Mr. Speaker, this time I cannot really take exception to the way in which the hon. member for Yeoville made his speech. He was not insulting and he was not personal. I must say that the hon. member has over the years undergone a metamorphosis, if one thinks how he has improved over the years; in fact, he improves with every session as far as the quality of his speeches is concerned. I myself am of course never personal, except when I am provoked! This time, however, I have not been provoked, neither by the hon. member for Yeoville nor by the hon. member for Durban Point.

I expected, and this was in fact the case, the main attack by the Opposition to be concentrated on the tariff increases. In fact, they would have been a feeble Opposition if they had not attacked the tariff increases. As usual the hon. member for Yeoville spoke rather at random. In places his backroom boys had left him in the lurch, and he frequently relied more on his imagination than on facts. He began by saying that these tariff increases were a tremendous shock to the public. But of course! There has never been a tariff increase which was not a shock to the public. But strangely enough, when private undertakings increase their prices, it is not a shock to the public. When shipping lines increase their tariffs, it is not described as a shock to the public. As soon as the Railways increases its tariff however, it is described as a shock to the public. In addition to that I must say that the Railways is almost the only business undertaking in South Africa whose tariffs have remained constant over a period of almost five years, and have done so in spite of increased costs and expenditure. I want to give examples of this. As I have said, all tariffs have remained virtually constant for five years. But I want to go further and point out to hon. members a few commodities in respect of which tariffs have remained constant for a period longer than five years. Take livestock for example. Since September, 1954 until the present the tariff for livestock has remained constant— for almost 13 years therefore.

17 years!

No, I made a mistake. The tariff has remained constant since 1958, i.e. for almost 13 years. As far as passenger tariffs are concerned, these remained constant from 1954 to April 1964. The tariffs on suburban services therefore also remained constant from 1954 to April 1964 —truly an achievement. And, as I have already said, all tariffs remained constant from 1966 until the present. The Railways is one of the few business undertakings in South Africa that was able to succeed in doing this.

I wonder whether hon. members realize what services the Railways is rendering the agricultural community and the consumer ¡public. As I have already said, the tariffs in regard to livestock remained constant for 13 years and even now they have not been increased. For the transportation of one large animal from Grootfontein to Maitland the tariff is R7.26, while the costs of transporting that one animal amount to R22.55. This means a loss of R15.29 on the transportation of every large animal from Grootfontein to Maitland. On the transportation of one small animal over the same distance the position is as follows; The tariff is R1.41; the costs R4,20; and the loss R2.79 or 34 per cent. And yet the tariffs have remained constant over a period of years.

I have said that there was increased expenditure as a result of increased costs, but at the same time the productivity of the Railways rose considerably. In fact, I can say without fear of contradiction today that the productivity of the Railways is probably higher than that of any other private undertaking. This is so not so much because the people have worked harder; from the nature of the case there has to be encouragement to work harder. The actual reason for the increase in productivity lies therein that some of the most modern methods have been used, methods such as automation and mechanization. All these factors have had the concerted effect of increasing productivity.

Hon. members alleged that these tariff increases were going to be conducive to inflation. I do not think so. They should not increase the prices of commodities to any considerable extent, unless of course the public is exploited. It often happens that when the price of a specific article is increased by a quarter cent as a result of a tariff increase, the seller charges a cent more and in that way makes an additional profit. If that does not happen in this case, these tariff increases should not really encourage inflation and there should not be any considerable increase in the prices of commodities.

Let us now see what solution the hon. member for Yeoville has to eliminate the deficit for which I have estimated. In the first place, this is what the hon. member says, il should have used the Rates Equalization Fund instead of increasing those tariffs. But what business firm in the world would deplete all its reserves in one year? One can see that the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Durban Point have had no business experience because they want to deplete their entire reserves to prevent tariff increases in that specific year. But by so doing they put off the evil day for a mere 12 months, for when they reach the end of the year they have no reserves whatsoever.

You have not yet replied to the point in regard to inflation.

This has nothing to do with inflation. I have already indicated what the position will be in this connection, in view of the slight increase in costs involved. In addition, the hon. member objected strongly to these tariff increases and alleged that if I had carried out the recommendation of the Schumann Commission of 1964 in time, it would not have been necessary for me to increase tariffs now.

He also said that they recommended the cost principle in the determination of tariffs instead of the value principle. The hon. member is wrong. The Schumann Commission did not recommend the substitution of the cost principle for the value principles; it should be supplementary, but the hon. member said that the value principle should be replaced by the cost principle. There is no railways undertaking in the world which applies only the cost principle. The value principle is an inherent part of tariff determination, namely what the traffic can bear. The hon. member does not realize what this would have meant. If I had accepted that recommendation of the Schumann Commission it would have meant that the tariffs on low-rated goods would have been increased considerably—coal, mealies, passenger fares, etc. This would have encouraged inflation tremendously. Do you know what that would have meant, Mr. Speaker? Coal is for example being transported from Witbank to Cape Town at a loss of R2.79 per ton. Fresh vegetables are being transported from Tzaneen to Cape Town at a loss of 24.48 cents per ton; mealies for export, from Bothaville to Table Bay Docks, to mention only a few examples, at a loss of R3.65 per ton; fertilizer from Firgrove to Lichtenburg at a loss of 5.87 cents per ton; empty returned commercial containers from Durban to Port Elizabeth, R27.60 per ton loss; lucerne from Upington to Wetton, a loss of R9.45 per ton; fresh fruit from Elgin to Kazerne R13.71 per ton; beans and peas (dried) from Hartwater to Rondebosch, R5.61 per ton loss; oats from Maitland to Johannesburg, R14.76 per ton loss; and citrus fruit from Zebediela to Table Bay Docks R8.49 per ton loss. These are only a few examples of the numerous commodities the Railways is transporting at a loss.

In whose interests is the Railways suffering this loss?

In the interests of the country. I should like to demonstrate what it would have meant if I had accepted the recommendations of the Schumann Commission, namely that the gap between high tariffs and low tariffs should be closed. This would mean that low tariffs would have had to be increased considerably and that high tariffs would have had to be brought down. This is what I am proving to the hon. member.

After all, they are opposed to the farmers.

The loss on passenger services, both main line and suburban, was R78 million in the previous year, for which we have the figures—for one year. If I were to accept the recommendation to apply the cost principle, then you can realize how considerably these tariffs would have had to be increased. At the same time I would have had to decrease the high tariff. What would the position then have been in the country? Would that not have encouraged inflation? You see, Sir, the hon. member spoke without thinking. He used his imagination instead of relying on figures.

The hon. member also asked why I had not accepted the recommendations of the Marais Commission where they recommended that more traffic should be diverted to private cartage contractors. What would that have meant?

To the roads.

Well, to the roads; that is after all to private cartage contractors.

Not necessarily.

It was their recommendation and the hon. member said that I should have accepted the recommendation. That would have meant that high-rated goods, the 20 per cent which brings in the bulk of my revenue, should have been diverted to the roads; the result would have been that the revenue of the Railways would have been decreased even further. Sir, private cartage contractors are not interested in the transportation of low-rated goods. The private cartage contractors will not transport ores to the harbours or coal to Cape Town. They are interested in the transportation of paying goods, the high-rated goods. The hon. member says that I should have accepted this recommendation and have relinquished even more Railway revenue. All this would in fact have meant is decreased revenue. The recommendations of the Schumann Commission mean a tremendous increase of the tariffs on low-rated goods and the decrease of the tariffs on high-rated goods. Sir, this is the solution he proposes for the deficit for which I estimated for next year.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned talking at random. The hon. member attacked me because the Railways are not able to transport all the export ores and minerals, but at the same time he objected strongly because there has been such heavy capital spending this year. But surely it is obvious, when one spends capital in this specific year, that it is also for work which has been in progress for a long time and which must be completed. These are not new works for R320 million or R330 million which are going to be commenced this year. Most of that work for which the money was necessary, is work which has been in progress for a long time. A great deal of that is for trucks and locomotives which have already been ordered. How can one have less capital spending and at the same time complain that the goods which are being offered cannot be transported? Sir, this is the kind of talking at random I cannot understand; the one thing cannot be reconciled with the other, [[Interjection.] No, the hon. member will have an opportunity to reply to this. If I were to do what the hon. member said I should do, then it would mean that all the work which has been commenced, would come to a standstill and that all the trucks which have been ordered must only be built by the manufacturers next year because so much less capital must be spent this year. It is really an absurdity to say a thing like that.

Then the hon. member also said that I should have known since 1961 that so many millions of tons of ore and minerals were going to be offered for transportation because, he said, we have since 1960-’61 already known what quantity of additional ore and minerals was going to be produced in South Africa. That is correct, but surely it is not merely a question of producing; surely one must find a market for that ore. It is only since the middle of 1969 that these ore producers suddenly found a market overseas and applied to the Railways for trucks. Since they did not give the Railways any prior notice, they could not expect, when they suddenly asked, 18 months to two years ago, for additional trucks which would have had to transport millions of tons of ore, that the Railways should immediately have been able to do so. Sir, you cannot have surplus capacity on the Railways. You cannot have hundreds and thousands of trucks which are simply standing there and are not being used. You cannot tie up a large amount of unproductive capital in surplus capacity. No Railways in the world does that; you must keep pace with the expansion, but you most certainly cannot plan to have surplus capacity in the hope that one day perhaps there will be a demand for those trucks.

And if there is certainty?

Then you must of course make the necessary provision, but this certainty was only there two years ago, and then the demand suddenly came. The hon. member must remember that you cannot build a mile of railway line in a day. You cannot buy a locomotive or a truck in any shop window.

†It has, of course, been the favourite pastime of the Opposition over the years whenever they have no grounds for criticism, to accuse the Railways of lack of planning, of inadequate planning for the future. The hon. member for Jeppes especially was one of those who spoke about inadequate planning or lack of planning. I would advise him rather to confine himself to matters of law; he knows more about that.

We are not at all so sure about that.

The hon. member for Durban Point also spoke about planning. He went even further and said that he was quite satisfied with the planning division of the Railways but that it was probably the Cabinet that negatived the recommendations of the planning division. What utter nonsense, Mr. Speaker! The Cabinet has nothing to do with the planning of the Railways. I am entirely responsible for that.

Then it is your fault.

If there had been inadequate planning, then Richard’s Bay would never have been planned for development; the Vryheid-Empangeni line would not have been built; the Durban harbour would not have been improved and extended; additional facilities would not have been provided; the two new piers there would not have been built; the new docks at Cape Town harbour would not have been built if there had been no planning or inadequate planning. The electrification of the Kroonstad-Harrismith line would not have been started.

Is that not routine?

No, it is not routine; it is planning. You plan for this in the future. You do not suddenly decide within 24 hours that you are going to electrify a line. Does the hon. member not know that? Sir, the north and south coast lines are being electrified. That was all planned many years ago; the Metsi-Kaapmuiden line is being built; centralized traffic control is being installed from Newcastle to Durban, from Klerksdorp to Kimberley, on the Cape Midlands line, on the Union-Volksrust line and numerous other lines. Planning for increased capacities on all the lines is continually taking place and thousands of trucks have been ordered. If there had been no planning, Sir, there would have been no new design for trucks—for instance trucks for the conveyance of liquids and motor cars which are now being built. We would not have ordered hundreds of diesel, electric diesel locomotives and electric locomotives if there had been no planning. If there had been no planning the horse-power of electric units would not have been pushed up to 3 000. If there had been no planning we would not have been fitting air brakes to certain trains and certain trucks now. If there had been no planning we would not have been able to pull 8 000 ton trains on a one in eighty gradient from Postmasburg to Port Elizabeth. This shows, Mr. Speaker, what amount of planning there has been. But what I would further suggest to hon. members is this: Why do they not read the Brown Book and the memorandum that I tabled? Then they will see what planning has taken place over the years in regard to all the new works that have been started and are being started in the future. That is the reply to their story about the lack of planning.

Both the hon. members for Yeoville and Durban Point, of course, spoke about the manpower shortage. I want to say that my position in this regard is perfectly clear. Where practicable, I will use non-Whites in jobs previously done by Whites if the Whites are not available. That is quite clear, but what I do suggest is that the hon. members read my introductory speech when as Minister of Labour I moved the Second Reading of the Industrial Conciliation Amendment Act in 1954. They should also read my reply to that debate. Then they will see that I have been quite consistent over the years in regard to my standpoint. In 1954, when I moved the Second Reading, there are very few members who were here at that time, and that hon. member knows nothing because he was not here—that hon. member who is laughing over there. I do not know what is so funny. In 1954, when I moved the Second Reading of the Industrial Conciliation Amendment Act, I enunciated two principles. The one was that I would not allow the wage standards of White workers to be undermined by cheap non-White labour. The second principle was that I would not allow White workers who are in a minority to be forced out of their employment by Bantu workers. Those were the two principles I enunciated in 1954 and I still stand by them. When I moved the Second Reading of that Bill and I defended clause 77, I said that the rate for the job was not sufficient protection for the White workers. That was why section 77 was introduced in the Industrial Conciliation Act. But I never said, either then or now, that non-White workers must not do the work of White workers when White workers are not available. I have never said that and I do not say it now. That has always been my standpoint, and that is why in collaboration with my staff associations we are employing more and more non-Whites in jobs formerly done by Whites where White workers are not available to do those jobs. But apparently some of those gentlemen are under the impression that all you have to do when you have a shortage of workers is to go into the street and get all the non-Whites off the street to do those jobs.

Nonsense!

Yes, of course. The hon. member for Port Natal told me that there are thousands of unemployed non-Whites in the Bantu homelands who can be employed.

Train them.

Train them? Sir, the position is that Putco employs Native bus-drivers and they have a shortage of Native bus-drivers. They cannot get them. Does the hon. member think you can get these semi-skilled non-Whites off the streets? Of course you cannot do it.

But you must train them.

It is interesting to see how the United Party will solve the problem of the manpower shortage. The hon. member for Yeoville writes articles in newspapers under his own name, not like another hon. member who, I understand, attacks his opponents in the Sunday Times under a nom de plume. The hon. member for Yeoville wrote an article which was published in the Cape Argus on 12th February, 1971, and I want to read part of this article to the House. Now this is what the hon. member for Yeoville wrote—

It is high adventure and a grand challenge to the people of South Africa. Sir, one would think the hon. member was writing a novel. I do not think we have ever listened to such drivel. However, I go further. He writes as follows—

He does not say what they fear and distrust. He is still busy with the “high adventure”—

He has said nothing yet, except that it will be a “high adventure”. He then continues—

That Act has been on the Statute Book for almost 50 years, and they have had an example of the calm collective bargaining! It is high time that they had that example; it has been there for almost 50 years. Then he said—

Sir, I should think that after 50 years they understand it, both the employers and the workers. Then the hon. member says—

I have always said that the hon. member was not wanting in eloquence, but I have never known that he was able to put that eloquence on paper in the way he has done here, in this spirit of “high adventure”.

He falls back on Tucsa. I think it is high time that the House hears what Tucsa actually is and what it represents. For the benefit of those hon. members who do not know, Tucsa stands for the Trade Union Council of South Africa. The secretary of Tucsa is a certain Mr. Grobbelaar. Apparently Tucsa is the authority that the United Party has in regard to labour matters in South Africa, and Mr. Grobbelaar is the oracle not only for the United Party but for the newspapers supporting the United Party and the Progressive Party. Now let us examine Tucsa’s membership. The hon. member for Yeoville must now listen because it is very important.

The total number of registered trade unions in South Africa is 182. The total membership of those trade unions is, in round figures, 577 000. The total number of trade unions affiliated to Tucsa is 65, with a membership of 213 000—in other words, far in the minority.

How far?

I will give the further figures. Now the number of trade unions affiliated to Tucsa are the following. Ten of those trade unions are White trade unions, 26 are pure Coloured trade unions and 29 are trade unions with a mixed membership, giving a total of 65. The membership of those trade unions consists of 76 000 Whites and 137 000 Coloureds. In other words, 117 trade unions with a total membership of 363 000, of which the overwhelming majority are White, are not members of Tucsa. Tucsa therefore represent a small minority of the White workers in South Africa, but that is the authority of those hon. members over there; that is the federation of trade unions they will discuss matters with and negotiate with to replace Whites with Coloureds.

That is a slight over-statement.

It is not an over statement. Let me go further. I do not think this hon. member has ever examined the position. He has heard about Tucsa and he knows it exists, but he has never gone into the membership of Tucsa. Sir, there are only four trade unions with a large membership of which a substantial number are Whites affiliated to Tucsa. They are the following: The National Union of Distributive Workers, the S.A. Society of Bank Officials, the S.A. Boilermakers’ Union and the S.A. Typographical Union, which of course is one of the oldest, soundest and most conservative trade unions in South Africa. I might inform hon. members on that side of the House that I am an elected member of the South African Typographical Union. This is an honour which has not been conferred on any member on that side of the House by any trade union in South Africa. That honour has been conferred upon me because the workers in South Africa have confidence in me, and I have been in the Government for 23 years.

You are obviously a Tucsa man.

That is the position with regard to Tucsa. We have now heard what the hon. members on the other side are going to do to solve the manpower problem in South Africa. I can only say that, if they want to solve it in that way, instead of solving the manpower problem if and when they come into power, it will probably become more acute. I think that any further comment is superfluous.

*In his speech the hon. member also made a point in connection with Richards’ Bay. The hon. member quoted from a speech which Dr. Kuschke had allegedly made. He said—

Dr. Kuschke was contacted personally. He denies ever having said that. When he was contacted this morning he said (translation)—

He said he would appreciate it if I would put the matter right.

It is a pity that he did not do so when the report appeared.

He confirmed that it had always been the intention to import alumina through Durban. They constructed the R30 000 plant with this very object in view. He complimented the Railways on having fulfilled their contract and promises in all respects by finishing the line from Empangeni to the Alusaf factory timeously, by completing the necessary tests of the special trucks timeously, and with regard to the availability of those trucks. In addition he said (translation)—

I do not think any further comment is required.

†Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member for Durban Point was a bit mixed up with his figures with regard to the trucks being placed into service.

I thought you would say that.

Let me first deal with one other figure that the hon. member mentioned. The hon. member is very fond of figures, but he does get mixed up at times.

Which ones are wrong?

He said that he understands that there are 800 vacancies for checkers in the Durban complex.

Quote my Hansard.

If the hon. member will look at his Hansard, I repeat that he said that he understands that there are 800 vacancies for checkers in the Durban complex. The facts of the matter are that the establishment for checkers in that Durban complex is 912. There are 255 vacancies.

Did I quote your figures or not?

No, the hon. member said he understands. He must read his own Hansard.

Did I quote the figures you gave me or did I not?

Apparently the hon. member has forgotten what I said.

Read page Q.2 of my Hansard manuscript.

If the hon. member reads his Hansard he will see that he said he understood there were 800 vacancies for checkers in the Durban complex. Did he say that or not?

No.

I will read the hon. member’s Hansard to him. While I am waiting for the hon. member’s speech I will deal with another matter.

I will help the Minister. I said I heard these figures mentioned.

I am speaking about what the hon. member said and not about what he thought he said. As soon as I receive his Hansard I will read it out to him. The hon. member also spoke about the number of trucks being placed in service. He said that many more trucks have been ordered or sanctioned than have been put into service. The way I understood the hon. member he implied that a number of these trucks had simply disappeared into thin air. I now have the hon. member’s Hansard and I will read it out to him. He said: “I have heard even worse figures given …”

No, go back!

The hon. member must be patient. He went on to say: “These are the figures in the harbour itself, but I have heard the figure of 800 checkers short in the Durban complex.” [Interjections.] The hon. member will have the chance of correcting himself during the Committee Stage. The hon. member must not say one thing and think another.

You are doing it on purpose.

I am not doing anything on purpose. I am surprised that the hon. member had not spoken about the Black gangers on the South Coast. [Interjections.]

R2 million to replace one sleeper!

I think the hon. member will have an opportunity of raising that matter in the Committee Stage. We can talk about it then. In regard to the number of trucks placed in service …

Why do you not read the hon. member’s Hansard?

I am always willing to oblige the hon. member for South Coast. I know he is very sensitive especially in regard to R2 million. The hon. member for Durban Point said: “I have heard the figure of 800 checkers short in the Durban complex”.

Go back to page Q.2 of my Hansard manuscript.

I will read what the hon. member said on that page. He said: “But what concerns me is the 6 786 vacancies in 35 689 what the hon. the Minister himself classifies as bread-and-butter posts. Take Durban harbour where the ships are queueing up and where there is a waiting time for berths. There we find that in the grade of checker 481 posts are filled, 72 temporarily filled and 302 vacant …”

That is right.

He said this about Durban harbour and not about the Durban complex. [Interjections.] The hon. member must listen. I am reading his own words to him. He went on and said: “… almost as many vacant and temporarily filled as there are posts that are filled by permanent units. The position with forklift drivers is satisfactory. In the grade of crane drivers there are 60 vacancies, and 83 for shunters with 20 filled—more than half the total posts in the harbour. Those are the Minister’s figures. I have heard even worse figures given. These are the figures in the harbour itself, but I have heard the figure of 800 checkers short in the Durban complex.”

What are you proving?

What I am proving is that in an establishment of 912 posts there are 255 vacancies. That is what I am proving. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should be very careful with figures. There is an old saying that figures cannot lie and you know what the rest of it is.

With regard to the trucks placed into service I want to say that what the hon. member did not realize is that very often an allocation for a number of trucks is made in the Brown Book, but the tenders are only accepted in the following year. Apart from that, all the orders are not delivered in one particular year. Lastly, many trucks which have come to the end of their useful life, are withdrawn from service every year.

The hon. member also spoke about the wages of certain members of the staff and the adjustments of wages. I have said it before, but let me say again that with regard to wages and conditions of work, I negotiate with the Railway trade unions and not with members of the Opposition. I think that they are quite capable of looking after the interests of their members. If the hon. member does not have confidence in them, I can say that I have confidence in them. The Railway trade unions represent more than 80 per cent of the White Railway staff. They look after their interests and they are quite competent to negotiate wages and conditions of work. With regard to the increases that were granted last year, I want to say that it was done in concurrence with the trade unions on the Railways. They agreed to the increases and supported the adjustments.

Are you satisfied with the figures I have quoted?

Yes, of course, I am satisfied. If I was not satisfied I would not have agreed to the adjustments.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg City referred to containerization. I dealt with that in my Budget speech. I said that three container terminals are being provided for. I said that provision for handling containers will be made at Durban, Cape Town and Port Elizabeth. I want to say now that there is close collaboration with the shipping lines and private interests in this regard.

With regard to the increase in the fares of Boeing 747 flights to which the hon. member referred, I want to say that all fares on international routes are decided upon at an IATA meeting so that all the different airlines can conform to that. At the moment nothing has been decided with regard to the increase of air fares when the 747s come into service.

*The hon. member for Bloemfontein District asked for the converted value of pensions to be paid out to servants on the reaching the age of retirement if such servants stayed on in service. This is a matter which is under consideration.

†The hon. member for Von Brandis also dealt with the inability of the Railways to transport all the ores and minerals that are being offered for transport. He mentioned the case of anthracite, for instance, where trucks sufficient for the transport of 700 000 tons have been allocated although they wanted trucks for the transportation of over I million ton. The hon. member for Jeppes also raised this matter. I have already dealt with the general matter of the transport of ore. When these producers came along in the middle of 1969 asking for a bigger allocation of trucks, they could not get it, because they did not give the Railways sufficient notice. However, in regard to anthracite the position is as follows: Due to the fact that No. I dumper of the coaling appliances at the Bluff would be out of commission for five months during 1971, originally April to August, for essential repairs and modifications, the total capacity of the appliances would be reduced to approximately 400 000 tons. For this reason it was necessary to reduce the export allocation of all exporters of anthracite coal and coke pro rata. Ore exporters were aware that No. I dumper would be out of commission during 1971. The Anthracite Producers Association was allocated 1 150 000 tons during 1970 and initially this association was granted an allocation of 500 000 tons for 1971. This allocation was increased on the 27th November, 1970, to 700 000 tons after all the other commitments had been fully assessed. The latest information is that the contractors who are undertaking the repairs to the coaling appliances will now commence work on the 1st July. The work is expected to take 9½ months. The Anthracite Producers Association have been informed accordingly, and the monthly allocation rearranged to meet the circumstances. The reduction in export allocation has in no way been affected by the shortage of trucks or other rail facilities, but it is entirely due to the reduced capacity of the coaling appliances brought about by essential repairs. Prior to 1970 exports of anthracite rarely exceeded 700 000 tons and the application for 1971 compares favourably with this figure. There is no apparent reason why exports of anthracite should not be maintained at a high level once the repairs to the appliances have been concluded. It may be mentioned that the capacity of the appliances is 2 100 000 tons and that prior to the end of 1969, less than half of this capacity was ever utilized. That is the position in regard to anthracite.

The hon. member said we must be prepared to build railway lines even if they are uneconomic, because new railway lines would generate traffic. It is true, and that was the function of the Railways in the years long past. It was the case when South Africa was still being developed and it was provided for in the Act of Union. It is part of the function of the Railways to build railway lines to assist in the development of the country. This is so specially in the inland areas. Now the country has been developed and transport has been provided. Where rail transport has not been provided, road transport has been provided. But, even today, if there is a possibility of traffic being generated on a new line, we will build that new line. It must be pretty certain that the traffic will be generated. There must be sufficient traffic to make the line economic; otherwise we build railway lines for departmental purposes or guaranteed railway lines only.

In regard to Saldanha and St. Croix, I can say that no finality has been reached. I am still waiting for Iscor to hear whether they have signed the contracts for the export of ore and whether they have sufficient funds for the building of the line. Hon. members know that they have to finance the building of the line, and the purchase of the rolling stock. Therefore St. Croix is in abeyance until we have received finality in regard to Saldanha Bay.

The hon. member for Port Natal said that we were warned 20 years ago that the harbours would become congested. 20 years ago we were apparently warned that the Suez Canal would be closed on the 6th June, 1967, with the result that thousands of additional vessels have to pass our shores and enter our harbours. This, of course, is one of the reasons why our harbours are congested. I think that the harbour staff have done a wonderful job in dealing with all these thousands of diverted ships over the past years. They are still dealing with them. Under the circumstances I think that there is no call for increasing the facilities merely to handle diverted ships, because when Suez reopens, many of them will use the Suez Canal again and very few of them will come around the Cape.

