I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to thank the hon. the Minister for the alteration he has made in the hours of work provision in regard to station foremen particularly on the smaller country stations who had formerly been employed on a ten-hour basis and who have now all been transferred to an eight-hour basis. During 1966 I made a plea across the floor of the House for those staff members, and now I should just like to convey very briefly the thanks of these officials concerned, as put to me by one of them. I quote from a letter which was addressed to me and I just want to read one paragraph (translation)—

I think these few words convey very clearly the feeling of gratitude of that category of staff member on the Railways.

In the second place I want to lay a very important matter regarding my own constituency before the hon. the Minister. It concerns the level crossing where the Mafeking-Zeerust railway line intersects Klip Street on the south west side of Zeerust. Klip Street will be the future main entrance from the west to the industrial area of Zeerust. To the west of Zeerust a Bantu resettlement township is now springing up which will consist, when it is ultimately completed, of 5,000 houses. This will supply labour for the industrial area and for the town in general. The town council has addressed a request to the Roads Administration to connect Klip Street with the main road to this Bantu township at Welbedacht, which also goes through Lunakana to Lobatsi and other Bantu areas. The Department of Bantu Administration firmly refuses to allow Bantu from the west to walk or travel through the central area of the town to the industrial area, and that is why it is essential that Klip Street where it crosses the railway line should be made as effective as possible for this purpose by means of a bridge. The Department of Planning, after its investigation, also suggested to the municipality that Klip Street should be extended across the railway line by means of an overhead bridge. That is why I am suggesting it to the Minister now for investigation and favourable consideration.

I should also like to make a few remarks in the dying moments of this debate. I do not want to follow up on what was said by the hon. member who spoke before me, the hon. member for Pinelands. He was the last speaker in the debate last week. He made his request in a very calm way and the Minister will probably reply to him. The course the debate has thus far taken and the attacks made on this side of the House, and particularly on the hon. the Minister, by the Opposition, put me in mind of the years when I had just entered this House and was still a backbencher. From one Vote to another I had to listen to attacks in regard to the so-called “managerial inefficiency” of the Minister, his staff and his officials. The attacks concerned the so-called managerial inefficiency of the Minister and his administrative and other staff, and according to that side the Railways Administration should have collapsed in those years. According to them it was going to happen very soon, i.e. that chaos would soon prevail in the entire transport system both on land and in the air. However, the exact opposite has happened. The growth and development has been so convicing, so indisputable and so phenomenal that it is no longer possible to harp on this theme of “managerial inefficiency”. Then there was an interim period, particularly after the hon. member for Yeoville—or Joyville—became the main speaker on Railway affairs on that side. The attacks changed into a kind of attack-and-retreat method, almost a guerilla terrorist attack technique. In this debate it deteriorated into personal attacks on the hon. the Minister. But every attack boomeranged on the U.P. as became apparent from their arguments. It is truly difficult to get a grip on Ben Schoeman, as the hon. Minister is called in common parlance. I would venture to say that Ben Schoeman …

Who is he?

There he sits. He was—one can almost say—born and bred in the smelting furnace of the Railway service. When I talk of a smelting furnace then I mean the warmest place on the locomotive where he himself laboured and perspired. He climbed from labourer to Minister and as far as the South African transport system is concerned, there is no-one who knows the S.A. Railways in its essence better than the hon. the Minister. He has with capable hand guided it to the heights it has reached to-day.

The Opposition are finding this billion Budget difficult to swallow. They found the wage increases to the staff difficult to swallow. They also found the sympathetic adjustments for the pensioners difficult to swallow. The Opposition is searching in vain for a flaw or crack in the excellent, almost perfect service the Railways Administration is providing. To score a triumphant try in this debate was an unobtainable ideal even for their best front benchers. Their best front row forwards could not measure up to the Minister’s men. They could not find a single gap to slip through as proof that they had really found a weak spot or a crack which boded ill for the S.A.R. & H.

Perhaps it would be a good thing for one to emphasize a few of the important aspects of this major and powerful service. It has been stated here previously, but can be emphasized again: The S.A.R. & H, is the biggest single business undertaking in our country. It has a staff numbering 226,256, of which 115,662 are Whites and 105,594 are non-Whites. The significance of this tremendous staff lies particularly in the fact that the Railways and Harbours therefore provides the biggest single labour market for skilled and unskilled labour in South Africa. It is a colossal organization, which commands the greatest respect. It is only when we think of the consumer market which this staff and their families provide for our country’s economy that we realize the true value thereof. It is easy to calculate the extent of the number of consumers, calculated on the basis of families. If we multiply this figure of 226,256 by four we get 905,024, in other words, more than three-quarters of a million people who are fed and clothed by the Railways. The picture becomes even clearer if we calculate that the white staff members are receiving an average salary of R2,500 per year, while the non-white staff are receiving approximately R500 per year.

If we go further and calculate the purchasing power of the staff, we find that the Whites alone received R290,155,500 during the 1966—’67 financial year. The non-white labourers received R52,797,000. Jointly therefore they received R342,952,000. If this amount does not have a stimulating effect on the political economy and if it is not a strong purchasing and investment factor in our country’s economy, then I do not know what could constitute such a factor. It is not only the purchasing power of the staff in their role as consumers and investors which is important. The purchasing power of the Railways and Harbours as such is also fantastic. In 1966—’67 goods to the value of R14,418,455 were purchased abroad. Local goods to the value of R166,246,232 were purchased. The Department supplied its own needs to an amount of R38,350,512. This gives us a collective amount of R219,015,512. The significance of this R166,000,000 for local industries is incalculable. When the United Party was in power, and once again I want to reproach them with this, they ordered most of the consumer goods for the South African Railways and Harbours from abroad. To-day the Railways Administration is setting an example to other industries by making most of its purchases at home, i.e. to an amount of more than R166 million. This preferential policy of the South African Railways to purchase South African manufactured goods, is a laudable one.

Nor do I want to leave unmentioned another aspect of our transport system. We sometimes neglect to picture to ourselves the vast distances our railways have to cover in our sprawling country. The magnitude, the intensity and the extent of this is sometimes not realized. The distance in miles of railway lines which have been built and are in use is 19,033. The train mileage covered during 1966—’67 amounts to the tremendous total of 136,664,339, a mileage which is actually too much for me to comprehend properly. It can also be emphasized that to and fro over those shorter or longer distances, during 1966—’67 alone, a tonnage of building material totalling 4,303,610 was transported. I want to mention a few more figures to prove my statement. The total tonnage of ore was 22,256,022. A tonnage of 15,800,219 in respect of commercial goods was transported to and from every possible centre in South Africa. In this year 16,803,524 tons of agricultural products were transported, for which our farmers are very grateful. Of that amount, mealies alone represent 3,497,820 tons. Animal products totalled 492,980 tons, whereas the figure for agricultural machinery was 62,215 tons. Lastly, as regards livestock, 1,141,332 tons were transported. The total tonnage of goods which was transported in the aforementioned financial year over these long distances was 110,002,369. The efficient operation of these services in our country is an achievement for which one can only have the greatest appreciation.

Mr. Speaker, I could also discuss the unsurpassable passenger transport, but I am merely going to refer in passing to the fact that 464,380,733 passengers made use of first, second and third class transport. As regards our main lines, there is only the highest praise for the extremely comfortable and pleasant travelling facilities, the goodwill and friendliness of the staff, the comfortable facilities on our stations and in our trains. Enough has been said by other hon. members in regard to the significance and the service achievements of our harbours and airways. The tracks of the trains and the buses of the South African Railways throughout our country lie like arteries in a human body, and they are undertaking on a round trip basis the transportation of vital goods, from the most strategic to the smallest and least important outlying corner of the country, just as the arteries convey the lifeblood for growth and sustenance to the most important as well as to the least important organs of the body. The hon. the Minister is the heart of this magnificent organization and the House will agree with me that the railway heart is beating strongly and firmly. Judging from the attacks by the Opposition, their diagnosis that a heart transplant should be performed immediately does, if I glance at the annual report of the General Manager—an excellent report, a prestige report, a pleasure to page through with the information, so arranged and presented that it is easy to find and comprehend, soothing to the eye, the heart and the mind—if I analyse the Budget and the service being rendered and take the general satisfaction of the staff into consideration, it will definitely not be necessary in the near future to consider a heart transplant.

Maximum service with minimum discomfort, maximum service and growth with a minimum of delays and accidents—that is the main feature of the S.A. Railways. The railway heart has never been threatened by deadly traffic congestion. There has never been any appreciable disruption because of traffic accidents, manpower shortage or strikes as is the case in the transport systems of many other parts of the world. The wheels have kept on turning; the railway heart has kept on beating—healthy and strong. Just listen to the regular pulse beat of the characteristic beat of the wheels of the Trans Karoo, of the Blue Train, of the heavily loaded goods train when they cross the Karoo flats, or into the Free State or the Transvaal. That is symbolic of the healthy condition of and excellent service being provided by the S.A. Railways.

I do not think the hon. member for Marico expects me to comment on what he has said. It is the duty of the hon. the Minister of Transport to do that. I want to discuss general transport problems in South Africa. In this connection I want to say that I think there is still much room for improvement in our transport and in our long lines of communication.

But before dealing with this in more detail I want to discuss another matter, a matter affecting more particularly visitors from abroad who arrive in South Africa by boat. I refer to the customs requirements these people have to comply with in our docks. For the purpose of my argument I want to confine myself particularly to Cape Town docks. This is not something I have only read about or have been told by others. I have witnessed it myself because I have been watching this for some time now. We so frequently come across a congestion of passengers—an unnecessary congestion I submit—at the customs. These passengers consist of immigrants coming to South Africa for the purpose of staying on here, tourists, and S.A. citizens returning to this country. What I have seen frequently—it might be due to a shortage of staff, a shortage which we all agree has reached serious proportions on the S.A. Railways—is a queue of people at the customs. Naturally everybody is in a hurry to get away, having booked seats on the train or on an aircraft. But now there is this delay which is worsened by the fact that everybody is mixed up in that queue. Immigrants come along not only with their suitcases and small parcels but sometimes also with large wooden boxes which have to be undone, either by wire clippers or other tools. These must be unpacked—all the silverware, cutlery and crockery which they have brought with them. While the customs officials are checking all these the tourist, who may be visiting South Africa for a short time only, has to stand in the queue and wait thus sacrificing of their valuable time. You get immigrants, especially of the excitable type, who I have seen waving their arms and gesticulating for a whole hour over the contents of a box. Meanwhile hundreds stand there and wait.

I have no control over that. It is a matter for the Minister of Finance.

I believe, however, that the hon. the Minister has influence which he can employ towards alleviating these annoying delays at our customs. I suggest that we have three queues: One for the immigrant with all his parcels and boxes to unpack; another one for the tourist who usually is in a hurry to get away and another one for the S.A. citizen who is returning from a visit overseas and usually has only a few items to declare. I am sure these delays can be eliminated without undue expense. It might be possible to find more officials to serve in the customs.

The other matter I want to discuss concerns railway transport in general. Recently I was reading about how the railway systems of other countries were being run effectively. A very large, a most efficient and a most comfortable railway system operates in Canada—the Canadian National Railways. This is the largest railway organization in the world, as far as I could ascertain. It employs 93,000 people and covers 32,000 miles covering all ten provinces. There was a time not so long ago when that organization was running at a dead loss. It was in deep financial trouble. In order to make the railways pay they increased the freight charges, and this they did year after year. The result was that everything increasingly cost more to convey. Ultimately they reached a point of stagnation, a point where the public avoided using the railways on account of the high freights. But then a certain person by the name of Gordon set to work. He felt that they could not possibly carry on as they had done in the past, i.e. by raising freight charges. He believed the only way to make the railways a payable proposition was to reduce the freight charges and to encourage the people to support the railways. He was, naturally, completely outvoted but he nevertheless set to work. For ten years he worked on this scheme. His argument was that people, not only in Canada, but everywhere else, like to travel to schedule. I must concede that in that respect our Railways have improved more than 100 per cent. Our trains do run to schedule to-day, or almost to schedule. It is very seldom that they run late or arrive before the scheduled time. They discovered in Canada too—and this is a point we could bear in mind here—that the public like to travel on clean trains. The people in Canada did not fancy the dirty trains there; they disliked the dismal, old-fashioned and uncomfortable trains as well; they disliked the surly employees who were working on that system; they disliked the high prices they had to pay for meals and they did not like travelling at very high cost. This Mr. Gordon got his way, and fares were reduced to a level which was within reach of everybody. Things reached the stage in Canada where people were not even transporting their goods by railway. This brings me to the situation to-day in South Africa where we pay high railway rates on wool, fuel, etc. We know that to-day many farmers are transporting their wool clips to the wool brokers at the coast by means of lorry, something we never heard of in years gone by and which has only just started in agriculture. Many farmers are not only transporting their wool to the markets by lorry but other produce as well which normally should be transported by rail. We find to-day that much of the fuel which is consumed in the agricultural industry is being transported by heavy tankers from the depots to the distribution points. They all maintain that their reason for doing so is to bring down the cost of the fuel, in other words, to try to bring down the overhead expenses relating to agriculture. To-day in Canada railway fares are almost 50 per cent lower than they were in 1962, only six years ago. They have reduced their fares by 50 per cent and the revenue from passengers alone has risen by 25 per cent per annum in Canada.

