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

Agreed to.

When this debate was adjourned on Wednesday afternoon, I had just started off by saying a few words in connection with the death of Mr. Hugo, and on behalf of the Opposition I welcomed Mr. Kruger in the important position he is occupying now. I had also put a question to the hon. the Minister in connection with one aspect of the pension proposals submitted to us by him in his Budget speech. I was concerned about the fact that the increase of 2 per cent per annum would continue to apply for 20 years only and an many cases would cease at a stage when these people were really old and decrepit and in need of special care. The Minister then said by way of interjection, if I understood him correctly, that we could consider the matter during the Committee Stage.

No, I said I would reply to that during this debate.

I understood the hon. the Minister to have said that he would consider the matter during the Committee Stage, and I wondered whether the Minister would move the necessary amendment. I want to address a very serious plea to the Minister to reconsider this matter. One realizes that a ceiling has to be placed on a concession like this sooner or later, but people who retire on pension are elderly people in most cases, and humanly speaking very few of them are going to live for more than 20 years after their retirement. Why discontinue this concession at a time of their life when they will need it more than at any other time of their life? I sincerely hope the hon. the Minister will give this bis consideration. This also affects another case. It also affects people who retired on a very small pension because of ill-health or indisposition; they had to retire from the service prematurely and consequently their pensions are small. Now it will be their experience that this increase will be discontinued after a period of 20 years in spite of the rising cost of living. They may still live for a short while and suffer real hardship. It would have been possible for me to agree whole-heartedly with the Minister and say the period could be under 20 years if the Minister, as a member of the Cabinet, could give us the assurance that it would be the policy of the Government, and that the Government would implement that policy, to arrest the depreciation, the erosion, of our money in South Africa. If we can have the assurance from the Government that the value of the rand will remain stable, we shall not plead for something like this. But the Minister knows as well as I do what the position is. It is not only this Government; virtually all Governments in the Western world to-day follow an economic policy of which a gradual depreciation in the purchasing power of money forms part and parcel. Seeing that the Minister knows this and that we all know this, why impose this penalty on deserving people? The Minister feels he has to come to their assistance, but he announces that he will stop this assistance at a time when they will need it most. I sincerely hope the Minister will give further consideration to this matter.

Before coming to the real point of the amendment we want to move from Opposition side to the Budget proposals of the hon. the Minister, I should like to discuss a few matters of a general nature with the Minister and I should like to have his reaction to them. One is the striking and increasing dependence of the Railways as such on other divisions of the South African state transport organization. I see that in 1968-’69 the Railways budgeted for expenditure amounting to R701,519,000 and revenue amounting to R671,369,000, i.e. for a net shortfall of R30 million. For the new year, 1969-’70, the Minister is budgeting for expenditure amounting to approximately R736 million and revenue amounting to R686.5 million, in other words, for a shortfall of not R30 million but of R49 million on the Railways for the next year. Yet the Minister is budgeting for a shortfall of approximately R5 million in his total budget; the extra money being derived from other transport services. This year the harbours will provide a surplus of R15 million and the Minister estimates that the amount will be R18 million next year. This year the Airways will provide R4 million of this revenue in excess of expenditure, and next year it will provide R8 million. The pipeline will yield a surplus of R20 million this year and a surplus of R40 million next year, nearly as much as the total shortfall of the railway service for the whole country, and this will be provided by the population concentrated in the Pretoria-Witwatersrand-Vereeniging triangle. I want to say that there may be merit in subsidizing the cheap tariff goods from the other services, such as the Airways or the Harbours, where the money is derived from the entire population. But I can find no justification in the motorists of a small part of South Africa, namely Pretoria, the Witwatersrand and Vereeniging, subsidizing the rest of the public of South Africa to the tune of R40 million per annum as far as their transport costs are concerned. This simply cannot be justified. It is not even the general public that is doing so, but only the motorists. We all know that if part of these transport costs could be borne generally, that would mean a decrease in the cost of living for the entire South Africa. But this thing he refused to do for years, this thing which he said would be uneconomic, foolish and short-sighted, the Minister is now employing at the expense of his own voters in order to cover up the inefficiency of his administration in other fields. But the day of reckoning will come, and I think the day is fast approaching when the motorists of South Africa will say that this exploitation, this discrimination, this unfair and unjust treatment cannot be maintained and cannot be justified.

Another matter is this. I think the hon. the Minister should tell us what he and the Administration intend doing as regards the large revenue which the Railways at present derives from the transport of iron ore, manganese ore, and other ores. As the hon. the Minister knows, there is a danger that the export of ore may be curtailed as we can no longer compete with our international competitors. We see from the information supplied to us by the Minister that the revenue derived by the Railways from the transport of ore from April to December amounted to R3.9 million. We see that last year South Africa sold ore to the value of R25.5 million to Japan. We see that 3¼ million tons of ore were exported through Port Elizabeth and Lourenҫo Marques and more than 50 per cent of that tonnage probably was pig-iron. As I have said, Chile, and Australia in particular, can now supply this ore more cheaply to Japan than South Africa can do. We have already lost a large part of that market; we shall lose it as from April and what we have retained is almost negligible. We have only retained that because a large organization such as Iscor decreased its price, to use its own words, “in disregard of commercial considerations” to such an extent that it could compete to some extent with countries like Australia and Chile. I want to say at once that the Railways assisted in making our ore more competitive, but not sufficiently so. The Railways decreased the loading and handling costs of this ore from 84c to 64c per ton. Overtime charges were decreased from 12c to 6c and a daily working cycle of 24 hours was introduced in our harbours in order to allow of loading operations being continued throughout the day and night. The Minister told us of the spectacular results achieved with the introduction of new trucks which brought about a reduction of up to 1,300 trains per annum. All of this is very important, but the price of our ore nevertheless remains from 15 to 20 per cent higher than that at which it can be supplied to Japan by Australia. It has already been suggested that some of the ore be conveyed by pipeline so as to enable us, especially since our country is so dry, to make use of water transport. We are very pleased to see that a Bill was passed earlier on this Session to make provision for the conveyance of ore and other solid materials by means of a pipeline. The hon. the Deputy Minister was somewhat shy, he did not want to tell us whether it was the intention that solid material should be conveyed in that way from Sishen and those areas. He did not want to reply to our questions in regard to the provision of water in those areas. Perhaps the Minister will be less reserved, perhaps he will give us more information so as to enable us to form some idea of the amount that can possibly be saved on the costs of ore which we supply to Japan in particular in order to meet the competition of our new competitors.

To me it seems, and I should like to see the Minister’s reaction to this, as though steps will also have to be taken to make it possible to accommodate and load large ships of from 100,000 to 200,000 tons in our harbours. Perhaps it will also be necessary to consider a direct decrease in the rail tariff in respect of this ore in order to maintain our important market in Japan. The Minister should not tell me that one day it will be possible to load these large ships at Richard’s Bay, because time is running out. According to Japanese sources our export to Japan has already, decreased to a maximum of approximately 400,000 tons per annum. This is much lower than the tremendous tonnages we exported during the past few years. The danger is that once one has had to relinquish such a market to one’s competitors, it will not be such an easy matter to regain that market. The Minister should tell us what can be done soonnest for making it possible to load large ships, for example. It is estimated that with large ships as much as R1.50 per ton can be saved on transport costs between South Africa and Japan.

The next matter of general interest which I want to discuss with the Minister, is something I raised during the debate on the Railways Bill we dealt with earlier on this Session. This is the complete inadequacy, meaninglessness and uselessness of certain speculations of the Railways and Harbours Board, of which the Minister is Chairman, in connection with the costs of new works to be undertaken by the Railways. The case in question, as hon. members will remember, was the Vryheid-Empangeni line, which, according to the Additional Estimates of 1965-’66 would have cost R40 million, and which was increased by more than R3⅓ million to R43,375,000 in the Brown Book of the following year. The very next year it was again increased by just over R2¼ million to R45,600,000. This year it is again being increased in the Brown Book by as much as an additional R29 million. Now the costs will not amount to the original R40 million which Parliament was asked to vote and on the basis of which Parliament had to judge the plan, but will be R74,759,360. This is nearly double the original amount. From the Deputy Minister we had an attempt at explaining this complete miscalculation. It was totally unsatisfactory.

Is this the correct amount now?

No. The Railways and Harbours Board warns us that this still is a guess. We must not think that this will be the final and correct amount. There are various excuses. Now suddenly the terrain is so difficult. But the most important factor with regard to the construction of a new railway line surely is the nature of the terrain. It must be ascertained whether the terrain is mountainous, whether there are many rivers or sandy flats. Now the excuse is, after they have asked us to vote R40 million, R43 million the next year and R45 million the year after, that they actually did not know the nature of the terrain over which the railway line was to be constructed. Now suddenly, after they have added these three amounts, they discover that they have to ask for an additional R29 million. They cannot tell us where it is going to end. They can only say, “This is not the end yet”. This really is a shocking state of affairs. How can the hon. the Minister estimate what the economic Yield of the construction of such a railway line will be if after three years he is already R34 million out on his original estimate of R40 million, and has to warn us that he has possibly made even larger errors, as the future will prove? This is not the only case. I am merely mentioning a case here and there. There is the Bantu line which is being constructed from Reunion to Umlazi. The original amount asked for in 1964-’65 was R4.900.000. This amount was increased every year and is now in the vicinity of R6 million, an increase of 14 per cent. Then there is the line from Merebank to Chatsworth for the Indians in Natal. We were asked for R5,200,000 in the Brown Book of 1964-’65. For three years they stayed at that amount of R5,200.000, which remained virtually constant. Only three years later we were asked for an additional R147,000. This we forgive. This we can understand. The next year they asked us for an additional R28,000, and this we also forgive. This we can understand. And now, in the new year 1969-’70, they ask us for an additional R2,824,486. Now the amount no longer is R5 million, it is R8 million, an increase of nearly 60 per cent. What has been happening in the course of these five years that they only have to discover at the end of it that they were nearly 60 per cent out in their calculations? Nobody can tell me that the terrain is so impossible in this case. It practically is a suburban line. Then there is the line from Metsi to Kaapmuiden, where the terrain is in fact a little more difficult. In the Additional Estimates for 1965-’66 we were asked as hastily as could be for R9,130,000. The following year we were asked to vote a further amount of R7¼ million, the year after that we were asked for a further amount of R1,130,000 and in the next year for another small amount, and the amount of R9,130,000 soared to R17,539,061. Mr. Speaker, surely it is meaningless and surely it is not worth the trouble and unjustified to come to Parliament to ask us to support the hon. the Minister in connection with decisions to construct new railway lines if the facts and the calculations on which we are asked to base our judgment are completely valueless. This can only be attributed to negligence. If there were only one or two cases, one could still have understood it.

In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I should like to mention a few further examples. I now refer you to Annexures D and subsequently E of the Reports of the Controller and Auditor-General on the Railways and to the Brown Books for the years concerned. Reference is made in these documents to the Metsi-Kaapmuiden railway line. In 1965-’66 an amount of R100 was asked for. This was merely for starting the work and was very reasonable. Although R35,000 was spent in that year, we have no objection to that, because we have to accept that the amount of R35.000 was used for planning the work properly. The next year we were asked not for an amount of R100 but for an amount of R750.000. But, Mr. Speaker, so well had the matter been planned that the Controller and Auditor-General informed us that in that year, although Parliament had had every confidence in the hon. the Minister and his Board—because we believe him when he comes to us with his requests—the Railways did not use R684.709 of that amount of R750,000. But you should not think that they were discouraged, Mr. Speaker, because these are determined men. For the past financial year, 1967-’68, the hon. the Minister asked for R4 million. Now they were going to show us and now they were going to pull up their socks. Now we have to learn, however, that of that amount of R4 million they did not touch R3,314,500. What is going on with the administration of the Railways? What is one to think of something like this? I can mention many other cases. There is, for example, the Vryheid Sikaine line. In the Additional Estimates of 1965-’66 we were asked for R100. Not one cent of this R100 was spent. That did not prevent them, however, from asking for R750.000 the following year. But later they returned and told us, “Thank you for the R750,000, but of that amount we have been unable to spend R658,541”. Why then did they ask us for that money? Without any regret they asked not for R750,000 which they could not spend, but for R3 million the following year, i.e. 1967-’68. Apparently they had taken new courage by that time. They then returned and said that they had been unable to spend R2,661,848 of that R3 million. Mr. Speaker, surely such things have no meaning and are a waste of time. Surely it is inefficient and incompetent and completely meaningless to come to Parliament with such requests. It is just like apartheid. Big figures and big promises, but nothing is being done. The only thing which now remains is for the hon. the Minister to stake his political reputation on spending the money by 1978. [Laughter.]

Numbers do not count, do they?

Yes, numbers do not count and money probably does not count either. Mr. Speaker, in this regard Parliament as well as the nation is entitled to expect an improvement, and that the Minister, as Chairman of the Railways Board, will pull up his socks and at the same time will not be too proud to bend down and pull up the socks of the commissioners as well. This whole matter compels one to ask what is going on as regards the planning of the Railways and to what extent one can depend on the expectations of the Minister with regard to future developments. What is one to expect in that regard in the light of the cases I have mentioned here where their planning resulted in a complete fiasco? In connection with these cases I have no sympathy whatsoever with the hon. the Minister.

But now I come to another problem, one in respect of which I do have sympathy with the Minister. One becomes even more concerned about planning on the Railways when one considers the manpower position, something for which the Minister is not, of course, responsible in the first place. This is a countrywide problem, one which hits every sector of our economy, the Railways possibly harder than many other sectors. The Minister himself expressed his concern about this state of affairs on more than one occasion. Also in his Budget speech of last Wednesday he said that the staff position was causing serious concern. As a matter of fact, he saw it as a virtually incurable ailment with which one would have to learn to live. How serious is this matter in fact? The Assistant-General Manager (Staff), Mr. Botha, told a meeting of Railway trade unions in September last year that there was a shortage of 15 per cent in white railway staff, and that approximately 3,000 people were working on the Railways who ought not to be there. They were not competent enough, they did not have the qualifications to do the jobs in which they had been appointed. But, he said, the shortage of staff on the Railways was so acute that even unqualified and incapable people had to be appointed in an attempt to get the work done. We have been told that the traffic increased in ton-miles every year. I have checked what the position is and I have found that 23,100 million tonmiles were covered in 1960 and 34,091 million in 1968. In this respect the average annual increase is more than 5 per cent per annum. But the number of staff, on the other hand, remains more or less constant. As a matter of fact, the number of staff in key positions, positions related to the running of trains, is decreasing. An official of the Railways pointed out that the decrease in these key positions had been taking place at a rate of nearly 4 per cent per annum over the past six years. The System Manager at Bloemfontein said there were vancancies for 300 drivers, firemen, electricians, loading staff and guards on the Orange Free State System. In a speech of 14th June, 1968, he admitted that goods traffic in South Africa was seriously being delayed because of the serious shortage of manpower. He said he was pleased that he was able to say that passengers had not yet been inconvenienced by that. This speech of his revealed an extremely serious state of affairs, and the Minister will not be able to deny this. Of course, the Administration is doing its best to meet this shortage, and it is not doing so without success either. One the one hand it is doing so by urging the existing staff on to greater productivity. On the other hand it is mechanizing where possible and buying more effective rolling stock. This is part of the Administration’s endeavours to bring about greater productivity. By means of salary adjustments the Administration is providing incentives to the workers to be more productive. These are all laudable steps.

But the most important means being employed by the railways, air services and harbours to meet this shortage, is overwork. On a previous occasion the Minister told us that he knew what it was to work overtime because he too had to spend from 12 to 16 hours on a locomotive. But how often did that happen? In his time something like that was an exception. To-day, however, it is general practice. As a matter of fact, the Railways is being kept going only by continuous, excessive overwork. Over the week-end my friend, the hon. member for Hillbrow, and a journalist of The Sunday Times made an analysis of the position. Their findings are particularly interesting. It is estimated that R68 million will be spent on overtime during the financial year 1969-’70—an increase of R17 million, or nearly 25 per cent; 14 per cent of the total wage bill of the Railways consists of overtime.

Will you suggest that it be abolished?

Mr. Speaker, if one cannot expect intelligence from the hon. member, then at least a sense of responsibility. I am speaking of excessive overwork and as far as that is concerned, I suggest that it be abolished, not only on the Railways, but everywhere where people have to work to make a living. I hope that satisfies the hon. member. Is the hon. member in favour of excessive overtime? One does not know, of course, what the long-term answer to this extremely difficult problem is, not as long as the Minister accepts that we have to struggle along under our present system of labour and wants us to accept that this shortage of labour is a chronic disease which we must just accept and learn to live with. But according to announcements of the Government itself the economy in South Africa cannot continue to grow as it did in the past while the manpower position remains as acute as it is at present. In debates in this House reference has already been made to the economic development programme recently announced by the Department of Planning. It was pointed out that if we wanted to maintain our rate of growth at 5½ per cent per annum, the demand for White and non-White labour would increase more rapidly than the supply, would exceed the available manpower in South Africa. This is a deadly and inescapable fact, i.e. if we want to maintain a rate of growth of 5½ per cent, the demand for labour, White as well as non-White, will exceed the available manpower in South Africa. The Department of Planning estimates that, as far as Whites are concerned, the demand will exceed the supply by 28,000 by 1973 if we can succeed in regularly bringing 20,000 economically active immigrants to this country per annum. The Department of Planning admits that we do not have the manpower. It is inconceivable that we shall acquire the necessary manpower to maintain a rate of growth of 5½ per cent per annum. Even if it would have been possible for us to accelerate our rate of immigration to 30,000 economically active people per annum, we shall still have a shortage of 30,000 workers in five or six years’ time.

