Mr. Speaker, I move—

Hon. members will observe from the documents which have already been laid upon the Table that provision is being made for additional expenditure to the amount of R19 069 100, which has to be met from Revenue Funds during the 1973-’74 financial year. This brings the revised Estimates up to R1 322933 000.

The additional appropriation under Railways—Head No. 4: Motive Power Operating Expenses—amounts to R4 961 000. The additional amount required is for the increase in the price of fuel.

Provision is being made under Head No. 7—Superannuation—for an amount of R2 355 000 for the Administration’s increased contribution to the Superannuation Fund as a result of the increase, with effect from 1 December, 1973, in the contribution scale of members and in the ratio at which the Administration contributes to the Fund.

An amount of R2 195 000 is required under Head No. 19—Miscellaneous Expenditure—for, inter alia, an increase in the Administration’s contribution to the Benevolent Fund, the payment of premiums in respect of currency term cover on foreign loans, ex gratia payments, grants-in-aid to the local authorities of Rosmead and Waterval Boven and the adjustment of revenue and miscellaneous expenditure in respect of guaranteed lines serving non-White townships.

Under Airways—Head No. 31: Working and Maintenance—additional provision to the amount of R9 270 000 is being made of which, inter alia, R1 120 000 for administrative and general costs is required for exchange rate losses, R5 300 000 in respect of flying operations, primarily as a result of the increased price of fuel, and R1 600 000 in respect of passenger services as a result of increased expenditure on meals.

With regard to additional expenditure on capital and betterment works, hon. members will observe that an additional amount of R28 050 000 is required. It is possible, however, to finance an amount of R10 050 000 from savings under existing appropriations, while it is possible to meet R10 million from the Reserve Account of the Sinking Fund. This, therefore, leaves an amount of only R8 million which requires to be voted from loan funds.

Initially an amount of R25 million was requested from the Treasury as additional loan funds, but as I have mentioned, only R8 million is now required from this source—resulting in a saving of R17 million in respect of loan fund requirements for the present financial year. Hon. members will agree with me that this retrenchment on the part of the Railways is indeed a significant contribution to the curtailment of Government expenditure.

Under Head No. 2—New Works on Open Lines—an additional amount of R22 962 600 requires to be voted. Of this amount more than R700 000 is required for urgent work which was, in the interim, financed from the item “Unforeseen Works”, and for which specific provision now has to be made, while an amount of almost R1,8 million in respect of delayed debits of more than R10 000 each against a particular work, requires approval in accordance with a, resolution of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours.

An additional cash provision of R1 218 000 is required for the second stage of, the new goods lay-out which is being constructed at Cambridge, East London. In this connection I want to explain that owing to the increase in the cost of labour and material since the estimate for this work was prepared, and the fact that it was found, as the work progressed, that additional facilities were required to handle the traffic, the total estimated cost of the work will have to be increased by R2,4 million to R8 608 600.

Debit balances in subdivisions of the Betterment Fund, increased costs and earlier deliveries entail that an additional amount of approximately R1,2 million for workshops machinery and cartage equipment requires to be voted.

As a result of the escalation of material and labour costs, the expedition of work by contractors and the quicker delivery of material for major projects, a further cash provision of approximately R15 132 000 is required.

The industrial area Prospecton, which was established a few years ago near Isipingo on the Natal South Coast, is only partially served by private sidings. To make it possible to handle the traffic of industries that do not have private sidings at their disposal, it is necessary to provide station-to-station facilities. In the interim the goods-shed loopline at Isipingo station, which allows space for 35 short wagons, is being used as a station-to-station line, but this arrangement is not very satisfactory because it impedes operations at the goods-yard. At present 11 industries are making use of this line, and it is expected that this number will progressively increase to approximately 60. Consequently it is necessary to provide station-to-station facilities soon. In addition to this, land is also required for the establishment of large-scale goods facilities to make provision for the expected increase in traffic when the Bayhead goods depot reaches saturation point. The only available land on which to establish the aforesaid facilities consists of industrial sites there which are being offered for sale. It is in the interests of the Railways that the land be acquired now, particularly since prices will rise and the consideration will soar if the sites are first allowed to be developed. An amount of R1 840 000 is necessary in order to acquire the land.

Under Heads Nos. 6 and 7—Airways and Pipelines—an additional cash provision of R1 550 000 and R1 000 000, respectively, is being requested principally as a result of the escalation of material and labour costs.

With regard to Head No. 8—Working Capital—an additional amount of R1,5 million is required for the house ownership scheme.

It is also the intention to make provision for a number of urgent new proposals, in each case by means of a merely nominal cash provision, which cannot without detriment be held over until the Estimates of Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works for 1974-’75 are approved later on in the year.

Summarized, the position is that an additional amount of R19 069 100 for expenditure to be met from Revenue Funds and R28 050 in respect of Capital and Betterment Works, requires to be voted.

Mr. Speaker, as is customary, this Bill will, for the most part, be dealt with in detail during the Committee Stage. The Second Reading debate is not the appropriate opportunity for discussing those particulars. I do not, therefore, want to react to the particular facts mentioned by the hon. the Minister, except to refer to the practice of using the Additional Appropriation to place capital works on the Brown Book—a practice which is becoming more frequent every year.

†This practice of using the Additional Estimates as a mini-Budget, where in fact it is not considered against the background of capital budgeting as a whole, and does not receive the attention which it would normally receive, is, we believe, not a sound one. We are asked here to deal with pages of items where a nominal amount of R100 is to be voted. In other words, they are not items which are going to be proceeded with during the current year; they are not items where there is going to be actual expenditure, but this puts them into the Brown Book and they then come forward in the main Budget as approved items which then carry the seal and approval of this House. Sir, it is impossible in a debate such as this to deal with each of these items; to deal with all the details of the items for which a nominal amount of R100 is being asked simply in order to put them on record. We feel that this habit does not accord with the best parliamentary traditions, and although we are obviously not going to oppose the Second Reading, we feel that we should make our point of view clear at this stage and then we will proceed to deal with the detailed items in the Additional Estimates in the Committee Stage as usual.

Sir, this is quite an exceptional year. As the hon. member will realize, the Budget will only be presented in the second session this year. There are a number of urgent items for which parliamentary sanction must be obtained, and that is the reason why these items have been placed in the Additional Estimates, but only a nominal figure of R100 is to be voted. These items cannot stand over until the Budget has been passed by Parliament towards the end of the year.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Schedule 1: Revenue Services:

Railways: Head No. 7.—“Superannuation”, R2 355 000:

I can appreciate the reasons furnished by he hon. the Minister in the Second Reading debate as to why there should be an increase in respect of the Superannuation Fund, for this fund is of course responsible for the pensions of railway workers. Could the hon. the Minister tell us what the extent of the deficit in that fund is at present?

This fund is subject to an actuarial examination from time to time and the last examination was carried out a year or two ago. Since then, of course, the position has changed entirely. Towards the end of last year considerable improvements were effected in the pensions of railwaymen. The result was that they had to pay additional contributions, and the contributions of the Administration increased as well. This is the reason why these amounts appear on the Additional Estimates.

But my question was whether the hon. the Minister, to substantiate his reasons, could tell us what the present aggregate deficit is.

I do not have figures for the aggregate deficit with me at the moment.

But it runs into several millions of rand.

Head agreed to.

Railways: Head No. 19.—“Miscellaneous Expenditure”, R2 195 000:

I refer firstly to the special contributions to the Benevolent Fund and would like to ask the hon. the Minister to give us further details on that, with particular reference to the amount which comes to the Benevolent Fund from the fines imposed through disciplinary action against members. The Benevolent Fund receives those moneys and to my knowledge there are a large number of people being fined every day. Could the hon. the Minister relate this additional amount to the financial state of the Benevolent Fund and what it is to be used for?

I should like to refer to item “C”, which merely states “other items” and amounts to almost R3 million. I wonder whether the Minister can give some indication as to what is involved in these items in view of the fact that it is such a large amount of money, nearly R3 million.

Under the same heading, item “B”, a new amount is being introduced into the Railway Budget for this year, an amount of R1 006 000, under the heading “Forward exchange cover on foreign loans”. I refer to the comments of my hon. friend, the hon. member for Durban Point, about introducing new items in an additional appropriation like this. Surely this falls beyond the scope of the points raised by my hon. friend, the member for Durban Point, because we do not have merely an amount of R100 introduced as indicating a new amount, but an amount of over R1 million, and this is under the heading of “Forward exchange on foreign loans”. Now, if this is the case, the hon. the Minister must take this Committee into his confidence. What loans have been raised, and where have they been raised, and what amounts? If R1 million is the forward cover, I submit that these must be fairly substantial loans which have been raised. This Government is going into an election. I believe that the people of South Africa should be entitled to know from the Minister what amounts have been raised and why they have been raised and where they have been raised.

In reply to the hon. member for Durban Point, I can give him the following information: increased provision for supplementary allowance payable to pensioners as a result of the increase in the minimum income levels from R118 to R130 a month for married people, and from R59 to R65 a month for unmarried pensioners as from 1 April 1973; the temporary allowance payable to non-Whites has also been increased as from 1 April 1973 from R20 to R22-50 a month for married Coloured staff, and from R17-50 to R20 a month in the case of married Bantu workers, all non-White single staff having been increased from R11 to R13 a month. The supplementary allowance is paid out of the Benevolent Fund, and that is why this additional amount is required.

The hon. member for Umbilo raised item “C”, but if he looks at the Additional Estimates he will find that no additional amount is required, so the matter cannot be discussed at all. We can only discuss additional amounts.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District wanted to know about item “B”. The reply is that the forward exchange cover is arranged with the S.A. Reserve Bank to safeguard the Administration against losses on the repayment of foreign loans due to exchange fluctuations. The total of the foreign loans which the Railways have obtained overseas amounts to R81 million. That was during the course of the year.

From which countries were they obtained?

Mainly from Germany.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. the Minister for his reply relating to the Benevolent Fund. May I ask him whether he could give us any further information in regard to the loans? He mentioned a figure of R81 million which was obtained mainly from Germany. Is he prepared to give the House details of the number of loans and where the loans were obtained?

Then, Sir, I wish to refer to item (a) under the column 2 items, namely the ex gratia payments in respect of claims lodged as a result of the passenger accident on the Potgietersrus-Opblaas section. The amount involved here is R200 000. This is a new item and, as such, may be debated. Therefore I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister the principle which is involved in compensation to persons killed or injured in railway accidents. I want to ask the hon. the Minister why this should be an ex gratia payment. Surely, if a person is travelling on a train and that person is killed or injured as a result of an accident to that train, it is not a question of ex gratia compensation or of charity. It is a question of his right to be compensated. We have had this type of thing before, in respect of other cases, where it appears that the attitude of the Administration to a claimant is: “You are going to get as little as we have to give you”. Claims are opposed even as far as the courts. Unless a person is legally represented and can really protect his interests, the compensation paid is very often negligible. Very small amounts indeed are paid. I feel that there is a moral responsibility involved which goes far beyond the payment of ex gratia amounts, and I should like the hon. the Minister to give the House his policy in respect of accidents and claims by persons injured in accidents, setting out clearly the value which he places on the legality of a claim as opposed to the moral responsibility of the Railways towards a person who has been killed or injured as a result of travelling in a train or on other railway transport. I leave the matter there and ask the hon. the Minister to set out the approach of his department towards such claims. I should like him also to tell us what the position is in regard to this Potgietersrus accident. I should like him to tell us how this amount of R200 000 is made up and how the claims which have been made have been handled.

Mr. Chairman, my reply to the hon. member for Durban Point in regard to this particular matter is as follows: On 31 March 1972 passenger train No. 601 was derailed between Potgietersrus and Opblaas, resulting in the death of 39 and injury to 203 non-White passengers. The board of senior officers which investigated the accident found that fish-plates, bolts and clips had been removed from the rails and sleepers in the vicinity, resulting in a derailment. The Administration, just like any other person, is subject to the laws passed by this House, and although not legally liable, the Administration decided to consider the 198 claims lodged, and to compensate on a ex gratia basis. If the Administration had been legally liable, ex gratia payments would not have been made. But in this particular case it was no fault of the Administration that the train was derailed. It was entirely unforeseen and due to sabotage.

Was the line inspected?

The line is always inspected, but not every half hour, as the hon. member knows. The anticipated amount to be paid during the current financial year is estimated at R200 000, for which a State President’s special warrant has been obtained. This amount does not represent the final settlement of those claims. This is the amount required for this particular financial year. The money is being obtained by means of a State President’s special warrant.

Can the Minister give us the amount of the claims?

No, it varies from person to person, depending on the extent of the injuries.

Can the Minister give us the total amount?

No The claims are still being dealt with; they have not yet all been finalized. Until they have been finalized we cannot give hon. members the full amount.

I shall furnish a reply to the question put by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District at a later stage.

Head agreed to.

Harbours: Head No. 21.—“Working and Maintenance”, R185 500:

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he could give us an explanation of the increase in dredging amount to R185 500. Originally it was estimated for an amount of R734 000, but since the amount has jumped up to R919 500. I would like to get an explanation from the hon. the Minister in regard to this matter. This subhead falls under account No. 2123.

The reply is that the expenditure in respect of dredging is higher than it was anticipated. The hon. member knows that with the estimation of costs you cannot foresee the increased cost of labour and the increased cost of material. The cost of every work that is undertaken increases continually.

I would like to know from the hon. the Minister at what port this dredging is taking place. Is the dredging done under contract or is it being done by the Railways and Harbours Administration?

This subhead concerns the dredging which is being done by our own dredgers at the different ports.

Head agreed to.

Airways: Head No. 31.—“Working and Maintenance”, R9 270 000:

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to account No. 3101, “Administrative Expenses”. Could the hon. the Minister please explain why there was an underbudgeting of 25% in administrative expenses which one expects to be a fairly stable expenditure?

Mainly higher exchange losses. Whilst claims on Airways transactions are negotiated, except at IATA exchange rates, gains or losses are registered on the actual transfer of moneys internationally in the settlement of accounts. Such losses are debited against Airways expenditure account No. 3101 whilst the gains are credited to the Airways Miscellaneous Revenue Account. Therefore it is a question of gains and losses.

I can give the information to the hon. the member for Pietermaritzburg District who asked a question in regard to the loans. The Administration’s foreign borrowings were arranged in separate borrowing operations comprising a public bulk issue of 100 million Deutsch Marks and a few inter-bank loans mainly from German, American, Swiss and French banks.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has given us the figure which indicates an increase of over R1 million in respect of losses on the exchange. Can he tell us how much was gained? In other words, how much was paid into the miscellaneous expenditure

This is not under discussion.

It is the second time the hon. the Minister has not been able to reply to a question of mine.

I take the strongest exception to such allegations. If the hon. member knows the rules of the House he will not ask stupid questions. At the moment he is only confined to the Additional Estimates.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to account No. 3162, which provides for an additional expenditure of R1 600 000. This additional amount is needed for meals, dry stores, liquors, accommodation, etc., on passenger services. I have noticed that the increase amounts to an increase of almost 40%. Was this due to the fact that the improved services on the Airways were not contemplated? Has it anything to do with any change in the provision of additional foodstuffs, meals or other refreshments which are supplied on passenger services? I ask this because I see that some of the refreshment services on short trips like between Johannesburg and Durban have been curtailed entirely. This has been done quite correctly to my mind, but it would be interesting to know how this underestimate took place or why it was necessary to ask for this vast sum of R1 600 000.

The reply is very simple. It has been caused by the fact that more passengers have been making use of the service and because of higher prices.

Mr. Chairman, in regard to account No. 3143.—“Agency Fees and Commission”, can the hon. the Minister tell us to whom this account was paid?

Mr. Chairman, this higher amount was paid out in commission to agents as a result of increased traffic.

Not for the purchase of aeroplanes?

No.

Mr. Chairman, will the hon. the Minister please repeat the reply given to the question by the hon. member for Jeppes?

I said it was due to more passengers and higher prices of food.

Thank you, Sir. In regard to account No. 3112, the additional amount to be voted is an increase of almost 25%. This is in regard to the price of fuel and oil. The comment at the bottom of this head states that: “The additional amount is mainly due to the increased prices of fuel, exchange losses, ’”. The main reason is, therefore, the increased price of fuel, but did the price of fuel really go up to that extent?

The hon. member knows what the increase in price of petrol is. There has been a corresponding increase in the price of aviation fuel, and this is the result of it. The increased price of fuel will not only be a factor this year, but it will be even more next year.

Mr. Chairman, arising out of the hon. the Minister’s reply, I want to say that to me this is somewhat inexplicable. The price of fuel has only gone up in the last few months. It is not as if it went up at the beginning of the year. The hon. the Minister also knows that he has curtailed services. I want to pay tribute to his staff. I had the privilege of flying on a direct flight from Durban to Cape Town on one of his aircraft only two weeks ago. It flew higher and more slowly and the captain told us just before we arrived in Cape Town that he by doing so and getting us here ten minutes late—which means nothing to anybody flying regularly—that he saved 800 litres of fuel. I accept that these measures have been taken, but I cannot understand why the hon. the Minister with the increase of fuel which comes at the end of his financial year, with the curtailment of services, with this sort of action which is being undertaken by the Airways to conserve fuel, he has to come and ask us for an increase of 25%. I wonder if the hon. the Minister can give us an answer to that?

Mr. Chairman, I would like the hon. the Minister to inform us whether in regard to this amount which is now being asked for, attempts should not be made to straighten the routes which are being followed by aircraft, for example between Cape Town and Johannesburg. I was interested to find recently when a captain of an aircraft indicated that having had permission to fly direct instead of the dog’s leg, he eventually managed a considerable saving in fuel. Has this matter been investigated and does this amount take into account the possibility of direct flights instead of the dog’s leg flights from Johannesburg to Cape Town?

Mr. Chairman, it is quite obvious that we would not put imaginary amounts on the Estimates. If the additional amount for the higher price of fuel and oil were not required it would not have been on the Estimates. That is elementary. The hon. member will be surprised to hear that in regard to aviation fuel, if the price is increased by 3c per litre it means an additional expense of R16 million for twelve months.

What is the percentage?

It is not a question of percentage. I am talking about the actual increase. The additional amount will then be R16 037 787 for one year. The hon. member must realize that the additional amount is also required for this year, namely from the time the price of aviation fuel was increased up to the end of March this year. This is the amount given by the Management, and I must accept it as such. I cannot argue with the hon. member concerning whether it is too much or too little. Obviously, if all this is not required, the amount that is saved will be carried over to next year.

I now want to come to the hon. member for Green Point. You cannot have all your aeroplanes flying direct flights from Johannesburg to Cape Town. They have to fly to where the radio beacons are. Safety requires that. The aeroplanes must be in continual contact with these radio beacons. That is why you find, sometimes, they fly a dog’s leg. The position has been investigated. Suggestions have been made that they should rather fly direct, but it is a question of safety. That is why they fly direct. However, everything possible is being done to save fuel. One of the reasons why the cruising speed of the aeroplane has been slowed down is to save fuel. That has resulted in a considerable saving in the amount of fuel used by the aeroplanes.

The hon. the Minister perhaps did not hear me when I said to him that I was, in fact, in an aeroplane that made the direct flight. Permission had been granted and, as far as one knew, there was no danger involved. I arrived safely at the other end.

It might have been a very clear day with no clouds at all.

There would be a considerable saving of fuel if that could be done on clear days. I think that if this gets done on a number of flights between these two centres, this would result in a considerable saving per month.

The hon. member can rest assured that we will do everything in our power to save fuel.

I thank the hon. the Minister for his reply but, with respect, the crux of the question I put to him is this: Is the hon. the Minister satisfied that there was not an error in the original Estimates at the beginning of the year? Is this really justified by the increase in the price of fuel or was there perhaps an error at the beginning of the year?

I am satisfied that there was no error. Of course, all humans are fallible, as the hon. member knows. There is the possibility that there might have been a wrong estimate. In other words, it is almost impossible to make a correct estimate since one does not know how many flights there are going to be. In addition, one does not know how heavily the aeroplanes are going to be loaded. It is the most difficult thing in the world to make an accurate estimate of the amount of fuel that is going to be used in 12 months. It is simply impossible to do so.

Head agreed to.

Net Revenue Appropriation Account: Head No. 54.—“Contribution to Sinking Fund (Redemption Account)”, R100:

Mr. Chairman, I would be grateful if the hon. the Minister could explain why it is necessary to put a token vote of R100 on to the Additional Estimates in order to deal with the Sinking Fund, concerning which an amount of R5 745 600 has already been approved?

The reply is that provision was made in the original Estimates for the fixed contribution of R5 290 679, plus an amount of R715 920, representing the 4½% contribution on the value of stocks redeemed. A larger contribution of R715 989-88 is anticipated and provision is accordingly made for an additional amount of R100 in order to obviate unauthorized expenditure under a column 2 item. As the hon. member knows, if there is a saving on a work appearing in column 1, it can be utilized to off-set expenses on another work, but this is not the case with items appearing in column 2. If all the expenditure incurred on an item appearing in column 2 is not provided for, the excess amount must be regarded as unauthorized expenditure.

In terms of section 19 of the Second Finance Act, No. 58 of 1966, a Sinking Fund consisting of a Redemption Account and a Reserve Account has been established for redeeming the Administration’s Loan Fund debt. An amount of R5 029 678-80 per annum, previously payable as interest on pre-Union capital, now set aside as an annual contribution to the redemption account. This is laid down in section 104A(5)(a) of Act 32 of 1961, as inserted by section 19 of Act 58 of 1966. This money is used to purchase stocks allocated by Treasury as part of the Administration’s Loan Fund debt. As these mature the loan account of the Consolidated Revenue Fund is credited and the Administration’s Loan Fund debt is reduced by the amount involved. On each amount redeemed and withdrawn from the Administration’s Capital Account, interest is no longer paid but an amount equal to 4½% of the stock redeemed is credited from Railway revenue to the Re demption Account each year to be used, also, for the further redemption of Loan Fund debt.

Head agreed to.

Schedule 1: accordingly agreed to.

Schedule 2: Capital and Betterment Services:

Head No. 1C—“Construction of Harbours”, R100; and Head No. 2.—“New Works on Open Lines”, R22 962 600:

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the hon. the Minister could give us some information regarding the progress with the planning of Richards Bay harbour. The first item refers to the Railways proportion of the development. Members of the Select Committee had the privilege of visiting Richards Bay during the recess. I think we were all extremely impressed and the House would be interested to hear from the hon. the Minister a progress report on the work going on there. Could he also deal with the housing situation at Richards Bay and the requirements of Railway staff there?

I cannot really give a report on Richards Bay under this particular item. This amount is merely required for departmental housing, and negotiations with the Richards Bay town board are only now being completed. I might say that the progress in regard to the building of the harbour of course is very good. I personally visited the harbour towards the end of last year, and I was impressed with the amount of work done and the speed at which it was being done.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to refer to item 205 on page 32 (R.P.8-1974), dealing with the amount of R44 400 in regard to equipment for noise measuring and aural testing in the areas of Durban and Pietermaritzburg. Could the hon. the Minister give some further information in regard to this item?

This amount is required for soundproof booths and audio-meters for noise measuring and aural testing mechanical workshops.

Rising out of his reply, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he could not have some of that aural testing done along the Esplanade in my constituency and that of the hon. member for Durban Central—to test the aural ability of the residents in the flats there to resistance of noise of trains shunting up and down the Victoria Embankment line? I am sure, if you are able to measure aural ability by means of equipment for aural testing, you should also have equipment to measure the noise level around the hospital and the residential area of the Durban Point and Durban Central constituencies. Is that possible?

That question does not fall under this head at all.

Mr. Chairman, I must admit to a terrible feeling of frustration and disappointment at the reply of the hon. the Minister. I had really hoped that at last the pleas which had been extended to him year after year since I have been here to do something about containing the noise pollution by his locomotives and marshalling yards would have had some reaction. It is all very well for the hon. the Minister to say it has nothing to do with this head. How does the item read?—“Equipment for Noise Measuring and Aural Testing”. Surely we were justified in raising our hopes that this hon. the Minister who is now about to leave us, was at last going to leave us with a legacy which was going to help the people of our various constituencies? My hon. friend, the hon. member for Port Natal, is unfortunately not here. I know that he would have added his voice to the plea I make that some attempt be made to cut down the noise pollution that emanates from the locomotives, particularly from shunting. In the Pietermaritzburg area, the people of Scottsville and his own people in Oribi Village are complaining about the noise of the shunting. His own people, his own employees, are complaining about the noise of the shunting at the bay head in the Port Natal and Umbilo constituencies. And then, Sir, the hon. the Minister turns round and says “this has nothing to do with that!” This is the whole crux of the matter. Why has it got nothing to do with that? It is all very well for him to say, and I agree with it, that he is conducting the investigations which he says he is conducting, but those investigations are within the workshops for the convenience of the employees of the Administration. I agree that that should be done. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible to extend that investigation to protect the interests of the public and of the members of the families of his staff who are upset by the noise of the shunting and other noises resulting from the working of his Administration.

Mr. Chairman, I should like some information from the hon. the Minister in regard to item 82 on page 15 of the Capital and Betterment Works Estimates (R.P.8-1974). This deals with stage three of the harbour scheme at Table Bay harbour. Provision is being made here for the railway works in connection with this scheme. The estimated total cost in this regard is R15 million, while provision is being made for only R100 this year. Could the hon. the Minister tell us what period of time it is estimated will be required to complete this third stage of this scheme? This is as far as the Railways are concerned. Later on in the Estimates there is an amount in respect of the third stage for the harbour works, but this is a different matter. Could the hon. the Minister indicate to us what progress is being made in this regard and the period over which this total sum is likely to be expended?