In regard to other delays in Durban, for instance, hon. members must speak to trade and industry. If they are prepared to accept goods after hours or during the night, there would not be any congestion in the harbours. However, I do not get any cooperation from trade and industry and that is why the harbours are congested occasionally. That is also the reason why ships cannot enter the harbour and why they cannot obtain berths.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Is there any reason why trade and industry should not co-operate in clearing the harbours?

As far as I am concerned, they have no reason. They are simply not prepared to do it. We have approached them frequently, in Johannesburg and in Cape Town. We asked them whether they would take the delivery of goods after hours, after five in the afternoon. Some of them are not even prepared to accept goods between one and two, their lunch hour. Then the lorries have to stand outside and wait for them until it suits them to have the goods offloaded. There is no co-operation at all.

Is Assocom not trying to help?

Assocom, as an organization, but the individuals are not prepared to do it. I foresee the time when all goods in Johannesburg will have to be delivered at night, because the roads in Johannesburg are becoming so congested that we will not be able to use them for this purpose at all. They will not accept goods on a Saturday morning for instance, and that is one of the reasons why Kazerne is very often congested and why some of our harbours are congested. We cannot get the goods out.

The hon. member was complaining about the noise and he said that trucks are being damaged in fly shunting through the use of walkie-talkies. Fly shunting is as old as the Railways are. It has always been done and it is nothing new. In the letter that I wrote to the hon. member, he will see that I told him that I had investigated the matter. The report, which he did not read, was that there had been an appreciable reduction in noise, following the introduction of radio control. I am afraid that those people living in the vicinity will simply have to adapt themselves to the noise the way we all have to do it. We had the same complaint, for instance, when I introduced diesel-electric locomotives in Windhoek. Everybody was complaining about the noise that the siren makes, but within a year they grew accustomed to it and do not even hear it any more. Ask those hon. members who live at Green Point next to that tremendous siren blowing at times over there. They say that today they do not even hear it. They are quite used to it.

The hon. member for Port Natal again said that I deliberately pay low salaries so as to compel railwaymen to work overtime. You know, Sir, it is really incredible that an hon. member who is intelligent enough to become a member of this House, should be guilty of such an absurdity. I think that he should speak to the railwaymen and their trade unions, and he will see how absurd a statement he has made.

*The hon. member for Kroonstad asked whether there still was a plan to erect the grain elevator at Richard’s Bay. I just want to tell him that there still is such a plan.

The hon. member for Maitland said I had said last year when I announced the salary increases for the railwaymen that tariffs would not be increased. That is so, but I did not say that they would not be increased for the next 20 years; nor did I increase tariffs last year. I presented a Budget in July last year. I budgeted for a deficit to be met from the Rates Equalization Fund; I did not increase the tariffs. But this is a new year. Now I know what the position ahead is, and I am obliged to increase these tariffs.

He said it was unfair that the Railways should carry the burden for the transport of cattle and fodder to and from the drought-stricken areas. However, that is no longer so. The Railways no longer carry the burden—the Department of Agriculture does so.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? What about the loss?

There is a loss on the transport of all livestock, as I have indicated here. I am now speaking of the difference between the tariff the farmer has to pay for the transport of such cattle and the actual tariff charged for ordinary cattle. That difference is being paid by the Department of Agriculture.

Then he spoke of a subsidy on rail tariffs in respect of the Western Cape. I agree with him—the position in the Western Cape is an extremely difficult one. It is true that there are industries here which are moving away because of the long distances separating them from their markets. But if I had to introduce special port rates for the Western Cape, the Railways would lose R4i million per year. The Railways cannot afford that.

†The hon. member for Jeppes suggested that an ombudsman, as they have it in Sweden, be appointed to listen to all the railwaymen’s grievances.

That is what the name means. That is someone who listens to grievances.

A grievance man? In other words, he wants another grievance committee, such as my predecessor appointed after we had come into power. He wants to undermine discipline on the Railways completely. There must be a man that every railwayman can run to when he has a grievance. You know, Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying that a railwayman who has not a grievance, is not a good railwayman. You will find them all going along with grievances to the ombudsman. I do not think that is a practical proposition.

The hon. member also wanted to know whether the Boeing 747s on order would be used on internal flights. My answer is no. Those three that have been ordered, will be used on external services.

*The hon. member for Bethlehem asked us to make bursaries available to medical students. We have only a very small number of medical men in the service of the Railways. All the medical· men are in the service of the Sick Fund, which is being run by the Management and the staff themselves. Therefore I cannot establish bursaries for medical students so as to enable them to qualify as doctors to be employed by the Sick Fund.

The hon. member for Newton Park complained about the transport of vegetables from Bloemfontein to Cape Town which had taken 14 days. If this is so, it Is wrong; If the consignor of the vegetables had brought that matter to my attention, I would have had it investigated immediately. It is quite wrong that it should take 14 days to transport vegetables from Bloemfontein to Cape Town, and this hardly ever happens. There are special trains which transport these perishable products.

The hon. member also asked that the tariffs should not be made applicable to fruit. I am very sorry, but I cannot concede to that request.

The hon. member also quoted from the magazine of the Artisan Staff Association. He quoted a few sentences of criticism, but he did not say one word about all the other matters they had found in order. The grievances which they had, were small ones. In one case it concerned the sale of cooldrinks which had been discontinued and in another case the complaint was about the situation of a toilet at a certain place. These are the kind of complaints the hon. member mentioned. It is not worthwhile replying to that.

Now I want to conclude by thanking the members on this side of the House. They acquitted themselves well of their task. They replied in clear statements to many of the matters which had been raised. To this I want to add that it most definitely is not pleasant to increase tariffs. I like it as little as hon. members on the opposite side do. However, the South African Railways has to stand on its own feet. If there is a deficit I cannot go to the Treasury and ask my colleague to make good that deficit from public funds. Our Railways is one of the very few railway systems in the world that is still able to balance its own accounts without assistance from the State. For example, think of the railways of the United Kingdom. Their losses amount to hundreds of millions of rand each year, and their Government has to make good those losses. Here in South Africa we have to balance our own accounts without any assistance or subsidy from the Government.

In spite of the shorter distances in the United Kingdom.

Yes, that is true. I think the Railways, in spite of all the criticism and in spite of the shortage of manpower and the shortage of capital, has acquitted itself well of its task. In general the Railway workers have done their duty. I know that some of them worked very long hours, and still do. I also know that their wives and children suffer as a result, because they see their fathers infrequently. I also know, however, that the reason for these men being prepared to work those long hours is not so much the question of being able to earn additional money, but dedication to duty, and I appreciate that.

Now I want to address an appeal to the United Party: They may attack and criticize me as much as they like. They may do so to their hearts’ content, but I should very much like them to express some appreciation now and then to the Railway workers, from the highest to the lowest.

We did so.

They are the people who are trying to do their duty to have this largest business undertaking in South Africa run smoothly, and to render the service to the public to which the public is entitled.

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

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—98: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C; Brandt, J. W.; Campher, J. H.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Gerdener, T. J. A.; Grey ling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hartzenberg, F.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Jurgens, J. C; Keyter, H. C. A.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, P. C. Roux, G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

NOES—42: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Cadman, R. M.; Cillie, H. van Z.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hope-well, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Moolman, J. H.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Timoney, H. M.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and J. O. N. Thompson.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

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

Heads Nos. I to 15 and 17,—Railways, R893 394 000 (Revenue Funds) and Heads Nos. IA, R100; IB, R112; 1, R18 229 388; 2 (a), R100 541 200; 3, R40 320 900; 4, R3 433 000; 8, R25 255 000 and 9, R800 000 (Capital and Betterment Works):

Mr. Chairman, may I ask for the privilege of the half-hour? It is an unusual experience for me today, at this stage of the debate, that I wish to congratulate the hon. the Minister sincerely on the reply he gave and on the way in which he did so. It is a new Minister we are getting to know here today— courteous, to the point and very, very seldom personal. Through you, Mr. Chairman, I should like to tell the Minister that on this level the Railway debate is really becoming a pleasure. I only hope the new personality which the Minister has adopted will be a permanent one and that he will not suffer a relapse as far as this is concerned. I had with me a long series of the Minister’s most striking sayings of the past which I had gleaned from Hansard; I had wanted to use them today, but now my hands are chopped off. I want to congratulate him; he has outwitted me on this score.

†Sir, I was most interested in the Minister’s reaction. He is obviously concerned about the inflationary effects of tariff increases. He tried to make out a case that these increases would be minimal. Sir, throughout we have made the point that these increases are part of the pattern. They are part of the collapse of proper administration in South Africa. I made the point at the time that this Minister, whose salary we are now discussing, is not primarily to blame for the dreadful situation that is arising in South Africa, but he has his share of the guilt that he cannot escape. With his 10 per cent increase in tariffs he is making his contribution, in addition to increased postal tariffs, the new purchase taxes, and the increase in the price of petrol, for which he is responsible in another capacity. They are all helping, they are all contributing, they are all working together very nicely to see that prices will increase in South Africa and that the lot of the ordinary citizen will become harder. What worries us most of all, Sir, is that in his speech this afternoon the Minister confirmed indirectly that we have no certainty that they will beat inflation. We have had authorities to tell us that they have lost the first round. To judge by the Minister’s very weak and very shallow defence of his attitude in not using more of the Rates Equalization Fund to avert the full increase that he was compelled to introduce—I admit that he was compelled to do so; it is the result of inflation—he did not have the confidence, as he repeated this afternoon, to use this reserve fund for the purpose for which it was intended because in his heart of hearts he could not be certain that inflation would end in spite of the drastic measures this Government was now taking too late. That is the point I made, and that is the point where he cannot join issue with me successfully. This is part of a pattern; this is the contribution of the Minister of Railways to the evidence that the Government is failing to govern this country properly. That charge stands and that charge was not answered by the Minister. In fact, as I say, it was indirectly confirmed by the Minister’s attempt to get past this point.

I was criticized by the Minister because I suggested that if some of the recommendations of the Schumann Commission had been accepted as far as the value principle of rating is concerned, this increase might have been averted. The Minister made a case with which I do not wish to argue but it was not an answer to my case. He made the case that if the cost principle had to be applied in fixing tariffs a large number of tariffs on low-rated goods would have to be increased and that tariffs on high-rated goods would have to be decreased. That is true if you see the Railways in isolation. But, Sir, the Railways are not the total government of South Africa; they are one department of State. If things have to be done in the national interest, if it is in the national interest that certain goods should be transported at a rate which is below the cost incurred by the Railways in transporting the goods, I do not think it is right and I do not think you can forever accept that an organization which is expected by our Constitution to be run on business principles should subsidize the State, because that is what it amounts to. The Railways are in fact subsidizing the State. I want to suggest, again in agreement with the Schumann Commission, that where it becomes necessary for the Railways to convey goods at an uneconomic rate in the public interest, then the public interest demands that the Consolidated Revenue Fund should make up that difference. This principle has been conceded again and again in certain instances. In the case of the subsidy paid on the transport of urban Bantu passengers the principle has been conceded. The Minister reminded us today of the transport of livestock during droughts, and there are other instances. I think the time has come when the Minister should consider whether the Western Cape should not be treated like a border area.

I do not make any concessions to the border areas.

That is my very point. There are lower Railway rates for border industries but the Minister is recompensed by the Consolidated Revenue Fund. You see Sir, the longer we argue gently, without getting angry and personal, the more we find that we are in agreement. The only difficulty is that the Minister, being a member of an obtuse Cabinet, cannot carry out and implement the fact that he agrees with me.

The Minister became slightly sarcastic about my suggestion that if some of the recommendations of the Marais Commission were carried out his situation might also have been easier. I do believe—and I am supported in this by I should say 70 per cent of the people who use the railways—that we are building up an organization that is becoming too cumbersome for a single management. The thing that interests me most is that we should make more use of our roads. I do not think this has been published, but I learnt from a visit that I recently paid to the Witbank area, for motives which the Minister will appreciate, that the Railways have done something very sensible; they now run coal in block trains to, say, the Witwatersrand and they do not stop to drop consignments at sidings for small concerns. They have these bigger trains to the Witwatersrand and they redeliver, very often by road, to small consumers in the vicinity. Sir, this makes sense. That is the sort of thing one has in mind. It is strange, Sir, that when it comes down to practical considerations and when the people responsible for the administration of the Railways do some hard thinking and bring in food reforms, then as in so many other aspects of government, they support the contentions of the United Party. I do want to plead with the Minister that he should look for more avenues in which he can apply the principles which the Opposition believe are sound principles in the business administration of the S.A. Railways.

The Minister had much to say about the staff. I think he even made the press gallery jealous by reading out a piece of journalism for which I was responsible. I appreciate the tribute that I received from the Minister. I stand by what I said, Sir, in my criticism of the Government and by what I said about approaching our labour problem in a spirit of high adventure, knowing that if we approach it wisely we can make South Africa great. I believe that the one man in the Government who has glimmerings of the same vision—no more than glimmerings— is the hon. the Minister of Transport. I said that we could do much to bring about agreement between the unions and management in business enterprise, on the Railways, and in the Post Office, by using the proven principles of collective bargaining. Now the Minister tried to be funny about that, but does he not agree with me?

About negotiation, yes.

Of course he must believe in it because he knows something about this. He has been doing it for years. He has practised it. He and I, Sir, when it comes to good old United Party policy, still find each other. [Interjections.] I said we must do it by way of collective bargaining. I said in that article that Tucsa had made a good suggestion. That suggestion, may I remind the House, was that we should have committees at industrial level and even at shop level, to negotiate and to ease out the problems when they arise, where it is necessary with the agreement of the unions—in order to change the labour pattern. And we learnt from the speech that the Minister made when he introduced the Budget that he had appointed a committee. He has had such a committee for 10 years, a very fine committee and a strong one representing the Administration and the trade unions. In fact, the anticipated Tucsa.

I anticipated the United Party.

I would not say that. After all, Sir, he knows the United Party from the days when he was in the United Party. He does not anticipate us; he just continues to live out the policy of the United Party in the things that matter, in practice. I pay tribute to him for doing so. But the point I want to make is this. Exactly what I suggested in that article has been done by the Minister for 10 years. He is right and I wish him every success, and I promise that he will never get any criticism directed at obtaining political advantage of any success he achieves in the prosecution of that policy. I give him that undertaking with the knowledge of my leader and with the support of every member on this side of the House. Let him do what is right to give the Railways the labour force it needs. Let him protect the White worker. Let this happen in such a manner that the White worker does more responsible work and receives better remuneration, and where there are White workers who cannot face the competition, let them be protected in special employment, but let the work of the nation be done. Let the potential of South Africa be realized; let us enable the Railways to do what is necessary and proper in achieving that end, and I assure the Minister that he will have the loyal, the enthusiastic and the responsible support of a responsible Opposition.

Some of the hon. members opposite, to whom the Minister, understandably, did not reply in the same detail as he replied to us, seemed to take great exception to the fact that I had made a point of saying that the Minister had made a lot of people unhappy when he gave the salary increases. They thought that this was a most irresponsible statement. By sheer accident—and I want it on record now—I looked at the Salstaff Bulletin for November 1968, where they reported a conference between the Staff Associations and the Minister. The Minister had just given them an increase of R43 million and he replied to their representations. Do you know how he started, Sir? Does the Minister remember?—

Is that not amazing, Sir? The point is that I have heard again and again from prominent employees of the Railways that they are grateful when they get salary increases, whether the money made available is R43 million in 1960 or R60 million in 1970, but they always have problems with the manner in which it is done and the way in which it is applied.

You always get individuals who are dissatisfied, but have you got into touch with the trade unions after the latest increases?

Yes. on the whole they are satisfied, but they have problems with their members who are not satisfied, and I think the Minister is aware of that, too. I will come back to that.

I now want to raise one or two specific matters about the Railways. The one concerns suburban passenger traffic. I want to compliment the Minister and the Administration on the improvements being made on our main lines. It is a source of pride to think that we can now pull 8 000-ton trains on a 3½ ft. track with a one-in-eighty gradient. It is amazing. It is encouraging and quite remarkable to learn, as I learnt from another source, that the new Blue Train will be travelling at 70 miles per hour on a 3’ 6” track in one or two years’ time. That is remarkable. But I want to know whether something cannot be done urgently, because it is urgent, to improve the quality and the speed of the suburban traffic in our great cities. We all know that our cities are congested. I have not had time to check it, but people have stated it to me as a fact that the speed with which a train runs from Simonstown to Cape Town, or from Springs to Johannesburg, or from Krugersdorp to Johannesburg, or along the old mainline in Durban, the South Coast or the North Coast line, is still the same today as it was 20 or 25 years ago. The best method of conveying passengers or commuters to cities in peak hours is by way of railways, whether they are orthodox railways, mono-rails, underground railways or whatever. Therefore I would like the hon. Minister to consider and examine what can be done to improve the speed of the suburban lines as well as the efficiency and general attractiveness of those services.

I want to say to the hon. Minister that I cannot recant from what I said about the heavy capital expenditure of almost R400 million this year. I concede that it is necessary. I do not believe that it can be avoided in the present circumstance. But it is a great pity that more was not done before we had this crisis of inflation. As I have said to the hon. Minister before, he must remember that every rand he spends on capital works of the Railways in the next year will be competing for scarce materials, scarce labour and scarce services. I am still very critical indeed that more was not done more timeously to meet the needs of our transport in South Africa. I gave the Minister quotations when I spoke in the Second Reading debate, as far back as 1961, to show that private enterprise and business thinkers, economists, were aware of the burgeoning needs of, for example, ore exports and coal exports from South Africa. Yet the position went on and on with shortages year after year. There was a coal commission of inquiry in 1951. That commission’s report bore out the indictment that the Railways were to blame after the Nationalists took over in 1948. There were no problems of similar magnitude before 1948. The Railways were to blame for the coal shortages and for the curtailment of the proper functioning of industry. That report said in paragraph 150—

They pointed out in 1951 “that for the last six months of 1951 coal railed for export was 6.3 per cent less than for the same period in 1950”. That was in 1951; our exports were already falling because of the inadequacy of our transport system. In 1954 we could export 1 170 000 tons of coal. By 1956 we were exporting only 700 000 tons. These are the facts and I therefore feel I am justified in saying to the hon. the Minister that the position and the future possibilities were not appreciated and were neglected.

For many years there were no markets for coal at all. I sent Dr. Van Eck especially to find markets in Europe.

I will tell the House in a minute what Dr. Van Eck said, because I feel we should know it. In the Barclays Bank review of 1957 the following is stated—

This review was published in July, 1957. At the Annual General Meeting of Phoenix Colliery for 1956, the acting chairman, Mr. F. J. L. Wells, said with reference to the pithead price in South Africa and overseas—

With such discrepancies in price and with the world requiring ever-increasing quantities of fuel … the Union would appear to be well placed to meet a portion of this requirement and in the process to build up for itself a flourishing export trade. Unfortunately, owing to the severe and continuing shortage of rail transport which exists in this country the Union so far has not been able to take advantage of these opportunities …

These extracts date back to 1956 and 1957. This is an old story and I say that there should have been better planning, more concerted action and more enthusiasm in meeting this problem.

Let us take the position in regard to base mineral ores. Dr. Van Eck, to whom the hon. the Minister referred a moment ago, told the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut in Cape Town in 1957, and this was so important that it was published in the State Information Fact Paper No. 28 of 1957-

In his report of 1957 Mr. Bamford, the Chairman of Safmarine, referred to the difficulties in securing adequate and regular deliveries of manganese ore at Union ports. He pointed out that in 1949, when Mr. Sturrock’s influence was still very much alive in the Railways, we exported 788 000 tons, but by 1955, six years later, during which period the tonnage decreased steadily almost every year, the exports were down to 470 000 tons. Surely I am entitled to say that there is something wrong with the vision and the planning. Let me put it this way. The planning may be excellent. I am quite sure that where the hon. the Minister combines with the fine brains he has in the Administration they plan well. I concede that. But the execution of the planning must depend upon Government policy, upon financial policy, upon the labour situation and upon the availability of materials. I suggest that that is where things are falling down in the Railways. When the hon. the Minister stands up as he did this afternoon and say “What does the Cabinet have to do with the planning of the Railways? I plan it,” I want to ask him whether he does in fact plan. Does he plan for the shortage of labour? Does he plan for the shortage of materials? Does he plan for higher interest rates and capital shortage and for difficulties in the loan programme? He can only plan for what the Railways want to do and should do. The execution of the plans which are necessary for South Africa is the responsibility of the whole Government.

I want to repeat to the hon. the Minister that the trouble with him is that he associates with the wrong people. If he wants to achieve something for the South African Railways, he should change his associates. That is the only way. Surely one is entitled—and this is the point I want the hon. the Minister to appreciate —to judge plans and to judge the effect of planning by the results. We have been planning since 1951. We have had these warnings and this advice since 1955. We had it in 1961. I gave the hon. the Minister other quotations as well. Still we are lagging behind. Still our anthracite exporters have to be told that they have to cut their exports. Our ore exporters have to be told that they have to cut their exports. This is not because the planning was wrong. The Railways planned for 2 000 ore trucks to be delivered. However, only 600 were delivered. That is not the fault of the planning. There is something wrong with the execution of the planning. Why were the 2 000 trucks not delivered? It is because of a shortage of manpower and a shortage of steel. The hon. the Minister does not plan for that. That the Cabinet plans for, and very successfully.

The hon. the Minister spoke about the staff and asked if I was in touch with the staff associations. I think I should give the hon. the Minister a short answer, because my time is running out. I see there was a conference of Railway staff associations in Johannesburg quite recently. I think it was last week. What was said at that conference? They said they are becoming desperate about inflation and the increasing cost of living. The increases in the cost of living followed so immediately upon the increases in their salaries and wages that they received that they are being swallowed up. The Railway staff associations who are so happy, not the ordinary Railwayman, are now threatening to boycott commerce if prices are increased. But the hon. the Minister has to increase tariffs for the same reasons that commerce has to increase prices, namely rising costs. We cannot deny it; the hon. the Minister cannot deny it. There is even talk from responsible leaders of the staff associations that they will have to come with another round of demands for increased incomes from the Railways. And the last increases are not a year old.

I believe the hon. the Minister’s relations with the staff are good. But the relations of the people of South Africa with the Government are not good. The Government’s relations with the people of South Africa are bad. That is where the dissatisfaction comes from. It is not that the hon. the Minister does not mean well and does not want to do well for his staff; it is that the policies of the Government create dissatisfaction among all people who have to come out on fixed income, except the very highly placed ones. And they are few. The average man in South Africa is battling because the Government cannot control inflation and because in its attempts to control inflation, the Government does not skim off excess earnings and excess income, but puts burdens on the people at the very roots of their existence with purchase taxes, increased railway tariffs, increased petrol costs and increased postal charges. The Government hits the poor and the small as hard as he hits the rich and the top executives in South Africa.

Our criticism of this hon. the Minister is that he does not seem to appreciate that the Railway Organization does not exist in isolation but that it is part of the machine of Government and the total economy of South Africa. I do have great confidence in the intelligence of the hon. the Minister, but unless somehow we can succeed in bringing this cardinal root factor home to the intelligence of the hon. the Minister so that he can use what influence he has in the Cabinet to bring about a change of approach to especially the labour problem, to bring about a desire in the Cabinet to make better use of the potential productivity of the people and the potential production of the South African economy, we shall not succeed, we shall have rates increases every four years, and we shall have seething discontent growing amongst all the workers of South Africa. The hon. the Minister cannot escape his responsibilities. He is a senior man. He is the biggest employer of labour in South Africa. He must please not come to us and say: “My baby is so small, what can my 10 per cent tariff increase mean? A penny or two a day in the costs of the average family”. The hon. the Minister is equally responsible for the general situation. The South African Railways is part of an economy that, at the moment, is overheated and out of control. The Minister was sarcastic when I spoke about approaching some of our problems in South Africa in a spirit of high adventure. I want to say to him that he and his Cabinet should approach this problem in a spirit of high challenge. They are being tested at last to see whether they are able to govern a modern society and a modern state like South Africa. If they want to succeed, they will have to discard the prejudices of the last century and they will have to become men of today. That is the challenge they face. I plead with the hon. the Minister that he should take the lead in persuading the Government to face that challenge.

Mr. Chairman, it is not going to be of any political advantage to the hon. member for Yeoville to play the Minister off against the other members of the Cabinet. This is merely a new kind of cheap politicking which they have inherited from the Sunday Times and the other newspapers. He is not as good at it as Mr. Serfontein.

First of all I want to refer to a few arguments put forward by the hon. member. He alleged that the coal exports indicated that there had been no planning or that the planning which there had been was not carried out. The hon. member like all hon. members, ought to know, and the hon. the Minister also said this in his reply today, that the Railways are constructed on an economic foundation for its operation or where the railway line is guaranteed. This is the first time that a firm like the Transvaal Coal Owners has been able to come forward with a contract which guarantees us that they are over the next few years going to export a certain tonnage of coal. It is first going to be handled by the Lourenço Marques harbour, and subsequently by the Richard’s Bay harbour. Only when such a contract is submitted do we actually incur the capital expense of building the railway line. Then you negotiate how those costs are going to be redeemed through the exports. The same thing applies in regard to the railway line which is being planned between Sishen and Saldanha, that is, if a contract is negotiated. If no contract is negotiated, consideration to the other aspects will be given. This means, in other words, that the Railways and the House of Assembly, in its planning, is not going to approve of a railway line being constructed simply because traffic is expected there. It must first be proved that the traffic will in fact be there before such a railway line is constructed.

I actually rose to discuss another matter. The hon. member referred briefly to urban transport. I want to link this to two matters. Firstly there is the increased surcharge of 10 per cent. I want to point out to the Committee that third class passenger transport is not included under the 10 per cent increase and this is a tremendously important factor which we must take into consideration. During the past year 368 169 000 third class suburban passengers were conveyed. The main line traffic included 30 460 000 third class passengers. We must take into account that the fact that the tariffs for suburban third class passengers have not been increased is a tremendous factor in our attempts to keep production costs and the cost of living as low as possible. However, I do not want to discuss that aspect.

