we too criticized the United Party Minister of Transport on this very point, namely that the estimates were not quite correct.

You have learnt nothing.

But can one ever learn anything from the Opposition? This is simply impossible. I say we have had to listen to this point of criticism for 20 years and more. Today I shall once again try to explain the position to hon. members, as has been done time and again. In the first place, as I said in the past, the Railways are entirely subject to the fluctuations in the economy. The Railways, as an organization, is entirely dependent on the traffic offering, goods and passengers, for its revenue. It cannot force anybody to have goods transported by rail; it cannot force anybody to make use of its passenger services or of its air services. The practice is to contact all the various bodies which play some role in our economy before drawing up the estimates, and to inquire from them what prospect they have for the year ahead; bodies such as the organizations of trade and industry, the steel industry, the mining industry, the economic bureaux, the banks, the agricultural associations and the various Government Departments. The observations and the analyses of our own departments in the Railways based on past experience, are then added to this information. Only after all this information has been obtained are the predictions made and the estimates drawn up of what the position is likely to be in the year ahead.

Is there then a second railway system which they can use?

I do not know what the hon. member means by a second railway system.

He is off the rails.

The estimates are drawn up after a picture has been painted of the economic expectations for the year ahead and after all these bodies have been approached. Expenditure is determined as accurately as possible, but expenditure again is very closely linked to revenue. It is, for example, impossible to determine the amount which will be paid in overtime and Sunday time during the year ahead; this depends on the traffic which will be offered as well as on the shortage of staff which may arise. When I say this hon. members should bear in mind that as far as overtime and Sunday time are concerned, payments amount to R48 million per annum. It is impossible to determine the exact amount which will be spent on maintenance and repairs. The hon. member for Yeoville can most definitely not predict what repairs will have to be made to his car in the coming year. He does not know whether or not the repairs will come to a large amount. It is virtually impossible to determine exactly what expenditure for the coming year is going to be. It is impossible to determine the number of vacancies which is going to arise and the number of vacancies which will not be filled. Who, for example, could have predicted in March last year that Suez would close and would still be closed to-day? Hon. members must bear in mind that the S.A. Railways is not a small rural business. The S.A. Railways is the biggest undertaking in the country. The revenue and capital account of the Railways is in excess of R1,000 million to-day. The hon. member spoke of private undertakings. I should like to see the private undertaking, even if it is 50 per cent smaller than the Railways, which can make an accurate estimate for the year ahead. This is simply impossible.

Then the hon. member for Yeoville alleged that the surplus of R35 million proved that there had been no need for increasing tariffs in 1966. This statement was made before and I should like to deal with it in brief. I want to indicate what the position would really have been had those tariff increases not been made. I obtained these figures yesterday and I shall quote them in English as they were given to me.

†In 1966-’67 the actual revenue was R677.7 million, less the estimated amount due to tariff increase from September, R27.5 million. The total expenditure was R676.2 million. If there was no tariff increase there would have been a deficit of R26 million. The balance in the Rates Equalization Fund was R41.4 million. After charging the Rates Equalization Fund with this deficit in 1966-’67 there would have been a balance of R15 million. In 1967-’68 the revised estimate of revenue was R753.8 million, less tariff increase of R46.3 million which, if that is deducted, would have left a balance of R707.5 million. The revised estimate of expenditure was R718.6 million, which would have resulted in a deficit on the working operations of that year of R11.1 million. The balance in the fund was R15 million. The balance, after charging the 1967-’68 deficit, would have been R4 million in the Rates Equalization Fund. In 1968-’69 the estimated revenue was R774.8 million, less the tariff increase which was estimated at R46.3 million, that leaves R728.5 million. The estimated expenditure is R798 million. That would have left a deficit of R70.3 million, less the balance in the Fund of R4 million. The shortfall in the Rates Equalization Fund would have been R66.2 million this year if there were no tariff increases.

That is another wild guess.

I challenge the hon. member to dispute these figures.

*The Department extracted these figures. This means that if there had been no tariff increases we would have ended the year with an enormous deficit of R66 million. What would have happened to the wage increases if I had not increased tariffs? These are the kind of allegations made by hon. members opposite without their being able to prove them, but they sound find and the Opposition thinks that the public outside will accept that this R35 million, as the hon. member said, was taken from the pockets of the public and that it was quite unnecessary at that time to increase tariffs.

Then the hon. member said that the wage increases were good but that they would have an inflationary effect. But is this so? In the first place, as hon. members on this side said, these increases will extend over a period of 12 months. In other words, the amount of R43 million will not be injected into the economy at once. It will be done over a period of 12 months, and these increases will vary from R10 a month for several thousand workers to R20/25 a month and a higher amount for a small group. How can this amount increase the buying power of the people to such an extent that it will promote inflation? Yes, if I had increased tariffs, it would have pushed up the entire cost structure and it would indeed have promoted inflation, but inflation can most certainly not be promoted by these really slight individual increases, without tariff increases, except of course if unfair advantage is going to be taken of the increases which the Railwaymen are going to receive and the prices of commodities will be increased unnecessarily.

The hon. member and other hon. members opposite spoke of a wage freeze. But this is the biggest nonsense, because there has been no wage freeze. What did in fact happen, was that the hon. the Prime Minister made an appeal to trade unions to apply the brake a little as far as wage demands were concerned. Really, it seems to me as if laughing without any reason is an ailment from which that hon. member opposite suffers.

One cannot help haughing at such nonsense.

The hon. member is probably laughing at himself. What wage freeze has there been? The hon. the Prime Minister asked trade unions not to request precipitate wage increases. That is all. I told the Railway trade unions, “Please note that now is not the appropriate time for granting wage increases”. This I told them at that time. I added, however, that when the right time arrived their requests would receive sympathetic consideration, as is now being done. But what has happened in the private sector? Since January, 1967, up to t8h March, 1968, 34 industrial agreements have been negotiated providing for wage increases in the private sector. To these have to be added the improvements which have been granted to the mineworkers and the steelworkers. Negotiations in this connection were completed recently. The Wage Board made 12 determinations. But the hon. members spoke of a wage freeze. This simply is not so. Why will all workers in the private sector suddenly come forward now with demands for wage increases when there have been systematic wage increases in the private sector over this period of 12 months?

I now come to the pipeline between Durban and Johannesburg. In this regard we once again heard the same old story, namely that the Administration was making such supposedly excessive profits on the pipeline. Something the hon. members who alleged this apparently do not realize is that when fuel used to be transported by rail, exceptionally good profits were made on that as well. The hon. member said he was making a study of Railway matters. Well, something he ought to know by this time is that the fundamental principle of rating is what the traffic can afford. When he speaks of profits on fuel transported by the pipeline, he must at the same time speak of the excessive profits which are being made on other high-rated traffic. If a bar of gold, for example, is transported from Johannesburg to Cape Town, an exceptionally large profit is made on that. This is the basis of rating, namely what the traffic can afford in the first place. Therefore we find on any railway system in the world that high-rated traffic is being transported at much higher tariffs than the ordinary commodities such as ores, agricultural products, etc. This is nothing new. It is a fundamental principle that the high-rated traffic has to subsidize the low-rated traffic. If large profits had not been made on the transport of high-rated traffic, the Railways would not have been able to lose from R40 million to R50 million per annum on its passenger services.

Nor would the Railways have been able to transport agricultural products at a loss. Nor would the Railways have been able to transport ores at the actual transport costs plus a small contribution only towards overhead costs. Nor would we have been able to transport coal from Transvaal to the Western Cape at a loss. For the last 300 miles coal is virtually being transported free of charge to the Western Cape. Consequently large profits must be made on the high-rated traffic, so that the low-rated traffic may in fact be subsidized. I say this is nothing new. What would have happened if I were to concede to the request for a tariff reduction on the transport of petrol from Durban to Johannesburg and the Northern Free State by the pipeline? It would simply have been necessary to recover such an abandonment of revenue from the other Railway users. Why should a small group of Railway users only, namely the petrol consumers on the Witwatersrand and in the Northern Free State, be benefitted while any shortfall which might result would have to be recovered from all other users as well? For this reason I am simply not prepared now to consider any tariff reduction on the transport of fuel by the pipeline.

The hon. member also said that it was wrong to give these large salary increases in one year, then to sit back and refuse any further increases until the position had become intolerable. Consequently he advocated the introduction of a cost-of-living allowance which could, according to him, be adapted annually to the increasing cost of living. It was also alleged or insinuated that wage increases were usually granted shortly before an election. Therefore this kind of political propaganda put in yet another appearance. The hon. member mentioned a whole series of figures relating to wage increases in the past and smilingly said and made the insinuation that they had been agreed to shortly before a general election.

I did not say that.

I do not want to say anything about this. All I want to say is that I reject that statement with the contempt it deserves.

It has nothing to do with elections.

As I say, this is another demonstration of political opportunism, something from which the hon. member cannot get away.

I now want to put a question or two to the hon. member as regards the introduction of cost-of-living allowances. Has he perhaps consulted the staff associations in this regard? Has he perhaps received any indication that the Railway workers again wanted to have such a system of cost-of-living allowances? I gain the impression that the hon. member is completely out of touch with the staff, because one of the major demands by the staff in the past was precisely the consolidation of the cost-of-living allowance and the basic wage. Does the hon. member not realize, or does he not know, that the cost-of-living allowance is not subject to overtime payments. In other words, overtime and Sunday time are based on the basic wage and not on the cost-of-living allowance. Furthermore, the pension contributions of the workers are based on the basic wage and not on the cost-of-living allowance. As a matter of fact, the staff is not even thinking of a cost-of-living allowance; they do not want something like that. They would rather have improvements in their basic wages which entail an improvement in their pensions, their bonus payments as well as their overtime and Sunday time payments.

When did I say that they should get cost-of-living allowances?

Later on I shall read out where the hon. member made that statement in his speech.

I shall be very pleased.

Yes, I shall do so. This proves that the hon. member is completely out of touch with the staff. But this is not all; this is also proof that the hon. member has given no attention to this matter. What industry and what industrial agreement makes provision for cost-of-living allowances? This type of allowance has fallen away altogether, because workers want increases in their basic wages rather than an allowance which is always considered to be something temporary and something which can be abolished by the employer at any time.

The hon. member also spoke of an annual adjustment. If the hon. member had any knowledge of the administration and management of a large undertaking like the S.A.R. & H., he would not have said something like that. What he proposed is totally impracticable. It is impracticable to have an annual adjustment of basic wages in an enormous organiaztion such as this which employs more than 220,000 people in more than 800 different grades. This will mean that work will have to be done throughout the year, from January to December, in order to make it possible for the necessary wage adjustments to be made at the end of each year. I repeat that the hon. member is not giving the necessary attention to all these aspects. In spite of the fact that he has allegedly been making a study of the matter for the past year, he still does not realize the scope of the administration and management of the S.A.R. & H.

The hon. member also spoke of determining what a job was worth, the so-called “job evaluation”. The hon. member should realize, however, that this job evaluation does not amount to wages being paid in one undertaking having to be compared to wages being paid for the same work outside. The nature of the work being done and the responsibility being borne, etc., determine this. The value of the work too has to be taken into account. This is being done on the Railways. The hon. member may differ as far as some aspects are concerned, for example, he may say the wages of a special grade engine-driver are not high enough for the work he is doing. Those wages are, however, based on evaluation. At the same time the entire wage structure has to be kept in mind, and one grade cannot be selected for excessive increases, because that would disturb the entire wage structure.

But you are going to do so now.

No, I am not going to do so. The hon. member does not know what he is talking about. After all, he has not even seen what the increases are going to be.

I know what was said at the meeting in Maitland last night.

All he knows is what he has read in the newspapers. I said at the outset that the hon. member had done his homework reasonably well, but that he disregarded his facts somewhat when he got carried away by his own eloquence. I want to give another illustration of where he did that. The hon. member said, “It is shocking and frightening to realize what the South African Railways pays people to do the most responsible work”. He then mentioned examples. The first example he gave was that of a learner engine-driver. There is no such post. I assume that the hon. member did not know better and that a trainee was what he meant. A trainee is not by any chance a learner engine-driver. The learner engine-driver mentioned by him is in actual fact a learner fireman. A trainee is a boy previously employed by us for cleaning engines. He is a 17 or 18-year-old boy. After having passed his examinations, he becomes a fireman or a driver’s assistant. But I leave the matter at that. He said the wage was from R75 to R90 per month. The present wage is actually from R85 to R90 per month. He then spoke of a driver’s assistant. He said his wage was from R120 to R140 per month, but the hon. member was wrong. The trouble is that the hon. member hears something and jumps at it without checking on it. He then comes to this House imagining that he is standing on a platform at Ficksburg and then makes this kind of statement here. The real position is the following The maximum wage is R140 per month plus R21.55 per month as a standard wage supplement. The hon. member said that the maximum of a senior driver’s assistant was R150 per month. Again he was wrong. The maximum is R155 per month plus R23.85 per month as a standard wage supplement, a total of R187.85 per month. He said that a special grade engine-driver received R195 per month. He then went on to say that we should just consider that a man with that responsibility received less than R200 per month. Again this is wrong. The wage is R195 per month plus R30 per month as a standard wage supplement, a total of R225 per month. I am mentioning these figures in order to teach the hon. member once again that he must check his facts. The hon. member must not allow his tongue to run away with him, because that is a very dangerous thing. In this connection I want to say that the wages plus the additional benefits paid to Railway workers compare very well to wages being paid outside.

Why then is the railway losing so many of its staff?

That is happening because of many other reasons. If the hon. member will put the same question at a later stage, I shall deal with it in the Committee Stage. The hon. member also spoke about overtime. He said, “I am told that the Airways technicians, on an average, are working 19 hours a day to keep the planes aloft”.

I said that I could not believe that and that I did not accept that.

Why then did the hon. member say that? The hon. member does not believe it but he said it all the same. What can one do with an hon. member like that? {Interjections.] The hon. member is somewhat alarmed now, because he knows that I am going to prove him wrong.

Quote from Hansard what he said.

Of course I shall quote from Hansard. He said, “This figure might be exaggerated, but that is what I am told”. Why then did he mention this figure? Why did he make the statement, and he did say this, that they were working 19 hours overtime a day on an average. There are 24 hours in a day and consequently they have five hours’ sleep only. When one has an average figure, it means that some of them have to work much longer than this. Some work shorter hours but some must work longer hours. How else can one arrive at an average figure? He maintained that these people were working 19 hours a day. What is so serious, is that he was creating the impression throughout his entire speech that I was gambling with the safety of our passengers, because not only was there a shortage of these mechanics and technicians, but they were working to such an extent that they simply could not do their work properly. This is what that implied. The hon. member for Durban (Point) wanted me to quote from Hansard—

I am told that the Airways technicians, on an average, are working 19 hours a day to keep the planes aloft. it is unbelievable.

Why did you say that I said that they worked 19 hours overtime a day?

I apologize if I created the wrong impression. I quoted him as saying that they were working 19 hours a day. In other words, if we have a shift of eight hours, these people work 11 hours overtime a day.

*What this amounts to, is that the average time worked by an Airways technician a day, is 19 hours. Is the hon. member satisfied now? He said—

The following are the facts. Every year, when I am half-way with my speech, this hon. member starts feeling had. Why does he not rather learn the lesson of making use of facts, then he will not feel so bad. Now, what are the facts? [Interjections.] The hon. member must listen now so that he may learn what the facts are.

†During December, 1967, Airways technicians worked a total of 11,389 shifts. Of these 11,270 were under 12 hours, 44 between 12 and 14 hours, 46 between 14 and 16 hours and 29 over 16 hours. The longest shift worked on any day during the month totalled 17 hours 45 minutes.

So I was not so far off the mark, after all.

He said that all of them worked 19 hours a day on an average. Now he is still trying to make excuses for himself. If I were in his shoes I would apologize rather than try to make excuses for myself.

†The corresponding figures for January are 16,316 shifts of which 16,094 were under 12 hours, 190 between 12 and 14 hours, 128 between 14 and 16 hours and 19 in excess of 16 hours a day. The longest shift worked on any day during January, was 16 hours 35 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Can the hon. the Minister tell us how many of the shifts of under 12 hours were of eight hours’ duration?

Quite a large number of them were over eight hours’ duration. I am now dealing with the allegation made by the hon. member for Yeoville that the average time worked by Airways technicians was 19

hours a day. I said that that was wrong. The longest shift worked during February was 16 hours 35 minutes.

*This again proves that the hon. member disregarded his facts to some extent. When he hears about something like this, he must do the easy thing and write me a note asking what the position is. I shall then give him all the information. He is also at liberty to attack me in this Parliament, but then he will have the facts. It is not necessary to go to those people and to listen to their stories. He must write to me when he learns about this so that he may get his facts straight. I shall let the hon. member have the facts in this connection with the greatest of pleasure. Then he will still be able to use them in his speech here, but then he will have the facts. I want to say that I am aware—and now I am not speaking of the technicians only, but of many railwaymen— that very long hours are being worked. I admit this immediately. I know that some of the foot-plate staff are working from 16 to 20 hours on some shifts, but this does not happen regularly. I admit that excessive overtime is being worked in many cases.

Seven days a week.

Seven days a week, as I worked, my friend. I am the only man who has experience of these long hours, not by sitting behind a desk, but by shovelling coal into the locomotive—for 16 long hours a day. Therefore I have a great deal of sympathy with my people who have to work these long hours, and we are doing everything in our power to decrease the working hours as much as we can. But there are unavoidable cases where one simply cannot do so. We are trying to bring about drastic decreases, but there is a serious shortage of staff. I appreciate the willingness of my people to put up with this inconvenience, of being prepared to work Sunday and Monday, night time and overtime. This proves the loyalty and the faithfulness of the railwayman in general.

Hear, hear!

We are trying to decrease the hours by more mechanization, automation, by increasing the carrying capacity of the Railways and by means of numerous other improvements we are bringing about. But it still happens that these long hours have to be worked, something with which I am not at all content, and if we can decrease them, we shall certainly do so.

The next matter about which the hon. member spoke was the shortage of staff. As he said, “Now I am going to ask you the 64,000 dollar question”. What was I going to do to solve the problem? He became even more carried away and said, “This is the moment of truth”.

No, Sir, I said it is time we had a moment of truth.

I think the time is now.

I said the same.

Now we are going to have this moment of truth of which he spoke. I think it is high time that there is clarity in regard to this matter, not only as regards my attitude, but also that of the Opposition. I hope that this afternoon will be that moment of truth and that we are going to get that clarity.

Let me say immediately that I can solve the problem fairly easily by employing non-Whites as firemen, driver’s assistants (of whom there is a serious shortage), shunters, guards, station-foremen, artisans, etc. I can easily do so. But there would be tremendous opposition from the staff if I were to do so. Now I want to know: Does the hon. member want me to do so in spite of the opposition of the staff?

Are you trying to overcome that opposition?

I am now putting a simple little question to the hon. member.

But I did not …

No, but I shall come to that. I want to know: Does the hon. member want me to do that in spite of the opposition of the staff?

Now I am asking you: Are you trying to overcome that opposition?

I am going to reply to that.

I too am going to reply to that.

I am going to state what my attitude is. Now I first want to learn what the attitude of the Opposition is.

I shall reply to that as soon as I have another opportunity of speaking.

One of the Opposition members has already said what his attitude is. I want to know whether he was speaking on behalf of the party.

I shall reply very clearly.

I want to know whether he was speaking on behalf of the party. Does the hon. member want me to do so in spite of the opposition of the staff?

Say yes or no.

Reply to my question!

He does not want to reply.

I will reply.

Now I want to ask, on whose behalf was the hon. member for Karoo speaking when he said I had to do so in spite of the opposition of the staff? That hon. member is a leading member of the United Party.

On a point of correction, Sir, I did not say “in spite of the opposition of the staff”.

The hon. member said, without any qualification, that that had to be done. Very well then, let me hear what the attitude of that hon. member is. Does he now adopt the attitude that that should not be done even if it met with opposition from the staff? Is that his attitude? In other words, does he agree that I should not appoint Coloureds as stewards of such appointments met with opposition from the staff?

[Inaudible.] [Laughter.]

Order!

You see. Mr. Speaker, when one is dealing with a party in which every man has his own policy, it is small wonder that they are sitting where they are.

There is only one policy.

The hon. member says, “There is one policy”. Which one is that?

If you stopped speaking, I could get up and tell you.

Order!

When the hon. member has the opportunity of doing so, will he tell us whether the hon. member for Karoo subscribes to that policy one hundred per cent? Will he teel us that too?

Yes.

He will tell us that too. We are looking forward in great anticipation to the time when the hon. member will tell us that.

Now reply to my question.

I am going to reply to you now. My policy is very clear, namely that with the approval or the start and on condition that the wage, status and standard of living of the Whites are being protected I am already employing non-Whites in work previously done by Whites. Is that clear? I am employing Coloureds and Bantu as, for example, ticket clerks; work previously done by Whites. There are certain types of skilled work previously done by Whites which are now being done by non-Whites. At present engine-cleaners quite often are non-Whites while all of them were white trainees in the past. At present there are seven or eight thousand Bantu who do the pick-and-shovel work on the permanent way which used to be done by Whites. This is also the case as far as flagmen and pointsmen are concerned. This will continue to be done. Let that hon. member listen now. He must learn his lesson.

Oh yes?

All this is being done in co-operation with and with the approval of the staff, and this will be developed further. It will not be possible, however, to allow the mixed working of Whites and non-Whites. There is tremendous opposition from the staff, and I back them up. In certain grades and posts one simply cannot use non-Whites One cannot place a non-White station-foreman here on Cape Town station, or a non-White station-master at Retreat. One cannot use a Bantu as a fireman on an engine. This will simply not be tolerated. It cannot be done, because we cannot have a mixed working of Whites and non-Whites, but where it is practicable it is in fact being done with the cooperation of the staff. This is my policy.

The trouble is that these hon. members are not being politically honest when they present themselves as the champions of the progress the non-Whites have to make in South Africa’s economy. They are merely on the look-out, as was proved in recent years, for us on this side to make use of some non-White to do the work of a particular White so that they may exploit it politically. This is what they are doing.

I have promised to exchange a few words with the Leader of the Opposition as well. You will be able to deduce what their approach is from what I am going to read now. I am going to a note from The Star of 25th June, 1967. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke at Bloemfontein at that time. This is very interesting. Hon. members will find what I am going to read very interesting.

What is the date of that?

25th June, 1967. In November, 1967, he again replied to this. The hon. the Leader said—

That is untrue. It is totally untrue.

Don’t speak so soon. I am going to read the hon. member’s denial as well. Wait a moment. According to this report the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said—

That is totally untrue.

I then quoted this … [Interjections.] Listen now and give me a chance.

You have got your dates wrong and you have got your quotations wrong. Moreover, you do not know what it is all about.

On 6th November the hon. the Leader of the Opposition replied, because I had quoted this statement in a speech I made, one which was reported. And on 6th November, 1967, we found the following report in The Cape Times—

And now follows the important point. In this report the following is placed between inverted commas—

Is that wrong too? Or did the hon. member say that?

That is correct.

What is the connection between “Blacks” and the “trade union context”?

Non-Whites.

Under the Industrial Conciliation Act the “Blacks”, the “African”, are completely excluded—in other words, “trade union context”, of which he spoke, therefore relates to Coloureds, Indians and “Blacks”.

Nonsense. You are trying to make a stupid point, but you have got your dates wrong and you have got your context wrong.

The trouble is that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition makes such stupid statements. In any event, the report in The Cape Times proceeds, “He had not referred to Bantu labour as reported. He had spoken about ‘Blacks’ in the context of ‘non-White’ ”. The reporter spoke of “Africans”. But the hon. member says “Africans” are not “Blacks”. He says he was speaking of “Blacks in the trade union context …” What in heaven’s name …! The fact of the matter is that the hon. member knows so little about trade unions and so little about matters concerning workers that he allows his tongue to run away with him and gets himself into trouble. [Interjections.]

Order!

The trouble is that when he hon. the Leader of the Opposition made this speech at Bloemfontein he did not have the hon. member for Yeoville at his side to correct him. And when I quoted what he had said, he did not say I was not speaking the truth—he simply said he had spoken of “Blakcs” and not of “Africans”. In other words, the entire report is true. Nevertheless he said at the beginning that the entire thing was untrue.

It is untrue.

This proves to what extent one can rely on statements made by the Leader of the Opposition. One can still expect this from the hon. member for Yeoville, but really, not from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

May I put a question to you? [Interjections.]

I am always very courteous to hon. members of the Opposition. They may put any question they like to me.

Are there any non-Whites in Durban who are doing shunting work?

Yes, there is quite a number of them. [Interjections.] Again the hon. member here is laughing too soon. Apparently he is suffering from an ailment —when he expects something funny to be said, he laughs before it has been said. As regards the question of the hon. member for Durban (Point), I have to inform him that we do employ the services of, for example, Indians, but not on the footplate of locomotives. That is what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition alleged.

I never alleged that.

But that is stated in this newspaper report.

That is wrong—totally.

They are being used as flagmen at crossings. At Maydon Wharf there are many of these crossings. In addition they are being used as pointsmen and others again are being used to change points. A small number of Indians are being used for this work. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke of “Africans”, but when he was caught out he said he had meant “Blacks”. [Interjections.]

Why did you not write me a letter to ask me exactly what I had said?

But the hon. member in fact made a statement subsequently. [Interjections.] That hon. member did not make a statement subsequent to the story about the Bethuli Bridge in the newspaper.

He will make a statement with the greatest of pleasure.

Order!

Now I am going to leave the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for a while, because I again want to confine myself to the hon. member for Yeoville. He spoke of grievances of the staff, of individual grievances. Of course there are grievances. In any large organization with more than 220,000 people there must indeed be individuals who have grievances. There are, however, seven white staff associations and one Coloured staff association. It is the task of these associations to look after the interests of their members— and they are doing this very well indeed. These associations represent more than 80 per cent of all Railwaymen, Bantu included. These staff associations are capable of bringing all grievances to the attention of the Minister. Hon. members may rest assured that when there are serious grievances amongst a large number of Railwaymen, those grievances do come to the attention of the Minister. Individuals will always have small grievances. But the hon. member for Yeoville came along and said that the Railwayman was afraid to go to the M.P.’s of the United Party, because they allegedly were afraid of victimization.

I did not use the word “victimization” once. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

I am having the hon. member’s speech checked. If he had not made that statement, I shall apologize. But somebody said it. If not the hon. member for Yeoville, then the hon. member for Durban (Point), and in that case I turn to him now. The hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Durban (Point) belong to the same Party in any event. Let me tell hon. members that during the 13 years I have been Minister of Transport I have never victimized anybody because of his political convictions. As a matter of fact, I have never even objected to some of the few of the remaining U.P. railwaymen serving on U.P. committees. The fact of the matter is that the railwayman has confidence in his Minister; they have confidence in the Government—therefore they do not go to the United Party with their grievances and definitely not because they allegedly are afraid of victimization.

The hon. member for Yeoville was also on about a backlog relating to capital works. I think the hon. member should have investigated the matter somewhat more thoroughly. There is no backlog as far as capital works are concerned. The position is, however, that when a railway line, for instance, is under construction—like the one between Vryheid and Empangeni—it cannot be completed within 12 months. The work may possibly take two or three years. Consequently an amount requiring to be voted for that work appears in the Estimates each year. New works are also being tackled each year. But there is no backlog, because all works are proceeding. New engines and trucks are being ordered each year. The amount which will have to be paid eventually for works already in progress, comes to more than R400 million. But there is no backlog. I really think the hon. member should have given a little more attention to this.

The hon. member also referred to the building of the new pipe-line. This pipe-line will be built chiefly for the purpose of transporting oil to a new refinery to be built at Sasolburg and for stock-piling.

With this I think I have now dealt fully with the speech of the hon. member.

†I now come to the hon. member for Durban (Point). Mark Twain once said that often a hen which has merely laid an egg cackles as if she had laid an asteroid. As usual, the hon. member claims that it was entirely due to the pleadings of the United Party over so many years that my hard heart was softened and I made certain concessions to the staff. Of course it is the prerogative of the Opposition to plead for wage increases and to plead for tariff reductions. They are quite irresponsible; they can do it, and they are always doing it, so that eventually, when it materializes, they can claim the credit for it. Somebody once said that when an Opposition claims the credit for the good deeds of the Government, it shows bankruptcy. The only trouble is that the railwayman does not believe the hon. member and that is reflected by the results at every election.

Are you only interested in election results and not in the Railways?

I do not think anybody can be more interested in elections than hon. members opposite. They are interested in elections, but they do not like them any more. As I say, the only trouble is that the railwaymen simply do not believe the hon. member. The hon. member criticized me for underestimating and producing a surplus of R35 million, and this is what he said. It is quite interesting. He said: “I myself was a sales manager and the first time I produced an unexpectedly high sales figure over and above the forecast, I was just about fired.” What a peculiar business! His boss did not want additional business and almost fired him for working so well! In fact, that is one of the reasons why the British economy is in such a state; people will not work any more, and this boss did not want the hon. member to work. Well, all I want to say is that since those days the hon. member for Durban (Point) has been the sales manager of the United Party, and he has produced one unpleasant surprise after another, but still he has not been fired.

Why do you not deal with the point instead of cracking jokes?

Surely the hon. member does not expect me to take him seriously? But now I want to take the hon. member seriously. This is very important. The hon. member said that last year he claimed that there was some correlation between the long hours of overtime and the strain and the number of accidents, and in his speech he set out to prove that contention. He told the House that he ploughed through the reports of accidents for hours. He said I thought nobody would take the trouble, but I suppose that I apparently under-estimated the resourcefulness, the sheer tenacity of purpose and the determination of the hon. member for Durban (Point). What are the conclusions he arrived at? He said in 1967 there were 1,633 accidents on the railways, and he divided that into level-crossing accidents, 71 in three months, collisions 18, falls from trains 85, shunting accidents 57, and over 100 persons were hit by trains. Then he multiplied this by four to get the annual figure, namely 364 killed and 1,248 injured. The basic charge of this hon. member was that there was a correlation between accidents on the railways and the overtime and strain that the workers are subjected to.

HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Take crossing smashes, 71 in three months. Was that due to overtime and strain on the Railway workers? Of course not. Take falls from trains. When a passenger falls from a train, is that due to the overtime worked by the train crew and the strain under which they work? Take persons hit by trains. Were they workers employed by the Railways who had worked overtime and were under strain and that is why they were hit by trains? But this is the type of thing I have to contend with. Then he says that to get the number of killed over 12 months, he just multiplied it by four. You might have a serious accident in one quarter in which many people are involved, and you may have no serious accidents for the rest of the year, but he multiplies it by four. Sir, I do not think for a moment— and I say this quite seriously—that the hon. member deliberately tried to mislead the House. All that I can say is that we might put it down to verbal exuberance combined with a lack of knowledge and comprehension. Still, it is very dangerous to make such statements. The public outside might believe it. He says that crossing smashes are correlated to overtime work and strain, and that people falling out of trains must be due to it. The hon. member should not say things like that.

Give me the figures.

I have pointed out to the hon. member that there is no correlation between overtime and strain and these accidents, and that was his basic charge, and that is where he went wrong. The hon. member made an unsubstantiated statement, and I think he should put it right when he gets the opportunity to do so.

The hon. member for Green Point is not here, but he apologized for being unavoidably absent. I want to deal with two matters he raised. The first is the closing of Table Bay Harbour during weekends. The position is that since the closing of Suez visitors started flocking to the harbour during weekends. They caused chaotic conditions. The roadways became congested, cars packed on or near railway tracks and obstructed train movement, and pedestrians exposed themselves to injury. It was decided on 17th June, 1967, to close the harbour during weekends. On 22nd November the restrictions were lifted, but the influx of visitors again assumed inordinate proportions, and the restrictions were reimposed on 23rd December, 1967.

Now, I should like to talk to the hon. members who represent East London and Port Elizabeth. Their colleague, the hon. member for Green Point, pleaded with me to abolish the port rates from East London and Port Elizabeth to the Transvaal. I understood that he spoke on behalf of the United Party. Have the hon. members from East London and Port Elizabeth consulted him, and do they support him? The Port Elizabeth public would like to know and the East London people would like to know whether it is the policy of the United Party that these port rates should be abolished. It is one of the recommendations of the Schumann Commission. Do hon. members support it?

But I can speak when I get up.

They say that silence means consent. That hon. member can speak if he gets up, but he does not speak. Well, I think the people of Port Elizabeth and East London will be interested to know—and I hope it will be reported—that the United Party pleads for the abolition of the port rate from East London and Port Elizabeth to the Transvaal.

The hon. member for Salt River suggested that the narrow gauge lines should be broadened. It is an admirable suggestion, but the trouble is that it costs a lot of money and I do not have the money to do it. He pleads for the consideration of tariffs in the Western Cape. I can only say in this regard that I cannot manupulate tariffs in the interests of one particular area. If the industrialists in the Western Cape want some relief they must find other ways of obtaining relief, but not by the lowering of tariffs.

The hon. member for Karoo spoke about pensions for Coloured people. I can only tell him that this matter was examined. It was found that the contributions that the Coloured workers would have to pay to enable them to obtain a decent pension would be so high that they could not afford them. That is why the saving scheme was introduced.

Then I come to the hon. member for Port Natal. Is he here?

Present, Sir.

Well, even he is learning his lessons now. The hon. member for Port Natal stated that this Government was responsible for the staff shortages. I agree with him. Of course we are responsible for the manpower shortage. Do you know why? Because this Government is responsible for the unprecedented prosperity and industrial expansion in this country; that is why there is a manpower shortage.

You stopped immigration.

That should be obvious to hon. members on the other side. The hon. member says that we lost 1 million immigrants in the ten years.

At least.

Apart from the fact that this figure is a gross exaggeration, does the hon. member really think that we could have absorbed 1 million immigrants in ten years?

Of course; Canada and Australia did it.

There is no comparison between Australia and South Africa. Australia has a population of 14 million white people, and we have a white population of less than 3 million. Hon. members do not know what they are talking about. It is simply a pipe-dream to think that we could have absorbed a million immigrants.

You do not know what you are talking about. Australia has a population of 6 million.

One million is a conservative estimate of immigrants and their offspring over a period.

I say that we cannot absorb 1 million immigrants in ten years; our economy cannot absorb them. For one thing we have not got the housing for them. We have not even got housing for the immigrants who are coming in to-day, and with the fluctuations in our economy we would not have been able to absorb them. Hon. members opposite do not know what they are talking about if they think that we could have absorbed them.

I agree. We could not have absorbed them under a Nationalist Government. [Interjections.]

Sir, I am going to deal with the hon. member for Umlazi straightaway; I see he is very anxious that I should talk to him.

Why are you trying to get a million immigrants now?

No, we are not. We are not even trying to get 100,000 a year. Hon. members opposite must not think that the Government is as stupid as the United Party.

If you continue like that, we shall all be making a noise before long.

That is the only thing you do.

Order!

I notice that the hon. member for Umlazi is very anxious for me to deal with the points raised by him. The hon. member started off by quoting a financial paper which said that it seemed that I was bored with my portfolio. As a matter of fact, Sir, I am not bored with my portfolio, but frankly I am very bored with the arguments to which I have to listen year after year from the Opposition.

[Inaudible.]

That hon. member will have an opportunity of saying what he thinks about the speech made by the hon. member for Green Point and I hope he will. Sir, I want to give the hon. member for Umlazi credit for the fact that he at least attempts to study his subject. He takes an interest in harbour expansion and he is probably the only member on that side who can speak with any authority on harbours and harbour expansion; I give him that credit, but sometimes he is rather wobbly on his facts, and his conclusions are very often extremely doubtful. The hon. member has one weakness and that is that in attempting to create an impression he becomes a bit offensive from time to time. I think he should remedy that weakness.

Listen who is talking!

He is not quite as rude as you were to him.

I think I have treated hon. members opposite very well so far in my speech. I have not been offensive; I have not provoked them at all. As a matter of fact, I have dealt very softly with them, which is something I do not usually do. [Interjections.] Sir, if one hon. member opposite makes an interjection I can reply but I cannot reply when the whole of the United Party start talking.

The hon. member for Umalzi said that as a result of his criticism last year I appointed a committee to go into the Table Bay Harbour scheme. I simply hate to disillusion the hon. member. I appointed this committee as a result of representations that I received from commerce and industry in Cape Town and from the City Council to the effect that they had not been adequately consulted. They asked for an opportunity to present their views, and I decided to appoint a committee to give them that opportunity for the simple reason that when you start a project of this magnitude you should at least have the support of the local people. This committee has given all interested parties the fullest opportunity of submitting their objections, if they have any, and stating which they consider is the best place to construct the new harbour. My opinion is still the same as it was last year, but still I am giving them the opportunity of looking into the matter. The hon. member stated that he had been to the C.S.LR. and that they had not even started with their tests, etc., in regard to the Table Bay Harbour scheme.

No, that is not quite correct. I said that they had only just started on an investigation of the Woodstock beach aspect.

But that is the other harbour scheme that the hon. member referred to, is it not?

Yes. They had put no structures in.

Sir, I said that the hon. member’s facts were sometimes a little wobbly. I will give him the real facts. A total of 91 various lay-outs of the proposed outer harbour scheme at Cape Town has been tested over a period of more than two years, since the beginning of 1965. These lay-outs were tested to determine range and wave action, coastline erosion, etc., as they apply under various conditions encountered in Table Bay harbour during the different seasons of the year. In addition, a seismographic survey of the seabed was carried out to determine rock beds. These tests cover all aspects to be investigated and considered in deciding on the location and lay-out of a harbour extension scheme including the effect it will have on range and wave action conditions in the existing harbour. Sir, the hon. member must cut this out of my Hansard and keep it with him so that next year when he discusses this matter he will have the facts.

I have a good memory.

The hon. member also quoted what I said about the proposed Saldanha Bay scheme. I want to refresh the hon. member’s memory in that regard. Certain private individuals made the suggestion that they should be permitted to build a huge tanker harbour at Saldanha Bay, and to build a pipeline to transport oil from Saldanha Bay to the Witwatersrand and another pipe-line to transport oil to Cape Town, to the Caltex refinery. I said that it was a pipe-dream. They said further that they would obtain the necessary capital from private sources. In other words, they would float a company, issue shares and then ask the public to subscribe. I said that you might find some gullible people who might be induced to take up shares.

Suckers.

I warned them against being “suckers”; I think it is a more descriptive word; that is quite true. I warned them against this; that is still my feeling. But that has nothing to do with this committee that has been appointed. Mr. Verolme of Holland made certain suggestions to my colleague, the Minister of Economic Affairs, to the effect that he wanted to establish a shipbuilding yard at Saldanha. My colleague appointed a committee on which my Department is represented,

merely to inquire into and consider the proposals made by Verolme in regard to the establishment of a shipbuilding yard which is not a tanker dock and which does not include the building of a pipeline to the Witwatersrand and to Cape Town. The hon. member will see that his conclusions again were quite erroneous. There is no correlation between the two things at all.

You have missed my point, but I will raise it later.

You have been working too much overtime.

Is that supposed to be a funny interjection? It might even be reported; one never knows. [Interjections.] No, I am referring to the hon. member sitting in front of that member. The hon. member for Durban (Central) cannot make funny interjections, even if he tried; he is much too clever by half.

The hon. member for Umlazi also referred to the pipeline for ore. The position in this regard is that Iscor has a mission overseas at the present time studying the feasibility of constructing a pipeline for transporting ore. That mission has not reported yet. Iscor will, of course, decide which harbour, if the scheme is feasible, if it is practicable, will be suitable for the transport of ore through this pipeline. There is no certainty about that at all. One of the main problems is the lack of water. A considerable amount of water is required to pump ore through a pipeline, and I do not think there is so much water at Sishen and Postmasburg in the Northern Cape. We might have to take water from the Vaal river.

We will send you some from Natal.

Yes, I wish the hon. member would send me some sea water to be used in the pipe. As I say, the whole project is still in the air and no decision has as yet been taken.

The hon. member also said there is a delay in providing the necessary rail facilities at the Durban pier and there seems to be no coordination between the Railways and the contractors. Again I must disillusion the hon. member and give him the correct facts, because his were again a bit wobbly. The facts are as follows. The quay walls and the filling in of Pier No. 1 were completed by the contractor late in 1967, that is seven months ahead of time. After completion of the filling in, drainage and sewerage pipes and electric cables had to be laid before the first shed could be erected and the hard surfacing and road system commenced. The first shed was erected by the same contractor who constructed the pier and he is also building the second shed which is now in the course of construction. The completion date for this shed is October, 1968. The necessary cranes were available when shed No. 1 and the adjacent open berth were handed over by the contractor for commercial working. Shed No. 1 is served by tracks in final position with temporary connections on the berth and no difficulty is experienced in making full use of this shed. Good progress is also being made with the final lay-out of the yard which will serve this area. The various stages of the work have been properly co-ordinated and there has been no delay in the progress as a result of lack of foresight or advance planning to take full advantage of the earlier completion of the quay walls of Pier No. 1. The cross quay is 27 per cent complete and is expected to be completed in April, 1969, instead of December. 1970, as originally planned, but as the filling in will not be completed before the quay wall is completed, no other work can be done in the meantime.

But you are still only using this one shed.

Yes, of course.

What about the rest of the pier?

Does the hon. member not understand English? [Interjections.] I have just given all the relevant particulars. The hon. member can check again when he reads my statement in Hansard. I think that what I have now said covers all points raised by the Opposition.