Sir, have we not reached the stage where we should consider following the same lines which Canada was forced to follow in order to make our railways a more efficient and better paying proposition? I have said here before, and I repeat, that I prefer travelling by train to any other form of transport. I am always happy to travel by train because I believe it is the only way in which one can travel in complete relaxation—I do not say in complete comfort, not by any means. I have often wondered when the time will come when it will be possible for me to board a train here in Cape Town and to travel right back to my constituency without having any coal dust or smoke blowing not only through the compartment windows onto everything, but through the dining saloons as well. Would it not be possible to have the train drawn by electric units as far as Beaufort West and from there by diesel engines? At the present time the position is that when you leave Cape Town you can open your windows and travel in comfort because of the electric unit, but when you reach a certain point—Beaufort West on this particular line—steam engines are put on. By the time you reach Stormberg-Burghersdorp where the diesel engines take over, everything is so filthy and dirty from smoke that it makes your whole journey most unpleasant and uncomfortable. Would it not be possible for all passenger trains to be drawn either by electric units or diesel engines so as to eliminate the smoke and coal dust menace? I believe that without any unduly high cost to the Railways, the system could be made far more comfortable than it is to-day. Why not try this system to begin with on one line? It will not run us into any financial difficulty.

Let us experiment on one line. Let us take the line I use, the line from Cape Town to East London, and try this new system for two years. Let us keep steam engines off this line as far as all the passenger services are concerned. I am not referring now to goods trains and mixed trains. Let us keep steam engines off this line and reduce fares, and I almost guarantee that over a period of two years the revenue on this line will increase in spite of the reduction in fares. I am sure the hon. Minister could assist us in this regard. This is something we all feel very unhappy about. This is something which we all feel can be improved without any undue expense to the railway system or to the taxpayer.

Mr. Speaker, there is something else too which worries me. I do not criticize without being able to offer a solution, although it is not my job here to find solutions. If I were sitting in the seat in which the Minister of Transport is sitting, then it would be my job to find a solution and I would naturally expect the Opposition to criticize. But here I also want to offer some criticism. This matter was raised by an hon. member on this side the other day, but it was brushed aside so neatly that I cannot resist raising it again. I refer to the question of bookings on the Airways. This is something which is keeping people away from our airway services. Last year I personally booked a seat for someone to fly back from East London to Cape Town, to be here on the 2nd January of this year. I booked this particular seat five weeks in advance and on two occasions I checked upon the booking. I was informed that there was a long waiting list and that it was impossible for them to give me a positive answer. I realized the difficulties. There was a long list of people who had reserved seats. Well, after a lot of fuss and much telephoning I did not succeed in getting my passenger onto an aircraft. In desperation I took the person in my motorcar on Monday the 1st January, New Year’s Day, right to Noupoort to enable her to catch the train to Cape Town, where she had to be at work on the Tuesday, the 2nd January. Incidentally, this gave me an opportunity to have another look at the Verwoerd Dam. When I arrived back home, I received a message from the airways East London, on Tuesday 2nd January to say that they had good news for me; they had found a seat on the plane for this person. I said, “Well, I am very grateful to you for having told me this good news after five weeks of waiting in suspense but the passenger in question was in fact already back in Cape Town. I had to take this passenger right to Noupoort to enable her to catch a train to Cape Town.” Her seat, then, of course, had not been booked on the Railways either.

I must say the Railways were very obliging and most accommodating as regards giving this passenger a seat. These long lists which we always hear so much about should be remedied; there must be a way of remedying it, and circumventing unnecessary long lists like that. I know it is not possible to commission another aircraft, but we must find a way of stopping people from just booking seats unnecessarily and at random, irrespective of whether there is an urgency for them to travel on a plane or not. I know of people who just have the idea that they might need a seat on a plane on a certain date, and to be on the safe side they reserve a seat; hence a long waiting-list. To-day when we reserve rooms in hotels we expect the proprietor to tell us that he accepts our reservation provided we pay a small deposit. People will not book for fun if they are told they have to put down a deposit, which will be taken off the airfare account later. Maybe this should also be done when booking seats on aircraft. Something must be worked out; this cannot continue like this. It is absolute nonsense to book a seat five weeks in advance and then to be told in the end that they are sorry, but that there is no seat available, and then to be told an hour or so before the plane leaves, they can give you a seat, just because someone who booked did not turn up, and did not even take the trouble to inform the Airways officials that he or she will not be flying. The result is that invariably, when one does board the plane, it is only carrying half its complement of passengers. I am not blaming the officials; I blame the public, which is allowed to book and reserve seats indiscriminately and then refrains from using the seats when the plane leaves. I would appreciate it if the Minister and the Deputy Minister would consider this matter, because it is something which has reached breaking-point as far as we are concerned who reserve seats and mean to use them. Take the Easter Recess. Many of us would like to fly back, but I can tell the Minister right now that there will be a long waiting-list and quite a few of us will have to remain in Cape Town, or else find other means of travelling, and when the planes do leave D.F. Malan Airport, they will be only half full, or three-quarters full. This is a serious problem which can be solved; we are losing revenue, apart from it being of great discomfort to the travelling public.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat, touched on three points to which I just want to reply briefly. The one is the congestion at Customs when the boats come in. He suggested that it should be possible to form three rows, firstly for immigrants and tourists and then for returning South Africans. I concede that one becomes irritable when one arrives, is in a hurry and has to wait a long time to be served. But if one takes into account the fact that there are a few hundred people arriving at a time and that all are in a hurry, it is simply impossible to serve all of them simultaneously. I concede that it will help if three rows are formed, but it is impossible to eliminate the waiting.

As far as the Railways in general is concerned, the hon. member referred to Canada as being such a fine example. I have not yet been to Canada, and the position is probably as he said, but all the same I must say that our South African Railways need not take second place to the Railways of other countries at all. I travelled in Europe for a few weeks again last year, and we really need not be ashamed of our trains in South Africa. The convenience which we have here, especially over long distances, with the service, the meals and the beds, is very great, but I concede that there is a great deal of dust, smoke and soot, which is very inconvenient, as the hon. member rightly said. We should all like to see this eliminated and we have had experience of this in South-West Africa, where we have the diesel locomotives. It is really a pleasure to travel with them rather than the steam locomotives, because one does not have the delay, as they do not need to take in water, but one still has the dust. This one cannot eliminate. I must say that I am sure that if the Minister could see his way clear to affording the whole country the convenience of travelling without dust and soot, he would do so, if it were at all possible.

As far as the reservation of seats on aircraft is concerned, the hon. the Minister dealt with this matter very thoroughly, and one can surely not be expected to deal with the same subject two or three times in one debate.

I should like to turn to the hon. member for Umlazi, who, when he last spoke here, referred to a few matters, especially with regard to our harbours. He said that there was such a serious lack of planning in respect of our harbours that he would suggest that a standing committee be appointed, divorced from the Service, to undertake the planning. I must say that the handling of freight at our harbours is keeping pace with development. We know how freight has increased in recent years. It has increased tremendously, but there is no serious congestion at our harbours. As the freight comes in, it is taken away. Certain steps have also been taken in connection with the planning of our harbours. Firstly, there is a departmental committee which is undertaking the planning under the chairmanship of the consultant of the Department, Mr. Jackson. The Chief Planning Officer, Production, the Harbour Advisory Engineer, the Chief Superintendent, Commercial, the Local Harbour Engineer, the Port Goods Superintendent and other officials also serve on this committee. These persons are continually doing research in connection with the needs existing at our harbours, and they are continually adapting the planning to the needs. This committee meets regularly for the purpose of investigating harbour transport trends, shipping transport trends and the provision of harbour facilities such as loading cranes, fork lifts, loading trucks and other related requirements. They take proper cognizance of the views of the local harbour advisory councils, and on the local harbour advisory councils there are also representatives of commerce, industry and agriculture. They represent those interests in putting their side of the matter. The Department is also very well abreast of affairs regarding harbour development and shipping transport, not only locally, but in other countries as well. Senior officials of the Department keep well abreast of modern developments in harbours and shipping transport. Our Harbour Advisory Engineer, Mr. Jones, visited England and the Continent last year, where he made investigations. Thereafter, in July, 1967, Mr. Jackson, the present consulting engineer, returned from overseas after having made thorough investigations on the Continent and also in England, with a view to harbour construction, shipbuilding and especially the transport of freight in containers. The Department possesses full particulars of plans for the layout of the harbour at Tilbury, England. That is the first known harbour to be properly equipped for the handling of freight in large containers. Two berths have been constructed at Tilbury for the handling of the containerized freight. Two cranes are being installed there, each of which can handle 30 tons. I understand those cranes will cost R750,000 each. This harbour is being built for the special purpose of handling freight in large containers. We have made a study of it and we are fully informed. The officials concerned know exactly what is happening there.

There is a sea freight agreement between the Government and the Conference Lines which makes provision for a study group consisting of representatives of the Government, the Deciduous Fruit Board and the Conference Lines, with the power to co-opt other interests. Their function will be to make a thorough study of the facilities of the South African harbours for the handling of freight in containers on loading trestles or in large units and regulations, tariffs and costs relating thereto.

As far as the planning of the harbours is concerned, steps have been taken to plan the extensions to the harbours of Durban and Cape Town in such a way that provision is made for the handling of this containerized freight in case this method of transportation should increase to such an extent. The transportation of freight in containers is a new idea. The idea is to transport the freight in large containers by road, rail and boat from the producer to the consumer. A standardization bureau has already been established for these large containers, also in London. The intention is to make these containers eight feet by eight feet and 10, 20 or 30 feet long. They think that the standard container will in fact be 8 feet by 8 feet by 20 feet in size and will weigh 20 tons. It should be understood that if ships are to transport these large containers, the ships will have to be converted in order to do so. A normal ship cannot take these large containers. They will have to be converted entirely. I understand that in America they are already converting a large number of ships to handle the containers. I understand the ships will have to have various tiers.

There will be 278 in use by the end of this year.

There will be quite a number in use between Europe and America and also between Europe and Australia. However, I understand that it will be quite some time before those ships are used on the route to South Africa. There are problems connected with the transport of freight in large containers. Not only must ships be converted, but the necessary facilities will also have to be provided at the harbours. These investigations, as I have said, have already been carried out. What can we do to adapt to the requirements when the time comes? These large containers cannot be off-loaded into the ordinary warehouses at present existing at our harbours. There must be large open spaces where they can be off-loaded and to which they can be transported from the ships. There must be large cranes to transport them there. There must also be heavy cranes to lift them onto the vehicles that must remove them from there, whether lorries, trains or whatever. It is not so easy.

Then there is still the big question of whether there is freight available to be transported both ways in the containers. There may be goods which can be conveyed here from, say, America in such containers, or from Europe, but once the goods are off-loaded here, the container must be filled with freight to be returned. If that does not happen, rental will have to be paid for the containers lying empty here. Therefore a study will first have to be made of the kind of freight which can be conveyed here and back in the containers, otherwise it may become a very expensive method of conveyance. Hon. members probably all know that most of our freight is conveyed in bulk. I am now thinking of our ores and maize and such articles. Consequently the goods which we can send in containers from here are limited. It will be difficult to solve the problem. Investigations have already been made and it was found that it would be difficult to have two-way transportation.

I have in my possession a report of the Harbour Advisory Council about a meeting which they held here and at which this matter was discussed very thoroughly. I shall read it in English—

This is precisely what the Government is doing at the moment, i.e. making a very good study of the possibility of conveying goods in these large containers. The hon. member is aware that the Government recently appointed a committee, and since the committee is going overseas, it is for purposes of the record perhaps just as well to see what the terms of reference of the committee are, and in this connection I quote from a newspaper report (translation)—

With a view to the large loads which will be transported by the large aircraft, the Boeing 747s, they are already engaged in a thorough study of this matter in London. South Africa has been invited to send a representative to London. It is the intention to send our Chief Airport Manager to London to take part in that study and investigation. The investigation is being made in an attempt to determine how the large loads which will be carried by those huge aircraft can best be handled. I can therefore assure the hon. member that we will not be caught napping, and that this idea is not as new as the hon. member wanted to suggest here. I think that he obtained his information from the same source that supplied ours and that requested us to institute this investigation and to give attention to this matter. The hon. member may rest assured that the Minister and the Management are awake and will know what to do.

Mr. Chairman, I should like firstly to deal with a point raised by the hon. the Minister in replying to certain comments which I made in connection with the introduction of non-Whites into the Railway service, commonly called the dilution of labour. The hon. the Minister said that it was my view and policy that this introduction of non-Whites should take place in spite of and against the wishes of the trade unions of the South African Railways. By way of interjection I indicated that I had not Said so. The hon. the Minister, however, was not gracious enough to accept that. He then went on to say that I had said that by implication. I therefore wish to remind the hon. the Minister that what I actually said was this:

I want to emphasize this:

I should like the hon. the Minister to accept that because I offered this suggestion to him in the earnest belief that the Coloured community do provide a suitable source of labour to fill the vacancies which occur in the Railways. I want to emphasize, with all the power at my command, that nobody knows better than I, nor does any group of people know better than the Coloured community, the prejudice and bias which are directed against them. They know that, and I want the hon. the Minister to know that they do. I accept it as a fact that the Coloured community is aware of this. (But that does not alter the fact that in this day and age, we should approach this matter calmly and objectively. I am sure that the hon. the Minister will do himself a service and certainly earn the plaudits of the Coloured community if he were to act along the lines which I suggested. The suggestion I make, which is the suggestion of my party, is that this matter should be discussed and dealt with by the trade unions and the various associations which make up the working and employing forces of the Railways. There was no suggestion at any time that there should be force or compulsion.