I want to discuss another aspect. I want to make a plea here to the effect that we in South Africa cannot afford to mar relations between the users of the Railways and the Railways itself. We in South Africa cannot afford to create unsatisfactory interpersonal relationships. I want to refer now to this suburban traffic. I have here an article which was written by a certain Colin Vineall. The article links up with certain articles and certain allegations made by hon. members of the Opposition. The caption to the article is “Why is it always us”? I quote—

So it goes on and then he says—

Mr. Chairman, this is not only an example of what this person has been writing. I can for example quote what the mayor of Johannesburg has also said and written in regard to this matter. It was highly irresponsible. I want to make a plea to the effect that we should view this kind of event in its correct perspective. If we do not do so, we are sowing mistrust, not only of the Railways, but in regard to the essential, harmonious interpersonal relationships in South Africa. I want to point out that one must take note of a few facts when you consider the accident rate in South Africa. In the Rand Daily Mail of 4th February this year it was for example indicated that the greatest number of accidents in the world took place in India. I quote—

I can mention other countries as well, but I do not want to do so. I just want to refer to the hon. member for Houghton who writes: “Urban Africans seething with discontent”. Then she uses this unfortunate case to sow disaffection and mistrust.

If we analyse the accident rate in South Africa—I want to refer to this specific case —then we find that the statistics over the past 10 years, between 1960 and 1969, indicate that our accident rate in South Africa is far lower than the international average. At Soweto the accident figure is 0.4 per million train miles. In respect of the other lines in the Republic it is 0.48 million miles. In other words, this Soweto line has a lower accident rate than any of the other lines in South Africa. If we take the figures for the past five years, from 1965 to 1969, the figure for Soweto is 0.31 and for the rest of South Africa 0.37. This is an example to show that there are fewer accidents here. But as a result of the unfortunate situation which has arisen, it is being exploited by Opposition newspapers, writers and commentators in order to sow mistrust of the Railways. I think the basic requirement for the success of any undertaking—it does not matter whether it is commercial, industrial or transportional— is in the first instance the correct interpersonal relationships. One must make sure the correct interpersonal relations exist between you and your clients, your supporters. Here the Opposition Press, speakers on the Opposition side and the mayor of Johannesburg are marring those relations.

That is not true.

I have just quoted it to the hon. member. The second basic requirement is that there must be confidence on the part of the staff. Now, the hon. member for Yeoville has said that the staff is unhappy about the allocation of the R60 million. Does he not know what methods have been employed? After the hon. the Minister announced the amount which had been allocated here, the General Manager and the management of the Railways negotiated with all seven staff associations, with all the various grades. They make the classifications. After the classifications have been made, they return and these are thoroughly analysed. It is as the hon. the Minister said.

There are people who would like to have more and who are not satisfied. This is the only method one can employ. One cannot expect the Minister to say that engine drivers should receive so much, firemen so much and guards and ticket examiners so much. This is the task of the Management, the staff associations and the federated staff association, and one which is carried out by them to ensure maximum satisfaction to all the staff members in regard to the amount which has been made available. It goes even further. The various staff associations can then state their case further. In cases where the staff associations, the Management and the Minister cannot agree, it becomes a matter of dispute. This has been the case all these years, and will remain the case. But to come here now and say that the staff associations are dissatisfied with the increases … [Time expired.]

The hon. the Deputy Minister a few minutes ago saw fit to make what I believe was a completely unwarranted attack on the former Mayor of Johannesburg. I think his attack was completely unfair because the mayor did exactly what was his duty to do. Immediately he heard of that particular accident he went out there and did his very best with the use of a portable loudspeaker to implore the Bantu, who were very restive at that stage, to remain calm. Therefore he did what he ought to have done.

What did he do afterwards?

It is therefore unfair for the hon. the Deputy Minister to get up here and make this scandalous accusation. What did the mayor exactly say? Under the caption “Something must be done now” this is what happened—

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask in all fairness, what did the mayor do wrong in this instance? In actual fact, he did all of us in South Africa a great service by using his influence to maintain calm in the situation which was completely explosive at the time. In the circumstances I believe the Deputy Minister owes the previous mayor an apology for the statement he made about him today.

Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased indeed to note that the hon. the Minister decided, very wisely I believe, to exclude third class passengers from the increase of 10 per cent. I say this advisedly because we know —the Deputy Minister himself failed to mention this—that fares did go up in October 1970 by 10 per cent. The hon. the Deputy Minister forgot to tell us that. As I say, I want to compliment the hon. Minister on being wise enough not to make a further increase at this particular stage because another increase of 10 per cent, on top of the increase imposed in Actober, 1970, would have been a hard financial blow for the urban Bantu. According to our own standards, an increase of 7 cents on a weekly ticket of 70 cents and 35 cents on a monthly ticket seem minimal. But the urban Bantu today still lives below the poverty datum line and for him an increase like this would mean a lot. I am therefore very pleased indeed that the wiser counsel prevailed and that no further increase was imposed.

In regard to the Soweto rail services, I have raised the inadequacy thereof on previous occasions, and I make no apology for doing so again today. Since I raised it last, the position has, if anything worsened. I am prepared to admit that the Administration is doing its best under very difficult circumstances. As it is, at the present moment they provide 226 trains per day to convey 213 000 passengers between Soweto and Johannesburg. They are therefore doing the best they can, but that, I submit, is not enough. I believe that if something is not done we shall be faced certainly with a crisis on this particular line within the next year or two. The Minister and the Management face a very difficult situation here. This particular line has already reached complete saturation point in so far as the number of trains the system can handle is concerned. On the other hand the number of passengers requiring transport between Soweto and Johannesburg is rising at the rate of 6.2 per cent per annum. When one realizes that even today with the number of passengers to be transported, i.e. 213 000, the system is already carrying 23 000 more than the original estimate and if we add to that that Soweto is responsible for more than 42 per cent of all the rail traffic between African townships to White cities, we can realize how very serious the position has become.

I am very pleased indeed to read that there are certain long-term plans under consideration, plans which I consider are very good. But unfortunately these are long-term plans. Among them are plans to create underground systems and ring-roads. When this scheme is completed it will obviously help a great deal to resolve the position as it is today. But we know from experience that this type of thing must take many many years to complete. We know the Railways are intending to spend between R80 million and R100 million on this project. This in itself means that this is going to be a long-term solution. Yet my feeling is that something must be done. We know that in Soweto 68 000 commuters use the train service between 4 a.m. and 6 a.m. and another 35 000 between 6 a.m. and 6.30 a.m. That means that some Bantu have to get up at 3 o’clock in the morning to be able to get a train at 4 a.m. while those who have to get a train at 6 o’clock would have to get up at about 4 o’clock. We must remember that these Bantu do not see their homes again until 7 or 8 in the evening. This is a very long day and we can imagine what this means to their capacity to produce. We know that we are today suffering under inflation and that we need every little bit of productivity we can muster. Yet here we have a situation where it is expected of people to get up as early as 3 o’clock in the morning and we expect them to do a good day’s work. This position cannot remain as it is. There are certain interim things we can tackle immediately—for instance, the Railways should put on the road all the buses it can muster during the peak hours in an endeavour to relieve the situation. I believe too that legitimate taxis should be allowed, because we know that because of the shortage of trains a thriving pirate taxi service has grown up. We know that these people are exploiting the Bantu because they cannot get on to a train to bring them to their work in time. They are being exploited by their own people through this pirate taxi service, and the least we can do is to establish a taxi service which is legitimate where the price will be controlled. I know that the hon. the Minister is very realistic. I think he is aware of this problem, but I want to say to him that I made a point of going to the station at peak times to see for myself what is going on. I spoke to commuters and believe me, Sir, the position on the Soweto line is really explosive. I think what we must do is to avoid any further chance of the type of thing we had after that last accident. I want to say here that I am not placing the blame anywhere, but the fact remains that the position is explosive. The Bantu unfortunately believe that there are more accidents on this line than on any other line, which of course, is quite wrong. We know that the figures show that this is not so but this is what they believe. I believe that all we can do to change that impression is to improve the service as much as is humanly possible. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Johannesburg North has just discussed a specific problem which is of course a very difficult problem because of the way in which matters have developed. We must remember that these services are very highly subsidized. But this does not mean that we must not make every effort to solve that problem.

I want to return to the hon. member for Yeoville. Sir, we are all very concerned about inflation, but to listen to the hon. member for Yeoville one would think that he wants to blame the Railways for inflation. He blamed the Railways for having increased salaries and he also blames the Railways for having now increased tariffs. Sir, what was the alternative? The United Party is continually asking for better services; they are asking for a higher growth rate, and if that is done and the services are being rendered, then they come along with criticism. I find it very difficult to understand the hon. member for Yeoville. This afternoon he first of all complained in his speech about the capital expenditure of R400 million and immediately afterwards said that there was a lack of planning. Sir, one should at least be consistent if you are levelling criticism at an organization such as the Railways.

I want to return to an announcement by the Minister which we are very glad about and that is the pensions which have been increased. I just want to say, in the first place, that a sound pension scheme is essential for any business. Over a period of almost sixty years the Railways has built up a very strong pension fund and a good organization. Contributions are made by the members and the Administration on a 50-50 basis, and over the years they have built up a fund of R596 million. Sir, this offers our railwaymen security. I want to mention another factor. This money can be loaned to the State at a very fair interest rate. It is therefore a very good thing that there is such a fund. We see in the report that interest on that fund last year produced the great sum of R24.5 million, which stabilizes the position of the railwayman in this country. Payments from the fund last year amounted to more than R40 million—a very great asset for our Railway officials. This fund, if one calculates it on an actuarial basis, is not solvent, but it will probably never happen that all railwaymen die simultaneously. The actuaries calculated that there is a deficit of R73.2 million. This deficit in the actuarial calculation came about as a result of increases in salaries and the methods of calculating pensions which is based on the average of four years’ salary instead of seven years, as was previously the case. I want to point out that over the years the Administration has helped to keep this fund solvent. This year again, in the Appropriation, R1.2 million is being voted for this fund. Up to the present a total of R24 million has been contributed by the Administration to the fund in order to keep it solvent. I believe that this contribution which is being made is an important one.

In addition I should like to point out that the Administration supplied the deficit in the old Railways and Harbours pension fund when it had a deficit, and there they also made a contribution of R9 million to the Railway officials. I believe that we must have a strong fund, because the Railways must compete with the private sector and there is not one private business today which is not looking after its staff.

I said that the fund is not entirely strong enough, from an actuarial point of view, and from time to time we therefore find that the Administration has to supplement this fund. We approve of this. A great deal of money is appropriated for this purpose from time to time. In 1968 the means test was abolished for the supplementary pension allowances and again in April, 1968, a special supplementary allowance was appropriated to ensure that every Railway official received at least R100 per month. In 1969 it was increased to R104. These special allowances which are appropriated from time to time cost the Administration a further R13.7 million. This is being done to keep the funds of the Railway pensioners on a sound footing, and I believe that our Railway officials are grateful for these donations which they are receiving from the Administration. It is true that the increase in the cost of living has hit the Railway pensioner, and all other pensioners, very hard, and that is why we are glad that we have such a sympathetic Administration. The Joint Management Committee made a study of this matter over a period of three years, and came forward with recommendations, and we see in the Appropriation that the recommendations are now being carried into effect. Railway-men have received considerable benefits, and I just want to refer to them briefly. The annuities of Railway officials have been increased by up to 15 per cent for certain annuity groups, and these increases will place Railway pensioners on a par with railway men who are due to retire.

In addition the 20 year restriction for the acquisition of this 2 per cent increase from year to year, is also being abolished now. This will also contribute to giving the pensioner a better income. Then, as the Minister announced, the contribution to the Superannuation Fund was reduced to 4 per cent. One is inclined to treat this lightly. The position was that officials paid from 6 per cent at the age of 21 years to 10 per cent at the age of 39 years. This meant that they had to make large contributions. If we take the example of a highly-paid official who has to make a 10 per cent contribution, and this is reduced to 4 per cent, it makes a difference of R30 per month to that official. That is why I say that we must not allow this benefit to be treated lightly, because it is going to mean something for every official in the service.

Then the hon. the Minister has made a very great concession to Railway officials who have to retire but would like to continue working. They are now going to receive privileges which they have been insisting on for a long time. It will be possible for them to be paid out and still continue to work. This concession too is going to mean that we will be able to keep the railwaymen in service for a longer period of time and that we are going to satisfy them to a far greater extent. I believe that the concession which the Minister has made is going to encourage people to return to the Railways and that it is going to give satisfaction to every railwayman who is still in service. I also believe that it is going to give satisfaction to all the retired Railway officials, who have begun to feel that they are being neglected. On behalf of these retired railwaymen, I just want to say thank you very much to the Minister for what he has done for them in this Appropriation.

The hon. member for Humansdorp has delivered a carefully prepared speech on the various funds, including the pension funds. I trust that he will excuse me if I do not follow his trend of thought. First of all, I want to come back to a remark made by the hon. Minister. He said with some degree of pride, which we do not begrudge him that he was the only honorary life member of the South African Typographical Union. This is not a unique privilege at all. We on our side of the House also have a member who enjoys a distinguished honour in this sense. I am referring to the hon. member for Salt River. He is an honorary member of the South African Motor Industries Employees’ Union, which is one of the largest unions in South Africa. So this is a honour which the hon. member for Salt River can share as far as credit is concerned with the hon. Minister of Transport.

I want to come back to the question of labour and staff shortages. I do not believe that the people of South Africa have felt the full effects of these shortages. I know that the hon. Minister, in his reply to the Second Reading debate, has given certain details and has cleared the situation to a certain extent. But if one follows the theme, one finds that it is the only real theme throughout the report of the General Manager, and one then realizes that the question of staff shortage is uppermost in the minds of those who wrote this report, because this subject is mentioned at least 11 times. There are two small rays of hope as far as the question of labour and shortages are concerned. Firstly, we are told in the report that the Organization and Methods Division, as a result of their investigations, have obtained a net reduction of 1012 posts during the year and that this effected an annual saving of R1.4 million. The other faint ray of hope appears on page 11 of the General Manager’s Report. Here again the subject is the manpower shortage. This is what it says—

Who is bluffing whom? We have a staggering all-high in overtime and Sunday-time expenditure. We have the human endurance of workers being tested to the utmost. We are told that new techniques will help to overcome this undesirable state of affairs, but I want to ask the hon. Minister whether he really believes that new techniques can take the place of human hands. I do not believe that they can.

Then we go back to the doleful side. One reads of the constant dearth of technical and other trained staff; the manpower shortage remains a serious problem; the staff position continues to deteriorate; there was a decrease in direct bonus work hours of 10.8 per cent attributed to the manpower shortages. Concerning shortages in general, we are told that shortages were particularly felt in the grades of checker, driver (cartage), firemen, guard, shunter and station foreman. Let us take the case of the fireman. What is the objection to a non-White fireman sharing the footplate with a White engine driver? What is the objection to a White dining-car chef sharing his confined kitchen space with non-White dining-room staff? What is the objection? A non-White bedding steward provides bedding for a White woman travelling alone on a train? What is the difference between a non-White trimming the coal on a tender for the White fireman down below and what is the difference between a White artisan on a scaffold being handed his materials and his tools by a non-White worker? How are Bantu firemen to be trained and receive the practical experience ultimately to become engine drivers to serve their own people in the homelands as planned by this Government? We know that the post of stoker on tugs is now graded for non-Whites. We also know that there is a shortage of cartage drivers. We have been told that non-Whites are now classified for the post of driver, departmental, Class 2. We heard a large number of facts from the hon. member for Durban Point in regard to the shortage of fork-lift truck operators in Durban. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is not prepared to give urgent consideration to the training of Indians as fork-lift truck drivers. This is not a question of plucking somebody off the street. Indians have already proved themselves as competent drivers of heavy vehicles, and passenger vehicles, and I believe that there would be no problem in training them and using them to supplement a desperately short service which is causing bottlenecks. What has the hon. the Minister done in this regard? He has tried, within the limits of his policy, to employ Whites in an overtime capacity. At the moment we have the situation that White constables are acting as fork-lift truck drivers during overtime periods. I believe that this creates more difficulties and dissatisfaction. The longer hours deprive these men of the family life they need. Furthermore, they are working side by side with other grades who are doing the same work, namely driving fork-lift trucks, but they are receiving much more money than the ordinary fork-lift truck drivers. In a case where a principal clerk is employed on an overtime basis to drive a fork-lift truck, the taxpayer is paying almost 24 times the amount that would be paid to a fork-lift truck driver driving his fork-lift truck.

I want to come to another remark in the report of the General Manager where it is said that owing to shortage of staff, measures were taken to alleviate the position by the deployment of personnel after training, where necessary, to centres where the shortage is acute. The only conclusion I can come to in regard to this practice, is that it must cost additional money. But the hon. the Minister told me in all seriousness last session that 25 men, some of them drivers of steam locomotives, some firemen and some apprentice electricians, were taken from the Cape Town area and flown on regular scheduled South African Airways flights to Natal, South-West Africa and to parts of the Free State. They were accommodated there, either in hostels or in communal residences, or were allowed to make their own arrangements. The total cost of this operation was nothing! To me it is incredible and the only suggestion I want to make in this regard is a serious plea to the hon. the Minister to extend this service and to make it available on scheduled flights of the South African Airways where seats are not fully taken up, to the personnel and other volunteers in the Army, who find themselves stationed far from their homes. Let him give these people the opportunity, by these means, to visit their wives and families sometimes, at no expense to the Administration as the hon. the Minister has implied. We also know that there has been a secondment of staff to areas where manpower shortages were most acutely felt. But here again travel and subsistence must cost money. As an answer to a further question it was stated that the full fare is debited to the system or department involved. Therefore, even if there is a book entry the whole procedure costs money. I say that these expedients have not proved adequate and that the measures the hon. the Minister has taken have not produced the results. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member will pardon me for not following up on what he said in his speech in regard to the question of the labour shortage on the Railways. In this connection I just want to say that the hon. the Minister has on various occasions in this House pointed out that labour productivity on the South African Railways is probably higher than in any other undertaking in South Africa. I think that every possible investment the Railways have made to increase this productivity, has already produced results.

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with a more specific matter which I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. It deals principally with the transportation of grain in bulk and the handling of grain in bulk. We know that the handling of agricultural produce creates a tremendously great financial risk for the Railways because, as a result of our climatic conditions in South Africa, there is a tremendous fluctuation in the volume of agricultural produce which has to be handled. I want to mention an example of such a case. In this connection I am referring to the past financial year, under the heading Grain Elevators. There we have the position that during the past financial year 678 000 tons of grain were handled by the coastal grain elevators, as compared to 2.9 million tons handled the previous year. The present financial year shows a deficit of R523 000 as against a surplus of R1.02 million the previous year which was the result of the great tonnage handled. This gives hon. members an idea of how fluctuating the volume of agricultural produce is when it comes to its transportation.

In any business undertaking one must be very careful with the creation of surplus capacity, otherwise it can have disastrous financial consequences for that undertaking. But because the Railways is also a service organization, we are particularly grateful to hear in the Budget speech made by the hon. the Minister that he had increased the capacity of the Durban elevator by approximately 40 per cent at a cost of R685 000. I see in the latest Brown Book that the total estimate in respect of coastal grain elevators amounts to R7.9 million. We are grateful to the hon. the Minister and his Administration for that because this will improve handling facilities considerably.

But it should also be mentioned that the risk of deficits in respect of grain elevators would probably have been much greater if the Railways Administration had not a few years ago transferred the right to use the facilities of the inland through rate elevators to the Mealie Board. The Mealie Board, as hon. members know, in turn transferred the right to use those facilities to its various agents. This was really a great step forward, because the control board is in a better position to organize a greater utilization of these through rate elevators, because the control board, through its agents, can control the flow and the handling of the grain. This must inevitably have meant a considerable cost saving for the Railways. Inter alia. it must also have saved a considerable amount of manpower, in regard to which the hon. members on that side of the House have so many complaints. Last year the hon. the Minister also consented to the enlargement of these inland through rate elevators by the agents controlling them. This means therefore that these old through rate elevators, as we have known them over the years, are at present not only a forwarding channel, but are also becoming storage installations.

It is important that we take a look at the pattern of grain handling over the past few years, and how drastically it has changed. We know that the producer has converted to bulk handling on his farm and that storage is to an increasing extent converting from bag to bulk storage. The capacity has during the past years been as follows: In 1967 the total capacity of all grain elevators, including coastal grain elevators, through rate grain elevators and the grain elevators constructed by agents was 24.2 million bags. At present the position is, and these are the latest figures, that 53.8 million bags can be stored in bulk. This represents an increase of more than a hundred per cent since 1967. This has constituted great advantages for the grain industry, advantages such as labour saving, the elimination of bags and the reduction of physical losses because there are no longer bags which deteriorate if one has to store them for long periods. Then there is also the faster and more efficient flow of grain from the farm to the coast and even to the consumer, because a large sector of the milling industry is also converting to bulk handling.

The fact that the grain industry is converting more rapidly to bulk handling, must inevitably constitute a great benefit for the Railways as well. This can speed up the turning time of the trucks, because the trucks can be loaded faster and handled more quickly and easily. This should also bring about a better utilization of the additional traction for which provision is being made. These bulk installations also represent a centralization of the handling of grain from the producers. In other words, we no longer, have the various small receiving points where everything is centred around the nearest Railway station. The various receiving points are now being centralized at one bulk installation and adequate siding facilities are being provided at these bulk installations. Very high standards are being laid down for these siding facilities by the Railways, in other words the incoming and the outgoing traffic to these installations can be controlled very efficiently. This means that the traffic on the loading sites of the South African Railways will be tremendously reduced as a result. This may also eliminate many of the problems in regard to shunting.

This conversion therefore constitutes great benefits for the Railways. The efficient utilization of all these bulk facilities depends to a very large extent on the supply and the availability of bulk trucks. If grain is harvested in bulk and it is delivered and stored in bulk, it is only logical that the bulk transport of grain must also be adapted to this. It is therefore extremely necessary that all these facets should be made to fit in with one another. Let us consider the supply position of the bulk grain-trucks. In 1968 there were 5 952 of these trucks. On 22nd February, 1971 there were 6 279 of these trucks. That is, there was an increase of 327 over the past three years. Expressed as a percentage this represents an increase of 5 per cent over the past three years. The matter I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister is that we feel that the flow of grain, as far as transport is concerned, is not keeping pace with the development of the bulk capacity in all the other various sectors. We believe that if this ratio is remedied, we can transport a great deal more grain over a shorter period of time for export purposes. Unfortunately the signs are there that the crop this year is no longer such a good one as we originally thought it was going to be, but nevertheless we can expect that we will have to be able to export 40 or 50 million bags in one year. If this position were remedied and the more rapid flow of grain effected, then the record of the Railways, as far as its carrying capacity to the coast is concerned, i.e. 30 million bags per year, can be well, broken. We know that bulk trucks to a very large extent are single-purpose trucks, but we believe that the Railways, with its own Administration and the technical people at its disposal may perhaps be able to design a bulk truck which can not only be used for grain purposes, but which can also be Incorporated in general goods traffic. I just wanted to bring this matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I must say that between them, the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Minister of Transport are making pretty sure that the cost of living is going to go sky-high in South Africa. Despite all the measures taken to defeat inflation, the cost structure in this country is going to rise as it has never risen before. We have the hon. the Minister of Finance with his indirect taxes and now the hon. the Minister of Transport, who has put up rail tariffs, which, as far as goods are concerned, are also a form of indirect taxation on the people, because naturally these additional costs are passed on immediately to the ordinary consumer. I want to point out to this hon. Minister, as I have pointed out to his colleague, the Minister of Finance, that indirect taxation is a very unfair way of levying taxes in a country where there is a very wide differentiation in incomes among the population. Indirect taxation, I think, is acceptable in countries where there is a fairly even spread of income. But in countries where there is not this spread of income, it is indeed one of the most unfair methods of levying taxation.

I am very glad that the hon. the Minister of Transport has exempted the third class commuter rail fares from the 10 per cent increase on ordinary railway fares. This is just as well, because as he well knows, the vast bulk of people who use the third class rail facilities, are non-Whites. The cost of living is already bearing very heavily on them, more particularly the Africans, of whom a great number are living below the poverty datum line, and whose wages have not kept up with the increase in the cost of living. I might say that transport costs play a very important part in the essential expenditure of families that are living on and below the bread line. Last year and the year before the hon. the Minister put up rail fares considerably for people using the commuter services. As I have said, I am glad that he has exempted the third class fares from the 10 per cent increase.

I know that this is a recurring theme as far as I am concerned, but I must emphasize once again that I am more and more worried about the situation on the overcrowded lines between the townships and the industrial centres, particularly between Soweto and Johannesburg. The services are inadequate, not only as far as the trains are concerned. These are grossly overcrowded, as anybody who takes the trouble to go and see will observe at the stations during the peak hour traffic period. But station facilities and bridges are also grossly inadequate. This has resulted in some serious accidents over the last few years. I have warned before, and I warn again, that any further accidents of this kind are going to cause dangerous flash points of violence. I do not know what the hon. the Minister is doing in this regard to try and prevent any further occurrences, for example by increasing the facilities at stations. Attention must also be given to loudspeaker announcements which cause sudden stampedes by thousands of passengers, finding that they have to move from one side of the platform to the other in order to catch their trains. All these matters are very serious indeed.

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister has taken any notice at all of the recent events near Port Elizabeth at Gelvandale, where there was a riot during which the Police opened fire on a huge crowd which had gathered together to protest against the increase in bus fares. Now I know that bus services are not the hon. the Minister’s concern; but what is the hon. the Minister’s concern, when large sections of the population are moved, because of the Government’s ideological policy, from one part of a city to another part, is what sort of forward planning takes place between the hon. the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development or, in this case, the Minister of Coloured Affairs, to see that adequate transport is going to be provided for people who are living either in the city or within three miles, almost within walking, but certainly within cycling distance, of their work. In the case of Port Elizabeth thousands of people were moved from the southern areas close to the city to areas to the north of the city which are anything from four to seven miles out of the city. Now I wonder if there was any forward planning to see that adequate transport would be available. I wonder if the hon. the Minister’s department has considered the construction of a railway line to serve areas like these, so that people do not have to rely on bus services which are inadequate and which apparently are uneconomic unless the bus fares are raised. As the Minister knows, at Gelvandale it was the raising of the fares which led to this meeting and the unfortunate and disastrous consequences thereof. This is something which should constantly be kept in mind. It is, after all, the Government’s policy to move people far out of the cities and they therefore have to commute to their places of work. Unless adequate provision is made for transport I say, as I have said before, that I have no doubt that we are going to have to face dangerous situations. The frustration of the inconvenience of uncomfortable daily travel sooner or later takes its toll on these people. The Minister ought to bring this matter to the attention of his colleagues in the Cabinet before they go in for these wholesale movements of populations.