This item has been placed on the Additional Estimates so that the work can be commenced during the course of the next few months before the Budget is presented to the House. Obviously the reclamation work must be completed before a start can be made on the railway work. They are going to start before the end of the year. At this stage I am unable to say how long this work will take to complete. It is quite impossible to give any estimate in this regard.

Sir, I refer to Item 10 on page 5, “Catwalks on bridges”, and would like to say that I welcome the appearance of this item, even though it has taken so many years. I raised the issue of the danger to pedestrians crossing over rail bridges, particularly in respect of one bridge in Glencoe, with the present General Manager’s predecessor many years ago, and I have been fighting it for a long time. This is a danger to pedestrians which I believe could have been eliminated with very little cost. Although it is not specified here, I hope that the Glencoe bridge will be one of the bridges which will receive a cat-walk, as will the other bridges where pedestrians are forced to walk without any protection from the flow of traffic both ways. I welcome this new item and I hope the hon. the Minister can give us a few more details.

The hon. member’s remarks will be noted. I do not know which bridges are involved. This is only a nominal amount for which provision is being made here.

With regard to item 84, “Mossel Bay Harbour: Facilities for Fishing Industry”, can the hon. the Minister tell us whether this amount includes provision for the reconstruction of the harbour wall? The amount to be voted here is R16 600. I wonder if the hon. the Minister can tell us what additional amount is required to rebuild the harbour wall?

The reply is that the increased facilities were requested by the Department of Industries, from whom a portion of the cost is recoverable. The additional amount is required to meet the increased contract price in respect of earthworks, road bridge and asphalt surface. It has become necessary to make provision for this because of price variations.

I do not know whether the hon. the Minister is aware of the fact that the wall of that particular harbour collapsed. I do not know whether the contractor had to be paid more money. I do not know whether the Minister is aware of the fact that after the jetty had been completed it collapsed. It would be interesting to know what additional amount of money had to be voted for the rebuilding of the wall. Apparently the foundations of the harbour wall were not secure and had to be rebuilt.

I am afraid that the rules of the House do not allow me to go into the whole question of the Mossel Bay Harbour. I am only concerned with the additional amount to be voted here. That is the only reply I can give the hon. member at this particular stage.

I wish to refer the hon. the Minister to page 8, Item 32, “Cato Ridge: Remodel Yard”. This is a new item, for which a nominal amount of only R100 has been placed on the Estimates, but it would appear that the estimated total cost of the works is to be R3,7 million. I wonder if the hon. the Minister can tell us what he is going to do that is going to cost R3,7 million and what justifies an expenditure of R3,7 million on that small station.

This, of course, is an estimate of the eventual cost. Hon. members can be assured that with the cost inflation that we are experiencing at the present time, it will eventually cost very much more. This is to facilitate the handling of livestock traffic and also to deal adequately with suburban passenger trains. This is urgent work which must be commenced during 1973-’74. That is why provision has been made here for a nominal amount of R100.

To deal with suburban passenger traffic.

Yes.

Heads agreed to.

Head No. 5.—“Harbours,” R145 800:

Sir, I refer to Item 269 on page 44. We are being asked there to vote R100 for a new item, that is to say, Stage 3 of a scheme in Table Bay Harbour. The item preceding that is Stage 1. I wonder if the hon. the Minister could explain why we are being asked to vote for Stage 3 after Stage 1. What has happened to Stage 2?

I am informed that this is for additional berths to relieve the congestion in the harbour. Stage 3 mainly consists of quay walls and wharf cranes and tractors. That is why we have made provision in these Estimates for a nominal amount. It is urgent work which must be commenced during 1973-’74.

I take it from what the hon. the Minister has said that this is for the start of Stage 3, which will overlap with the Stage 2 work that is being done.

Head agreed to.

Head No. 6.—“Airways,” R1 550 000:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what kind of aircraft were ordered for R55 million? Could he please give us the particulars?

It has not yet been decided what kind of aircraft are going to be ordered.

†An evaluation is still being made. It is quite a lengthy process, as the hon. member knows. But provision must be made on the Estimates so that if orders are placed during the course of the year, parliamentary sanction will have been obtained. The Management has not yet decided and has not yet recommended to the Minister what particular kind of aircraft must be purchased.

Sir, when we dealt with the main capital Budget we raised the question of forward planning with regard to Airways and the fact that Airways were continually being overtaken by the demand for traffic. Here we are being asked to vote R55 million to buy aircraft without knowing what sort of aircraft it is going to be.

You are only being asked to vote R100.

Yes, R100, but with an estimated total of R55 million. Once we accept the R100, we are committed to the R55 million. Surely we as Parliament are entitled to know whether this is for short haul aircraft for internal traffic or whether it is for external runs. Surely the Administration has some idea as to how they are going to spend this R55 million. If this is for short hauls, then we would expect the hon. the Minister to give us information on some of the tests which have been made of the air bus, for instance, and the reaction towards it. If it is long haul, we should be able to ask the hon. the Minister for an evaluation between the Jumbo, the 747, and the smaller types of aircraft. Sir, I think it is complete contempt for Parliament for the hon. the Minister to come and ask us to give him a blank cheque for R55 million, even though he is only asking for R100 now, and then blandly to say, “We do not know what we are going to buy with it; we are going to buy aeroplanes but we do not know what sort”. How does the hon. the Minister know what sort of aircraft cost R55 million? Surely this figure must relate to something. Is it the cost of Boeings; is it the cost of a number of smaller planes, or of one big plane? What does it relate to? How is the R55 million made up? I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, we cannot simply accept the Minister’s answer that they are going to buy aeroplanes but that they do not know what they are going to buy. I think we are entitled to know much more before we can place this item on the Brown Book. Although the amount is only R100, we are in fact committing ourselves to an estimated total cost of R55 million. This item will appear on the Brown Book as an approved item next time, and we will not then be able to debate it or to question it because it will be an approved item. Sir, this is the stage at which the matter should be discussed, and that is why at the Second Reading I raised the question of this growing practice of putting new capital items on the Additional Estimates. This is not the time to make this sort of decision. The purpose of the Additional Estimates is to deal with urgent matters, with miscalculations and under-calculations, in respect of the current year—in this case the year which ends on the 31st of next month. We then deal with items the cost of which were underestimated last year, and with emergency items which have come forward. But, Sir, this is not an emergency item. What is the emergency about it if we do not even know what we are going to buy? It is so urgent that provision has to be made for it in the Additional Estimates and yet we do not know on what this money is going to be spent. I hope the hon. the Minister will be much more frank with this Committee and give us some more information on this item.

This is merely to obtain parliamentary sanction. Parliament only sanctions the purchase of aircraft and there will be many opportunities of discussing in the future the type and the make of aircraft. When the Brown Book is presented later in the year hon. members will have a full opportunity of discussing the items. But I have here the information from the Management. It is a minute I received on 5 November last year. It says—

Now, of course you do not buy these aircraft off the rack. The hon. member knows that it takes 18 months to two years before delivery takes place—

That is what is happening now, rows of six seats instead of five—

Now, this is the forward planning the hon. member spoke about. We are planning now for what is going to happen in 1976—

Now, these are the studies that have to be undertaken. We want parliamentary sanction for this amount but the studies are being undertaken and it is a possibility that orders will be placed in future, after they have made the necessary evaluation and decided upon a suitable type of aircraft, for both the overseas and domestic routes. That is the only reply I can give to the hon. member.

Thank you. That is more like an answer. That is what we wanted in the first place. If the Minister had said that in reply to my first enquiry, I think everyone would have been satisfied. That is the sort of answer which Parliament expects from the hon. the Minister.

Now may I refer to this question of the six instead of five seats in a row. I am not thinking entirely of myself but there are other people like myself who find the six-seating, the six seats in a line, on continental airlines most uncomfortable indeed. I would hate to see the reputation which our Airways have as one of the finest internal or external airlines, spoilt, Internally I do not think there is an airline in the world which can compare with us. We have the comfort and we have the service and we have the reputation—or let me say we had—which far exceeds any other comparable airline. But it looks now as though we are reducing ourselves to the third rate level of continental internal services where you sit with your knees under your chin. It will be dealt with in the Part Appropriation in more detail in regard to other aspects of the service, but I raise only the one which is appropriate now and which I submit can be discussed now because we are talking about seating capacity. We are voting money to deal with a required number of seats rather than a required number of aircarft. Is the Minister satisfied that this is essential, that it is the only way in which we can operate economically, and will not have a backlash by making our internal air travel less attractive than it is at the moment. Will we not find that people will tend to avoid the discomfort of a two-and-a-half to three hour flight if they can possibly do so? I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to tell us something of his policy on this subject. Is it purely a question of “how much money can we squeeze out of the travelling public?” without any care for their comfort? What is forcing the Administration to this step, which involves using aircraft with a higher seating capacity than we have had in the past?

Mr. Chairman, there has always been economy class seating in the 707s used on the overseas routes. The seats have been placed six in a row. The overwhelming majority of passengers travel economy class. They are prepared to suffer the discomfort of a narrow seat in order to save quite a few hundred rand on a trip overseas from South Africa. The same type of seating has been installed in our domestic aircraft. There are additional passengers and they have to be accommodated. I can only tell the hon. member that if he cannot fit into one of these seats, we can always lift the armrests for him!

Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would give us more information as to how the shortage in the number of seats is calculated. Here I might mention my own experience in using the airways. Only last week I attempted to make a booking on an evening flight from Johannesburg to Cape Town. I was told that the flight was fully booked and that there was not a seat to be had. Eventually I was told that I could come along because they might be able to get me a seat. I was then told that there had fortunately been one cancellation. The aircraft was only two-thirds full. One finds this over and over again, and it does not seem necessary to have the discomfort of three seats on both sides of a narrow aisle in an aircraft. I know the hon. the Minister’s difficulties; bookings are made and no penalties are imposed when they are not taken up, but I wonder whether this is not something which should make one think again about increasing the number of aircraft and the question of capacities because of the high cost of fuel and because of losses which are incurred when people book and do not make use of their bookings. Some penalty should perhaps be imposed when seats are not taken up. As I have said, this happens over and over again. The hon. the Minister told me some years ago that there were problems in this regard because of international aviation treaty agreements. It seems, however, that this problem has not yet been solved. I wonder whether this has been taken into account in asking us to vote R55 million for further aircraft, when aircraft are not travelling fully laden on the internal services at the present time.

I can give the hon. member the assurance that the additional capacity is needed. The number of passengers has increased considerably and most of the services are fully booked. Most aircraft are loaded to capacity. There are sometimes vacant seats when additional freight has to be carried. Especially on through flights this has to be taken into consideration.

Then there are many “no-shows”. No penalties are at present imposed on passengers who do not turn up. They book through agents. Air travel is so highly competitive today that one really has to pamper passengers if one wants to retain them for one’s own service. As I have said, the agents do most of the bookings, and not the South African Railways. I have been very dissatisfied over the question of these “no-shows”. I know that some aircraft leave ten or fifteen minutes late, and there are numbers of passengers waiting to see whether a seat will be available for them or not. The Management is giving this matter continued attention. We hope that the position will improve. I can, however, give the hon member the assurance that the additional seating capacity is absolutely essential on most of our routes.

Mr. Chairman, arising out of the hon. the Minister’s reply, I wonder whether he could give the Committee a little more detail in this regard. It appears that there must be some agreement between the Administration and the travel agents. He referred to agents, and I presume he is referring to travel agents. He said that travel agents were responsible for the majority of the bookings. Is that correct?

Yes.

The hon. the Minister also referred to “no-shows”. Are these firm bookings and tickets taken up by travel agents that are keeping the lists for aircraft full?

The hon. member knows that all bookings have been computerized. The travel agents get the necessary information from Airways offices in regard to whether seats are available or not. They sell these seats as well as the tickets. There is a rule which stipulates that they must obtain the tickets a number of hours before the departure of the airoplane. I cannot recall exactly how long, but they have to be in possession of the aeroplane tickets a number of hours before the plane leaves.

The period is two days or 48 hours.

Still, in spite of that, many passengers simply do not show up. That is the reason why we always have a waiting list of stand-bys to fill the vacancies if necessary.

You cannot go on stand-by.

Yes, there are standbys.

There is no waiting list.

Yes, but there are people who are waiting at the airport to see whether they can get a seat. If somebody does not turn up and take his seat, they give that seat to the person who is waiting. Sometimes there are as many as between 16 and 20 who are waiting for a seat.

At the airport only.

Yes, they are waiting at the airport.

This is a very involved and a very difficult question. The Management is giving continuous attention to this matter to see how this practice—the practice of booking a seat and not turning up—can be eliminated. That delays the aircraft or it happens very often that an aircraft has to fly with a third of its seats vacant. I have also just been informed that it happens very often that overseas visitors are booked on the internal services by overseas agents. That is a very involved position but we are doing our best to fill up these planes. I can assure hon. members that the additional capacity is required for the additional passengers.

I thank the hon. the Minister for his reply. I must say that I am fully aware of the difficulties which he is experiencing since I have just experienced it myself. This is particularly the case with flights which start at Jan Smuts Airport and which connect with international flights which arrive off-schedule. However, this is also happening in respect of internal flights from other centres. It does not only happen at Jan Smuts. The international flights which are off-schedule only affect the internal flights from Jan Smuts Airport and to a limited extent Cape Town and Durban. However, the public allege that they are unable to get on flights while the flights are leaving half full because travel agents have taken up block bookings. I am sure that it would go a long way towards re-establishing the confidence of the public in his Administration if the hon. the Minister could give this Committee an assurance this afternoon that everyone of the “no-shows” does in fact hold a ticket. We want the assurance that we do not have a situation where travel agents take block bookings without buying tickets, thereby keeping genuine passengers off the aircraft.

I can only say that that matter is receiving continual attention. Obviously the Management is as anxious as I am to have full flights instead of half capacity flights. I have already suggested that passengers must be penalized if they do not turn up, but there are many difficulties in this regard. First of all they do not want to antagonize the agents and they do not want to antagonize the passengers. As I have said air travel is very highly competitive nowadays and the agents can very often affect the number of passengers which are diverted to a particular airline. However, these matters are receiving attention. I myself have found that planes on which I was booked, had to leave 10 to 15 minutes late because they had to wait for passengers who had not shown up or wait for passengers to take up the vacant seats. However, that matter is receiving attention.

Head agreed to.

Schedule 2 accordingly agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill before the House makes provision for expenditure in an amount of R1 120 million, which will be sufficient for approximately seven months of the financial year 1974-’75. R850 million is required to cover expenditure to be defrayed from revenue funds in respect of the maintenance and operation of all services, and R270 million to enable the Administration to proceed with its programme of capital and betterment works until such time as the Budget for the financial year has been approved.

History has it that in ancient Greece it was the custom that when a man proposed a law in the popular assembly he did so on a platform, with a rope around his neck. If his law was passed, the rope was removed; if it failed, the platform was removed.

Perhaps it is fortunate in this day and age that we need not put as much at stake as in those early days, but hon. members will recall that soon after I took up my present portfolio I understood to withdraw from public life if I should not be able to overcome the challenges facing the South African Railways. This is the twentieth successive year in which I have presented Railway matters to this House and I am proud of the fact that throughout those years events have proved that my faith, both in this Government and in the Management and staff of the South African Railways and Harbours, has not been misplaced. It is, therefore, not only justified, but incumbent upon me today that I should give an account of the manner in which the task entrusted to me has been fulfilled, before proceeding to deal with the matters pertaining to the Bill now before the House.

The efforts and achievements of the past two decades must, of course, be judged against the background of the goals that had to be set with the then available resources. These goals were, as would be expected of a dynamic organization, to keep abreast of demands and developments by increasing carrying capacity, providing adequate facilities, tractive power and rolling stock, and to enhance efficiency in the technical, operating and administrative fields. Time has provided ample proof that, despite the difficulties encountered from time to time, they have been pursued with success. In fact, in looking back over the past two decades, it would be no exaggeration to say that a revolution has taken place in our national transport undertaking.

During this time the total single track kilometres was increased by the construction of several vital new lines. But more noteworthy would be the improvement of track capacity.

A continuous process of strengthening existing track in accordance with increasing requirements has been followed by adopting the most advanced engineering techniques and equipment such as concrete sleepers, long-welded rails and mechanized maintenance procedures. The broadening of the narrow-gauge line in South-West Africa—a distance of 568 km—which was completed in 1960, was a particular highlight amongst the schemes already brought to fruition, whilst other projects, such as the coal-export line from Broodsnyersplaas to Richards Bay, embracing both new construction and improvement works, amply illustrate the Railways’ part in providing a stimulus to the country’s economic and industrial development.

The electrification programme completed during my term of office added nearly 7 000 track kilometres, or 250%, to this category of traction and involved sections such as Potchefstroom-Klerksdorp-Beaconsfield; Kamfersdam-Hotazel; Bellville-Beaufort West; Vereeniging-Kroonstad-Bethlehem; Witbank-Komatipoort; and Glenco-Hlobane.

The most modern and highly sophisticated signalling and communication equipment available adapted to local conditions, has been installed. The introduction of Centralized Traffic Control, for instance, has brought about vast savings in time and staff, apart from the better co-ordination of train movements and supervision. The improvements brought about in this way can be gauged by the fact that running times for goods trains on the sections concerned were more than halved. On completion of the various schemes now under way the department will have 2 800 route kilometres under C.T.C. operation and will be one of the world leaders in this field.

The Administration now also has at its disposal the most modern computers which are widely applied in the several fields as valuable operational and control media and effective tools in the hands of the Management.

There are about 1 200, or nearly 39%, more locomotives in service today than when I assumed the portfolio. This improvement is even more significant when measured in tractive power which has increased by 65% and includes electric locomotives built in South Africa, the first of which was placed in service during 1963.

Developments in the field of goods and passenger vehicles have been phenomenal, not only in respect of numbers and capacity, but also in so far as new types and designs are concerned.

The number of passenger coaches increased by 2 800, or about 50%. The comfort and tasteful interior decor, mechanical and other technical features such as sliding door coaches for efficient and safe handling of suburban traffic, were notable innovations.

A new type of ore wagon, with a load to tare ratio of approximately 4 to 1, has been developed. This, coupled with the use of roller bearings, air brakes of the latest design and high-powered diesel-electric locomotives, which can be operated in multiple, permits of exceptionally long and heavy unit trains being run. The inventive techniques applied in this new concept of railway operation have revolutionized the old-established thinking on the so-called limitations of the 1 065 mm gauge.

Other special type trains, which have already become regular features, are the new Blue Train, which is not only an outstanding technical achievement, but a source of domestic pride and international prestige for both the Railways and the country and has already become a unique tourist attraction; the motor car trains consisting of specially constructed two-tier trucks; and scheduled trains for containerized traffic incorporating specially designed flat trucks. In this regard it must be pointed out that more than 3 600 departmental containers have already been placed in service.

The number of goods trucks increased by approximately 72 700, or some 82%, whilst here has, in fact, been 100% capacity increase. In catering for the needs of specific users a variety of trucks has been specially designed; for instance, bogie wagons for palletized fruit, mechanically refrigerated wagons, bogie copper grain wagons, open bogie wagons for the conveyance of steel, flat wagons for the conveyance of timber, and wagons for the conveyance of sugar cane.

During the period under discussion the total route kilometres of the department’s road transport services has been increased by more than 9 500, or nearly 22%. The process of modernizing the vehicle stock was kept up. Special attention has also been paid to the acquisition of goods vehicles for the conveyance of abnormal loads, the largest in service today being capable of carrying a 200-ton load, whilst the luxury passenger buses acquired for inter-city and other tours are equipped with such facilities as air conditioning, radios, refrigerators and toilets.

The S.A. Airways celebrated its 21st birthday soon after I became Minister of Transport, and its 40th on the first of this month. Its development has not only kept pace with world standards, but in many respects its achievements have been spectacular in comparison therewith. During this time we experienced the advent of the jet era and the total number of passengers conveyed annually rose by some 1 702 000, or almost 800%. It seems unreal that it was only on 21 April 1956 that DC-7B aircraft were introduced on the Springbok route, and that those aircraft were involved when on 22 August 1963 a serious situation was overcome by the introduction of the new route along the west coast of Africa to the United Kingdom and Europe. Two years later it was decided to buy our first three Boeing 707 jet aircraft and I need not say anything more about the subsequent expansion of our jet fleet.

The sustained growth in the South African economy necessitated the continuous expansion and improvement of our harbours and harbour facilities. The closure of the Suez canal in 1956-’57 and again since 1967 gave added impetus to this development. Although most of the Suez-diverted vessels only required supplies and bunkers, many had to be berthed at quays and cranes required for normal cargo working.

Over the years cargo-handling equipment has been continually improved and augmented. More and modernized cranes were provided. During the late 1950s cargo handling was completely mechanized with the introduction of fork-lift trucks, side loaders and straddle trucks, culminating in the acquisition of large side loaders capable of handling international containers.

Apart from cargo handling plant, the physical growth of the harbours has been impressive, even dramatic in some cases. Table Bay Harbour, for instance, was provided with a tanker berth in 1956. Ten years later the eastern mole was moved out on the seaward side and a tanker basin, enclosed on three sides and protected by an oil barrier across the entrance, was provided which could accommodate two tankers simultaneously and was linked to the local refinery by pipeline. A passenger terminal was taken into use during 1957.

An achievement which still gives me great satisfaction was the opening during 1959 of the new pre-cooling stores in Table Bay Harbour, a year ahead of schedule, after the earlier stores had been destroyed by fire the previous year. A less obvious but nevertheless important improvement to this harbour was the widening of the entrance to the Duncan Dock by 50% and the provision of protective moles.

The outer harbour scheme is steadily taking shape as hon. members, no doubt, would have noticed. This impressive addition to the facilities in Table Bay which also includes an extension to the break-water and a lay-by berth inside the eastern mole of the Duncan Dock, will provide the port with eight additional berths served by the necessary road and rail facilities, as well as the necessary facilities for the future handling of containerized cargo.

As South Africa’s busiest port, Durban harbour maintains a steady growth rate regarding berthage and facilities. Comprehensive improvements were made to Maydon Wharf and Point Docks while the turning basin was enlarged during 1958. A highlight of this development was the construction of the T-jetty which provided seven additional berths, and the modern marine terminal which was taken into use during 1962.

Continued pressure on this port necessitated the building of two piers and a cross berth at Salisbury Island. Pier No. 1 has seven berths and, together with the cross berth which can accommodate two vessels, is already in use, while Pier No. 2, which has four berths and roll-on-roll-off facilities, is nearing completion.

In Port Elizabeth harbour an R8 million ore-loading plant was commissioned during May 1963 and the storage bins have subsequently been enlarged.

The turning basin at East London was enlarged and a modern grain elevator provided, the storage capacity of which was-increased to more than 75 000 metric tons during last year.

These improvements have all been satisfying, but I am convinced that the highlight of my term of office, in so far as harbours are concerned, is the start of construction work on the new deepwater harbour at Richards Bay. I have great faith in this project, and as we could plan it from scratch I am sure that it will become one of the major trading gateways to South Africa and one of the most efficient ports of call on the trade routes of world shipping.

Besides the wharfside development, the provision, of floating craft naturally also kept pace. Many tugs, dredgers, pilot boats and launches were placed in service either as replacements for obsolete craft or additional units to handle the increase in shipping and also the large vessels calling at our ports. During 1969 an interesting development took place with the introduction of the first two diesel-electric tugs, while the first tug fitted with multi-directional propulsion equipment was placed in service during 1972. During this year a further four such tugs will be placed in service whilst a diesel-powered tug fitted with two propeller-steering units has been ordered.

Another transport arm was added to the services of the South African Railways when the first pipeline for petroleum products from Durban to the Reef came on stream during 1965. At that stage it covered a route distance of 718 km, but with the extension of the network to Pretoria and the Western Transvaal and the provision of a second pipeline for the conveyance of crude oil, pipelines now cover a route distance of 1 894 km.

When I presented my first Budget as Minister of Transport in 1955, the total expenditure to be defrayed from revenue Funds amounted to R318,6 million, which figure increased more than fourfold to nearly R1 304 million in 1973-’74. As far as the Capital Budget is concerned, expenditure totalled R101 million in 1955-’56, while for the year 1973-’74 this expenditure had increased to R383 million.

Since I assumed office, Parliament has appropriated an amount of R2 600 million for investment in the capital assets of the Railway Administration, which has increased the capital account by more than 370% from R700 million to R3 300 million.

Other noteworthy events on the financial scene were the legislation passed last year to enable the department to obtain loans in the overseas capital market, and the provision in 1960 of a special fund for the elimination of level crossings which to date has contributed more than R33 million towards the elimination or safeguarding of some 360 level crossings.

It is to be expected that a fast-growing economy in a young country would subject personnel management to severe strain. Nevertheless, in reflecting on the events of the past two decades, I can only conclude that both the Administration and the staff, and particularly the relationship between us, have grown stronger. The attainments during this period would not otherwise have been possible.

There are many factors which contributed towards this satisfactory state of affairs—not the least being the basic loyalty of all sections of the staff—but several positive steps to achieve greater efficiency and higher productivity as well as to maintain the co-operation of the staff, merit special mention. Scientific management techniques are foremost and include the establishment and development of the Planning, Marketing and Vocational Sections. In addition, improved work study and accident and claims prevention procedures have been introduced with appreciable success. Mechanization and automation are also being increasingly applied.