During the war the United States of America were faced with a similar problem but for different reasons. They went to the trouble of appointing a commission which I think carried out its investigations under the name of the Organization for Production and Management. They evolved a scheme whereby, in the case of the United States, Negro labour was introduced at many levels without harm to themselves or their white colleagues. I believe that that is the one alternative facing the hon. the Minister. If the hon. the Minister does not want to pursue this possibility, I want to refer him also to the matter I raised, but to which he gave no reply. If there is to be separate development for the Coloured community vis-à-vis the Railways, will he explain how that is to come about. The hon. the Minister has chosen to ignore that aspect, but I think that not only this House but the country itself, is entitled to know how the hon. the Minister envisages separate development as far as the Railways is concerned, which, as he says, is the largest employer of labour in this country. I do not think that he can hedge the point or let it slide. I took the opportunity of writing the hon. the Minister a letter to give him sufficient opportunity to consider the matter because I am asked continually by the Coloured community what separate development means for them in regard to the Railways. If there is to be no separate development other than—and I conceded this point before—the employment of a few clerks at the Coloured stations or in the Coloured townships, etc., I think that the Minister must weigh the two propositions which I have placed before him fairly and honestly. He must then give this House an answer. We want to know what separate development means to the Coloured community vis-à-vis the Railways. I think that we are entitled to know this, and I ask the hon. the Minister to reply to this question when he makes his reply this afternoon.

I want to say that I am not in any way trying to corner him or get him into a position where he will find it difficult to emerge to his own credit and advantage. I am merely looking for employment for those people in the Coloured community who are able and willing to be and who are good citizens. I am thinking of those people who can be trained and who have the skill, knowledge and ability to do whatever they are required to do, faithfully and well. I am pleading for loyal people, people who have stood by us and who are as much South Africans as anyone else in this country.

The hon. member for Outeniqua thanked the hon. the Minister effusively for an increase in the wages of Coloured railwaymen. I was staggered to bear that the only example of this was an increase from R1.05 to R1.20. That is a rather miserable wage. I want to ask the Minister whether this wage is going to be doubled because it amounts to only approximately R7.00 a week. I do not think that one can call that a living wage. I do hope that the hon. the Minister, when he deals with the question of the dispensation of his bounty, will give these people an increase of a little more than 15 cents. I feel that the hon. the Minister is really not paying attention to the 50 per cent of his labour force which consists of Bantu and Coloured people employed by the Railways. The hon. the Minister must not think that it is meant unkindly, when I say, that he lays himself open to criticism in making a show of the increases in wages, when there are people in his employ who are living below the breadline. One might almost say that they are on starvation rates.

At the same time he offers no solace or encouragement to others among the Coloured community who want to work on the Railways and make it their career. These are the things with, which the men like myself, who represent the Coloured people, are faced. We are asked to explain why this discrimination and differentiation exists. It is extremely difficult to give a suitable explanation because these people are good citizens. They struggle to have their children educated but the fields of employment open to them are very limited. When one hears the brave talk of this Government, namely that these people are going to develop separately, they always ask the question: “Have we not got all the separation that is possible and a minimum of development.” The answer is of course “Yes”. The development has been slight. There are people who think of separate development in terms of a few townships, but that is not separate development. Those are rehousing projects. What these people want is good, permanent and lucrative employment with the prospect of earning a pension in their old age, so that they can retire and have no further financial troubles.

I want the hon. the Minister to know that not only I, but also thousands of people outside, were bitterly and deeply disappointed at the reply he gave me when I requested that we should have a pension fund for the Coloured employees of the South African Railways. His reply was, that the amount of the contributions, which the Coloured could make, was so small, that the pension fund would not be worthwhile. Surely that is an indictment of his own policy, that the pension fund contribution is so small because the wages are so low, and that the pension fund therefore is not actuarially possible to establish. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that with the amount of money at his disposal, he could commence and endow that pension fund. He could start it actuarially on a sound basis, and he could make it, in a few years, something from which Coloured people in the employ of the South African Railways could draw a reasonable pension in their old age. I appeal to the hon. the Minister because he is the employer of the greatest number of people in South Africa. The policy of separate development is going to crash, unless the Railways can find a via media for the Government to follow.

Several speakers enunciated the thought that getting Coloured people to work alongside and with Whites, would create friction, although I gave two very clear examples of what is being done by other Ministers without friction in their departments. I want to refresh the hon. the Minister’s memory. The hon. the Minister of Justice said in public that he intended training Coloured persons to work in the courts. They would work alongside and with Whites, until they were competent to work on their own. The Department of Coloured Affairs employs, without any fanfare of trumpets or publicity, scores of Coloured persons who work with and alongside Whites, and are being taught how to work in that department. Eventually they will take it over and be responsible for it. These, however, are only small departments in comparison with the tremendous undertaking over which this Minister has control. I do not think it is possible to let the matter slide from year to year. I think the hon. the Minister must face up to it. He must say to the House and to the people outside, that separate development cannot work on the Railways; that it is impossible of application. Or he must do it. But when he says that he is going to apply separate development on the Railways, he must indicate what that separate development means. Any passenger train has anything up to five coaches in front for non-Whites. Surely they are customers. Surely they are entitled to share in the prosperity of the Railways. Surely these people are not going to be relegated for all times to work with pick and shovel, in the lower brackets, on this princely wage of R1.20 per day. Surely that is not the limit of the largesse which has come the way of the railway people in the form of this enormous amount of money. Surely in this the 20th century the hon. the Minister, who many say is a Minister who knows his portfolio, is the man to give a lead. Surely he is the man who ought to know. Surely he is the man to establish what is fair and equitable. Or is he going to take refuge, as so many other Ministers do, behind this myth and illusion that separate development is something that is possible, when in actual fact nothing of the kind is happening.

We are not discussing separate development now.

I am discussing the Railways, Sir. I put it to the hon. the Minister quite frankly and he chose not to reply. If the Coloured community wants to build its own railway line from Cape Town to Johannesburg …

You are talking absolute nonsense.

Of course it is “onsin” but the point is: Are they going to be permitted to build it? This is the whole problem. Government members do not face up to these facts. What sounds like a nice slogan, a fancy standpoint, when examined in the cold logic of the present-day facts does not hold water.

That is nonsense (onsin).

The hon. member opposite says it is nonsense. I am quite prepared to concede that. But unless they get that right, they must be permitted to work on the Railways wherever there are possibilities. That is the 64,000 dollar question. That is the choice before the hon. the Minister. There is no way around it, however he may struggle to find an evasive reply. These are the simple facts, the simple problems which face the Coloured community. They are being set aside, pushed aside, isolated and discriminated against in all fields.

That is absolute nonsense.

Now I ask: What is going to happen to them on the Railways? Is the limit of their ambition on the Railways to be R1.20 a day or is it to be that they will be introduced at various levels with the approval of the trade unions, the people who work on the Railways and who know the problems, and at top scales of pay which will not compete against that of the white man? Because no Coloured man wants to get a job on the Railways at the expense of a white colleague. No Coloured man wants to work for cut wages. No Coloured man wants to infiltrate. He asks to be treated on his merits. He asks to be taken as he is. He asks to be given some training. The hon. the Minister did not reply when I asked him how many scholarships and bursaries which were paid to people who did not stay with the Railways longer than 12 months, or a little longer, were paid to Coloured persons. Not one, Sir. Now why should it be so? That is the gravamen of my charge. Why should two million people be excluded, except on the lowest possible level, from this very lucrative and profitable undertaking?

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the hon. member who has just sat down, one can only say: Thank goodness that the Railways is till a State undertaking and has not passed into the hands of private initiative, as the Opposition has so often advocated in the past. Then I take it that the hon. member and his party would have seen to it that the Whites were completely ousted as employees in this large organization.

I do not want to dwell any longer on what the hon. member said. I think the Minister will deal with him properly and give him all the explanations. The hon. member said last week that hon. members on this side of the House can only say thank you and that they do not know what else to say. Now I just want to say that I find it a great pleasure to be able to say thank you if there is reason for doing so.

It is traditional.

As far as this debate is concerned, I do not merely want to say thank you. I want to pay tribute to the thousands of people who are employed in this large organization and their dependants. One is glad that the Minister remembered these people and their dependants to such a large extent in his Budget. I have sympathy with the United Party in that the hon. the Minister, by making generous provision for the needs of Railwaymen in this Budget, has deprived the United Party of the privilege of peddling the idea in public that justice is not being done to the Railwaymen. I want to pay tribute to the Railwaymen not only for succeeding in making this railways organization the best in the country, but also for doing a larger volume of work with reduced manpower resources.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 92.

Mr. Speaker, listening to the hon. member for Umlazi one would think that the South African harbours are quite inadequate; that the operation is hopelessly inefficient, that they compare most unfavourably with oversea harbours and that there has been and is no planning for the future. Apparently, according to the hon. member, the appointment of an independent harbour authority would be the panacea for all the so-called ills.

Let me deal with the question of the so-called inadequacy of the harbours. If our South African harbours were so inadequate, surely we would not have been able to handle these thousands of diverted ships over the period of nine months. Surely that proves that the charge of inadequacy is quite unfounded. The hon. member has admitted himself that the people working in our harbours have done a jolly good job of work. It has been a bit of a strain for them; they have worked overtime, but I think they have acquitted themselves very well indeed. Of course, there were delays in the harbours, especially in the Durban harbour, before the diversion of ships. But, Sir, that happens in every harbour in the world. When there is a bunching of ships then there are delays before all the ships receive berths, and the South African harbours are no exception. I have been fortunate enough to visit some of the harbours overseas, and I think hon. members of this House, like the hon. member for Standerton, who have to deal with the export of some of our produce, will be able to confirm what I have just said. We have received tributes over a period of years from the masters of vessels visiting our South African harbours. They have paid tribute to the efficient handling and the quick turn-round of ships visiting our South African harbours. Surely that is an effective reply to the hon. member when he says that our harbours are quite inadequate.

Then I come to the allegation that there is inefficient operation. Of course there is uncleared cargo and congestion at our harbours occasionally but mainly as a result of the fact that the consignees do not clear their goods in time. This happened again during the past few weeks in Cape Town. The sheds are becoming congested with uncleared cargo. This is entirely the fault of the commercial community. I do not suggest for a moment that our harbours have reached such a high state of efficiency that there is no room for criticism. Sir, I welcome criticism; I know there is a lot of room for improvement, but I do not think there is any justification for the general charge that our harbours are operating inadequately or inefficiently.

The hon. member says that our South African harbours compare unfavourably with oversea harbours. First of all, you cannot make such a comparison. You cannot compare Durban harbour with the Tilbury docks. You cannot compare Durban or Cape Town harbour with New York harbour; there is no comparison. Our harbours are small in comparison with those. All the information I have at my disposal shows that we are as efficient as those harbours, if not more efficient. I wonder if the hon. member has visited any of these harbours overseas. I visited amongst others, the Sydney harbour, one of the most wonderful natural harbours in the world. They do not even have to do any dredging there because of the depth of the water. Does the hon. member know that not one single crane is provided there, and that the ships have to load and unload their cargoes entirely with their derricks? Does he know that?

That is the general practice.

The hon. member says that our harbours compare unfavourably with other harbours when we in South Africa provide cranes at the expense of the State for the loading and unloading of all cargoes. There is no comparison between our South African harbours and those very great harbours overseas.

The hon. member also talked about planning; that is the favourite word of the Opposition. Whenever they have any criticism to put forward they base it on the so-called fact that there is inadequate planning. The hon. member talks about planning 15 or 20 years ahead. Well, we do that when it is possible. I am planning Richard’s Bay for the next two or three generations, but that does not mean to say that I have foresight to such an extent that I can say to-day what the development is doing to be, even in regard to cargo handling in 15 or 20 years’ time. Does the hon. member suggest that the Port of London Authority planned for containerization 15 or 20 years ago? Nobody knew about it then. They only started with it recently. My most recent information is that they have not even completed those berths. [Interjections.] I have also seen the Port of London Authority publication in which there appears a photograph of the berth that will deal with containers. They did not start planning for this 15 or 20 years ago. Their position is quite different from ours. There containerization is an actual fact; they have to deal with it immediately. We do not know whether we will have to deal with it in the next three or five or seven years in South Africa, and in spite of that we are planning for the handling of containers in both Cape Town and Durban. There will be two berths for containerization. You must have a hinterland; you must have large cranes to deal with 40 or 50 ton containers. We are planning for that. But the consensus of opinion is that containerization will not become an actual fact in the South African harbours for a number of years for the simple reason that our imports are much greater than our exports and you cannot use containers when there is a one-way traffic. It is quite uneconomical.

But it has improved, has it not?