While third-class passenger fares on these commuter lines have not been increased, I understand that these fares have been increased for long-distance travel. I am correct, am I? I do not want to labour the point if I am not.

You are correct.

Then I want to know how the Government is going to carry out its policy …

If they want to travel long distance they have to pay for it.

But it is Government policy that requires them to travel long distances if they want to visit their families. It is the Government’s policy which has created migratory labour on a large scale. This entails the compulsory return of contract labourers to visit their families in the Bantustans. Now for all these, fares have gone up. Generally these are unskilled workers earning the lowest wages of all. I wonder therefore how the hon. the Minister thinks these labourers are going to be able to afford increased third-class fares to visit their families—which they as contract labourers have to do once a year; they have to leave their employment in the cities and go back to their Bantustans.

I also want to tell the hon. the Minister that I have been informed—indeed, there has been a complaint from the Langa Bantu Advisory Board—about shocking conditions on passenger trains between, for instance, Cape Town and the Transkei and Ciskei. According to the secretary of the Langa Bantu Advisory Board the practice of allowing third-class passengers to travel the long journey to the Transkei and Ciskei in local coaches, which have no toilet facilities or bunks for sleeping, should be discontinued immediately. I could not agree with him more. I fail to see how it is possible to crown people into these trains for overnight journeys in coaches which do not even have toilet facilities.

I am also informed that second-class coaches for non-Whites do not offer facilities anywhere near comparable to the second-class facilities offered to the Whites. I understand that on many of these trains there are no dining facilities. Furthermore their coaches are always the nearest to the engine and are always the oldest-looking coaches on the whole train. And yet there is no difference between the second-class fare being paid by non-White users of second-class rail facilities and that paid by the Whites.

I also want to point out to the hon. the Minister that although it has been promised year after year, there has been no improvement in the grossly inadequate service that is being provided between Soweto and Johannesburg. I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will have better news for me this year.

Before I come to a few of the points raised by the hon. member for Houghton, I first want to raise a few matters in connection with my constituency.

In my constituency there is a home called the Louw Geldenhuys Home. It is situated in Langlaagte. I should like to recommend to the Minister that he investigate either renovating or complete rebuilding this home. The building has been there for many decades, in other words, it was erected at a time when all the modern facilities were not yet available. As a result of the great demand for accommodation, a large number of pre-fabricated buildings were then erected. Although these buildings are probably still good enough under the circumstances, I think the time has arrived for the Administration to consider replacing them. I think the hon. the Minister knows that vicinity very well. As a result of the efforts of the Department of Community Development, Langlaagte is changing completely from an old area with many slum conditions to an extremely modern residential area. We can be proud of the type of house being erected there now and I am afraid the home there will have to be replaced as well. It is situated on a beautiful piece of land, so that a beautiful building can be erected there. We know what the capital requirements are in other fields, but I nevertheless want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to give very early consideration to the replacement of this home.

On page 77 of the Brown Book we find that R3 842 000 will be spent this year on homes for Whites working on the Railways. What I should like to know is whether part of this amount has been set aside for housing in the Johannesburg complex. There are a large number of Railwaymen in the Johannesburg complex and a great need for housing still exists. Actually I do not even think it is necessary for me to tell the Minister this.

The hon. member for Houghton once again came forward with her hardy annual, i.e. the over-crowded trains running to Soweto. She probably does not raise this matter without ulterior motives. We know her like this—she has an ulterior motive with every matter she raises here. Naturally we are all aware that the trains running to Soweto are too full at peak hours. But surely the hon. member will agree that this is something which occurs not only in South Africa. She need simply look at the conditions prevailing on suburban train services such as those of London, for example. Has she ever taken the trouble to see the peak-hour conditions on the underground trains in London? Has she seen those people queueing and jostling each other?

[Inaudible.]

I shall give the hon. member for Houghton an opportunity to speak again if I can exert any influence on the Chairman in this respect. Has the hon. member been to see what happens during peak hours in places such as Tokyo? Sir, what are the real facts in respect of Soweto? The hon. member knows that the department and the Minister are doing everything in their power to meet the situation. According to a survey made over the years from 1962 to 1969 there was an increase of 6.2 per cent in Bantu passengers in that period, but the most recent survey, made in September to October last year, showed that there had been a decrease of 4.9 per cent in these passengers. In spite of this decrease, the number of trains in the new roster for 1971 has not been reduced accordingly; it remains the same. The hon. member, and I think the hon. member for Yeoville too, will agree that provision is being made in other ways as well for the conveyance of non-Whites to Johannesburg. A dual carriage-way has been built from Westgate into these areas. Just go and take a look today, Sir. at the large measure in which the non-Whites are already making use of road transport. As the hon. the Minister said here last year, why are applications not being made for the introduction of bus services on these new routes? But, Sir, matters are being taken further. I do not want the hon. member to create the impression here that the Administration is indifferent to the problems in connection with the transportation of passengers to Soweto. Other plans are afoot for improving the travel facilities of these people. For example, an electrified dual line, approximately 4¼ miles long, is being built between Faraday and Jeppes; the hon. member knows this. A connecting line is being built between Jeppes and George Goch, an extension of the line I mentioned a moment ago. A connecting line is being built between Westgate and Braamfontein in Johannesburg; the line between Dube and Ikwezi, which is already a dual line, is being quadrupled. An additional dual line is being built between Dube and New Canada; at the moment there are two dual lines, turn-around facilities are being built at Phomolong, Dube, Ikwezi, Inhlazane, Merefi and Naledi. At New Canada, loops are being built for goods trains travelling in the upward direction and for non-White passenger trains travelling in the downward direction, and in addition a stand-over yard is being built near the resettlement area. But in the meanwhile a start has also been made with the replacement of the old swing-door train sets which are being used for the Soweto train service and which can carry 1 930 passengers each, by sliding-door train sets which can carry 2 475 passengers each and thus have about 25 per cent more capacity than the sets being used at present.

Are they steel coaches?

They will most certainly be steel coaches, I assume. Twenty-six sliding-door train sets are already being used on the Soweto train service, and this year another seven of the 22 old swing-door sets being used at present will be replaced by new sliding-door sets. Roundabout the end of 1973 all the old train sets on the Soweto train service will have been replaced in this way and any additional train sets used on this service will be only of the new type as well. [Time expired.]

You have the information; I have not.

Mr. Chairman, I have spent the last couple of days here listening to arguments from hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House. I do not wish to pursue this matter, except to say that I do feel that some of the arguments advanced here were not taken to their logical conclusion. One of the grades which was mentioned here was the grade of checker. I feel that this must be taken a bit further, because we have not got the true, picture. We all realize that there is a tremendous shortage of staff on the Railways. The position is a lot more serious than hon. members realize. We know that the checker starts at a very low rate of pay and he advances to a maximum of R203. A wage of R203 may sound like quite a handsome wage to some people. I can assure them that they do not know what the ultimate is, because by the time this man has had all his deductions taken away, he comes out with approximately R120. I want to ask you, Sir, in all sincerity: Is it possible for a man with a family to live on a wage like that? I do not think I will get an answer to that question. This man eventually goes to R223, when he becomes a special grade checker and there he waits until someone dies before he gets any further promotion. Sir, many people do not appreciate this particular section of the staff. Even the Railway officials do not appreciate what they call their bread-and-butter people. These people to my mind are grossly underpaid. I spent a lifetime in the Railway service and I know the position as it truly is. The top grade checker, who earns R223 per month, has to wait some considerab1e time before he becomes an assistant foreman. From there he will progress to the position of foreman or wharf foreman, whatever the case may be. The difference in pay between a special grade checker and an assistant foreman is about R7. From there you get the top-paid wharf foreman, for instance, who gets R260. I wonder if people appreciate just how much work these people do and what their responsibilities are. No one appreciates these things, and I do not think the hon. the Minister does. I honestly believe that these men deserve twice as much as they are getting, and that is why you have not got checkers today. They are not prepared to work for these miserable wages, and who can blame them? I speak to the checkers every day; I speak to the staff every day of my life and these are the stories they bring to me. The hon. the Minister is going to say to me: Why don’t they go to their trade union? Sir, I want to tell the hon. the Minister right now—and I know what I am talking about—that not one of those bread-and-butter types has any faith in his union. I was a union leader; I was a member of the union …

Perhaps that is the reason.

I can assure the hon. the Minister that when we had our monthly meetings, we have five, six or seven people attending; they were not interested. I am sorry I have to say this but I must be factual about everything. I feel that the bread-and-butter staff have been sadly neglected. These people cannot exist if they do not work these long hours which they are being forced to work. It is all very well thanking them and telling them that they are doing a great job, but these people have to do this to be able to eke out a living. How would anyone in this House like to work from 7 o’clock in the morning to 9 p.m. every day of the week including Sundays? And when we say they work from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m., we should not overlook the fact that these people are living out in the suburbs. They have to leave home at 5.30 a.m. or 6 a.m. and do not get home until 10 p.m. or 10.30 p.m. These are also facts which I know about. I am speaking on facts, and I am not prepared to talk on hearsay. [Interjections.] These hon. members on this side seem to think it is a big joke, but I wonder what would happen if their constituents heard them. I am afraid I have not got a great deal of time, but I could stand here for hours and tell the Minister of the problems of the men today. I could carry on for ages. Unfortunately I have allowed myself to get into this position where I can only talk for ten minutes. I feel now that I should have spoken for half-an-hour. Then I could have brought home some facts to the hon. members opposite. I want to assure the hon. the Minister that I personally think that they have lost complete touch with the bread-and-butter staff. I do not blame the hon. the Minister so much because he is getting information passed on to him from right down to the bottom of the staff, but those people who start the initial movement do not know what is happening unless they get amongst the men. I am really sorry that I cannot carry on, because there is so much that affects the staff that I would like to bring to his notice. I am being very sincere about this. I have spent my life working on the Railways and I know just what the position is. I do not want to speak on hearsay and I do not want to repeat what I am saying, but the fact remains that your bread-and-butter staff are grossly underpaid today and they are being overworked. They do not know what family life or social life is, but that is the sort of thing which I suppose hon. members opposite appreciate. But I can assure the hon. the Minister that what I am saying is fact. As I say, I would like to carry on, but I am told that my time has expired. I do hope I will have another opportunity to come back at the Minister.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat is a man who, as he himself said, has spent his life on the Railways, and that he has a sympathetic heart for his fellow Railway workers I do not doubt for one moment. But that he can now say that there is no one who understands the work of these Railway people in the lower grades, is a little staggering. If he had just listened to the hon. the Minister’s speech, in which he specifically went out of his way to express appreciation for the work of those people, and in which he told the Opposition that they could criticize him but that they should at least have appreciation for the ordinary man on the Railways, he would not have said so. It was simply that he did not listen to the Minister’s speech.

They want money, not words.

I represent a constituency that has passed through a terrible drought recently. In the 90 years that the rainfall has been measured in that region it has never been as low as during this period. For more than 2½ years virtually no rain fell and grazing did not exist at all anymore. Conditions on the farms were such that if one drove along there in the afternoon and the wind was blowing, one was compelled to switch on the car’s headlights. Otherwise one could not see approaching traffic. Now, with such conditions you can understand what the ordinary livestock farmer’s position there is. He does not have food for his livestock. Neither can he trek with them. And he cannot obtain food for them in the near future either. The nearest food he can get is 500 or 600 miles distant. In such conditions he is faced with the total destruction of the livestock, and that would have happened too had it not been for the fact that our Railways came to the rescue in this terrible situation. We were experiencing a coal crisis at the time, but in spite of that the Railways accepted this challenge. They brought us lucern and maize, particularly maize, from the far-off places where it was obtainable; and with that maize that they brought us the farmers in my neighbourhood could keep their livestock going. Not only could the farmer keep them going, but he was also able to gather courage from the fact that everything would not perish, because he could keep his livestock going and he could also shear the sheep. Since they would otherwise have died, in that respect he at least also had the income from the wool that he would not have had if the animals were dead.

I believe that this transportation of livestock fodder entailed a loss of R3 million for the Railways, but actually one cannot estimate the value of the contribution the Railways made in this national crisis in rands and cents. I want to add that this fodder was not only brought as far as the stations, so that the farmers had to fetch it there. The Road Transport Services also brought it out to the farms. At some places I saw that as early as 5 o’clock in the morning the big Railway lorries were on the farms, and I saw how the Railway officials did their share in off-loading that fodder. It stirred one’s heart to see how the livestock were actually climbing up against the sides of the lorries in order to get at the fodder that was being off-loaded for them. On behalf of many farmers in that neighbourhood I want to make use of this opportunity to say thank you very much, particularly to the Railway people who displayed so much sympathy in this respect.

It is extremely difficult to guage the contribution that the Railways made, but actually they have averted a national disaster. But I do think that one can draw a comparison with how matters would have stood if we had not had this contribution from the Railways, which brought the fodder to the drought-stricken areas. I think that we had a comparable drought about 100 years ago, in 1866. At that time, history tells us, the livestock in those areas lay dead so that one could walk from one to the other. But the most striking evidence is that of a Minister of religion who rode on horseback from Middelburg to Graaff Reinet at the time; he left an unpublished diary. In it he writes that along the road the livestock that had trekked to look for food at other places—because, after all, there was no Railways to bring it—lay around dead in such numbers that there was such a terrible stench that he was compelled to tie a handkerchief around his face in order to get past those spots. Now, if we had not had the Railways giving us this help, we would have had a comparable situation in my constituency, and I am sure in many other places as well. Now, on behalf of all the drought areas, all the farmers involved, on behalf of the co-operative societies, the farmers’ associations and the entire community, I want to tell the Minister and his officials that theirs was a true deed of rescue for us with the fodder they brought our livestock in this critical period. I want to thank them very much on behalf of all those people.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay has dealt mainly with the conditions of the drought-stricken areas as affecting his constituency. We on this side of the House realize that these are extreme difficulties which arise from time to time. However, I would like to remind the hon. member for Mossel Bay that, when he referred to the conditions of staff on the Railways, he overlooked the fact that approximately 1 000 White employees resigned from the Railways each month while there are another 1 000 absconders from the Railways each month. Therefore conditions cannot be that attractive on the Railways.

Then I would like to deal with the question of the pension fund. I want to refer to points raised by the hon. member for Humansdorp. He referred to the situation of the Superannuation Fund. However, I would like to deal with the question of those who receive financial relief over and above the benefits from the Superannuation Fund. During the 1969 debate the Minister of Transport indicated that the question of temporary allowances was receiving the attention of a joint committee which was investigating the whole question of pension benefits. Here I would like to ask the hon. Minister whether anything further has transpired in regard to the question of temporary allowances, which are paid to Railway pensioners. We know that, in terms of the Superannuation Fund, basic pensions are paid from that fund, but certain other financial relief is given to pensioners through the medium of the Benevolent Fund, which in turn is reimbursed from Railway revenue. So the question of the temporary allowance is an important one in that it would appear that the 2 per cent per annum which is granted each year on a compound basis, is certainly inadequate as far as meeting the rise in the cost of living is concerned. We know that the present employees of the Railways have the benefit of wage increases. We know, too, that these increases are discounted to a great extent by the increase in the cost of living. Consequently the older Railway employees and the pensioners have found that this 2 per cent per annum does not meet the increase in the cost of living. The position as far as the temporary allowance is concerned, is that there is no further means test applicable in the payment of this amount. Therefore it would appear that it would be to the advantage of the Railway pensioners if this temporary allowance were consolidated into the basic pension that is paid from the Superannuation Fund. This would have a greater benefit as far as they are concerned, as the 2 per cent per annum compounded increase on their basic pension would be considerably enhanced should this receive the favourable consideration of the Minister. In the past the hon. Minister has indicated that matters affecting Railway pensioners are really a matter which he leaves to the Joint Committee of the Management of the Railways Superannuation Fund. He has also on many occasions indicated that he is guided by the actuarial quinquennial reports which he receives and that he has to act on those recommendations. However, I wish to stress that the points I am raising here this afternoon are matters which are dealt with in terms of special financial relief to pensioners over and above what those pensioners receive from the Superannuation Fund as basic pensions. These are amounts that are provided for as a matter of policy by the hon. Minister and a special allocation is made in the Budget before us for the reimbursement to the Benevolent Fund of the special allowances and bonuses which are paid.

The question of the temporary allowance also applies when one considers the situation of the minimum pension paid. The hon. member for Humansdorp dealt with this matter and said, quite correctly, that from the 1st April, 1970, that minimum was set at R104 per month for a married person or a single person with dependants and R52 per month for a single person without dependants. I would like to request that the hon. Minister should give his attention to the principle involved that, where the death of one of the spouses is entailed, the pension should not be divided in half. This is a far too drastic step that is taken. When a pensioner loses his wife, he finds that, if he was on the minimum pension, his pension is divided in half and drops from R104 per month to R52 per month. I believe that this is a drastic step. Perhaps the hon. Minister can give an indication whether this has received his attention, particularly in view of the fact that he has on this occasion decided to review the position of Railway pensioners and past employees of the Railway Administration.

Whilst dealing with the position of widows, one can see from the figures that there are approximately 30 000 Railway pensioners and that about 10 000 or one-third of those pensioners are widows. The position of the widow is a very important one as far as the security of Railway employees is concerned. Here again a situation arises to which I feel the hon. the Minister must give serious consideration. When a Railway employee, who might have had many years of service, dies and he was not a contributor to a widows’ fund, such as the Cape Widows Pension Fund or if he died prior to the establishment of the new Railway Superannuation Fund, his widow will receive no pension from the Railways. On many occasions I have had to deal with cases dealing with this particular type of person. I would like to illustrate my point by referring to one such case. This widow’s late husband occupied a senior position in the Railways. He was in charge of the mechanical section in Durban for a number of years. He died on the 18th December, 1946, and because he was not contributing to the Cape Widows Pension Fund and because it was before the Railways and Harbours Acts Amendment Act of 1951 was put into effect on the 26th July, 1951, to provide for a pension for such persons, the widow was not entitled to receive any pension whatsoever from that fund or from the Cape Widows Pension Fund. The only means of income for these people is to apply for an old-age pension, which is subject to a means test. In many cases where their positions are such that they have to receive old-age pensions, one sees that their financial position is not really one which can be compared with that of a widow subject to the existing regulations governing the Superannuation Fund. I believe it will be a great point to the hon. the Minister’s credit if he would consider the position of these people to see whether it is not possible for some financial relief to be rendered to them through the Benevolent Fund so as to give them some assistance. Perhaps he can find it possible to supplement the old-age pension to an amount of R10 per month or more.

The other aspect I would like to raise with the hon. the Minister concerns the number of non-White employees in the employ of the Railway Administration. When we look at the latest report of the General Manager, we see that more than half of the Railways’ staff now are non-Whites. Out of a total of 222 750 persons in the employ of the Railways as at the end of 31st March, 1970, 111 683 are non-Whites. In this regard I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether as a matter of policy, in reviewing the position of Railway pensioners, he has taken into account the increasing number of non-White employees in the service of the Administration. We know that in terms of the provisions of the Railways and Harbours Pension Amendment Act of 1941, non-Whites receive a pension provided they have completed more than 15 years’ service in certain instances, and that gratuities are paid to non-Whites with more than five years’ but less than 15 years’ service. In addition, there is the compulsory savings fund which is referred to in the latest report of the Auditor-General, which shows that certain changes have come about in this fund in regard to its structure. The compulsory savings fund is now open to all non-White employees of the Railways, subject to certain conditions. Last year the hon. the Minister indicated to me that the fund is based on contributions by Bantu, Coloured and Indian servants earning a certain salary. In view of the improved pension conditions for White servants of the Railway Administration, I believe it is important that the hon. the Minister as a matter of policy should also give consideration to improving the pension position of the increasing number of non-Whites who are now a vital part of the Railway Administration’s labour force. A considerable change has been brought about in the structure of the compulsory savings fund in that the credit balance of this fund has now increased quite considerably. Whereas in 1969 the balance amounted to R-j· million. the balance at the 30th November, 1970, was R1.2 million. The report of the controller and Auditor-General refers to the amount paid as compulsory savings. It mentions that Coloured servants are required to contribute 2½ per cent of their wages to this fund, but it would appear that in respect of the other non-White groups similar contributions are made although no specific stipulation is made as far as this report is concerned. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to follow up the hon. member for Umbilo where he has dealt with the question of pensions in particular. I think we all have special appreciation for the hon. member’s research on pension cases.

But I also want to say today that there is probably no matter about which there is greater misunderstanding than this very Superannuation Fund of the Railways. This fund has a reasonable credit balance. I think it amounts to just over R500 million. The popular idea today amongst the general run of Railway pensioners is that the hon. the Minister can simply grant pension increases as he likes because there is such an enormous reserve in this fund. In addition, it is rather difficult always to explain to these people that this fund must be kept actuarially sound. I also wonder whether the Management of the Railways cannot consider giving the average pensioner more clarity at some stage or other in connection with this situation, so that this popular idea of “the money is there, why can we not get it?” can disappear.

Mr. Chairman, today I want to confine myself mainly to the position of a few industries in the Western Cape which are particularly affected, not only by the Budget, but also by certain recommendations made by the Schumann Commission which are being applied. I will be forgiven if, for this purpose, I confine myself to a single case and quote it in detail. My real object in doing so is to indicate the problem being experienced by quite a number of industries in this connection. As I have said, this problem is mainly due to the implementation of certain recommendations made by the Schumann Commission, and not so much to the 10 per cent increase in rates.

In my constituency, which probably has the largest percentage of the industries in the Cape metropolitan area, there is, besides other industries, a foundry, which is a long established concern. If my information is correct, about 20 per cent of this industry’s production is directed at the motor-car manufacturing industry. Now we have the position that for the pig-iron and coke, etc., which they need for production, these people are mainly dependent on producers in Natal, from where these commodities are transported by rail. On the other hand, they must again transport the finished product to Port Elizabeth, where the market is situated. Now it is the position that in the past these people made use of coasters to a very large extent, if not exclusively. Subsequently, in negotiations with the South African Railways and on the initiative of the Railways, they were offered the harbour-to-harbour rate to which reference has been made. The transport of the finished product by the South African Railways according to this harbour-to-harbour rate system involved minimum handling of their products. The nor-al rate for their products was 144 cents per 100 lbs., while the harbour-to-harbour rate system gave them a special concession, so much so that their transport costs amounted to only 86 cents per 100 lbs. In the case of this particular industry the annual transport account is for 1 600 tons. In other words, their total transport costs amounted to approximately R27 500 in the past. But now this industry, like the others, has been notified that as from 1st April it will be charged the normal rate of 144 cents per 100 lbs. and that, in addition, it will have to pay the further 10 per cent increase in rates which will then come into force. This means, in other words, an increase of R18 500 plus a further R4 600 as a result of the increase in rates. This means a total increase of R23 000, whereas the cost in respect of the transport of their 1 600 tons was only R27 500 in the past. If my calculation is correct, this means that a particular industry such as this one is subject to an increase of 84 per cent in transport costs.

As the position is today, these people must compete with other similar concerns in Port Elizabeth and East London. East London and Port Elizabeth are naturally situated a good deal more favourably in that they are closer to the sources of their raw materials. Furthermore, they are situated much closer to the market where the finished product is to be delivered. Moreover, East London is in the favourable position that it gets a 15 per cent rebate. Under the existing circumstances it is clear that these industries in this particular field in the Western Cape can hardly compete on a price basis with those in Port Elizabeth and East London. They do, however, succeed in competing on a quality basis. After the implementation of these recommendations it is clear that they will not be able to pass on these increased costs to the finished product, because they would then no longer be competitive at all. The final result will be that an industry such as this will virtually be obliged to cut its production by 20 per cent, especially since it is connected with the manufacture of motor cars. There are probably many other industries that are in the same position, but we will have to do something to enable this specific industry to survive. I do not want to suggest that the hon. the Minister should reduce the rates in respect of these industries as an incentive or as a means of ensuring their survival, but since we have already established the precedent of granting the 15 per cent subsidy in the case of East London, I want to ask the hon. the Minister very seriously today whether he cannot intervene for our industries in the Western Cape, which are experiencing great difficulties in certain fields. I want to ask him to put in a plea on our behalf so that we may also receive some assistance in this connection. I just want to stress that my plea is not actually made in connection with the increase announced in the Budget —it is not in connection with the 10 per cent increase in transport costs at all—but mainly in connection with the concessions that were withdrawn as a result of the implementation of the Schumann Commission’s report.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to touch on a difficulty which the hon. member for Tygervallei has raised. That is the difficulty of explaining to Railwaymen that all the accumulated funds of the Superannuation Fund cannot be distributed on account of the actuarial deficiency of that fund, but I would like to touch on that subject a little later. At this stage I would like to identify myself with previous speakers on this side of the House who have indicated the pleasure they have derived from the increased pensions which the hon. the Minister has announced in his Budget Speech. I am sure that this measure has also been widely acclaimed outside this House. I represent and live in a constituency in which there are a very considerable number of railway pensioners, and other pensioners for that matter. Therefore I am very acutely aware of the struggle which these people have to maintain a reasonable standard of living in the face of rising costs, such as railway fares. They have to meet these rising costs just as much as other persons have to meet them. But they are in a far less favourable position to meet these costs, because there is virtually no margin between their incomes and their expenditure. I would go so far as to say that amongst the White people of this country the only poverty existing on any scale, exists among old and retired people. I am therefore very glad that these steps have been taken to relieve the position of the retired Railway-men. I hope that this is going to be a forerunner of relief to be granted later this month, when the Minister of Finance introduces his Budget, to other groups of pensioners.