Now I want to ask what the Minister’s policy is in this connection? Does he really believe that he will succeed in meeting the requirements of transport in South Africa by means of mechanization, by means of salary adjustments, by means of increased demands as regards productivity? Does he think that he will be able to do so without something drastic being done in this connection?

What do you suggest?

The overtime payments to which I referred, are only made to a section of the staff. As far as I know, there is no estimate of the demands made on individuals, and on specific groups in this connection. Does the hon. Minister perhaps have this information? Can the Minister prove by giving chapter and verse that no excessive demands are being made on railwaymen in the case of individuals and in the case of specific groups? There are many Railway workers, of course, who welcome overtime because of the higher standard of living overtime enables them to maintain. There are many others who disapprove of overtime; there are many men who tell us that their family life as well as their health is suffering because of overtime. The point I want to make, however, is that there are many of them who permanently adopt their way of life to the increased income they receive as a result of this overtime work, and if things ever were to be different, it would be extremely difficult for them to adapt themselves to a lower income. What concerns one is the human aspect and the problem this is going to create for the Railways. The human aspect is that family life is in fact being neglected; we come across this wherever we come into contact with railwaymen. We know that people are being overtaxed; that they become too exhausted to do their work properly, that there is no way out for them as the Railways will come to a standstill if they do not constantly give more and more of themselves to the Railways. Many of them are loyal servants of the Railways and they are constantly giving more and more of themselves than what the Minister has the right to expect of people. Sir, I am concerned. What are the future plans of the Minister? He comes to Parliament and asks us to vote money. It is true that he does not always spend the money. But we have to vote money for large future extensions. Where is the Minister going to find the manpower to cope with these extensions? We learnt of ten new Boeing aircraft which are being purchased. Some of them are of the new type, the 723 or rather the 737, for which people have to be retrained.

You cannot count.

The Government of the Minister taught me that numbers do not count. The number does not count, Sir; what does count is that new types of Boeings will be put into operation before long, which will necessitate the retraining of people, the creation of new simulations of flying conditions and the training of new manpower. At present the hon. the Minister has difficulty with the maintenance of the aircraft he already has. There is dissatisfaction amongst the technical staff because excessive demands are being made on them, and the Minister knows as well as I do that the letter of the law is not being carried out as regards the maintenance of aircraft, because there is not the necessary manpower to do so.

That is untrue.

It is true. It is only by telescoping certain tasks that the work can be done. The hon. the Minister knows that this is true. Can the hon. the Minister give us a guarantee that he will have the manpower for keeping these additional ten mighty aircraft in the air, for operating and maintaining them? Where is he going to find the manpower for doing so? He does not have the necessary manpower to do this work properly as far as the aircraft we have at present are concerned. Does he have the necessary manpower to man the new railway lines which are being constructed from Richard’s Bay to Vryheid and in all other parts of the country properly? Does he have the necessary manpower to man the new harbour he is going to build at Richard’s Bay properly? Does he have the necessary manpower for the proper operation of the Cape Town harbour and for handling the boats in Cape Town harbour?

We shall have sufficient manpower to do all those things.

Mr. Speaker, we shall come to that. If the Minister is going to have the manpower, where will it come from? It is not enough for the Minister to shake his head, with that euphoric expression on his face, and to say that he will obtain the manpower. We want to know and the nation wants to know where that manpower is going to come from. Is he going to use the hon. member for Colesberg to do shunting work? They are already using staff of the training schools of the Railways to do shunting work; they are already doing desperate things. What are they going to do to maintain this growth? Already there are serious signs that the efficiency of the Railways is suffering as a result of the manpower shortage. Although people employed on the Railways are giving more than can be humanly expected of them, the efficiency of rendered services is suffering. There are unheard of delays. Farmers are complaining about the condition in which their livestock arrive at the markets as a result of poor treatment because of the manpower shortages. Industrialists and businessmen complain about delays in the delivery of goods. Because of delays on the Railways Durban is further from Johannesburg than it ought to be or is. Because of delays on the Railways Cape Town is further from its hinterland than it ought to be.

I want to issue a warning to the hon. the Minister because I think it is time he is warned. The Minister as well as the rest of the Government is living in a fool’s paradise if they think that in maintaining their present policy they will be able to do the work of South Africa properly and thoroughly and in addition guarantee the growing prosperity of our nation and the higher standard of living of our nation. This is inevitable and the Minister must have the courage to admit it. He is admitting it in his deeds. He is building houses and he is bringing in Bantu employees, something the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration will not allow private individuals to do, because he knows what the real state of affairs is in South Africa. The only thing I am asking of the hon. the Minister is that when he replies to this debate, he will stand up as a senior Minister of the Cabinet, who is responsible for one of the most important and most essential services to the people of this country, and tell us, as he did a short while ago, that he will obtain the necessary manpower for all the major plans he has for the future. But let him tell us something more; let him tell us where he is going to get those people from. Let him have regard to the warning of the Department of Planning of which I reminded him to-day, and let him tell us how that shortage is going to be supplemented. Sir, we cannot play the fool with the future of our nation. We cannot play the fool with the future standard of living of our children. And I am accusing the Government, the Minister of Transport, to be specific, that they are doing so unless they have the courage to speak up and tell us what they can do; we shall help; we shall co-operate, because the future of all of us is dependent on that. But how can we co-operate? How can we do something for the future of South Africa if we have a Government that deliberately closes its eyes to the truth, if we have a Government that ignores the realities in South Africa for the sake of shibboleths and slogans and obsolete philosophies and obsolete propaganda maxims, and does not really want to tell us what is going to be done in order to meet the requirements of the economy of South Africa so that we may proceed to make of South Africa a country with a rising standard of living which will constantly yield richer harvests for its people?

In order to draw specific attention to this overriding problem facing the S.A. Railways, I should like to move the following amendment—

I should like at the outset to associate myself whole-heartedly with the tribute which the hon. the Minister paid here to the memory of the late Mr. Johan Hugo, our former General Manager. The memory and the message of this outstanding and capable personality will remain a source of great strength and inspiration to us who had the privilege of getting to know him personally and at first hand. I should also like to confirm the friendly words of welcome and best wishes to his successor, Mr. Kruger. My wishes to him are also strength and prosperity on the road ahead, also to those who, together with him, were promoted to high positions.

We listened here this afternoon to a tirade which poured forth from the lips of the main critic of the Opposition, a tirade so disjointed and compiled to such an extent from bits and pieces of inconsequential sub-divisions of the Estimates as I have never heard in my life before. This compels one to describe the hon. member with two adjectives and one noun, namely the “dramatic, nonsensical orator” of the United Party. This hon. member is still standing on a political platform to address, according to his own norms (between parenthesis) an uninformed political audience, and hence the blatant anomalies, misplaced deductions, and unrelated particulars which we heard here this afternoon. Let me now refer to a few of them. On 9th March, 1964, the hon. member had the following to say, according to Hansard (Vol. 10) column 2650)—

We heard the same tirade here this afternoon, I can even hum it to myself as I stroll through the Botanical Gardens here—

We heard it again this afternoon. The hon. member went on to say—

These are old left-overs which were dished up again here this afternoon. He then went on to say—

Please note, the Railways must keep ahead of the development in this country. In other words, there must be thousands of waggons and locomotives and scores of Boeings standing unutilized. The harbours have to work at half capacity in a time of manpower shortage. Now I am saying to the intelligent United Party voters in this country: “Just imagine! This is the main critic on Railway matters of that Party in this House.” What the hon. member said in 1959 is also interesting, particularly when seen against the background of his statement made five years previously. This is what he then had to say (translation)—

On the one hand the Railways have too many capital requirements and cannot adapt to changing circumstances, and on the other hand the Government is being reproached because it dares to make it possible for the Administration to meet these requirements. There you have it. This hon. member wants the South African Railways to keep ahead of development, but without tariff increases and capital provision from other sources. Believe me, Sir, he wastes the time of this House when he expects a Minister of the State to react to his requests and in particular to his nonsensical remarks. It is this same main critic who said of the figures and the Estimates of the hon. the Minister that they were uncalculable, that nobody could depend on them and that they were not worth the trouble of submitting to this House. This was also the main critic who had the new unexpected pension concessions for Railway officials announced by his mouthpiece, the Rand Daily Mail in the following way: “Why be petty to pensioners?” Why be petty to pensioners? The increased bonus and concessions were not the most important thing, he said, the main thing was the time limit of 20 years. That is all he had to say about that. He is negative and wants to be destructive. He wants to sow suspicion. He wants to detract from the value of that concession. That is his motive. Both the announcement of improved pensions as well as the estimates in the Budget are “petty” and “minor”, according to the hon. member, but these are put between quotation marks. What do other authorities say about both these matters, and this time without the quotation marks? Mr. Manchip, chairman of the Railway Pensioners Association, was quoted as follows in the Rand Daily Mail of 6th March—

Professor Verburgh of the Rand Afrikaans University states (translation)—

To me these sound like adjustments, and quite modern ones at that.

These persons are authorities in this field, and not people with a laymen’s insight. The Argus of 6th March, 1969, another mouthpiece of the hon. member, stated in its leader article—

Hear, hear!

Wait a minute. It continues—

He is hopeless! He is the man who must state where he is going to get the manpower from! We learn here that he has succeeded, during the past decade when we were hearing more such Jeremiads here, in building up a streamlined organization—

Mr. Speaker, here we have the opinions of people who can be regarded as authorities in this field, and besides these opinions there are many more. According to the survey which we made, a disquieting one for the United Party, there is a great deal more criticism and expressions of praise out of their own ranks in periodicals and newspapers. We want to add here that only one out of 45 of these comments which we went into was negative. You see, therefore, Mr. Speaker, how uninformed the leaders of this party in this House are, and how they are still labouring under an illusion about their strength as a party.

Mr. Speaker, coming to this “pettiness” of the Administration to the pensioners, I should like to emphasize the following facts by means of figures. A senior clerk who retired on 31st March, 1949, received a gross annuity of R784.20. After 1st April, 1969, he will receive an annuity of R1,410.12. That is an increase of R625.82, and if he is a married person he still receives an additional special allowance of R35. This amount is almost double, and is now being termed a “petty” act, and an act, which according to the hon. member testifies to pettiness on the part of the hon. the Minister and his Administration. Mr. Speaker, so adverse is the commentary which we have heard in this connection and such a flagrant lack of recognition for what ought in general to be welcomed and is also being welcomed by pensioners and former officials of the Railways, that it is so cowardly that it calls for no further comment from me. Mr. Speaker, as far as the time limit of 20 years is concerned, about which such a fuss has been made, it is nevertheless a commonplace and general knowledge that the hon. Minister can, as in the past, amend such an arrangement at any time. In fact, he will have the right, if he wants to do so, to announce amendments in this connection in his reply to this Second-Reading debate. It is not, and will never be the main point, but what remains the main point is the benefits which pensioners are receiving as the result of this new accommodating arrangement by the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I want to proceed and make certain observations in regard to the so-called poor estimate by the hon. Minister. This is also an old tirade and one which we have to listen to year after year in this House. When it is not being made by the chief critic on that side of the House it is being made by his supporters. Before proceeding to this, however, I want to inform the House that in the business world outside it is generally accepted that a difference either way of 5 per cent on an annual estimate is accepted as excellent, whereas a difference of 2 per cent or less is regarded as a 100 per cent estimate. We had to learn here that it does not help us when the hon. the Minister submits his estimate and his Budget figures, since we cannot attach any value to them. But what are the facts in this connection? What is the real state of affairs as far as the Railways Budget is concerned? I hope and trust that we are going to settle, once and for all, this ten-year-old debating point, and that these amateur announcements by the Opposition in that regard will also cease for good. What do we find? Over a period of five years from 1963-’64 up to the latest, the revenue estimates of the Minister and his Department have shown an average difference of only 3.29 per cent. The estimate of expenditure showed a difference of 3.038 per cent. This is much more than excellent, because it is much less than 5 per cent. On the joint estimate, i.e. of revenue and expenditure, which amounted to billions of rands, the difference was only 3.14 per cent. These people want to apply the norms which they apply to fish and chip shops to this national undertaking, and do so in the unfortunate and misplaced way they did this afternoon. In terms of the norms of the business world in general, the estimates of the Railways over the past five years have been acknowledged and confirmed as varying between excellent and 100 per cent. Nevertheless, the hon. member has the temerity to state here in the House that it is not even worth bothering about or considering it. I take it amiss of him for underestimating the intelligence of the members of this House, as well as those of his own supporters outside in such a flagrant way. I also want to tell him and his supporters that the days of the “railway worker” of the United Party ended almost a half-century ago and that this transport undertaking to-day is being managed by the finest and most efficient manpower South Africa has to offer. So, stop making these uncalled for and insulting suggestions.

This brings me to the argument in connection with overtime and the disgraceful suggestion of the mortal danger which it may imply for the public. As the hon. Minister has also stated on repeated occasions, it is generally accepted that the manpower position has become a long-term problem in this country. In order to deal with such possibilities, adjustments and precautions are being universally taken to prevent production from becoming unnecessarily entangled. The same applies to the Railways. Since it is a national problem one deplores the cynical and intimidating presentation thereof by hon. members on that side of the House. What do we find when we analyse the statistics in this regard? We find that during the past five years there have been two general wage increases, one of R35 million in 1965 and one of R33 million in 1968. These of course went hand in hand with a corresponding adjustment to the overtime scale. These facts the hon. member for Yeoville as well as the hon. member for Hillbrow, to whose article the former referred us and which he recommended we should read, conveniently omitted to mention.

Mr. Speaker, if it is taken into account that the staff decreased in this same period of five years by plus-minus 3,000, then that is no indication of any abnormal disturbance. Now one must ask oneself the question as to whether the hon. member for Hillbrow does not perhaps need a refresher course in arithmetic. He has a mania, an obsession for such extramural courses, and I would recommend to both him and the hon. member for Yeoville to come forward at the very next opportunity with a motion to the effect that an elementary introductory course should be given to the members of the Opposition in regard to political criticism in this House—the methodology of criticism, criticism which is constructive, criticism which contains positive suggestions, and criticism which, in particular does not prejudice the good name of the State and this Republic. I think that this can be exploited very beneficially by leaders on that side of the House. In regard to this dramatic presentation of overtime, the over-exertion of officials and the training courses, I read the following in an article by the hon. member for Hillbrow—

Hear, hear!

They want the sluices in the Railways to be opened up for Bantu replacement labour. That is the sting—now the hon. member can cry “hear, hear” again—and that is the concealed motive behind this entire debate. But of course this they cannot reveal. They want to hunt with the hounds and run with the hares. During the past decade the Administration has already made preparations, in regard to the staff shortages, for making certain provision and utilizing auxiliary measures. I am mentioning a few of them, inter alia, by means of automation, mechanization, by making use of O and M studies. By these means it is possible to do more work with less staff. In addition, computers are being used for accounting purposes—such as the drawing up of pay-sheets, expenditure and calculations. These are also being used to make scientific calculations in regard to, for example, the determination of the running characteristics of passenger coaches, the rapid analysis of the operation of communication equipment and the utilization of mechanical equipment for the maintenance of railway lines. This has, apart from the advantage of economizing on staff, the added advantage that the work is being carried out more rapidly, more efficiently and with greater precision, which in its turn ensures an improved track surface. The present-day improved train control systems which are in operation on certain sections, and the centralized traffic control systems, ensures that the capacity of the sections concerned are being considerably increased. There have been covert references to trains in Cape Town and Durban running late, and the farmers complaining that their cattle are not being delivered in time or in good condition. What are the facts? Mr. Speaker, I object to this totally misleading remark. It is unfair and unjustified. The results of this centralized traffic control have already been measured as far as time saving is concerned. I am mentioning two examples to you. Here is a comparison which illustrates the running times of trains before and after the introduction of the centralized traffic control system. The running time of trains between Newcastle and Volksrust was two hours 29 minutes before the introduction of this service. This has been reduced to two hours and 11 minutes and subsequently to one hour and 47 minutes.

What about Windhoek?

Sir, the same applies to the market garden trains from Johannesburg to Cape Town. I can mention other examples to you where time saving is taking place, examples of economizing in regard to time and costs. But it has been alleged here that the farmers are complaining that the trains are running late. Well, I would not dare to make such general statements if I could not adduce any proof of their veracity. Provision has been made for greater efficiency by modernizing supplies, by introducing more electric units. A hundred obsolete and unusable steam locomotives have been taken out of service. There has been an increase of 462 electric units and an increase of 142 diesel units. The carrying capacity of our various routes is being increased in different ways, and modern methods of train control are being applied. These are all matters and auxiliary means which are being applied by the Administration in order to solve this very important and serious problem. But, Sir, instead of thanks, instead of recognition, instead of the assistance which people have offered us in such fine words, what help did we get from the Opposition here? All help we got was cynical remarks, destructive criticism and utterances which could only arouse suspicion.

Mr. Speaker, I am concluding with this observation. The Opposition’s reaction to this brilliant Budget, this proof of an applied and a scientific approach to the problems facing the Railways, puts me in mind of an experience which I recently had in my office at Randburg. One of my voters came in …

And asked for a servant.

