I move—

Mr. Speaker. we have now arrived at the last stage of the Railways debates on the 1962-3 Budget proposals. I think, in order to remove that look of anxiety on the Minister’s face I will tell him that we do not intend moving an amendment but that we intend supporting the third reading. It is customary at a third reading not to move amendments because we are voting supplies actually and under those conditions it would be invidious for us to vote against the third reading of this Bill. But that does not mean that we have not got complaints and that we have not got some outstanding questions to which the Minister has not as yet replied. He has replied to some but not in a satisfactory manner and it is my intention this afternoon, during the short time at our disposal, briefly to touch upon some of the items which the Minister has not dealt with as fully as we would have liked him to do.

The first is in connection with the pension problems. As the Minister knows there is a great number of pensioners throughout the Republic. Judging by the correspondence which I have received and I am sure other hon. members must have received from their constitutents in regard to pension matters, there must be a considerable amount of anxiety and a considerable amount of information which has trickled through to pensioners which is not always correct and leads to the type of letter which we receive. The first matter I wish to deal with is the matter which I raised when we went into Committee of Supply on the Estimates, namely the plight of the old Railway pensioners. In this regard the hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Pelser) did ask the Minister some questions in regard to their pensions and their cost-of-living allowance. The Minister’s reply indicated—I shall quote it to you as it was reported in the Press—

That has given rise to a certain amount of confusion as far as pensioners are concerned. I have had eight letters in regard to this one item alone. The impression which I gained was that the Minister, in making this statement, was not explicit enough. It appears that either too much or too little has been said here. I am quite sure that the Minister had no intention of causing any anxiety, but nevertheless the anxiety is there. The position as I understand it from the letters which I have received, is that when I appealed for further relief for pensioners I did so with the idea that the Benevolent Fund would be capable of meeting the relief that I had asked for. According to the Estimates it is the Benevolent Fund which is credited with certain moneys …

It is not paid out of the Benevolent Fund.

I want to make it quite clear, Sir, that, as far as the Estimates are concerned, this money is shown as a credit to the Benevolent Fund and then from there it is paid out to the pensioners. I have always understood it as a special Vote of the House and I think that is what it is. The point I wish to emphasize here is that the pensioners themselves do not understand why their cost of living cannot be consolidated with their pensions. Although the position is easy to understand the pensioners themselves have never been given a full and comprehensive reason as to why they cannot get their cost-of-living allowance consolidated with their pension. There is not a great deal the Minister can do about it because of the nature of the Superannuation Fund and the fact that what the pensioners receive is in fact a grant paid out annually from moneys voted by this House. What I do ask the Minister to do is to see whether it is possible for a circular to be sent to Railways pensioners indicating what the position is. The heartfelt feeling that I see expressed in these letters is to the effect that the Minister has consolidated the cost-of-living allowances with the basic pay of all those in the service to-day, but that pensioners have been left out in the cold. I think we know why it is but do the pensioners fully appreciate the difficulty? I leave it at that. The Minister will understand the difficulty that they are faced with.

The second point I raised earlier with the Minister—I think inadvertently the Minister did not reply to it—was in connection with the information which I had to the effect that a majority decision of the Joint Superannuation Fund Board suggesting a 10 per cent increase in pensions all round, had been turned down by the Minister because it was not a unanimous decision. That is the information which I received and pensioners have written to me asking me to put the matter to the Minister to ascertain what exactly the position is. The information which I have is that recommendation did come from the Superannuation Fund Board. I would like the Minister to tell us what the actual position is. A 10 per cent increase was suggested, I am informed, but because it was not a unanimous decision the Minister did not proceed with it.

The third matter arises out of the consolidation of cost-of-living allowances with wages. The request here is whether the Minister is going to allow retrospective payments in respect of those Railway servants who are due to retire very shortly and in respect of those Railway servants who retired prior to April of last year. Are they going to be paid back for the seven years so that they will get the full benefit of the consolidation? I know this was done on the former occasion when consolidation took place and I think it was much appreciated by those who had retired at that time, but I also know that it did create a certain amount of bitterness and hard feeling amongst those who did not qualify due to the fact that they had been on pension for a longer period than seven years. This is still creating a considerable amount of confusion amongst the pensioners in that category. But, as I have indicated, it is linked up with the issues which I raised earlier on and I think an explanatory memorandum to the pensioners would remove a lot of the misunderstanding that does exist in regard to this issue also. I ask the Minister in regard to existing pensioners, and in regard to those who are due to retire very shortly, whether they will be permitted by an amendment to the Act, to pay back retrospectively so that they will get the full benefit of the consolidation. While I am on this point, Sir, I want to say that the arguments which have been put forward as to why the old pensioners of the Railways are in receipt of such a small pension was because of the fact that they received such a low wage in the days of the United Party Administration, is an argument with which I wish to deal although it does not really require any elucidation. It should never have been put forward in the first place because if the purchasing power of the money in those days had been maintained their position as pensioners would not have been as serious as it is to-day. It is the difference in the purchasing power, due to the increased cost of living, since those days of 1930-40 that is responsible for the plight of these pensioners to-day. I say to the Minister that he should not take any notice of arguments based on the wages earned prior to 1940-50 and the pensions enjoyed by those pensioners to-day, as being a good reason why they should suffer in silence.

Why did you not criticize the United Party for paying such low wages at the time?

I have criticized every party ever since I have been in this House and before I came to this House on the question of the pension scales. I go one step further, Sir. and say this: That it was my own representations to this House right from 1948 onwards and my representations outside of this House that the Widows’ Pensions Fund was introduced. [Interjections.] If the records are examined, it will be found that what I am saying now is perfectly correct. My interest in pension matters goes back many, many years. I am not prepared to go into the details of the whole position—the facts speak for themselves.

Did the Labour Party introduce it?

I happened to be a member of the Railway staff at one time and a prominent member of a staff association. I did my level best in those days to bring about a widows’ pension fund. I am very pleased now that this happened, and I am quite sure that the Minister himself will not be so ungracious as to claim that this was something which he did as Minister of Transport. The representations were stretched over a very long period.

I now come to the question which has occupied the minds of most of us during the last few days, and that is the dispute which is still going on between the Minister and the Artisans’ Staff Association. According to this morning’s Press, the Minister has been blamed for the S.A.R. impasse. Arising out of the speech made by Mr. Liebenberg, as president of the Artisans’ Staff Association, there is one question in respect of which, I think, the Minister should take the House into his confidence and give us a little more information about. I refer to the allegation which Mr. Liebenberg is reported to have made that— and I quote from this article—

I think this is quite in order if the Minister intends to do it provided that he sets a dead line for staff associations to submit their requests for concessions or improvements. He must lay down a dead line and say that, up to that time, he will be prepared to listen to their complaints or to their representations and, by the time he presents his Budget in this House, there will be included in that Budget any of the concessions which he has been prepared to agree to. The point I want to make here is that it will be quite futile if the staff were to ask the Minister to meet them for any type of concession, major or otherwise, and the Minister were to say to them: “Well, you have come too late; I have already framed my Budget proposals. There is nothing that I can do for you during the next financial year.” I think that would be fatal. I suggest that the Minister should take us into his confidence and let us know what he has in mind if this policy statement has in fact been made.

While I am on that point, I want to deal with the problem which the Minister faces as to the staff associations. Over the years, particularly when the Minister was in very grave financial difficulty, the staff associations were asked to make a special effort to assist him in overcoming those financial difficulties. They played a very prominent part in suggesting economies and in suggesting the type of sacrifices they would be prepared to make, with the result that the Minister was able to convert a deficit into a surplus. The Minister was able to get the co-operation of the staff associations, because he was faced with a financial crisis. He actually had a deficit in the years under consideration. I think the staff associations were entitled to believe that if, as a result of their efforts, the deficit was turned into a surplus, certain of their requests would receive attention. We have got a surplus this year. We had a surplus last year. Without knowing the details of the representations which have been made to the Minister by the Artisans’ Staff Association, and by other staff associations, it does appear to me, I hesitate to use the word—irregular for the Minister to appeal to all staff associations for their assistance when he is faced with a deficit, and not to pass on the benefits to those staff associations when, at a later stage, he has turned that deficit into a surplus due to the efforts of the staff themselves. It does appear to me that there is something wrong in the attitude that has been adopted by the Minister in this regard. I do hope that, as a result of the agitation that has developed, he will be more careful in future when he calls for sacrifices. When he asks members of the staff to tighten their belts, he should give them the impression that, if they do get him out of his financial crisis, they, in turn, will not be forgotten.

I want to deal with another aspect which has arisen during this debate, and that is the attitude of Government members themselves. I think it will be a very healthy thing, not only for Railway finances, but for the country as a whole, if, during these Railway debates, members on the Government side would give active support to their Minister by being critical.

That requires mental effort.

Yes, Sir, it does take a certain amount of courage….

The hon. member must not allow himself to be led astray by irrelevant interjections.

It is very tempting, Sir, when I receive support of that sort from supporters on my own side. I was hoping that members on the Government side would also indicate that they agreed with me, and would join me in my plea to the Minister to give complete freedom to his members when we come to a Railway budget debate, so that they, too, can take a fuller part in the discussions that go on from year to year. I know that there are members on the Government side representing constituencies where there are considerable numbers of railwaymen, who, as I do, receive repeated requests for assistance, members who must receive from their constituents requests for representations to be made to the Minister for relief in one direction or another. I think the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Badenhorst) has mentioned some of the difficulties which some of his constituents are experiencing in connection with the bonus work system. But there has been a complete lack of criticism from Government members in respect of the Budget proposals and the policy being pursued by the Minister. You see, Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of a good Budget; it is not a question of whether we have a Budget showing a deficit or a surplus. No matter what the Budget is like, Government members are not prepared to criticize either constructively or destructively. I say that it is not a healthy thing for Railway finance or for the country that the responsibility for putting forward constructive suggestions should come from the Opposition only. I think that it is a function of all Members of Parliament to take an ąctive interest in this the largest State undertaking in the country. It is a responsibility which they should not shirk. I am quite sure that what has happened in the Airways dispute and with the artisans at the present time is something which must cause considerable anxiety to members on the Government side. I think of the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn). I know that he has played a certain part in negotiations in connection with the one group, but he has never said a word in this House about that. To say the least of it, I think it is unfortunate that is the position. Are members on the Government side scared of their Minister? I do not know why they should be. I have found him a very gentle man. Or is it just that they lack the courage to say what they think about the Railway Budget proposals?