*I now want to deal with a few matters raised by hon. members on this side of the House. The hon. member for Colesberg spoke of uniforms and asked for a more light-weight type of uniform. A more light-weight type of uniform is already being worn, and I now want to mention a few examples. Station masters, station foremen, signalmen and other servants wearing similar types of uniforms are now getting a tunic type shirt with shoulder tabs on which their insignia are worn. The shunter gets a khaki shirt and khaki shorts with long socks. Airways staff also wear a khaki shirt, etc. Therefore the staff has already been given light-weight clothing. The hon. member also asked for garages to be provided at new departmental houses. Well, all new departmental houses are being provided with garages. An amount of R200,000 is provided annually for the building of garages at existing houses.

The hon. member for Parow spoke of a railway line which had to be constructed from Postmasburg to Boegoeberg and asked for a new harbour to be established there. This is a very nice idea. Estimates are, however, that the proposed railway line and rail improvements will cost approximately R170 million. The new harbour will cost R30 million. Traction and trucks will cost another R29 million and R21 million, respectively. This gives us a total amount of R250 million to construct the railway line, to provide the traction and trucks and to build the harbour there for the export of ore. Apart from the high costs, the traffic will only be in one direction. There is not a great deal of development in that part of the Cape Province, except agricultural development. There are in fact a few mines but nothing more. In other words, the ore will be transported to the harbour and the trucks will return empty. The revenue from this railway line will not even cover the interest on capital, and unless someone is prepared to bear the losses, I am afraid I cannot consider the suggestion.

The hon. member for Uitenhage asked for an investigation into the bonus system. I just want to say that this bonus system have been worked out in co-operation with the staff associations concerned. They are very good watch-dogs and if something goes wrong they immediately make representations. Because I have received no such representations up to now, I assume that they are satisfied with the present bonus system.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) spoke of the promotion of Railway policemen. The promotion in this service is fairly rapid in comparison with many other grades. Only six or six and a half years elapse before an officer is promoted to a higher rank. Some salaries of the S.A.P. and the Railway Police do differ but my attitude has always been that there is no real basis for comparison because there is no uniformity. The Railway Police is a purely domestic force and they are being treated as Railway officials.

The hon. member for Humansdorp asked for fast passenger buses. I just want to tell him that if there is a sufficient number of passengers, I shall introduce such services. He also spoke of flash-lights which had to be mounted on locomotives. I do not know whether flash-lights would really be any help. The locomotive has a very large and powerful headlight which is on at night and which can be seen from a very great distance. I do not think it would help much to mount a flashlight on top of the cabin as well.

I now want to say something about the debate in general. I should like to say that this debate was conducted in a very good spirit on the whole. No offensive or personal remarks were made. I was somewhat sympathetic towards and I felt somewhat sorry for the hon. the Opposition because their task of criticizing this Budget was a very difficult one. I make bold to say that this is a good Budget. Hon. members on this side of the House fulfilled their task very well.

They thanked you.

Yes, and I express my appreciation to the hon. members on this side. They fulfilled their task very well. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Randburg on his promotion to the position of chairman of the Select Committee on Railways. He has made a very good start, and I am sure that in course of time he will become even better than he is at present.

In addition I want to say I am pleased that I have been able to help the staff. I appreciate the support and the loyalty of the Railways staff. I have now been their Minister for more than 13 years. The railwaymen are of all political convictions, but although I have often had to say “no” over these 13 years, I have nevertheless always enjoyed their support and loyalty. I think all of us can testify to this. I have just had a typical example in connection with these wage increases. I had to deal with more than 800 grades and more than 100 different wage groups. A large number of staff members worked on the new salary increases for quite a few months. I gave instructions that nothing had to be divulged, that the matter had to be regarded as confidential. And not a single word was divulged. Everybody was surprised on the day I delivered my Budget Speech. This illustrates the loyalty of my staff. The idea should not be entertained that the people who dealt with the increases were all Nationalists. I appreciate everybody’s loyalty.

The best of them are not Nationalists.

Will the hon. member tell me now who the “best” ones are, because I should like to know? I never ask what a man’s politics are.

Nor do I.

I promote people on merit.

How can you say then that all of them are not Nationalists?

I presume that; after all, I must accept that a few of them will be supporters of the United Party. Can you imagine, Sir, that every single one of the 110,000 white officials would be National! I say I appreciate the support of the staff, and consequently I am pleased that I have been able to grant them wage increases this year. I know that all of them are not going to be satisfied. If Providence cannot make all people satisfied, how can I do so? I do think, however, that the increases will give a great measure of satisfaction and will serve as an incentive to the railwaymen to make even more sacrifices and to do even more work than in the past. I know that high demands will be made on the Railways in the year ahead. I must rely on the staff, especially in view of the serious manpower shortage, and now I am referring to the white as well as the non-White staff, to meet those demands as in the past, to put the shoulder to the wheel and to see to it that the year’s labour will be crowned with success. I am convinced that I shall not be disappointed.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout and P. S. van der Merwe.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I request the privilege of the half-hour. In his reply to the preceding debate the hon. the Minister honoured me—a very rare honour— by saying that I had made a good speech on a previous occasion. I wish I could say the same about his reply to the preceding debate. In the 14 years we have known the hon. the Minister as the Minister of Transport, that is probably the poorest attempt he has ever made. We can only express our disappointment at the fact that he so seldom dealt with the merits of the matter, that he tried to reply by means of personal remarks, bad jokes, a great deal of gesticulation and gestures, and that he suggested time and again that we had made mistakes in our speeches. He is still looking for the place where I referred to victimization; he has not found it yet. It was truly disappointing.

But the hon. the Minister had a difficult task and I want to sympathize with him. He himself admitted that the Opposition had raised matters of importance to the Railway workers, the Railways as a whole and in the interests of South Africa’s economy. He even paid tribute to members on his own side for their contribution to the debate, because he was in a position where it was only with the greatest difficulty that he could reply to the pointed questions and issues raised by the Opposition in the debate. For instance, I was very interested and worried when at the beginning of his speech, the Minister, as is bis wont, launched a personal attack aimed at disparaging the first speaker on the Opposition side. He chose the bridge across the Orange River near Bethulie for this occasion. I wondered what I had done wrong; where had I made such a terrible mistake? Then I saw that it was a question of my having perhaps been reported wrongly. An amount of R2 million was mentioned, which should actually have been R200,000. In all sincerity I want to repeat, Mr. Chairman, that until that was checked, I could not reply to that question, as it had taken place months ago. I did not refresh my memory with the figures. But that is not the point. I expected the Minister to rise and to prove that I had wrongly attacked the Government at Ficksburg.

My attack was aimed at the lack of co-ordination and advance planning on the part of the Government. This was such that, after the United Party had made a start with the planning of the Orange River scheme 20 years ago, they allowed it to slide to such an extent that they built a bridge where the H. F. Verwoerd Dam was to have started. When subsequently they wanted to implement the United Party’s plan again, that bridge had to disappear under the water and another bridge had to built at an enormous cost, which amounted to infinitely more than the original amount. If I had mentioned an incorrect figure in connection with the cost of the original bridge, it only served to help the Government, because by doing that I did not reveal the enormity of their mistake. But to that point the hon. the Minister had no reply. He alluded to and fussed for 10 minutes about a side issue which could have been an incorrect newspaper report. But the substance of the charge is that the Government is wasting the taxpayers’ money through improper planning, through silliness, such as throwing overboard great plans simply because the United Party had thought of them. They are unnecessarily costing the taxpayer money. They are governing South Africa incompetently.

But, Mr. Speaker, where the hon. the Minister made himself even more ridiculous, was in his attempt to disparage my hon. Leader in regard to a statement he had allegedly made in June. Who told the hon. the Minister that my hon. Leader had allegedly made a statement in June and then waited until November before he corrected it, if it had been wrong? That is the insinuation it implies. After all, he knows the Leader of the Opposition better. If the Leader of the Opposition makes a mistake, which anybody can make—in this case it was not a mistake—or if he is reported wrongly, he uses the first opportunity, when it is pointed out to him, to correct it. But what is more in June last year the Leader of the Opposition was not in Bloemfontein at all. He was not even in the Free State. That statement to which the Minister referred, was made at the central congress of the United Party in October. Within a week or two the Leader of the Opposition corrected it. when it was pointed out to him by the Minister. The other day I again had the opportunity, and many of my colleagues along with me, to talk to trade union leaders. They were concerned about the fact that certain industries in South Africa were becoming “black”. But they are not using that expression to refer to the inflow of Bantu to those industries; they are using it to refer to the inflow of all non-Whites, particularly Coloureds and Indians. It is a jargon word of the trade unions. I was in Bloemfontein at that stage. My Leader used it in that sense, as he pointed out in his correction. But I thought that with this verbosity of his, this excitement, this triumphant attitude, the Minister would have proved that the Leader of the Opposition had propagated an untruth and that in actual fact no non-Whites were being used as shunters in the Durban shunting-yards. In the end he had to admit that it was true. Indians are being used there to do the work that was previously done by Whites.

We do not say that that is wrong, but it was in connection with these continuous protests from members on the opposite side of the House, namely that they were protecting the white workers and would never allow non-Whites to do the work of Whites, that we raised this point. This is a point to which the Minister must reply if he wants to raise these points, if he wants to be to the point at all, rather than to come here with these side-issues to create an impression which does not contribute to the level of the debate at all, to the value of dialogue in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, there was the question of the estimates on the Budget of the hon. the Minister and his colleague, the Minister of Finance, both of which were hopelessly out. We felt so strongly about this matter, that we felt obliged to include it in the amendment the House has just negatived. We feel strongly about it, because in his Budget Speech the hon. the Minister told us that he was out in his estimates, that he had calculated wrongly owing to certain unforeseen facts, which the hon. member for Durban mentioned. The Minister told us that it was attributable to unforeseen circumstances. “Fortuitous circumstances”, were the words he used. Those unforeseen circumstances were the resuscitation of agriculture, the relaxation of import control, the fact that we had built up stocks of strategic commodities, and the increase in harbour activity arising from the closure of the Suez Canal. These are the unforeseen circumstances. But a year ago the hon. the Minister himself mentioned each of them as a reason why a prosperous year was lying ahead for the Railways. Now all of a sudden they are unforeseen. What does that mean? It means one thing only. In view of the hon. the Minister’s statement that he is dealing with one of the biggest organizations in South Africa and that it is for that reason that he cannot budget so accurately and that we should view matters in their correct perspective—and this is a fair statement—this argument is advanced: it for the very reason that it is such a mighty and big organization, with a tremendous turnover of millions and hundreds of millions of rands, that the Railways can afford to acquire the services of the best brains to advise the hon. the Minister. And the Railways are doing that. We who have to debate against the hon. the Minister are very well aware of the fact that he has the advice of brilliant brains and outstanding men. We know that we are not debating against the Minister alone, because then we shall have won our case before we started. He has these tremendous means which the Railways place at this disposal and which we do not have. But the trouble is that they gave him the advice last year—and he mentioned it in his Estimates—that there were factors such as the improvement in the agricultural position, the relaxation of import control and the building up of State and trade inventories. And then the hon. the Minister did not follow that advice and, despite those facts, he still budgeted wrongly. And then the hon. the Minister said a year later that these were unforeseen things—namely these in respect of which he had been given advice—which affected his Estimates. What is one to do with such a Minister? He need not write to the Opposition for advice. He should only write to his own advisers and they will furnish him with the best advice. But then he must implement it. That is the difference. I want to mention a few more examples. It was our plea last year that concessions should be made to the staff. They were refused. They were refused by this Minister and they were also refused beforehand as a result of the hon. the Prime Minister’s statement to which the Minister referred. Why were they refused? Was it because the hon. the Minister is heartless? Is it because he is unsympathetic towards the railway man? No. It was because we experienced a period of inflation, and the Minister said last year—I think it was in reply to the hon. member for Green Point—that he could not grant those wage increases because such a step would be inflationary. And would you believe it, in his reply this afternoon, the Minister proved in a ten-minute argument that a wage increase to the railway staff would not be inflationary! What is one to do and on what basis is one to debate?

Must I tell you?

Yes, you must tell me, because it does not make sense. If it suits the hon. the Minister to say that wage increases are inflationary, then he advances a convincing argument to prove that they are in fact so. But when it suits him to say that they are not inflationary, he is just as convincing and proves exactly the opposite. What are the facts? What are the principles? Then the hon. the Minister says that in the private sector there is no wage freeze, because in that sector virtually all the workers have been granted wage increases.

I did not say all the workers.

But, surely, I did say “virtually”. I do not want to bicker about that now. The hon. the Minister made the point that many …

I gave you the number of industrial agreements.

Yes. I do not want us to misunderstand each other about small things. I accept that the Minister wants me to put it differently. What the Minister said, was that many workers in the private sector, despite the alleged wage freeze, did receive wage increases. Is that correct?

Yes.

In other words, the hon. the Minister used this argument against the railway man only. Whilst it was right that thousands of workers in the private sector should receive wage increases, it was not right in the case of the railway man. That is the argument between the hon. the Minister and us.

We have no control over private individuals.

Why then does the hon. the Minister take the private sector as an example to justify the actions of the Railways?

Because you claim that there was a wage freeze.

No. Why is the private sector being dragged in when it suits the hon. the Minister? And why may I not reply to that? What kind of argument is that? The hon. the Minister argued for a long time this afternoon that there was no wage freeze on the part of the Government because of the fact that thousands of workers in the private sector had in fact received wage increases. Now that I am pointing out to him that it contains an anomaly, he says that they have no control over the private sector. Surely, one cannot argue in that way. What would one achieve if one were to argue in that way? The wage freeze was either there, or the Prime Minister was serious when he made an appeal to the workers, or was he not? The Prime Minister either has influence or he has not. But, surely, the Prime Minister cannot when it suits him compel the Minister to grant wage increases and, at the same time, not have the power to compel other people. Surely, this does not tally. This is no argument. it is either inflationary or it is not. That is my point. If it is not inflationary now, then it was for the same reasons not inflationary last year either. If the increase in wages had been granted last year, it would after all not have meant that R30 or R40 million would be poured into the economy at once. After all, it would have been done over a period of 12 months, just as is the case at present. The same arguments hold good.

The conditions were quite different from what they are now.

But that was not the hon. the Minister’s argument. The Minister’s main argument was that it would not be inflationary because it would be spread over a period of one year.

Yes, under present circumstances. But does the hon. member not realize that as far as inflation is concerned, the conditions are quite different from what they were six months ago?

But now I should like the hon. the Minister to stand by that. The hon. the Minister has now made a very serious statement, which he also made in his main Budget Speech. Now I want to ask him that, since he used it here where we are addressing each other across the floor of the House, he should stand by that. And after the 27th of this month—when we shall criticize the Minister of Finance for not having presented us with a Budget based on the fact that inflation had now been stamped out—I expect him to help us and to speak in support of this side of the House. I hope that he will do that. We shall remind him of it. The hon. the Minister said that the circumstances were quite different. Inflation has now been checked. All I am asking him is that he should be consistent and that, if the Minister of Finance does not act accordingly, he should help us in a fortnight’s time to put that Minister in his place. We shall remember that. Then there was the Minister’s attempt at replying to our criticism in respect of the profits that are being made by the pipeline. The hon. the Minister said that it was customary that goods which could carry a high tariff, should do so. The norm is, what can the transport carry? That is quite correct. But should that norm be applied quite arbitrarily? Why are some goods regarded as goods that can carry a high tariff and others not? After all, there should be certain criteria. I merely want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that a very important criterion that should be borne in mind, is the following: to what extent does the tariff levied on goods contribute to the cost of production in other fields, and to what extent can high tariffs be inflationary? And I want to tell the hon. the Minister now that the conveyance by the Railways of petrol and oil, is a factor that counts heavily in times of inflation. It represents an important component of the production costs of every industry and undertaking in South Africa. That is what the hon. the Minister should take into account. This is our argument, namely that in view of the fact that it is already known that the cost of living in Pretoria and on the Witwatersrand is among the highest in the country, it is irresponsible, short-sighted and unpatriotic of the Minister to continue with these tremendous profits and to profiteer out of the conveyance of petrol and so to create an important factor in the higher cost of living conditions prevailing in these cities. That was my argument and there was no reply to it. But I am very patient. It takes approximately six to seven years before the hon. the Minister begins to realize what one wants from him. Not always. There are exceptions. A very brilliant exception is the question of containers. I am very pleased to see that although we merely mentioned it, we have already had an announcement as regards containerization. But that is by the way. Then there is another matter in regard to which we want clarity. The hon. the Minister said that I was completely out of touch with the staff of the Railways, because I had asked for periodic adjustments in the compensation received by railway people. I do not know whether there is a misunderstanding, nor do I know whether I put my case wrongly. I do not have my Hansard with me at the moment. My impression is that I did not plead for a cost-of-living allowance. The occasion on which I did in fact refer to a cost-of-living allowance, was when the hon. member for Colesberg interrupted me and asked whether there was any precedent to that effect and when I referred to our policy of paying cost-of-living allowances regularly in terms of the war regulations. If I had used the words “cost-of-living allowances”, I want to set the matter right immediately.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) also referred to cost-of-living allowances.

That may be so. What I want, is simply that there should be clarity in regard to this matter. If there was a misunderstanding, I am sorry. The attitude we adopt, and we are recommending it very strongly to the Minister and the Government, is that in view of the fact that on the international level it has now become the policy of governments to accept creeping inflation …

The hon. member said, “There should be regular adjustments in the cost-of-living allowances.”

I assume that I said that, but the Minister should kindly take my word for it that it is not our policy to use the term cost-of-living allowances in the same sense we used it during the war years. Our policy is that there should be an income policy as they do have in the Netherlands and in other countries, and that the income should be adjusted regularly in accordance with the rise in the cost-of-living. That is where the misunderstanding arose. We do not want a cost-of-living allowance which is not pensionable and which does not count for overtime; we want the real, basic wages of these people to be adjusted in accordance with the rise in the cost of living. I tried to make it clear. It is possible that I did not do so, but I am setting it right now, and I added that all that remained then to be settled as a result of collective bargaining was, what share the workers were to receive in the increasing prosperity of the country. After all, we do assume axiomatically that if there are wage increases —no matter how they come about—as a result of collective bargaining every few years, one basis them on two factors, namely the rise in the cost-of-living and the rightful share of the workers in the greater prosperity of the country. That is our policy. But I am glad that we have now had the opportunity to gain clarity in this regard. These are not cost-of-living allowances in the sense of non-pensionable allowances or additional re-inforcement of wages. They must form an integral part of the wages which, count for all these other benefits.

Then the hon. the Minister kicked up a great fuss about the fact I mentioned, i.e. that dissatisfied people had told me that the technicians in the Airways had to work up to 19 hours a day.

Everybody.

The Minister made a great fuss about that, but I immediately added that I did not necessarily accept it and that I thought it was exaggerated. I still think that it was exaggerated. But the fact remains that those workers feel that they are being exploited to such an extent that they may approach somebody like me and say that they are working 19 hours overtime. But I am pleased that we have had this argument, because now the Minister has read out some figures to us. If anyone but the Minister had told me that these people who are doing highly skilled work—important work on which the safety and the lives of thousands of people depend—had to work shifts of 16 hours and more at a stretch, I would also have said in this House that I had heard it but could not believe it.

Would you prefer the aeroplanes to remain grounded?

I would say that you should see to it that there is more staff and that you should pay to obtain their services.

Where from?

Where did you find the people you have? Why are there not enough of these people?

Because they have to be trained first as apprentices to be able to do that job. One cannot simply conjure up people for this work.

I mentioned the figures to show how these people have decreased in numbers over the years. [Interjection.] They are taken over by other services. Why can we not take over people from other airlines? Any measure which would eliminate the necessity for these people to work in continuous shifts of 16 hours, would be in the interests of the safety of our nation.

You are talking nonsense.

I am not talking nonsense. The Minister should listen to me, and there is not one single impartial witness who Will not agree with me that it is blatantly irresponsible of the Minister to allow people whose work it is to keep the aircraft in the air, to work shifts of 16 hours and longer. This is unforgivable and if there has ever been a case where drastic measures should be taken to put an end to this state of affairs, then it is this case. For the Minister to rise and to poke fun at this matter for 20 minutes and to carry on in a flippant manner—he did not utter one word in condemnation of the fact that these people had to work shifts of 16 hours and longer—is scandalous. He ought to be ashamed of himself, and I am repeating now what I said before, and hon. members may criticize me just as much as they please. I say that this is irresponsible conduct and that the Minister is playing with the safety of the people who fly with the S.A. Airways, if he permits the people who are responsible for the proper performance of the aircraft to work shifts of 16 hours and longer.

You are talking absolute nonsense now.

If I am talking nonsense, then it is nonsense I am getting from the Minister. The Minister rose to-day and he had to admit that these people were working shifts of 16 hours and longer. Or does the Minister want to deny it again? [Interjection.] I do not care whether that is on an average, but if a person has worked for 16 hours, I say that in the last period of that shift he cannot do first-rate work, and any industrial psychologist will confirm that. Fatigue must set in if a person works for 16 hours.

Just carry on in your ignorance. I shall reply to everything.

It will be of no avail to the Minister to insult me now. For the Minister to say that it is nonsense, will not convince anybody. All it can convince me of, is that the Minister is unfeeling in this matter. I want to know from the Minister what he did to effect an improvement in that state of affairs. Why did those people have to apply for arbitration? Are they satisfied? Does it mean that they are satisfied? If people declare a dispute, is that a sign of satisfaction?

Did they complain to you?

Yes, and they went further than that and the Minister knows it. But the Minister would not permit me to be present when their case was heard. Is that true?

I shall reply to everything. You need not be afraid.

In regard to this matter I want to make myself very clear. No matter what the Minister may say, let it go on record that we, the Opposition, think that it is irresponsible and dangerous to expect the technicians of the Airways to work in shifts of 16 hours and longer when they are doing the most technical work imaginable on the most complicated machinery that exists, such as modern jet-propelled aircraft with intricate instruments. This equipment must be handled and kept in a perfect condition for the sake of safety. I say that a person who has to work for 16 hours or longer, cannot do it as thoroughly as we are entitled to expect. Let this go on record, and the Minister can deny it, but we shall always disagree on that point.

The other matter in regard to which there must be clarity between the two of us, is the question of the staff shortage. I discussed the matter in all earnest and I did not try to put any catch questions. I am sincerely concerned about the position of staff shortages in South Africa. Talking about inflation, there we have an inflationary factor to which we have not yet dealt the death-blow. I am very concerned about the state of affairs on the Railways, and my concern increases when I read what responsible leaders of the Railways Administration have to say about the matter. I gave the Minister the quotations, and he did not deny them, but then he came forward with a number of political catch questions.

But, surely, I did state my policy.

The Minister stated his policy, but he tried to put catch questions across the floor of the House. [Time expired.]

I hasten to react to a few of the observations made by the hon. member for Yeoville. In the first place, I shall do my level best under the strongest provocation not to become personal, but I should like to have the attention of the hon. member for Yeoville in regard to this one matter, and that is whether he suggested that the Minister, as regards his expecting the officials to work overtime, was heartless and also failed to display any sympathy in his replies to this debate. Is that true?

I say that he is doing absolutely nothing about it.

I am deeply shocked and indignant. I want to remind the hon. member for Yeoville that a few moments ago the hon. the Minister made the statement, in the presence of the hon. member for Yeoville, that he (the Minister) was the only person here who had personal experience of the long hours firemen are required to work, and that he was the person who could be sympathetic and who was in a position to realize what the circumstances were of people who had to work long hours. But here, in a debate such as this one, the hon. member shamelessly levels the accusation that the Minister is allegedly unfeeling and has no heart for those people. Honestly, Sir, this House has a minimum of prestige and status that we must up hold, also when we are dealing with politics, and apparently there are members of this House who have no feeling whatever for showing esteem and respect and a minimum of decency towards a fellow member of this House, even if he is in the Opposition. Is that not an indication of absolute bankruptcy? And when we run out of arguments and no point of view can be justified, should we then resort to expedients such as these? I want to complain of that, and I want to make an appeal to the hon. member that, as far as the future is concerned, he should kindly make his minimum contribution to keeping this debate on the level where it should be.

Reference was made here to high tariffs and low tariffs, and to the fact that it was unfair and unjust of the Minister to expect the oil pipe-line to carry the unnecessary low tariffs on certain goods. It is, after all, an elementary business principle that in any general dealer’s concern the groceries department, where one concentrates on a large turnover and low profits, must carry its drapery department, where one concentrates on articles on which there is a high profit. Why then this attempt at differentiating between the Railways as a business undertaking and a general dealer’s concern? I think that this is an argument which is without substance and very weak. This point of view was stated by the hon. member for Yeoville when the Minister asked him where he was supposed to find the employees as well as the technical people in the Airways—then he responded by saying that the Minister must try to find them; and that was his contribution to the solution. To me this argument sounds a great deal like the one I would be guilty of if I were to ask the United Party why they were not trying to gain more members here? Why do you not try to have more members here so that you may take over in this country and govern more efficiently? You are simply not capable of doing so. You are bankrupt; you have no standpoint and no policy. You no longer have any appeal for the voting public.

Surely, you cannot say such a thing of the Chairman.

I am referring to the United Party. The hon. member is listening the way he usually does.

But you are talking of “you”.

Order! The hon. member must address the Chair.

As regards the scarcity of technicians and the question of working overtime in the Airways, the hon. member for Yeoville repeatedly made the statement that the hon. the Minister was playing with the safety of the public. May I too, repeat that the Opposition is part of a prestige Parliament. May we not therefore, with the best will in the world and in all courtesy, ask them a small favour: Co-operate in the interests of the prestige of our State, and do not undermine in this way an undertaking which in its field is held in the highest esteem in the world. The safety factor of the South African Airways is being accepted generally; it is accepted as an undertaking with a clean record and here, by making use of this House, you are trying to prove the opposite to the House and to the outside world. Where is your piety; where is your feeling of loyalty to the State and the Railways as a State undertaking which has a function and a duty to perform in the interests of the public? Mr. Chairman, that Party is simply becoming reckless. They are absolutely panic-stricken. I want to appeal to their leaders to be so kind as to give them a few lessons, even if it is in their caucus, on what the functions are of a member of this House, no matter on what side of this House he may be, and how he ought to behave himself here. In addition I just want to make one single reference to a statement which was made here and which worries me a little. The hon. member for Yeoville refers every now and then to complaints he receives from the staff. The hon. member for Durban (Point) did the same thing and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) also had a great deal to say in this regard. I want to ask whether the time has not arrived for us to go into this state of affairs. After all, channels have been provided for the purpose of dealing with the grievances of staff members, channels along which such grievances are to reach the Minister, but it appears to me that shortcuts are being followed here and, what is more, the anti-prestige members of Parliament are apparently encouraging that sort of thing and are trying to exploit and make political capital out of it. Mr. Chairman, to me this is not a pleasant and encouraging revelation, and I think it is perhaps time for us to say something in this regard and at this level. We must not try to exaggerate democracy. May I say this to the hon. member for Yeoville in connection with this prestige State of ours, if I may express its symbolically: It is so often said that Paris has been described as Paradise, and they should not try to make Paris a heaven. That is quite unrealistic; that is quite inappropriate.

In the last instance, mention was made here of the increase in salaries and wages just before the elections. I want to hope and trust that the Railway officials are taking due note of this, namely that it is being suggested here that they can be bought and that their moral standards are such that any little increase in salary can sway them to the left or to the right. Mr. Chairman, do these hon. members not think before they talk? Are they so panic-stricken that their panic simply bubbles up unrestrainedly? [Time expired.]

I think it is only fair that I should finish the matter I started, namely the question of the staff shortage and the use of non-White labour on the Railways. The hon. the Minister will recall that we discussed the same matter two years ago; at that stage I put it to him that he ought to negotiate with the trade unions and to enter into an agreement with them to open some of the lower-paid grades of employment to the non-Whites. I emphasized that he could only do so with the concurrence of the staff associations concerned. The hon. the Minister looked at me and asked: “What do I do if they do not want to agree?” and my reply was: “Then you go back to them and enter into negotiations again, and if you cannot negotiate with them and do not have any success, then you resign as Minister and you find somebody who can negotiate with the workers.” That was my reply. I want this matter to be very clear indeed. Long before the Minister realized that he had to implement this policy, it was the policy of this side of the House and it was put in writing. This question of the labour pattern in South Africa is a question which can in our opinion only be solved through the workings of industrial democracy, as a result of agreements amongst trade unions and organized employers, which in the case of the Railways is the Administration.

When did you put forward that proposal?

Years ago; long before the hon. member for Benoni became a member of this House. Mr. Chairman, that has remained our point of view. I want to repeat our point of view now.

Is that also the point of view of the hon. member for Karoo?

It is the point of view of this Party and it is also the point of view of the hon. member for Karoo. It is inevitable that changes must take place. The Minister mentioned to us a few cases to-day where this was happening under his Administration. I say that it is inevitable, but then we must accept certain things, and one of the things we must accept is that these changes should take place for the good of all the workers concerned. This affords new opportunities to the non-Whites, but it should also be an opportunity for the Whites to advance themselves and to obtain better posts. There will be white workers who will not be able to rise to higher posts as the lesser posts are being filled. There will not be many, but in any community there are people who are mentally or physically handicapped and will not be able to do this. Then it will be necessary for the authorities concerned to see to it that there is sheltered employment for such people and that they are protected so that they may maintain the standard of living of Whites in South Africa and will not lower the reputation or status of the Whites. I want the hon. the Minister to understand that this is our point of view. We are delighted to see that as the Minister is being brought face to face with reality, he is accepting our point of view to an increasing extent. We do not mind his accepting our point of view; we welcome it, but then he should not, while he is accepting our point of view, try to deny the fact. What we expect from the Minister, is that he should display some gratitude and some chivalry and that he should not try to distort our policy while he himself is engaged in implementing it.

Mr. Chairman, there are many members still who want to speak, and I just want to touch very briefly upon two further matters. I am disappointed—and I should like to hear what the Minister’s reason for this is—at the fact that there will be no increase in the allowances paid to pensioners. I do not want to say any more about this; I should just like the Minister too motivate this for us and to tell us why, if it is supposedly so essential for the staff to be granted increases, the poor people who are on pension to-day cannot get anything, as he told me when I asked him about it on a previous occasion. Then I come to the next point, and the hon. the Minister must not attack me again by saying that my information is like this or that my information is like that. I am giving him information I have just received; I do not know whether it is correct; I want him to be so kind as to tell us what the true state of affairs is. We hear that among an increasing number of Railway servants there is more and more dissatisfaction about these wage increases amounting to R43 million. Apparently the hon. the Minister caused these wage increases to be related to productivity. We are told that the Minister found it easier to determine productivity in the case of workers who are more particularly concerned with engineering in the Railway service, and that workers who are concerned with mechanical engineering and electrical engineering, and so forth, are going to receive larger increases than workers concerned with the working of trains and workers in the commercial section and the staff section. A distinction will be made between workers in these sections, from the highest to the lowest. I would be pleased if the hon. the Minister would tell us whether that is the case. We find ourselves in great difficulties. We were pleased when the Minister reported to us—and we approved it openly—that an increase of R43 million was going to be granted to the Railway servants, but we do not have any particulars. The Minister only told us that the staff associations would be notified in due course. That puts us in an extremely difficult position. I only hope that this report is not correct, because it is not possible to have increased productivity in a major organization such as the Railways unless all sections of the staff, including the clerical section and the operating staff and the commercial section, contribute their share. I do not want to say any more about that and I do not want to criticize. If my facts are wrong, I should be pleased to hear that they are so, but I do know that protests have been made and that bigger protests will be made to the Minister. There is talk of holding meetings and there is talk of declaring a dispute. I do not know on what it is based, and I should be very pleased if the hon. the Minister could give us the assurance that all staff members will be treated alike and that there will be no discrimination against certain people because of the nature of the work they are doing.

I think that I should deal first with the points the hon. member for Yeoville has just raised. The hon. member has probably been listening to gossip and that is why he made such a spectacle of himself at the beginning. Now he is trying to make excuses for his incorrect presentation of facts; he is trying the protect his Leader for what he said in Bloemfontein. He was talking about the Bethulie bridge and wanted to know what the difference was between R2,000,000 and R200,000. Unfortunately, that hon. member uses this sort of thing in an attempt to gain political support outside and to create a totally wrong impression with the public. This story was reported not only in one newspaper but in a great many newspapers, but he never took the trouble to deny it. Now he says: “It is true; the bridge will be submerged; the necessary co-ordination was lacking,” in spite of the fact that the bridge was constructed and completed long before the Orange River Scheme was adopted by the Government. [Interjections.] Do we have to accept the U.P.’s policy? Surely, that is the greatest nonsense.

But, surely, you did accept it.

In other words, when a start was made with the construction of this bridge in 1954, we were supposed to have known that the U.P. had said that there should be an Orange River Scheme and that the Government would adopt it in 1962 and that a bridge should consequently not be built there. Have you ever heard greater nonsense than that?

I am very happy with that reply.

The hon. member did at any rate not take the trouble to ascertain that the old bridge across the Orange River could simply not carry the heavy locomotives any more. We were therefore obliged to build a new bridge. Our modern, heavy locomotives could simply not cross the bridge, and what were we supposed to do? Should we have said: “We are not going to use any bigger locomotives; that bridge will remain there until the Orange River Scheme is undertaken one day.”

There are bridges which are older than that one and which are still standing to-day, bridges that were built long before 1957.

But I have just told the hon. member what was wrong with that bridge. That particular bridge could simply not carry the heavy, modern locomotives.

You built a bad bridge in 1957.

The United Party built it.

In 1957?

I am referring to the old, original bridge. That bridge could not carry the modern locomotives any more and the 1957 bridge was then built, long before the Orange River Scheme was decided on. I gave the hon. member the cost of that bridge, namely R400,000, including the cost of the regarding that had to take place. The hon. member is trying to make excuses for himself. He is trying to extricate himself from that absolute untruth he propagated in Ficksburg, neamely that a R2 million bridge which had just been completed—according to the report he said: “It had just been completed”—will disappear under the water.

What is the life of a bridge?

How can one ever argue with the hon. member in a respectable manner? He waved his arms here, became irascible and tried to become insulting because I had allegedly misrepresented him. He should rather be mindful of his own courtesy every now and then. He also spoke of what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had allegedly said. Fine, I did say it was in June, but that was because I could not decipher my own figures. The fact of the matter is that the report on what the hon. the Leader had said about the bridge at the Bloemfontein congress, did not only appear in one newspaper. I read out the whole report here. Does the hon. member now want to tell me that that whole report was untrue? Does the hon. member want to say that the whole report, where he spoke about the people who stealthily boarded the locomotives at night, is untrue? Does he say that the report is wrong which stated that he had said that they went there at night and found the people there? Is all of it untrue?

He never referred to locomotives.

He referred to the footplates of these locomotives on which these people climbed at night.

The point is that there was a misunderstanding in regard to the use of Black shunters …

There was not, because the whole report referred to that. In the first instance, it is definitely untrue that we are using those people at night, as the hon. member suggested. That is what I say. I say that it is definitely untrue that we are only using those Indians at night so that nobody may see that they are being used, as he suggested at his congress. I say it is untrue. He did not refer to that in his correction. He tried to refer to that, but I do not quite understand. According to that report, the hon. member referred to “Africans” three or four times, not to “Blacks”. In other words, that reporter deliberately inserted the word “Africans” in the hon. the Leader’s speech on three or four occasions, whereas he did not use that word.

He did not refer to “Africans” once. [Interjections.]

I wish the hon. member would keep quiet. Let the hon. the Leader of the Opposition correct himself. It is not necessary for the hon. member to assist the hon. the Leader in making corrections. The hon. the Leader did therefore refer to “Blacks”. Now all of a sudden it is “in a trade union context”. As Minister of Labour I had to deal with trade unions for years, and I had to deal with trade unions on the Railways for 20 years. I myself became a leader of a trade union. That is why I say that it is nonsense to suggest that it is a trade union term when it is said, “the industry is getting Black …” and that this statement refers to Coloureds. It is the greatest nonsense I have ever heard. Through all these years the meaning of the words, “the industry is getting Black …”— used in the trade union context—is that Bantu, and not Coloureds or Indians, are coming in. Now the hon. member is trying to make excuses; he waves his hands and he carries on as though he has become hysterical about my having allegedly insulted his Leader.

Nobody referred to “insult”.

That is the impression you create.

The hon. member also referred to my statement that the wage increases were not inflationary. What were the conditions last year? We were in the midst of a high rate of inflation and the Government was obliged to take very strong measures to slow down that rate. If I had granted these increases at that stage, it would only have accelerated the rate of inflation. Now we have inflation under control to a certain extent. Everybody admits that; economists outside as well as the newspapers are admitting that. They concede that the measures that were taken had been successful, and that we have to a large extent overcome inflation. Consequently the present wage increases will most certainly not have the same effect they would have had if they had been granted five, six or seven months ago. That is the position. I repeat that these concessions will not have the same effect they would have had five or six months ago. At that time, and particularly 12 months ago, it would have been wrong to grant increases. I stand by that; this is a fact, and any sensible person who knows anything about economics, will tell the hon. member that it is so.

The hon. member also complained about the high tariffs. He wants to suggest that the high tariff on the conveyance of fuel is pushing up the cost of living in Pretoria and Johannesburg even further. But that is not the case. Even if I had to sacrifice R5 million or even R7 million of the revenue derived from the conveyance of fuel in the pipeline for the sake of a reduced petrol price in those areas, the cheaper petrol would not effect any change whatsoever in the cost of living there. To reduce the price paid for petrol there by a few cents, will not in the least help to bring down the cost of living. My experience has always been that concessions in the form of tariff reductions do not benefit the consumer at all. However, when there is a tariff increase, the consumer is immediately affected.

Who controls the petrol price?

I am coming to that The only exception is when there is a reduction in the petrol tariff. However, I have given my good reasons why this tariff cannot be reduced. If a reduction of 3c per gallon in the price of petrol were to be introduced on the Witwatersrand, in Pretoria and in the Northern Free State, it would not reduce the cost of living at all. It will not effect any change. The consumer will not have the benefit of it either.

The hon. member also spoke of the Airways technicians. He made a great fuss, because I am allegedly gambling with the safety of the passengers owing to the fact that the poor technicians have to work shifts of 16 and 17 hours.

I never made any reference to 17 hours.

Fine, let us say 16 hours. The hon. member is so fond of quoting incorrect figures that at times I am inevitably led into the temptation of following suit. The impression the hon. member created was that all those technicians, or at least the vast majority of them, were working these terribly long shifts. What deduction could any hon. member make of this “raise-the-devil speech” which the hon. member has just made here? He made these statements in spite of the fact that I had furnished figures to indicate how many shifts of longer than 14 hours, up to 16 hours, were being worked monthly. He did not even ask what the nature was of the work done by those particular technicians. He says that the safety of our aircraft is being prejudiced. The impression is created that all those Airways technicians have to work these terribly long hours. He wants to know how the people working on the aircraft engines—the people who are doing the intricate, complicated and important work—can work such long hours, because they must be quite exhausted. The relevant figures indicate that of the 16,000 shifts per month, there were only 128 which were 14 to 16 hours long. That is out of more than 16,000 shifts.

There should not be a single shift as long as that.

But, of course, there should not be a single one. Does the hon. member think that I differ with him on that point? Does he think that I like seeing these people work such overtime? Does the hon. member want our aircraft to remain grounded? Does he want our air services to come to a standstill?

No, I want the staff to be treated in such a way that you will have the people to do the work.

The hon. member is once again making a nonsensical observation, because the staff are being treated very well. The hon. member must not think for a single moment that the fact that there was a dispute owing to their excessive wage demands, is an indication of terrible dissatisfaction in their ranks. The fact that a former member of the United Party was appointed as their representative on that committee does not affect the picture. These technicians are being treated reasonably well. In the past years they were on the same basis as ordinary artisans as far as wages were concerned. I removed them from that sphere and made them salaried officials. Subsequently they received many fringe benefits and larger increases than did the ordinary artisans in the workshops. In spite of that the hon. member says that they should be treated better. With the latest increases they received much better increases than did many of the other artisans. Where does the hon. member think I should find the additional technicians? There is a shortage. I have sent teams abroad in an attempt at recruiting them there. At present we again have teams that are going abroad to recruit staff. They are hard to find. Apart from the Atlas Company, which may not employ my staff, South Africa does not have other airlines that may possibly lure technicians away from the S.A.A. There are numerous other reasons for these people leaving the service. Apart from recruitment abroad, the only way of getting more technicians in South Africa is to train more apprentices. Sometimes I am really despondent about the hon. member’s attitude. Sometimes he makes the wildest allegations. He pretends to the world that he is the champion of these poor people, particularly as regards the Airways staff. He pretends that this is the case, because, as I have said, a former United Party member has been appointed as their representative on the committee. But he is not their champion. The hon. member must retain his sense of values.

He raised certain points regarding the cost-of-living allowances. I accept that he may not have meant it that way, but was I suppose to have read his thoughts when I replied? After all, he explicitly spoke of “cost-of-living allowances”, and he did so more than once.

But you accept what: I meant?

Yes, of course I do.

Reference was also made here to the staff shortage and the employment of non-Whites. That side is saying again that this side finally adopted their policy. But that is not the case.

It is the case.

For the past decade the Bantu on the Railways have been doing work that was previously done by Whites. What about the thousands of rail workers? Whites; were employed at first, but owing to the labour shortage amongst the Whites, Bantu were introduced instead. This is no innovation. This has been the case all these years. Years ago I had talks with the Artisans’ Staff Association in connection with the breaking down of certain work as far as signal fitters were concerned, work which had to be done by the Bantu, and so forth. This is nothing new. It is not because the United Party advocated a policy that we are supposedly adopting this all of a sudden. This is once again the greatest nonsense in the world. The position in regard to the allowances to pensioners is correct. I simply cannot afford to incur further expenditure to the amount of several hundred thousands of rand at this stage. That is why no provision was made for them, except for the abolition of the means tests.