… with clenched fists and said: “We will fix them now; this kind of thing must stop.” I then asked him what kind of thing must stop. His reply was: “I am having trouble; I am a building contractor and I cannot get employees.” I then asked him whether he had already tried to get them. He replied: “Yes, I cannot get them.” I then asked him: “From what sources?” He then indicated to me where he had tried to get employees and I then told him that he should go to the Randburg Bantu Commissioner and that man would help him. I then telephoned the Bantu Commissioner and told him that somebody had come to me to complain about employees. His reply was: “Mr. Schoeman, yesterday I supplied a few building contractors with 100 legal Bantu employees.” I then told the person in my office: “Man, now I don’t understand you at all.” His reply to this was: “Oom Hans, we are having great trouble.” I then asked him what the trouble was; he replied: “There near my work is a bluegum plantation. In that plantation there are idlers and every Friday when I pay my Bantu they try and take their weekly pay-packets from them.” I then said to him: “But that is a nasty business.” To this he replied: “Yes, it undermines the morale of our people and they are afraid.” Mr. Speaker, I hope that is not an unfair comparison, but we had a brilliant example of this to-day. On this day, which comes round once a year, the Budget day, the day on which the Minister gives an account of the Railways’ productivity and of the work which has been done over the past year, these ‘‘bush idlers” come here and they want to usurp the fruits of the labour of a very competent Minister and a very efficient staff. I just want to tell them that if they think they will impress or intimidate us with that, then they are making a very big mistake.

Mr. Speaker, if I may bring the debate back from “boslêers and blue gums” and various things of that kind, I want to say immediately that there was one thing in the speech of the hon. member for Randburg with which I can agree. I refer to his opening remark with regard to the late General Manager and his best wishes to his successor. I would like to associate myself with those remarks, as other members have done, and there my agreement with the hon. member for Randburg ends. Let us see what happened in the speech to which we have just listened. The hon. member stood up with a prepared reply to a speech which had not been made. He had anticipated what was going to be said.

That is not difficult.

I happened to look up the hon. member’s opening comments last year. He obviously used the wrong notes—the ones that he used last year—but he did not reply to my colleague, the hon. member for Yeoville. He did not deal with the question of excessive overtime, the crux of the attack from this side of the House. I want to ask him whether he believes that the railway worker is not working excessive overtime. Now, Sir, he is “tjoepstil”, he is zipped.

I have already made my speech.

He made a speech, or thought he made a speech, but he made it in the wrong debate. The crux of the attack was that the Government was demanding too much of its workers, and we had no reply whatsoever to that charge. What did we have? We had a vague statement that this magnificent, brilliant Minister, had been able to meet the demands made on the Railways. I will deal with that in a moment. We had a quotation about its being an unremarkable Budget that ran smoothly like the trains, and then we had a complete misrepresentation of the statement made by the hon. member for Yeoville in connection with pettiness in regard to pensions. Sir, what the hon. member for Yeoville said was that it was petty to limit this increase to 20 years and that 20 years after retirement was the time when people needed the most help. The hon. member for Randburg got up and accused the hon. member for Yeoville of saying that the pensions were petty. He did not say anything of the sort, and if the hon. member had been listening he would have known that the hon. member for Yeoville said nothing of the sort. The hon. member for Randburg then proceeded to make the old and typical attempt to create the false impression, that the United Party’s policy was to open the flood gates to the non-Whites. Sir, I throw that back at the hon. member with contempt. He knows our policy perfectly well, and if that is the only reply that he can make to the criticisms levelled from this side of the House then I would like to hear something better from his colleagues; otherwise this is not going to be much of a debate from the Government side.

Sir, I want to return to the quotation by the hon. member for Randburg that this was an unremarkable Budget. My description of it is that it is rather a pedestrian budget, except for one field. In the Brown Book on Airways there is evidence of some slight vision because provision is made for R101 million for aircraft purchases and associated matters although that provision is somewhat belated. I can still recall the stinging contempt with which the hon. the Minister accused me last year of not knowing what I was talking about when I warned him that he would have to place more orders for aircraft during the course of the year and when he contemptuously said, “You don’t know what you are talking about”. But, Sir, what has happened this year? He has had to introduce additional estimates to make provision for the purchase of more aircraft. Except for that one bit of “uitwaartse” budgeting in making provision for more planes, he has failed completely to deal with the problem of the manpower needed to fly those planes. The hon. member for Yeoville dealt briefly with this question, and I want to refer to the Estimates. As far as pilots are concerned, we find that there is an apparently big increase from 68 to 105 in senior captains and an increase from six to eight in senior training captains while the number of captains remained at five but then we find that there is a drop of 38 in first officers. In other words, the total preparation for the whole of the next year, with all the new aircraft about which the hon. the Minister bragged in his Budget speech, will be a net increase of 11 pilots budgeted for over the whole year. He already has pilots on loan from Rhodesia and he is already farming out a flight to Trek. He already has a flying staff of pilots unable to cope with the demands made on them without excessive strain. Does the Minister not know that only 36 per cent of his pilots are reaching normal retirement age? But here we are asked to vote R101 million for aircraft, yet we find that when it comes to the pilots to fly them there is provision for only 11 more pilots. And when it comes to engineers, what is the position? We have an increase in the number of senior aeronautical engineers of two, and we have a decrease of two in the other grades, so we are back exactly where we started. There is no provision in this Budget for any real, significant increase in the personnel who are going to fly the greater number of planes and the greater number of flights. So even that little bit of vision in this Budget on the capital aspect is completely negatived when it comes to the personnel side. Instead we have a sombre picture, both in the Budget and in the General Manager’s report, of staff shortages. What would happen to the S.A. Railways if we had an influenza epidemic amongst the staff? They would be brought to a standstill. This is typical of the attitude. When they want to be vaccinated against influenza, they have to pay R3.20 for the first person and then R2 for every subsequent person, and the medical aid scheme makes no contribution at all. But what would happen if they did not get themselves vaccinated and there was an influenza epidemic? The whole transport system of South Africa would stand still, because the Minister has reached the danger point where there is no margin with which to play at all. Now we are being asked in this Budget before us to approve the fact that 5,000 fewer workers over the coming year will have to carry an increased burden of 5 per cent or 6 per cent in traffic. Not only is the staff today overloaded, but we are being asked to increase that load by reducing the personnel by an additional 5,000.

But what is more serious is the criticism by the General Manager himself in his report in regard to the rapid turnover in recruits. It is no wonder that recruits do not stay in the Railways when you find the sort of atmosphere that exists. Despite the praise of the Chairman of the Railways Select Committee of this Budget. I say it is a budget without the vision which is called for at this time. It is a budget which fiddles with the problem. We would have expected something more imaginative from the Minister, real modernization and not playing around here and there with a few modern ideas. We would have expected a complete re-approach to the question of mechanization and modernization, an elimination of the old useless systems which are simply manpower consuming and unproductive. This is not the occasion, in this debate, to deal with the detail. We would have expected some vital announcement in regard to training programmes, and not a few bursaries here and a little bit of an increase there, but an imaginative scheme to try to improve the training basis of the railway personnel. We would have expected a streamlining of the whole staff position, to try to make a more attractive career for those who want to join the staff. What happens to-day to a matriculated youth who joins the Railways? He is thrown into the pool to stagnate and to become frustrated and after a while he gets fed up and goes into private enterprise. He does so because there is no atmosphere which makes it attractive to a person who comes in and wants to devote his life to the Railways. There is no atmosphere in that service to make him feel that here is a chance for him to work harder and to advance himself. When you talk to some pretty bright youngsters that have joined the Railways and you ask them why this is their attitude, they say: Why should I work any harder; I just have to go through the old procedure and do what I am told to do and in due course when I am old and grey, I will have gone up through the increment ladder, and I will probably be superseded anyway by somebody who is more pally with somebody higher up. You do not get the “dryfkrag” or determination amongst the youngsters or the desire to make a real career of it, and it is for this reason that I believe that there should be a total re-approach to the whole attitude towards staff and staff matters, to try to bring the Railways into line with a normal business concern to a far greater extent than is done today. I believe the late General Manager had some good ideas in this field and I hope his successor will follow up those ideas and not allow the staff of the Railways to become a more frustrated and a more dissatisfied group than they are.

We have heard by way of interjection and by implication from the last speaker that there is no real dissatisfaction among the staff. Last year I moved a private member’s motion pointing to the dissatisfaction in the Public and Railway Services, but it was pooh-poohed. Government members said this was absolute nonsense; there was no dissatisfaction. Admittedly, a little while later they increased the railway pay scales, but that was not the answer. Pay alone is not the problem. There is dissatisfaction to-day in the Railways as I believe there has never been, despite anything any hon. member opposite may say. Those complaints are growing and I think it is time that the hon. the Minister stopped hiding behind the trade unions and the staff association, and faced up to this issue. In the last year I have been into the sheds and I have talked to drivers and firemen and to ticket-examiners and conductors and to almost every grade, and it is the same story throughout.

There is rumbling and grumbling dissatisfaction at almost every level. Station masters, clerks, tally clerks, casuals, temporary staff—I do not think there can be half-a-dozen people I have spoken to out of hundreds who have expressed anything but dissatisfaction with overall conditions. I want to test the Minister’s complacency. I want to call upon him to institute an impartial investigation into the dissatisfaction on the Railways. I challenge him to appoint an impartial investigation body and to allow railwaymen to lay their complaints before that body. That is the test. If there is no dissatisfaction, the Minister could face such a test without anxiety. Then he would know that he could prove us wrong, that he could make monkeys out of us. I ask him to prove his claims that there is no dissatisfaction, and to prove it by an open, impartial inquiry available to all members of the Railways staff. The Minister tends to hide every year behind the staff associations and he says they are satisfied and therefore we are attacking them. I reject that claim in advance. The Minister will try to use it again; he uses it every year, but I reject it and say that even if he wants to call this an attack on the trade unions, this is the opportunity for him to prove that he is right and we are wrong. I have not the time available to deal with all the statements which have come to me over recent months and during the last year, but I have here a letter written by a lady saying—

What are they dissatisfied about? You have not told us yet.

About a whole lot of things. I cannot deal with them all now, but amongst them are promotion appeals to the board, employment in a supernumerary capacity, impartial inquiries, management out of touch with its workers, etc., etc. Here is another letter which says, “If there was another Railway Grievances Commission it would have ten times more complaints than the last one”.

Also written by a woman?

No, by an ex-Railwayman. Here is another letter saying, “A commission like this one is overdue already for many years”. This followed my motion of last year calling for an inquiry. Mr. Speaker, wherever you go you find dissatisfaction, and the Minister hides behind the fact that we name individual issues. I have a thick file here of complaints. Many of these complaints I have taken to the Minister but not once have I been successful. And yet I am convinced that many of these are genuine and sincere complaints. Let me give you just a few examples, Mr. Speaker. Let me give you a few examples of the type of complaint there is amongst Railwaymen. Amongst the drivers and firemen it is basically a question of overtime, the long periods of overtime that have to be worked, and the fact that this although in theory not compulsory, is in practice compulsory, despite all the assurances of the hon. the Minister. I have equally strong assurances from drivers and firemen that if they claim their normal, legitimate rest periods, or refuse to work the overtime demanded of them, they are laid off and lose financially later on. It does not pay them, therefore, to refuse. I know of a case where a person worked 16 hours, then went off for a break but after 2½ hours was called out again for an emergency. But he overslept and was ten minutes late. For that he was fined R12—that is after only 21 hours at home, after 3½ hours off duty. I know of another case where the person concerned was called out again after a four or five hours break after having worked a shift of 16 hours. He too overslept and was later than the other man. For that he was fined R18. Cases like this occur every day; hon. members can deny it as much as they like—these cases do occur. The Minister asks why these people do not go to their respective trade unions. But these trade unions are a large organization. However, if these unions are not complaining to the Minister then, I submit, they are not doing their job, because these are real complaints and the unions have been informed about them. Drivers and firemen told me that they have submitted these complaints to their unions.

Could you give me the names of the two persons you mentioned earlier who were called out again after a break of only a few hours and were fined because they were late?

Yes. I spoke to these men personally.

Of course, I do not accept that that is correct. But give me the names and I shall have the matter investigated.

Can the Minister give me the assurance that there will not be any comeback …?

He is entitled to a minimum of eight hours rest after a 12-hour shift.

I know what they are entitled to. The question is whether he will get it when he claims it. I spoke to one man at his home who was at that moment laid off because he had claimed his eight-hour break. He was then off for a couple of days; he said he was not being given extra overtime.

Give me the names of the two cases you mentioned where they were recalled after a break of less than eight hours and were fined because they came late.

I know their names but I want to ask their permission to use their names.

And they will not be victimized; you have got my assurance for that.

Have I got a guarantee that they will not be victimized?

Yes, you have my assurance.

As I have said, I have got their names. I shall approach them and if they agree, I will let the Minister have their names. Similar complaints come from conductors and ticket examiners. Here is a complaint from supervisory staff, signed by 12 foremen supervisors and assistant-foremen. This is a complaint they submitted to their own association and in which they complain about the failure to get people to hold acting supervisory posts. They conclude—

This I quote from a photostat copy of a complaint from the supervisory staff in one of the technical branches submitted to their own association. Here I have a wad of correspondence from casual, temporary and intermittent tally clerks. The hon. the Minister is aware of the complaints of these because I have been writing to him for two years. I am grateful for the improvement given recently, a week or two ago, to casual clerks. It is not as much as pensioners were given. In fact, it is a lot less than what a pensioner continuing work would get, but it is a concession to them. As far as I know, casual intermittent tally clerks have not received any benefit. I have here at least four or five letters from persons in that category.

There are complaints about housing. The total number of houses available to Railway personnel has dropped during the past year from 23,108 to 22,727 because of the writing off of unsuitable houses. In other words, after voting R6 million for housing there are to-day less houses available to Railwaymen than there were a year ago. In regard to loans, out of 3,864 applications only 643 were granted, the rest being turned down due to lack of money.

So I can go on from subject to subject. When it comes to promotion and appeals then you really get the grouses. Here I have a wad of papers dealing with only one appeal. Think of the hours and hours of manpower which have gone into the writing of all this. And then the Minister says he is quite satisfied with the system! Here is another wad of papers where, what appears to be a perfectly genuine case, was refused because the appeal was submitted too late. Here, again, the person was turned down on one occasion because of seniority and on the other occasion because of experience. In other words, one and the same person was refused promotion, each time for the opposite reason. Here is a case where, despite the Minister’s assurances that no regulations are made retrospective, a person appealed. The reference number of the regulations relating to this person’s case is S720K315/1. The regulation applicable at that time prescribed that he was to be told the reasons why he was regarded as unsuitable, not proficient. He then wrote and asked for the reasons but was stalled off until a new regulation was brought in and made retrospective. He was then told that in terms of this regulation he was not entitled to know the reason why he had been turned down as being unsuitable for promotion. This, then, is a case where, due to the retrospective application of a regulation this man was penalized. I took the matter up with the Minister but the Minister decided that he cannot uphold the complaint. So one can go on and quote dozens, hundreds and perhaps thousands of cases. I, for one, have certainly heard hundreds of complaints—fines imposed on checkers. Let me stop at this point and pay tribute to those senior staff whom I have approached with individual complaints.

The system manager in Durban, for instance, has dealt with many matters of mine. Where I have gone to him with a problem he has investigated it, and very often he was able to assist an individual with personal problems. I pay tribute to him and to the head office. When one goes to them with an individual problem one receives courtesy and attention. All the complaints I am referring to are those that have been unsuccessful. In these cases I think it is the system that is wrong, not an individual instance. It is the system which I believe needs looking at, the system or promotions and appeal which at the moment creates a great deal of discontent. Let us look at the disciplinary system itself. Out of 464 cases 39 appeals were upheld, in 66 cases the punishment was reduced and in 11 increased. In 184 cases the board’s finding was divided. That is out of 464 appeals during the year.

I want to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that the system is working properly, whether he is satisfied that in fact the present method of dealing with discipline and appeals against promotions is not open to a great deal of improvement. Other speakers will deal in more detail with matters which have so far been raised. Perhaps at the Committee Stage and during the Third Reading we will be able to deal with some other matters. I have here, for instance, a certain court case in which the man was found not guilty of fraud. He was prosecuted by the department because of an amount of 1-½-th cents which he was alleged to have fraudulently got from the Railway by saying that his train was on time when in fact it was 16 minutes early. This was a year ago. For 1-1½-th cents a man was tried in court and found not guilty, and it is estimated that the costs involved amounted to approximately R600, and that to try a man for an alleged fraud involving one cent. This report is not from a Sap newspaper, it is from Die Beeld of a year ago, or is it just as bad because it is a verligte paper? How ridiculous does this sort of thing not make the Railways look, how ridiculous does it not make the country look, when a driver of a train who was 16 minutes early fills in that he was on time, thereby implying he had worked 16 minutes more than he did in fact work, and he is then tried for fraud because he might, although he did not, defraud the Railways of 1-1½-th cents. Then there is an inventor threatening to sue the Government. There is also a case concerning the stop order ban of the mutual aid funds. That is also a long-standing dispute between members and the Government. These are the things that are building up and building up to create resentment. I hope more attention will be paid to these matters.

I want to conclude by asking the Minister, or challenging the Minister, to appoint an impartial investigation to see whether in fact we are cooking this up, whether in fact we are making a mountain out of a molehill, or whether in fact we are justified in saying that excessive demands made on the staff mean the Minister is being carried by overworked loyal members of the Railways personnel.