You make me blush.

It is time the Minister blushed. I think he did a little blushing when he had tea at Muizenberg this morning. The fact of the matter is that the Minister has complained that the time allowed for Railway debates in this House year by year is far too long. I can understand that, Mr. Speaker. The time is too long, because of our criticism. I think the time would appear to be considerably shorter if he were to get criticism from the other side of the House as well. I think the debate this year has been most useful to the Minister. We have put forward some constructive suggestions. He may not admit it, but in time to come he will give effect to them, I am quite sure. I particularly want to take this opportunity before I resume my seat to wish the General Manager and the staff a year free of major accidents and one in which new records will be broken, and a year in which the staff difficulties will be overcome. I am quite sure that if the Minister were to accept the proposals we have put forward, it would go a long way towards solving the staff problems he has. It is not that I wish to minimize the staff problems at all, but I think it is wrong for the Minister to adopt the attitude to-day that he is not prepared to consider the representations made to him in respect of a staff association unless he is prepared to do something in respect of all staff associations. I believe that the Minister has reached the point where he will have to deal with the staff associations on an individual basis and consider the individual merits of the case put forward by the staff association, and not attempt to deal with them on a collective basis. When I think of all the issues that there are, which have come forward from different staff associations, the requests for relief, I believe that the Minister would be doing the correct thing if he were to give relief where it is needed most, based on the merits of the various cases put to him, and not to say that he is not prepared to do anything in respect of one staff association unless he can give relief to all. The need is greater in some cases than in others, and I believe that in principle the Minister should agree to give relief where it is most urgently needed. That is why I put forward the plea I have put over the years, that it is not good enough that a section of the staff should get a little more than they really require because another section of the staff has made out a sound case for improvement. I think that the Minister will be able to obtain the fullest support from all the staff associations, provided he is prepared to negotiate, and not to negative reasonable requests for relief. I think that is the issue we have to face to-day, that the Minister must negotiate, and that does not mean that he must always give in to all the requests made by staff associations. He has got to learn to say no, and to be patted on the back by the staff associations for having said no. That is the real test of a good negotiator, and I hope the Minister will learn to do this, because it is necessary in this the largest State undertaking in the country. We must have negotiation. We cannot afford to have disruption because of a breakdown in negotiations in the Railway Service.

The fact that the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) did not introduce the debate this afternoon and that he left it to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) to raise a few complaints in connection with pensions, etc., is sufficient proof that the Opposition has calmed down. There is no more fight left in them. The Opposition has thrown in the towel, so much so that the hon. member for Umhlatuzana has reproached Government members for not criticizing. He is looking to them to assist the Opposition, because the Opposition is too weak to do so itself. However, I expected it because the Opposition have never as yet confined their criticism to essentials as far as the Railway Budget is concerned. The Railway Budget debate as well as the second reading of this Bill has been completely dominated by issues of lesser importance, namely the wage scales of the artisans. That dominated the whole debate. It is a pity that the Opposition have grasped this relatively unimportant issue as their sole point of criticism, because that issue is quite incidental. It is of lesser importance in comparison with other matters, and not unimportant by itself. They never touched upon the main issues involved in this Budget. I want to mention five of those main issues which they never touched upon in their criticism.

The first of the main issues which I want to mention is the fact that this Budget testifies to the inherent soundness and stability of our economy under the pressure of a crisis. They had no criticism in that respect. Secondly the Budget testifies to great satisfaction on the part of the Railway staff. Thirdly it testifies to a much improved relationship with the public. Fourthly the Budget shows confidence in the future economy of South Africa, and fifthly it testifies to sound financial control. Mr. Speaker, allow me to say a few words in connection with each of these points.

There is no better barometer as to the economy of a country than its transport. When traffic is heavy it is evidence of great economic activity and when there is great economic activity there is great prosperity. The deciding factor of this Budget as embodied in this measure is that it testifies to the great economic growth of our country. Last year over a million tons of goods was conveyed by the Railways more than the previous year—approximately a 4 per cent growth; 1.25 million tons of ore was conveyed more than the previous year, which testifies to brisk mining activity; there was an increase of 400,000 tons in the amount of agricultural products conveyed, maize, kaffir corn and sugar, which is evidence of an improvement in our agricultural industry. There was an increase of 100,000 tons in the amount of general merchandise conveyed, in spite of import control, which testifies to the vitality of business in the country. The tractive power has increased by 15.8 per cent over five years. The truck capacity has increased by 14.9 per cent and the ton mileage has increased by 6 per cent in one year. All these facts testify to great economic advancement.

I want to return to what happened last year. About this time last year, in March, the economic future of South Africa was painted very black by the Opposition on account of our withdrawl from the Commonwealth. I want to quote what the hon. member for Wynberg said on that occasion during the third reading of the Railway debate on the Budget. He said this—

I emphasize revenue of the Railways. He continued to say this—

He wanted to persuade the Minister to withdraw his entire Budget and to submit a fresh Budget in view of our withdrawal from the Commonwealth. He then went on to say this—

He did not think it was possible, but what has happened? Last year he wanted the Budget to be re-drawn. He was the greatest pessimist in the House last year, but to day he has been put to shame before the people of South Africa, because what does the Budget show? It has proved that the economy of South Africa is stable, balanced and inherently sound, so much so that in spite of his British orientated outlook and his pro-British prejudice, and in spite of his British snobbishness, South Africa has progressed.

The important and irrefutable significance of the present Budget is that it effectively proves how inherently sound our economy is, in spite of the pessimism of members of the Opposition. They should be ashamed of their lack of faith. It is not surprising, Sir, that they did not want to touch this matter with a barge pole and that was why they came forward with an incidental matter such as a demand for a wage increase by one of the staff associations in order to push the whole question of the Budget aside. They discussed that issue alone the whole of last week, this week and again this afternoon.

Whereas over recent years the Railways have had an income of R439,000,000 I just want to point out what the hon. member for Wynberg said, namely that we would not have the revenue, not even the revenue for which had been budgeted, because he wanted the Budget to be re-drawn. There is a surplus of nearly R8,500,000. That gives us reason to be happy and I think every right-minded South African in this country is pleased that is the position and that the Minister could make those statements. That has disproved the pessimistic predictions of the Opposition and their pessimism is driving them further away from the public, it is building a wall between them and the electorate. Now they grasp at the grievances of a small number of artisans and they inflate that issue to one of national importance.

I wish to come to the second point. This Budget testifies to the satisfaction on the part of the Railway staff, as I have said, and to a mutually peaceful relationship between the personnel and the management. The fact that five out of the six staff associations have expressed confidence in the Minister says a great deal and I am convinced that many members of the sixth one are also satisfied and I am convinced that if they took the unwise step of striking the strike will be a failure. Let me just point out in this connection what has been done in the past for the railwayman. I merely wish to give the total figure. Since 1948 to 1961 the total amount granted to the staff in additional concessions amount to no less than R97,000,000, nearly R100,000,000. Since 1948 concessions were made to the staff every year. That was done every year. [Interjections.] If you look at the White paper you will find it there. The hon. member for Turffontein gave the wrong figures yesterday, figures which he could not prove and now he thinks that I am doing the same thing. If he lives in a glass house he should not throw stones. The hon. member for Wynberg said the following yesterday in connection with this dispute with the artisans—

Let us see who is “inflexible” and not “pliable”. Is it the Minister who is unreasonable or the association? Let us make a test. Who is the more conciliatory of the two? Let us analyse that.

Towards the end of 1960 the artisans demanded three things. They asked for a loan increase, they asked for their cost-of-living allowances to be consolidated and they asked for the non-pensionable allowances to be consolidated. In 1961 the Minister consolidated the cost-of-living allowance of all railway workers. In 1962 he consolidated the non-pensionable allowances in respect of all workers. One thing remains namely the wage increase demand. They insist that they should be privileged over the rest of the railway workers and that demand should also be met. The Minister has stated clearly that three courses are open to him. He can either meet the employees by consolidating the non-pensionable allowances in respect of all railway workers or he can meet the demand of the artisans for a wage increase alone, or both, but if he does both he will have to increase tariffs, and he does not think it is advisable at this juncture to do that. The hon. member for Turffontein stated that wages should be reviewed and increased, but he omitted to say whether he was in favour of an increase in tariffs.

That is untrue. I did not say that.

He said yesterday that he was not asking for an increase in tariffs but that it should be paid out of the ordinary revenue of the Railways. If it has to be paid from the ordinary revenue of the Railways. it will have had to be paid from this surplus because where must it come from otherwise? I wish to point to the criticism they offered last year. Last year the hon. member for Wynberg was very concerned about the statutory funds of the Railways. He referred to the Betterment Fund in particular and said the following—

He pleaded last year that those funds should be strengthened. The Minister comes to-day and takes the surplus. The hon. member pleaded for those funds because that would provide security and peace of mind to the staff. The Minister pays this surplus of R8,000,000 into the Betterment Fund in order to build it up, precisely what the hon. member for Wynberg has asked. But the hon. members for Wynberg and Turffontein come forward and say that the increases should be paid out of ordinary revenue, but if that is done the funds cannot be strengthened.

Before I leave the subject of the wage dispute with the artisans I want to refer to this report in the English newspapers of this morning where Mr. Liebenberg said the following—

What has happened? There has been “political touting and interference”. To whose “political touting and interference” is Mr. Liebenberg referring? Surely it is that of the Opposition because they have been the only people who have done that. They have been the people who have dragged these disputes into this debate and nobody else. That is what Mr. Liebenberg and the Artisan Staff Association think of the Opposition, namely that they are guilty of “political touting and interference”. I am convinced that the artisans will be sensible and not go on strike and that they will co-operate in putting the economic welfare of the country first and not their own interests. I believe they are big enough to do that. I believe the other four-fifths of the staff will react and do what the Minister has asked and make “service” their motto.