While I am pleased that these increases in pensions have been granted, there are certain aspects of the Superannuation Fund that do disturb me. I hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to give a satisfactory explanation of the matters that I raise. The first matter that I would like to raise, is the rate of interest that is paid by the Administration on the funds of the Superannuation Fund, funds which are invested with the Administration. I do not go along with the hon. member for Humansdorp in thinking that the extent of this interest is adequate. I am disappointed that the Minister has not been able to announce in his Budget that there will be an increase in the interest rate paid on these funds. This is a matter which I raised in the first speech which I made in this House. I indicated then that I thought that the structure of the Superannuation Fund was such that unless the rate of interest were to be substantially increased, the fund would come under increasing financial pressure. That is actually what is happening. I was assured at that time that the matter of increased interest rates was under consideration. But that was 7 months ago, and since then nothing has been done. All of the accumulated funds of the Superannuation Fund are vested in the Administration. At the 30th November last year—this is the latest figure which we have—they amounted to the pretty substantial total of R583 million. For many years the interest rate on these funds which are vested with the Administration, have been pegged at 4½ per cent, whereas these funds are reinvested by the Administration with the Public Debt Commissioners, and the Administration receives back an average rate of interest which at present is 5.7 per cent. In other words, the Railway-men’s pension fund, which consists of moneys which have been contributed, not only by the Railways, but also by the Railwaymen, which is there to provide the Railwaymen with pensions and other benefits and which, in the Minister’s own words actually “belongs to the Railwaymen”, is being used by the Railways Administration to subsidize the Railways to the tune of 1.2 per cent on the total of R583 million. It is a subsidy from the Pension Fund to the Railways of R7 million per annum. Surely that position is absolutely and utterly wrong. But I believe that the position is even worse in that pension funds such as the Superannuation Fund should not be earning 4½ per cent, not even 5.7 per cent, on their investment. They should be earning 6½ per cent or 7 per cent or even more. That is the rate which the large financial institutions which underwrite pension funds are earning on their investments. I might say that the average figure of earnings on the investments of privately administered pension funds, according to the latest report of the Registrar of Pension Funds, is even higher than 7 per cent. I hope that the hon. the Minister will consider as a matter of some urgency an adjustment to this rate of interest.

Then, Sir, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister what the financial impact on the Superannuation Fund is of the increased pensions and of the lower contributions and what steps he proposes taking to deal with the situation. We know that the latest deficiency of which this House has been advised was R369 million. That was the position in January, 1970. That is a very substantial deficiency in relation to the total assets of the Fund of R583 million. I expect that the present improvements in pensions and the reduction in contributions will have a further very material effect upon the actuarial position of the Fund. I feel that the House is entitled to know what the present overall position is and, more important, bearing in mind that the Railways have an obligation to contribute to the Fund to keep it solvent, what steps the Minister proposes to take to deal with the overall deficiency of the Fund. I feel that that is important because we are dealing in large figures here and these may well affect the overall financial budgeting picture of the Railways.

I should like to associate myself with what the hon. member for Constantia just said when he advocated a better pension scheme for those retiring from the service of the Railways. Unfortunately I could not hear what he was saying very clearly, because he apparently has his pension in sight.

Sir, when I am listening to the debate and I hear the trends of the speeches of hon. members of the Opposition, I am struck by their criticism of the Railways. But on this occasion I want to give particular thanks to the hon. the Minister of Railways and to every member of his staff, particularly those from the neighbourhood I represent here, for the way in which they assisted us during the recent drought. I am thinking particularly of the transportation of fodder to that drought-stricken area, and of the unselfish service that officials of the Railways supplied in those circumstances. But I am also thinking in particular of the staff of the Road Transport Service, those men who in the heat of the day and the cold of the night transported fodder to farms under very difficult circumstances. I think that the drivers of those motor buses and their assistants deserve our particular thanks in this House. I want to pay this particular tribute not only to the hon. the Minister of Transport, and not only to the General Manager’s office, but to every official of the Railways. It strikes me that the United Party criticizes the Railways in more than one respect, but then they nevertheless court the Railway workers support. Sir, it is very clear to me that the Opposition realizes that they do not have the support of the Railwayman, and that is why we find this flattery throughout. [Interjection.] Sir, I do not expect the hon. member for Wynberg to understand when we as adults are speaking about contentious matters. Sir, what the hon. member for Umhlatuzana has just said I find very typical of the United Party. He says that the Railwayman has no confidence in his trade union and in the same breath he says that he was chairman of a trade union. I do not blame the Railway officials for not having any confidence in their trade unions if they have a member of the United Party as a chairman. One surely cannot blame the Railway officials if they have no confidence in such a trade union. But fortunately we have trade union men of another calibre who know how to present the needs of the railwaymen to the hon. the Minister, and that is why we have very happy officials in the Railways, and why this business undertaking of the State could reach such soaring heights. We heard here, Sir, that the productivity of our railway workers increased in recent years, and that in spite of a staff complement that has remained almost static, even decreased a little. In spite of that the productivity of the Railways has increased phenomenally. It is the satisfaction that I encounter among our railway people that spurs them on to give of their best. Here I have in mind the particular relationship between the hon. the Minister and the officials of the Railways. For that fine relationship I can only give the highest praise to the Minister and the Administration. When I think of these satisfied officials of the Railways, I also think of the particular efforts made by the Railways Administration in the interests of the Railway officials. I am thinking here of better working facilities; of the amount spent in the current financial year on these facilities, i.e. R3.8 million and also of the R4.6 million being proposed in the new Estimates for the improvement of working facilities. I want to make a plea here for the hon. the Minister to give a thought to those men of the Road Transport Service who frequently have to spend their nights out, often in a small corrugated iron building. I want to make a plea for better facilities for those railwaymen, more specifically for those in the Road Transport Service, when they have to spend nights away from home. But I am also thinking here of housing that is provided for the railwaymen. I can very proudly say that 68 per cent of the married staff of the Railways already have 44 000 dwelling units at their disposal.

You have to because you pay them so little.

In spite of what the hon. member said there, we can boast of a good salary structure for our railwaymen. From that extra R8.1 million that has been budgeted again for housing, accommodation will be given to men who really deserve it. I do not have the slightest doubt that in our Railways we have a labour potential that is going to tackle the growing economy of our country with magnanimity and carry their task through with great success. That is why I want to state here that in our Railway officials we have a group of men who not only support us, but in whose hands we can freely leave the future of our transport service.

The hon. member for Somerset East asked for the provision of better overnight facilities for the personnel of the road transport services. If he will let me know on exactly which routes the relevant personnel of the road transport services are employed, I shall go into the matter.

†The hon. member for Constantia said that if the interest on the Superannuation Fund does not increase, the fund will be subjected to serious pressure. I do not think there is any possibility of that, even if the interest rates are not increased. The hon. member said in his speech that there was a considerable credit balance of over R500 million in the fund. I do not think it is possible for that balance ever to become exhausted, even if the interest rates which are paid by the Administration are not increased. I might inform him, however, that from 1st April the interest rate is going to be increased to 6½ per cent. That is the rate actually earned by the Administration on its investment.

*The hon. member for Tygervallei spoke about harbour and other rates in connection with a certain industry here in the Western Cape. I cannot reply in connection with a particular industry, because one industry differs from another. Therefore I cannot reply to him on that point, because I do not know the particulars. He asked for railway subsidies to be paid to the industries in the Western Cape. As the hon. member knows, the Western Cape is not a border area. It would, of course, create an entirely new principle if subsidies were to be paid in a particular area simply because the industries in that area are far from their markets. What helps them, on the other hand, is that they obtain their raw materials at a very low rate, but the rates on the manufactured article are, of course, so much higher.

†The hon. member for Umbilo pleaded for an increase in the temporary allowances of pensioners. I am afraid I cannot accede to that request. As the hon. member knows, I have given substantial increases this year and last year on the basic pensions.

I suggested consolidation.

I have dealt with that matter on a number of previous occasions. The temporary allowance is paid out of revenue. The basic pension is paid out of the Superannuation Fund. So I do not think we can consider consolidating a temporary allowance paid out of revenue with a basic pension paid out of the pension fund, unless you want to put the whole of the burden on the Superannuation Fund, which I do not think would be wise. He wanted to know whether something could be done for the widows of pensioners who retired prior to the introduction of the Widows’ Pension Fund. The hon. member knows that the improvement in pensions is not made retrospective. Some assistance is given out of the Benevolent Fund to widows who are in dire need. But we cannot make the widows’ benefits retrospective because, as the hon. member probably knows, the contributors had to pay increased contributions to enable their widows to get a pension when they died.

Cannot they get free travel concessions?

Well, of course, the free travel concession is different for different widows. It all depends on the number of years of service the husband had, on whether he was a pensioner, etc. Some of them receive one free pass a year and 12 privileged tickets. Others receive less. But that matter has been raised from time to time and I have replied to it.

Then I come to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. Sir, I was waiting in trepidation for the hon. member to enter the debate. I might say in passing that, according to him, he spent a lifetime on the Railways. I was rather curious to see his record and I sent for it, and I might inform the House that the hon. member has an excellent record. In fact, on his retirement he received a very nice testimonial from the General Manager. However, the hon. member gave an interview to the Natal Mercury on 4th December and said, amongst other things, “I want to have a go at Ben about all this”. Well, I have been waiting for that “go at Ben”, but I must say the hon. member has been very mild. And so all my fears came to naught. The hon. member said that the bread-and-butter grades were grossly underpaid. I do not agree with him. I think the bread-and-butter grades, with their qualifications, receive wages, comparatively speaking, as good as those paid by outside interests, and I know what I am talking about. I think R223 as the maximum wage for a checker, which amounts to R2 676 per annum, is a good wage for that particular job. If the hon. member will take the trouble to find out what wages are paid by outside interests, he will see that these wages compare very favourably in the bread-and-butter grades.

But they are leaving the Service because they are getting better pay.

Well, some of them. As the hon. member knows, these people have very few qualifications. A checker, for instance, has a Std. 6 certificate and he possibly might get a better wage outside temporarily, for a short time, but he has not the same fringe benefits that he receives as a railwayman. He does not have the same type of pension or the same sick fund benefits, or the same travelling facilities. If you calculate all those fringe benefits, then together with the salary they are much better off than outside. But what I do say is that why many of these men leave the Railway Service today is that they do not want to work shifts. They do not want to work Saturdays and Sundays. They want a 5-day week, even at a smaller wage, which they can get outside, rather than working shifts on the Railways.

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is satisfied that these men are actually receiving a decent living wage.

Yes, I am satisfied that they are. You have to cut your coat according to your cloth. Obviously they cannot be extravagant; they cannot live in luxury, but they are receiving a living wage. What the hon. member should know is the amount of money that has been spent in the improvement of wages and salaries over the years. If he reads the memorandum I have tabled, he will see that from 1949 to 1962 R110 million in round figures was spent. The amounts are R24 million, R20 million, R36 million, R42 million, R12 million and R64 million. In other words, whenever finances allowed it, I assisted these people and gave them increases in wages. The hon. member himself received many increases in wages over the years. So I do not agree with him that they are grossly underpaid. Then I am surprised that the hon. member should make the statement that the railwaymen have no faith in their trade unions. I am amazed to hear that. If that were so, why is it that 80 per cent of the workers are members of the trade unions on the Railways? There is no closed shop applicable to the Railways. They are not compelled to become members of those trade unions. Obviously, if they had no faith in the trade union, they would not become members of that trade union. More than 80 per cent of the workers are members of the staff associations. That is a complete contradiction of the statement which the hon. member made. He should not say that, because he was a member of the staff association while he was on the Railways and received lots of benefits through the staff organizations. One of the reasons why his salary was increased from time to time was the representations made by the staff organizations.

*The hon. member for Langlaagte asked that the Louw Geldenhuys Home be renovated. I shall ask the Management to go into the matter. He asked whether any new houses were being built in the Johannesburg complex. That I do not know. I shall have to find out and I shall let him know.

†As far as the hon. member for Houghton is concerned, I am not going to deal with Soweto, because the member for Johannesburg North raised that question before she came in. She was out. If she was here she would have heard the hon. member for Johannesburg North raise the matter.

I have raised other matters as well.

I am going to reply to the other matters, but not to the question regarding Soweto. I am going to reply to the member for Johannesburg North.

I have raised this matter every year.

Is the hon. member speaking to me or to other members?

I am now speaking to you.

Are you speaking to the other members?

No, I am listening to you.

The hon. member wanted to know what consultation takes place with regard to transport when race groups are removed to certain residential areas. I would have thought that she knows that there has been an interdepartmental committee in existence for the last 10 to 15 years, consisting of representatives of the different departments, such as the Department of Coloured Affairs, the Department of Bantu Administration and the Railways. Whenever a new group area has been proclaimed or it has been decided to move any race group to a particular area, they go into the transport question. They make recommendations. If those recommendations are that a railway line should be built and railway transport should be provided, then that is done. The Government must supply the capital and they must subsidize it, because it is Government policy. That has been done all these years.

They have not done it very well.

They have done it excellently. But they must first decide that there are sufficient passengers to use the rail transport before railway lines are built. I do not know anything about the third class coaches which have no toilet facilities. But I will ask the Management about it.

The hon. member for Bethal spoke about the transportation and handling of grain in bulk. In that connection I can only say that it is in fact being done. As hon. members know, special trucks, a large number of which are still on order, have been designed and are being used to transport grain and maize to and from the grain elevators, especially in bulk.

As far as the grain elevators at the harbours are concerned, I am afraid Richard’s Bay is the only other harbour where a grain elevator can be erected. There are grain elevators in East London, Durban and Cape Town. There is no room for one to be built in Port Elizabeth. One will be erected at Richard’s Bay, however.

†The hon. member for Berea suggested military volunteers should receive free air transport to visit their homes on a space-available basis. I am afraid I cannot make an exception for military volunteers. There are many other people who are as deserving to receive free transport.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North spoke about the inadequate rail transport service to Soweto. I think that the member for Langlaagte has already given an indication of the long-term planning for that line. I fully agree that the line has just about reached saturation point, but it will entail considerable capital expenditure to improve the facilities. It will also have to be done in stages. That is apart from ordering new coaches and putting new trains on the line. I think the line has just about reached its maximum capacity; it may be possible to run one or two additional trains or trains with more coaches. The plans that have been decided on are the quadrupling of the line between Dube and Ikwezi; the construction of two additional lines between Dube and the vicinity of Mzimhlope; construction of avoiding lines in New Canada for up-goods trains, namely trains departing from the Reef, and for trains proceeding from Soweto towards Johannesburg. The plans also include provision of a yard for the staging of non-White suburban passenger trains in the resettlement area, possibly at New Canada, and the provision of turnaround facilities for non-White suburban passenger trains at Phomolong, Ikwezi and Merefe. These are long-term plans but in the meantime we are improving the safety of the line as well. Radio telephone signals are being installed and this work is near completion. In the meantime I have no objection to bus services being introduced and I also said this last year. If the Johannesburg Municipality, for example, wants to introduce a bus service to Soweto I have no objection at all. If any private undertaking wishes to introduce bus services I will have no objection at all. As a matter of fact, I think they should assist the rail service in coping with this rush of passengers.

What about taxis?

If one can introduce a taxi service which will confine itself to Soweto I will have no objection. The trouble is that the pirate taxis also operate in other areas and are then in competition with legitimate taxis in those areas. The hon. member took exception to what my Deputy Minister said in regard to the mayor of Johannesburg. What I take exception to is the statements made by the mayor of Johannesburg and the City Council of Johannesburg in regard to these matters. He made the most exaggerated statements, devoid of all substance. An example of this is the letter they wrote to the hon. the Prime Minister. It was written by the town clerk on behalf of the City Council of Johannesburg and this is the type of thing they wrote. These are also the things they say in public—

In other words, the impression is created here that rail accidents are frequently taking place. This has also been told to the Natives living there and they are obviously very disturbed about it. They believe the city council and the mayor of Johannesburg. This is of course a gross exaggeration and has no substance, as I will show. They talk about the frequency of these accidents and then go on:

The City Council of Johannesburg is the cause of this unrest and so are the mayor and newspapers, especially the Rand Daily Mail

Rubbish!

It is not rubbish, but the truth, and the hon. member does not know what she is talking about. I know. All the hon. member knows about it. [Interjections.]

Order!

What are the facts of the matter? [Interjections.] I wish the hon. member for Houghton would stop making interjections. She should not try to imitate the fishwives of Billingsgate. She must behave like a lady.

You have the manners of a horrid old man.

The hon. member should not behave like a Billingsgate fishwife. She must behave like a lady. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Houghton must remain silent.

These are the facts. On the 10th of December, 1965, two coaches caught fire at Dube station. The City Council of Johannesburg talks about serious rail accidents. On the 17th November, 1969, at Langlaagte Station a passenger train crashed into two petrol tankers. It was quite incidental that a third-class train passed through there at that particular moment. On the 8th December, 1969, a footbridge collapsed at Dube station. On the 12th February, 1970, there was a stampede at a footbridge at Croesus station. The first accident was due to overcrowding whilst the second one was due to the persons’ own behaviour. Passengers crossing the bridge stopped for shelter against rain and hail in the covered passage of approximately 15 yards running from the lower steps of the bridge to the barrier gates on the station platform. People were trampled underfoot and pressed under the siderailings by other passengers pushing from behind. On the 11th September, 1970, a train crashed into a luggage office and also people on the platform at Booysens Station. The City Council of Johannesburg said that these were all serious train accidents with the result that there was a considerable amount of unrest amongst the Bantu living in that area. As I say, these incidents were grossly exaggerated. That is why the hon. the Prime Minister replied to them, gave them the facts and told them that we are not prepared to institute a court of inquiry to examine the matter. This is the type of incident that I take exception to and the Johannesburg City Council is responsible for it.

*Then I come to the hon. member for Yeoville. In regard to the implementation of the recommendation made by the Schumann Commission, i.e. that the cost of transport principle should be accepted, the hon. member said that if this were done in respect of low-rated goods, the Government would have to grant subsidies. He said this was in the national interest, if I understood him correctly.

Where it is in the national interest.

It would be in the national interest if the rates in respect of all agricultural commodities were to be levied on the cost principle. If this were done, the rate would be considerably higher than it is at present, as I indicated this afternoon. I think this principle would be quite wrong. The hon. member’s predecessor frequently broached this matter. But I think the principle that the Railways should be subsidized is quite wrong, except in cases, as he has already mentioned, where it is Government policy, such as in the case of the removal of Bantu to a specific area. Then the transportation costs of those Bantu should be subsidized. When a border area is established as a result of Government policy, the transportation costs in that connection should be subsidized by the Government. But the principle of a general subsidization of agricultural produce would be quite wrong.

But then, surely, the Railways is subsidizing the State.

No, that is not the case. The Railways is a Government undertaking and has certain duties to fulfil. One of these duties is to help in the development of the country. This is part of its duties as a Government undertaking. The hon. member would have been quite right if the Railways had been a private undertaking. But the Railways is a Government undertaking, and this is part of its duties. As soon as one begins with these subsidies, it will mean that when there is any shortage, the Railways will be able to go to the Treasury and ask that the Treasury should help to cover its deficit. That would then be a subsidy. How would I ever be able to resist demands from the staff, for example, if they knew that I need only go to the Treasury to get the necessary money if there were deficits? This is what is happening in England. That is why the Railway system there is in such a mess. That is the reason for the continual strikes there, like the one which is threatening now. The workers intend striking again now for increased wages.

The hon. member also said that the necessary facilities had not been provided in time for, inter alia, the transportation of coal. He said that coal could have been exported since 1956 already, but that the railway facilities were not available. But let me now present the hon. member with the facts of the matter. When I first considered building a new harbour on the South Coast of Natal, I wanted to do so mainly for the export of coal, in the same way as Richard’s Bay will now be used for that purpose. I specially sent the late Dr. Van Eck overseas to go and establish whether he could find markets for our local coal. He returned to say that there were no markets. One reason for this is that their boilers. are different. They cannot burn our type of coal in those boilers. They must have coal with a high calorie rating, such as American coal.

However, I want to add at once that the hon. member must remember that South Africa is a developing country. The industrial development of South Africa in recent years has been phenomenal. The Railways has had to do everything possible to keep pace with the development. What have we been doing in recent years? Just bear in mind that the total tonnage transported by the Railways in 1950-’51 was 61 million, while in 1968-’69 it was 120 million. This is an increase of 59 million, or almost 100 per cent. Is that not an achievement? But recently, of course, many more requests have been received. New markets for ores have been found, and the Railways is simply not able to meet all the demands which are being made on it. Take maize, for example. There is talk of 32 million bags of maize being exported this year. This is a tremendously large crop.

It does not look like that any more.

Yes, but the crop is still estimated at 80 million bags, and then it will still be possible to export 32 million bags. After all, the Railways cannot provide the necessary facilities for a possible maize crop of 32 million bags in one year, and then the crops for three years following are so poor that it is not possible to export anything.

Then there is another drought, and then the railway lines can be used for other purposes.

Yes, but you cannot do it with the same trucks. You cannot transport cattle in a truck intended for transporting maize. For that reason I say that I think the Railways has done a great deal and has achieved much over the years.

Then the hon. member for Yeoville said something very interesting. I want to repeat it and would like to have it placed on record again. I regard what he said here this afternoon as exceptionally important. He said that he and his party would give me their unconditional support in regard to the employment of non-Whites in posts previously held by Whites.

I laid down certain conditions, which you accepted.

Of course. I say that I am going to keep him to that, because one of the difficulties we have always had in the past, was the political exploitation which took place in this connection. Outside the Railwaymen are told: “White man, you are being ¡pushed out of your job. Ben Schoeman wants to put a Bantu in your job.” That is the kind of propaganda we get before elections. [Interjections.] For that reason I want, by way of repetition, to place on record what the hon. member said.

We have never done that, and will not do so either.

every year special questions have been put as to how many Bantu there were in posts previously filled by Whites. For what reason? It is for the purpose of exploitation outside the House. Today, however, we have received the assurance that the United Party will not do this in future. On the contrary, they will give me their full support when I do so, and I hope the hon. member for South Coast also agrees with that assurance given to us by the hon. member for Yeoville.

†Mr. Chairman, then the hon. member for Yeoville also wanted to know whether something: can be done to speed up the suburban passenger trains. They have certain limitations in regard to acceleration and brake power and then of course many of these trains stop frequently at stations. However, three prototype multiple-unit trains are on order and it is provided for in the Brown Book; they have new traction ideas as well as better braking power. These units will obtain better acceleration. They will be tested and tried out and if they prove a success, more of them will be built. That will mean quicker acceleration and that would also mean that the trains’ speeds will increase.

Mr. Chairman, arising out of what the hon. the Minister has just said, I would like to refer his attention to a problem which we have in Port Elizabeth in connection with the suburban railway lines. As the hon. the Minister will know, the question of a spur line to the Gelvandale and Bethelsdorp Coloured townships is a matter which has been investigated since as far back as 1965 by the Interdepartmental Committee for the Conveyance of non-Whites. I understand that this matter has been investigated each subsequent year by this particular committee and each time the request to have such a suburban line built for the purpose of conveying non-Whites to their work has been turned down by virtue of the fact that there is not sufficient passenger traffic to warrant such a line. My plea to the hon. the Minister …

A line from Port Elizabeth to where?

A line from Port Elizabeth to Bethelsdorp and Gelvandale. My plea to the hon. the Minister is that this matter should be very seriously reconsidered, because the position is becoming very acute in that area as regards the conveyance of Coloured people to their points of work. I think it is well known that it is Government policy—I do not wish to discuss that angle here tonight —that under the Group Areas Act people are directed to where they should go in terms of Government policy. I must emphasize to the hon. the Minister that Port Elizabeth today is a Coloured preferential area. The Coloured population is growing very rapidly. By the nature of the lay-out of the township, however, these people are being called upon to live further and further away from the working centres. The distance that has to be travelled is very considerable; I believe that if it is Government policy to dictate where people should live —they themselves no longer have the option to decide—it is the Government’s responsibility to see to it that adequate transport facilities are provided to convey these people to their work. The bus service is inadequate at the present time, and as is probably well known to the Minister, there have been difficulties now. I think one of the problems is that the bus services are getting more and more expensive because the routes which the buses have to follow are becoming more and more congested. The time taken for a bus trip is becoming increasingly longer. This is one of the reasons why the expenses of the bus companies are increasing. It is also probably well known to the hon. the Minister that a suburban line in a congested traffic situation, such as is developing today on the outskirts of Port Elizabeth, is the fastest means of conveying large numbers of workers to their work. I sincerely hope that at this stage the hon. the Minister will instruct the Inter-departmental Committee for the Conveyance of non-Whites to have a thorough relook at the whole situation to see whether the time has not arrived for them to reverse previous decisions in respect of the desirability of this line. This matter is well advanced. The route has been approved of in previous years. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, based on information which I obtained from the personnel of the Railway Administration, the route has been surveyed. All that is required now is the approval of the Administration for the go-ahead with this particular line. I do hope that this matter, which I now believe to be an urgent one, does receive the favourable consideration of the Minister.

There is another matter which I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister affecting the Eastern Cape. The Minister in his speech indicated that a new depot for diesel locomotives was to be established at Hume-wood, which is the terminus of a narrow gauge railway line between Port Elizabeth and Avontuur. In the short-term we were glad to see that this line is being developed and modernized. Twenty diesel locomotives are going to be purchased to function on this particular line. We are grateful for this modernization which is taking place. But at the same time we are also rather distressed by this development.

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

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, before dealing with the challenge which was thrown out to me tonight by the hon. the Minister, I want to deal for a moment with an incident in this House when he was replying to my colleague and friend, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. The disclosure by the hon. the Minister that from his authoritative position he had called for the private dossier of a member of this House who had stood for Parliament after he had gone on pension from the Railways, is to my mind one of the most disgraceful things I have heard in this House. I do not know whether this is to be a precedent to be followed by the Ministers, that if anybody who has been in the employ of the Government should have the temerity to stand for Parliament, the ministerial head of his department can call for his private dossier after he had left the service. What for, Mr. Chairman? The fact that the hon. the Minister could find nothing wrong with it has nothing to do with it. It is the principle of the fact that he was prepared to stoop to that level to try to get something in the hon. gentleman’s dossier for a purpose. The hon. the Minister is not a judge of the calibre or the character of my hon. friend and colleague. That was for the voters to decide and they did. They decided by getting rid of the then member for Umhlatuzana and putting my friend into Parliament. If this is to be a precedent and if we are now to expect Cabinet Ministers to adopt this attitude in regard to the dossiers of men who, having left the Government service now have their private dossiers brought before the Minister for his scrutiny when they come to Parliament, then I think we have in fact gone to a very low level.