I could address hon. members at length on the extent of the salary and wage increases and other improvements granted since 1954. The estimated total value of salary and wage increases granted amounts to nearly R300 million per annum whilst the introduction of the holiday bonus scheme and the five-day working week received considerable appreciation.

Superannuation benefits were also appreciably enhanced during the past two decades and in this connection it is gratifying that it was possible for me only recently to approve a further significant improvement in pension benefits.

I wish to stress the fact that negotiations with the staff have been conducted in such a manner that sound relationships and cooperation could be maintained although there have, as hon. members know, been difficult times and we have not always seen eye to eye on all issues.

Keen competition in the labour market, brought about by a buoyant economy, has resulted in shortages being experienced in certain grades of staff. The improvement in service conditions to attract applicants as well as the measures introduced to ensure the effective use of available manpower did not bring about a complete solution to the problem, but I am pleased to say that the decision to extend the employment of women and non-Whites has paid handsome dividends.

The combined efforts of the Administration, Management and staff have met with considerable success. Whilst the total number of staff has increased by almost 19 000, or about 9%, during the period 1955 to 1973, the tonnage of goods railed increased by more than 54 million, or 83%. Goods conveyed by road increased by 1,5 million tons, or 67%, and air cargo from 2,6 million to nearly 420 million ton kilometres. Passenger journeys with rail and road services rose by approximately 115% and 6,5%, respectively, and tonnage handled at our harbours from 14 million to nearly 52 million.

I shall now give the House a resumé of the current financial year’s working and deal briefly with some of the more important revenue services and matters of general interest.

As hon. members are aware, the economy of the country started to recover towards the end of 1972, after a period of sluggish growth during the previous two years. This recovery is clearly reflected in the revenues derived from the Administration’s main transport services, with the exception of the pipelines. The tonnages of export ores, consumer goods, machinery and related items conveyed by rail are distinctly higher than during the previous year. The high level of both imports and exports has boosted harbour earnings, whilst S.A. Airways benefited considerably from higher passenger and cargo revenue on both domestic and external services. On the other hand, substantial increases in expenditure, especially in the case of Railways and Airways, have been experienced due to higher operating costs. Despite the rise in these costs it is expected that the current financial year will close with a surplus appreciably in excess of the R7,8 million for which I budgeted in March last year.

Train passenger journeys advanced by 16 million to a total of 396,6 million during the first eight months of the year as compared with the same period last year, an increase of 4,2%. This increase was, however, confined to third-class journeys which advanced by 18,5 million whilst first and second-class passengers declined by approximately 2,4 million and 0,1 million, respectively. Generally speaking, the pattern set by the trend of the past two years was again featured during this year and a breakdown of the figures reflects a continued decline in respect of first and second-class journeys, compensated by a satisfactory rise in third-class journeys.

The tonnage of revenue-earning goods, coal and livestock traffic during the period April to December, 1973, advanced to a total of 83,4 million as against 82,5 million during the corresponding period last year.

Unfavourable conditions in the agricultural sector resulted in a fall in the tonnage of vegetable products conveyed from 12,6 million tons to 10,5 million tons—a decrease of 16,4%. Drought conditions brought about a reduced output of basic foodstuffs and, in consequence of the decision to restrict maize exports, the quantity conveyed for export fell by 82,4% from 2,6 million tons to 0,5 million tons. Maize conveyed for inland consumption rose from 2,1 million tons to 2,9 million tons, but nevertheless total maize traffic dropped from 4,7 million tons to 3,3 million tons.

Ores conveyed for export advanced steadily and in the case of manganese, chrome, iron and magnetite ores increases of 39,4%, 7%, 36,5% and 6,2%, respectively, were recorded; the total tonnage conveyed amounting to 6,3 million as against 4,9 million during the first nine months of 1972-’73. Quantities of these ores conveyed to local foundries, however, fell by 38 000 tons to just over 6,5 million tons.

Coal conveyed for local consumption dropped minimally by 0,7 to 16,7 million tons, but export coal advanced by a satisfactory 18,5% to 1,1 million tons.

Although the numbers of first-class passengers utilizing the department’s road transport services continue to decline—the figure of 771 923 for the period April to December 1973 being approximately 3,2% below that for the corresponding period last year—third-class passengers on the other hand again reflected a healthy advance of 18,1%, from 9,8 million to 11,6 million. The total number of passengers increased by 16,5% to 12,4 million.

Goods traffic up to November increased by 3,5% to nearly 2,6 million tons, due mainly to the conveyance of more cement and steel for Government irrigation schemes and the development of Bantu homelands, but livestock and cream traffic again declined by 11,8% and 15% to 355 358 head and 3,8 million litres, respectively.

As a result of an increase in imports, the tonnage of cargo landed at the harbours during the first nine months of the current financial year increased by 19,9% to 23,9 million tons compared with the corresponding period last year. Cargo shipped, however, decreased by 2%, from 18,5 million to 18,1 million tons due entirely to lower shipments of maize and maize products, whilst transhipped cargo rose by 16,2% from 259000 to 301 000 tons.

Passengers carried on the external services by South African Airways from April to December 1973 increased by 23,1% to 362 562, whilst passengers on the internal services reflected a 27% increase over the corresponding period last year to a total of 1 399 595. Similarly, freight tons carried on the external services increased from 6 100 to 8 900 tons, and on the internal services from 13 800 to 17 300 tons—increases of 44,9% and 25,6%, respectively.

These factors, aided by an intensive sales promotion scheme; the successful launching of the Air Hotel Plan; a general improvement in the economic situation, as well as the higher productivity of manpower and equipment, have had a most beneficial effect on the finances of the Airline despite an increase in expenditure as a result of continued escalation of costs.

In this connection I should perhaps point out that the cost of fuel normally constituted approximately 12% of the total operating charge of commercial aircraft and that the increases in the price of fuel amounting to as much as 150% during recent months have compelled international airlines to raise their fares.

The effect of the fuel situation is, of course, not confined to air transportation. Even before the imposition of speed restrictions steps were taken to conserve fuel. The use of non-revenue-earning vehicles, in particular, was drastically curtailed. The staff, from the management downwards, is co-operating splendidly. Train and other public transport services are being resorted to and vehicles shared wherever possible. The use of oil for industrial heating purposes is being examined with a view to converting such installations to coal or electric operation. Rail, road and air services are continually being reviewed. The cruising speed of aircraft has been reduced. Besides these and many other measures adopted immediately, committees were established at headquarters, on all systems and in all departments, to take further action and to report regularly on results achieved.

It would appear, however, that the department’s policy on the type of rail traction employed is not understood in certain quarters. Let me say at the outset that studies conducted overseas and in this country have proved that by far the most economical method of overland transport, from an energy consumption point of view, is still the steel wheel on the steel rail. This means in effect that it would be to everybody’s advantage to ensure that rail services are fully utilized and, instead of being curtailed, rail capacity should be increased at an accelerated rate.

While the Administration is making an all-out effort not to be more dependent upon diesel fuel for traction purposes than is absolutely necessary to meet traffic demands, it will not be possible to achieve complete electrification. Certain of the shunting and branch line services will have to be worked with diesel locomotives. In addition, it will for economic and strategic reasons be necessary to maintain a reserve of diesel locomotives throughout the country to haul trains over “dead” sections in the event of power failures.

In this regard it must also be borne in mind that the capacity of a railway line operated with diesel and electric traction is much higher than with steam traction and that less staff is required to work diesel and electric units in multiple. Although the sale and dismantling of steam locomotives have been checked at present, it does not mean that electrification and dieselization programmes have been curtailed. On the contrary, it is the intention to proceed with additional electrification schemes, and with dieselization as an interim measure.

Each increase in fuel costs does, of course, advance the economic break-even point of electrification as compared with diesel traction, but it must be borne in mind that electrification has to go hand in hand with the provision of power supplies and the necessary distribution equipment.

There has been a major break-through in the application of electricity for traction purposes in consequence of which it has been decided to introduce the alternating instead of direct current system and the Broodsnyersplaas-Richards Bay section will be the first in South Africa to be equipped in this way.

Diesel-fuel consumption on the South African Railways is often seen in a distorted perspective, possibly because of Press reports which often comment only on certain aspects without sketching the whole picture. The position is that, based on 1972-’73 figures, the department (including S.A. Airways) used less than 8% of the total liquid fuel consumed by all sectors of the South African economy, whilst diesel for tractive power constituted a mere 2% of the total fuel consumption.

The picture I have just sketched gives a clear illustration of the department’s resourcefulness in coping timeously and in a balanced manner with changing circumstances—a good example being our handling of the energy crisis and its implications. Furthermore, it emphasizes this Government’s positive approach and our ability at all times to adapt ourselves to changing demands and to keep abreast of technical and other developments at home and abroad.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a sad moment when you reach the point amongst any group of people where you have to say “tot siens” to someone whom you have known and with whom you have worked for a long time. As this is the Minister’s last Budget, the last one in 20 years in which he has guided the fortunes of the Railways and Harbours, I want to crave your indulgence, Sir, to say a word about the man, the Railway legend, oom Ben, the man who rose from the footplate to the Ministry and who is now taking his engine to the sheds after the longest shift. He started off on the right track, Sir. He started off on our side, politically, but unfortunately someone switched the points and since then he has been politically led astray, but that does not stop me paying tribute to the Minister, the man who has run this department for 20 years. I think the hon. the Minister remembered some of the early lessons he learned when he was in a different political situation from that which he holds now.

During the many track miles that the Minister has logged up during these 20 years, things have changed quite a lot from the days when people used to talk about “blundering Ben” and “blustering Ben”. He still blusters a bit from time to time when he wants to get an opponent rattled, but the old nickname of “blundering Ben” disappeared many years ago. We have learned to know the Minister of Transport as a doughty opponent, merciless in attack, including personal attacks—that is part of the give and take of politics—often ruthless, particularly if he knew you were right but could not reveal your sources without disclosing information which you dared not disclose. I think three characteristics have marked his time with us here, his respect for parliamentary tradition, his knowledge of his department from the highest to the lowest and from the largest to the smallest details, and his loyalty to his men whether they were right or wrong. These are characteristics one must admire. The hon. the Minister spoke today of his undertaking to retire from public life if he did not make a success of the Railways.

I must say, Sir, that there were times when we thought the time had come for retirement. Be that as it may, I do not begrudge, and I do not think this House begrudges, the hon. the Minister the reminiscences of 20 years which made up his speech today, reminiscences of times when very often, as the Minister knows, the Railways could not carry the traffic that was offering, and times when it was in trouble. Despite those times the legend of oom Ben has grown up around our Railways.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister may have thought, when he refused to allow the adjournment of the debate at this stage, as has been traditional in the past in order to give us time to study his speech, that he would put me at a disadvantage. He need not worry; I was at a disadvantage anyway; it made no difference at all. And so, Mr. Speaker, it fell to me, in my first speech in this position, to say farewell to the hon. the Minister in this, his last financial measure. Who knows, perhaps the Minister is saving himself the embarrassment of sitting here in August instead of over there! [Interjections.] Really, Sir, when one looks around to see who is going to take the hon. the Minister’s place, one shudders to think of the possibilities. I have looked around and I cannot see anyone who can take his place. I did think for a moment of the hon. member for Yeo-ville, but then I thought of what the hon. the Minister of Transport thinks of his knowledge and ability in regard to the Railways. For instance, the hon. the Minister’s opinion last year was that the hon. member is “a sophisticated rhetorician, inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity”. The year before the hon. the Minister had this to say—

Mr. Speaker, I do not think we can have an actor taking over from the hon. the Minister. So, Sir, we shall have to solve the dilemma. Therefore I have approached my task in this debate from the viewpoint of how we will handle affairs when we take over, and how we will handle the seesaws of fortune of the Railways.

What strikes you, when you listen to a summary of the progress of 20 years, which the hon. the Minister gave us here this afternoon, is the continual amazement with which the Government seems to regard any growth or any progress. They seem to think that this is unusual, and that as soon as something improves they must broadcast it to the people. Surely improvement and progress are part of life. Yet, any sort of progress seems to be a constant surprise to the Government. Surely, in twenty years, the hon. the Minister did not expect us to be still messing around with bush-carts and ox wagons? There had to be progress just as there was progress all over the world. The question is whether that progress has kept pace with the demands and the needs of South Africa. That is the test which must be applied and not whether there has been progress or not. We must ask whether the progress has kept pace with the demands and the needs of the country. That is the test which has to be applied and that is the test which I shall try to apply in respect of some aspects of Railway affairs a little later.

The second thing for which this speech is remarkable is for what the hon. the Minister has not said rather than for what he has said. He has talked in generalities and he has summarized twenty years of development and progress. He has referred in general terms to the financial situation. But the only specific thing he dealt with was statistics of passengers, goods and air traffic growth etc. But when he comes to analysing these, all he says is that there will be a substantial increase over the R7,8 million surplus which was budgeted for. I should hope that there is going to be an increase, and a substantial one, but surely the hon. the Minister could have given the House some indication of what he expects that to be. There are figures published and it is generally expected that it could be somewhere in the region of R40 million. It may even be more; we do not know. Surely the hon. the Minister could have given us something more specific than merely that there would be a substantial increase on surplus. I say this because it is against what that surplus is going to be that one must measure what lies ahead. The hon. the Minister’s gamble came off and he is going to sit with a nice fat surplus. Perhaps he will be able to restore the bankrupt Rates Equalization Fund. But should the whole basis of transportation and of the movement of goods and of our people in South Africa have to depend on a gamble on high-rated traffic? That is what it amounts to. It is the high rated traffic which has enabled the hon. the Minister to show this surplus, exports and imports which determine the make or break of the S.A. Railways. We all know that 20% of the tonnage carried provides 80% of the revenue of the Railways. So, when it comes to budgeting, we sit virtually at the end of a financial year knowing that there is going to be a surplus, but with no picture of the extent to which the hon. Minister’s gamble has come off and to what extent he has planned for the coming year. I think he is very fortunate in that he does not have to introduce a budget. Would he have introduced that budget in the boom euphoria which has been put about for the election, or would he have introduced it in the spirit of some despondency with which some economists look to the coming year? The Minister has been saved that choice by what I believe is Government strategy and I think that is one of the reasons why we are having an early election. The hon. the Minister does not have to give us a budget and the hon. the Minister of Finance does not have to give us a budget.

If we had had this information, we could have judged more clearly on a matter of vital importance for 200 000 South Africans who, together with their dependants, number half a million. That is the issue on which the hon. the Minister has remained completely silent here. It is common talk on the grapevine in the Railways that there is the certainty of a pay increase from 1 April. Now we are facing an election. We still have memories of Langlaagte. Where did these rumours come from? If you talk to any Railwayman he will say that he is going to get a 15% increase in April. They are taking it for granted. That rumour has started somewhere.

I give you my assurance that there will be no increase on 1 April.

Not on, or retrospective to?

Not as far as I am concerned, but I do not know what my successor is going to do.

Well, we have a straight undertaking from the hon. the Minister. Economically speaking, any economist would say that it would be crazy to increase wages and increase the inflation spiral, but as a realist, can that large percentage, three-quarters or so of the 200 000 employees of the Railways, in fact continue to exist without some improvement to their income? It is a simple question. Can 24 000 White people earning less than R200 in basic pay per month, bring up, educate, feed and clothe a family? I do not believe they can. The Minister says that there is going to be no increase. Parliament does not meet again until, probably, August. Will we as the Government then have to deal with a situation where the cost of living has so passed the ability of the railwayman to cope that instead of merely keeping pace, we are going to have to deal with a backlog? That is what is happening. There is a backlog building up, leading to debt and other difficulties which can simply not be carried. I want to refer to the last increase, which was on a straight percentage basis. That, too, we believe, is not the right method. A man who is earning R160 per month and who gets a 10% increase, gets R16 more. The man on R700 per month gets R70 more. But it is the man at the bottom of the rung, the man who is on R160, who has nothing left with which to cushion the blows of cost of living. If the cost of his food goes up he has no luxury which he can sacrifice. He cannot do away with the second car, or cut down on his bioscopes or reduce his dining out from twice to once a week. He has none of those luxuries to sacrifice. I believe that in meeting the wage demands which are being made to the hon. the Minister he will be taking a very necessary step. I see that the Federal Council of Staff Associations “is expected to tell the hon. the Minister that there is strong justification for financial relief for the 150 000 White railway workers”. There then follows a statement by the president of that council. This is coming from the men themselves, who say that they cannot carry on any longer. I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister what their future is. Are they simply going to have to bite on the bullet, get into debt and wait until we take over, or has the hon. the Minister any other relief planned for them? The increases last year only covered the backlog in the rise in the cost of living. They did not improve the situation. They covered the actual backlog of cost of living rises which had already taken place, including the change in pension contributions. Therefore people started a year ago at square one, but by now they are right down the ladder again. Apart from any question of election and voting increases, I believe that in the interests of the railwaymen themselves, particularly those in the lower grades, something has to be done, not necessarily in the form of an immediate pay increase, but perhaps in the re-evaluation of the pay structure, particularly at the lower levels. Basic pay in the lower grades is farcical. What is more, it is really only a basis on which the man then continues to survive by working overtime. No married man today can survive on R160 or R180 per month. It just cannot be done. Therefore he has to keep his family going with overtime. This becomes a burden not only on his own health, but also on his family life. It becomes a strain on marriages and on families; it affects parental discipline over children. It has a kick-back. Men who have had trouble with their children becoming delinquents or taking up dagga or having done something wrong, say to me almost with tears in their eyes: “Mnr. Raw, ek was nooit daar om hom in orde te hou nie. Hy het sonder ’n pa grootgeword, want die ure wat ek moes werk, het daartoe gelei dat die kinders altyd geslaap het toe ek by die huis gekom het. Ek het hulle feitlik nie gesien nie. Ek moes naweke werk en dié kinders van my moes sonder ’n pa grootword.” That is true. Whether we like it or not, it is the fact of the situation. That is why I say there should be a review, a re-evaluation, of some of the lower scales.

Medical practitioners have the same problem.

The hon. member for Newcastle says doctors are in the same position. As regards their children, certainly, but not as regards the farms and the blocks of flats they build. I happen to know what a doctor earned last month by doing a locum. I wish I was earning that sort of money, Mr. Speaker! No, that work is voluntary. They do it to serve their patients, but, by gosh, they get their pound of flesh!

In money.

Yes, in money. However, the checker or shunter cannot regulate his work and, by seeing more patients, earn more. He has to work more hours. He has to place the strain of working more hours on himself.

Also, the door is closed in so many grades to opportunities for promotion. A man chooses a particular field—let me again take the example of the checker—he starts on R160 to R180 and it takes 10 years before he gets to a special grade, after which he can go up to R210. That is after 10 years! However, if he is working on the Railways side and there is a vacancy on the Harbours side he is barred from promotion unless he has worked on the Harbours side within the previous five years, even though he would be doing the same job but in a different field with different items. His promotion is therefore limited to the narrow confines of the field within which he has started to work. I believe that, with the re-evaluation of pay and the re-evaluation of responsibilities, there should also be a greater flexibility and a greater opportunity for men to improve their own status, to lift themselves up by improving their skills, their productivity and their potential value to the service. If those two improvements could be made, that would perhaps go some distance towards meeting the problem. The hon. the Minister will say you must protect other people in the group from promotion from outside, but are we not killing incentive in the Railways? The man with ambition is the man who gets out and looks for opportunities in private enterprise. He is prepared to take the gamble and sacrifices his security. In this way one tends to lose the people with “go” and ambition and to keep the people who seek security more than the opportunity to develop. Admittedly you cannot compare private enterprise with the Railways, but this is another of the areas where I believe the principle has been accepted, but where the flexibility and opportunity for people to develop, to improve their skills, is not being provided nearly fast enough. Then the Minister will say: “Yes, but where do you get the money from? You cannot just pay people more without the money”. I said earlier that it was ridiculous that the Railways should be dependent upon the gamble of high-rated traffic. It is a ridiculous dependence, because it is not even a gamble on economics. You cannot project on an economic basis and say “These are the possibilities”; because the projection you must make is not based simply on economics. It is based on the Government’s own taxation and economic policies, on the vicissitudes of a stop-go policy, of its panicky “push” and “pull” and periodic clamp-down on growth. Every time the Government makes one of those stop-go changes, the whole economy of the Railways is changed overnight. If the Government clamps down on imports, immediately the higher-rated traffic is reduced. You only need to reduce, as I have said, 20% of the traffic which brings in 80% of the income, and your total economic projection has gone one way. Obviously, you cannot solve this by simply introducing flat economic tariffs all round. The effect of that on the cost of living would be disastrous. The effect on the export of many minerals and of agricultural products would be disastrous. But the South African Railways are a transportation system and not a tool of social and economic policy of the Government. The Railways are the transportation system of South Africa, not a tool of the Ministers of Agriculture, Social Welfare and Pensions or Economic Affairs. The Government benefits by the services provided by the Railways. If mineral ores, coal or agricultural products are exported at a sub-economic tariff by the Railways, it is not the Railways that receive the benefit; it is the Government that gets the taxes from the exporter. It is the Government which gets the advantage when the balance of payments situation improves. It is the Government that gets all the benefits from an export deal by South Africa. Now, if the Central Government is getting the benefit in taxes and balance of payments, surely the Central Government should then contribute to the cost of that enterprise? It is being done in the Government’s interests and as a national service. Why then does the Government not have to make a contribution towards that profit? Surely, if the country as a whole benefits, then the country as a whole should help to pay the cost. If it is Government policy, as it must be—obviously, it must be—to keep food prices down, then surely the Government and not the Railways should make that possible? The Government should pay the difference between the economic cost of conveying food and what the traffic can bear without pushing up the cost of living beyond limits.

The position is the same with minerals. If you can only export manganese or iron ore at a certain price, and if the transport to the coast is the deciding factor as to whether you can sell the product or not, why should the Railways have to carry it? It is in the national interest that the product be exported. So it should be the nation which helps to pay for the difference between the economic cost and the cost which can be borne by the sale of the product only.

We have the ridiculous situation which was quoted recently, not by a “Sap”—as far as I know, anyway—but by Dr. Anton Rupert. He explained that their group found it cheaper to convey agricultural products from the Cape to the Witwaters-rand and process them there than to process them at source and convey the finished product. In other words, they are conveying raw products from Cape Town to Johannesburg at a subsidized and un-economic tariff, because that is cheaper than carrying the final tin or jar containing the processed product the same distance. But it takes up to four or five or sometimes ten times as much truck space. The overheads and the manpower involved are multiplied over and over again, whereas one-quarter or one-tenth of the rolling stock, of capital and of manpower would be required to move the finished item. This sort of crazy set-up makes one realize …

This was sorted out by the Schumann Commission ten years ago.

Well, Sir, this happens to be Dr. Anton Rupert speaking on 19 November 1973. I know that that hon. member has been sleeping for the past ten years, but 1973 is not ten years ago. The conclusion that Anton Rupert comes to is this: “He said that no sensible manufacturer will move to the country unless he knows he can transport his products economically to the market. All decentralization in South Africa is controlled by the fact that there is a single organization which has a monopoly of transport, the Railways.” He goes on to accuse the Railways of being the basic cause of the failure of the decentralization policy. Then we find that Prof. Lange, an economist at the University of the Orange Free State, had the following to say in October of last year—

These are not my views, Sir; these are the views of people who study the position in the one case from the practical businessman’s point of view and in the other from the academic economist’s point of view at the University of the Orange Free State. And so, Sir, we find a policy in terms of which raw products are carted eighteen hundred-odd kilometres, because the rating policy of the Government provides that one must have a higher tariff on the finished food product. I believe that the time has come when the Government, the Central Government, has to face up to its responsibilities. We say that where the Railways are required to run an uneconomic service in the national interest, then the Consolidated Revenue Fund should pay the difference.

I want to turn now, Sir, to one or two further points. I wish to deal firstly with the fuel crisis. The hon. the Minister explained what was being done in the Railways to conserve fuel. But has he not missed the point. Sir? He has talked about what the Railways themselves are saving on their own vehicles. Surely that is not the first responsibility of the Government? Surely one would have expected the hon. the Minister of Transport to have looked to see to what extent his department, the Railways, could reduce the fuel usage of other people? What he has told us about is what they have done to reduce the fuel usage of the Railways. Surely the biggest contribution the hon. the Minister could make would be to reduce the fuel usage of the road user, of the motorist? Let me tell you, Sir, what he is doing. There used to be a concession for railing your motorcar if you had two first-class tickets. That concession has been withdrawn. Therefore, if one wishes to rail a medium-sized motor car from Johannesburg to Cape Town, it will cost one R120.

Return?

No, single. It will cost R240 return.

You might as well buy a new car.

The motorist works out his costs. Let us say he has a 25 mile per gallon car. He will work out his cost at about R25 in respect of petrol—R25 instead of R120—so he drives. The difference is that he has used 40 or 50 gallons of petrol, over 200 litres of petrol. This petrol has been used unnecessarily, so that the Railways can stick to their decision not to grant car concessions to travellers. This is a practical issue. This is the sort of thing I would have expected the hon. the Minister to do immediately, to say: “I shall reintroduce concessions for the transport of motor cars of people travelling on the railways.”

