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

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Message, as follows, transmitted to the Senate:

The House of Assembly having considered the versional correction notified by the Honourable the Senate, namely:

has agreed to the same and now desires the concurrence therein of the Honourable the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, this is the 15th Budget I have introduced, and for 15 years I have listened to many speeches made by hon. members of the Opposition. Over these 15 years the Opposition has had three main speakers; the first was the late Mr. Pocock, the second was Mr. Hamilton Russell and the third Opposition speaker is my friend on the other side, the hon. member for Yeoville.

Are you going to give the same reply again?

Yes, I shall do what the hon. member opposite does, but he has one story which he tells year after year; I am going to tell a quite different story this year. As I have said, the Opposition has had three main speakers, and although the hon. member for Yeoville is considered to be the most competent debater on that side of the House, I am afraid that as far as this subject is concerned, his two predecessors stood head and shoulders above him. The reason for that is very simple. Both Mr. Pocock and Mr. Hamilton Russell’s approach to the Railway Budget was that of two experienced businessmen, whereas the approach of the hon. member for Yeoville is still that of the party-political organizer. Everything the hon. member for Yeoville sees, he sees through party-political spectacles, and wherever he can make a little political capital, he does not neglect to do so. I say that the hon. member for Yeoville is competent, but I think the trouble is that the Leader of the Opposition is giving him too much work. The hon. member for Yeoville is expected to speak on every possible and impossible subject. In addition to that he has to formulate the propaganda of that party, and that is the reason why they are sitting over there. He has to write newspaper articles, and whenever the Opposition’s morale has plummeted down to rock-bottom level, it is his duty to boost it once again.

And they are not even paying him overtime.

Yes, he is really working excessive overtime. I really think that we shall have to find a way in which he may be granted an additional allowance in respect of that excessive overtime, so that he may fall into the same category as do those railway workers whom he claims are working so much excessive overtime. And finally I say that when the Leader of the Opposition is speaking, he still has to sit next to him and lend him moral and spiritual support. I want to advise the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to give that hon. member slightly less work to do. Afford him the opportunity of concentrating more on his subject, of making a better study of it. I like listening to intelligent and constructive contributions from the other side.

But will you understand them?

I shall do my best to understand them. But if he is capable of doing so, it would probably benefit the discussion of this subject.

Let us take these Estimates. These are Estimates of revenue and expenditure and capital amounting to more than R1 billion, i.e. more than R1,400 million.

Are you an American millionaire now?

Let me analyse the hon. member’s criticism. Whether it is American or South African, the fact remains that these are Estimates of capital revenue amounting to more than R1,400 million. Let me analyse the criticism which the hon. member levelled at these Estimates. In the first instance, he said that the Budget figures had no significance. This is a repetition of what has been said every year for the past 50 years. Then he referred to the 20-year period which had been determined in respect of the payment of 2 per cent compound interest on pensions. He told us that the Railways was being carried by the other branches of the undertaking. Over the years this has been said time and again. There is nothing new in that. Once again we heard the story of the pipeline and why the motorists on the Witwatersrand had to pay so much for their fuel at present while the cost of transport was so low. Then he spoke about the tariff on export ore. He spoke about the pipeline for solids, which was merely a repetition of what he had said the other day when the Bill was before Parliament. At that stage he had already fired all his ammunition. He spoke about the deepening of harbours in order that ships of between 100,000 and 200,000 tons might enter such harbours, once again a repetition of what other hon. members on his side have been saying for years. He spoke about the estimate of the cost of the Vryheid-Empangeni line. He had already said everything he had to say in that regard when the Bill was before the House, and he repeated it here.

I also mentioned three other cases.

He added a few other lines. However, in the main his speech dealt with this very same line, with the estimate of the cost of the Empangeni-Vryheid railway line. He fired all his ammunition in the previous debate when this measure was before the House.

He also spoke about the manpower shortage, something which we hear both from him and his leader every year. This year the hon. member for Hillbrow also had a story to tell in this regard. He also referred to so-called excessive overtime. Everything we had heard when the Additional Estimates had been before the House, was repeated here.

This, in effect, is the sum total of the criticism levelled at a Budget of more than R1,400 million. This is the criticism we have had from the hon. member. I am not doing him any injustice, because I went over his speech carefully and jotted down each point.

Let me deal with the budget figures first. The hon. member says that they have no significance. He says that an estimate is made, and the expenditure is more or less than the estimate, or the revenue is more or less than the estimate made at the beginning of the year. As regards the joint revenue and expenditure estimates for the year 1967-’68 there was a deviation of only .6 per cent on the original estimates. This is indeed an achievement. If the hon. member expects the estimates to be correct to the nearest cent, then I say that this amounts to expecting the impossible; this has never been the case. The hon. member is shaking his head; he intimates that he does not quite expect that. But, surely in that case he does not have the right to suggest that the budget figures have no significance. He cannot suggest that if the deviation from the budget figures amounts to only .6 per cent.

The hon. member also referred to the period of 20 years which had been determined in respect of the aggregate 2 per cent increase in pensions. As he spoke he became so excited that when he referred to old pensioners who were 80 years of age, he really had tears in his eyes and a sob in his voice. He said that I was imposing a penalty on those people by limiting that period to a maximum of 20 years. He says that I am imposing a penalty on those deserving people. A person who has 20 years of service, now receives a total increase of 58 per cent in his basic pension, the biggest increase he has ever received. This period of 20 years was determined as a result of the unanimous recommendation of a subcommittee of the Superannuation Fund which was appointed and which made recommendations. That committee comprised members of the staff as well as members of the Administration. The reason for this period of 20 years was to enable the actuaries to have a basis to work on in making assessments of the fund. When the actuaries make their recommendations in a few months’ time, the period of 20 years will be reviewed; it is not a law of the Medes and Persians. At any rate, who will expect this stipulation of 2 per cent to remain unchanged for the next 20 years? Surely, this is absurd; it can be changed at any time. I have heard nothing but words of gratitude for this concession that has been made. This is the greatest improvement in basic pensions which has ever been effected in the history of the Railways. But the hon. member is not satisfied. He says that a penalty is now being imposed on deserving cases, on the old people who are 80 years of age.

The hon. member also said that the Railways as such was being carried by the other branches of the service, inter alia, the harbours and the pipelines. That is correct. That has always been the case. What would happen if every branch of the service had to be made profitable in order that it might bear its own expenditure and expenses? That would mean that tariffs would simply have to be increased tremendously. On passenger services there is a loss of R45 million per year. If passenger services were to be made profitable in order that they might pay for themselves, a considerable increase in passenger fares would have to be introduced. Would that be in the interests of the country? Coal is being conveyed to Cape Town at a loss. Certain agricultural products are being conveyed at a loss. If all these services had to be made profitable, it would mean a considerable increase in tariffs. But it is precisely because the other branches of the service help to wipe out these deficits that the tariffs of the S.A.R. are amongst the lowest in the world. This is in the interests of the country. The hon. member mentioned the figure of R40 million as representing revenue derived from the pipeline. These are allegedly the profits which have been made and will be made out of the pipeline. The profits for the current year only amount to R20 million odd. When the new pipeline comes into operation the revenue and the profit will probably be close upon R40 million. But the new pipeline was provided for conveying crude oil, especially for stockpiling purposes, and not for conveying petroleum products. In other words, it has nothing to do with the ordinary motorist. Secondly, once the refinery has been built, the crude oil for the refinery will be conveyed along that pipeline.

The hon. member referred to export ore and said that the Railways derived a tremendous amount of revenue from conveying ore. The true position is that the total cost of conveying and handling ore is not covered by the total revenue. I fail to see why the Railways is expected to convey export ore at a loss. I think it is high time that production costs were lowered, if these people want to retain their markets. It was possible for Iscor to enter into a major contract with Japan in respect of the purchase of iron ore. I think the other producers can do the same. But apart from that I think that it is much better to process our ore here in South Africa than to export all our ore.

The hon. member referred to the deepening of the Port Elizabeth harbour in order that ships of 100,000 and 200,000 tons might enter the harbour in order to load ore. I think the hon. member for Umlazi furnished a very good reply to that, but I do not know whether this hon. member realizes that this would not only mean that the harbour would have to be deepened to a depth of approximately 70 or 80 feet, but also that a 1½ mile canal would have to be deepened, which would cost millions of rands and which would not at all be justified economically. In this regard we shall have Richard’s Bay for handling these large ships.

Then the hon. member mentioned the Vryheid-Empangeni line, as well as a few others. I want to admit at once that he expressed justified criticism. This is the case. But I want to add at once that the Railway Commissioners are not to blame. The Railway Commissioners do not make these estimates. They submit a report and the estimates are based on the information they receive from the Management. These estimates are made by the engineering division and not by the Railway Commissioners. The Railway Commissioners make the recommendations in respect of the construction of the line in question. The information they furnish in their report, is information which they received from the Management. To a certain extent this is the price which has to be paid when such a large business undertaking is controlled by Parliament. A line cannot be constructed before Parliamentary approval has been obtained. When a Bill seeking the approval of Parliament for the construction of a line is introduced, an estimate of the cost has to be furnished as well. That cost has to be approved by Parliament before a start can be made. The original estimates are made on the basis of an assessment. Aerial photographs are taken. The route is determined more on paper than on a factual basis. Subsequent to that estimates are made of the total cost. That estimate is then included in the report of the Railways and Harbours Board. It appears in the Brown Book. But the detailed planning and survey take years. If one has to wait until the detailed survey has been completed, it would take years before the construction of a line could be commenced. The general cost can only be determined once it has been possible to determine what the nature of the soil is, what the gradients should be and how many tunnels and bridges there would have to be. Even before the planning has been completed, parts of the railway line are given out on contract. In addition, there is no control over tender prices. The tender prices are often much higher than was the original estimate of the Department. The result is that at the initial stage it is virtually impossible to estimate correctly what the eventual cost of such a long and expensive railway line would be, especially when such a railway line is being constructed across the most difficult terrain which is probably to be found in South Africa. There are dozens of tunnels and bridges which have to be constructed. The nature of the soil has to be determined and major excavations have to be made, and the cost is often much more than was originally estimated. Even at this stage, when contracts have already been given out for the construction of 32 miles of that line, the final detailed plans have not been completed, and the eventual cost will perhaps be much more than was estimated originally. Such a line is not constructed in one day, but it takes years before such a line is completed. In the meantime better methods of signalling may be devised or other working requirements may be laid down. It may be found that a heavier type of truck or heavier locomotive would have to be used on that line. This additional cost is then included in the final estimate. That is the reason why there is such a great difference in this case between the original estimate and the present estimate, even though this is still not the final estimate. In addition to this I also want to say that we are experiencing a serious shortage of engineers. The engineers are responsible for the estimates and they are working under tremendous pressure and extremely difficult circumstances. In spite of that I have no hesitation whatever in saying that in general they are acquitting themselves very well of their task.

I should now like to review the question of working excessive overtime. This is a charge we have been hearing for the past year, but hon. members opposite are only making vague statements and are not referring to specific cases. Regard is not being had to the fact that there were wage increases which meant that larger amounts were paid out in respect of overtime. Nor was any regard had to the fact that overtime scales were increased last year. This also contributed to the fact that the lump sum which was paid out, was much bigger than had been paid out the previous year. It is not said here what is regarded as excessive overtime. The hon. member did not say whether working two, three, four, five or ten hours constitutes excessive overtime. Does it constitute excessive overtime when a shunter works 12-hour shifts? The majority of the shunters on the South African Railways work 12-hour shifts. Even in my time, 40 years ago, train drivers and firemen worked 12-hour shifts on shunting locomotives. Even in those days people had to work shifts on trains which took between 14 and 16 hours to reach their destinations. I quite agree that there may perhaps be individual cases where excessive overtime is being worked, but to generalize, as hon. members opposite did, is absurd. There is no such thing as excessive overtime being worked in general. Nor is overtime only being worked by the running staff. Overtime pay is spread over the various departments, i.e. transport, harbours, supplies, accounting, catering, airways, mechanics, civil engineers, etc. The overtime is spread over all these Departments and the lump sum which is mentioned here, represents the overtime that is being worked by all these Departments. In his amendment the hon. member suggests that the excessive overtime which is being worked, is detrimental to the staff in general. I just want to say that attempts are being made all the time to reduce the amount of overtime being worked, but the fact remains, however, that there is a serious manpower shortage and that in spite of this shortage the traffic has to be coped with. We convey everything which is offered, which does our staff a great deal of credit.

The other point of criticism the hon. member raised, was in connection with the manpower shortage. He wanted to know what I was going to do in this respect. Mr. Speaker, 15 years ago when I took over this portfolio we had a transport crisis and a manpower shortage. This very same question was then put to me by the hon. member’s predecessor. It was even predicted that the Railways would never recover again and that it had served its purpose, but what did in point of fact happen? In 1954 the Railways conveyed 71.9 million tons of goods. Last year the Railways conveyed 123 million tons of goods. Over all these years there has been a manpower shortage. In addition there has always been general satisfaction on the part of the public about the services provided by the Railways, and the public does not believe the absurd statements made here by the hon. member, i.e. in regard to unprecedented delays and the complaints of farmers about the condition in which their livestock reaches the markets owing to bad treatment as a result of the manpower shortage. What bad treatment do livestock receive as a result of the manpower shortage? Vague statements are being made here, statements which have no grounds whatsoever. He says that owing to delays, and so forth, Durban is farther away from Johannesburg than it ought to be. But the hon. member did not come forward with one single statement of fact to prove his statements. His statements are groundless and then he bases an attack on them without being able to prove a single one of them. He wants to know what I intend doing when I buy the new aircraft. He wants to know how I am going to man them.

I wanted to know how you were going to maintain them and not how you were going to man them.

The hon. member and other hon. members want to know how I would be able to man and maintain these aircraft. How have we succeeded in maintaining the aircraft we have purchased up to now? Does the hon. member think for one moment that I shall purchase aircraft while I am convinced that we shall not be able to maintain them and consequently to ensure the safety of the public and the aircraft. Surely, this is an absurd statement for the hon. member to make. This will definitely not happen. In order to cope with the manpower shortage, more and more mechanization is being introduced all the time. As I have already said, automation is being introduced. Furthermore, there is a continuous reorganization of staff and more and more new working methods are being introduced.

The hon. member for Yeoville went further and levelled a very serious charge by saying that the “letter of the law with regard to the maintenance of aircraft was not being complied with” because the necessary manpower was not available. By way of interjection I said that it was untrue, but the hon. member claims that it is the truth. Now I should like to know from the hon. member what he means by that. His statement casts a serious reflection on the safety which these aircraft offer. If one allows his statement to be spread without being challenged, it may give rise to anxiety amongst members of the travelling public. He says, “The letter of the law is not being complied with as far as the maintenance of aircraft is concerned”. Would the hon. member tell me what he means by that as soon as he gets another turn to speak? I want to tell him that this is quite untrue, quite untrue. There is not a word of truth in the statement made by the hon. member. A detailed maintenance schedule has to be drawn up in respect of each type of aircraft. In that schedule every part of the aircraft, its engines and the equipment which have to be checked, in accordance with the number of flying hours completed, must be specified. These schedules are drawn up in consultation with overseas airlines and must be approved by the Department of Transport. The technician who does the work must sign for each item and the checklists are countersigned by the responsible inspectors. Finally, the supervisory staff must sign the various certificates, as required in terms of the regulations, before the aircraft may be released for service. The maintenance procedure of the S.A.A. is in full accordance with international standards. The regulations are strictly complied with. Now I want to challenge the hon. member for Yeoville to prove this statement of his as soon as he is afforded an opportunity of doing so.

The manpower shortage formed a very important part of the hon. member’s speech. He said, “As long as we carry on with the present labour pattern, manpower shortages will not be solved”. What does the hon. member mean by “present labour pattern”? He did not tell us and I should very much like to know.

I say that year after year, and then you accuse me of not coming forward with something new.

That may be the case. The hon. member may raise that here year after year, but he has never been specific. To-day I want to afford the hon. member the opportunity of saying specifically what he means by this. Does he mean by that that all vacancies should be filled by non-Whites? [Interjections.] The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows as little of labour matters as does a baboon of religion. Therefore he should rather keep quiet. [Interjections.] He speaks about labour matters all the time, but he must be spoonfied because he himself knows nothing of them. To-day I want a clear answer, either from him or from his lieutenant, the hon. member for Yeoville. On a previous occasion the hon. member said that we had to appoint more non-Whites to posts which had previously been filled by Whites, “with the approval and co-operation of the trade unions”. Is that what the hon. member said?

Yes.

I have therefore quoted the hon. member correctly.

It really did not take you long to find out what our point of view is, because a moment ago you said that you did not know what we meant.

Allow me to analyse further what the hon. member means by that. He said that non-Whites had to be employed, with the co-operation and approval of trade unions, and appointed to posts which had previously been filled by Whites. The hon. member admits to having said that. But suppose the trade unions do not grant their permission for this to be done. What is he going to do then? [Interjections.]

Now he sits there with his finger in his mouth.

The hon. member should not shrug his shoulders now. The hon. member must answer.

I did not shrug my shoulders.

Hon. members must be clear and specific, please! Suppose the trade unions do not want to give their approval for that to be done. Suppose further that the United Party is in power and has to deal with such a serious manpower shortage. What are they going to do? Are they going to acquiesce in what the trade unions say, or would they nevertheless, in spite of what the trade unions say, take on non-Whites? What are they going to do? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Yeoville are consulting each other. They must confer with each other now, because they do not know what they are going to do. [Interjections.] We have had to deal with this dishonest bluff for long enough. Now we want to know specifically what the point of view of that side is. It is of no use to come forward with the story that the trade unions must agree, and to hope to solve the problem in that way. What are they going to do if the trade unions do not agree? What is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition going to do then? Would he then still take on non-Whites, in spite of that?

The same story every year …

Just listen to the nonsense which is being bandied about. Every year we hear, and I once again expected it this year, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition speaking about the labour shortage. For a wonder he neglected to do so this year. But his lieutenant did. But otherwise the hon. the Leader speaks about the serious manpower shortage every year, and suggests that the Government is doing nothing to solve it. He says that they do not want the colour bar to be abolished. Oh, no! They are afraid of the political consequences of such a step. But now they say that the present “labour pattern” is wrong. They say that more non-Whites should be employed. The hon. member for Salt River said, “Make use of all the available labour”. Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition agree with the hon. member for Salt River? [Interjections.] Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition agree with the hon. member for Salt River when he says, “Make use of all the available labour”?

You get that every year.

I did not get it every year. All I got every year, was political dishonesty. They have never stated frankly what they mean. They have only come forward with the greatest measure of political dishonesty every year. Let me ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition once again whether he agrees with the hon. member for Salt River when he says, “Make use of all available labour”. [Interjections.] Do you agree with that? I hear the hon. member for Salt River saying, “What is wrong with that”? At least the hon. member is honest. He asks, “What is wrong with making use of all the available labour”? Now what is “all the available labour”? [Interjections.]

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

I am always prepared to answer questions, as long as they are intelligent questions. If the hon. member believes that he can put an intelligent question, he may do so.

I am going to put to the hon. the Minister an intelligent question. I only hope that I shall get an intelligent reply. May I ask him whether he knows how many Bantu „ploegbase” he is using on the Railways?

Yes, of course, I do.

How many?

I have been using quite a number of native foremen or boss boys, because the maintenance of my track is being mechanized and I am using Matisa stampers for that. Consequently I am using not „ploeg-base” but what we call „baanmeesters” for supervision, and I have Bantu foremen to do the necessary work on the track. But that has nothing to do with the policy of the United Party. At the moment I am speaking about the United Party’s policy. I would be quite prepared to say what my policy is; I have never been afraid to do it.

Well, let us hear it.

The hon. member is going to hear it; let him just be patient. I want to know what the Opposition’s policy is. We cannot allow the Opposition to get away with this every year.

*Year after year the Opposition comes here and attacks the Government about the existing labour shortage, but what happens when we ask them what their policy is? Then we receive the reply we received from that hon. member: “We say take on more non-Whites with the permission of the trade unions.” But I want to know what their policy would be if the trade unions did not want to grant their permission; this is something they are not prepared to say. They do not have the courage of their convictions to say that whether or not the trade unions agree, they would be prepared to appoint non-Whites to posts which had previously been filled by Whites. Sir, if they evinced political honesty, they would rise a great deal in my estimation, even though I may differ with them, but they do not have the courage to do so. The only thing they can do, is to sit over there and laugh amongst themselves in an absurd manner; they are not prepared to answer.

The tactics are so transparent.

Mr. Speaker, the Opposition has never replied to this. They evade this every year, just as they are doing in regard to their absurd race federation policy, which is a silly policy and which cannot possibly be implemented.

What is your policy in this regard?

[Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, they say that if one throws a stone into a pack of mongrels, they start howling. Look at the way they are carrying on, simply because they do not have the courage of their convictions to state what their policy is.

What is your policy?

This is my policy: I have already replaced thousands of white rail-workers by Bantu. I have probably replaced between 8,000 and 9,000 by Bantu. I do not want a white man to do pick and shovel work if it can be prevented at all; I let the Bantu do it. I want to give the white man a better position. I have employed quite a number of Bantu where there has been a shortage of Whites, and I did so with the support and co-operation of the trade unions.

And if they refuse?

I am referring to my policy, not to their policy.

And if they refuse?

If hon. members would keep quiet for a moment, I shall tell them. I filled certain posts with Bantu, in spite of the refusal of the trade unions, because I considered it to be in the interests of the country. In the Transkei all the bus assistants and most of the bus drivers are Bantu. I appointed the Bantu there because I considered it to be in the interests of the country. I appointed numerous Bantu clerks at stations in white areas, because I want the Bantu to serve their own people. Whether or not the trade unions are in favour of it, I do it if it is in the interests of the country. I did not display the cowardliness those hon. members are displaying. With me it is a question of what is in the interests of the country, and if it is in the interests of the country to go even further than that, then I shall do so, whether or not the trade unions agree with it. I am not hiding behind the trade unions. But those hon. members do not want to come forward with their policy in an honest manner. I asked them one day whether they would repeal the Mines and Works Act, which provides that no non-white person may be issued with a blasting certificate. They will say that they do not want to do so. Mr. Speaker. I have very great respect for any party which evinces political honesty and has the courage of its convictions, but I only have the greatest contempt for a party which is afraid to say what it will actually do if it comes into power.

†The hon. member for Durban (Point) is unavoidably absent, and I do not like dealing with an hon. member in his absence, so I will wait until the Third Reading of the Bill before replying to the points made by him. As a matter of fact, he will have an opportunity then of speaking more nonsense before I reply.

The hon. member for Salt River talked about a revaluation of jobs. What does he mean by a revaluation of jobs?

Exactly what I said.

That is my trouble. All he said was “revaluation of jobs”; he said nothing else. What I understand by a revaluation of jobs is that one must determine what responsibilities are involved, what knowledge is required for a particular job and what wages must be paid for that job. But the hon. member used the term in the context of making use of the available labour and the available labour is black, yellow, brown and white. The hon. member nods his head; he says that is what he meant. At least he is honest. He is the one member on that side who is prepared to say what he means. I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must learn a lesson from him.

You still do not know what he said.

Well, I have tried to suggest what he said and he nods his head; he says that that is what he said. He must know what he means.

You have been Minister of Labour and you know exactly what I mean.

Sir, the hon. member says that excessive overtime often results in divorces and excessive drinking. I think the staff will be very interested to hear that.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) said that accused persons should be allowed legal representation. I have dealt with that on former occasions. When a servant is charged under the disciplinary regulations, he is not charged before a court of law; it is something totally different. He has the opportunity when he appeals to have one of his own men appearing with him to plead his case.

But he is not a legal man.

That has worked quite satisfactorily for at least the last 50 years. The hon. member also spoke about the Durban harbour being inadequate. Sir, I think the reply to that was given by the hon. member for Umlazi.

Last year’s version or this year’s version?

When the hon. member for Umlazi spoke yesterday, it was really amusing to see how ostentatious they were, turning to each other and talking and laughing, but all the time listening to what he was saying.

He did not know what he was talking about.

The United Party has lost the only member who could speak with authority and with knowledge on harbours and now they have nobody left who can speak on harbours. [Interjections.] Sir, I have always listened with pleasure to the hon. member for Umlazi in spite of the fact that he had criticized me. At least he knew what he was talking about, which is very much more that I can say of the majority of members on that side.

The hon. member for Umbilo wanted lighter uniforms for the staff. I can say that discussions between the staff organizations and the management are taking place in this regard. He also spoke about the sea oil terminal and said that people were very concerned about the possible oil pollution of the beaches. I know that the Durban City Council is against the building of this oil terminal. This is again typical of the attitude of the Opposition. They have been pleading for the building of oil terminals for a number of years, and now that it has become a practical project they say that there is a danger of oil pollution of the beaches.

We asked for guarantees.

The oil terminal is being built by the oil companies and they are paying for it. According to the information I have at my disposal, they are prepared to give all the necessary guarantees against leakages and against pollution of the beaches.

Have they given it?

That oil terminal is going to be built, and when it is built it will enable tankers of 200,000 and more tons to offload their oil at that terminal.

Have they given guarantees?

I do not know; they probably have. According to the information I have, they have. Why is the hon. member laughing? What is amusing about this?

Because you do not know whether they have given any guarantees.

The people who should be concerned about a guarantee are the Durban Municipality.

And the Government.

The hon. member for Uitenhage spoke about the delay in re-employing persons who has been in the service before, and he asked whether the records could not be obtained sooner. Attempts can be made to obtain the records sooner. But I want to point out that in 1968 there were 16,846 resignations and 16,875 ex-railwaymen reapplied for work, but of the latter number we only reemployed 8,446 as the records of most of the others were so bad that one simply could not re-employ them.

†The hon. member for South Coast pleaded for the conversion of the narrow gauge lines to standard gauge lines. Well, we have discussed that matter before. I do not contest the desirability of that at all. It is merely a question of finance and economics. I am afraid that we simply cannot afford it now, because it means the building of completely new lines and not merely the widening of the lines.

Now I come to the hon. member for Durban (Central). The hon. member spoke about the Windhoek disaster. Actually his speech was a motion of no confidence in the commission of inquiry, and in many of his own colleagues, and he made the most serious reflections on the competence and ability of senior officers of the S.A. Airways. I am going to show in the course of my speech that all his remarks are completely without foundation. I reject all his conclusions unreservedly and I really think the hon. member owes an apology to the senior officers of S.A. Airways.