Now I come to the third main issue which I have mentioned, the third great significance of this Budget, namely that it testifies to improved relations with the public. The fact that the efforts of the Railways to put a stop to the downward trend in the long distance White passenger traffic have met with a measure of success, proves that the public have regained their confidence in the Railways as a means of conveyance. You cannot do otherwise but be pleased, Sir, with the new air-conditioned dining cars, with the new observation coaches for relaxation, the decrease in the running times of our passenger trains, and the 300 special trains for holidaymakers. It must have been a happy day for the Railways when the Minister announced that in spite of all these improvements and additional services, he was still unable to convey all the passengers, in other words, that he would still have to expand in order to carry the passenger traffic which offered. That proves that the public have regained their confidence in the Railways as a means of conveyance.

I come to the fourth point and that is that the Budget testifies to confidence in the future growth of our economy. The Minister is budgeting for an increase in revenue during the ensuing year as follows: R6.9 million more than last year in respect of goods traffic; R365,000 more than last year in respect of livestock traffic; R800,000 more in respect of coal traffic; R800,000 more in respect of passenger traffic and R988,000 more in respect of air traffic. You can only Budget like that, Sir, when there is confidence in your economy, in other words, when you are confident that there will be increased activity in the commercial and industrial world to provide that increased goods traffic, that agriculture will go through a prosperous period to provide that increased livestock traffic; that secondary industries are facing a better future because so much more coal has to be conveyed for them, and that passenger traffic will increase because so many more people will go on holiday and in respect of the air traffic, that the people have prospered so much individually that increase will be possible.

I come to the last point namely that it testifies to sound financial control. We on this side of the House actually missed that old refrain this year from the “Opposition of ministerial and managerial inefficiency”.

We did hear it.

I could not have been in the House because I did not hear it. The only financial criticism of any value which I heard came from the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman). As far as the finances of the Railways were concerned he pleaded for a “fresh approach” because, as he alleged, the Railways were subsidized by the State. He based his allegation on the fact that the Treasury guaranteed the costs of certain railway lines when they were constructed but is that the true state of affairs? If the construction of a line is guaranteed is it fair to talk about the Railways being subsidized? Had the State contributed to the current expenditure of the Railways I would have understood it but when it guarantees that a total investment will yield profits I think it is far-fetched to refer to that as subsidizing the Railways. After all these lines are constructed at the request of the State in order to carry out its policy of separate development. I am referring to the railway lines that have been built to the new Bantu towns and which were guaranteed by Treasury. In the first place they were not built on behalf of the Railways but in order to give effect to Government policy, hence the guarantee. It is not a guarantee to put the finances of the Railways in order.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) raised a second complaint against the finances of the Railways. He said that the Railways were continuing to receive a declining return on investment capital. He said—

He pointed out that the same pattern had developed previously and that it had led to an increase in tariffs every time. On the face of it this seems to be good argument, but when you correlate the position of the Railways with the general economy of the country, the hon. member will realize that when there is a slackening in the country’s economy there is also a slackening in the Railways, and then you get those fluctuations to which he has referred. But that is no reason to say that there has been a retrogression in Railway finances as such. You cannot expect Railway finances to go in one direction and the country’s economy in a totally different direction. You will remember, Sir, that the hon. member for Wynberg had a great deal to say about the statutory funds last year. I just want to refer to that again because I do not think it has been raised in this debate. Nobody has dared to speak about those funds again but I think it is necessary to refer to this and I again want to quote from the White Paper. The total strength of the following statutory funds, the Betterment Fund, the Insurance Fund, the Renewals Fund, the Benevolent Fund, the Institutes Fund, the Guarantee Fund, the Rates Equalization Fund, the Pension and Superannuation Fund, the Level Crossings Elimination Fund, amounted to nearly R400,000,000. To be exact the figures is R399,938,213. That is the figure at which those funds stand at the moment. That proves that the finances of the Railways are not being played with in the loose and fast way in which the Opposition tried to make us believe last year and which they have not had the courage to allege again to-day.

I wish to conclude by saying that it is a pity that we have an Opposition of such calibre that they have to grasp at lesser important issues and do not concentrate their criticism on the main issues, the important issues. Apparently they had no criticism to offer but in that case they should at least have had the courage to get up and admit it. We have no criticism to offer, except on a few minor points.

The Government has not changed the record but simply changed the loudspeaker. I must say that the hon. member who has just sat down read his speech much better than the hon. member for Edenvale (Mr. G. H. van Wyk) did the other day, but it is the same story of quoting figures but refusing to take any part whatsoever in the efforts which we on this side have made to seek improvements in the welfare of the workers on the Railways. The only reference made to the welfare of the workers by the hon. member who has just sat down was to say that it was “ ’n minder-waardige aangeleentheid”.

In comparison with the others.

He used the word “minderwaardig” on three or four occasions.

Not in connection with their welfare.

And at the end he did not even make a comparison; he merely said that all we had done was to deal with “die minderwaardige aangeleentheid”.

That is entirely a “minderwaardige” untruth.

Sir, that hon. member, and all hon. members on the Government side, through him, have shown their complete disinterest in the welfare of the workers and their inability to face up to the Minister.

Tell us about Cuba.

Yes, I will tell the hon. member and then he will smile on the other side of his face. He wants to know and the Minister wants to know why I was not here last week. Sir, the hon. member and the Minister should be grateful that I was not here. They are supposed to be a party opposed to liberalism in South Africa but when liberalism fights elections they leave us to go and fight the elections. I was addressing a meeting and I make no apologies at all for it.

I hope you made a better speech there than the speech you made here the other day.

The hon. member wants to know something about Cuba. This peculiar interest of the hon. member in Cuba is strange, but I want to deal with that matter and I want to deal with the facts. The hon. the Minister reacted violently and he made personal attacks because he was in a spot, and in order to get out of his difficulty he turned his attack into a personal attack. It is typical of the Minister and we are used to his bluster. Sir, I want to deal with the facts as they exist and not as the Minister tried to present them to this House. The hon. the Minister accused me of making a misstatement. He said—

I want to ask the hon. Minister a few questions. I alleged that he had bought aeroplanes which had come from Cuba and that he had not been frank with the House and with South Africa in regard to that deal. I want to challenge the Minister this afternoon. He stated in his reply that they bought two aircraft from a Corporation in Switzerland. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give us the name of that Corporation, because when he replied to a question placed on the Order Paper by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) he made no reference to a Corporation; he made a reference to a person. He gave the buyer as a person and he now refers to a Corporation. I challenge him to give us the name of that Corporation but, what is more, I challenge the Minister to produce proof that Corporation or any Corporation or that person was the registered owner of the aircraft which South African Airways purchased. I challenge the hon. the Minister to produce proof that the seller from whom he purchased these aircraft was the registered owner of these aircraft, that they belonged to him and that he was the person entitled to sell them and not an agent acting on behalf of anyone else. The Minister can prove it easily enough. He is the hon. the Minister who negotiated this deal and I want to challenge the Minister now to lay before this House the evidence that he purchased from the owner of these aircraft the two Viscounts concerned. I also want to ask the Minister whether he or any of his representatives have inspected these aircraft; whether any member of his staff has actually seen the aircraft in question; whether he has a certificate of airworthiness and, if so, by whom that certificate was issued. The hon. the Minister has said that this was a straightforward simple deal. If it was a simple deal why did he have to buy through an agent in Switzerland instead of direct from the people who owned and who were operating the aircraft? Why was it necessary to go through an agent if this was a straightforward deal? Was that not an effort to mislead the public in regard to the source of those aircraft? Because there can be only one of two possibilities: Either the Minister was aware of all the facts, in which case he was not frank with this House, or he showed a shocking neglect of duty in blindly purchasing aircraft for a large sum of money without knowing either where they were coming from or without knowing any details about them. If he knew, as I feel he did, then his duty to the country and to this House was to lay that information before us and not to give part answers to questions, little by little, until the whole story was dragged out of him.

But there is another aspect in regard to which the Minister was not frank with this House when he dealt with this matter. He said that the price of new Viscounts would be R1,150,000 each if he were to purchase them, and that he had purchased two for R1,540,000. He did not tell the House that he was referring to the price of a 1962 Viscount, whereas he has purchased a 1958 and a 1959 Viscount. The hon. the Minister is in fact saying, “I bought a 1958 motor-car cheaply; a 1962 model would cost me R2,800 and I bought this one for R1,400, therefore I have made a good deal”. He is not placing the true facts before this House, because in answer to a question on 9 February the hon. the Minister stated that the average cost of the seven Viscounts purchased by South African Airways was R881,587. That was the average price of the Viscounts presently used by South Africa. In reply to a further question he stated that the airrcaft being purchased were the same craft as those used by South African Airways. Now, here he has given the price—R881,587 for a new craft. He comes back and tries to create the false impression in this House that he purchased a bargain by buying aircraft for R770,000 because their price was R1,150,000, whereas in fact the price of those aircraft was R881,000 for a new aircraft. In other words, he paid only R100,000 less than the price which we paid for brand-new aircraft, and this was for aircraft which were three and four years old. The years of manufacture were 1958 and 1959 —the end of 1958 and the beginning of 1959. Either the Minister gave us incorrect information when he said that these aircraft were the same as those in use by South African Airways or he gave us wrong information in regard to the price paid for the South African Viscounts. But the hon. the Minister came here with the idea that he could fob off the story by quoting the price of a 1962 aircraft, giving the impression that he had done such a wonderful deal for South Africa. I suggest that there is nothing wonderful about getting a reduction for a four-year-old aircraft of R100.000. But what is more, the Minister has given us no assurance whatsoever that these aircraft have received their regular service, that they have been properly maintained and that they are in good condition. Because an aircraft that has been standing for four years and has, according to the Minister, done 700 flying hours, must have had some reason for not being flown, and I would ask the Minister to tell this House the reason why an aircraft costing nearly R1,000,000 stands idle for four years, having done a flying time of only 700 hours. The other one has a flying time of 3,500 hours. What is more, I want to ask the hon. the Minister what assurance he has that those flying hours are the genuine hours of those aircraft. Because to my knowledge that particular model does not have a sealed record of its flying hours. May I ask the hon. the Minister to tell us what investigations he made into the flying hours, the condition of the body and the condition of the aircraft as a whole before spending this money on it. No, Sir, the hon. the Minister tried to make a political issue out of this matter; he tried to turn his reply into a personal attack in order to evade giving this House the full facts and the full information. He said, for instance, that he had forced the purchaser to take two Constellation aircraft so as to get them off our hands and that he had been unable to sell them in any other way or to any other purchaser. I want to know from the Minister where he tried to sell those aircraft. Because he told this House that the best offer received had been one of R20,000, R20,000 for an aircraft which cost R870,000 odd; and yet there are modern airlines to-day using Constellations. I would like to know from the Minister whether he tried to sell these aircraft on the world market or whether he tried to sell them by private negotiation, because he says that it was a great thing to get rid of them, and why should Cuba buy American aircraft? He again omitted to remind the House that with these aircraft he supplied six spare engines plus 50 per cent of all the spares held by us. In other words, he supplied the wherewithal for Cuba to be able to keep those aircraft flying. I think the House is entitled to a very much clearer picture of the details of this transaction than the Minister gave this House.