Now let us look at a bigger issue, the mass conveyance of people and goods. What contribution is the hon. the Minister making towards taking the motor car off the road and attracting travellers to the trains? He is in fact taking off services; he is reducing services. If they are doing anything, Sir, then they are keeping very shy and very coy about it because I do not know of anything that is being done to encourage the motorist to put his car in the garage, to put it on the train, if over a long distance, or to park it at the station and travel by train. From 1967-68 to 1971-72 the number of suburban passenger journeys undertaken increased by only 17 million. This means, Sir, fewer than 250 000 return journeys per day throughout South Africa in respect of suburban transport. The latest figures announced today reflect a further drop, a further reduction in this respect. In other words, people are using their cars and I want to know what the hon. the Minister or the Government is doing to try to attract people to use the trains on these suburban commuter services. They are doing nothing in this regard. In their minds, these are uneconomic services so they do not worry about them. Their answer is: You cannot run services at peak demand, because you have corresponding valleys during the day. But surely it is the valley period during which they should be trying to attract people, trying to attract the housewife, for instance, to do her shopping by train. I can think of a number of things that could be done, one of which is the provision of parking yards, free parking at suburban stations. There could be a bus, such as the “park-and-ride” bus in Durban, where you drive your car to a parking area and board a bus which takes you into town on a circular route and brings you back to your car. Why does the Government not co-operate with the city council or run its own bus and so attract people such as housewives to do their shopping this way, to come in by train and board a bus which will take them into town to do their shopping and which will bring them back to the sation again? These are simple ideas, inexpensive ideas, but they are ideas which I believe, if given more thought and if implemented, could draw a tremendous number of people off the roads. That is a field in which I believe the Government could do a great deal towards assisting in the fuel crisis.

I do not want to deal now with the bookings on airways. This matter was raised during a previous debate. I believe, however, that the hon. the Minister is not facing up to his responsibilities in this regard.

Let us look at the main Brown Book, the Capital Estimates. We find that there are on order at the moment electric locomotives to the value of R133,9 million, whereas we have diesel locomotives to the value of R190 million on order. That is the total amount provided for in the Brown Book, not the amount expended during the year. Sir, I would have expected the Minister to tell the House that some of these diesel orders have been cancelled or suspended or postponed long-term and that he is expediting the electrification programme. We find, for instance, that provision is made in the Brown Book for the following electrification schemes: Three in the Western Transvaal, the Witbank/Eerste Fabrieke section and Kroonstad/ Hamilton section all of them to mature in 1975 and 1976. I would have expected the Minister to announce here today that he has brought in an emergency crash programme to expedite those so that they will be finished at the end of 1974-75 instead of 1975-76 and probably 1976-77; then you would have been putting more miles under electric traction and less under diesel. The Minister says that diesel is not a major part of our national usage but, Mr. Speaker, every little counts. The motorist must travel at 80 km on the national roads to save a little; in the urban areas he had to travel at 50 instead of 60 km. because in doing so he saves a little fuel. Every little bit of fuel matters, and I believe that the hon. the Minister could have given us some information which shows more imaginative planning.

Sir, what has happened to the Richards Bay line? Is that now going to be electrified? The Minister nods; it is going to be electrified. You know what happened, of course. It was first electrified. They had the pylons up, all concreted in; everything had been done for about 30 or 40 miles, and then they pulled them all down.

They were not pulled down.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, they pulled them down and the Minister will find that he justified it in this House by saying that they were removing them to use them on another section of line. He himself justified the change-over to diesel by saying that they were going to use those pylons elsewhere.

From the Vryheid end.

Yes, from the Vryheid end. Sir, I am told that they were not only taken down and dismantled, but that they were actually cut down, and now we are going back to electric again. Mr. Speaker, this may be saving diesel, but it is not saving the taxpayers’ money.

Mr. Speaker, I think I have given an indication of some of the fields in which Management could play a part. Before I conclude, I want to deal very briefly with one or two staff aspects. I know that some of them are hardy annuals, but a year has passed since we last raised these matters, and where things have not been fixed up we will go on raising them until we know that they have been attended to. Sir, I simply want to list them: Disciplinary procedures are still a source of bitterness in large fields of the Railway Service. It is a hardy annual, but that does not make it any less true; they are still a source of bitterness in many fields, particularly punishment for refusing to work overtime which, despite all the assurances, does happen. It does not always happen that the man who refuses to do overtime is charged. You find that if a man is five minutes late for work, he is booked and he finds himself in trouble. The fact is that refusal to do overtime leads to victimization and to punishment. There is growing dissatisfaction, Sir, with the medical scheme in the Railway Service. There should be—and I see no reason why there could not be—a freer choice of medical officers, and particularly a greater freedom in emergency cases. I have dealt with cases—the hon. the Minister may not know about them but the General Manager will know—genuine emergency cases. In one case a man received a doctor’s bill of R500. The hon. member for Newcastle does not look discontented about that. The sick fund refused to pay it, and here is a man, on a salary of R200 odd, who has to pay it off because there has been a dispute and the fund decided that it was not acceptable as an emergency. I appeal for a review to bring about more a form of medical aid scheme rather than the rigid sick fund system which now exists, and certainly to allow a freer choice of doctors and specialists. I meet many Railwaymen. I have that quaint old national monument of which the Minister has heard, the Durban station, in my constituency. It has not been declared a national monument yet, but it simply operates like a prehistoric monument, and I have Railway housing in the harbour area and the harbour itself. I want to say that many people have the wrong impression of the Railways. They think of it in terms of the people they deal with themselves, perhaps the unhelpful cartage driver, perhaps the insolent clerk whom they may have brushed against, or an insolent man selling tickets. You get them in any big organization, but they judge the Railways by these individuals. But I think we must remember that behind them there are many men of the managerial and the technical branches who are dedicated to the service. One should have a balanced picture. You cannot always judge from the bottom or from the top. Amongst the managers, let us face it, there are some, not top managers but people in managerial positions—I have met them—who are smug and arrogant. Whether the reason for that is political or whether they have sat too close to the fire. I do not know; you get them at every level. You get efficient people at the top and inefficient people at the bottom, and you get efficient people at the bottom and inefficient people at the top. But I think the Minister is right in the tribute he pays to the men who keep the wheels turning on the Railways, and I want to associate myself with the tribute, because if it was not for the dedication of these men, we would really be in serious trouble.

I believe I have set out, in the time at my disposal, some aspects of this huge organization, the Railways, which can be improved. I want to end by saying we are obliged by law, and the Minister is obliged by law, to balance the Budget. He is forced by Government policy to subsidize certain services. The Railways have become too much an instrument of Government policy and not enough an instrument of transportation. I have dealt with the pay and staff structure. I believe, thirdly, that the Railways are not fully geared to the cost factor of “time” in the modern economy of South Africa, the fact that “hours” equal “money”. I must criticize commerce and industry, too. They share blame. They share in it by refusing to accept inconvenient deliveries, by slow clearance of goods from harbour yards and by failure to co-operate in other respects. They have no right to grouse if they do not themselves co-operate. But I believe that over and above that the Railways itself are not in step with the modern demands in respect of time. Time, to any industrialist, is money. If you send a consignment worth R10 000 and it takes a month to reach its destination when it could reach it in a week, there is probably R100 in interest gone down the drain, because idle money is losing interest. Every rand that is delayed in transit means money out of the pocket of the industrialist, and that means money added on to the cost of the product to the end user, and this is all adding to the cost of living. Therefore I believe that there should be much greater attention given to speeding up transportation, both of passengers and of goods. We have heard nothing from the hon. the Minister for a long time about rapid mass-transportation systems. I believe that needs looking at with greater urgency, particularly in the light of the fuel crisis. I believe, finally, that in the fuel crisis itself, whilst the Railways are trying to save their own consumption, they are not contributing to saving consumption in South Africa.

Therefore, to summarize our approach to this, I move as an amendment—

1. (a) the Government will accept responsibility for the financing from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of losses incurred on uneconomic services provided in the interests of the national economy;
2. (b) the Administration will review the sub-economic levels of basic pay in the lower grades of the Service and adjust other grades accordingly;
3. (c) the Administration will undertake realistic planning to meet the modern-day demand for speedier transportation of passengers and goods; and
4. (d) specific and immediate steps will be taken to ensure that the Administration will play a meaningful part in overcoming the fuel crisis by attracting traffic from the roads to rail and air services.”.

Mr. Speaker, I trust you will permit me, too, to refer briefly to the veteran Minister, veteran politician and veteran person Ben Schoeman on this occasion, since this will be the last Budget he will present and, most probably, also the last occasion on which he will reply to a debate in this House. It is given to few of us to occupy such a responsible position for longer than 20 years and to discharge one’s responsibilities with such a degree of success. Personally it gives me very great pleasure to express, on behalf of the group I represent on this side of the House and also on behalf of myself, as chairman of this group, our full acknowledgements and thanks for a living monument which Oom Ben Schoeman has built in our minds and hearts over a period of more than 20 years. Very finely finished off in its final form, it is a monument which will attest to a powerful personality, a sober mind and views, and a strong belief in his cause. It has been stated here by the previous speaker that all this will be part and parcel of this awe-inspiring monument. This tree of respect has already borne fruit, viz. that of love. We want to give the hon. gentleman the unqualified assurance that when he leaves us, we shall continue to enjoy the benefits of his contribution in the form of a living monument which he will leave behind in the minds of his former, present and future colleagues. We are thankful that he will enter private life in good health, and we want to wish him further good health and a life filled with activity. We hope and trust that his wife and family will join him in partaking of this cup of joy filled with the well-matured wine of life and that they will find this a source of happiness, edification and strength for the future.

For the sake of propriety, although somewhat in contrast with what I have just said, I should also like to address a few words to my counterpart on the other side of the House who made his début today as main speaker in this debate. I should like to congratulate the hon. member in this regard, and I hope and trust that we will in future have a positive contribution under his leadership. However, there are just a few words of warning which I want to address to him. I am sure he will not take it amiss of me, as someone who has worked with him in this group for years and who has been with him in this House for years, if I let out a little secret. I think that this side of the House can afford it and that the other side will forgive me when I do this. I want to tell that hon. member that that “Herstigte” United Party which was founded in the Cape in the past few weeks, is not destined for a long life. He had better be careful of speculations concerning his policy, and I will tell hon. members why. He must be careful of them because there is a conspiracy in the United Party—I do not know whether he is aware of it—to make an attempt on the political life of his leader. The man who is hatching the conspiracy is the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, and he wants to use the hon. Leader of his party in the Transvaal to make this attempt. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is doing this in the hope that the mantle may fall on him.

You are on the wrong track.

I am on the right track. I want to warn the hon. member that there is another figure who is quietly moving in, and that is the hon. member for Zululand. I am not so sure …

Why do you not stand in Randburg?

I am coming to that in a moment. I am not so sure whether this mantle will not perhaps fall on the hon. member for Zululand rather than the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

I now want to deal with the contribution to this debate made by the hon. member for Durban Point. We have had here a strange wooing of the Railway workers. Interestingly enough, we have also had an interesting volte-face tonight, because the hon. member wanted to make a point of the salary increases which were supposedly being used as a bribe with a view to the coming election, but when the hon. the Minister gave him the assurance that this was not the case, he doubled back in his tracks. He cannot get away from this, because he also referred to Langlaagte. He made a volte-face and tried to create the impression that as far as salaries were concerned, he was taking up the cudgels for the Railway workers. But his memory is very short, because he has already forgotten what he said in this House last year. On that occasion he accused the Railway workers of unlawfully obtaining overtime money from the Railway Administration.

That is untrue; prove it.

Another hon. member will deal with this in full detail at a later stage. This insult to the Railway worker they have not forgotten. Nor will they forget the insult they suffered this afternoon, i.e. that the Railway worker can be bribed by the offer of a higher salary. The fate of this Party, which wants to run with the hares and hunt with the hounds, will be decided finally on 24 April. They remind me a great deal of a bag of maize standing on the wet ground and consequently becoming mouldy from the bottom up. When that bag is going to be picked up on 24 April, that wet ground and the mouldiness of the bag will cause it to split; and in that way that United Party will scatter like grains of maize. I foresee that the Progressive hen will peck at those grains of maize. I have the impression that the Progressive hen will peck at the hon. member for Hillbrow, and at a few others too, but the Nationalist rooster will cock its head very suspiciously and consider whether to peck at the Simonstown grain, the King William’s Town grain and a few other grains as well. I have an idea that he will decide rather to scratch around until it has been covered by sand, because he is hesitant and suspicious. The caucus which will follow before the 2 August of this year will have one code word, viz. a bitter-as-gall reproach concerning who is guilty, this faction or that faction, with the cry of “I told you so”. Mention was made here of discipline in the Railway organization, but I think that if any organization needs disciplinary measures, it is the United Party. It has been proved to us in recent months that that is the greatest shortcoming in their set-up.

Now I come to the staff whom the hon. member for Durban Point has been wooing so assiduously this afternoon. This wooing very unmistakably illustrates to me that this party, unlike the staff of the Railways, misses the idiom of South African politics and patriotism. That was proved very clearly to me in a previous debate in this House when the hon. member for Bezuidenhout used as an argument the negative remark made by one of the members of the Diplomatic Corps against our Prime Minister. The elementary concept of propriety, of prestige in South African politics, was disregarded in this instance. In that same debate the hon. member for Port Natal said that it was not the responsibility of the Opposition to express thanks for any positive contribution. That was being done by the members on this side of the House. Their task was to level criticism and take up a negative attitude, in contrast we find that the staff and in particular the trade union leaders of the Railways Staff Associations adopt a different attitude to life, namely that of the patriot, that of the man who can still distinguish where national interest begins and self-interest ends. For the sake of the record we should like to state that we have very great appreciation for the responsibility of these leaders and particularly for their sense of what is in the national interests and what is not. We know that there are seven staff associations which have up to now served the interests of their members very successfully, and we know that in a dispute, when there may be a difference of opinion, the attitude adopted by the Administration is that the staff should always be given the benefit of the doubt. These two attitudes have brought us prosperity and they also guarantee it for the future, in contrast with what is happening in other countries today where trade union leaders and employers are engaged, not only in discrediting the authorities, but also in organizing against them a rebellion in the full sense of the word. Against that background, I want to repeat, we owe a deep debt of gratitude to our trade union leaders in South Africa and to the staff associations of the South African Railways for the mature manner in which they perform their task, and this also holds good when they are fighting for their own interests and for increased remuneration.

Mr. Speaker, what positive steps have been taken in this regard, steps which have been responsible for the present state of affairs in contrast with what is happening in other countries? In this connection I want to quote a few statistics. You all know—it has been mentioned here—that the Railways is today our biggest single employer in the country with a staff of 239 000, of whom 111 000 are Whites and 118 000 are non-Whites. These officials represent virtually every profession in South Africa as well as every trade. From the unskilled non-White labourer to the academically qualified official, each performs a special task in the meeting the Railways’ obligations to the country. As such, the officials may be regarded as the Railways’ greatest asset. The Management and Administration have seen fit—and rightly so—to look after this asset in a special sense and to protect it. The following figures duly indicate to what extent the earnings of the Railway staff have improved since 1948. In 1948 the Railways employed 107 000 members of staff of all races. In 1973 the figures was 229 000. Their total wage account in 1948 was R109 million, while in 1973 it was R527 million. An interesting point is that the average annual per capita earnings of the White staff have increased since 1968-’69 in a very interesting way; in 1968-’69 it came to R2 973 per annum and in 1972-’73 it came to R4 021. It should be noted that the per capita earnings in 1947, when that party was still in power, came to only R910 as against last year’s R4 021 under this Government.

What about 1933?

In the light of these circumstances and facts at our disposal it does not behove any member of that party to woo these officials. The officials know too much and have too much experience in this regard. Out of the nearly R400 million by which the annual total salary and wage account of the Railway staff has been increased since 1948, the following benefits have been granted since 1958. The hon. member for Durban Point spoke about adjustments and the making up of deficits that have been allowed to develop. According to these figures he will see that between 1958 and 1973 adjustments were made virtually every year. In 1958 and 1959 a non-pensionable allowance of R11 million was granted. In 1961-’62 there was the consolidation of the remaining portion of the cost of living allowance amounting to R11 million; in 1962-’63 there was the consolidation of pensionable allowances amounting to R3,8 million; in the same year there was the rationalization of the salary and wage structure amounting to R17,8 million; in 1964-’65 there were holiday bonuses and increased scales for Sunday time, weekday overtime, etc., amounting to R9,2 million and R5,5 million, respectively; in 1965-’66 the salary and wage scales were revised at a cost of R35 million; in 1968-’69, 1970-’71 and 1972-’73, similar revisions took place at a cost of R43 million, R64,3 million and R100 million, respectively.

In addition to this, very intensive and continuous attention has been given by the Railway Administration to the housing of its officials. Here I have in mind the 100% loan scheme, the 10% scheme, the House Ownership Scheme and the Administration housing. Enormous amounts have been spent in this regard. Since 1938 close to 20 000 houses have been bought by the Railways for the staff under the House Ownership Scheme. The following amounts have been spent under this scheme since then: In the period 1938-’48, R15 million was spent on 4 600 houses, in the period 1949-’58, R31 million was spent on 4 156 houses; in the period 1959-’68, R56 million was spent on 7 500 houses; and in the period 1969-’73, R45 million was spent on 3 600 houses. And so we could go on. Under the 10%-deposit scheme, too, about 17 000 houses have been bought for an amount of about R20 000 million. As far as departmental houses are concerned, an amount of R103 million has been spent since 1948 on buying 18 000 houses. 23 746 houses were available for occupation by Railway officials at the end of last year, while on 31 March 1948 only 3 097 departmental houses were available under the régime of that party.

It is very interesting to note that the minimum income level has received the Administration’s attention from time to time, and these two statistics prove it: On 1 April 1963 the minimum income level for married staff and unmarried staff with dependants was R54 per month, and for unmarried staff without dependants it was R27 per month. In 1973, ten years later, the minimum amount for the first category was R130, while it was R65 for the latter category.

The results of this positive approach to this important asset of the Railways, namely its staff, are very clearly reflected in the productivity rate of this labour force. With a view to the continuing staff shortage and the undiminished demand for more and faster transport facilities, the enhancement of labour productivity remains a very important consideration. In this connection, by means of simplification and the improvement of work routines, the large-scale use of computers, the mechanization of labour-intensive functions, the provision of more and improved rolling stock and comprehensive improvements to permanent way and traffic handling facilities, the Railways have maintained an average annual growth of 2,36% on their labour productivity index over the period 1958-’59 to 1972-’73. Without indulging in exaggeration, I think that under the circumstances experienced by the Railways over the past two decades, it was a truly outstanding achievement—particularly in the light of the manpower shortage, the capital problems, the introduction of scientific methods—to have been able to maintain, over a period of two decades, a continuous average level of productivity growth of 2,36%. This is an achievement which really redounds to the credit of the officials and their leadership, and it is with a great deal of gratitude that we should very much like to place this on record here.

Furthermore, as far as the staff is concerned, it gives me great pleasure to convey our acknowledgments to the General Manager and his senior staff for what was done last hear for the Select Committee in regard to the visit paid to Richards Bay. I am speaking on behalf of all the members of that Select Committee, members on both side of the House, when I say that I was really impressed by the almost machine-like precision with which the programme was compiled and rounded off by the General Manager and his staff. I was eagerly looking forward to finding mistakes and hoping that they would put my suitcase on my seat or on the floor, but when I arrived in the coach my suitcase, too, was in its proper place. In despair I said to the official: “No, this is machine-perfect and I find it too good to be true”. What I say will be borne out by other people who went on that tour with me. A staff who can set to work like that and do their duty with so much credit and conscientiousness, is not a staff which is susceptible to communist influencing. This is not a staff which will act against the national interest. It is a staff which brings a major guarantee and security for the future. To those on the other side of the House who have insultingly tried to woo them this afternoon, whether covertly or overtly, I just want to say, “We are going to make you run on 24 April”.

In Randburg too?

We shall make you run on 24 April, and the hon. member for Turffontein, who has the advantage of weightlessness, he and the hon. member for Florida will be running in front. They will run so far that they will never come back. My warning to the hon. member for Durban Point, who with his stocky build does not have the advantage of weightlessness, and also to the hon. member for Umlazi, who, while he is running, will have difficulty in looking round to try to find where the shots we shall be firing are coming from, is that the national salt leaves ugly blue marks—it stings—and that they must please not try to protect their posterior anatomy with their hands. We are going to give them a blast. Mr. Speaker, to those who are not going to return we just want to say: May things go well for you in the eternal political desert of time; its judgment will be final on 24 April. To those who are going to return, we want to say: Prepare yourselves for that caucus shortly before 2 August with the code word “I told you so; it is your fault and not mine”, and for the total disintegration of the United Party in the political history of South Africa.

Sir, the hon. member for Randburg has just made his valedictory speech in this House. I think he should have it tape-recorded and played back at his next political meeting. Sir, what I cannot understand is why the National Party is so concerned about the United Party. What the Nationalists cannot understand is that this United Party is a live party and that theirs is a dead one. My impression is that nobody on that side of the House is allowed to talk out of turn. They are not allowed to have one private political thought. The National Party is still the same today as it was when it was born, and that, Sir, is the party that is going to the polls on 24 April. It is dead, but it refuses to lie down. [Interjections.]

Sir, the hon. member need not worry about us. I do not know what is going to happen at Randburg. Is he going to stay at Randburg? If he does stand at Randburg, we will have another chairman of the Railways and Harbours Select Committee.

He may be Deputy Minister of Transport. You will not be here.

Sir, the hon. member has been quite a good Chairman of the Railways and Harbours Select Committee. I am only sorry that in his time he has not received further promotion. I am hoping that when they come to rearrange the Cabinet, if my hon friend comes back again they will perhaps be able to find a little niche for him because I feel that he has done a good job of work for his Party. But, Sir, when we get into power we will not have a job for him. The hon. member must stop worrying about the United Party; there is nothing wrong with the United Party; it is very much alive.

Sir, the hon. member quoted a lot of figures to show what improvements had been brought about in the lot of the Railwayman over the last 20 years. I would like to remind the hon. member and his colleagues on that side that it was only as the result of the prodding from this side that the Railwayman received any improvements at all. Because of the continuous prodding from this side, hon. members on that side were able to say to the Minister: “Look, you will have to do something about it; we cannot stand this continual hammering from the United Party”. One can say, therefore, that the Railwaymen owe their present position to the efforts of the Party on this side.

Sir, one cannot say much more about what the hon. member said here this afternoon because his speech was purely a political speech.

What are you doing now?

I am hoping that this will prove to have been his valedictory speech.

We know it was his valedictory speech.

Sir, like the hon. member for Durban Point, I would like to pay my respects to the hon. the Minister of Transport. I have been in this House since 1961 and, as the hon. member for Point has said, we have found the Minister of Transport to be very capable and very tough. When he decides not to tell you anything, he just does not. If he finds that it is not in the interests of his department to tell you anything, then he just does not tell you. However, Sir, when you do want assistance he is always there, and we are sorry to see him leave political life. I think he has decided that he has had his share in public life in South Africa and he has therefore decided to take a back seat. Sir, I would like also to pay tribute to him as a very outstanding Minister of Labour. Some hon. members on that side are so young that I do not know whether they realize that the Minister of Transport was probably one of the most outstanding Ministers of Labour we have had in this House. I can say that when the Department of Labour lost the Minister they suffered a great loss. I feel sure that we would have been better off today in the labour field in South Africa if the Minister had stayed on as Minister of Labour.

Sir, I come now to the hon. the Minister’s speech here today. I have listened to quite a number of his speeches as Minister of Transport, and I must say that his valedictory speech here today was not a Budget Speech. It ended abruptly. He did not give us any idea as to what was really happening in his department. He said last year that he would end the year with a surplus of R7,8 million. Today he told us that it would be very much higher. The hon. member for Durban Point thinks it is going to be in the vicinity of R40 million; we do not know. The hon. the Minister also told us that the Railwaymen were not going to get an increase in their salaries during the remaining term of his office. Sir, in asking us to give him a blank cheque for R1 120 million, without giving us any details, he is asking rather a lot. I was hoping that we would hear a little bit from the hon. member for Randberg who has just sat down, but apparently he knows no more than we do. Sir, we have been very disappointed up to now. The Railwaymen are obviously not going to be given an increase in their salaries. One’s mind goes back to very similar Budgets that the hon. the Minister has introduced in this House on previous occasions—what he called interim holding Budgets. He introduced one in 1965 and another one in 1969. You will remember, Sir, that he handed out that famour R9 million bonus to the Railway-men just prior to the election, but apparently he is not handing out anything to the Railwaymen this year.

R60 million.

The hon. member on my left says he is going to hand out R60 million. I am now talking about the R9 million bonus, or has the hon. member forgotten about it? I believe that hon. member will not be here after the next election.

Where are you going to?

I know where I am going. Anyway, Sir, this bonus which was handed out at the time was handed out in an attempt to catch votes. The hon. member for Yeoville said so in so many words at the time. We have always blamed him for overbudgeting. He has always overbudgeted but never underbudgeted. I think he will always be remembered by his abrupt impositions of 10%. In fact, I wonder why he did not get the name of “Ten per cent.” I remember the time when his department was running in the red and he was determined to balance his Budget. Without any consultation or reference to commerce and industry he put 10% on the tariffs. One can remember the effect that had on commerce and industry at the time, but he just went on. That was his idea; he increased the tariffs and even today, I suppose, commerce and industry are suffering under that yoke. I think it changed the transport pattern to some degree. I think the hon. the Minister lost a lot of his first class traffic; it either went by road or else factories were built elsewhere. One of the sufferers was the Western Cape, where we lost a lot of industry to the Transvaal.