First of all the hon. member spoke about the composition of the crew. He said three men who had never flown together before were placed on this Boeing, and according to him, that was probably one of the contributory factors to the disaster. Now, what is the position in regard to that? And my authority is the commission of inquiry. In regard to the composition of the crew, South African Airways’ pilots are trained strictly according to standardized procedures when converting to a new type of aircraft. They are regularly checked during their six-monthly refresher courses to ensure that they adhere to standardized procedures. This includes the use of cockpit check-lists covering every phase of flight from before starting to after landing. Apart, therefore, from the fact that it would be difficult to ensure that individual members of the crew have previously flown together, it is completely unnecessary in an operation such as that of S.A. Airways. It will be appreciated that airline flying is completely different from Air Force practice. In the major airlines of the world thousands of pilots are employed, many of whom may not even know their other crew members on an individual flight, and as far as is known, no airline has that requirement that the same team must always fly together. In other words, the fact that there were three men flying together who had never flown together before is certainly not a contributory cause of the accident, otherwise the commission of inquiry would have said so. Then the hon. member spoke about conversion of pilots from one type of aircraft to another. The board of inquiry dealt with that, but several of the world’s major airlines do not require any conversion flying training at all where a pilot is already qualified on the “B” type of Boeing. The “B” and “C” types are essentially the same. Captain Smith had had several hundred hours’ experience on “B” types, and a total of 4,600 hours on 707s all in all. But this matter was also dealt with by the commission of inquiry, and this is what the commission said in that regard—

In other words, he complied with the requirements of the Boeing Company and we did what a number of major airlines do not do. In other words, they give no conversion course to their pilots before they switch them over from one 707 to this particular type of 707.

The hon. member spoke about the health of Captain Smith. This is a motion of no confidence in his own colleagues. This matter was fully dealt with by the commission of inquiry, which consisted of experts, men who were practical flying men. A pilot from B.O.A.C. whom I got from overseas was one of the members, together with Acting Judge Margo. Apart from that, both hon. members are assuming that Captain Smith was at the controls at the time, but there is no evidence that he was. It might just have been possible that Holliday was at the controls and not Captain Smith.

Is that an unfair assumption?

I say they are assuming that he was at the controls. The whole tenor of their argument was that he was at the controls. I do not say that is an unfair assumption. The commission says, in addition, that on the last occasion of his medical examination Captain Smith’s blood pressure in successive tests was found to be slightly raised, and he was required to submit himself to a full medical examination in that regard. But the medical authorities did not consider this as urgent, and certainly did not regard his blood pressure as rendering him unfit for flying duties. I wonder whether the hon. member knows that there is no branch of our economy where the men concerned have such strict medical examinations as my pilots. Has the hon. member ever been to the Medical Institute at Voortrekkerhoogte? I suggest that he go there. Then he will see what type of medical examination my pilots have to go through. I went through there and I know. I do not think there is a better equipped hospital or institute in the whole of South Africa. They go through the most strict medical tests before they receive their certificates as to their fitness to fly. As I have shown, the commission says further that he was required to submit himself to a full medical investigation in that regard. They say the possibility of a heart attack was not even considered. But now the board goes further. It says—

The hon. member also maintained that his sight was found to be defective, and that we do not know whether he had the right glasses or not. But the fact remains that he did have glasses. But the board dealt with it and it came to the conclusion that it is most unlikely that Captain Smith would have continued to fly at night if his vision was such that he could not see the flight instruments adequately.

But the hon. member does not accept this. The hon. member repudiates this report. [Interjections.] Apparently these hon. gentlemen did not listen to his speech.

Then the hon. member spoke about the tablets found in the cockpit, and the whole tenor of his speech was to cast suspicion on the findings of the commission. Why else did he make the speech he did, if that was not his intention? He opened a medical book to show us what the ingredients of that tablet were. What did the commission say about the tablet? They say the anti-histamine and pain-killing tablets found on the floor of the flight deck were not necessarily associated with Captain Smith, and there is no evidence to establish that Captain Smith was taking drugs or any other form of medication. That is what the board found. The commission found, however, that his raised blood pressure might have caused some anxiety on his part in regard to his immediate future.

Do not stop there!

But that has nothing to do with the tablets. [Interjections.] I have never found such unintelligent people as the hon. members on the other side. [Interjections.]

Order!

Will the hon. member please listen to the rest that I am going to read. The report states—

That has nothing to do with these tablets.

Of course it has.

Ask the hon. member for Durban (Central) whether one uses that kind of tablet for high blood pressure. The hon. member for Yeoville does not know what he is talking about. One does not use that type of tablet, an anti-histamine, for high blood pressure, one does not use it for anxiety. The board found that he might have been taking treatment privately, but that had nothing to do with these tablets. He might have been taking this treatment—and that is only an assumption on the part of the board—but not the tablets. That hon. gentleman gave the impression that these tablets were actually there to be taken by Captain Smith.

The hon. gentleman spoke about Captain Smith. As I say, the whole implication, the whole tenor of his speech was based on the assumption that Captain Smith was flying this aeroplane. Why should he otherwise talk about his difficulty in converting from a DC7 to a Boeing 707, if that was not the assumption? Of course that was what he wished to imply. What is the position in that regard? One of the points the hon. member made was the difficulty Captain Smith experienced when converting from DC7 to Boeing 707. I am dealing with this matter fully because it received a lot of publicity, and I hope the hon. member is listening. It is significant that the board of enquiry makes no mention of this point at all. It is suggested that the reason therefore is that the point has no relevance. It is by no means unusual for a pilot to fail his first test after doing a conversion course. He is then given fresh training and undergoes a second test afterwards. If he fails the second test, he is reverted to his prior aircraft type. What is important is that at the time of the accident Captain Smith had completed 4,600 hours on all models Boeing 707 aircraft and several hundred hours on “B” series, which is essentially the same as “C” series. Since converting to the 707 he had undergone regular instrument rating renewal tests at six-monthly intervals, and his proficiency in each test was assessed as average, that is, satisfactory. During his service as a 707 captain he had also been subjected to seven route checks carried out by S.A.A. training captains and the overseas fleet captain. In all these checks his proficiency was assessed as average. His last six-monthly instrument check was completed about seven weeks prior to the accident. The fact that Captain Smith experienced difficulty on initial conversion to 707s would therefore have had no bearing on his proficiency several years later. Why did the hon. member mention this? It is not even mentioned in the report. He would not have mentioned it if he did not wish to imply that Captain Smith was inefficient as a result of these circumstances, and yet he was flying the aeroplane in question.

The hon. member spoke about the instrument panel layout, saying that might have been the cause of the accident. According to him, all these were contributory factors. Well, what is the position in regard to that? The C series of aircraft, unlike previous models, is fitted with a radio altimeter as part of the instrumentation required for landing in very low weather, in minimum conditions. In conformity with the instrument layout of the 707C, as approved by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, this instrument is located immediately to the right of the normal pressure altimeter on the instrument panel, which is the position occupied by the vertical speed indicator on the other types of aircraft. In the C aircraft the v.s.i. was located immediately below the pressure altimeter. As the v.s.i. is not considered as a primary flight instrument, this very minor change in position is not considered significant. That is the position in regard to the instrument panel layout.

All instrument readings at take-off must be monitored by the co-pilot, in other words, there are two pairs of eyes on all the instruments which are duplicated in the cockpit. Two pairs of eyes are concentrated on all the flight instruments in the cockpit, and the instruments are all duplicated. When the plane starts rolling forward both the pilot and the co-pilot have their eyes fixed on the speed indicators to know when to take off. When the plane has taken off, they immediately focus their eyes on the altimeter to watch the height. These altimeters are very easy to read, one does not require very strong glasses for that. It has a long pointer which rotates clockwise when the plane is climbing, and as long as it rotates clockwise it means the plane is ascending. What happened in this case, according to the commission’s report, is that after the flaps were withdrawn the trim was out of order and neither the pilot nor the co-pilot saw that the pointer was either stationary or it was moving anti-clockwise. There is no excuse for that. There was a pilot and a co-pilot, and one of them was monitoring the instruments. Both of them, for some reason or other, which nobody will ever be able to explain, had their eyes off the altimeter. Instead of seeing that the pointer was either standing still or rotating anti-clockwise, they flew into the ground. This all happened in a couple of seconds.

Will the hon. the Minister read out from page 54 of the report about their being ground for believing that there was premature pre-occupation on the part of the co-pilot with the after take-off period.

Precisely. I say that must have happened. If it did happen, it was against all regulations.

If Captain Smith was the co-pilot …?

He might have been the co-pilot, we do not know, nobody will ever know. The commission could not establish who was actually flying the plane, whether it was Captain Holliday or Captain Smith. That is a matter that could not be established at all. I say the assumption was that Captain Smith was flying the plane, but there is no evidence at all that he was flying the plane.

If he was the co-pilot then he might have been preoccupied prematurely, according to the commission.

He might have been preoccupied but the man who was at the controls was not preoccupied and it was his job to look at the altimeter. The hon. member is a former flyer and he should know that. When you are ascending and you are only 600 feet up, you do not take your eyes off the altimeter.

Somebody did.

I know; that is why the plane crashed.

Then the hon. member spoke about “elderly” pilots. Now, what does he regard as an elderly pilot? Captain Smith was 49 years of age. Is 49 too old to fly a jet? Surely the hon. member as a medical man should know it is not a question of years; it is a question of physical and mental fitness. You find one man old at 50 and another man young at 60—indeed, the hon. member is young at 80! Surely that is a compliment? Surely it is a question of reflexes too, and the hon. member as a medical man knows you cannot establish whether a man’s reflexes are sufficiently fast or not. I have personal experience of reflexes. Four years ago I was in trouble with a wounded lioness. She charged at seven yards. I was 60 years of age at the time, but my reflexes were still so quick, that when she charged, I could jump aside and shoot her through the heart. At the same time, she had still sufficient strength to attack my friend and maul his arm. Two years later, at the age of 62, I again had trouble with a wounded lion. Then I felt that my reflexes were slowing down. I realized that it was time then to pack away my big rifles, which I did. It is a question of reflexes. One cannot say that the reflexes of a man of 49 have slowed down to such an extent that he cannot pilot a jet plane anymore. What is the position as regards other airlines? [Interjections.]

Order!

Those hon. gentlemen have never seen a lion, except in a zoo. [Laughter.] I have said before that I would have liked to take the Leader of the Opposition out in dense bush after a wounded buffalo or after a wounded lion and see what is in his trousers! [Laughter.] In Afrikaans we say “ons kyk wat in sy broek sit”.

Do you not think that you are going below the belt now?

Yes, that is below the belt.

In regard to the older pilots, I wish to say that our pilots retire at the age of 55. In the U.S.A. and many countries in Europe they are permitted to work until the age of 60. In the U.S.A. the Pilots’ Association is trying to sponsor amending legislation to raise the compulsory retiring age beyond 60. It would be quite impossible to preclude our older pilots, who, after all, are the most senior and the most experienced, from progressing to more advanced types of equipment. As I say, in other airlines pilots at the age of 60 are still piloting jets. They want to make the age even higher. I think that argument of the hon. member has no ground whatsoever, namely that Captain Smith, at 49 years of age, was too old to have flown a jet. The hon. member said that the Windhoek Airport was one of the most dangerous in South Africa.

Not dangerous—difficult.

The hon. member said it was “the most dangerous”. The hon. member should read his Hansard again. They had to take off in pitch darkness at night. That is quite right. They do take off in pitch darkness. But that in itself does not make it so dangerous. The same conditions apply to the take-off from Sal Island. We take off from the runway right over the sea. There are no lights. It is quite dark. I have been there. That is a regular stop for South African Airways. That is an exercise which Captain Smith had performed on numerous occasions, and even First Officer Holliday had been on Sal Island. On page 14 of the report, it is noted by the board that Captain Smith “had experienced a total of five night departures from J. G. Strydom Airport” as a Boeing 707 captain. I do not want the public to become concerned about this allegation which the hon. member made about “the most dangerous airport”. It is simply not so. There are many airports in the world where they take off in total darkness.

Lastly, I want to quote what the commission said in regard to the staff of the Airways itself. I say that is why I think the hon. member owes my senior officers an apology. I quote:

Apparently the hon. member does not accept the evidence and the recommendations and findings of a board consisting of experts. I can only say, if the hon. member’s diagnosis of a patient’s illness, when he was in medical practice, was as reliable as his diagnosis of the Windhoek disaster, I feel sorry for his patients.

I now come to the hon. member for Albany. It was quite a good speech. As a matter of fact, I think it is the best speech that he has made in this House. It was a very eloquent speech, although I do not agree with him. He was mainly concerned about flight recorders. I said, by way of interjection, that I did not think the flight recorder would have helped to establish the cause of the accident. He maintained that it would have helped. Now what do the flight recorders that we are installing, actually record? The applicable South African regulation requires not less than five different items of information that must be recorded. They call them parameters. The items are the following: The first item is the time. The time of the accident was established. The second item is altitude. The board established the altitude, namely between 600 and 700 feet. The third item is air speed, which was established. The fourth parameter is vertical acceleration, which is something which might have been recorded. The last one is “heading of aircraft”. Even if a flight recorder were installed in the Boeing that crashed at Windhoek, I do not think it would have contributed any evidence at all.

May I ask another question of the hon. the Minister? I want to put a question to him about the vertical air speed. Is the hon. the Minister prepared to concede that the instrument showing the vertical air speed, the instrument in the pilot’s cabin, could have been showing different data from what the flight recorder would have been showing?

I doubt it. It is an open question. It is a possibility that some information recorded by the flight recorder might have been of assistance; but I say there is no evidence that it would have been of assistance. We realize the necessity of having flight recorders. As a matter of fact, those that we are installing can record 14 different items, including such items as pitch attitude, pitch rate, roll attitude, roll rate, yaw attitude, yaw rate, pitch trim position, control column position, rudder pedal, control wheel, thrust of each engine, position of appropriate highlift devices and ambient air temperature. Eventually, when they have been fitted, they will be able to record all these data. That would have been of great use. But I say again that the flight recorders were not essential. In any case, a flight recorder would not have prevented the accident. That is the main point. I think that the cause of the accident was established as far as possible, although it was to a very large extent based on circumstantial evidence.

Then the hon. member spoke about the Rietbok. He maintained that, if I.L.S. were installed at East London, it would probably have prevented the disaster. I do not know on which grounds he is basing that statement. Let me deal with the Rietbok report itself. I quoted on page 16:

The board is of the opinion that aids such as V.O.R. and I.L.S. would have been of considerable assistance to the pilot of the “Rietbok”, but that the existing aids were sufficient to enable him to find East London comfortably, and to carry out the safe let-down procedure on Runway 28 or on Runway 10. On the evidence, the accident was not due to inadequate aids, though the presence of further aids might have enabled more information to be obtained on the movements and precise position of the aircraft at all relevant times.

That is a tape recorder, but not the I.L.S. Even if the I.L.S. was installed at East London, the accident could still have happened. The pilot, while descending on an I.L.S. beam to land at the airport, might still have had a heart attack and smashed into the earth. Or he could have had a blackout.

Where is that in the report?

I do not say that the report states it, but I say that that is a possibility. It could have happened.

Is that something you say?

That is something that I say. Even if he did approach East London at an altitude of 4,000 feet and he was descending on an I.L.S. beam, before he touched down, he could have had a heart attack or a blackout, as he probably had, over the sea and dived into the earth. That is quite a possibility. But the fact remains that the I.L.S. was not essential and the absence of the apparatus did not contribute to the accident. That was found by the board.

Order! The hon. member for Albany wants to ask a question. Is the hon. the Minister prepared to answer it?

I am prepared to answer any question.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. the Minister, if there had been I.L.S. and radar at East London Airport whether it would have been necessary for the pilot to come below 4,500 feet before starting his blind approach?

Probably, yes, for the simple reason that it is not dangerous to bring an aeroplane down to 2,000 feet. According to all the available information the plane was at an altitude of 2,000 feet. That is not dangerous. It is not dangerous and the commission said it is not dangerous. That is what the commission said in that regard. [Interjections.]

Order!

I am saying what the commission said—

The hon. member knows better than the board I suppose. [Interjections.] It would have made no earthly difference whether the aircraft was at 10,000 feet. If the pilot got a blackout and he was within 2,000 feet of that runway, he could still have run into the ground. The hon. member should know that. I think there is nothing more to say about the Rietbok disaster. I am prepared to accept this Commission’s report. In its report the board also said the following:

As a matter of fact, I said that right from the start. It is the only thing that could have happened. While the aircraft was coming into East London they switched off the automatic pilot. The pilot was then handling the controls and he might have fallen forward onto the stick, pressed it forward and dived into the sea within seconds. All these arguments about I.L.S. at East London hold no water at all.

The hon. member talked about the Viscount that was off course. He said that if there had been radar at East London it might have been prevented. In that regard I can only say this—

Even if radar was installed there is absolutely no certainty that the traffic controller would have watched radar while this aeroplane was departing. The radar which we have at our airports have very limited range. Even if the traffic controller saw that this plane was going north-east instead of following its course, he might have thought that there was a valid reason for and that the pilot might change back to his ordinary course. So, if the hon. member thinks that radar would have prevented this going off course of the Viscount, he is quite wrong. What actually happened was not that the wrong course was set by them in the air, but it was set by the First Officer while they were still on the ground. It was purely negligence on their part that they did not notice it. They did not look at the magnetic compass while they were going along until the third man behind them Spotted the compass and said that they were flying in the wrong direction. Then they only found out.

The hon. member spoke about public relations. He wanted us to issue an immediate statement after this had happened so that the public could know that there was a plane off course. That does not happen when a passenger train runs through a danger signal. We do not issue public statements for such things. It is not necessary. It would be covered by a report. This was purely a departmental matter; there was no accident; nobody was hurt and nothing happened. I think that this has nothing to do with public relations.

Then the hon. member made a comparison of salaries. That kind of comparison is odious, since the economy of South Africa is quite different from that of other countries. You cannot compare salaries merely on a basis of rands and cents. You have to take everything else into consideration. If the allowances they receive are included, our pilots, upon the whole, are well paid for their job in comparison with the pilots of other countries. You cannot compare the wages and salaries of South Africa with those of the United States of America; there can be no comparison at all.

I must say I have always liked listening to the hon. member for Umlazi, even in those days when he criticized me. Now he can get the right information and that is why his attitude is quite different. [Laughter.] You see, Mr. Speaker, this hon. member is willing to learn, but those hon. members who are now laughing will never learn.

The hon. member for Karoo was very concerned and he, in fact, took up the cudgel on behalf of the hon. member for Port Natal. He said that I was unfair. I did not give credit where credit was due in regard to the decision not to proceed with the building of a compound at the Bay Head in Durban. He attacked me for giving the credit to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. But, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Port Natal has put questions and my replies were statements of fact. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana made representations; he even headed a delegation to consult the Deputy Minister. There is quite a difference between statements of fact and the receiving of representations. Therefore, it is quite right that the hon. member for Umhlatuzana deserved the credit. Then the hon. member suggested that overtime be consolidated with basic wages and that hours of duty should be reduced. I have never heard of that before and I do not know how it can be done.

It is a good one for your staff.

I would like the hon. member to explain fully what he meant by consolidating overtime, because there is no uniform basis of working overtime—some people might work an hour overtime while others work 12 hours overtime a day; some people might work 12 hours a week, and some 24 hours a week. I just do not know how on earth you can consolidate that with basic wages. After consolidating overtime with basic wages, you will still have to cope with reduced hours. I think the hon. member should think again.

He wanted to know what the policy was in regard to train services to new Coloured townships. Well, the interdepartmental committee was established in 1954 and they deal with these matters and they make the recommendations.

In regard to the maintenance of rolling stock, I can give him the assurance that it is as good as that on any other railway system. The maintenance of rolling stock is excellent on the South African Railways.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

No. The time for asking questions is past. The hon. member can speak again during the Committee Stage, after I have finished my speech.

*Mr. Speaker, I think that in general the Budget had a very good reception. It was received very well by all interested parties as well as by all non-interested parties. In fact, it was even well received by Opposition newspapers and by the Opposition itself. There was no criticism worth mentioning in regard to the Budget.

What have we been doing for the past few hours?

Yes, that is the trouble. I always have to reply to questions which have no bearing on the Estimates. This happens every year. Mr. Speaker, I think that over the past year the Railways has acquitted itself very well of its task. There were no serious complaints on the part of the public, and the Railways met the needs of the country in spite of the very serious manpower shortage which exists. I appreciate the contributions made by hon. members on this side of the House and especially the tribute they paid to the railway staff, for they really performed a Herculean task. After 15 years, in spite of what was said by hon. members on the other side, I myself still have the full support and loyalty of all my staff associations—and I am very proud of this—in spite of the fact that I often have had to say “no” to their requests. Mr. Speaker, we are now entering a new year and we are facing it confidently. The Railways will once again do everything in its power to meet all the transport needs of the country and to make the railway train run fast and smoothly on a straight line.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—116: Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Boden-stein, P.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. W.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Del port, W. H.; De Wet, C.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Haak, J. F. W.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Holland, M. W.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Lewis, H. M.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reineeke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Stofberg, L. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van den Heever, D. J. G.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Niekerk, M. C.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Visser, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. van den Berg, P. S. van der Merwe, H. J. van Wyk and W. L. D. M. Venter.

Noes—37: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff De V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Mitchell. D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Smith, W. J. B.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman. H.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Waterson, S. F.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. H. Hope-well.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.

(Committee Stage)

Schedule 1: Revenue Services, and Schedule 2: Capital and Betterment Services:

Heads Nos. 1 to 15 and 17,—Railways, R735,985,000 (Revenue Funds) and Heads Nos. 1, R18,152,700; 2 (a), R72,683,900; 3, R28,511,600; 4, R280,000; 8, R3,662,700 and 9, R750,000 (Capital and Betterment Works):

Mr. Chairman, may I have the privilege of the half-hour? I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. the Minister. I do not think it helped much to clarify issues which were raised by the hon. members on this side during the Second Reading debate. The hon. the Minister made the point that it is the fifteenth time that he has made this type of speech. I know the beginning of the hon. the Minister’s speech almost by heart. I think that we are all aware that, in the hon. the Minister’s opinion, I as critic of the Railways on this side of the House, am an outsider and a bit “square”, as our children would say. The point I want to make is that the Minister always starts his speech by hurling insults at speakers on this side of the House. I have listened to those insults for 15 years. If the Minister’s reflexes are slowing down as far as hunting is concerned, his ability to hurl insults is also weakening. I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should read the speech of the hon. member for Randburg. There was a piece of vituperation which was worthwhile. There was a master in action. I think the hon. the Minister should now admit and confess that he has lost his grip and that he has found his master in the person of the hon. member for Randburg. [Interjections.] The Minister, now having met his master, should abandon his cheapness and should act as one expects him to act, i.e. with the dignity that accords with a Minister of the Republic of South Africa.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member not casting a reflection on the hon. the Minister to the effect that he is not acting with dignity?

Order! The hon. member may continue.

The Minister made the point that our criticism of the Budget over the years was repetitive; that we raised the same issues every year. I want to concede that immediately—we raise the same valid issues year after year. But we do not get satisfaction from the hon. the Minister. He does not listen to constructive and helpful criticism but goes on making the same errors. Well, I can assure him that as long as he does that he will get a repetition of the same arguments and the same criticisms.

The Minister spent some time trying to answer our arguments, but in many respects his effort was totally unsatisfactory. He made a great song and dance of the fact that we pointed out that the Railways were running at a heavy loss—of some R30 million per annum—thus being carried by other sections of our national transport organization. But what he did not say—he evaded the argument completely—was that I said when I raised this point that it would be justified if some of the other departments, like the Airways or Harbours, should help carry this loss on the Railways, because their charges are spread over the entire population of the Republic. Then I made the point that it was grossly unfair to ask the motor transport section of the Witwatersrand, Pretoria and Vereeniging alone to carry this subsidy to the extent of R40 million per year. I stand by that. The Minister has said nothing which gave us an indication that there was an answer to the gross and transparent injustice of such an act. It does not only mean that motor transport in that area is more expensive than it ought to be, but it also means that the extra expense enters into the cost of most of the products coming from that area and so adds to the cost of living of the people. Therefore, the argument of the hon. the Minister that were we to give relief there, it would mean an increase in the cost of living, does not hold water. All it would mean would be that the cause of the higher cost of living would be transferred from the area where it unjustly lies to-day to the area where it could more justifiably be placed. That is the type of argument we got from the Minister.

He also tried to deal with my criticism of certain estimates which the Railway and Harbour Board brings to Parliament to ask us to vote money for the construction of new lines. The Minister gave us a long statement on that. He made it clear to us that in his opinion these were in fact guesstimates and that I, consequently, was right when I described them as such. In other words, these calculations were submitted to the House without being properly checked, even before the nature of the terrain was known and before a true idea had been formed of what the tender price would be for the work. Thus, the number of bridges was not determined; nor was the number of cuttings. But when did the Minister discover this? When did he become aware of this? Because when those Bills were before the House we were not told that the cost stated would be only provisional and that it was merely a wild figure. We were asked to judge the building of those lines on the basis of the figures supplied to us. I do not blame the engineers. They give information to the Railways and Harbours Board but the Minister, as chairman of the Board, with the members decide at what stage the Estimates must be laid before Parliament. They must evaluate them and if they are not final Parliament should be warned. But the Minister has been negligent, he has been contemptuous of Parliament. His answer to-day, instead of giving us clarity on the issue, only established his guilt, more convincingly than I could ever do in any argument.

The Minister challenged me because I had said that as far as the maintenance of certain aircraft was concerned, the letter of the law was not always observed by the maintenance crew. How dare the hon. the Minister challenge me? Not so long ago he came with legislation to this House to stop those people from working according to the manual …

What has that got to do with it?

… to work strictly to the letter of the law, so that delays could become impossible. But I want to tell the hon. the Minister something else. He can check on it. Responsible members of that section of his staff have told me—obviously I cannot mention their names, but the Minister can check on it and they will confirm it before the commission of inquiry which is now going into their status on the S.A. Railways—that they are so pressed, that they have to work so hard that they have to telescope certain of their activities in order to get through. They will tell the Minister that they do not work strictly to the letter of the law.

That is quite untrue.

I suggest to the Minister that before he throws it back at me he should check on it.

It is quite untrue. I repeat it.

I say it is not untrue …

I say it is.

Perhaps I have information which was not available to the Minister in this regard.

It is quite untrue. I should know.

But do you know?

Yes, I do know. And it is quite untrue.

He should know, but he does not. He is not doing his duty. I have it at first hand …

I do not care whether you have it at first, or second or third or tenth hand—it is quite untrue. [Interjections.]

Let me tell the Minister that I have got it from the people concerned …

They have told you lies.

That may be, Sir, but, strangely enough, I attach as much value to their word as I do to that of the Minister. [Interjections.] I ask the Minister to accept that. I do not concede that these people are liars just because the Minister says they are telling lies.

Then why do you not give me their names?