I want to deal for a moment with the item on the Estimates dealing with the rerailing, resleepering, reballasting and some additional ballasting on the line between Kelso Junction and Port Shepstone, some 44 Kilometres. [Interjections.] Yes, Mr. Chairman, hon. members may well shout. Just let them listen. The hon. the Minister last year tried to make a political issue of a speech that I made in August of that year. I do not intend to go over all that again. I said at the time and I repeated it in subsequent speeches that I was dealing with the safety of the line. The hon. the Minister accepted that. I have not the time to deal with the question in Hansard to any extent. But I want to say that the hon. the Minister accepted it. He gave us the assurance in this House—and I can give him quotations from Hansard—that the line was safe. My hon. Leader said to him that there were degrees of safety. Some people may feel that a line is safe while other people may feel that it is not altogether safe. There are degrees of safety. The hon. the Minister would not have it. The line as far as he was concerned was safe. That he repeated three times. When he was challenged by me he said that he as Minister was personally responsible for that line and what might happen. He went out of his way to attack the Sunday Tribune, which took photographs of that part of that line which I referred to in my speech. He said that the photographs were taken a long way away from the place I had referred to. They were not. They were taken at precisely the place about which I spoke and to which I took the photographer.

Why did you not say that last year?

He did.

The fact of the matter is that what appears in the Brown Book today completely vindicates the Tribune and myself. It was on the 14th September that the Minister finally made his categorical statement that the line was safe. He took the responsibility and he staked his reputation on that statement. Now, six months later, almost to the day, we find an amount of R2 200 000 on the Estimates to re-rail, re-sleeper, re-ballast and add further ballast to that section of the line, plus R1 400 000 for a new bridge.

My time is short, and I want to say that I hope the Minister will tell us why, since the electric trains started being used on that line, the time taken for a journey between Port Shepstone and Durban has been increased by 20 minutes. Why does an electric train take 20 minutes longer than the steam locos did? Will he tell us what is wrong with the bridge over the Umpambinyoni which makes it necessary for R1 400 000 to be spent urgently on the building of a new bridge? What culverts are also unsafe to carry the new electric units and the heavier trains to which I referred in the first five minute speech I made last August?

Tell us about the Bantu.

No, the second speech was in September. That was on the 14th September, when the Minister committed himself unequivocally to the safety of the line. In several cases he tried to hide behind his engineers. He said that he was going according to the reports of his engineers. He went so far as to ask my Leader: “Are you saying that my engineers are liars when they tell me that the line is safe?” My hon. Leader had not said that. When the photographs in the Tribune were brought to the notice of the hon. the Minister, why did he forthwith call for an inquiry into the safety of the line? Immediately those photographs were brought to his notice he did so. Sir, I do not even want to deal with the hon. the Deputy Minister, who went to the Other Place, where I cannot answer him, and made accusations against me there in immoderate language. It was quite unnecessary. He dealt with Native women, waving their red petticoats to stop trains and all this kind of nonsense. That is up his street. I do not want to deal with that. I am not in the Other Place and I cannot answer him. Let it suffice for me to deal merely with the attack launched against me by the Minister, also in immoderate language. He became very personal time and again. However, we can leave that out. I say to him: If that line was safe six months ago, how come R2 200 000 plus R1 400 000 has to be spent on that same line at a time when we are short of capital, when the Minister says we are short of capital, when he says that we are short of manpower and when he says that we have difficulties in dealing with the necessary development of the Railways? He is going back to a line that was safe six months ago, according to his own guarantee, to spend R2 200 000 at a time we are short of money and short of personnel. Sir, there is only one answer. The Minister is the finest evidence and witness yet as to the accuracy of what I said last year. If ever I was justified in anything I have said in this House, and if ever I have been justified in my criticism of the Minister, because it was the Minister I criticized, then it was last year, because the Minister has produced the necessary evidence himself in his Brown Book. This justifies me and it justifies the Sunday Tribune in everything they said and they wrote, and in respect of the photographs they took of the unsafe portion of the line I referred to, namely the whole section from Kelso Junction to Port Shepstone.

I do not want to quote from Hansard. Here are the facts: We have a safe line and within six months the Minister has to spend more than R2 million on it. Sir, I suggest to the Minister that he already started to spend that money after the debate here in Parliament. I suggest that some of it was spent forthwith. The Deputy Minister admitted that the work was being done, but that work was called “ordinary maintenance”. Sir, in fact it was the replacement of sleepers; it was the replacement of ballast and the addition of new ballast to much of the line that had already been found to be unsafe on the South Coast. Because, Sir, I never dealt with any other line except the line from Durban to Port Shepstone and except from Kelso up to Umzinto. That was the line in respect of which the Minister has now given me the absolute clearest evidence in black and white, in the Estimates before us, that the line six months ago was not safe; he knew it was not safe and he is now setting to work at the earliest opportunity to bring to the notice of Parliament the need for an appropriation so that he can put that line in a proper, safe condition so that the safety of the public can be guaranteed.

I have to rise immediately in reply to the outburst of the hon. member for South Coast. I take the strongest exception to his accusation that I am guilty of disgraceful conduct in calling for the record of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. I think his conduct is most disgraceful to make such a charge and in again raising this matter of the safety of the line tonight.

You challenged me to answer.

I will deal with that. I, as Minister of Transport, have the fullest right to call for the record of any railwayman, whether or not he has retired.

Why did you want to see it.

I had my reasons for wanting to see it.

To use it politically.

It makes no difference what my reasons were. I have the fullest right to call for the record of any man, whether he is working in the Railway service or whether he has retired.

You wanted to use it for political purposes.

But do not let me talk about records, because I might talk about the records that were kept by the United Party before we came into power and I would not like to do that. I might also talk about the Gestapo in the Railway Administration before we came into power. I could say a lot of things about that. If hon. members want to bring the discussion down to that level I can do it and I could say a lot of things about the Gestapo in the Railway Administration during the war years, and after the war up to 1948.

What were they checking on?—Saboteurs and fifth columnists.

The hon. member accuses me of disgraceful conduct. I think it is disgraceful for him to make such a charge. But let me come back to his other charge.

Tell us why you sent for the file.

I have already said to that hon. member today that he is the type of person who makes accusations in newspapers under a nom de plume. Mr. Chairman, last year the hon. member for South Coast was not concerned about the safety of the line; he attacked me for employing a Bantu on patrol duty.

That is not true.

That was the gravamen of his charge last year, that a Bantu was employed on patrol duty. He said that the Bantu did not have sufficient sense of responsibility to carry out that job. That was his charge and we dealt with that fully last year; it is on record in Hansard. The hon. member now actually has the effrontery to come back to this and to talk about the safety of the line. What evidence has he got that the line is unsafe? Because R2 million is being spent on the usual maintenance of a line, on the relaying of sleepers and on reballasting … [Laughter.] Sir, I am really amazed to hear this stupid and foolish laughter from that hon. member.

Why are they relaying?

Sir, listen to that stupidity from the hon. member for Green Point. He wants to know why we are relaying. Does that hon. member want us to wait until the line is absolutely unsafe before we start relaying? Is that what he thinks? That shows how much he knows about this thing. In other words, we must wait until the line is quite unsafe and then we must start relaying. What stupidity from that hon. member! The charge of the hon. member for South Coast last year was that a Bantu was being employed on duty formerly performed by a White man; that was his accusation and then he tried to wriggle out of it by talking about the safety of the line. [Interjections.] He wriggled out of it after talking about the safety of the line when I attacked him for going against United Party policy. His charge was that I was employing a Bantu on work formerly done by a White man.

An untrained Bantu.

Why is the hon. member not honest enough to admit that? Of course he will not admit it. He tried to wriggle out of it last year and tonight again he is trying to wriggle out of it by speaking about an amount earmarked for the relaying and ballasting of the whole of that line.

You were wrong two million times.

That hon. member is always wrong. He does not know what he is talking about. He is trying to protect the hon. member for South Coast and he is making a very bad job of it. By having a stupid expression on his face and by laughing, he thinks he is assisting that hon. member.

When did you discover that the line had to be relaid?

Sir, I said in this House and in the Other Place last year that I got a report from the responsible engineers to the effect that the line was perfectly safe. Does the hon. member suggest that those engineers told me a lie? [Laughter.] The hon. member for Yeoville is laughing. Does he maintain that the Railway engineers last year told an absolute lie when they said that that line was safe?

Who were the engineers?

And now they are spending R2 million on it to make sure that it is safe.

No, they are not spending R2 million to make sure that it is safe; they are spending R2 million in the ordinary way on the maintenance of that line, on relaying and re-sleepering. What they are doing is the ordinary work.

Will the hon. the Minister give us a few examples of lines of the same length where they are spending R2 million?

If the hon. member will only look at the Brown Book he will see what provision is being made for maintenance. If he will only open his eyes and look at the Brown Book he will see where the money is being spent. Mr. Chairman, I say as I did last year that the photographs that appeared in the Tribune were absolutely false. They had photographs of portions of that line that were miles away from the sleepers which the hon. member mentioned here. I said further that I challenged that hon. member and the Tribune to say that the engineers who gave me the report that the line was perfectly safe were lying. Let him be a man tonight and say that they told me an untruth. Let him stand up like a man and say it. Sir, that is the type of thing that one has to deal with. The hon. member has not got the guts to say that those engineers were telling lies when they said that the line was safe. Actually his charge last year—I repeat it now, because I want it on record—had nothing to do with the safety of the line. I replied to it fully last year. He was concerned about the fact that a Bantu was employed as a patrolman and he said that the Bantu did not have a sufficient sense of responsibility to do that work, and he cannot deny it.

Mr. Chairman, I am very glad that I do not find myself in the shoes of the hon. member for South Coast tonight, after the reply he was given by the hon. the Minister, for such a drubbing in politics I should not like to have endured.

Sir, I do not have the time to pursue the arguments advanced by the hon. member for South Coast in detail. I have risen to make a request to the hon. the Minister. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I recently held discussions with former senior officials in my constituency who are pensioners at present, and tonight I should like to make the following request to the hon. the Minister in all modesty. I think this is in the interests of the Administration and in the interests of the country. Having regard to the shortage of White staff, I should like to make the following suggestion, and I would be most appreciative if the hon. the Minister would give his favourable attention to it. My request is that every system manager should draw up a full, specified statement of the shortage of White staff in respect of all grades under his control, and then I also want to ask that the Chief Accountant, Pensions Division, Johannesburg, be requested to provide every system manager with a list of the names and addresses of Railway pensioners, excluding widows, resident in his area. I think the time has arrived for an inter-departmental committee consisting of the system manager and the heads of divisions under his jurisdiction to be formed with a view to making contact with such pensioners. Pensioners may then be requested to appear before that committee, as it will have been constituted, and to show their retirement certificates in order that they may be offered employment suited to their training. If such pensioners are found to be medically fit, they may be placed in posts where a lesser degree of responsibility is required, but where they may nevertheless be of assistance to senior officials under whose control they will be working. By these means senior officials and supervisory staff will, to my mind, be enabled to disseminate their experience and guidance over a wide field in the interests of the Railways Administration. I am aware of cases where pensioners are quite prepared to place their services at the disposal of the Administration, but then I must add here that the human factor also plays a role, i.e. that they do not want to— if I may use the word—humiliate themselves by asking for employment. I want to concede at once that there is a measure of interest on the part of the Administration, but I want to plead for a larger measure of interest to be shown in them in order that they may in that way be persuaded to offer their services. That would be a desirable step which ought to bear fruit. Pensioners who qualify for re-employment will be quite prepared to hold subordinate posts. There are numerous pensioners whose health and energies still permit them to do remunerative work. In all modesty I want to submit to the Minister a few examples. In the first place, pensioned shunters may be used to handle train registers by compiling trains for the shunters in charge. Pensioned engine drivers may be used productively in any loco in caring for locomotives and in rendering assistance to loco superintendents or their assistants. Pensioned administrative staff with many years of experience could be invaluable in the clerical division. Here I am thinking, for instance, of retired superintendents (staff, operating, stores and loco). The basic pension and temporary allowance of a pensioner who enters the service of the Administration are not affected by any additional remuneration which he may receive. To my mind this should also be the case as regards the special supplementary allowance. In this respect I want to make the plea on behalf of my voters that the Minister should give consideration to employing these pensioners who qualify without their special supplementary allowances being forfeited upon their rejoining the service.

Read a little bit more slowly.

I am convinced that this step, if the Minister considers it favourably, will attract numerous pensioners to the service.

In conclusion I want to bring up a certain matter, i.e. the condition of the railway station in Port Elizabeth. It does not fall into my constituency but I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to give very serious consideration to erecting a new building there, and, if that is not possible, to give consideration to whether that station cannot at least be renovated, as a large number of my voters use that station and the members of the United Party, who are sitting over there, do not have the courage of their convictions to plead for their voters in that regard.

I want to deal again with this matter about the relaying and to give some information to the House. I have had an opportunity to look at the Brown Book and I want to get that stupid grin off the face of the hon. member for Green Point. The hon. member said that R2 million had been spent on relaying and asked on what other sections that amount will be spent. I will tell him which sections. Ladysmith-Pietermaritzburg, re-rail, re-sleeper and re-ballast and insert additional sleepers and ballast, R2 008 000; Pietermaritzburg-Durban, the same—R4 418 800; Volksrust-Ladysmith, re-rail, re-sleeper and partly re-ballasting, etc., R3 500 000; Union-Volksrust, re-rail, re-sleeper and partially re-ballast and inserting additional sleepers and ballast, R2.2 million. Does the hon. member maintain that all these lines are so unsafe that they suddenly have to be re-ballasted and re-sleepered now? Is that what he maintains? But that is the type of argument we get. He asks why we are doing it. Sir, can you really believe that an intelligent member should ask a question such as that? Why we are doing it? We are doing it because it has to be done; it has to be re-sleepered and re-railed, as happens with all these lines.

The hon. member for South Coast said that last year and you said he was talking nonsense.

I never said that last year. I never spoke about re-ballasting or re-sleepering last year. The hon. member did not listen. Why did he not read Hansard; then he would have known what happened last year? But I maintain again that that hon. member maintained last year that I employed a Bantu to do the job of a White man and he tried to wriggle out of it by talking about the safety of the line.

If ever we had justification for the standpoint of the hon. member for South Coast last year, it has been the manner and the attitude of the hon. the Minister in his reply to the debate this evening. I want to begin by quoting—and it is the only quotation I shall make—what the hon. gentleman said last year in regard to the speech of the hon. member for South Coast. He said—

Not six months later we have a sum in excess of R3 million to be spent on this very same line, with a bridge, in respect of which the hon. gentleman said, not six months ago, that there was nothing wrong with that line. Now, if there was nothing wrong with that line, why is that money being spent now?

I have just explained it, but you are too stupid to understand it.

The Minister need not get so upset over it. He can debate this thing calmly, and if the hon. gentleman has a good case, he will be even calmer than I am. The Minister tried to justify this expenditure as being perfectly normal on the South Coast line, and the section which the hon. member for South Coast referred to was a short section on that line, by referring to the moneys being spent between Pietermaritzburg and Ladysmith, between Pietermaritzburg and Durban and other sections of the main line between Johannesburg and Durban, the very line which carries a greater traffic than any other line in South Africa, something which cannot be said for the line on the South Coast. So there is no comparison in that regard.

Then let me come back for a moment to what the hon. gentleman had to say about the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. The hon. the Minister did not reply to the question which was put to him, which was this. We all know that as Minister of Railways the Minister has access to the records of any person who has served on the Railways. That is common knowledge, but what he has not told us is why he saw fit to raise in this House the fact that he had before him the record of the hon. member, and to refer to its contents. Can you imagine, Sir, if the Minister had found in that record—not a perfectly clean and exemplary record—but just one case of a disciplinary inquiry in respect of the hon. member while he was in the employ of the Railways, the song and dance that would have been raised? Quite clearly it was an attempt to intimidate the hon. member. The clear inference to be drawn is that people who have served in the Government Service, and in the Railways in particular, ought not to have the temerity to stand as members of Parliament for the United Party, because if they do they run the risk of having their whole record thrown onto the floor of this House, and that is a matter to which we have the strongest objection.

I should now like to come to a matter which is perhaps less controversial. It is the matter I raised last year with the Minister, the question of the shortage of trucks which was experienced in the sugar industry last year. I was able to raise it last year, because of the timing of the parliamentary session, only after the cane-cutting season had commenced. I may say it is a shortage which applies in other spheres of agriculture, and timber is an example, but I wish specifically to deal with the sugar industry tonight. (I should like to have an idea of the Minister’s planning in this regard. Planning is a subject which has been raised earlier in this debate. The hon. Minister has been at pains to assure us that planning as far as the Railways are concerned, is in order. The cutting season and milling season of the sugar industry begins about the end of April or the beginning of May. Last year the industry suffered a cut in the allocation of trucks, which varied between 40 per cent and 25 per cent of requirements. This cut came at a time in the middle of the season, which was to the maximum disadvantage of growers in that it came at a time when sucrose was at its highest. Anyone who has any knowledge of that industry will realize that this meant a substantial loss to the growers concerned. This evening I am not going to deal at any length with the immediate effect which a cut in the supply of trucks has on the industry, because I dealt with that at some length last year. What I should like to know from the hon. Minister is what his anticipation is in this regard for the coming season. Last year, with the acute shortage of trucks, we were faced with one of the worst droughts that this country has experienced for many years. The maize and sugar crops were substantially down. In those circumstances we had what one might call a desperate shortage of trucks. This year we have had good rains pretty well all over the country. According to the hon. Minister earlier this evening there is a bumper maize crop in the offing. I think we can expect a substantial increase in the sugar crop as well. If the crop cannot be moved under normal arrangements when there is a low crop, what is the position going to be when there is a bumper crop in respect of maize, when we are to expect increases in the export of ore and coal and when the sugar industry itself expects a substantial increase over last year in the crop? If there is going to be a cut in the allocation of trucks such as we experienced last year, or an even greater cut, we should like to know of that in advance so that we can attempt to order our affairs accordingly. There must have been some forward planning in this regard and I should like the hon. Minister to tell us what the position is likely to be in that sphere.

Last year I put questions to the hon. Minister in regard to the manufacture and the adaptation of those trucks which are peculiar to the sugar industry, that is to say, the so-called latice-work trucks which obviate the use of wattle poles in the loading of cane into the trucks. In Hansard of last year, column 2262, the hon. Minister said that it was the intention to convert 200 trucks into lattice-work trucks for the purpose of use in the sugar industry. I may say that the year before that I received the same answer from the hon. the Deputy Minister of Transport. What progress has been made in this regard? For two years we have been told that these trucks are being converted, but there is no visible sign yet that any progress has been made and that these trucks are being put into operation in the sugar industry in Natal. If this program were to be implemented, there would be an easing of the situation so far as the supply of trucks is concerned. But the cut in the allocation to the industry last year was not confined only to trucks. It was a question also of shortage of trains, shortage of crews, of train personnel to man the trains which could pull those trucks. I am quite certain that the industry would like to know in advance of the season what they can expect so far as the coming season is concerned. Are they going to be faced at the last moment with substantial cancellations? Does the hon. Minister realize that there is under consideration in the industry at the present time a revision of the manner in which payments are to be made, a change which will be immediately affected by the time it takes to get cane from the field to the mill? This means that it is basic to the success of the new cane payment system that we can rely on the hon. Minister’s department to deliver the trucks on time. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Zululand is not a person who should speak here about the procedure followed when the hon. the Minister called for the hon. member’s file. Has the hon. member forgotten that, when Mr. Jack Steyl was still the treasurer of the National Youth League, their party called for his file and in that manner ousted him from the Railways just after the war? Has the hon. member forgotten that in respect of Mr. Piet van Vuuren, the present hon. member for Langlaagte and one of the foundation members of the National Youth League, steps were taken to obtain his file? Instead of the Minister being thanked by the hon. member for a good testimonial given by him … [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister has in his possession a report in which the hon. member for Umhlatuzana said: “I will have a go at Ben.” He wanted to see the man who was so keen on having a “go at Ben” and who, along with the hon. member for Durban Point, had asked the Railway workers in Klip River the following question during the by-election there and after the hon. member for South Coast had spoken here about the sense of responsibility of the Bantu: “Do you see what the Nationalist Party is doing now? They are kicking White people out of their jobs and giving them to Black people.” [Interjections.] Those are the stories which were told to these people in the course of their house to house visits. That is the hon. member who spreads malicious gossip behind one’s back, and then stays in a hotel without paying, a hotel which, according to him, belongs to me as a monopolist. Enough said. What are the true facts in regard to the charge made by the hon. member for South Coast? Last year the hon. member for South Coast charged the hon. the Minister with using Bantu to do work previously done by Whites. In his speech he said that those Bantu did not have the sense of responsibility to do that work. He also said that they would never have the sense of responsibility to do that work. His charge was not in regard to safety. After the hon. the Minister and other hon. members on this side had pointed out to him that he was advocating a political policy contrary to that of his colleagues, the hon. member invited the Press. Other hon. members opposite want the doors to be thrown open to Bantu labour, want no distinctions to be drawn and Bantu labour to be established on a basis of integration with the Whites. The hon. member and his pressmen then proceeded to take photographs of that line and tried to create the impression that all of those photographs were taken at the spot which was supposedly unsafe, whereas those photographs were taken at spots situated between 17 and 23 miles from one another. In other words, he misled the House of Assembly and the Parliament of South Africa with those photographs. That is very clear. He did not only mislead Parliament …

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, may the hon. the Deputy Minister say that the hon. member for South Coast misled the House of Assembly?

The hon. the Deputy Minister may proceed.

I repeat that when one takes photographs at spots situated 17 and 23 miles from one another and tries to create the impression that those photographs were taken at the spot which caused one concern, it is misleading. The hon. member for South Coast cannot get away from this fact.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I suggest that the way in which the hon. the Deputy Minister has framed his words now, has indicated that it was deliberate misleading.

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I repeat that the Press, along with the hon. member for South Coast, tried to get the hon. member out of his dilemma is which he had landed his party. He had landed his party in the position where he differed with their policy. This hon. member for South Coast made out a case … [Interjections.]

Order! I want to warn hon. members that I do not want any interruptions from now on. The hon. the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I want to say that I call upon the hon. the Deputy Minister, because every word he has said about this matter is untrue.

Order!

It is absolutely untrue. I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to accept my word for it.

Just calm down a bit.

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I say it is absolutely untrue.

Order! Will the hon. member resume his seat?

I want the hon. the Deputy Minister to accept my word for it.

Order! Will the hon. member resume his seat?

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, would you ask the hon. the Minister for Indian Affairs to observe your ruling?

Mr. Chairman, I shall.

I have warned hon. members about interjections. The hon. the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, now the hon. member for South Coast resents my having made mention in the Other Place of a Bantu woman who used an apron in order to ensure the safety of trains. He immediately assumed that by that reference I alluded to him. But what are the facts now? Having seen in what a dilemma he had been caught up, the hon. member for South Coast said in the House of Assembly and to the Press outside that he was not concerned about the fact that a Bantu had done the work of a White person, but in fact about the safety of the traffic on that line, a line which was in such a desperate condition that it could cause accidents. But I now put it to the hon. member that any person with any sense of responsibility should, when he finds that the line is not safe and that the condition of such a line may lead to accidents and possible loss of life, make it his first task, as a responsible person, to report the matter to the nearest station master at once. If he cannot report it to the nearest station master, he should report it to the System Manager. It is his duty to report it so that it may be ensured that no traffic makes use of that line which, in his opinion, is allegedly so unsafe. But he did not do that. But weeks after he had noticed the, in his opinion, weak spot in the line, he came to this House of Assembly and tried to make out the case here that the line was not safe. But during the period which elapsed between the time he saw that the line was not safe and the time he raised the matter here in the House of Assembly, he did not care whether trains could be derailed or whether people could lose their lives there. If he were concerned about the safety of the line, his first duty as a responsible person was to bring it immediately to the attention of those people who could have stopped the train traffic on that line. But that he did not do.

But, what is more, now he wants to lay the charge against the hon. the Minister that because an amount of R2 million has now been made available for reballasting and resleepering, this is proof that the line is not safe. But, surely, before he made his speech here, he was aware that when he had those photographs taken, those sleepers had been unloaded there weeks and months previously, because at that stage already we had been engaged in resleepering, reballasting and rebuilding that railway line. Surely, it is not an honest approach to raise the matter here again in spite of these facts. What is more, the hon. the Minister has after all proved how we are engaged in resleepering and reballasting various sections of the line. If that is already being done on those sections, are we then to say that those lines are unsafe as well? At the time we told the members that the safety was subject to a certificate issued by the S.A.R. engineers, and the certificate has been embodied in the General Manager’s Annual Report. On this certificate it is being certified that the railway line is safe for the traffic using that line and for the speed determined for that line. These hon. gentlemen have questioned the integrity of those people. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, if there is any hon. member who is misleading this House, it is the hon. the Deputy Minister who has just resumed his seat. I challenge him now to furnish any proof of the blatant untruth which he propagated here. I challenge him to prove that the hon. member for South Coast or I myself have at any stage or at any place made any mention of the replacement by the Government of Whites by Bantu.

†That hon. Deputy Minister has made a statement in this House which I say is blatantly untrue. I challenge him to bring one tittle of evidence to prove that statement of his. I go further by saying that that hon. Deputy Minister is misleading this House. He is misleading this House when he makes statements of that nature of which he has no evidence at all. I want to deal with the hon. the Deputy Minister’s defence of the hon. the Minister for calling for a departmental personal file and using it in this House. There is a Public Service regulation which protects the privacy of private records of people who are in the service. If anybody were to get hold of a personal file from the Railways and publish it, they would be committing an offence. Is the Minister then above the law?

There is no such law.

Is there no regulation which protects the privacy of information of files?

There is no such regulation on the Railways.

In other words, every personal file is open and is not a personal confidential record. That is an interesting fact. It means that we may now ask the hon. the Minister across the floor of this House for personal information obtained from the personal file of any member of the South African Railways and Harbours.

It is very often done by way of a letter.

I say then, with the hon. member for South Coast, that I regard this, if not technically incorrect, as certainly not within the spirit and not within the tradition of Parliament that a Minister should abuse his right of access to personal records in order to use them for political purposes in a political debate in Parliament.