The hon. the Minister says he does not lack confidence in the Western Cape. He will say that he has given us harbours and other things, but he has shown a terrific lack of confidence in Saldanha Bay. I believe he does not have much confidence in it yet. When I asked him in this House whether he was going to improve the railway line to Saldanha Bay he said: “Let me tell you this, you will see no development in Saldanha Bay in your time and I will not see it in my time.” Yet Saldanha Bay and the Western Cape will become one of the giant industrial growth points in this country. It is as well to know that today there has been announced the building of a new nuclear power station here. This is going to be a wonderful shot in the arm for the Western Cape, but the Minister will know that this is really no thanks to him. I was disappointed, on seeing the Additional Estimates, to note that there is to be no real development as far as a rail link between Cape Town and Saldanha is concerned. It is till a third class railway line, but I must say that as far as the local management is concerned, they are really doing wonders in carting heavy consignments of goods over that outdated line. It will develop as time goes on, but I want to tell the Minister that unless he does something about that line, he will find that a lot of the heavy goods will be carted by sea to Saldanha and that he will lose that revenue. The line is terribly out of date, as he knows.

Then there is something else about which I am disappointed. When I came into this House in 1961 we hammered the question of the Hex River tunnels. These would have brought about a saving of some 20 miles, ten miles up and ten miles down, on this particular line. The costs of course have escalated and I do not think we are any nearer to the building of those tunnels now than we were when I came into this House. It has been put off because there was no money and once again because they were doing experiments and now they are putting in a new signalling system. I have now been told that the traffic on the line does not warrant it. But when one takes into consideration, as the hon. member for Durban Point pointed out, the slowness of our traffic, where one has to wait eight or ten days for a motor car which has been railed from Johannesburg to get to Cape Town—the hon. member from Natal near me says it takes 15 days if it come from Natal—there is something radically wrong with that main railway line. We know that another major line will be built from Saldanha to Sishen, but that is a mineral line and it will not help us in any way. With the industrial development and the very large steel-works to be built at Saldanha, and with costs going up, I feel that it is time that this tunnel should be completed. I want to go further. As the hon. the Minister will know from his records, it was envisaged, before they built the Du Toit’s Kloof road over the mountains, that a line would be built as well and that a dual road and rail tunnel would be built there. That was considered even in the war years and it would have cut down the distance between Cape Town and Worcester considerably, and ultimately the distance from the Cape to the North. It is ton miles that count. I know about the Du Toit’s Kloof project because I happened to have something to do with it. However, that was dropped during the war. Of course it is still a project that should be considered. We have tremendous development in the North-West Cape too and I am really disappointed that we have not seen greater development in the rail links in that part of the Cape Province where you have such vast mineral wealth.

I know that whoever succeeds the hon. the Minister is going to face a very great challenge. It will be a very great challenge to follow in the hon. the Minister’s footsteps. The hon. the Minister has told us time and time again that the Railways are being run on a purely business-like basis. He told us that he would never build a line unless it would pay. He also told us that if people wanted a line they would have to pay for such a line or make good the losses suffered thereon. I think that that approach has to a certain degree retarded progress. He made the point very clearly in his speech today that traffic would have to get back to the Railways. I agree with him that there is a lot of traffic which should really be carried by the Railways. However, I think that the Railways should really have another look at the country. We have unnecessary breaks in our rail links. One thinks of the Caledon-Swellendam line that was never completed. One thinks of the outdated narrow-gauge line that runs through the Avontuur Pass to Port Elizabeth. One wonders whether it is not time to have another look at these lines in view of the fuel situation all over the world. We must face the fact that as far as fuel is concerned, the present situation will be a permanent situation; it will not be a temporary situation and we shall have to live with it.

We in this country are fortunate in that we have vast deposits of coal, but we have to use them carefully. We must see to it that we use our coal resources as economically as possible. At the same time we have to look at our transport system and as the country is going to grow, I feel that we shall have to improve our rail links. I think that a considerable number of our present connections will have to be examined. As the hon. member for Durban Point has indicated, even if these lines do not pay at the moment, the future development of our country necessitates their being subsidized at the moment. I am not asking the hon. the Minister to run rail links uneconomically, but there are certain lines that should be built and the Consolidated Revenue Fund should meet the cost of their construction or re-imburse the Railways if those lines are run at a loss. I agree with the hon. the Minister that the Railways should be run on a business-like basis.

I do not think that many people realize that the Railways seldom make a profit. I think that in only one year during my service in this House the Railways did make a profit. I cannot remember whether it was in 1963 or in 1968. However, they have never made a profit since. It is the combined services—that is, the Railways, Airways, Harbours and Pipeline—which have really made the Railways pay. We on this side supported the recommendations contained in the Marais Commission’s report, and I wonder if, even at this stage, it would not be better if some division were brought about in this vast organization. On invitation from the General Manager we were able to visit the various workshops in the country, the various harbours, and so on. The hon. member who has just sat down referred to Richards Bay. When one sees this enormous organization, this vast and intricate organization, one wonders how the General Manager of the Railways can control these different facets properly. If it is not the intention of the Government to split them completely, I think something should be done gradually to split these functions departmentally. In that way all the various departments will be able to stand on their own feet. I think it is all wrong to think that the Railways themselves must depend upon the profits of the harbours, the pipeline and the airways in order to be profitable. There is no doubt about it that the feeling exists that you should load one sector of the Railways without loading the other. After all, it is the man in the street who has to pay, and why should the shipper have to pay heavy charges in order to help finance a railway that does not pay? Why should the motoring public in the inland areas have to pay this high cost for petrol which was delivered via the pipeline in order to make the Railway organization as a whole profitable? Why should the fares on the internal air services, which have no competition, be loaded in order to make the Railways as a whole profitable? If you split these departments I think you will get the true position as far as the Railways are concerned. It is a matter of which the Central Government will have to take note and they will have to assist financially in the running of the Railways.

As hon. members will know, my seat has disappeared, but I hope to return to this House one of these fine days. As I have said, in this electoral business one must never count one’s chickens before they are hatched. Many a person has said that he will return after the election, but he has not come back; therefore there is a possibility that I may even turn up in August when we meet again. In the light of all this, I would like to pay a tribute to the General Manager and his staff. I think he has gone out of his way to allow hon. members of this House to get all the information they enquired about here in the various reports which are tabled. I have never found any of his staff unwilling to give me information when I wanted it. They have always been ready to give the information required. Working with them in the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours, of which the hon. member for Randburg has been the chairman, has always been constructive. When we examined the accounts of the Railways in that Committee we never lacked replies from the department. I would like to pay them that tribute for their wonderful organization.

However, I am afraid that the Railway organization is getting like the house that Jack built, too heavy, as a matter of fact, top-heavy. I think it is impossible for one man, one general manager, to control such an organization. I do not know how the present General Manager and his management cope with it at all because it is becoming a job where you do not have enough hours in the day to cope with all the work. I think it is high time that a good look should be taken at the whole organization and that the department should be split up.

I should like to deal with another matter. In the light of the coming election, I would like to deal with the staff position. The hon. member for Randburg told us of the loyalty of the various staff associations and he mentioned their willingness to cooperate. I do not think that the impression should be allowed to remain that all the staff associations support the National Party. I think this is a wrong impression. These staff associations are politically completely independent and are loyal to the Government of the day. Let us therefore not put it into anybody’s mind that the staff associations of the Railways are National Party inclined. They support the Government of the day. The hon. the Minister will himself admit that he has had some very tough arguments with these people. They are not yesmen, but they can drive a very hard bargain. We are fortunate that we have had no strikes in this country amongst our workers. We have an Industrial Conciliation Act and the rail-waymen themselves are protected by a special Act, in terms of which they are not allowed to strike. But that does not deter them from approaching the Minister and putting their case. The Minister can say “no”, and he quite often says “no”. But let us not get the idea that all these people are Nationalist inclined and that it is because of the Nationalists that they have done so well. It is nothing of the kind. By the proddings of this side and by their own efforts they have got where they are. [Interjections.] I do not know about trusting the National Party. The Government at the present moment is unfortunately the National Party, but I am fairly certain that the railwaymen would like to see a change of Government; quite a number of them have told me that.

The hon. member for Durban Point has pointed out one very sore point amongst the railway workers, something which I have also brought up many a time in this House, namely the disciplinary code. Admittedly the disciplinary code is drawn up by railwaymen and is there for the satisfactory running of the Railways. We have been told that they have a representative whenever there is an inquiry, but the fact remains that not every railwayman is a lawyer. He has to make and write out statements, nine cases out of ten in freehand, and he has to put his case to the department. In my experience decisions were only reversed in a very few cases. Railwaymen do have a tough time in this regard. The hon. the Minister is leaving this portfolio, and I want to appeal once again in this regard to his successor, if he is sitting in the House at the moment. I cannot see him sitting here, by the way, because I cannot see anybody here who could take his place, with all due respect to my hon. friend over there. It is high time that a commission comprising of, let us say one judge be appointed to go into the whole question of the disciplinary code of the Railways. I think this is overdue. I can tell the hon. the Minister that there is nothing that causes more dissension than the disciplinary code in its application. I know that the hon. the Minister will tell me that he deals with the cases personally, that the railwayman too sits on the board, etc., and that they get a fair deal. I am not arguing that they are not getting a fair deal, but when these poor devils have to put up a case, they have to do so themselves in writing. I have dealt with many of these cases and in nine statements out of ten the railwaymen incriminate themselves. They can turn to no one for legal advice. I know that they can go to their various staff representatives, but this just does not work out. I would like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to do something about this matter and to help his staff. With all due respect it has been my experience that there is something wrong in this regard. There is never smoke without a fire.

I would now like to talk about the harbours. I would like to thank the hon. the Minister for what he is doing for Cape Town. Formerly the harbour fell within my constituency, but in future it will fall within the constituency of my hon. friend for Green Point. I think the gigantic harbour they are building at Cape Town will bring a lot of business. But I do, however, feel that the Railways have to look at the fuller utilization of our harbours more closely. You cannot have congestion in Durban harbour, while East London harbour is partially idle and Cape Town harbour is used under capacity. There is something wrong there and I think it is a matter which the Government will have to examine. Harbours cost a lot of money to build and I think something must be done to encourage shippers, either by way of relief in respect of rates or in some other way, to see that they use our harbours to their full extent. I am now also thinking of Richards Bay. Everybody thinks of Richards Bay as just being for the export of coal and ore, but Richards Bay is going to be a gigantic commercial harbour as well. It is going to be one of the biggest harbours in this country. I had the pleasure of being there and I must say that I was very impressed with what is happening in Richards Bay. I was impressed with the way in which they were getting on with it and with the speed of their progress. There was certainly no waste of money there.

Hear, hear!

That fact cannot be ascribed to the Government—do not get that idea—but rather to the engineers and the contractors they have there. With as little interference from the Government as possible, I think they will be able to get on with the job. Mr. Speaker, even at this early stage one must plan for that harbour to be used to its full extent when it comes into operation because, if one does not do so, it is going to become a financial headache to everyone. It must be used. I know there is talk that, when it comes into operation, Durban will be denuded of shipping, but I think that, with the development of our country and with the resources we have in that area of Natal, there is room for both these harbours. However, they must be used and I think that that is a matter which the department should have a look at. As far as the use of the harbours is concerned, the benefit of the country must be borne in mind.

Mr. Speaker, as the second speaker on the Government side I should like to associate myself with the words of appreciation and high regard for the hon. Minister Schoeman which were expressed by the hon. member for Randburg. I also want to confirm what was said in this regard by the two Opposition speakers. As an ex-Railwayman Minister Schoeman always had the interests of the Railways staff at heart. He tried to accommodate them in every possible way, but never made them any vague or caused them to labour under any illusions. Apart from all his other good qualities, this is one of his qualities, viz. that he has always been a realist. He consistently refused to consider concessions if the financial situation was not favourable. As he himself has admitted, he said “no” more often than he said “yes”. Nevertheless the understanding between the Minister, the staff associations and the staff as such has always remained an excellent one. He always had a firm and secure grip on the reins of this vast transportation enterprise. In the bad years Minister Schoeman showed himself to be an equally good and perhaps even better Minister of Railways than in the good years. In addition he enjoys the complete confidence of the Railway workers, the consumers, the businessmen and the industrialists. He left footprints which will make it easy for his successor to follow in his footsteps.

Both the hon. member of Durban Point as well as the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, but more particularly the hon. member for Durban Point, referred to a possible take-over of the government by the United Party. If I were to summarize the situation in the United Party at present, I would say in the first place that they do not have a snowball’s hope—as the saying goes—as far as the rural constituencies are concerned. So they have to go to the cities. Inter alia they have to go to the urban constituencies where there are many railway workers and dependents of railway workers who make up a considerable percentage of the voters in those constituencies. Consequently I want to ask—if not challenge—the hon. member for Durban Point to ask his very good friend, the leader of the United Party in the Transvaal, whether he would not like to nominate a candidate in Koedoespoort, which is probably one of the larges railway worker constituencies in South Africa. I will not again have the privilege of representing that constituency, but since I am the National Party nominee in the Gezina constituency, I should like to invite them to nominate a candidate in Gezina as well, for there, too, one finds a great many railway workers. I am sorry that the hon. member for Salt River will no longer have a seat. The two of us have been here since 1961. The two of us served for years on the Select Committee. I know that harbours were his principal interest. He sometimes made good contributions in this regard. But this afternoon he made a few nonsensical remarks here as well. The hon. member, in exactly the same way as other members before him, including the hon. member for Durban Point, made the mistake of pretending that with his pleas he meant something to the railwaymen. By doing so they were in fact insulting the staff associations, for these are the people who have always done the actual pleading for the railwaymen, and who have always given matters such thorough consideration that they never came forward with unnecessary and impossible requests. It is they who have been the champions of the railway-men, not the Opposition.

Did they ask for increases?

It has been they who have been making these requests over the years, not the Opposition. The hon. member is like the little bird that sits on the elephant’s shoulder and says to him: “We shall flatten that bridge”. With regard to this matter the hon. Opposition can in fact be compared to little Bird and the staff associations to the elephant.

These two hon. members went through the speech made by the hon. the Minister with a magnifying glass to find points of criticism. Both hon. members referred to the disciplinary regulations, and their application. During the years I represented Koedoespoort, there were railway servants who came to see me in regard to the application of disciplinary regulations. But I want to assure you that I did not, during this past year, find one case in my constituency of a person who did not abide by the decisions of the disciplinary superintendents. I do not know why cases of this nature always end up with hon. members of the Opposition.

In his amendment the hon. member for Durban Point presented four matters. The second, third and fourth, which I do not want to repeat, are matters to which the Management is giving attention. But then he asked the Government to cover the losses from the Consolidated Revenue Fund—in the same vein as that in which the hon. member for Salt River spoke. The hon. member for Salt River dragged in the pipeline and the profits from it. Sir, the hon. members must try to understand one thing in this regard. The railways is an independent business institution. Would these hon. members like to advocate that section 103(1) of the Constitution Act of the Republic of 1961, the provisions dealing with the Railways, be deleted from the Statute Book? That is really what these hon. members are advocating at the moment. When they present such pleas, they must also tell us from what source they want to obtain the funds.

Is it not true that the central Government is at present subsidizing the Railways in regard to Bantu townships and border industries?

Yes, under certain circumstances, but the hon. member was generalizing. The hon. member must tell us where those funds must come from, in other words, from what sources the money should be recovered. Does he want income tax to be increased? Does he want purchase tax to be increased? Does he want company tax to be increased? It is no use saying anything like that without also indicating from what source that money should be recovered.

The hon. member for Durban Point also referred to the medical benefit fund and spoke of dissatisfaction among railwaymen in regard to it. As an old member and as a person serving on the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours, the hon. member ought to know that the staff are in control of the medical benefit council, and that the Minister only acts as arbiter in regard to the appointment of doctors when there is a deadlock in the voting. The hon. member ought to know that the medical benefit council has to report this deadlock in the voting to the Minister if it was to make any alteration to the arrangements.

Mention was made here of Railway officials resigning from the service. In the past we have heard this jeremiad from the Opposition every year concerning the dissatisfaction of railway servants and the consequent resignations from the Railway service. In the past, as it does now, the Opposition attributed this to poor remuneration, to unsatisfactory working conditions and to the excessive demands which the Management makes on Railway servants, the excessive overtime and the resultant exhaustion, as well as the unjust treatment by the Management of its employees, inter alia in regard to the application of disciplinary measures. Sometimes, too, the Opposition use to quote statistics to paint this sorry picture in even sorrier terms and to support their allegation. Then, too, it is grist to the mill of the Opposition to hear that during 1972, for example, there were 19 887 resignations from the Railways and that in 1973, for the period 16 December 1972 to 15 December 1973 there were 20 118 resignations. This is only the one side of this sorry picture. Let us consider the number of applications for re-employment on the Railways. In 1972 there were 22 320 applications for re employment, and in 1973 there were 20 072. We concede that some of these applications for re-employment came from persons who had already resigned before, but nevertheless they are people who want to return to Railway employ. These are people who would like to return to the so-called “bad employer”. These people do return, and why do they do so? It is because the Railways offers greater security, greater stability, greater opportunities for advancement, a decent wage and regular increases—as I shall point out in a moment—and in many respects they are also offered fringe benefits which they cannot find anywhere else.

Let us now analyse the 1973 statistics which I have just given you. I said there were 20 118 resignations in 1973, and there were 20 072 applications for re-employment. The number of applications for reemployment was only 46 less. Expressed as a percentage, 99,7% wanted to return to the service. Of this number only 7 884 were re employed; i.e. it was possible to re-employ 39% of those who had previously been Railway servants. Sir, this proves the strict selection as well as the selectiveness displayed by the Management before an employee is re-employed.

Sir, I referred to regular salary increases, and in this connection I just wanted to mention a small statistical detail. During the decade 1963-’64 to 1972-’73 the salaries of Railway servants were increased regularly, as we also heard here from the hon. member for Randburg. During that period the income per capita of the White staff increased by an average of 7,60% per annum. Stated differently: From 1963 to 1973 the increase in the income per capita of the White staff was 76%. It is surely with appreciation that the railwayman takes cognizance of this. We know that sporadically they insist on higher salaries and wages; every employee has every right to do so, whatever his employment.

Sir, I should like to conclude with a few general remarks on a matter which has often been mentioned here and which is also receiving a good deal of attention on the part of the Management, and that is the campaign to increase productivity and to encourage economy in on the South African Railways. This campaign is continuing in a purposeful and uninterrupted way. Each one of us here and every member of the public knows that there has been an exceptional increase in the cost of labour, equipment and material during the past decade. This has coincided with fluctuations in the conveyance of profitable traffic. Sir, intensified efforts have been made in the technological and administrative sphere to obtain greater productivity so as to restore equilibrium between revenue and expenditure. The term “increased productivity” remains for many people a meaningless expression; among other people—and I believe that the Opposition unfortunately falls into this category as well—the word arouses a negative response, for it sounds to them like a trick on the part of the employer—in this case the Railway Administration and the Minister—to get workers to work and sweat harder for their money, which then, in their opinion, remains precisely the same as before. But, Sir, “productivity” is not merely a word which was created or thought up by efficiency experts. It can also be tangibly demonstrated in practice and the best example of a practical demonstration of this has in fact been the South African Railways. Only last year, in his Budget speech, the hon. the Minister of Transport pointed out that in the previous year the Railways had started a campaign to increase productivity and efficiency, and in conjunction with the economizing effort, the Railways had by the end of December 1972 saved R19 million. In addition the Railways with less staff had conveyed a higher goods tonnage than in the previous financial year. Sir, this phenomenon repeated itself during the past year. The number of employees at the end of the financial year 1971-72 was 229 731, and at the end of the financial year 1972-73 this number was 228 962, a decrease of 769 units in the actual number of employees. Sir, I just want to mention—and with that I conclude—that despite this reduction in staff, all the offered freight was conveyed. The tonnage freight was once again higher than that of the previous year, and we can attribute this mainly to the willingness of the staff to render service and sometimes, too, to work overtime, but we can also attribute it to the improved training and the improved instruction of the staff and the fact that the staff are being selected for particular posts. As a result of that the productivity of the Railways has increased tremendously in past years, and in particular during the past half decade.

Mr. Speaker, I just do not know how to react to the last speaker, because it is quite obvious that some of the remarks and some of the statements he made are hard to understand. He is obviously out of his depth.

I think I will come back to a more important subject, and that is that I wish to be associated with some of the remarks that have been passed in regard to the hon. the Minister of Transport. I think, and I do believe this and I am very sincere about it, that the hon. the Minister has done a wonderful job for South Africa. I personally was an employee on the Railways while he was our Minister, and I do not think there was another man in South Africa who could have done the job he has done, and done it so successfully. Sir, no one who has not worked on the Railways can appreciate the transformation that has taken place ever since the hon. the Minister came to that position. I can assure him that when I leave home to come to this hon. House, the railwaymen I come into contact with say: “Sê groete aan ou Ben,” and they mean this from the bottom of their hearts. They do hold the Minister in high esteem. I associate myself with the wishes of the staff because I still consider myself as one of them. We who worked on the Railways in those days knew that we could not have had a better leader than the hon. the Minister.

So why didn’t you become a Nat?

Are you asking me to cut my throat? I can only end now by saying that whatever the Minister does, whatever he proposes doing in future, I personally, and on behalf of all the railway people for whom I must still talk, wish him every happiness and contentment for the future in his retirement.

Now, Sir, I suppose I must get down to more serious business. Do you know, Sir, I often wish that I had come to this House many years ago so that I could have crossed swords with the hon. the Minister more often, not because I like fighting but because probably we would have been able to get more benefits for the railwaymen. But there is a little item I want to add to this. I was bitterly disappointed when the hon. the Minister got up and said he was not going to give any money to the staff. Now, I had hoped, in view of the fact that this was the last time that he would sit here and discuss this particular Vote, that he would say: “All right fellows, you have been wonderful guys over the last 20 years while I have been your boss; now I will show you my appreciation and give you all a 15% or a 20% increase, instead of pretty words Thanking you for your loyalty.” Sir, I am going to ask the hon. the Minister not to walk away and leave all the railway staff disappointed. They are looking forward to an increase and they deserve it very much.

During the recess I was called to meet quite a number of railwaymen in the various grades, and the one I am very concerned about is the station foreman grade. We know there is a chronic shortage of station foremen in Natal. I do not know about the rest of the Republic, but I think I can safely say that there is going to be a bigger shortage in Natal in the very near future. These fellows have very serious and bitter complaints about the treatment meted out to them.

I can only quote what they told me. It appears that on the main line from Durban to Pietermaritzburg there is only one station foreman at a station. These fellows are expected to do night shift and night shift only. They have been doing night shift for two years and more for the very simple reason that the station master as well as doing his own duties does extended hours during the course of the day, which compels the station foreman to do night shift only. Should an additional foreman be offered to a station, the station master would refuse his services because, if he accepts, it would mean that he would lose the additional overtime during the day, including Sunday time. I think this leaves room for concern. These people are rendering loyal services to the Railways and I do not think that they should be subjected to this sort of injustice. I often wonder what kind of family life these people enjoy, whether, indeed, there is any social life for them; I do not think that it exists. I really do not think so. I think that this matter should be gone into.

If you do not have a sufficient number of station foremen, then one should be taken away from stations where there are three and sent to a station where there is only one in order to allow these people to do alternate shifts. The position is rather grave at the moment and they have told me: “Ons kan nie anders nie; ons moet uit.” I could agree with them that this sort of thing should not be tolerated and I do not know why the Railways allow this sort of thing to go on. We have to face facts. When these people have done their 12-hours shifts, particularly at night, we know that, owing to weather conditions in Natal, which are not of the best at times because of the humidity, they cannot sleep well during the course of the day and as a result they do not get much rest.

A station foreman has a very, very responsible job. He is controlling and directing all the trains and should such a man slip up and be responsible for an accident, we all know what the result is going to be. He is going to be seriously dealt with. Are we prepared to accept this sort of thing? I honestly think that the Administration has to look into matters of this kind, attend to them and deal with them. If you are going to insist on this sort of thing, then the very least you can do is to see that they have air-conditioning in at least their bedrooms where the man can have a decent day’s sleep during the course of the day. I do feel very much for these people because they are responsible peoples they are faithful and loyal servants. I feel in justice they deserve some consideration from the Administration. In this day and age what is air-conditioning? The Railways can buy plants in mass and they can get them cheaply, much cheaper than the servant can. The Administration can have such air conditioning plants installed to make life at least comfortable for these men after their long hours of duty.

While I am talking of the station foreman’s grade, another complaint was forwarded to me. After the station master and his clerk have left the office it sometimes happens that the station foreman is left in charge of the whole station. In other words, he has to sell tickets, has to deal with the cash and has to balance the books at the end of the day. At the same time he has to deal with train crossings. When there is a train running through his station he has to leave the office because he must set the signals and the loops so that the train can be accepted into its loop. It might be a terribly long train, and this is normally the case these days. After he has signalled the train or has seen that the train has passed the clearance mark, he must return to the cabin to reset the points for the train which will probably come in on the main line. While this procedure goes on the station foreman has to lock his safe, his till—in fact everything—before he can leave the office. Once he is outside he must run backwards and forwards as I have described just now.

I shall tell hon. members where the crunch comes. When he has let the train through on the main line, he has to go back to the office from where he must send through signal codes to the station in advance and the station in the rear and ask for a proceeding authority for the train that is in the loop. When that all has been done, he sets the points for the train to proceed, but that train cannot proceed unless it has a proceeding authority which can be a staff, a tablet or whatever it may be. Now he has to walk up 18 or 20 lengths of trucks to the end of the station while the station is under lock and key.