That is what I say. I do not know what is going to happen in three or four years’ time, but the consensus of opinion at the present time is that we must make use of unitization rather than containerization, that is to say, working with units and palletizing. I am telling the House what the commercial community says and what the shipowners say. They are not going to convert their ships within the next few years for the carrying of containers to South Africa. It would be quite uneconomic. We have not got the two-way trade yet. As my colleague, the hon. the Deputy Minister, has said, our main exports to-day are still bulk cargoes and you do not use containers for bulk cargoes. For our imports containers can be used, but if you have a one-way traffic then it is quite uneconomic. But apart from that we are planning our harbours so that they can deal with containers when the need arises. Sir, the hon. member talks about planning. The House might be interested to know how many committees have been appointed over the last 20 years with the definite object of planning for the future expansion of our harbours, for improving the efficiency of our harbours and for providing additional facilities in our existing harbours. Let me give the hon. member a list of some of these committees: 1948: Harbour Cranes Investigation Committee; Committee appointed to inquire into the general working of the coaling appliances at the Bluff, Durban; 1949: Committee of Investigation into the future development of Buffalo Harbour: the inter-departmental committee on the expansion of the fishing industry at Walvis Bay; the Durban Bayhead Development Committee. 1951: Committee of Investigation into the future development of Port Elizabeth harbour; 1952: Committee of Enquiry into Appliances for handling materials in bulk at harbours; Committee of Inquiry into harbour facilities at Walvis Bay; Committee to Investigate Improvements at Table Bay Harbour; 1955: Committee of Investigation into harbour facilities for coasters at all harbours. 1956: Inter-departmental committee of investigation into facilities for the fishing industry at harbours controlled by the S.A.R. Administration; 1957: Committee of Investigation into cranage requirements at the harbours. Sir, I am not listing all the committees, only the most important ones. 1960: Committee Investigating the suitability of the Bluff handling appliances for the shipment of anthracite; Committee to investigate deepening of approaches to berths at Port Elizabeth; 1961: Committee of Investigation into the possibility of developing a fishing harbour at Granger Bay or elsewhere in Table Bay; Committee of Investigation into the provision of off-shore moorings for crude oil tankers and berths for loading refined products in Table Bay harbour; 1963: Special committee to investigate the adequacy of the existing facilities at Durban harbour; 1964: Committee of Investigation into siting of a fishing harbour near Cape Town and possibility of combining such a harbour with a major shipyard; 1965: Committee of Investigation into congestion at Durban harbour; inter-departmental committee of inquiry into fishing harbour facilities at Mossel Bay; 1966: Inter-departmental committee of investigation into facilities for fishing craft in Durban harbour. In addition, standing committees have been in existence at Durban and Cape Town since 1958 to consider matters relating to the expansion of these harbours. In addition to general activities these committees have submitted specific reports as follows: Durban: first interim report—General Development: Second interim report—tanker facilities and site for refinery tank farm; Third interim report—sites for shipbuilding and repair yards; fourth interim report—facilities for shipment of pig-iron in bulk carriers; fifth interim report—facilities for the shipment of pig-iron for Japan, anthracite, coal, etc., at the Bluff. Cape Town: First interim report—general development; second interim report—general development; third interim report—allocation of sites of shipbuilding firms and for bulk bitumin storage tanks; fourth interim report—improved berthing and passenger facilities at A berth and allocation of site for bulk shipment of cement; fifth report—proposed tanker basin and facilities; sixth report—cargo sheds, accommodation for non-working craft and tanker berthage accommodation; seventh report—layup basin adjacent to tanker basin, proposed pier in Duncan dock, improvements to maize loading facilities at the collier jetty. Sir, the hon. member says that there is no planning.

Those are the things that I want to get rid of and form a permanent body.

I am coming to the permanent body. The men who were appointed to these committees were harbour experts. As far as Durban harbour is concerned, the reports in regard to the building of those piers were in my hands years before the work was started. Actually I started constructing those piers long before the committee suggested that I should start.

The hon. member said, as he has just repeated by way of interjection, that we should have an independent harbour authority, and he suggested that that would be the panacea for all the so-called ills at our harbours. Sir, what could such an authority do that has not been done? Who is going to be appointed to that independent committee?

If I could get that idea across to you you would adopt it.

No, I would not. I do not think it is a feasible idea. I do not think that any improvement would result from the appointment of such a committee. Even in regard to the Port of London Authority, the British Government is not satisfied with it. They are inquiring into the necessity or otherwise of retaining that Authority.

But the set-up in Britain was quite different from that in South Africa. In Britain they had private railroads originally before they were nationalized, and the railroads never had any control over the harbours in Britain. Surely the hon. member knows that. The same applies to the U.S.A. Our set-up is quite different. We have State Railways that have always controlled the Harbours. And it is not a question of railwaymen sitting in Johannesburg who have to deal with the expansion of harbours. The men dealing with the development of harbours are experts in their sphere, and no experts other than those employed by the Railway Administration will be found in South Africa. If the hon. member thinks that members of the commercial or the industrial community must form an independent harbour authority and that they should have the task of planning for future development, there will be no planning at all or planning that will ever be acceptable. Apart from that, the hon. member surely must realize that there must be the closest co-ordination between harbour expansion and railway development. If you do not have the rail take-off which is adequate to deal with all the cargo loaded and unloaded in the harbours, the expansion of the harbours is of no use whatsoever. Here we have the Railway Administration as the co-ordinating body. They can co-ordinate the harbour expansion on the one hand, with the rail expansion on the other. Apart from that, this independent harbour authority will also have to obtain capital funds for the expansion of the harbours, for the construction of new works, and where are they going to get it from?

From you.

I now get it from the Treasury. Does the hon. member think that if they are an independent authority they will get more capital funds for harbour expansion than I am getting to-day from the Treasury?

They will use the money better.

The hon. member mustprove that first. I do not know how a number of laymen who have no expert knowledge of harbour development can necessarily be an authority, and use capital funds better than we can to-day. I am afraid I cannot give more time to this matter in regard to the harbour authority. I heard it for the first time from Mr. Butcher when he was here. It seems to be the favourite topic in Durban, and the hon. member is merely carrying on from where Mr. Butcher left off.

*The hon. member for Marico spoke about the building of a bridge at the crossing in Klip Street in Zeerust. This is a matter for the Standing Committee which has been appointed in terms of the Act. They draw up a list of priorities of level-crossings to be eliminated by means of building bridges or subways. I do not know what position this particular crossing occupies on that list, but I think my office will be able to give the hon. member that information if he approaches them.

†The hon. member for Queenstown thinks there is room for improvement in regard to transport in South Africa. I wholeheartedly agree with him.

Not Queenstown, East London (North).

I am sorry. I know he made several attempts to become the member for Queenstown, and I apologize to my friend over there. The hon. member for East London (North) says he thinks there is room for improvement in the transport system of South Africa. I say I fully agree with him. I think there is a lot of room for improvement. I am not satisfied with everything as it is to-day, and I am always waiting for constructive suggestions from the Opposition to help me to effect further improvements, but I do not get them. But the hon. member says it is not his job to make constructive suggestions. He says if he sat in my place he would know how to solve all these problems. Now, what about assisting me? Let me have some suggestions.

What about the pipeline?

The Leader of the Opposition, as we say in Afrikaans, “het die klok gehoor lui maar hy weet nie waar die keper hang nie”. Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition know that that committee was appointed under the chairmanship of Dr. Van Eck, a man who is not only very well known but of high repute in South Africa for his ability? That committee recommended that the pipeline construction should start many years after I actually started building it.

How wrong they were!

No, they were not wrong …

Make us the committee.

Good heavens! Then I can only say “God help South Africa”. But as I say, I am quite prepared to accept constructive suggestions. I am open to conviction and I am amenable to reason. If hon. members make any constructive, worthwhile suggestions, I shall be only too pleased to accept them. The hon. member says—and it is a good suggestion—that rail rates should be lowered to attract more traffic. That happens sometimes. I quite agree with him. It happened in Canada, but there was a difference there. There were two railway systems in Canada, the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railways. The one was State-owned and the other was privately owned, and there was the strongest competition between them. But what the president of the Canadian National Railways did is this. There was a very big capital reorganization, and they wrote down the value of assets at Government cost so that fixed charges were considerably reduced, and this enabled them to reduce freight charges. We do that in regard to agricultural products, but by reducing the charges further we will not attract more traffic. Many of those commodities are transported to-day at no profit at all and some of them are actually conveyed at a loss. I told the hon. member for Albany the other day that wool is transported at very low rates. From Middelburg to Port Elizabeth it works out at a little more than ½ cent per lb., and the average price of wool is 30 cents per lb., so I do not think that is an excessive burden on the wool-farmer.

In regard to the passenger trains to Queenstown and that part of the country, I know they are not what they should be, but we are gradually improving them. As we get new coaches, we will replace the existing coaches which are not always the best, but I cannot promise to introduce diesels on that run. Dieselization is very expensive. A diesel locomotive costs about R180,000 to-day and the amount of traffic to be transported must justify the purchase of diesel locomotives for that particular section. The amount of traffic transported on that particular line certainly does not justify the introduction of diesels.

And passengers?

I lose on passengers, so why should I have even bigger losses by buying new locomotives to pull passenger trains, when I am already suffering a considerable loss on it?

You must improve the service to get more customers.

Can we get a better service than the Blue Train? The hon. member makes the general statement that we must improve the passenger services. I am giving the example of the Blue Train, one of the best trains in the world. I have travelled on the best trains overseas, like the Trans-Europe Express, in Europe, and the Blue Zephyr in the U.S.A. I think the Blue Train compares favourably with all those trains, and still we do not get sufficient support from the public for the Blue Train, for the simple reason that they prefer travelling by air because it is much faster, and the rest of them travel by road. So even if I reduce the fares on passenger trains I do not think I will get additional passengers. But in spite of that we are improving the services. We introduced air-conditioned dining-cars. We are also building new coaches which are excellent. Their riding qualities are above reproach and their comfort is exceptional.

On the East London line?

No, not the East London line. I am speaking of the main line passenger trains. But in spite of that, the number of first and second-class passengers is dropping every year.

Reduce the price.

I do not think that will help. Air prices are very much higher, and still the people are patronizing air travel. The 727 services are much more expensive than the Viscount coach services, but in spite of being able to travel more cheaply by Viscount, the public is not supporting the Viscount service to the extent that they should. They all want to travel on the 727, in spite of its being more expensive, because it is a better service.

I have dealt with the air bookings. This is not a problem peculiar to S.A. Airways. It is a problem that every airline in the world has to contend with in regard to their internal services, this over-booking and people not turning up at the last moment.

You are losing revenue.

I am, but I am afraid there is no solution. We are going to computerize our bookings. That will bring about an improvement, but it will not eliminate overbooking. As I explained the other day, we once tried to introduce a penalty for people who do not show up at the last moment, but it did not work. In fact, it created such an amount of bad feeling that we had to drop it again. I do not think that is the solution either.

I now come to the hon. member for Karoo. I want to give the assurance that I certainly have no objection to his putting his case for the people he represents as forcibly as he can. That is his job; he has to do it, and I do not take exception to it. I sympathize with him for the fact that he is tied up with that United Party and he cannot really say what his policy is because it will embarrass his party. To give an example, what the hon. member would really like to say is that in spite of opposition from trade unions I should give the Coloured people more opportunities and appoint them to these vacancies, but he is not allowed to say that.

But do you not accept that I did not say that and that I do not suggest that?

That is why I am saying to the hon. member that he cannot say that.

But you said the other day that he did say it.

Yes, I said that by implication he said that. That is what he really would like to do. If the hon. member is perfectly frank, as he was before the Commission, where he put his own policy in regard to the Coloured people, and if he were not afraid of embarrassing his party members, he would say: Put the coloured people into those vacancies whether the white people like it or not. Then the hon. member would be honest if he said that, but he did not say that. He agrees that I cannot do that against the opposition of the white trade unions.

I have worked in trade unions myself.

So have I.

I have helped to negotiate coloured people into jobs that were white.

So have I. As a matter of fact, there are a large number of jobs formerly done by white people which are being done by non-whites to-day. I have a Standing Committee with the Artisan Staff Association in regard to this particular question of whether non-Whites should be employed in positions formerly held by Whites. That is nothing new. It has been done for a number of years. So what the hon. member is suggesting is being done and has been done in the past. I have a lot of sympathy with the coloured people, and I would like to give them more opportunities, but this has nothing to do with separate development. The hon. member’s conception of separate development is quite wrong. I am giving them opportunities as far as I can, but the hon. member talks about the prejudice and the bias among the white people and he refers me to what was done in the U.S.A. In a population of about 200 million there are only about 20 million Negroes. In spite of the fact that they are really black Americans and have no language of their own and that they have been in contact with civilization since the Civil War and even before that, they have not yet been absorbed into the American nation, and one of the greatest grievances of these people today is that they do not have the opportunities for employment that the white man has. The hon. member knows that. That is one of the causes of the riots there. If that happens in America, where they are a small minority, what will be the position in South Africa where the white man forms a small minority and the non-Whites are the great majority? Of course the prejudice is there; the bias is there. I said very plainly the other day that I would like to give these people more opportunities and that we are doing so as far as we possibly can, with the support and cooperation of the rest of the staff, but I said that there was one condition, and that is that the wages and the status of the white man must not be affected. In other words, I will not allow that to be undermined by the employment of non-white labour.

Nobody wants to undermine it.

No, I do not say the hon. member wants to. That is my position. You see, Sir, I am perfectly frank in regard to what I want to do and what I am prepared to do. I wonder whether the hon. member knows that little more than a year ago I received an address from the Coloured Staff Organization thanking me for what I had done for the coloured people since I have been Minister of Transport. Does he know that?

Yes.

I am not bragging about it, but it shows that there is a little appreciation for what has been done. With the most recent increase in wages they were not discriminated against. They also received at least an 8 per cent increase on their basic wage. I do not say that I am satisfied with the wages they are paid. I am not even satisfied with the wages paid to the white Railway worker, but the hon. member knows that it is a question of costs. If the public of South Africa is prepared to pay vastly increased rates, I can increase all wages to such an extent that nobody will have any complaint.

Sir, I think I have now dealt with all the matters raised by hon. members.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

(Third Reading)

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Third Time.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the Third Reading of this Bill. During the Committee Stage I tried to say a few words about the pipeline and I am going to try to do so again now when, as it seems to me, there is a prospect of sweet reasonableness on the part of the hon. the Minister, because he has now reached the end of his story on the Railway Budget. I, however, should like to put to him the case of the Transvaal, of the Orange Free State—in short, of all our inland dwellers—in so far as pipeline charges are concerned. I said the hon. the Minister had one mood and two arguments when he dealt with what we had to say about the pipeline. His mood was that he had a monopoly and, consequently, the decision on what to charge for the transport of petrol by pipeline from Durban to Johannesburg rested with him. He said the decision rested with him, whatever the arguments. Well, I want to put to him some of these arguments. On the question of rates he said the principle was “the rate the traffic can bear”. But I want to submit that this is not applicable to the charges on the pipeline. I am not an authority on rating, of course, but there has been a commission on this question of rating—not one of these departmental committees the Minister referred to, but a commission on which served representatives of the S.A. Railways and representatives of industry under the chairmanship of a learned professor from one of our universities. I want to inform the House what this commission had to say on this question of rating. I have read its report very carefully; I read it when it was published. I now refer to the close of paragraph 106 and to paragraph 107. This, then, is what this commission had to say about rating—

In other words, it is not a justification for charging higher tariffs but rather for reducing tariffs. Then, after the commission had considered the matter, it came to the following conclusion—

In other words, when it comes to a question of considering what rate to charge for the transport of petrol from Durban to Johannesburg by pipeline the cost principle should be more carefully considered by the Minister.