Then the hon. member referred to the increasing dissatisfaction amongst a large number of rail workers. Well, this is the first word I have heard of it. In connection with Railway workers all I can …

Railway employees.

But I am saying “Railway workers”, not so? Not rail workers, but Railway workers.

I thought you had said “rail workers”.

No, Railway workers. As I am saying, that is the first word I have heard of it, because as yet all these thousands of Railway workers do not even know exactly what their increases will be. It was only over the past few days that the staff associations received the particulars. They have not even had an opportunity to make them known amongst their members. How can there already be such a large number of dissatisfied people? All I have received so far, was telegrams of thanks from various branches of various staff associations. If the hon. member wants me to read them to him here, I shall do so. I have no knowledge of any large-scale dissatisfaction. One single person may have told him that. I, as the Minister, do not know anything about it, but the hon. member as a member of the Opposition already knows about the large-scale dissatisfaction. There is no such thing as productivity increases. Who told the hon. member that?

I put the questions.

But the hon. member must have heard it somewhere, surely? Who told him that?

I am asking for information, that is all. Give me the information I am asking for.

But I say that the hon. member must have heard of productivity increases somewhere.

I am merely asking for information.

No, but one does not ask for information about something of which one has never heard, surely. But the hon. member may—if I remember correctly—look up in his Hansard of last year the place where he put forward the suggestion that I should introduce the system of productivity bargaining.

That is quite correct.

Does he still want it?

Oh, yes.

But he says that these people are dissatisfied and that these wages are based on increases in productivity.

I want to know whether there is any discrimination among the various groups in the staff.

If one has to accept productivity bargaining as a system of negotiation, then, surely, there must necessarily be discrimination; because there are, after all, numerous kinds of work on the Railways of which one simply cannot increase the productivity. One cannot increase the productivity of the engine-drivers. One cannot tell them: Instead of 30 miles per hour, you must now drive at 60 miles per hour so as to get the train to its destination sooner. The hon. member should not shake his head. Yes, he shakes his head because he realizes only now how wrong he has been. One cannot introduce productivity bargaining for each of the 822 grades on the Railways. What we are in fact doing, is the following: Where the productivity can in fact be increased, a bonus system is introduced. Bonus systems have already been introduced in all the workshops. Outside, in other departments, bonus systems have probably been introduced for the very purpose of increasing productivity. But these wage increases have nothing to do with productivity. These wage increases were granted to the staff as a whole, as equitably as possible. From the nature of the case there cannot be uniform wage increases. One cannot grant the person who is earning R110 per month and the person who is earning R3,000 per month the, same wage increase. Then the Railway workers will revolt. What I did say, was that the wage increase would not be less than 8 per cent anywhere. It varied from 8 per cent upwards. As a result of the higher notches, some people may have received 12 per cent; others received 10 per cent. Then it also depends on the same factor the hon. member referred to, namely the importance of the work, i.e. “job evaluations”.

Is it true that the engineers are getting more than the others?

Yes, but it has always been like that in the past. For example, the special class driver and the artisan receive more than the skilled worker does. Under this new system the artisan receives R25 per month. The skilled worker, who has to do semi-skilled labour, does not receive R25 per month. It is based on the wages he receives.

Are those people who do clerical work benefited to the same extent?

No, there are various kinds of clerical work; there are various grades. For instance, a Grade II clerk receives a certain increase. The salaries in this grade have been improved considerably. Whereas its maximum was only R2,400, it has now been increased to R2,700; and when a person has been on the maximum for three years, it is increased to R3,000. That is where the largest group of clerical workers are to be found, i.e. in Grade II. When he reaches the “efficiency barrier”, he has to wait a long time for promotion. He must write certain examinations before he can qualify for further promotion. The vast majority of them remain on that maximum for years; and some of them go on pension on that maximum. A considerable improvement has been effected in that grade.

The engineers received a fairly good increase, but this increase put them and the engineers employed by the Public Service on the same salary scale, otherwise all my engineers would be lured to the Public Service. There was therefore no uniform wage increase. The hon. member must remember that there are more than 800 grades in the Railways. They might as well forget about the possibility of discussing here the wage increases of each individual grade. The staff associations are there for that purpose. They look after the interests of their members. If they are dissatisfied with concessions made to any group, the hon. member may be sure that they will make representations very soon.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has again avoided a direct answer to a number of the points raised by the hon. member for Yeoville. I will leave him to deal with those in due course.

Now, I must say that the hon. the Minister was much more responsible in this reply …

You say there are points I did not reply to. Which are they?

The hon. the Minister evaded giving a direct answer to the questions.

To which points?

I will deal with one of them. One is the question of a pipeline. The hon. the Minister says that his taking an unnecessary profit on the transport of petrol …

I did not say it was unnecessary.

… that his taking an excessive profit is necessary I call it unnecessary profit. He says it is essential. But, Mr. Chairman, in the eyes of the Government, petrol is a vital factor in the whole struggle against inflation, and when the motor dealers asked for an increase from three to five cents a gallon in distribution profits, they were told this was not possible, because it would increase the cost of living and inflation. Here again there are two standards, one for the Government and one for private enterprise. The hon. the Minister cannot have it both ways. Either a thing is inflationary or it is not. Either it is right or it is wrong. It cannot be right for the Government and wrong for private initiative, for the private sector and vice versa. The hon. the Minister simply shrugs his shoulders in regard to the difficulties of finding staff, and he admitted that the position was a difficult one. He said that in one particular field he tried to recruit overseas, but he has given us no real answer to this problem of the burden that will be placed on the rail worker through overtime demands. I am not happy at all with his answer to the hon. member for Yeoville in regard to Airways technicians. It only takes one person to make one mistake to cause one accident which can kill a hundred people. Just one mistake! And because it is only 116—or whatever the figure is —shifts of 16 hours per day, that does not make that any less serious, less dangerous or less undesirable. The Minister says that it is undesirable, but surely it is his task to ensure that that sort of thing does not happen.

The hon. the Minister took me to task again after, I had raised eleven points of complaint from the staff, but he did not deal with a single one of the eleven specific complaints which I raised in my last speech. He tried to play the fool and he raised a few horse laughs from his followers. They sounded more like donkey neighs to me. But he got a laugh because I, not wanting to mislead the House or the public, had myself listed accidents which had occurred in each particular class, for the simple reason that I realize that you cannot blame a level crossing accident on overtime. I myself separated them so that a false impression would not be created. The Minister tried to make fun of my arguments because I had tried to be fair. He quoted accidents at level crossings and accidents as a result of falling off trains. He did not say a word to us about shunting accidents, in regard to which we have the following figures: 12 in January, 21 in February and 23 in March, a total of 56 accidents in the first quarter. If that is to be the pattern for the whole year, we will have over 200 shunting accidents. Shunting accidents are accidents that affect the staff. Eleven members of the staff were killed and 77 injured in the first three months of last year. If you project that figure over the whole year it will be over 40 killed and over 300 injured of the staff alone. Those are the people who suffer from having to work overtime.

Are you saying that those accidents are due to overtime?

I say that there must be a correlation between the tiredness of a person and the number of accidents.

What evidence do you have?

I have evidence from the persons who appeared in court on certain charges and who have given as their excuse for collisions the fact that they were overtired.

Give me the specific cases.

I do not have them in front of me. I read about them in the newspapers. But I shall give a specific quotation now from a person writing to Die Beeld under the pseudonym “Treinspore”. This person writes as follows:

An anonymous letter.

The Minister can say that it is just an anonymous letter, but I want him to dispute the facts contained in this letter: “Aanstaande week is sy skof van 6 vm. tot 2 uur nanag.” This is what the wife of this railworker says:

This is not what I say. This is a person writing publicly to a newspaper. Repudiations of this were made by other railworkers. I am not interested in whether there were repudiations. There were others who said it was not so. Here we have an allegation of working from five in the morning to midnight.

Do you realize that he had the right to claim relief after twelve hours?

Yes, he has the right to claim relief after 12 hours, but the Minister knows that this kind of thing is happening.

I do not know that it is happening.

I ask the hon. the Minister to make a categorical statement to the effect that railwaymen are not being asked to work these hours. I want him to say publicly again what he implied, namely that there is no relationship between accidents and fatigue. I want the Minister to repudiate every industrial safety worker and every document one can read about industrial safety which links fatigue with the accident rate. I want the Minister to repudiate the findings of all those specialists who believe that fatigue and accidents are related. Let him do it and prove that there is no relationship between fatigue and accidents.

In the short time at my disposal I want to raise some other matters of a general nature. Firstly I want to raise the question raised by the hon. member for Randburg who objected to members of the Opposition receiving information from railway servants. I want to say that it will be a sorry day for South Africa when any citizen of South Africa is forbidden the right to talk to his Member of Parliament about his problems. I believe that that is a fundamental right. I want to say too that I have never taken up a case with the Minister or his Department until a person has followed the normal channels and failed. When a person has gone through the normal channels and failed to obtain redress, I believe that he has the right to discuss his problems with his Member of Parliament. As a Member of Parliament I have the right and will continue to exercise that right to discuss any problem with any voter in my constituency because it is the democratic right of the voter to be able to approach a Member of Parliament and raise his problems. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. members of the Opposition tried to create the impression here that the Budget was not satisfactory, and that the Minister had not acquitted himself of his task well. My impression was that the Minister presented a brilliant budget and that he made short shrift of the Opposition in a brilliant way. He toyed with them like a cat toys with a mouse.

I should just like to reply to what the hon. member for Durban (Point) said here. He projected the accident figures which the Minister mentioned to four times their normal size. I want to say that it is an absolutely ridiculous and imaginary way of calculating accidents. What would the position be if the hon. member for Durban (Point) were projected to a certain point? What is he going to look like? Will it still be he? Such a calculation is a complete fantasy and purely theoretical. One gets the impression that the Opposition does not feel very happy about the increases which have been granted to the Railwaymen, which is perhaps quite easy to understand.

As regards the non-Whites that are being employed by the Railways, it is clear that this only happens when there are no Whites available owing to the shortage of white manpower. What did the United Party and their predecessors do in the past? They appointed non-Whites on the Railways when there were in fact Whites available, and even dismissed Whites from the Service in order to appoint non-Whites. That is what they did.

After these few remarks addressed to the Opposition, I want, in all humility, to bring a few things to the attention of the hon. the Minister. The first is the position of the Railwaymen who want to undergo voluntary military training. Special paid leave is not being granted to employees who want to undergo voluntary military training, or who of their own accord do further military service. They must therefore make use of their normal holiday leave or unpaid leave if they have, of necessity, to be absent from service. This state of affairs does not apply in other Departments of the Public Service. Is it not possible to rectify this little matter as far as the Railwaymen are concerned?

Another little matter I want to raise, is the maintenance of the Afrikaans language at those restaurants which the Railways have transferred to private undertakings. What I want is that it should be ensured that the Afrikaans language is maintained in these restaurants. It is my experience that justice is not always being done to the Afrikaans language here.

Where?

This was my personal experience at the cafeteria on the Johannesburg Station.

That cafeteria is being run by private people and not by the Railways.

But it is not possible to control this aspect? Perhaps it can be laid down as a condition when the contract is allocated.

The Department of Transport allocates these contracts, not the Railways.

In any case, I have at least said what I wanted to say. As regards the provision of housing, we appreciate it greatly that so much has been done in this field. The provision of housing can draw more people to the Railway Service. But I think that more can be done in this direction, and I am referring in particular here to Kempton Park.

My final plea is for a railway junction between Edenvale and the railway network at Kempton Park.

During the debate last year I brought certain matters concerning the suburban line in the Cape Peninsula to the notice of the hon. the Minister. I referred, inter alia, to the condition of the Railway premises, to the litter, dirt and fencing, roads in departmental housing schemes particularly at Retreat, nameboards of stations, parking areas, and level crossings. The Minister promised to reply to these points by letter in the recess. This he did. However, he refuted almost everyone of the allegations I made, conditions which I see every day of my life. I thereupon wrote to him and suggested that senior officials of his department should be made available to me so that I could take them on a conducted tour in order to point out to them those things about which I complained. But this request he refused because, so he said, no good purpose could be served by such an inspection. I think this is a most unreasonable attitude. However, my offer remains open and the Minister can at any time when it is convenient to him and his department make staff available to come with me on a tour of inspection. It is extraordinary, however, that shortly after I made these allegations in this House, workmen were taken off housing maintenance schemes in the Peninsula and posted to stations to paint them. Gangs were also sent around to clean up Railway premises—things which the Minister denied existed.

I should now like to deal with the suburban train service, especially at peak hours—that is from 4.30 p.m. to 6 p.m. I believe in the 1950s 29 trains left from Cape Town station during those hours. To-day, so I understand, there are only 23. If this is correct, can the Minister explain this reduction of six? There has been a substantial growth of population in the southern suburbs. I also understand that the new station allows for 41 trains to depart during peak hours. Why, in view of these factors, have the number of trains been reduced? To-day surely more people use the train service during peak hours to the southern suburbs. The result is that there is widespread dissatisfaction with the congestion on trains during those hours. The Minister wrote to me during the recess to tell me that a survey had been conducted of peak hour traffic and that this survey had shown that it was not necessary to increase the number of trains. Well, either this survey must have been wrong or the service has become so unpopular that people to-day prefer going by car or by another means of transport. If it is the latter, then I can understand the results of the survey. Since 1949 there have been no less than five increases in suburban line fares. In 1966 there was a 20 per cent increase. The return fare to Muizenberg which was 23 cents in 1948 is to-day 38 cents, to Simonstown it was 27 cents and to-day is 50 cents. Monthly tickets to Simonstown were R4.25 in 1948 and are to-day R7.41. It is, therefore, quite understandable that people are reluctant to use the suburban service. Another reason for the unpopularity of the suburban line service is the discomfort people have to suffer on these trains. Complaints about this appear from time to time in the Press and are also sent in to the Minister and to his department—complaints about jolting and jerking of trains on the suburban lines. As a matter of fact, I have personally seen people getting off trains on the suburban lines rather than continue with their journey, because of this jolting and jerking. In a letter written in October, 1967, a gentleman living at Fish Hoek was informed that investigations had been carried out about the lack of smoothness in the operation of these trains. He was informed that where this had occurred it was as a rule due not to indifference on the part of the drivers but to “certain minor technical problems”. This was alleged to be associated with the setting of electrical controls. Yet two months later the Administration advised me by letter that specific investigations by civil and mechanical engineers were taking place, as well as surprise inspections. I was told that technical officers of the department were carrying out full scale tests—full scale tests, Mr. Chairman, to see about these “minor technical problems”.

Apart from the discomfort people have to put up with, the service itself is slow and there is generally a lack of parking space at suburban line stations. Another matter—one which I did not bring up last year—is the recent erection of the station notice boards or destination boards, on the Cape Town station. I wonder whether the Minister is aware of the widespread dissatisfaction about these boards. Letters have been pouring into the Press—into the English as well as into the Afrikaans Press. I understand representations have already been made to the Administration. These boards are quite illegible; the print is much too small; and the boards are completely inadequate in that a list of suburban line stations is not displayed at all. It is very difficult to find out when and from which platform one’s train leaves. The boards are inflexible and illegible and unintelligible particularly for elderly people. I have seen them at the destination board on Cape Town Station trying to decipher the small letters indicating where the trains are going. The situation is most unsatisfactory and I would ask the Minister to look into this matter and see whether it is not possible to restore the old destination boards, which had much larger lettering and were much more effective, even if they were manually operated.

Lastly, I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister the situation at Retreat Station. As he knows, vast numbers of non-Whites use the trains at Bergvliet, Retreat Station and at Steenberg Station, which is next door. There is a completely inadequate foot-bridge over the station at Retreat, but what is worse, white Railwaymen are housed on the Cape Flats side of Retreat Station in a Railway camp. Recently a fence was built from the bridge towards Flora Road, which gives access to the non-white townships. But having built the fence, the Railways for reasons of their own put a gate in the middle of the fence. As a result, at peak hours, the non-Whites stream down off the bridge, use the gate and go straight through the white township, and this has caused unnecessary and considerable friction in that township among both Whites and non-Whites. I would bring this to the attention of the Minister and ask him please to do something about it.

I should like to return to the accusation which was made here in respect of the Airways, because I think it is a very dangerous thing to have it said in this House that our Airways has become a danger to the travelling public.

Nobody said that.

The hon. member for Yeoville said the Minister was gambling with the safety of our Airways, and what else does that imply? The hon. members opposite had a great deal to say about the staff shortage, but what did they suggest? Nothing at all.

Just let us take over.

Yes, there is the reply. It behoves anybody who criticizes another person to suggest something. Then they would have made a contribution to the debate. But there was nothing positive; only negative arguments.

What is the real position in regard to our Airways? How many accidents were there? I challenge any person on the opposite side to state how many accidents occurred in the Airways during the past two years.

It is a brilliant record.

Yes, and the position is better to-day than it was a year or two ago, and now they are afraid of that. I have obtained the figures, which indicate that in 1962 the technical staff numbered 1,326, and this year there are 1,576. There are 250 additional members of staff in service now than there were last year, but it is now being suggested that we have reached breaking point.

Our aircraft have become fewer. We had 28 in 1962, and now we have 24. I take it that the small ones have disappeared and the big ones have taken their place. In 1967, if you analyse the figures, a longer period of overtime was worked than now. We have the assurance of the Management that although the staff position is a difficult one, the position has by no means been reached which would constitute a danger to the high standard of our Airways. What is the Minister and the Administration doing to improve this position?

A survey was made at the beginning of March this year, when orders were placed for the two new aircraft, the 727 and the 737, which are expected no later than this year. It was then decided to increase the number of staff. This year 30 apprentices will conclude their studies and enter the service. A recruiting campaign has been launched overseas which is already beginning to yield fruit. I saw a file a few days ago according to which certain officials from overseas are already being employed. These statements are totally exaggerated. I do not think it redounds to the credit of the Opposition to present our Airways, which has such a spotless record, and in which an improvement has already been effected, and in which we are still improving the position, to the world as if a breaking point has been reached and there is a lack of efficiency.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) once again made the statement implying that accidents were caused by working overtime. He can say what he likes, but he has no proof of that.

You say there is no relationship between exhaustion and accidents?

I am saying that there is no proof that the accidents are being caused by exhaustion, or by overtime. Perhaps you become tired after one hour’s work, and I become tired after six hours’ work. Where does one draw the line? There is no criterion. In regard to the technical staff of the Airways, it does not go without saying that if he has on one occasion worked so many hours overtime he works that amount of overtime each day. That time calculation is made over a certain period. The person who works three to six hours overtime to-day, does it perhaps once a week and perhaps does so again the next, and it cannot exhaust that man if he works, so much overtime once a week. He does not work that much overtime each day, and that is why it is incorrect to use the argument that overtime is endangering the efficiency of the Airways. The same applies to the workers on the Railways as well. They are not working overtime regularly each day. It happens now and again, perhaps once a week or once a month. The hon. member for Durban (Point) read out a letter here. It suited his purpose to read out one letter, but not another. I do not want to tire this House by reading those letters, nor do I have them here, but we have read many letters from other ex-railway servants which put matters in a completely different light. The letter read out by the hon. member was anonymous, but those which I read are not anonymous. But he chooses to take notice of that one anonymous letter, and not of the others. No, I am satisfied that the Minister and the Chief Management are doing everything in their power to ensure safety in the service, and hon. members on the opposite side need not feel concerned about this matter.

I trust the hon. the Deputy Minister will excuse me if I do not follow up on what he has said, but in the short while at my disposal I should like to discuss another subject, and I want to address it to the hon. the Minister of Transport. I am aware that the entire question of the railway service between Soweto and Johannesburg has already been discussed in this House, yet I am making no apology for raising it again. I am convinced that there are sound reasons for the numerous complaints which I have regularly received in regard to this service. When I asked the hon. the Minister of Transport in a question whether his Department had received an application for the introduction of a regular bus service between Soweto and Johannesburg, the reply was that four such applications had been received, but that not one had been granted because it was the opinion of the Minister that the existing transport facilities were satisfactory and adequate. Now, to say the least, I was astonished by the hon. the Minister’s reply, because there is on the contrary abundant evidence that the Bantu passengers who have to make use of the service to travel to and from work do not find the service efficient or satisfactory. The hon. the Minister is aware of the fact that the Johannesburg Chamber of Commerce has, during the past three years, made representations in regard to the inefficient Railway service between Soweto and Johannesburg. The representations were made as a result of complaints which had been submitted by numerous employers.

I think the hon. member must raise the question of a bus service under another Vote.

I am talking about the train service between Soweto and Johannesburg. The representations were made as a result of complaints which had been submitted by numerous employers of Bantu labour and the Chamber deplored the fact that large numbers of Bantu workers were, as a result of the overcrowded trains, being compelled to leave their homes very early in the morning, much earlier than what could be termed a reasonable hour, to turn up in time for their work. The Minister is also aware of the fact that the Johannesburg City Council has repeatedly drawn the Government’s attention to the fact that the existing railway service to Soweto has long ago reached its maximum capacity and that the Government should regard the provision of supplementary transport services as a matter of the utmost importance. As a result of the numerous complaints in this regard, which I have received in my capacity as Member of Parliament for Bantu workers, as well as their employers, I have myself gone to observe the position on the Johannesburg railway station during afternoon peak hours. Consequently I can state unequivocally that as a result of the tremendous press of people and the frantic attempts of the Bantu workers to catch their trains on time in order to reach their homes at a reasonable hour, absolute chaos sometimes prevailed there. I want to say that only the fact that the Railway officials intervened with great patience and tact, prevented serious incidents from occurring during peak hours. It is estimated that more than100,0 passengers crowd into the trains during peak hours, morning and night, and experts maintain that this figure will have doubled by 1980. If that is correct, the Railway planners will have to think in terms of a more integrated road and rail transport service. A dual service will have to be created. We realize that most adult male and female employees are either working in the central area of the city or in industries in the suburbs, and it is unnecessary for me to emphasize the value of their manpower as seen against the background of the economic welfare of our country. Consequently it is easy to understand that commerce and industry in the Johannesburg area is concerned about the loss of time and efficiency in regard to the source of labour as a result of the transport problem between Soweto and Johannesburg. We must realize that many Bantu train passengers are already being forced to leave their homes at four o’clock in the morning to catch the first train to the city and that they only reach their homes again at eight o’clock that night. It is very clear that the productivity of this important source of labour is being seriously and detrimentally affected as a result of exhaustion and the frustration caused by travelling. We must bear in mind that the packed trains running at peak periods even constitute a danger to the lives of the passengers, and that deaths as an indirect result of the overcrowded trains sometimes occur. The following comment by a passenger who has to make daily use of the train service to and from his work illustrates the undesirable feeling of frustration which the Soweto-Johannesburg train service arouses in the passengers. The report reads—

I admit in all fairness that the Railway authorities are doing their best to deal with a very difficult problem. I am quite aware of the fact that the number of trains running in one direction between Soweto and Johannesburg for example increased from 109 in 1956 to 215 in 1968. I also know that the trains depart every two minutes during peak hours, and consequently one must come to the unfortunate conclusion that the Railways’ best efforts in this respect are inadequate. As a result of the continued increase in the population of Soweto the Railway service in question is becoming less efficient each year, and that in spite of the attempts of the Department in question. I am aware of the fact that a technical committee of the Railways has been appointed to investigate the possibility of improving the signalling system and the transport capacity of the particular line by means of other methods. I trust the hon. the Minister will inform us as to whether the committee has already made its report and what improvements can be expected, as a result of the committee’s findings. [Time expired.]

The hon. members for Yeoville and Durban (Point) tried to make out a case here against the non. Minister of Transport and his Department, a case which was based on vague arguments, which contained incorrect information, exaggerations and incorrect statements. It is pathetic that people should try to build up a case here when they have no case and that they should try to point out trifles here where one is dealing with an organization of the scope of the Railways, particularly if one takes into consideration the success with which this massive organization is being controlled and managed. It puts me in mind of Langenhoven’s saying, “Who points to a hole in a sieve and jeers at it?” I wonder why the hon. member does not want to admit candidly that there is a master in control of an organization here, one which is so large and so comprehensive that it cannot be compared with anything we know in South Africa, that there is an expert in control here who is handling this organization like a genius and in a masterly fashion. Why do they not stand up and congratulate the hon. the Minister on the magnificent way in which he is doing this? In that case they would at least earn more respect from this side. I just want to make this statement to the hon. member for Durban (Point), since he sees such a close relationship between exhaustion and accidents: if one takes the proportionately small number of accidents on the Railways, and the tremendous number of road accidents into consideration, then one would probably come to the conclusion that our railway staff are people who are well-rested and that our motor car drivers are people who are exhausted.

Are you satisfied with the working hours?

Under the circumstances we are satisfied, and we are very grateful that the railway staff are prepared, under these circumstances, to fall in with these working hours and do their best.

But I should like to return to a few matters which more specifically affect my constituency, and I would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister and his Department could perhaps, during the course of the present year, give their attention to these matters. In the first place, I want to plead for an improvement in the station facilities at Despatch. Despatch as the hon. Minister knows, is a large town with approximately 12,000 inhabitants, situated between Port Elizabeth and the industrial complex of Uitenhage. Despatch itself has no industries. The inhabitants of Despatch are people Who commute each day between Despatch and Uitenhage or Port Elizabeth. There is therefore a large number of people who make use of the train service and the station. According to statistics at my disposal, approximately 112,000 tickets were issued during 1966-’67 and one must therefore accept that that is the approximate number of people who made use of that railway line. The facilities on that station are very inadequate. On rainy days in particular there is no proper shelter, and this causes considerable inconvenience, and it would be appreciated if attention could be given to that matter.

In addition I should like to plead for the doubling of the railway line between Swartkops and Uitenhage. Approximately 60 trains are running on this line each day, and during the year 1966-’67 approximately 480,000 passengers were transported along that line. The running time of the passenger train between Port Elizabeth and Uitenhage is approximately 55 minutes, which is reasonably slow if one takes into consideration that there are very few stops. The area is reasonably free of inclines, and I think that the costs will not to be high. In view of the fact that there are three crossings between Swartkops and Uitenhage, delays inevitably occur, and derailments or accidents can cause serious delays, to the great inconvenience of employers and employees. I think that the doubling of that piece of Railway line is justified.

I also wish to make a further plea. I know that suburban train services are not a paying proposition for the Railways, but here in Cape Town there is an efficient system of suburban train services, to the great convenience of the passengers. In Port Elizabeth, however, a city which is expanding at a tremendous rate, there is, practically speaking, no suburban train service. If the population of Port Elizabeth doubles within the next 20 to 25 years, then one definitely foresees chaos, because the bus companies which are at the moment providing public transport will definitely not be able to keep pace. I therefore want to plead for a suburban train service in the direction of the Western suburbs where a tremendous expansion of residential areas is taking place. There are thousands of people who live ten to 15 miles from the cities, and a suburban train service is absolutely essential. I also want to plead for a suburban train service in the direction of the Coloured residential area as far as Bethelsdorp. A major expansion of the Coloured residential areas there is taking place, and these people have to be transported to the city. The bus services are finding it difficult to transport all those people. I have seen people standing in very long queues until rather late in the evening because the bus services simply cannot transport them. These people would also like to reach their homes as quickly as possible after they have finished work in the afternoon, and I think a suburban train service in that direction could be of very great value.

In conclusion I should like to plead that the hon. the Minister and his Department should, perhaps over a longer period, give consideration to the possibility of a railway link between Port Elizabeth and the Ciskei and the Transkei. Port Elizabeth/Uitenhage is a major industrial complex. There is sufficient water; there is sufficient power; there is sufficient land; and Port Elizabeth is practically a border area, it is 80 miles from the Ciskei. If there could be an express train service which could transport these people to their homes over the week-ends and bring them back again on Mondays, it would be very convenient; it would create opportunities for employment for many people in the homelands; they would be able to return to their homes each week-end, and Port Elizabeth’s labour problems would also be alleviated. I would appreciate it very much if the hon. the Minister could give attention to these matters.

Capt. W. J. B. SMITH: I hope the hon. member for Algoa will not object if I do not follow him. I want to raise a staff matter regarding departmental trials. During the last year I was consulted by a railway employee and his father. The former had been arrested and charged with alleged theft of railway property and had been suspended from the Railways pending his trial. The case was referred to the public prosecutor who declined to prosecute. The Railways authorities then decided to proceed against him by departmental trial. When he asked for permission to have legal representation he was informed by the trial officer that that was not permissible. He was, however, allowed to have a senior serving railway employee to assist him in the trial— probably something like a prisoner’s friend. This was a person, however, without any legal qualifications. The outcome of the trial was that he was convicted and discharged from the Railways, although the public prosecutor, in the first instance, had not taken such a serious view of the matter and had declined to prosecute. I advised the accused to appeal after learning how the inquiry had been conducted. Here again, he was informed by the trial officer that he could not appeal against the conviction but only against the severity of the sentence. The outcome was that his appeal was dismissed. He had one more channel of appeal, so I advised him to appeal again, this time to the Railway Board which sat and heard the appeal in Pretoria. His “prisoner’s friend” was allowed to assist him, and I am delighted to say that they were treated with the utmost courtesy and tolerance. The appeal was allowed and the man was reinstated. However, on account of the unconstitutional way in which the departmental trial had been held, I personally asked the General Manager to institute an inquiry into the method of the first inquiry. I was notified by the General Manager, and rightly so, that the matter was the subject of appeal and therefore sub judice. However, as the person concerned had won his appeal and was subsequently reinstated, I have no further interest in this particular case. What I am concerned about is that railway employees should enjoy the same privilege of legal representation—if they so wish—at departmental inquiries as they would enjoy in ordinary courts of law, especially when they are charged with common law offences. Also that departmental enquiries should be conducted according to the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act and the Magistrates’ Courts Act. In support of my argument I wish to refer to the following decided cases of our Supreme Court.

The first case is Rex v. Mtetwa, 1957 (4) S.A. 298 (O.P.D.), in which Smit, A.J.P. stated—

In this case it was held that as the proceedings were not in accordance with justice, that the conviction should be set aside and the case remitted for trial before a different magistrate.

Then I wish to refer to the case of S. v. Blooms which came on review before the full bench of the C.P.D. as reported in the South African Law Reports of 1966, volume 4. In the course of his judgment, the honourable Mr. Justice Van Zyl stated—

The Court held that—

The honourable Mr. Justice Beyers, J.P., concurred.

I wish to appeal to the hon. the Minister to have the Railway regulations amended to meet these requirements. We have no right to deny railway employees the right of legal representation if they so wish. Had the accused in the case referred to by me been permitted to have legal representation in the first place, the inquiry would have been conducted in a legal manner, the unpleasantness of appealing would have been unnecessary, and a lot of official time saved and expense avoided.

May I also suggest that men experienced in court work, for instance retired magistrates, be employed as disciplinary inquiry and investigation officers. I am sure this would also help towards a more satisfied Railway staff, and surely it is everybody’s duty to help the Minister to achieve this desirable state of affairs.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to clear the table before we adjourn for dinner.

And what shall we eat if you clear the table?

It is not absolutely essential that the hon. member should eat. Before I deal with the points raised by the hon. member for Durban (Point), I want to inform the hon. member for Yeoville that I have just received this newspaper cutting about dissatisfaction among certain members of the staff with regard to the pay increases.

I have only just seen it now myself.

Apparently certain individual clerks are dissatisfied, and also certain Airways technicians. Dissatisfaction has not been expressed by a staff organization. Of course, I will wait until I receive representations from the staff organizations as such before any action can be taken, or will be taken.

So his information was not wrong.

No, I said I did not have any information; I did not say the hon. member’s information was wrong.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) again raised the matter of accidents. He quoted from a letter by an anonymous writer about the long hours a guard had to work. I said by way of interjection that the running staff, namely guards, drivers, and firemen, have the right to demand relief after 12 hours’ duty. It is entirely up to them whether they so demand or not. Moreover, the Administration does everything in its power to provide the relief after 12 hours.

If they ask for the relief and are informed there is none available and they must carry on, what then?

Some of them have sat in their locomotives and refused to go further and waited until a relief turned up. Fortunately, though, I have always had the co-operation of the majority of the staff and when they find no relief is available, they carry on. I really want to deal with the hon. member’s contention that overtime must be correlated with accidents. In regard to every accident on the railway, namely collisions, derailments, and mishaps of that nature, I receive a report. I also receive a report as to how long the particular driver or guard, as the case may be, had been on duty, and how many rest hours he had had before assuming duty. As hon. members know, these people can demand 12 hours’ rest at their home depot and eight hours at a foreign depot. Very often they turn out before they have had the full rest. That happens continually. I get that information for the sole purpose of trying to establish whether excessive overtime had any bearing on the accident. When the inquiry is held, that matter is brought pertinently to the attention of the inquiry officer and it is his duty to establish whether excessive overtime played any role in that particular accident. I can give the hon. member the assurance that, except in exceptional cases, excessive overtime does not play a role.

Is excessive overtime not often pleaded by the person concerned?

No, as a matter of fact that is seldom pleaded. Because sometimes the cause of the accident is so obvious that it is quite impossible for the servant concerned to raise such a plea. Let us take the instance of a rear collision. If the guard concerned fails to protect his train as is required by the regulations, he cannot plead excessive overtime or strain, because all he has to do is walk back a certain distance on the line and hold up a red flag during the day or a red light at night and placing a few detonators on the line. As I say, the reason for the accident is quite obvious in most of the cases. It is a different matter if a driver falls asleep and runs through signals, but it must be borne in mind that there are two men on duty in the locomotive cab, namely the driver and his fireman. These matters are all gone into very thoroughly.

As regards shunting accidents, I wish to state that every fatality in the shunting yards is reported to me. I also receive a report as to what time of the day or night that particular accident took place, how long the servant had been on duty, how long his rest period was, how much experience he has, when he joined the service, when he became a shunter. All these particulars are submitted to me. Strangely enough there is no particular time at which these accidents happen. I am speaking about fatal ones now.

Only a small percentage of them are shunters.

The number of fatalities are sufficient to cause me considerable concern. That is why we have an excellent safety first organization which is very active and is continually trying to make these people safety conscious. I can definitely say that in exceptional cases excessive overtime might have a bearing or be the cause of a particular accident, but that is not the rule but the exception.

*I should like to apologize to the hon. member for Kempton Park. I was under the impression that he had spoken about the cafeteria at Jan Smuts Airport, as Jan Smuts Airport is in his constituency. But I must have misunderstood him. I understand now that he spoke about the cafeteria on Johannesburg station. He said that Afrikaans was not being done full justice there. I shall ask the General Manager to investigate the matter. It will, however, not be possible to construct a railway line from Edenvale to Kempton Park, because the expenditure involved does not justify it. Another reason is that passenger services are being run at such a big and serious loss. Therefore, we cannot construct more railway lines and introduce passenger services which will result in an even bigger loss. As far as housing is concerned, I do not know whether houses will be built at Kempton Park.

These houses are only built where there is most need of them.

†The hon. member for Simonstown spoke about the suburban services. I can assure him that we are doing everything possible to improve these services. He apologized for not being able to be here to listen to my reply. The jolting and jerking of suburban trains have caused me considerable concern, and as he rightly stated an inquiry is still taking place to find out the cause and what must be done to obviate it. The train drivers are not to blame, but mainly the cause is the draw gear. This means that changes will have to be made in the draw gear of all the suburban coaches. The hon. member spoke about the destination boards on Cape Town station. I have also received complaints. I went down there to look for myself. They are not as bad as the people say. I have no difficulty in reading them.

[Inaudible.]

No, but I also wear glasses. On the majority of stations there are no indication boards at all, and people have to look at the timetable. The old people with the bad eyes will have more difficulty in reading the timetables than they have reading the destination boards. I have asked the General Manager to go into this question. It has been decided to change the colour of the lettering to make it more prominent. That might be an improvement as regards these people who are complaining.

*The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) spoke about Bantu train services between Soweto and Johannesburg. I supplied him with a quite exhaustive reply to a question put to me by him on 16th February, as regards what is to be done and what is being considered in order to improve these services. I can assure the hon. member that the Railways is doing its bery best to improve the services. It is a common occurrence, however, that the Bantu passengers charge for the first train that arrives. They refuse to wait for the second train, with the result that the first train is completely overcrowded. They even stand on the buffers between the coaches and even climb on the roof, with the result that accidents occur. They all want to arrive home first and accordingly catch the first train. It is no use trying to stop them, because one cannot prevail on them to wait for the other trains. However, these services are constantly being improved.

The hon. member for Algoa pleaded for the improvement of station facilities at Despatch. I shall ask the General Manager to go into this, because I do not know what station facilities are lacking there. The hon. member also requested the doubling of the railway line between Swartkops and Uitenhage. To double a railway line is very expensive, and this is only done when the carrying capacity of that line is so overtaxed that the single line can no longer carry the traffic. I do not think this is the case as regards the railway line between Swartkops and Uitenhage, and therefore he must not hope for a doubling of the railway line in the foreseeable future. He also requested suburban train services in Port Elizabeth. If this implies that new railway lines are to be constructed through the densely populated areas of Port Elizabeth, I want to tell him that this is something that cannot be considered. In a case where railway lines are already in existence and we are able to determine that it will be economical to introduce the services, this will perhaps be done. He asked what the chances would be of a railway line between Port Elizabeth and the Transkei and the Ciskei. My reply, unfortunately, is that there is no possibility of this.

†The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) spoke about what he called the departmental trials. There is no such thing as departmental trials. What happens is that an inquiry is instituted, and a servant who is guilty of a disciplinary infringement also has the right to ask for an inquiry. After the inquiry has taken place the report is submitted to the disciplinary officer who decides whether that servant must be sentenced or not, should he be found guilty. Then he still has the right to appeal to the head of his department, the General Manager, and eventually to the Railway Board. He also has the right of appeal to the Disciplinary Appeal Board. The chairman of the Disciplinary Appeal Board is a magistrate seconded to the Railways. He can either appeal to the head of his department or to the Disciplinary Appeal Board. When he appeals to the Disciplinary Appeal Board and there is a unanimous decision, he has no further right of appeal. The head of the department accepts that decision, but on the Disciplinary Appeal Board he has his own representative.

In other words the staff organization of which he is a member has the right to nominate a member to the Disciplinary Appeal Board. He is therefore tried to a large extent by his peers. As I have said, if the finding is unanimous, and it is accepted by the head of his department, he has no further right of appeal. It has never been allowed in the past, and it is against the regulations, that a servant can be represented by a legal adviser from outside the service. He is usually represented by a member of his own trade union. They know the regulations and the conditions of service. They are the people that represent that particular member when he appears before the Disciplinary Appeal Board, or in certain cases before the Railway Board. This system has worked satisfactorily for over 50 years, it is accepted by the staff, and I do not think that there is any necessity to change it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has replied to certain questions that have been raised by hon. members On both sides of the House, but there is one particular aspect which I feel that the hon.

the Minister should clarify further. That is in regard to the high number of persons leaving the employ of the South African Railways. Earlier this month the hon. the Minister replied to a question I put to him asking the various grounds for persons terminating their employment with the South African Railways, as far as the White employees are concerned. The figures supplied showed that altogether 20,595 Whites had terminated their employment with the South African Railways during 1967. The figures for 1966 showed that 7,968 people had resigned and in 1967 this figure increased to 9,316 resignations. That means an increase of 1,348 resignations, an increase of 17 per cent. I feel that the hon. the Minister should give an indication as to whether an analysis has been done in regard to the grounds of resignation. It would appear that the increasing number of resignations, in particular the 17 per cent increase over a period of one year, calls at least for some degree of inquiry as to the grounds of resignation. Whilst dealing with the large number of persons who left the employment of the South African Railways, namely 20,595, I want to point out that only 20,352 new employees came into the service of the South African Railways. I refer to White employees. It would appear that the position as far as the manpower of the South African Railways is concerned, is reaching very serious proportions. Included in the figure in respect of those who left the South African Railways, is a figure of 7,522 members of the staff who absconded. In this regard I feel that the hon. the Minister should also give an indication of whether this matter has been analysed by his department to establish the reasons for this high degree of abscondence amongst his employees.

I should now like to deal briefly with the question of the high incidence of resignations because I feel that this has a bearing on the fact that employees due to financial difficulties find that it is necessary to resign from the Service to obtain the pension monies that are due to them in order to meet certain debts which they may have incurred, debts which may sometimes be ascribed to the high cost of living and the gap between the cost of living and the wage or salary which they are receiving. I believe that the hon. the Minister should seriously consider the steps that should be taken to discourage these persons from resigning from their employmeent for that particular reason. I believe that an investigation should be carried out to see whether it is perhaps not possible that the employee on terminating his service should receive only a portion of the money to which he is entitled from the pension fund. In that way he will safeguard his position if he should later want to return to the employment of the South African Railways. In many cases the employee in returning to the employment of the Railways has to forgo considerable pension benefits. When at a later stage he reaches the age of retirement, he finds that his pension is considerably reduced. At this point I should like to mention the Railway pensioners as this matter also has a bearing on the overall image of the Railways as a field of employment. I must say that it is rather disappointing that the pensioners will not receive anything of the R43 million that the hon. the Minister has available. The concession that the hon. the Minister has made to pensioners is in fact very small, although it is indeed welcomed by this side of the House. When we look at the figures relating to Railway pensioners and widowed pensioners, we see that 35,783 persons are receiving such pensions while 31,225 are already receiving the temporary allowance. After all, this concession really means that 4,558 of those persons will then be able to receive the temporary allowance. We are not criticizing the concession in any way but we must point out that it is indeed a very small concession when seen in the overall picture.