It has happened in the past that stations have been burgled while the station foreman had to perform his duties outside. I wonder whether it is not possible for the driver of the unit to instruct the unit assistant or the fireman to be at the signal cabin so that when the one train has cleared the section he can take the authority for the train that is in the loop. If this procedure is followed the station foreman is left free to perform his task. The present procedure causes delays. Should this be done, it would mean that someone is left at the station to attend to, for example, the issuing of tickets. There are so many problems which surround this sort of situation and I consequently wonder whether something could not be done to ease the position in which these people, the station foremen, find themselves. My heart bleeds for them, particularly for the older men, those men of 50 or 60 years of age, men who walk slowly but who have to walk the whole distance in order to give the proceeding authority to the driver. Then they have to walk all the way back again at the end of which they are tired. I do appeal to the hon. the Minister to investigate this matter to see whether something can be done to alleviate the task of the station foremen.

At this stage it does not seem as if there is sufficient time to go on to another subject and I think that we ought to adjourn for dinner. [Interjections.]

You have to get a move on; and then there is still the matter of a nomination which is pending.

Order!

I want now to refer to the checking staff. Some of the hon. members here are grinning like hyenas and are heckling away at something I am not aware of, but apparently they do not understand the position and the seriousness of it. They have no knowledge of these matters and cannot talk on it.

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

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, when we took the adjournment I was on the verge of telling you about the checking staff. We can talk about these people for quite a considerable time, but I am only going to say a few words about them because there are a few other grades as well that I wish to discuss. The main complaint from these people is that they work from 7 o’clock in the morning till 9 at night every day. They probably leave home a lot earlier to get to the place where they work on time and they only get home roundabout 10 o’clock in the evenings. This means that they are constantly working overtime. They are supposed to have Saturdays off, but they do not get it and sometimes they work all of Sunday too. The position is simply that these people are compelled to work whether they like it or not. If they do not work this ugly thing of fining people for not making themselves available for overtime rears its head again. I wonder why these people do not have the prerogative of being able to say to the supervisory staff that they do not want to work overtime, now they are compelled to work overtime otherwise they are fined for not reporting for duty, for overtime duty. I feel that in all instances in all grades people should have the prerogative of saying that they are not interested in overtime, today, tomorrow or the next day. Allow them to work overtime if they so wish and you will find in most instances that the people would wish to work overtime in view of the fact that their salaries are so low and that they are compelled to do it. But there are instances where people just cannot work overtime and because of that they are punished. I do not think that this is a state of affairs which we should tolerate in this country. It is very dictatorial to say the least. I will leave it at that.

There is something which I forgot to mention in regard to the casual checking staff. The Railways do employ casual checking staff. I do not know what their salary is, but it is not one to boast about. These people work for that salary and that salary alone. They might be doing that for 20 years and do not get any sick fund privileges or contribute towards a pension fund. This is the story I get from these people. They complain that they receive no consideration whatsoever. If this is a fact, I think there should be an investigation.

I also wish to say a few words about the running staff. I was recently called to a gathering of drivers. The consensus of opinion amongst them is that they are being victimized, because owing to a shortage of unit assistants, these young assistants are working 24 hours and more continuously. They are, in other words, virtually living on the job. As they book off from one train, they crawl into the little shed—I do not know what they call it—where they keep their clothes and so on and sleep on the benches there until they are called out a few hours later. One young man had been instructed to go out with a certain driver on a certain run. When he reported to his driver, he was half asleep. The driver said to him: “Look, I cannot go out on this run with you”. The driver told the local foreman who said: “If that is the case, you book off duty”. Why should the driver have to lose his wages because the Railways are virtually exploiting the young assistants? This is a sad state of affairs. Bearing in mind that these people are running trains worth millions of rand by virtue of all the freight they carry, what are you going to do about it if there is an accident through one man being overtired? I know what is done—the man is demoted or suspended; he gets fined heavily and is suspended for a year after which he will probably be reinstated at a lower grade than he was in previously. It is hard to understand why this sort of thing is allowed. Surely to heaven something must be done to encourage more assistants to join the Railways. I get all worked up when I think that this sort of thing can happen. It is probably the Government’s fault or that of the Railways’ Administration that this state of affairs exists. The staff shortage is not as a result of the fact that people do not want to come to work. They will come if encouraged to do so and if they are given a decent salary to live off, which they certainly do not get. If they were given a decent salary, you would not have so much overtime being worked on the Railways. There are millions of rand being spent every year by the Railways through forcing people to work overtime, and this is the result of staff shortages. I suppose you could blame the Administration for the staff shortage because the salaries are so low. Who is going to work for the Railways for less than R200 per month? And yet there are many thousands of people earning less than R200 per month. I defy any man on that side of the House to live off the wages being paid to the daily-paid staff on the Railways. Actually, it is a disgrace! No man on the Railways today should be earning less than R300 per month, but in actual fact they are earning between R140 and R180 per month.

I’m telling you!

I will leave that hon. member. He belongs to the cliffs.

During the last recess I was sent for by a family and told of a rather unfortunate and very sad business. It concerned a young man. 23 years of age, who was working as a track bonder in a suburban area where we have a frequent and a fast service. This youngster had only been married for four or five months. Being a very inexperienced young man and being afraid of the supervisory staff, it took him a long time to ask for some form of protection. It was not given to him. The result was that this young man lost his life together with his Bantu assistant. We all know that the Bantu assistant must be with the man where that man is actually working. You have this fast suburban service. Incidentally, it was from KwaMashu, and you know how frequent the service is there. Last year I accused the safety officers, judging on what I had been told by the staff. During the recess I received a letter from these people, telling me that I discredited them in the eyes of the public of South Africa. They wanted me to apologize. However, after a considerable time of thought, and the stories that came back to me, I decided I was not going to apologize until such time as the Railways had done something about the protection of their young people. When the parents sent for me, they said to me: “Mr. Bands, we know we cannot get our son back; but, for heaven’s sake, ask the Administration to do something about protecting the other young people on the Railways.” This young lad’s widow was there. She spoke to me. I was very concerned to think that this state of affairs still existed on the Railways in this day and age.

A little while ago I congratulated the hon. the Minister for the terrific job he had done on the Railways …

The best part of your speech!

But I still believe that there is a lot left to be done on the Railways. That might not seem important to people who have a monkey here interjecting and telling me this, that and the other. I take exception to a man interjecting and passing stupid remarks when we are losing lives of young people on the Railways.

Order! Did the hon. member call another hon. member a monkey?

I did, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw. I have made my point.

Sir, continuing in this vein, I know that to try to prove that there was negligence on the part of the supervisory staff, is rather difficult, because they can deny that this man had ever asked for protection. I believe he did. He went to his mother and father and said: “I am terrified.” He lost his life. Please, I appeal to the hon. the Minister to investigate cases like this. Try to implement some sort of protection for these people who have to work so close to the track or on the track in the fast suburban service during the course of their duties. They must have protection. This has not been the only accident. I know of two or three others. One was fatal. Another man was in hospital for a long time. He is now waiting to be boarded. Why? Because the Railway officials are not interested in the protection of the men who are carrying the Railways on their shoulders. This sort of thing should not be permitted. It should not be my job to stand up here and tell the House about this sort of thing. It is something the hon. the Minister has to anticipate.

We know that many grades on the Railways have gone by the board in recent months—during the last two or three years—for the simple reason that the White staff were unobtainable, and now Bantu are being utilized to take over these jobs. There is one job in particular I am concerned about, and this is where I worked. I was a platelayer. The hon. the Minister, with the Management, knows as well as I do that platelayers today are unobtainable. I think this is where the Administration has to play the game. We had plenty of platelayers in the olden days. But as a result of the treatment and conditions, they gradually disappeared. In the last five years, I suppose, this job has become very highly specialized. I think the hon. the Minister will agree that this is now a very specialized job. It is highly mechanized. The platelayers are now expected to be answerable for a lot more than in the olden days. They have their transport… [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that I have the privilege of following the hon. member for Umhlatuzana this evening. I want to congratulate him on his first completed half-hour speech as a member of this House. I think that all of us who have watched his career with sympathy, have been delighted to see how he has found his feet in this House. What pleases me particularly is the very genuine and convinced way in which he approaches the hon. the Minister of Transport with the difficulties of individuals and smaller groups in the service of the South African Railways and Harbours. This is in a way his tribute to the hon. the Minister, just as he paid tribute to him at the start of his speech. It is another way of paying his tribute to the hon. the Minister because he knows that if he has a genuine case that he can substantiate and he brings it to the notice of the hon. the Minister of Transport in this House, that case will be investigated and, if it is well founded, it will be adjusted. There is no doubt about that. I appreciate the fact that by his attitude, by the way he speaks and by the way he presents his case to this House, the hon. member makes it perfectly clear that he has unbounded confidence in the justice that obtains in the South African Railways and Harbours under the present Minister.

*Now, Mr. Speaker, since this hon. member has paid his tribute to the hon. the Minister of Transport, I think that, owing to special circumstances, you will allow me to associate myself with those who paid their tributes to the hon. the Minister.

I met the hon. the Minister for the first time in 1938 when I was asked, as a very young journalist, to do a report on the organization for an election in a particular constituency, and it was suggested that I go to Fordsburg. I went to Fordsburg, and there I met the hon. Minister. There, with great patience, he guided me through the intricacies of elections and showed me how one should organize. Even then his broad insight into the problems, coupled with his special attention to details, impressed me. It is a quality which we have seen in whatever position he occupied in this House. What struck me most of all at the time was the courtesy with which he treated me as a beginner in journalism, and his patience with me on that occasion. He was not always that patient with me. It came about that during the six years he was Minister of Labour, I was one of his critics, and for a time his chief critic. During the 20 years he was Minister of Transport, it was my task for 15 years to play the part of his chief critic in this House. You know, Mr. Speaker, there are many ways of getting to know a person. One of those is to have him as your opponent. I had the privilege of knowing this hon. Minister for 15 years as an opponent, and as each year of those fifteen went by, my respect and esteem for him grew. He was a man who could hit hard. He was in many respects like a good rugby centre: When he saw a gap, he took it. Sir, if you, as his critic, made a mistake—no matter how slight—as far as facts were concerned, then that was his gap, and he broke through immediately, for his standpoint was the standpoint which our journalistic profession should exercise in practice, namely that the facts are sacred; opinions and conjectures are free. If he could catch you out on the facts, he hit you hard, but he always respected your opinions, even if they differed from his, and for that reason, Sir, we held him in very high regard. I, as member of the Opposition, was always struck by his interest in and his concern for the staff of the South African Railways. Their welfare was his responsibility, not only because he realized that the welfare of a great organization such as the Railways depended upon the sound relations which existed between the chiefs and the staff, but also because he had a respect for people, particularly for lesser privileged people. He had an aversion to any injustice. I can testify to that today and would also have testified to that had I been sitting on that side. In my days as Chairman of the United Party’s Railways Committee, I sometimes had to go to him with cases which I personally regarded as having been an injustice which had been done to a staff member. I did not sling it across the floor of the House; I brought it to him as an individual case requiring attention, and I cannot think of one case to which he did not give special, particular attention, and where it was justified he ensured that justice was done and that the necessary attention was given to the case; and for something like that one must express one’s grattitude and appreciation while we are still able to see one another in person here. Mr. Speaker, I think the greatest quality he taught us as younger members in this House was the quality of integrity, the quality of absolutely honest conduct in public life. When the history of the South African Parliament comes to be written, the name of Ben Schoeman will be mentioned as one of the individuals who were an ornament to our Parliament. In conclusion, Sir, I just want to say that all of us on both sides of the House were struck by his fearlessness, by his impressive courage in tackling a matter no matter how difficult. You will allow me, Mr. Speaker, to mention on this occasion—even though this does not have a direct bearing on Railways—the example of the insurrection in the National Party on the part of the Hertzog group. There is not one member of this House who was present here in this House at the time who will forget the actions of the hon. gentleman—determined, resolute, relentless. Perhaps my hon. friends of the United Party could learn something from this. Sir, if there had been a man of the calibre of a Ben Schoeman, of the hon. the Minister of Transport, sitting on that side, then the hon. member for Orange Grove, the hon. member for Benoni and the hon. member for Hillbrow would not have been expected to go through a critical session of the House of Assembly before an election in the knowledge that they had not yet been nominated as candidates in that election. Nothing like that would have happened if there had been men of the calibre of a Schoeman sitting on that side of the House. To the hon. gentleman, to whom we are this evening, on the eve of his retirement, paying our tribute, regardless of political persuasion or political history, we want to say this: We know that he will in his own lifetime become part of the tradition of the South African Railways, the tradition of all that has been outstanding in South African politics and of all that has been noble in the parliamentary life of South Africa. We wish him everything of the best; may he enjoy a peaceful rest, and may the good Lord spare him for many years for South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the contribution made by my hon. friend, the member for Durban Point. I want to congratulate him. I think he acquitted himself very well of his task. I shall have more to say about that in the course of my speech. But I was particularly impressed by the appeal which he made to the hon. the Minister and to the Railways Administration to coax people back to using the Railways instead of the roads so as to help South Africa overcome the oil crisis. Sir, it then occurred to me: How unwise were the people who pleaded in the past for the Railways to curtail its own activities, its own scope, and make more concessions to road transportation, and how wise were the people who opposed me and others when we presented those pleas. I am not trying to say that they were able to read the future that well, but they were definitely very fortunate with the result of their refusal to concede to our pleas on the opposite side of the House. Consider, Sir, what the position would have been in South Africa today if we had, like the European countries and like the United States of America, been largely dependent, for our industrial life and our transportation, on the supply of oil from countries which are not always well-disposed towards us. How extremely fortunate we are that South Africa is only approximately 20% dependent on oil for its power generating requirements, and is only approximately 8% dependent on oil for the transportation of its people and goods by the Railways. For that reason, Sir, I want to say that we in South Africa ought to be grateful for the fact that we have such a mighty, powerful organization as the South African Railways, a vast undertaking which we know is there at all times, not only with a view to profits, not only with a view to achievements, but always with a view to service to South Africa; and it is a good thing for us to know that that organization is in good hands, that it will remain in good hands, and that as long as it remains in those hands, it will never let South Africa down. Mr. Speaker, I think the Opposition realises this. That is why they have in the Railway debate—with exceptions of which I was perhaps one—always tried to act in a responsible way, and that is why I am so pleased that I am able to say today that my hon. friend, the member for Durban Point, also made a responsible speech here. Sir, he need not think he is perfect; he is only human, and was unable to resist temptation; nobody would have been able to do so, for when one has a Government enterprise such as the Railways, employing more than 100 000 White people—with their wives and dependants probably a quarter of a million voters—how could one resist the temptation to involve them in the politics of South Africa? And my hon. friend, the member for Durban North—and you know how very highly I respect and esteem him—just as I did in the past, could not resist the temptation. But, Sir, he found himself in a difficult position.

What is your new temptation?

But intelligent as he is, he was prepared for whatever the position produced, for if the Minister had announced that there would be immediate increases for the staff of the Railways, he would have been ready with a bitter attack on the Minister for trying to buy the votes of the Railwaymen on the eve of the election, and for humiliating and insulting them with his conduct. After all, I know that this would have been the reply. But now the Minister has come forward and stated that there will be no increase, but the hon. member for Durban Point was ready for that, too, and he said: “It is really a disgrace that the Railway workers should have to wait so long in the face of the rising cost of living, and that they are not going to receive any increase.” That was a very good technique; it was an inevitable technique; it was a temptation which no human politician could resist.

There are certain temptations that I can resist.

Sir, to judge from my hon friend’s interjection, he did not resist temptation all that successfully during supper. One thing which we as politicians in South Africa have learnt from all quarters, is that the Railwayman, the servant, the man in the service of the Railways, has learnt over the years to trust this Government. It was one of the major frustrations and baulking factors from which the Opposition has been suffering over the years. Sir, they did their best to mobilize the Railway vote against the Government, but they never succeeded in doing so for the Railwayman trusted the Government, and this Minister in particular. And the Government proved this. We know that the Government proved this. If one considers the figures and the history of the conditions of service of the Railwayman in South Africa, one finds that before some elections, as the one in Langlaagte for example, announcements were made of improvements for the Railwayman. On other occasions, before major and difficult elections, no announcements of any improvements were made. These were postponed until after the election, and whether the Government announced improvements for the Railway-men or whether it let this wait and stated that it did not want to announce this because there was an election in the offing, the Railwaymen still stood firmly behind this Government, for they trust the Government; they know the Government and the attempts on the opposite side to shake and undermine that trust have failed. It was exactly like biting on steel.

Now, Sir, you will allow me to elucidate that statement of mine a little. I was very fortunate today in laying hands on a short exposition of all the improvements which have been granted to Railwaymen since 1948. I hope you will allow me to refer to that very briefly. In 1948-’49 their conditions were improved by R14,8 million. In 1949-’50 they were improved by R3,9 million. In 1950-’51 there were no improvements. In 1951-’52 these amounted to R23,4 million and R11,9 million in 1952-’53. In 1953-’54 these amounted to R8,2 million. In 1955-’56 these amounted to R9,1 million and in 1956-’57 to R7,4 million. And then, on the eve of the 1957-’58 election year there were no improvements whatsoever. This was the point I made. Then, in 1958-’59 they amounted to R14,8 million. In 1960-’61 the election, the referendum, was held in October and then, too, there were no improvements. In 1961-’62 they amounted to R13,4 million; in 1962-’63 to R24,5 million. In 1963-’64 there were no improvements. In 1964-’65 these amounted to R20,4 million. In 1965-’66 these were R36,8 million. In 1968-’69 these amounted to R42,8 million. In 1969-’70, before the election, these amounted to R12,8 million, the smallest concession to the Railwayman for the six preceding years and the two or three years after that. So great was the confidence in the Government and in the Minister of Railways, and so great the loyalty of the Railwaymen to a Government that had treated them well. Then, in 1970-’71, these amounted to R64,8 million, and last year to R100 million, and there was no election then.

What about Langlaagte?

But I mentioned it, did I not? The hon. member must not ask me to recapitulate on my speech now. He must take a little trouble and follow my speech as I go along. But what is very interesting about these figures, and what one finds a little overwhelming if one takes them over a period of 25 to 26 years, is what they mean to the standard of living, the actual, real standard of living of the Railwayman in South Africa. This is extremely interesting. In the first place we must take cognizance of the fact that it is not easy for a Government simply to give the Railwayman generous presents, for the wage account of the Railways is the greatest single expenditure which it incurs. Changes in the wage structure of the Railways have an enormous effect on the operating costs of the Railways. These cannot simply be given lightly and blithely. They have to be thoroughly planned and worked out in the interests of the Railwaymen, but also in the interests of South Africa. The administration, the Ministry as well as the Railwaymen have succeeded in striking a balance between the interests of the Railwaymen, the Railways and South Africa. For that reason the history of South Africa is so different to the history of Great Britain for example. For that reason we can go to the polls in a few weeks’ time while peace prevails in our country. We should consider the situation and labour relations in Great Britain, where they are having to hold an election to seek powers to achieve things which we achieve from the sense of responsibility of our people to South Africa.

We are now discussing the income of our Railwaymen. I observe from the reports of the General Manager that if one takes the per capita income of the Whites in 1960-’61 as one’s base of 100 then that index was 200 in 1970-’71, and is at present 220 and more. In other words, during the past ten years the monetary income of the Railwayman has doubled. And if one considers the average increase year by year then this increase becomes all the more striking and all the more significant, for in the ten years between 1960-’61 and 1970-’71 the average increase in the Railwayman’s income was 8,1%. In the ten-year period ending 1971-’72 it had dropped slightly to 7,95%, but in the year which is now ending, it will again be an average of 8,05%. In those ten years the cost of living in South Africa increased by an average of 4% per annum. In other words, the income of the Railwayman, his monetary income, rose twice as rapidly as the depreciation in the value of our money. In other words, his real income increased by an average of more than 4% per year despite inflation and despite the increase in the cost of living. That, Sir, is the achievement we have to take into consideration, and it is the achievement which my friends in the Opposition have to take into consideration when they woo the vote of the Railwayman between now and 24 April. I want to predict that, as in the past—and I am speaking from bitter experience—they are going to come right up against an iron wall, against the unshakable confidence of the Railwayman in this Administration and this Government, and against the unshakable certainty of the Railwayman that justice will be done to him, as justice has always been done to him under this Administration. For that reason I tell about one of the happiest moments I have experienced since I joined this party. It was when I was able, at a congress of the party in the Transvaal, to wear a badge in my lapel on which the words “Thank you, Oom Ben” appeared. As I said earlier, whether I am sitting here or whether I had been sitting there, it would have been a privilege to me, and it is a privilege to me on this important occasion in the career of my good friend the hon. the Minister of Transport, to be able to say to him on behalf of everyone who knows him, everyone who has served with him and everyone who has served against him, quite simply and sincerely: “Thank you, Oom Ben”.

I think that all members of the House present this evening can bear witness to two important facts. One is that the hon. speaker who has just sat down has certainly changed since we last met him. But the hon. the Minister of Transport, I am sure, has not changed at all. Let me in answer to that hon. member who has just spoken, give the viewpoint of the hon. the Minister himself. I saw him sitting back with a very amused smile on his face whilst his colleagues around him were enjoying the fun, so let me quote what the hon. the Minister said on 15 March 1972 in a speech he made concerning the hon. Member for Yeoville, reported in Hansard in col. 3281 of that date. He said—

Listening to the ribald laughter of the other side of the House, I found it obvious that they were being entertained this evening by a first-class music hall turn. [Interjections.] Let me go further. The hon. the Minister of Transport has a very much better opinion even than that. He is not only a music hall turn to him, but as far as the hon. the Minister is concerned, the hon. member who has just sat down …[Interjections.]

Keep quiet!

Shut up!

Order!

I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member who has just sat down was accused by the hon. the Minister of telling untruths when he addressed the House in debate on the Railway Appropriation Bill because in the speech which the hon. the Minister made on 16 August 1966, he said (column 864 of Hansard, 1966)

Then he went on to say—

Further on he said—

The hon. the Minister then quoted what the hon. member had said in 1962—

Thereafter the hon. the Minister said—

That is the opinion of the hon. the Minister of Transport and therefore I need not necessarily give an opinion in regards to his facts. Let me go further.

And you defended me. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member is still busy with his jokes.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, Mr. Speaker, I am too busy. Let us now get to the point of view of the hon. member for Yeoville with regard to what happens when the hon. the Minister deals with increases in salaries for the employees. I now deal with the very instance given—Klip River and Langlaagte. I quote from a speech which the hon. member for Yeoville made on 12 March 1973 (Hansard, column 2413)—

That was when he had announced the increase of R60 million prior to the Langlaagte by-election—

There is a final statement by the hon. member for Yeoville which I think is worth quoting. He says of the hon. the Minister of Transport, in column 2414 on 12 March 1973—

That is surely a serious accusation to make against a man whom he now lauds to the heavens for the way in which he has conducted the affairs of the Railways. Now this hon. member endeavours to satisfy the House with all the facts he has given, but as the hon. the Minister of Transport has said himself, he is never sure of his facts. I am not prepared to deal with those facts because when that hon. member, prior to his defeat for a position in the Transvaal—a defeat which he never had the courage to see through himself, and come back perhaps to score a victory in his own right—was sitting on this side of the House, he never knew of these figures. I never heard him at any time using such figures when he was here. In fact he encouraged us to tell the hon. the Minister how badly he had let down the railway staff and how badly he had treated them when it came to improving their salaries and wages. I am not prepared to go into everything he has raised. What I want to say is that the question of an increase in salaries is not being raised because of an election. I can prove this from a speech which I made last year under the direction of the very hon. member who has just spoken. In my speech I dealt with the whole question of an increase in salaries. I pleaded with the hon. the Minister to change the structure for the approximately 50 000 railway workers who were earning below R200 per month. I actually received the figures in answer to a question which I put to the hon. the Minister. The figures he supplied indicated that there were 9 245 White railway employees who were earning R100 or less and 48 962 who were earning between R101 and R200 per month. That was the position in May 1972 and it emerged as a result of a reply to a question of mine. Since that date the position has hardly improved. The point that has been correctly made is: “How can people live on that salary?” I represent an area in which at least 700 families—that means approximately 3 000 souls—are living in conditions which cause one to be concerned about them as far as their living conditions are concerned. I am not concerned about them merely because I deal with them objectively. I have been to see them; I have been to their homes. I have spoken to them and I have heard their problems, the problems which people who are living below the breadline have to face up to. The hon. the Minister, who is a good trade unionist and a good labour man, knows what is happening in a country like Australia. I have quoted that example before. Australia is a country where trade unionism plays a very big part. Today Australia already has a Labour Government although I must say that I do not actually approve of it, but nevertheless trade unionism plays a very big part in that country. The question of wages is a vital factor in the lives of those 13 million or 14 million people who live in Australia. There they have adopted a principle which will, I think, make the hon. member for Vereeniging unhappy. They have adopted the principle of the minimum wage. That means that a man must earn sufficient in order to live decently. How can the Railways boast of its great achievements—we all believe that this is so; we do not for one minute doubt what the hon. the Minister has said about achievements over the last 30 or 40 years—when this is the position? As the hon. member for Durban Point rightly said, everyone gets elated because there has been progress. There must obviously be progress because the whole country has progressed; the whole country is different from what it was 30 or 40 years ago. We are living in an entirely different country from what it was at that stage. The point is that in this year 1974, with the country approaching one of its biggest booms in history according to knowledgeable people in the industrial, financial and commercial world, with gold reaching the tremendous peak of the moment and with the tremendous amount of money pouring into the coffers of the country, we still have nearly 50 000 White employees on the Railways who are earning what one might call well below breadline wages. We make appeals for the improvement of their position year after year. We know that even if you increase their salaries by a small percentage it could cost the Administration R10 million. What is R10 million in a budget of R1 600 million, or a budget which may well be R1 800 million or R1 900 million this year? The hon. the Minister is budgeting now for 67% of last year’s total budget, for only seven months of this year. One can therefore understand that the coming budget for next year will probably be well over last year’s budget. What is R10 million in such a budget of R1 800 million in order to improve the conditions under which these people live? It is all very well to talk about giving them subsidies in the form of railway cottages. They still have to pay the increased prices for food, they still have to pay the increased price for clothes, for transport, for education and for all the little amenities that help to make life worth living, particularly for the Railwayman living in that category who hardly sees his home, because he has to work overtime in order to make ends meet. So to accuse us of trying to use this as an election gimmick is utter nonsense. Why the hon. the Minister has not announced what is being rumoured, I do not know. It is probably because he is going to have such a tremendous surplus that maybe on this occasion there will not be an increase in the rates; maybe he will accept the advice of the hon. member for Durban Point and use the Consolidated Revenue Fund to provide some of the subsidies that are necessary with regard to imported and exported goods which, because of their varied nature, sometimes make it difficult for him to balance his budget. There are many problems regarding this question of the railway worker which we are concerned about. It is for that reason that we have raised this issue and that we have raised it so forcibly.

