When the debate was adjourned last night, I was saying that when the Minister was faced with irresistible demands for higher wages, he acted according to the business principles of a supreme monopolist, of a monopolist who need fear no competition, and who to a very large extent can ignore public opinion. He took up the attitude that this whole increase should be passed on to the users of the transport system. What is more, the Minister did not only pass on the increased cost to the users of the public transport system, but he did what he accuses the industrialists of: he passed on more than it cost him. That is the accusation he made against the industrialists that they not only pass on the increased transport cost, but pass on something more to the consumer. The Minister did exactly the same, as is clear from the answers he has given in this House. Apparently the Minister did not consider for one moment whether it would not be possible for the Railways to absorb these increased wage costs, and not pass them on, thereby preventing an increase in the whole cost structure of the country. Or if the Minister did consider this question, he apparently came to the conclusion that it was impossible to do so. In other words, he must have said to himself: The railways are run so efficiently already that I cannot possibly absorb this increased cost. So, the whole question is whether it is a fact that the Railways are run so efficiently that increased wage costs of this magnitude could not be absorbed by the organization. Mr. Speaker, all the evidence suggests that this is not the case, that despite the vast increase in capitalization, in spite of the vast new capital that has been put into the railway system, the Railways have not increased their efficiency very considerably in recent years. I must point out that in the last 12 years, from 1950 to 1961, capital formation by the South African Railways and Harbours has come to no less than R 1,263,000,000, and it is very largely due to this tremendous increase in the capitalization of the Railways that the share of public investment in South Africa has gone up considerably compared with private investment, a danger that has been pointed out by many economists already.

Mr. Speaker, with this vast investment and with all the new technical developments that the Minister tells us of every year, one would have expected the Railways surely to be able to absorb at least some part of this cost, this increased cost. That would surely happen in any private concern where so much new capital is invested in re-equipping a factory and making the factory more efficient. If faced with higher wages, the first reaction of such an industrialist would be to try and absorb the increase. That is why you modernize your equipment and increase your capitalization, and that would be the reaction of the ordinary industrialist in this country when wages go up. They do not immediately pass on such an increase. That is how one gets an improved standard of living. As I say, there is a lot of evidence that despite this greatly increased capitalization, the Railways are not getting more efficient. The one proof has already been adduced by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman), who has pointed out that despite this great increase in capitalization of the Railways, the returns on this capital are tending to diminish over the years, and he forecast a couple of years ago already just what has in fact happened, that the Minister would be forced to increase tariffs, and as he forecast yesterday again, if this goes on, this increase in capitalization and diminishing returns, it is only a question of logic and the Minister will sooner or later again have to increase rates. That surely shows that far from making the Railways more efficient through this greatly increased capitalization, he is over-capitalizing them. That is the only conclusion one can come to. It is not only on the evidence of diminishing returns that one can argue this. One can also argue this if one looks at the greatly increased expenditure in recent years in running the Railways and Harbours in this country. If we look at what it has cost to run Railways and Harbours in recent years, we find the following alarming picture, that in 1960 the total expenditure on Railways, Harbours and Airways was R385,200,000. The Minister estimates that in 1964, the coming year, it will rise to R506,000,000, in other words, an increase of R 120,000,000 over four years, or an increase of 31 per cent in four years in running the Railways and Harbours. If one just looks to the rail and road transport, one finds that in 1960 it cost the country R352,700,000 to run the rail and road transport. In the coming year, the Minister estimates that it will be R450,600,000, an increase of R97,900,000 or 28 per cent.

What has been the comparative increase in revenue?

If you keep on increasing your rates all the time, of course you can increase your revenue. That is my whole argument. Instead of trying to run the Railways more efficiently, you push up the rates, because it is a monopoly. I will put the thing in its proper context for the Minister. Mr. Speaker, this rate of increase in the cost of running the transport of this country of between 7 and 7½ per cent during the last four years has of course, as the Minister is quite entitled to tell me, been accompanied by an increase in the volume of transport. But what is that increase? The Minister himself said in his Budget speech that over a long term, which is the only measure that one can take, the traffic has been increasing at the rate of about 2½ per cent per annum. So you have the situation that whereas the goods traffic has increased at the rate of 2½ per cent, the cost of running the Railways has been increasing by 7½ per cent per year, three times as fast as the traffic volume has been increasing. Of course the Minister can gainsay to me “I am living in an inflationary world, where costs generally are increasing ”. That is quite a valid argument, too. Of course we are living in inflationary times, but if we also look at the rate at which in recent years general costs have increased it was only of the order of 2 or 21 per cent. So we find that the Minister is really inflating prices faster than the economy is. Whereas your general inflation in your economy is 2 to 21 per cent, the cost of carrying goods has been increasing at the rate of about 5 per cent. This—what one could call a Ben Schoeman rate of inflation—is in other words twice the national rate of inflation. Now surely a situation like this should worry the hon. the Minister, because if there is a danger to South Africa it is the constantly and rapidly increasing cost of transportation. The Minister knows as well as I do the importance of transport costs in an economy like ours. We are a vast country with a sparse population. Transport costs form a much bigger percentage of overall costs than in countries which are more densely populated. The hon. member for Benoni has pointed out the disastrous effect that the transport cost inflation is already having on the marginal mines. What effect is it going to have on the export industry? I quoted to the Minister yesterday that the export industries had to a very large extent absorbed these costs, and he seemed to think that that excused him from running the Railways efficiently. Mr. Speaker, they had no option, because they have to compete in world markets, but the very fact that they had to absorb these costs makes them less competitive in future. There is a limit to what they can absorb. Surely the Minister should be jealous to keep transport costs for our great export industry as low as possible and not argue, “Well, they have absorbed it, what are you worrying about?” That seems to me the attitude the Minister took up yesterday.

Let us come to a new topic. As far as the consumers of petroleum in the inland centres are concerned, I think most of them were rather elated when they heard the news that at last, rather belatedly, a pipeline is going to be constructed, because there is no doubt that it is a more efficient and cheaper method of transporting oil, with the volume we are already using in this country. But what must their disappointment have been when they listened to the Minister’s Budget speech. Listen to what he said in his Budget speech—

Look at the attitude the Minister takes up. The South Africa Act enjoins him to run the Railways on business principles. But here he does not make an economic judgment or a business judgment, no, he makes a moral judgment and says that it would be “unfair ". He becomes a moralist and does not argue on business principles. He simply says that it would be unfair. But let us meet the Minister on the moral plane, and let us see whether this is so unfair. Mr. Speaker, what system of morality can justify that if a person stops using a certain system of transport and he goes over to an entirely new system of transport, he must still pay at the old rates as if he were still using the railways? When he now starts using pipes to transport his oil, he must still pay the rates of the railways. To show the absurdity of the situation, let me put an analogy to the hon. the Minister. Assume when the first railways were brought to the Transvaal, he was Minister of ox-wagons. Would he then have argued that because goods can now be transported far more cheaply by rail to the Transvaal, it is only fair that they should still be charged oxwagon rates?

Order! The hon. member is now going very far back in history.

Mr. Speaker, it is a perfect analogy. It is as big a change going from rail transport to pipeline transport as it was to go from ox-wagon transport to rail transport. It is well that we did not have this Minister in those days as Minister of Ox-wagon Transport, because otherwise the Transvaal and the gold mines would never have been able to develop as rapidly as they did, because they would not have had the advantage and the benefit of modern technological development which makes modern transport much cheaper. But let us test the Minister’s criterion of fairness and unfairness in another way. Surely the essence of fairness is that you must not discriminate between consumers. Now what the Minister in fact is doing is that he is discriminating between inland consumers of petroleum products and those at the coast; he is discriminating between his voters and the voters of the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell). Surely, if it is Government policy that the users of petroleum products should be taxed, then tax them by means of excise and not use an arbitrary pipeline taxing machine, as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) called it, which only taxes his voters and not the voters of Wynberg and Constantia.

I am discriminating in favour of United Party voters.

If the Minister is not very careful his voters will be turned into United Party voters soon, with this type of discrimination. He is a Transvaal Minister! I predict that the hon. Minister will sooner or later have to introduce a further measure of discrimination. I cannot believe for one moment that he is going to discriminate against Sasol the way he wants to discriminate against the petrol users of Johannesburg. How is Sasol going to build up this vast plastic industry that is envisaged if they are taxed in this arbitrary manner? So we get the ridiculous position that a commodity which is going through the same pipeline is going to be carried at different rates sooner or later. I say that this policy to refuse the fact that through technological developments it is possible to transport goods much cheaper and pretending that they are still carried by railways, makes no business sense and no economic sense, and, as I have already shown, it does not even make moral sense on account of the amount of discrimination that is involved in a policy like this. All that this proves is the danger for any country entrusting all its forms of transport to one monopolist, concentrating every form of transport, Rall, road, airways, pipeline, in the hands of one monopolist. What we have seen already from the speech of the hon. the Minister leads us to the unavoidable consequence that the country is saddled with a high-cost transport system. Because why? Inevitably, in such a set-up, every new form and cheaper form of transport is resisted by vested interests—in this case the vested interests being the railways. All new forms, like pipelines, air transport, road transport must inevitably be resisted because they are upsetting the traditional form of transport, the vested form of transport, the railways. That is precisely what is happening in South Africa, and it is almost inevitable. A famous economist once said that the sweetest fruits of monopoly are of course that you do not have to think and you do not have to change, you can retain a static position. That is the psychological result of giving to one person a monopoly of this nature. Furthermore of course the creation of such a monopoly, by cutting out all direct competition between different forms of transport, must lead, as I have already said, to a high-cost transport system. That is why the whole tendency in England, in America, in Europe is to try—I admit it is not an entirely free competition—to allow some competition to develop between the new forms of transport and the older forms of transport, because it is only by allowing that competition, the discipline that you get from that, that you reduce the cost of your whole transport system.

What is the result?

The results are that in the end you have got a cheap transport system and a more efficient one because they adapt themselves more quickly to technological changes.

Who pays for it?

Nobody pays for it, because in the end the consumer gets the benefit of a cheaper transport system.

And the Railways have to be subsidized to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds.

Overall it does not matter, so long as it is cheaper, even if you have to subsidize the existing system. From the national point of view it is cheaper to the consumer. The Minister proves the attitude of mind that I am trying to put to this House, that once you create a monopoly like this, you try and protect vested interests all the time. Surely nobody worries in private enterprise if new synthetic fibres replace fibres like cotton and wool. That is how you get progress. You suffer to some extent in respect of capital invested in the past, but the benefits are that you get cheaper transport and cheaper costs in the long run. It is for that reason that I think the Government will be well advised to follow the advice that my hon. friend for Port Elizabeth (South) gave them yesterday to at least start and put the pipeline under a different department, to at least get an element of competition between the different transport systems. They should go further, they should relax to some extent the very rigid road restrictions that we have in South Africa, whereby a manufacturer cannot even cart his own products if he judges he can do it more economically. If you do that, it will be quite a discipline on future Ministers of Railways not to arbitrarily increase tariff rates when just as easily increased costs can be met by being more efficient.