I am not prepared to do that—for obvious reasons.

Statements coming from anonymous people, I do not believe a word of.

Then the hon. the Minister made a great show of this question of manpower. I raised it originally because all of us are genuinely concerned about the situation. I asked the Minister to tell us what his policy would be, what plans he had, apart from the things I mentioned—things like mechanization, measures towards a greater productivity on the part of the present staff, and so forth. I said to him these were obviously not enough, because all the time the demands were increasing. The Minister says the same in every speech he makes and the General Manager complains repeatedly about the shortage of manpower in his report. I said to the Minister: “Come let us have an intelligent discussion about it. What plans do the Minister and his Administration have to meet this dreadful problem in South Africa?” But what did we get? An attempt, an unworthy attempt—there is not much that is unworthy of the Minister—to make political capital out of this and to embarrass me. Sir, the questions which he put to us were answered year after year. In the debate just past the hon. member for Uitenhage quoted our point of view and our attitude. So, what does the hon. the Minister want to know? But, strangely enough, he first asks questions and then he himself produces the answers. It came down to this that he appreciates that our attitude is that there may have to be changes in the labour pattern, that the available labour resources in South Africa should be better employed and that these changes in the pattern should be brought about in consultation with and with the agreement of the trade unions concerned. The Minister knew that but vet he pretended that I had avoided the issue. If he objects against repetition why then does he call for further repetition? But then he came with the 64,000-dollar question. What do we do if the trade unions do not agree? In other words, he wants us to reduce this debate on a vital matter, on a matter of the greatest importance, to the level of a hypothesis that insults the sense of responsibility of the staff associations in the S.A. Railwavs and Harbours. I want to say that a United Party Government will negotiate with these trade unions, will negotiate hard with them and will negotiate on the basis that we are dealing with responsible leaders of industrial workers on the S.A. Railways and Harbours, and we shall do this on the assumption that a reasonable case will be reasonably answered and considered by them. I am not prepared to conduct a debate in this House on the assumption that these people are unreasonable. If they do become unreasonable one day, then the Government of the day will have to consider what action to take, but I am not prepared to act on this hypothesis and to indulge the Minister’s political bankruptcy by conducting a debate in this House upon a hypothesis which, I repeat, is an insult to the integrity of the leaders of the workers on the S.A. Railways and Harbours.

Sir, the Minister was critical of what the Opposition had to produce by way of criticism, but he certainly spent a very long time in answering it. He again and again had great difficulty in answering it, and in many cases he avoided the issue. He avoided simple practical matters, the sort of thing that one would expect a competent Minister to seize upon and to answer immediately. I was impressed, for example, when the hon. member for Durban (Point) raised the point with the Minister—and I saw the Minister make a note of it—that if we had this dangerous and this worrying manpower shortage on the S.A. Railways with very little to play with in an emergency, why does the Sick Fund of the Railways not assist railway employees to be injected against Hong Kong flu? An epidemic may have serious consequences on the overstrained S.A. Railways and Harbours.

I said that I would reply to the hon. member on Monday, during the Third Reading debate; I did not want to reply in his absence.

But, Sir, this is not a controversial matter.

Surely it is only courtesy to reply to a member in his presence?

Very well, I accept that. I look forward at the Third Reading to a constructive reply from the Minister.

You will get it.

Sir, I am prepared to be patient with the hon. the Minister. The day will come when we will get a reply from the Minister worthy of the case that we put before him. As the Minister grows older he may mature, but he matures very slowly.

I have another question to put to the hon. the Minister. If there is such a shortage of manpower on the S.A. Railways, why does his organization not follow the example of the Civil Service and allow useful men, healthy men, men who are still productive and who in many ways are still in the prime of their lives, to continue working for the Railways until the age of 65? Why is there this difference between the S.A. Railways and the Civil Service? Why is there this difference of two valuable years in the lives of most valuable officers? I have had occasion in other places to express regret that so many competent and able men on the S.A. Railways have to retire in the very prime of their lives when their usefulness to the Railways can be extended for a year or two. I think the Minister should give attention to this matter and tell us what the reason for the difference is.

The Minister tried to answer our criticism that his Budget figures are not very accurate. I want to concede that they are more accurate some years than others. If one guesses, one’s guess is sometimes close to the mark and sometimes one guesses wildly. I think we should look at the quality of the Minister’s Estimates. I would like him to have a look at his figures for the year 1967-’68. In the debate that year we of the Opposition warned the Minister again and again that the tariff increases that he had announced were too steep; that he was taking more out of the pockets of the railway users than he could justify; that he was introducing a cost-push factor in our economy at a time when inflation was the greatest danger facing South Africa. But the Minister announced that there would be a deficit for the previous year; he gave a revised figure in that year’s Budget, and then what happened? In 1966-’67, according to the Auditor-General’s report, the surplus was R1½ million, against the revised deficit which the Minister expected of almost R6 million or, to be exact, R5,908,380. He was R7½ million out in spite of the warnings of the Opposition, who do not have the facilities which the Minister has. We could see that he was wrong. But let us look at the next year. He estimated a modest surplus, on the increased rates—that was, of course, to justify the increased rates—of R473,000; but he produced an actual surplus, according to the Auditor-General’s report, of R37½ million, Sir, that was an error of more than R37 million on an estimated revenue of some R700 million. When you have a Government that acts on the principle that numbers and figures do not count as much as other things, that they are not important, then anything goes. Hon. members opposite have come along one after the other, especially the hon. member for Koedoespoort, and said that percentagewise this was not important; that it was merely 5 per cent of the total budget. But, why use percentages when it suits the Government and then globular figures when that suits the Government better? Why do they not decide what is the right thing to use—figures or percentages? Sir, last year we gave a wage and salary increase to the railwaymen of R43 million. I still have to hear the Minister or any hon. member opposite saying that that is only 5 per cent of the Budget of the S A. Railways and Harbours. Oh no, it is R43 million, a vast sum; I agree it is a vast sum, and R37 million is a huge sum to take from the railway users of South Africa unnecessarily. It means that that year the average family, of all races, had to pay R8 a year more to the S.A. Railways than was necessary. I want to suggest, therefore, that we are right in asking the Minister to budget more carefully and especially not to impose unnecessary burdens upon the railway users of South Africa, and not to inflate the cost structure of South Africa unnecessarily. I think that we should not be confused on this issue. We should not choose our ground and make it a percentage when it is misbudgeting and then make it a globular figure when it is an increase to the staff.

Sir, there is another matter I would like to raise and that is the question of housing. I am not going to criticize the Minister for not answering the points that were raised here, because they were also made by the hon. member for Durban (Point). But I notice that while in last year’s Budget the Minister provided almost R6 million for departmental housing for white staff, there is a very sharp drop this year. According to items 562 and 563 of the Brown Book for the coming year, he is now proposing to spend about R3 million, about half of what was allowed last year. I know that last year R3 million came from revenue for this purpose. But I am just wondering when one considers these figures whether there should not be a change in policy as far as the question of the housing of his staff is concerned, a change which may relieve the Minister of losses and mean a more productive use of funds available to the S.A. Railways and Harbours. The Controller and Auditor-General reports on the loss sustained in renting departmental houses for the white staff. The loss in 1967-’68 was R8¾ million. This is a large sum of money for the Railways to lose, and I am just wondering whether the Minister should not encourage more members of the staff to own their own houses, even departmental houses. The Administration has two housing schemes, two home-ownership schemes. There is the ordinary home-ownership scheme and then there is the assisted ownership scheme. Under the one scheme the staff can get the full amount required at a low rate of interest, and under the other scheme they are assisted to get the deposit, but the balance they have to get from building societies, municipalities or other financial institutions, and with the present rate of interest as high as it is, a great many people who would like to use this find it very difficult because they are paying a high rental. If they are lucky enough to occupy departmental houses at a low rental, then it is not so bad but the man is still not being enabled to acquire his own house. The Minister will remember that there was a time when a man occupying a railway house could buy it. Is it not possible to re-introduce this scheme, especially in the large centres where in recent years the Administration has had to build quite a number of houses? It will not mean additional money as the cost of these houses has already been met, and the Administration would score by getting back the money as the loans are redeemed. Sir, I plead for this because, first of all, the Railways are losing R8¾ million a year. These people are not acquiring ownership of their houses, and there is nothing more conducive to uplifting the morale of the staff of an organization that to give them real assistance to own their own homes, and there is nothing that will help the Minister more to retain his staff than a scheme to assist people to acquire their own homes. One does not easily leave an organization which is assisting one to own one’s own home.

Then, Sir, I wonder whether the Minister in the course of his reply will not tell us about the success of some of his mechanization schemes of which we have heard to alleviate the shortage of staff. I would like the Minister to give us some report on the progress that is being made in the change-over from manual to mechanized maintenance of the railway track. I think the Minister should give us figures to convince us that the money expended on mechanized maintenance of the permanent way is actually more than compensated for by the saving in salaries and the saving in staff. The Minister will then be giving us an opportunity to judge the success of this mechanization plan.

Sir, last year I asked the Minister to consider the position of senior assistant drivers in the Western Cape. Their complaint, which I am sure has come to the Minister’s notice through the staff organization, is that they are held back while their juniors in other sectors, especially in the north, are trained to become fully qualified, and that as a result of this they lose seniority, in some cases years of seniority. I do not want to go into the full details; I gave them to the Minister last year. Because of pressure of time the hon. the Minister did not answer me, but I am sure he has had enough time now to decide what the solution is in this matter.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister had much to say about excessive overtime. Most of what he had to say was a denial that, except in isolated instances, there was excessive overtime worked.

What do you regard as excessive overtime?

I will tell the Minister what I regard as excessive overtime. I agree with his Administration. Take engine-drivers, for instance. If a man has worked for 12 hours and he feels that he should get relief, he should be given relief.

That is not overtime; that is relief; that is a different matter altogether.

Sir, if a man has been driving an engine for 12 hours then he has worked overtime, and I say that when a man has worked his normal shift plus the number of hours necessary to bring it up to 12 hours and he is in charge of a railway train and responsible for the safety of human beings or goods or animals, then that is enough, and if he asks for relief he should get it. I take it the Minister agrees with me. Why does the Minister ask questions like that when his own Administration lays down the norms? He knows that they lay down the norms.

I will reply to that.

Of course the Minister will reply. The Minister was most indignant when we suggested that there was excessive overtime and he said that the staff associations would bring cases of excessive overtime and mal-practices to his attention if there were such cases. But have they not done that? For example, was there not a meeting of the Footplate Workers’ Association on the 28th June of last year where this very question was raised with him, and as the result of those discussions, was an instruction not issued that drivers should not be forced to continue to work after 12 hours?

It was not a question of excessive overtime; it was a question of the hours of relief.

Sir, it is a question of overtime.

The hon. member is completely mixed up.

Sir, there is only one mixed up person in this context, and that is the hon. the Minister. If a man has worked for 12 hours, according to the Minister’s directive issued again last year, he should be entitled to relief. Why should he be entitled to relief? Because he has worked long enough; because he has done enough overtime; because if he works more than 12 hours he will be doing excessive overtime. Surely, that is excessive overtime, if a man comes to the stage where he can demand relief in the interest of the safety of the S.A. Railways.

But I want to ask the Minister. He says that we have different ideas of overtime. I say that when a man has worked continuously to such an extent that he can claim as of right that he is so tired that he should be entitled to relief and the Minister agrees, then you have the point where you are reaching excessive overtime. Even the Minister should understand that. As the result of discussions, I happen to know what the position is. I have seen some of these things. Directives were issued saying that the situation should be handled with great tact and that, if necessary, even taxis should be used to bring relief to these people but it was also said that the workers’ organizations should cooperate to persuade people sometimes to work more overtime, even if they wanted relief, in the interest of the service. When a man is tired and says he cannot go on any more, a directive issued from the General Manager’s office, but with the knowledge of the Minister because the matter was raised with him, says that persuasion should be brought to bear upon the man tactfully to make him work more, and that it should be pointed out to him that it may be less onerous to work an extra hour, although he feels he is too tired to go on, than to wait four hours for relief. These things happen in the Administration, but the Minister wants people to believe that there are no problems, and we are being reckless and that we are ill-informed when we raise these matters, that if there was any truth in what we say the staff associations would raise it. But we happen to know, because the men talk about this, that it is raised by the staff unions. I suggest that the Minister should be more frank with us.

I am going to be very frank with you.

The Minister should accept that there is a serious situation on the Railways and in the whole of South Africa, and he should accept that when we stand up and seek information and we ask him to take us into his confidence about his future plans, we do it to be helpful because we share the concern of every South African about this situation. We take exception to being treated as irresponsible and shallow people who do not have the interests of South Africa at heart, and who are parading our ignorance. We may be ignorant in many things. The Minister obviously has more information then we can hope to have, but I think he should at least accept that we have the interests of the S.A. Railways and of our country at heart as much as he has, and he should treat us with the courtesy we deserve, if only for that reason.

I want to begin at once with those complaints which I hear every day now, that is, I am supposedly so insulting. In reality there is no hon. member in this House who is more insulting than the hon. member for Yeoville. He has the reputation for making the most insulting and offensive remarks which any member can make in this House.

Give me one example.

There are numerous examples of offensive remarks and insults, because as the Englishman says, it is his stock in trade. That is the way in which he conducts a debate. Let us now discuss the so-called insults which I hurled at him. I have my speech in front of me here. I said that although I regarded the hon. member for Yeoville to be the finest debater on that side of the House, he had made an error. Is that an insult? I have said this repeatedly to other hon. members in private, and I have said before to members on this side, i.e. that I regard him to be the finest debater on that side. Is that an insult? But I also said that his predecessors stood head and shoulders above him as far as their approach to this subject was concerned, and I furnished my reason for saying that. Their approach was that of experienced businessmen who realized that they were dealing with an enormously large business undertaking, while the hon. member’s approach is that of a party political organizer. Where is the insult he complains of? Where did I in the rest of my speech as far as it dealt with him, hurl any insults at him? It is strange that the hon. member is so terribly over-sensitive, while he arrogates to himself the right to utter the grossest insults and offensive remarks. I think he would do better to sweep in front of his own door.

I am still asking you for one example.

I can mention numerous examples. The offensive things which the hon. member uttered during this half-hour speech are examples enough. The difficulty with the hon. member is that his tongue runs away with him completely, and then he sometimes does not know what he is saying. This is probably another insult now.

No, it is a compliment.

In other words, it is not as offensive as the offensive remarks the hon. member passes. Now he has come forward again with these allegations which these unknown, mysterious people supposedly conveyed to him. They were apparently artisans, and he listened to what they had to say not at first hand but via Norman Eaton, who sat on a commission. But I am now giving the hon. member this assurance. If he gives me the names of those people who told him those things I shall assure him that they will not be victimized. But what I will do is to have an investigation made in order to see whether their allegations are true. But I am not prepared to do so on the word of that hon. member. I am now telling him that if that is what they told him, then they were telling him an untruth and he is ready to believe anything he is told. That is his weak point. Just let something be said which puts the Government or the Minister in a bad light and he seizes upon it with both hands. I am now making him this offer. Give me the names of those persons and I will have their allegations investigated and they will not be victimized. If he does not do so, then I assume that what he has been telling this House was not the truth.

Then the hon. member also spoke about the labour position. If the hon. member has finished reading, I should like to have his attention. Finish what you are reading; I shall wait. He asked me again about the labour position, and said that I had challenged them in regard to what they would do. But this is the typical kind of answer we have been getting all these years. On the one hand they talk about the rate for the job. That is their great policy. On the other hand he writes articles stating that for certain work for which there is no competition, the rate for the job need not be applied. In other words, then they advocate work reservation. That is what it amounts to. Because one then has certain groups doing the work at a lower remuneration than that for which others are doing it. I wonder whether the trade unions with which he wants to negotiate will support a thing like that. But now he came forward again with the old story that they would negotiate with the trade unions in regard to the employment of non-Whites in white posts, and he does not for one moment assume that they will ever say no.

I did not say that; I said that they would not give me an unreasonable no for an answer.

I will accept it like that, just to make certain that I am understanding the hon. member correctly this time. How can the hon. member say that? What right does he have to do so? What proof does he have that they will do that? If they say no to-day, will they suddenly turn round when the hon. member is there and say yes to him? Surely that is utter nonsense. But it does not solve the labour shortage. We are dealing here with a serious labour shortage, and I repeat that those hon. members do not have the courage of their convictions. On the one hand they state that the labour pattern should be changed, but on the other hand the hon. member for Salt River says, “Make use of all the available labour”. But this hon. member says no, they will only do so if the trade union consents to it. But show me one of the trade unions of the Railways which will agree to the large-scale employment of non-Whites in white posts.

You mentioned examples a moment ago.

Let me mention a few posts of the Railways, and let us hear whether the hon. member thinks the trade unions will consent to non-Whites being taken on. Will the trade unions agree to non-White stokers being brought on to locomotives? We have a serious shortage of stokers. Would the trade unions consent to non-White artisans being trained and employed? That is the sort of thing we are talking about, and when we talk about these things we must at least be politically honest and say: “we advocate that you should make use of the available labour”. That is what the hon. member for Hillbrow says in his speeches and in interviews which he is continually giving outside. He does not hesitate to say that one must make use of the non-White labour, but the hon. member is afraid of the political repercussions when he says that.

I stand by the policy of my party.

But the policy of the party is so ambiguous that it means nothing. That is the difficulty. Nobody is prepared to accept it. That is why they do not have the support of the workers in an election. Show me one workers’ constituency in the Transvaal which they represent to-day in this House. All they have is a handful of Johannesburg seats. All the workers’ constituencies, the Railways constituencies, have Nationalist Members of Parliament.

What about Salt River?

Only the workshops are there; the workers do not live there. That shows how little the hon. member knows his own affairs. [Interjection.] Next year at the provincial election you will see, after all their stories about their workers and their labour policy, how much support they will receive. There has just been an election in Windhoek. It is a Railway constituency. All the people working on the Railways in Windhoek live there. What was the United Party’s support there? Extremely poor. [Interjections.] If the hon. member is pleased about the few crumbs which are falling from the table, then he is satisfied with very little.

Where were your voters at Newcastle? They deserted you.

Never mind, you can argue about Newcastle in the Lobby. I do not know whether the hon. member is interested in the fact that I am replying to him. He asked why the railway staff could not stay on until they were 65. I give him the assurance that I should very much like this, but when one raises the retiring age one must do so with the consent of the staff because the day they enter the service you enter into a contract with them and you tell them that they can resign at 60, or whatever it is. That is why, when I was negotiating with them as a result of the serious shortage of labour years ago, I got their consent to their being prepared to go up to 63, but then it had to be on a voluntary basis. I would be very pleased if they were to consent to the retiring age being increased to 65.

Thank you. That is a fair reply.

But it was a fair question, and that is why I am giving a fair reply. I always try, except when I am being provoked, to be polite towards all my opponents, and everybody in the House knows this.

The hon. member asked about staff housing. He asked me why I did not encourage the staff to buy houses, instead of renting them. Under the house-ownership scheme the rates of interest are subsidized, and it costs the Administration millions of rands per year in subsidies to the staff to enable them to purchase the houses at those cheap rates of interest. It is a tremendous loss. The departmental houses are also supplied at a loss because they pay such a very low rental. In other words, in so far as it would be a saving for the Administration, there is no difference; whether one purchases the house under the 100 per cent scheme or whether one rents the house, both are being done at a loss. But the reason why we are not selling departmental houses any more is that one must have the houses available for the staff which one transfers, and if one has too few houses, then one cannot transfer the staff, because then they do not have houses. That is why we put a stop to the buying of departmental houses a year or two ago so that we could rather have more houses available for the staff which was being transferred.

Then the hon. member wanted to know something about the success of the mechanization scheme. I furnished figures in my Budget speech in regard to the saving on staff which took place in regard to the installation of centralized traffic control. It was a great saving. As soon as the installation of centralized traffic control between Ladysmith and Durban has been completed, we will save dozens of running officials, because instead of having a running official on every manned station, you now have two men who control that whole line from Ladysmith to Durban. This brings about a great saving of manpower. This is also the reason why the installation of centralized traffic control is being expanded to a greater and greater extent. On the one hand it increases the capacity of the lines, and on the other hand it results in a great saving of staff.

And economically?

Naturally the capital expenditure is high, but what is very important is the saving on staff and the increase in the capacity. When a line is overcrowded there are various ways of increasing its capacity. The first is to establish more manned stations. The second is to establish more intermediate sidings so that the trains can cross over more rapidly. The third is to introduce remote control, in other words, instead of the points being switched over at a crossing, they are automatically controlled from a specific station. The fourth is the installation of centralized traffic control, which allows one to have many more trains running over the area. The fifth is the doubling of railway lines. In addition there is the electrification of the railway lines, which also results in a saving of manpower. Where one needs four men for two steam locomotives, one needs only two men for two electrical units on the same train.

Has the hon. the Minister any idea when this c.t.c. conversion will be finished?

First of all we have subdivided the sections by way of colour light signalling, in other words, you get more trains in the sections. That has now been completed because that is a part of the centralized traffic control system. Now we are starting first of all with the sections. We are doing the sections, in stages, and I think the first section we are tackling is the Booth-Cato Ridge section. That is the first section where it is being installed now. It is gradually being installed in stages right up to Ladysmith.

Is the Booth-Cato Ridge section complete yet?

No, they are busy with that. It is not completed yet. But subdividing the sections with colour lighting has been completed there.

*The mechanization of the track is the same. We are using the Matisa stamper. We have to do so. One can no longer get white gangers who want to live in out of the way places in the country. We no longer have the people to do the work. They all want to live in the big cities where all the conveniences are. We are therefore compelled to mechanize. But that means we are saving on manpower. Now we have the Matisa stamper, which maintains a stretch of railway line mechanically. We only need, say, one platelayer to supervize, then there is the driver of the machine, a few other Whites, etc. We have gone so far as to allocate the maintenance of these machines to the firm who supplied us with these stampers. This is all being done with a view to the saving of manpower, just as in the case of the installation of electronic computers, as well as the centralization of station accounts. Numerous other steps have been taken, all with a view to the saving of manpower. We have brought about a considerable saving of manpower. That is the reason why we are able to transport this increased tonnage with less staff. Now I want to say a few words about this excessive overtime. The hon. member is in a quandary. There are two aspects of this matter, and he is confusing them, because he places them both under the heading of excessive overtime. The one is a rest period which has nothing to do with overtime. The regulations provide that after a certain number of hours service a man is entitled to a rest period of so many hours. The train staff on an outside depot can demand a rest period of eight hours, and at a home depot a man can demand a rest period of 12 hours. That is the one aspect.

He can only do so after he has worked for a certain time.

Yes, after he has worked for a certain time, but it has nothing to do with overtime. Excessive overtime means this. If a man comes on duty and he is on duty for 16, 18 or 20 hours continuously, irrespective of whether he is off for ten, 12 or 20 hours subsequent to that, it means that he has worked too many hours, he was on duty for too many hours. That is excessive overtime. The hon. member is confusing the two concepts. I am trying to help him, but he simply cannot learn. A man can, for example, have worked only eight hours and be completely worn out and tired, and then he needs his eight to 12 hours rest. He has not worked overtime, but he is entitled to the rest period. The interview last year was in connection with the rest period which the train staff members demanded. In other words, they were being called up before they had had eight to 12 hours rest. Most of the time they work their overtime quite voluntarily. If a man has worked long hours, he can demand his eight to 12 hours rest period. It depends upon where he is, at the home depot or elsewhere. When I speak about excessive overtime, then I am referring to a man who has worked for 16, 18 or 20 hours continuously. I maintain that it happens in individual cases and it has always happened, but I am trying to tell the hon. member that it is not a general phenomenon. There are numerous sections of the Administration where excessive overtime is not being worked, there are hours being worked which cannot be brought under the head of excessive overtime at all. The people who work the longest hours are the train staff and the footplate staff. Take our harbours. Since so many ships have been calling at our harbours after the closure of the Suez Canal, there are many of our people who have been working tremendously long hours, but they know it is merely a temporary phase. That is the difference between overtime and the right a man has to a rest period between his shifts.

Mr. Chairman, under this vote I should like to bring a certain matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister. Before I do so, I want to express my gratitude and appreciation to the System Manager of the Western Transvaal and his staff for their unselfish service and helpfulness, as I have always found it to be in respect of our problems in connection with Brakpan station. But one cannot live and go forward on helpfulness alone—there must also be funds. Brakpan station as a whole is one of the oldest stations on the Witwatersrand. Our people there do not want it for a monument or something like that. The other night someone almost set it alight, and oh if it had only burnt down! That station is really no asset to the Railways, and we are proud of our Railways to-day. The hon. the Minister and his staff are well acquainted with the conditions on the Brakpan station. It really no longer meets the demands made upon it in this modern age in which we are living. The staff on that station have to work under extremely bad conditions, and we can only take our hats off to them. We do not begrudge the head office staff their beautiful accommodation. We are not jealous, but we ask that the same be granted to the other staff members of the Railways.

The next matter which I want to discuss with the hon. the Minister is the question of housing. At present there is a tremendous shortage of land throughout the whole of the Witwatersrand, and land prices are very high. We now find that there is, in fact, land available at Brakpan where houses can be erected. 77,000 square feet are available. That is not very much, but it means that seven houses can be built there to enable staff members of the Railways to live near the station.

I now want to come back to another matter for which I have been pleading for a long time, as the hon. the Minister probably knows very well, and that is the question of the platforms on the Brakpan station. Since 1956 we have asked here every year for improvements to our platforms. We know that the standard heights of the platforms must be 2 feet 10 inches. That is the required height. But Brakpan’s platforms are only 2 feet 3 and 2 feet 4 inches high. The old ladies find it especially difficult to climb up and down them, and the young ladies with the mini-skirts find it even more difficult! I want to plead to the Minister to do something about the platforms there. I know there are 150 stations in the country that have to be heightened. It is said that there is a table or precedence, and I say that Brakpan is just as important as any other station on the Rand. Let us then, after all, have these platforms attended to.

There is also the question of a lean-to on the station. For how many years now have we not pleaded for the thousands of workers who must catch trains there every morning? An average of 4,000 people make use of Brakpan station every day. What shelter is there for them in the icy winter weather or in the summer rains? There is absolutely nothing. We have been asking for the lean-to for so many years, and we are always informed that something will be done, but up to now nothing has come of this.

It is one of the many promises of this Government.

This Government keeps its promises. Just look at the beautiful stations in Cape Town and Johannesburg. I am asking the Minister these things because I know that the possibility exists that he will now help us. The hon. member must not waste my time.

I also want to say a few words about the coal yards. Through all the years the Transvaal Coal Owners’ Association has had the monopoly as far as obtaining coal yards throughout the Transvaal was concerned. Today they are contaminating our stations with the dirty yards attached to each station there. I really think that the time has come for that monopoly to be broken. They must be moved somewhere else.