There is another aspect affecting the former employees of the Railways to which I believe the hon. the Minister could also give some sympathetic consideration. I refer to the present position in regard to the South African Railways Sick Fund. By means of a circular the hon. the Minister through his General Manager in November, 1966, introduced, for a trial period of six months, certain levies to be raised from persons for visits by a Railway medical officer, for medical attention rendered at an outpatients department, and for medical attendance on public holidays or over week-ends. This levy could be up to R1 per visit. Also subject to the levy are those persons who are no longer in the employment of the Railways. I believe that these persons should receive special consideration. I realize that they do receive a certain degree of consideration already in that they no longer pay a contribution but, as I understand it. one of the objects of the imposition of this levy was to counter malingering or abuse in certain cases. I cannot see, however, how the pensioned and the widowed members of the fund can in any way be accused of abusing or malingering as far as the medical benefits of the sick fund are concerned. I feel that they are a group which deserve special consideration. After all, this is a group which requires medical attention on a more regular basis. They are indeed grateful that they can receive such attention from the sick fund. I know that the Minister has indicated previously that where hardship is experienced, they can consult the district secretary of the sick fund in the area. I believe that as a matter of principle the hon. the Minister should give consideration to the justification of these people being called upon to pay this levy from the small income that they receive as existing members of the fund. Their income is drastically reduced due to the fact that they are on pension but yet they must pay exactly the same levy as those who are still in the employment of the Railways. I mentioned earlier that I understand that one of the reasons for this is the question of malingering by certain employees. The trial period of six months has passed but it has been decided that it should become a permanent feature of the administration of this fund. It would appear that whilst this has been instituted as a permanent feature of the fund, the hon. the Minister should give further consideration to these people who I believe should not be called upon to pay that levy.

There are other matters which affect the older group of retired Railway employees, such as the concessions made in regard to the number of free passes granted to these former employees of the Railways. I feel that the hon. the Minister should also give further consideration to this matter. There are cases where Railway employees have to travel a considerable distance for medical attention, perhaps at a provincial hospital if they require continual medical treatment at the provincial hospital. Many of them have to leave the larger towns and live some distance from the cities. The major hospitals are situated in the cities and this means that they have to travel a great deal between their homes and the provincial hospitals at which they are receiving treatment. I therefore hope that the hon. the Minister will give consideration to these people and perhaps allow them a greater number of free passes or free tickets where they have to travel regularly to a provincial hospital for such treatment. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, as a backbencher on this side of the House it has never been my intention to attack any seasoned parliamentarian in this House. After listening to the hon. member for Yeoville this afternoon, however, I cannot help saying that in my opinion he committed a blunder, particularly if regard is had to the fact that he should set an example to us younger members in this House. After the hon. the Minister had furnished proofs here, the hon. member for Yeoville stood up again and said to the hon. the Minister that he hoped he would now speak the truth. We who know the hon. the Minister …

I think there is a misunderstanding.

No, there is no misunderstanding, because I listened carefully. The hon. member said he hoped that the hon. the Minister would now speak the truth. I want to say that we who know the Minister, realize, as do the railwaymen outside, that the Minister cannot be brought under any suspicion as far as this is concerned. The railway-men and the people of South Africa have always accepted the Minister’s word as an honourable one in any explanations given by him.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Evening Sitting

When the House adjourned, I was speaking about the remark made by the hon. member for Yeoville about the reasons given by the Minister this afternoon, and I want to assert that all the arguments advanced and charges levelled by the Opposition this afternoon were refuted by the hon. the Minister with facts. Then the Opposition accepted it, because we can see them sitting opposite with dejected faces and listening to the facts supplied by the Minister. We say that we know that they accept it, but it seems as if the Opposition members, especially the hon. member for Yeoville, are very satisfied after he made his remarks and cast suspicion upon the Airways in particular. I suggest that criticizing one’s own South African services, which, as we know, are very highly praised in the world for their safety, is really not a commendable contribution to make. [Interjection.] As the hon. member has remarked there, it is un-South African to use these vague arguments in connection with the Airways and the South African Railways. We accept the Minister’s word and we have proof that the Railwaymen also accept it. When salary increases could not be granted to the Railway workers last year because of the conditions which prevailed, the workers accepted it, as did their wives, because they are not only good Railway workers but also good citizens of the country. If we see what the Railway workers have contributed recently then it is praiseworthy that so many persons made that contribution although they had not received any benefits at that time.

I also have many Railway workers in my constituency, but I know of no one who has objections such as the Opposition suggested today, and those Railway workers are grateful to-day and know that they not only have a Minister who is sympathetically disposed towards the Railway worker, but also have in him, as it were, a father who keeps a watchful eye over their interests.

I want to say a few words in connection with a section of my constituency, Postmasburg. We know that great developments have taken place there recently, and that the whole of the railway line between Kimberley and Sishen via Postmasburg has now been electrified. This has been done because the Railways there have expanded tremendously with the development in those areas, particularly because we have the iron ore mines there to-day. We all hope, especially the people in those parts of the Northern Cape, that we are now entering a period where great developments may be expected. We are probably not wrong in thinking that we may expect greater expansion to take place in the future in connection with the next Yscor to be sited there. If that is so, we surely have the right to expect that that railway line which my colleague also mentioned and which goes down to Boegoeberg will one day have to come into operation. Even if this does not happen now, the need for it will certainly be realized at a later stage. I feel that we do not really know what is going on in that area. When we consider that Postmasburg lies in the extreme North-Western Cape, that Upington lies a great distance of about 200 miles to the west, and that the existing railway line must make a detour to reach Upington, then we not only think of the large quantity of lucerne that can be supplied to the Northern Cape in times of drought, but also of other products produced at the Boegoeberg scheme. We know that to-day there is a distance of about 100 miles over which the products have to be transported far away from the Orange River to the railway line, and that this has to be done with lorries and with private transport. With a view to the future a great service can be rendered to those areas and to agriculture there if a railway line is built so that the products may be transported to the west, the north and the south. I want to content myself with saying that we can probably expect expansion to take place there too in the future, once the Orange River scheme has come into operation, and we hope that we shall be able to make use of these services because we have a great need of them. We are not asking this merely for the sake of asking, but because we know for a fact that development will take place in the Northern Cape on a much larger scale than we now anticipate, and because we feel that we are really entitled to it.

The hon. member for Prieska must forgive me if I do not deal with what he has just said. I do not think he has much ground for complaint. I frequently travel on the railways in the North-Western Cape, to Prieska and Upington, and I think that area of our country is very well served compared to the Border. But I am unhappy to say that coming from the Eastern Cape and the Border there is very little I can be happy about in this Budget to-day. There is one item I must admit gives me pleasure, and that is when I think of the increased salaries and allowances for the Railwaymen in the Eastern Cape and Border; I am happy about this. I do not know how the increase in salaries will tie in with the problem of inflation, but this is something the hon. the Minister will have to work out with the hon. the Minister of Finance.

He says there is no more inflation.

Well, that is for them to decide; we will see. But as far as salaries and allowances are concerned, we on this side of the House must rejoice to-day for we do not know what to-morrow will bring. What worries me, knowing the Nationalist Party and this Government as I do, is why, when there is inflation and we have been trying to fight inflation, this Government has suddenly raised the salaries of the Railwaymen? Knowing the hon. members opposite and the way their minds work, I believe there will be a general election before the next year is out.

Hear, hear! [Interjections.]

I expected that reaction.

Go and see the film upstairs.

It seems to me you are suicidally inclined.

I expected the reaction, particularly from the Minister of Sport, but we will see within the next 12 months whether we will not be thrown into a general election.

Will you take a bet on that?

Then we will see the motive behind all this. Of course I realize that the Nationalists will be worried about their nomination contests. The biggest election fight will be for nomination on that side of the House. All I can say is that we on this side of the House will say, as some of the people said in the case of the recent Bloemfontein City Council election, that we welcome it, come what may. I mentioned that I am not happy myself about the Budget. Coming from the Eastern Cape and the Border, I believe that we in that area are looked upon as coming from the Cinderella province and that the Eastern Cape is the Cinderella Province. I travel on the railways frequently. I like travelling by train, but I can assure you, Sir, it is not often that one can travel from De Aar through Noupoort, Rosmead and Stormberg to East London and say that you have had a comfortable journey. We believe we are being neglected in that area, and we are neglected. Our train journeys are not made very comfortable. There is very little catering at all. Only on a few trains do we have the privilege of dining in a dining-saloon. I do not want to go into details here, but altogether we are not happy about the position at all.

Another problem, too, which worries most of us and which is irritating, is that when one goes towards the Eastern Cape you find yourself drifting almost into a bottleneck with people, namely South Africa’s black labour force, who are always drifting to and from their homelands. For that reason most coaches in front of the trains are occupied by non-Whites, with the Whites in the rear, as usual. But when we stop at stations, we find that the coaches occupied by the Whites are halted in such a position that we have to disembark in the dark right back under the water-tanks and what have you, and the coaches occupied by non-Whites are alongside the platform. This happens almost every time. Often we have to disembark in the dark, there being no lights, falling over signal cables and other station equipment. This is something which was discussed here by the late Mr. Herman Bekker and by Mr. Gerhard Bekker frequently, but of course they were Nationalists and no notice was ever taken of them. I am discussing it now from this side of the House and I ask the Minister to take notice of what I say.

I put a question to the hon. the Minister on 23rd February this year, asking him whether he intended to link up Maclear with Matatiele by railway line; if so, when, and if not, why not? The reply I received was—

I want to come back to this statement that it would not be economically justified. What do we have to-day? We have an area supplying some of the finest produce South Africa could wish to produce—foodstuffs, livestock, wool, grain, vegetables, etc.—and yet we are completely cut off from such an important Port like Durban. When we transport our produce to the Durban market, where they need it very badly due to the closure of the Suez Canal, we have to move all our produce, and I stress livestock in particular, via Bloemfontein and Bethlehem to Durban, or, if there is congestion on that line, it makes matters even worse; it has to go from Bloemfontein via Kroonstad to Durban. This happens every time we from the Border send livestock to the Durban market. My hon. friend here asks how much of that livestock reaches the abattoirs alive. I said last year it is shocking to see how many animals arrive there dead. Sir, it is not economical to have to transport not only livestock but all our other produce over that long distance to the Durban market. Think of the rolling stock which has to be used over this great distance in transporting this produce and livestock. The hon. the Minister was boasting about the progress of the South African Railways, and yet in this year of 1968 we find that there is no direct rail link between the Cape Province and Natal. When you look at the General Manager’s report and the map contained therein, you see at a glance that there is something incomplete about it. What is incomplete is that gap of some 60 to 90 miles between MacLear and Matatiele, and, of course, there is the gap between Umtata and Kokstad as well. I do not believe that the reason for this is that it is not economically justified to build the Matatiele-Maclear line. I cannot believe it, and I do not think that the Minister really believes it. If ever there was a line that would pay us economically, it is this line to link up the Cape Province directly with Natal, and not via the Free State. Just think what it would mean to our lines of communication. It would open up Natal! Sir, I apologize for saying that! It would open up the Eastern Cape. If you look at this map in the General Manager’s report you see at once that there is something vitally wrong with it. Surely in this era in which we live, it would be economical to link up one province with another. It would be sound, feasible and practicable, and our people are crying out for this link. I am glad to see the hon. member for Aliwal listening intently through the ear-phones to what I am saying. [Time expired.]

At the beginning of his speech the hon. member for East London (North) tried to envisage himself in the role of a prophet. We on the National Party side are accustomed to prophets and seers on the United Party side; some are still sitting there to-day and others are no longer alive. We are accustomed to their making predictions but always being very wrong, and that is also how it will be with the prediction which the hon. member made at the beginning of his speech.

But enough of that. I should like to refer to the remarks which the rowdy member for Durban (Point) made here time and again about the question of the so-called high correlation between exhaustion, fatigue and train accidents. Sir, I should like to quote from his speech on Monday and then he will see how he has taken the whole matter from its context. He said—

A tremendous task which the hon. member took upon himself—

Let us just analyse this. The hon. member mentioned three categories which have nothing to do with exhaustion or fatigue of engine-drivers. Level-crossing smashes for example have nothing to do with the exhaustion of engine-drivers. The second which he mentioned, namely persons who had fallen from trains, also has nothing to do with the fatigue of engine-drivers. This applies also to the third category which he mentioned, namely persons hit by trains. He only has a valid case in connection with the last two categories which he mentioned, i.e. collisions and shunting accidents. According to him there were 18 collisions and 85 shunting accidents, and in comparison with the millions of miles covered by our trains, this is minimal. I think the Railways have a fine record in this connection.

I should like to refer to the mechanical workshops on the Railways. The Railways Administration has succeeded in bringing down the accident rate to a marked extent. I think hon. members opposite will agree that this is the case. This decrease is attributable to safety training in the mechanical workshops. In order to place safety conditions in the workshops on a high level, it was necessary to bring about regularity, order and neatness in those workshops as basic requirements. The hon. member who made so many interjections accompanied us when we had the privilege, as members of the Select Committee, to visit the mechanical workshops at Koedoespoort, and the hon. member and his colleagues who accompanied us, must admit that we saw these three basic requirements in operation at those workshops—regularity, order and cleanliness. I think we can say to the credit of the Railways Administration that they also try to keep our stations and platforms neat, but unfortunately one finds both Whites and non-Whites who are inclined to dirty places and turn them into rubbish heaps. This is especially noticeable on Johannesburg station, especially on the platforms where the non-Whites catch trains. They dump rubbish on the platforms because they know somebody will clean up after them. We have a campaign at present which is being conducted by mayors—even some of our Ministers and the Municipal Association of the Transvaal have also voiced their thoughts on this matter—to ecourage the people to become more cleanliness-conscious and to keep our country clean. In this connection we know that the Railways Administration keeps the stations clean, but I should like to bring a particular little matter in connection with our through-trains to the hon. the Minister’s attention. The position is that the bedding attendants have to clean compartments on trains, and they do this, but what happens is this: Like myself, there are other people who do not like to throw peels and other waste products out of train windows; we prefer to leave such things in the compartment in a paper bag. What now happens is that the bedding attendants come, sweep the paper bag into the passage and then sweep it off the bridge between the coaches and on to the railway line, with the result that one sometimes finds cartons, newspapers and other rubbish next to our railway lines, something which is decidedly unsightly. I just want to ask the hon. the Minister if it is not possible to make our people on passenger trains more cleanliness-conscious, and if it is not also possible to introduce plastic containers into our passenger coaches on the same basis as water bottles, so that people who are indeed cleanliness-conscious. may place waste products into them. The bedding attendants can then empty them at the large stations.

Secondly. I should like to endorse the request which came from the hon. member for Kempton Park, one to which the hon. the Minister perhaps forgot to reply. Because I have received the same requests in my constituency. I also want to make a plea here in connection with concessions for Railway servants who are doing voluntary military service. As far as I know public servants obtain leave for the period concerned while Railway officials do not. I should like to inquire if the same concessions, perhaps in the form of a ten-day leave period, cannot be granted to Railway officials, because otherwise they have to use their normal leave for this purpose.

A third matter which I wish to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister, relates to my constituency. I have already made verbal representations in this connection. As a result of the large foundry at the Railway workshops there, air pollution is taking place and it is affecting four suburbs in my constituency, namely Koedoespoort itself, Waverley, Jan Niemand Park and Eastlynne, in particular. This smoke nuisance is especially severe in the winter months. I know the hon. the Minister has promised to have this matter investigated. Perhaps it has been done, but I should like to inquire whether the elementary requirements in connection with suitable fuel cannot be applied there so that less air pollution will take place. I should like to thank the hon. the Minister warmly for what he has already promised in this connection and I believe that this matter will also enjoy his further attention.

In a similar debate in this House a few years ago I mentioned the question of the wages of Coloured Railway workers. On that occasion, I recall, I specifically referred to the way in which the Railways was attempting to substitute Coloured labour, especially in the Cape Town docks, for Bantu labour brought here from the Transkei. I said that one could speak very highly of what the Railways had done in this connection, but pointed out to the hon. the Minister that the wages of those people were R1.10 a day, the same as those previously paid to the Bantu persons whom they had replaced. I deeply appreciated the fact that the hon. the Minister immediately rose and replied to my request, and I appreciated it even more when the hon. the Minister called me to his office a few weeks afterwards and told me what had been done in connection with this request. The Coloured Railway worker’s salary had been increased by 15 cents a day. That may not sound like much, but for the people living in the Bishop Lavis township, the monthly increase represents half a month’s rent. Whereas before they could reach their maximum wage of R2 a day only after 10 years, they can now do so after five years. I want to express my appreciation to the hon. the Minister for what he did at that time. Shortly afterwards I addressed a meeting at Uitenhage at which one of the Coloured voters introduced a vote of thanks to the hon. the Minister, especially on behalf of the people in the five to ten year service category. In his budget speech the Minister announced salary increases to the value of R43 million, and now I request him not to overlook the Coloured Railway employee. It is the Government’s policy to replace Bantu labour, especially in the Western Province, with Coloured labour, and this is what is being done. The Railways is one of the largest employment organisations in the country, and employs the largest number of Bantu. As hon. members know, the Western Province virtually is the homeland of our Coloureds, and I agree that the Coloured must have priority here as far as employment is concerned. I want to plead earnestly with the hon. the Minister not to overlook the Coloured in granting salary increases, but to take him into consideration as well. As we all know, his standard of living and way of life are not those of the Bantu. He cannot exist on the wage of the Bantu. At present it is the Government’s policy to uplift the Coloureds so that they may take their rightful place in our society and in our race structure in South Africa. This supports my plea that the Coloured cannot be compared with the Bantu as far as his standard of living is concerned. The clothing which the Coloured wears is similar to that of the Whites, and even though it may not be of the same quality, it is nevertheless of the same cut and kind. His food is the food which the Whites eat and not that which the Bantu eat.

The hon. the Minister explained here this afternoon with what problems he must contend as far as the labour shortage on the Railways was concerned. I am fully aware of those problems. I also realize that when the Minister employs non-White labour, which includes Coloured and Indian labour, to relieve the labour problems, he must have regard to the White staff associations. I can appreciate the problems with which the Minister is faced. In the first place it is the Minister’s responsibility to keep the wheels in motion. I trust that the Minister will make use of his position and will bring his influence to bear when the above-mentioned staff associations adopt somewhat unreasonable attitudes in regard to non-White labour. I hope that the Minister will succeed in having the vacant posts filled with Coloured labour, if necessary, because it is in the interests of the country that the Railways be kept at the highest and most efficient level. I hope with all my heart that the Minister will be able to deal with that situation. I do not want the idea to take root amongst our White Railwaymen that because their posts will not be filled by Coloureds, they can sit back unconcernedly.

I also have a further request to put to the Minister. I do not want to say now that the Minister should begin by appointing Coloured engineers. As far as I know, there are no unemployed Coloured engineers in any event. Where vacant posts exist which cannot be filled by Whites, in which case Coloureds are to be employed, the retention of those Coloureds in those posts should really be given serious consideration. In this connection I should like to refer to a case with which I am well acquainted. As a result of circumstances beyond my control I have been out of touch with matters for a few weeks. I now speak under correction, but if I remember correctly, the new goods sheds at Uitenhage were put into service about eight years ago. The administration and organization of the Railways required a White labour force in those sheds, but Whites were not available. Consequently Coloured labour was employed, a step with which I agree wholeheartedly. As I say, I feel that much more use can be made of Coloured labour. The unsatisfactory aspect is, however, that if Coloured workers are appointed to White posts because White workers are not available, they are not appointed on a permanent basis. Because Coloureds occupy White posts, their appointments are regarded as some thing temporary. They are not on the permanent staff, and consequently do not share in the pension and other benefits. I do not want to elaborate on this, because I am sure that the hon. the Minister knows what I mean. I feel that the stage has now been reached in respect of certain categories of work on the Railways for which White workers are not available and as a result of which Coloured labour has to be employed, when such Coloureds ought to be appointed to the permanent staff. I feel that this request of mine is not unreasonable, and the fact that I am able to come to the Minister with such a request, affords me some joy. I still clearly recall the bitter years when I was about 10 years of age and when Whites used to be labourers on the Railways. We are all pleased that that time belongs to the past. I do not believe that those days will ever return again. Where we therefore do not have sufficient Whites to fill shunting posts, for example, let us employ Coloureds. An obstacle does exist for the Coloureds, however, and that is that Coloureds who occupy White posts cannot become members of the permanent staff. It causes considerable dissatisfaction and disappointment. I request the hon. the Minister to have proper regard to the points made by me to-night.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member made specific requests to the hon. the Minister to which I shall not reply. The hon. member referred to conditions on the Railways in the days of his youth. This makes one think far back, and then one feels very much like pointing one’s finger at the opposite side of the House and saying, “In those days you were in charge of the Railways.” But we shall leave it at that.

I want to refer to a little matter which the hon. member for Durban (Point) raised here today, that is to say, representations addressed to M.P.s by Railwaymen. He submitted that the hon. member for Randburg wants to deny people that right. But the hon. member for Randburg never suggested anything of the kind. The hon. member for Durban (Point) also said he always determined whether the people who approached him had already followed the right channels, after which he then gave them advice, told them what to do and gave further attention to their cases. But this is exactly what the hon. member for Randburg said. He said we must prevent shortcuts from being taken, because if all sorts of shortcuts are taken, at makes matters difficult for the Administration. But the hon. member did not say he did not want M.P.s to listen to representations from Railwaymen or go into their matters.

I now want to refer to another matter. When it was financially possible for the Railways, provision has been made in each year’s estimates for the housing requirements of our Railwaymen. This year again an amount of R14 million was voted for the purchase of approximately 1,300 houses. The hon. the Minister also said that housing had for a long time already been considered one of the most important factors in having a stable staff. We know that the provision of housing and the necessary funds for that purpose will always be the Government’s policy where that is at all possible. If this policy is followed, the Minister and the Administration will always enjoy our wholehearted support. What is more, the existing number of new houses is constantly being added to. They are well-planned houses, they are neatly built and where they are perhaps still built in groups, they vary in style, design, and appearance. But the sympathy of the Railway Administration with regard to housing needs does not merely go as far as the provision of money for new houses. The older Railway houses are also receiving the necessary attention. I now want to refer to a specific case which occurred in my constituency. Together with that I also want to mention a problem. In my constituency 50 old Railway residences—of the very old type—were to be demolished. The idea was that on the plots that would become vacant in that way, new houses would later be built as funds became available. I approached the General Manager and asked him whether it was not possible to repair those 50 houses and retain them in service for a further period. You know that in certain parts of the country we still have housing problems. To provide alternative housing for 50 families would not be an easy task. The matter was again investigated and after I had pointed out that these people would possibly have to be accommodated far from their present abodes and places of employment, that it would entail greater transport costs for them, that they would perhaps, to be closer to their places of employment, get even poorer housing in the vicinity than they had at the moment, I am grateful to the General Manager for having decided to have those houses repaired, although it was in fact uneconomic to have them repaired at this stage. Consequently we have kept 50 families provided with housing accommodation. But now I have a problem. Apart from those houses which will in due course be demolished and replaced by new houses, we still have certain complexes of Railway houses. I am now referring to houses in a group, forming whole complexes. They are monotonous in appearance. They are the old United Party houses and when one refers to a monotonous and bleak appearance, one almost feels like comparing them with that party. But let us rather leave it at that. I feel, too, that it is necessary to pay attention to the appearance of such an extensive scheme. After all, a man’s home is his pride. And this goes not only for the home itself, but also for the whole neighbourhood in which that home is situated. We must try and renovate that entire neighbourhood again. To suggest methods here is rather difficult. We know the Railway Administration works according to a specific method or schedule as regards the renovation of houses. But in respect of the very old buildings that are close together in groups, we must see whether we cannot shorten the schedule a little. I have in mind more frequent renovations and beautifying the neighbourhood. This must apply not only to the homes themselves, but also to the whole neighbourhood in which our Railwaymen live. We believe they deserve it. We cannot do anything about the design as such; that is simply the way the house has been built, and it is a well-built structure. It will be a good thing if a process of beautifying the general appearance of the buildings as well as the whole neighbourhood could be started. It would give our Railway people in that neighbourhood a further pride, apart from their pride in their homes as such.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Germiston has complained about the appearance of certain Railway houses. He is very lucky. In my constituency, although I have not very many railwaymen, I know that there is an absolute shortage of houses. My constituency is situated in what the hon. member for East London (North) described as a Cinderella area. But I want to get on to another matter. When the hon. the Minister this afternoon was replying to the general debate he appeared to be very pleased with life. But I do not think that we have seen the users of the Railways jumping for joy at the Budget which he has introduced. After all they, without exception, have received absolutely nothing from this Budget, not one single cent in the way of any sort of relief on rates. And this is so despite the fact that the hon. the Minister has in his Consolidated Revenue Fund an amount of some R74 or R75 million. As I have said, no paean of praise has gone up from the users of the Railways for this Budget. The hon. the Minister has relieved the effects of inflation on the personnel on the Railways. But what about the effects of inflation on those sectors of the economy which have benefited in no way from inflation, sectors which did not benefit from price increases but still had to bear the brunt of increased costs of everything they had to buy, plus the brunt of the various anti-inflationary measures of the Government, such as the credit squeeze? I want to refer specifically to agriculture tonight.

This is not an agricultural debate.

That is a typical interjection coming from the Deputy Minister of Agriculture. Is he going to try and deny that the rating policy of the S.A. Railways is adversely affecting agriculture to-day? It is a typical interjection. I am glad about the interjection of the hon. the Deputy Minister. When the hon. the Minister was replying to the debate I listened very carefully to what he had to say. And I think it was significant that there was one speaker on this side of the House to whom he did not reply at all. That was the hon. member for Newton Park who amongst other things dealt with the problems of agriculture. Not a word was said. I am a backbencher and if the hon. the Minister ignored my speech it would not have mattered. But he ignored the speech of a frontbencher on this side of the House which dealt with problems affecting agriculture. From that side of the House we have had no word at all about agriculture in relation to Railway policy. The only exception was the hon. member for Kroonstad who said that the farmers should be rather happy because whereas the general rate increases with effect from 1966 were 10 per cent, the average rate increase on agricultural products was only about 3 per cent. I do not know where he got that figure from. I think the hon. member for Kroonstad should talk to some of the farmers down in the Eastern Transvaal lowveld, who in 1966 among other things had to bear an increase of no less than 24.51 per cent on the railage on vegetables consigned to a large number of big markets. There were also considerable increases in so far as their production requirements were concerned. Railage on fruit wrappers used by fruit farmers increased by 14.59 per cent, while on materials used for pest control it increased by 52.60 per cent.

I now want to come to an industry which I dealt with before in this House, namely the wool industry. I make no apology for dealing with it again because it is a most important industry. Its produce is sold in 33 countries of the world. Over the last five years the average earnings of that industry were round about R100 million per year. 90 per cent thereof was exported, which earned foreign exchange; and about 750,000 people depend upon it for their living. I raised this matter with the hon. the Minister in 1966. On that occasion he told me that we had no right to complain. He said that the increases then were quite insignificant.

Order! The hon. member for Outeniqua must please sit down or go and talk outside.

The hon. the Minister then said that the increases in the tariffs for transporting wool were quite insignificant and that we had no right to complain about the increase which amounted to very little per pound by weight.

But to-night I want to go back quite a long way and prove to the hon. the Minister that over the years his increases have been considerable and that in doing so he has departed from a principle which he considers to be all important when it comes to determining tariffs.

Order! Will the hon. member for Outeniqua and the hon. member for Turffontein stop this talking?

This afternoon the hon. the Minister said that “’n grondbeginsel van tariefvorming is wat die verkeer kan dra”. I am going to prove to the hon. the Minister to-night that the wool industry can no longer bear the rates that he is imposing upon it.

The wool industry experienced a boom which reached its peak in 1950-’51 when average prices were in the vicinity of 80 cents per lb. Since then the price that the farmers receive has declined steadily. Last season the average price was not 80 cents per lb. but 32.78 cents per lb. This season there has been a further drop of approximately 5 per cent, which constitutes a drop of approximately 60 per cent compared to prices in 1950. To-day the farmer is receiving a third of the price he received in 1950. What has the hon. the Minister been doing while the price that the producer received has been dropping during all these years? He has been raising the rate for wool consistently over a period of years. I want to quote to-night the figures for what it costs to consign a hundred pounds of wool from Middelburg, which is in the heart of the merino country, to Port Elizabeth, which is the main wool exporting port in the country. In 1953 the rate was 54 cents per 100 pounds less a concession of 10 per cent if it was packed in rectangular containers or bales. In 1954 the hon. the Minister raised the tariff to 58 cents per 100 pounds less 10 per cent. At that time he felt that the wool farmers were doing very well indeed, and that the traffic could bear this increase in the rate very easily. Then in July, 1958, he raised it by another 4 cents to 62 cents per 100 pounds less 10 per cent. Then in September, 1966, he raised the tariff to 63 cents per 100 pounds and abolished the allowance of 10 per cent. Over these 13 years the hon. the Minister has in fact raised the tariff from 48.6 cents per 100 pounds to 63 cents per 100 pounds.

What is the price per pound?

The hon. the Minister’s rates are worked out in 100 lb. loads. We have here an increase of 14.4 cents per 100 pounds, which is an increase of almost 30 per cent. While the price has fallen by 60 per cent, the hon. the Minister has raised the rate by 30 per cent. The hon. the Minister has not been content with merely raising the rates on what the wool grower sells, but he has done this also in respect of his production requirements. I again want to quote figures, although this time they will be in respect of transportation from Port Elizabeth to Middelburg of an essential commodity in the production of wool, namely wool bales. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think it was a disgraceful remark on the part of the Opposition to call the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture a “boerehater” (hater of the farmers). I think it is a disgraceful remark. I want to tell them that I think they will still pay for that, because the hon. the Deputy Minister will deal with them later.

The hon. member for Albany made allegations against the Railways and said that “agricultural products are adversely affected by these rates”. I want to say that the Railways calculate their rates according to certain principles which are applied by all transport organizations throughout the world. As the Minister explained earlier on, there are high and low rated goods. I want to make the statement that agricultural goods which are large in bulk are low-rated goods and that those agricultural products are relatively benefited as compared with the other products in this country. I think that the railage in this country compares very favourably with the railage for agricultural products in other countries. I think that the hon. the Minister will go into that later. The hon. member for East London (North) was making fun here to-night when he said that an election would be held in the near future. He also made a passing reference to the National Party’s nomination contests at elections. I want to tell him that if it were not for these nomination contests, we on this side would long ago have died of political overweight, because these in actual fact keep us politically fit. In reality the United Party does not even provide good exercise for us, not even to mention opposition in an election. I think that they shake in their shoes when they think of the election to be held in 1971. The hon. member for East London (City) is already nervous about it; that is why he starts talking about it already.

I think the interests of my constituency are more important than the jokes made by the Opposition. Consequently I rather want to make certain representations to the hon. the Minister now. Last year I made earnest representations for a railway line to Dendron. I explained that this was the dream of the first representative of Pietersburg when the Transvaal still had its own government, namely the former Senator Munnik. He dreamt of a railway crossing at Pietersburg, the western branch of the crossing being the stage to the Dendron area. The Minister then told me that to him it seemed that it would remain a dream. I want to tell him that I, and the whole of the Northern Transvaal, are still dreaming and will keep on dreaming until one day he will perhaps realize that dream for us. I do want to tell him that we are very grateful for the station at Eerste Goud, which is now a serviced station, as well as for the completion of a second station at Pietersburg, which is called Ladanna Station. It is a small station, but immediately proved to be filling a great gap. This station was built near the great school complex, and as Pietersburg grows towards the north there are a large number of people who are living nearer to the station. This station is serving virtually all the people who come to Pietersburg from the north. This station does not have the facilities which we would like to have for the public and the workers. I think the Railways meant it to be merely a small side station, but it is being used a great deal. I want to make very earnest representations that the necessary facilities should be provided at this station, for example, the necessary waiting rooms, latrines, etc. The present facilities at the station are rather primitive. The hon. Minister knows the name of the station. I am referring to Ladanna Station at Pietersburg.

I want to thank the hon. the Minister very sincerely for the provision of R62,300 [Interjections.] Yes, and not many of those hon. members have anything like this to boast of. I repeat, R62,300 for the construction of a non-white station building at Pietersburg. I am grateful for the fruits borne by the many representations I have made. I am very grateful for that. The public of Pietersburg will also be grateful for that, because it provides the separation we want. Then I want to thank the Minister very sincerely for the provision of R74,000 under Communications, namely for the replacement of the manual exchange by an automatic exchange at Pietersburg. This also is a great benefit for the people of Pietersburg and for the Railway staff.

Mr. Chairman, when I look at the Government benches to-night and I listen to their contribution to the debate, I say: “Shades of the days when I came here in 1948”, when I think of the members they had on their side, supporting the interests of the plattelanders. The hon. member for Pietersburg who has just sat down has thanked the Minister—that we have become used to—and he has dealt with a parochial matter of one station. The Minister has not even heard of it, apparently.

But, Sir, what do we get otherwise from that side of the House? Nothing about the farmer. While the hon. member for Albany was putting up the case for the farmer, there was conversation on the other side. They were not listening. No attention was being paid. The farmer is lost and forgotten, but I think that after the Bloemfontein election they will probably start paying more attention to the farmer, and we will have the farmers being treated better.

I want to raise a matter which affects the country dweller. It probably affects my constituency more than the other country districts, but all country districts throughout South Africa are affected. That is in regard to the Road Motor Service. In the Transkei, we have two railways, one to Umtata from East London, serving five stations; and then one from Pietermaritzburg up to Kokstad, serving two towns and I think two other stations. There are sidings on that route. But, Sir, the rest of the area is served by the Road Motor Service. The other 21 towns and villages through which the railway does not pass and their surrounding areas have to rely on the Road Motor Service. Rail users, in having their goods delivered to them, are protected against loss through negligence of the Railways, or for the loss in transit of goods, but the Road Motor Service users have no such protection. In terms of clause 2 of the Tariff Regulations the Administration is relieved of any responsibilities for any loss through pilfering or loss of the goods themselves through non-delivery.

Now, Sir, representations have been made to the Minister’s Department to have these tariff regulations amended and to bring them into line with the conditions applied to carriage of goods on the Railways. The Pondoland Chamber of Commerce made representations through the Natal Rural Chambers of Commerce, but the Minister’s representative at the meeting turned their representations down and said that the Government could not accede to their request. We could understand that if the service was a young service, only supplying a few isolated points where the Road Motor Service did not have its own officials to handle the goods. But the Road Motor Service has grown into a colossal undertaking to-day. It gives a comprehensive service and it stretches throughout the country, serving areas where the Railways cannot go. The people using this service there have to rely on it, because it has the virtual monopoly on the delivery of the goods, and they have no other way of getting their goods. The Minister can say, “As far as the Railway users are concerned, we are prepared to accept the responsibility, because we have our own officials receiving, handling and controlling the goods, and seeing to it that it reaches its destination. We have our own officials handing over the goods at the other end.” If he can say that, and that those conditions apply to the Road Motor Service, I would say he would have a point. But to-day the Road Motor Service operates from station to station and the Road Motor Service has its own depots where it has its own officials. Why should a consignor of goods from Butterworth to Kokstad, or from Matatiele to Kokstad, be in any better position than a consignor of goods from Umtata to Kokstad? In the first two cases the consignor of goods by rail is protected against loss.

Not all rail traffic.

No, not all rail traffic. I know delivery on sidings are not protected. But from station to station they are protected.

Even then some goods are still conveyed at the owner’s risk.

I know the owner’s risk can operate. But what I am asking, is why should users of the Railways be in any better position than the persons who use the Road Motor Service, who are compelled to use the Road Motor Service, because there is no rail service. The users of the Road Motor Service cannot send their goods otherwise than at the owner’s risk. Throughout the Transkei the department has its depots, the Road Motor Service takes the goods to the depots and they deliver them from there. They have their own officials at the depots. So it is idle for the Department to say, as was said at this congress, that the Road Motor Service could not accept responsibility, because it does not have its own officials handling the goods. They do not ask the Department to take responsibility where the Railways do not take responsibility. All they ask for, is that they be given the same consideration as is given to rail users. That is to say, where officials despatch the goods and where there are officials to receive the goods at the other end and to deliver them, they should be able also to rely on the responsibility of the Department and the Administration in paying for any loss through pilfering or otherwise. This is an important consideration because, as I pointed out, there are only about five towns in the Transkei which can rely on the rail service. All the other 21 towns and villages have to rely solely on the Road Motor Service. It is quite wrong that those users of the service in that area, in those towns and villages, and in all the neighbouring areas should be at the mercy of the Road Motor Service as far as losses are concerned.

Now, Sir, I want to ask the Minister to give further consideration to this matter, and if possible for him to-night, to tell me that he is prepared to accede to our requests and he will do no more than put the Road Motor Service on the same basis as the Railways. That is all we ask for.

There is another point I want to raise, and I make no excuse for raising it again. I have raised it every year with this Minister for the last five years. The Minister knows what it is. All I appeal to him to do, is to put his officials in the Transkei on the same basis as civil servants in the Transkei. Every year the Minister turns me down, and from my experience I now feel that this Minister is the fly in the ointment of the Cabinet. He is fly number one in the Cabinet. He was the first Minister to turn down my request, and he was the Minister who was responsible for taking those allowances away from other officials. He admitted himself in the House that, if it was true that other officials get the allowance, he would ensure that they did not. He succeeded, and the allowance was taken away from them. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Transkei, who has just sat down, suggested that if one listens to this side of the House, one can infer that the position of the farmer is a lost one; he is forgotten. I want to tell the hon. member at once that we on this side of the House put our case to the Department and to the hon. the Minister in season and out of season, but that the United Party comes here and every word they speak is meant for one thing only, and that is to try and catch votes. That is why they now want to go to the rural areas and say it is the United Party which fights for the interests of the rural areas and not the National Party. But I reject this with contempt. I reject it as coming from people who are politically bankrupt. Years ago there was an hon. member in this House, the late Mr. A. J. Werth, in his lifetime member for George, who always gave me a thrill because whenever he started a speech, he used to say that it was good to be a Nationalist.

To-night I want to say together with the late Mr. Werth it is good to be a Nationalist* because this afternoon we saw here how the United Party got a first-rate hiding from the hon. the Minister of Transport. This afternoon we saw something here and I imagined two rugby teams on the field, 15 men on the one side and one man on the other, and that one person, the hon. the Minister of Transport, ran rings round that entire team. [Interjections.]

Order!

I got a thrill when the hon. the Minister gave the United Party this hiding, but above all I got a thrill because the hon. member for Yeoville got the biggest hiding of his life. [Interjection.] I am serious. I want to tell the hon. member for Port Natal that I am serious, but I want to say this, that if the hon. member for Yeoville had been on this side of the House and had acted like a political clown, as he did here this afternoon, I would have been ashamed to be on the same side of the House as he.

You are making a mistake; you are referring to the Minister now.

I say this from my heart of hearts and from my deepest conviction that here we have a Minister who has submitted a Budget which is unassailable and beyond reproach, so much so that the hon. member for Yeoville had to sink to the lowest depths to try and make an attack on the hon. the Minister. What is more, when the hon. Minister was replying to every question put by the hon. members opposite, the hon. member for Yeoville displayed no courtesy towards the Minister at all, and sat with his back towards the Minister while he answered him, and tried to stir up this lot of United Party people.

On a point of order, Sir, is the hon. member entitled to refer to hon. members on this side of the House as “this lot of people”?

I said “this lot of United Party people”. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to warn hon. members now that they have gone far enough and I want to ask the hon. member to be more polite and to refer to “hon. members”.

I bow to your ruling, Sir, and I have been trying to do this as far as possible, but you must pardon me. Sir, if I lose control of myself when I discuss the hon. member for Yeoville here, because I do not want to follow him to the depths to which he sunk this afternoon. I just want to repeat that I am glad he does not sit on this side of the House.

I would be ashamed of doing so.

It is clear to me that there are especially four hon. members on the opposite side whom the United Party uses for this kind of work. They are the hon. members for Yeoville, Durban (Point). Port Natal and, of course, the big Chief of them all, the hon. member for Karoo. This afternoon the United Party again repeatedly said, as in the past, that this Government came forward with an increase in wages and salaries just before an election. I saw that one of the hon. members started getting scared to-night, and it seems to me they are packing up to go home.

To Bloemfontein.

It is because they expect that there is an election at hand. The hon. member for Yeoville is boasting now; he talks about Bloemfontein, but they are so spineless that they have not even put up a candidate there. We on this side of the House do not want to deny that there are grievances and Complaints among the Railway workers. In my constituency I have the second largest Railway centre in the Republic. I now say here to-night that I have never had one complaint from those Railway workers about overtime and about the exertion being required of these people by the Administration. Never. I go further and say that as a rule I do not get any complaints of a serious nature. They are in connection with promotions and transfers, etc. But this I also want to say, that whenever we have submitted those matters to the hon. the Minister and to the General Manager of the Railways, they have always turned a sympathetic ear to us. I want to say in this House to-night that the Republic of South Africa owes a debt of gratitude to every Railway man and woman in South Africa. While we are sitting here to-night and when we go to rest to-night, those people are at their posts keeping the wheels rolling across the Republic of South Africa. Then these people are bereft of their home life, of their family life, in the service of the people and of this country, South Africa. I hear hon. members laughing at this, and I can understand it because I know they do not understand these things. They do not realize these things, because they are living above these people. But I take off my hat to these people because they are rendering a service to the Republic of South Africa, and we know that this service will in future require even more from them because the process of development is continuing under this Government and the demands made upon them will be more exacting. I say we shall always be grateful to them for their sacrifices in the Service of their country and people.?