After having offered practically no criticism of the hon. the Minister’s Budget, the Opposition proceeded to move an amendment, but all the members of the Opposition shied away from the amendment. I shall deal with it in a moment. But the hon. member for Jeppes did mention two points. In the first place he made representations in connection with the capitalization of the Railways. He says that the capital investment is too great and that the result is that there is cost inflation. But when we look at the figures for the past 15 years, we find that as the result of the spending of large capital sums, the Railways have been able to transport more and more goods and that there has also been a great increase in passenger traffic. We find that the Railways have been able to handle a much bigger volume of traffic, and in time to come the capital which has been ploughed into the Railways will serve its legitimate purpose and produce the desired results in the shape of an increased carrying capacity. Secondly, a great deal has been said about the pipeline. The hon. member says that the Minister has stated that there will be no reduction in the price of petroleum products as the result of the building of this pipeline. That is not what the Minister said; he stated that the building of the pipeline for the conveyance of petroleum products would not necessarily mean cheaper fuel. But it is only logical that as soon as the pipeline has been built and the costs connected with it have been covered and the Minister finds that he is making enough to cover the cost of transporting petroleum products by Rall, he will obviously reduce the charge for the conveyance of petrol through the pipeline and that we will then get the benefit of the building of the pipeline. I do not think that the Minister would be so stupid as to keep the price of petroleum products high if he knows that he is able to deliver it more cheaply to the consumers.

When we come to the amendment of the United Party we find that their first point is that the result of the increase in the cost of living, which will hit the lower income groups most heavily, will be that many people will suffer. Other hon. members have already dealt with this point. I just want to point out again that not a single hon. member on the other side has shown us what the percentage increase has been in the cost of living per family or per person as the result of this increase in tariffs. When we work out the effect of the increased tariffs on a family consisting of a father, a mother and three children and we take commodities like vegetables, sugar, meat, fish, bacon, coffee, tea, soup, cheese, fruit, firewood, petroleum, etc., we find that the additional monthly cost is only about 33c, which is comparatively little. There is no question of these increased tariffs detrimentally affecting the entire budget of such a family. The second point that hon. members opposite have made is that the increased tariffs will also result in pushing up the cost structure and in delaying the tempo of economic growth, but not one of them has shown us how our economy will suffer because of this increase, nor have they shown us that any industrialist or manufacturer has suffered. They have not substantiated their complaint, by means of figures, about the detrimental effects that this increase will have on the economy of our country. There are cases where industrialists have been affected by this 10 per cent increase, but we also know of cases where they have pushed up their cost structure by such a percentage that they are actually better off.

I should like to say a word or two particularly in connection with the representations which have been made by the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) in connection with certain marginal mines. I would very much like to hear from the hon. member, or from the United Party, where marginal mines have been seriously hit by this 10 per cent increase in railway tariffs. Which articles are delivered to those mines that are transported by Rall, or what do those mines produce that they transport by rail? Reference has been made to coal, but the marginal mines do not use coal; they use power from the power stations, and I have not heard of an increase in the tariff for electric power. The second item is timber. Timber is used in the mines, and this timber is collected at a place near Germiston from which all the mines get their timber, and most of the mines are no more than ten or 12 miles from this depot. The loss that they might suffer in connection with timber, therefore, is minimal. Then they also mentioned cement. We know that the cement factories are all within 400 miles of the Rand. One of the largest cement factories is at Roodepoort. The cost of cement that they use and that is transported by rail therefore does not form a large part of the expenditure of the mines. What are the items then which are transported by the mines or to the mines which so greatly increase the costs of the mines? The Native mineworkers who come to the W.N.L.A. and particularly those who come from Portuguese East Africa in their thousands are transported by the railways and there has been no increase in their fares. Passenger fares have not been increased by 10 per cent. But on that point they remain silent. The hon. member for Benoni has spoken about all the gold, worth millions of rand, which is produced by the mines, but he was not referring mainly to the marginal mines. I should like hon. members opposite to tell us which items are transported by the railways on behalf of the mines and in respect of which the mines are adversely affected and the economy of our country is adversely affected.

Then all railway users are said to be heavily penalized. I do not know whether there is a railway user who is harmed by this 10 per cent increase, because if we take into consideration that the Minister thoroughly planned this matter before increasing tariffs by 10 per cent, we will find that it was not easy for him to come to this decision. If we bear in mind that certain items were omitted in regard to harbour dues, road transportation costs, passenger fares and air fares, and the tariffs on livestock and on grain going to the elevators, we find that tariffs have been increased only on a small section of the transportation done by the Railways. It may be argued that it will make a difference over long distances, but it is not as high as it appears to be at first glance. I do not think that the United Party has made out a case here. One could see from their amendment that they were in trouble. They have not proved a single case. They just state that it is so, but in no instance did they prove it to be the case.

But I want to come to the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant). I am sorry he is not here now. He told us how the United Party Government helped the workers out of the surpluses they earned, but if that is so I want to ask him why it is that the Government from 1954 to 1960 had to spend R35,000,000 to improve the salaries, wages and allowances of railwaymen. Here I just want to mention a few items. Since 1954 there was granted, inter alia, to artisans and associated occupations as a group in the Railway Service—I will read the figures in pounds as it was at that time—£30,670, or approximately R60,000. That was in October 1954. The up-grading of staff came to £10,500, or R21,000. That was in March 1956. Higher grades for riveters and blacksmiths came to £24,000, or R48,000. That was in December 1957. Higher grades for artisans in the Airways amounted to £30,000, or R60,000, in January 1958. Financial concessions to workers in locomotive sheds came to £152,000, or R304,000, in 1958. The regrouping of operatives came to £134,000, or R268,000, in February 1959, a total of £381,000, or R762,000. These figures are included in the summary which also reflects the following: General wage increases, the consolidation of a portion of cost-of-living allowances, etc., in which the trade unions also shared. The total of the salaries, wages, allowances and concessions at the end of 1960 therefore amounted to approximately R35,000,000. The hon. member for Turffontein told us that the Minister does nothing, and we heard this afternoon from the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) that this is inflation and that the money is not being properly spent. Even the hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated as early as 1958 that the Minister was stealing £8,000,000 from the railway workers every year. I just want to read what he said—

This is what happened between 1954 and 1960, but what has now happened in 1962? R36,000,000 is again being given to the railway workers. Now I want to ask how they can tell the railwaymen that the Minister is not well disposed towards them, because during the year in which they were asking for increases and they thought the Minister was treating them badly, little did they know that he was slowly but surely planning and estimating so that when the day arrived for him to be able to give them these increases it would be on a sound basis and would be permanent. I also want to congratulate the Minister on the way in which he handled his Budget. When one considers the Tariff Reserve Fund which at one stage was insolvent and was again built up by the Minister so that this year with the additional amount provided for in this new Budget it will amount to almost R29,000,000, which will also serve as a cushion to absorb any possible future shocks, then it shows that the Minister is planning very accurately. When we remember all the resolutions taken from time to time in regard to this fund, even in 1944, by the Select Committee, one finds that the Minister is not as obstinate as they contend. He listens to good advice and gradually, as he learns—and we all learn, and I concede that because I think he uses his brains—he has closed all these gaps so that the Opposition to-day cannot voice any more criticism. Proof of that is to be found in the fact that last night’s English language newspapers contained no comment on the Railway debate, and why? Because their criticism is so weak. I do not think there will even be any comment to-night, because they cannot criticize. They just talk idly. But the way in which the Minister explained his Budget shows the country that he planned soundly. [Interjections.] Yes, hon. members may laugh, but we are very proud of the Minister. In connection with what they said in regard to the Economic Advisory Council, they expect that the Council which was appointed by the Prime Minister for certain purposes should now be used to tell the Minister how to budget. I suppose one of these days they will ask why the Minister of Finance does not also ask that Council to tell him how to budget. The Minister acts in terms of the law, and accordingly cannot be criticized. I say that if he goes to this Economic Advisory Council for advice in regard to his Budget, it would be illegal, and I want to prove it. Section 3 of Act No. 73 of 1962 clearly states that the management and exploitation of the Railways and Harbours is in the hands of the General Manager, subject to the control of the Minister, and that he should be guided by the regulations issued from time to time by the Minister in consultation with the Board and in terms of the provisions of this Act. Now, what can the Minister do? He can, e.g., do the following. I now read from Act No. 70 of 1959, Section 2, sub-section 12 of which provides that the Administration is empowered to determine and to alter from time to time the harbour dues, tariffs, rail fares and licence fees and other costs and payments of the Railways or the Harbours and the Airports which are under the control of the Administration or for road, air and sea transportation undertaken by the Administration. Well, the Minister had the fullest right to make these changes in regard to the tariffs. He need not consult anybody, and if he acts in terms of the law he acts quite correctly. But the Minister is not a person who acts in that way. He consults certain people. He told us in a newspaper report of 22 August 1962 that he had conferred and obtained all the information available, and he increased his tariffs in the best possible way so as not to harm the economic growth and development of the country. And the Minister has succeeded in doing so, because if a newspaper like the Sunday Express, which is not well disposed towards the Government, says, “This is a progressive Budget of the Railways”, one can be sure that the Minister has brilliantly acquitted himself of his task. I think the Opposition can say what they like but they cannot criticize the Minister, and I do not know what they are going to do next year in view of this Budget he has submitted this year; I do not know what amendments they will move next year, but they can just say what they like. We are proud of the Minister. We know that he has done his work well and we want to congratulate him and his Administration heartily. The railway is glad to have such a man at the head of affairs. But I still want to deal with the criticism in regard to the marginal mines. Mr. Speaker, this is just a smokescreen. They just try to drive in a wedge subtly by playing off this Economic Advisory Council against the industrialists and in that way try to drive in a wedge between the Minister and the Prime Minister, but they will not succeed in doing so. This Budget shows who is correct, the United Party or the Minister. I am convinced that the Minister’s Budget this year will give us even more benefits than in the past.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Edenvale (Mr. G. H. van Wyk) has not made the position of the Minister of Transport any safer as the result of his contribution to this debate. I have waited in vain for the hon. member to make one suggestion to help his Minister in his future planning for the Railways, but all he had to say was that we had a good Minister and that the railwaymen liked him. Well, one does not need to be a Member of Parliament to say that. Even if one were a Member of Parliament, it is not necessary to come to the conclusion that because the Minister presented the House with a surplus he is necessarily a good Minister or that the railwaymen like him for that reason. I think the truth of the matter is that hon. members opposite find it extremely difficult to make a contribution to this debate because they are not prepared to fight; they will not take up any issue. They are afraid either of their own ability or of what the Minister may say to them if they tramp on his corns. I think that is a deplorable position, but nevertheless it is true. I think that in evidence of what I have said, one must remember that there was only one hon. member on the Government side last year in the railway debate who pleaded with the Minister to do something for the railway pensioners in so far as their cost-of-living allowances were concerned, whereas on this side of the House we have been asking for this relief for many years.