I want to say only one more thing in regard to the South Coast line. The debate took place in this House in September last year. To my knowledge the Budget is drawn up somewhere around October. Time and time again, if representations are made towards the end of the year for any capital service, one is told that it is too late because the Budget has been drawn up. I ask the hon. the Minister to tell us the date on which recommendations were put in and on which the Capital Budget was closed for presentation as a budget to this Parliament. I find it hard to accept that a major expenditure was not known to be necessary in September of last year for a budget which is presented in March this year. We have been told that there is planning and that everything is planned ahead. Was this then not also planned? If it was planned, then why did the hon. the Minister not tell Parliament last year that this was on the plan and that this was on the schedule for rerailing, resleepering and reballasting? Why did he not tell us that it would in due course take its turn? However, suddenly between September and now it becomes an item on the Brown Book.

I have little time left to deal with the other matters which I wished to raise, but I want to return to the hon. the Minister when he was in a different mood from that in which he is tonight; in the mild and mellow mood in which we found him this afternoon. This was a strange and an unusual mood for this hon. Minister. But unfortunately, the tactics which he used in debate have not changed at all. He today once again tried his favourite tactic of trying to find one figure or one phrase which is wrong in a speech and launching a full-scale attack on that phrase while ignoring all the other arguments and criticisms put forward. He tried that this afternoon. He tried to use what I specifically stated as being hearsay. I said that I had heard a certain figure, but then I quoted specifically the official figures given by the Minister. He used that to try and draw the attention of the House away from the crux of the attack which was made against him. I want to ask him again to deal with the issue and not to try and draw a red herring across the trail. He succeeded last year with the South Coast line piedose; a beautiful red herring. I ask him to deal with the issue which I raised—not how many checkers are short in the Durban complex or the Durban harbour, but the fact of a critical situation—a crisis in what I call the forgotten legion of the Railways. I ask him to tell this House what discussions have taken place with his special committee. He avoided that question completely. He evaded the issue completely, instead of telling us what discussions had taken place in regard to what jobs and to what grades.

The hon. the Minister also tried to evade a second argument. I pointed out and I quoted the figures of a diminishing number each year of additional goods trucks put into service. The Minister tried to avoid answering it by explaining the difference between his figures and the figures in the memorandum as being trucks withdrawn from service. Well, I have never heard of a case where trucks have been withdrawn from service, and after withdrawing them, you have more than you originally started with. But that apart, I am not here to quibble over figures. I stated that from 1966d67 up to this year the number of additional new trucks in service had decreased each year from 6 000 down to 5 000 odd, down to 3 000, down to 1 800 and to an unknown figure this year—but for the eight months, of something around 2 000. I have said that this indicated a lack of planning, a cause for the problems the hon. members for Zulu-land and Yeoville raised, namely the problem of being unable to carry the goods offered and the problem of having to tell our exporters “you may not export and earn foreign currency for South Africa, because I cannot carry it”. I pointed out how each year, despite an increasing number of trucks sanctioned or on order, the net number put into service, after withdrawing those that had to be withdrawn, diminished each year over the last four to five years. That is the accusation against the hon. the Minister and the accusation which he has not answered. He has skirted around it. He has tried to draw red herrings across the trail. He has given examples of adequate planning. Of course there must be adequate planning in some spheres—I myself paid tribute to some of the work being done. We do not say this Government is totally and wholly wrong. Even they, by accident, must be right sometimes. Even they sometimes must listen to their officials. Even they must take the advice which the experts give them. So, sometimes they have to be right. We have not said in this debate that the Minister is one hundred per cent wrong, but we have said that he has failed South Africa. He has failed to give the leadership to the Railway services in South Africa which we need. He has led South Africa into the position where he is unable to provide the infrastructure required for the development which South Africa so urgently needs today. That was the charge, and the hon. the Minister cannot evade it by coming here with half a story, with an odd word or an odd figure on which he tries to build a defence. We want the overall picture, not isolated instances. [Time expired.]

I cannot allow that hon. member to accuse my colleague, the Deputy Minister, of misleading the House and telling untruths.

He accused us …

I will deal with that. He said that he was accusing the hon. member for South Coast that he was against the employment of Bantu in jobs normally done by Whites. I want to settle that once and for all. I do not want to repeat all the speeches made last year, but I maintain that that hon. gentleman was not concerned about the safety of the line; he was concerned about the employment of the Bantu in a job formerly done by a White. I have his speech in front of me now and I will read it. I am quoting from Hansard of 5th August, 1970, column 1117, and it is the hon. member for South Coast speaking—

That is quite correct.

This lets me out, because the Minister admits it. He says that is quite correct; that line is now being electrified. If we have spread rails on that line and a bad accident occurs, who is responsible?

There are continual patrols on the line.

In the past the ganger went on his trolley and travelled over every yard of that rail. He does not do that any longer. He leaves home in a motor-truck and travels along the main road until he arrives at a point opposite where he thinks work should be done on that rail. He then leaves the main road and drives down to this point on the railway line. He then has a look at the line; if he has Natives with him, he puts them on the job and he goes back to the main road. He travels along the main road for miles and then goes down to another point on the railway line. He no longer travels along the line itself on his trolley.

We have patrolmen on the line itself.

How do they travel?

They walk along the line.

Are these White patrolmen walking along the line?

No, Bantu.

That is exactly my point. There are Native patrolmen walking along the line seeing that the ballasting, the dog spikes, the fish plates and everything else are in order so that we will not have spread rails. That will not do. This is the very point I am making. Can one really say that the responsibility resting on those Bantu in respect of that job is resting fairly on the shoulders of people who are capable of carrying that responsibility? That job has always been done by White men.

What is the alternative? We do not have White men to do it.

My alternative is to get another Minister of Transport.

That will not help you.

[Interjections.] Are you afraid of hearing the truth? Let me continue—

If we have a manpower shortage and we are to change our manpower policy, let us start with the Minister. I am not concerned with the people lower down. The officials can handle a job. What is wrong is the Minister and his policy at the top. There are White men available. As my hon. friend said, White men who have been doing that job can now earn three times as much with private contractors. Where does a private contractor get those White men from? They are White men who are doing the job. This is no job where you can place the responsibility on the shoulders of one of our Bantu people, good as they are, respectable and responsible as they are. That responsibility is too great.

That is what the hon. member said. He was concerned about the Bantu doing practically unskilled work, namely that of a patrolman. The hon. member from Umhlatuzana was at least a ganger in his time. He knows that a patrolman is a lower grade than that of a ganger. It is unskilled work to a large extent. But he said the Bantu cannot accept the responsibility and that we must employ a White man. I hope the hon. member will accept that and stop arguing as to what was actually said.

Why did you then vote R2 200 000 to put it right?

I have explained to the hon. member and I shall try and do it again. All lines are periodically resleepered and reballasted, when their turn comes. That line has been electrified and it carries heavier loads now. It is therefore being reballasted and rerailed.

That is what I said in my speech.

I said that that line is as safe as it always was. I had a report and a certificate from my engineers. The hon. member has not yet said whether those engineers have misled me. He has not yet said that those engineers have told me a lie.

There is your own Hansard.

What does my Hansard say?

Reply to my friend here. He quoted from your Hansard.

What did I say?

You heard him.

Did I say that those engineers misled me?

You have the Hansard. Why do you not follow it?

The hon. member is splitting hairs. He is trying to get away again. [Interjections.] That hon. gentleman the member for Zululand must not talk about dishonourable conduct. We can say a lot about that, if he wants us to do so. There is a Select Committee which is at the moment investigating certain of his charges. Do not let us forget about that. I want to say that I have the right to call for any record of any servant, as I said before, whether he is in the Service or whether he has left the Service. I have the right to do it. There is no regulation against it. Quite a number of members have written to me about certain Railway-men, asking for information about disciplinary offences, and I have given them the position according to the record.

Yes, but you do not have the right to quote it in this House.

Yes, in this House. If there had been anything on that hon. gentleman’s record against him, I would not have mentioned it. [Interjections.] Sir, for heaven’s sake, do those hon. members really think that I would take the trouble to attack such an insignificant member on his record? Good heavens! That is too stupid for words. I would not even do that in the case of the hon. member for South Coast. If he had been a Railwayman and he had had a very bad record, I would not have used it against him in this House. The hon. member should know me by this time. I have been a Minister for 23 years, and I have never fought under the table: I have never hit below the belt. What I say, I say openly, to a man’s face. He has known that all the years.

You hit below the belt today.

The hon. member for Zululand wanted to know what we are going to do about the sugar crop. I can give him the assurance that the management will do everything in its power to move the sugar cane to the mill.

What planning is there?

It is not a question of planning. We do a great deal of planning. It is a question of finding sufficient trucks, manpower and locomotives to move the goods.

That is what we want to know about.

If the hon. member wants this information he can write to me and I shall supply him with the particulars of all the trucks that will be there. I shall tell him what type of trucks have been converted into sugar-carrying trucks.

*The hon. member for Uitenhage made certain points in regard to pensioners. I did not really find out what he was saying. He will have to repeat his point. I was consulting Hansard so that I could reply to the statements made by the hon. member for South Coast.

†The hon. member for Walmer wanted to know whether we would build a railway line between Port Elizabeth and Bethelsdorp. I am informed that the inter-departmental committee has considered the resettlement route to Bethelsdorp, but as the number of passengers does not justify it, they are being transported by a bus service. The railway route has been determined, but costs have not yet been determined. The number of passengers at present totals 14 000, and the Railways will only consider constructing a line if passengers total 20 000. The scheme will again be considered in August, 1971. Mr. Chairman, I think those are the only points that have been raised so far.

Mr. Chairman, it seems quite clear that the hon. the Minister is just not going to reply to the two cardinal points that have arisen during the debate this evening. The first is: Why did he send for the file of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana? He told us that this was his affair. He said that he had his own reasons and that he was not prepared to disclose them to the House. I want to suggest to you tonight, Mr. Chairman, that that reply is just not good enough. We do not accept it. In the absence of any better explanation. I say that that hon. Minister sent for that file to see what political gain he could get out of it, and how he could exploit it politically.

The second question which was posed by my colleague from Durban Point was: When was it decided to go ahead with the R3.2 million improvement to the South Coast line? Was it at the time when that hon. Minister was claiming in this House that that line was in a 100 per cent perfect condition? We are entitled to replies to both of these questions.

I never mentioned a 100 per cent. Why do you not tell the truth?

The hon. the Minister will have his turn again. Sir, I have some more questions for this hon. gentleman. I want to deal tonight with the rationalization of Railway tariffs linked, so we have been told, with metrication. I want to deal with how this so-called surcharge of 10 per cent on tariff levels is being applied. I use the word “so-called” deliberately because if one examines the way in which some suburban fares are being increased, one sees that the surcharge can be as high as 20 per cent of the present tariff levels. When the hon. the Minister announced the general increases in fares and tariffs in his Budget speech last week, he said—

In other words, the hon. the Minister was indicating to us in his Budget speech that the 10 per cent surcharge on existing tariff levels would be adhered to in the letter and in the spirit with one qualification, namely that fares might be adjusted through suitable rationalization to facilitate calculations. This seems to have become a very elastic concept, so elastic that the 10 per cent has in some cases been made to stretch to 20 per cent. A lot of money is at stake too. The hon. the Minister’s estimate is that the surcharge will bring him an estimated R58.5 million, although we suspect that, as has happened in the past, he has under-estimated the effect of this on the public, that he has under-estimated the impact of what he is doing. We believe in fact that he could well be aiming to extract far more money out of the travelling public and other railway users than he has told us so far. We have been supplied already with some examples of how the new surcharges are going to be applied. These examples were obviously supplied by the hon. the Minister’s department to the Press, and I want to say here that I am indebted to one of the Nationalist newspapers, Die Burger, for some of the details that they have given us. The single fare, for instance, from Pine-lands to Cape Town, is 10 cents at the moment. If the hon. the Minister had intended to apply a surcharge of 10 per cent on that fare, the fare would then have become 11 cents. But what did he do? That is certainly not what happened. Instead, to facilitate calculations, or so he says, the 10 cent fare was rationalized and will from 1st April become 16 cents …

That is a funny 10 per cent.

No, the 10 per cent does not come yet. Then to the 16 cents he adds his 10 per cent, which is another two cents, according to his arithmetic, and he ends up with an 18 cent fare. The original 10 cent fare becomes 18 cents. We therefore have the spectacle of a two-cent surcharge being levied on what is today a 10 cent fare. There are other examples. We have the first-class single fare between Southfield and Cape Town which goes up from 23 cents to 28 cents, with rationalization, and then on to 31 cents; 23 becomes 31. Then we have the first-class single fare from Rondebosch: 11 cents after rationalization becomes 15 cents and then the 10 per cent is added, which is another 2 cents, so the 11 cents becomes 17 cents.

This is a new arithmetic.

Then we have the first-class return fare from Southfield, which at the moment is 32 cents; this goes up to 35 cents after rationalization and becomes 39 cents.

And he calls that 10 per cent.

That is the so-called 10 per cent increase. Sir, the manner in which these increases were announced was interesting too, and here again I am indebted to Die Burger. Die Burger stated that the rationalization would, in its words, “in sommige gevalle ’n klein verhoging meebring.” The Minister and his newspapers may regard increases from 10 cents to 18 cents and from 11 cents to 17 cents as “klein verhogings” but that is not the view of us on this side of the House. We regard the increases, over all, of up to 80 per cent in a most serious light. Sir, much has been made of the fact that in the process of rationalization some fares might drop, but at least as far as suburban fares are concerned, the position is far from rosy. Let us go back to the 60 fares mentioned by Die Burger. Four of the 60 will remain the same after rationalization but they will still go up by 10 per cent. Nineteen will come down, some by as little as I cent, in the course of rationalization, and 16 of those will rise again to a higher level after the surcharge is applied. 37, or 61 per cent of them, will rise with rationalization. On top of that 10 per cent will be added. This has not all been explained to the travelling public, I am afraid. It seems that overall some passengers will gain—a few—but many will lose. It is certainly no comfort to the train users of Rondebosch, Pinelands and Goodwood to know that some people in some remote places are in fact only having to pay a little more. It is clear, Sir, that the hon. the Minister should have been frank with the country when he presented his Budget. I submit that he was far from frank. He should have explained how widely his rationalization and tariff increases, representing up to 20 per cent of the original fares, were going to be applied.

Sir, while we are dealing with increases of the order of 20 per cent, I should like to raise the question of rationalization and air fares. I want to tell this Committee— and here again I am grateful to Die Burger —that according to the increases announced, the return fare between Johannesburg and Cape Town is going up by 22 per cent, not by 10 per cent. This is worked out on the basis that the present single fare is going up by 10 per cent and from now on the return fare is going to be exactly double the single fare.

I said that in my Budget speech.

Sir, it is no use this hon. Minister telling us that single fares are only going up by 10 per cent because the bulk of the travelling public buy return tickets. (Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Kensington, who has just resumed his seat, is apparently afraid about his own record. Fortunately it is not necessary for us to ask for his record. One only has to read a few newspaper articles that have appeared under his name, and also a few articles that did not appear under his name. I am sorry, Sir, but I cannot, as in the case of the hon. the Minister, compliment him, but I want to give him this assurance: This Minister does not specialize in gossip.

Only increased rates.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, is it in order for the hon. member to say that the hon. member for Kensington specializes in gossip?

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

I did not say that; I said that the Minister does not specialize in gossip.

Sir, I should like to come to a few matters affecting Railway personnel. When one examines the report released by the Controller and Auditor General on the accounts of the South African Railways Administration, one finds under the item dealing with the Sickfund that at the end of the financial year this fund had just under R1 million at its disposal. We are grateful to the hon. the Minister for having agreed to increase the contributions of the Administration from 37 per cent to 57 per cent of the full total. This evening I should like to lodge a plea with the Minister asking him to consider increasing the percentage to 75 per cent of the total contribution by members. This would cost the Railways Administration an additional amount of about R1.4 million. I am making this request particularly because our experiences that our Railway officials have found that the doctors sometimes let slip the fact that they would like to prescribe a certain preparation or a certain kind of medicine, but because the Sickfund has not approved it and stipulated its use the doctor is not empowered to prescribe it. When the Minister makes this larger contribution I believe that the Sickfund will also be able to make these medicines available to the officials.

Then I also just want to mention that the Railway officials had been sharpening their teeth for so long in anticipation of the salary and pension increases that were granted last year, that some of them are now forced to have their teeth seen to or extracted and be supplied with a set of false teeth. Unfortunately the Sick Fund Board does not make provision for aid in the case of false teeth, neither in the case of persons who must have their eyes tested and must then wear a pair of glasses. If this increase is granted, I believe that it would be possible for the Sick Fund Board to give a measure of aid to the officials.

I should also like to express my thanks to the Minister for the concessions in respect of the improved working conditions of the officials. Last year R3.8 million was spent on restrooms, washing and eating facilities, heating and ventilation as well as air conditioning in restrooms in certain humid areas. Provision is now also being made for an additional R4.6 million. We want to give the hon. the Minister the assurance that this gesture is particularly appreciated, but I should also like to tell him that in my constituency there are a few of the smaller stations that nevertheless handle a large amount of traffic, inter alia, stations such as Arlington, Kransfontein and Danielsrus, where such facilities do not exist. We should like to ask the Minister to consider this.

On a previous occasion I have already mentioned this, but this evening I want to lodge a plea for the Minister to give consideration to the building of a new railway line. I know that it is a very expensive item, and I realize that such a railway line must be self sufficient, but I shall try to indicate to the Minister the importance of such a line. The line in question is a railway line from Afrikaskop via Kestell to Witzieshoek, the homeland of the South Sotho unit, from there to Clarence and then to Bethlehem, a distance of approximately 90 miles. I should just like to point out to the Minister that I have data drawn from the tax returns, and there it was found that his area furnishes about 50 000 bags of grain, that large and small stock sold in this area annually are then herded along the roads and that the small stock amounts to about 45 000 and the large stock to about 18 000. Unfortunately this livestock and the grain must be herded along or transported between Bethlehem and Harrismith on the busy main highway between Cape Town and Durban, and a large amount also on the new road running from Bethlehem to the Golden Gate National Park. This is a problem, particularly at peak times when harvesting is in progress, this coincidentally clashing with the tourist season as well. In addition I want to point out that for the South Sotho, and also for Lesotho on that side of the border, there is no link with the Republic. The only rail link they can depend on is the one to Ficksburg, and I think the hon. member for Ladybrand can testify that the station at Ficksburg simply cannot absorb that stream of Bantu any longer. I should like to mention to the Minister that an airlift has already been instituted to transport the Bantu from the Rand to Bethlehem, from where they are then granted road transport to Witzieshoek in order to retain tribal ties there.. This then is also a project that will help these non-Whites to retain those tribal ties. I know that what I am asking will demand tremendous capital, but I believe that in this debate we have indicated that the National Party Government has, in fact, done planning for the present and for the future, and I believe that these matters also justify ample planning for the future.

I have no reason to do anything other than to agree with the hon. member for Bethlehem when he discussed certain problems which arise in connection with the Sick Fund, like false teeth, medicines and matters of that sort. I obviously do not agree with him in his final words of praise of the planning, because I think that is something which is definitely lacking as far as the department is concerned.

But now that we have got into quieter waters than we were in a little earlier, I wonder whether I can discuss with the hon. the Minister the requirements of other types of sleepers than those which are laid on railway lines, and that is the employees of the Railways and Harbours Administration and their housing requirements. I believe it is becoming more and more a vital personal problem of the personnel of the Railways to find adequate housing, in common with the rest of the population of the country. I think it is a problem that the Administration it attempting to face, but I wonder whether something more cannot be done than in fact has been done and is being done at present. The 1969-’70 report of the Administration indicates that there has been a certain measure of activity in certain sectors of housing. The first is in regard to the house ownership scheme which has been in operation since 1938 and which provides 100 per cent loans to employees of the Railways. In 1969-’70 one finds from the reports that 665 loans were granted to a total of R7 651 000, averaging R11 500. I am sure the House will note with pleasure that this Minister has again been a little more realistic than his colleague the Minister of Community Development, because the average of R11 500 is very much higher than the average which is permitted to the rest of the Public Service by the Minister of Community Development.

As far as building society-assisted housing schemes are concerned, the guaranteed loans, there has again been fairly intensive development, but when one comes to sub-economic housing, which is referred to in the Department as “departmental” housing, the position is not so satisfactory. I think the Minister will agree with me that if one examines the figures closely, it appears that during the last year 517 dwelling units or departmental houses were built at a cost of R4.25 million, or an average of R8 200 per house. Obviously again that figure is a realistic figure and it calls into question the Minister’s colleague’s claim that he can build such houses for R6 700 and that they are reasonable houses. The Railway Administration has found that the average is R8 200 per house. But although I have indicated that 517 houses were constructed in this category, 268 were withdrawn from service during the year, leaving a net increase in departmental houses of only 249. If one looks at these figures as they appear in the report in isolation, they might be regarded as impressive, but when they are viewed in perspective in relation to the staff income and to the number of members of the staff, then I believe one finds that greater activity is definitely necessary in regard to housing. The report of the Administration at page 102 indicates that the average per capita income of White employees on the Railways is R260 a month. That is the average of all the employees. When one goes further one finds that in the Administration there are 62 884 White employees who earn less than R200 per month.

That is not so.

The hon. member says that is not so. Those are the figures given by the hon. Minister in reply to a question in this House. He said that there are 62 884 White employees who earn less than R200 per month. The hon. member for Potchefstroom should spend a little time on investigating matters before he makes stupid interjections. When one looks at this figure of roughly 63 000 employees in this income category, one finds that the total number of departmental houses which are available, is 23 000. So one can understand that, when a Railway employee goes to the Department and asks what chance there is of his being housed, he is told that he is one of 40 000 Railway employees looking for accommodation in departmental houses. Their struggle to try to find alternative accommodation and to try to house their families in the present property market can only be imagined. I am sure that the hon. Minister can understand what problems they are facing to try to secure houses. Something must be done about it. I know that the hon. Minister will ask me where the money will be coming from. In the Estimates before us we have R6 million this year. He will put the jackpot question to me by asking me where the money must come from in order for his Department to do it. The question was raised by the hon. member for Constantia this afternoon in regard to the investment of certain capital funds, which are referred to in the Accounts. The hon. Minister will be aware of these. There are funds being invested at the present moment at 4.5 per cent and even at a lesser figure of 3 per cent through the Central Government. The hon. Minister said earlier, before dinner this evening, that he was negotiating for a higher rate of interest. It seems to me that these superannuation funds and pension funds, which are held by the Administration, can well be invested in immovable property. It is a principle and a practice accepted and recognized by pension funds throughout South Africa. They invest in immovable property. What better investment is there, as far as the hon. Minister and his Department are concerned, than to invest in immovable property to provide housing for its own employees? First of all, the employees are in his employ and the rental payment, whatever it might be, is guaranteed because it is a deduction from their salaries. Secondly, in so far as investment by this method is concerned, there will be no reduction in the interest rate which is at present being earned by lending this money through the Public Debt Commissioners for Central Government purposes. Thirdly, he will have a contented staff, because housing will be obtainable in satisfactory circumstances and to a satisfactory degree by them. Fourthly, there is the principle which has been adopted by pension funds in the private sector that, by investing in immovable property of this nature, the fund will have a built-in capital growth factor in their investment, which is lacking at the present moment. I want to appeal to the hon. Minister—I do not expect him to say what his policy will be on this matter this evening or tomorrow—to look into it. When one looks at the capital sums which are available, which are given in his memorandum before us, one sees that these are considerable sums. The Pension Superannuation Fund alone consists of R582 000 000, which might be utilized and, I believe, could profitably be utilized in providing more housing for these persons, whose plight will become worse and worse each year and each month in finding accommodation which is suitable for them within the range of the incomes which they earn. On the normal basis of assessment of the amount which should be paid in rent, which is 20 per cent or one-fifth of their income, the people who are earning R200 a month should not be paying more than R40 per month for their houses, and there are those who are earning between R200 and R100 and even below R100 per month. Can the hon. Minister think of an area where a family home can be obtained, in any of the cities and towns in South Africa, at a rental of R40 per month, unless it is provided through the Administration itself on a sub-economic basis? I hope the hon. Minister will give consideration to this matter and assist in this problem of the Railway employee. [Time expired.]

Since I want to raise a matter with the Minister which pertains solely to my constituency. I do not want to become involved in an exchange of words with the Opposition by referring to the speech of the previous speaker. The matter I want to raise with the hon. the Minister is one that has, to a large extent, already grown dim in the thoughts of people elsewhere in South Africa and is now a matter of history. In my constituency, however, this event has not yet faded from memory and does not yet completely belong to history. I am referring to the unfortunate school bus disaster that took place in my constituency almost 14 months ago.

I can gratefully tell the House and the hon. the Minister this evening that the community has survived the shock. In some cases it has left scars. The community has done its duty in respect of the honourable commemoration of the children who died. The community has, inter alia, erected name-plates at the various schools. They have also established a beautiful garden of remembrance, as well as a monument to the one boy who performed an extraordinary deed of bravery. I refer to a 17 year old boy, Johan le Roux, who was the bus prefect and also leader of his school’s Voortrekker Commando. When it became clear to him that a collision between the train and the bus was unavoidable and that he could jump out in time, he first threw small children in his immediate reach out of the bus and to safety, so the surviving children tell us. Only when they were safe did he jump out, but for him it was too late because he jumped into the oncoming train and was mangled beyond recognition. The community erected a monument to him. Local authorities, and I am now referring in particular to the relevant school board, contributed their share towards trying to alleviate this problem in so far as it was in the community’s power to do so. I am referring to the local school board which changed and amended the school bus route so that 135 school bus pupils no longer need to be transported to school over that dangerous crossing. This has resulted in many of the children having to cover quite a few more miles every day, in order to get to school, and this means that many of them have to spend more hours every day in the school bus and on the roads. The parents and the children gladly make this sacrifice. They still see the crossing every day, but they are grateful and they realize and believe that the authorities and the hon. the Minister propose building a fly-over bridge there. The children will then again be able to take the shorter route to school. The neighbourhood as a whole will then feel safer again. Although it was an accident in the true sense of the word, as I have said last year, and the Railways were really not responsible for it, hon. members will understand that the people still look at that crossing with an ache in their hearts. And the people are also anxious that I should make representations to the hon. the Minister to please do everything in his power to expedite that service.