The question arises why the South African Railways has made such progress under this hon. Minister and his General Manager and his staff, and how they have succeeded in keeping pace with the rapid economic development of the country. Because of one reason: because there is a Planning Council for the Railways and because this Planning Council plans ahead for the future. They know what needs and demands will arise in the future and they plan accordingly. [Time expired.]

To-night we have had an explanation why the hon. member who has just sat down is known as “the Klip from Klin River.” It is because when you take a “klip” and throw it into a pond it sinks, arid that is where this hon. member belongs.

In the mud-pool.

This hon. member had the opportunity this evening to do something for his constituency and for the other constituencies in Natal which are represented by members of his Nationalist Party, and he left it; he deliberately ran away from it. He had the opportunity of supporting the hon. member for Transkei in his plea to the Minister with regard to road motor transport services. He ran away from it and so it is left to me, a member representing a constituency which has very little in the way of road motor transport services, to plead the case on behalf of those sections of Natal which do depend upon these services. I refer particularly to the Klip River area, Vryheid and Zululand. All that the hon. member for Transkei has said applies to those areas as well. But I want to revert to the Transkei just to bear out the argument of the hon. member and I want to draw to the attention of the hon. the Minister an occurrence which took place there recently.

An R.M.S. lorry had an accident and went over the cutting of the Umzimvubu River. Most of the goods on that lorry were damaged or destroyed or lost. There was a certain amount of salvage. That salvage was handed over to the consignees virtually with the words: “I am very sorry, but this is all we have managed to salvage for you; this is the best we can do”. The consignees submitted claims for loss on account of the damage which had occurred. At first they were told by the Administration: Sorry, there is no claim; all goods are conveyed by the R.M.S. at owner’s risk, in terms of the regulation quoted by the hon. member. They said they accepted no liability at all, but after further representations had been made, the Administration did meet them halfway. I believe one claim was for R500 and another was for R1,000, speaking in round figures. The two individual consignees that I know of were each paid half of what they claimed. But it was made clear to them by the System Manager’s Office in Durban that this was a gesture and was not to be considered a precedent and that the Administration accepted no further liability. Now I want to add to the plea of the hon. member for Transkei to the Minister and ask him whether he will not consider an amendment to the R.M.S. tariff regulations, even if that amendment only goes as far as Item 1, subparagraph (c), of the official Railway Tariff Book, under “Conditions of Carriage”, where it is laid down: “Where goods are checked by a servant of the Administration at the time of acceptance for transfer and are consigned for conveyance by rail only from a station to another station …” If we could substitute there a depot to another depot or a station to a depot, or from depot to station, it would be a concession. Some such concession should be made to users of the road motor transport services. I say this because as the hon. member for Transkei pointed out, there are many villages which are compelled to use these Road Motor Transport services because there is no railway. I want to go further. They are compelled to use these services because the R.M.T. Services hold a monopoly over the transportation of goods and passengers, to a large extent, in that area. There is no other way in which the traders in Zululand and in Vryheid and in Klip River can get their goods except by R.M.T. services. I want to add my voice to that of the hon. member for Transkei and ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not consider introducing some such amendment to his tariff charges in order to assist the traders and others in these particular areas.

Sir, I want to refer briefly now to two items in the Brown Book. The first one is item 420, Hammarsdale Waterborne Sewerage. Can the hon. the Minister tell me what the intention is here? This amount of money which is being spent seems to me to be rather a large amount bearing in mind that there have been vague rumours that there is a possibility that Hammarsdale station may be completely moved and re-established at another point. But the important question is whether he is going to introduce waterborne sewerage into septic tanks or is he going to link up with the existing sewerage works controlled by the Department of Water Affairs?

Then there is item 423, Inchanga: Improved domestic water supplies. I am very disappointed to find that the hon. the Minister is only going to spend R100 this year. This is a matter which has been brought to the notice of the Administration over a number of years, and let me say here and now that the conditions under which the employees of the Railway Administration at Inchanga are asked to live are shocking. Sir, they live in these houses with indoor sanitation provided—waterborne sewerage—but without any water. Whenever I have enquired on their behalf why this is the case, I have been told that the pump has broken down. As far as I can see that pump is broken down most of the time. Now there is an amount of R14,300 to be allocated; that is the estimated total cost, but the hon. the Minister is only going to spend R100 this year. I want to appeal to him please to spend more. But I want to go further and say to him and to the officials of his Department: Please let us have some planning, let us have some foresight in this matter. The hon. the Minister will not know it but I am sure the officials of his Department will know that Inchanga station is no more than three miles from the nearest point at which there is purified water provided at Hammarsdale by the Department of Water Affairs. I am certain that it will not cost R14,300 to bring a pipeline from that point to Inchanga to ensure that these people have a continuous supply of grade A water. When the pump is working many of these officials find it impossible even to bath, let alone to wash their clothes, because the water is filthy. This sum of R14,300 might possibly be for the introduction of a filtration and purification plant; I do not know, but as I say, let us have some foresight; let us consider the position in the long term. Let us not spend money now and then find later that we could have spent that money more wisely or we could perhaps have spent less or saved some money by getting water from a source which is secure, because, apart from the water which is at Hammarsdale at the moment I am sure the hon. the Deputy Minister or the hon. the Minister knows that water is coming to that area from Midmar Dam. If the statements we have heard are to be believed, we should have purified water into that area from Umlaas Road by the end of 1969. But in the meantime there is the water at Hammarsdale, and I do want to ask the hon. the Minister to plan properly and to ensure for these people a good permanent supply of grade A water and not the filthy red stuff which is being dished up to them now. The Administration has been compelled on many occasions to get tankers to cart in drinking water to these people because there has been nothing else for them to use.

The hon. member for Umbilo has apologised for being absent to-night and I promised him that I would reply to the few points raised by him. He wants to know whether an analysis has been made of the reasons for the resignations that we have from the Railway service. Well, an analysis has not been made of the reasons for all the resignations but enquiries are very often made to ascertain why certain servants resigned from the Service. There are many and various reasons. Some resign because they do not like shiftwork. Some resign because they do not like to work over the weekends; they want a five-day week. Some resign because they think that the prospects of promotion are not encouraging. Some resign because they think that their wages are not high enough. There are numerous reasons for the resignations. As a matter of fact, when I was in Bloemfontein a short while ago the System Manager told me that he was losing quite a number of firemen. He said that a few days earlier he had called in one of these young men and asked him why he was resigning and where he was going. The young man told him that he had got a job as a lorry driver outside the Service. The System Manager asked him what he would be paid, and he replied that his pay would be R105 per month. The System Manager pointed out to him that he was earning over R200 per month at the present moment. The young man replied, “That makes no difference. I have to work at night; I have to work on Saturdays and Sundays. I am not married. I have a girl friend and I have to get my boy friend to take out my girl friend. If I get this job as a lorry driver, I will be home every night; I will be working a five-day week and I will be able to take out my girl friend myself.”

He has a point there.

I must say that in my days I did not worry about working at night or on Saturdays and Sundays. I still found an opportunity of taking out my girl friend.

The hon. member suggested that when railwaymen resigned they should be paid only a portion of their pension money; that the balance should be retained and that when they re-entered the Service, this balance should be credited to their pension fund. I am afraid I cannot accede to this request. First of all, these people very often resign to enable them to get their pension contributions back; they have piled up debts which they want to pay. Although we have a Benevolent Fund from which we grant loans under certain conditions, they nevertheless resign just to get back their pension moneys; they then pay their debts or use the money for whatever purpose they had in mind and then they re-join the Service. The rule is that when you re-join the Service you have to start at the bottom of the ladder, in the interests of the other servants. If I had to start a man again on the grade which he occupied when he resigned, the rest of the railway servants would object very strongly; they would point out that they were loyal, that they remained in their jobs and that this man who resigned is now being reinstated in the same post which he occupied before he resigned; in other words, he is blocking the promotion of many other men who are loyal to the Administration and who are in line for promotion to fill the vacancy caused by this man’s resignation.

Do you consider special cases?

Very seldom; it all depends on the circumstances. As I say, that is the general rule, and I have very strong support from the Railway servants for this particular policy. We do not link up the man’s periods of service either. Once he has resigned he is treated as a new entrant to the Service and he has to start right at the bottom.

Then the hon. member spoke about Sick Lund levies paid by pensioners. As the hon member knows, the Sick Fund is controlled by the staff. They make the recommendation in regard to the levies to be paid by both pensioners and servants. The idea of the levy is not so much to stop malingering; it is really to stop abuse of medical services which they get for an extremely small contribution. For the sum of as little as R5 a month a married man with a family gets free medical services for himself and his family. They get free medicine and free hospitalisation and they can even undergo an operation that would cost a private person R500 or R600 and it would cost them nothing. I think this is one of the best fringe benefits that any employee can have. The Sick Fund introduced these levies which are also paid by pensioners but, as I stated in my reply to a question which the hon. member asked some time ago, if pensioners find that this is a hardship they can always apply to the District Sick Fund for a concession.

*The hon. member for Prieska pleaded for a railway line to be built from Postmasburg to Boegoeberg, in other words, the same plea as that advanced by the hon. member for Parow. I have given a full reply to that. I just want to add that the Railways does not make a profit on the transportation of agricultural products. In other words, if I had to rely on the transportation of ore and agricultural products over that railway line which would have to be built from Postmasburg via Upington to Boegoeberg, a railway line the cost of which is estimated at R250 million, the revenue which would be derived from that line would not even be sufficient to cover the interest on the capital. Therefore, unless the Government is prepared to guarantee the losses which will be incurred on this railway line, I unfortunately cannot accede to that plea. Hon. members will appreciate that if I should lose heavily on that particular railway line, I would have to recover that revenue from other users of the Railways; in other words, I would then have to increase the tariffs in order to be compensated for the revenue I would lose on the operation of this railway line, and I do not think that would be in the interests of the country.

†The hon. member for East London North complained about the bad train service to East London. That is an old complaint. I have heard it many times and I agree with him that the service is not always the best but as we get new coaches the service will be improved. The trouble with the dining-car facilities is that we do not get sufficient support from the passengers. After all, those hon. members would be the first to complain if there were deficits and rates had to be increased. Consequently I have to reduce expenditure by not providing dining-car facilities when those facilities are not patronised by the passengers. The hon. member is quite right in saying that the European coaches are not always on the platforms, but as the hon. member knows the non-European coaches are marshalled in front of the train, and if the locomotive has to take in water at a particular station then the non-European coaches unfortunately are on the platform while the European coaches are off the platform.

But these are Diesels.

It may be that the loops are too short and that the Diesel cannot pull far enough ahead to get the European coaches on to the platform. [Interjections.] I say that that might be the position. I have not travelled there myself.

The platforms are too short.

Yes, all these platforms are too short for long trains; the hon. member is quite right, but to lengthen all the platforms right throughout the country where they are too short, would cost a considerable amount and I do not think that that is justified by the number of passengers travelling on these trains.

The hon. member wants me to construct a line from Matatiele to Maclear. That is also one of those very nice things that one cannot do because of the cost and the losses that would be suffered on that line. I know that it would assist the agricultural community if they could get their market at Durban much closer to them and if they could get faster transport of their goods but it would cost a considerable amount to construct the line and the line would be quite uneconomic. I am afraid therefore that I cannot consider it at this stage. Perhaps at some future date, in 50 years’ time, if the United Party should come into office, they might consider it.

It will be a very short fifty years.

Well, the hon. member has hopes.

*The hon. member for Koedoespoort spoke about the bedding servants who sweep the dirt through the doorway on to the track and he suggested that plastic containers be provided. I shall ask the Management to go into this matter. He also asked that leave with full pay be granted to Railway servants who do voluntary military service. I am afraid I cannot agree to this. Railway servants who do compulsory military service do, in fact, get paid and I am considering it very strongly to change the position in this respect too, because many of these young people join the Railways a month or two before being called up for military service. They then do military service for nine months and receive full pay. After that they are supposed to remain in the service of the Railways for an equal length of time, but they do not do so. All the Management can do, is to issue summons against them for the repayment of that money, something which is a bother and a nuisance and which often is not successful. In other words, many of the young men take advantage of the fact that they get their full wages or salary for the period they are doing compulsory military service. As I say, I am considering it strongly to change the position in this respect. As far as the question of air pollution at Koedoespoort is concerned, to which the hon. member also referred, I am informed that the matter is being investigated at the moment. This investigation is being carried out in conjunction with the C.S.I.R. I agree with the hon. member that the amount of air pollution at Koedoespoort can be very unpleasant. In any case, this investigation is being carried out at the moment in an attempt to prevent it.

The hon. member for Outeniqua said he hoped I had not forgotten the Coloured workers as far as the latest wage increases were concerned. I can assure him that I have not forgotten them. Proportionately, they will get a good increase, an increase which will also amount to approximately 8 per cent on their basic wages. The amount they will receive in cash will be more than that of the Bantu because, as the hon. member knows, the Coloureds earn higher wages than the Bantu. He also asked for the posts at present occupied by Coloureds on a temporary basis to be converted into permanent ones. Attention is already being given to this matter— in fact, some of the posts, particularly those which we know we shall not be able to fill with Whites, have already been so converted.

The hon. member for Germiston asked that Railway houses be renovated at more regular intervals and that something be done to beautify the surroundings. As the hon. member quite rightly pointed out, we have a schedule in this connection, which lays down that houses should be renovated after certain periods. Of course, a great deal depends on the occupants. For example, it has never yet been necessary to renovate or paint out the study of my house in Pretoria, which I have occupied for the past twenty years. You see, Sir, it is being kept clean.

It seems to me you do not study enough!

What I do not do, is to study with my hands against the wall. In any case, as I have said, whether a house is kept clean or not depends largely on who occupies that house. Some people can move into a clean house and after six months that house will be dirty and filthy. Others, again, can stay in a house for years and the house will remain clean and tidy. But, as I have said, we have a schedule according to which houses are renovated. Renovations are carried out automatically after certain fixed periods. As far as the beautification of the surroundings is concerned, I do not know how it can be done. In any ease, I shall ask the Management to go into the matter.

†The hon. member for Albany asked for a reduction in the tariffs applicable to agricultural products, especially to wool. Can the hon. member tell me what is the average price of a pound of wool to-day?

About 30 cents I should say.

Does the hon. member know that from Middelburg to Port Elizabeth the railage charges on a pound of wool are a little more than ½ cent a pound?

But you increased the railage charge when a pound of wool was about 80 cents.

I am trying to indicate what the present tariff is. This I do not think can be regarded as exorbitant. When one gets 30 cents a pound of wool and only has to pay ½ cent for its transport from Middelburg to Port Elizabeth, I think that particular traffic can bear those tariffs. The hon. member must realize that there are many other agricultural products that are being transported at a loss. The hon. member must also realize that more concessions are made by the S.A. Railways to farmers in South Africa than any other railway system in the world. He must also remember that the Schumann Commission recommended that the gap between low-rated and high-rated traffic must be closed, low-rated traffic being mostly agricultural produce. That recommendation means that the tariffs applicable to low-rated traffic must be increased and those applicable to high rated traffic reduced. Let me tell the hon. member that I am very sympathetic towards the farming community.

Are you going to increase agricultural rates?

No. As I was saying, I am very sympathetic towards the farmers, and I have always done my best to assist them. You see, I am a farmer myself—at least I was one for 25 years until my foreman nearly made me bankrupt.

Was the railage too high?

No. I was a dairy farmer and as such the Railways did not affect me at all. What affected me was the foreman I employed. But, as I said, I have a lot of sympathy for the farmers and I help them where I can. The hon. member is aware in what way we assist farmers with the transport of their drought-stricken stock, the transport of fertilizers, of fodder, and many other items. These to-day are subsidized by the Central Government whereas this had to be done by the Railways in the past. But while our approach to the farming community as a whole is very sympathetic I cannot consider any reduction in the tariffs at the moment especially in view of the fact that I have budgeted for a deficit of approximately R24 million. [Interjections.]

Why did you blush like that?

I am not blushing. Of course, I hope that the deficit can be reduced. That again depends on our economy. For instance, if we can get any benefit from the sale of gold on the free market it might be a tremendous spur to our economy. If that comes to pass it may be said to be another “fortuitous circumstance”.

*The hon. member for Pietersburg spoke about the facilities at Ladanna. I understand he has already made representations in this respect to the Management and that the matter is bein ginvestigated. In addition, he asked that a railway line be built to Drendon. Such a railway line will, however, be quite uneconomic. I know that part of the world— all there is, is cattle.

And potatoes.

Surely one cannot build a railway line merely for the transportation of cattle and potatoes.

The hon. member for Transkei asked that the same regulations which are applicable to the transport of goods by rail should be made applicable to the transport of goods by R.M.S. All goods transported by the R.M.S. are transported at owners’ risk. It is so that some of these goods are transported from one manned station to another manned station. At the same time, however, a tremendous amount is picked up and put down at places where there is nobody at all. That is why these goods are transported at owners’ risk. However, the Administration will make an ex gratia payment for losses or damage which can be proved to be the responsibility of the Administration. In such cases the Administration will make an ex gratia payment without, however, admitting any liability. But I have nevertheless asked the General Manager to investigate this matter to see what can be done in this regard.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) in supporting the hon. member for Transkei …

What about my officials?

Well, I have given a reply to that over and over again. The hon. member knows that repetition is odious. Why then does he want me to repeat what I have said before?

You have, therefore, not yet changed your mind?

No.

What about their loyalty?

I admire them for their loyalty—that is why I have just given them an increase in salary. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) when speaking in support of the hon. member for Transkei spoke about a R.M.S. monopoly. Let me tell the hon. member that there are many of these R.M.S. services I would gladly hand over to private enterprise—as a matter of fact, the majority of these services are being run at a loss. We are running many of these services to a large extent in the interests of the agricultural community only. We provide them with a means of transport even if we have to do it at a loss. And yet they would still make use of their private means of transport whenever they have a opportunity—as a matter of fact, they would even hire private transport while they know the road motor services are there, and that this service is being provided for them at a loss to the Railways.

Would they hire it if they were able to get the service they require?

They hire it because the private operator can run the service far more cheaply than the Railways can. He hires a native driver and pays him about a third of the wage I would have to pay a white man. Of course they can operate it much more cheaply because our overheads are higher. He can therefore transport the goods far more cheaply than we can with the road motor services.

Will you oppose them if they make an application to provide road motor services?

Where the road motor service is run at a loss, I will be only too pleased to hand that route over to private enterprise. Hon. members know that I feel the same way about air services. I have offered private enterprise some of my air service routes, for instance the feeder services. Up to now no one has been prepared to undertake it.

The hon. member also asked me about the sewerage at Hammarsdale. I want to say that has been linked up with the water scheme there. At Inchanga the water supply is being improved. R100 has been provided for this purpose this year and I will find out from the Management what the prospects are of speeding it up.

Heads put and agreed to.

Heads Nos. 18 to 25,—Harbours, R24,615,000 (Revenue Funds—Main and Supplementary) and Head No. 5,—R7,886,400 (Capital and Betterment Works).

Mr. Chairman, when we were discussing the motion to go into committee of supply, I dealt with a subject which I consider very important in South Africa. This hon. Minister did not reply to it at all. I am referring to Richard’s Bay.

The question of Richard’s Bay will be discussed tomorrow afternoon when we discuss the construction of a railway line to Richard’s Bay. That is why I did not reply to your questions. The hon. member will have the opportunity of discussing it to-morrow.

The hon. the Minister did not tell me this.

If the hon. member looks at the Order Paper he will see that we are to discuss the Railway Construction Bill to-morrow afternoon. The hon. member can discuss Richard’s Bay then.

Mr. Chairman, I know that there is a Bill before this House for the construction of a railway line from Empangeni to Richard’s Bay. I do not, however, want to talk about the railway line. I want to talk about the harbour at Richard’s Bay, which is a totally different matter.

I have no objection to the hon. member discussing it now, but I said that he would have the opportunity to discuss it to-morrow afternoon.

On the contrary, I think that I would be ruled out of order if I discussed it to-morrow afternoon. The questions I have asked do not concern the railway line at all. The Bill will confine me to a discussion of the construction of the railway line. The questions I want to ask concern the development of Richard’s Bay as a harbour. I raised in this debate particularly this matter because it is obviously being looked to as the solution to many of South Africa’s problems.

Carry on. I will reply to the hon. member just now.

I intend to carry on because this is the only place I can raise these points. I refer to this matter as the solution to many of South Africa’s problems. This hon. Minister has also implied this. I asked him to remove some of the doubts in this regard. I now want to refresh his memory. The first point I asked him to deal with was whether the construction of No. 2 pier in Durban is in any way going to hold up the development of Richard’s Bay harbour.

No.

I then asked him when Richard’s Bay harbour would come into operation. Thirdly, I asked him whether it would cater for dry cargo ships as well as tankers. I then suggested to him that he might well consider making provision for the servicing of these tankers and large ships at Richard’s Bay harbour. I suggested to him that he might well consider the possibility of constructing docking facilities for these ships as they have to go there. The harbour must be constructed at a size and depth to accommodate these ships in a fully laden state. I think that this is quite an intelligent point put to the Minister. I thought that he would therefore have dealt with it because it might well solve some of the problems with which he is faced at the moment. As long ago as 1965, the President of Lloyds warned that more and more of these ships would be built and travel around the Cape. The hon. the Minister knows as well as I do that in the years to come, that unless you can transport your cargo in ships of this kind, you will not be able to compete on world markets because they are knocking the bottom out of freight rates. As this hon. Minister knows, in some cases they are dividing the freight rates by 4 or 5 and so reducing them to a quarter or a fifth of what they are at the moment, depending on the size of the ship. These ships are therefore obviously going to get bigger. I know that this brings problems but these are the things we must face up to. We must face up to them now and not wait as we always do until the problem is with us. We must deal with this problem now. We must try in this regard and in regard to containerization, in respect of which some steps have already been taken, to be a jump ahead. Now, that is the point, Sir, and I want the hon. the Minister please to give us all the information at his disposal, now, so that we know where we stand, not only as a Parliamentary Opposition, but he must remember that upon the information that he gives now commerce, industry, our mining industry and our farming industry are all going to plan for the future. He is going to set the trend. You will remember one of the persons I quoted to him, was Mr. Keyter, the Chairman of the Mealie Board, who is obviously looking forward to Richard’s Bay as the point of export for the huge surplus of the Mealie Board. He has made a statement in that regard. Unless he can export them in this particular type of Bulk Carrier, he cannot hope to compete on the world market and dispose of the extra maize crop. That is the first point I want to get at.

Secondly, I want to ask the hon. the Minister this: In the Brown Book he has provided for stage one of the development of Table Bay Harbour. He has provided quite a big sum of money. This is at the moment before a committee, which this hon. Minister himself appointed. I want to know if the inclusion of this amount in the Brown Book means that he has already made up his mind, or whether he has put this up so that it can be transferred to another scheme that the committee recommended. I think we should have this information at this stage.

Thirdly, in the time I have I want to take up a question which the hon. member for Yeoville raised in connection with railways. I want to raise this same point in connection with harbours. This is the question of staff fatigue. This hon. Minister has had plenty of warnings. The hon. member for South Coast raised the question of a tanker that nearly ran away the other day in Durban harbour, and thanks to a member of this hon. Minister’s staff quite a terrible disaster was diverted, I know because I know who the man was who handled it. But, Sir, I want to warn this hon. Minister right now, and I want to know what steps he is taking in connection with this problem in our harbours. You know, ships do not stop when you put your foot on the brakes; ships have to be manoeuvred. Just let me read a little quotation from what the chairman of his own Harbour Board in Durban, Mr. Douglas Tilly said on the 23rd April:

Then he gave the number of ships that were being handled.

I want to make this point very clearly at the moment, because this position is not lessening. The Suez problem has not been solved, and it is obvious that the longer it remains so, the longer it is going to take to resolve it. Because every moment, every day, that the canal is not used, it silts up more and more. Even if it is decided to-morrow to open the canal, this hon. Minister knows that it is going to take a long, long time before it is restored to normal. I can see no relief in the foreseeable future for the staff working our harbours. I think that this hon. Minister must make an all out effort now to see that this staff fatigue factor is dealt with and overcome. It is all very well for the hon. the Minister to say that they can refuse to work overtime and that they can do all these sort of things. He then talks about their loyalty. Of course, loyalty alone will make them work. Can you imagine any member of his staff on the Harbours or on the Railways refusing to work overtime? Can you imagine what will happen to them after that?

I know that in certain of the Railways sheds the running foreman would tell one of his workmen: So you will not work overtime? And that man then never gets anymore overtime. He is penalized in many ways and the hon. the Minister knows as well as I do how it is done. He has no control over it. People do not refuse to work overtime, for reasons of loyalty and other factors. They go on working. But it is this hon. Minister’s job to see that this fatigue factor does not go on for too long. [Time expired.]

I want this evening to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention again to a problem of which I am sure he must be very well aware, namely the underutilization of the harbours at East London and Port Elizabeth. We have heard a lot about the building of a new harbour at Richard’s Bay. We have heard about the extensions that are envisaged at Cape Town and Durban. I have nothing against that. But it must surely be a source of inefficiency and loss to the Administration if these two ports that I have mentioned are being under used. This under-utilization is not a new development. It has been going on for a long time. Recently the hon. the Minister has built an avoiding line from Chiselhurst down to the East London harbour. A grain elevator was also built there as more grain exports and mealie exports are going through that harbour. But as long ago as October, 1966, the chairman of the East London Industrial Development Committee was on record as having said that this harbour, namely East London, works at only about 35 to 40 per cent capacity and that block trains of empty trucks are returned from East London daily. “This was bad uneconomic business.” If one looks at page 47 of the General Manager’s report one will see that the graph on that page shows that since 1949-’50 up to 1966-’67 there has not been a very big increase in the tonnages of cargo handled at East London. Last year there was in fact a decrease over the previous year in virtually every category— such as ships handled, gross tonnage, passengers and harbour tonnage at a time when most of the other harbours were showing increases in nearly all these categories. At the same time we had this position of recurring congestion and delay at Cape Town and Durban. The latest example of that was in last night’s newspaper under the heading “The Port squeeze is back”. The article reads inter alia—

This imbalance has been worse since the Suez crisis and it was aggrevated in the early days of the Suez crisis by the fact that at Port Elizabeth and I understand also at East London, bunkering facilities were not available. Because what happened at Port Elizabeth was that the oil pipeline to the bunkering points passed over an iron bridge—which I understand was Railway property—in the Baakaans River Valley and that when that bridge was demolished the pipes were not reconnected or replaced. I believe that for several months after the Suez crisis arose they were not replaced and as a result no bunkering was available there, but only at Durban and Cape Town. I have a newspaper cutting here which states that the port captain of Cape Town recently said he thought a considerable volume of rerouted ships now calling at Cape Town would benefit by going to Port Elizabeth. That was in June of 1967. He said ships would probably be able to get their oil more quickly if they went to Port Elizabeth. The Railways’ January summary of shipping and cargo dealt with showed that only 25 of the 3,072 diverted ships visited Port Elizabeth as against 1,750 that touched on at Durban and 1,322 at Cape Town. I do not know what the causes of this disparity in numbers are, and how far it lies within the hon. the Minister’s power to remedy this situation. Nevertheless, I want to ask the Minister whether this matter could not receive attention because perhaps the supply of bunker fuel at Port Elizabeth is limited. Or is the reason one which has come to my ears, namely that ships can bunker more cheaply at Durban, namely at R1 per ton less? I should like to hear the reasons from the Minister and perhaps he can tell us what he can do to remedy the situation, and what he intends doing about it.

Obviously the Railways must be suffering losses because the trains go down to the ports with full trucks and they return empty. I presume this is also the case at Port Elizabeth where the ore trains go fully loaded down to the port and return empty. Again this state of affairs must involve the Administration in losses.

I want to ask the Minister to consider one further point. It is very unsatisfactory to have the overwhelming bulk of facilities concentrated at one or two ports. In times of peace such a state of affairs merely causes the Administration financial loss, but in times of war it can be very dangerous for the country indeed. This matter takes on extra importance in these days of modern weapons and in time of war the principle of dispersal is always a very sound one. However, the necessary planning must be done in peacetime; otherwise we might be caught on the wrong foot if hostilities should break out. I hope the Minister is giving attention to this problem and I would be very glad to hear from him what he has in mind to solve it.

Mr. Chairman, there is one final point which I think must be raised in this committee and it ties up with a matter which the hon. the Minister dealt with last year. He referred to something which applies to Cape Town harbour in particular, but what I want to say really refers to all our harbours. He said it did not pay him really to have the local harbour working regularly at night because night working was expensive. He is so right, because it is indeed very expensive. The Minister can make all the arrangements he likes, he can bring the ships alongside the quays in good time, he can have the railway trucks or other vehicles on the wharfside to either bring the cargo to these ships, or convey it away from the ships, but there is one connecting link between the quay and the ship, and this is where I believe the Minister and his department have failed miserably. That connecting link is the crane and the crane driver who has to transfer the goods from the quay to the ship, or vice versa, whichever way it happens to be. This Minister has failed to create a set of conditions which makes the moving of that cargo go smoothly and rapidly. I want to bring to the Minister’s notice that in this port of Cape Town there have been occasions when, during a whole night’s operations less than 100 tons of cargo have been transferred between wharf and ship. Why is that? It is because that connecting link has broken down. The hon. member for Port Natal quoted to us yesterday cases he knows of crane drivers having had to work 84 hours in one week. I believe 82 hours per week is quite common. The Minister can correct me if he likes, because I have not gone into the figures. One thing I do know is that, to the best of my knowledge, crane drivers are working exceptionally long hours. These men are getting fed up, and they are one of the weakest links in the whole harbour set-up. This is not their own fault, because the conditions under which they have to work are not right and they do not lend themselves to the proper working of our harbours.

I want the Minister to tell us what he is doing about this problem. I do not know of one shipping company or agent in this country who does not have a grouse about this particular weak link, perhaps the weakest link of all in the harbour complex. I sincerely hope the Minister will tell us of some positive approach which he has in mind and which will contribute to the restoring of this link to its full strength so that the smooth workings of the harbours can go on. I believe if he can do that, he will have gone quite a long way to speed up the working of the ships that use our ports. Of course, this does not apply to ships like tankers and vessels that use the grain elevators. That is obvious. But it applies to every other ship that loads or discharges in our ports. I believe this problem has to be faced.

Now, I do not want the hon. the Minister to turn around and say I am criticizing the crane drivers, and I do not want him to think that I am. However, I believe these are matters which we have to face, because there is no sense in running away from them. I think the Minister probably knows as well as I do that this is a weak link and I sincerely hope he can tell us to-night of some positive plan which is going to change the picture relating to the loading and unloading of our ships.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is quite impracticable for me to reply to every point that every hon. member raises during the Budget debate. Certain points should not be raised during a Budget debate at all because it is more appropriate to do so in Committee. As regards the points raised by the hon. member concerning Richard’s Bay, he can or could raise them when the Construction Bill is before the House.

I raised them yesterday.

I know, I said the hon. member could raise them then, and that is why I did not reply to those points yesterday. But apart from that if I do not reply to every point raised, hon. members will have the opportunity of raising them again during committee.

The hon. member asked several questions in regard to Richard’s Bay. He wanted to know when the harbour will come into operation. If the hon. member had read the Railways and Harbours Report, he would have had that information.

I want it from you though.

Good heavens! The hon. member has got it in black and white in the report, for which I am responsible. He can even take it home with him. In that report it says it will take two years to complete the tests. The construction of the harbour will probably start in about two years’ time, namely by 1971. How long it will take to complete I do not know. There is no estimate at the present time. I have also said before that planning is taking place at the present time. I have also said that Richard’s Bay will mainly cater for bulk cargoes and for oil. I do not for a moment say a grain elevator is going to be built there for the export of maize. If maize is exported as a bulk cargo the port must have a grain elevator, otherwise it cannot be done. Provision is being made in the planning for a grain elevator. Provision will be made for the export of bulk cargo, for ores and coal and that type of commodity. That is mainly why Richard’s Bay is being developed. It is also being planned as a deep-sea harbour so that the biggest tankers and biggest bulk carriers can be accommodated there. I have said that before too. The hon. member must just remember what I say and must not always ask the same questions year after year.

Yes, but you change your mind sometimes.

Well, I do change my mind when it is necessary, of course, because I have not got a one-track mind.

We help you to change it sometimes.

Yes, you help me to change my mind … I will not reply to that.

A graving dock is also being planned, big enough to take tankers of 200,000 and 300,000 tons. I realize the importance of such a dock. I do not know whether the hon. member is aware of this, but according to predictions these giant tankers will not make use of Suez, even when Suez is open again.

They cannot.

Nasser said he is going to widen and deepen the Suez canal, but I have been informed by people who should know that the dues will be so high that it will be more economical for the tankers from the Persian Gulf to come around the Cape.

That is my information too.

Well, this time the hon. member has the same information as I have. Richard’s Bay will be on their route. If a dock is eventually provided then repairs can be effected there. I do not say I am going to build that dock; I said I was planning for it. It all depends on when it will become necessary, not when it becomes economically possible but when it will be feasible to build such a dock. In any case, as I said, it is being planned for. I cannot give any indication when it will be constructed.

Saldanha could not carry another one then, could it?

No, of course not. That is why I am not concerned about Saldanha. I have no intentions whatsoever of developing Saldanha at the present time. Richard’s Bay is the bay which will be developed as a deep-sea harbour to cater for all the bigger ships, for the export of bulk cargoes, and also for the import of oil. That is why the new pipeline is being built up to Richard’s Bay. From there it will branch off to the Rand, so that when Richard’s Bay harbour is in operation the oil pipeline can be connected to Richard’s Bay and oil can be discharged from the ships there. All these things are being planned. I said so before and I thought the hon. member would remember these things.

You will have to put a grain elevator there too, by the looks of it.

Perhaps eventually, yes. Perhaps my successor will do it. I suppose, in the years to come. It all depends on the maize crops.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member should have paid a tribute to my people in the harbours for the very excellent job of work they have been doing since the closure of Suez.

I have never ceased doing that.

The hon. member has not done so during this debate.

I am going to talk again to-morrow.

I hope the hon. member remembers to pay a tribute to those people, because, in all seriousness, I really think they deserve praise.

As regards the provision made in the Brown Book for the new Table Bay harbour scheme, of course that can be utilized for any harbour scheme in Table Bay harbour or in Table Bay as such.

It is put in as stage one of the Table Bay scheme.

Yes, but that can be transferred. If it is decided to build the harbour at Rietvlei, which I doubt, then it can be transferred. I must have it in the Brown Book so that if I get the committee’s report in time there will be no delay in starting off with the project. That is why I have made provision for it.

You are not making up the committee’s mind for it?

I think it would be most improper for me to do that. Doesn’t the hon. member think so too?

Well, I am not really serious … [Interjections.]

I said I think it would be most improper for me to try to make up the committee’s mind.

Order! The hon. member is making a running commentary on this debate and I think it is about time he stopped it.

The hon. member also spoke about the fatigue of the harbour staff. It is quite inevitable now that they have to work long hours. One thing which I think the hon. member does know is that one cannot recruit pilots off the streets. Our pilots are well-trained men and those who are in my service are doing an excellent job of work. I know there must be some fatigue, but so far they have not really complained about it. No doubt the hon. member also realizes that the diverting of ships from Suez is but a temporary matter. It might last another three or six months, but Suez cannot be permanently closed, because Egypt cannot afford to have it permanently closed. The Canal will have to re-open. When that happens, a very large number of these diverted ships will again make use of the Canal.

I have no knowledge of these very long hours which the crane drivers are supposed to be working at the present time. There is a bit of congestion in the harbour but that is entirely due to the reluctance of the commercial community to clear their goods. The General Manager has again issued a warning to them. The trouble with these people is they do not do their part of the work and then they blame the Railways for delays and congestion. Only the other day the General Manager again told me the sheds are full of goods which are not being cleared by the commercial community. If they cleared their goods, there would be no congestion at all. As a matter of fact, I have received no complaints for a considerable time now as regards delays in the delivery of goods from the harbour.

The hon. member for Albany wanted to know whether there is not a possibility of greater utilization of the harbours of East London and Port Elizabeth. I cannot compel shipowners or ships’ masters to make use of Port Elizabeth and East London in preference to Cape Town and Durban. It is entirely up to them. They have the facilities there and I would be only too pleased if ships made more use of Port Elizabeth and East London because it will ease the congestion in the other harbours. But, as I say, it is entirely up to those people and I am afraid I cannot do anything about the matter. I think I have now replied to all matters raised.

Heads put and agreed too.

Heads Nos. 28 to 30,—Airways, R59,565,000 (Revenue Funds—Main and Supplementary) and Head No. 6, R6,376,000 (Capital and Betterment Works).

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with some of the internal services of the S.A.A., particularly the feeder services, the ones which the hon. the Minister mentioned earlier this evening. I think he said that because they were not paying, he had offered them to private enterprise, but hitherto there had been no takers. I want to deal particularly with the service which is known colloquially as “the milkrun”, I think, namely the Dakota service from Cape Town to Oudtshoorn, George, Plettenberg Bay, Port Elizabeth, Grahamstown, East London and Queenstown. There are flights up twice a week, namely on Tuesdays and Fridays, and return flights on the following days. Over week-ends there is a restricted service up to Port Elizabeth. I was told that at one time the feeder services were losing something like R400,000 per year. I do not know whether that is correct, and I hope the Minister will give us the figure because no relevant detailed figures are contained in the publications which the Minister has made available. There have also been rumours that this service might be withdrawn at some time unless it was better patronized.

I want to urge the hon. the Minister not to withdraw this service because many of the local authorities have invested money in aerodromes and in fact in the case of my own town, namely Grahamstown, the local municipality at the moment is busy constructing a terminal for this service. These services keep the smaller towns on the map and they help to counteract the tendency for businessmen, civil servants and others to want to go only to those places where the jet aircraft land. Of course, this tendency is very much to the detriment of our smaller towns. I want to suggest to the Minister that he should consider running this service on a different basis.

Mr. Chairman, in the first instance I feel the Minister is using the wrong aircraft. S.A.A. have, I believe, four Dakotas left, which are the aircraft used on the service under discussion, and I have no doubt that those aircraft can still be used for a very long time indeed. Indeed, they are almost ever-lasting aircraft. If it is true that the service is being underutilized and there are not enough passengers between some of the points, then I want to suggest to the Minister that those aircraft are too large for that particular job. As we know, they are built to carry 21 passengers. I understand that at certain times the average passengers load between some of those points is very low indeed, something like 1½ passengers. Moreover, those aircraft are slow with a cruising speed of only 175 m.p.h. Finally, they cannot be used on the Port Elizabeth/Cape Town route at night time because the ICAO regulations for that route specify a minimum safety height of 9,500 feet at night and the single engine performance of these aircraft is not adequate at that particular height.

Progress reported.

When we adjourned last night, I was suggesting to the hon. the Minister that on the feeder services where he is using Dakota aircraft, he was perhaps using aircraft which were not entirely suitable for the purpose because these Dakotas are designed to carry some 21 passengers, whereas so many passengers are not always available and the aircraft are sometimes half empty; secondly, because the Dakotas are slow, with a cruising speed of 175 miles per hour, and lastly, because their single-engined performance is not sufficient to comply with the regulations for the particular route between Port Elizabeth and Cape Town. I suggested to the hon. the Minister that he should consider using a smaller aircraft on these routes and that he might perhaps step up the number of flights. The hon. the Minister is already doing this on another feeder service, namely the route Upington-Keetmanshoop-Windhoek, which he is operating …

Not any more.

… which he has been operating up to the end of this month at any rate, according to the official timetable, in collaboration with the Suidwes-Lugdiens, using six-passenger seat Aztec aircraft. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that that or a similar aircraft—and there are such aircraft on the market—would be more suitable for his purpose. There are, for example, what are commonly known today as mini-liners carrying, say, eight passengers or a ton of cargo and able to be converted quickly from passenger-carrying to cargo-carrying, which have a better cruising speed than the Dakota. One particular aircraft has a maximum cursing speed of about 270 miles per hour, and probably a normal cruising speed of round about 235. which is 60 miles per hour faster than the Dakota itself. Those aircraft are able to land on most of our South African country aerodromes and on most of our air strips. This is an important point as they should be able to land on a normal grass runway, because it is quite impossible or impracticable for the smaller municipalities to provide tarmac runways costing between R300,000 and R400,000. Even where the State may perhaps contribute 90 per cent of the cost, it still means that the municipality concerned would have to put up about R30,000 or R40,000 itself for a runway costing between R300,000 and R400,000. The position as regards these smaller towns is that their airfields will have to remain grass airfields and this, of course, eliminates the idea of using jet or turbo-prop aircraft on those airfields. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister also that if he were to step up the flights on this particular service I have mentioned, he would probably get more passengers because the service will then be more regular. I refer, of course, to the service running from Cane Town to Port Elizabeth/ Grahamstown/Queenstown/East London. The fact that it is only operated twice a week and that the return flight takes place the next day in each case, militates against its being used regularly by passengers.