Mr. Speaker, it was enjoyable listening to the hon. member for Durban (Point), who has just resumed his seat. If I had brought along my correspondence from railway constituents, it would have made a much greater batch than his, and the letters all give evidence of gratitude. Strangely enough, all the letters from dissatisfied people are sent to that hon. member. However, I can understand that they perhaps seek out one another; perhaps he can try to unearth some problems here and there amongst people. As I said last year, the member of the House of Assembly is the barometer in terms of which one can measure whether people’s complaints are increasing or decreasing. I have many railway people in my constituency; why do I not hear from them about those problems which the hon. member for Durban (Point) gets to hear about?

They know that you do not help them; they do not want to waste their time.

I deal with every request I receive from a railwayman. I go either to the Minister, the General Manager or the System Manager, and I obtain satisfaction from them all.

The first part of the hon. member for Durban (Point’s) speech was actually a repetition of what the hon. member for Yeoville had said. Except for the number of letters which he brought along, he did not prepare his speech and consequently merely had to do a lot of repetition. The hon. member is concerned about the pilots for the new aircraft which are on order and which only have to be delivered within a year or two. He is already concerned about that now.

But they already have to begin training now.

But the pilots are probably there already. Should the hon. member for Durban (Point) now be told that we already have 11 pilots ready? They are making tremendous fuss because there are no pilots, but what proof does the hon. member have that this is the case? No, one must never try to make a mountain out of a molehill. That is what the hon. members for Yeoville and Durban (Point) tried to do. They tried to make something out of nothing.

I am reminded of the point which the hon. member for Durban (Point) mentioned. He wanted to know what would happen if an influenza epidemic were to strike. I have already been here for 20 years, and there have already been influenza epidemics by the score, but there was never a single train which could not run. We do not deny that there is a staff shortage at present, but because our railway personnel are more efficient we can get along with fewer people. I shall come back to the question of overtime and Sunday time at a later stage.

I should like to come back for a moment to the hon. member for Yeoville. There is indeed a manpower shortage, as I have just said, and for the purposes of the record I just want to repeat these words: For such a progressive country as the Republic of South Africa, there must be a manpower shortage. It is an inevitable consequence.

Who says so?

Yes, the hon. member asked, “Who says so”? That must of necessity be the case. If we had a United Party Government, we would have had unemployment, we all know that. Every possible kind of job is there and we have too few people to do the work. [Interjections.] I sat quietly when the hon. member spoke, and he must also give me an opportunity to speak. The hon. member is becoming irritable because he is now being corrected on the cardinal points. I repeat: In a country as prosperous as the Republic, there must be a labour shortage. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Hillbrow can stand up just now and speak as much as he wants to. If we had had too many employees, it would, in my opinion, have been a bad sign.

The hon. member also spoke about the farmers’ livestock reaching the markets too late. I wonder whether the hon. member knows anything about that. I would not like to mention my own case as an example, because it is perhaps not the proper thing to do, but I shall do so in this case. I send off many thousands of sheep every year, and I have not yet had a single complaint that the sheep arrived late in Johannesburg, Cape Town, Durban or Port Elizabeth. Why is the hon. member so unfortunate as to have all those things happen only to him?

He has never sent off a sheep.

I know that he has never sent off a sheep, but if one sits sucking one’s thumb all day, one must eventually get something out of it.

As far as smaller delays are concerned, I want to ask the hon. member to mention one single train which has been cancelled as a result of a staff shortage. Then I shall concede that he is right. I know that he cannot do so. In spite of the staff shortage our trains run to time. I travel by train very frequently. At times I reach Cape Town a quarter of an hour or 20 minutes late, but this is normal. It is altogether normal for one to be delayed along the way by shunting, or as a result of the fact that the lines are closed. Hon. members would surely not want one train to collide with another as a result of trying to reach its destination on time. This is altogether normal.

Then the hon. member spoke about a letter from Mr. Ralph Botha. I know Mr. Ralph Botha well. He is supposed to have said that there were so many incompetent and inefficient persons working on the Railways. If the hon. member were to come to a railway constituency such as De Aar or Colesberg, would he repeat that statement?

Yes. On the authority of Mr. Ralph Botha.

I maintain that it is not so. Mr. Ralph Botha must be wrong. I would never make such a statement, because I move among railway people and I know that they are competent to do their job. There are apprentices who are initially not so good at their work, but after six months or a year they are competent workers. The hon. member has already been in politics a long time and he is not competent yet.

Then the hon. member spoke about the so-called “fruitless estimates”. I wonder whether he knows how an estimate is drawn up. If a new railway line must be constructed or a line must be straightened to exclude turns, I wonder how the hon. member would draw up that estimate.

You tell us now.

As a practical-minded person. I shall tell the hon. member. I do not merely sit in an office in a city all day. I move around in the country areas where those lines are being constructed. I recently saw a railway line which had to be diverted and which had to traverse a large dam belonging to a farmer. The dam was worth a lot of money and no provision had been made in the Budget to buy up that dam. Then there is perhaps a slope which appears to be a ridge of soft, brittle gravel, but which actually consists of dolerite. Instead of having to work on it for a week, one has to spend three months on it. That is what causes estimates to be out. It happens very easily. To-day the hon. member tried, and I give him every credit for it, to criticize the Railway Budget.

It is inconceivable that the hon. member should now object to the 20-year period in respect of pensions. In 20 years’ time he and I will perhaps no longer be here. We hope that we shall still be here. There is time enough for those who succeed us to deal with those cases individually. Why does the hon. member now want to criticize the Minister about that? Now is surely not the time to do so?

Must it all be left to our children to do?

I gave the hon. member every opportunity. He must listen to me now. Normally, if someone retires at 60 years of age, he still has 20 years ahead of him. There will perhaps be .01 per cent who will need that extra 10 per cent.

Why may we not do it?

No, but the hon. member objects to it. I have no objection to the Minister fixing it at 20 years. Hon. members on that side are objecting.

I now want to say something else. I want to begin with my good friend, the Minister of Transport.

Thank him.

Yes. Decent people do so, but others would not. I want to congratulate him on this Budget. It is a moderate Budget. We shall all admit as much. Many newspapers speculated that there would be tariff increases or decreases, but this has not been the case. We are completely satisfied about that. But our real requests, in connection with which we sent deputations to the Minister, were in respect of pensions. These requests have been granted. We are grateful for that. After all pensioners are surely persons who experienced difficulties as a result of the increasing cost of living, in that pensions did not increase proportionately.

As we could deduce from the previous Budget, a deficit of R30 million was estimated for. The Minister was fortunate in being able to reduce that deficit to far below that figure, as a result of efficient personnel. I do not want to make any predictions, because I would then be anticipating his Budget of next year, If I live that long. But I am almost sure that he is going to show a surplus next year, in spite of the manpower shortage.

He cannot budget!

But now the hon. member for Yeoville does not want the profitable traffic to subsidize the non-profitable traffic, which is wrong.

It should.

But it is doing so. The proceeds from the oil pipeline which conveys the oil and the petrol, are applied to prevent the tariffs being increased in respect of the non-profitable traffic.

I now want to go quite a way back in time. From 1948 to the end of 1966 a round figure of R190 million was spent on wage increases for the railway people. In a period of 18 years R190 million was paid out. Under the United Party Government those people worked on the Railways for nothing, did they not? When I came to the House of Assembly those people were living in absolutely scandalous conditions.

Who paid them 3s. 6d. a day?

The railway people lived in houses and hovels which were scandalous for a country such as this. Our non-Whites live better to-day than our railway people did in 1948. But that is not all. The Opposition will never mention that the Minister had a surplus of R44 million last year. He gave it back directly to the railway people to improve their position and to satisfy his personnel. He succeeded in doing so. There are complaints about the increasing cost of living. Wages must be adjusted accordingly, and the Minister has done so. From time to time, as the cost of living increases, wages are also adjusted. I have just said that from 1948 to 1966 there was an improvement of R190 million in railwaymen’s wages. I am now going to mention a bigger figure. The total up to the end of 1968, over a period of 20 years, amounted to more than R250 million. That is a lot of money. I am glad that the money was spent in such a way that one could handle transportation in the country. Transportation has always been handled on a basis that we do not have to be ashamed of. There are times when a little waiting is necessary, but a train has never to my knowledge been cancelled. Mr. Speaker, I want to make a further analysis in connection with the staff. I found it strange that the main speaker on the Opposition side said nothing to-day about the staff, except that there was a shortage. He remained silent about the good things which have been done for them. I now want to quote what the average wages of all staff were throughout the years. The table is as follows—

It might now be said that the cost of living has increased. However, just the other day we heard certain figures in connection with the increasing cost of living, and according to that the cost of living has not increased nearly as much as is indicated by the figures which I have mentioned here. The standard of living of our railway people has increased by between 200 and 300 per cent.

Oh!

My hon. friend now says “Oh!”, but does he ever come into contact with railway people?

Yes.

The hon. member must go and look at the houses which are being built for them and how the houses are furnished. He should have gone to have a look in the houses of those staff members 20 years ago and then he would have seen that there were paraffin boxes standing there. I do not know whether the hon. member knows what a paraffin box is, but that is what was standing there then. To-day it is an honour and a privilege for me to enter the houses of my railway friends and to see what they have there.

I now want to deal with the question of overtime. Railway people work overtime and Sunday time. While the hon. member for Yeoville was speaking, I asked him by way of interjection if he was prepared to make a suggestion to do away with it. He then said, “Yes, excessive overtime”. I myself am also opposed to the working of excessive overtime.

Since when?

How do you know since when? Can you see inside of me? However, what is now meant by “excessive” overtime? If I had also brought along some letters, as the hon. member for Durban (Point) did, I could have brought forward dozens of requests from persons writing and asking that I should try to get a bit more overtime for them because they wanted to buy themselves a motor car. They do not want to sit at home for the whole of Sunday, they want to go and work so that they can buy something or other for their wives. I could also have brought along such letters, but now a fuss is made here about certain people who write that they are working themselves to death. I have never yet heard of a single person in the Republic who has worked himself to death. However, when a person is tired and he feels that he cannot go on any longer, he can go to his superior and say that he is tired, that he has worked for so many consecutive hours and needs rest and he will get that rest.

Then you impose a fine on him.

That is precisely what you would do. Mr. Speaker, I have already made a few remarks about the cost of living. The cost of living has increased, as it must do. As wages increase, so the cost of living increases, because one cannot keep salaries at a high level and the prices of products at a low one. It is simply not reconcileable, and the prices of products must increase. The farmer’s land which produces the products and which was valued at 10s. and £1 a morgen, is now valued at R20 and R30 a morgen. The farmer can, for example, no longer value a slaughter sheep at 50c and R1, he must now value it at R10 to R12. However, the necessary wage adjustments for this are made from time to time. This is not for me to calculate, but there are staff who calculate the wage adjustments. The hon. member for Durban (Point) read us a few of the “batches” of letters—and I wish that he would also give me one. I believe that the letters are all from people who are dissatisfied with the working of overtime. I only brought along one letter written by a Mrs. S. A. Wakefield, also of Durban. In that letter—it was probably translated into Afrikaans—to an Afrikaans newspaper she wrote as follows—

I shall give her address to the hon. member for Durban (Point) and then he can write to her. Her address is, c/o P.O. Box 49, Rossburgh, Durban.

Why do you not read the letter of the previous week, in the same newspaper, to which she was replying?

My time is virtually up, but I should like to quote a further paragraph from the letter. She wrote—

Was that letter written to you?

Does it appear to you as if the letter was written to me? Mrs. Wakefield wrote the letter to a newspaper. I have already given her address and the hon. member for Yeoville can write to her and ask her whether she made a false statement to the Press.

The hon. member spoke about housing and said that there were fewer houses than there were last year. It is quite possible that there are fewer houses. I know that there are very small houses, I almost want to say one-roomed houses, alongside the railway lines, which are being demolished. I know that.

They are being given to non-Whites.

If the hon. member would only open his eyes he would see that they are being demolished and that they are not being given to non-Whites. The sheets of corrugated iron are being broken down and the windows, etc., are being taken out and used elsewhere. The walls are, unfortunately, left standing because they are very sturdy, having been built with cement, and if one were to break them down every brick would be broken. However, are there complaints about houses?

Yes, many.

Only to that hon. member. He receives the complaints, but it is strange that the hon. the Minister does not receive them. Recently I paid a visit to a fairly large station, namely Rosmead station, and I heard only expressions of gratitude from the people for the houses which the hon. the Minister had built there for them. At Noupoort an altogether new town was established for Railway people, with beautiful gardens and fruit trees and an abundance of water supplied by the Railways. Those, then, are the people who are complaining about housing. I have here a list of houses, with their prices, which were built for these people by the State through the years. My time is virtually up, but I think that I should at least mention one figure. Houses are being built under three schemes, i.e. the house-ownership scheme, the assisted building society housing scheme and then also the Departmental housing scheme. Under these three schemes a total amount of R52,126,000 was spent by the State on houses for the period 1962 to 1967. That is a lot of money. I admit that building costs have increased and where one could earlier have built a house for R4,000 to R6,000, one now pays from R10,000 to R12,000 and more for a house. Workmanship has become more expensive, so has building material, but nevertheless decent houses are still being built for these people. The hon. the Minister has not been idle either. According to the annual report transport has steadily increased; transportation has not decreased as a result of the manpower shortage. In 1967-’68, according to the annual report, the tonnage of revenue earning traffic increased by 6,300,000 tons, or 6.37 per cent. In the previous year it increased by 6.127 per cent. High-rated traffic increased 700,000 tons; low-rated traffic increased by 5,167,000 tons. In spite of the shortage of personnel, transportation on the Railways increased to a very large extent. Then I also want to mention another figure and that is the number of trucks in use. It is said here that the farmers cannot have their livestock transported as a result of the delay of trains. Sir, a few years ago there was a little complaint about the availability of trucks for the transportation of coal, but that was 10 years ago and we have subsequently never again heard of a shortage of trucks for the transportation of coal. I should like to quote you the figures: In 1967, 7,800,000 truck loads were transported and in 1968, 8,178,000, an increase of 3.55 per cent. What is the position as far as passengers are concerned? In spite of the fact that the number of motor cars on the roads has increased tenfold in the last few years, in spite of the fact that the motor vehicle traffic on our roads during December, January, February and to a large extent also November, was so dense that one could virtually not travel on the roads, the number of passengers in 1967-’68 was 476 million as against 464 million in 1966-’67, an increase of more than 12 million.

How many of those passengers were third class passengers?

That makes no difference. They are all people who travel by train, and the Opposition is complaining that we do not have the necessary personnel to keep the trains going. Must there then be extra personnel for the Whites and extra personnel for the non-Whites? I sincerely hope that that is not the hon. member’s mentality. No, in spite of the staff shortage no delays are being experienced on the Railways. The Railways were also not idle in respect of the purchase of rolling stock. In 1967-’68, R153 million was spent on rolling stock and in 1968-’69, R64 million. The hon. the Minister plans ahead. The hon. member said that there was no planning ahead. That is not the case. If there had been no planning ahead where would these amounts have come from? Sir, we sometimes hear that people cannot obtain seats on trains. Is is only during peak hours that people are not able to obtain seats on trains. It only happens during holiday periods when people are rushing to the coastal resorts. It is only in exceptional cases that people are not able to obtain seats.

Mr. Speaker, I want to resume my seat, but I cannot neglect to thank the hon. the Minister, the General Manager, the System Managers, the heads of staff and all the Railway personnel, who assist the heads so faithfully, for the tremendous work which they have done during the past year.

The hon. member for Colesberg has made a long speech in which he has dealt with a lot of matters, but before I come to those matters, I would like to pay my tribute to the late General Manager, Mr. Hugo, and also wish our new General Manager, Mr. Kruger, well in his term of office as General Manager.

The debate thus far, as far as members on the Government side are concerned, has consisted largely of expressions of praise for the Minister, who will have very little to reply to when he gets up because hon. members opposite have been taking all the chestnuts out of the fire for him and trying to explain away the various deficiencies in the Railway administration. Sir, the hon. member for Colesberg, in talking about the staff shortage, reminded us that while the United Party was in power there were people out of work. This Government has been in power for 21 years. I do not know of anybody who has been out of work since the war, but the hon. member cannot explain away the staff shortages as easily as that. I do not know whether he would like to see us going back to the black days of the depression. You cannot have prosperity and excess labour because prosperity naturally brings labour shortages with it. But in other parts of the world they have been able to overcome this problem. The hon. member referred to the conveyance of sheep on the railways and said that no difficulty was being experienced there. Other members on this side, who specialize in agricultural matters, will deal with that issue. He also mentioned the question of cancelled trains. Well, I do not think there have been any cancelled passenger trains. Notwithstanding the fact that members of the staff have been tired from overtime they have nevertheless got on with the job and no trains have been cancelled, although there have been delays. Quite a number of goods trains have possibly been cancelled as a result of the shortage of staff. Sir, I was amazed to hear the hon. member say that in his constituency, which includes Noupoort, there is no dissension at all among the railway workers. He has a lot of railwaymen in his constituency and he says there is no dissension there. Sir, that is remarkable because I have had letters from people working in the hon. member’s constituency who have wanted a transfer to the cities not only in the interests of the education of their children but because they are thoroughly dissatisfied with the conditions under which they have to live there. The hon. member probably does not hear about this because he is on the Government side and railwaymen are always deeply afraid of discrimination.

The hon. member tried to find excuses for under-estimating the cost of building a line to Empangeni. He says that when you start building a line you may suddenly come up against a dam that you have to buy or a farm that you may have to buy. The hon. member said that he was an experienced person and he knows, of course, that that does not happen. Before any line is constructed, the whole area is surveyed; test holes are made and the whole terrain is examined very, very thoroughly. We get reports from time to time in this House telling us what earth has to be removed and what ground has to be expropriated and what it is going to cost; private tenderers may be asked to tender on the basis of those specifications. Sir, the Railways do not make errors like that. There must be a deficiency somewhere; something went wrong somewhere with the building of this line. As the hon. member for Yeoville has pointed out, there must be other reasons to account for these under-estimated costs.