That is just a political stunt.

No, it is recognizing the needs in the country, particularly amongst railway pensioners, for financial relief, and if the hon. member thinks that is a political issue I am sorry for him, because to us on this side and to the constituents whom I represent this is not a political issue at all but a question of bread and butter.

While I am discussing the contributions made by hon. members opposite, I would remind the House of an interjection I made yesterday when the hon. member for De Aar-Colesberg was speaking. He was dealing with the considerable improvement in the pensions now paid to railway servants as against the time when the United Party was in power, and I asked him whether this improvement had come about as a result of a change in the formula on which basic pensions are estimated, or whether it was due to an improvement in their salaries, and he said it was due to both. Well, that was a surprise to me, because I do not know of any basic change in the method of calculating pensions since 1948, which makes this point quite valid that a railwayman going on pension to-day whose basic salary was R 1,000 will receive exactly the same pension as a railwayman who retired in 1948 on the same salary.

You forget that I am paying greater contributions as the result of the consolidation of the cost-of-living allowances.

I am not forgetting that at all. The additional contributions the Minister is paying are no different in principle at all from an increase in basic salaries. If there was an increase in 1948 in basic salaries, the position would have been the same, so I do not think that argument is valid. But the point is that the improved pension benefits now being paid are the result of an increase in the basic pay, and nothing else.

But I want to deal firstly with the Minister’s Budget speech, and with the portion dealing with the temporary allowance in respect of pensions. I think I can best deal with this matter by quoting what the Minister had to say. He said that the temporary allowance in respect of married persons was being increased from R24.50 to R30 a month, and in the case of single pensioners from R8.17 to R13 a month, and that if necessary further relief would be granted to ensure that a married railway pensioner would have a minimum income from all sources of R50 a month and a single pensioner of R30 a month. I want to say at once that the pensioners who will receive this benefit will be extremely thankful indeed. It is something, but there are certain questions which arise out of this statement made by the Minister, and the first is this. Will this increase also apply to Coloureds and other non-Whites? There is no mention in the statement of their position.

It will apply to all pensioners.

Secondly, is there any change contemplated in the definition of “income” as applied under the present scheme?

No.

Then my third question is: Will railway pensioners who are at present in receipt of an old-age pension or a veteran’s pension in addition to their railway pensions find that the increase granted by the Minister will be offset by a reduction in the pensions paid by the Minister of Pensions?

That is still under consideration.

Well, it is a most vital matter, because if there is to be an amount offset it means that that group will get precisely nothing, or very little indeed. I hope this position will be clarified, otherwise there will be many people who believe that they will get a benefit and they will find themselves bitterly disappointed if there is a reduction in their civil pensions, and they are the people who need it most. I hope the Minister in his reply to the debate will indicate when this point will be finalized.

It is not a matter which rests entirely with me.

I know that, and that brings me to my next point. The Minister went on to say that as the House knows, it has in the past been the practice to maintain parity between civil and railway pensioners in so far as financial relief is concerned.

Order! The hon. member cannot got into that further now.

Well, Sir, I have to because it follows on what the Minister has said. I recollect that in last year’s Main Budget, relief was granted to civil pensioners by way of increased financial relief, but the recommendations made by the Superannuation Fund Joint Board of Management for a 10 per cent increase to railway pensioners was turned down by the Minister on the grounds that it was not a unanimous recommendation.

You are getting warmer now.

The Minister told us last year that the Joint Board had recommended a 10 per cent increase in basic pensions and that he had turned it down because it was not unanimous. Well, I leave that point there because I now want to refer the Minister to what he said in his Budget speech. There was reference by the Minister to the practice of maintaining parity between civil and railway pensioners. Does that mean that railway pensioners will receive this increased relief as from 1 April 1962?

The parity is only in regard to the allowance.

But it does not say so in the Minister’s statement.

That is the general principle. There is only uniformity in regard to the benefits granted by way of the allowances between civil service pensioners and railway pensioners, but the increase will of course be from 1 April.

That does not take the matter much further, because the allowance paid to civil pensioners last year was of the same character as the allowance the Minister is paying here, as far as I can remember.

You are wrong.

The Minister says that the increase in the civil pensions last year was an increase in their basic pensions.

It was not an allowance.

Well, it was not an increase in basic pensions and it was not an allowance, so it must have been something else, but the effect of it was that the civil pensioners got more in their pockets whilst railway pensioners got nothing. That is the point I am trying to make, and that is why I ask the Minister that if the railway pensioners had been given that 10 per cent increase last year which they asked for then parity would have been maintained, or if it was a question of an increase in the temporary allowances to the civil pensioners the Minister could make this allowance retrospective to maintain parity.

You have the whole thing wrong.

What I have not got wrong is that civil pensioners received an increase last year but not railway pensions.

[Inaudible.]

I will come to that. The Minister is going back a long way now. I am only going back to last year, and I assume that before last year parity had been established, and now it is out of gear, but I think the Minister will admit that the net effect as far as railway pensioners were concerned was another year without getting any relief whatever.

Now I want to deal with the financial position of the Superannuation Fund itself. The position of the fund as at 31 March 1962, I think may be stated in this way, and here I have to quote figures because of a repeated request from the pensioners themselves. They want to know what is happening to their fund and they take a great interest in reading Hansard speeches on railway debates. Last year I brought them up to date and this year I want to continue giving the figures which are important. The credit balance as at 31 March 1962 was R3 02,462, 932, an increase over the former year of R25,718, 459. The contribution by the Administration and the staff is R27,119, 466, and the benefits paid out during the year amounted to R 14,458, 992, and the interest earned during the year was R13,042, 105, and the excess of benefits paid out over the interest earned amounted to R1, 416,887. The recurring expenditure on annuities is R7,879, 626. My estimate of the credit balance as at 31 March 1963 is R328,000,000. That is the financial position disclosed in the documents we have been given.

I now turn to the memorandum given to us by the Minister, and on page 8, paragraph 20, I find this most alarming statement. It starts off with what I can only describe as a completely misleading statement. It says that the financial position of the Superannuation Fund is sound, but then it goes on to say this—

I do not know when the Superannuation Fund was last in a position of only having an estimated deficiency of R2,600,000. It is a long time ago, but that was the position in 1954. I continue with the quotation—

Sir, it is an alarming position that a fund which nine years ago was estimated by the actuaries to show a deficiency of R2,600,000, should in the space of nine years show a deficiency of R78,000,000, an increase of R75,000,000 in a period of nine years.

An increase in the deficit.

Yes, an increase in the deficit.

As a result of higher wages.

No, it was not as a result of higher wages. According to the Minister’s explanatory memorandum, from 1948-9 to 1953-4 when R62,000,000 was spent on improvements the deficiency in the Fund was only R2,600,000. If we take the figure from 1954 to 1962 when only R48,000,000 was spent on improvements, we find that the deficiency increased by R75,000,000. That takes some explaining away. Sir, I ask the Minister how can the financial position of the Fund be sound when the actuaries report that R58,000.000 is the maximum deficiency that the Fund can carry without the Administration making a contribution from revenue? How can it be said in the memorandum that the financial position of the Fund is sound when the actuaries themselves have said that the maximum figure that is considered safe is R58.000,000 a figure which has now been exceeded by a further R20,000,000? I said at the beginning that this was a most peculiar statement and a most peculiar beginning to a paragraph: “The financial position of the Superannuation Fund is sound,” and yet in the same paragraph we have proof from the actuaries that it is far from sound. It is R20,000,000 worse off than it should be according to the actuaries. Sir, why did the Minister not comment on this grave position in his Budget speech? He did not say a word about it.

It is not a grave position.

Well, the Minister will have to argue with the actuaries about that, because they have made it quite clear that the maximum deficiency that the Fund can carry without it being necessary for the Administration to make a special monthly contribution is R58,000,000. The Minister cannot deny that and he cannot deny that the deficiency is now R20,000,000 higher than that figure, and yet the Minister still says this is not a grave position.

That is a mere bagatelle to the Minister.

We are so accustomed to speaking in millions that we begin to look upon these as mere figures which have no meaning whatsoever. But as far as the pensioners of the fund are concerned and particularly the pre-1944 pensioners this is a most grave position, as the Minister will hear in due course.

I want to deal now with the case of the pensioners from the pensioners’ point of view. I understand, and I believe, that this figure is correct that there are 22,000 pensioners, including widow pensioners, and 16,000 of them draw a basic pension of under R600 per annum. Sir, these are startling figures and you can well understand why the railway pensioners, particularly the older ones, say that they have been given a very raw deal by this Minister. To appreciate the position even better, the pensioners should be divided into three groups. The first group consists of those pensioners who retired before cost-of-living allowances were paid in 1944; the second group consists of those who retired between 1944 and 1951 when there was partial consolidation of cost-of-living allowances with basic wages, and the third group consists of pensioners who have retired and will retire under conditions of full consolidation of cost-of-living allowances with basic pay. All three of these groups receive the special allowance referred to in the Minister’s Budget speech. The special allowance which the Minister has referred to is only payable to those who are on pension and receive a pension less than R 1,800 a year. I think that point has to be borne in mind because a person who is on pension to-day receiving R 1,440 per annum, will get the full benefit of this increase of R360 which will bring his pension up to R 1,800. But if he is receiving R 1,500 to-day, then he is going lose R60 of this special increase which has now been granted, so we have to bear that point in mind. But we must also remember that the last-mentioned group, i.e. the group retiring now under conditions of full consolidation and those who will retire in future under conditions of full consolidation, receive the pension benefit of full consolidation; they also receive the benefits of the Widow’s Pension Fund. They also receive the special allowance referred to in the Minister’s Budget and they also receive the benefit of the ¾ per cent reduction in the contribution rate. They receive those four special benefits which are quite considerable. The second group to whom I referred receive the benefits of partial consolidation and the special allowance that I have referred to, but the first group, i.e. the pre-1944 pensioners, receive no benefit from any consolidation, no Widow’s Pension Fund. The only benefit which they receive is this special allowance. I think this indicates quite clearly that it is the pre-1951 pensioner up to a point but definitely the pre-1944 pensioners who are worst off as far as the financial position of the Superannuation Fund is concerned, because their hopes of a percentage increase in basic pensions must be completely dashed bearing in mind the fact that there is now an actuarial deficiency of R 78,000,000 in the fund. That is the tragedy of this position. The pensioners who have just retired or who are due to retire are going to get all of the considerable benefits which I have enumerated here, and the pre-1944 pensioners are going to get very little at all out of the fund because you must remember, Sir, that the 10 per cent increase which the Minister referred to by way of an interjection was paid to all railway pensioners, so that does not come into the picture at all. I say that when we consider the plight of the pre-1944 pensioner we must remember that with this latest improvement he will now receive R30 per month, in financial relief while present railway servants who have had R40 per month consolidated with their basic pay, will also be getting the benefit of this special allowance.