Send them to the border areas.

The Minister may send them where ever he wishes as far as I am concerned, but they must be removed from our stations; because all around the stations there is modern development in progress. It is no longer a place for a coal yard. They have long ago had their day. I want to plead to the Minister that we put the matter right.

I really think the time has come for the Minister to give his attention to Brakpan station, so that we may also have a share in the prosperity which the Railways has experienced throughout the years. I am grateful for what has been done. The station has been touched up. I know that. It has been painted. Certain improvements have been made, but it still compares unfavourably with what is being done at other places which are very much smaller, even smaller than Makwassie. I am pleading for better and more modern facilities for Brakpan.

Mr. Chairman, listening to the hon. the Minister’s reply to the debate, I would say that he is quite honest. He said, “Do not do as I say, do as I do”. As far as labour matters are concerned, he is quite open. Where he is short of labour in certain classes, he naturally brings in Bantu or Coloured labour. He admits that. He was worried about revaluation. When he was Minister of Labour, there were considerable changes in the engineering industry. Operatives had to be brought into the industry and they certainly were not White. There was a complete revaluation as far as jobs were concerned. Bantu had to be brought in to do certain work. He knows. I am very certain that he was Minister of Labour at the time. The Minister has already told us that he is not prepared to allow Whites on the Railways to do pick and shovel work. That is exactly what we are saying. There should be a revaluation of jobs. Where they can change, they should make the changes. There should be an upliftment of the Whites on the Railways. We do not want to see the Whites on the Railways kept down all the time. That is what we in this party are after. We do not want to see them doing these menial tasks. We want to see an upliftment of the Whites in this country. This is not a question of Blacks taking the Whites’ jobs. One has to realize what the position is to-day.

Somersault!

No. It is not a somersault. The hon. member just does not understand. The Minister talked about the United Party not occupying labour seats. If ever there was a labour seat in this House, it is Salt River. It is a workers’ seat. I am quite happy that I serve the workers, because I understand the workers.

To get away from the question of the shortage of labour, I think the Minister knows our views; we think we know his. He is faced with a problem. We have told him what he should do. I do not think that is going to be the complete solution, because we will want more and more Whites. We will have to embark on a very much greater immigration scheme as we have at the present moment. We have to bring many more Whites to this country than there are at present. There has been a backlog as a result of the policy of the Government, but if we are going to develop, we require extra white labour in this country. But the whole policy of our country should be the upliftment of the Whites. That is our policy. It is not to keep them down.

I have listened to the hon. member for Brakpan pleading for the station of his constituency. I would like to compliment the hon. the Minister, his staff and those responsible for the designing and the completion of the Cape Town railway station. I think we should give credit where credit is due. I think it is the most outstanding station we have in this country. It will serve Cape Town for many years to come. Provided the Railways develop the suburban line and make parking grounds available, this station should serve Cape Town well. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to have an official opening as far as this station is concerned. I think that is its due. It is an outstanding piece of work. The people who are responsible are to be complimented.

In the very short time at my disposal I would like to get back to my old hardy annual, namely the Hex River tunnel. We were talking about cutting down expenses on the Railways. I want to ask the Minister what is going to happen here. Are we going to go ahead? There are estimates in the Brown Book, but if one goes to the site of the tunnel, one finds the weeds growing very much higher and nothing has been done. We have been told that experimentation is taking place here and there on laying the tracks in the tunnel, etc., but one does not see any development as far as this particular line is concerned.

The hon. member for Umlazi talked about the position along the coast. I am sorry he is not here. Cape Town harbour will be dealt with later by one of the other members on this side. The hon. member for Mossel Bay is here. I would like to say that Mossel Bay could be developed to a greater extent than it is at the present moment. [Interjections.] I am not like the hon. member for Umlazi; I am not happy about the situation. I think greater development could take place also at Port Elizabeth harbour.

Here in the Cape, very near to Cape Town, we probably have the finest and most wonderful natural harbour in the world. We have Saldanha Bay. But for some reason, the hon. the Minister seems to have turned his back on it. He says that the proposed developments that have been talked about, are just pipe-dreams. I can say that Saldanha Bay will still come into its own. Industry will be established there, notwithstanding what the Minister thinks. He will be faced one day with the necessity of having to build a line there in a very great hurry.

I would like to speak about another matter concerning labour, namely the question of labour in the Airways. We were talking about individuals, etc. I want to raise the question of artisans in the Airways, on the ground staff, those artisans that are not actually repairing planes.

Order! Only the Railways are under discussion.

I am discussing the artisans.

In the Airways?

Yes, in the Airways. They are on the Railway staff.

I have not put that item yet.

I am sorry, Sir.

The other item the hon. the Minister spoke about, is the question of the ore traffic in this country. I agree with him that we should develop, produce and use our ore in this country instead of exporting it in its raw state. I could not agree with him more. But one asks, what is the Government doing about the question? We on this side of the House from time to time asked whether the third Iscor was going to be established, and what the Government was doing about the question. The fact that the ore is exported to another country and brought back here in finished goods, is too tragic for words. It lies with the Government to do something about it. That Minister knows it. The ore can be transported to Port Elizabeth and shipped away thousands of miles. It can be shipped to another port. It could even be shipped to Saldanha Bay and steelworks could be established there. I agree with the Minister that we should process our raw material here. But at the same time, in the absence of the necessary facilities, we have to meet world competition. We have to export this ore. We have to meet world competition as far as rates are concerned. For revenue purposes there is a demand to export it. The Railways, as a business concern, have to come to the assistance of the country by bringing in competitive rates. There is no alternative way in which this ore can be transported. When one sees what is happening in Australia and other parts of the world, where there are competitive rates with higher wages as regards the transmission of ore to the ports, one gets a bit of a shock to find out what we have to pay here. I know that it is expensive. New trucks have to be built. Added to that, rerailing has to be done. We have to substitute the 150 lb, rail for the 100 lb. rail, where this ore is conveyed. I know that it is a long-term project but something we have to face up to.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Salt River must pardon me if I do not follow him up in what he said. For my part I want to thank the Minister, the Management and the staff of the South African Railways for the exceptional service and consideration they have given the farming sector. Especially so since the farming sector is experiencing a particularly difficult time at present. I do not want to burden the House unnecessarily with particulars. The General Manager’s report contains all the particulars of the gigantic task they performed in the transportation of the livestock of drought-stricken areas, etc. I refer also to the fact that the hon. the Minister and the Management saw fit not to implement fully, in respect of the farming sector, the recommendations of the Schumann report as far as higher tariffs were concerned. It is a factor of tremendous assistance to this sector in the difficult times it is now experiencing.

However, as one who knows something of the maize industry, I specifically want to refer to the exceptional achievements of the Railways in the transportation of export grain during the past two years. I refer here specifically to the transportation of the record maize crop of 1967. So, for example, we find in the report year which ended on 31st March, 1968, that the three harbour grain elevators at Durban. CaDe Town and East London conveyed 2,817,849 tons of grain to 278 vessels, as against only 144,530 tons of grain in the previous financial year. In this connection I also want to refer appreciatively to the tremendous relief which the East London grain elevator brought to the handling of grain. This grain elevator has a capacity virtually equal to that of the Durban and Cape Town grain elevators and it goes without saying that the introduction of this grain elevator has solved many big problems. But, Mr. Chairman, I feel it my duty to point out here to-day what problems will arise if there should be a cycle of consecutively prosperous years. 1967 was a record year as far as the maize crop was concerned, producing a crop of about 109 million bags. I as a farmer hope, and it is not impossible, that we may now have a few consecutive years in which the average crop may total 120 to 130 million bags. If that happens I foresee problems as far as the transportation of our export maize and grain is concerned. With the unfortunate crop failures experienced this year, we at least have one year’s grace in which to reflect and to plan for what we have to do in connection with this matter. I want to plead for the new market research organization and all the planners concerned to give serious attention to all possible improved methods for the transporting and shipping of a larger volume of grain more rapidly. I realize that it is an extremely difficult matter. I cannot associate myself with all the representations which the organized agricultural associations are making in that connection. Many of those representations are based on the assumption that we shall have a peak year every year, as far as the handling of grain is concerned. It is an extremely difficult matter because large capital investments are requested for the handling of a commodity, and in this connection largely maize, which is subject to tremendous fluctuations. But, as I have already said, we may have a cycle of consecutive good years and then it may be of vital importance to handle the crop or crops more speedily than is now the case. I therefore ask that this planning and research into the establishment of better methods for handling the crops more speedily, be done as quickly as possible.

The obvious solution is to erect another grain elevator nearer to the maize triangle. I therefore want to ask the Minister whether it is intended to erect a grain elevator at Richard’s Bay. If so, I want to say that it will mean a tremendous relief for the chief maize producing area. If plans are in fact being made for such a grain elevator, I want to plead that the greatest possible priority be given to its erection. If plans are indeed being made for the construction of such a grain elevator, and its capacity is already known, I should also appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would give us that information.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure I do not need to give the hon. the Minister, who is still quick on the draw as far as the female of the species is concerned, more than one guess as to what I am going to raise with him this afternoon, because I have raised this matter regularly and it has become a sort of hardy annual as far as this debate is concerned. Before I do that, I want to say that I was very glad to hear from the hon. the Minister that he has in fact capitulated to the well-known phrase that “economics is stronger than politics”. I was very glad indeed to hear him say that he was quite prepared to go on replacing white labour, where necessary, in the interests of the country, with non-white labour. He was prepared to do this even if the trade unions were not in agreement. I think that is a courageous attitude and I wish to commend him for it.

It is not a new attitude.

No, it is not a new attitude, but shall I say Ministers are not quite so coy these days about admitting that they have to use non-white labour. We even had the hon. the Minister of Labour say something I had not heard him say previously, and I refer to the occasion this year when he said it was sheer idiocy to think that we could for ever retain all the skilled and semi-skilled jobs in the hands of white people. That is something with which I heartily agree. If Ministers go on in this way and set the example in the thinking of South Africa, we might get somewhere, instead of everybody rushing around making politics out of this matter, frightening the life out of white workers into believing that if non-Whites come into jobs formerly classified as white jobs only, it means the end of their own livelihood. Of course, it means nothing of the kind. What it means is that not only are they themselves rising to higher rungs of the industrial ladder, but it also means that the productive power and the consuming power of the vast mass of non-white workers are increasing, which can only redound to the advantage of every single person in this country, be it farmers, or industrialists, or the commercial world, or the white workers themselves. Indeed, this should be quite elementary to anybody. I am very glad indeed that the Minister has taken this attitude and that he also has drawn a clear distinction between this business of trying to pretend on the one hand, as I regret the Official Opposition frequently does, that it is in favour of the industrial colour bar, and on the other hand saying it is in favour of the full utilization of all our labour resources. One cannot have it both ways. One cannot say that one is against job reservation on the one hand, and in favour of maintaining the industrial colour bar on the other. It is time we got our thinking straightened out.

Are you considering becoming a Nationalist?

Well, if you go on this way, goodness knows what can happen. If the Nationalist Party changed its policies to such an extent that it becomes practically Progressive, then I would be delighted. But it would have to go a long way before that would happen. Of course, I do not know whether this delight would be mutual; I doubt that …

You are really frightening me now; for heaven’s sake do not come to us.

Do not worry; in fact I think there is very little danger of that happening. The Minister need not get too nervous. Let him stick to his lionesses. He is not likely to have to contend with me as well.

One lioness at a time is enough.

The Minister is facing one now.

Well, a very aged, old lioness, and rather toothless I am afraid. As I was saying, the Nationalist Party would have to change its policy in a good many other respects, but here at least a little common sense has been spoken. I personally welcome it, without any political undertones whatsoever, because this to me is sound economics and it is good common sense.

Having said that, I want to come back to the old subject I raise with the Minister each year, and each year I get soothing replies from him. He tells me something is being done, more carriages are being ordered, more lines are being doubled, and so on. But the situation remains abysmal, and that is the situation with regard to the rail services between the huge Soweto townships, containing the major bulk of the industrial labour force of Johannesburg, and the centre of Johannesburg proper. Every single day during the so-called peak hours, which I might say stretch between 4 a.m. and 8 a.m., so enormous is the demand for transport, the hon. Minister’s trains convey thousands upon thousands of workers, all from point A to point B. Unfortunately the townships are so laid out that all of them practically are in this Soweto area, south-west of Johannesburg, so the whole working population has to move from that area to the centre of Johannesburg. This process is reversed from about 4.15 p.m. onwards until everybody gets home, hours after they have left work. I have stressed before the effect of this on productivity, namely the fact that workers arrive at work exhausted, they stand in long queues. The trains themselves are a menace to humanity, not so much from the accident point of view because the Minister assures me that this has nothing to do with the accidents that occur now and then regrettably, and, of course, presumably unavoidably on these lines. But they have a lot to do with accidents that happen to individual passengers on those trains. The people have to try and get onto these trains in the crush, they have to try and board moving carriages, and so on. I might say these over-crowded trains are an absolute paradise for pick-pockets on the trains, for it is impossible for anybody to know what is going on when they are jammed together like sardines in these carriages.

I want to know what has happened to the departmental inquiry which was set up nearly two years ago to go into this whole matter of providing new services of some kind or another between Soweto and Johannesburg. Not only do the Africans come from that area to the centre of the city, but the whole working section of Lenasia also goes to the city. Moreover, many of the Coloured townships also are situated in the south-western area of Johannesburg. Something has got to be done about this. Alternative means of transport must be supplied, be it a monorail or the granting of additional licences to buses. Private buses, if necessary, must be made use of. Something has got to be done because the situation is reaching most critical proportions. I do hope the Minister will have something to report to the House about the committee that was appointed to go into this urgent problem and that he will tell us what progress has been made in this regard.

I want to say finally that I regret to see the Minister has increased the third-class rail fares in that area, because he did say last year that he was in fact avoiding this.

You have got it all wrong, only the location fares have been increased, not the other third-class fares.

How do you mean “location fares”? That is all I am talking about.

The fares from the townships have not been increased; they are subsidized fares and have not been increased.

Oh, not from Soweto itself. But some of those fares have gone up. Am I mistaken in believing that some of those fares have gone up?

Some third-class fares have been increased, but not those which the Government subsidizes; they have not been increased.

Well, of course, I am against an increase in any of these fares for the simple reason that this affects the poorest section of the community, and if we decide, as we do, that they have to commute these vast distances, we should not make them pay so much. In other countries it is different; there the rich people commute, the rich people decide to go and live out of town because they can afford the more comfortable suburbs and they do not mind the distances because they can afford the transport. But in South Africa it is just the opposite.

You will be making Soweto a second Houghton.

Well, there is nothing wrong with Houghton, it has got a very enlightened electorate, for instance; look who it returns time and again! The point I am making is that we have decided, by governmental policy, that these people have got to live a long distance out of town, and therefore they have to commute. We should therefore be subsidizing to the full their additional transport costs. I believe the figure is something like 6 per cent of the average income; that is what those Africans pay on transport alone. That is far too high for people whose pay packets are barely enough to pay for the basic essentials of life. I hope the Minister will consider reducing the fares that have gone up. I am very glad indeed, anyway, that in this Budget he has not increased fares to any great extent, other than those which were increased during last year. Those are the matters I wish to raise with the Minister. I gather we cannot raise Airways matters at the moment so I leave that in abeyance.

Mr. Chairman, it is quite often my good fortune to stand up and speak immediately after the speaker who has just resumed her seat. I now want to say that we are very glad to see her back in the House after her indisposition.

Thank you.

As far as the Railway matters which she raised are concerned, I shall leave it to the Minister to blow off steam if it is necessary. I really hope that we are not governing the country so well that the hon. member will eventually cross over to this side of the House.

Don’t worry.

I believe that it would be better for the welfare of the country if she and I remained on opposite sides of the House.

My constituency lies in the heart of the area which we call the Southern Cape. It is the area where the Whites in this country came ashore for the first time. It is also the area where, as far as we know, the first postal article was delivered. The post office tree at Mossel Bay bears witness to that. It is also the first place where, as far as we know, water and fresh meat were loaded onto the ships. As a result of that Vleesbaai got its name. If one now looks at that area, and considers the historical advantage afforded it, one would expect it to have retained and extended that advantage, but unfortunately this is not the case at all. If one compares this area with the rest of the country, as far as development and progress are concerned, it is specifically this area which has lagged behind and where development has virtually come to a standstill. Our farmers’ associations and development associations have had this matter investigated. The Stellenbosch Economic Bureau is one of the bodies that took part in this investigation. They mentioned a string of reasons for this phenomenon. This is where I actually want to link up with the debate, Sir, in case you have already become concerned and have started wondering what I was talking about.

I was beginning to fear that the hon. member would not get onto the rails.

All the bodies who instituted this investigation, pointed out that the relatively poor transportation services of this area are actually a contributory factor in the bogging down of its development. When I speak about relatively poor transportation services, I want to make it very clear that I am not for one moment implying that the Railways gives us poor transportation services. I would say that the obverse is the case, because the development which we have there in the Southern Cape, is specifically centred around the Railways and attributable to it. But I think that it is nevertheless a suitable time to look for a moment at a section such as that between Worcester and Mossel Bay. It is a section which was constructed in about 1902 by the old N.C.C.R. It was taken over in later years by the South African Railways. If one travels on that section one immediately notices that it is probably the most poorly planned stretch of railway line in our entire railway network. It is said that when this planning took place the construction firm was paid per mile. In order to show a good profit in this matter, the firm made as many turns as possible in the railway line. I cannot vouch for the truth of that story. However, in this connection I should like to put a question to the hon. the Minister. In the case of other sections he has been exceptionally successful in eliminating turns and in the improvement and, one may almost say, the modernization of our railway lines. Will it now also be possible for this particular section to receive similar treatment, so that we may enjoy more effective service from the Railways than we have at present? Together with that there is another question which I should like to put. What is the possibility of subsequent electrification of the railway line? Between Riversdale and Heidelberg, to mention merely two points, there are many grain fields. There the railway line meanders through those rich grain fields. The fields of grass there are also particularly liable to catch fire. When it is harvest time, one so often finds that sparks from the steam locomotives set the veld and the grain fields alight. As far as reimbursement is concerned, we experience no difficulties with the Railways. They are very accommodating and such matters are always settled amicably. But the fact still remains that someone, or the country as a whole, suffers as a result of the fires which start up in that way. When one speaks about the relatively poor transportation services of the area, it immediately strikes one that we have no ocean traffic in that area because we do not actually have a harbour as a terminal where ships can be loaded and off-loaded, and here I almost want to thank the hon. member for Salt River for giving me a little assistance in my case. On a previous occasion in this House I have already pleaded for a deep-sea harbour at Mossel Bay, and I do not intend to do so again because at a convenient time the Minister gave a very clear reply to this, but I nevertheless think that in our future planning we shall have to provide certain harbour facilities for the Mossel Bay harbour. Even if it is not a deep-sea harbour, it will help a great deal if we have such facilities as will enable us to have a coasting vessel there once a week to pick up and transport the load.

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member that the next item is “Harbours”. He is not entitled to discuss harbours under this Vote.

Before concluding I should just like to mention this point: I have recently had quite a lot to do with the transportation of livestock on the S.A. Railways. When we have a period of drought, a great deal of livestock is of necessity transported to and fro, but this does not only occur in times of drought. We also have slaughter stock and show animals which have to be transported. As far as this is concerned, the special treatment which the poor animals receive from the railway staff is to be appreciated. I have seen how they go out of their way to make life as comfortable as possible for those animals in the trucks. I should like to express my appreciation to the General Manager and his staff for what is being done in that regard for our animals which have to be conveyed to and fro on our Railways

I do not want to follow up what the hon. member for Mossel Bay has just said. I should like to go a little further north. I should like to draw the Minister’s attention to the position which is developing to-day in the northern suburbs of Johannesburg, not as a result of the activities of his Railways, but because there are no railways at all. Sir, residentially there is a tremendous amount of development taking place in the area of Kempton Park, Esselen Park, Modderfontein, Lombardy East, through the new municipality of Sandown, up to Randburg and the West Rand. In that region we also find the industrial areas of Modderfontein, Isando and Wynberg Q, which are also developing a great deal and which are employing more and more workers. The position today is that the communications in those parts, from east to west, are exceptionally limited. People travelling by road from the eastern parts must either travel through Johannesburg to the West Rand and vice versa, or they must drive through Bramley and Corlett Drive and then further to the west. There is at present already a very serious bottleneck. During peak hours the traffic piles up there.

One is aware of the fact that roads will in fact be constructed, but the roads will not be able to carry that traffic, especially if one bears in mind that the Bantu area of Alexandra is situated in that area. It is Government policy that Alexandra and Alexandra alone must supply the labour for the northern suburbs of Johannesburg. There is no other place where the Bantu can live. You can understand what a congestion of traffic there will be if those labourers, who now live in places such as Randburg, Brvanston, etc., all have to live in Alexandra We read a few days ago in the Press that the municipality did in fact have a plan; they are speaking about underground transport, but as far as one can determine they are at this stage still only thinking about the essential part of Johannesburg. Eventually, however one regards the matter, railway facilities will have to be made available in this area to carry the traffic from east to west.

Then there is in addition the question of the traffic between Pretoria and Johannesburg. As we all know, there is not a direct railway link between Pretoria and Johannesburg. All the trains go via Germiston at present; this of course takes longer and the Minister knows just as well as I do how heavy the traffic there is during peak hours. If the possibility of an east-west linkage to the northern suburbs of Johannesburg were to be investigated, one asks oneself if one ought not immediately also to consider the question of a direct line from Johannesburg to Pretoria. In spite of the expressway which is now being constructed there, one doubts whether in the near future, the present roads together with the expressway can handle the traffic between Pretoria and Johannesburg. To-day there are thousands of people who live in the one city and work in the other and the traffic problem is worsening by the day.

I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that the time has come to investigate the justification for such a railway line, because the longer one delays the more expensive the project becomes. Apart from that, the longer one waits, the more the area is built up and the more expensive the ground becomes through which the railway line must eventually pass. That is my request to the hon. the Minister. I hope that my colleagues the hon. members for Kempton Park, Randburg and Primrose will support me here, because this is a matter closely affecting all the developing parts of Johannesburg, the West Rand and the East Rand.

The hon. member for North Rand, who has just resumed his seat, will surely pardon me if I do not follow up in his argument. I should like to raise a few other matters here this afternoon. In the first instance. I should like to pay tribute to a group of railway staff who do not often come into the limelight. In this connection I refer to the luggage porters and the caterers, stewards, engine drivers, ticket examiners, stokers and conductors. It is that group which has such close ties with our travelling public, people who so often help to make our monotonous journeys pleasant. I think that I am probably speaking on behalf of the entire public of South Africa, who often travel, when I say that this group of railway staff deserves to be hailed by everyone who is privileged to make frequent use of their services. Sir, what applies to this group of staff probably applies doubly to the other thousands of members of the railway staff who are seldom if ever seen by the general public—who work in offices as administrative officials, in workshops as artisans, or wherever, all contributing to make this largest single industrial establishment in South Africa the prosperous institution that it actually is. We, the public of South Africa, salute these men for the great task which they do from day to day in the service of South Africa and the Railways.

I also want to raise another matter here. It is perhaps a somewhat problematic affair and also a slightly delicate one. I am referring to the medical services which the railwaymen receive. It is undoubtedly a fact that railwaymen would prefer to make use of the doctors of their own choice, if the hon. the Minister could adjust and extend the Medical Aid Fund to make that possible. It is also a fact that the South African doctor is known throughout the civilized world for the high standard which he maintains. One would like to see the railway staff happy and satisfied in this connection. If the hon. the Minister could consider this request, I know that it would only go to stregthen the unimpeachable confidence which our railway staff have in the hon. the Minister. I would appreciate it very much on behalf of the railwaymen if the hon. the Minister could consider the possibility of railwaymen being permitted to call in the doctors of their own choice and if the Aid Fund could be adjusted accordingly.

Then I should like to raise a third matter. We already discussed this with the Railways Administration last year and we were very glad that the section between Klipplaat and Port Elizabeth, which forms part of the Garden Route between Port Elizabeth and Cape Town, could be supplied with a diesel locomotive and that the steam locomotive was replaced. This section constitutes about one-third of the route. We also want to make use of this opportunity to plead that the Minister consider the possibility of putting a diesel locomotive into service on the remainder of the Garden Route, i.e. from Klipplaat to Cape Town, for the weekly express train. Over the long distance it covers, this Garden Route probably traverses the greatest diversity of geographic facets of any train route in South Africa. It begins there beyond the Bushveld; then it goes through the noorsveld; then it follows the road through the Little Karoo, past the dune lands of the South Western Districts, through the constituency of the hon. member for Mossel Bay where, as you heard, the wheat is sometimes set alight; then it continues through the mountains of the Boland, the valleys of the Boland, the vineyards of the Boland, until it reaches Cape Town. I believe that this express train could contribute tremendously to the extension of our tourist industry, but then we shall have to make certain changes, one of which relates to the elimination of the terribly suffocating smoke and the long tunnels which we have in these mountainous regions, and this can only be done if we replace the coal locomotives with diesel locomotives. The section of this Garden Route which runs through this mountainous region, had to be served in the past by our railway staff under difficult conditions, in the sweltering heat of summer, and I am quite convinced that if we can put diesel locomotives into service on the rest of the Garden Route, we shall be able to improve the Garden Route to such an extent that it could become a real economic asset to the Railways Administration.

I hope the hon. member who has just sat down will forgive me if I do not follow him, but in the time at my disposal I want to deal with one or two other matters. I should first of all like to remind the hon. the Minister, if he believes that this side of the House represent no railway constituencies, that I represent one myself.

Some little while ago I asked the hon. the Minister to give consideration to the question of an emergency fund for railway accidents. We all accept that these accidents will occur. They are very often nobody’s fault, but very often a great many people are killed or injured. When this happens, as happened recently in Johannesburg, and a few years ago in Durban, where a great many people were killed, local mayors and local charities got together and raised emergency funds to help to relieve the suffering of those injured and their dependants. I feel however that this is something the Minister should give his serious attention to, because it is something which will occur from time to time in the best-run Railways, and although charity is all very well it is after all the responsibility of the Administration. When an accident happens, as it did recently in Johannesburg, I believe that an emergency fund could meet the position for some time, until such time as the wheels of State went into action and the compensation was paid out which would probably in due course be paid out. But an emergency fund could supply blankets, clothing and food and pay the rents of those people whose breadwinners were taken away from them. I do not think we should look upon this as an act of charity by the State; I think it is the duty of the State to make some sort of plan to cope with this type of catastrophe that all too often happens in our modern society with trains loaded to capacity and travelling at top speed. If the Minister would give consideration to that point. I know that the public of South Africa would be in his debt. And that would be quite unusual.