Sir, I will deal with the question of overtime in the course of my speech. We must remember that the Railway Administration is one of the most important departments in South Africa. It is of so much importance that it is laid down in our Constitution that the Railways must be run on business lines for the benefit of the country. The Minister has told us that the prosperity of the country can always be gauged by the prosperity of the Railways. I agree with him to a certain extent, but when one looks at the deficit which he has announced for this year and one has regard to the fact that the Minister of Finance predicts a very substantial surplus, one wonders what has really gone wrong. The Minister expected a deficit last year of R24 million and this year he has been able to reduce the deficit to R13 million, but, of course, we still have another two months to go before the end of the financial year, and the chances are that the deficit will be very much less when we come to the end of March. We hope that the Minister will be able to tell us later on that the deficit is less than he at present anticipates.

Mr. Speaker, as we expected and as we said last year, the hon. the Minister has used the Rates Equalization Fund this year in order to avoid increasing tariffs so as to meet his shortfall. One wonders what is going to happen in the future. The hon. the Minister talks about loss of revenue as the result of lower maize exports occasioned by the drought, and one wonders what he is going to do in this connection. When we look at the Green Book, we find that last year the Railways were run at a loss of R30,150,000; that the Harbours were run at a profit of R15,096,000; that the Airways made a profit of R3,860,000 and that the pipelines produced a profit of R19,767,392. This year we are expecting to lose R49 million on the Railways; we are expecting to make a profit of R18 million odd on Harbours; R8 million on Airways and R39 million on the pipelines. Sir, one wonders what has gone wrong. When one looks at these figures one realizes that the Railways themselves are the real bugbear and that that is where we have to look for the fault. We have made suggestions to the hon. the Minister over the years, some of which he has accepted. He appointed the Marais Commission. We have still not seen the report. I understand that it is at present being printed. We are at the disadvantage that we cannot debate this report because it is not in front of us. We have also had the Schumann Commission which made certain recommendations and put forward certain long-term remedies to overcome our difficulties, but we still go on producing hit-and-miss budgets. If things do not improve next year and the Minister finds that he is going to have another deficit, he may decide not to meet the shortfall out of the Rates Equalization Fund but to introduce higher rates. We know that he is in the habit of doing these things. We recall that some years ago he increased tariffs by 10 per cent without consulting industry or anybody else. Sir, I think we have to look further into this. The General Manager talks in this report about the better utilization of line capacities. What we should concentrate on, of course, is to make better use of the facilities that we have and try to reduce our losses on the railways. The General Manager talks in his report about longer trains, improved couplings, signalling systems and straightening of lines. We here in the Western Cape are rather disappointed when we find that year after year, although provision is made in the Brown Book for the deviation of the line from Cape Town to the north through the Hex River, the work is put off. The longer this project is delayed the more expensive it will become, so there is no real saving there. At the present time the line goes over the Hex River Pass. This long route could be shortened very considerably by building this deviation line. This is one way in which we can save and there must be dozens of other ways in which savings can be effected and the efficiency of the Railways improved and losses cut down. Sir, we were pleased to read in the General Manager’s report that the Railways were becoming modern and businesslike in their outlook. They should have done this years ago, of course. We are pleased to see that a market research section has now been established in the Railway service. It is very essential to know exactly what your customers want, with this keen competition you have all over the world, and it is pleasing to know that the Railways are going to do something about it. When our marketing research section does get under way, we will not have the trouble we have had in regard to the conveyance of ore via Port Elizabeth. There you had the peculiar position that they work one shift and boats are waiting to load, which leads to high demurrage costs. It is only after the Japanese threatened us with the loss of their trade that the Government did something about it, but it took them a long time to wake up. It was only in October, 1968, that the Government decided to operate this very expensive ore loading plant on a 24-hour basis. With the marketing research unit, we will know what our customers want and maybe we will cut down expenditure and bring in much more revenue for the Railways. I want to tell the Minister that as far as the Airways are concerned, the marketing research is 100 per cent. Their contact with their customers is really first class and it must have brought a considerable amount of new business to the Airways. It is something which the Railways should introduce and they could do it with great profit to themselves.

We have heard about passenger traffic. The hon. member for Colesberg referred to it. When you look at the figures you find a steady increase in second and third-class passenger traffic over long distances, and you find a steady fall-off as far as first and second-class railway passengers are concerned. We take it that the Whites travel first and second class, and that the Bantu travel second class and third class. But what is the reason for this? When one travels by train, one realizes what the position is. We have two first-class trains in this country. There is the Blue Train, which is going to be replaced, but what I cannot understand is why we do not go all out, when we build first-class coaches, to air-condition them. We have the Trans-Karoo and the train from Johannesburg to Durban. Why do we build these first-class trains and forget about air-conditioning? We have such coaches on the Trans-Karoo and on the train between Johannesburg and Durban. Those coaches are very much better and more comfortable than those in the present Blue Train, but if you travel during the middle of summer you just about die of heat. The only blessing is that you have a shower on those trains. In winter you just about freeze, because you have these old-fashioned heaters in the compartments and they are either on or off, being connected up with the engine. If you want to attract passenger business to the Railways, you have to offer your passengers some comforts. You have to offer them a competitive fare and you have to offer them first-class service. I must say that notwithstanding the shortage of staff, you get first-class service on the passenger trains, but at least you must offer air-conditioning. I do not think it will cost a lot, but it is necessary. I think the coaches could be quite easily adapted to it. I was travelling on the Trans-Karoo and portion of the train was filled with package-tourists from overseas. In the middle of summer these people from Germany and Switzerland almost died of the heat and they could not understand why the train was not air-conditioned. They travel all over the world as tourists and even their buses are air-conditioned, and also their hotels, but here they found themselves in a train which was not air-conditioned. It is something we should look into if we are to go in for tourism. And not all tourists like to travel by air. There are many of these package tours to-day where they book a train and travel through the country on these trains, to the Game Reserve, etc. The Government should do something about it.

One of the points we have brought up in our amendment to-day is this serious staff shortage. Apparently the Government sees no solution in sight. It is one of these things that the Government has decided to live with. Like some people say that we must learn to live with inflation, so the Government has decided to live with staff shortages. They have mechanized to a high degree on the Railways, but that is still not the answer. If you look around, you find that in Durban Bantu are doing certain types of work, but in the Cape Town Docks Whites do the same kind of work. With the co-operation and the consent of the unions, there should be some revaluation of jobs. We heard the Minister say the other day that nobody wants to be a shunter and that the turnover of shunters is 100 per cent. Surely we must examine the position. We cannot operate without shunters. The revaluation of jobs is overdue. We have to make use of the labour available in this country; otherwise we cannot carry on.

Which labour?

All labour.

Yes, all labour. All jobs should be revalued and an approach should be made to the unions and the position should be put to them. We cannot carry on as we are doing at present. I am fairly certain that we will find that the unions will be receptive to any suggestions. Outside, in the engineering industry, the unions have faced the fact that there must be a revaluation of all jobs and they have had to allow non-Whites to do certain jobs. [Interjections.] I know that the Government side is looking for propaganda and are saying that the United Party wants Blacks to fake the jobs of Whites, but that is so much rubbish. It is the only sensible approach to the problem. I do not know whether hon. members here have had anything to do with labour, but I see the hon. member for Krugersdorp is sitting there. What is happening on the Railways now was known in the old days as sweated labour, namely men working excessive hours. Then the unions got together and they had strikes and to-day you have regulated hours, 44 hours or 46 hours a week, whatever it may be. The Government decided that this was a good thing and they embodied that principle in the Factories Act, and overtime was controlled. But the Minister of Transport does what he likes and you have the position to-day where people are working excessive hours to the detriment of their health. We are building up what is called an overtime economy and that is something we will regret one of these days. We have been told here that the living standard has gone up by 300 per cent, but on what? It is an unhealthy overtime economy. No railwayman refuses to work normal overtime. He can do with the extra money to educate his family, notwithstanding the fact that he gets a fair wage. But the overtime these people are being asked to work is abnormal. I am like the hon. member for Durban (Point); I also have cases of people who have had to work excessive overtime and not being relieved, they have gone off the trains. I know of one case where the man could not stand any more because he was so tired and he left the train and was fined R25. These things happen. The Minister knows about it. This case has been handed to him. People have become tired and frustrated and they have had to leave the job. You can only do so much work. And you cannot tell me that people working excessive hours can apply themselves to the same extent as if they were fresh, having worked normal hours. Their home life suffers because they are never at home. This leads to the deterioration of home life. It may be that this is one of the causes of the high divorce rate we have. Some of the wives of railwaymen never see their husbands from day to day and from week to week, and we have had cases of many railwaymen becoming alcoholics because they are often away from home on split shifts, have got into bad company and they have started drinking. Your own welfare officers on the Railways will tell you this. This is an unhealthy state of affairs and it has to be stopped. With a growing economy such as ours, you cannot keep the Railways back; they must grow. If they do not grow, the country will break down because this is the primary means of transport. So the Government has to do something about it. They must face the fact that to keep the Railways going there must be a complete revaluation of jobs in conjunction with the unions, and we must make use of the best labour we have in the country.

Will job revaluation alone bring more white men to work on the Railways?

Yes, possibly, because as you increase your staff you find more Whites being employed. As the Railways expand, more Whites must go in. If the hon. member looks at the figures before us, the non-Whites and the Whites on the Railways are just about 50-50. In 1968 there were 113,981 Whites and the non-Whites were 107,657. They are almost 50-50 at present, and as the Railways expand and more non-Whites are employed you must naturally have more Whites. But you cannot have Whites doing jobs which should not be done by them. You cannot have Whites in the Cape Town Docks working as berthing attendants and as tug crews, when in Durban you have Bantu doing that, and also in South-West Africa. You cannot have Whites doing these very menial tasks. Surely there is something a bit better for them. If the Government wishes to make capital out of this, they will be able to make very little capital out of it, because their own white workers on the Railways have asked us on this side of the House whether we cannot get them something better to do than they are doing at present.

In the few minutes I have left I would like to get back to the Cape Town Harbour. I was a bit disappointed in the Minister’s reply to me the other day when he said he was not able to produce a plan or estimates in this House. Every year for every project we have had from the Railway Board plans have been put before the House showing exactly what is to be done and what the expenditure will be. I know I can get a plan in the Minister’s office and I can also get a plan from the local newspaper, but I want to have it in this House. I do not want to go there. I think every member has the right to see such a plan. We are asked to vote the money and I should like to see the plan and also the report showing exactly what is happening about the Cape Town Harbour. We are not very happy about it. There has been a commission’s report on it. This has been going on for years. First of all it was going to be Rietvlei, and then it was going to be Cape Town Docks, and then it was going to be Rietvlei again, and then again Cape Town Docks. I do not think the Minister has ever been in favour of Rietvlei and now they are going to build extensions in Cape Town Docks, and Rietvlei will be used for something else later. But at the same time we know full well that Rietvlei will have to be used in order to obtain the material to build the new docks, so I hope that the Minister, when he is thinking of further expansion, will take note of this, and if he has the excavations at Rietvlei he can then open it to the sea and build a dock there.

Mr. Speaker, in the first part of his speech the hon. member for Salt River merely repeated arguments and accusations which had already been put forward by the two previous speakers on the Opposition side. They levelled these accusations at the Minister and at the Administration. He also mentioned a few general matters. Amongst other things he spoke of the absence of air-conditioning in railway coaches, and particularly in the case of long-distance passenger coaches. After all, the hon. member knows that if a person is so set on air-conditioning, he can make use of the Blue Train. Or has the hon. member never heard of a thing called the Blue Train? One wonders whether the tourists who are allegedly so set on this matter, have air-conditioning in all trains in their own countries.

Towards the end of his speech the hon. member also referred to the ratio between Whites and non-Whites in the South African Railways. The hon. member levelled these accusations a moment ago, and we have also heard them from other quarters. For the information of the hon. member, and for that of the outside world, I must point out that, despite a country-wide shortage of white manpower, the white staff on the Railways has always represented more than 50 per cent of those employed by the Railways. In 1967 the white staff on the Railways represented 52.3 per cent of the total number of people employed by the Railways. Let me tell the hon. member that in 1948 the white staff on the Railways represented 52.2 per cent of the total. In other words, over these years, i.e. from 1948 to 1967, there was no change in this set-up. This does not tally with what the hon. member has just said.

I should like to say something in regard to the speech made by the hon. member for Yeoville. I am sorry that the hon. member is leaving the Chamber now. At the start of his speech the hon. member referred to the motorists of a certain part of the country, i.e. of the Pretoria, Witwatersrand and Vereeniging areas. He said that they had to pay up for the profits that were being made on the oil pipeline. The question we should pose, is whether the motorists there are, in relation to the rest of the country, paying more for their petrol than they did when petrol was conveyed by train.

The second question I should like to ask the hon. member, is whether he would be able to isolate the pipeline from the Estimates as an independent item. To my knowledge the pipeline was in fact introduced to serve transport as a whole. It had to bring relief, as a result of the heavy demands made on the Railways. It is in fact because provision was made for a pipeline that more goods of a different kind can now be conveyed by our trains. Now I want to put this question to hon. members on the other side: From which other source do they want to derive the profits which are now being made as a result of the introduction of the pipeline? Would they like to raise the tariffs? Would they like to raise the tariffs for passengers? They must tell us where that money is to be found. We know that the Estimates deal with various items. They deal with passenger services, with goods and coal, with road transport services, with harbours, with oil pipelines and also with air services. The losses sustained on any one of these facets, must after all be recovered through profits made on the other facets. After all, this is a generally accepted business principle. Just as it is in the case of any business undertaking which has various branches, the losses on one branch have to be recouped by means of the profits made on another branch.

The hon. member moved an amendment, and complained about the following matters: The excessive overtime worked by Railway servants, the strains to which such servants are subjected, the chronic shortage of manpower (this has become a chronic argument), and the inefficiency of the Railway Administration to provide satisfactory services to the various sectors of the country’s economy. The hon. member did not only level the latter accusation at the Minister and at the Administration, but also at all the workers. I want to repeat what he said. A previous speaker on this side of the House also mentioned this matter. The hon. member said that Railway workers were incompetent. It is essential for Railway workers to know what they are being accused of by the Opposition. They should know that they are being accused of being incompetent. Another matter which has already been ridden to death in this debate and in other debates, and which I suppose will still be raised by other speakers, is the argument in regard to excessive overtime. Now one wants to ask this question again: What is excessive overtime? It is a relative concept. Hon. members did not define it themselves. They cannot define it. There are no Railway servants who are obliged to work excessive overtime. These people work overtime because they are loyal to the Railway Administration. This is what I found in my constituency. Somebody told me that they want to do it because they believe that in doing so they are rendering a service to the Railways and to the country. The hon. member for Durban (Point) had a thick pile of letters of complaint here. I wonder how many of those letters were actually written by his voters. According to him that thick pile of letters contained complaints, but in not one of those letters could he quote to us that the writer had said that he was working excessive overtime, or that he had asked that he should not have to work any more overtime. In the past recess not one single person in my constituency—and a very large percentage of my voters are Railway servants—complained to me about working excessive overtime. On the contrary, I could even mention the names of persons who had asked me whether it would not be possible for them to work additional overtime.

In what grades were those people?

It does not matter in what grades they are. They are working on the Railways in general. These arguments of hon. members are falling quite flat, flatter than a pancake. The hon. member for Durban (Point), who is now getting so boisterous, spoke of a “pedestrian budget”. If I had to translate this into Afrikaans, I do not know whether I would call it a “voetgangerbegroting” or a “padloperbegroting”. But, in any event, irrespective of which one it would be, to me it implies that the hon. member wants to suggest that there is no vision or imaginativeness in these Estimates. In a moment we shall point out in which way there is in fact vision and imaginativeness in these Estimates. A great deal was said here, and a great deal is being said in general, about the shortage of workers on the South African Railways. We know—and this has been said here time and again—that this is a phenomenon which is to be found in all sectors of the administration of our country. But one even finds a manpower shortage in private concerns, in spite of the very attractive salaries offered by these bodies. But, and I want to emphasize this, I prefer a manpower shortage to unemployment; in other words, if there is a shortage of work, it may result in a depression, such as we had in the past. The shortage of workers in South Africa is not only caused by insufficient numbers, or by the non-availability of workers, but also by a lack of quality on the part of a considerable percentage of workers or employees. Or to phrase it differently: the relatively low level of productivity is one of the most alarming aspects of a shortage of workers. In fact, the South African Railways has, particularly over the past few years, been concentrating on enhancing the productivity of its servants. On pages 87 and 88 of the Annual Report of the General Manager we find that this was phrased very well. On these pages we also find fine graphs reflecting the steady improvement in labour productivity achieved by members of the staff. The South African Railways may consider itself lucky that there is a steadily increasing percentage of workers who are concentrating on specific and specialized tasks on the Railways. They are interested in their work, and in that particular work they are rendering the best service to the Railways. They are not always looking for the so-called greener pastures on the other side of the fence. In other words, they are not being driven by frustration and dissatisfaction to find a so-called better means of livelihood. And Railway servants can achieve this increased productivity, specialization and better opportunities for promotion as a result of the sound scientific training which these servants receive, for instance, at the Railway College at Esselen Park, as well as the other training schemes which, in certain cases, are backed by attractive bursary schemes. Just as is the case with other employers, the Railways also finds that there are in fact servants who resign. In the case of the South African Railways, which is the biggest employer in our country, the annual number of resignations runs into thousands at times. Some resign for unavoidable reasons and others in order to look for better pastures, to which I referred. But experience has shown and history has proved that at a later stage more than 90 per cent of these persons return hat in hand to their good and fair former employer, i.e. the South African Railways.