I want to refer now to one or two of the other matters on which the Minister, in order to try to score a political point, misled this House on the facts. The hon. the Minister stated in this House in reply to a question which I had asked about a medical post—

I want to ask the Minister to explain this strange phenomenon that in the Airways headquarters building at Jan Smuts there is a certain Dr. du Toit. He has two consulting rooms and a full-time nurse. His duties are to examine Boeing crews, pilots, stewards and hostesses. His duties include the checking of air-conditioning and other health matters in regard to aircraft. His duties include accompanying those aircraft on overseas flights which he does. Sir, if that is not an Airways post then the hon. the Minister is spending the taxpayers’ money on Airways work without disclosing it to this House, because either there is such a Dr. du Toit and he is doing this job, in which case it is Airways work, or this particular doctor is being used on the Airways and that fact is being kept from this House because no provision appears on the Airways Estimates. This is pure Airways work. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to deny that when this doctor was appointed to this post there were at least three applications from medical officers who had experience of examining aircraft crews, civilian doctors, who had experience in the requirements of flight crews, and that this doctor was appointed to the post; that over and above the normal D.C.A. inspections—that is a different matter because every pilot undergoes his D.C.A. inspection every six months—over and above that, the Airways themselves impose this additional medical test. But the hon. the Minister denied that there was any such post and accused me of having made a misstatement in this House.

I still do.

Does the Minister deny the existence of that doctor and the work which he is doing?

I deny the existence of such a post.

Sir, the hon. the Minister is saying in effect, “Here is a man but he is not there”—the man who was not there! The hon. the Minister is now going to hide behind a technical title for that post, as he did when we asked the question. I say that is misleading this House, that this is withholding information to which this House is entitled, and that it discloses that the hon. the Minister adopted his tactics in order to avoid telling this House the truth, in order to avoid dealing with the other issues which we raised and to which he could find no answer. For instance, the hon. the Minister refused to answer any questions which were raised in regard to the deal which the Airways had made with Trek Airways—the charter craft which are being supplied to them and which tie-up with the Viscount deal with Cuba. He is chartering Constellation aircraft, and he says that these aircraft are of no use, that they are only worth some R20,000, which was the best offer he could get. But nevertheless they were good enough to charter, and I ask the Minister to tell us the economics of this charter deal. Who is making the money? Is South African Airways chartering at a loss or is South African Airways making a profit out of it? And if they are making a profit, why should they sell the other two at a loss? I do not believe that two aircraft will be flown by a financial company, whose object is to make a profit, if they are showing a loss on those aircraft. Therefore it must be possible to run those aircraft at a profit. The Minister evaded giving any answer to that question whatsoever. He refused to answer the question on the nonWhites Skycoach Service which had cost the Administration money, and which I claim was an example of Railway mentality, Railway thinking, in that he thought that you could hang up a board saying “non-Whites only” on to an aeroplane and that you would then have the Railway system. Instead of answering that question the hon. the Minister turned round and accused me of attacking the Airways. I want to quote what I said about the Airways: I said—

I went on to say—

And in every case where I criticized, I criticized the method, the system or the administration. Where the Minister tried to answer he turned it back to personalities, and I want to refer to the most shocking of those reversals of the attack. The hon. the Minister stated in the course of his speech that I had attacked the transfer of senior persons into the Airways because they were Afrikaans-speaking persons. I deny that flatly; I repudiate it and I fling it back in the Minister’s teeth with the contempt that accusation deserves. Sir, I was dealing with the principle, and if that is the way the hon. the Minister thinks, if his thinking is such that he determines who shall be appointed to a post on the ground of the language he speaks, then my attack on the Administration under this Minister was justified. Because that is what the Minister revealed; he revealed that when he appoints a person he thinks in terms of the language which that person speaks. I think that is a shocking admission from a Minister of State in a bilingual South Africa. The Minister tried to turn the attack on his system into an attack on persons. I deny that there was any attack made on staff as staff; I attacked the system which caused the staff to endure interference of a different type of thinking. The Minister made use of my use of the word “mentality” to accuse me of attacking the Railways. If I say that the Minister has a business mentality, is that an insult? What I said was that the non-White Skycoaches were an example of Railway mentality in the Airways, in other words, of Railway thinking. It was no attack on the Railways, it was an attack on Railway thinking applied to the much faster service of Airways. When you are dealing with aircraft you are dealing with a fast-moving service, and the whole approach to the problem is different. But the Minister hides behind personalities and makes personal attacks in order to refuse to answer the criticism that Airways requires a special thinking in terms of the special problems and the special requirements of a modern airline service.

The hon. the Minister, again dealing with the same question of the transfer of staff, said that there were no courses in South Africa to train people as aeronautical engineers. He was misleading the House, Sir, because the impression he tried to create was that these engineers were the only ones available to take that post. He said that they either had to come from the Railways or from outside. But they had to be trained. If there is no engineering course in South Africa, then where were they trained? My question to the Minister was this: Were there no engineers in Airways who were qualified for those promotions? Boeing pilots are not trained in South Africa; they are trained basically overseas.

That is nonsense.

Sir, what that hon. member knows about it is dangerous. Somebody had better write him another speech. Their basic training is given overseas. If you can train pilots overseas, why cannot you train engineers? Why could we not send our own Airways engineers overseas to be trained? My accusation was that persons were promoted into Airways over the heads of persons presently in Airways who, because of their specialized air knowledge, should have had preference, but the hon. the Minister turned that into an attack on the Airways, on the Railways and on the persons concerned themselves.

That is nonsense.

Sir, the Minister refused to answer other questions which were asked of him. He refused to deal with the question of pilot salary scales in the Airways.

You can sell that in Durban.

I am not trying to sell anything to that hon. member. I do not think he would have anything to buy it with if it would require sense to buy it. I asked the hon. the Minister about the comparative salary scales of our own overseas pilots and he completely ignored the question. The fares which South Africa charges are laid down by international standards but salary scales are not. We take advantage of the fares which enable other airlines to pay much higher salaries and emoluments than we pay and we use the excuse that conditions are different, but the differences are far too big to hide behind that excuse. The hon. the Minister refused to deal or could not deal with my question about the near-misses by aircraft flying in close proximity to South African Airways aircraft at Jan Smuts Airport. He said in reply to the question that a Committee has been appointed. Is that the only interest that the Minister has in incidents such as those? I asked the hon. the Minister to tell us what further steps had been taken, what that committee had reported as the result of its investigations. The Minister avoided that. He avoided every question which he could not answer and hid behind an attempt to make political capital, and he turned attacks into personal attacks in order to create a political smokescreen. But he cannot get away with political smokescreens, and I am not going to be drawn in to deal further with personalities … [Interjections.] … except in the case of the Minister, and he himself set the example, because I attacked the system and the administration and not people. I hope the hon. the Minister will now come back to this House and answer these questions frankly and openly so that we will know what is going on.

He also avoided dealing with the other question which I raised, the question of the Moffat Report, which I asked to be made available to Members of Parliament. I also dealt with various minor issues such as, for instance, the possibility of using two sizes of buses—positive constructive proposals which could save the Administration money—but the Minister is not interested in that. He is only interested in some cheap political advantage. I say that he has not succeeded and that he will not succeed in misleading this House or South Africa in regard to the affairs of the Airways, if he is going to treat it as a game to play politics with. I ask the hon. the Minister to be frank and to give us full answers to the questions which have been put here.

I shall not reply to the previous speaker. I am sure that when the Minister replies to the allegations he will repay the hon. member in the same coin that he used a few days ago. The drubbing the hon. member received a few days ago was so thorough that even the English newspapers referred to the fact that the hon. member had received a particularly sound thrashing.

But I should still like to appeal to the hon. member for Durban (Point) that he should not attempt to make excuses again in order to evade the drubbing which is awaiting him. We hope he will be present when the Minister replies.

He is running away already.

Practically every speaker opposite pleaded for an increase in wages for the artisans. None of us has any objection to this, but what we do object to is the method which practically borders on agitation or encouragement of this group of artisans who are adopting a threatening attitude towards the Minister. Fortunately they are only a small group. The great majority of artisans, just like the rest of the staff association, know that they will not be left in the lurch by the hon. the Minister and the National Party when it becomes possible to grant a general increase. Mr. Speaker, I have said that the Opposition pleaded for an increase in wages for the artisans and set out from the standpoint that the surplus this year should be utilized in order to grant this increase. The difference between this and that side of the House is this; we believe that an increase should be granted on a justifiable basis, and not at the cost of loyal railwaymen who faithfully did their duty. The hon. the Minister will not ignore these faithful workers because a small group of men were encouraged and incited to make threats by some of the United Party speakers. A second difference between the Opposition and us is this: We believe in forward planning in order to increase the efficiency of the Railways, thereby, inter alia, consolidating and safeguarding the position of the railwayman, which speeds up the prospect for an increase. What will happen if not enough money is deposited in the Renewals Fund? What will happen if the Renewals Fund does not have the necessary funds for the present development programme which involves many big replacements? There is already a deficit. This fund is kept going by special appropriations which are made yearly out of the net income. During the past five years, at least from 31 March 1954 to 31 March 1959, altogether R14,800,000 in additional capital was obtained from this source.