The other matter I wish to raise is one I raised last year and I make no apology for raising it again. That is the suggestion I put forward to the Minister to help to relieve his labour shortage. I said that he was still not making full use of people over the age of 40 or 45 years. Our unemployment queues are full of these people. They still have many years of good service to render to any employer and since, after all, the Railways is the biggest employer in the country. I think we should start there. The Minister did say that there were difficulties; they have to be absorbed into present staff structures and they cannot upset people who have long service in regard to pensions, etc. I accept all that. But what I suggest to the Minister, as I did before, is that a special grade of employee be created so that these people can be employed. I know that the Minister will say that he will take the lot, and I say yes, but he will take a man of 45 and give him a salary he pays to a youngster of 18. I believe that that is no answer at all.

The next point I would like to raise with the hon. the Minister and which has been raised right throughout this debate, and which drew some sarcastic remarks from the Minister, is this question of the shortage of labour. I really think that the time has come for the Minister and the Government in particular to stop beating about the bush in regard to this matter. We are short of labour and we are going to be short of labour for a long time to come under the present system. It is no good taking on non-Whites and giving them jobs previously done by Whites and then making the pious statement that this is only a temporary measure. The Minister knows, and we know, that this temporary measure is going to last for all time, because we will just simply never get the labour we want to do the work. It makes no sense to say that immigration will solve this position, or that mechanization or higher efficiency will do so, because I submit that the hon. the Minister knows as well as we all do that it will not do so, because the Railways are expanding. Whether the Minister likes it or not and whether we like it or not, the position is that he will have to make better use and more use of the available manpower in South Africa and he will have to train them. As the hon. member for Houghton said, there is no need for the white workers to fear for their position in this regard; it can only improve their position. But the point is that the solution does lie with the Government, and particularly with this Minister who is such a large employer of labour. I believe it is about time that he told the truth in regard to this matter, which is to tell the workers in South Africa that they do not have to fear for their jobs if non-Whites are introduced, and in fact their future will be improved. The point is that the Minister will have to introduce non-Whites to run his services, whether he likes it or not or whether the workers of South Africa like it or not. [Interjection.] The hon. member on my left is making interjections, but I would like to remind him that one of these days he will be faced with the position that the safety of the travelling public on the S.A. Railways will be endangered because of the views he puts forward. He says we must have Whites to do the work. The Minister says he has not the Whites to do the work, so what is going to happen? Are the tracks going to deteriorate because this hon. member will not face the fact? [Interjection.] The truth of the matter is that we will never get the Whites in South Africa to take over these jobs.

Do you not agree with the policy of your party?

I agree entirely with it.

You are now propounding something quite different.

Oh no, I am not.

They say that we can only do so in consultation with and with the agreement of the trade unions, but you are now saying that I should do so in any case.

My hon. colleague in the front row answered that question fully in his reply.

No, he did not.

I am not a Minister and my time is limited. What I am saying to the Minister I say without any compunction whatever, and I know that I am expressing the views of my party. It is this: Let us stop beating about the bush; you are not going to get the labour and immigration will not solve the problem. There is no need for the white workers’ position to be endangered. We do not accept that at all. We believe their position will be improved. If the Minister thinks that I am perhaps talking out of my turn, I want to end off by repeating what I said when I started, that I represent what is largely a railway constituency. These people are not frightened of this possibility, because they know that the Minister says one thing and practises another. In Cape Town he says he cannot employ non-Whites, but he does in Durban. So I repeat that this whole position must be faced honestly and squarely, and do not let us tell the workers of South Africa that we are putting non-Whites into white jobs temporarily, because we all know that is not so. That is why I say to the Minister that we should have a good look at the matter now before the safety of the passengers on the S.A. Railways is endangered.

The hon. member must pardon me if I do not follow him up in what he has just said. He does not know himself to what Party he belongs. Sometimes I see him on the platform with the Progressives, at other times again he is with the members of the United Party. I think that at the present moment he is a typical fence-sitter. I listened with all modesty to the speeches on both sides of the House, and my judgment was that the Railways have indeed equipped themselves well of their task. It is, of course, a sad day for the United Party members because they must realize that the Railways is making its contribution to the economic welfare of South Africa. We had proof of that in the non-confidence debate when the Opposition did not once touch upon the subject of the Railways, but remained instead as silent as the grave about it. But if I judge the speeches correctly that came from that side of the House, I think that the Opposition is serving no purpose. I think that the few who are sitting there can just as well go and drink some tea—those who deserve to; those who do not deserve to may just as well continue sitting here.

To-night, in all modesty, I want to make a plea to the hon. the Minister for certain essentials in the Port Elizabeth constituency which I represent. I want to refer to the station there That station is obsolete. We are not so much concerned about the fact that it is an old station, but we know that the facilities of that station cannot measure up to requirements These facilities are absolutely primitive. If one goes to the cafe, or wherever one goes, one finds the Port Elizabeth station to be obsolete. I want to plead with the hon. the Minister for a new station there. I actually think that Port Elizabeth ought to have got a beautiful new station as a monument to the 1820 Settlers. It would have been a very lovely monument. But I want to point out to the Minister that a large portion of the buildings of that old station are in fact being demolished, or are on the verge of being demolished. Since that demolition must take place, can we not at the same time merely plan for a modern station which will fit all the needs of Port Elizabeth? There is, for example, no parking space available. The facilities are altogether unsatisfactory. Therefore I want to ask the Minister to consider giving Port Elizabeth, which has a tremendous population growth and industrial development, a new station, also with a view to the tremendous growth which will follow upon the Orange River project. If we were to take all those aspects into consideration, we would realize that at least something should be done for Port Elizabeth, especially if we bear in mind that electrification of the railways is taking place everywhere, that regrading is taking place and new stations are being erected. In that respect Port Elizabeth is a little neglected. We are very grateful for the new diesel locomotives which the Minister gave us in Port Elizabeth, but I nevertheless want to ask him whether it is not possible for those diesels to do the shunting work from New Brighton station to the harbour, because the old steam locomotives besmirch the city. We in Port Elizabeth are engaged in a city renewal plan and in rezoning, and there we want to ask the Minister to join with us. Since we now have those diesel locomotives, let him do Port Elizabeth the favour of at least combating this smoke.

Then I also want to ask the Minister to be of assistance to us. With the planning which is now in progress in Port Elizabeth, we know that it is virtually a foregone conclusion that Escom will supply Port Elizabeth with power. This will entail having a line from the north to the south, and here is going to be a wonderful opportunity for the electrification of the Midland railway line. Therefore I feel that with the replanning of Port Elizabeth it should be borne in mind that it be planned in such a way that there will be an easy change-over to electricity in the future.

I should also like to thank the Minister because provision is being made in the Estimates for the crossing for Coloureds at the Sydenham station. This is a long-felt need and I believe that every constituent in Port Elizabeth who makes use of that railway station will be thankful that a start is now being made with that crossing. I just want to ask the Minister that, if possible, there should not be a long delay in constructing the necessary crossing.

Then I cannot neglect to thank the Minister and his Department for the wonderful way in which they renovated those railway houses which were in such a neglected condition when the United Party was still in power. I am thinking, for example, of the hostel there. It resembled an old stable, but now it has been beautifully renovated and the boarders are happy there. I want to thank the Minister very much for the fine work which was done there. When I walked between those Railway houses in 1948 to fight an election, the dates were written on the roofs of the houses, to indicate when they had been cleaned, and some of those houses had not been cleaned for 13 or 14 years. Now under this Government we have there a fine variety of houses. It is a pleasure garden there where those people are living. There is now unfortunately a small request which I should like to make to the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.] Best of all, a United Party member is laughing, even though there is no joke. We still have the old black locomotive depot there in Sydenham. There is always a lot of smoke and it is really dirty in that vicinity. That is still one of the old United Party buildings. I want to ask the Minister whether the depot where the steam locomotives are housed cannot be transferred beyond the city in the near future.

Mr. Chairman, during this afternoon’s debate the hon. member for Kroonstad spoke about the record maize crop. He mentioned the grain elevators in the ports of Durban, East London and Cape Town, and the transportation of the maize crop. We have had problems arising from this record maize crop, as regards the elevators, in conveying the maize to the ships waiting for the maize. It has been mentioned that a record tonnage was exported from the elevator in East London. It was said that it handled no less than 1,300,000 tons of maize. The hon. member for Kroonstad also told us that the three elevators together handled no less than 2,000,000 tons. Of that tonnage it would appear that East London’s elevator handled more than half. Before the Railways started to transport this crop of maize to the coast it was mentioned in a statement that “the South African Railways are now well equipped to handle this year’s maize export programme. More of the special bulk transport trucks are in use to handle maize and kaffircorn …” This is a Press report of 25.6.1968. Not a month later, on 18.7.1968, the following report appeared in a newspaper—

Now, Sir, I do not accept this explanation. I believe the main problem arose because the Railways were transporting only white maize, and not yellow maize as well, as it should have, to the elevators, and when ships arrived and wanted yellow maize, there was none for them. Consequently we had a congestion of ships in certain ports particularly at East London. I blame the Railways for not transporting equal quantities of white and yellow maize, so that the elevators had both yellow as well as white ready waiting for the ships.

The Maize Board makes all the arrangements.

The Railways as well as the Maize Board. I remember well a 26,000 ton ship, the Olympic Phantom, which had to wait for ten days in East London before trains arrived with yellow maize. The captain of the ship, Captain George Pappas, said he had never before had to wait so long for cargo in any port as he had to wait in East London. He mentioned that the waiting “was no good for the owners of the ship”.

We were told there would be no delay in loading when the ships arrived, but some ships had to wait for as long as ten days, even up to 11 days, before they could load the yellow maize which they wanted for Japan. The Railways said there was a lack of locomotives. Well, I believe it was a glaring case of mismanagement on the part of the Railways. Bearing in mind the capacity of the East London elevator, I say there should have been equal quantities of yellow and white maize, and the East London elevator should have been full to capacity before the ships even arrived. I sincerely hope the Minister bears this in mind and will see to it that it does not happen again. This year we have no surplus maize, but nevertheless this must not happen again. It was a most unsatisfactory state of affairs, moreover I know, that at the time the owners of the ships were very unhappy and dissatisfied.

Something else I wish to refer to, something different and this is the high proportion of breakages taking place on the Railways, particularly when off-loading goods takes place. I mention items like furniture. I have seen crated furniture arriving at the destination badly broken. I have seen corrugated iron water tanks arriving full of holes. So often the breakages take place quite unnecessarily. It could possibly be because of the shortage of labour, as has already been mentioned, I know of stations where there are a white team of porters and a black team of porters, both teams doing a good job of work. Therefore I say it is no excuse to say “There are insufficient men to off-load goods, and to do it more carefully.” I have seen black teams doing good work off-loading items and doing it with extreme care.

It is small wonder that to-day we so often find pantechnicons and other heavy vehicles doing road transport which could be conveyed by rail. Certain businesses and private people in the Eastern Cape have given up the idea of ever ordering water tanks to be sent by rail, because too often when the tanks do arrive, they are broken. Then a claim has to be put in against the Railways.

The hon. member for Brakpan pleaded for a better railway station for Brakpan. East London could well do with a new railway station too. East London is one of our major seaports. If the hon. member for Brakpan can ask for a new station then East London has a stronger claim and is entitled to one as well. As you know, Sir, we need a new railway station not only for the benefit of tourists, but also because of the inconvenience caused by the present station. The inconvenience is something which I have witnessed. This old station is really most inconvenient. For one thing, when passenger trains arrive, the non-Whites are always in front and the Whites at the back of the train. Here in Cape Town station we find that the non-white passengers are at the back, and the Whites in the front of the train, for the convenience of disembarking and the respective amenities. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to follow the hon. member for East London (North) up in what he has just said. He raised maize problems and other problems. On the other hand, I just want to refer in passing to the hon. member on the Opposition side who spoke just before him, i.e. the hon. member for Port Natal. I must say that that hon. little member amazes me more by the day. He amazed me to-day in that he told us that he represented a railway constituency. I plead guilty to not having known that. But this merely goes to show once more that even railway constituents are not infallible. They can also make a terrible mistake at times, but fortunately they have the excellent habit of rectifying such mistakes in the future. I do not think that it will be any different in the case of that hon. member’s constituency, especially if they have listened to this speech of his about the manpower shortage.

Mr. Chairman, to-day, however, I want to speak about something else. It has to do with the problem which we are experiencing in respect of passenger services in our Coloured resettlement areas. Most of these areas are situated in my constituency. The Natural Resources Development Council already referred to this matter in a report in 1964 in connection with a regional survey which they conducted in the Western Cape. Therefore I do not now want to cover the whole field again. To-day I want to refer to a portion of that pattern of the transportation system in the resettlement areas, i.e. the Modderdam railway line, or, as it is officially known in the Railways, the Bellville-Rapenburg railway line. Although this railway line, which is chiefly intended for Coloured traffic, is situated in and next to very densely populated Coloured areas, our experience is nevertheless that it is only utilized to a very small percentage of its full potential. It is specifically here that our problem lies. On the south side of the white residential area of Tiervlei there is a Coloured complex, i.e. Florida, with about 20,000 inhabitants, as well as the Tiervlei or Parow industrial area. This means that thousands of these Coloureds move daily from the Coloured area on the south side of the white area, through the white area, in the direction of the Tiervlei and Parow stations, thereby to make use of the railway line of the Northern Urban areas. They are also transported in their thousands by the public bus services to Parow station from as far away as the southern parts of Elsies River, Bishop Lavis Township and the Coloured resettlement areas. Sir, you can therefore imagine and accept that this movement through the white area, and especially the flocking together at those stations, causes great problems, and that it also frequently leads to great dissatisfaction. The local authorities affected by that held consultations with the local division of the South African Railways. As a result of that the local authorities are now actively engaged in constructing access roads to those stations, in particular Modderdam station, which is situated on this resettlement line. They are also implementing other measures to improve the situation. There is, for example, the re-routing of the bus routes from the Coloured areas in order more or less to re-route the Coloured traffic to these railway facilities. But because the volume of passengers on this and other stations was relatively so small in the past, the service is as a result not of the best. To mention a few examples, the station facilities are not very adequate. But this is not our greatest problem at this stage. We shall therefore not argue a great deal about that. Our actual problem is that, as a result of the small volume of passengers, the service on that section is very irregular. It is so irregular that, in the peak period, a train arrives at those stations only every 40 minutes. Then it is also a short train with eight coaches, so that one cannot re-route too many passengers there.

Sir, you now see how this problem has developed over the years. The Coloureds do not make use of the railway line because the service is irregular. On the other hand the Railways cannot extend the service because the number of passengers at this stage does not justify it. In other words, here we now have the question: What came first—the chicken or the egg. However, as I tried to indicate, the local authority is at present taking steps to get the passengers there, but it would be fruitless for us if we got the passengers there and did not adjust the train service to the changed conditions. In Cape Town there is a Joint Technical Transportation Committee which investigates problems of this kind. But recently this committee no longer functions as regularly as before. Apparently they have run out of work. This committee is of very special value in the sense that it is composed of representatives of a large variety of bodies, such as the Railways, the Departments of Transport. Bantu Administration, Coloured Affairs and Community Development, and also the local authorities of the northern urban areas, the Divisional Council, etc. Because such a committee exists, I want to urge the hon. the Minister very strongly to-day that we instruct this Joint Committee, in the light of the new circumstances and complications, to institute a thorough investigation as quickly as possible in connection with the improvement of these services. It has also become necessary for that railway line to eventually be lengthened to the Blackheath industrial area, where we have a large motor industry, so that we can thereby create a direct link between that industrial area and the resettlement areas. One need not be a prophet in order to say so, but our problems in this respect are still going to worsen in the future. I say it on the basis of only one example. I want to mention the new training hospital which is being constructed at Tiervlei. The expectation is that, as far as the outpatients for the Coloured division are concerned, provision can be made for between 3,000 and 4,000 daily. If one adds to that the visitors to the in-patients in the Coloured section—they are people who are fond of visiting their sick—hon. members may imagine how many extra passengers will make use of that line and what extra demands will be made on that traffic. I am afraid that, with the present situation, we shall not be able to cope with that traffic. Therefore I want to conclude, in the light of these facts, these circumstances and those which will still arise in the immediate future, by underlining my plea to the Minister that this joint technical committee, and thereafter the inter-departmental transportation committee, be instructed to investigate this matter immediately and to improve the existing service as quickly as possible. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, before the House adjourns I should just like to dispose of the matters which have been raised.

The hon. member for Brakpan once again asked for a new station building. He said that Brakpan had one of the oldest station buildings. I want to repeat my previous reply to him. There are so many stations with much poorer buildings than the one at Brakpan that I am afraid Brakpan will have to wait its turn until we have the money one day to erect a new station building. He said that the platform was too short. I do not know whether it is technically possible to lengthen that platform, but the Management can go into the matter. Then he said that there was not enough shelter. Unfortunately there are many stations where there are not enough lean-to shelters. My difficulty is that my funds are very limited. We should very much like to rectify all these matters, but I have to economize as much as possible. I can only do what my funds allow me to. He also asked that the coal yards at stations be moved. That would be to the detriment of the inhabitants of his town. If those coal yards were to be moved far away from Brakpan, it would mean that the people would have to pay so much more for their coal, because it would have to be conveyed that much further by road. I do not think he consulted his constituents before he made this request. Nor do I think it is in any way possible to move the coal yards so far away that they would in no way be objectionable to Brakpan. I am afraid, therefore, that Brakpan will have to content itself with having these coal yards in its midst.

†The hon. member for Salt River talked about the Hex River tunnel. It is the intention to proceed with that scheme directly funds become available.

*The hon. member for Kroonstad pleaded for improved methods for transporting and shipping greater quantities of grain more rapidly. The difficulty in respect of grain is that the transportation of maize is a seasonal traffic. Then there is the question of cycles. One year there is too much maize to be transported, as was the case last year. Then again there is a year, such as the present one, when there is too little maize. If one makes any additional facilities available, it means that they will represent quite unproductive expenditure during the years when they are not used. But I do not think there are really any complaints in connection with the transportation of maize to the harbours. My reply is also intended for the hon. member for East London North, who also raised this matter. The transportation of all this maize takes place in collaboration with the Mealie Board. The Mealie Board arranges the programme, charters the ships, and determines whether white or yellow maize must be transported, and how much of it must be transported to the coastal cities. What does happen is that the ships are not always on time. Then one has the problem of the grain elevator being full to overflowing, and then all the ships arrive simultaneously. In that event, of course, there is a delay. In this specific case there was still white maize in the grain elevator, but it was the Mealie Board that arranged for white maize to be transported. That is why there was no yellow maize. Our collaboration with the Mealie Board has been very satisfactory. There are no complaints on either side. But sometimes there are mistakes. The important point is, as I have said, that the ships which are chartered, often do not arrive at the harbours on time. Then one simply cannot take in any more maize at the harbour. There is simply no room for it. Then the ships all arrive there simultaneously and there is of necessity a delay. But if it is in any way possible to transport this large volume of grain to the harbours more rapidly, we shall, of course, do so. That is one of the reasons why I had the grain elevator constructed at East London at tremendous cost and why I dieselized that entire railway line. This was in fact done in order to be able to transport greater quantities of maize to the East London harbour more rapidly.

The hon. member asked that we should erect a grain elevator nearer to the maize triangle. The only place where it can be done is at Richard’s Bay. We already have a grain elevator in Durban. There is one in East London and one in Cape Town. At Port Elizabeth there is simply no place for a grain elevator to be built in the harbour. The only remaining place is, therefore, either Lourenco Marques, which is, of course, not our harbour, or Richard’s Bay. But there is another problem in connection with a grain elevator at Richard’s Bay, i.e. that the humidity is so high that the moisture content of the maize would remain too high for shipment. This problem is still being investigated further. If it can be solved, the erection of a grain elevator will be included in the planning of Richard’s Bay.

†The hon. member for Houghton again spoke about the passenger services to and from the Bantu townships. I have already dealt with that matter in detail on former occasions. All that I can say is that the interdepartmental committee has made certain suggestions in this regard, which have been agreed to in principle. The matter is now under consideration to see what the cost will be. I explained previously that sometimes there are trains available, but that the Bantu passengers all want to get on the first train arriving at the station, with the result that they hang on the sides of the train and they fill it up. They want to arrive at their destinations before all the others. If they wait their turn, we will probably be able to accommodate the majority of them comfortably.

They start waiting their turn at four o’clock in the morning.

I know. They all want to get on the train at four o’clock. But I know it is a problem. We are giving consideration to the matter. We are continuing to introduce new train services as well. But then accidents, like the one at Langlaagte, occur, where we lost quite a number of coaches, which burnt out. They have to be replaced. If the hon. member looks at the Brown Book, she will see that there is a considerable number of third class coaches on order. But new townships are being built. We have to provide new services to Umlazi township, for example. Those services have only recently been introduced. The funds available preclude us from placing large orders for which we cannot pay. We have to cut our coat according to our cloth.

*The hon. member for Mossel Bay said that the transportation services were very poor. The Midland transportation services are poor. I realize that. It is very difficult to provide better services on that line. The people are mainly complaining about the passenger coaches used on that line between Port Elizabeth and Cape Town. As new railway coaches come into service, they will gradually improve. At present, however, those services are being very poorly supported. It is therefore not really economical to use new and better coaches for those services.

The fires are a problem which we have always had. The veld catches alight as a result of sparks blowing from the locomotive chimneys, but provision has been made. If a farmer co-operates and makes firebreaks, any damage which he suffers as a result of fire is compensated to a maximum of R2,000. If he can prove that the Administration is to blame for any damage which he suffered, there is no limit to the amount which he may claim. In addition we are still conducting experiments in order to install a better type of spark arrestor in the steam locomotives. So far we have achieved considerable success with the experiments. We therefore hope that when the experiments have been completed and the locomotives can be fitted with the new spark arrestors, we will be able to reduce the number of fires considerably, especially in the grain districts.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay asked a question about the deep-sea harbour at Mossel Bay. As the hon. member himself admitted, I have already replied to that. The hon. member is aware of the fact that quite a number of improvements are being made at the Mossel Bay harbour and that when those improvements have been completed, coasters will be able to moor up there. However, there is no hinterland nor are there industries, so that there is nothing to justify the construction of a deep-sea harbour at Mossel Bay.

The hon. member for North Rand asked for railway lines in the north-eastern suburbs of Johannesburg and a direct line between Pretoria and Johannesburg. However, to convey passengers where there is already a loss of about R50 million a year, is, of course, quite out of the question. In addition the construction of a railway line in that area would cost so much that one could not even consider it. It will have to traverse the urban area. The expropriation costs alone would amount to millions of rands. Constructing a railway line in that heavily built-up area is therefore completely out of the question.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) asked that railway workers should have a choice of doctors. That is actually a matter for the Sick Fund. As the hon. member probably knows, the Sick Fund is administered by the staff themselves. They and the Management have equal representation. If there were to be a choice of doctor, the costs would increase tremendously. The costs are much less now because the Railway doctors are employed by the Sick Fund. They are paid per capita. In other words, they receive a certain amount for every patient on their panel. The result is that the expenditure of the Sick Fund is considerably less than it would be if railway workers had a free choice of doctor. However, it is in any case a matter about which the Sick Fund will have to decide.

As far as the diesel locomotives between Klipplaat and Cape Town are concerned, I may just say that diesel locomotives can only be used on the one hand where it is necessitated by departmental requirements and on the other hand where it is economically justified. In other words, where the capacity of a line can only be increased if considerable improvements are effected, the steam locomotives can be replaced by diesel locomotives, as is already the case with the railway lines in the Cape Midlands. Diesel locomotives require considerably less staff if they are coupled and in addition they are generally just as efficient as steam locomotives. However, there is no justification whatsoever for using only diesel locomotives on that particular railway line.

†The hon. member for Port Natal pleaded for an emergency fund for accidents. But that is not the task of the Railways. In the case of all people killed and hurt in accidents, compensation is paid by the Railways, but if emergency funds are required it must be done by outside instances and not by the Railways.

I do not see why.

Because it is not the job of the Railways. It is not the job of the Railways to collect money for emergency funds. If the Railways have to have an emergency fund they would have to finance it themselves. The Railway Administration does pay compensation in the case of all passengers who have been hurt or killed.

It takes time.

Yes, even if it does take time. But municipalities are quite at liberty to establish an emergency fund for cases such as that. The hon. member also wanted special salaries for those who are taken on when over 45 years of age. There is no justification for that. Why should a man, just because he is 46, do a certain type of job and receive a higher salary than the man who is 10 years younger and has been in the service for 10 or 15 years? There is no justification for that.

Do people get any consideration for their past experience?

Yes, they get some consideration but not very much. They have to start at the bottom of the ladder. If we take them in at a higher grade the rest of the staff will be dissatisfied and will say that their promotions are blocked.

*The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) asked for a new station for Port Elizabeth. However, I am afraid that the hon. member will have to be satisfied with the same answer as I gave the hon. member for Brakpan. I have quite a soft spot for Port Elizabeth; I am chancellor of that university. Therefore the hon. member may rest assured that if I say no to him as far as Port Elizabeth is concerned, it almost breaks my heart.

The hon. member asked for diesel locomotives for shunting work and I may tell him that this will come, but at the moment we simply do not have the money to order diesel locomotives for shunting work. Port Elizabeth has received a good deal of assistance, e.g. in the form of the new goods yard at Deal Party Estate, and a beautiful new administration building has been erected there. In addition the railway line there has been dieselised.

Say thank you!

I beg your pardon?

I told the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) to say thank you.

Oh, the hon. members are talking to each other. Pardon me for interrupting.

As I said, they have received considerable benefits. As far as the electrification of the main line is concerned, this may perhaps be done one day, but now that diesel locomotives have been put into service it will not happen soon. It will cost a great deal to move the locomotive depot at Sydenham, and in addition were are using far fewer steam locomotives there. In other words, steam locomotives will be used chiefly on the line to Uitenhage and on branch lines. In any case, they are being reduced in number.

†The hon. member for East London (North) also asked for a new station for East London (City). I do not have the same soft spot for East London as for Port Elizabeth. Therefore, the hon. member must realize that I cannot say “yes” to East London when I said “no” to Port Elizabeth.

Why not?

As I have said, I am chancellor of the Port Elizabeth University.

What about the airport?

Well, that falls under the Airways. [Laughter.] As a matter of fact I have forgotten about the airport. Well, on second thoughts, let me say I have just as soft a spot for East London as for Port Elizabeth. Nevertheless, the answer remains “no.”

*The hon. member for Tygervallei spoke about better train services for Coloureds in particular. I shall ask the General Manager to give the matter his attention.