I want to say something in regard to a few other matters. The first matter I want to deal with is that of mass transport. No one could have foreseen the energy crisis and it is all very well for the hon. member for Yeoville to say that the crisis was being prepared for by the wise Administration of the hon. the Minister, but that is nonsense. I am not critical of the manner in which the people in the Railways are carrying out their duties; we are talking about policy matters. What the hon. member said was a lot of nonsense. The energy crisis was something that nobody actually foresaw. There was always the possibility of one because of our peculiar position. We therefore took certain steps, and quite rightly so. We did that as a Government and a country.

In regard to transport itself I want to say that most sophisticated countries, and I regard our country today as a fairly sophisticated country, have made provision to assist the moving of large numbers of people in big cities by public transport. You have it in a city like Sydney with its two and a half million people. They have a similar commuter service to ours there, bringing people to the centre of the city from within a radius of 90 miles. In the city itself they have a circular underground railway system connected up with the commuter service. A city like Johannesburg has now decided that it has to take steps in order to create some underground system to meet its growing needs and the needs that it will face in the years 1980, 1990 and 2000. They are now taking steps to do so without any assistance. I believe it is important for the Railway Administration to tie up with a city like Johannesburg. It should tie up with a city like Cape Town if necessary. It should enable its own commuter system to be part and parcel of it, because after all it has the monopoly of the vital public transport system of the country. I do believe that something should be done in this regard. Nothing about this was mentioned by the Minister in his speech. We know of no decision by the Administration in this regard. I think it is absolutely vital that something should be done in regard to this matter.

In regard to the holidaymakers which the hon. member for Durban Point referred to, I want to say immediately that I do not think it was a wise step to remove these concessions, and I would like to ask the Minister for an explanation. People are very sore about it and unfortunately, because of the present situation, some of them have actually been caught out.

They were removed about ten years ago.

Yes, I know that, but it has not become a crisis until now. It has been a burning point. The rates have only been increased during the last few years. They were never as high as they are now; they have become prohibitive. In fact, most people who do not want to drive to the Cape will hire a car in the Cape, but they will not send their car down by rail. This results in a loss of revenue, but, beyond that, such a concession would now have served its true purpose—and it was an important concession. Unless the hon. the Minister can satisfy us that he was losing money on this service I do not know what to think of it.

There is another matter I would like to raise, i.e. the matter of refreshments. This is a matter that was dealt with quite recently with regard to suburban transport. There are some transport systems in other parts of the world where, on long hauls comparable to the trip from, say, Johannesburg to Klerksdorp or Potchefstroom, or Cape Town to Worcester, refreshments are served to passengers in the coaches. I think the hon. the Minister should consider whether they cannot embark on a policy of this nature. I do not want to be facetious and suggest that there should be a bar service on a short trip such as from Cape Town to Simonstown, for instance. I do not know whether that is such a good thing. It may be; I should not like to interfere with the local demands of the people of Cape Town. However, I can appreciate the importance of providing refreshments in the form of sandwiches, hot pies and things of that nature and of drinks, if necessary, on longer hauls of, say, 100 or 150 miles. That practice is quite common in all parts of the world. It would mean revenue to the Administration, but at the same time it would serve the needs of the community. I think that that is a very important matter which should be looked at.

There is something further I wish to say. The hon. member for Durban Points made suggestions to the hon. Minister and I think that the manner in which he did so should be highly commended. I did not really wait for the hon. member for Yeoville to commend him for what he said because the hon. member for Durban Point always makes responsible speeches. I think that in his address today we heard a more responsible approach to the whole question of Railways than we have heard for some time. I think the hon. the Minister appreciates that as well. I do think that the factors which he brought to the notice of the hon. the Minister deserve very careful and very full consideration. After all, whilst we appreciate the full value of and have the highest regard for this remarkable organization and this remarkable administration of the Railways, it is our objective, our privilege and duty, to be critical and, we hope, constructively so. Well, that is what I think we have been doing today. We have been constructively critical and we have raised issues which, we believe, merit the attention of the hon. the Minister.

Before I close—this is something which I should have raised at the opening, but the opportunity was unfortunately not afforded to me because of events that took place prior to my rising to address the House—I, as one who has also known the hon. the Minister of Transport for a considerable number of years, should like to associate myself with what the hon. member for Durban Point has said about him on behalf of this side of the House and on behalf of himself personally. I, too, should like to say personally that, despite our criticism of his administration we have nevertheless always had a very high regard for his sincere approach to railway matters. We wish him well at the end of this extraordinary career of service which he has given to this Parliament and to the Republic of South Africa.

Ten more minutes.

No, I do not need ten more minutes, thank you. I am just concluding by expressing these thoughts which I have in my mind so that the hon. the Minister will know the regard hon. members on this side of the House have for him.

Mr. Speaker, it was very clear to me why the hon. member for Jeppes made this attack on the hon. member for Yeoville this evening. They referred here to the years 1972 and 1973 when the hon. the Minister said certain things about the hon. member for Yeoville when he was the shadow Minister of Railways on the Opposition side. Those days the hon. member for Yeoville had a very difficult task to carry out. He had to keep Harry Schwarz off their backs. In 1972 Harry Schwarz was underming the United Party, and at the time that hon. member was the responsible member who had to grant protection to these “Old Turks” who are now htting out at him in this fashion. His task was doubly as difficult. But I shall come back to the hon. member.

I first just briefly want to refer to the amendment that was moved by the hon. member for Durban Point. In the first leg of the amendment he moved that the Railways should now be financed from the Consolidated Revenue Account. In the second leg of his amendment he said that the Administration would now have to look to the salaries and wages of the staff in the lower groups. It is very clear to me that since the hon. member for Yeoville left the United Party, they have a new Railway policy. You will remember, Sir, last year that hon. member moved an amendment. The first leg of the amendment was to the effect that a pensionable allowance be created which should be adapted to the salaries of the railwaymen from time to time. This hon. member for Durban Point was the person who seconded that amendment bag and baggage. That is surely a deviation. If one were to create a pensionable allowance and added this to the railwayman’s salary, one could not do it by any other means than on a percentage basis. Now the hon. member comes along here this afternoon and says: “No, we do not believe in a percentage basis. One cannot simply give a 10% addition to the salary, because then one person gets R16 and the person earning R500 gets R50.” It is very clear to us that the United Party has changed their Railway policy. It is very clear to us that these leaders have lost the right hand of the United Party. That is why they are trudging around like this in the political dessert. If they had a policy, they would not be coming along with this alternative policy now. That hon. member for Jeppes also supported the amendment last year, and this year he is again supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Point. Sir, where do they want to go to? Do they think the railway people can trust them if they cannot even be consistent each year.

Do you not know the difference between an increase and a cost of living allowance?

I should like to link with those who paid tribute to the hon. the Minister of Transport. It is a privilege for me, not only as a young member of this House, but also as an ex-railwayman, to pay tribute to him. We have come to the point where he is presenting his last Part Appropriation for approval by this House. We also know that this hon. Minister has an unequalled record as a Minister. I do not know of any other man who has held that post so long and handled it in such a way. This Minister’s record attests to faith in and service to his people and his country. We who are sitting in this House all realize what an important role the transport system plays in any country. Only when we think of this do we realize what a worthy contribution this hon. Minister has made to the development of this fine country and to the growth of the economy of South Africa. We know from experience that when a country does not have a good transport network, that country’s future is doomed. We know that the South African Railways, with the various networks that go hand in hand with it, is amongst the best in the world. I have had the privilege of travelling abroad, and only when one returns does one fully realize how good and how organized the South African Railways is. In thinking of these aspects, one asks oneself the question: To what does one ascribe the success of the hon. the Minister? Does one not, in the first place, ascribe it to that integrity and that honesty which is part and parcel of the hon. the Minister? In the second place one ascribes it to the fact that the hon. the Minister is straight as a die with friends and enemies; he knows no twists. The hon. member for Yeoville referred to that. When it was necessary to take action, the hon. the Minister did not hesitate to take people by the scruff of the neck and put them where they belonged, and then they came to sit in these benches. However, that party does not have the courage to let those people sit in these benches, because they are so divided that they do not have that honesty and sincerity to take action when it is necessary. Thirdly, the hon. the Minister is a person who looks one straight in the eye at all times. That is the kind of person the hon. the Minister of Transport is, and as such we have come to know him. Fourthly, he does not hesitate to state unequivocally his disagreement with one. He is a person completely unversed in beating about the bush. But his finest characteristic and trait, which I encountered as a young member in this House, and which influenced me, is that whenever he realized that, being human, he had made a mistake, he had the courage of his convictions to say: I have made a mistake. What a great man, Sir! We could all take a page from that hon. Minister’s book. Another fine characteristic of the hon. the Minister is his faith in his fellow-men, particularly in the railwaymen. I am saying that the railwaymen are his children, and he has always been to them a reliable father. When it was necessary to give discipline, and when it was necessary to speak loudly, the hon. the Minister did not hesitate to do so. When it was necessary to laud and to praise, the hon. the Minister did so at the proper time. He stood by his people at all times. He was straight with them. That is why the railwaymen trust the National Party.

We remember that last year when we introduced the Budget, when we were debating the Railway Budget here, one U.P. speaker after another stood up and attacked the hon. the Minister because for once a dispute had been proclaimed and it was necessary for a judicial commission to be appointed. Then every U.P. member who stood up here repeatedly attacked the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister put it to this House very clearly, when the representations were made to him, why he could not grant any increases at that stage. When a commission was appointed and that staff association was found to be right, the hon. the Minister was the first person who turned round and said: Not only do we make those allocations to those people who have a right to them, we also give that increase to every railwayman. That is what the hon. the Minister did, and the Opposition again tried to exploit that.

We know that during the past 19 years there have been many disputes in the Railways. Arbitration was resorted to on several occasions. If my memory does not fail me, there was only one occasion when the court of arbitration did not uphold the hon. the Minister’s findings. That is what happened every time, except in one case when the technical staff of the Airways went on strike. On this occasion the hon. the Minister’s opinion was not upheld.

Several hon. members on the Government side have already referred to the wage increases and staff improvements that have taken place in the service of the Railways, and I do not want to go into that again. The railwaymen knew they could place their trust in the hon. the Minister. A further reason why the railwaymen stand by the National Party today, is because the railwaymen trust the National Party. They cannot trust the United Party. The hon. member for Yeoville rightly said that they would catch it in the neck as never before.

Can you trust the hon. member for Yeoville?

For that reason this National Party has been ruling the country now for 26 years. There are more than 200 000 railwaymen who can cast their votes, and I say they trust the National Party. I want to put this question to the hon. members of the United Party today: How many times have they attacked the integrity of the railwaymen? They have repeatedly attacked the integrity of the railwaymen, and I shall prove this to them, quoting chapter and verse. We referred to the by-election in Newcastle. We still remember how the hon. the Minister was attacked at the time, and how it was said he had introduced an increase to gain votes in Newcastle. We know this. We remember it being said that he bribed the voters. I say this kind of statement is an attack affecting the integrity of the railwaymen.

But who did it?

That hon. member is one of those who did it. Do they still remember the by-election in Langlaagte, the racket that broke loose when there was talk of the “Langlaagte lolly”? How could they forget that? Every member came to light with that. I am saying, Sir, that it is the subversion of the integrity of the railwaymen, and then they have the temerity to expect the railwaymen to vote for them in the future! If the hon. the Minister had wanted to buy votes, he had the most perfect opportunity to have done it prior to the 1970 election, because that Langlaagte election took place just after the general election of 1970. The hon. the Minister repeatedly explained to us in this House that wage and salary increases are not simply things one can grant in the space of a day; these are aspects requiring lengthy negotiations. They repeatedly said that this party, in the person of the hon. the Minister, was buying votes. I say, what an insult! What an insult to the railwaymen! We have an election on 24 April, and we are grateful to know that according to the latest figures and this Budget, the surplus prospect is brighter than was originally anticipated. The hon. the Minister is now retiring, and if he was so eager to buy votes, he could go to the country now and give salary increases because he is retiring from politics, but he will not do so, because we know the hon. the Minister as an honest man. They must not think they can buy the railwaymen’s votes in that fashion. This is now the last opportunity for hon. members of the United Party, who have accused the hon. the Minister, to stand up in this debate and apologize to the hon. the Minister for having cast suspicion upon hom, if they are man enough, if they are not spineless individuals. [Laughter.] Hon. members on that side are laughing.

They have not got the guts.

Join the cabaret!

Sir, this will be their last chance to apologize.

Sir, let me get back a little closer to the Budget. We notice with gratitude that the expected surplus of R7,8 million will be a little larger. What we find encouraging is the fact that the hon. the Minister expects it to be considerably larger. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that last year the hon. the Minister gave a review of the Railways for the financial year 1972-73 when he introduced his Budget here. You will remember that he explained to this House why it was necessary to introduce certain increases in rates; why it was necessary to increase certain passenger fares; why harbour rates had to be readjusted and why readjustments had to be made to road transport rates. Sir, after the salary increases of more than R100 million, the hon. the Minister was compelled to take the unpopular step of introducing higher rates. After having had before us the estimated figures of revenue and expenditure for the financial year 1972-73, we still budgeted for a deficit of R45 million. When the hon. the Minister introduced his Budget for the financial year 1973-74 to this House, he said that we expect a surplus of R7,8 million. You will remember well, Sir, how members on that side carried on about the deficit for the year 1972-73 and how they ran away from the Budget. [Interjection.] Yes, that hon. member for Jeppes was one of them. You will remember, Sir, how pessimistic the long Jeremiah on that side, the hon. member for Constantia, was. You will remember how they ran away from this Budget. Not one of them had the courage to face up to the Budget. No, they came along with all kinds of strange ideas; they wanted to come along with all kinds of instant solutions. The only solution they came along with was the same solution they are coming along with today, i.e. that the shortage should be supplemented from the Consolidated Revenue Account. In the same breath they made a racket about too little money being deposited in the sinking-fund and the renewals fund, but they did not have the guts, as a responsible Opposition, to say how they would finance this. They could not do so. Sir, the same hon. gentlemen last pleaded here for increased expenditure, for increased capital expenditure. You will remember, Sir, that the hon. member who now has to relinquish his seat in Groote Schuur to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, is the person who stood up here and made a terrific plea for “air-conditioned coaches” in the Karoo.

Hear, hear!

The hon. member says “Hear, hear!”, but he does not say where the finances must come from. You will remember, Sir, that a member on that side lodged a plea here this afternoon, for free parking in Durban. Where must the finances come from? When it comes to financing, they are “zipped”; then it does not concern them, but they can easily spend. Sir, at that stage, when increases in rates had to be introduced, we had not had a good agricultural year. We were ravaged by droughts. We know that droughts affect traffic. We were concerned with import control measures as a result of which certain high-rated commodities could not enter the country. We know how sensitive the revenue of the Railways is when one touches high-rated traffic to the slightest extent. Sir, then they had no confidence in their own country, South Africa. They came along with all kinds of instant solutions, but the Minister came along with a Budget which he based on confidence in an upsurge in the economy of our country, South Africa; then hon. members on that side were the Jeremiahs; they were the pessimists: they had no confidence in their own fatherland. But that is how the people of South Africa have come to know them. After all, this is not the first time they have proved they have no confidence in the future of their own fatherland. You will remember, Sir, in 1948 they were the people who predicted that the banks would close down; when the Iscor Act was placed on the Statute Book, they were the people who saw no future for Iscor. When the Sasol legislation was placed on the Statute Book, they were people who saw no future for Sasol, but today they want to drive round with Sasol petrol.

What about the rinderpest?

Then they fled from the Budget specifically when they should have evidenced responsibility. How will the people of South Africa ever vote for such a party? No, surely they know those promises of 1958 and they know those “nine solemn pledges” of 1966, but now they come along again with these empty promises, and then they expect to come into power. I now come to the last point.

When are you getting to your speech?

I am coming to the point. We are now getting the opportunity to go to the people of South Africa, and on 24 April we shall ask the people to determine by its vote who must determine the future of this country. I pointed out that there are about 200 000 railway-men. And after all, the United Party now has the opportunity to go and state its policy. The National Party is not ashamed to go and reveal its record of the past 25 years to the voters. We have an equal, fair chance, but I will tell you, Sir, that they will not get the support, because the electorate and the railwaymen of South Africa do not know where they stand with the Bantu policy of that Opposition. [Interjections.] Yes, they whine when one refers to that. We still remember the dramatic plea of the hon. member for Jeppes year after year, to the effect that we should make use of more non-Whites in the Railways. We remember the support he got from the hon. member for Maitland. Repeatedly the hon. the Minister told them we could not simply open the sluices as they wished; the Minister said we could only do so with the co-operation of the trade unions. Do they want to create the same unrest that prevails in Great Britain today? No, we have known the Railways in recent years and we have no knowledge of anything like a strike on the Railways. But do they want to encourage it? This is what I am asking.

I should now like to come to a last point. These people who lodge a plea for the abolition of section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act will immediately say I am talking nonsense, because it does not affect the Railways. But if these people abolish section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act, that protective provision, then I ask: If there were no National Party Minister for the Railways sitting in the Cabinet, who would protect the White workers? No, they know they will not manage it.

Last year the hon. member for Durban Point levelled an accusation in this House in connection with the dishonesty of the railwaymen. We shall go from constituency to constituency, and I shall quote that the hon. member said that there are people on the Railways who look at the work they have to do, decide that there is three or four hours work and then keep the work back so as to get overtime to supplement their salaries. What is getting money in dishonest ways if it is not theft, if one may call it that? [Interjections.] I shall quote. The hon. member must not be so hasty. This is what he said (Hansard, 1973, col. 2428)—

I say that is a blatant accusation to the effect that railwaymen in certain grades are stealing money from the State. He must go and justify his accusation on every platform where there are railwaymen present. Does such a party expect to obtain a vote from Nationalists? Does such a party expect they will obtain the vote of the railwaymen? No, the railwayman has always had confidence in the National Party. The railwayman knows that his future is being safeguarded by the National Party. If there has ever been a party which is going to suffer a damning reversal, it is the United Party on 24 April 1974, because the electorate will then again put their confidence in the Minister they had and in the National Party.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that I need devote much time to the history lesson that the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark has tried to give us. It is quite apparent that he is worried about the election on 24 April. It is quite apparent that he is worried that the railway workers are going to reject this Government and therefore he was anxious to place certain matters on record. Of everything he said there is only one thing on which I can agree with him and that is his tribute to the hon. the Minister of Transport, oom Ben, who is now leaving us. This House is going to be that much the poorer because one of the last characters of the House is now leaving—rough, bluff oom Ben, who sometimes gave inexplicable decisions, but always fair. Afterwards it turned out to be fair, I must say that in fairness too. Sometimes, however, he was very hard to understand. He, I believe, did this House a service and did for the country and the Railway Administration in particular the best job he could do within the limits that the policy of his party allowed him.

I must hand to this hon. Minister, the courage of being the first one to be practical, to be sensible in the carrying out of the duties imposed upon him by his portfolio. He was the first Minister to take his courage in both hands and introduce into White jobs non-White people. When I challenged him across the floor, as I was the first one to have the privilege of doing on this particular matter, this hon. Minister had the courage to say: “I have a job of work to do and if I have to use Black people, I shall use them.” He will go down in history for that if for nothing else. I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Umhlatuzana said and wish the hon. the Minister a long and happy retirement. He has earned it in the service of his country and I sincerely wish him a long retirement.

The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark raised the question of salaries. He took exception to the fact that the hon. member for Durban Point said, when he replied to the hon. the Minister, that, firstly, we were disappointed to hear that there was no promise of an increase in pay for railway workers at least in the next three months, possibly in the next six months. Secondly, he took him to task for saying that we would be opposed to a blanket increase of 10% or 15% or whatever it might be. We felt that such a type of increase would be unfair.

Have you changed your policy?

No, it is not a question of changing policy; it is a question of being realistic. How many times have we brought to the attention of this House the plight of the thousands of workers, Whites as well as non-Whites, who are working in the Railways at wages below R200 and R100 per month? Let us deal with the White workers in particular for the moment; we are facing an election which is coming up. Is it fair, if the hon. the Minister were to introduce a 15% increase in salaries, that the worker with a salary of R200 per month is going to get an increase of R30 whereas the worker with a salary of R600 per month is going to get an increase of R90 per month?

Does the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark believe that the cost of living of the worker who earns R200 per month and who has three children is less than that of the worker who earns R600 per month and who also has three children? Does he believe that the increase in the cost of living, which is running at the rate of 10% at the moment and 17% on foodstuffs, is less for the worker who earns R200 per month than it is for the worker who earns R600 per month? I want to say to that hon. member that he must be realistic. Where an increase of R30 per month is considered adequate for one worker, that R30 per month must be adequate for the other worker as well. I, like my hon. friend from Salt River, believe that the Administration is becoming top-heavy. The Railways Administration is becoming top-heavy particularly salary wise. The top men are being paid too much in relation to the bottom men who are not paid enough.

But I want to come back to the hon. the Minister. I want to ask him to tell us in his reply to this debate whether he has had any representations from the salaried staff or any of the staff associations of the Railways for an increase in salaries during the last three or four months. I know that he has had such representations and I am sure that the hon. the Minister, who is an honourable gentleman, will tell us that he has had these representations. I believe that this hon. Minister must tell this House, the country and all the railwaymen the reasons why he has rejected their claims for increases in salary. The last time that they had an increase in their salaries was in 1972, at the time of the Klip River by-election. As has been pointed out this increase was granted after the by-election but the promises were made before the by-election. The Railway workers knew before that they were going to get an increase, but they did not know that there was going to be a sting in the tail, viz. that there was going to be an increase in tariffs which was going to heat up the increase in the cost of living …

And in the rents of houses.

… and in the rents of railway houses as my hon. friend from Durban Point reminds me. The point is that the increases which were received in 1972 barely compensated them for the increase in the cost of living up to that stage. What has happened since then? Since then the overall cost of living has gone up by nearly 17%. The cost of foodstuffs alone has gone up by 30% since then. These lower-paid wage-earners whom I am talking about—those who are earning below R200 and R100 per month—cannot afford to buy the luxuries which could have had the effect of bringing down the overall cost of living. They can only exist and that is all they can do. They are the people who are hit at the rate of nearly 30% since the last increase in pay which they have received. I believe that the hon. Minister owes them an explanation as to why he has made a comment here this afternoon that they will not get an increase. I believe the railway workers want to know the reason. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark talked about the coming election and about the voting of the voters. When the stomachs of the voters are empty, when they are hungry, they are not going to vote for this Government unless that hon. the Minister has a valid reason for turning down their application for an increase in salaries.

The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark said that the United Party must tell the Railway workers what the policy of the United Party is in regard to the Railways. The policy of the United Party can be seen in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Point this afternoon. That amendment lays down our policy towards the administration of the Railways. It is quite clear what we will do for the workers and what we will do for the Administration. What was the first point of the amendment? It is that we as the Government will accept the responsibility for the financing from Consolidated Revenue of losses incurred in uneconomic services provided that it is in the interest of the national economy. We accept that essential services will be financed from Consolidated Revenue. This Government has done this in the past, as a matter of fact I think this hon. the Minister has received in the last couple of years no less than R300 million—that is if my figures are correct—from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Why then can it not be done again? The second point is that we will review the sub economic levels of basic pay in the lower grades of service and adjust other grades accordingly. This is where the overtime story comes from. These people are compelled to do overtime work in order to exist. They cannot exist on under R200 per month and therefore they are compelled to do overtime. This is why we believe that there has to be a review of the whole salary structure throughout the Railways. The third leg of our policy is that the Administration will provide adequate realistic planning to meet the modern day demand for a speedier transportation of passengers and goods. I want to deal with that a little later. The fourth leg is that immediate and specific steps must be taken to play a meaningful part in overcoming the fuel crisis by attracting traffic from the roads to rail and air services.