The argument goes even further and involves the question whether the R8,000,000 should be deposited in the Betterment Fund or whether we should set the fund aside; in other words, are we to have the present betterment programme which involves many big replacements but which improves the efficiency of the Railways and through that improve the position of the railwayman in general, or are we to keep back the R599,800 from the Tariff Reserve Fund to the detriment of the fund? If that is not what hon. members of the Opposition desire, then there is still another alternative which is to give the railwaymen a general increase. According to the hon. the Minister’s estimate, it will require between R16,000,000 and R20,000,000. Every one of us would naturally like to plead for such a general increase. But where is the money to come from? The hon. the Minister has already mentioned that a commission is investigating Railway tariffs, and consequently we cannot increase tariffs at the moment. The second alternative is to cut expenses. Because if you have to find approximately R18,000,000 and you are unable to increase your income, you have to find the R18,000,000 by economizing, economizing on expenditure which will most certainly not be in the interest of the Railways. A third alternative is to budget for a deficit of approximately R20,000,000 for the next year and the consecutive years. Already a deficit of R2,750,000 is budgeted for the next financial year.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me that the hon. members do not understand the position, or otherwise they act like this in the hope that the United Party will be able to derive benefit from it. It is an idle hope, because the railwaymen still remember the record of the United Party. What was the position of the Railways in 1948? It was the Nationalist Party which intervened at that stage to save the Railways from ruin. What was the position in those days? In 1948 the United Party stood before the inexorable choice of either increasing Railway income by raising tariffs, or to reduce expenditure by applying drastic cuts. The position was extremely desperate. The financial position of the Railways was very critical in 1948, despite denials by the United Party. There is ample evidence on record to prove that was the case. I will quote a few of these instances and I want to start with the non-trust funds. Mr. Sturrock, the then Minister of Railways, took money from the non-trust funds in order to purchase supplies. He took the following amounts …

But that is a very old story.

I know that hon. members of the Opposition do not particularly want to hear these things, but it is a good thing to mention it again. The railwayman remembers it. He remembers the critical condition in which the Railways found itself and he will see to it that it does not happen again. For that reason he will not vote for the United Party. However much the United Party woos the railwayman for his vote, he will not get it. This incitement and agitation will be of no avail to them. I now give the figures: In 1943, R3,373,782 was taken from the non-trust funds, and in 1944 the amount in round figures was R8,000,000, in 1945, R10,000,000, in 1947, R21,000,000 and in 1948, R27,000,000. That was an irregularity and the Auditor criticized it strongly. These funds were virtually exhausted in 1948 and the General Manager had to warn the Minister on 15 April 1948 as follows—

In the same service letter is stated—

That this desperate financial position of the Railways was not exaggerated, is evident from Minister Sauer’s statement at the time in the House of Assembly just after he had taken over, that he had to borrow money from the Minister of Finance in order to pay the salaries and wages of the railway personnel.

I come to another case in this connection. Locomotive spare parts were urgently needed at that time. The stocks and the financial position were so critical that not even R184,000 was available to order urgently required spare parts. The chief mechanical engineer pointed on 30 March 1948 that spare parts for locomotives were urgently required. On 17 April 1948 the following telegram was sent to the General Manager in Cape Town—

In spite of the fact that the dependability and availability and even working safety of the Railways were at stake and that the Railways had slowly but surely moved in the direction of a total collapse, money could not be made available for the purchase of spare parts. After the Nationalist Party came into power, the Minister made R200,000 available for spare parts.

Why did the United Party not report this desperate position at the time?

On a point of order, may I know from what the hon. member is quoting?

I have only referred to this position because the Opposition pleaded right throughout that the railwayman’s position would be better under United Party leadership. Here I have merely given a short summary of what the real position had been when the Opposition was in power. The position was so desperate that it was really the salvation of the Railways that the National Party came into power. The Railways was saved by the National Party.

There is another matter to which I want to refer, and that is the further record of the Opposition. I want to give those members of the Opposition who sit on the other side of the House and who now plead for the artisans and who have now suddenly become the champions for an increase for railwaymen because they hope to make political capital out of it, the assurance that the railwayman in South Africa is grateful to the Nationalist Government and to our present Minister of Transport. The railwayman is grateful for the concessions which the hon. the Minister has made. I should like to mention that the railwaymen appreciate it very much, and I want to mention one particular group. I am thinking of the machine operators and the shunters. In this budget R250,000 is voted for starting scales of certain grades which are being improved. Facilities are created for shunters, such as better coupling equipment and hump marshalling yards which are scientifically planned to facilitate the work of shunters and to ensure their safety. And here in parenthesis, I should like to thank the Minister very much that Bloemfontein has also come into the picture in this connection. I further want to mention better illumination of the yards and modernizing as well as better designed shoes for the safety and comfort of shunters. Then I want to mention the appointment of safety officers. I am only mentioning what has been done in connection with this one group in recent times, and I want to mention that the railwayman knows and appreciates what has already been done. I want to emphasize that if there is one man who would like to plead for a general increase for the railwaymen, it is I. But when I say this, I do not merely speak for myself, but certainly for every member on this side of the House. We are familiar with the conditions under which these people live, and realize that a general increase, if we can afford it, would be a very good thing. But we have a responsibility. We thoroughly realize that if the Railways cannot afford an increase, then we cannot give it. For that reason we do not want to take part in the irresponsible agitation of the other side of the House. I want to conclude with this: The railwayman in South Africa is satisfied and we are all grateful to the hon. the Minister for what he has done and that he was able to present the country with such a budget— a budget of which our Republic is proud.

Mr. Speaker, I hope you will permit me to take this opportunity of making a point of explanation in regard to certain remarks that I had to make in the speech that I made during the main Budget discussions. In the course of that speech I drew attention to a certain news report in which the General Manager of Railways was reported to have made certain remarks. It has now been brought o my attention that there may be a misinterpretation of my remarks and that I in some way or another may have made a personal attack upon the person of the General Manager. I wish to say categorically, Sir, that was not my intention. I have only the highest respect and admiration for the ability and the character of the General Manager. I felt it necessary to say this here, because I don’t want any misunderstanding about what I had to say at all in view of the interjections of the hon. the Minister at the time when I was speaking.

I wish to discuss another matter with the hon. the Minister in respect of which I am sure the hon. the Minister can help us a great deal in this House to maintain a keen interest in the Railways, and that is the issue that he partly discussed in the Committee Stage and which referred, I take it, to the statement he made in his Budget Speech when he referred to the index of productivity that is presently evidenced in the working of railwaymen. The hon. the Minister, as I judged his remarks, made that statement to show the increased efficiency that has taken place in railway working as a whole. The hon. the Minister at one stage quoted some figures and said that the railways in the year 1956-7, had carried 75,000,000 tons with a personnel strength of some 234,000 and that this year the railways were expected to carry 90,200,000 tons with a personnel strength of 214,000—in other words, the railways would carry 15,000 tons more traffic with 20,000 less personnel. The Minister quoted that as an example or an index of the increased efficiency in the railways. But I wish to submit with respect to the hon. the Minister that there are a whole lot of other factors which I take it must be taken into consideration, and I want to start with the first factor and that is the question of the total carrying capacity of the railways related to tractive force. Now the Minister stated in his Budget speech that so far as the year 1961 is concerned (for the year ending March 1961, I take it), was 118,100,000 pounds, and then in regard to carrying capacity for this year (I take it for the year ending 31 March this year) he quoted a truck carrying capacity, a goods wagon carrying capacity of 3,299,000 tons. The point I want to make is this: If an index of productivity has to be determined, it cannot only be determined in respect of the extent of the labour used, because the labour used must surely relate to the implements the labour uses, the number of trucks they can fill, and the capacity of the railways to haul the trucks that the labour has filled. That is the unseen factor, and what I would like to get from the hon. the Minister this afternoon is how he is going to determine that factor. I realize that it involves a tremendous calculation, but surely it must rest on certain basic principles. Now since the Minister made these observations, I took the trouble to look through reports for all the years from 1956 to 1961, and one finds when looking at the labour complement that the key-personnel in respect of productivity cannot be related to a figure quoted by the hon. the Minister of 234,000 in 1956-7 and 214,000 in 1961, because the reduction in staff that has taken place in this period of time is a reduction largely as a result of curtailment of the capital works programme. The figures relate more to non-European personnel than to the White labour complement of the railway staff. The hon. the Minister says that there was a reduction of 20,000. That figure is not quite correct; the reduction was actually less than 20,000. But I take the basis of 20,000. In that period from 1957 to 1961, there was a reduction of only 2,000 in the number of White employees. But when you look at the Native complement, you find that the reduction of non-Whites was nearly 14,000, and the bulk of those non-Whites during that period were retrenched when the capital works programme was reduced. That is why when you look at figures of this nature, you can get a completely erroneous picture. I want to make it quite clear to the hon. the Minister that I am trying to raise this in an objective manner, because I think if we can get clarity on this point, we can certainly far more objectively debate with the hon. the Minister in future years when he comes with his budget surpluses and extra tonnages carried and so on, because then we ourselves have an index to go by.

It is a very complicated formula, but I am getting it for the hon. member.

I would like to know the principles on which it is calculated. The difficulty we face is that when you look at the Brown Book, the whole position is difficult to understand. The hon. Minister quoted in his Budget speech that the goods wagon carrying capacity at March this year, was 3,299,000,000 tons, and that figure represents an increase of 9,000,000 tons since March, last year. Now when you look at the Brown Book you find a long list of estimates of expenditure for rolling stock, for locomotive stock, etc., but we do not know how many new trucks in fact this year will come into operation. I don’t know where one can get those details. Could the hon. the Minister tell the House at this stage how many additional goods wagons he expects to put into operation in the coming year in terms of these Estimates? I don’t think the Minister knows himself, without a considerable research in his department. Sir, we vote globular sums, but what is the additional tractive force that will come into operation?