It is considered.

I have heard about this huge profit—I think about 700 per cent—the Minister makes on this pipeline. Well, with that big profit I think the least he can do is to reconsider the matter. I will have a word about the pipeline and the establishment of the pipeline later. My first argument is therefore that the hon. the Minister has not been applying the cost principle as he ought to have been applying it. He has been applying a principle to high-rated traffic that is intended chiefly for low-rated traffic. That is my first point.

I come to another point. The Minister not only—and I am sorry the hon. the Minister of Finance has left—used that argument. He also uses another argument, namely that he can use the rating as an economic factor. I will say how he does it. He says SASOL must be protected and he is going to protect SASOL. I will quote from a speech by the Minister. I have listened to him every year, and I want to say this about the Minister’s speeches and replies: He is frank and straightforward, sometimes brutally frank, but he is straightforward and frank. We know where we are with him. Although I disagree completely with him on this issue he does tell us what he is doing. But when he assumes to himself the right and the privilege to use this economic factor which appropriately belongs to the Minister of Finance. I think he is erring. This is what he said in a debate in 1963, a debate in which I took part. I quote from Hansard volume 5 at the top of column 2655—

That was ten years before—

That is frank. But it is not within the province of the Minister to introduce this economic control. That is a matter for the Minister of Finance, and he has already done it. He can do more if necessary. Petrol arriving in this country has to pay customs duty at the coast, and petrol produced by Sasol has to pay excise, and of course preference is given to petrol produced in the country, just as there is a preference given to brandy produced in the country. What is the preference? I do not know at the moment; I have not looked up the figures now. On the last occasion when I looked up the figure the preference given to Sasol was 4½c per gallon. In other words Sasol is protected. But if the Minister thinks Sasol should have further protection, and it is not within his power, then I think he should consult the hon. the Minister of Finance. Why should the interior in our country have to pay this difference? Why should they have to pay it? If Sasol has to be protected the protection should be paid for by all the people of South Africa. It is not producing petrol only for the interior. It is producing for the reason that we gave when Sasol was established. Occasionally an ill-informed hon. member opposite will say: “Bah! You were opposed to the establishment of Sasol.” Of course, that is utter nonsense. Not a single voice in this House was opposed to the establishment of Sasol. We did not expect Sasol to be run at a profit. Why was Sasol established? It was not because we expected to make a lot of money, although the Minister of those days thought so. Of course, he was wrong. For strategic reasons it was a good thing to have Sasol. The Minister of those days was very optimistic. He had some wonderful reports to make about Sasol. He told us, for example, that it was estimated it would produce petrol at 10c per gallon. He also told us that when Sasol was established and producing petrol the prospect was that petrol would be reduced by 6d. per gallon. The first year he told us in an optimistic mood during the company flotation period that the prospects were so good that when Sasol was established we would be able to produce a third of the petrol required in South Africa. The following year he had reconsidered the matter and said, no, no, it will not be a third, it will be a fifth. But I do not wish to speak without the book. I should like to quote the Minister of those days, and I should like to quote for the benefit of my hon. friends on the other side. I quote from Hansard Vol. 73 at the top of Col. 8891—

I take it you are not referring to me as the Minister who said that.

No. I will say your budgeting is better than that. The Minister continued and said—

I presume he meant “expected”—

We were getting an increase of sixpence per gallon! There is a lot of difference between an increase and a decrease—he had the “in” and the “de” changed about. The following year, in 1951, the Minister said one-fifth of the petrol requirements would be manufactured, and he also said: “We are all agreed that Sasol should be established,” which was quite true. We said for strategic reasons it is a very good thing. We have not established another. The whole world knows, the people who are concerned with producing oil from coal know it cannot compete with tanker petrol in any part of the world. Research committees in Europe, in the British Isles and on the Continent, gave as their opinion that the cheapest coal in the world for the production of petrol is in South Africa from the Sigma mine, and there it cannot be produced at a profit. That is the point, namely the hon. the Minister should not protect Sasol. He should consult the Minister of Finance and he can give Sasol a grant if it is necessary. Hon. members on the other side seem to think they are making great profits. But the profits they do make are not made from oil manufactured from coal. There are very large sales there of chemicals and in addition to chemicals there are other products. So, it is not our function in considering these rates to consider protecting Sasol. That is something the Minister should rule out. That is not a factor and it is not an argument which he should advance in this House for maintaining these rates. I am going to suggest to the Minister presently what he should do.

We have been consistent on this question of the pipeline. Eighteen years age we on this side asked whether we could not have a pipeline to transport petrol from the coast to the interior. Petrol companies were prepared to do it, and private enterprise would have done it very much earlier. After we had argued the case for quite a time the Minister was persuaded to appoint a commission. It was not a departmental committee this time but a commission, a commission of experts. The Railways were very well represented and the I.D.C., that is Sasol, was also very well represented. They went into labour for a period of 2½ years—and produced a mouse. I do not know whether the Minister ever reads these reports, but for light reading on a winter evening he should read the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Pipeline Project. That these learned men, these scientists, could have produced a report like this makes me think the Minister may be right sometimes when he gives his own opinion without consulting the experts. Let me give hon. members their conclusions. Oh, there are many delightful passages in this report and I have read them many times! We find the following under the heading “Conclusion and Recommendation” on page 15—

The hon. the Minister eventually was forced because of the amount of traffic to do something about it, and they started a pipeline. This commission was appointed in 1955 and they reported in 1958. They said, “Do nothing until 1968”, that is until now! What has happened in the meantime? The pipeline has been constructed, petrol is flowing merrily, and the inland centres are being robbed by these pipelines. It is quite unfair. I have made a suggestion on a previous occasion to the Minister when he asked what he should do. I should say at once in this period of revenue mounting up to unknown heights—my hon. friend here speaks of this spirit of largesse—I think he should reduce the rate by 3c per gallon. I am being modest when I suggest this. Transvaalers should pay 3c per gallon less. I think with the volume of traffic it would pay the Minister handsomely.

I have one thing to say about the pipeline, namely, we do not get sufficient information about it. I should like to know how many gallons per annum are transported by pipeline. The hon. member for Yeoville quoted the final figures, but I presume a good deal of that petrol is Government petrol. Criticism we have had of our point of view amounts to this: Hon. members on that side say: “Yes, but you want to give the man living in the interior cheaper petrol for his joy rides.” That is not the case. The latest calculation I have had was that 37 per cent of petrol transported to the interior is used by private consumers, five per cent is used by the Government. This means that 58 per cent is used by industry, commerce, and agriculture for the development of the Witwatersrand and the interior generally. My hon. friends from the Western Transvaal should have something to say on this, because petrol has to go farther, to the Western Transvaal. But they never mention it; they never say a word. They represent areas where we have industries developing; they represent these new areas in South Africa. Why must we always be penalized? Why should we have the hon. the Minister of Planning telling us: “You on the Witwatersrand are the people we want to get at.” I mean that is what he says by his attitude. He says in effect: “We want to decentralize and get industry away from you.” The hon. the Minister is a Witwatersrand Minister and we look to him to assist us on the Witwatersrand.

I am making this appeal to him and I appeal to my colleagues on the other side, hon. members from the Free State and the Transvaal, that they will eventually join issue.

Find a colour aspect to bring them in.

But petrol is always the same colour, that is the difficulty. I know that in some countries methylated spirits is coloured, but petrol is not—it just remains the same colour. I want to say this: On one occasion I was asked in the Transvaal: “Why do not all of you M.P.s who come from the Transvaal do something about it, whatever party you belong to? Why do you not go over the top together? Why do you not all tackle the Government?” Well, I do not have the influence of hon. members opposite. I make this appeal to the hon. the Minister. I have tried for years to do something about it. I do not want to anticipate his answer. I said at the beginning that in this salubrious atmosphere there seems to be a spirit of goodwill and sweet reasonableness. I am hoping for the best from his reply.

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly not for me as a back-bencher to reply to such a dignified old front-bencher as the hon. member who has just sat down, particularly when it concerns a subject in regard to which there are obviously so many misconceptions. Consequently you will pardon me for not venturing into that field.

But apart from the tremendous extent of the Budget and the equally large increases in salary that are in prospect for the Railway servants, there are two other very striking aspects of this last Budget. I feel that it is especially these aspects that may be of a decisive nature, in future, as they will play a decisive part as regards the proper functioning of the Railways. On the one hand we find that the Railways are also faced with the depressing phenomenon of a shortage of manpower, as is probably the case with all other bodies worth mentioning. On the other hand we have the encouraging phenomenon that the Railways, in spite of this manpower problem, has nevertheless succeeded in performing its functions fully and with distinction, in other words, that in spite of these problems it has still been possible to achieve increased productivity. Now, in the short time at my disposal, I should like to approach these two ideas in a positive way and to develop them a little.

I do not want to suggest by that that I can solve this problem with a simple flight of the imagination, as many other members would like to do. The Railways accept it as a fact to-day, and they simply have to accept it as such, that they will always be faced with a shortage of manpower, whatever the wage structure and the conditions of service may be. Therefore it is only logical to-day that, in addition to any other practical measures that may be taken, they will have to make the best possible use of their existing staff. Taking this statement as my point of departure, I should like to plead to-day for the introduction of control and the promotion of the functioning of the organization throughout the entire service by means of an organization and method system. After all, it is a recognized fact that it is the primary function or the Railways to transport passengers and goods and to do everything in connection therewith. However, in order to do justice to the efficient execution of the primary functions of the Railways, which after all provide its only source of income, it is absolutely essential that the auxiliary functions, that is, the secondary functions, should not overshadow the primary functions of the Railways. They must only contribute to the greater efficiency of the Railways. The Railways are in the position to-day—and various factors have contributed to this in the past—that their auxiliary functions often of necessity seem unwieldy and uneconomic to us. The expenditure and the application of labour in connection therewith sometimes seem out of proportion with the primary functions. I do not want to elaborate on that to-day. Suffice it to say that even an organization such as the Railways cannot permit the extent of its auxiliary functions to exceed its primary function. Since the shortage of manpower has to be taken into account, one asks oneself the question whether now is not the time to try to supply deficiencies which possibly arose in the past, by having a smaller staff more effectively utilized and better organized. In my opinion this may enable us to achieve a better ratio between revenue and expenditure. At the same time we would render the shortage of staff less palpable through achieving higher productivity. The inference must not be drawn from this that the service as it is functioning at present is quite disorganized and without any planning. This is only to seek ways and means to make an already effective service even more effective. It is in this respect, I think, that a method and organization system may be implemented. When I speak of this method, it is not something new that must be introduced by the Railways. It is common knowledge to-day that the Railways have already gone some way along this road. If my information is correct—and I have every reason to believe that it is correct—a course was introduced as far back as 1964 by means of which certain officials receive two months’ intensive training in organization and method. Those men were sent back to their sections and subsections, where they had to apply the basic principles of O. & M. within the limited framework of those sections or offices. In the case of others the field was so small that they could never apply them. But notwithstanding the limited field in which these trained men could work, there is evidence that in certain fields, particularly in the Cape Western System, where these O. & M. methods were applied, the success was astonishing. Depot clerks say, and we may accept this, that the number of staff employed was considerably reduced at quite a few depots recently, but that notwithstanding that reduction, the work is being performed much more effectively to-day. They say, in particular, that the spirit prevailing amongst that staff has noticeably improved as a result of better division of labour. Besides, these depot officials now feel that they can make a contribution in the sense that they can discuss their problems with an O. & M. officer and by so doing may possibly help to eliminate deficiencies and overlapping. This brings us to the fundamental flaw in the present system, as one sometimes sees it as a layman. This is that these officials who have applied these methods in this limited field, have not been able to do the necessary work of following this up outside their sections. They have not been able to do this because they do not have the status to prescribe methods to other sections affected. In other words, it has not been possible to develop this system to the full. In practice the position is that, as a result of constantly changing circumstances and altered methods, there is probably no administrative section or office to-day where overlapping or in some cases even unnecessary work is not done from time to time or where labour is not applied unproductively.

If this is the case in other organizations, then the possibility of this happening in an enterprise of the size of the Railways is probably so much greater. The establishment in administrative offices and depots, as well as workshops, etc., must be constantly revised in the present circumstances. It must be revised because the extent of the work must necessarily increase out of all proportion in certain posts, while on the other hand it decreases in the case of other posts. Circumstances may even change to such an extent that certain duties in many posts practically fall away. I can mention a few examples in this connection, but I do not want to weary the House in this late stage of the debate. Another consideration in favour of the introduction of O. & M. is that local factors play such a tremendous part. It is a fact that what serves a good purpose, for example, in the office of the locomotive foreman at Makwassie will not necessarily produce the same results at Paarden Eiland. If we now had a co-ordinating O. & M. division where the existing subsections could discuss procedure, etc., and perhaps simplify it, it could have been a solution. But as this is non-existent, the method employed at Makwassie must necessarily be employed at Paarden Eiland as well. Consequently, I wish to urge the Minister to consider introducing a comprehensive O. and M. section to be controlled from Head Office and also to be responsible to Head Office. I feel that it would be quite sufficient if two persons were placed at each section. Constant consultation and comparing of methods amongst sections, with co-ordination by Head Office, will then be possible as organization and method is never and never must be static. We now have the assurance that the additional expenditure that may be caused by the creation of such posts will be compensated for a hundredfold by savings and higher productivity. This has been proved time and again by the private sector. I think the Public Service is having the same success in this stage. We are in the fortunate position, and the Railways particularly are in the fortunate position, that we already have the necessary trained staff for such a project. The Railways are furthermore in the fortunate position in that the wage increase made possible by the Estimates will ensure a sound wage structure. Consequently the productivity may be increased to the maximum with realistic grading and merit assessment. Apart from all these benefits I have mentioned, the Railways will also succeed in this way in creating sound staff relations in a time when the term victimization is used so lightly.