They resign in order to draw their pension money.

And now the hon. member will be well advised to listen. Apart from those people who applied for the first time for a position in the Railway Service, 16,199 applications for re-employment by the Railways were, for instance, received from former servants in 1967. During the period December 1967 to December, 1968, there were 16.846 Whites who resigned from the South African Railways. Now I shall perhaps hear the hon. member shouting: See there! I assure him that they did not resign as a result of working overtime. I want to make this very clear to you, Sir. Many of them are unemployed persons and even work-shy persons with whom the Railways is saddled. They form the unstable element in the Service. Some of them even applied twice or three times in the same year for re-admission to the Service.

How many resign in order to get their pension money?

I do not have the statistics here. Apart from the question the hon. member has just put, this is the important point: they are asking to be re-employed. In 1968, for instance, 16,875 applied for re-employment. And this is in point of fact a larger number than the number of resignations. And this is happening in spite of the fact that servants who apply for re-employment must in actual fact start from scratch once again and be paid accordingly. One feels very sorry for these persons, especially in cases where there were circumstances over which they had no control. This picture of resignations and applications for re-employment has remained constant over the years. This is a phenomenon which will also crop up again in the future, perhaps to a lesser extent, because Railway servants are preparing themselves for a special task and because they themselves realize that they and their families are the ones who suffer when they resign and have to start from scratch once again.

The hon. member for Yeoville and other hon. members also referred to the so-called miscalculations in respect of the Estimates. In this part of his first speech the hon. member for Yeoville kicked up quite a fuss the other day about the incorrect estimates of expenditure and revenue in respect of the previous Estimates. I want to say that this is a pointless, nonsensical and also a very unfair charge against the Minister and the Management. The final picture in regard to the Estimates for l967-’68 is as follows: The total revenue derived from all services was estimated at R798.230.000 and the final expenditure at R811,337.000. The year was ended with a deficit, as we already know, of R13.1 million, instead of the originally estimated amount of R24 million, as appropriated. If we do a simple calculation, we find that the miscalculation only amounted to R10.9 million. If one works out this calculation a little further, if one can work with decimals and fractions—and I do not know whether the Opposition is always capable of doing so—one finds that this is only .013 per cent of the actual total expenditure on all services. I say that this is an excellent and magnificent estimate on which the Minister and the Management should be congratulated. We on this side of the House, the Railway workers and the country as such are grateful for the fact that a Ben Schoeman together with his capable Management, and not a Marais Steyn, has to prepare the Railway Estimates. We are grateful for the fact that a person such as the Minister, who has years of experience, has to assist in preparing those Estimates, and not a person who cannot even risk an estimate as to the number of United Party members in the House of Assembly, not even for the coming year.

When the Opposition levels such criticism in regard to incorrect estimates of deficits, one wonders whether they are at all trying to inquire into or make inquiries about the tremendous amount of trouble—and now I want hon. member to listen—which is taken in order to make the Estimates as accurate and reliable as possible. Do hon. members realize that in addition to the thorough study which is being made of internal expenditure and possible revenue, many bodies representing the various sectors of our national economy are being approached. In order to prepare the present Estimates, which we have had before us, the Management approached no fewer than 78 bodies to make estimates for those sectors or spheres which are served by them or in regard to which they could furnish information. The South African Agricultural Union is an important institution that was approached for an estimate in regard to all sectors of the agricultural industry. And we know how difficult it is for them, because of changing climatic conditions, to make an estimate. But the Railways must also take that estimate into account. The Reserve Bank as well as all the other banking institutions were approached, as were the Afrikaanse Sakekamer, the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, the Associated Chambers of Commerce, the Federated Chamber of Industries, various motor-car fuel companies, Iscor, representatives of the motor-car industry, and the Industrial Development Corporation. Liaison was also maintained with the Departments of Commerce, Economics and Marketing, Defence and Industries. And, in conclusion, even the Stock Exchange was approached. Subsequent to that the planning and financial sections of the Railways met and considered all of these particulars, which cover our national economy. And, having taken their own internal needs into account, they prepared these Estimates. And now I ask whether this is not a very scientific basis on which these Estimates are prepared, i.e. after regard has been had to all the needs of the country as such. These Estimates are not brought to finality in a haphazard way, as hon. members seem to think. The Opposition is always talking about miscalculations in regard to Estimates. But when Mr. Hamilton Russell, the predecessor of the present main speaker of the Opposition, was a member here, he came off second-best as regards this kind of criticism and the so-called miscalculations. And I also expect that on this occasion this hon. member will come up against the Minister as regards the misplaced criticism he is continually expressing in regard to the Estimates and so-called miscalculations.

I should just like to refer very briefly to the fact that the hon. member for Durban (Point) said that there was no imaginativeness in these Estimates. As the hon. member also spoke about the South African Airways, I just want to refer him very briefly to the advance planning and the vision of which we have now seen the result in regard to the introduction of the direct Springbok Service between South Africa and New York. This is something which has seized the imagination of everybody who is interested in the South African Airways and the public outside. The significance of this break-through cannot be assessed highly enough. In practice this can be of incalculable significance to the Republic. It took the hon. the Minister, his helpers and the Management a long time to plan this route and to negotiate the right to introduce this air service. To me the introduction of this flight is once again ample proof of the thorough advance planning undertaken by the Minister and his Management. The Minister must be honoured as the founder of this service. The idea of this service was undoubtedly an inspiring challenge. A few moments ago the hon. member said that there were no challenges in these Estimates, but this is proof of an inspiring challenge. It required far-sightedness, initiative and sound judgment, and this air service will now, for the first time, provide South Africa with a direct link with the western hemisphere. As we know, this is the shortest air route between Johannesburg and New York, even though it goes via Rio de Janeiro. Of course, this influences the time-conscious business man who is in a hurry, but in addition it ought to be a tremendous added attraction for tourists and holiday-makers. Consequently it will also promote tourism. That his service will be very popular, has already been confirmed by the bookings for the first five flights. They are already heavily booked. We also hear that the bookings for the next five flights, extending into April and May, are already quite heavy. This new route will not only be used by the citizens of the Republic, but also by North and South Americans, Australians, Canadians, yes, and perhaps the Natalians will also prefer this route! In this way the S.A.A. is providing a link between South Africa and Australia; it is becoming an important link between these two great countries. In addition it is a symbol of the common interests of this part of the southern hemisphere.

I want to conclude with the following few words. I represent a large Railway constituency and I want to thank the hon. the Minister and his Management for the major concession which has been made in respect of pensioners. Our people are very happy about that, and we are therefore extending our very cordial thanks to the Administration.

Mr. Speaker, I too should like to sympathize with the hon. the Minister and the Railways personnel in losing that very wonderful man, Mr. Hugo. He was a personal friend of mine, and I am sure many hon. members of this House were also friends of his. I think for many years to come we will continue to think of him. He was a very competent railwayman, but I think his greatest characteristic was the fact that he was a born gentleman. However, we say no man is indispensable, and with that I welcome Mr. Kruger as the new General Manager. We are indeed very glad that he has been appointed General Manager. He is well known to us; he has served in that capacity on several occasions; he is experienced, and I am sure he will let his weight be felt in further developing and improving our railway system.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort spoke about air conditioning in our trains. I was told recently that overseas tourist organizations, especially those in America, were very keen to tour our country. The other day we had a huge American passenger ship here in Cape Town which stayed here for a week, then sailed up the coast, and came back to Cape Town. Many passengers would have loved a tour through South Africa up to the game reserve by train, but apparently what put them against this tour was the fact that there was no air conditioning in this train that was to take them. I may also mention—and I hope I am correct in this—that they had great difficulty in booking such a train. Perhaps the Minister can clarify this position for us.

The hon. member also spoke about the price of petrol. He compared the cost of transporting it by train with that of conveying it by pipeline. Well, there is no comparison, and that is why the pipeline is showing this enormous profit. That is why we ask that it should be equalized—all the people in South Africa should enjoy the benefits arising from this pipeline, everybody should pay the same price for petrol.

He also mentioned the various sections of transport. That is something we on this side have pressed for repeatedly. We feel each section of transport should be run on business lines and each one should show its own profit.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think anybody on this side, least of all the hon. member for Yeoville, said that the railway people were incompetent. We have always appreciated the services they render to the country, and I can assure you, Sir, that we will continue to do so. We have always looked after the interests of the railwayman.

The hon. member also mentioned staff shortages. We have always said the position of the White man on the Railways should be elevated wherever possible. We say he should be placed in a higher echelon when circumstances permit. He should be taken away from the ordinary menial type of labour which any unskilled labourer can do. He said the staff were leaving to join the private sector. Why? Are conditions in the service not satisfactory? Is there sufficient pay in the various ranks?

Are their conditions better when they come back?

In all Government Departments, let us take the police for instance, large numbers of men leave because they feel the grass is greener on the other side of the fence, but many of them come back. However, it is an exceedingly small proportion of them that return to their previous jobs.

No. I will give you the figures to show it is not a small proportion.

But figures do not count …

He spoke about the hon. member for Yeoville having queried the budgeting of the Railways, the small amounts, and so on. That was not the case at all. He was querying the large amounts. He spoke about a railway line that cost R40 million and which five minutes later cost double that amount. That is the type of expenditure he queried.

The hon. member also spoke about the new flights between Johannesburg and New York via Rio de Janeiro. Of course we will get many passengers; of course the flights will be fully booked. It is a new route. Many people want to go direct to South America instead of via Europe and New York. Let us be honest: has anybody ever said the S.A.A. are not popular? I think they are one of the most popular lines in the world, on flights to America, Europe, Australia, wherever they fly; also on internal flights, they are very popular. The one or two setbacks they had were not their fault. It is indeed a very popular service.

I, too, wish to speak on a few staff matters. I wish to deal with the staff shortage and the question of overtime. I think we must admit that when overtime was originally introduced it happened only because there was an emergency. A man worked an extra shift on a Sunday; he was called out in an emergency because a driver did not turn up for duty or a train was delayed en route, or else he travelled on a return journey, as they call it, from point A to point B and then back to A which took more than the normal time of a man’s duty shift. Those were the type of emergencies which caused overtime working. But when overtime payments increase to R68 million per year, surely it cannot be objected to if we on this side query this state of affairs? After all, we have the welfare of our railwaymen at heart. I ask once more: Are the salaries paid to our railwaymen sufficient to permit them to live decently without their having to work overtime? Must they specially work the overtime to give their families the ordinary comforts of life? Are the salaries attractive enough? Are the commencing salaries sufficient to attract their share of school-leavers every year? Is that not where the fault lies?

Then there are rumours about another matter. Last year I raised the question of equal pay for men and women. I heard that the hon. the Minister was now going to pay women the same salaries as men. Do I laud that wonderful statement! But I only hope that I am correct and that he is going to tell me that is just what he is going to do. I am quite certain that, judged by what I saw in the head office in Johannesburg, the women do exactly the same work as the men.

In the 1967-’68 annual report that has been submitted, which is a very fine document, I notice that the Minister has been making increasing use of organization and method. On account of that, he has been able to do away with 672 posts. May I ask him whether he does not think that this is biting a little bit too deeply into the already vexed staff problem? He said they are introducing schedules and procedures, resulting in less staff and more work. Does that mean more overtime, which is what we on this side of the House are trying to avoid?

Then there is my old pet subject that I feel I must bring up every year. The Minister told me last year in reply to my query about legal representation that the associations are satisfied on this point. No association, no man, can deny an accused person legal representation, whether it is before an inquiry, the lower court or the High Court. After all, we now even have what they call a legal aid society. In the High Court we have pro Deo defence, if a person cannot afford the cost of being defended. I plead with the Minister to help me in this regard. This is one anomaly that he must remove from the regulations of the Railways. I ask members on that side, especially legal members and members representing railwaymen, to please help me on that point. I even look upwards and plead with the Press to assist me in this regard.

I wish to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has commended and rewarded certain railway officials for their special services to the Railways. I am talking about the designing, the manufacturing and putting into service of bulk ore trucks that they are using at the present time between Sishen and Port Elizabeth and between Sishen and Iscor. I believe they can now increase the load of an ore train to 3,300 tons, and that on account of these trucks that have been introduced, no less than 1,300 trains have been dispensed with, with a financial saving of R2.6 million. I am referring to the bogies, the BA, the AZ and the latest, the C type. With these short trains and heavier loads, it has also been unnecessary to lengthen crossing loops on the main lines. At the same time, this also applies to the Monocoque frameless tank wagons, which are conveying petroleum gas and ammonia, I think, from Lourenҫo Marques. Unless these designs have been acquired from other railway systems in the world, I think our men should get some ex gratia payment in view of what they have done.

I also want to compliment the Minister on the new type of trucks conveying motor cars in view of the thousands of motor vehicles that are being conveyed by rail every year. I think it is a pleasure to know that one’s car now can be railed without being bashed against the sides of the trucks.

Then I also want, on behalf of the railway pensioners, to thank the Minister for the pension grants. I think that has been a wonderful gesture which has long been outstanding. But here too, I must support the hon. member for Yeoville and say that I do not think, with regard to the few old people that will be remaining after 20 years, that that increase of two per cent should stop at the 20 year limit.

I have already mentioned the petrol pipelines. But I do want to ask the Minister a few questions with regard to conveying gases. Is it going to be conveyed by means of the existing pipeline, or are there going to be new pipelines for that purpose? How deep are they going to be under earth? Which type of gas is going to be conveyed? Because I always think of old Piet van der Merwe who, when speaking about gas, said: “Dis blerrie gevaarlik.” I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I am probably not allowed to use that word, but it is still dangerous. [Laughter.] I can never forget the gas explosion which occurred 30 years ago in a mine in the Eastern Transvaal. I saw heavy machinery, huge fly wheels, embedded in the roof of the mine by that explosion. Dozens of miners were killed. I believe they had a mass funeral at Ermelo. May I ask whether these pipelines will by-pass the built-up areas? Will they be perfectly safe? Are they not going to blot out a whole section of the community if an explosion does occur? Even the fire in the oil pipeline at Pietermaritzburg was more than dangerous; it was quite frightening.

I notice also in the report, the new, improved technique with regard to loading air freight on what they call roller bearing floors, with prepacked pallets on scissor operating lift platforms, which expedite the loading and unloading of aeroplanes. We can well imagine how useful that will be in unloading the planes at various ports of entry and how it will expedite the clearance of the passengers, especially in view of the introduction of these enormous aeroplanes that will be in use in the near future. It is also very pleasing to note that reservations are now being computerized for all flights. I think this is really a major step forward.

Then, Sir, I would like to speak on harbours. To me it does not seem very long ago, although I expect it does seem long ago to most members, when we were put in a basket on a mail ship in the roadstead at East London and Port Elizabeth, hoisted through the air and dumped on the deck of a tug that was careering around on a terrific swell. We then had to be taken over the bar, as they called it, especially at East London, into the harbour. Including myself 50 per cent of the passengers on the tug were seasick. Mr. Speaker, those are things of the past. New extensions were made at Port Elizabeth and these large vessels could then come in and be berthed. I recall the terrific explosion which was set off at East London by the Minister, if I am not mistaken, to widen the turning basin in Buffalo Harbour. The explosion was so terrific that at that moment I thought that half of East London was going to be dumped into the Buffalo River. Those vessels then came in and turned in the turning basin. Sir, those things only live in our memories now and these harbours are now entirely inadequate. Even Durban, which is the biggest harbour and which handles about 55 per cent of all the traffic in our harbours in South Africa, is completely out of date. Since the last war, vessels have increased rapidly in size and since the closing of the Suez Canal we have these enormous tankers, the tonnages of which increase by the thousand. These tankers cannot enter our harbours; they have to by-pass us. Our harbours can no longer handle that type of traffic. I believe the Minister said that here in Cape Town he is not in a position to give us a passenger terminal because the figures show that approximately 2,000 fewer passengers were embarking and re-embarking in the harbour, and yet the 1967-’68 figures show that no fewer than 56.682 passengers embarked and that 85.573 disembarked in all the harbours. Sir, oversea passenger traffic is rapidly increasing. I have a cutting here from the Natal Witness of 7th March, 1969, a few days ago. I do not want to weary the House by quoting the whole of this cutting but I do want to quote this portion—

And the Minister tells us that Cape Town does not justify a passenger terminal!