If the hon. member would have put that question on the Order Paper, I could have replied to it before the Budget debate.

When you look at the Brown Book, at the list of goods carrying vehicles and tractive force on order, it does not bear any relation to the increase that comes forward every year. The hon. the Minister will agree with me that it makes the position very difficult when you try to make a realistic assessment of the position in regard to this productive aspect of the Railway Administration, and therefore we on these benches find it difficult to take an objective approach.

But this brings me to the other aspect that I think is just as important. The hon. the Minister knows that I have taken a considerable amount of interest in past years in the Planning Council. Now if we get globular figures thrown at us: That the tractive force has increased by so many thousands of pounds, and that the wagon carrying capacity has increased by so much, what is this assessment based on? Because surely one does not just ad lib purchase new carrying capacity, new goods wagons, without considering whether the tractive force available can draw those wagons, and meet the traffic needs of the day. The question I would like to put to the hon. the Minister is this: Is there any relationship, or is there any formula evolved by his Planning Council where the acquisition of new tractive force has to maintain a certain percentage in relation to the acquisition of new goods wagons, or the corresponding increase in carrying capacity of the goods wagons. Because without planning on this principle, of course your tractive force may far exceed the requirements to draw the necessary trucks that are available to be drawn and to be loaded to carry the goods. On those grounds I would like to ask the hon. the Minister if he can give us some greater clarification of these issues in his reply to the debate.

In the few minutes left to me, I want to come back for one moment to the interests of the Artisan Staff Association. The statement which the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) quoted to the Minister, I want to quote again, a statement made by Mr. Liebenberg, in which he gives the reasons for all the present troubles and difficulties that the Minister is finding himself in respect of the Artisan Staff Association. Mr. Liebenberg said this, and I take it that the hon. the Minister accepts that is a correct statement as reported in the Cape Times—

Now is that correct?

No.

Mr. Liebenberg says that is what has caused all the trouble.

That is only a newspaper résumé of his speech. I have got the original speech.

But the principle revolving around this statement, whether these words are correct or not, the impression created is that the Minister cannot make any concessions to the staff unless he has specifically budgeted for them. That is the sole impression of these observations that I can gain.

You can never rely on a statement in a newspaper report.

The Minister may or may not know that Mr. Liebenberg is going to repudiate this report. I do not know whether Mr. Liebenberg is going to do so or not, but the difficulty I find myself in is that this is completely contradictory to the standpoint the Minister took up in the past. The Minister in the past had occasion, in 1958, to have a brush with the Artisan Staff Association, and Mr. Liebenberg on that occasion also made a stement which the Minister in this House repudiated. And to-day the Minister is repudiating Mr. Liebenberg’s statement of last night. Mr. Liebenberg’s statement is given here in inverted commas “We were told by the Minister that any major concessions would in future be granted in a Railway Budget”. In other words, that such concessions must be budgeted for. And that is the impression that the whole of the Artisan Staff Association has got and that was certainly the impression I got when listening to the hon. the Minister’s Budget Speech. This is quoted in inverted commas as the actual words of Mr. Liebenberg. He said—

In 1958, the hon. the Minister repudiated a statement of the Federal Council, and I quote from Hansard (Col. 896)—I now quote the statement of the Federal Council—

The Minister then said this in his speech—

Listen to this, Sir—

In other words, the Minister denies that he said that concessions must be expressly budgeted for.

Obviously it must be budgeted for. Where must the money otherwise come from?

But the Minister denied in 1958 that he said that. Here it is—

The word “expressly” must come out. I will explain what they want.

Mr. Speaker, I understand well what the artisans want. But the fact is that the Minister has adopted two completely contradictory attitudes in respect of granting any relief to the staff. In the one he says: “Look, I can give it to you because the forthcoming year’s operations have to pay for the increases that I have given you.” This year he says: “No, I cannot give you the increases until I have expressly budgeted for it.” I should like to ask the hon. the Minister this afternoon to tell the staff, they want to know, where he stands in regard to these matters.

They know.

If they do know I wonder what all this agitation is about in connection with their demand for increased wages.

I have made two unsuccessful attempts during the course of the Budget debate to make a very constructive suggestion to the hon. the Minister. I will repeat it, Sir. The hon. the Minister hold what is probably the most important position that a Minister can hold as an employer. He is the negotiator between the management and the staff, the Government and the staff. He has the responsibility of seeing that the staff is satisfied, that the Railways operate efficiently and to do that successfully he has to be a successful administrator. He has to have a full understanding of personnel problems; he must know how to speak tactfully to the staff. The constructive suggestion I want to make to the hon. the Minister is this, because I also have an interest in these matters, is that he should make use of two very excellent publications. I hope the Minister will make a study of these. The one is a well known book called “Personnel Management and Industrial Relations”. But the other one is a much better one because this one is “Management of Tomorrow”. This book gives the Minister some idea of what the future may hold. If the Minister refers to the last chapter, which is a very important one, he will find this—

This is the whole issue which we have been discussing with the Minister. It goes on to say this and I would like the Minister to listen to this—

The Minister can take this advice to heart in two ways. He can resolve to eliminate himself and think of the interests of the railwaymen or he can think of the interests of South Africa and eliminate himself completely from the position as Minister of Transport.

We have witnessed a peculiar episode in the House to-day in that all three hon. members who got up on the other side have made confession speeches. The first was the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) who confessed that they had nothing more to say and that they would not move an amendment at the third reading. He said they would support the third reading. Then the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) got up and he had to confess to a great many things. He turned left and right to try to explain what he had actually said in his speech, what he had wanted to say and what he had said! The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) then got up and he too had to pay penance for what he had said in a previous speech. It is clear to us, therefore, that when hon. members of the Opposition get up to speak they do not think what they are saying but they make the wildest statements and when they are eventually caught out they have to apologize in this House, then have to pay penance and try to rehabilitate themselves. Hon. members opposite had nothing to say in this debate, except to try to make political capital out of the demands by the Artisan Staff Association.

On the conclusion of the period of two hours allotted for the Third Reading of the Bill, the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 105.

In reply to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) I can only repeat what I said during an earlier stage of this debate and that is that the allowance granted to pensioners and the pensions cannot be consolidated, because the pensions and the allowances are paid from two different funds. The pension is paid from the Superannuation Fund or from the old Pension Fund as the hon. member knows. The allowance is paid out of revenue. It is merely for the sake of convenience that the amount to be paid out is credited to the Benevolent Fund. That is the channel that we use for the payment of these allowances. But the Benevolent Fund obtains its moneys from fines. Half the fines that servants have to pay is paid into the Benevolent Fund; the money actually comes from revenue. If consolidation had to take place it would mean that the Superannuation Fund would have to carry the whole burden. That cannot be done. Another reason is that if consolidation had to take place it would mean that we would have to abolish the means test. As the hon. member will realize that would involve considerable expenditure. Only by raising the means test by £100 entails considerable additional expenditure. I also said that a uniform allowance was paid to both civil servants and Railway pensioners. Consequently the Minister of Transport cannot act unilaterally. It has got to be done in agreement with and jointly by the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Finance. This matter was considered by the Cabinet but in view of the general financial position the Cabinet felt that it could not accede to the requests that were made either for an increase in the allowance or a raising of the means test at this stage. I think that fully replies to the hon. member.

The hon. member wanted some explanation as to why I had refused to accept the majority recommendation of the Superannuation Fund Committee. I can only say that there was very strong opposition from certain staff organizations when those recommendations were made. Instead of causing general dissatisfaction—there would have been considerable dissatisfaction had those recommendations been adopted—I decided not to adopt them. Those recommendations were in regard to the 10 per cent increase in pensions and also in connection with the question as to whether servants should be allowed to pay enhanced contributions to make up for the seven years of their retirement. But there was no unanimity. There was considerable opposition from certain staff organizations and consequently I refused to accept the recommendations. But the matter is being referred back to the Superannuation Fund Committee and they will probably deal with the whole matter again de novo.

There is one other matter, Sir, in regard to which I must clear the air. It was continually stated in the course of this debate and there have been many recriminations in regard to this matter, that the staff co-operated during the lean years and helped to convert the deficit into a surplus and that they now expected to receive some reward for their efforts. The impression has been created that they have received no reward. The staff have been well rewarded for the part they have played. Of course it was not entirely due to their efforts. Had there not been a livening up in our whole economic position there would have been no surplus. The Railways are dependent on the amount of traffic which is offered for conveyance and if there is no increase in traffic there is no increase in revenue. But the staff played their part; they made sacrifices. Since then, Mr. Speaker, they have been getting their rewards. Consolidation was one of the priorities. They have had full consolidation of their cost-of-living allowance with their basic wages. That was something which they did not even expect. They thought that the furthest I would go would be to consolidate part of the cost-of-living allowance with basic wage and I consolidated the entire cost-of-living allowance. That is only one reward. They received another reward this year namely the consolidation of the non-pensionable allowance with basic wages. In regard to both these matters the effect has been that there has been an increase in basic wages, together with consolidation. That is what it amounts to. Consolidation took place on the basis that the increased pension contribution that the staff would have to pay would be borne by the Administration. In other words, that meant an increase in basic wages, both last year and this year with consolidation. Is that not a reward which the staff has received? I have said all along that if finances permitted it they would receive further rewards. The money does not belong to me. The Railways is not a profit-making concern like a private business. I do not draw any dividends or director’s fees. I am merely called upon, on behalf of the country, to administer the Railways. Obviously if the money is there the staff will benefit. I told them that all along and I proved it by what I did in the past. So they are perfectly well aware of what the position is. I want to thank the hon. member for having paid tribute to the General Manager and staff. The General Manager cannot thank him in person, so I am doing it on his behalf.

Is the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) here to-day? Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Point tried to defend himself against the charges I made, but I can only say that it was a very pathetic exhibition. He tried to justify those ill-considered remarks and false allegations which he made in his speech during the Budget debate, but he has not succeeded in doing that as I am going to show. On the contrary, Sir, the hon. member has proved with his speech that every word I said in my reply to him, has been right and perfectly justified as I am going to show.