I have naturally not been able to analyze the entire matter in this short time as one would have liked to do it. I do think, however, that these few thoughts will give the Minister a good idea of what one really wanted to say. Once again I want to urge him to consider this idea and to put it into effect if possible.

I think the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down was one of the few speeches that we have heard from hon. members on that side in which they have not blamed the United Party for the existing problems which face the Railways. I think the hon. member tried to be as constructive as possible. He stated in the course of his speech that notwithstanding the manpower shortage the Service had been able to fulfill its duties, but I would like to ask the hon. the Minister at what cost the railway servants have been able to fulfill its duties to the Administration? I shall deal with that question as I go along. Sir, I was very interested a few moments ago to hear the hon. the Minister say that if the public would pay the increased cost he would be prepared or he would be able to pay the railway employees more. I found that particularly interesting because not many weeks ago in this House one of the Minister’s colleagues, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, stated that no matter what the cost the policy of the Government would be implemented. Now we have the Minister of Transport saying that provided the public was prepared to pay the cost he would be able to pay the railway employees a good deal more. He also said to me earlier in this debate and particularly in reply to the hon. member for Karoo that he would like to employ more Coloureds but that this was not altogether possible. In my speech earlier in this debate I made the point that in the last five years the number of Coloureds employed in the Administration had increased by 2,000 and the number of Asiatics by 700. This was in a period of five years. I do believe that much more could be done in this respect to see that these people are given more opportunities for employment in the Administration. Sir, we would like to underline the fact—and we agree with the Minister entirely—that this must be brought about in collaboration with the various railway staff associations.

I would like this afternoon to make one or two appeals to the Minister and I hope that he will give them his attention. I do so because in many cases these are complaints which have been brought to me. I hope that the Minister will not put me in a position in which he did last year when I asked that a certain department of the Railways should be given more adequate transport facilities. They were struggling because of a lack of transport. Well, the Minister was very good; within the next couple of days he sent this particular department a scooter and I might tell the hon. the Minister that they wanted to bring the scooter back to him because they felt that they could not use it in the climate in which they were working.

Sir, I have said that the Government will never solve its labour shortage because it lacks the common sense to face the position. [Interjections.] I believe these interjections from that side of the House illustrate the lack of common sense on the part of the Government. We on this side of the House sympathize entirely with the staff of the S.A. Railways. We feel that they have worked too hard for too little and for too long. I would like to suggest that this position is going to continue, and in support of this I would like to quote figures to the House from the Estimate for the year ending 31st March, 1968. The first figure that I would like to quote shows that in the harbours a total of 13 per cent of the total salaries paid to harbour servants will be spent in overtime alone. In the department which deals with the running of the Railways, the overtime bill accounts for 24 per cent of the total bill. Twenty four per cent of the salaries paid to servants in this particular section will be paid in overtime alone. In the traffic department the total overtime bill comes to 19 per cent. Is it any wonder then that I ask t e hon. member who has just sat down, “At what cost have these people been serving the S.A. Railways over the past few years?” I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has considered the effect on the health of these people who are working such long hours in overtime? The hon. the Minister has told us how many people work 16 hours and how many work 12 hours and so on. Sir, when a person works for 12 hours and is off for 12 hours and that pattern continues weekend after weekend and year after year, it must have a very detrimental effect on his health. Not only does it affect his family and social life, as I have mentioned before, but it affects his health very seriously. I can tell the hon. the Minister that in the Durban harbour department alone the health of a number of people has broken down mainly—one cannot say entirely—because of the amount of overtime that they are being forced to work. There are some instances that I quoted earlier where people are working 84 hours a week. This is all very well, but I am sure it would surprise the hon. the Minister to know how many people find that their health breaks down just before they go on pension and in many cases soon after they go on pension. I know not of one instance but of many instances where people in the harbour department, particularly in Durban, have had heart attacks before reaching the age of 50. I would implore the hon. the Minister to see that an investigation is made into the health of these employees, because I am sure that they are suffering tremendously because of their loyalty to the Service. This situation will have to go on for many years to come, because, as I have said, there is no possible solution to the labour shortage in the Administration.

Sir, in an earlier speech I also mentioned the question of the employment of people who had reached the age of 35, 40 or 45. In every unemployment queue in South Africa there is a vast number of these people who cannot get employment. When I mentioned this to the hon. the Minister he said that they can be employed in the Railway Service but that they would have to be employed at the lowest notch of their particular grade, otherwise it would be unfair to those presently employed in the Service. Sir, I agree that this is a problem but the Railway Administration must be one of the few organizations in the country which refuses to employ people of this particular age group, people who gave many years of loyal service.

They are not refused employment.

They are not refused employment but the fact that they are offered that particular wage is tantamount to saying to them, “We do not really want you.” It is not a blunt refusal as such. Some of the people who stand in these unemployment queues are highly educated people who are unemployed through no fault of their own. Their services have been dispensed with by various firms under a retrenchment programme or because the firms have gone insolvent. I can tell the Minister that when the whaling industry was hit so badly a few months ago, many of these people were thrown on the unemployment market, but none of them could take employment in the Railway Service because if they did so they would have to start at the lowest notch of the salary applying to that particular grade. I think the Railways must be one of the few undertakings in the country which gives a man no credit for his age and his experience. I am quite sure that a suitable grade or grades could be created for these particular people. I suggest that throughout South Africa there are numbers of these men in unemployment queues who could be very useful to the Administration at a time when it is crying out for labour. The other point which the hon. the Minister made in this regard is that when anybody leaves the Service and re-joins, he has to start at the lowest notch of that particular grade. Sir, I believe that these people should be reemployed at the notch at which they left the Service. I know that present employees of the Service might feel that this is unfair to them, but present employees have the advantage that their pensions will be higher. They also have the advantage that they will in fact be senior to these men because they themselves would have moved up a notch. As I see it, the Railway Service is losing a vast source of workers because it refuses to budge on this particular point. I know that under the present system it would be difficult to absorb these men in the Service but I want to say to the Minister that I believe that one of the ways in which he can help to solve his labour crisis would be to look at some of these workers again. This labour shortage that we have with us is going to continue to be with us for all time and anybody who does not face that fact is simply not facing the facts of South Africa. If we continue to work our labour force in an organization such as the S.A. Railways to the extent that we are doing to-day, I believe that we will be making our white labour force a slave to an illusion, the illusion that the Government is offering a policy which can possibly work, the illusion that their position will change one day, the illusion that there will never be anything else but a labour crisis in South Africa. This labour shortage will be with us for all time because you cannot solve it with the Government we have to-day. [Interjections.] Sir, this debate has lasted a full week and not once in that week has any member on that side suggested what we could do to solve the labour shortage in South Africa, not only in the Railway Administration but in every other department in South Africa. I suggest that hon. members opposite should cease to laugh until they can find that solution. This problem will stay with us and it will not help hon. members opposite in the least to try to laugh it off.

There is a labour shortage in the United Party, and a brain shortage.

Now, when I have succeeded in waking up some of those hon. members I would like to turn to another matter. Sir, I have had numerous complaints which I should like the hon. the Minister to deal with. I mentioned these complaints in a previous speech but the hon. the Minister did not reply to me. I accept, of course, that the Minister cannot reply to every point made by hon. members, but I would like him, if possible, to give me a reply on this point because it has been brought to my attention that somebody suggested that I had not raised this issue. Sir, I refer to the question of transfers from the System Manager’s office to fill jobs on promotion in other departments. Many people in these departments feel that senior positions in their departments are being filled by men transferred from a particular System Manager’s office. This means, of course, that the people in those particular departments are stymied as far as transfers are concerned because, peculiarly enough, transfers on promotion do not work in reverse. In other words, persons in a particular department find it most difficult to get promoted to a System Manager’s office, whereas people from the System Manager’s office very often fill vacancies in other departments. I would like the hon. the Minister to assure me that this matter has received or will receive his attention because it is causing a great deal of discontent in these various departments.

Another matter that I would like to bring to the Minister’s attention is the question of people who serve in an acting capacity in a particular job. Some people have been known to serve in acting capacities for as long as five years, and it has been suggested that if a person has served in an acting capacity in a job for as long as three months, he should be confirmed in that particular post. I say this because if he is not confirmed in his appointment it means that his pension suffers. I appeal to the hon. the Minister therefore to give this matter his consideration. I feel that when a man has been acting in a particular capacity for a certain period he should be confirmed in that capacity unless, of course, he is found to be unsuitable, in which case he should be informed accordingly.

I would also like the hon. the Minister, when he replies, to tell me whether he has taken note—he no doubt has—of the dissatisfaction amongst the clerical workers of the S.A. Railways. I understand that this dissatisfaction stems mainly from the age group from about 30 to 45 who feel that the salary increases of which they have been notified do not by any means meet their representations. I understand that they have sent a telegram to the Minister asking him to receive a delegation. I would like to know from the Minister whether he is going to see a delegation from these particular employees? Sir, looking at the South African Railways I think one can say, despite what hon. members on that side might have to say, that over the last four or five years it has become an unpopular service. I say that it has become an unpopular service and the hysterical laughter that one gets from that side convinces nobody at all. In my constituency I have many, many railwaymen, and if you were to ask any of those men whether they would allow their sons to join the S.A. Railways, they would laugh at you in your face, just as hon. members opposite are doing at the present moment. In days gone past, if a man worked in the Railways, he was more than satisfied if his son followed him into the Railways, and I say to the hon. the Minister and to the hon. the Deputy Minister, who have at least paid attention, unlike those other hon. members over there, that not one of those people in the Railways to-day will let his son go into the Railways. This, I believe, is the measure of what those people think of the Railways to-day. [Interjection.] How many of your children are on the Railways? [Interjections.]

Order!

The measure of the popularity of the S.A. Railways is to my mind gauged exactly by this one fact, namely that the people serving there to-day would not like to see their sons serving in the S.A. Railways, and not many years ago this certainly was not the position. If a man worked on the Railways, he was more than happy to see his son followed him into the employment of the Railways, and generally in the same department.

Finally, I would like to turn to the Harbours. In reply to a question I put to the Minister last week, he gave me the figure of R1.523,000 odd, which was earned in foreign exchange by ships diverted from the Suez Canal. Now the Suez Canal closed less than a year ago and we earned over R1½ million in that period from these diverted ships. This is a windfall which is not likely to be repeated every year. It is unexpected, but at least we can say, and the Minister made the point himself, that the Suez Canal will probably never return to perform the function it fulfilled in the past and that it will take at least 18 months to get it back into full operation if they decide within the next couple of weeks to re-open it. In view of that, have we the equipment in our harbours to meet the continued demand of the diverted ships from the Suez Canal, if one remembers, that this position is likely to be continued for another 18 months? I see from another reply by the hon. the Minister that no tugs were added to the fleet over the past five years, and the only tugs on order at present are one at Durban and one at Port Elizabeth, with none on order at East London or Cape Town. I would like to suggest that our harbours would be in very serious difficulty if we were to have another tug sunk as we had in Durban last year. Already the tug crews are working these tremendous hours of overtime and I would suggest that our present position in regard to tugs is highly critical with the number of ships at present using our ports.

You still have to talk about the pipeline, so get on.

It would be a good idea if you piped down. Are we equipped to face the position of the continued activity in our ports? What will happen if a tug is put out of service?

I would like to conclude by saying that we can replace our tugs, but with the way we are treating our harbour crews, the tug crews and crane crews, we cannot replace them. Sir, I would say to you that the position in our harbours in regard to the manpower shortage there is highly critical and something has to be done about it.

We have had a very strange kind of logic again from the hon. member for Port Natal here this afternoon. One speaker after another on the opposite side has asked the hon. the Minister how he is going to solve his staff problem, and with much swinging of the arms and extravagant gestures, the Minister and the Administration have been reproached with this matter. We have been on this debate for almost three days now and I would almost describe the hon. member as the hon. member for “Even So”, because that is all argument that he and those with him have raised thus far; it is the reply they put forward to the question they themselves put, namely: “We do not mind, but even so.” Here are the precise words of the hon. member for Port Natal: “No solution to the labour problem is possible.” He admits and intimates that the standpoint of the United Party is that there is no solution possible to the staff problem. It is merely an “even so” argument, “even so” logic, and they are representatives of an “even so” party. They have no interest, which is deep and honest enough, and they are not prepared to make a contribution towards finding the solution to this problem, because their own philosophy is, “There is no possible solution to the problem.”

Tell us what the solution is.

To my mind that puts the seal on the intellectual quality and the political integrity of that party. They are arguing in circles, and then too, in the second place, they are trying to create a psychosis, and I want to prove that the objective of these people is to show that the Railways has become an unpopular institution to-day; in other words, those of you who are still interested in the Railways must take cognizance of the fact that it is an unpopular institution. That is what these people want; this Sarie-mentality of “come and look at the ‘smash’ ”. With all deference, at the end of this debate that party exposed themselves more nakedly than I have ever seen before. All arguments and all positiveness they displayed, was to say, shaking their heads, “but even so”.