As far as I myself am concerned, I want to say that it is not pleasant to speak about this matter. I therefore really hope that when I speak about this matter again, perhaps next year or the year after, I can on that occasion convey my thanks and that of my constituency to the hon. the Minister for the work which, so we believe, will then have been completed.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to follow the hon. member for Heidelberg up in what he has just said. He spoke about a matter affecting his constituency. I think, however, that the hon. member is entitled to expect that this House, and also this side, should continually think back to that disaster that struck him and his constituency at the time.

However, I should like to come back to the hon. the Minister’s reply this afternoon about why the transportation of fruit and other agricultural products in South Africa cannot be excluded from the additional 10 per cent increase in the rates. I am extremely disappointed that the hon. the Minister stood up here and said that although he is sorry he cannot grant that concession. But the hon. the Minister has given no motivation whatsoever for saying that the Railways cannot see its way clear to letting it apply to fruit as well. One would expect considerable grounds on which to justify the hon. the Minister’s action. But he did not take us into his confidence at all. He only said that he was sorry that he could not do it.

I now want to give the hon. the Minister further reasons why I hope that he will change his opinion and also include fruit in the seven categories he mentioned. I should like to refer to the hon. the Minister to the figures of the Department of Agriculture itself so that he can see that this is a considerable item and that it would affect the incomes of a large number of agriculturists in South Africa. In the first instance I want to refer the hon. the Minister to the quantity of local and export fruit controlled in South Africa by the Deciduous Fruit Board, so that the hon. the Minister can gain an idea of how many people and what a large quantity of fruit would now be subject to this 10 per cent increase. According to the latest figures at my disposal, namely those for the year 1968-’69, the total tonnage controlled by the Deciduous Fruit Board is 275 000 and a few hundred tons, 208 000 tons of which are exported. On that 208 000 tons of fruit this increased rate is not applicable. That is excluded. The fruit farmers are grateful for it. But the remaining 75 000 tons are either treated here in South Africa by the Deciduous Fruit Board as fruit that is sold fresh, or it is sold to canners who process it.

The transportation of this approximately 75,000 tons of fruit that is used by the consumer in South Africa or canned, will now be subject to a 10 per cent increase. This is a considerable fraction of the total. It is about 75 000 tons out of a total of 275 000 tons that are transported annually. The hon. the Minister must surely understand that when such a large quantity is involved it will not only affect the farmers’ income, but also to a large extent the cost of living. If the farmer were to tell the canner that he must pay the railage, something that will not happen, we would simply find ourselves in that case with a further increase in the cost of living in South Africa. But the more I study the hon. the Minister’s seven points, the more do I come to the conclusion that these seven categories are altogether inadequate when it comes to agriculture. Here I see, for example, that milk and cream that will be transported by passenger train will be excluded from the 10 per cent increase. However, what about the milk and cream with relation to the road motor service? There are so many people in the interior who produce cream but who are not near a train service and must make use of the road motor service. They send away their cream by road motor service, but then they are subject to this 10 per cent increase in the rates. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether they have not considered these matters. If one lives near to a train service and one has to transport milk and cream one is very lucky, but if one is not living near a train service and one then has to make use of the road motor service, one is unfortunately subject to this 10 per cent increase.

But it is surely an extension of the rail.

The point that is being made here, is that the hon. the Minister’s 10 per cent increase has a bearing on road transport, rail transport and air transport. However, in his category No. 4 he states very clearly that this is only applicable to milk and cream transported by passenger train. I hope this is a mistake. If it is a mistake, I hope that the hon. the Minister will tell us accordingly. It therefore looks to me as if these categories, which were created by the hon. the Minister, have undoubtedly not been well thought out. I do not know whether the hon. member for Walmer perhaps drew the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that mohair …

Yes, in respect of hides and skins.

The hon. member spoke of hides and skins; mohair is also included in this. We all know that the mohair industry in South Africa is almost at as low an ebb as the wool industry. This industry would also continually be subject to this 10 per cent increase. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to stand up here and justify his actions. Then we could perhaps understand his point of view, although it will be difficult to do so. However, the hon. the Minister stands up here and says that he is sorry that he cannot acceed to the hon. member’s request. That is not the kind of answer the hon. the Minister would give outside when the farmers of South Africa ask him such questions as these. I just want to give the hon. the Minister an example. Skins and hides are most certainly products which are, comparatively speaking, much lower in price than mohair and wool. I can give the hon. the Minister examples of people who in the past 14 days have sold 39 skins with a six months’ growth of wool on them, yielding R12.10 for the farmer. This is not an exception. It is happening from day to day because the market means absolutely nothing at all. Now the hon. the Minister comes along and burdens such an important item, for which the farmer receives virtually nothing, with an additional 10 per cent.

What is 10 per cent of nothing?

That is the hon. member for Parow—nothing plus 10 per cent. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not give his consideration to this matter. He must give us the answers and not just tell us that he sympathizes with us. The hon. the Minister must not just tell us that he is sorry for us, but that he cannot see his way clear. We are simply not prepared to accept these answers and I want to ask the hon. the Minister to take another look at his seven categories. I am certain that in a moment of sound judgment he will realize that injustice has been done to the agricultural industry and that this must be put right. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, before I come to a few matters concerning my constituency, I should very much like to associate myself with the hon. member for Uitenhage’s representations earlier this evening in respect of the re-employment of certain categories of pensioners. The same problem the hon. member broached also occurs in respect of pensioners in my constituency. I think that the hon. member’s idea deserves the Minister’s consideration.

We do employ them.

Yes, under certain circumstances, as the hon. member explained at length. I should just like to support the idea.

Secondly, I should like to convey a word of thanks from my pensioners for the concessions made to them in this Budget. After the Budget I was asked specially to convey the thanks of these men, who served with the Minister on the footplate, to the hon. the Minister. It is a word of thanks that comes sincerely from their hearts. I want to assure the hon. the Minister that these pensioners, ex-Railwaymen, still regard him with the greatest reverence and feel the greatest loyalty to him after their years of service with him.

With regard to constituency matters, I should like to point out the increasing demands that the growing Verwoerdburg is going to make on the Railways in the future. Already there is a daily traffic through my constituency’s four suburban stations of 69 passenger trains, 86 goods trains and 10 parcel trains. This is in respect of the four stations Kloofsig, Verwoerdburg, Sportpark and Irene. Virtually 40 000 passengers make use of these train services every month. Because of the great demands made in order to push sufficient passenger trains along this stretch, goods trains must frequently and inevitably be delayed on the route from Johannesburg to Pretoria. From Johannesburg to Elands-fontein there are already four adjacent lines carrying this traffic, but from Elands-fontein through Verwoerdburg to Pretoria there are only two. Since this Verwoerdburg complex is now maintaining a very high growth rate, particularly the area between the main railway line and, incidentally, the Ben Schoeman Highway in the direction from Johannesburg, it is expected that within the next decade the population there would increase to about 30 000 Whites, who will chiefly be working in the Pretoria, the Johannesburg, the Kempton Park and, of course, the local area. However, it will be chiefly in Pretoria and Johannesburg.

As a result of that, I want to lodge pleas with the hon. the Minister in respect of two matters. The first is that consideration be given to also providing the stretch from Olifantsfontein to Pretoria with another double line. It will cost money, but it will be a good investment, the kind of investment the hon. Opposition has spent the whole day indicating that they do not want because it would cost money in the future.

Secondly, I want to mention the fact that with regard to a present-day view of Verwoerdburg the idea of proper and profound regional planning in this rapidly-growing and dynamic area south of Pretoria must be given high priority. In this regional planning the Railways must inevitably have their share with regard to the planning of the whole infrastructure of the new growing area. This planning is going to make very heavy demands on the Railways in the future. It may even be necessary for us to view the needs of this area in a particular way. In the future it may also be necessary for us to plan an alternative double line for the existing main line between Pretoria and Johannesburg. Sir, it is an inescapable fact—everyone travelling on that route knows it—that the main line between Pretoria and Johannesburg is the most strategic link between those two vigorous cities and is therefore highly vulnerable. If this line is damaged, whether as a result of military operations, which we hope will not happen, or as a result of natural phenomena that may occur in that area, a very important strategic communications route will be cut, even if it is only for a few hours or days, with the result that the entire linkage system will come to a standstill. In my opinion sound regional planning of the area will require a second link in the future, perhaps to the west via Randburg and west of Valhalla and Voortrekkerhoogte in the direction of Hartebeestpoort Dam, which would also perhaps become a junction route for our middleveld cattle farmers to the abattoirs that are being planned near Hartebeestpoort Dam. Sir, these are only a few guidelines for possibly fitting railway planning into the regional planning that is in progress in this high priority area.

Sir, with a view to the present I should like to make representations to the Minister for the rapid establishment of a fly-over bridge at the railway crossing at Rayton station on the main line route to Lourenço Marques. I am glad to be able to say that it is a matter that is already enjoying the attention of the Administration. In my area several fly-over bridges will have to be built over railway lines, and there I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Heidelberg who came forward with a very strong plea for safety. Since these flyover bridges are being planned, I should very much like to advocate that right from scratch, when such fly-over bridges are built in urban areas, adequate provision should be made for bicycle lanes alongside the motorways in the middle. Those fly-over bridges are used daily by hundreds and hundreds of school children riding to school by bicycle, and their lives are placed in danger because those flyover bridges are only built for motor cars and are not meant for school children on bicycles.

Since Verwoerdburg station already handles a daily average of 500 passengers, and since the volume of goods traffic is increasing daily, inter alia, with respect to the large-scale delivery of Defence Force supplies, I again want to make a plea here for the modernizing of the station buildings, particularly in respect of the existing goods shed. The same applies to Rayton station. Sir, my Railway people work very hard and very faithfully, and they are very loyal. More convenient working conditions will spur them on to even greater efficiency.

Sir, lastly I want to pay one compliment to the Railways Administration in connection with a matter which is perhaps not always noticed in passing. On page 33 of this fine Annual Report of the General Manager of the Railways attention is given to the time-keeping in respect of train movements. Since the Opposition so readily criticizes the Railway staff about their inefficiency, I should like to indicate here that 94 per cent of the more than 900 000 passenger trains that ran reached their destinations on time. The percentage in the previous year was 93.2 per cent. Sir, it is indeed one of the finest testimonials of extreme efficiency and a smooth-running railway machine.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to continue from where I left off this evening. I was dealing with the responsibilities of the wharf foreman and the assistant foreman. I would like to take this a bit further and just remark how astounded I was when the hon. the Minister expressed his appreciation and thanks for what the staff had done over this difficult period. Now, I also appreciate that. Very much so. The appreciation shown by the hon. the Minister for his departmental heads rather shook me when during last year’s recess I found these young fellows coming to me with charge sheets. Apparently these follows had been working rather long hours. They got tired in due course, I suppose, and decided they were going to be late for work as much as one to two hours. I have charge sheets in my office in respect of which a man has been fined R35 for being late at work.

Was that for the first time?

Mr. Chairman, I do not think I will even bother to answer that hon. member. These are all Whites that have been fined to this extent. Then I also have a charge sheet for a Bantu who had failed to turn up for evening overtime and was fined a rate of R1 per hour. I just could not credit this till I got the proof.

Seeing I have gone as far as that in that particular grade, I should now like to go over to the other grade in respect of which according to the Minister I said: “Ek gaan ou Ben opneuk”, or something to that effect. I am not going to try “neuk” you “op”, Mr. Minister. Honestly, I do not think I am capable of doing it.

I wonder what the hon. the Minister really thinks about our running staff. I should not say “our” because I am not there any more. The position simply is that everybody on the Railways, as well as the public generally, should be very concerned at the extensive hours being worked by our drivers. I get sent for at various times by these people when they are in trouble. I quite see how they do get into trouble. You get some of these men working anything from 12 to 19 hours per shift. As far as I am concerned, this is just not good enough. It is in fact dangerous, very dangerous. You find a man coming off a 12-hour shift, and after having booked off, he is immediately put on to another train to act as an assistant to the driver. That is putting him on a 18-hour shift. These people have accidents—what I am saying now is factually correct—serious accidents. They cause a tremendous amount of damage to rolling stock and tracks. When I was told this I immediately asked the person concerned to give me the number of hours he worked over the 6-weeks’ period prior to the accident. I was astounded to see how much overtime these fellows were really working. I received a report, but I would not like to say whether or not it is factually correct. I should however like to bring to the hon. the Minister’s attention what was told me. I have no reason to believe that these people told me an untruth.

A driver’s pay is R293 per month. That is the wage of a topgrade driver. The names of three drivers were given to me who earned R1 000, R1 010 and R993 respectively. This is what they actually received at the end of that particular month. If this is fact, then I think that everyone in this country has reason to be greatly concerned at this state of affairs. I would like to appeal to the hon. Minister and ask him just what is going to happen about this, because the time is going to come when there will be a very serious accident, probably with terrible loss of life. What is going to happen then? I know that accusations are then going to be levelled at the hon. Minister. I know that there is a terrible staff shortage in his department. Such long hours are being worked because there are not enough assistants and drivers. Meanwhile new lines are being opened daily. Where is the staff going to come from? I think that this is something about which all of us should be concerned. We must seriously consider the position.

What do you suggest should be done?

Why do you not just mind your own business and listen?

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the matter is with these hon. members. This is a very, very serious matter and I am amazed that they adopt the attitude they are adopting. I hope that the Press will let the public know that they are laughing at a serious matter of this nature. My appeal to the hon. Minister is to reassess and, if possible, reorganize the whole of that bread-and-butter section of the staff, because I feel that there are certain sections where there probably could be a White labour saving. I have other ideas about that, but I do not think I have enough time at my disposal to say what I think about this particular idea. Nevertheless, I appeal to the hon. Minister to go into this matter, reassess the position and, if possible, re-organize it so that something can be done to eliminate the terrific shortage of drivers. I think that that is all I have to say at this stage.

You have got four minutes left.

Have I got four minutes left? In spite of what the hon. Minister told me, that he thought that the wages that these people earn were quite sufficient, I beg to differ. It is my candid opinion that the position about these jobs is not going to improve. They never will. They are going to deteriorate, because people are not going to enter the service and work for the wages offered to them and, above all, they are not going to work those long hours to be able to earn a decent living. I think that that is all I want to say at this stage.

Before we adjourn, I should just like to reply to a few points raised by hon. members. The hon. member for Uitenhage requested the appointment an inter-departmental committee for giving pensioners a hearing. He said the committee should be under the control of the System Management. This is with regard to their employment. I have been informed that in cases where the department has their addresses, most of these pensioners can be contacted. In any case, a committee is not needed for this; there are employment officials in every section. Any pensioner who is physically and mentally fit and who wants to work again if there is a vacancy, perhaps not in the same grade in which he previously worked, will be taken into account for employment. If a person was a locomotive driver, he will not necessarily be re-employed as a driver. If this were to happen, he would be standing in the way of others as regards promotion. However, provision has been made that where there is a shortage of staff, pensioners may be employed.

†I am afraid I cannot argue with the hon. member for Kensington if he bases his speech on a newspaper report. I have not seen the newspaper report myself.

It is your newspaper.

It makes no difference whose newspaper it is. I know newspapers as well as that hon. member does.

Do you call them liars?

No, I am not calling them liars, because I have not read the report. I can therefore not argue with the hon. member. What I do suggest is that before the fares are officially announced, it is impossible to deal with individual fares now; with metrication on the one side and the 10 per cent increase on the other it is impossible to deal with it across the floor. The hon. member can raise the matter again in this House.

I can give you the cutting.

It is no use giving me the cutting. As I have already said, it is only a newspaper report. I do not even know whether it is an official one or not.

*The hon. member for Bethlehem requested that additional facilities be provided at a few small stations in his constituency. I do not know the position at these stations, but the Management can investigate it. In regard to the Sick Fund, I may just mention that it is controlled by the staff themselves. They are responsible for the medical benefits provided, for the amount of the contributions and for the appointment of doctors. The entire matter is solely in their hands. In addition, the hon. member requested that a new railway line be built from Afrikaskop to Witsieshoek over Bethlehem. I have already explained where and how railway lines are built. It is done only if it is economically justified, if it is necessary for departmental purposes or if they are guaranteed railway lines. More than this I unfortunately cannot tell the hon. member.

†The hon. member for Green Point raised the matter of housing for staff. He is speaking to a converted man. I would like to provide as many houses as possible, because it is only by giving your men housing that you can have a stable labour force. That is why it has been my policy, funds permitting, to build departmental houses for members of the staff. I might tell the hon. member that at present the Administration is losing R11 million per year on departmental housing because rents are so low that they do not even cover the cost of maintenance or of the interest on the capital involved.

It is unfair to those members who do not have departmental houses.

Quite true. This is a special privilege for those members of the staff who have departmental houses.

How can R11 million be lost on 23 000 houses?

Yes, but we are building houses continually. The hon. member himself said that R6 million is provided for housing this year. As regards the suggestion he made that the funds of the Superannuation Fund be used for this purpose, I can only say that this is a matter which is under consideration at the present time. I can assure him that I realize the necessity of providing as many houses as possible. Since I became Minister 16 years ago it has been one of the priorities, funds permitting, to provide housing for the staff. This is the only way one can combat the huge turnover of staff.

The hon. member for Heidelberg asked how far we had progressed with the building of the overhead bridge where that tragic accident took place last year. The planning in regard to the Henley-on-Klip crossing has been completed. Tenders will soon be called for by the Transvaal Roads Department. The work is being financed from the Level Crossings Elimination Fund and I therefore hope that the work will start soon.

The hon. member for Newton Park said that milk and cream transported by rail were not subject to the 10 per cent tariff increase, but that it was applicable to the transportation of these products by the Road Transportation Service. However, I can give the hon. member the assurance that this increase will not be applicable to milk and cream transported by the Road Transportation Service. In regard to hides and skins, I may just say that it will in fact be applicable to them, except when they are intended for export. I have said that even in the case of mohair intended for export, where special export rates are applicable, the 10 per cent levy will not be applicable. But mohair for local use will in fact be subject to it.

The hon. member for Pretoria District asked that the goods sheds, etc., at Verwoerdburg station and Rayton station be modernized. This will probably be done when these stations have their turn. However, at this stage I cannot say when this will be. In addition, the hon. member requested that the railway line between Pretoria and Olifantsfontein be doubled. I am sure it will be done in future, because it will become essential. However, I cannot hold it in prospect for the immediate future. He also pleaded for an alternative rail ink between Pretoria and Johannesburg. This has not yet been considered at all. I doubt if it will be built in our lifetime, because it will involve expenditure of many millions of rands. Furthermore, although it will have strategic value, it will be a line which will not be essential for many years to come.

†The hon. member for Umhlatuzana referred to the case of a White worker and a Bantu worker who were fined for being late for work. The White worker was, I think he said, fined R20, whilst the Bantu worker was fined per hour. The hon. member knows that these disciplinary cases are dealt with by the management and that all the workers, except the Bantu workers, have the right of appeal. If such a worker is a permanent or a temporary official, he has the right of appeal to his Head of Department and eventually to the Railway Board. I cannot deal with disciplinary cases unless they come before me by way of appeal. That is the only way in which I can deal with them. I have no knowledge at all of these two particular cases.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana also spoke about the long working hours of the footplate staff. I agree with him. I do not like those long hours at all. However, I am afraid there is no alternative. The wheels must be kept rolling and the trains must run. I must say, however, that footplate staff, drivers and firemen, can of course claim 12 hours rest at their home depots according to the regulations. If they turn out in under 12 hours, they do it voluntarily. At a foreign depot they can claim eight hours rest and if they turn out before the end of that eight-hour period, they do it voluntarily. However, I do not agree with the hon. member that accidents are the result of long hours. I receive a report of every serious accident that happens. In the report it is stated how long the servants concerned were on duty during the previous shift and the shift during which the accident happened. We find, therefore, that in regard to the accidents which are attributed to the drivers’ extraordinarily long shifts, the statistics reveal that drivers were held responsible for 78 or 14.74 per cent of the 529 serious accidents which occurred during the financial year 1969-’70, i.e. 38 collisions and 40 derailments. After inquiry the drivers were held responsible for those accidents. In the case of 38 collisions only five were caused by drivers who had been on duty for more than 12 hours, whilst only four, that is 10 per cent, of the 40 derailments, involved drivers on duty over 12 hours at the time of the accident.

That is a lot.

No, it is not a lot. It is a very insignificant number of the total number of accidents. I do not regard it is significant at all. As I have said, I do not like these long hours, but there is no alternative. I have received complaints that the goods are not being moved and that the Railways cannot transport all the goods offered. If I had to lay down a rule that a driver is not allowed to work more than eight or ten hours, then of course many more trains would be cancelled than are being cancelled at the present time.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? May I ask the hon. the Minister whether he agrees that overtime can be earned to the extent which the hon. member suggests he had been informed?

I do not know. However, I doubt it, because R1 000 per month is a lot of money for a driver to earn. He has to work a lot of overtime and Sunday time to be able to earn that amount. However, I do not deny it. I will rather have an inquiry into the matter and see whether the hon. member is right or not.

That includes his basic salary, of course.

Yes, of course.

I know of some drivers who earn up to R800 per month.

It is possible. As I say, I do not deny it, but I will have an inquiry into the matter to see whether it is true or not. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana wants to ask a question as well.

Mr. Chairman, I was wondering if the hon. the Minister, as I have mentioned earlier, would not consider increasing the wages of the bread-and-butter people so that more people can be encouraged to come into those grades. People for those grades will not come because of the low salaries. I am just wondering if it is possible to pay these bread-and-butter people higher salaries so that people could be encouraged to come into those grades.

You cannot single out a particular grade for higher wages. When higher wages are granted it should go right through because there is a relation between the one grade and the other. If I have to take checkers for instance and give them a special increase, it would again affect dozens of other grades. Then ever-body would come along and say that they want increases as well. We have to keep the balance and the relationship between these different grades. My experience has been that increasing the wages does not solve our manpower problems. Take shunters for instance. I have increased shunters’ wages considerably over the years. At one particular stage I gave them a special bonus of 50 cents per day but it has not improved the position of shunters at all. They simply do not want to do that job. That is why there is a very serious shortage of shunters, especially in Natal. That will not solve the problem. The trouble is that immediately I pay higher wages, the outside companies who want those men outbid the Railways, and they pay still higher wages.

Surely these people are important people. They are the backbone of the Railways.

All the people in the Railways are the backbone. The platelayers, for example, are also the backbone, because they are necessary and they are an irreplaceable cog in the whole wheel. So are the drivers, the firemen, the checkers, the shunters, the guards, the conductors and the station foremen. All those graders are absolutely essential for the running of the Railways. You cannot single out one particular grade for a special increase and not do it for the other. They are all indispensable. They all form the backbone of the Railways.

Mr. Chairman, when I took part in the debate on Monday, I dealt mainly with the problem of the exportation of ores. I referred particularly to the planning and building of the railways to Port Elizabeth and the possibility of building a railway line to Saldanha.

Order! I hope the hon. member will not carry this too far, because it falls under Harbours, which still has to be discussed and which I have not yet put.

Mr. Chairman, I shall not go into the question of harbours as such. I merely want to deal with the building of railway lines for the transportation of the ore. This evening I must express my disappointment that the hon. the Minister did not think fit to reply to my request. I referred to the fact that the country’s economy was going through a very difficult phase and that our trade balance was showing a large and growing deficit. I also indicated that we had an urgent need for increased exportation. In this regard I referred to the fact that it is extremely difficult to expand our exports in respect of manufactured goods. The possibility does exist that by exporting ores we can expand our exports and thus restore some equilibrium to our trade balance. The problem is, of course, that the ores cannot be transported to the coast. For this reason I put a question to the Minister which I regard as an extremely important one. I tried to put it on a very reasonable basis and I think the hon. the Minister will concede that I did so very courteously as well. All the Minister said in his reply was that the contracts in regard to Saldanha had not yet been finalized and that he was therefore unable to take a decision. I am convinced that many of the relevant facts are already known to the Minister. I am convinced that he probably knows much more about the matter than I do. But I think he will concede that the facts which are already known, the circumstances surrounding the whole matter, the needs of the country and the urgency of the matter should make it possible for him to decide with a measure of certainty what direction he should take.

The matter is extremely urgent, because we have the problem that the international markets where we will have to sell our ores are very competitive at the moment. At present there is a tendency on the international ore market to conclude long-term contracts. Our competitors are very active on these markets, and if they succeed in concluding long-term contracts on a large scale, our own chances for the future will of course be limited to that extent. There are many industrialists, businessmen and miners in this country who are perfectly able and prepared to continue developing their mines in order to produce the ores which our country needs so urgently. Their problem is simply that they are not able to conclude the long-term contracts—not necessarily those which will take effect from tomorrow, those which will commence in perhaps over four or five years’ time. They must conclude those contracts now, urgently and without delay. They simply cannot conclude those contracts before they have certainty about the possibility of transporting their ores to our coasts.

I therefore appealed to the hon. the Minister to take this House into his confidence and, by so doing, also to enable the country and the industrialists, the developers of our mines, the producers of our ores, to take decisions, to go overseas and conclude contracts which will enable the country to export the ores in due course, something our economy needs so urgently. Therefore I again appeal to the hon. the Minister on some occasion or other to give this House and the country a full reply on this extremely important and urgent matter.

Mr. Chairman, if I have ever been sorry that we do not have television in South Africa yet, it was this evening, so that the population and the public of South Africa could have seen how politically stupid hon. members opposite are. One United Party member after another stood up after the esteemed hon. member for Umhlatuzana and caused him tremendous embarrassment by trying to criticize the hon. the Minister for allegedly having misused a file. What did the hon. the Minister do? With all due respect towards the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, he jokingly said to him in the spirit of one railway worker towards another who had worked together for years, “I sat waiting for you, but I just want to tell you, before we join issue, that you had a fine record in my department”. Where could this House find a better example of political friendship than what happened today when the hon. the Minister spoke to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana? In spite of this, hon. members opposite rose with complete arrogance and acted in a politically tactless way. They thought they were embarrassing the hon. the Minister, while they were in fact embarrassing the hon. member opposite.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.