In regard to the Viscounts that we bought the hon. member’s charges were the following: The Minister did a grave disservice to South Africa because he purchased the two Viscount aircraft from Cuba. That was one of his charges. He said we would lose the friendship of the U.S.A. and of Britain because we had purchased the two Viscounts. That was the gravamen of his charge. We had paid an exorbitant price for these two Viscounts and we were selling two Constellations to Cuba. I dealt with that fully in my reply but I am going to repeat it. In his speech during this debate the hon. member said that I had not been frank with the House. Now why on earth should I not be frank? Why does the hon. member think that I should hide from the public or from the House the fact that these Viscounts had belonged to Cuba? Why? Even if they had belonged to Cuba and there had been no Perez who had taken them over, we would still have bought them from Cuba. Why not? What is wrong with that? What difference would it have made whether those aircraft belonged to Cuba or not? For the life of me I cannot see what difference that would have made. I say again that even if there had not been a Perez de Jerez, even if he had not given us an assurance that the aircraft belonged to his corporation, and they had been for sale by Cuba, I would have bought them from Cuba. Why not? Because we would lose the friendship of Britain? When Britain trades with communist China and sells Viscounts to communist China, when Britain has not severed any trade relations with Cuba. Must we allow those countries to bully us? Must they tell us where to buy and where we must not buy? Is that what the hon. member wants? Is that all that he thinks of his own country? Must we allow these big powers to bully us and dictate to us where we must buy and where we must not buy? I said that was the hon. member’s charge, that we would lose their friendship. In other words, we must be afraid of what the. U.S.A. will say and of what Britain will say consequently we must not buy even if we can conclude a good deal with Cuba. I would lose all my self-respect as a South African if I had to adopt such an attitude. I would lose all my self-respect if I were to allow my country to be dictated to by the United States and by Britain as to where we must buy and where not. I think the hon. member should really be ashamed of himself. I am sure the majority of hon. members on that side of the House, as I know them, certainly do not agree with the hon. member.

To whom did the planes belong?

I shall come to that. I am going to deal with the whole matter. I said in my reply that we were given the assurance by Jerez that the planes belonged to a Swiss Corporation controlled by him. But we were not concerned whether they belonged to Cuba or to whom they belonged. That was not the matter under discussion at all. All that we were concerned about was whether we were making a good buy, because we were in urgent need of Viscounts; whether we could make a good buy and whether we could protect ourselves against anything that might be wrong with the condition of the aircraft. But we were not concerned with whether the owner was Cuba or Jerez’s Swiss Corporation. We would not have minded had he told us that they belonged to Cuba. But that was the assurance that we were given but I am not using that as an excuse. I say again that if Jerez had told us that he was only the agent of Cuban Airways we would still have bought them. What difference would it have made? I am only giving the facts.

Did he try to conceal that fact?

No, I do not think so, but that was what he told us. We knew that the aircraft was still in the possession of Cuban Airways. We also knew that we would be taking delivery in the Bahamas; that the aircraft would be delivered there. We knew that all along. We knew that they were still being operated by Cuban Airways but that made no earthly difference. Jerez said that they belonged to a Swiss Corporation, that he had purchased them but that he had not taken delivery yet. But as I say what difference does that make? That is what I want to know? The hon. member also said that I gave the House the wrong information in regard to the cost of new Viscount aircraft. He said that I had not told the House that the aircraft we had bought were 1958 models. Apparently the hon. member is mixing up motor car manufacturers with aircraft manufacturers. Aeroplane manufacturers do not bring out a new model every year. Doesn’t he know that? The price which I gave as that of a new Viscount to-day, if that Viscount were produced within 18 months’ time it would be the same model as the ones which are operated by our Airways to-day. The year makes no difference. The Viscount company make certain models and they give certain figures. That is the model which we would have ordered to-day, the identical plane to those we are using to-day, but we would have had to pay R1,150,000 for it. And it would have taken 18 months to deliver. So I said that we got a very good bargain at those prices, a very good bargain, because it is not a question of age. Those aircraft had not been standing for years or even if they had, the fact remains that the one had only done 700 flying hours—practically brand new —and the other one had done 3,500 flying hours. To judge the condition of an aircraft, Sir, you judge it only by the number of flying hours and 3,500 flying hours is less than what our own Viscounts have done on our internal routes up to to-day. That is the condition of those aircraft. But we took a further precaution. We stipulated in the agreement that the Vickers Aircraft Company should give these aircraft a check-tour—that is a technical term —in other words they should go over the aircraft as a whole to see whether they were in the condition as stated by the seller. We retained some of the purchase price. Jerez would have been responsible if any adjustment or minor repairs had been necessary. Before we actually paid for those aircraft Vickers had to satisfy us by giving this check-tour four and giving us a certificate that they were in the condition as stated by the seller. So we were protected. In addition we had a technical officer at Nassau in the Bahamas who inspected the aircraft immediately on arrival there which he did. All precautions were taken. I repeat again, Mr. Speaker, the charges which the hon. member made were that we had done South Africa a great disservice; that we would lose the friendship of the U.S.A. and of Britain; that we had paid an exorbitant price. I shall now deal with the last charge, namely our sale of two Constellations to Cuba.

Coming to the sale of the two Constellations to Cuba, I can say this, Sir, that I would have had no objections had those two Constellations gone to Cuba. Why should I have any objections? It is no problem for Cuba to buy Constellations anywhere in the world to-day. According to my information which I received from the management some time ago there are at present about 749 Constellations and 1,049 super-Constellation aircraft available for sale. Cuba could have bought them anywhere. There would have been no need for the Cuban Government to have come to South Africa to purchase two Constellations if they wanted them. We tried to get rid of our two Constellations. I have already said that we could not get a higher price than £20,000 each. As a matter of fact we learnt from the local representative in South Africa that Constellations in a similar condition could be purchased for as little as £10,000 each. Nobody wants them. So it was a very good trade-in to get that amount from Jerez. As I said, we took the initiative. Jerez did not come here with the object of buying two Constellations for Cuba. Is that the impression which the hon. member is trying to create? He said, yes we let them to Trek Airways why can’t we use them ourselves? He has my Hansard, why did the hon. member not read it? Why did he not read my reply? I told the hon. member that Trek Airways could operate them because it is a non-scheduled company and they can charge much lower fares whereas South African Airways is a member of IATA and we cannot charge lower fares even for the piston engine plane, which is an old model. I told him that we would attract no passengers if we had to charge them the same fare on the Constellations as we charged on the Boeings consequently we cannot use them on our international services. But Trek Airways can do it; they are charging lower fares. They are not a member of 1ATA; they are a non-scheduled company. That is the reason. But that is in my reply, the hon. member did not read it.

I want to deal with the other facts as the hon. member tried to present them to-day to show that I had misled the House according to him. We come back to this medical post for Airways. I repeat again that is a product of his imagination. There is not a word of truth in it. It never happened that there was a medical post for Airways for which applications were asked for, that a certain doctor interviewed applicants and then appointed himself. I repeat again there is not a word of truth in it. The hon. member referred to Dr. du Toit. Dr. du Toit is Chief Health Officer of the South African Railways. He entered the Railway service in 1945. Since 1952 Dr. du Toit has acted as the Administration’s advisory in aviation medicine. That means he advises on medical problems affecting flying personnel as well as air passengers suffering from some or other ailment. He also ensures by regular medical examinations that the health of aircraft staff leaves nothing to be desired. He has been doing that since 1952. It is part of his duties as Chief Health Medical Officer of Railways. This hon. member said that there was a post in the South African Airways for a health officer and that Dr. du Toit …

Where is his office?

It makes no difference where his office is, even if it is in Parliament it does not matter, it makes no difference to his functions. He is full-time Chief Medical Health Officer of the Railways. That is his job and he has occupied that position for years. He entered the Railway service in 1945. He has been adviser to the Administration since 1952 in respect of this particular matter. There has never been a health post in the Airways. No applications have ever been asked from doctors to occupy such a health post. Dr. du Toit never interviewed applicants and appointed himself. I think that is a gross reflection on Dr. du Toit, and the hon. member should apologize. If the hon. member had only taken the trouble of reading the General Manager’s report which was issued recently he would have noticed on page 21, under the heading “Aviation Medicine” what I have just said and it would have been unnecessary for him to have made this false allegation.

What were the other charges which the hon. member made in respect of which I gave him a drubbing in my reply? He has not said a word about that. He spoke about the fleet captain. Another gross reflection on one of my most competent and best officers. He said the present fleet captain for Internal and Regional Services, that is Captain Rademan—

The following are the hon. member’s actual words—

Those were not my words.

These words were taken down in shorthand by my staff.

I said that was what people were saying.

I replied to the hon. member to show how false his charges were.

Is he stationed at Athens now?

I said “the fleet captain for Internal and Regional Services undertakes the checking of pilots on the internal and regional services in connection with flying instructors and in case of doubt as to the efficiency of a pilot the fleet captain conducts a separate check when available. The fleet captain is also used on the Boeings”. I said “The insinuation of the hon. member that the incumbent of this post is neglecting his true functions is regrettable. Captain Rademan, the officer concerned, is not only one of our most experienced pilots but also a conscientious worker. I regard his remarks as most unfortunate”. Those are the facts, Sir.

[Inaudible.]

Don’t run away from what you said. The hon. member also spoke about the two engineers and he related that to the resignation of Mr. Scott who was chief aeronautical engineer. By implication he said that Mr. Scott had resigned because one of them had been promoted over his head. Has the hon. member read my Hansard, and has he read the letter from Mr. Scott I quoted? I think the hon. member owes Mr. Scott and the other gentleman both an apology. He should again be ashamed of himself for making such false statements. [Interjections.] Of course I know the facts. The hon. member said that Boeing pilots receive their basic training overseas and why cannot we send more engineers overseas?

I said initial, not basic training.

What does the hon. member mean by “initial”? But seeing that word is used, I do not know where the hon. member heard it initially.