Give us the answer.

Now I am coming to the answer. I shall give it for the sake of the record, but not in the hope that you will understand it, because you do not want to and you cannot. Your own statements revealed that here. The first reply I want to give you is that we are solving this problem. Please listen now. There is very clear evidence that there is in fact a correlation between employment on the Railways and salary increases, and we have been conducting this entire debate on the question of salary increases. Here is my proof. In 1965 the Minister announced and implemented salary increases, and do you know what happened that year?

Yes, we had an election after that.

Forget about the election. I am coming to that. I want to give you this assurance. Your colleagues are laughing with you, but the voters will not laugh with you. They have heard what you have said, that their votes can be bought, and at the next election they are going to laugh at you.

Order! The hon. member must address the Chair.

I am sorry, Sir. I have said that a very clear correlation exists between salary increases plus the improvement in the general conditions of railway employees and employment. In 1965 we had the latest salary increases, and during that year more than twice as many ex-railway employees were re-employed. The figure for the previous year had been 5,400, but in 1965 it was 11,600. It is a solution to the problem. They are asking for the solution; we are providing the solution, but they do not want to admit or realize it. That is the type of person who constitutes a part of a Parliament such as this.

Why have so many resigned?

I shall reply to that as well. They talk about the dissatisfaction amongst the railway workers. In 1963 11,0 resigned, and almost 14,000 re-applied. Does that imply dissatisfied people? It is ridiculous logic, and wishful thinking. You will not succeed in that purpose. So I can continue and point out that in 1967, the crisis year in which they were so interested, 17,000 resigned, but 16,200 re-applied. Sir, you see what delight the Opposition takes in anything which is prejudicial to a national institution such as the S.A. Railways. That is the party that presents itself and gives itself out as the alternative Government of the country. A more bankrupt party and a more exposed party than the United Party in the Republic of South Africa is not known in any country in the world, in this modern time. You have no calling, and you are no longer able to make any impression. All you are able to do is to laugh at yourself in order to build up your own morale in this Parliament.

I want to go further, and upon a closer scrutiny of the group of employees which are being discussed here, make the following few remarks. We are dealing here with approximately a million people who are dependent upon the S.A. Railways for their livelihood, i.e. Whites as well as non-Whites and their dependents. I maintain that it is a minimum of one million people, and the Minister has accommodated these people by giving them an additional advantage of R43 million per year, an improvement of R43 million per year. It is an improvement of R43 per year. They say that this will be conducive to inflation; that it will create a crisis. According to the Opposition speaker who introduced the debate, these increases are actually too much, under the circumstances in which we are living to-day. This amount is spread over 12 payments. These people, the workers of the Railways and their dependents, are being expected to compete in the social sphere with employees of companies who have in recent years paid out dividends of 40 per cent and more. We must always take into consideration the fact that we are dealing here with honesty and reliability, with people who do not relish living with a complex and inhibitions. The companies were able to make the salary increases and offer the resultant competition which that created for the Railways by means of the high dividends they were able to pay out. They recovered these increased salaries and increased dividends simply by transferring it to the consumer. Then these people want ns to lower the cost structure in this country. They want the Minister to co-operate in reducing the cost of living.

I want to express my personal appreciation towards the Minister for not making any distinction between white and non-white employees when he considered the salary increases. I think that is humanly magnanimous, and morally correct. We should like to accept that our railway people will accept the Minister’s action in the spirit in which it was performed. Nor do we have any doubt that this will be the case, for in the words of their Leader, Mr. Liebenberg, an appeal was made to the officials to come forward with a quid pro quo, i.e. to increase production even further in order to justify the Minister’s gesture and concession.

It is with this spirit that we are building a nation, and not by means of the rapacious pursuit of rand and cents. We do not build it by continually looking for reasons to criticize, as is being done here by a bankrupt company. As a result of this spirit of loyalty towards the hon. the Minister and the Management, it will be possible to build up our country further. This is truly a very happy group of employees. Fifty thousand of them are living in Administration houses. I wonder whether there is in this country or other countries a comparable example of an administration, apart from salaries and other benefits, having succeeded in a number of years in making so many concessions to its officials. Since 1951 almost 7,000 departmental houses have been supplied to officials at a cost of almost R40 million. In addition a further 7.500 houses at a cost of R59 million under the House Ownership Scheme, and 11.000 houses at a cost of R11 million, have been made available to railway officials during the same period. This is a total of 25,674 houses, at a total cost of almost R111 million, which has been provided during the past 10 years in order to improve living conditions. This has contributed to obtaining and keeping the necessary staff, people who are needed to do the Administration’s work. Hon. members on the opposite side are asking what the Minister is going to do, and what he can do? Here is the proof. Why do hon. members not read these reports?

Hon. members made a point out of the staff shortage on the Railways. I have already indicated how the number of applications for reemployment equal or sometimes even exceed the number of resignations each year. These statistics definitely do not point to unendurable working conditions. On the contrary, it points very clearly to errors of judgment on the part of officials, particularly if it is taken into consideration that most of these resignations take place early on in the period of service of the men in question, in other words, it is mainly young people who are resigning. Subsequently they discover that they have made a mistake and they make application for re-employment on the Railways.

Nor can we omit to emphasize that when we talk of the Railways we are dealing with the biggest single industry, one which fits almost perfectly into our national industrial machine. What is under discussion here is not the “Railways”. What is under discussion is the national industry of our country. The Railways is already consuming something like one-third of Iscor’s total steel production. We have here a perfectly integrated industry which carries and takes forward with it practically the entire industrial life of South Africa. Direct overseas purchases by the Railways have decreased—and it is interesting to take note of this—from R50,975,000, almost R51 million, in 1958—’59 to a meagre R14 million in 1966—’67. What an achievement! We have here very clear proof of the development of the South African industries through the agency of and with the assistance of the S.A.R. and the guidance which the Railways is providing. It has been calculated that the Railways is ensuring this country a cost saving in currency of approximately R67 million per year. This is calculated on the basis of above mentioned figures, as well as a rate of growth of 60 per cent in the increase in ton miles. What is involved here is not the maintenance of the Railways services; what is involved here is the maintenance and the promotion of national honour in so far as it may be dependent upon the development of our industries in this country. In this respect the Railways is, to me personally, supplying one of our safest and most important guarantees, and for those reasons we can be filled with pride and respect towards our Railways.

I maintain that they are being given and are giving guidance. Recently we read in our newspapers about our major achievements in the field of medical science. The S.A.R. and their technical staff cannot be divorced from this. This is proved by the fact that some of the latest developments in the field of the heart valve and the lung machine were manufactured by the S.A.R. [Interjection.] No, according to that hon. member the Railways is after all no asset to this country, except if the United Party is supplied with something to prey on. But in the sense that the United Party is prepared to share in the integrity of the Administration’s achievements, there the Railways does not exist. The Department of Defen re is being assisted in the manufacture of its semi-automatic rifle by the provision of a major part of the strategic equipment which is produced in our own workshops. In this way the C.S.I.R. is to-day also being assisted in regard to our defence production, This is truly an achievement. The Railways is truly an industry which is adopting a leading position in our country. It is an industry which has a positive and beneficial effect on our industries and their development in general. We are justified in feeling very proud of what our Railways have achieved in this respect, and the Railways is doing more every day. Apart from what I have already mentioned, the Railways to-day is engaged in maintaining its position in other respects as well, providing guidance and taking the lead.

We have closed trucks, mainly for transporting of fruit, which are being designed to-day in co-operation with the Deciduous Fruit Board and the Citrus Board, and a very successful prototype has been built in which the loading and off-loading process is being considerably simplified and expedited by means of loading blocks. This type of truck will soon be given out on tender, after tests on the prototype have been completed. We find the Railways in the front line in the interests of our agriculture, of economizing, and of increased efficiency.

I can also refer to glass fibre which was used for the first time approximately three years ago in the construction of a prototype cooling truck in this country, and the success which was achieved in regard to that had this result that 50 bogies made according to our own design have already been ordered by local private firms. All the experimentation and finishing off work, all the tests, and the initiative in that regard was carried out by the Railways and is now being handed over to the private industry. Now they can develop it further. Not only the older but also the younger industries in the country are being benefited by the pioneering work being done in the Railway workshops. In the new designs for passenger vehicles use is being made on a large scale of plastic materials of all kinds. Formerly this material was imported but is at present being manufactured locally on a large scale. The initiative of the Railways, their experimentation and perfection of the prototypes in question is another way in which the Railways is supporting local industries and providing them with a market. The Railways is truly an institution and an organization which, in a broader national sense, holds and maintains a key position in respect of the promotion of South African industries.

The foregoing indicates that technical developments which have been the result of the operational experience and practical research of the Railways are stimulating and helping industry considerably, since our rolling stock is at present being provided mainly by private industries. In fact, locomotives and carriages are not being manufactured in our workshops at all, and goods wagons on a restricted scale only—approximately 1,600 per year.

That is what we are dealing with, a phenomenally large undertaking which is being managed and promoted in the most modern scientific way. Then too it is absolutely essential that the Railways maintain and strengthen this position and continue to serve our country and provide for its future as they have done up to now.

I conclude by saying to the Minister and his Management that this country, the public and this House, is proud of the revealing, the planned and the dedicated way in which the Minister has viewed and accepted his task. We have every confidence in the Minister. At the turn of this century it will have been recorded in history that the last quarter of the 20th century and the first quarter of the 21st century was the time of the small nations. Apart from a negative attitude in an Opposition such as this, and the circumstances in a hostile world, the hon. the Minister has dedicated himself to the interests and protection of his small and young nation. Mr. Speaker, the large nations are trying to checkmate one another with human material, capital and superficial strategy. I am absolutely convinced that with his dedication and with this type of service the hon. the Minister will help and play a very important role in ensuring that his nation and our public will, towards the end of this century, occupy the position for which it is destined and called, namely a leading nation of the West, a nation with a great task with the coming of the new century, in the establishment, promotion and strengthening of a Western civilization in a mad, declining world.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Randburg made a mixture of a speech, of which the vast majority consisted of politics. [Interjections.] He ended on what he might think a high note. I do not know whether he was writing the epitaph of the Minister of Transport or of the Government, but he was going well back into history. I think it is remarkable that he should speak about the negative Opposition. The very poor and negative response from the Government side has been remarkable right throughout this debate. The hon. the Minister has told us that he was waiting for suggestions. He got none from the other side, except “Thank you, thank you very much”. He did not know whether he was going right or wrong. He did not even know whether he was on the right rail. That is the position.

The hon. member for Randburg was going to tell the House how they were overcoming the labour shortage. We listened and we waited in vain. I do not know what his solution is, but it must be something secret. I take it he will pass it on to the hon. the Minister.

We have come to the end of this debate, with nothing coming from the Government side. The only worth while contribution coming from the Government side was the hon. the Minister’s speech and the replies on occasion from the Deputy Minister. It is noticeable that, notwithstanding the deflationary trend, the hon. the Minister was able to produce a considerable surplus. He has followed our advice and has done the right thing. He put it into the Rates Equalization Fund, so that we can have a bigger surplus next year.

The other outstanding item was the R43 million that he passed on to the workers on the Railways by way of raising salaries and wages. It is a pity that there is no mention of or relief for the pensioners. But he can still think about that. That is a suggestion that we would leave with him, namely that he must do something for the pensioners. Now, Mr. Speaker, you would think with this R43 million that we have passed on to the Railway-men—it is a lot of money by any standards—that everybody would be happy. But apparently there is a considerable amount of discontent. We would like to know from the hon. the Minister in his reply what staff associations are coming to see him in connection with the allocation of the money. Unfortunately we have not seen how it is to be allocated. Somebody apparently knows, but I have not seen the details yet. We should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether, even at this very late stage, with the adjustments that are going to be made to increase the amount in order to keep the staff happy, he is in the position to do that or whether his hands are tied. We should like to know his view.

There is another item I would like to deal with. I think we are all disappointed. The public of South Africa is disappointed, and we in the Western Cape are most disappointed. I have been sitting here for several years and looked at the hon. the Minister; I would hate to play poker against him. He reminds me of our friend Molotov, who only had one answer, namely “no”. I have never heard him say “yes, yes”. I have never known him to say: “Well, I think the hon. member is correct and I shall do something about it”.

Now I think the one great disappointment the whole of South Africa has suffered, is this: The Railwaymen have their money, but commerce, the man in the street, the person that is paying is disappointed, that there has been no rate decrease. The hon. member for East London (North) told us how rates came down in Canada, and the way it stimulated traffic as a result. But, of course, as the hon. the Minister said, one must understand that there was competition there. That is what the hon. the Minister does not suffer from. You will find that, whenever the hon. the Minister has competition, things go well. The air services is one such example. Overseas competition with the other airlines makes him keep to the point. He is not able to enforce long-term bookings because of the agents. Competition in the Railway service is what this Minister lacks.