Now I come to the next point. Does the Minister accept that the present method of calculation used by the actuaries is completely sound?

Yes.

Is the Minister quite satisfied that there should not be an investigation into the method of calculating the deficit or surplus?

I am quite satisfied.

The Minister is quite happy. Well, I think that makes the position even worse, because if the Minister is satisfied that the actuaries’ method of calculation is correct—my information is that he has recently changed the actuaries; I do not know whether that is correct …

Your information is also incorrect.

So we actually have this position then—the same actuaries who were responsible for giving the Minister the report nine years ago are the actuaries who gave the Minister the latest report. In other words, the identical method of calculation must have been used. The fact of the matter is that during 1948-54, according to what we are told in this explanatory memorandum, the Administration paid by way of contributions from revenue, £3,405, 600 towards the deficiency that existed in the fund at that time. Well, that was discontinued on the advice of the actuaries in 1954 because the fund was in such a sound position. As we know from the statement which the Minister gave us, the financial position of the fund was very sound, and on the basis of that determination by the actuaries the Minister would have had no difficulty whatsoever in convincing this House that a strong case can be made out for an increase in the basic pensions of railway pensioners. But over a period of nine years the position has now developed that without any special contributions having been made to the fund from revenue, we have this deficiency of R78,000,000. Sir, I ask the Minister whether in those circumstances he cannot revue the position of the pensioners, particularly the pre-1944 pensioners. Cannot he reconsider their position bearing in mind that the Budget which we are now considering does not include the amount of R1, 380,000 which the Minister has set aside for relief to these pensioners. That amount, the Minister has said, would be made available at a later date when he deals with the Supplementary Estimates, but I am asking the Minister at this stage to reconsider the position of the old pensioners. Many of these people—and I am sure that you, Sir, will remember the plea that you made last year in regard to this group—are now up to 80 years of age, and the burden which I am asking the Minister to inflict on the Superannuation Fund is not a very heavy burden…. [Interjection.] Well, the Minister said that a deficiency of R78,000,000 is not grave.

But you say it is grave.

I say it is grave. The Minister has the power to do something about these old pensioners, because on his own argument it would not matter if he increased that deficiency by another R1,000,000. The Minister’s own argument establishes that these old pensioners are entitled to expect some relief as far as payments from the Superannuation Fund are concerned. I am very glad that the Minister had given relief to all pensioners by way of appropriation of revenue, but the Minister will appreciate that the whole tenor of my speech is that these old pensioners have not been given a square deal by way of improved pensions from the Superannuation Fund. It is the Superannuation Fund which should have given them the relief that was asked for last year. We now face the position that the improved benefits which the present railwaymen are going to get on retirement, are being given to them at the cost of these old pensioners. That is the position; otherwise I would not have a case. That is why I say to the Minister that he should take into account the very grave position of the pre-1944 pensioners. Sir, I receive telegram after telegram from these people pleading with me to raise this matter in the House and to ask the Minister to consider their position sympathetically. The Minister has said time and time again that he has tremendous sympathy for these old railwaymen. They were responsible for developing the railways in the early days and they did a first-class job of work; they are now in a desperate plight. Sir, 16,000 of these people receive under R600 a year by way of pensions, and the Minister is now giving them relief in an amount up to R360 per annum from revenue; he is not going to give them anything from the Superannuation Fund and that is one of the complaints. They cannot accept the fact that men who retire now are going to get such an enormous pension from the fund whereas they, when they retired in 1944 …

But the reason for that should be obvious even to you.

It is obvious to me because I have had the opportunity of looking at all these figures, but try to convince an old pensioner of 80 that he is not getting a raw deal from the Superannuation Fund. It is an almost impossible task. Let me give one illustration. In 1951 when the partial consolidation was made retrospective, what happened? Certain railwaymen who have retired between 1944 and 1951 were told that they were going to get the benefit of the consolidation of the cost-of-living allowance on a pro rata basis, and as the result of that they expected to pay back certain contributions into the fund. But the majority of them were told that the commutation factor—what they would have commuted if they had been paid a portion of the cost-of-living allowance as a pensionable allowance—would look after any additional contributions which they should have made. Well, how does that appear to an old pensioner who retired in 1944? To him it was money for jam for the 1944-51 pensioners. It appeared that a railwayman who had been in the service between 1944 and 1951 was getting an increased pension from the Superannuation Fund without having paid a penny towards it, and it is for the Minister to try and explain to them that that is not so. It is extremely difficult when a man’s old colleague tells him quite frankly: “Yes, I have got an increased pension and it is true that I have not paid an extra penny towards it.” That is the point. How do you explain the position to these railway pensioners unless you are a financial genius? I do not know how anyone can do it. Now they have to be told that although they have not had anything but a 10 per cent increase in their basic pension, the fund is now R78,000,000 in the red. Sir, they are not going to understand it and neither are hon. members in this House. I am hoping that as the result of what I have had to say hon. members on the other side are going to come into the debate and support me and ask the Minister to reconsider the position particularly of the pre-1944 pensioners because their need is great and because of the fact which I have mentioned earlier that it would appear that any relief which the Minister gives to those who are at present in receipt of a civil pension, is going to be lost as the result of the application of the means test. I do hope that the Minister is going to watch this position very carefully. My final plea to him is to use his tremendous influence with his colleague the Minister of Finance, to make quite sure that this benefit that we are now considering is going to be passed on in full to those who anticipate receiving it as a result of the publicity which has already been given to this Budget.

I think if the hon. the Minister is entitled to one thing it is constructive criticism from the Opposition. I want to say at once that the hon. member who has just sat down was the only speaker on that side who offered constructive criticism. There is not one member here who would like pensioners, who loyally gave their services to the State, to starve in their old age, or who does not want them to be given what is due to them. But there is also another side of the picture; one must be realistic, and it is an indisputable fact that all groups in the railway service to-day are better off than they have ever been before. If you were to ask a railway servant who occupies the same position to-day that his father occupied formerly whether he is better off than his father was, he would reply in no uncertain terms that he is better off. I think the Opposition will agree with me that generally speaking the railway officials to-day are better off than ever before. I want to go further and say that I am sorry that a debate such as this dealing with railway matters should be used for political propaganda. That has always been so, but it seems to me that the position to-day is worse than ever before. Sir, it is easy for an Opposition constantly to ask for higher wages and better working conditions. The hon. member who has just sat down says that last year when a plea was put forward for railwaymen’s pensions to be improved, there was only one member on this side who asked for it while there were quite a number of members on the other side who pleaded for it. Mr. Speaker, there was a time when I too sat in the Opposition. It is a very easy matter always to ask for improvements and concessions; you can then go along to your constituents and say that you pleaded for certain improvements but that the Government rejected your request. But the Minister who sits here has a responsibility not only to the railwayman but to the nation as a whole. One thing is certain and that is our Railways in South Africa compare favourably with the best railway systems in the world. I had the privilege recently of being visited at home by two Americans who were on a visit to South Africa. They visited Great Britain first and from there they came over by air. They expressed admiration for the efficient services rendered by our staff and for the treatment that they received during the flight. On their arrival in Johannesburg they travelled down to Cape Town by train—and it was not the Blue Train—and they expressed the opinion that our railways compared very favourably with the railway systems in other countries of which they had had experience. Sir, that efficiency is due not only to the efforts of the management; it is also due to the efforts of the railway workers. If the workers had been dissatisfied we would not have had the result that we are getting to-day. There is an English saying that the proof of the pudding lies in the eating, and in spite of all the pleas from hon. members on the other side for increased salaries and improved pensions for the railwaymen, it is nevertheless a fact that it is the railwaymen who put this party into power. Mr. Speaker, I am not trying to drag politics into this debate but that does show that they are satisfied with the treatment that they receive from his Government. The S.A. Railways mean a very great deal to us not only because the Railways provide employment to thousands and thousands of people, but the Railways employ people whom no other business and no member on that side would consider employing. The Railways engage those people and pay them higher salaries than they would be able to command elsewhere, and the Railways do this so that those people will not have to be cared for by welfare organizations and so as to enable them to retain their self-respect. In spite of the fact that our Railways employ people of that kind, they nevertheless compare very favourably with the best railway systems in the world. Sir, while the hon. member for Umhlatuzana was speaking on the question of pensions, I could not help thinking how many former officials of the Railways were sitting in this House to-day. Mr. Speaker is an ex-railwayman, the Minister under whose control the Railways are, is an ex-railwayman.

So am I.

Yes, but he is a “Sap” (United Party supporter).

No, I do not think the hon. member is a “Sap ”. He still remains a Labourite. I remember the days when I was a member of the Opposition and when the hon. member sat on this side and supported the Labourites in their pleas. He was constantly pleading for increased salaries and increased pensions; he never stopped to ask himself where the money was to come from.

I was not here before 1948.

Did the hon. member never belong to the Labour Party?

Not when you were in the Opposition.

No, at that time the hon. member was not in the House at all. Sir, the fact of the matter is that the railwayman means a very great deal to this country. I referred a moment ago to the quality of our train services in comparison with those of other countries. Our catering services on the trains are better than those in any other country. Here in the House of Assembly it is the S.A. Railways which provide the catering services, and I think the members of the catering staff ought to be congratulated on the excellent quality of the services that they render. But apart from the services which the Railway render to South Africa in the transportation sphere, there is also the contribution that they make in the cultural sphere. When we think of the A.T.K.V. and the value of the work done by that association in the cultural sphere, we must admit that the Railways mean a very great deal to South Africa not only in the transportation sphere but even in the cultural sphere. When we think of the Railways therefore we should not always think of £. s. d.; we should also remember what the Railways mean to our nation in other spheres.