I also want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that with faster, smaller aircraft he could perhaps extend that service to other towns as well. He could, for example, link up Queenstown with Bloemfontein, and passengers could then return via Beaufort West to Cape Town, which would give the Eastern Cape a direct route up to Bloemfontein instead of passengers first having to fly to East London or to Port Elizabeth. It would also provide the very large Karoo area, which at present is not being served at all, with a landing point at Beaufort West. Sir, just as the 727’s and the Viscounts are to-day the feeder aircraft for the international services of the 707’s—and in future the jumbo jets—which operate from Jan Smuts, so these local services are the feeders for the 727 service. I would ask the hon. the Minister to consider this very seriously indeed, because I am certain that if he were to use smaller aircraft and introduce a more frequent service—say three times a week instead of twice a week as it is at the moment—he would find that the number of passengers using those services would increase.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to agree with the hon. member who spoke before me in so far as he made certain suggestions in regard to our feeder air services. I think we should take a wider view of this matter. I think the time is ripe for us to consider this entire matter from every point of view. I think we must investigate all the aspects of feeder air services. At the moment we have the Marais Commission which is going to bring out a report on the co-ordination of traffic. However, I think the time has now come for us to have a more specific investigation instituted into the entire matter of feeder air services. In the past this type of service has often been uneconomical. Periodic attempts have been made to establish such air services in South Africa, but up to now the economic problems which cropped up, have always been the stumbling block. I therefore foresee that we will at first have to plan in the direction of State aid for a feeder air service. This should be done in very close co-operation with the S.A.A., and can subsequently be transferred to private entrepreneurs. The hon. the Minister has already stated here, yesterday in fact, that he would gladly transfer these services to private entrepreneurs. It would therefore be possible, at a later stage, to transfer them to private entrepreneurs in their entirety. Initially however there will have to be State assistance, and Government planning for the most part.

I should also like to bring a few other matters to the attention of the hon. the Minister. The flight personnel of the S.A.A. are a small group of people, but they are key men. They are irreplaceable. Training them is an expensive process. That is why, seen from the point of view of the S.A.A., it is extremely important that we should not lose the accumulated knowledge of these people, people whose services have been obtained with difficulty and over long periods of time, particularly when this knowledge is often indispensable . These people retire when they reach the age of 50 years, and they can elect to carry on until they are 55. In Canada and the U.S.A., a pilot can elect to stay on until he is 60 years old, provided he is medically fit. I should like to see this aspect being investigated in the S.A.A. as well. We have pilots who at the age of 55 are still quite fit and 100 per cent capable medically-speaking. They are people whose services can still be utilized. I am thinking in particular of another use to which we can put these men, that is, to utilize their services as flight training personnel, as instructors for pilots of the S.A.A. When these men have reached the age of 55 years they are usually senior captains, and of course they have a tremendous amount of experience. That experience cannot be allowed to go to waste as far as the S.A.A. is concerned. That is why I should like to see them being appointed as ground training personnel as special compensation for the task which they have fulfilled. Then the medical aspect does not enter the picture at all. They can serve as ground instructors for the purpose of building up a flight personnel for the South African Airways.

In view of the expansion which is taking place, the pressure on the training staff will become unendurable. Even now instructors of the S.A.A. are finding it difficult to train the men quickly enough. They are already beginning to work over week-ends, and I think we must pay tribute to these people, who are performing a difficult task under difficult circumstances, but at the same time with very good results and a high degree of success. I am thinking for example of utilizing the services of men who have reached the age of approximately 60 years on the flight simulators. In the Estimates considerable provision is being made for supplementary items for the excellent flight simulators which are already being used for training purposes at Jan Smuts Airport. These experienced and senior captains can utilize their accumulated knowledge to give a pilot background knowledge. The candidate can make considerable progress on the simulator apparatus before he has to undertake real flights. The active and medically fit instructors can then be used for actual flight training. Before that happens, however, the services of the somwhat older men can be utilized to take our men through the basic stages of training.

In this regard I should also like to refer to a problem which our pilots are often faced with, and that is the question of the man who becomes medically unfit while he can still participate actively in flights. The medical requirements for a pilot are rather exacting, and this should of course be the case. Because it is so we often find that younger men, men about 40 years of age and often below 50, are declared medically unfit as far as flight efficiency is concerned. For the rest they are quite fit and in a good condition. These men are medically unfit for some minor reason or other and they are no longer able to fly. This entails hardships for them. We must, as far as the S.A.A. is concerned, give attention to this matter in order to provide these men with security who have through no fault or negligence of their own become medically unfit and simply cannot remain on the active flying list. Actually they are very unfortunate people. I think that we should come to some or other arrangement in order to make special provision for those people.

There is another matter which I would like to raise in this regard. Although it affects the Department of Transport, the South African Airways is very closely tied up with this. I am talking about air traffic control, particularly at the Jan Smuts Airport. The air traffic controllers fall under the Department of Transport, but they handle the aircraft of all the airlines making use of Jan Smuts. The fact of the matter is that South African air space is becoming overcrowded. There are a whole series of air services making use of Jan Smuts. New pool agreements are being negotiated, and an increasing number of air services are starting to operate in South Africa. We are beginning to experience traffic congestion, which may constitute danger for the future, particularly at Jan Smuts and that entire complex with Jan Smuts as centre, because most air traffic control goes out from that point. In addition we still have military airfields in that vicinity. I think that we should undertake long-term planning in this regard. I want to refer specifically to this aspect of the matter as it affects the South African Airways. There is a panel which is investigating near-miss accidents. In English it is called a “near-miss panel”. The South African Airways are represented on this panel, and they are doing good work in the undertaking of research in this regard. From the point of view of the South African Airways we will also have to ensure improved air traffic control. When I say that, I am not doing so in order to discredit the staff in question. Once again I am filled with admiration for what those people are able to do when they have to work under very difficult circumstances during peak hours. We must find a basis on which we can give these people special remuneration for certain services which they are rendering there. I shall take this point further when we discuss the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Transport. I think that we should, as far as the South African Airways is concerned, look to this matter and make specific proposals as far as they affect the South African Airways.

Provision is being made in the Brown Book for certain flight equipment and auxiliary ground equipment. I want to bring it to the hon. Minister’s attention that there is a relatively simple piece of equipment which can expedite the operation of our Boeing 727’s. This is the so-called D.M.E.-equipment, i.e. distance-measuring equipment. Our Viscounts on domestic flights, as well as our Boeing 707’s operating overseas, are equipped with distance-measuring equipment. Problems are often experienced with our Boeing 727’s **************when changing wind conditions are encounted, and they cannot for that reason use the most economic angle of descent. This equipment can assist in determining to within a mile precisely at what distance they are from the airport when they make their approach. This also enables the aircraft to save a considerable amount of fuel by enabling them to choose the optimum point at which to begin their approach descent. It also includes a safety factor in this respect that, particularly at Jan Smuts, aircraft can be instructed to do certain things at a certain distance. It also makes it possible for them to ensure in cloudy weather that they climb or descend to a certain height at a certain distance, or perhaps do something else. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I welcome the concern felt by the hon. member who has just sat down in regard to some of the aspects relating to the staff of the South African Airways, and also his pleas in regard to feeder services.

I want to bring the debate more specifically to the main services which the last two speakers want to feed because I believe that we have grounds for serious concern in this field. Yesterday the hon. member for Yeoville referred to dissatisfaction which he understood was felt in a number of circles in regard to the distribution of the R43,000,000 pay increases—chiefly amongst the clerical staff. The hon. the Minister said it was unlikely that the Opposition should know anything which he himself does not know. The information of this side of the House is that there is in fact real dissatisfaction, that it has reached the stage where statements have been made to the Press and that petitions to the Salaried Staff Association are being circulated, demanding that the matter be put right and threatening that, unless the complaint was met, there would be mass resignations amongst Airways personnel. I do not know whether the report has been brought to the attention of the Minister, or whether the Opposition are again ahead of him in getting information. But I hope he will give us a statement in regard to this matter, and in particular, an assurance that this vital group of staff, the Airways personnel, upon whom the South African Airways is so dependent for its efficiency, and its magnificent record of safety and service, in fact has not been overlooked, and that there will be no grounds either for dissatisfaction or for threatened resignations. It will be a tragedy if we find that the morale of Airways personnel should be destroyed and that this service, of which South Africa has always been so very proud, should be endangered thereby. I also understand that the Airways artisans are dissatisfied with their share of the increase and that they are proceeding with their dispute and intend to stick by their demands for 40 per cent increase. If it is so, this indicates that their share too out of the increases has not met the circumstances and the needs of, that group of people.

They have been prosecuted for refusing to work overtime.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, there are various aspects which I have not time to deal with at this stage, but we well remember other occasions where the activities of the Airways were seriously disrupted because of dissatisfaction amongst the staff. We have always maintained and we continue to maintain that the South African Airways deserve and demand a special place in the transport structure of South Africa. They are a service which requires personnel of the highest calibre to meet the high pressures and tensions under which they must always work. Both air crew and ground staff have a far greater responsibility than in the slower moving fields of transport. When one is dealing with supersonic and just subsonic aircraft, the whole tempo of activity must be geared to the modern age, and we feel that special attention is required for the special staff which is required for this special aspect of transport.

There are other fields in which I feel there has been neglect of the Airways, and in which the Airways have not had their true and proper attention from the Minister. The hon. the Minister will remember that last year I raised the question of looking ahead to ensure that we were catering for the future in regard to the planes which were being ordered for South African Airways. Last year I also drew the Minister’s attention to the remarks I had made the previous year. I do not want to quote them; they are on record in last year’s Hansard (Col. 2827). However, I want to quote an interjection I made then, when the Minister failed to reply to my charge. The question I put to the Minister then was—

The Minister said that he was quite satisfied and that if he found that he could not do so he would buy more planes. A year ago he was satisfied. But in the interim he appointed a special committee to make a special survey of requirements. After having told us last year that he was quite satisfied and that he had looked far enough ahead and that it was nonsense to talk about demand exceeding supply, this year, it is obvious that there will have to be a large expansion. He also announced the orders which have been placed. But this is a year too late, because the earliest delivery of the 737s can only be by the end of 1969, whereas we cannot have the Jumbo Jets, which by next year will already be in use amongst competitive airlines, before the end of 1971. The Jumbo Jet aircraft are going to create quite a number of problems calling for a tremendous amount of attention. But already by next year our competitors will be flying these, aircraft in, and we will be trailing behind. Moreover, we have heard little or nothing of the planning, both in Airways and in Transport, to prepare for these giant aircraft.

I hope the Minister will not be so contemptuous of our sincere attempts at pointing out, as we pointed out last year and the year before, that the popularity of S.A. Airways was overrunning planning by the Department. But to-day on flight after flight it is impossible for a person who has to travel at short notice to get a seat. Only yesterday a foreign businessman arrived in Cape Town by train, having lost one day out of a five-day visit because he could not get on a plane with a booking three days ahead. On Sunday in Johannesburg he tried to get a seat for Wednesday but could not get on. The Minister may shrug his shoulders and say that a few people cannot be helped. However, when one deals with international businessmen, international tourists, and with South African businessmen, one cannot expect them to take a chance on the waiting list. They have to be at their point of destination to meet specific obligations. I say, the position is getting chaotic. It is almost impossible to get any seat on short notice today on any of the standard flights. Without exception one is told that one has to be waitlisted. Members of Parliament have had the experience of not being able to get away on a normal flight with a booking one month ahead, and sometimes even longer. As a matter of fact, I wonder how many members of this House have been unable to get a seat for the Easter recess? And what about the public? For them the position is even worse. There have been complaints everywhere. However, I do not have the time to deal with this now. The Minister ought to be aware that planes are leaving with empty seats because of bookings not being taken up while genuine travellers are unable to get seats on those planes. I say, the entire reservation system has to be overhauled. We have already pleaded for this, and I plead with the Minister again to introduce a proper computer system so that this state of affairs, where bookings are being turned down while there are vacant seats on aircraft, can be avoided. [Time expired.]

To-day the hon. member for Durban (Point) has continued elaborating on the refrain of the hon. member for Yeoville yesterday to the effect that there is alleged large-scale dissatisfaction, particularly amongst the clerical staff of the S.A. Railways, in regard to the proposed salary increases and adjustments. We have in fact seen a report of alleged dissatisfaction in one of the newspapers. But I think one must accept that there will be dissatisfaction amongst some people. In fact, the Minister stated repeatedly that in such a tremendous staff, such as that of the S.A. Railways, there would always be a few groups who would be dissatisfied.

To a point where they want to resign?

The Minister said that the door was still open to further adjustments. Yesterday the hon. member for Yeoville made a big fuss in regard to the amount of overtime which was being worked, and created the impression that this would allegedly endanger the safety of passengers. But I think that this entire matter was, when seen in its true light, blown up to exaggerated proportions. The pattern which the United Party members followed in their arguments, as they did yesterday and as the hon. member for Durban (Point) has done again to-day, is a pattern which the United Party has been following for many years in this House and also in other councils where they are represented—i.e. to try and make everyone believe that something terrible is happening here. I have a few of these people in my constituency and they come to me from time to time with their complaints; as representatives with a sense of responsibility we bring these matters to the attention of the relevant authority from time to time. But I really do not think the situation is as serious as the hon. member for Yeoville was trying to imply yesterday.

May I ask you a question?

The hon. member can rise to speak later. The debate is still in progress. As I have said, I think that these things have been blown up until they have assumed unrealistic proportions. Let us accept that there are quite a number of dissatisfied people. Let us concede that. But what cannot be conceded, is the fact that the S.A. Railways Administration, and in particular the Minister, does not lend a sympathetic ear towards these complaints, particularly when people come forward with a good case, a case which has merit.

Are you aware of the fact that prosecutions are at present being instituted against 15 persons because they did not want to work overtime and did so for reasons of safety?

I do not have any details pertaining to that matter, and therefore I cannot reply to it. The Minister will probably be able to reply to it. All that I can. say is that where prosecutions have been instituted there must have been good reasons for doing so. I challenge any hon. member of the Opposition to point out one unmerited prosecution. As I have said, the pattern of the United Party’s approach in regard to this matter is one in which the purpose is to sow suspicion and to try and make the people believe that there are people here who are being treated unfairly and unjustly.

I am convinced that the quality of the service which is being rendered by our Airways staff is most without any doubt of the best in the world. In addition this service is being rendered under very difficult circumstances. I should like to pay tribute to those people.

We are living in a time when developments are taking place. South Africa is not a static country; it is a country where one finds all kinds of explosions taking place every day. Who, in the wildest flights of his imagination, could have thought that we would have had this tremendous influx into our harbours, or that we would have had this tremendous explosion in the number of passengers on our Airways?

But over the years the pattern has been clear.

The hon. member is always “wise after the event”, but that is what the United Party is like.

Read my Hansard of last year.

The United Party is always being clever. I would always prefer to err on the conservative side than on the other side. That is why I can say that it is a pity that there are people who are quite possibly having to suffer inconveniences, but we must accept one thing. As a result of one’s capital requirements and the provision made for those requirements from time to time one has to cut one’s coat according to one’s cloth. There were very good reasons why the Government did not purchase other aircraft. We were able to put our capital investments which we could have made in regard to those aircraft to much better use in other directions, for example, towards ensuring this country’s safety. But the United Party takes a restricted view of these matters, a view which is only concentrated on this specific aspect, and the hon. members for Yeoville and Durban (Point) know this. He is a man who has a say in the defence group of his own Party. We have examined many defence projects, and we have also examined jointly many airways projects, but we are being hampered to an equal extent in the development of these services as a result of a shortage of capital, which one can put to better use somewhere else, according to priority, than one can do here. Could one of those reasons not have been the reason why we did not supply these services? I want to congratulate the Minister and the Airways on what they have accomplished under these circumstances with the aircraft and the staff at their disposal. I also want to pay tribute to these people for the services they are rendering at our airports, where such a tremendous passenger explosion has taken place. Many of us who travel—and we travel quite often— have seen what a tremendous influx there has been, for example to Jan Smuts Airport, where one has to handle a tremendous throng of all races under difficult circumstances at peak hours. To-day I want to pay tribute to the judicious and the most humane way in which the staff at that Airport has dealt with difficult situations in a multi-racial country such as this. It is our earnest hope that that Airport will soon be enlarged so that we can cope with these difficulties there. Our Airways staff is doing an excellent piece of work. As regards our overseas services, our overseas flights, we who have had the opportunity and to whom it has fallen to make frequent use of them, want to say to-day without fear of contradiction that our overseas flights are among the best in the world. I have undertaken long flights on most of the airlines of the world, and did so again at the end of last year, and truly one is proud to be a South African when one embarks on one of our aircraft in Europe in order to return to one’s fatherland. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Durban (Point) complained as usual here this afternoon about the shortage of seats on aircraft at short notice. If the hon. member had travelled overseas, as the hon. member for Benoni has just pointed out, he would have known that one finds precisely the same position in America and Britain, i.e. that one often has to make seat reservation a long time before one flies. I just want to tell the hon. member, as the former speaker said, that we can only operate an air service according to our financial potential, and I think we must congratulate the hon. the Minister and the Airways with the services which are being made available, within the scope of our financial potential, to South Africa, as well as overseas. I want to state that our Airways to-day are the pride of our South African transport system. After listening all day yesterday to hon. members on the opposite side, and again this afternoon, I really think they should put an end to their criticism, because when the hon. the Minister of Transport rises to speak just now, they will be flattened in the same way as he flattened them in his reply to the second-reading debate. The Opposition puts me in mind of an incident that took place years ago during the inter-varsity at Newlands between Stellenbosch and Cape Town. You know that at inter-varsity there is always a humorous curtain-raiser, a rag, before the main match. On that day the Maties put on a display at Newlands. They drew a large wagon across the field, on which there was a wheel with a crank-handle, and every few paces they stopped, Father Time would turn that wheel, and another dead Ikey would pop out. This hon. Minister has been Minister of Transport for almost ten years now, just as the Matie in those days had won the inter-varsity for ten years running, and every year the Minister, after the Opposition has criticized his Railway Budget, has turned the crank-handle and every time a dead U.P. man has popped out.

After the announcement made by the hon. the Minister in his Budget speech to the effect that we are now going to get three new Boeing 747 jet aircraft, air giants that can carry 363 passengers each, one can do nothing else except to thank the hon. the Minister for the far-sightedness he has displayed in placing a small country such as South Africa in the front row of airline countries in the world. In addition we also have one of the best safety records in the world. The South African Airways are regularly showing a profit, in spite of all the strong opposition we are having to contend with from overseas airlines. This display of profitableness can only be termed spectacular, and the fact that for the first time last year we transported more than one million passengers by air on our Springbok Airline is cause for celebration and not criticism.

Before I resume my seat I should very much like to bring a few matters to the hon. the Minister’s attention. In the first place my plea to the hon. the Minister is that he should give consideration to the following: In the same way as members of the House of Assembly are given air concessions to fly between Cape Town and Johannesburg, he should also grant those concessions to members of the parliamentary Press gallery in Cape Town who, although they are not officially connected with Parliament, are nevertheless regarded as an integral part of Parliament, and who render an important service here by reporting what happens in the Chamber of the House. You know, newspapers are granted concession on the Railways, and it may be interesting to know that the first concession for newspaper men, when they are on duty to report on what happens, was introduced by President Paul Kruger. That is why I want to ask whether it is not possible for the Minister to give his attention to this matter. It will mean a great deal to them. It will also be a quid pro quo for us to these Parliamentary reporters, who also make their appearance here, as many of us do, as migrant birds or migrant labour, so that they can also get to their families at least once a month at a discount. I also want to ask whether it is not possible that these newspapermen, who have to come to Cape Town with a lot of luggage during the Parliamentary sitting, should not be granted a further concession as regards goods. As the matter stands at present, they are being granted a concession for 50 lbs. only, and many of them also have a great many articles which have to be conveyed back and forth between the other provinces and Cape Town.

I also want to ask whether the hon. the Minister will not consider introducing minipassenger buses, as they have overseas, at our larger airports and particularly the Jan Smuts Airport, for the convenience of passengers alighting from aircraft or who have to be conveyed to aircraft during inclement weather conditions. I have often seen passengers rain soaking wet at the Jan Smuts Airport. They are provided with umbrellas, but these offer inadequate protection.

I also want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he cannot go into the question of having greater variation in the announcement by air stewardesses on aircraft. The new uniforms which the stewardesses are wearing are soothing to the eye, but I also want to say that the announcements which are regularly made by air stewardesses in the aircraft are for the most part made in the same stereotype way and in the same words. Now, no matter how melodious the voice of the air stewardess, that message and announcement has no personality. Is it not possible to encourage the air stewardesses, without deviating too much from the old recipe, to say something informal to the passengers now and again?

Then I would also like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he could perhaps give us information in regard to when he expects the international hotel at Jan Smuts to be ready, and whether this international hotel will also, as is the case overseas, be constructed by our own airline or by an overseas airline or by the private sector, and whether they will have any share in it.

In the last instance I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he cannot also give attention to the possibility of introducing film shows on our overseas flights on the Boeing jet services, as is the custom on the American airlines. The competition between the various airlines, as the hon. member for Benoni said, is becoming quite intense in South Africa. The South African Airways have an outstanding record as regards its service, and also as regards the meals on the aircraft, but we shall have to begin thinking of offering something extra, particularly in the case of the new Boeing 747 jet aircraft. That is why I want to plead with the hon. the Minister to consider the idea of film shows. Of course one can read magazines and newspapers on the long flights overseas but one becomes tired of doing that. These film shows need not intrude on the privacy of other passengers. The film can, as in America, be exhibited against a screen in front of the aircraft, and passengers who want to follow the soundtrack, can do so by means of earphones. There are few people who are able to sleep on those long flights, and that is why I think that a good old cowboy picture can do no harm, and I want to plead with the hon. the Minister to give consideration to this suggestion.

The hon. member for Turffontein asked that members of the Press Gallery should enjoy the same travel privileges as M.P.S. I am afraid that I cannot accede to that request. M.P.s. are in a privileged position. Their privileges are dealt with by the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders. That Committee decides what privileges are to be granted to M.P.s. It would not be possible for this Committee to deal with matters pertaining to Press Gallery correspondents, but, in addition to that, we cannot make an exception by granting special privileges to an outside group.

The hon. member also asked for small passenger buses to be made available in order to transport passengers in inclement weather from the terminal building to the aircraft.

He is only looking for favourable reports.

Our aircraft are not very far from the terminal buildings, as is often the case at overseas airports. They are usually very close to the terminal buildings, and in addition we have a much more favourable climate. It is the exception if it rains when the aircraft has to depart. In fact, there are times, as was recently the case during the drought, when we wished it would rain. There are umbrellas available, but it would be quite unpractical to use a bus to convey people over a distance of 30 yards.

The hon. member asked that air hostesses should vary their announcements a little and that they should say something informal at times. I am afraid that if I give them instructions to that effect, they might perhaps say something which would not meet with general approval. One would have no control over what they might say. I do not know whether the hon. member would risk allowing the hostesses to say just what they wanted to say in between, in the same way as Fanus Rautenbach does.

The international hotel at Jan Smuts will be built by a private undertaking. Negotiations with the Department of Transport are still in progress.

The hon. member also asked that films be shown on aircraft on overseas flights. I do not know whether he is aware of this, but we experimented many years ago with film shows on the domestic services. They were not very popular with the passengers. Some liked them and others did not, and it was then decided not to show any films. We usually keep our ear close to the ground and we know what the majority of the passengers want when they travel in our aircraft, and up to now the observation has been that the majority of the passengers would not like films to be shown on the aircraft.

†The hon. member for Durban (Point) drew attention to what he alleged was large-scale dissatisfaction amongst many members of the staff in regard to the wage increases which have been granted. I said in my reply yesterday that I was quite convinced in my own mind that everybody would not be satisfied. I knew that. As a matter of fact, I think no concession made to the staff by me or by any of my predecessors, including United Party Ministers, ever satisfied everybody. It is only human nature. Everybody thinks that he should receive more than he actually receives. If another person receives R5 per month more than he receives he is dissatisfied. Of course, there will be dissatisfaction, but I have not received any complaints from any staff association. I deal with staff associations and not with individual members of the staff. If there is dissatisfaction it is the duty of the staff organizations to bring the matter to my attention. I am not concerned about what individuals say in the newspapers. This story about large-scale resignations when the railwaymen have received such an excellent increase is so much ballyhoo. There will not be large-scale resignations. I am not even concerned about petitions. One or two members of the staff who were dissatisfied ran to the newspapers and expressed their dissatisfaction.

Over 350 signatures.

Yes, and I have a white staff of 110,000. Three hundred signatures amount to a mere bagatelle.

In the Airways.

I do not care whether it is in the Airways or not. They have their own staff organization which can make representations on their behalf. The floor of this House is not the place to discuss their individual grievances and their pay rises. They have a staff organization, and if they are dissatisfied they can bring it to my attention through their staff organization and not through members of the Opposition.

Why can’t we discuss it here?

That is the right way to do it and that is what the staff organizations want them to do. The staff organizations take the strongest exception when individual members of the staff run to Members of Parliament and ask them to bring their grievances to the attention of the Minister across the floor of the House.

The hon. member complained about insufficient flights on the internal services. Sir, tributes have been paid to the South African Airways by many people who say that S.A. Airways, although a very small airline, have always kept pace with the most modern developments, and have always ordered their planes when the need has arisen. The hon. member cannot judge by one or two flights which are overcrowded. Some flights are more popular than others. I travel a great deal by air and on many of these flights there are still vacant seats.

But when you try to book you cannot get a seat.

There are other reasons for that. On certain flights there is always over-booking. Let me tell the hon. member I have travelled on the internal services of other countries and I think our internal services compare very favourably with those of any other country, especially the U.S.A.

The hon. member also talked about aircraft being ordered too late. A new 727 was delivered in August of last year. The first 737 is to be delivered in October of this year, not next year. The second one will be delivered next year. Does the hon. member know we were one of the first airlines to order 737s? When I visited the Boeing works in Seattle in 1965 they only had the mock up—the 737 was not even in the air yet. As I say, we were one of the first airlines to order the 737. Does the hon. member know we are one of the first airlines to order the 747, an aeroplane which is not even in the air yet? It is still being built, the prototype has not even flown yet. Does the hon. member know that?

They are going to be flying here next year.

They are not going to be flying next year to South Africa. Where does the hon. member get that? Can he tell me of any international airline operating to South Africa which is going to introduce the 747 next year?

Those are the reports going around.

Which reports?

Press reports.

I have not seen one Press report to the effect that any international airline operating to South Africa is going to introduce the 747 next year, and I challenge the hon. member to show me that newspaper report. It is so easy to criticize when one cannot substantiate one’s criticism. What we hear is merely a lot of hearsay. Then the hon. member makes a lot of noise in the House in an attempt to create a favourable impression. I say we were one of the first airlines to order the 747 and these aircraft are intended for the external services. It is really because of the competitive angle that S.A.A. are compelled to order these planes. We are a small airline compared to other international airlines and we have limited funds at our disposal. Therefore I think it would be the height of folly if I had to start ordering planes, and have our aircraft flying just about empty to their destinations and back.

The hon. member also said there was no planning. I wonder whether he realizes that I have the most competent officials in charge of the Airways. They are competent men, men of great ability. They are men who plan for the future and who do the necessary evaluations before I order the planes. I am dependent on their advice. I as the Minister do not decide on my own; I do not give them instructions and tell them that, because two or three planes are overcrowded, half-a-dozen new ones must be purchased. No sensible man would do that. I am dependent on the advice of my officials who are in charge of our Airways, men who, as I say, have great ability and have proved themselves to be most competent.

Are you acting on their advice?

Of course; why does the hon. member think I ordered these 747s? As I say, it is so easy to criticize. However, I do not mind criticism based on facts, I do not resent constructive criticism. The hon. member talks about planning. What does he know about planning? What does he know about planning for the Airways? Must we just guess that next year we will probably have 20,000 more air passengers, without taking the economics of the position into consideration at all? Is that planning?

You have your annual figures.

The annual figures vary from one year to the other; they depend on the country’s economic position and on whether the people can afford to travel by air or not.

The hon. member also spoke about overbookings. Of course there are over-bookings, but that happens to almost every internal service in the world, and there are very good reasons for it. In every service that I know of, there is over-booking because so many booked passengers do not show up at the last moment. I was asked why those people are not penalized for their default. We tried that once, but unfortunately all the airlines are to a very large extent in the hands of travel agents as far as bookings are concerned, and consequently we have to keep in their good books. Some years ago we tried to make people who do not show up pay a penalty, but the result was they were prejudiced against the travel agents who made them pay that penalty. The agents were losing their customers, and those customers they had they were sending to other international airlines. I am speaking now of the international airlines. That is why, despite the continual complaints about over-bookings, not a single internal airline penalizes defaulting passengers. Therefore I say we cannot do it.

Is the hon. the Minister blaming the travel agents for these over-bookings?

No, of course not; the S.A.A. are responsible for over-bookings because we allow it. But I say there is a very good reason for that. Every flight is over-booked because so many people do not show up to take their seats at the last moment. That is why people’s names are put on a waiting list and people are asked to go to the airport because if booked passengers do not show up they can take those vacant seats.

So it is not the fault of the travel agencies?

If the hon. member listens to me, he will not need to ask these questions. I gave the reason why we do not penalize the people who do not show up to take their seats. That is what I was explaining, and that is when I referred to the travel agents.

*The hon. member for Middelburg asked whether the retiring age of our air crews could not be raised. He pointed out that other airlines were retaining pilots in service until they reached the age of 60 before they resigned. That is correct. However, I want to point out that the S.A.A. is regarded as one of the safest airways in the world. We have a very good reputation and one of the reasons for that is the painstaking medical examination which our air crews have to undergo periodically. They undergo a thorough medical examination every six months. I underwent the examination at the Medical Institute at Voortrekkerhoogte myself, and a more thorough medical examination cannot be undertaken anywhere in South Africa. There are various reasons why our pilots retire at an early age. In the first place they do not want to stay on any longer. The second reason is that according to all the medical evidence it is in the interests of safety that these men, with a few exceptions, should retire at a specified age. Physically the man may be quite fit, and have nothing wrong with him, but the important point is that his reflexes may have begun to slow down a little. I have had experience of reflexes which have slowed down For 25 years I have been hunting big game, and during that period I found myself in many dangerous situations where there was no time to think and where I had to react immediately. For example, if a wounded Lion charges me at a distance of seven paces there is no time to think. When one is piloting a Boeing aircraft at 600 miles per hour, one does not have much time to think if something goes wrong. The reaction must be immediate. When I was hunting in the Caprivi strip last year a wounded lioness charged me, and I realized that my reflexes were beginning to slow down a little. I then said that it was time for me to pack away my big-game rifles. The same applies to aircraft crew. That is why we are not keeping those men in service for too long a period. It is not in their own interests, nor is it in the interests of the safety of the Service.

How good are the hon. member for Durban (Point’s) reflexes these days?

Yes, that may well be asked, but where can we send him to be examined?

The hon. member for Middelburg also spoke about improved air traffic control. One of my problems is getting enough air traffic controllers. It is very difficult to get them. They are given a very good training and they do their work very well.

My colleague who is in charge of the Department of Transport is really responsible for this matter, because traffic control falls under that Department. None the less, I have already suggested that their pay be increased to see whether we cannot attract more people to those specific posts. The hon. member also spoke about D.M.E. equipment. This distance measuring equipment has already been installed at certain of our airports, inter alia, at Jan Smuts Airport.

†The hon. member for Albany asked that I should purchase smaller planes than Dakotas and utilize these aircraft on the feeder services. The service he had in mind is the one to Oudtshoorn, Plettenburg Bay, Grahamstown, and those areas. I am afraid I cannot do that. The hon. member rightly says that smaller planes are being used from Upington to Keetmanshoop, but that is being done by a private company. I am trying to standardize my aircraft as jet aircraft and prop jets, for the purpose of easier maintenance. I have got rid of all the propeller aircraft except the Viscounts which are prop. jets. Eventually I shall have to get rid of the Dakotas as well. There are smaller planes which are prop jets, but of course they cannot land on dirt runways. I shall have to have another division of maintenance for the smaller propeller aircraft, which I think is quite uneconomical. I would, however, suggest that a private company take over that route. I am quite prepared to hand it over to private enterprise. I can inform the hon. member that when the new airport at George is completed, because as the hon. member knows we are contemplating building a new airport there, that service will be reconsidered. We will not withdraw the Dakota service immediately, but we do not really get sufficient passengers to justify that service. According to the statistics for the operation of that service from April to December of last year, we operated it at a loss of R219,886. I would suggest that the hon. member and his colleagues who represent those constituencies try to persuade the public to make more use of that service. If the demand is increased, I shall introduce more flights. When these services become economic, I will be able to give them better services than they have at the moment.

Heads 28 to 30 and Head 6, as printed, put and agreed to.

Heads 31 to 33,—Pipelines, R3,847,721. (Revenue Funds—Main and Supplementary) and Head 7,—R30,787,500 (Capital and Betterment Works).

Mr. Chairman, I make no apology for raising the question of the excessive charges for transporting petrol from Durban to Johannesburg. I think they are extortionate. We have raised this matter with the hon. the Minister before and the hon. member for Yeoville raised it once again. The hon. the Minister said it was the old, old story. It is an old, old story but a good story. The hon. the Minister’s reply is not a convincing one. That is also an old story but it is not a good story. We who live in the interior feel that we are being fleeced in order to pay for the cost of the Railways. The hon. the Minister has told us in the past that he finds the pipeline the most profitable part of all the sections under his Administration. In my experience the hon. the Minister has made three kinds of reply to criticism of his charges. In one reply he adopts the attitude of the monopolist. He told us: “That is my decision. I get that profit and I am going to keep it”. There can be no competition because he is in the position to lay down the law. That was the first reply. His second reply is the one he gave to the hon. member for Yeoville. It is a reply he has used at various times. He has told us, “The system is the rate that the traffic will bear”. I want to suggest that that Statement is not applicable to the charges, for the transportation of petrol by pipeline.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 92.

Heads 31 to 33 and Head 7, as printed, put and agreed to.

Heads 34 to 38,—Net Revenue Appropriation Account, R21,261,279 (Revenue Funds— Main), put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I just want to inform the House briefly about the railway line which the Railways intends building between Empangeni and the proposed harbour at Richard’s Bay, subject to approval by Parliament. Full particulars have been furnished in the Report of the Railways and Harbours Board which has already been tabled.

When it was recommended to Parliament in 1966 that a connecting railway line be built between Vryheid and Empangeni, one of the considerations advanced was that it could be used as a feeder line to a possible future harbour on the North Coast of Natal. In the meantime the Richard’s Bay Planning Committee began instituting a thorough investigation into the development of Richard’s Bay, and in its first interim report recommended, inter alia, that construction of the proposed deep-sea harbour be commenced with not later than 1970 and that an aluminium smelting plant be established in the vicinity of Richard’s Bay. The proposed deep-sea harbour at Richard’s Bay is still in the investigatory stage, but the indications are that a railway connection between Empangeni and Richard’s Bay will have to be provided round about the middle of 1970 in order to transport large quantities of stone and other material for a breakwater and the harbour construction works as well as equipment, etc., to Richard’s Bay. As soon as adequate information is available for planning the harbour lay-out, a report in respect of the proposed harbour will be presented to Parliament.

As far as the other recommendation of the Richard’s Bay Planning Committee is concerned, the Industrial Development Corporation has decided to establish an aluminium smelting plant in the vicinity of Richard’s Bay. If economic conditions are such that it will be possible to commence with the erection of the factory, it is expected that a start will be made with the preparation of the site in May this year already. A railway line will then be required by July, 1969, in order to transport heavy machinery and material to the factory site by rail. At a later stage the raw materials required, which will for the time being be brought in through Durban, will also be transported to the smelting plant over the proposed railway Line. The position is therefore that the railway line will be required for the proposed smelting plant before it will actually be required for departmental purposes. It must be borne in mind, however, that the establishment of a smelting plant in the vicinity of Richard’s Bay has the backing of the State, that such an undertaking is being established at Richard’s Bay for the very purpose of serving as an incentive for the establishment of other industries, and that the line will in any case have to be provided for departmental purposes about a year later. It is therefore intended to plan the construction of the line in such a way that by July, 1969, it will be completed to up the premises of the smelting plant at the least. In the event of economic conditions delaying the establishment of the smelting plant the construction of the line will, of course, be adjusted accordingly. The railway line will be approximately 11 miles long and will be constructed at an estimated cost of R3¾ million, or roughly R340,000 per mile. Although it will be a single track line the earthworks, bridges and culverts will be built in accordance with double track standards with a view to the future development anticipated. Steam traction will be used initially, but it is the intention to electrify the line once the electrification of the Natal North Coast line has advanced to Empangeni.

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we welcome this Bill. I think it serves as evidence of the growth of, not only our external trade, which is I think now providing concrete evidence of how fast it is developing, but also of our own economy. This is an added reason why we should welcome the development which is taking place now at Richard’s Bay.

Part of the pressure there, as I understand from the hon. the Minister and from what I read in the Blue Book, is due to the establishment of the big smelting factory for aluminium. I wonder if the hon. the Minister could presently tell us whence comes the bauxite which they are going to use for the construction.

We are importing it through Durban in the beginning.

Through Durban in the beginning, and subsequently through the harbour. Mr. Speaker, through you I would like to thank the Minister for that information, which is valuable to us in trying to understand the position.

Naturally, with the extension of the railway, which is not to stop at Emgangeni—it is to go to Vryheid and has a long history still in front of it—and the development of the harbour, there will grow up a town of, I should imagine, very considerable magnitude. The question of water supply is a matter which will have to be dealt with by the Department of Planning. I understand that certain steps have already been taken in that regard, and that it may be possible for an adequate water supply for the time being to be secured without very expensive water works by using the water of Lake Umzingazi. This will probably suffice for quite a time, at least while the work is under construction, both the railway and the harbour.

I notice in the Blue Book that provision is made for the bulk handling of maize. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong when I say that I think when he was dealing with his Budget yesterday and on previous days he said that there was no intention of erecting elevators.

I said it will be done in the future.

It will be done in the future, but not for the time being. Mr. Speaker, I would like to issue a word of warning here, if I may. Some years ago I served on a provincial commission of inquiry into certain aspects of agriculture in the whole of the area from Empangeni northwards. One of the things that struck us at the time on the commission and formed the subject of a special report which we submitted—we found it of such importance that we made it an interim report dealing with that subject alone—was the difficulty of getting the moisture content of maize below the percentage permissible for export under natural conditions in that area. The high humidity is normal there, particularly at the low level. It is very near to sea level, and at that low level with the very high humidity, it was found quite impossible under normal conditions to get the moisture percentage down to export level. It was worse, Mr. Speaker. Out of a considerable number of samples that we had tested by various millers, we found that well over 50 per cent could not even be milled in other parts of South Africa to conform with the requirements of the trade, for precisely the same reason: The percentage of moisture was too high. I would like just to issue a word of warning to the Minister and his advisers that they should watch this point if we are going to use that port as a port for the loading of bulk maize, and if it is going to be exposed for any length of time to the atmospheric conditions which prevail in that particular area.

Is it worse than in Durban?

Oh yes. May I say to the hon. the Minister that the C.S.I.R. through their branches will be able to give him the comparative table, and the Department of Agricultural Technical Services I am sure will be able probably to spotlight this particular point if it is referred to them, without any difficulty at all. They will be able to say what the position is. The position one year was so bad that the whole mealie crop from that area northwards, small as it was, was unsaleable in South Africa. It is not a great mealie producing area, although in some of the alluvial areas there the yield per acre of maize is bery high indeed, particularly when the land is first broken up. The whole of that crop was unsaleable until it had been taken from there and moved to an area with a dry atmosphere, and subjected to further drying, brought down to the requisite standards of moisture content, and then brought on to the market. All that was necessary because it could not be sold as it came in from the fields after the normal drying period which is allowed for by mealie growers. That perhaps was an unusual event. It was particularly bad that year, a year of very high humidity. But that is the kind of thing that happens up there. We have to realize that the climatic conditions there are abnormal. It is nothing to go on for a long series of years, perhaps for eight, nine, 10 or 12 years with relatively low rainfall, but then you will strike a year when there will be up to 60 or even 70 inches of rainfall in that area.

This does not only affect the question of the atmospheric moisture but it also affects of course works, like railways and that sort of thing. But there the Minister will have the records in respect of his own existing railway and the troubles that they have had in the past in connection with bridges over the Umfolozi and other rivers, culverts and so forth. All that is history as far as the Railways are concerned, and no doubt all the planning that has been done takes cognizance of that.