As far as we in the Western Cape are concerned, we do suffer. As regards rate increases, we suffered as a result of the last 10 per cent increase he gave us. We found that articles cost more here; we lost markets and possible factories. The development in the Western Cape is not as great as that of the rest of the country. One of the main factors besides labour is the rates that we have to pay. The Minister tells us here, and we often see it in print, that the rate is fixed at what the traffic can bear. Surely, if that is the Minister’s attitude, he should examine the Western Cape and ask: “What can that traffic bear?” After all, a very great distance has to be covered. I think he must take into consideration the difficulties that we experience in the Western Cape. If one looks at the Brown Book, one finds that there is no real modernization of our Railways in Western Cape taking place. The Hex River tunnel does not seem to get off the ground; it is still half-finished. At one stage we were talking about another shortening of that line, namely the Du Toitskloof tunnel. If the Western Cape has to live with these high rates, we have to look for a very much more efficient Railway service. We have to shorten that line. We must see to it that it is more efficient We must cut down the ton miles, and we look to the Railways to do it. We are not happy with the Government putting it off every year, and I can tell the Minister that he will hear more of it as the years go by. I think it is time that the Minister looked at this line, modernized and shortened it as far as the ton miles are concerned, and get on with the Hex River tunnel. By the time we can start work on the Hex River tunnel again it will cost us another R10 million. We would like to feel that the Railways are taking an interest in this part of the country. We just do not want to be the tail end of South Africa. What the Minister will suffer from, as our roads improve, is that he will lose that traffic that he wants for his Railways. Let him apply the rates the traffic can bear. Let him apply that to the Western Cape. Let him help us here as far as the rates are concerned. We want to see the Western Cape develop. We do not want to see it go backwards: we want to see it go forward. With the determination of the Western Cape he will see that happening.

We were also talking about new railway lines. I want the hon. the Minister to look at the railway lines in the Western Cape and especially the line to Bitterfontein. We are often told that lines should be extended, or roads should be extended, for defence purposes, but the Cape has no direct connection with South West Africa.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 92.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says that I am like Molotov in that I always say “No, no, no”. He says that I never say “Yes, yes, yes”. I want to say now: Yes, yes, yes, I do always say no, no, no. I have already replied to the question of the lowering of rates, as regards the Western Cape. If the hon. member reads the report of the Schumann Commission he will see that the findings are that rates play a minor part in the siting of industries. I do not think that industries will be attracted to the Western Cape if rates are lowered. There are many other reasons why they do not establish themselves here. The main reason is that they want to be close to the main market. These industries of course have the benefit of getting their raw materials at lower rates. The manufactured articles of course are transported at a much higher rate. They then have to compete with industries sited closer to the markets. In spite of that some of the industries in the Western Cape are in a very good position competitively. I think for instance of the clothing industry which is very competitive with similar industries on the Witwatersrand. That is only one example. A reduction in the rates alone, is not a solution to the problem of industry in the Western Cape. In regard to the modernization of the Railways, I want to say that I think a lot has been done over the years. I do not know whether the hon. member accompanied members of the Select Committee when they were shown some of the Railway works throughout the country.

Yes, I was present.

The hon. member has seen what has been done and what is being done.

I was thinking more specifically of the Western Cape.

The electrification of the line to Beaufort West is an example of modernization in the Western Cape. The installation of colour light signalling to Paarl is also modernization.

And the notice board on the Cape Town station?

The new notice board on the Cape Town station is a very great improvement on the old notice board. The Cape Town station itself is a great modernization of which, I think, Cape Town can be proud. A start will be made on the construction of the Hex River tunnel as soon as funds allow me to resume work there. It is quite possible that work will be restarted there next year.

The hon. member for Kensington again pleaded for a reduction in the tariff for the transportation of petrol in the pipeline. This has become a hardy annual. I have replied to that matter time and again.

You have not replied satisfactorily yet.

Is anything ever done satisfactorily to the Opposition? The hon. member shakes his head and I agree with him. The Opposition is not satisfied with anything we do. They are like some of my railwaymen who are never satisfied no matter what concession is made to them.

Better days are to come.

There is no harm in hoping for better days to come but I think that the better days are here already. The hon. member was quite right in saying that what the traffic can bear is not the sole criterion in fixing rates. It is one of the most important factors but of course costs are of primary importance, not only the direct costs of transporting a commodity but also the overheads. The Schumann Commission recommended that that is of such primary importance that it should be taken into consideration first, especially in regard to the transportation of low-rated traffic. If that is taken into consideration there is a possibility of narrowing the gap between low and high-rated traffic. I cannot implement that recommendation for the simple reason that I cannot increase the costs of transporting agricultural products which are of vital interest to the country. I cannot increase the cost of transporting raw materials to manufacturers since that will not be in the interests of the manufacturing industry. That is one of the recommendations with which we are proceeding slowly. From time to time we do try to narrow the gap between high and low-rated traffic, but it is a very slow process. There are some things with which you must hasten very slowly and this is one of them. I have already replied to the question of the lowering of the rate on the transport of petrol. I have nothing to add to what I have said before. I also do not think that it is justified. I do not think that the public would reap the benefit of such a reduction.

The Government controls the price of petrol.

Yes, but the public will not benefit from it, as a reduction in the cost of living. Running a car with cheaper petrol will not lower the cost of living if it is done for pleasure.

It helps.

No, it does not help much at all. I have had past experience of this. As the hon. member stated, about 58 per cent of the users of petrol on the Witwatersrand are commercial undertakings. Our experience in the past showed that when the price of petrol was lowered the public did not benefit from cheaper goods from those firms. If the price of petrol were lowered by 3 cents per gallon on the Witwatersrand and the Northern Free State, the public would not benefit at all as far as the cost of living is concerned.

Do you not accept the motor car as a part of our everyday life?

No, I do not think that a radio or a washing machine is necessarily a part of our everyday life.

*The hon. member for Tygervallei spoke about the introduction of an organization-and-method system. I listened to him with interest, but I want to tell him that this system has already been in operation on the Railways for the past ten years. About 10 or 11 years ago I gave instructions that a work study division be established at the Railway Head Office. Work study is very much the same as organization-and-method. Work study is also aimed at increasing productivity. In other words, more work is done with less manpower. Officials were specially trained for this. It was subsequently expanded to include organization-and-method as well. In that division there are special officials who go and investigate the various sections. Organization-and-method is then applied there. As I have said, this has been done for a number of years already.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Does the hon. the Minister still maintain that it is the function of the Railways to protect Sasol?

I do not think that it is the function of the Railways to protect Sasol, but I think that it is in the interests of the country that it should be done. The hon. member admitted that this was done for strategic reasons. It is absolutely essential with conditions as they are in the world to-day that we should have our own petrol manufacturing plant. Just as I protect the farmers by not increasing the rates on their produce and just as we subsidize the farmers in the transportation of their fertilizers and stock in drought-stricken areas, we are also called upon to protect to a large extent this strategic industry.

The hon. member for Port Natal again raised the question of people over the age of 40 who are unemployed. He spoke about the queues of unemployed. There is no such thing to-day as queues of unemployed. The only people who are unemployed to-day are those who cannot be employed. The hon. member can get the relevant figures from the Department of Labour.

I have actually joined an unemployment queue and asked these questions.

They should not be unemployed because no man who is physically fit should be unemployed to-day, unless of course he is mentally retarded. There is a demand for the services of these men. In fact the hon. member replied to this matter himself when he said that these people do not want to work for the Railways because the wages are not high enough.

How does a man of 40 work for the wage paid to a man of 20?

How does he live without working at all? What does he live from then? [Interjection.] Well, Mr. Speaker, that is something new. The hon. member says that that man lives on hope. In other words, he would rather live on hope without any employment and any income than to take a job on the Railways at a wage which does not quite satisfy him.

[Inaudible.]

The fact of the matter is, if I understand the hon. member correctly, that that man will sooner live on hope than to accept a job on the Railways at a lower salary than what he wants. That is what it amounts to.

Ask one of your officials too.

Order!

That is the position. These men can get jobs if they are physically and mentally fit and want to work. They start with a low salary. Why should they be privileged to start with a higher salary than thousands and tens of thousands of other people? There is no reason for that. As a matter of fact, a younger man might be more fit and be a better proposition to take into employment than an elderly man. Why should he be privileged merely because of age? Surely you do not pay a man on the basis of age.

Age and experience.

What experience? On the Railways?

I can quote a case of an accountant.

Order!

To mention the case of an accountant that is unemployed to-day when there is such a demand for accountants by private enterprise, is not a very good example. I am not trying to catch the hon. member out. I just want clarity. That is all. The hon. member also suggested that those people who resign from and then again return to the Railways should not start right at the bottom of the scale. Let me give two examples. A grade I clerk resigns from the Railways, for some reason or other. After about three or four months he makes application for re-employment and is accepted. Does the hon. member want that clerk again to be employed in his former grade namely that of a grade I clerk?

Why not?

The hon. member says why not. I will give another example. An engine driver resigns and applies for re-appointment within three or four months. Does the hon. member want me to re-employ him as a driver?

Why not?

I will tell the hon. member why not. Does the hon. member know that that blocks the promotion of hundreds of grade II clerks on account of a very steep pyramid as well as the fact that it is very difficult for a grade II clerk to obtain promotion? It is based on merit. Those grade II clerks have been loyal to the Administration and may have ten to 12 years’ service. This other man for some reason merely leaves the Service. Does the hon. member want me to take him back and thereby block the promotion of those men? Must I block the promotion of senior firemen all waiting to be promoted to drivers? Is that what the hon. member wants? If that is what he wants then he has not consulted the railwaymen in his own constituency. I therefore suggest that he does that when he goes back.

I want the position looked into.

It has been looked into for many years. I am telling the hon. member what the position is.

Why must he be reemployed at a very much lower scale?

That is in the interests of the staff as a whole. That is why.

Where does the engine driver start if he wants to be reemployed?

He has to start as a fireman. The hon. member spoke about transfers from the System Manager’s office to other departments without there being transfers back to the System Manager’s department. I suppose that was in regard to promotions. Now, promotions are given on merit. There is a provision in the Railways and Harbours Service Act that promotion must take place on the basis of efficiency. When there is a vacancy the claims of all those that are eligible for promotion and those who are nominated are considered. An effort is made to promote the most efficient man. When two or more men are equally efficient, then seniority is the deciding factor. That is how promotions take place. You cannot for instance promote a man in the accounting department to the operating department. He has no knowledge or background of that department. And if this does take place there is no question of favouring those men working in the System Manager’s office. Promotions take place on the basis of efficiency. When any servant is not satisfied he has the right of appeal, and I can assure the hon. member that we receive numerous appeals in my office. Then the hon. member said that if a person was acting in a particular capacity he should be confirmed in that post. But why?

It has an effect on his pension.

Let us say that there is a vacancy for a foreman in a workshop, and that an artisan from that centre was brought in to act in that capacity for some time. When there is a vacancy, you ask for nominations. The most efficient or senior man may be in Cape Town. Why should that man be confirmed in that position merely because he was acting for a short time in that position. It is quite impracticable.

And if that man has been acting for five years?

No, you do not get men acting in a position for five years. But, in regard to these matters, I must say that the hon. member represents a large number of railwaymen from his constituency. I suggest that he consults them, to hear what they think about it. I am speaking about the consensus of opinion amongst railwaymen. I must apologize for not replying to the hon. members for Berea and Pinelands in my previous reply. I will do so now. I must compliment the hon. member for Berea. He is very meticulous. In fact, in the days he was still a practicing chemist, I would have liked him to have prepared all my prescriptions. I know that there would never have been a mistake.

Would you not trust me now?

I would not. I do not think that the hon. member practises any more. The hon. member pleaded for an increase of non-white wages. He quoted some figures that were quite correct. I must keep the balance. I cannot increase the wages of non-Whites so that they encroach on the lowest wages paid to white employees, but whenever the opportunities do arise, their wages are increased. The wages of non-Whites in the employ of the South African Railways compare very favourably with wages paid outside the Railways. As a matter of fact, in regard to unskilled labour, we always try to adapt the wages to those paid by outside firms. As the hon. member knows, I have not only given the white employees an increase, but the non-white employees are also receiving a minimum increase of 8 per cent. He also complained about the passenger services. I can only say that we are continually trying to improve the passenger services, despite an annual loss of between R40 and R50 million. I am still improving the main line passenger service in an effort to draw the people back to the trains. I think that they might come back, because our roads are getting more congested during holiday periods, making the roads very unsafe. I agree with the other hon. member when he says that he would rather travel by train than by road. I would too, because I really enjoy travelling by train.

May I ask file hon. the Minister a question? What happened to the 21 air-conditioned dining saloons?

The hon. member must look at the Brown Book. There he will see what happened to them.

But they have not been put into service.

No, but they are going to be put into service very shortly. Some of them are being put into service in March of this year. We are not entirely responsible for this, as the manufacturers sometimes cause delays.

Make it April.

As I have said, some of them are being put into service this month, and the remainder will be put into service next month or so. That, however, does not mean that every passenger train will have an air-conditioned dining saloon. As there is only a limited number available, only the most important passenger trains will have air-conditioned dining saloons.

*Then the hon. member for Pinelands asked whether it was not possible to make suburban passenger services paying. This can be done, if the passenger fares are increased tremendously.

†The reason why passenger services are not paying is that you have peak periods and valley periods, and my people are not prepared to work split shifts. In other words, I cannot run certain services during peak hours and then ask the men not to come to work again till the evening. Therefore you have to keep the services going the whole day, although during the slack periods, you do not get the necessary support. That is the main reason why you have such a loss on the suburban passenger service.

It affects all transport.

Yes, I think so. The hon. member asked whether the platforms could not be extended, so that the trains could have more coaches. This can be done, but it will be very expensive. The cost involved would not justify such a step, especially in view of the heavy losses incurred on the suburban passenger services. The hon. member also asked for the doubling of the line to Mowbray. I take it he means it should be redoubled. To double a line in Cape Town is a very expensive undertaking, as expropriation must take place. The construction of the line is also very expensive. Should these services receive better support, however, and I trust that this will be the case in the future, as the streets simply cannot carry the traffic any more, the possibility exists that in years to come that line may be redoubled.

And if you have to go underground?

That will not be my responsibility, but that of the City Council, because they are responsible for the transport system.