Mr. Chairman, although it is about time for business to be suspended, I want to ask the very important question about suburban transport. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that where we had been talking about fatigue and long hours, one of the most important factors which must receive attention is some means of cutting down the travelling time for the ordinary worker from his home to his place of work. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that the most efficient way of transporting people at peak periods is by means of the electric train service. The electric train services consist of three kinds of service, namely the conventional electric train service, the underground service and the fairly modern mono-rail system. About three or four years ago the Minister sent a deputation overseas to Japan to consider, amongst other things, the monorail transport system. The Minister’s officers have had the opportunity of investigating suburban transport in Japan. I would like to know whether, and to what extent, the Minister has introduced the lessons learnt during the visit to Japan. I would also like to know which lessons they have learnt. During the recess I have had the opportunity of seeing the means of suburban transport in Japan through the offices of the Consul-General in Tokyo—both the express service and the monorail service. The monorail service has been considerably improved since the hon. Minister’s officers visit to Japan, some three or four years ago.

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

Evening Sitting

When business was suspended, I was raising with the Minister the question of suburban transport, and I suggested to him that suburban transport should receive more attention than it has received up to now. I pointed out to the Minister that there were three forms of suburban transport, namely, the conventional electric transport, the underground and the monorail. I asked the Minister whether anything had been done following the investigation which had been made by his Department some three or four years ago. As the Minister knows, some three or four years ago he sent some of his senior officials to Japan to go into the question of suburban transport. The Minister has introduced considerable improvement in suburban transport for non-Europeans, but a lot still remains to be done, particularly in the Natal coastal area with regard to electrification and motorized coaches on the suburban services. The Minister has indicated during the course of his reply that he has that matter under consideration but I would like to know from him whether he has given consideration to the introduction of underground services or to monorails. Sir, due to the good offices of the Consul-General in Tokyo, I had the opportunity of seeing what has been done in the last two or three years in Tokyo with monorail services, particularly in the outlying areas, and I would like to know from the Minister whether he contemplates either introducing monorails or investigating the economic practicability of monorails in the suburban areas. The Deputy Minister has indicated recently that monorails would not be considered, but when I was in Tokyo it was indicated that in two or three of the South American countries consideration had been given to monorails because they were more economic than the underground service. The Minister, in the course of his reply to the hon. member for North Rand, indicated that he could not consider the introduction of further electric train services for the North-East Rand area, because of the high cost of expropriation of existing buildings in that area, but I am quite sure that if the hon. the Minister consults with the Minister of Transport he will find that it is practicable to introduce a monorail service. In Tokyo, in the centre of the city, the monorail follows the express highways. By an elevated railway over the express highway the monorail runs for a distance of some seven to ten miles out of the city. In cities like Cape Town, Durban and Johannesburg, it would be possible to introduce a monorail service occupying the central island of the express highway. I would like to ask the Minister whether he has given consideration to this and whether he does not think that the time has arrived to introduce a monorail service, even on an experimental basis, in one of our major cities. The Minister’s reply may be that the introduction of a monorail service in a city is the responsibility of the city, but I suggest that it is not the responsibility of the city. The railways, in terms of the Act, are the responsibility of the Minister of Transport. Most of the cities which are demanding an improvement in transport facilities are concerned not only with the city areas, but with the suburban areas surrounding the cities. I would suggest to the hon. the Minister that the time has arrived when he should consider the economics or the practicability of the introduction of a monorail service in at least one of our major cities, on an experimental basis, to see whether it is not justified. It has already been proved in Tokyo, on the Continent of Europe and in certain South American states which have had the opportunity of introducing a monorail service. I had the opportunity when I was in Tokyo of not only travelling on a monoral service but also of interviewing the manufacturers of these plants, and they assured me, and produced ample evidence in support of their view, that a monorail service was far more economic than an underground service and that it was at least as economic in the built-up areas as the conventional suburban railway service. I would, therefore, ask the Minister to indicate as a matter of policy whether he regards the introduction of a monorail service as a matter of priority. The whole question of fatigue of workers in factories and in industry and in offices is determined by the time taken travelling to and from work during the day. In may cases, as the Minister will know, the time lag between the time a worker leaves his house and the time he arrives at work and the time he leaves work and the time he arrives at his home, is an important factor in productivity. The question of productivity has been emphasized by the Minister and the Prime Minister at various times, and I submit that if productivity is to be improved we have to cut out the fatigue factor. We can cut out the fatigue factor by reducing the time taken up in travelling and we can reduce the time taken up in travelling by introducing modem means of transport, and having regard to the fact that one of the most densely populated cities in the world, Tokyo, has found that the monorail service is economic and having regard to the fact that cities like Johannesburg, Durban and Cape Town are already finding that the question of transport of workers is a problem, I suggest that the Minister of Transport is best equipped to introduce a modern service, having regard to modern development and modern practice, which will not only improve the services which the public are entitled to demand but will effectively increase the efficiency of the workers of this country.

This question of transport to the city centre is of course a very important one. I do not want to comment very much on what the hon. member for Pinetown has said, but I am certain that if the system must come, it will come. I think, however, that our cities are still too small for such complicated and untried schemes.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to discuss another matter to-night. In the first place I just want to say thank you to the hon. the Minister. I am in the fortunate position that I can say thank you for the fact that money has been set aside in the Estimates for a new station at Patensie. Patensie is only a small place, a new station is very necessary, not only at Patensie, but also on the entire narrow gauge line. The stations all consist of old zinc buildings, and I am very pleased that a start is now being made on improvements here.

Mr. Chairman, the Railways is above all else a service organization which has to serve the nation. I want to mention one aspect here this evening, and that is the question of the decentralization of our industries and, coupled with that, the depopulation of the platteland. I know that the Railways must make its Estimates balance as far as that is possible, but we have also heard that the Railways can use various branches to make other branches pay, where it has to render a service, and here I feel that there is a tremendously great service which the Railways can render our country by effecting greater decentralization of our industries. We have had the report of the Schumann Commission in which he indicated the different aspects and also pointed out that tariffs were only one of the factors affecting the establishment of industries. But there are certain industries which are in fact very dependent upon tariffs. You will pardon me if I concentrate on one particular industry to-night, i.e. our timber industry. I should like to use the example of the transportation of timber in the Tsitsikama. During 1959 a tariff of 2½ cents per cubic ton was levied on road transport, and in August, 1968 those industrialists were notified that that tariff would be increased from 2½ cents to 5 cents—in other words, double.

By rail or by road?

Road transport. The tariff was 2½ cents per cubic ton on a minimum of 20 tons. Sir, for one sawmill in the Tsitsikama it meant an increase of R60,000 in costs, which for that sawmill is going to mean the difference between a profit or a loss on its activities. The sawmills there incurred heavy costs. They had to build up the necessary infra-structure in that area. It is a backward area. It is not a border industry, but it is of course experiencing many difficulties, and that is why it is important that assistance should be given to this industry. The timber industry employs almost 100 Whites and 1,250 non-Whites, and that means a great deal for that area. It is also necessary for that industry to be there, so that the timber can be properly processed. I do not want to go into the difference in the tariffs for raw products and manufactured products now, but this is also a very important matter. The Schumann Commission also expressed an opinion on that, i.e. that the gap between those two tariffs should be reduced. Here we now have an example where the tariff on the road transport is going to make it almost impossible for those people to carry on. I drew a comparison using the tariff from Kleinbos to Cape Town, a distance of 400 miles. The bus tariff at the moment is 2.8 cents and the railway tariff between Port Elizabeth and Cape Town is 8.8 cents, a total of 11.63 cents per cubic foot. From Nelspruit in the Transvaal to Cape Town, a distance of 1,200 miles, it is 13.50 cents per cubic foot. If this road transport tariff is doubled, it would mean 11.63 cents plus 2.8 cents, or 14.64 cents, almost 1 cent more than the tariff from Nelspruit to Cape Town. Usually one would expect to recover such increases in tariffs from the consumers, but this cannot be done here, because the consumers will simply decide not to purchase their timber in the Tsitsikama; they will purchase Transvaal timber because the rail tariffs are cheaper. I only mentioned this as an example, but it is for this reason that I am asking the Railways to play its part in bringing about the decentralization of industries and they will also assist in that way in preventing the depopulation of the platteland. In this way, by the adjustment of tariffs without incurring great losses for the Railways, we can perhaps be able to do some good as far as this matter is concerned.

I was very pleased to read in the annual report of the Railways that road transport had made a profit of almost R½ million. The service which road transport is rendering to our platteland is a very great one. I should very much like to see this service which they are rendering being expanded even further. If the Minister can make this concession for us, i.e. that the original tariff of 2.5 cents per cubic foot be retained, he would not only be helping the industries to remain there and operate on a profitable basis, but he would also be encouraging the decentralization of industries. This principle is not only applicable there; it is applicable throughout the country, and the Railways can therefore in this way play a major role in the development of industries on the platteland.

I am sure the hon. member for Humansdorp will excuse me if I do not follow his argument. He raised a point which has particular reference to his constituency, but I wish to raise another subject with the hon. the Minister of Transport. The hon. member for Humansdorp thanked the Minister for the fact that his constituency had been given a new station at Patensie. I have no doubt that he is very pleased about that and I presume that in due course the hon. member for Brakpan will also get a new station. [Interjections.] The Port Elizabeth community are very proud of the fact that we have a new and flourishing university there, of which the hon. the Minister is the Chancellor, and I feel that we have a very strong claim that Port Elizabeth also deserves a new station.

I really rose to ask the Minister to reinstate certain concessions which prevailed on the Railways before 1966 in respect of the transporting of pedigree stock to agricultural shows in the main centres of the Republic. I am the first one to concede that the concessions which the breeders enjoyed in earlier times were very generous indeed, but at the same time I wish to say very emphatically that these concessions played a very vital role in making our agricultural shows the success that they were in former years. I am very gravely concerned that if these concessions are not reinstated, our agricultural shows will suffer very severely indeed. I will show later in my speech how the cost of transport of the stock to the shows has in fact gone up, and what a vital role the concessions we enjoyed in previous years played in getting our top quality stock to the various agricultural shows. One may well ask whether there is any real need to make an urgent effort to maintain our main shows in the bigger centres like Port Elizabeth, the Goodwood Show in Cape Town, the Rand Show, and the Royal Show in Natal. Is it really worthwhile to maintain these shows? I believe that in this age in which we now live, where the generation now growing up are living in cement forests surrounded by big blocks of flats, they are losing contact with nature, and I think this is something we should counteract at all costs. Many of the younger generation have so little contact with animals that all they see is the odd stray cat or dog. I believe that it is an urgent challenge for the country to see that this kind of thing is not allowed to continue and that circumstances are created whereby this modern generation of ours is allowed to maintain the contact with nature which they well deserve.

On a point of order, Sir, may I ask you to ask these “boerehaters” to keep quiet?

Order!

I want to emphasize that if our agricultural shows are providing one service that is of importance to the city-dwellers, it is to give the young people in our community the chance to see the top flight animals of the country, the animals which provide the milk and the meat and the wool from which their clothing is made. There was a very good cartoon in one of the newspapers the other day, depicting a family visiting the show. When the children saw a pen of merino rams, they ran away as if they were confronted by a pride of lions and asked to see the dolphins in the dolphin pool instead. This position is developing into quite a serious situation, where our young people no longer have the knowledge of the animals which are so important in our farming economy to-day. The agricultural society gives these younger people a chance to make contact with nature, which is so very important. From the breeder’s point of view, it is equally important that they be given the opportunity to exhibit their best animals at these shows. Not only is it an important advertising medium but also plays a vital role in improving the standard of our stock throughout the country. I believe that where the Railway Administration has the opportunity of helping the agricultural society to survive, they should look very seriously into this matter. I would like to illustrate to the hon. the Minister to what a serious degree the withholding of these concessions has affected the cost of exhibiting animals on the shows. I have as an example the cost of transporting eight Friesland bulls or cows from De Aar. [Interjections.] I chose Frieslanders because they are one of the lesser-known breeds. I calculated what the cost was of transporting eight stud animals—be it whatever breed they may—from De Aar to Cape Town. Before these concessions were withheld it cost the breeder something like R30, but to-day, with the concessions being withheld, it costs the same breeder to transport the same eight animals something like R100. This is a tremendous increase in the cost and the main reason for the increase in the cost is the fact that if the truck is not fully loaded there is a surcharge of some 75 per cent. I think this fact makes the position of the breeder almost impossible. Not only that, Mr. Chairman, but the privileges we used to enjoy of sending the animals back from the show centre to the place from which they came free of charge no longer exists and to-day the full tariff has to be paid for the return journey. This has increased the cost of getting back our show stock, which I have proved is so important a factor, with something like 75 per cent. I think that we have a legitimate claim here to ask the hon. the Minister to seriously reconsider this situation.

The Railway Administration has worked out that a short truck can hold eight livestock, and in the case of a bogie the number is 16. I want to try to prove to the hon. the Minister that if one takes as an example these Friesland cattle to which I previously referred, one finds that it is quite impossible to get eight of these animals into a short truck or 16 into a bogie truck. I have got the vital statistics here and when I talk about vital statistics, I am going to give that of a cow, because it is more applicable in this case. A mature Friesland cow is 3 feet wide and 8 feet long, whereas the inside measurement of a GZ truck are 19 feet by 7 feet. It is, therefore, quite impossible to fit eight of these Friesland cows into the truck that I mentioned. How they established the fact that these trucks can hold eight Friesland cows I really do not know. [Time expired.]

Chairman directed to report progress for member to be sworn.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.

Mr. Chairman, You will probably allow me to extend my sincere congratulations to the hon. member for Windhoek and bid him a hearty welcome to this House. I think the hon. member was formerly a railway official, and it is perhaps very appropriate for him to take his place in the House at this stage. We want to wish him everything of the best, and hope that he, just as he is in South West Africa will be an acquisition to this House.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to avail myself of this opportunity of paying tribute on behalf of the large number of railway pensioners in my constituency to the hon. the Minister and express our gratitude for the considerable increase in pensions for railway officials. This is once again irrefutable proof of the fact that this Government has the interests of the railway worker at heart and that it does not forget him when he can no longer work and has to retire. The considerable increase in Railway pensions will do a great deal to alleviate the lot of the Railway pensioners. It will enable those of them who worked hard and spent the best days of their lives in the service of the Railways to enjoy a comfortable and carefree old age.

Although I am now conveying my gratitude I cannot however omit to bring one or two matters to the attention of the hon. the Minister. There is one matter which is causing a degree of inconvenience to railway pensioners in my constituency. I know that this matter should really be discussed under the Sick Fund, but there may be other hon. members who have similar problems I nevertheless want to bring it to the attention of the hon. Minister here. The problem is that pensioners living in my constituency live quite far from the city centre, i.e. in Algoa Park and Kabega Park. These people must then travel by bus to the city centre to consult railway doctors. It is a fact that a bus journey for an elderly person is not a very easy one to take. It also happens that these persons sometimes have to wait in the doctor’s reception rooms for about two to three hours before they have an opportunity of consulting the doctor. When they have eventually had their turn to do so, when they have been given their prescriptions, they must struggle down the stairs, and then they must repeat the process at the chemist shops. For us, who are healthy people, and who have our own transport, these problems may seem to be minor ones, but when one is of advanced years and does not have one’s own transport and in addition suffers from all kinds of complaints, it is a tiring process of waiting hours at the doctor and then again at the chemist, and then having to make one’s way home with difficulty on a bus. It is tiring to spend a whole day in this way. I do not know what the solution is. I am simply bringing the matter to the attention of the Minister. As far as Port Elizabeth is concerned, it may perhaps mean that a greater decentralization of medical services for railway officials will have to be introduced. We are living in a day and age when people are concentrating to an increasing extent on comfort and convenience. Possibly we must not begrudge our old people the same things.

I come now to a second matter which I also discussed last year. Earlier on during the day the hon. the Minister stated that he had a soft spot for Port Elizabeth, because he was chancellor of our university. We are really proud to have such a man as chancellor of our university, and that is why I hope that he will lend a sympathetic ear to this matter. It is namely the extension, or rather the introduction of a suburban train service for Port Elizabeth. I realize that suburban train services are maintained by the Railways at a tremendous loss. However, I cannot understand why cities such as Johannesburg, Cape Town and Durban should derive benefit from this loss, while the half-million people of Port Elizabeth, which is the fourth largest city in the Republic, should have to suffer tremendous inconvenience. I want to make particular mention of the township Algoa Park, in my constituency, which has a population of almost 10,000 people. The people living there are not rich people. The township is approximately seven miles from the city. There is just no railway station within reach of these people. Although the bus services are trying to meet the need, they simply cannot succeed. The result is that these people, who have a relatively small income, have to acquire a motor car to get to work. In the same vicinity there are quite a number of Coloured townships, such Galvin-dale and Bethelsdorp, as well as Bantu townships. It is impossible for the bus companies to transport the thousands of people back and forth between those townships and the city, with its busy streets. The result is that these people have to wait in long queues after working hours. This happens particularly in the case of the Coloureds and the Bantu. This often causes annoyance in the residential areas and in the vicinity of the residential areas. There are no toilet facilities, and so it becomes a hygienic problem as well. Some of these people simply walk through the White residential areas and that in turns leads to crime. These people are becoming unnecessarily embittered because they cannot get to their homes in time.

I should like to point out that there is an expectation that oil will be discovered in my constituency in Port Elizabeth. Proper provision ought therefore to be made for this in time. [Interjections.] I hope the hon. the Minister will give attention to this matter as well.

In conclusion I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) said. He paid tribute to the railways staff. However, I want to single out the chefs in our dining cars. I think it is really wonderful how these people, in the very confined space which they have at their disposal, and sometimes in the hot summer which aggravates the tremendous heat in their kitchens, succeed in preparing such tasty meals for us who can enjoy it at our leisure. I would very much like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to them.

Mr. Chairman. I am sure the hon. member for Algoa will forgive me if I do not react to what he said. I should like to tell the Minister something. Shortly before dinner I heard him say that in spite of the fact that he had been done the honour of being designated chancellor of the University of Port Elizabeth, he still did not see his way clear to build a railway station for them. I want to give the hon. the Minister the assurance that if he will give East London a station and will see to it that the trains there will run faster, I shall convince the city fathers to grant him the freedom of the city of East London. Sir, I want to break the ice. From this side of the House I want to say what we usually hear from the opposite side of the House. I want to thank the Minister. [Interjections.] I want to thank him for the story he told us this afternoon about the lion hunt, when he told us that his reflexes had slackened to such an extent between 1962 and 1964 that he had to pack away his big rifle. I now want to seek the reason for the further slackening which has taken place, because I cannot understand why our trains are still running so very slowly in spite of all the regrading of railways, the electrification of railway lines, better locomotives, etc. I should now like to say something more in this connection, but I just want to mention in passing that it is a pity that it was a lioness, because a man like Oom Ben ought to have shot a maned lion.

I should now like to discuss matters relating to farming and the transport of livestock and perishable products. I shall quote figures and statistics, and I can bear them out with documents. I have spoken before of the delays experienced in the transport of livestock, especially to the markets. I do want to say, however, that as regards the transport of livestock by train, livestock that has to be moved because of the drought, the Railways are working wonders. But I am sorry that I am not able to say this in respect of slaughter stock. If the Minister knows the system of marketing livestock, he will know that the farmers south of Bloemfontein still have to make use of the controlled markets in Johannesburg, Pretoria and Durban where there are large concentrations of people as all their livestock cannot be sent to East London, Port Elizabeth and Bloemfontein. In other words, a farmer of Grahamstown or Bedford of Adelaide, or any other place in the Southern Cape, still has to send his livestock to the controlled market of Johannesburg, Durban or Pretoria. I say without any fear of contradiction that it takes four days to get livestock to the Johannesburg market. But strangely enough it takes five days to get the livestock to Pretoria, and as much as six days to get livestock to Durban. I am aware of the regulations, Sir. I know livestock must be fed and watered en route and that they have to stand over en route. The system of marketing demands that a farmer has to get his animals to the market as soon as possible in order to get the benefit of high prices which may be prevailing. A farmer’s agent may inform him that high prices are being fetched on the market during a certain week. The agent advises the farmer to send his livestock to the market. But it takes the farmer six days to get his livestock to the market. In addition he has to await his turn. Consequently it may take as long as eight days before the farmer can sell his livestock. In that case the farmer has no chance of getting a high price for his livestock. On the contrary, because his livestock has to stand so long and because the farmer has to await his turn—this is not the fault of the Minister, of course—because of the heavy flow of stock to the market, the farmer may suffer big losses in addition to the loss of weight of his livestock. I have spoken about this matter before, and I should like to hear the Minister’s reaction in this connection. I should like to be informed whether the position as regards the transport of livestock still is the same as it was last year. Surely one must accept that as the main lines from Port Elizabeth and East London to the north are being regraded, so trains will run faster than they do to-day.

I now want to confine myself to the question of goods which are not conveyed over long distances. In this connection I should like to make a statement: The transport of perishable products by the South African Railways is the slowest of any Western country. I am going to quote the statistics. The Cape Town market has to be supplied with fruit which is not grown in this region. i.e. pineapples. I shall now quote certain statistics to you, Sir, in connection with the dispatch of pineapples. Pineapples dispatched from East London and neighbouring areas to Cape Town on 17th February arrived in Cape Town on 25th February, i.e. after nine days. The pineapples had become so sour that they could hardly be used. On a next occasion I had a consignment of 14 cases forwarded to me and I had hoped to make a gift of a case each to the hon. members on this side and on the other side of the House as well as to the hon. the Minister. This consignment was loaded on the 24th February, and arrived here on 7th March. It was delivered on 8th March, i.e. after a period of 11 days. These pineapples were transported during a hot time of the year and one must remember that pineapples are not transported in refrigerated trucks. During that period the pineapples became so sour that I had to have them all dumped. They could not be used at all. What is the real hitch as regards the reloading of fruit and perishable products from that area? Consignments have to be reloaded at Noupoort and perhaps again at De Aar. This is what I am assuming. It takes three days to get consignments to the Johannesburg market. Consignments to Reitz in the eastern Free State take five days. Those to Welkom take three days and those to Kimberley take five days. Now I am asking the hon. the Minister in a civil way to give us an explanation of why things are going so badly with our products. When shall we reach a stage when trains can be accelerated to some extent? Is the traffic so very heavy? Are our railway lines unable to carry that traffic? Are the trains unable to run any faster? Why is this happening? Is it not possible to find in this too a major reason for the staff shortage as people have to work too long to get a train to a destination which could have arrived at that destination hours earlier than it does now? If the hon. the Minister tells me that the passenger train from East London to Johannesburg has to arrive at Bloemfontein at a given time, I accept that. But the next day when one approaches Johannesburg and passes Langlaagte that train easily stands for half an hour at every small station imaginable. I do not want to speak about passenger trains so much, although I am of the opinion that they can run much faster than they do. I want to confine myself to perishable products and for that reason I have mentioned the case of those perishable products and fruit which are not obtainable in a certain area and which must be dispatched from another area to reach those markets.

Now I want to discuss the question of fodder in times of drought, and I am not speaking of mealies. I am speaking of rough-age such as lucerne. Recently when there were complaints in connection with tarpaulins as well as trucks which were not available at Vaalharts and Prieska, the hon. the Minister was kind enough to give that his immediate attention. The hon. the Minister went as far as having the full production at Noupoort, i.e. 200 tarpaulins per day, sent to that area in order that sufficient tarpaulins could be available. But now I want to ask the hon. the Minister in a civil way whether it is not possible to manufacture sufficient tarpaulins in order to avoid hitches of this nature arising. These supplies have already been purchased and have to be transported but they cannot be transported to the drought-stricken areas because of the fact that tarpaulins or trucks are not available. And how many times more and for how many years more will we still have to hear the same story? Surely the production of tarpaulins is something normal and it should be possible to accelerate it so that stocks can be built up in order to cope with cases of this nature. I can still understand trucks being delayed. It is not an easy matter to deliver a large number of trucks at one time and to forward them again to another drought-stricken area. But I cannot understand delays being caused because of a lack of tarpaulins. To me this seems unnecessary. I shall be pleased if the hon. the Minister will react and reply to the few points I raised.

Mr. Chairman, after this long refrain in which expressions of thanks were conveyed to the hon. the Minister in connection with pensioners, I hope you will allow me to express a word of thanks from my side as well, because there are quite a number of these people in my constituency. I am convinced that this is something of great significance which has been done for people who have been in need of such assistance for a very long time. This is once again indicative of the compassionate attitude and spirit displayed towards these people by this Government and in particular by the hon. the Minister. I also want to thank the Railways Head Office for this attractive, informative, neatly drawn-up and well-prepared annual report which it has submitted to us. This report is a document which is loaded with facts and information. I think the critics on the other side of the House would have done well indeed if they had taken the trouble to read through this report carefully. If they had done so many of the arguments which were advanced and a great deal of the suspicion that was sown against the good administration and management of the Railways during the past few days would most probably not have been necessary. We are also grateful for this memorandum submitted by the hon. the Minister of Transport. The facts and particulars contained in this memorandum are evidence of the fine results which were produced. Mention was made here of a shortage of staff and the enormous amount of overtime the staff had to work. In passing, I just want to deal briefly with one important point. I want to pay tribute to-night to the staff on whose shoulders there really rests a major task. If we accept, as has been said here, that a shortage of staff does exist, I think one thing we really cannot suggest in this connection is that, in the first place, these staff members do not produce a high labour productivity and, in the second place, that the annual per capita income of both Whites and non-Whites in this Service has gone down. If we look at the graph on page 88 of the Report of the General Manager regarding labour productivity—and this was achieved under circumstances when an enormous staff shortage was experienced—it is indeed laudable to notice that the index figure for labour productivity which stood at 800 in 1949-’50, shot up to 1,000 in 1950-’51, to approximately 1,100 during the year 1955-’56 and to approximately 1,120 during the year 1959-’60. This figures is still increasing in this way. Since 1959-’60 there was an increase of approximately 45 degrees in the graph relating to labour productivity. In this way we find in the year 1966-’67 that it went up from 800 in 1949-’50 to more than 1,300 in 1966-’67, and now, in the year 1967-’68, it stands at approximately 1,350. This serves to prove that, notwithstanding the fact that we have a labour shortage in this country, the labourers and the workers on the Railways said that they were going to tackle the job, that they were going to put their shoulders to the wheel and not allow productivity to drop, but were going to increase their productivity instead. And in this way we had an increasing rate of productivity. I take my hat off to them and I want to express a special word of thanks and appreciation and pay tribute to-night to those workers who achieved these fine results under those circumstances. But let us consider the annual per capita income of white workers on the railways. In 1956-’57 the index figures in this respect was R1,000. In the year 1960-’61 it went up to R1,600. And in this way we get an upward trend in this graph. In 1962-’63 it shot up to R1,875. In 1964-’65 it went up to R2,200; in 1965-’66 to R2,375; in 1966-’67 to R2,500 and in 1967-’68 to R2,650. This is tangible proof of the way these people not only pushed up productivity, but also increased the revenue of the Railways. This is the position as far as the Whites are concerned.