Then there is another matter which was mentioned by the hon. member for Salt River, and that is that the Administration has accepted the majority report to extend the Cape Town harbour and not to go on with the Rietvlei harbour. We were shown this latter harbour in Pretoria at the offices of the C.S.I.R. I believe it took a very long time to investigate this project. It must have cost a lot of money and I understand that they recommended it. Do we now go against the recommendations of Departments like the C.S.I.R. and make their work futile, apart from the waste of money? Sir, then I would like to ask whether the time has not come for the harbours to be separated from the railways and treated as an autonomous administration. I see in the Press that the Natal University has made a very thorough investigation into the Durban harbour and probably all the harbours of South Africa. They must have done a very thorough job. They are all highly educated people and it took them eight years to finish this investigation. I should like to mention some of the more salient features mentioned by them. They say that progress and change are the same and that progressive people should rise to the occasion and accept this. The British transport authorities during 1965 split the whole system into independent undertakings. The ports should be similar to the post office, which has now become autonomous. There is no reason why the Railways should control the ports merely because they cart the goods. All arguments point the other way. Port traffic is irregular, subject to unexpected fluctuations and operated by independent owners. The port captain has to deal with many complex problems: berthing, sizes of ships, and cargoes of all descriptions. His customers are international and weather is his biggest worry. He requires skill and experience in shipping and the highest degree of managerial ability. All that is required is liaison between the Railways and the Provincial and Government authorities, especially Defence as far as the safety of the State is concerned. This co-operation has been achieved in all major ports in Europe, America, the Far East, Australia and New Zealand. Separation would require re-allocation but I cannot see that it would pose any problem whatsoever. The profit of the Durban harbour has been R15 million during the two years 1967 and 1968. Under independent management, all this revenue could have been ploughed back instead of only one-third as is the case to-day. Sir, port revenue must be used for expansion to keep up with progress. If this had been done in the past, we would not have been in this pickle at the present time. The exporters, the importers, the passengers, the tourists and the businessmen are the people who make the contribution to the national revenue. The more goods the ports can handle and the quicker they can handle it, the more revenue can be earned in the inland areas. This matter is so serious that the Durban Chamber of Commerce, normally a very silent body on this vital subject, has come forward with a challenge. We must remember that the development of the Richard’s Bay harbour must be bold, but it must also be remembered that it is not the be all and end all; the other harbours must and will have to play their part.

I listened attentively to the previous speaker, and I jotted down a few notes here, but it would seem to me as though there are not many problems on his side. Amongst other things he spoke of the inadequate facilities on the Blue Train, but we know that the hon. the Minister has announced that ample provision will be made in the future by making additional Blue Trains available. The second question he raised, was that of the staff shortage. His charge was actually that excessive overtime had to be worked in order to perform essential services. The Opposition objects to the tremendous amount of money which has to be paid out annually in respect of overtime.

No, that is not the objection.

I must say that in my constituency I have not come across a single person who has the least objection to working overtime. Nor is there such a thing as a member of staff being obliged to work excessive overtime. Then the hon. member for Yeoville said that this excessive overtime overtaxed the staff, the result being that accidents occurred which could have been prevented. I just want to quote a few figures to prove that this statement is not correct either. In 1958 the number of passengers killed was 25; in 1967 it was 21, and that was out of a total of 4,670,000 passengers. Expressed as a percentage, 0.045 passengers were killed in 1967, as against 0.094 in 1958. These figures show that there has been a tremendous drop in the number of accidents. Therefore the hon. member’s argument in this respect no longer holds good at all.

Then I just want to mention the following figure to show what a huge undertaking the Railways is. The total works programme of the Railways for next year amounts to R1,429 million. From this it is obvious that the Railways is the largest single undertaking in the country. The Railway Estimates are virtually three-quarters of our country’s total Estimates. The effect of the working results of this national transport undertaking should not be underestimated. The business activities of the Railways has an effect on the whole economy of the country. The disinflationary measures taken by the State, particularly in respect of the decrease in imports, have, of course, also had a retarding effect on the economy of the Railways. Right at the beginning I want to express my joy at the improved pension benefits for Railway workers. The increased minimum amounts which have been introduced in respect of Railway pensioners, namely R100 for a married person and R50 for an unmarried person, are tremendous concessions. In this respect I call to mind something which I was told by an old gentleman, Mr. Flip van Coller, from my constituency—recently I held a report-back meeting there. He is an ex-Railway worker who retired on pension in 1947 and only earned £5 3s. in those days. To-day that R10.30 has been increased to a minimum of R100 for him and his wife. These people are sincerely grateful for this tremendous increase, and also for the 10 per cent increase in the net annuities paid to pensioners who retired prior to 1968, and the subsequent 5 per cent. These increases mean a great deal, but I think the most important increase is the 2 per cent per year which a pensioner receives for a maximum period of 20 years. We all realize that these people have had to struggle in order to keep pace with the increased cost of living, and that is why we are sincerely grateful for these concessions that have been made, and also for the calculation of pensions which will now be made over the last three years as against the previous terminal period of four years. This has also brought about a great deal of improvement. One has no alternative but to express sincere thanks and appreciation to the Minister and his staff for having made these things possible. In particular I want to say that the interests of those pensioners who have already retired from the service, are being looked after in this Budget. We know that those people built the Railways. They terminated their contract of service and are receiving their due, but this increase which has been introduced now, is extra, and I believe that I am speaking on their behalf when I thank the Minister for this generous manner in which assistance has been granted. This is a very great improvement, particularly with a view to future pensioners as well.

The other question about which there was also a great deal of discussion here, was the shortage of staff. I want to say that I am glad that we are in a fortunate position, especially as members of the House of Assembly. I remember that years ago times were difficult and that people struggled to find employment; sometimes they formed a queue in front of one’s office. To-day we are in the position that we have a labour shortage. To me this is preferable to unemployment. This shortage of staff is to be found in virtually every sector of our economic life, and we have been experiencing this for the past few years. In countries where a boom cycle prevails, a manpower shortage is a very common phenomenon. Since we believe in the future of our country and since we believe that we have tremendous potential here and that our riches both below and above-ground have not been exploited fully, we also believe that we are on the eve of a new phase of development, and in this respect transport plays a very important role. The manpower shortage will, of course, remain a pressing and an actual problem in the future, and that is why the national transport undertaking has taken the lead with positive and judicious planning and constructive, purposeful and fast transport. In addition modern training centres have been established where every official in the service is trained to become an expert. I believe that this effective training of the staff is one of the most important measures that has been taken to combat the manpower shortage. The provision of these training facilities, the thorough in-service training for members of the staff, has enhanced the productivity of the Railways. This improvement of their qualifications has improved the services they may render to the Railways, but it has also improved their own position to such an extent that they have been justified in claiming promotion and better remuneration, which has in turn greatly improved their own position.

Mechanization and organization, thorough investigations and work studies, the application of scientific methods and mechanical and technological working improvements, necessitated major capital expenditure over the past few years, such as in respect of the purchase of adequate rolling stock. In 1958 the total investment amounted to R559 million; 10 years later it had increased to R1,978 million, virtually four times as much. This has helped to save manpower. I want to show—and this is the point I want to emphasize here—that with virtually the same staff establishment the Railways did double the amount of work and was able to function effectively.

I should like to mention these figures: In 1958 our white labour force numbered 110,000; the non-white labour force numbered 122,000, i.e. a total of 232,000. In 1968 there were 114,000 Whites and 108,000 non-Whites, or 10,000 fewer. I want to point out that in spite of this decrease the Railways doubled its efficiency. But a point I want to make merely in passing, is that the number of non-Whites employed showed a decrease of 14,000, whereas the white staff showed an increase of 4,000. Accusations were made in respect of the employment of non-Whites. In this country it is traditional policy for us to believe in job reservation and protecting the white workers. The barb in the great fuss which is being made of the staff shortage, is that the United Party’s policy of the “rate for the job” is one of the things with which they are trying to drive in the thin end of the wedge. They want to try to point at the manpower shortage so that we must, as a result, remove the colour bar. If they had been in power to-day, I wonder whether they would not have done the same as was done by ex-Minister Jagger, who dismissed 17,000 white Railway workers and employed non-Whites.

I want to go further by showing that the tonnage of traffic conveyed by the Railways in 1958 was 77 million tons, and 10 years later it was 116.75 million tons, i.e. it was virtually doubled. The number of passengers conveyed in 1958 was 266.75 million, and in 1968 it was 476.5 million. It is very clear from this that the Railways has not stood still and that the amount of work performed has virtually been doubled. These results could not have been achieved if it had not been for the staff that had worked harder, and if it had not been for the steps that had been taken in order to improve the working conditions of the staff. But all of this would have been of no avail if the staff had not been prepared to make their contribution as well, and the National Party guaranteed that. We know that the existing relationship between the Railway staff and the Minister and the Management is of the best. Year after year this has always improved because the seven staff associations of the Railways together with the officials, the General Manager and the Minister have round-table conferences, where they discuss and iron out problems. The fact that we do not have any labour unrest is of no use to us, and the necessary wage increases and adjustments were made from time to time. In 1958, 10 years ago, wages amounted to R208.75 million in all. In 1968 it was R347.75 million. The wage increases over the past 20 years alone, amounted to R250 million. This virtual doubling of salaries and the improvement in pension benefits have afforded Railway officials the opportunity of making the necessary adjustments from time to time in order that they may make a decent living, and it has helped to bring about a better relationship and to make the people realize that they are shareholders in that gigantic organization, i.e. the Railways, and that by working harder they will receive dividends from that organization.

Housing facilities constitute another very important factor. As we believe that the railway servant has to be a happy worker, everything possible has been done to improve the facilities and conditions of service for these people but above all, to improve their housing; for we believe that if one provides the railway servant with proper housing, he will, when he returns from his work, be able to have a happy family life. By doing this we believe that the cradle will be filled and that the railway staff will be afforded the opportunity of realizing themselves. A great deal is being done in this respect. If we look at the amounts of money spent over these past five years under the house-ownership scheme, the assisted building society housing scheme and on departmental housing, we see that over these five years R30,990,000 was spent under the house-ownership scheme, R7,940,000 under the assisted building society housing scheme, and R15,017,152 on departmental housing for Whites. These housing facilities that have been provided, have also made a very significant contribution towards making the railway staff happy and contented. But in addition to that, I believe that the most significant single factor which has helped us to develop the efficiency of the Railways in this manner, has been the contentedness of railway servants. For that reason we must congratulate the hon. the Minister and his officials, in view of the fact that they, together with these staff associations, succeeded in solving these problems, these points of friction and the claims that had arisen in the past. We hope and trust that in the future they will also succeed in maintaining and developing this labour peace which we are experiencing now. In that way the efficiency of the Railways will be enhanced from time to time. I want to extend to the hon. the Minister my hearty congratulations on these outstanding Estimates which he has presented. We are proud of him.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down, thanked and congratulated the Minister on several occasions during the course of his speech. He spoke about the satisfaction of the Railways staff. However, it is interesting to look at some figures, particularly in regard to the last three years. If we study these figures, we find that resignations alone accounted for 26,017 workers over the last three years. 22,814 workers absconded. This means that a total of 48,831 white employees either absconded or resigned during the last three years. A total of 60,000 white employees left the service during those three years, Sir. As I have said, of those 60,000 nearly 50,000 resigned or absconded. I believe that, if there is such great satisfaction in the Railways, surely these figures demand some sort of explanation and investigation. If we study the figures for the last three years, we find that they are rather alarming as far as the position of the Railways is concerned. In 1966 18,698 white employees terminated their services in the Railways. There were 19,050 new employees. This means that there was a net gain of 352. In 1967 20,595 left the service, and there were 20,352 new employees. This means that there was a net loss of 243 white employees. The hon. the Minister has given us figures for 1968 which show that there was a net gain of 1,947 workers during that year. Sir, if our railway service is to continue to expand and to grow, and to meet the demands and the needs of a growing economy, surely we require a greater inflow of white employees in the railway services.

Even Basie van Rensburg left them.

Yes, Deputy Ministers of Transport have changed from time to time, but whether for the good or not, we do not know at this stage. However, the position for the last three years is that over 60,000 workers have left the service.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a great deal about pension benefits. Here I believe the Minister has taken an important step forward in the modernization of his system in regard to the Superannuation Fund and Railway pensioners in general. I should like to compliment his inter-departmental committee, which has obviously made important recommendations which the Minister has accepted in part in many cases. If you look at the position last year, Sir, you soon realize that very little was really done for the pensioner in 1968. Last year provision was made for the temporary allowance means test to be abolished. But how many people did this really affect? In March, 1968, there were 25,434 railway pensioners and 10,349 railway widow pensioners. This meant a total of 35,783. But at that time 31,225 were already receiving the temporary allowance, Therefore the benefits which were derived from last year’s announcement of the 1st October, 1968, really only benefited 4,558 people who were not receiving the temporary allowance. I believe that the improvements which have been made could go a step further, particularly in regard to the temporary allowance. The hon. the Minister, in the course of his speech, mentioned that they were awaiting the actuarial report for the five-year period and that no further recommendation had been made concerning the temporary allowance. But it would appear that it would be to the great advantage of the railway pensioner if this temporary allowance, or cost-of-living allowance, as some people have named it, were incorporated and consolidated in the railway pensions. It would appear that the temporary allowance has become accepted and that it has become a permanent allowance. There is no means test in regard to its application. There is no possibility, as far as one can see, of the cost of living decreasing. In fact, the Government has accepted that fact, and will be instituting a scheme from the 1st April, where the pension will be increased by 2 per cent per annum compounded. This is a step in the right direction when one considers the modern concept of pension schemes.

In recent times we have seen that group pension schemes have made tremendous strides in this particular regard. Taking into account the decreasing purchasing power of money, it has become increasingly necessary to review the pension schemes in the private sector as well as in the Government or public sector. We know that, in terms of present pension schemes, and especially equity-linked group pension schemes, people receive an increase in their pensions either at five-yearly or three-yearly intervals. The Superannuation Fund of the Durban Corporation has a scheme whereby the cost of living allowance, as they call it, is increased by 2 per cent every five years. The hon. the Minister has accepted a figure of 2 per cent. However, there are many who estimate the rate of inflation at something like 3 per cent per year. It would appear, therefore, that the Minister has accepted a figure which is slightly lower than that which is accepted to be the normal rate of inflation during normal times, namely approximately 3 per cent per year. This is, however, a step in the right direction towards modernizing our present Superannuation Fund Pension Scheme. We know that there are assets totalling some R500 million in investments, which are held by the Superannuation Fund. We know that the Superannuation Fund, according to the latest available figures, should quite easily be able to absorb the increased amounts which will be paid from that fund, in terms of the general increase in pensions.

However, the interesting point here is to analyse, as far as one can from the hon. the Minister’s speech, what the effect will be on the actual pension paid. There is no doubt that in some instances pensioners will receive considerable increments. However, there is one group which will have to be satisfied with an increase of only R6 per month in the case of a married person, and R3 per month, in the case of a single person. Here I refer to the older pensioner, the man who has perhaps already been on pension for a period of 20 years. In his particular case, his basic pension is extremely low. I have taken the trouble, in several cases, to calculate the increase in pensions. I have found that this is one particular group which will have to be satisfied with the small increase of only R6 per month in the case of a married pensioner. Let us take the case of the older pensioner. If he is receiving a basic pension of approximately R30 per month, it means that, together with his temporary allowance, his increase of 2 per cent compounded over a 20-year period, which will amount to an average of 48.4 per cent, and his 10 per cent increase, his basic pension will be increased by R17.51 per month. This amount, however, plus his temporary allowance and the supplementary allowance of just over R17, will give him the minimum figure of R100 per month. So in actual fact the increase in his basic pension does not really result in any direct increase to him, apart from an increase of R6 per month, because of the supplementary allowance. The hon. the Minister, in the course of his Budget Speech, referred to the implications of this increment, together with the supplementary allowance, as it affects those persons receiving the minimum pensions. These people will therefore not enjoy any further increase until such time as the Government decides that they can grant a larger amount than the minimum pension received. If a person has already been on pension for 20 years, he will not receive the extra 2 per cent compounded which others who have not yet been on pension for a period of 20 years, will receive. So this particular group, in terms of the system outlined by the hon. the Minister, really will have to wait until the hon. the Minister, in his wisdom, from time to time increases the minimum pension payable in that particular case.

Then there is the position of the Railway pensioner who as a married man receiving R100 per month can by prudent living manage to exist on that income. One often finds that when a person becomes a single person due to becoming a widow or widower, such a person immediately has his or her income halved. I believe that the hon. the Minister should give some consideration to this particular aspect. It is obviously difficult for a person who suddenly has his income halved from R100 per month to R50 per month to exist on that amount. The single person without dependants receiving R50 per month, will find it extremely difficult to be able to readjust his living costs and living expenses to exist on only R50 per month. I should therefore like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should give it consideration that the minimum pension payable in the case of a single person without dependants should not be 50 per cent of the rate payable to a married man, but 66 ⅔rds per cent. This, I believe, would assist that person because in terms of accommodation and such like it is easier for them to live as a couple on R100 per month than it is for the surviving spouse to have to live on 50 per cent of what they were previously receiving.

There is another aspect regarding which I believe the hon. the Minister can do a service towards railway pensioners and that is for him to approach the Minister of Finance to see whether any steps can be taken to assist as far as taxation paid on pensions is concerned. Many railwaymen find it extremely difficult as it is, and when they are called upon also to pay income tax, their troubles are further increased.

I have mentioned earlier the question of the large number of resignations in the Railways. I believe this presents a very real problem not only in regard to the running and the efficient administration of the Railways when there is such a tremendous turnover in staff, but also in regard to the present system concerning the payment of pension moneys on resignation. The Cilliers Committee of Inquiry on Pension Fund Matters which was set up by the hon. the Minister of Finance, certainly made very strong recommendations in regard to the preservation of pension rights. I would like to suggest that the hon. the Minister should refer the recommendations of this committee to this interdepartmental subcommittee which has been investigating the whole question of the pension schemes of the Railways together with the superannuation fund pension scheme. It is important that the preservation of pension rights should be maintained if it is at all possible. Other suggestions have been made from time to time by other persons connected with pension funds which I believe could also receive the consideration of the hon. the Minister and his subcommittee. These suggestions are in respect of a non-contributory scheme concerning staff which would obviate the tremendous difficulty that arises where a person resigns merely to obtain immediate monetary gain. If a system of non-contributory pension for those employed by the Railway for at least the first ten years of their service is adopted, it would mean that some of those persons who have resigned merely for the purpose of obtaining their pension benefits would be discouraged from doing so as there would be no immediate lump sum payment being made to them. I believe that this would to a certain extent discourage people who are keen to resign merely to obtain benefits which have been added to and put aside for the purposes of retirement and not for any immediate cash lump sum investment.