Apart from that, Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt whatever that, however we may be viewing this railway as the first step in a much bigger and longer line and the development of the harbour at Richard’s Bay and, even if we take a big and wide view, I am certain that it will be found to be inadequate, say within the next couple of decades. The development up there will be absolutely phenomenal when once the railway line and the harbour have been built. I know the Minister’s plans. We have read the Blue Book; we have heard what he had to say about it. The Minister afforded me the great privilege and did me the courtesy of having me with him on one occasion when he went out to have a look at Richard’s Bay. I think one can understand the Minister’s desire to develop that harbour for certain specific purposes so far as rail transport and the harbour are concerned. But, Sir, development is going to swamp all that. This is going to be a terrific harbour, a harbour of immense importance to us in South Africa, and the railway line will be equally important. Electrification is coming. As the hon. the Minister said just now, that will tie it to our central system, and the future of this harbour and the railway is limitless. It is along those lines that I believe the Minister is planning, it is along those lines that we accept the position on this side of the House. We can only hope that there are going to be no unexpected hold-ups and undue difficulties placed in the way of the Minister and his Department, and that in the time allowed in terms of the Minister’s own plans, we will have the harbour and the first segment of the line of 11 miles to Empangeni duly completed as a first step towards the bigger plan which is envisaged. We will give it our blessings from this side, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad the hon. member mentioned the high humidity and its possible effects on export maize. I think it is a matter which the Maize Board should take into consideration. I do not know whether there was a misunderstanding as to what I said yesterday but the hon. member will see that in the Railways and Harbours Report it is said that provision is being made for the planning of the grain elevator. But it does not mean that that elevator as I said yesterday, is going to be built immediately. Of course, all these aspects have to be taken into consideration. My colleague, the Minister of Planning, tells me that in the second report of the Planning Commission this matter is also dealt with, namely the high humidity and the effect it might have on export maize. So that will be taken into consideration. I agree with the hon. member that this is going to be a big harbour. The possibilities are immense, in fact, unlimited. I think it will be the finest natural harbour in South Africa once it is developed. It is even a better natural harbour than Durban, and it is ideally situated. It is only 100 miles from Durban. I think it will be a growth point and the expansion that will take place in the whole of that area is going to be considerable. I can assure the hon. member that as far as I am concerned, I will try to keep to the schedule We are both getting old, but I hope that both of us will still see that harbour in operation.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

The most important amendments contained in this short Bill are consequent upon representations received from the Federation of Mining Trade Unions: firstly, that the maximum working hours at all mines and the rates of remuneration paid in respect of overtime be determined, and secondly, that statutory provision be effected in order that the Minister of Mines may have the power to prescribe in respect of all mines minimum and uniform requirements in regard to working conditions and the general welfare of employees in the mining industry. In addition there are a few definitions that are being amended, two purely consequential amendments, and then a few amendments to the provisions granting the State President the power to make regulations.

Firstly, as regards the definitions: as hon. members will note from clause 1, it is the intention to substitute in certain definitions the reference to the repealed Gold Act, Act No. 35 of 1908 (Transvaal), by the reference to the Mining Rights Act which, as hon. members will remember, was passed here last year. This amendment is only being introduced for the sake of clarity and to prevent confusion. Furthermore, the definition of the word “boiler” has to be amended in order to adapt it to changed circumstances and new technical developments as well as to the provisions of the Factories, Machinery and Building Work Act of 1941. Hon. members will realize that boilers have changed a great deal in the course of years. This amendment is aimed exclusively at safety and at better control over boilers and allied equipment.

As regards the consequential amendments: the former of the two consequential amendments, namely the one which is contained in clause 2 and which deals with the official supervision of mines and works, is consequent upon the substitution for the Gold Act of the Mining Rights Act of 1967. The other consequential amendment (i.e. in clause 3) has become necessary because the designation of the chief inspector of machinery has been changed. He has also become a Deputy Government Mining Engineer now, and section 2bis of the law relating to the establishment of the Mine Safety Committeee should therefore be amended to refer to a Deputy Government Mining Engineer as a member of the Committee. In order to distinguish this officer from the other Deputy Government Mining Engineer serving on the Committee, it is now being proposed to describe the one as a Deputy Government Mining Engineer who has specialized knowledge of machinery, and the other as a Deputy Government Mining Engineer who has specialized knowledge of mining. This is merely a practical arrangement which has to be defined in this way.

As regards working hours and remuneration for overtime: clause 4 contains the most important amendments, namely those that are consequent upon the representations made by the Federation of Mining Trade Unions. The problem that faces the trade unions is that matters such as basic or minimum wages, remuneration for overtime, leave and sick leave can be negotiated with the larger mines which have representation in central organizations such as the Chamber of Mines, the Natal Coal Owners’ Society, De Beers, etc., but that in respect of the smaller mines there are no such organizations with which matters of this nature can be negotiated. The position is therefore that, although the larger mining organizations have, in respect of these matters, proper agreements which have been laid down in the conditions of service, the workers on the smaller mines have no protection in this respect. The arrangements differ from mine to mine, and I am told that there is exploitation at times when it comes to remuneration for overtime, leave and sick leave. I say that I am told that this is the case.

The grievance of the trade unions is that their workers are the only group of workers in the country that have no statutory protection in respect of these matters. The usual labour legislation, and in particular the Factories, Machinery and Building Work Act of 1941. does not apply to the mining industry. Provisions in connection with the remuneration for overtime, for work on Sundays and on statutory factory holidays, leave and remuneration for ordinary leave, sick leave and remuneration during sick leave, etc., are contained in the said Act of 1941 in respect of other groups of workers. The trade unions are requesting that as far as their members are concerned, the same statutory protection should be granted, and looking at the matter as a whole, this is a reasonable and fair request, and that is why I am submitting this amendment to the House.

As far as the Government is concerned, there is no reason why there should be any discrimination against the mineworkers in this respect, and the provisions as contained in clause 4, are intended to accommodate the mine-workers in this regard. However, since the Department of Labour is more specifically concerned with the conditions of service of the workers, I should like it to go on record that the amendment is being effected with the full knowledge of my colleague the Minister of Labour, and that reference is also being made to him in the legislation before the House.

As regards working hours: the present section 10 of the Act, in terms of which the working hours on mines and works are limited, do not apply to coal mines and other mines to which exemption has been granted; the working hours on those mines can be laid down by regulation, and this flexibility is handy. The circumstances on the various mines differ and are also different from mine to mine. That is why you will see, Mr. Speaker, that it is being suggested that the general determination of working hours should be done away with and that it should instead be left to the Minister of Mines to lay down the working hours. This will have the advantage that it will from time to time be possible, without much trouble, to meet the demands of changed circumstances and needs. Therefore there was a special reason for making the scope of the proposed new section wide enough to grant the Minister the power to determine different hours of work for mines and works or for different mines or works or for different classes of mines or works or for different working places in or at mines or works, and also for determining the working hours for different classes of employees, age groups, classes of occupations or different circumstances. Provisions of this nature will be made in respect of all mines, whether or not wage agreements do normally exist in respect of them.

As far as the general conditions of service are concerned—which include matters such as remuneration for overtime and work on holidays as well as the number of days of paid and sick leave—it is by no means the intention to interfere in any respect with the right of the mines and the trade unions to negotiate in regard to these matters. In this way there will, for instance, be no authorization for determining the actual wage scales, but only for determining, as is the case in terms of the Factories, Machinery and Building Work Act, the minimum remuneration for overtime, for instance one and a third times the normal remuneration of the employee. The number of days which must actually be granted as paid leave and sick leave will not be prescribed either, but only the minimum number of days.

In respect of the larger mines where conditions of service and wage agreements are normally arranged by means of an agreement between the employer and the employee, there is no necessity for introducing a provision in regard to the minimum wage scales for overtime and work on holidays and for the minimum number of days of paid and sick leave. In cases of dissatisfaction about these aspects, the persons concerned can and must appeal to the Industrial Conciliation Act, and it would therefor be wrong also to vest in the Minister of Mines the power to lay down minimum requirements in that regard. Nor is this the respect in which the trade unions have been experiencing a deficiency. As I have already pointed out, their concern is with the smaller mines where collective bargaining is not possible. I want to emphasize that the concern here is with the employees at the smaller mines where there is no machinery for negotiation between the employer and the employee. For this reason it was necessary to make it clear by way of a proviso that the powers of the Minister of Mines are limited so that he may not make determinations in regard to minimum wage scales for overtime, etc., and minimum leave privileges on the larger mines as well.

It is deemed advisable to afford beforehand to the owner of a mine or work to which any determination by the Minister will apply, or to the workers, the opportunity to submit representations or to motivate objections if he or they feel themselves aggrieved by such a determination; hence the proposal that the Minister should publish first a preliminary notice in order to furnish particulars in regard to any proposed determination.

It must be possible for the Minister to prescribe penalties for the non-compliance with any determination made by him.

As regards restrictions upon the employment of juveniles and females—with reference to clause 5 of the Bill—the position is that the provisions of sections 11 (2) and (3) of the Act, which deals with the working hours of persons under the age of 16 years and the restriction upon the employment of females and juveniles, will be unnecessary if the provisions of clause 4, which I have just explained, are adopted. This is merely a consequential omission.

Then, in respect of the power to make regulations—as regards clause 6—the position is that section 12 of the Act, which invests the State President with the power to make regulations, has to be amended in a few respects. The first is in connection with the transport of explosives—and it deals with the transfer and transport of explosives—and is aimed at eliminating confusion and possible misinterpretation. When the Act was drafted in 1956, it was the intention that the regulations in connection with the transport of explosives should not apply in respect of certain quarries owned by the Railways but worked by private bodies on behalf of the Railways and under their direct control. The words “excluding quarries worked by persons for and on behalf of State Departments” were therefore inserted. It has now become apparent that the Railways no longer follow such a procedure and that the wording may also be misinterpreted to mean that the activities of private contractors on behalf of the State, at the Fish River Tunnel for instance, have also been exempted from the regulation in question. The words quoted are therefore being deleted so as to obviate this possible confusion and misinterpretation.

As regards welfare measures: the second amendment in clause 6 is also consequent upon the representations made by the Federation of Mining Trade Unions for the purpose of effecting uniformity, particularly on the smaller mines. Just as in the case of safety and health, welfare measures ought to be prescribed, and to make this possible it is necessary to extend the provisions of section 12 (1) (g) of the Act by including the welfare of persons employed in or at mines or works as an aspect in regard to which the State President may make regulations. What is envisaged by welfare measures, is things such as cloakroom facilities, toilet facilities, rest room facilities, protective overalls and measures in respect of healthy and hygienic working conditions in general, more or less on the pattern of the provisions of the Factories, Machinery and Building Work Act, 1941.

In respect of clearing the surface area upon the closure of a mine, it is necessary to extend the State President’s powers in terms of section 12 of the Act so that he may also prescribe regulations in terms of which it will be possible to compel a mine-owner, after he has terminated his operations and before he closes the mine and leaves the premises, to do clearance work above ground so that ruins and all sorts of unsightly structures may not remain or develop. This last provision is substituted for the provision in terms of which the State President may make regulations as to underground work in coal or other mines in respect of which exemption has been granted from the provisions of the existing section 10 of the Act, and which will be unnecessary if the proposed new section 10 is incorporated in the Act.

As you will notice, Mr. Speaker, it is not proposed to write into the Act any provisions in connection with the welfare measures and aboveground clearance work when mines close down, but the intention is merely to create the machinery so that suitable regulations may be made by the State President. From the nature of the case there will be full consultation and deliberations with all the parties concerned before draft regulations of this nature are submitted to the State President.

In conclusion, just a few words about the date of commencement. The reason why it is proposed that the amendments which are being proposed now, will come into operation on a date to be fixed later, is that the provisions of the present section 10 in terms of which there are restrictions upon underground work on mines and works, cannot be repealed before the Minister has formulated the appropriate determinations to be applied to the different mines.

We on this side of the House will facilitate the passage of this Bill and give the Minister our support. However, there are one or two observations that I would like to make. They are really in the form of questions. Let me deal with them seriatim. I take it that the new definition of “boiler” will in reality make the handling of such appliances much safer for persons who either handle boilers or who are in the vicinity of them. Of course, we have no fault to find with that. Then I want to come to the new section 2bis where we also have an alteration in the definitions. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will be good enough to tell me whether the new Deputy Government Mining Engineer, who in terms of the proposed amendment, must have a specialized knowledge of mining, will have to have a specialized knowledge of machinery as well as a specialized knowledge of mining. In other words, would he be a mining engineer or would toe be a mechanical engineer? If he is going to be a mining engineer with specialized knowledge of machinery, I take it that there will be no bar to his advancement and that he would eventually be able to become the Government Mining Engineer, but would he be able to advance if he did not have the qualifications of a mining engineer? In other words, would A be able to become the Government Mining Engineer but not B? They are both very important persons in the mining industry and I think that point must be clarified. The position is not clear from the Bill as it reads now. The question of advancement is important. We would not like to see a bottleneck right at the top which prevents people from reaching the highest rung of the ladder.

Both can be promoted.

Both should be able to be promoted and they should both have qualifications in mining.

Sir, I was very interested to hear the reasons for the amendments contained in clause 4. In my view these provisions which deal with workers on the smaller mines are long overdue; they should have been brought in many, many years ago. It seems to me that the miners on these small properties have been getting the shorter end of the stick, to put it mildly. They have been getting a very rough deal.

The two of us should have come to Parliament much earlier.

That is right. The question of overtime is one which I think both the hon, the Minister and I will watch with interest. The question of overtime in small mines, where there is very often a shortage of mineworkers, becomes important. I am afraid that some of the smaller mines are expecting the mineworker to do too much overtime. The mineworker, of course, is only too pleased to work as much as possible so that he can supplement his income and earn as much as possible, but I would like those people who are interested in overtime, overtime in all walks of life, to correlate the amount of overtime worked over a period of, say, two years, with the health of the individual after those two years. We must watch this point very carefully. We should not allow persons who do strenuous work particularly to do too much overtime. I would suggest to the Minister that he should get advice on this matter to see how we can regulate the amount of overtime allowed so that it will not impair the health of the worker. This applies particularly in some of the smaller mines like the asbestos mines which are now being brought into line. If I was the Minister I would not allow any worker in an asbestos mine to work overtime. I think it is dangerous enough for workers in asbestos mines to work the regulation number of hours. I think I said here a year or two ago that in asbestos mines we should not allow a person to work for a longer period than four hours without having a Test for at least two hours so that his lungs can be cleared of dust. I would go so far as to say that penalties should be instituted for people who work in a dangerous atmosphere, such as one finds in an asbestos mine, if they do not adhere to the safety measures which are imposed upon them for their own good. If we find a man working without a mask, for instance, he should be penalized. If we find that people discard their protective clothing while working, they should be penalized. In the new recreation rooms or rest rooms which are going to be provided in these smaller mines, I would suggest that no person working in an asbestos mine should be allowed to wear the same protective clothing that he wore the previous day. It must be cleaned of all dust, because the dust accumulates to a great extent on the clothing. The hon. the Minister probably knows as well as I do how dangerous the inhalation of asbestos dust is after it has settled for a short while. One can just imagine what happens during, say, the lunch hour when a man is having his lunch in his protective clothing. He takes off his mask, and while he is eating a sandwich he is breathing in the fine particles of dust on his clothing. I think we must watch these points because the incidence of lung cancer amongst asbestos miners is becoming a little too high, and we must make every effort to give these people who work with asbestos, either in mines or in works which will be covered by this Bill, every possible facility for protection.

Then I want to ask the Minister whether the new provisions of the Bill dealing with hours of work and overtime mean that in future once the hours of work, sick pay, leave, etc., have been settled, they cannot be altered without the Minister’s permission? Let me put it this way: Let us assume that the hours of work have been agreed to by the Minister and that the question of sick pay and annual leave has been settled. What will happen if at a later stage there was an application to the Minister for an alteration of the terms that were settled a year or two previously? Would it mean that the Minister would automatically call these people together again and give them the required extra pay or extra sick leave or would he have to alter the regulations. As I read this, these people would have to come to the Minister every time they wanted an alteration to their pay or to their hours of work. They could not do it by negotiation between themselves and the employer. They would have to come to the Minister first before they could do that. Would that be necessary?

They do not come to me personally.

Well, they would come to the Minister indirectly. What would be the position then? I should like to have that point clarified. Could they fix new rates of pay simply by negotiations between themselves and the employer and would the Minister only act as an arbitrator between the two parties? That is a point which I think must be cleared up.

Then I want to refer to paragraph (g) in the new section 12 on page 9. This paragraph will now read as follows—

The English there seems to be a bit peculiar. How can you have “health of public traffic”? I think the wording is bad and I would advise the hon. the Minister to try to get this phraseology altered before we come to the Committee Stage so that if an amendment is necessary we can do it immediately. This does not sound good English to me. What is meant by the safety and health of “property and public traffic”, for instance?

It is the same in Afrikaans, you will notice.

Yes. I wish the Minister would have a look at it to see whether it cannot be altered. I now come to this question of explosives. This is a very important matter. I think the reason why we have had a long accident-free period in the handling and distribution of explosives is the care with which explosives are being handled. The regulations in this connection are strict and we must make sure that we carry on in this way. I am pleased to see that State Departments are being brought into line with persons who previously were under regulations. I am sure that from now onwards we shall have an almost impeccable record when it comes to the handling of explosives.

With these few words I want to say again that we hope that what is proposed here will benefit the miners. We wish this measure every success.

You will pardon me Sir, if I do not deal further with the points raised by the hon. member for Rosettenville. because the hon. the Minister will probably reply to them. In spite of all the approval this measure has received so far, I nevertheless want to express my disappointment at a deficiency from which, I think, it suffers. To my mind this deficiency is to be found in the fact that the proposed new paragraph (h) of section 12 of the principal Act or clause 6 (c) of this Bill is not wide enough in scope. Let me read the proposed new paragraph (h). It deals with the clearance of premises after the cessation of operations. It reads as follows—

It is obvious that the point here is simply and solely the procedure to be followed and the requirements to be laid down for the removal of buildings and installations upon the cessation of operations by mining companies for the purpose of restoring the surface area as nearly as possible to its original state. This is truly an important improvement of the existing Act, and it will assist in restoring such premises to their former state. But the deficiency I see, is to be found in the fact that the excavations and the damage caused to the surface area in the attempt to reach the treasures underground are being overlooked in this legislation as a whole and specifically in this paragraph.

This is the deficiency I want to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister. The restoration of mining premises to their original state is welcomed, but I find that in terms of this paragraph the deficiency will still exist. To my mind the restoration of the area defaced by the excavations, where the actual operations took place, should also have been included amongst the provisions in respect of clearing the above-ground area. In the absence of regulations or legislation the abandoned excavations are left to the tender mercies of Che mining companies and further to those of the elements. Examples of damage left behind in this manner, are to be found all over our fatherland. Man is an indomitable creature when he strives after material gain. He penetrates to the foundations of the earth in order to extract gold and other riches there. He even penetrates to the bottom of the sea. He levels mountains and dries up rivers. But more often than not he fails to attend to the damage he has left behind and to restore those Darts; he merely moves on. Those aspects of the mining industry which relate to the restoration and conservation of the soil, as well as the co-responsibility of mining companies for soil conservation and restoration, I have already submitted on several occasions, also by means of memoranda, to the Department of Mines, the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and also to other bodies. I have also done so across the floor of the House.

I should have liked to have seen my suggestions incorporated in the Mining Rights Act which was tabled last year. However, the bodies concerned pointed out to me that what I desired did not belong in that Bill and that it would be incorporated in the Mines and Works Act, and that an amending Bill was being drafted in that regard. What I as well as other bodies in my district expected, was that what I had proposed would in all probability have been embodied in this measure. That prospect was held out, and we had reason to entertain the hope that this would in fact be done. I have here a letter from …

Order! Is the hon. member perhaps discussing something which does not appear in this measure?

No, Sir.

The provisions of the Bill are all that is before us now.

I want to suggest an amendment to be considered at the Committee Stage, and I want to motivate my statement concerning the deficiency in this measure.

I think the hon. member must do so during the Committee Stage. All the House has before it now, is the proposed legislation.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, I nevertheless feel that during the second reading I can give a general indication of what I consider to be a deficiency in the Bill. I would appreciate it if I were permitted to elaborate on this. I just want to point out …

Order! I hope the hon. member will not go into too much detail, because these amendments to the law are all that is before the House at the moment.

I just want to prove that I definitely expected to find soil conservation provisions in this Bill. I want to prove this by reading a letter written by the Chief Government Mining Engineer of Johannesburg subsequent to a meeting responsible bodies had had with him in regard to this particular subject. He wrote as follows (translation)—

This is the point; it is very brief—

Why did the hon. member not read this point only, instead of reading the whole long letter?

“… is in progress at the moment, and until such time as the desired legislation is published, I have requested all my inspectors …”

Order! I cannot permit the hon. member to read too much correspondence concerning a matter which is not before the House.

But it is not too much, Sir …

Order!

… it is only one single letter.

Order! The hon. member must come to the point now.

The point is the following. I should like to suggest that in view of the fact that this deficiency does exist in respect of the soil conservation aspect in our legislation, there are certain questions which are still suspended in mid-air. With your permission, Sir, I want to refer briefly to everything I have already tried to do in order to have this matter straightened out. On a previous occasion I raised the question of this deficiency in our legislation during the discussion of the Mining Vote; I was called to order and it was pointed out to me that this belonged under the Agricultural Technical Services Vote. When I pleaded it there, I was once again called to order and told that it belonged under the Mining Vote. The questions I put and the representations I made are therefore still suspended in mid-air. Here I am, trying to bring up a very topical matter during the second-reading debate of the Mines and Works Amendment Bill—where I am convinced it belongs but it seems to me as though I shall not be able to plead this matter here either. This deficiency continues to exist while the Department of Mines does not want to shoulder any responsibility. Here the Minister prescribes directly what action is to be taken in regard to the restoration of the premises where the complex of buildings existed, but no provisions can be drafted and regulations can be made in respect of places where mining excavations took place and the soil was damaged. Now I am pleading that a suitable amendment be effected at the Committee Stage. If the hon. the Minister wants to give favourable consideration to my request, he may in the meantime consider an amendment or an addition to the proposed new paragraph (h). My modest and urgent request is that consideration be given to an addition to the new paragraph (h) so that the paragraph will also include soil restoration in the sphere of mining operations, and will grant authorization for soil conservation regulations which must be implemented while mining operations are being carried out and also upon the cessation of such operations. With your permission, Sir, I should like to quote from a letter addressed to me in order to draw attention to the practical implications of the absence of such legislation. The letter was written by Mr. G. D. Haasbroek of the farm Turfbult , where chrome is being mined on a fairly large scale. Here I have photographs which he sent me to show how irresponsibly they are setting about things. There are enormous excavations and it is possible to use the loose top soil and stones that are being removed for filling in the excavations that are no longer being mined. Lorries are being used to dump the soil over large parts of the best grazing on the farm, not in dumps, but spread out. Mr. Haasbroek is doing his level best to prevent this, and he has already negotiated with the mining engineer and the chief mining engineer of Klerksdorp, but he has been unsuccessful so far. In this letter he puts a few extremely topical questions, questions that must be replied to at some stage or other. With your permission, Sir, I shall read them (translation)—

I do not want written replies; I am merely reading what he wrote. He asks only four questions, which are as follows—

1. (1) What moral grounds are there to the effect that soil conservation is the duty of a certain section of the population of the Republic of South Africa only?
2. (2) I am a member of the Soil Conservation Committee of the Dwarsberg area. How can I be expected to reprimand my fellow farmer and, if needs be, to institute legal proceedings if he refuses to implement soil conservation, whereas on my own farm these principles are being disregarded to this extent?

In these photographs I am holding in my hand, it is clearly indicated what he means. He writes further—

1. (3) If the top soil has to be removed from the quarries by means of lorries, why can the soil not be dumped into the quarries which may then, even if it is only partially, be filled in?
2. (4) The soil conservation plan in respect of the farm was served on me by registered mail. What is my position now? Have I been exempted from implementing the soil conservation plan?

Order! I think the hon. member has said enough about the matter now. He must make those representations directly to the hon. the Minister, because they relate to a matter which is not before this House at the moment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity you finally afforded me to call attention to the said deficiencies in this Act and in our mining legislation in general.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say at once that we should not think that the reason for this amending Bill is a deficiency in our existing mining laws, and that the legislation now has to make provision for weaknesses. In actual fact the need for this amending Bill resulted from the tremendous expansion in the mining industry, i.e. more specifically in respect of the smaller mines. We are aware of the fact that prospecting for minerals is continuously taking place in our country. Scientific development and the needs of industries continuously require new minerals to be mined. Consequently the situation has arisen that throughout the country there are small mines with small yields which differ essentially from our existing larger and more intensive mining industry, as we came to know it over the years. In our best known mining industry, i.e. the gold-mining industry, good order and arrangements prevail between the employer and the employee in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act. Through all these years the negotiations between employers and employees could therefore take place on a very orderly and organized basis.

But, Mr. Speaker, as these smaller mining activities expanded further and further, this matter became more and more essential; hence the representations made by the Federation of Trade Unions to the hon. the Minister. Subsequenly it has also become necessary to pay attention to the welfare and the wage agreements of the workers in the smaller mines, and particularly in respect of their minimum scale of wages and the minimum number of days of paid leave. Those mines do not have negotiation as is to be found in the existing, organized, larger mining industries. But what is very important to me in these amendments, is that this Bill qualifies the powers that are being granted for the determination of conditions of service, since the clause in question states very clearly that this has to be done in the same way negotiations between employers and employees are being conducted in the existing larger mining industries.

The hon. member for Rosettenville wanted to know what the position would be if, after two or three years, the circumstances should change to such an extent that the conditions of service determined by the Minister would no longer apply. Mr. Speaker, I do not see any danger in that. I assume that the hon. the Minister will reply further to this matter, but in view of the fact that the conditions of service are connected with existing agreements in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act, negotiations and changes in these conditions of service are taking place all the time. In other words, after two, three or four years a situation may arise which will no longer correspond with that in which the existing conditions of service were negotiated. As I understand it, the Minister would, as it were, be obliged to review those conditions of service so that they might be adapted to the existing circumstances of these smaller mines. Mr. Speaker, this clause is also important in that it makes it possible for a more uniform system of conditions of employment to be created between the various and different mining industries throughout the country. This is a very important aspect.

I want to pause at another principle embodied in this Bill, namely the question of the welfare of the worker employed in or at the mine or work. The hon. the Minister explained to us that the point here is more specifically the question of the hygienic conditions and proper accommodation of office and mining operations on the premises. I trust, and that is the way I read it in this clause, that it will also make provision for coal mines. I am sorry that I have to specify certain mines, because in the coal mining industry the position is that as soon as a coal deposit is exposed to the air, chemical reactions take place. Gases escape from the burning mine dumps. The House will know that when one drives through the coal fields one smells this sulphur dioxide. But what is important, is that this gas is heavier than air. When it is calm outside, when there are no strong winds, these gases settle on the surface and the workers and the office staff in and around that mine, must inhale that gas. I have proof in my own constituency that the state of health of these people must necessarily be affected by it. Now I hope that in places where new coal fields are being mined—and there is talk of mining new coal fields in my constituency—this aspect will also be taken into account and that the placing of the workers and the facilities for the workers at coal mines will be such that they will be affected by these gases as little as is practicable. I think that as far as many of our coal mines are concerned, this has been a deficiency in the existing planning so far. I am referring specifically to the Witbank-Bethal-Middelburg area.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to touch briefly on the principle raised by the hon. member for Marico, namely the question of clearing up mining operations as soon as a mine has become defunct. I think this is a very important amendment, because as I understood the principal Act, the main emphasis was always placed on safety when mining operations were abandoned and clearing up took place. It can happen in practice that while a mine is in operation, large and heavy structures may be erected on the premises. Once such a mine has become defunct and the operations have been abandoned, and certain things laid down by regulations, have been made safe, such as holes that have to be blocked, large, heavy concrete structures are still left on the premises. A great many of these mining operations take place in the vicinity of urban areas. It is important that regulations should be made in terms of which these heavy structures are to be removed so that the land may once again be used for housing, and so forth. We know that land, particularly in our urban industrial areas, is becoming scarcer and scarcer. We cannot allow land to be wasted in this way. To me this clause also contains the most important principle, namely that the mine authorities or the mine operators will be obliged to give very serious consideration to being more careful in connection with the construction of heavy structures which may be unnecessary and not directly connected with the work and the extraction of the mineral. It will also prevent them from wasting land in that way. Let us be very honest now. In the past we did not give such serious consideration to the use of land in South Africa. We acted rather injudiciously. I am sorry to say this, but many of our mining industries, as well as other industries, were guilty of that. To me this is the important principle in this clause.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to support this amending Bill. I think that it is in the interests of the entire mining industry in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I want to thank those hon. members who took part in this debate. I do not think that one could fail to notice that there was profound interest in these matters which concern our mines and particularly our mine workers.

†The hon. member for Rosettenville raised a number of points. In the first place he referred to the definition of boiler. He is quite right in saying that the change is being effected with the sole object of improving safety where men work with boilers or in the vicinity of boilers. We make provision for the inclusion of every possible advancement in the construction of boilers to-day. Secondly, the hon. member raised the question of the Deputy Mining Engineer and the two definitions included in this Bill. He is quite right in saying that a government mining engineer must have special knowledge of mining. In this particular case both the engineer with special knowledge of machinery and the other engineer will be government mining engineers qualified in both mechanical and electrical engineering together with the necessary experience of mining. Once a man qualifies as a government mining engineer, he will have these qualifications. Both these posts will be filled by men who will be eligible to be promoted to the higher position. I can assure the hon. member that the qualifications are already laid down when a man is appointed a government mining engineer. The hon. member then referred to overtime and said that perhaps less overtime should be worked in certain mines. I want to point out that this is strictly speaking a matter for the Minister of Labour. In this particular Bill we are merely laying down the maximum times for overtime. This whole matter of overtime therefore, as it is agreed upon between the employer and the miner, is really not one which falls within the field of the Minister of Mines, but the Minister of Labour. I do not think that this is quite the right time to discuss this. I shall return later to the point made by the hon. member in regard to the hours of work, sick leave and paid leave.

In connection with asbestos mines I may tell the hon. member that his views that there are certain dangers attached to working in asbestos mines are shared by the department. I do feel, however, that at this stage we should not make a big issue about what is going on in asbestos mines. I can assure the hon. member that we are giving special attention to the position in asbestos mines. We have already drawn up regulations for respirators and other equipment which protect the health of these people. I will in due course inform the House when these regulations will be published.

Then the hon. member referred to hours of work, sick leave and overtime. He wondered whether it would not be a long drawn out matter if the parties had to return to the Minister every time the provisions in this regard have to be changed. I want to point out that in regard to the hours of work we lay down the maximum times that may be worked in order to provide protection. In regard to leave and sick leave minimum times are laid down which, as the hon. member knows, do not vary too often. I therefore do not think that there will be any difficulty in this regard. We also have experience gained from the administration of the Factories Act which has proved that there will be no undue difficulties in the administration of this Bill. I am in full agreement with the hon. member that the deletion of the provision relating to the exclusion of explosives handled by the Railways and the companies working for the Railways is also an improvement.

*The hon. member for Marico raised the question here of the damage left behind owing to mining operations, particularly in the rural areas. I know that he has been exerting himself for years to have something done in this regard. I just want to say that I understood the hon. member’s argument fully. It concerns the excavations and the unsightly earth-dumps that are being left behind, but it also concerns injudicious roads that are being built to reach these smaller mines, and so forth. This is largely a matter concerned with soil erosion. It is therefore a matter that belongs with the Department of Agriculture Technical Services. I also know that for several years already, also as a result of representations made by this hon. member, there have been correspondence and discussions between the Department of Mines and the Department of Agricultural and Technical Services. I want to assure the hon. member that I am once again going into this matter and that in the not too distant future we shall consult my colleague the Minister of Agriculture about this matter to see whether we can do something in this regard. The fact of the matter is that if something can be done to combat the erosion of our soil, I feel that the Department of Mines should not stand in the way. At any rate, I want to give the undertaking that we are giving attention to this matter at the moment. In this regard I may just add that all excavations, for instance those for alluvial diamonds, do not necessarily mar the landscape. The hon. member himself knows that where some of these excavations are being done, grass is growing now, which greatly improves the retention of the water that falls there. I merely mention this in passing.

Then the hon. member for Bethal spoke about the matters contained in the Bill in great earnest and with understanding. He is quite correct in saying that it seems as though these amendments are being introduced at a very late stage. They are actually consequent upon the tremendous expansion that has taken place in the mining industry, particularly in the widely spread smaller mines. I just want to mention two figures which I consider to be wonderful. In 1948 the total yield of the mining industry in the Republic was R262 million. Last year it was R1,319 million. The hon. member will also appreciate the fact that last week we had a detailed discussion in this House of the question of the smaller mines. Then he also raised the question of gases at coal mines. Strictly speaking that falls under the Atmospheric Pollution Act, but in terms of his obligations under that Act, the Government Mining Engineer is at the moment giving attention to the combating of gases, and so forth. As I am saying, it really falls under the Atmospheric Pollution Act.

Finally, the hon. member raised the question of clearing up. I am very glad that he made this important point, namely that when the regulations are known in respect of the clearing up that has to take place, when a mine ceases its operations, mine owners will be in a position to plan better. They will then know what their obligations will be when that mine has to cease its operations. It can also help them to relieve the burdens which will be imposed on them towards the end of the period.

I want to thank hon. members for their contributions to this debate. I also want to thank the hon. member for Rosettenville for his support of this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

The object of the Census Act is to provide for and legalize the rules and procedure for the decennial population census. The Act was formerly administered by the Minister of the Interior, but upon the establishment of the Ministry of Planning it was assigned to that Ministry. Since section 1 of the Act still describes the responsible Minister as the Minister of the Interior, it is necessary to change this to the Minister of Planning.

The Census Act is not applicable to South West Africa, but in the fulfilment of the Republic’s responsibility towards that territory, it is necessary for regular population censu ses to be taken in the territory as well. Earlier censuses in the territory were taken in terms of the provisions of the old Census Act, 1910 (Act No. 2 of 1910), of the Union of South Africa, and the regulations issued thereunder, which were made applicable to South West, as well as to the “Rehoboth Gebied”, by way of a proclamation issued by the Administrator of South West Africa. (Proclamation No. 52 of 1920). During 1957 the old Census Act, 1910, was substituted by the existing Census Act, No. 76 of 1957. This Act, however, was not made applicable to South West Africa, neither can it be made applicable by the Administrator by way of a proclamation, because the Administrator no longer has the power to do so. (vide section 22 of the South West Africa Affairs Amendment Act, 1949). This Act also provides that Parliament alone can make legislation of the Republic applicable to the territory, and the 1960 population census was taken there under the provisions of the Administrator’s proclamation No. 52 of 1920.

It is desirable, however, to bring the legal and administrative position in respect of census-taking in South West Africa into line with the position that applies in the Republic, and this can be done only by making the relevant Act, namely the Census Act, applicable to the territory, including the Eastern Caprivi Zipfel and the “Rehoboth Gebiet”. Such a step will also be in accordance with a decision taken by the Administrator-in-Executive-Committee of South West Africa.

Censuses are taken at regular intervals in virtually all countries of the world, usually decennially. They are extremely valuable in that the size and characteristics of the population and its geographical distribution and social characteristics are determined in this way. Furthermore, they are indispensable for administrative purposes because the formulation and planning of policy, both economic and social, are to a very large extent based on the census results. Without this information it is difficult to determine the need for new schools, hospitals and roads, to mention only a few examples.

It has already been approved in principle that the next population census in the Republic will be taken during 1970. It is an enormous undertaking requiring a large amount of preparatory work. The processing of census data collected is also a major task. To perform these two tasks, namely the preparation and the processing, it is necessary to make special administrative arrangements. A large number of additional officials have to be appointed for this service and additional office machines have to be hired. If the population census is undertaken simultaneously in the Republic and South West Africa, naturally the whole task will, of course, be considerably simplified. For this purpose it is necessary to make the provisions of the Census Act, No. 76 of 1957, applicable to the Territory of South West Africa before 1970.

As the Minister has said, this is an administrative matter and he has indicated to us that it has the support of the authorities in South West Africa. For that reason we are prepared to support the Second Reading and to see that it has a safe passage.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

Since the year 1914 statistics were collected in the Union of South Africa, later the Republic of South Africa, in terms of the provisions of the Statistics Act, 1914 (Act No. 38 of 1914), and the regulations issued thereunder. In 1920 this Act was also made applicable to South West Africa by way of Proclamation No. 51 of 1920 issued by the Administrator of the territory. This is a similar situation to the one we discussed a moment ago. During 1957, however, the old Statistics Act was substituted by the Statistics Act, No. 73 of 1957. This was done because as a result of modern requirements it had become necessary for matters in regard to which statistics could be collected to be expanded considerably.

The new Act, however, could not be made applicable to South West Africa by way of a proclamation issued by the Administrator as in the case of the old Statistics Act, because the Administrator’s power to issue such a proclamation had been repealed by section 22 of the South West Africa Affairs Amendment Act. 1949 (Act No. 23 of 1949), which provided that in the future only Parliament would have the power to legislate for the Territory in regard to those matters on which the Legislative Assembly of the Territory was not competent to legislate.

In the meantime, however, statistics were still compiled in South West Africa under the Administrator’s Proclamation No. 51 of 1920, as well as on a voluntary basis. However, it is not desirable to continue on this basis, because full justice cannot be done to South West in this year owing to the fact that the provisions of the new Statistics Act, 1957, cover a considerably wider field than the old Act of 1914. For example, effective and comprehensive statistics are a necessity to-day in making the administration of any country run smoothly and in undertaking advance planning, which has become so indispensable.

The collection of statistics is necessary in the Territory, as in virtually any country, for determining the extent of the economic activities and the development. For policy, planning and administrative purposes it is necessary for the authorities of the Territory itself to have at their disposal particulars of, to mention only a few, activities relating to manufacturing industry, construction, agriculture, fisheries, new vehicles registered, prices of commodities and the wholesale and retail trades. Statistical surveys in regard to all these matters are already carried out regularly in the Territory, mainly on a voluntary basis. Not only is it necessary for the authorities to know what is happening in the various economic and social fields, but the private sector also requires this information for planning, business and investment purposes. In addition it is necessary, in so far as the collection and the processing of statistics are concerned, to bring the legal and administrative position in South West Africa into line with that of the Republic. This is necessary because the work is performed by the same staff so that overlapping and wastage of manpower are eliminated. This object can be achieved only by making the Statistics Act, 1957, and the regulations framed thereunder, applicable to the Territory as well. The Administrator-in-Executive-Committee is in agreement with this.

The Administration and the people of South West Africa deserve praise for the way in which they have been prepared to co-operate with the Bureau for Statistics in the past in furnishing particulars in regard to their activities voluntarily and without there being any legal obligation upon them to do so. I think the House will agree with me that it is desirable that this amendment should be effected.

We support the Second Reading of the Bill. As the Minister has said. this is an administrative matter. I would however draw the Minister’s attention to clause 3, which provides that the Minister may enter into arrangements with the government of any neighbouring territory to carry out the provisions of this Act. Does the Minister contemplate making such arrangements with Botswana and the Portuguese territories to the north? The Minister did not deal with that matter and I ask him at this stage to elucidate that clause further because I think it is important.

We do not contemplate at this stage doing anything of the sort, but as hon. members know, Botswana lies in between the Republic, South West Africa and Angola. It may be necessary, but at the moment we are only taking this precautionary step to make it possible, should it become necessary, to have certain dealings with a neighbouring State.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

The proposed amendments which are contained in this Bill and which are consequent upon the Act we passed two years ago, are designed to provide for the following:

1. (a) That the principal Act shall not apply with reference to the business carried on by any person of selling on behalf of another, or receiving for such sale, slaughter animals, meat or by-products of slaughter animals if the giving of security in respect thereof is required by the Livestock and Meat Industries Control Board and if such security, in the opinion of the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing or an officer designated by him, is sufficient;
2. (b) That designated officers of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing will have the right to inspect the books of auctioneers, agents and factors in order to determine the volume of their business in respect of the sale of livestock and agricultural produce as far as is necessary to establish the correctness of the amount of the security which has to be given to the Department; and
3. (c) Necessary consequential amendments to the penalty clauses in the principal Act.

In order to give hon. members an idea of the purport of the various amendments, I shall now proceed to deal with the various clauses. I shall first deal with the exemption of certain types of business from the provisions of the principal Act.

Clause 1: In terms of section 6 (1) of the principal Act auctioneers, agents and factors are compelled to give security to the satisfaction of the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing to fulfil any obligations which may arise towards any person in respect of the proceeds of agricultural produce and livestock sold or received for sale by them. The amount of the security is calculated according to the volume of the business transacted by the auctioneer, agent or factor during the preceding 12 months. When calculating the amount of security the amount of the proceeds in respect of slaughter-stock, meat or by-products of slaughter-stock sold on behalf of producers, is at present included in the turnover of the auctioneer, agent or factor as a matter of course, notwithstanding the fact that securing in respect thereof has already been given to the Meat Board.

This entails that such auctioneers, agents or factors are compelled to give security to two bodies in respect of the same turnover. Consequently, the Federation of Livestock Auctioneers made representations to me recently that the double burden in this connection which rests on those concerned should be removed. In the cases under discussion security should only be required by one body, and it is obvious that such body should be the Meat Board rather than the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing. The matter will be put right by the provision embodied in the proposed new section 5A. Both the Meat Board and the S.A. Agricultural Union approve of the proposed amendment. In other words, the safety factor as far as the farmer and the producer are concerned is not affected in any way. They are still quite safe.

Then I come to clause 2, which deals with the designation of officers who may have the right of access into the books of auctioneers, agents and factors. For the purposes of exercising control it seems to be advisable to give the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing, who is responsible for seeing to it that the necessary security is furnished to him in terms of the Act, the power to determine for this purpose the volume of the business transacted by any auctioneer, agent or factor. Provision is, therefore, being made for this in the proposed new section 6 (3).

The proposed new section 6 (4) contains the customary powers granted to persons who are designated for purposes of this nature and is necessary to enable them to carry out their duties in this connection effectively.

I then come to clause 3, which amends the penalty provisions of the principal Act. In order to render the provisions of the proposed section 6 (3) and (4), mentioned in clause 2, enforceable and to protect auctioneers, agents and factors against persons who may falsely pretend to be officers designated in terms of section 6 (3), it is necessary to extend the penalty provisions of the principal Act. The proposed new provisions and the amendment of the maximum penalty which may be imposed on conviction, are in keeping with the penalty provisions of the Perishable Agricultural Produce Sales Act, 1961 (No. 2 of 1961), which applies to commission agents.