I mean that the first pilots were trained over there.

Yes, but that was not the impression he created. The first pilots were sent overseas, but since then no boeing pilots have been sent overseas for Boeing training. But my reply was this. I said there was no university giving aeronautical courses in engineering in South Africa, and consequently if we were short of engineers in Airways we have either to get them from outside or from the Railway Service, and they were either mechanical or electrical engineers. We are short of engineers. It is not a question of promotion only. Obviously, when an engineer is transferred from the Railway Service he must have the same post in S.A. Airways, and as the result of that he is probably appointed over the heads of several junior engineers. But because we are short of engineers we must draw them from the Railways, or else from outside. No engineers receive a course in aeronautical training in South Africa. Now what is wrong with that? That is why I said that it seemed to me that the real reason why the hon. member is concerned about these two engineers is because they have Afrikaans names. [Interjections.] I would not have said it if the hon. member had not brought the whole matter up and combined it with the resignation of Mr. Scott.

Now let me deal with another matter to show hon. members how justified I was in the drubbing I gave the hon. member. In regard to Trek Airways, the hon. member said that when an aircraft of Trek Airways crashed in North Africa in 1960 and assistance was requested from S.A. Airways, such assistance was in the first instance refused and subsequently instructions were given from a higher level that relief aircraft were to be provided to uplift passengers of the crashed machine. That is what the hon. member said, and he will not deny it.

I do not accept your reply.

Sir, if the hon. member does not accept my reply, he can take it up with Trek Airways. I will give the reply again which I gave in my former speech. S.A. Airways received the request from Captain Snelger of Trek Airways at 12.45 p.m. on 3 September 1960 for a relief flight to uplift 60 adults and three children. The point of uplift was uncertain. A relief Skymaster of S.A. Airways was ready at 1325 hours, less than an hour afterwards, and Trek Airways were so advised, but at this stage the Airline was not yet in a position to indicate where the passengers would have to be picked up. It was only at 1830 hours that Trek Airways confirmed that Cairo would be the destination and they requested that the flight depart at midnight. The flight departed at 01 hours on 4 September, uplifted the passengers at Cairo, departed from there at 755 hours on 5 September 1960, arriving at Johannesburg at 735 hours on 6 September. At no time was there any refusal to assist and crews were available to leave at short notice. The events were again discussed with officials of Trek Airways, who confirmed that S.A. Airways at the time did everything possible to assist them, and they have only gratitude for the assistance rendered.

I did not dispute that. My point is that you took them off course.

Those are the facts. I read what the hon. member said to the House and he did not deny it. [Interjections.] I say that proves that I was fully justified in the charges I made. I think the House can objectively judge as to whether I was justified in saying what I did in my reply to the hon. member when he was not here the other day, unfortunately. In regard to that matter, I can say that I never attack an hon. member in his absence, and this was most unusual. Hon. members know that I like a man to be here when I say something about him, but that hon. member should have remained here. He knew he was going away and I could not allow the wrong impressions and the false charges he made to remain unanswered and I had to reply to them. If he knew he was going to be away, he could have waited until yesterday and he could have made the same speech in the second reading. Then he would have been here when I replied to it. There was no excuse for him.

What about the other questions he asked?

I will reply to that. I do not run away. He asked about the non-White sky-coach service and he said that was an example of Railway mentality. Why should it be an example of Railway mentality? We endeavour to provide a cheap service for non-Whites, but why is that an example of Railway mentality? The non-White market is completely unexplored. It is a market which might have a very big potential, but you have to test it, and I tried to test out that market by providing cheap fares, cheaper than the coach services, for non-Whites, giving them all the comforts and the service that White passengers receive on the aircraft. I tried it out on the Durban run. Now what on earth has that to do with the Railway mentality? It is clearly a disparaging remark to discredit somebody on the Railways.

Typical of that hon. member.

That is my reply. But unfortunately we found that there was no market. Apparently non-Whites are not interested in air travel, because even on our ordinary services we have very few non-Whites travelling, and they have the right to travel on those services. But no interest was shown in the cheaper service, and therefore I withdrew that service because it was running at a loss.

The hon. member said I avoided dealing with the Moffat Report. I gave the reply to the hon. member in Durban why I would not make the Moffat Report available to Members of Parliament. If I made these departmental reports available to Members of Parliament, we would probably have a repetition of the type of debate we have had in this House in regard to Airways matters, and probably a repetition of the type of charges made by that hon. member in regard to Airways.

Why? That report is factual.

Yes, but unfortunately facts are twisted. I am not reflecting on the hon. member. I know he will not do it. I am merely saying that facts are often twisted and used for political ends. I told the hon. member why I cannot make it available to members of Parliament, because they will make a political issue of it. The hon. members opposite receive opposition from the Progressives and there will probably be a competition between the United Party and the Progressive Party in Natal to say who were the biggest advocates of certain of the recommendations of the Moffat Report. [Interjections.] I know I am treading on very tender toes when I mention that.

Does that mean that there are matters unfavourable to the Administration in the Moffat Report?

Good heavens! The hon. member should first of all have inquired from the hon. member for Durban (Point) what the Moffat Report is about before he puts such a silly question. The other matter the hon. member raised is that I did not reply in regard to the two sizes of buses. I did not reply. I said in my reply, when the hon. member was absent, that there were numerous minor matters to which I could not reply in my reply to the Budget debate, but that hon. members would again have an opportunity to raise these matters in the Committee Stage, when every matter could be dealt with individually; and during the Committee Stage I dealt with every point raised by hon. members on both sides most meticulously. If the hon. member did his duty and remained in Parliament, instead of going to fight the Progressives in by-elections, he would have been here to put that question again and I would have replied to it. That is all I want to say to the hon. member for Durban (Point), and I hope he has learnt a lesson. In future he must put a guard before his mouth. He must make sure of his facts and not make wild allegations which he cannot substantiate, and he must act as a responsible member of this House. I hope he will do that in future.

There is one other matter which was raised by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant). He wanted to know by what formula we measured productivity. I will give it to him very shortly. Productivity on the S.A. Railways can be defined as the ratio between passenger miles and ton miles on the one hand, and staff on open lines and rolling stock as major assets on the other hand. Labour productivity can similarly be defined as the ratio between passenger miles and ton miles on the one hand and staff, where staff figures are adjusted for changes in open lines and rolling stock on the other hand. In other words, labour productivity is passenger and ton miles per worker. Labour productivity is therefore the measure of the amount of work done by a unit of staff over a certain period of time adjusted for the effective changes in assets in output. I think that is enough for the hon. member to digest for quite a long time.

The last matter is that the hon. member said that I was supposed to have said that all staff concessions must be budgeted for.

That is what Mr. Liebenberg said.

I want to remove any misunderstanding which there might be. What I said was that any major concessions involving considerable expenditure can only be considered by me towards the end of the financial year when I have more or less an indication of the probable financial position for the ensuing year. That is what I said, and that is what I told the staff organization. Major concessions involving the expenditure of millions of rand can only be considered by me towards the end of the financial year when I more or less have an indication of the probable financial position for the ensuing year. It has nothing to do with budgeting. I have to budget for any concession and bring in additional estimates to provide for the consolidation expenditure, because Parliament must vote the money. But that is what I actually said and I hope there will be no misunderstanding.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

There is just one point on which I would like some information, as to what happens if various groups are involved in a property in which the controlling interest is held, say, by a Coloured company. Then in respect of that property various people together have loans exceeding half the issued share capital and they are also deemed to have a controlling interest. What is the position when that is so, and members of various groups have a controlling interest?

I wish to point out to the hon. member that Section 1 (4) deals with the controlling interest in companies and seven conditions are laid down under which that controlling interest can be acquired. All that we are doing in this case, where somebody has obtained an interest by virtue of the granting of a loan, is to substitute the word “somebody” in (f). In other words, we are not dealing here with the position which may arise to which the hon. member has referred, where you have to deal with individuals. We are dealing with companies. I have made inquiries and my information is that the example given by the hon. member is not relevant here and in all probability will never occur, because if, for example, a Bantu and a Coloured person both grant a loan of say 30 per cent to the shareholding company, neither will have a controlling interest by virtue of that loan, nor will they have it by virtue of their joint loan. Clause (f) with which we are dealing at the moment deals only with an interest which arises by virtue of a loan up to an amount exceeding half the share capital of the company. I think we should bear in mind that we are only dealing with companies in this case.

I am sorry, but I think the Minister misunderstood me. In the original Act it says that the controlling interest in relation to any company means, as the hon. the Minister said, various things, (a) a majority of its shares, or (b) shares representing more than half its share capital, and there is a whole list of things which amount to controlling interest. We are now replacing (f). At the moment it is in the singular and the Minister told us last night that there was doubt as to whether the use of the singular in (f) would be interpreted in terms of the Interpretation Act as including the plural. I concede that, as it is just as well to clear it up, but as it will now stand after amendment (f) provides that “any interest acquired by virtue of the grant of loans for an amount exceeding in the aggregate half its share capital or debentures for such an amount”. Now by virtue of holding the majority of the shares, supposing a Coloured man is the owner, by virtue of that provision the company would be deemed to be a Coloured company. By virtue of one loan made by a White person of more than half the share capital, the company would be regarded as a White company. The Minister is here aggregating a number of loans. Supposing there are three, one made by a Coloured, one by a Native and one by a White man, it is quite clear that those three loans must be added together in terms of the new (f). I have no objection to it, but I want clarity. I submit it is quite clear in that case that the controlling interest is that of the shareholder holding the majority of shares, who is a Coloured man. A European and an Indian may together have a loan exceeding half the capital, and in terms of (f) that is a controlling interest. It is not clear to me whether it is a controlling interest which is White or Coloured. It appears to me that if all the groups take part in that way—and this is the only point I want clarified—none of them can deal with that property except under a permit from the Minister. I think that is the effect, and if that is so, I am perfectly happy.

I agreed with the hon. member last night.

I am sorry, but I did not understand the Minister to agree last night. That is all I wanted to know, and I am glad to see that the Minister’s cold is much better.

Clause put and agreed to.

Title of the Bill put and agreed to.