But what about the non-Whites? If we look at page 91 of this report, we shall see that the annual per capita income for the year 1957-’58 amounted to R275. During the year 1962-’63 it went up to R330. In this way it was increasing gradually. In 1964-’65 it was R390. In 1965-’66 it was R450: in 1966-’67, R480 and in the year 1967-’68. R500 per non-White worker. These are the real, tangible results that were achieved. We take our hats off to these people and we say “Thank you” to them for what they have done during the years. When the campaign against inflation was launched in South Africa, one of the methods suggested by this Government and the appeal that was made by the Railway Administration in particular were to the effect that wages should not be increased. In South Africa the workers would be paid increased wages, but then they had to see to it that productivity would be increased as well. I think we are able to say to-night with the greatest conviction that the railway worker in South Africa answered the call that was made. They contributed their share to increase labour productivity, particularly on the railways. For that reason we want to express a special word of thanks and appreciation to them.

In the few minutes still left to me I want to deal briefly with my own constituency. When considering the complex of Benoni on the East Rand, one finds that Benoni is situated in a triangular network of railways. One of them is the railway line running from Welgedacht past Alliance, Van Rhyn siding. Benoni and Dunswart to Johannesburg. The second one runs from Welgedacht via Modrea, Deep Levels, Benoni and Dunswart to Johannesburg. The third one runs from Springs via Poliak Park and Brakpan to the junction at Apex, from where it continues to Dunswart. When considering the development in the whole of this complex, one finds that one of the biggest residential development projects on the whole of the East Rand is being undertaken to the north of Van Rhyn siding. In this connection I really want to advance a plea on behalf of my hon. friend for Geduld, because we are actually neighbours. He is on the northern side of the Van Rhyn railway line while I am on the southern side. We now find that these people, particularly those working in the west in the Germiston complex and Johannesburg, are going to use this railway line a great deal in future and are doing so even at this stage. Viewed in the light of the enormous increase in white traffic, the facilities available at Van Rhyn siding are very poor at present. As regards Benoni, which is situated in the centre of this railway network, enormous flat development is being undertaken there at the moment. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. the Minister is listening, because I want to discuss something with him. In the first place I must plead guilty to not having a single yard of railway line in my constituency. I am therefore in the same fortunate position of most of the other members of Parliament, in that I am talking about something with which I have nothing to do and understand nothing about. But this is only by chance, because hon. members have just been listening now to the hon. member for Benoni, who came forward here to-night with a whole lot of figures. What actually happened was that he did not give himself time to prepare a speech and simply read out a report compiled by other people. Not one single member of the opposite side of the House knows what he said. It is interesting that figures these days prove everything when they are being furnished by that hon. member, but prove nothing when they are being furnished by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. Then figures do not count. This puts one in mind of the clever, educated professor who taught a flea to jump whenever he said “Jump”. The flea jumped everytime. Then the professor began to tear off the flea’s legs. When he had torn off all the flea’s legs, he said to the flea again, “Jump!”. When the flea did not jump, he said “That goes to show now, if you tear all the legs off a flea, it goes deaf.”

I do not want to waste time this evening with those matters. To-night I want in the absence of pleas for the farmer by the so-called “farming members” to ask the Minister to do something for them. But I was amazed at this hon. member when he said that he had the courage of his convictions to levy tariffs “according to what the traffic can bear.” Is that correct?

Partially.

Not partially, altogether.

You have said nothing yet, you have just been talking nonsense up to now.

But that hon. member knows nothing about these matters. He came here by accident. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is satisfied and whether he consulted his Deputy Minister. After all, he was at one stage Deputy Minister of Agriculture. He was once a farmer, as well as director of a wool-broking company, if I remember correctly. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consult with his Deputy Minister and to tell me whether he is satisfied that “this is the rate the traffic can bear” that unprocessed wool can be transported at 99.5 cents per 100 lbs. for 500 miles. When one comes to wool bales and bags (tariff 7), the cost is 100 cents. [Interjections.] Wait a minute, the hon. Deputy Minister must listen. When one comes to a small sub-section of agriculture in South Africa, namely ginned cotton, then one finds under tariff 8 that it was only 74 cents. [Interjections.] My figures are correct. But now I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he is satisfied with this state of affairs. For wool one pays 99.5 cents per 100 lbs. per 500 miles, but for ginned cotton only 74 cents. But let us go further. Take wool, unprocessed. [Interjections.] Sir, that hon. member, the hon. member for Benoni, knows nothing about wool; he must confine himself to matters which he knows something about. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member a chance to make his speech.

But that hon. member …

Order! The hon. member may proceed; I will maintain order here.

I have already said that the tariff on ginned cotton is 74 cents as against 99.5 cents for wool. But let us take unprocessed wool and unprocessed cotton. What does one find there? There is in fact a minimum for a six-ton truck, but most farmers can afford it, except a few farmers on the opposite side who farm with rabbits. There one does not pay, as in the case of wool, 99.5 cents for 500 miles; one only pays 27 cents. Who are the people who derive advantage from these transactions? How did this come about, and how does the Minister reconcile this, in the light of the present wool prices, with the policy of “what the traffic can bear”?

I am not a farmer who plants cotton.

That hon. Deputy Minister is perhaps a good concession holder, but he is a poor farmer. Mr. Chairman, let us consider the question of unprocessed cotton (packed). It is tariff 11, plus 15 per cent. This works out to only 32.1 cents as against 99.5 cents for 500 miles for wool. That is all very well, what hurts me and worries me is this: Where are the farmers sitting in this House who represent farming constituencies? Where is the hon. member for Namaqualand?

He has left.

He is not here; he is looking after the rabbits he farms with. Where is the hon. member for Beaufort West, a Minister? Where is the hon. member for Colesberg? Where is the hon. member for Prieska? What has the Government done with the Deputy Minister for Bantu Development? Why does that hon. Deputy Minister not speak on farming matters occasionally?

You are being silly.

Sir, I hope the press is going to publish that that hon. Deputy Minister has stated that one is silly if one pleads for the farmers who are in difficulties to-day because a bad Government is in power. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to point out to hon. members that I am not going to allow any further interjections.

Now you see, Sir, what is happening in this country. Deputy Ministers reproach the farmers if they ask for an opportunity to make a living. I know that that hon. Deputy Minister is Deputy Minister of Bantu Development to-day, but he must not become so verlig that he tries to smother the farmers.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, the Deputy Minister has plenty of time to speak after I have spoken, and he will not dare to do so. I did not object to that hon. Deputy Minister giving a thousand million to the Bantu. I do not begrudge the Bantu that money, but I am asking him to kindly give the wool farmer a chance to make a living. We have had a heavy drought; we have gone through difficult times; wool prices have dropped, and what do we find to-day? I return to the Minister’s original dogma that he will levy his tariffs according to what the traffic can bear. The plea which has been made here, i.e. that tariffs on the transportation of animals to shows should be reduced, is all very well; it is necessary, but is it as necessary as that we should do something to help the wool farmer as well? Sir, you can talk to any wool farmer here. [Interjections.] Yes, there are wool farmers sitting on that side but they dare not speak to-night; the Whip is breathing down their necks. If you speak to any wool farmer to-day you will hear what those people are going through to-day; you will hear what remains of their wool check after the Minister of Finance has taken his bite out of it. I am asking the hon. the Minister kindly to give serious attention to these matters. I know that he cannot rely very heavily on the advice which his Deputy Minister gives him, because he has no sympathy with the farmers.

He is a hater of the farmers (boerehater).

But there are members on that side of the House, supporters of the hon. the Minister, who will tell him that he would be doing the right thing if he were also to give the wool farmers an opportunity of making a living.

It is not my custom to speak on portfolios for which I am not responsible, but when an hon. member hawks the interests of the wool farmer about in an attempt to catch his vote, then I as a wool farmer must also let my voice be heard in this House. The hon. member stated here that the Minister had previously said that he would levy tariffs according to what the traffic could bear. I now want to ask the hon. member what the price of wool was in the past and what it is to-day. The hon. member pretends to have a monopoly of all the wisdom in the world. What is the price of a bale of wool to-day? Does he know?

It depends.

What is the average weight of a bale of wool?

My wool weighs approximately 275 lbs. per bale, but the Deputy Minister’s wool weighs about 600 lbs. per bale.

The hon. member need not come and weigh my bales for me. I do not produce those locks he produces, I produce decent wool. It is no use the hon. member pretending here that he is the biggest wool farmer in this House. I am only one of the small wool farmers here, but he is trying to imply that there are no wool farmers here who can speak on this matter. I am not one of the big wool farmers, but I am quite certain that I can hold my own against the hon. member for Sea Point as far as wool production is concerned. The hon. member is asking here what tariff can be borne by wool under these circumstances. Fortunately I am in the position that I do not produce the type of wool he produces.

You cannot.

Of course not, because my average price for wool is still 45c to 48c per lb. The hon. member can work out for himself what a bale of 275 lbs yield at that price. What tariff can wool bear in that case? Sir, the hon. member spoke about cotton. I now want to ask him what a bale of cotton weights and what the price of cotton is. If he knows that, then I want to ask him what the size of a bale of wool is as compared to that of a bale of cotton, and then I want to ask him how many bales of wool he can load into an E.S. truck—I do not know whether he has ever heard of an E.S. truck—and how many bales of cotton he can load into it. Let him then compare how much the Railways Department is going to get from the transportation of an E.S. truckload of cotton as compared to an E.S. truckload of wool. It is true that there are times of drought, but if a party is so bankrupt …

May I ask a question?

Yes, please. [Laughter.]

Order! There is nothing to laugh about. The hon. member can now ask his question.

I just want to ask the hon. Deputy Minister whether I can go and tell the farmers that he who is Deputy Minister is satisfied that the railage on wool is not too high?

There is nobody who would not like to pay less, if that is possible. The hon. member produced a great deal of noise here this evening; he made accusations here against me and you, Mr. Chairman, would have ruled me out of order if I had replied to them. He said that I could do what I wanted for the Bantu, but that I should at least do something for the farmers as well.

All of you.

I am quite prepared to discuss that aspect of the matter when the Bantu Administration and Development Vote is under discussion. I shall then discuss that matter with him, but I shall not then do as his party is doing now, namely to call people negrophilists when it suits them and then on another occasion, when it suits their purpose again, to describe people as the greatest oppressors and as people who are starving other people and who are responsible for pestilence and diarrhoea and all those kind of things. I will not hawk things like that about. I do not want to go into this any further, because you will rule me out of order, Sir, and I would not like to give you occasion to do that; I should like to return to this matter of the advantages which the farmer derive from the Railways. I want to ask the hon. member for Sea Point the following question: In the days when his party was in power, was the farmer granted the privilege by the Railways of not only transporting his cattle from drought stricken areas to better grazing, but also to bring in fodder …

That is an old thing.

Yes, it is an old thing, but what rebate was granted to the farmer? I want to ask the hon. member whether the United Party Government gave the farmers the facilities which they are receiving to-day under the National Party Government? The hon. member knows that he is engaging in cheap peddling activities here to-night, and nothing else. He does not come forward here with convincing arguments. He called out the names of certain members here this evening to have it recorded in Hansard that the hon. members were not here, perhaps because they were drinking coffee and were not in this House. Sir, how many times does that hon. member not drink coffee? How many times is he not to be found in the lobby? There are I don’t know how many members of the United Party who are to be found from time to time in the lobby or who are not here at all. The hon. member had a specific purpose in calling out the names here to-night of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who represents Beaufort West, and also the names of the hon. member for Namaqualand and others. This is cheap political peddling as I have never experienced before, and I am not prepared to descend to the same level as the hon. member for Sea Point descended to. I want to say to the hon. member that the farmers, particularly the wool farmers, support the Government, and that they are grateful to the Minister of Transport for the facilities which he is placing at their disposal.

Sir, I do not wish to follow the argument or the private debate between the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development and the hon. member for Sea Point as to who is growing locks and who is growing fine wool. I think that is a matter which the two hon. members must resolve themselves. But when the Deputy Minister is not as sympathetic towards the wool farmers of South Africa, as he might be, then I cannot agree with him, because the Deputy Minister very recently had an opportunity of meeting many farmers in the district of Graaff-Reinet, representative of a very wide section of the wool producing area. I think those farmers made him fully aware of the difficulties which they are facing. I had hoped that by this time the hon. the Deputy Minister would have made an announcement in the House as to what he thought could be done to help the wool farmers in their present plight, but we have heard nothing from him, Sir, in a previous debate I was making a plea to the Minister to reconsider his attitude towards the concessions which were made to stud breeders transporting their show stock to agricultural society shows in our big centres. I now want to take that point further. I think it is generally accepted by all of us that our agricultural societies play a vital role in the livestock industry of South Africa. This point is borne out by the fact that our Goodwood Show here recently was opened by no less a person than the hon. the Prime Minister. This indicates the importance we attach to an agricultural show such as that at Goodwood, and later during the year my hon. Leader will have the privilege of opening the Port Elizabeth Show. So obviously we attach great significance to the services these societies render to the livestock industry. But I want to say that a vital link between the agricultural societies and the farmers is the S.A. Railways. They play a vital role and I think the hon. the Minister of Transport accepted this by making special concessions to the stud breeders to transport their stock to these shows. But to-day the position is that these concessions have been withheld and if the hon. the Minister of Transport does not reconsider the matter it may well be that our agricultural societies will suffer a severe setback. The farmers are having an uphill struggle to-day and the one thing they have to try to do is to keep down the cost of production. But here is a case where the costs of production have been raised because these concessions have been withheld, and as I showed previously the cost of transporting eight animals from De Aar to Cape Town has gone up by some 75 per cent. The farmer is no longer in a position, by virtue of the prices he gets for his produce and his livestock, to pay the price he is called upon to pay to-day for transporting his exhibits to the shows. It is not only the question of the tariff, but I feel that the Railway Administration can help a great deal if they make available to the exhibitor more of the GZ bogie type trucks to transport these valuable animals. When they are transported in the short truck, the IZ or the IZU truck, these animals are subjected to all kinds of hazards by virtue of the greater damage they sustain in the shunting yards. In the case of an eight-wheeler, the GZ bogie, the comfort of the animals is far better catered for. I would take this opportunity of appealing to the hon. the Minister to see whether it is not possible to make available to our exhibitors more of these GZ bogies, and also to see whether he cannot change the arrangement whereby a load for a short truck is established at four head of livestock, and in the case of the GZ bogies, at eight. I think I have proved quite convincingly, if I may say so, from the statistics I quoted, that it is quite impossible to get eight full-grown Friesland cows or any other breed of cattle into a short truck, or 16 into a long truck. If the exhibitor is not able to get that number of animals into the truck, he is then called upon to sign Declaration B, which means that he has to pay for the full load. This costs the farmer a lot of money. So I feel that I have come here with a very justifiable case and I hope the Minister will look upon it in a favourable light. I have dozens of letters here which I will be only too pleased to show to the Minister to substantiate the claims I have made. These are farmers who I believe are operating in the best interests of our agricultural industry in South Africa and they are not trying to get anything out of it, but they are rendering a service to our livestock industry. I do know that in some instances the privileges we enjoyed under these concessions have been abused, but I submit that the large bulk of our exhibitors at these agricultural shows should not be made to suffer because one or two irresponsible people abused these privileges the Minister conceded in previous years. On this note I should like to terminate my speech and I ask the Minister seriously to consider my request as a matter of urgency that the concessions which prevailed before 1966 be reinstated. I can assure the hon. the Minister that by doing this he will be giving agricultural shows a new lease of life.

The plea advanced by the hon. member for Walmer in favour of cheaper tariffs for stud and show animals is possibly not without any merit and I think the hon. the Minister will possibly furnish an adequate reply to his plea, but I should like to come back to the hon. member for Sea Point. This hon. member made a point of attacking the hon. member for Benoni in this House and accused him of not taking the time to prepare his speech and that he was going to read to the House what other people wrote down for him. Right at the outset of his speech the hon. member told us that he did not have one single Railway voter in his constituency. The impression I gained after the hon. member had made such a great fuss and had caused quite a scene here, was that he has just as little to say as he has few Railway voters.

I do not want to pay tribute; I just want to express my appreciation to the hon. the Minister and his administration on behalf of the great number of pensioners in my constituency for the concessions made in respect of pensions. Furthermore, I will probably be permitted to express appreciation for the work this Department has done. If one looks at all these printed documents, if one considers the completeness of everything that has been done and the adequate replies the hon. the Minister was able to furnish in reply to every allegation, one is deeply impressed by the work that has been done by this Department. I believe that everyone right through the country is highly appreciative of this.

What I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister, unfortunately concerns a reply which he has already furnished to-night, and this makes me rather hesitant. The hon. the Minister said on occasion that what he refused Port Elizabeth, he could not give to East London. I hope the hon. the Minister is not going to say to me also that what he refuses Brakpan he cannot give to De Aar. I should like to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister the condition the complex of railway buildings at De Aar are in. I need surely not draw attention to the importance of De Aar as a railway junction. I wonder whether there are any hon. members in this House who have not had to stay over at De Aar for a short while and had to put up with some wind and dust. Some of my colleagues have told me that they remember De Aar from their youth, because De Aar is the major railway junction in South Africa. De Aar may almost be likened to a spider in that it is situated in the centre of a plain with its long legs extending to every coastal town and far to the north and even up to South-West Africa. The railway junction at De Aar is really the heart of the railways in our country. It is such an important railway junction, not only as regards goods traffic but also as regards passenger traffic in particular; we think of the fact that, as I said a moment ago, De Aar is really a sort of terminal as far as South-West Africa is concerned, and it is not only our local travellers who land up there. Recently a great deal was written and said about the American visitors we had and the inconveniences they had to suffer, and so forth. These people also stayed over at De Aar for a shorter or a longer period of time. I think that if one takes all these things into consideration, we have to accept that De Aar really serves as some sort of display window for South Africa and for this reason I have no hesitation at all in advancing a plea for the provision of new station buildings there. What we really have at De Aar, is an old station building and a so-called new station building, but according to the information I obtained, the old part is approximately 70 years old or more. These two complexes are situated on two narrow islands or platforms. It is extremely inconvenient. Communication between these two buildings is inconvenient and this involves many other inconveniences. Viewed in the light of the fact that passengers so often have to stay over at De Aar, the refreshment facilities leave much to be desired, as do the waiting room facilities. I know the hon. the Minister is aware of all these facts and I also know that this matter has been submitted to the Department and it is for this reason that I should like to advance a very serious plea. I should not like the Minister to play De Aar off against Brakpan, but he will know what to do because he knows how to handle every difficult situation. I just want to ask whether it is not possible to consider whether we may get a new station building at De Aar on the western side of the present complex where space is available, something which will serve to make De Aar a dignified place in view of the important work that is being done there.

I wish to associate myself with the plea of the hon. member for De Aar for new station buildings at De Aar. I am not unfamiliar with the area to which he has referred and I may say that he has made out a very good case. When he contrasts the case for De Aar as against the case for Brakpan, I wish to give him the assurance that the Minister is more likely to listen to his pleas for a new station building at De Aar than he is to listen to the pleas of the hon. member for Brakpan, for the simple reason that the majority in De Aar for the Nationalist Party is very much smaller than it is in Brakpan. And there is an election just around the corner. Therefore it will be no surprise to me if De Aar is blessed with a new station complex before the next election.

I should like to refer to a matter I raised with the hon. the Minister the year before last. He was then kind enough to give me a detailed reply concerning conditions on the suburban lines in the Peninsula. To-night I want to refer to the fact that the Southern Peninsula particularly is developing very fast and there is no express service which adequately serves that area. When I say there is no express service I mean that trains do not run express beyond Retreat. They run express up to Retreat and even to Heathfield and then they stop at all stations from there. I frequently travel on that line myself and I find that in the mornings and evenings the service is completely inadequate and in fact women and children, to say nothing of men, are standing to and from Muizenberg, False Bay, Lakeside, Steenberg and Retreat stations. I have also drawn on a previous occasion the Minister’s attention to the fact that discomfort on the trains is very much in evidence. I have drawn attention to the fact that there is jolting and jarring of trains. There has been, to my certain knowledge, for the last two or three years an investigation into the pulling mechanism of those trains, but I would like to tell him from my personal experience that there has been very little improvement indeed. More recently by way of a question I drew his attention to the fact that some elderly people are unable to embark or disembark on the suburban line, because the doors do not open adequately. I also drew his attention a year ago to the fact that elderly people experience the greatest difficulty in reading the notice boards on the Cape Town station. I remember well that at that time there were a number of objections in the Press and also in writing about the new notice boards and I wonder if the hon. the Minister will be kind enough to inform us whether those notice boards have fulfilled expectations and whether they are really serving the public as they should.

I would also like to deal with the question of staff, and in particular with the conductors on suburban trains. It is my impression that many conductors work particularly long hours and I think that if it is possible to obtain extra staff for the suburban trains it will be very much appreciated. In addition there is difficulty in so far as the public is concerned, because the ticket offices at some of the smaller stations are not open during weekends. In the summer season, particularly, this is a matter of great inconvenience to the public using the suburban lines. I think that the fares paid by the public using the suburban lines at least indicate the necessity for a far better service than they receive at the moment. Then I would like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to a state of affairs which exists both at Steenberg—and I know that there are improvements under way to the station complex there—and at Retreat stations, particularly during the rush hours in the morning, and also in the evenings. I have made it my business to go to those stations early in the morning to see the non-Europeans entraining at both Steenberg and Retreat stations. The position there is, to say the least, very similar to the position which I have heard described pertaining to Johannesburg. There is simply not enough accommodation available for non-Whites going to Simonstown or coming up to the factory areas of Salt River and the rest of the Peninsula. I do feel that attention must be given to the immediate undertaking of work both at Steenberg and at Retreat.

I would now also like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to something that perhaps has not already been drawn to his attention, namely the fact that the Coloured people from Simonstown have been rehoused, or are being rehoused, at Slangkop. Slangkop, for his information is on the Atlantic Coast. It is at least four miles from Fish Hoek and, as the crow flies, approximately seven miles from Simonstown. There is talk that the local authority concerned, namely the Divisional Council, is to build a road to link Slangkop with Simonstown, the place where most of these non-Europeans in fact work. This is a fairly long-term project, but in the meantime there is the question of the station at which the non-Europeans from Slangkop will embark and disembark. I am sure that the hon. the Minister is as aware as I am of the cramped facilities that exist at Fish Hoek and it will be a most undesirable state of affairs if thousands of non-Europeans from that township were to be brought into the already cramped White town of Fish Hoek and made to entrain and to detrain there. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has given attention to the possibility of establishing a station for non-Whites at Glencairn, not as an extension of the existing White station at Glencairn, but at the Fish Hoek end of Glencairn beach where there is a certain amount of vacant land available.

Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I would like to deal again with the matter which I have already brought to the attention of the hon. the Minister, and which, like the investigation into the jolting and jarring of the trains and the opening of the doors, seems to take a particularly long time to reach a conclusion, namely the question of the transfer of the surplus railway land adjacent to the Main Road between Muizenberg and Clovelly to the Municipality of Cape Town. To my knowledge, my predecessor, Mr. Gay, was busily engaged in asking questions on this matter for some years before he left this House and I have also asked questions each successive year concerning this matter since I have been here. There seems to be no end to the investigation that is taking place, and there seems to be no end to the negotiations that take place between these two bodies. I think that I am entitled as the representative, for that area to ask the hon. the Minister if the delay is on the part of the Cape Town Municipality, or if the delay is on the part of the Railways, and when we can expect a satisfactory conclusion to these negotiations. As a result of the inadequate suburban train service between Simonstown and Cape Town traffic congestion is becoming acute at peak hours. As the hon. the Minister knows, the Main Road is very narrow indeed and if he would care to come on an inspection with me some time in the afternoon when the dockyard workers and naval workers leave Simonstown, he will see the most appalling bumper to bumper congestion of traffic between at least Fish Hoek and Muizenberg. I believe that this is a matter that should receive his immediate attention and I want to make an appeal to him to investigate the matter for himself.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry the hon. member for Simonstad started his speech on such a false chord. We on this side of the House have a great respect for the sensible contributions he makes towards debates, but unfortunately he began this speech of his by drawing a comparison between Brakpan and De Aar and he also included the majority of a political party in that comparison. I want to assure the hon. member that if he joins the services of the Railways Administration and is transferred to De Aar, he will be the only member of the United Party on the Railway staff at De Aar. Furthermore, I want to give the hon. member the assurance that if he ever gets anything from the hon. the Minister for his constituency, namely Simonstad, he will not get it because he also draws a comparison as far as party politics are concerned, but because this hon. Minister knows his duty and responsibilities.

Mr. Chairman, on various occasions during the past few days reference was made to the inefficiency of the South African Railways. First of all the hon. the Minister was criticized, the Railway Board was dragged into it and the whole of the Administration was mentioned as well as the ordinary officials and workers. On behalf of this side of the House—and I believe it is on behalf of all of us—I want to put this matter right. We believe that there are people with limited abilities within the Railway Administration, but we also believe that these people with their limited abilities nevertheless have talents of some sort or skills which they can utilize for the purpose of promoting and extending the efficiency of the South African Railways. For this reason I want to pay tribute to-night to the people with limited abilities who are willing to do their best and often more than their best to contribute towards the efficiency of the South African Railways. One finds people with limited abilities in every sphere of our community, but I do believe that in no other sphere are these people being used more efficiently as in the South African Railways. I want to pay tribute to these people.

I should also like to avail myself of the opportunity to thank the hon. the Minister for making it possible, in spite of a staff shortage, for time and staff to be set aside to subject people joining the Railway Administration to tests for the purpose of determining their aptitudes. During the previous year 20,040 applicants were tested scientifically for unskilled and semi-skilled grades. Not only were these people subjected to tests, but the tests were followed up by psychological information services as far as their emotional and/or their personality problems were concerned. The fact of the matter is that there were 53 persons during the past year in respect of whom it was proved by means of tests that their productivity had increased. I believe that these 53 persons constitute more than enough compensation for these attempts made by the Administration. For this reason I want to ask the hon. the Minister not only to continue this system of placing our young people in better positions to an even greater extent, but also to extend this system. I also want to pay tribute to the 53 persons who increased their productivity. However, we should not only pay tribute to them but we should also encourage them to set their targets even higher in future.