Mr. Speaker, I should also like to make a few suggestions to which I want to ask the Minister to give his attention. There is one matter in particular which has come to the notice of the public a good deal lately and that is the number of accidents which take place on the railways. I know that the percentage of accidents is low when one bears in mind the increased traffic. Then there is another matter in connection with which the public wants to have more information. There was a big accident recently and the Minister stated that inquiries would immediately be instituted into the cause of the accident. The Minister at once caused an inquiry to be instituted but the public was never informed what the cause of that accident was. I think it would be a good thing therefore, if, when such an inquiry has been instituted, the Minister would issue a statement to let the public know what the cause of the accident was. I shall tell you why I ask this, Mr. Speaker. Members of the public strongly suspect that the misuse of alcohol plays a great role in some of these accidents which take place on the Railways. I want to go further and ask the Minister to have inquiries instituted to ascertain whether there is not an excessive use of alcohol by railway staff during working hours. A person who drives a locomotive or works at a station or comes into contact with the public should not even smell of liquor when he is on duty. I know of one case, which I think is also within the Minister’s own knowledge. I should not like to mention names here but I think the Minister will know which case I have in mind. In that particular case a driver and a fireman were killed. There were some railwaymen who said that the driver was under the influence of liquor when he left his home. There were others who said that he was not drunk but that he had had something to drink. But when the train pulled up at the first big station, liquor was brought into the locomotive and the result was that the train was derailed and both the driver and the fireman were killed. I should like to urge therefore that less liquor be allowed during working hours; that more stringent steps should be taken by those who are in charge to see that officials do not misuse liquor while they are on duty, and not only that they do not misuse it but that they do not use it at all.

Mr. Speaker, talking about money, there is a great squandering of money which the Minister cannot obviate, but perhaps it can be obviated by those who are in charge of the workers. Here I want to refer to Salt River. When one stands on the bridge at Salt River one sees numbers of people dashing out of the workshops to the hotel across the street as soon as the whistle blows. When they have to resume duty then they come back. In other words, they spend practically the whole of their lunch-hour in the hotel. I would go so far as to say that I do not think that people should be allowed to spend the whole of their lunch-hour in an hotel. I know that complaints have been made to the Minister by housewives that a large portion of the money earned by the workers is spent in that hotel. I know that for a fact. I hope therefore that stricter supervision will be kept over the use of alcohol.

Another fact that I want to bring to the Minister’s notice is that South Africa is becoming more and more popular with tourists. Those tourists are highly pleased with South Africa. I think most of them speak of South Africa and of our transportation system in laudatory terms. There is an enormous number of people, including Members of Parliament, who have free passes on the Railways. One finds that tourists making use of our trains are placed in the same coaches as those travelling on free passes. What is the result? One finds numbers of small children running about in the corridors; they open taps in the toilet rooms with the result that the water is wasted. I want to ask whether it would not be possible to accommodate tourists in a certain portion of the train where there are other tourists instead of placing them in coaches together with other passengers.

Apartheid!

This is another respect in which money is being wasted. When a station has to be painted, for example, some clerk in an office works out how long it ought to take to do the work. He decides that it should take five days, and workers are then sent out to paint the station. They are able to do the work within four days, but it is pointed out to them indirectly that they must not complete the work within four days, otherwise it will look as though the person in the office did not do his work properly and that he allocated the wrong time for the job. The result is that the workers dawdle and delay and work which could have been done within four days is then done in five or six days. I should like this matter to be investigated too.

Then there is the question of the reservation of seats. During holiday periods it is customary for people to go and reserve their seats. They are not sure, however, whether they will be able to leave on the Tuesday or on the Thursday with the result that they book for both days. It costs them nothing because they have their tickets. The officials then gain the impression that there are too many passengers for one train with the result that they run another train. I know of a case where two trains were run where neither train was full. The conductor showed me his list which showed that the trains had been fully booked, but the people who had booked simply did not take up their seats. I want to ask the Minister to consider the advisability of requiring people to pay a deposit when they reserve their seats, whether they have a free pass or not.

I think the hon. the Minister recently caused a circular to be sent out in connection with the noise at stations. I travel by train a great deal, and that is also my personal experience. When trains pull up at a station during the night there is so much noise and talking on the platform that one simply cannot sleep. I know that the Minister sent out this letter, but I think it will be a good thing if he sees to it that the instructions are carried out.

I should like to say a few words about the staff of the Railways but before doing so I should like to say to the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) that I have always thought that he has a receptive mind and a soft spot in his heart for the railwaymen. I was rather sorry this afternoon, therefore, that he did not support the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) more energetically in the case which the latter made out for the pensioners. I think the hon. member made out a good case for the railway pensioners and I am sorry that the hon. member for Mossel Bay did not support him more energetically. On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mossel Bay followed the same lines which have been followed in this debate by hon. members on the other side, and that is to tell us that the railwayman to-day is better off then he has ever been before. They tried to prove that proposition by means of statistics, etc. I could not help feeling later on that those hon. members were really trying to create the impression that all the things which have been done for the railwaymen are in the nature of concessions. That is the last impression that we should try to create, because if there is one thing that I believe, it is that the railwayman receives no more than he deserves to get. Moreover, Sir, the Railway Administration does no more for the railwayman than he deserves. I should like to make it quite clear that we on this side do not say that nothing has been done for the railwaymen. But what we do say is that a good employer does not wait until the worker adopts a threatening attitude before giving him his legitimate wage. We say that the good employer always sees to it that he is so acquainted with the needs of his workers that he helps those workers of his own volition when he realizes that they need assistance.

I want to say to the Minister with all due deference that the railwaymen were entitled, by virtue of their years of loyal service to the Railways, to expect a specific wage or salary from the Minister. I say that the railwayman is entitled to that and I think he has earned the right to go to the Minister and ask for an increase.

The case that I want to make, however, has nothing to do with the railwaymen as such. I think that the railwaymen, as I know them, throughout South Africa are extremely grateful for what has been done for them. I also want to come back to the question of pensioners because I think it is this group of people, particularly the older pensioners, who are going through very difficult times. They are retired people who no longer belong to a trade union which is able to look after their interests. The first group with whom I want to deal is the widows, and I want to deal with a particular group of widows. If I understand it correctly, the position is that the widows of pensioners who retired before 1951 forfeit all rights to a pension as soon as the husband dies. That widow has nothing to fall back upon then. Not only does she lose the pension, but she loses the railway concessions which she and her family enjoyed while her husband was still alive. You will agree, Mr. Speaker, that that woman finds herself in an extremely precarious position. In the first instance therefore I want to urge upon the hon. the Minister, if I understand the position correctly, to allow that widow to retain the railway concessions or at least not to restrict them. She loses all rights to a pension, and I think the least that the Railway Administration can do is not to withdraw or to reduce those concessions. I think this will involve very little in the way of expenditure and I do not think that the hon. the Minister ought to have any objection to this proposal.

Secondly I want to urge that those women who have lost their pension should not be left out in the cold financially. Fortunately most of these women are in the position that they can apply for an old-age pension, but then the woman may find herself in this unenviable position that during his lifetime her husband acquired a house for the two of them. The fact that he acquired a house for himself proves to be the fly in the ointment when he dies because the means test immediately comes into operation and the poor widow then finds that she cannot even get the old-age pension. We certainly cannot ask her to sell her house, nor can we expect her to live on the house. I do not think that a large number of women are involved here. I also feel that these women have the right to go for assistance to the organization for whom their husbands worked during the whole of their working life. I feel that the hon. the Minister should consider the question of giving these women some sort of financial compensation. What the amount ought to be I do not know but that is a matter that can be investigated. In the first instance, I feel that what the Minister ought to do is to accept the principle that the widow who forfeits the pension rights of her husband should be granted some kind of financial assistance.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) has enumerated the different groups of pensioners. I have before me a figure which perturbed me. The figure I have before me shows that there are 15,500 railway pensioners and it seems that 6,300 of them receive pensions of up to R200 per annum. Even adding the increased allowance which the Minister has so kindly given the railway pensioners, I still say that it grieves me to think that a person who has devoted a lifetime of service to the Railways, a person who belonged to a pension fund to which he paid contributions, should get a pension of only R200 per annum.

Does he only get his pension?

That is the only amount on which he can rely and to which he is entitled. I am aware of the temporary allowance that he receives. [Interjections.] It does not matter when he worked; he served the South African Railways for years; he spent his whole life serving the Railways. I do not think the hon. the Minister will be unwilling to view this matter in a sympathetic light. I shall be very glad if the hon. the Minister will tell me whether these figures are correct; to me they seem too alarming to be true: 5,500 pensioners are receiving between R200 and R400 per annum, 3,700 pensioners are receiving between R400 and R600. As far as the last group is concerned one has no great quarrel with the figures but I do trust that the figure which has been given to me in the case of the first group is wrong because if it is not wrong I feel that we should make a very serious plea to the Minister to do something for these people. Then I want to state the other side of the case that was touched upon by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana and that is that there is a big difference between the pensions of the various groups of pensioners, and yet the temporary allowance which is being granted is the same in the case of all three groups. I was wondering whether the Minister might not perhaps consider the question of so adjusting the temporary allowance that those persons who receive the smallest pension will receive a bigger temporary allowance so that their pensions can be brought into line with the pensions of those in receipt of a higher pension. Then there is another matter which I think is of great importance and that is in connection with the means test. As we know, at the moment the means test figure is R1, 800 and when that figure is exceeded by the pension plus the temporary allowance plus extra earnings, the pensioner loses his temporary allowance. There are two aspects of the matter that I want to put to the hon. the Minister. In the first place I want to say that R1,800 is not an in-considerable sum and that nobody can really argue with the Minister in that regard. Where a person receives R 1,800 by way of pension plus the temporary allowance plus extra earnings, he is really in receipt of a good income particularly where he has reached a ripe old age. There are two aspects of this matter, however, and the first one that I want to quote is this: It seems to me that the temporary allowance should be regarded as an integral part of the pension and that it should not be taken away when the income of the person concerned exceeds a particular means test figure. The other aspect is this: I feel that a great deal of injustice is done in applying the means test. I should like to give you a practical example. In applying this test the annual sum of R1,000 is broken up into a monthly figure of R150. There are many pensioners who only work for five or six months during the year. Where the pensioner during five or six months has earned an amount which together with his pension and his temporary allowance exceeds R150, it is assumed that that will be his income for the whole of the year and that for the full year his income will exceed the means test figure of R1,800. I want to give the House the figures of an actual case. This is the case of a person who worked in the Railway service for 38 years. As far as I have been able to ascertain he was an excellent worker. He retired on a pension of R64 per month. In addition to that he now receives under the new scheme an allowance of R30, which gives him R94 per month. This man is in the habit of working a few months every year. For every month that he works he earns R80. As the result of that he has a monthly income of R174 which is in excess of the R150. The moment he exceeds R150 he loses his temporary allowance. This really means that he does not earn R1, 800 over the year; he earns much less than that, but because he earns so much in a particular month it is assumed that he earns that figure throughout the year. I should like to urge that this matter be approached on a different basis. If the Minister does not want to raise the means test figure which would, of course, be the most desirable thing to do, then I want to ask him to leave the means test undisturbed but not to take the man’s monthly income but his annual income in applying the means test. If he then exceeds the means test figure I do not think he will object if his temporary allowance is reduced. I feel, however, that it is wrong to work on the basis on what a person earns in a few months and then to assume that that is what he will earn over the whole year and then take away his temporary allowance. My plea to the Minister therefore is that he should do one of two things; either the means test figures be raised or the means test should be applied on the basis of annual income. I do not think that we should discourage pensioners who wish to work. We should allow them to work if they wish to do so. We should allow them to earn what they like. The pension is theirs; they are entitled to it and we should not place obstacles in their way. I personally feel that there are large numbers of pensioners who are only too pleased that they are still so healthy that they are able to earn something extra to augment their pension.