Whilst dealing with this question of the resignations and the effect on the fund as well, I would also like the hon. the Minister to give an explanation in regard to the number of absconders as far as the Railway staff is concerned and also its effect on the Superannuation Fund. Could the hon. the Minister explain to us the position of a person who is listed as an absconder and who is no longer in the service in regard to payments concerning the Superannuation Fund and benefits that might have accrued to him during that time? If we look at the figures, we will see that there is an increasing number as far as absconders are concerned. In 1966 there were 7,006, in 1967 there were 7,522 and in 1968 it reached a new height of 8,286. I believe that the hon. the Minister could give some explanation as to the reason why there should be such a high number of absconders.

In regard to the question of improving the pension scheme of the Railways the hon. the Minister said that it would also assist in the recruitment of staff. Here I believe the hon. the Minister is taking a step which could bring about such a situation. We know that the Railways can offer a good deal to people who wish to make a career in the Railways. It can offer security and advancement to a certain extent. The fringe benefits will be further enhanced by the modernization of the present pension scheme in terms of the Superannuation Fund. I think that there are some other benefits or other aspects that one should look at as well. Here I believe the hon. the Minister could give attention to providing a more suitable uniform as far as the running staff are concerned. When one looks at the Railway uniforms of guards and ticket examiners and so forth, particularly during the hot summer months, one can only sympathize with them for having to wear such a hot serge uniform. I believe that if the hon. the Minister followed the example of the South African Police where a far more comfortable summer uniform has been designed, it would assist too in the general efficiency of his Railway staff if they are more comfortably attired in a summer uniform rather than a uniform which is extremely hot to endure during hot summer months.

The Railway undertaking is the largest undertaking in the Republic. We realize that the developments that take place to a great extent depend on the efficiency of the Railways. We know that there are certain sectors of the economy which have complained about inefficiency from time to time. However, we believe that an important new approach to the recruitment of staff is necessary, and I believe that it would be advisable for the hon. the Minister to devise a modern system of recruitment to attract people to the Railway service so that they can really feel that they have a future and a career before them when joining the Railway service. Unfortunately in some respects—I know it is the case as far as various juvenile affairs boards and vocational guidance courses are concerned—people have adopted an attitude that if one cannot get a job anywhere one might as well go to the Railways and work there. This I believe is an unfortunate attitude and is one which I believe has to be rectified wherever possible so as to ensure that a career on the Railways will be a well worthwhile career.

I would like to deal with another aspect which also is related to development and advancement. That is in regard to the proposed oil tanker off-loading terminal or buoy which has been applied for and which I believe has been accepted in principle by the hon. the Ministers of Agriculture, Transport and Economic Affairs. According to a reply that was given in the House to a question that I put to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture on Tuesday the 4th March, the hon. the Minister indicated that this had been approved in principle but details were still to be worked out by the departments concerned for final consideration by the Government. Mr. Speaker, as far as advancement is concerned, we realize that this is a step forward with regard to the problem of dealing with oil tankers, particularly the large oil tankers of 100,000 to 200,000 tons which can now be off-loaded at sea by means of an off-shore terminal. I believe that there are some 15 such terminals in existence in various parts of the world. The concern is, however, that there are certain dangers involved in regard to this means of discharging the oil, the danger of leakage or seepage and also the danger in regard to the coupling of the flexible pipe joining a pipeline at sea. Then there is also the question of the currents. We know that the currents, particularly on the Natal coast, move inshore and if there should be any leakage or seepage, it could do a tremendous amount of damage in the form of the pollution of the Natal coast. We know that the Natal coast is regarded as the premier holiday resort for the entire Republic and it would bring about a loss of many millions of rand, should anything occur which could pollute the beaches in such a manner. However, I believe that certain investigations have been carried out so as to ensure that no such leakages can occur or can be reduced to an absolute minimum, should they occur. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister if he would perhaps, during the course of his reply to this debate, be able to make a statement in regard to this off-shore oil terminal, which is a cause of a great deal of concern and consternation amongst many people living in Natal and, indeed, consternation amongst the people living in the country as a whole. There is the question of the development of Richard’s Bay as a premier harbour, and I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has given due consideration to suggestions that this terminal should be situated in the vicinity of Richard’s Bay. We know that the pipeline at Richard’s Bay will be nearing completion in the not too distant future. It would be possible to establish such an off-shore terminal at Richard’s Bay and this would perhaps fit in with the hon. the Minister’s previous statements that Richard’s Bay is to be developed as a premier harbour in South Africa. If this off-shore terminal is to be established in the Durban area, it would certainly appear that the long-term establishments of Richard’s Bay, as a premier port, could not be included as far as the offshore terminal is concerned. The dangers mentioned would obviously also exist at Richard’s Bay, as they would exist at the off-shore terminal in the Isipingo vicinity. However, I would be pleased if the hon. the Minister could give some indication by way of a statement in regard to this matter when he replies to the debate, since this possibility that pollution could occur along the Natal South Coast, is a matter of serious public concern.

The overall development of our harbours is obviously of great importance. We know that the closing of the Suez Canal has brought about a great increase in the revenue as far as our harbours are concerned. The position as far as the future development of Durban Harbour is concerned, is that numerous statements have been made and that a thorough survey has also been conducted by the Durban Chamber of Commerce and the University of Natal, dealing with this question. As far as the maintaining of its position as premier port of South Africa is concerned, it would appear that the Durban Harbour will lag behind in certain respects unless vast improvements are carried out. We have seen that large vessels such as the United States, which was able to visit Cape Town and Port Elizabeth, has been unable to call at Durban Harbour because of the narrowness of the entrance.

The development of South Africa is of great importance. This hon. Minister has the authority and responsibility to keep abreast of the development that is taking place. We as the Opposition believe that it is our duty to point out to the hon. the Minister and to this House the various shortcomings which we believe should be rectified. Therefore we hope that the suggestions which come from this side of the House will receive the due consideration of the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Umbilo must excuse me for not following up on what he has said immediately, but I will return in a few moments to the argument which was raised by the United Party.

On behalf of my voters I should like to convey my sincere gratitude and appreciation to the hon. the Minister and the General Management for the concessions which have been made in respect of the Railway pensioners. I am not offering any excuse for doing so, because I represent a great majority of them in the House, and that is why I want to convey my gratitude and appreciation to the hon. the Minister.

I should like to bring a staff matter to the attention of the Minister, which is that the procedure in connection with the employment of staff can be amended to a certain extent. I just want to suggest something. I am referring to applicants who were formerly employed by the Administration and whose service records are from time to time requested by other centres as soon as the application forms are handed in at the relevant employment offices. This procedure results in unavoidable delays lasting from one to two months. In many cases the applicants have to wait out this period before they are notified as to whether they have qualified for employment. In most cases these people are former married officials with dependants. I should like to ask whether it is not possible that the service records of such people be requested per telephone, so that the applicant can be notified of the Administration’s decision as rapidly as possible. If this suggestion of mine is impracticable, is there not a possibility that that applicant, particularly in view of the fact that there is a pressing shortage of manpower, can be employed immediately in an existing vacancy, provided there is a vacancy, and possibly also kept on in a casual capacity while the Administration is waiting for the service record? When the service record turns up, and it appears that the person is not acceptable, his services can be terminated. If he can in fact be employed, he is then employed with effect from the day on which the Administration made use of his services for the first time. Then he has a productive period of service behind him, which is to his advantage and also to the advantage of the Administration. This suggestion of mine will also, in my humble opinion, contribute to a possible alleviation to a certain extent of the shortage of staff. It will also, in my opinion, result in more recruits being drawn, even though they are former officials who rendered very good service in the past to the Railways. A former official who turns to the Administration again regrets what he did in the past, when he possibly did the wrong thing, and the mere fact that he has returned is further proof that he is evincing, on his part, an honest attempt to rehabilitate himself in some respect or other. The actions of such an applicant redound, in my opinion, to the credit of the Administration, because it is further proof that that particular person resigned to find some other means of subsistence and that he did not succeed in doing so. Quite possibly he found a poorer means of subsistence than the service of the Administration offered him. It is an irrefutable fact that most former officials who apply for re-employment deserve a chance to be rehabilitated and in this way to supplement to a certain extent the shortage of staff. There are some of them who resigned in order to get their pensions, others resigned because disciplinary action had been taken against them, others again were dismissed because of misbehaviour or their services were terminated owing to a poor health record, and there are also hopeless cases. My experience has been that most cases are persons who apply for re-employment belong to that group where the pressing shortage exists at present, i. e. station foremen, conductors, shunters, stokers and to a lesser extent checkers and railworkers. I would appreciate it very much if the hon. the Minister will keep this suggestion, which I am offering him in all honesty in mind and ask the Management whether a solution cannot possibly be found in order to simplify that employment process.

It is nice to hear some sense for a change!

Before I return to the arguments which were raised by the United Party I must tell you that I listened very attentively to the arguments of the members on the opposite side of the House. It immediately put me in mind of the speech which the hon. member for Walmer made in his constituency during November of last year on the occasion of a “United Party dinner” where 80 people were present. There the hon. member said—I am surprised that the hon. member is still sitting on the United Party side of the House—that the United Party was a slumbering party, I sat listening to them, and I must tell you that as far as Railway matters are concerned, they are a slumbering party, from the hon. member for Yeoville down.

Can the hon. member give any proof of that?

The hon. member says I must give proof of that. I do not want to go into that any further. It was reported in the Eastern Province Herald of 8th November, 1968, and he believes every word which is written in that newspaper. I have the clipping here. In spite of the pressing staff shortage it is informative to look up the annual report of the General Manager. That we did not get from the side of the United Party this afternoon. I do not have the time to submit all the facts contained in the report to you, but we find that in spite of the pressing shortage the Railways Administration has in many respects accomplished a great deal. I do not have the time this evening to elaborate on that. The report is available and everyone can read it for themselves.

I should like to receive a clear reply from the United Party in regard to the question of the pressing shortage which they have such a great deal to say about. The hon. member for Yeoville and numerous other speakers on that side spoke about it here this afternoon, but the hon. member for Yeoville did not come forward this afternoon with the same solution with which he came forward last year. He merely said that the hon. the Minister was trying to eliminate the pressing shortage on the Railways by means of excessive overtime and Sunday time. Let me repeat this afternoon what has already been said here. I must do this because Uitenhage is an important railway centre. Do you know what my greatest difficulty is? It is to get former officials reemployed, and to get men working in sections where overtime and Sunday time is not worked, into posts where they can work overtime and Sunday time.

Then the basic salary is inadequate.

We hear the hon. member saying that the salary is inadequate. We can accept everything, but we cannot accept that the staff are complaining about overtime and Sunday time. If that is in fact acceptable, then I find it very strange that the staff associations which, as the hon. Minister said, are very competent watchdogs, have not up to this stage complained about this matter. What are the facts? The staff associations are requesting the management from time to time to increase Sunday time and overtime scales. They have never asked for overtime and Sunday time to be abolished; never have they made complaints in this respect. However, what did we hear to-day? Complaints in this connection were put in by the hon. member for Durban (Point) and a few other hon. members opposite who still have a few railway voters left in their constituency. Not a single member on this side stated that there were complaints in this regard. I maintain that those complaints simply do not exist Thousands of railway officials are not working overtime. The United Party does not have the courage of its convictions to request that overtime should be curtailed, to say nothing of abolished! I challenge them to request the Minister to curtail overtime and Sunday time. They will not do so, they dare not do so.

Another matter I want to deal with is what we must do to alleviate the pressing manpower shortage on the Railways. What is the solution of the United Party? There I am in difficulties straight away because they have two solutions. The hon. member for Yeoville has one solution, and the hon. member for Karoo, who is a member of the United Party caucus, has another solution. What is the hon. member for Yeoville’s solution? Let us see what he said on 20th March. 1968. I am quoting from Hansard, vol. 22. col. 2509. That was the solution at the time, but he did not mention that solution this afternoon. At the time he said the following—

He added that if the Minister could not negotiate with them the Minister should resign. Now I wonder which of the two, the hon. member for Yeoville or the hon. member for Durban (Point), is going to be Minister of Transport when the United Party comes into power. That is a matter which they must settle between them. If they come into power what are they going to do if the staff associations do not want to concur? I want to assert this afternoon that the staff associations will not be amenable to any negotiations in that respect, because the seven staff associations represent the white staff in the employ of the Administration, and that is their policy.

It has already happened under this Minister.

It may have happened, but all the negotiations which the Minister has held up to now have always produced good results, and that is more than the hon. member can say. What about the hon. member for Karoo? On 18th March, 1968, he made a speech in this connection. As far as the railway officials and myself are concerned it was an extremely important speech. Certain statements were made here which no white staff member of the Administration can accept. The hon. member for Karoo would not mention a single word about those in the lower wage brackets. I am quoting from Hansard, vol. 22, col. 2373—

What does he mean by that? Not only is he reproaching the Minister, but it is in addition a damning statement to make. He is saying by implication that those posts should be filled by Coloureds. That is so. The hon. member for Karoo went further and in col. 2374 he said the following—

What kind of insinuation does that contain? I know of no engineer who does not supervise white staff. If a Coloured were then to be appointed as engineer, as the hon. member for Karoo desires, that Coloured will have to supervise white workers. That is absolutely unacceptable to us. In the last phrase the hon. member intimated that the engineers who were in fact employed, did not comply with the requirements. That is the only logical deduction one can make. [Interjections.] I am not talking to the hon. member for Yeoville now; I am now dealing with the hon. member for Karoo, and it is a pity that he is not present here. The last statement made by the hon. member for Karoo is really an extreme one. I am quoting from the same Hansard, col. 2374—

He did not say a single word about those in the lower-income brackets. He said nothing about the staff associations having to give their consent first. There was nothing of that nature.

The hon. member for Port Natal also made a speech in this House last year and he said precisely the same as the hon. member for Yeoville had said, except that he did not talk about those in the lower wage brackets. He made the same speech as that made by the hon. member for Karoo. I would just like to quote a few phrases from the speech made by the hon. member for Port Natal, as recorded in col. 2417, when he was talking about the increase in the number of passengers. He said the following—

According to him the criteria for the number of non-Whites which should be employed is the fact that passenger services are being expanded in that respect, and non-Whites must be employed regardless of whether there are Whites available or not.

But let me return to the hon. member for Karoo. He went further and in his speech of 18th March he stated that the stewards employed on the main-line passenger trains and on our aircraft and elsewhere should be replaced by non-Whites. That is then, according to him, the obvious solution. I now want to ask him whether an Airways steward, a senior flight steward, a chief flight steward, people whose salaries vary from R2,025 per annum to R2,850 per annum are people in the lower wage brackets? Then we have the stewardesses whose salaries vary from R1,575 per year to R1,800 per year. On the trains we have learner stewards, stewards, senior stewards and chief stewards, with salaries which vary from R79.50 to R195 per month. Are they among the lowest paid workers in the employ of the Administration? The time has now come when the opposite side should tell us who the persons in the lower wage brackets in the employ of the Administration are. They must tell us who these people are whom they want to replace.

The hon. member for Yeoville stated that if there are Whites who cannot be promoted then they must be provided with sheltered employment. But this is being done on the Railways every day. There are Whites, shunters and others, who are injured, and they then do sheltered employment. The speaker on that side of the House who is going to speak after me must tell us where we stand. He must tell us whether the hon. member for Yeoville’s statement is the policy statement of the United Party, and whether the hon. member for Karoo’s speech represents their policy. We must know that before the end of this debate.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who just sat down forgot to thank the hon. member who spoke just before him, namely the hon. member for Umbilo, for what I think was a very valuable contribution indeed to this debate. I think it was a very fine speech and a positive and valuable contribution to the debate. The hon. member for Uitenhage made a speech which, together with many others made on that side, I would call a purely political speech. If the hon. Minister could load his trains with political speeches made on that side, he would have full loads for many a long day to come. When he listens to some of the speeches made on his side of the House, I think he must regret the fact that they are not of such practical quality that they can be loaded into his trains—they are just wasted into thin air …

I should like to deal with a matter which arises from these Estimates, and that is the general principle of the maintenance of our narrow-gauge lines as part of our Railway system here in South Africa. They are a relic from days long past and I wonder whether the time has not come for something to be done about them. The hon. the Minister is fairly flush with money from the various departments which he administers, and I think he might have a fresh look at this whole question. Money is being spent at the present time on the re-sleeping and relaying of some of these lines, and heavy metals are being installed on some of the narrow-gauge lines to carry heavier loads, and so forth. They are an anachronism to-day. In the light of our economic development and the development facing us, which we cannot avoid, we must do something. Our industrial and economic development to-day are such that we must say, “Surely these relics of a bygone age should be discarded.” If a decision is taken to change over, it cannot be implemented within a year or two. The changeover from narrow-gauge to broad-gauge lines as a matter of policy must take quite an appreciable time before it is put into effect. In the meantime we are spending millions of rands on the maintenance of these narrow-gauge lines which can never bring interest on the capital invested.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.