Mr. Speaker, I think this measure is a very desirable one in order to facilitate matters for auctioneers and factors without affecting the security required for the protection of the farmer, and I shall be glad if the House will give this measure its support.

I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that we on this side of the House will vote for the Second Reading of this Bill. The hon. the Minister explained to us that this measure was being introduced particularly at the request of the Federation of Livestock Auctioneers and that the S.A. Agricultural Union also approved of it. It was quite unnecessary for auctioneers to have been compelled to give some form of twofold security in terms of the Livestock and Produce Sales Act and for such security to have been given to the Meat Board as well. The amendment which is being effected here is, therefore, a good one and we agree with that. Clauses 2 and 3 merely contains consequential amendments. I should like to put a few questions to the hon. the Deputy Minister in connection with clause 1. Does he and his legal advisers feel quite satisfied with the amendment which is being proposed here and which provides—

Section 5 of the principal Act provides—

What does section 3 provide? Section 3 of the old Act provides quite clearly that there are certain requirements with which auctioneers undertaking the sale of livestock, should comply, in addition to the question of security. We just want to know whether the hon. the Minister and his Department are certain that, when this clause is adopted, such an auctioneer, apart from the security aspect, will not be exempted from other provisions of this Act as well? We should just like to be assured on this point and if the Minister is not sure of this, one can, of course, move an amendment in the Committee Stage. We do not want to find once this Bill has been passed that auctioneers are also being exempted from other obligations imposed on them in terms of the Livestock and Produce Sales Act. If the hon. the Minister can give us that assurance, we shall, of course, not move an amendment in the Committee Stage.

I think this House is indebted to the hon. member for Newton Park for having studied this Bill so scrupulously and for having gone into the matter in order to get certainty. Like him, I also had misgivings and I asked the legal advisers to make sure what the position was. I promise to let the hon. member have their reply when we come to the Committee Stage, because the hon. member is quite right. Considering the enormous turnover and the vast amounts involved in the stock trade and stock industry, it is necessary that one should be absolutely certain that the system of security provides adequate protection to the farmer and the producer. It is necessary for the Meat Board, which is now going to require security on behalf of the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing, to exercise careful supervision and to see that the security is sufficient for the sake of ensuring stability in the meat industry. But hon. members will see from the Bill that we are not going to place the full responsibility on the Meat Board alone. We are providing in the Bill that the Secretary of the Department must also satisfy himself that the security required by the Meat Board is sufficient to protect the industry. For that reason we are providing for a person to be designated by the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing to examine the relevant books from time to time and then to make the necessary recommendations to the Meat Board if he finds the security required by the Meat Board to be inadequate when compared with the turnover as the business transacted by the agent increases. This is necessary because we must take all steps to give the necessary protection to the meat farmer, who farms on a long-term basis. The meat farmer, who has to invest a lot of capital, has to be certain that the State or the Government body concerned will see to it that he will not sustain unnecessary losses. The losses our poor meat farmers sustain as a result of droughts as well as other causes are quite large enough.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

I think this is a measure of great importance and one that will be welcomed very much by hon. members. I think that it will be welcomed not only by hon. members, but also by the Soil Conservation Board and by the whole of South Africa, which is having a Festival of the Soil this year, because in this Bill we are making provision for further Government aid for soil conservation.

First I should like to explain the provisions of the Bill to hon. members. The Agricultural Credit Act, 1966, which came into operation on 1st October, 1966, makes provision for uniform and comprehensive measures as regards the provision of credit facilities by the Government to farmers on a continuous and purposeful basis. It has accordingly put an end to the unco-ordinated action of the past, which was not only inefficient but also promoted overlapping. We have therefore made some progress in this regard.

The increase in the funds spent by the Agricultural Credit Board for purposes of assistance, makes it clear, that this source of finances has become indispensable to a large part of our farming community; the demand for agricultural credit therefore indicates that the machinery created by this Act is functioning efficiently. I think that South Africa and we may be very proud of that machinery. However, the application of the measures in terms of this Act has brought to light certain flaws that have to be eliminated. It has furthermore become necessary to extend the powers of the Agricultural Credit Board so that loans for soil conservation, the supply of water and the housing of non-White farm labourers may be granted to all owners of land on which farming operations are carried on. I say “all owners of land on which farming operations are carried on”. In other words, this does not refer to land that is not in use, but to land on which farming operations are carried on. An entirely new facet enters into this financing, i.e. the provision of loans for non-White housing. We have often heard, and the hon. the Minister again appealed to the farmers yesterday, that non-White housing and working conditions should be made as attractive as possible so that the farmers may compete on the labour market and obtain the necessary labour resources. This measure will help them in that regard. The object of the Bill now before you is to make these additions.

Except in the case of certain forms of emergency assistance it is a condition of the provision of assistance that the applicant must provide security. In the granting of assistance for the purchase of means of production, for example, the condition is laid down that the means that are purchased, the crops grown by means thereof and all subsequent crops produced by the applicant remain the property of the State until such time as the debt is redeemed or otherwise exempted.

As the Act now reads, crops that are already in the ground at the time when the assistance is approved of, cannot be taken as security, as such crops are not included in the definition of movable property. If one’s movable property is included under a mortgage loan or any other kind of loan, then the security exists. But we have often come across cases where a crop farmer, for example, had a beautiful crop of maize or wheat or whatever kind of crop it may be, but where it could not serve as security for a loan in terms of the present Act. This measure now provides that such crops may serve as security in the same way as livestock, i.e. sheep, goats, cattle, etc.

In a certain area that was recently stricken by floods and where the farmers had to set about levelling their lands and re-establishing their crops immediately after the floods had subsided, assistance in meeting the costs in connection with the re-establishment of crops could only be granted after the crops had been put in and could therefore not be considered as being movable property for the purposes of the Act. The object of clause 1 is to extend the definition of movable property to include such crops and also fruit, whether harvested or not. The intention here is to make it possible to accept crops as security where the State in fact finances the means of production employed, even if this is done only after the crops concerned have been planted. I want to make it quite clear that existing pledge rights of, for example, an agricultural cooperative or the Land Bank will not be interfered with at all, as a farmer is not authorized by law to cede to the State the right of ownership in respect of crops which are subject to a statutory pledge.

Section 10 limits the powers in terms of which assistance may be rendered to a natural person; this consequently excludes companies and other corporate bodies. As a result of the amendment of the Soil Conservation Act of 1946, the Agricultural Credit Act is now the only channel through which Government assistance in respect of the construction of soil conservation works or the application of soil conservation measures may be granted. As regards this matter the approach differs from that applied in regard to assistance in respect of other farming activities where the accent falls on the farmer. In the case of soil conservation the accent in actual fact falls upon the conservation of the soil for posterity. We therefore have a different approach. The soil itself is also involved here, and not only the farmer.

As the State has the power to enforce soil conservation measures on a land owner, it follows that State funds should be readily available for this purpose. In the case of, for example, corporate bodies such as public companies and local authorities which are able to obtain funds from other sources, the financing of soil conservation should be no problem. It may, however, be a different matter in the case of a private company, for instance that of two brothers who practise farming exclusively and where they, in fact, fall in the category of farmers that are dependent upon the State for assistance. Clause 2 therefore proposes to authorize the Agricultural Credit Board, where necessary, also to grant loans for soil conservation to a company or to some other corporate body which owns land on which farming operations are carried on. Furthermore, the authority of the Board is being extended so that loans for supplying water by means of, for example, boreholes or irrigation works in the interests of farming or for the erection of dwellings for non-White farm labourers, may, within the limits of Government policy, also be granted to any owner of land on which farming operations are carried on.

One of the objects of the Act is to establish a farmer on an economic unit. This is also the object of the old Act. It is therefore essential that the unit should not be subdivided into pieces later on, thus frustrating this objective. Accordingly the Act provides that conditions prohibiting, inter alia, subdivision and, if there is more than one part, separate alienation without the Minister’s approval, may be registered against the title deed of the land.

I just want to explain briefly that, with the idea of consolidation, there are sometimes two units which do not border upon one another but are at a distance from one another, but which have been consolidated as a farming unit. If a person then cultivates those two separate units as a unit to enable him to farm economically, then we go out of our way to help that person. That is when there are separate pieces of land.

If separate pieces of land have already been mortgaged when assistance is granted, such a prohibition of alienation would indeed prevent a mortgagee from having the land in which he has an interest, judicially sold, for then it would at the same time have to be sold along with another piece or pieces not subject to the mortgage of such a mortgagee. Therefore such a condition cannot be imposed on land encumbered to the advantage of another person (that is to say, not the State). It is, however, desirable that such a restrictive condition should nevertheless be imposed in all cases if the rights of an existing mortgagee are not involved. The rights of the existing mortgagee are still being protected. After redemption of the existing bond debt, however, the condition will remain in force in perpetuity. Then we succeed once again in consolidating an economic unit. The reference as contained in clause 3 is therefore intended to make the restriction enforceable in all cases, except when the land is sold by order of the court at the instance of a mortgagee whose mortgage bond had existed before the condition was imposed.

It is foreseeable that circumstances may arise where it is desirable to separate properties subject to a prohibition on separate alienation, and possibly to join them to other properties. In other words, the purpose of the separation is to join the land to other properties. Further provision is therefore being made that the Minister may agree to such a separation. However, if it is deemed necessary that such a separated property be joined to other land or that some other restriction be imposed, the Minister is being authorized to grant conditional consent, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law contained.

Mr. Speaker, this side of the House supports this Bill. I am glad that the hon. the Deputy Minister said in advance in his speech that the co-operative organizations were not affected by clause 1. We accept this. If the reverse had been the case, we would have created the position that our farmers would have been able to get less instead of more credit. As far as the next clause is concerned, this side wants to congratulate the Deputy Minister on its inclusion. There are a few small objections to the clause, but we are glad that he has at last listened to the United Party’s representations in including companies as well. We want to thank him for that. It seldom happens that this side thanks a Minister, but I think that the Deputy Minister really deserves our thanks in this case. There is also a second point for which we want to thank him. This probably sounds funny. We want to thank him for also including non-White farm labourers in cases where loans for dwellings may be granted. This is quite correct. The urban labourer is assisted by means of public funds lent to local authorities and other concerns at very low interest rates. The Minister then is quite right in making such provision in this measure as well. But why does the Minister discriminate against Whites in the rural areas? Why does he refer to non-White labourers and not merely to farm labourers? Whites are now being excluded. What about our farm foremen? The rural districts are today becoming drained of farm foremen and managers, and I do not think the Minister should now become “verlig” (enlightened) to such an extent and carry on in this way. I think it will be a good thing if he moves an amendment in the Committee Stage to delete the word “non-White”. Then the clause will only refer to farm labourers, which will include both Whites and non-Whites.

I do not want to say much more about clause 3, because another hon. member on this side will give a little more attention to it. I quite understand the explanation which the Deputy Minister gave in respect of the consolidation of land, and we are not opposed to that. On the contrary, we are in favour of it. According to clause 3 the words “not encumbered in favour of any other person” will appear in the new section 35 of the principal Act. It refers to land which has not yet been encumbered. One may gain the impression that this is intended to serve another purpose as well. I shall therefore be glad if the hon. the Deputy Minister will elucidate this further. This original intention of the principal Act was to consolidate all the debts of a farmer. We were under the impression, rightly or wrongly, that when a farmer with an existing first mortgage bond takes a second mortgage with the State, the State will then also take over the first mortgage bond and consolidate both mortgage bonds, with the State as mortgagee. It would appear as if the insertion of the words mentioned may to some extent be used to extend the mortgage of a private concern which already has a mortgage bond on such a piece of land. I shall be grateful if the hon. the Deputy Minister will give a further explanation of this particular point. We feel that the Minister may say that there is not sufficient money to take over and to pay for the existing mortgage bonds and that the existing mortgage bonds will therefore simply have to continue in existence. Without this change it will of course not be possible for the Minister to do both. However, the proposed amendment will make it possible for him to assist the farmer and to retain the mortgage bond of the private concern temporarily. I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister will clear up this aspect for us.

We are in favour of consolidation in cases where there are uneconomic units, or where two separate units can be better cultivated and more economically farmed as one unit. This side accordingly supports this measure.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side especially welcome this legislation. Right at the beginning of my speech I want to express my appreciation to the hon. Opposition for now being so sensible as to support this legislation. If one has studied the principal Act—not only studied it, but if one has also noted its implementation in the rural districts and how it has helped the farmers—and if one has had to deal with it in practice every day, one has come to the realization that certain flaws do exist in the principal Act. With this legislation which we are now piloting through the House, we are able to supply those deficiencies and to bring about a better implementation of that Act.

Before continuing, I first want to mention the fact that this side of the House has a proud record as far as assistance to destitute farmers is concerned. I do not think that there has ever been a government which has done so much for the destitute farmer as the National Party Government. If one considers that there are between 90,000 and 100,000 farmers in South Africa and that since 1948, when the present Government came into power, 30,000 of them have received some form of assistance from this House in difficult circumstances, we can really be proud of it. It is a record held by no other government. We believe that we are at present going through times which make changes to the principal Act absolutely necessary. Large areas of our country are experiencing serious drought conditions and it is not only the poor and destitute farmers who are dealt further blows by it, but also those who were reasonably well off in the past, are literally being forced to their knees by these circumstances. No matter how industrious one may be and how much confidence one may have—whatever one may do—if the rain stays away one may be as clever as one may; one is eventually cornered! I am now thinking, for example, of a region such as the grassveld, this side of the Langeberge, which is well known to many members of this House. It was probably one of our most stable regions, but with the drought which has already lasted about seven months, there are some farmers who would normally flourish, who are having a bitterly hard time under these conditions and who will shortly be forced to apply to the State in order to receive further assistance under this Act.

Let us now consider our grain farmers. Mr. Speaker, we know that to grow wheat and to make a living from it is one of the most uncertain ways of making a living on earth. To put in a good grain crop costs a great deal of money. The farmer is very fortunate if he can say, when his crop has been harvested, that he is able to make a profit of 12 per cent to 15 per cent on the total turnover. Then one comes to the poor man—the man who is specifically going to ask for assistance under this Act—who although he has put in a large crop can do nothing with it; he cannot go to the co-operative society with it to meet his obligations. However, the Government is now accommodating him to such an extent that even the crop which is still on the land may be taken into account. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that this is worth a great deal to us and that it will be possible to assist many farmers in this way.

But this Act actually contains and extends two principles, which I should like to see extended so as to include the entire field of agriculture. The first principle is the assistance which is going to be rendered for the building of houses for farm labourers. At many of the agricultural congresses we have made this request to the Government, i.e. that the Government should in some way or other enable the farmer to provide decent Coloured housing in the rural districts. We who know the rural districts all agree that Coloured housing there leaves much to be desired. We do not like saying so, but we must accept for a fact that it is the case. Now I do not want to do an injustice to the farmers who have gone as far as spending a great deal of money to build good houses for their labourers. We appreciate their efforts. It is to their own benefit, because I believe that by supplying better housing for their labourers they can obtain better labour. But the poorer man must of necessity also have labour, and if he is left to his own devices, the accommodation which he provides there is not as desired, since he has no other choice. He must have the accommodation, and because he has no money, he builds it as cheaply as possible. We want to express our special thanks and appreciation for the fact that this legislation now makes provision for the State to intervene there and rectify matters. We hope and request that this principle will in future be applicable to all our farmers throughout the country.

I shall come to the other principle, that of subdivision, at a later stage, but I first want to say how important it is that we make extra provision here for water conservation. If one thinks of the stock areas—and I am again thinking of those parts I know well, namely south of the Langeberge—one of the problems there is that one does not have sufficient drinking water for one’s livestock. If one sinks boreholes or digs wells, the water in large areas is found to be completely salty. One farmer said that his water was so salty that he could catch a kob in it. Now it is a fact that in times of drought one can keep the livestock going if there is an adequate supply of drinking water. That is very important. I believe that one can double the number of livestock in many areas if the water supply is adequate. Now that sheep are fed on dry grass, all kinds of additional feeds and balanced diets, one would be able to keep them going through a drought for quite a considerable time, if one could only succeed in giving them good drinking water. Since this Bill now makes provision, for example, for the water to be pumped out of a river and laid on over a large distance to supply the livestock, I want to express my special appreciation. I believe that the effect and influence of this provision will in time be very important to our farmers, especially our stock farmers. We have to rely all the more on our livestock because our crops so often fail us.

The other principle contained herein is that of the prohibition of subdivision. Mr. Speaker, we know that small units, of which we unfortunately have so many, are in fact a great disadvantage in our farming set-up. The farmer is inclined to keep as many livestock there as possible, because, Mr. Speaker, he must make a living on that unit. He must extract every cent from it that he possibly can. Then he keeps as many livestock there as possible. In times of drought, such as now, the livestock trample the pasture land. The surface layer is later turned to dust. When the heavy rains come, it is this valuable surface layer that is washed away. Then that piece of land is poorer than it ever was before. Because we can now prevent this subdivision and can further extend the application of this provision, I believe it to be one of the most important points in this legislation.

Then there is also the following phenomenon, which is really to be regretted. If the poor farmer is placed there on a small unit and cannot earn sufficient from it to ensure a decent living for himself, his wife and children, he does the following. He does what is so often done. He goes to the Department of Social Welfare and says: “My income is so much and I cannot provide for my wife and children on this.” We can prevent this in future if we ensure that those units are not too small. I want to make the statement here that it is humiliating to any farmer, if circumstances do not allow the man to live from his land and by hard labour, to go hat in hand to the Department of Social Welfare to ask for support so that he may live decently. We believe that the two principles contained in this Bill, especially that relating to subdivision, will in the course of time be extended to our other agricultural legislation and be applicable to the whole of the country. I am convinced that it can only be beneficial to our entire farming community and to our country as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mossel Bay has discussed the aspects of agricultural financing fairly widely. I do not wish to reply to all the observations he has made. He did say that that side of the House is proud of the efforts it has made to assist the farmer over a period of many years. I do not intend to quarrel with the hon. member on that statement. I do want to say that a large portion of the Karoo and the Eastern Cape is in the midst of a very serious crisis, a crisis that has been brought about by a prolonged drought, probably unequalled in the history of those areas. There is no doubt that the Government will have to ensure that it is well-informed about the position there. I do hope that in the course of the next two months they will be able to maintain the reputation that the hon. member suggested they have. If they do not come forward with generous assistance, there is going to be an agricultural debacle in those areas, the likes of which we have never seen. I do not want to elaborate on that subject at this stage, but I do want to impress upon the Minister the seriousness of the matter. It is an urgent matter and demands immediate attention from this Government. I want to refer to the amendments contained in this Bill. As the hon. member for Sea Point said we on this side of the House support the amendments contained in this Bill because we feel that it improves the original Act. It provides for assistance for farming projects which would otherwise not be possible. For that reason we consider it a good measure.

I have certain reservations about clause 3. It is not quite clear to me what the implications of this clause will be. I am a little concerned that it may be that the farmer’s credit-worthiness is impaired when he wants to borrow money from the private sector, rather than the State, as a result of the amendment contained in the Bill. We will have a good look at the hon. the Minister’s second-reading speech. When we have studied his speech and satisfied ourselves that that is not the case, we will probably accept the Bill without any amendment. If, however, we find that the creditworthiness of the farmer, his ability to borrow money, is in any way being impaired we may have to move an amendment in this regard. I say this advisedly because I must emphasize that the farmer in South Africa today finds himself in an extremely difficult position to-day when it comes to credit. Several such cases have been referred to me recently. Comparatively wealthy farmers to-day find themselves in the position that they cannot borrow a penny from any source whatever. They are either too poor to obtain credit from the normal sources of agricultural credit, or they are too rich to get it from the Land Bank. They find themselves between the devil and the deep blue sea with no credit facilities available to them at all. It is for this reason that we on this side of the House will examine clause 3. If we are satisfied that it is not impairing the creditworthiness of the farmer, we will be happy to support it. If not, we shall be obliged to move a constructive amendment.

Mr. Speaker, we would like to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for and congratulate him on this legislation. The Opposition says once again that this is one of those matters they have been advocating for a long time. This is the old story we have been hearing from them over a period of many years. They hold forth on any topic under the sun. One has to accept, seeing that they are constantly changing their policy, that they would have spoken about virtually every matter without their having formulated or elaborated a proper scheme in regard to such matters. It is the task of the Government and, especially the Department and the Minister who carried out this work and introduced this Bill, to see to the essential things created by circumstances in this country. In the light of the tremendous developments in the country, and especially the increases in the population, it definitely is a matter of the utmost necessity to make provision for the necessary agricultural credit facilities. As long as the population continues to increase, it remains a matter of urgent necessity to make provision for the three aspects of the essential credit facilities, i.e. long term, middle term and short term credit. I do not want to elaborate on this now, because this is not the opportunity for doing so. I do want to say, however, that we welcome this legislation and the fact that the Minister, after all the discussions in connection with this matter, has come forward to amend certain of the provisions of the existing Act, as required by the problems now facing us.

We are also pleased that the Minister, especially in view of the fact that the Government is at present engaged in providing housing for the urban and rural non-White population, sees his way clear to make this step in regard to the problem of the provision of housing for labourers in the rural areas. I should like to learn a few more details from the Minister as regards the loan facilities for the provision of housing for labourers in the rural areas. I should like to know whether he lays down in his regulations what the nature of such housing is to be. In view of the fact that he is making provision for credit facilities under these circumstances, I should like to know whether he will present an over-all plan in this regard, as far as the standards which will have to be met are concerned. This is one of the problems in respect of which we should like to obtain more details from the hon. the Minister. I think this is a fine policy the hon. the Minister is now adopting and we welcome it.

The second matter on which I should like to elaborate is the lien which the hon. the Minister has in respect of products. We are glad to hear that this does not interfere with the lien of the co-operative societies. There are, however, even at this stage, certain matters which, as far as agricultural credit is concerned, make the position difficult as regards the lien in respect of means of production provided by the Department of Agricultural Credit and those provided by the co-operative societies. I admit immediately that the Department is very accommodating and that an acceptable solution is always found between the co-operative societies and the Department. The Department grants a production loan and consequently the Government has the first lien in such cases. Notwithstanding section 96 of the Co-operative Societies Act, the Government has a first lien in respect of these products, so that the Department of Agricultural Credit may rightly maintain that the crop standing on the field is its crop. But this is not where the matter ends. Although the Department has provided the means of production, one arrives at a stage when this farmer has a good crop and consequently has to incur further expenses in respect of such things as bags and spare parts in addition to the things provided by the Department, and in this case the respective liens of the two bodies, which have both provided credit, clash. We shall greatly appreciate if if the hon. the Minister will give us more details in regard to these matters relating to the lien. The hon. the Minister also said, and we welcome this, that he would also take the lien in respect of crops. We know that problems have arisen as a result of private creditors and that possession has been taken while the crops were still on the fields. It happens that private creditors take possession of the farm as well as the crop just before a crop worth between R50,000 and R60,000 is to be harvested. Consequently I hope that this legislation will safeguard the farmer against these vultures who simply wait until a farmer has a crop before striking. But this lien of the hon. the Minister will prevent that.

There are other matters as well in respect of which we should like to have more details. The question of the consolidation of farms and properties is a major problem as regards development in the future. We realize that there are good, average, and bad farmers. I want to show what may happen. One farmer was the owner of a large farm but his farming operations failed. Another man then came along and bought a small portion of that farm. He made a success of the farming operations and gradually purchased the whole farm. In other words, here one is not concerned with the farm but with the farmer. We now have to find a definition for defining an economic unit. The essence of this is to determine when one has a farm which is an economic unit. One of the biggest problems as regards farming units is to determine what an economic unit is. There are small and poor but good farmers who start their farming operations with many debts but who develop these farms and buy additional land. Then one finds the poor farmer who cannot make a success of farming operations on that same piece of land. Therefore we must find a way of defining an economic farming unit according to the livelihood of the average farmer. What is a livelihood? This is another problem in respect of which we must obtain clarity before concentrating our attention on the question of the consolidation of farming units. In order to determine these economic units, we must take care not to subdivide land in such a way that it will result in uneconomic units. We do find cases, and I think that there are no existing powers in our present legislation for preventing the subdivision of a farm in a totally foolish way. Recently we had the case of a farm which was in the shape of a long strip. One of the heirs was a city dweller while the other heir had to live on that farm. In point of fact, I think the farm is not an economic unit as it is. The outsider wanted to subdivide that farm from one corner to the other in order to achieve his object. If that is to be done the farm will be destroyed. There is no power to prevent this, unless the hon. the Minister takes steps in that direction by means of this legislation.

We must get clarity in our own minds. What is an economic unit? How is that to be determined or defined? After that has been done, the question arises, what income does one expect a family to have in order to make a proper livelihood on such a farm? How is one going to determine what the income of such a farm has to be in order to enable the family—consisting of, say, the husband and wife and two or three children—to make a good livelihood on that farm? Only when these aspects can be defined, will we have clarity in regard to this type of legislation. A further step which ought to receive consideration in this connection is the distances between farms. At times we find that the one farm is situated a short distance from the other piece of land. But what distance between two pieces of land does the Department regard as reasonable with a view to consolidating them as a unit? I take it, for example, that the distance between units in the case of the cattle farmer may be greater. In such a case, consolidation is in fact necessary and it ought to work properly. There are, however, other types of farming where consolidation will be difficult. I trust the hon. the Minister will throw more light on these matters and indicate how we can facilitate them in the future.

We should like to have clarity in regard to these few matters. In view of the development which is being envisaged for the agricultural industry, one of the major things we have to guard against is the fragmentation of our land. And if we continue with the subdivision of one farm after the other as has lately been the case, the matter becomes impossible. I do not want to say, as was stated by the Van Eck Commission in the time of the United Party, that the State has to be the only purchaser of land. That would kill agricultural credit. This was one of the most foolish things ever said by the United Party in its time. It would be fatal to the development of the agricultural industry. If we had accepted that recommendation by the Van Eck Commission under the rule of the United Party—the White Paper of General Smuts—the entire question of credit in the agricultural industry would have been dealt with by one body only, namely the State. With that we can never agree. In other words, I am hoping that the National Party will never and under no circumstances lend itself to that kind of policy. I repeat that we are grateful for this legislation and support it wholeheartedly. I want to wish the hon. the Deputy Minister well as regards the tremendous development which is in store for us and upon which he is now venturing.

Mr. Speaker, when we passed the Agricultural Credit Act in this House two years ago, we were very grateful for that legislation and cherished high hopes of the new Department into which other departments had been absorbed. The legislation actually consolidated other then existing departments which used to provide credit. I say we cherished high hopes of that Department. We also expected that it would become necessary from time to time to introduce amendments. We expected adjustments having to be made from time to time, because that was an entirely new Department which would be experimental to a large extent. But in that we saw the establishment of a Department for eliminating patch-work and for creating stability in respect of the provision of credit to farmers in the rural areas, something which is extremely important to South Africa. Here we now have a Bill in which provision is being made for the necessary adjustments and amendments to which I have just referred. We want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister in a sense of deep appreciation that South Africa and the farming community of South Africa are taking cognizance of these amendments, which are to the advantage of the farmer and the agricultural industry and consequently to the advantage of South Africa as well. Therefore we are grateful to see that this amending Bill is making provision for this Department to spread its wings and for loans to be made available for soil conservation by the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure as well. The rates of interest on loans granted by this Department have been fixed and cannot soar. This enables the farmer to serve as an instrument in the hand of the South African nation as regards the conservation of our soil to the advantage not only of present generations but also of future generations. Consequently we are grateful that this amending Bill is now making provision for loans at a low rate of interest to the farmer for the conservation of soil for the sake of South Africa. I agree with the statement made by the hon. the Minister in his second-reading speech when he mentioned the fact that we were being enabled financially, by means of loans which can be obtained henceforth, to apply soil conservation, something which is so essential, in this very year which we would come to call the year of the “Festival of the Soil”. In terms of this amending Bill loans at a fixed rate of interest will also be granted to the farmer henceforth for irrigation purposes. That irrigation must be carried out judiciously has become a matter of urgent necessity in South Africa in order to enable us to produce food for our ever-increasing population. We are pleased that the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure is now being enabled to grant loans for this purpose as well. Then there is the question of boring for water. We are also very grateful that provision is being made for that. I think we are all in agreement as far as this is concerned. Hon. members opposite also expressed their appreciation to the Minister because money will henceforth be made available for these essential services. No provision is being made in this amending Bill for private boring contractors, but as I have said, we shall come to this House from time to time for adjustments to be made. I foresee that we shall have to go further in granting loans to farmers and that we shall have to make more use in future of private boring contractors— contractors boring for water—in order to meet the tremendous demand which the State with its limited resources of manpower and limited number of boring machines simply cannot satisfy. I may not discuss this aspect any further under this amending Bill.

It has been a red-letter day for us to learn that loans for housing purposes in the rural areas may now be granted. To my mind we cannot over-emphasize this. In this regard I want to agree with the hon. member for Sea Point. Although he does not often have reason to thank a Minister, he has done so to-day I have as little reason to agree often with that hon. member. In this case, however, I think we are dealing with a matter which is of great common interest and I support his plea that we should not make these loan facilities available in respect of non-White farm labour only. I make a very friendly appeal to the hon. the Minister, however, to ascertain whether he does not see his way clear to extend this to loans for housing in the rural areas and for the farmer. I shall come back to this again, but I first want to raise another point. The money to be given on loan will not be lost. It is not a donation. It is a loan and increases the security of the farmer and the value of that farm and land. In view of the fact that this amending Bill is now spreading the wings of the Department even more, it will be necessary for us in the future to ask that care should be taken of farmers in other categories than those which now qualify for assistance. We must prevent a farmer from sinking to the level of a category 3 farmer, who now qualifies for assistance. We shall have to take measures in order to prevent him from sinking to that level. This, I take it, will be done in the future. Allow me, in terms of the provisions of this Bill, to point out that we in South Africa should not overlook the rural areas and the farmer in our overall planning. This we did not do in the past and we are not doing so now, and this Bill is opening the door wider for the rural areas to be brought into our future planning. A day or two ago a motion dealing with our population explosion was discussed in the Other Place. We often hear about this. We are grateful for the increase in our population.

The hon. member for Christiana referred to economic units in the rural areas. Nobody wants to dispute that. But, we shall have to develop the rural areas and the carrying capacity of the rural areas to the absolute maximum along the lines we are now adopting. We shall have to do so in order to ensure that the increase in our population will not simply flow to the industrial areas. We shall have to create attractive points of growth for Whites on our farms so that they may go there to occupy and utilize our soil, without their exhausting the soil but leaving it in a good condition for generations to come. It is a matter of absolute necessity for us to lay the foundations of a sound growth in the rural areas along these lines and on the basis of this Bill under the guidance of this Deputy Minister and the hon. the Minister, the Government and this House of Assembly, so that the farmer may always, as in the past, occupy his rightful place in our national economy. We have confidence that this Bill will open the door for us to enter this field, to apply soil conservation, to promote irrigation, to farm more intensively, to care for our farms, to provide housing, to create points of growth, and to make things attractive for a strong white population with a strong backbone, the conservative element in our national economy. I say that this Bill is making these things more and more possible for us. In saying this I express my appreciation for this Bill.

That makes it the third time you have done so.

Three times or not, that does not make this less essential. I am not, politically speaking, stealing a march on anyone. That hon. member is the last hon. member who should say this kind of thing. I should also like to refer to what the hon. member for Sea Point said in connection with the redemption of private loans. He said that he was under the impression that the farmer would be able to consolidate all his debts in terms of this Bill. That would have been an ideal condition but I think the hon. member agrees with me that this is not practicable. We shall need millions of rand for the redemption of all private loans and for placing all agricultural debt under the Department.

Although that would be the ideal condition, I do not think it is possible in practice but this is something to which the Minister will probably give a further reply. I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact, however, that as a result of the drought, which really hit South Africa very suddenly, farmers have been obliged to take up loans and because of the conditions of inflation they have been obliged to do so at very high rates of interest. In view of the fact that these people are again suffering severely because of drought conditions which, from the nature of the case, will make it impossible for them to meet their financial obligations, we shall have to give very sympathetic consideration to assistance and the consolidation of a great deal of those debts, which they were forced to incur, in order to keep the agricultural industry of South Africa going. But we do not want the protection which we may give to be instrumental in destroying the farmer’s ability to obtain credit. We have to guard against that as well.

Allow me to refer to the appeal made by the hon. member for Walmer. He referred to the speech made by the hon. member for Mossel Bay when that hon. member mentioned the assistance which had been given to farmers in the past. We are aware of the fact that large areas of the Karoo, as he said, have been severely afflicted by drought. I think we all have a great deal of sympathy with those people who have been so severely afflicted by drought but I think the hon. member need have no fear that they will be treated unsympathetically by this Government or by this Minister.

I should like hon. members to keep the original Act in mind during my reply. Hon. members must realize, and I am saying this to the hon. member for Sea Point in particular, who tried to create the impression—one which they naturally want to take to the public outside—that specific provision was being made for loans in respect of non-White housing to the exclusion of Whites, that any individual farmer qualifies, in terms of the Act as it stands, for any loan on a basis of merit. There is one basic fact we should not overlook, however, and that is that no matter who the person is who wants to negotiate a loan, we first have to see that the security is right; because it is not going to pay the Department or the Agricultural Credit Board to grant loans for houses or for barns or for silos if that means that that land will be over capitalized and cause the farmer to go insolvent. We must remember that we have a Controller and Auditor-General and that the Secretary for the Department is the accounting officer. If loans were to be granted without regard having been had to security and the State were to suffer losses as a result, the Controller and Auditor-General would have to report such cases and the accounting officer would have to account for them before a Select Committee and the Minister might be held responsible. In other words, the policy of the Minister, as embodied in the original Act, is that loans are available for building houses, barns, silos as well as anything connected with agriculture. This Bill is now making provision for certain bodies corporate to obtain loans, something they have been unable to do under the principal Act. But these bodies corporate cannot obtain a loan for just anything; they can now obtain loans for certain specific things. This Bill makes provision for that and I want us to see this clearly in that light.

The hon. member expressed the idea that he was under the impression that we would take over all mortgages on consolidation. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad replied to that in part. Let me explain this as follows. Several applications come to us from a farmer who has a mortgage at the Land Bank, but now he wants to obtain a loan for soil conservation, which he can get at 5 per cent and for which provision has been made in the principal Act, or he wants a loan in order to supply himself with water, etc., and this he can obtain by means of a second mortgage. It has never been the idea to take over and consolidate the Land Bank mortgage in such a case, because we have the unfortunate problem in South Africa that the ordinary financial concerns are always taking the best from the agricultural industry by lending money to people and when they possibly land themselves in difficulty, sometimes as a result of injudicious loans but also as a result of drought, or when the ordinary financial concerns see a better field of investment, they turn on the screws. If our Department or the Land Bank were to take these people over, the ordinary financial concerns would simply seek the best for themselves in other directions only to burden us with those things at a later stage. We must have regard to and prevent this.

I am pleased that the hon. member for Mossel Bay as well as the hon. members for Wolmaransstad, Christiana and Walmer mentioned the problems with which the farmers are faced. We know that these farmers have those problems. But I do want to sound a small warning in regard to one matter mentioned by the hon. member for Mossel Bay. The hon. member said the number of livestock might be doubled as a result of this system in terms of which we may now grant loans to a person for supplying his farm with water. I just want to sound this warning. It is true that if one has water one is able to keep one’s stock in a better condition, because water represents more than 50 per cent of the feed of such stock. We must not adopt the attitude, however, that we can double our stock in number if we have water alone. The danger is that we may completely destroy the natural grazing as well as the soil. Bushmanland is an example. If there had been water for watering places, Bushmanland would probably have been a desert to-day. We must always be judicious. But the hon. member was right in saying that we would be able to increase our stock if there was water for them. I shall refer to this again in a short while when I shall deal with what the hon. member for Christiana said in connection with subdivisions and small units.

The hon. member for Walmer expressed the fear that many of the farmers in a large area of the Karoo and in the Eastern Cape would be caught up in this crisis and he expressed the hope that we would be able to render assistance within the next two months. Let me tell this House that the Minister has already had discussions with the Agricultural Advisory Board as well as with the Minister of Finance, the Land Bank, the Agricultural Credit Board and his Department, and that he will be meeting them one of these days to take special steps for retaining these farmers on their farms as self-supporting, self-respecting farmers. We are taking the necessary steps. The hon. member feared that clause 3 would destroy the farmer’s credit and he consequently said that they would have another look at it. I want to tell the hon. member that I said very clearly in my second-reading speech that the rights of another first mortgagee in respect of any encumbered land would not be affected. We shall take meticulous care that his rights will remain protected in the first place.

I want to thank the hon. member for Christiana for the very valuable ideas expressed here by him. He posed a few important questions. Seeing that we have now spotlighted the fact that loans are available and must be available for the housing of non-White labourers—loans are always available to ordinary individual farmers if they want them—and seeing that we are affording this opportunity to other bodies corporate, such as those I have mentioned here, it is obvious that when such an application reaches the Agricultural Credit Board, the Agricultural Credit Board will want to know from the farmer what labour he has and what type of house he intends building, because we cannot grant loans for housing just like that. We shall have to talk to the farmer in order to ensure that the right kind of housing will be provided at the right places in an attempt to remove those unsightly black spots in South Africa.

The hon. member for Christiana quite rightly put a few questions to me in regard to the lien. As I have said, this will not interfere with the lien of the co-operative societies. The hon. member asked what would happen in cases where we had granted a production loan for fertilizers, seeds and fuel, etc., to a farmer to enable him to produce a crop and his cooperative society, or some other body or person, then had to give him a second loan for bags and for repairs, etc. I want to tell the hon. member that we will be prepared to waive that lien to the extent of the assistance rendered by the co-operative societies, because we realize that the lien will be of no value to us if the farmer cannot harvest his crops, and if he has to obtain a loan from a co-operative society in order to buy bags, etc., we shall waive that portion of the lien. The hon. member also raised another important matter. He said that it often happened that a private money-lender suddenly took possession of a farmer’s crop when such a crop was ready to be harvested and he knew there could no longer be any damage to the crop. The present position is—and that is why we are rectifying it in this Bill—that when we have granted a loan to a farmer to pay for the means of production for a crop still to be harvested, such a crop is not included in the lien. On the basis of this amendment we are now making provision that we may in fact take such a crop as security.

The hon. member then asked what the definition of an economic unit was, because in this Bill I mention economic units, prohibit subdivisions, etc. I think, without going into the finer points, that we should see an economic unit as a farm which is large enough to enable a farmer of average managerial ability to make a livelihood and derive the same average income from that farm as the other farmers in the area where he lives, without his destroying the farm by applying overcropping. I have made an analysis of a few farms in South Africa. I have taken the Molopo and I have found that there is one head of cattle to 12 morgen of land on farms measuring 5,000 morgen or more in extent. Where the farm measures from 2,000 to 4,000 morgen in extent, it already carries much more stock, namely one head of cattle to 8.7 morgen of land. In the south-eastern regions of the Free State there is one head of cattle to eight morgen of land on farms measuring more than 3,000 morgen in extent, but if the farm is less than 1,000 morgen in extent, there is one head of cattle to 4.5 morgen of land only. In other words, the smaller the farm is for making a livelihood, even for a short period, the greater the tendency on the part of the farmer to apply overcropping on the farm by putting everything on the farm and by taking everything from the farm. I can mention other examples to you and I want to mention the following interesting one. There are certain parts in Aliwal North. There I have found that conditions on farms measuring up to 1,000 morgen in extent were bad in 35 cases, reasonable in 17 cases, and good in the case of one farm only. On farms measuring from 1,001 to 1,500 morgen in extent conditions were bad in 18 cases, reasonable in five cases and good in one case only. But when we come to farms measuring more than 1,500 morgen in extent, it has been found that conditions were poor in seven cases, reasonable in 15 cases and good in one case. This proves that the smaller a farm is, the more it is being destroyed by cattle from the point of view of soil conservation. These are all factors which we shall take into consideration.

I believe an economic unit should be large enough to afford a farmer of average managerial ability the same average income as that of the local community without his having to ruin his farm. The hon. member spoke of farms which are situated some distance from each other. I agree with the hon. member that the further the farms are situated away from each other, the more difficult the task becomes. They may, of course, form an economic unit for a cattle-farmer but if cattle-farming were to cease and be followed by another type of farming, those farms might be situated too far from each other to form an economic unit jointly. We must always regard these cases as being the exceptional ones. The tendency should be to consolidate land which can be consolidated.

The hon. member for Wolmaransstad also raised a number of matters and I want to deal with one or two of them. I have already spoken about housing. In existing legislation provision does exist for white housing, but we cannot make provision for housing for companies and other bodies corporate. The hon. member asked us to ensure that category two farmers would not become category three farmers and asked that we should render timeous assistance in order to do so. We have often heard that a stigma allegedly attaches to obtaining a loan from this Department because, it is said that a person then has to furnish details. But if I want a loan from a bank I simply have to submit a statement of my assets and liabilities to the bank. I am not ashamed to do so. Consequently a farmer need not be ashamed either to submit a statement of his assets and liabilities to the Department. The Department is striving to maintain the farmers in the rural areas on an economic basis. Consequently we want to assist them as far as we can and consequently we want to assist farmers who cannot get assistance elsewhere, even if it is in respect of soil conservation works only, because here we are dealing with the soil.

With these words, I think, I have replied to the debate. I want to thank hon. members once again for their support. I believe that this measure is a new step in the right direction in that it seeks to render positive assistance to the farmer in South Africa.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.