In conclusion I want to join the hon. member for Umhlatuzana in pleading specifically for the pre-1944 pensioners. It was said by somebody on a previous occasion that they were the Voortrekkers of the Railways, the pioneers. I think it is tragic that we should expect these people to-day to make ends meet on a meagre pension. I do not think it is worthy of the excellent cause of our Railways and I do not believe either that that is what the hon. Minister would like to see I am convinced that the Minister will be able to obtain the necessary finances out of some fund or other—the Revenue Fund for example—to give these people a decent pension. I feel that the Minister will do so and I do not think that it is necessary for us to plead unduly long with him with regard to this matter.

Where I have the privilege of rising and replying to the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) I really feel that I cannot add much to what he has said. The few matters which he has raised, inter alia, that the pensioner who receives a small pension should receive a larger allowance, is already being done by way of the concessions which have been announced, those who do not reach the R50 mark receive a greater allowance; they get R50. I do not think, therefore, that the hon. member for Maitland understood that part of the Minister’s speech very well.

Repeat those figures; put them on record.

I shall deal with them further later on in my speech. The pre-1944 group receives those same benefits. The minimum of R50 is also applicable to them because they are also pensioners.

I shall return to that aspect because I think the speech made by the hon. member for Maitland justifies us to invite him to come over to this side of the House. He has made a speech to which one likes to listen. I really think he has made a contribution to the discussions. I also had the privilege of listening to the detailed exposition of the hon. the Minister in connection with the activities of the greatest organization in our country, namely the Railways, an organization which it is estimated will earn R507,000,000 this current year; more than double the amount 10 years ago. It is an organization which provides 11,700 Whites with a means of livelihood, and not only a decent living as long as they are in the service of the Railways, but which also makes ample provision for them and their families the day they retire. Their security for the future is ensured. It is an organization which can really be called a father who looks after his children with love and sympathy. This gigantic organization which is growing from strength to strength, which develops and expands, is really the important part of our industrial development, our industries, commerce, agriculture and mining industry. As a transportation service the Railways form the life-giving blood-stream in the life of the Republic.

Let us go further and make an analysis. Let me take the Railways as a whole in the first instance. As far as the air service is concerned I think everybody is agreed that it is as good as the best in the world. It is the pride of the Republic and it commands the admiration of everybody who visits our country. We can go further. Without being disrupted in any way our harbours were able to handle 14,500 ships during the past year. When we think of the passenger service I can say without fear of contradiction that our services compares well with the best in the world and that it deserves the highest praise. Our goods traffic service plays an indispensable role in the phenomenal growth and development of the Republic and the fact that the Railways could keep pace with this tremendous growth and could meet the stringent demands made upon it without causing any accumulation of goods is certainly something to be proud of and testifies to proper planning and efficiency. The efficacy of the Railways, however, is not only measured by the ordinary traffic, but it is also measured by the fact whether they are able to meet the extraordinary demands which are made on them from time to time. I am going to give a few examples of the extraordinary demands which are made. I have in mind, for example the exportation of anthracite which only amounted to 311,000 tons in 1961, two years ago and which had increased to 720,000 tons in 1963; all that had to be conveyed. We think of another example where AMKOR concluded a contract with Japan in terms of which 560,000 tons of iron ore had to be conveyed by the Railways annually. When we go into the matter we find that 1,300 extra trains had to be run. We think of the unexpected surplus of mealies which required an additional 6,000 trains. When we think of these things we realize what very high demands are made upon the Railways and in spite of that there has been no accumulation at our stations, and that the wheels have run smoothly over the rails and that the Opposition has no chance of criticizing in that regard. That testifies to efficiency and planning in advance. I have deliberately given these examples because I just want to go back a little and refresh the memory of the Opposition. I want to read an amendment which the Opposition moved in this House a few years ago. I have referred to the efficiency of the Railways but it was only a few years ago when the Opposition moved the following amendment—

That was the accusation which was levelled by the other side of the House. Here we have the record of the Railways which proves that there was absolutely no foundation for the allegation that the Government had not kept pace with the development. But the amendment said further—

That was what the Opposition moved, and I shall return to that but I want to read the rest of the amendment—

In addition the Opposition said this—

This really proves that in spite of the fact that that was what the Opposition had in mind, the Government could nevertheless in every respect meet the demands that were made and that it was indeed able to meet all the demands. It could cope with all the traffic in spite of the high demands that were made; as far as wages and salaries are concerned there has been such a tremendous improvement that there should not be any complaints in that regard either. Then the Opposition went on to say this—

The views which the Opposition held a few years ago were really without any foundation and I think they have now changed those views.

They also talked about the unfair subjection of railways staff to injustice, underpayment and overwork. We know that the Opposition pleaded strenuously last year for an increase to one section of the railway personnel but that the Minister in turn gave the assurance that he would do what he could and I think the Opposition is as pleased as we are that the Minister has fulfilled his promise of last year and that the entire railway staff has been given an increase, an increase which amounts to R21,000,000 in all. I really thought that the other side of the House would adopt a different attitude in connection with this matter but I want to express my gratitude on behalf of my constituents and I want to go further and express my gratitude on behalf of the United Party voters, if there is still anybody in the service of the Railways who supports the United Party. It is only the members of the Opposition in this House who have lost contact with their people outside who do not say thank you. I am also pleased that the principle has been adopted that a job should be determined by its value and that salaries should be based on the value of the work which a man does. In doing this the Minister has complied with the unanimous wish of all the staff associations. In this connection I want to refer to the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) who referred to the increase in the pensions of railwaymen who have already retired. The other side of the House has adopted the attitude that those people have a justifiable claim. I think that is a wrong approach. In terms of an agreement the Railway Administration has always paid the share which it should pay, and this increase has been granted because of human considerations and because of sympathy for those officials who served the Railways in the past. I think, for example, of one person in my constituency who retired in 1947 when the United Party was in power. That railwayman received a pension of R 10.70 per month at the time. His position has improved considerably to-day. Last year he received R35.20 with his allowance, and due to this recent increase his pension has increased to R50. He now receives R 14.80 more. I appreciate the fact that the hon. member for Maitland has pleaded for this group of pensioners but I think he should also express his gratitude to the Minister for having specifically met this group who received very low pensions and who are now receiving greater benefits than the others. I personally wish to make a plea on behalf of those people and I want to ask the Minister to consider consolidating that temporary allowance, not because I believe that the National Government will ever take that allowance away. I have that assurance. But there may be a change. Say for instance the United Party comes into power one day. They may perhaps do what they did in 1923 and take the whole amount away over a period of a year. That is the only thing people are afraid of. They have full confidence in the National Party. The question has, however, repeatedly been asked why the pensions of those people are so low. There is only one reply to that and that is the extremely poor salaries which the railwaymen received during the United Party régime up to 1948. After 1948 when the National Party came into the power the position improved. We remember how Mr. Jagger decided during the time of the South African Party that it would cost the country very much less if the Railways dispensed with all White labour and employed Bantu labour, and the White employees were dismissed on a large scale. It required a Minister Charlie Malan and a National Government to reinstate those White employees and just as Minister Charlie Malan looked after the railwayman at that time Minister Ben Schoeman is to-day looking after the railwayman. But I want to go further: Over the past few years pensions have practically doubled. We must remember two big amounts to which nobody has as yet referred to my knowledge; two big amounts which the salaried person in the railway service has to pay out of his own pocket in the form of his pension contributions and I honestly feel that the amount which he does not pay in but which is carried by the Railways is of very great value. I want to say to the Minister that we appreciate that and I believe that every railwayman appreciates the fact that he is saved the amount which he would normally have paid after consolidation of the cost-of-living allowance and the non-pensionable allowances. This amounts to over R6,000,000 annually. This is an exceptional concession. Over the past two years consolidation and wage increases have cost the Railways an amount of R36,000,000.

The Opposition had a great deal to say about the tariff increases. They did not reconcile themselves with the fact that tariffs had to be increased. The fact remains however, that rationalization of salaries and the loan structure, together with the increase granted to those railway pensioners who have already retired, could only take place as a result of that tariff increase. The Minister had to find the money and he could only get it by raising tariffs. Where the Opposition is objecting so strenuously to the tariff increase and where everybody realizes that this amount of R21,000,000 plus the amount for increased pensions could only be granted if tariffs were increased, they are in reality objecting to the increased salaries; they are expressing their dissatisfaction with the Minister for having granted these concessions to those people. You cannot come to any other conclusion, because without increasing tariffs it would not have been possible to do those other things. I realize that many implications flow from a tariff increase but it was absolutely necessary to do so in order to oil the machine so that it could continue to function.

I want to deal with a second point that that is that tariffs play a very important role in the price structure of our industries. In this regard to want to say something about our maize industry. We are grateful for the concessions which have already been granted in that regard but I want to plead for further concessions in respect of full train loads from a certain point to the ship’s hold. That is absolutely essential. We must remember that the maize industry is of national importance to the Republic. Maize exports yield nearly R 100,000,000 annually and that is why I think we should really do everything in our power to encourage this industry so as to make these exports possible. Tariffs play a tremendously important role in this respect. We realize what a terrific load this places on the Railways but we nevertheless feel that it is essential that maize should be exported as expeditiously as possible so as to avoid a chronic accumulation.