Mr. Chairman, while we, as representatives, now have the opportunity of making our requests known to the hon. the Minister, I want to address a polite request to the Minister. I believe you will understand that I have the interests of the young people very much at heart, because I myself still know what the problems and the desires of the young people are. I was pleased to see that 1,948 students, the majority of whom were young people, applied to enrol for courses at Esselen Park during the previous year. I am also pleased to see that a pass figure of 90.12 per cent was obtained in the subjects in which tuition was offered. One is impressed by this and we are grateful for it. I now want to ask the Minister very kindly whether it is not possible to pay an additional incentive allowance to the young people in the Railway Administration who are prepared and eager to attend these courses. To these young people, who have just started to earn their own money, every few cents mean a great deal. I am sure that when such an incentive allowance is paid to these young people, it will not only lead to a greater number of our young people making the Railways their career, but that it will also promote and encourage the desire among our young people to learn. We will need this knowledge and this skill to an even greater extent in future in order to render our Railways even more efficient.

The question of overtime was mentioned frequently. I want to point out that I had no complaints in my constituency from people who had to work overtime unnecessarily. However, we find that as a result of having to work overtime, many of our young people do not have sufficient opportunity to participate in youth organizations or youth cultural organizations or that they cannot do so regularly. This is of great importance, not only as far as the youth is concerned, but also as regards the future cultural programme of the South African Railways. I know this is a very difficult request I am making, but I nevertheless want to ask whether it is not possible for the statisticians of the South African Railways to work out a programme according to which these young people—and I have in mind particularly the firemen and our young footplate staff—can have free evenings and weekends regularly.

Sir, I hasten to conclude. There is yet another sphere in respect of which I should like to advance a plea on behalf of our Railway officials. The majority of our Railway officials regard the Sunday as a day intended for religious and spiritual upliftment as well as a family day. However, as a result of the fact that these officials carry out their duties gladly on Sundays, it is often expected of them to make sacrifices at the expense of themselves and their families. For that reason I want to ask whether it is not possible to increase the allowances paid to these people who work on Sundays. We know that these people are at present receiving compensation amounting to 1½ times the compensation they receive for an ordinary working day. But we shall appreciate it if the Minister would consider paying double the usual compensation to these people who are prepared to make these sacrifices on Sundays for the sake of the public and industry. I appreciate that this may cause problems. For that reason I should like to suggest as an alternative that, if this is not possible, an investigation should be initiated to determine whether it would not be possible to reduce the contributions these people make towards their pension funds. This should then be regarded as remuneration, not in money, but as a remuneration for the contribution they make.

Mr. Chairman, I want to conclude. I appreciate that what I have asked for, will cost money. However, there is yet one other aspect I want to deal with. In the Free State there is no railway connection with Witzieshoek in the South-Sotho homeland. I believe that, through judicious planning, a railway line could be built from Afrikaskop, a point between Harrismith and Bethlehem, via Kestell, a small town, to Witzieshoek and from there through the picturesque Golden Gate via Clarence to Bethlehem. I want to give the assurance that such a railway line will not only mean a great deal to producers in that area, but that it will also render an excellent service to tourists and Bantu travellers. I trust that these requests will be considered sympathetically by the Minister. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Pinetown wants to know whether lessons learnt by the mission to Japan in regard to the running of suburban services have been implemented by the South African Railways. This mission found that the Japanese suburban services were among the best in the world. I do not think there are any suburban services anywhere which run to time as well as the Japanese trains do. But I do not think that any other Railway service will be able to treat their passengers in the same way that the Japanese treat theirs. I do not know whether hon. members know that at Japanese stations they have what they call pushers. It is the duty of certain workmen employed by the Japanese Railways to push passengers into the coaches the moment a suburban train stops and the doors open. I think that if we have to do that to our passengers we will most probably have a revolution. That is one of the reasons why they are able to run on time. But of course there are many other lessons to be learnt too. They have what is called preventative maintenance. In other words, they do not wait until there is a breakdown and then send repair gangs to repair the breakdown. They have preventative maintenance, which of course adds to the running on time of their Railways. We have received quite a number of very good tips and quite a number of the recommendations of this mission that went overseas are being implemented. The hon. member wanted to know whether I have given consideration to a mono-rail suburban service or an underground service. I want to say very clearly that domestic transport within the borders of a municipality is the responsibility of that municipality and not of the Railways. I am not prepared to accept that responsibility. In other words, the introduction of a mono-rail for suburban services is the responsibility of the municipality. The same applies to an underground service.

What about outside the cities?

There were some suggestions that instead of building a railway line from Chatsworth and Umlazi to Durban there should be a mono-rail. That was thoroughly investigated by my engineering officers. They found that there are no mono-rail services of any length in operation in the world to-day. The longest is the one in Tokio in Japan and that was built for the sole purpose of transporting passengers to the Olympic Games. That is why it was built.

It is only a couple of miles.

Yes, it is only a couple of miles. There is another one in Seattle. I rode on that one. That was especially built from the centre of the city to the world exhibition that they had. Despite the fact that mono-rails have been in existence for decades, no country in the world has adopted a mono-rail system for general transport. They are quite unsatisfactory, and they are not very economic. As a matter of fact they are no more economic than ordinary suburban rail services. They also have so many disadvantages. You cannot get one train passing the other. If you have a breakdown on the mono-rail you cannot shift it to one side to get your other traffic moving. You have to have special workshops, and special maintenance teams, which do not make the game worth the candle at all. That was thoroughly investigated. That is why no country in the world has adopted a suburban service yet by way of mono-rail. If municipalities want to try it out for their domestic services they are welcome to do so. But I will certainly not introduce a mono-rail service of any length and for the purpose of conveying large numbers of passengers from outside to the centre of town.

I am not sure what the hon. the Minister meant when he said that the operating of the railway service through a municipal area was the responsibility of the municipality. Could the Minister elaborate on that?

A suburban rail service can bring the passengers into the city, but the distribution of those passengers within a municipality is the responsibility of that municipality. In other words, we have the rail service to Cape Town station. The suburban service to Cape Town is an excellent service and one of the best. But once the passengers leave the train at Cape Town station it becomes the responsibility of the municipality to see that they are transported to wherever they want to go to within the boundaries of the municipality.

*The hon. member for Humansdorp asked for consideration to be given to the tariff on the transport of timber by road from the Tsitsikamma area. First I should like to say something in connection with the decentralization of industries. The Schumann Commission found that tariffs played a very minor role in connection with the location of industries. That was the finding of a commission of experts. It does play a role in connection with the location of industries, but it plays a very minor one. As regards the tariffs on timber, I wrote a letter to the hon. member on 5th November, 1968, in which the matter was explained. I gave the reasons for the increase in the tariff on the transport of timber. In addition I wrote to the hon. member as follows (translation)—

I am now referring to the sawmillers—

I do not know as yet whether those discussions were held. Nor do I know whether those interested parties availed themselves of that opportunity, because I have heard nothing more from the Management in connection with this matter. I would suggest that the hon. member approach these interested parties, and if they have not as yet asked that discussions be held, let them do so. Then the matter can be thrashed out with the General Manager.

†The hon. member for Walmer pleaded that I must reinstate the concession on the rail tariff for the transport of livestock to agricultural shows. This is one of the recommendations of the Schumann Commission that I have accepted. They have made a number of recommendations in regard to the transport of agricultural products which. I did not accept, because I felt that the agricultural community could not bear those increased tariffs that they have suggested. I rendered a service to the agricultural community. But in regard to the concession for livestock to agricultural shows, I think the hon. member would agree with me that it is usually the more wealthy farmer who exhibits his livestock on these shows and that the cattle exhibited on these agricultural shows are very expensive. I know this because I was a dairy farmer myself and I bought young bulls at the Johannesburg Spring Show and I had to pay a lot of money for them. In other words, the farmer who breeds stud cattle and who exhibits them on shows gets a very good price for his cattle when he does sell them. Therefore I think that those farmers can afford to pay this additional tariff. The hon. member said that it is impossible to get eight Friesland cattle into a small cattle truck. I have never had this complaint before, but I will have it investigated. I think that I must point out that it is always more advantageous for cattle to be placed as close to each other as possible in a truck because they help to hold each other up when the train shakes and jerks. It is better for the cattle to be closely packed than for one or two cattle to be in a truck. Nevertheless, I will ask the Management to go into this matter and also to consider the availability of more G.Z. trucks which the hon. member asked for.

*The hon. member for Algoa asked for provision to be made for medical services for pensioners living far from the centre of town. He also said, and quite rightly so, that this was a matter for the Sick Fund. The Sick Fund defines the medical districts and is responsible for the appointment of Railway doctors. Therefore this actually is a matter which should be raised with the Sick Fund concerned. I think the hon. member should tell the people in his constituency that they should address those representations to the Sick Fund. The hon. member also requested the introduction of a suburban train service for Port Elizabeth. Well, he himself said that Algoa Park was situated seven miles from the city and a long way from the station. Therefore I do not know whether a suburban service will be profitable. It is a pity that the hon. member is not present at the moment, because I wanted to ask him whether he meant that a new railway line should be built so as allow of the introduction of a suburban service or whether he wanted a suburban service on the present railway line. I shall wait until he returns so that he may let me have this information.

The hon. member for East London (City) alleged, inter alia, that the trains transporting livestock and perishable products in South Africa were the slowest in the world.

I did not say that they were the slowest in the world, but the slowest in the Western world.

That is an even worse allegation. I wonder what proof the hon. member has for that. I wonder whether he realizes that we have a narrow gauge line of 3 ft. 6 in. in South Africa whereas all the Western countries, in Europe and in America, have a wide gauge line of 4 ft. 8½ in. Consequently their trains can move at a much faster speed than the South African trains can do.

Australia also has a narrow gauge line.

Australia has three different gauges, i.e. 5 ft., 4 ft. 6 in., and 3 ft. 6 in. The gauges of the various states differ and consequently delays are even longer as the goods have to be reloaded every time. Therefore the hon. member cannot take that as an example. Let me now give the hon. member a few examples of the running times in South Africa, with its narrow gauge lines, its steep slopes and its sharp bends. The scheduled running time of the express service between Johannesburg and Cape Town is approximately 42 hours whereas the train maintained an average running time of approximately 44 hours for the year 1968. The scheduled running time of the express service from the Rand to Durban is 23 hours and for 1968 the average real running time came to approximately 24 hours. The scheduled running time between Pretoria and Port Elizabeth is 581 hours whereas an average real running time of 591 hours was achieved for 1968. From the Lowveld to the Rand the transit per line amounts to approximately 24 hours. Therefore, if the hon. member experienced a delay in the transport of his pineapples, which he probably did not dispatch per truck load with the result that his consignment had to be reloaded at various places on which account it was in transit for 11 days, he should not make a general statement that South Africa has the slowest trains in the world, because this simply is not so. I think we are doing exceptionally well. A further fact is that if the hon. member consigned truck loads, his pineapples would reach their destination much sooner than when he consigns only a few cases which have to be reloaded into other trucks every now and again. This also applies to the perishable products he mentioned.

The hon. member also said that it took five days to transport livestock to the controlled markets. But the hon. member himself admitted that it was laid down by regulation that after livestock had been in transit for a certain time the animals had to be taken off the train and fed and watered. I had one case here in the Western Cape when a farmer asked me to transport his sheep from Graaff-Reinet to South-West Africa without taking the sheep off the train en route. This was a trainload of sheep and not only two or three truck-loads. I then made the experiment and the result was that the sheep arrived at a destination this side of Windhoek in South-West Africa after three days. The train ran straight through, however, but if one has to unload the sheep every now and again to water and feed them, the train will obviously take much longer to arrive at its destination. If the hon. member were to dispatch a trainload of livestock in future and were to ask me to transport the animals straight to their destination without feeding or watering them en route, I assure him that the animals will arrive at the controlled market within three days. In that case, however, he must accept responsibility for the condition of his livestock on their arrival at the controlled market.

The hon. member asked whether there was a possibility of sufficient tarpaulins being manufactured. Additional tarpaulins are being manufactured every year. In these Estimates, too, provision is again being made for the manufacture of thousands of additional tarpaulins, and, inter alia, also for the manufacture of the new type of tarpaulin which is made of nylon instead of canvas. This type of tarpaulin is much lighter and much more durable than the ordinary tarpaulins. Unfortunately there are many people, particularly at sidings, who simply hide tarpaulins and keep them there so that they may have tarpaulins available when trucks have to be loaded. The more we manufacture tarpaulins, the more they disappear. It is an impossible task to appoint inspectors to visit each of these places to see whether or not tarpaulins are lying about. Each year more and more tarpaulins are being manufactured, and then suddenly there is a great demand for tarpaulins, such as there was in the drought-stricken districts throughout the country when all farmers wanted lucern and were in a hurry to get it. In that case large quantities of tarpaulins have to be sent to the loading points, especially to the Orange River area where lucern is produced. In a case like that one may run short of tarpaulins. But in general the requests for tarpaulins are being met, and each year thousands of new tarpaulins are being put into service.

The hon. member for Benoni asked for improved facilities at certain stations. I do not know what the position is at that one specific station he mentioned, but the Management made a note of that and will go into the matter.

I do not know what the hon. member for Sea Point became so excited about when he was putting his case.

Because you charge us such very high tariffs for transporting our wool!

If I were to charge him even more, he would probably get a fit. But you know, Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development gave him such a good reply that I really cannot say much more in this connection. In the first instance that hon. member imputed things to me which I had not said. In connection with determining tariffs there are two basic principles. The one is to cover the transport costs and the other is the carrying capacity of traffic. These factors will determine the tariff for the transport of wool. Not only one factor, but both factors must be taken into consideration; in other words, not only what the traffic can carry but also one’s actual transport costs. Therefore both factors must be taken into account. I have already said this time and again. This is also what was said by the commissions appointed to examine the tariff structure. The hon. member said the tariff as regards wool was 99c per 100 lbs. of wool over a distance of 500 miles. This means that over this distance the tariff is equal to 1c per lb. My friend says he receives between 47c and 48c per lb. for his wool.

You cannot believe him!

The hon. member is not only a big farmer; I also know that he produces wool of the best quality. He ought to know.

Where do you get that from?

If the hon. member does not produce good wool he will definitely not get 48c per lb. for his wool.

The hon. member does not get 47c per pound on the average. He is telling stories.

Suppose the hon. member gets 35c per pound for his wool on the average; does the hon. member want to tell me that a tariff of 1c per lb. for transporting wool over a distance of 500 miles is too expensive? I think it is dirt-cheap! It is quite impossible to compare wool to cotton, because the weight and the value are totally different. The hon. the Deputy Minister dealt with that aspect as well, and furnished all the proof to the hon. member.

These products are not comparable. As regards the question of weight, you would be nearer the truth if you were to compare mealies to wool.

I said one could not compare wool to cotton! There is a difference in value, there is a difference in weight, there is a difference in the size of the bales in which they are packed. All these factors are taken into account. As far as the farmers themselves are concerned, hon. members know I have always adopted a very accommodating attitude. The Railways transports many agricultural products at a dead loss, and the Railways is prepared to do so as it is in the interests of the country. Other consignors have to pay for that.

Have the farmers made any representations in regard to the tariff on wool?

This year nobody but the hon. member has made representations to me.

And last year?

Probably, I do not know, but at that time I probably gave the same answer as I am giving now.

I know they are no longer making representations, because it gets them nowhere!

But that is what I have been saying. [Laughter.] The hon. member for De Aar also asked for a new station building. In connection with this matter I just want to say that if I were to ask hon. members here to-night which of them wanted new station buildings for their constituencies, probably 75 per cent of them would put up their hands. [Interjections.] Yes, listen to that! They all want new station buildings! There are many stations that are old and in a sad condition. What is being done in this regard, is that a priority list for the building of stations is drawn up for each system. Those stations where conditions are worst and those stations where facilities are most lacking, are placed at the top of the priority list. Only a specific amount can be appropriated for the building of new stations. There are not sufficient means for meeting all requirements. It is impossible to do so because the capital funds of the Railways are limited. But manpower too is limited. In other words, the capacity of the department has to be taken into account before building operations can commence and in addition available funds must be taken into account. Provision is made every year for rebuilding or building new station buildings in every system. I do not know what position De Aar is occupying on that list. I know De Aar is an important railway centre. We have spent a considerable amount of money on De Aar; particularly in connection with the extension of its yards which is very essential for traffic purposes. However, we are not in a position to build many new station buildings. Durban has been struggling for the past 20 years to get a new station building.

Where are we on the list?

They are still fairly low down on the list. They will still have to wait a long time before they will get that new station building.

They are still too much United Party!

Consequently I shall be pleased if hon. members will only exercise some patience; one day they may perhaps get their new station buildings.

†The hon. member for Simonstown has said that there is no adequate express service serving that region. That is a matter upon which the Management will go into.

In regard to the jerking and jarring of trains, I have told the hon. member before that experiments are being made. I have also replied to a question in that regard. In regard to new draw gear, it is proving successful and all the suburban coaches will be fitted with the new draw gear which will eliminate the jerking and jarring.

He said that there was not enough accommodation for Natives at Retreat and Steenberg. That is also a matter for the Management to go into. The same applies to the station which was established for non-Whites at Glencairn. In regard to the transfer of ground to the Municipality of Cape Town, I have no particulars available, but I have made a note and I will go into the matter to see what is causing the delay.

*The hon. member for Bethlehem asked whether it was not possible to give an incentive allowance to young people who passed their examinations. But the hon. member did not say what examinations. There is a considerable number of examinations on the Railways. There are the station accounts examinations; the shorthand examinations, and everyone has to pass some examination or another. I do not know whether the hon. member meant academic examinations, but if he will give me a little more clarity I may be able to give him a reply.

The hon. member also asked that young people should be given more time for attending cultural functions. This, of course, depends on the demands of the service. A train cannot stand still because the fireman wants to attend a cultural function.

As regards Sunday pay, an improvement was made last year. As I have said, time and a half is being paid for Sunday time. If double time has to be paid, it is going to cost several million rand more per annum. This cannot be considered at all at this stage.

With regard to the railway line from Afrikaskop to Witzieshoek, I have to say that this is a fine idea, but to that I must add that the construction of such a railway line alone would require considerable expenditure. In addition to that the operating costs of that railway line will be quite uneconomic. At present the policy is to build only railway lines which are required for departmental purposes or other lines which are guaranteed against all losses. I am afraid there is nobody who will guarantee this line against losses.

Heads put and agreed to.

Heads Nos. 18 to 25,—Harbours R26,909,000 (Revenue Funds) and Head No. 5,—R5,964,000 (Capital and Betterment Works):

Mr. Chairman, in dealing with harbours I think it would be perfectly correct to say that everything that has been written and said about our harbours over the years illustrates that it is about time our harbour authorities were separated from the S.A.R. I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister which chambers of commerce and private organizations support his claim that the present system should continue. If we had a separate harbour authority, would the position have been as bad as it is in Cape Town and in our other ports to-day? Last year in answer to a question the Minister told me that no new tugs had been acquired in any of our four major ports over the previous five years. He said two were on order, one in Durban and one in Port Elizabeth. There was none on order for East London or Cape Town. I think it is correct to say that if our harbours fell under a separate authority the position in regard to the tugs in our harbours would not be as it is to-day. Does the Minister admit that here in Cape Town berths lie idle simply because there are not sufficient tugs to handle vessels? I have seen this for myself.

It is probably because a ship had left and there was no other ship to occupy that berth.

I have asked people down at the harbour and they inform me berths have been vacant for 12 and 15 hours merely because there were not sufficient tugs to move the vessels to the berths. When I say that, among other things, Cape Town is suffering from a shortage of tugs, then I am well supported by a certain statement made in this House last year, which went as follows—“Here in Cape Town the planning is chaotic.” That statement was made by the hon. member for Umlazi before he suffered a loss of memory. Earlier on in this debate we heard the Minister praising the hon. member and saying what foresight he had. I wonder if the Minister still holds this view.

You should not put words into my mouth.

I said you were praising the hon. member for Umlazi for his foresight.

I said it was always a pleasure listening to him, and that is quite true. Even when he was criticizing me he knew what he was talking about.

Can I take it the Minister agreed with the hon. member for Umlazi when last year he said conditions in the Cape Town and Durban harbours were chaotic?

No, I did not agree with him, but it was still a pleasure listening to him.

I do not think we or South Africa will get anywhere if we pay any attention to the exchange of views between the Minister and the hon. member for Umlazi. The fact of the matter is that poor planning is costing Cape Town harbour and our other harbours dearly indeed. The Cape Town harbour alone has earned over three-quarters of a million rands from ships diverted from Suez, and I think it would be correct to say that if this harbour and our other harbours had separate harbour authorities, some of this money would have been ploughed back into Cape Town harbour for its further development. Durban harbour has exactly the same problems, but I will deal with that harbour in a moment. I should like to refer to a statement the Minister made earlier on in this House when he said, I think, in reply to a question concerning a terminal at the Cape Town harbour, that a terminal here was not necessary because sea passenger traffic was falling off. He said it would be uneconomic to build a new passenger terminal at Cape Town. But when he gave that answer, one of our most distinguished citizens was attending a flag-raising ceremony down in the docks, and a member of his party said this was a great step forward for our tourist trade, etcetera, because we now had two large passenger liners and passenger traffic by sea was increasing. But at the same time the responsible Minister was telling this House that passenger traffic by sea was decreasing and therefore there was no need to do anything about the existing terminal.

I think you must ask the shipping lines, they will tell you what the position is.

I have spoken to people from shipping lines and they tell me that what was said at the flag-raising ceremony was perfectly correct because passenger traffic by sea is indeed increasing. I have therefore acted on the Minister’s advice before he gave it and I can tell him the statement he made here was not correct. I say again: If we had a separate harbour authority, perhaps this would not have happened. We on this side of the House should like to ask for a little bit of “separate development” as far as our harbours are concerned.

Another aspect arising from this question is that of staff. I put a question to the Minister on estimated staff shortages in all grades in the harbours of Durban, East London, and so on. I was given the following answer: “The following details of vacancies at the harbours in question which cannot be filled owing to the shortage of staff are given—Durban, 194; East London, 11; Port Elizabeth, 0; Cape Town. 5.” This was on the 7th of March. This is rather amazing, because time and again the Minister tells us about his staff shortages, but, according to the answer I received, there are only five vacancies in Cape Town harbour. In Durban there are 194 vacancies, and that makes a little more sense. A further question was put on the 11th March. I totalled the number of vacancies in just two grades in the harbour staff, and I made it 392. So something is wrong with our harbour administration. We get two sets of answers. We, the public, and the economists of South Africa depend on the information we obtain in this House, but our information appears to be unreliable. It is unreliable for some reason or another, and I do not wish to go into the details. However, I want to suggest that one of the reasons is that we have a harbour authority which is linked to the S.A.R. and controlled from Railway Headquarters in Johannesburg.

From Johannesburg station.

The Minister can be light-hearted about this, and at this time of the evening we probably all are, but I want to assure him he cannot go on in this archaic fashion as regards the planning of our harbours. Time and time again when we raise matters concerning our harbours, the Minister tells us he has the necessary information and he has committees sitting, and so on. Has the Minister advised us of the findings of the committee investigating containerization? I believe that we should know something about this. I believe our economists should know about this, and the chambers of commerce in various ports should be told what is going on. For instance, the tonnage handled in Durban has increased out of all proportion. Durban harbour has made R48 million profit over the last 20 years. These are the Minister’s figures. How much of that money has been spent on improving Durban harbour? In the last five years only one tug which was on order last year—I do not know whether it has been delivered yet—has been added to the Durban tug fleet.

How can you say that? The new pier alone cost over R30 million.

I say only one tug has been added. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Port Natal has made a plea for the separation of harbour control from the Railways. I have made this plea and so have many others before me, from time to time, but I think the hon. the Minister has from time to time put up good reasons why this should not be done. I do still favour the idea, but I do accept one principle, and that is if the transport system of South Africa is going to be disintegrated, then some of the costs of parts of that system will be too high to be borne by the people who use it. The hon. member said if it were divorced we might get more tugs. He said only two tugs were on order for the South African harbours. But if he looks at page 99 of the Brown Book in his possession he will see that three twin-screw diesel electric tugs are provided for there. We see there a diesel-powered twin-screw tug, item 1138, and two additional twin-screw tugs at item 1141. He should know, if he knows anything about Durban harbour, that one is being built by Brown and Hamer, another one is being built by Barens, and one is being built here in Cape Town. The hon. member should check up on these things before he comes to this House.

He spoke of berths lying idle for from 12 to 15 hours in Cape Town for lack of tugs. I will leave it to the hon. the Minister, who has more information on that point, to deal with that criticism, but I can assure the hon. member that to the best of my knowledge the berths in Cape Town harbour have been used to the full, not only now but for some years past. There has been a queue waiting for those berths and as one ship has left the berth, another has come in. The only delay that I know of is when berths are used for specialized purposes, such as the fruit traffic, because when the fruit is there it must be handled. [Interjections.] It is a fact that berths are reserved for fruit traffic and other berths at times are reserved for other traffic. So I say the hon. member’s charges are not substantiated. It is quite easy to get up in this House and say this, that and the other have happened. Let the hon. member give us specific cases and I have no doubt the Minister will have no difficulty in dealing with him.

The other point I want to make is this. The hon. member said passenger traffic is increasing. But if he looks at world figures and the world replanning of fleets, he will find that passenger traffic is disappearing from the seas. This is one of their problems. The airways are taking the passengers away from the ships. What has happened is that at the moment the people who have passenger ships that cannot be employed on their usual runs are running tourist trips to South Africa, but that does not mean that the passenger traffic as such is increasing. It means people are employing ships until such time as they must go to the breakers, or until they can dispose of them in other ways. Instead of running them on the normal passenger services that they were designed for, these ships are now being used for world cruises, and they are cashing in because South Africa at the moment is the place where people want to cruise to. The ship stays here for a day or two, the passengers get off and go to the game reserve, and they meet the ship again at Durban harbour. The ship goes down the coast comparatively empty. I am sure the Minister will bear out what I say.

I want to deal with two aspects of harbour development and shipping in regard to which I think I should like some assurances from the hon. the Minister. I should like an assurance from him that planning is being kept up to date. I say this for a very special reason. In 1966 the Minister and I discussed two particular problems connected with harbours. One was the development of Richard’s Bay as a harbour for bulk carrier traffic, and the other was the question of containerization. The Minister will remember that he promised to set aside the cross berth between piers 1 and 2 for containerization in Durban, and said there was suitable space which could be converted in Cape Town. At that time when the Minister and I discussed this problem, we discussed also the question of bulk carriers and tankers. We talked about super tankers being in the 86,000 to 100,000 ton class. In the short space since 1966 those tonnages have increased so that the 312,000 tonners are becoming comparatively common. Plans are being laid for tankers and bulk carriers much heavier than that.

Business interrupted to report progress.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.