Let us deal with air services for a moment. I want to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister, because I believe he should know in the interest of good administration, that I believe there has been a shocking deterioration in the quality of the service provided by our S.A. Airways. I do not blame the staff. I am not for one moment being critical of the ground staff or those in the air. I am being critical of the cuts that have been made, obviously administratively, by this Minister and his Administration in an attempt to bolster the flagging finances of what was at one time an economic proposition which showed a profit but which suddenly went into the red. This hon. Minister seems to have taken panic measures to bring it back into the black. I have just done a trip overseas. I travel lend on six different airlines. I travelled at economy rates, tourist class, but I never received as poor service as I received on the internal services of the S.A. Airways, even on the internal services of various european airways. Admittedly I sat in cramped quarters, admittedly I sat six abreast instead of five abreast, admittedly I did not have room to stretch my legs, but I got a sandwich with my cup of tea and a biscuit with a cup of coffee. When you ask for it on an aircraft in South Africa today the answer is: “I am sorry, we do not carry those things any more.” It is these little things that count. What happens when you get to the end of your journey? On Saturday morning I arrived in Durban and it was 23 minutes before the first article of luggage appeared from the aircraft. There was another member of this House there who can corroborate this. It is this sort of service which is going to break down the good name that the S.A. Airways have built up over the years. I believe that the hon. the Minister should be aware of these facts so that he can take, before he leaves, the necessary steps to put these things right, I do not believe that this penny-pinching on the provision of biscuits and sandwiches is doing the goodwill of the Airways any good at all and I believe that we have to jack up the service that we get when we reach the end of our journey.

I now want to come particularly to the third and the fourth legs of the amendment which was moved by the hon. member for Durban Point. This matter was also touched on by the hon. members for Salt River and Jeppes, i.e. the fuel crisis with which South Africa is now being faced. I do not think it is any good saying that there is no fuel crisis, because we had the hon. Minister of Economic Affairs who is charged with this matter, on 7 February this year saying that there is a crisis, that we should be saving 35% of what we have been using if we are to keep head above water, or head above petrol if you put it that way, but that we are only saving 15% and that the most that he can expect is 20%. He ended up by saying: “Daarom moet ons ander metodes aanwend.” I believe this is where this hon. Minister and the Administration come in. It is up to this Administration to provide mass transport for the people. The area in which I live in Natal sees thousands of cars every day commuting between 15 and 20 miles to Durban, mainly one person to a car. This causes terrific congestion, so that at the moment the 18 miles to Durban cannot be driven at peak hours in under an hour and a half. But just think of the waste of petrol involved. The question is, why? Why is this happening? The Railway Administration will tell you that it is happening because people will not support the Railways and will not use the services which are provided. When you speak to the people, they say “Look at the timetable; look at the conditions we are asked to travel under; how can we do it?” I had a look; I went into the conditions. I found that the 18 miles from Hillcrest to Durban by rail takes 1½ hour and the train stops at 22 stations. How can you expect any businessman whose time is money to make use of such a service? I went into the matter further and found that a comparison of the time-table for this year, 1974, and the time-table of 1911 shows that now, in 1974, the train covers the 18 miles one minute faster than it did in 1911. That is how far we have progressed. The train actually covers that distance one minute faster now than it did 63 years ago. Then the Administration says: “The public will not use the services we provide”.

I wrote to the System Manager in Durban early in December. I pointed out to him that I believed that it was the responsibility of the Railways to provide the means of transport in the light of the fuel crisis which this country was going to face. I was most disappointed in the reply I received, which I now want to discuss with the hon. the Minister. I believe that a copy of the correspondence has been sent at least to head office. I believe that this shows that this Administration is totally unprepared for what it is going to have to provide if this country is going to continue to work because the onus is going to be on this Administration to move the people. When further petrol restrictions are introduced—I advisedly say “when”—the people are going to have to look to this Administration to move them because it is the only way in which they will be moved other than by shank’s pony, on their two flat feet. But what do we find? The first point is that the potential is realized but nothing is being done about it. The letter reads—

I want to tell this House that this was already realized over 30 years ago under the then United Party government. In fact, plans were drawn up before 1946 for the straightening of this line. In fact, even the expropriation notices were served on property owners before 1946 for the straightening of this line, work which the System Manager deals with a little later. In 1948, however, with the advent of the National Party Government, those plans were pigeonholed and today are still collecting dust … I almost said “and the Minister fiddles; while the petrol burns”. That is the position. The letter reads further—

This was already foreseen over 30 years ago by the United Party Government, but this Government pigeonholed those plans. Today they face this crisis, but the answer I get is: “It cannot be done”, because they did not take action then. The letter continues—

I should think so; it has been under review for over 30 years—

The letter goes further—

The hon. the Minister knows that Pinetown and Booth are between Hillcrest Bothas Hill and Durban.

I want to congratulate him on one thing. At least I find in the Estimates of Additional Expenditure the following under item No. 13 (head No. 2): “Booth-Berea road: sextupling of line.”

You do not know what that means.

I do not think it is what that hon. member believes it is. It is not a rude word. It means “creating six lines”. That hon. member thinks it is a rude word. But at last something is happening, and I see that something like R16 million is going to be spent on this, which is going to obviate the bottle-neck which exists at the moment, while we cannot have these extra services. But we are going to spend the “vast” amount of R100 between now and 31 March. I sincerely hope that a lot more than R100 is going to be spent in the new financial year commencing on 1 April. It is imperative that we should go ahead with this work and have these lines laid down.

But, Sir, the most disappointing part of this letter comes in the following paragraph—

I agree; that is fine. So far, so good—

Here is an admission that the Railways’ Administration are not prepared to face up to their responsibilities in this matter, that they are going to use what finance is available for other matters, and let the people walk. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs is going to take their petrol away from them. The hon. the Minister of Transport is not going to give them a train to travel to town. The hon. member for Jeppes suggested ways and means of improving the service, of attracting commuters and other people to use the service. We have told the hon. the Minister how to finance the service if it is going to be uneconomic. He himself has said that no urban community service is economic. We have told him how to finance it, from general revenue if necessary. I believe that this hon. Minister can do this country a last service. I have mentioned one line, the one I know best. But I believe that this situation is duplicated over and over throughout the Republic, even here in Cape Town, which has a far better commuter service than we have in Durban. Even this service is going to be totally inadequate when petrol rationing comes in, and it will come in, make no mistake. If this hon. Minister can deny it with any authority, I will be very glad to hear from him. But it is going to come in after the election, and I do not believe that any responsible Minister on that side will dare to deny that statement.

Ask Speedy.

Speedy does not know anything about petrol; he only uses it. I believe that it is this hon. the Minister’s responsibility to look into this matter now as a matter of extreme urgency. It applies to every urban complex throughout the Republic, and not only to the one I have mentioned. He can go out in a larger blaze of glory than that in which he is going, by providing for the people of South Africa this commuter service.

Implicit in my correspondence with the System Manager was an idea, put forward to me—I am not claiming benefit for it at all—how to improve the service. The hon. member for Jeppes touched on it briefly. Everyone of these trains should have a dining-saloon and the requisite service attached to it, even the commuter trains, especially for those which leave early in the morning and those returning after five in the evening. I believe that these facilities, the dining-cars, should be provided. In the mornings, breakfast should be provided. Businessmen with whom I have discussed this are enthusiastic about the idea. If the trains can be moved at a faster rate, if people can leave their homes and get to work inside an hour and if in that hour they can have the facilities of breakfast in the morning, they would use the trains provided by this Administration. Similarly, Sir, on the return trip in the afternoon, the dining saloons should provide a bar service. Passengers can then have their sundowners on the way home and the “old girl’s” can meet them at the station. But once again, Sir, it appears that the optimum time which these people are suggesting for such a service is one hour. Nobody should be required to travel for more than an hour to reach his home.

Mr. Speaker, I have tried in some way this evening to make positive suggestions to the hon. the Minister as to how he can improve the service and the quality of his Administration. I hope he will accept those suggestions and I repeat what I said earlier: I hope he will have a long and a happy retirement.

Mr. Speaker, grant me the opportunity, through these channels, to convey thanks and appreciation, on behalf of myself and the voters I represent in this House, and in particular the railwaymen of Uitenhage, to the hon. the Minister for what he has meant to me as a young man, who was elected to this House eight years ago, and for what he has meant to my constituency. I also want to convey my thanks and appreciation to the hon. the Minister on behalf of the railwaymen of Uitenhage for what he has done for them in the past decade in which he has headed the Railways Administration of the Republic of South Africa. This evening I want to convey to him the greetings of the railwaymen of Uitenhage. I want to tell the Minister that I think he is largely responsible for the fact that I so convincingly won the party nomination in Uitenhage, because when I arrived here eight years ago as a young man, I went to learn from the hon. the Minister about railway matters. As you know, Sir, I represent one of the largest Railway centres in the Republic of South Africa, and I want to acknowledge this evening that my teacher has always been right and has always kept me on the right path. Our thanks and appreciation to the hon. the Minister for what he has meant to Uitenhage.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, I could very easily respond to the interjection of the hon. member for Durban Point with respect to the advertisements in my constituency, etc., but I do not want to go into that. All I want to tell the hon. member for Durban Point is that I was at least properly nominated, and that is much more than many members on the other side of the House can say. I do not know whether the hon. member for Durban Point was properly nominated; I think he was simply appointed.

By Harry Schwarz.

Mr. Speaker, the debate has thus far been characterized by an election spirit. On 24 April we have to go to the voters of the Republic of South Africa. Sir. I was impressed by the plea that came from the United Party side. They tried to catch some votes. It was very clear that they were trying to catch fish on dry land. Sir, before I briefly analyse their statements this evening—I actually want to dwell on two hon. members, i.e. the hon. members for Durban Point and Umhlatuzana—I have another pleasant task, and that is to say goodbye to another hon. member on the opposite side of the House, the hon. member for Salt River. The hon. member for Salt River made a speech here this evening, the first part of which I do not agree with. With another portion I am in full agreement. I just want to point out to him that we on this side of the House are quite entitled to voice an independent opinion in this House. For that reason I agree with the hon. member in regard to the second leg of his speech. With the first part of his speech I cannot agree. My hon. friend said that the continual pressure, which the United Party has put on the Government, has resulted in the railwaymen having received certain concessions through the years. Sir, if that is the degree of pressure which the United Party has exercised to obtain certain concessions such as those, I want to tell my hon. friend that the pressure will have to be quite a bit stronger after 24 April to get even more concessions, because the railwaymen did not get any concessions as a result of that pressure; the railwaymen got what they had to get; they received what was owing to them as a result of the actions of the National Party Government and not as a result of any pressure whatever on the part of any Opposition. The hon. the Minister is aware of the fact that in 1972 I made a speech in this hon. House in which I asked the hon. the Minister to consider amending the Railways and Harbours Service Act in such a way that the railway officials would be entitled to legal representation as regards charges when they are prosecuted under the disciplinary code, and the Minister pointed out that this was not practical and did not agree with me. Therefore I want the hon. member for Salt River to leave this House this evening with sweet memories of the fact that I fully support the hon. member’s plea to the Minister this evening, in which he requested the Minister to appoint a judge to investigate the disciplinary code on the Railways. I am not doing so because I find fault with the officials who administer this disciplinary code. I am on record in this House as already having paid tribute to those officials repeatedly. I do not doubt their competence, but I just feel, also to a certain extent as a legal man, that the railway official who goes to face a charge today is not properly defended, and therefore I support the motion of the hon. member for Salt River and hope and trust that the hon. the Minister will give it the necessary attention.

The hon. member for Durban Point’s view was already placed on record in this House last year. The hon. members for Randburg and for Vanderbijl Park referred to the matter and therefore I do not want to repeat it. He is on record as having said that where overtime does not exist on the South Africa Railways, that overtime must be created.

In certain cases.

It is recorded in Hansard. I read this speech of the hon. member for Durban Point with some success in my constituency, and during the coming election I shall read it, from every platform, to the railway officials of the Republic of South Africa. What does the hon. member mean by the word “created”? The word “created” has only one meaning. “Created” means that one has to put something in the place of something that does not exist, i.e. that something which one creates one consequently creates illegally, as very clearly indicated here in Hansard. And the railwaymen of the Republic will take note of that quotation of the hon. member for Durban Point as being a reflection, and not only on the railwaymen in the broad sense of the word. With that speech the hon. member for Durban Point was actually trying to go fox the supervisory officials of the S.A. Railways. Those senior officials, who are placed there to supervise, are the people who, according to the hon. member for Durban Point, are creating the opportunities for overtime work where that is not justified. The hon. member said with a flourish that it is very certain that the United Party will take over after 24 April. Sir, if such a disaster were to strike the Republic of South Africa, i.e. if that side of the House were to take over after 24 April, I am saying we are going to meet the election with a United Party which has no policy whatsoever as far as the railwaymen are concerned. They are merely catching the railwayman’s vote, “by hook or by crook” by whatever means they are able to.

More “by crook than by hook”!

Order!

The hon. member is saying it, not I.

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

The hon. member made an important point here. He referred to railwaymen who are earning less than R200 per month and consequently could not take proper care of their families as far as the financial side is concerned. That is the statement the hon. member made.

On their basic salary.

On their basic salary, yes. It is not the sole responsibility of the Railways Administration to ensure that a family is fed properly or to look after the interests of that family as far as finances are concerned. It is also the duty of the State by way of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. What does that department do? Each married couple in my constituency, in Uitenhage, which is in the service of the Railways and qualifies for a family allowance, gets that allowance, and if they do not get it, I help them to do so. What are the facts? We must not be blinded by the basic salaries of the railwaymen and by overtime. What else does the State do to help those families? I shall mention a few figures. A married couple with three children and an income of R1 596 per annum qualifies immediately for a family allowance of an additional R450 per year. If there are four children, the additional amount is R576 per year, and so I could go on right up to ten children, in which case the additional amount is R1 332. The figures I have quoted are applicable to an ordinary Railway worker who earns R100 per month. The Railway worker earning R140 per month falls into the category R1 644 to R1 692 and he qualifies for a family allowance of R354 per year if he has three children. If he has ten children, he qualifies for an allowance of R1 332 per year. A railway worker earning R150 per month falls into the category R1 788 to R1 836, and if he has three children he qualifies for a family allowance of R210 per year, while if he has ten children, he qualifies for R1 332 per year. This allowance was created by the National Party Government, not only for the railwaymen, but for any married couple that has more than three children. However, these are facts that are purposely concealed, if I may put it like that, by the United Party in this House, because they again want to go fraudulently to the voters of the Republic of South Africa on 24 April. They do not want to fully inform them.

We do not follow your example.

The hon. member says they do not follow my example.

Of deceit.

Does the hon. member want to tell me that I am a cheat? [Interjections.] In any case, coming from that hon. member I regard it as a compliment.

The hon. member spoke of overtime. On a previous occasion I asked the hon. member for Durban Point to give us a definition of “excessive overtime”.

He has never been able to do so.

Yes, he has never been able to do so. The hon. member or Koedoespoort is quite correct. Apart from the fact that the United Party has never been able to define “excessive overtime” properly, I want to put a question to the United Party, since we are on the eve of an election. The speaker to follow me up is usually the hon. member for Port Natal. I think he is a reasonable, honest (“redelike, eerbare”) member of this House, from what I know of him and as far as Railway matters are concerned. Would the hon. member tell us …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is it parliamentary to say that a member is a “redelik eerbare lid”?

Order! What is wrong with saying a member is “redelik”?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He said “redelik eerlike”.

No, “redelike, eerlike” is what the hon. member said, not “redelik eerlik”. The hon. member may proceed.

Apparently the hon. member for Transkei does not understand Afrikaans.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I submit that the hon. member is trifling with the Chair. He said, “Hy is redelik eerlik” and not “redelik en eerlik”.

That is not so.

His exact words were, “Soos ek hom ken, is hy ’n redelik eerlike man”.

I heard him say, “Hy is ’n redelike, eerlike man”.

He said, “Hy is ’n redelik eerlike man”.

No, that is not so.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think a person is being most honest when he is being most reasonable.

Are you trifling with the Chair?

Order! I do not need the assistance of the hon. Whip. I listened carefully to the hon. member, and what he said is, “Hy is ’n redelike, eerlike man”. Is that what the hon. member said?

Yes, Mr. Speaker; that is correct.

We have, up to now, still been waiting for the United Party, which objects so strenuously to excessive overtime, to tell us before 24 April whether they would do away with the excessive overtime—hon. members may use whatever terms they like. Let them tell the railwaymen that before 24 April. They do not have the courage to do so, because what are the facts? My experience in my constituency has taught me that when a person wants to be placed in the service of the Railways, he cannot in all cases, but he can in the majority of cases—then I am being honest with hon. members—ask: “Sir, please put me in a job in the Railways where I can also get Sunday time and overtime”. That is, after all, the position. We all strive to earn more; do not begrudge the railwayman the chance to earn more as well. The hon. members must not stand up here and try to deceive the House by saying that the railwaymen’s families and children suffer as a result. The railwaymen who feel their families and children are suffering as a result will look out for other jobs, but as long as they are employed by the Railways they do that work because they are loyal to the State and to the government of the day.

And he votes Nationalist.

Yes, of course he votes Nationalist. What has the National Party done for the aged, for our Railway pensioners?

Nothing.

Hon. members say we have done nothing. There sits the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, who draws a pension, and he is the person who is attacking the Government.

What has that to do with you?

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana stood up here this evening and made a moving plea in which he thanked the hon. the Minister for everything he did. However, last year the hon. member for Umhlatuzana stood up in this House and said that the senior officials in the service of the Railways Administration had looked after themselves and that a wall had been built round them which cannot be penetrated. This evening I want to venture a prediction and tell hon. members that as far as railway constituencies are concerned, the election on 24 April has already been lost by the United Party. Why do I say this? There are two hon. members on that side of the House who must bear the responsibility for that. They are the hon. members for Durban Point and Umhlatuzana. They will lose the railway constituencies for the United Party. A second reason why they are going to lose the election in the railway centres is because they try vainly to look here in Hansard for quotes to belittle the hon. member for Yeoville.

One does not even need to look.

They sought, but did not find. The passages they have thus far quoted in this House to discredit the hon. member for Yeoville before 24 April, have not succeeded. I am convinced that hon. members will have to take a good look at the hon. member for Turffontein, who spoke the other day, because they will not be seeing him in this House again. Hon. members will see me in this House again, but they will not see him. That is why that hon. member and other members will not return again—because they cannot fight the hon. member for Yeoville on the grounds of policy but, only by rehashing old matters. That is what they want to fight him on. The National Party has also looked after our railway pensioners, people for whom hon. members on the other side have tried to lodge pleas in every railway debate, and not with any good results, because when they stood up to lodge a plea, the hon. the Minister had already done what they were asking for. On 1 April 1963, about ten years ago, a married pensioner or a single person with one or more dependants received R54 per month. Today the same person receives R130 per month. A single person received a pension of R27 per month on 1 April 1963, while today he receives R65 per month. Here the hon. member for Yeoville quoted the various figures to indicate that since 1948 the National Government has to date spent R412,9 million on increasing the salaries of our Railway personnel. Hon. members must accept it as a fact that the railwayman is intelligent and will not forget what the National Party Government has done for him over the past few years. The National Party Government has done more than the old S.A. Party ever did since its establishment.

In wanting to conclude, I come to the hon. member for Umlatuzana, who is an ex-railwayman. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana paid tribute to the hon. the Minister, as I have said. I want to ask the hon. member to stand up here this evening and repeat that accusation he made in this House in 1972 when he said that as an ex-railwayman he would not advise anyone to join the Railways Administration. However, this evening he paid tribute to the hon. the Minister. At the time he said he could not advise anyone to enter the service of the S.A. Railways. I think the hon. member for Umhlatuzana has undergone a metamorphosis.

He is still going to cross over.

I hope he does not come here. I think he ought to take back those words this evening, because as an ex-railwayman in his bench over there I think he is ashamed this evening. He too will make a contribution on 24 April to the downfall of the United Party.

How stupid can you be?

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana made a second statement. The fact that the hon. member says I am “stupid” does not say much for his intelligence. The hon. member says that the staff must be allowed to work when they choose to work. He makes this statement about overtime as an ex-railwayman. How can any employer allow his employees to work when they choose to work? What must become of the Railways Administration? I doubt whether the hon. member was ever in the service of the Railways Administration if he is able to make such a statement here.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana made a further statement here, a statement which will also be damning evidence against him from now until 24 April. The hon. member spoke here of the disciplinary code, to which the hon. member for Salt River and I also referred. He acknowledges, however, that he cannot prove negligence on the part of those persons implementing that disciplinary code. And if the hon. member cannot prove any negligence, why did the hon. member make such an attack here on the disciplinary code and its method of implementation? I think the hon. member must give a better motivation for his statement and do his homework better before he makes a speech in this House about railway matters.

I want to conclude by giving this House the assurance that from now until 24 April the National Party will state its case with an open mind in every constituency in the Republic of South Africa, but in particular in the railway constituencies, because we have a clean record, one we can be proud of. We have a record the United Party cannot equal, and on the basis of that record, the National Party will again be placed in power on 24 April.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down said that they are going to appeal in every constituency to the railway workers, that they are going to boast to them and that they are going to tell them just what the National Government has done for the railway workers over the years. This, of course, is his right. I, as an honourable man by his definition, would just like to remind him that I, too, am going to tell my constituents just what the National Party has done for them. I shall also pass what due praise I should to the hon. the Minister. I shall do that in a moment, but I would first like to cross swords with the hon. member who has just sat down. He made the most amazing statement, one which I will certainly raise in my constituency where there are a great many railwaymen. The hon. member said: “What does it matter if a railwayman earns R140 per month? If he has three children he gets another R30 per month allowance, but, despite that, he can then, of course, get assistance from the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions for the R30”. I understand, and have always done so since I took an interest in politics, that it is the duty of the South African Railways to look after its own employees and to pay them a living wage. According to the hon. member, it does not matter if these people receive a low wage, because they can go to the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. I would like to say to the hon. member—and I say it, too, to every railwayman in South Africa—that there is collusion between the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions and the Minister of Transport to keep their wages deliberately low, because the people can then appeal to the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions to have those wages made up. Once before in this House I told the hon. the Minister that it was my view that the Railways deliberately and coldbloodedly kept the salaries of servants in the Railways at such a level that they had no option but to work overtime in order to make ends meet. The hon. the Minister said that that was not so. He is now due to retire after a long and worthy service, and I would like to say to him that I repeat that accusation, particularly since it has now been substantiated by the hon. member who has just sat down, who said that the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions has to make up the funds.

The economics of this position escape me for the moment, but it would be very interesting to hear from the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions how much they contribute to the South African Railways. If they do contribute, it becomes a matter for the department of Economic Affairs, and I think we should raise this with the hon. the Minister of Finance since the South African taxpayer is being taxed in another form to pay for the South African Railways who deliberately and, as I said, coldbloodedly, pay their employees in the lower grades a sub-economic wage which forces them to work overtime. They do this for one reason only: If they did not force these people to work overtime, the Railways would grind to a stop because of the shortage of labour. The only way in which they can get the jobs done is by making these people work overtime. I believe that this is a despicable attitude on the part of the Government. If that hon. member believes that he can go round the country saying certain things to railway people, let me assure him that I am going to say a lot more than he ever could say about the running of the Railways by this Government. I will certainly hold no punches back in my attitude in regard to the way the Railways treats its loyal servants. Year after year, in the eight or nine sessions I have been in this House, I have heard members on that side say what great fellows the railway workers are. But that is where it ends; it is just so many words, because not once do they actually get up here and plead for better conditions for the railway workers. The hon. member for Yeoville used to plead for these things, but I quite frankly feel that I would not like to deal too much with the speech he has made. I can accept a man who changes his political philosophy on a matter of principle; but I cannot accept a man who changes it merely like a petulant child. As was his right, he praised the hon. the Minister, but he then used syrupy words which quite frankly, to my mind, were sickening, coming from that hon. member.

I want to say this to the hon. the Minister: I have no hesitation whatsoever in joining with my colleagues in the kind remarks they have passed to the hon. the Minister in view of his retirement. I do not believe that anyone in this House could say of the hon. the Minister that he has not been a credit to the parliamentary system. I have been here, as I say, eight or nine sessions, and I have nothing but the deepest respect for the hon. the Minister’s manner in the House and the way in which he has handled his debates. Although we may not always have been as friendly as I would have liked to have seen us, I believe that the hon. the Minister has taught me many a lesson. But having said that, I want to say in all seriousness to the hon. the Minister that I have read and, I think, studied to a reasonable degree, the history of South Africa since he took over the portfolio of Railways 20 years ago. I want to confine my speech, or the major part of it, to some of the things that have happened in those 20 years. I cannot help reflecting on how different things might have been in South Africa had the hon. the Minister used his tremendous influence and his great power to move South Africa and his own Government, his own party, in a different direction from the one which he allowed it to follow. I say this to the hon. the Minister with all the respect that I can muster. I know the power, the drive and the ability he has. I believe that the hon. the Minister in years to come will reflect back on these 20 years and he, too, will probably ponder on how different South Africa might have been had he only acted in a different way at different times. In the course of my speech I hope to be able to point out to the hon. the Minister just where I believe he should have acted differently so that South Africa could have been a better and a greater country than it is today. I say this because I have always been convinced that we should and could be the richest country in the world. I believe our only drawback is—here I am at one with the hon. member for Yeoville—that we have the worst Government in the world. I believe that with our mineral wealth, our space, our labour and all the advantages, we should have been the richest country; and the Minister, with his power, drive and tremendous influence in his own party, could have made us that country. The fact that he failed to do so, I believe, will worry him in the years to come. This is the topic which I wish to develop for the balance of my speech when the House resumes.