That brings me to the next matter I wish to raise and that is the chronic accumulation which already exists to some extent and here I want to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Welkom (Mr. H. J. van Wyk) when he spoke about the north-western Free State. The area concerned is really the area round Bultfontein-Soutpan-Hertzogville-Hoopstad-Wesselsbron and the goldfield area. That area has a tremendous production potential. It can be regarded as the grain store of the Republic. That area produces over 6,000,000 bags of grain, not to mention the salt which is obtained from the large salt pans there. It is also a big meat producing area. A large grain elevator is in the course of construction at Bultfontein and I want to plead that the railway line which ends at Bultfontein should be extended from Bultfontein to Bloemfontein which will mean a shorter route from Bultfontein over Bloemfontein to the grain elevator at East London. That is a matter of great importance. I know that the Railways provide transport buses but as a former M.P.C. I know that that heavy traffic on the roads ruins the roads and the extension of that line will be of great relief to that whole community. This is not an instance where traffic has to be looked for. The production is there already and where we should do everything in our power to encourage it, I want to plead for the extension of that line. In addition the Sand-Vet River scheme is being developed and this will increase production as well as the proposed development of the Orange River scheme and the products must be transported to the goldfields. All these factors lead me to believe that I have every justification to ask the Minister to consider this matter very favourably. It will be a very short line which will perform a great service and it will be of particular value to that community.

The Railways can keep pace with the development and growth of our country; they can meet the higher transportation demands because provision was made timeously for the necessary rolling stock. Apart from that the Minister has followed a long-term policy in that he assisted our industries by placing large orders for trucks and electric locomotives. That has contributed greatly to our industrial development. I also wish to congratulate the Minister on the co-operation which he has received from the staff associations and on the salary and pension increases which have been effected in consultation with them, as well as proper housing and improved conditions of employment, proper training and the sympathetic treatment which has contributed to this wonderful success. Before I conclude I think it is my duty to congratulate the Minister on the wonderful success he has attained over the past year. I also wish my congratulations to be conveyed to the Railway Board, the General Manager and every official from the highest to the lowest. When I say that I realize that no matter how menial the work may be which anybody does, just as in the case of a big machine, it is the smallest cog which is important and indispensible and that is why I feel that everyone has contributed to the success of the Railways.

The hon. member who has just sat down will forgive me if I don’t follow his arguments, save in one respect. He mentioned the question of the increase in the cost-of-living allowances which are being paid by the hon. the Minister. That surely is not a question for congratulation. Surely the pertinent question there is, why was it necessary to pay increased cost-of-living allowances. The answer is that it costs so much more now for the ordinary man to live than it did ten or 15 years ago. These allowances are not paid because of any benevolent feeling on the part of the hon. the Minister. They are paid because it is necessary that that be done, and that increase in the cost-of-living is not any responsibility of this side of the House. It stems in part from the policy of the Government, and the policy of this hon. Minister in particular, and lends point to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell)—

The example given by the hon. member lends point to the objections which this side of the House has so far as current railway policy is concerned. Sir, I do not propose following the hon. member in another respect and that is in his choice of dealing with millions and hundreds of millions of rand to illustrate his examples. I choose not to do that because it is very difficult to understand what effect increase in railway costs have on any section of the community if one is dealing in hundreds of millions of rand. The ordinary man deals in tens of rand, and hundreds of rand.

In raising the question of timber growers in South Africa, I propose using figures of that small nature. The point I wish to deal with is the raising last year of timberloading site rentals by 100 per cent. That was done since 1 December 1962 and I wish to emphasize, Sir, that it was not a slight increase; it was a blanket 100 per cent increase. That has been, as I shall show shortly, a tremendous additional burden to the timbergrowers of South Africa, and by way of an example as to how it affects an individual, I give these figures: To a large grower at Sabie it will entail an additional expenditure of over R90 per month, that is over R1,000 per annum; and in respect of a small grower at Howick who originally paid R1 per month for his loading site, there was firstly the up-grading of stations in 1959, which raised his fee to R3 and that is now being increased by 100 per cent to R6 per month, that is some R72 per annum. Sir, it has often been said in this House, and of course it is true, that the costs of production in the field of agriculture and forestry are continually going up, and there is now this additional, and as I shall show in a moment unfair, burden, following as it does on the large-scale regrading of stations which took place in 1959. I want to emphasize, Sir, that the regrading of stations in itself put up site rentals and created an additional burden for the timber-growers of the country, but on top of that you get this 100 per cent increase. One could perhaps have understood had there been a small increase of 10 per cent or 15 per cent to meet additional costs of administration, or to meet additional costs incurred by the rising prices which we have had over the last ten years. But there is not that, there is simply a blanket increase of 100 per cent. I suggest that this is a most unscientific approach to the problem of increased costs, because you double the rentals regardless of whether the sites or the services rendered at those timber sites have improved in any way. In these circumstances it is difficult to understand why there is the paean of praise for the Minister and his policy which one gets from hon. members opposite. There is no criticism of any kind, and there was a curious lack of any discussion by hon. members opposite of the situation which railway-users find themselves in. The timber-growers have been informed by the Railway Administration that this increase of 100 per cent in site rentals has been brought about to meet capital expenditure incurred in respect of sites. But the examples which have been given to the timber growers have all been in respect of urban loading sites, and of course the persons who have to bear this additional burden are not urban people. But supposing that that argument used by the Railway Administration were valid, there are two answers to it. The one is the answer I have just given, that the people who have to bear this additional cost are not urban people who use urban sites, but they are rural people, timber growers, and the sites they use are situated accordingly. Secondly, it has been touched on a number of times that the Minister is budgeting for a surplus. There is more money on hand than is needed to pay the additional wages of the railwaymen, which we on this side have already welcomed. In those circumstances there can be no justification for a 100 per cent increase as far as the loading sites for timber are concerned. Sir, these charges are exorbitant, and that seems to be borne out when one takes the charges levied for a site, for example, at a second-grade station with siding accommodation, a piece of land 35 × 50 feet, and working it out on that basis one finds that the land is being charged for at the rate of R6,900 per morgen, which is an amazingly high rental to charge for a piece of land which in nine cases out of ten is situated in country areas where the cost of land is very low indeed. There are no elaborate structures on these loading sites. It is simply a place where timber is stacked and stored until such time as it can be loaded on to the trucks.

But the burden on the timber growers does not end there. There is the added burden one has because of the irregular and in many cases the inadequate supply of trucks into which the timber is to be loaded. It works this way, that because of the irregular and inadequate supply of trucks to the sidings, timber growers have to rent from the railways more sidings so as to have a larger site than they really need. The timber has to be stacked, waiting for the trucks to arrive, and this, too, is an additional expense, even before the rentals were raised. I wish to emphasize that in the timber industry the costs show that transport costs already constitute about half the total cost of growing and marketing timber. In those circumstances any increase in transport costs, and particularly in railway charges, constitutes a matter of great importance. It materially affects the profitability of the timber industry as a whole. Now, it may be thought in some quarters that timber growers are people with a great deal of money, that they have large incomes and that they can easily absorb additional costs of the type I have mentioned, but the figures show that the majority of growers in the Republic are small growers, and any increase in cost is accordingly a very material consideration. There are 3,330 private plantations in the Republic and 2,500 of those are less than 500 acres in extent, and 50 per cent of all plantations are less than 200 acres in size. The annual income from these small plantations on a sustained yield and long-term basis would be about R2,000 per annum, and in order to load an ordinary bogey truck, which is the type used for the loading of timber, these small growers would have to rent on an average two loading sites; and calculated on the basis of the second-grade station which I referred to earlier, with siding accommodation, it would come to R192 per annum. So it means that the ordinary small grower has to pay roughly one-tenth of his total income in rentals to the Railways for a loading site. This seems wrong, whichever way one approaches the problem, because it is nothing more than the mere provision of a place from which timber can be loaded on to the trucks. In addition to that, Sir, ordinary railage is payable from that point to the destination to which the timber is being sent. If one deals with people who load on narrow gauge lines, there are further anomalies and the hardships are even greater. It arises in this way, that a narrow gauge truck is roughly half the length of the trucks used on the broad gauge lines, and it follows that to load such a truck with the same quantity of timber as one would load on to a broad gauge truck, you have to have double the number of sites, and as the charges are the same on both systems it means that the man who loads on a narrow gauge line is penalized to the extent of having to pay twice as much again.

When site rentals were a moderate charge, this anomaly did not cause any great difficulty, because the amount of money involved was a comparatively small item in the cost structure of the timber growers, but now that it has assumed a larger proportion of those costs, of course it becomes a matter of considerable importance. So far as one can see from the information that has been given to the timber growers, no case has been made out at all for an increase of 100 per cent in these charges, and the result is that the timber industry, and that section of it which is least able to afford these costs, namely the small growers, have had this hardship which they should not be compelled to bear.

The Minister’s argument in his reply will no doubt be that if he reduces these site rentals he is obliged to reduce all site rentals to all other types of users. In the present state of railway finances, I see no reason why there should not be an over-all reduction in the amount of site rentals. But even if that cannot be done for reasons which at present do not appear, there is no reason why the question of differential site rentals should not be explored. We have here an example of the type of policy, or a segment of the policy, to which this side of the House objects; an arbitrary increase for no apparent reason on a blanket basis, which materially affects the cost of production of an important section of the economy, the timber industry. It is an example which illustrates graphically the amendment which has been moved by this side of the House in objecting to the policies of this Government, and it is an example in comparatively simple form of the actions of this Minister arising, as the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) pointed out earlier, out of his position as a monopolist in the transport field, and illustrating the wrongness of his policy in spending money and then raising more simply by an apparently arbitrary increase which affects a whole section of the economy.

I do not really wish to deal with the speech of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman). I just wish to commence by expressing my thanks to the hon. the Minister. [Interjection.] I again hear the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) mumbling, but I should also like to express my thanks to the General Manager, the officials and the workers of the Railway Administration and to congratulate them on the excellent way in which this huge undertaking is being run. The achievements and the services rendered by the Railways in the various spheres deserve the admiration of every right-minded person. The fact that the United Party finds it so hard to find fault with it, or to voice any real criticism, is further proof of how well this gigantic undertaking is being administered.

Reply to the complaint of the hon. member for Zululand.

In view of the fact that the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell), the main speaker of the Opposition, may one day perhaps become the Minister of Transport if the United Party gets into power, I want to say that that would be a catastrophe for the country and also for the Railway Administration. I expected the hon. member for Wynberg to come along with criticism. After having used his full time he said that other speakers on his side would follow him and particularly point out to what extent the cost of living has been increased as the result of increasing tariffs, but the only person who referred to the cost of living is the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay), who, almost with tears in his eyes, spoke about the poor women who have to walk around from morning to night and from shop to shop in order to buy something for a cent or two cheaper. But none of those hon. members developed that theme, which proves that this undertaking is very well run.

But I should like to confine myself to making a few remarks in regard to the excellent service being rendered in South West Africa by the Railway Administration. In his Budget speech the hon. the Minister briefly referred to the washaways we had there two months ago. I want to say immediately that those washaways, which resulted from excessive rain, should not be interpreted to mean that there was bad planning in regard to bridges or culverts. South West Africa is a land of extremes, of droughts, and of washaways. With the extraordinary rains we had two months ago, even our newly-built macadamized roads were washed away even where sufficient provision had been made for bridges and culverts. But I should like to say that although washaways took place simultaneously in various places, the damage was repaired with the utmost speed and the holding up of the trains was reduced to a minimum. With the strengthening of the track, work which is still in progress—it will be noted from the Brown Book that there is ample provision for the reinforcing of our railway tracks by putting down heavier rails and better sleepers and replacing the sand ballast with stone—it is a pleasure to travel by train in South West to-day. The hold-up of passenger trains and goods trains carrying livestock and perishable products is something of the past. I particularly want to refer to the improve passenger service between Windhoek and Johannesburg and between Windhoek and Cape Town. A year or so ago that was a very long and tedious journey, but it has been improved to such an extent now that the journey from Windhoek to Johannesburg has been shortened by about 8½ hours and the journey from Johannesburg to Windhoek by about 6 hours, and the same applies also to journeys between Windhoek and Cape Town. What is also important is the fact that the long delay at De Aar to wait for a connection has now been eliminated, and I can assure the Minister that the public welcomes it.

I was surprised to hear from the Minister that the main line passenger traffic is being run at a loss. I feel that such an excellent service should show a profit. I feel convinced, however, that the great improvements particularly in respect of main line train journeys, such as greater punctuality, faster running times, the luxurious steel coaches, the diningsaloons with air-conditioning and the neat observation coaches, and particularly the excellent service on the passenger trains, will succeed in attracting the travelling public back to the trains. Now, I should like to plead with the Minister also to provide some of the luxuries we have in the Republic, such as observation coaches and dining-saloons with airconditioning, on the South West Africa section. Possibly the hon. the Minister has already taken such a decision, and if that is so I want to thank him in anticipation. Improvements are made so rapidly on the Railways to-day that one cannot keep pace with them.

I do not want to ask much for South West, because we honestly do not feel that we are being neglected there and we are grateful for the excellent services we have, particularly in view of the fact that the Railway Administration again shows an appreciable loss on the South West Africa section for the past year, a loss which is almost completely borne by the Republic. Therefore I want to repeat what I said last year, namely that South West is completely dependent on the help of the Republic of South Africa.

The exploitation of the Railways in South West at Luderitz harbour resulted in a deficit of R2,675, 884 for the financial year ended 31 March 1962. The total loss from 1 April 1922 to 31 March 1962 is R48,913, 461. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the South West Africa Administration is of course responsible for portion of the operating losses in respect of the Gamams-Gobabis railway line. In the year ended 31 March 1962 the loss on that line was R92,594, of which the South West Africa Administration will pay about R25,000. In terms of an agreement entered into between the South West Africa Administration and the Railways when a start was made with the widening of the 353 miles of narrow gauge line, the South West Africa Administration undertook for an indefinite period to guarantee the Railways against operational losses to the amount of the difference between the loss on the narrow gauge lines and the loss resulting from the exploitation of the normal lines. The operational results for the first full year on these normal lines in the northern area of South West show a loss of R875,058. Now I want to say that it may be expected that for many years to come there will still be losses on the South West Africa section, and we must accept that. South West Africa is an extensive area which is very sparsely populated, but I believe that the losses will decrease every year. It should not be forgotten that during the last few years we had serious droughts and foot-and-mouth disease there, all of which hindered the smooth operation of the railway system. There was less traffic.

I also want to thank the Minister for the very excellent road motor services and for the fact that the Minister, when we were in dire need during the years of drought, supplied us with more vehicles. I must say that during this protracted drought severe demands were made on this service, and I realize that this service will also show a loss, but it is a very essential service in South West Africa. There is a great demand for buses with trailers to transport animals to better grazing, and also fodder, and I may say that the staff of these bus services had very little time to rest, and that very little attention could be devoted to the vehicles themselves. I do not think that the Minister can still ascribe part of his losses on the road motor services to the bad roads in South West. Last year I pointed out that these losses were partly caused by our bad roads, but I want to say that the gravel roads in South West Africa are better than those in the Republic.

In regard to railway crossings, for the elimination of which much money is being spent in the Republic to-day, I know that the Minister is aware that in South West Africa we have already eliminated numerous railway crossings, and he also knows that when building macadamized roads which have to cross the railway line, we build bridges or subways. As a mark of appreciation for the excellent services we received from the Railway Administration, and because the Republic practically bears all the losses on that section, we are not asking the Railway Administration for a contribution towards the building of these bridges and subways. I feel it would be very unreasonable of South West Africa to ask the Railways to contribute to these costs after everything we have already received from them. I just want to mention briefly that when our programme for building macadamized roads has been completed, which will not take many years—perhaps another ten or twelve years— there will not be a single open railway crossing in South West Africa. In this respect we are far ahead of the Republic.

We are also glad to see that there is an appreciable increase in the air freight from South West Africa to the Republic. This increase is more specifically in respect of the transportation of pelts. In 1956-7 the S.A. Airways transported 10,758 kilograms of pelts for the export trade, whilst the figures for 1961-2 amount to 158,854 kilograms. The special tariff for the transportation of these karakul pelts, viz. 53c per kilogram, is a great incentive to the farmers to send their karakul skins to the overseas market by air. Perhaps the Minister should consider slightly reducing this tariff in view of the great increase in the air transport of karakul skins, although it is not unreasonably high. During the past year the hon. the Minister replaced the Dakota service to South West Africa by Skymasters. We have no complaints in that regard. Because the J. G. Strijdom Airport at Windhoek is not suitable for aircraft larger and faster than the Skymasters, and because this type of aircraft will also be withdrawn from this route at some time or other, the South West Africa Administration is now busy planning a new airport with runways, the necessary buildings and installations, about 27 miles outside Windhoek. I may just mention that tenders will be called for towards the end of July for the building of these runways, and tenders for the buildings and installations which are being planned in conjuction with Civil Aviation will be called for early in 1964. I am told that the whole airport should be completed early in 1966. The preliminary estimated costs of this airport with its buildings and installations is about R1,250,000. I should mention that an ordinance to empower the South West Africa Administration to build and to maintain an airport will be introduced during the May Session of the Legislative Assembly. The costs of building this new airport will be borne by the South West Africa Administration.

I should like to conclude by putting on record the willingness, the courtesy and the good service rendered by all the members of the railway staff throughout South West Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I trust that the hon. member for Namib (Mr. Cloete) will not take it amiss if I do not follow his trend of thought too far. I believe that he has been extremely fortunate in one respect, and that is in regard to the improvements effected in long-distance train travel. South West Africa has fared much better than many other provinces and areas in regard to the speeding up of trains, a matter which I propose to discuss in a moment.

Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to join in the accolade of approval which has been voiced with such fervour by hon. members opposite. I prefer to be a little critical, albeit, I hope, constructively critical. I wish to deal with a remark the Minister made in his Budget speech in regard to the number of long-distance passengers. The Minister pointed out that there had been a decrease in the year under a review of over 13 per cent in the number of long-distance passengers, and further, that the number of third-class passengers has also declined. He referred to the passenger services as a whole and indicated that they were not the most lucrative part of railway undertakings. In fact, the loss during 1960-1 amounted to R34,500,000, and the loss this year was nearly R40,000,000. As far as the drop in the number of passengers is concerned, it is a great one. An article in Commercial Opinion puts the figure at approximately 4,000,000, although I see that in the Report of the General Manager it is considered to be about 3,250,000. But what appeared to me to be rather significant is that another article in Commercial Opinion indicated that in Nyasaland for the ten months of the year 1962 the increase in passengers was almost exactly the decrease which had been suffered in South Africa, viz. 13 per cent, but that their goods traffic showed a decrease. Sir, I feel that there was some reason for this falling off in the number of long-distance passengers. I think that the tempo of modern life has increased to an extent beyond the attitude which the Railways have adopted as far as the running times of long-distance passenger trains is concerned. This matter was dealt with last year, and in the Minister’s reply to certain remarks on this subject he said m Hansard, Col. 2636—

He was referring to the Orange Express in this particular instance—

This opinion was endorsed by the General Manager in his Report which was released in January 1963. He said—

Sir, what has been the result of this improvement? In so far as the Orange Express is concerned there has been no change whatsoever in the time between Cape Town and Durban and there has been a saving of precisely five minutes in the opposite direction. As far as the Blue Train is concerned, an hour has been cut off the run. As far as the train TransKaroo is concerned there has been no improvement. There has been an improvement on the train between East London and Johannesburg by a time of one hour and 40 minutes over the total trip. As I have said previously to the hon. member for Namib (Mr. Cloete) he has benefited most in his area because the trains from Johannesburg to Windhoek and from Cape Town to Windhoek have shown great improvements in their running times, varying from six hours to eleven hours. Then again there has been a further minor change: People can get from Ficks-burg to Johannesburg in four hours less than previously and there has been the inauguration of the fast non-White passenger service between Johannesburg and Durban, in each direction. But what improvements have really been effected commensurate with the tempo of modern life? Let us compare the position with that of 36 years ago. Thirty-six years ago the trip from Cape Town to Johannesburg, in 1927, took three hours longer. The distance was given as 954 miles in those days and it is given as approximately this distance to-day in 1963. In 36 years, therefore there has been a saving of three hours. From Durban to Johannesburg the position is better; it is a shorter trip. It was 487 miles in 1953, it is 455 miles to-day, and there has been an overall saving in time of 5¼ hours. But then we come to the position between Cape Town and Durban, and if we consider the times taken in 1928-9 to cover the distance of 1,300 miles, we find that the time occupied was 44½ hours and in 1963,35 years later, when the distance had been shortened by 25 miles, the time had been reduced to 41¾ hours in 35 years. The General Manager indicated that a great deal of money had been spent in improving the track and the tractive power of locomotives, etc. Sir, I was very interested in an advertisement which appeared in the Argus a little while ago advertising the facilities of long-distance travel. This appeared in the Argus on 23 February. One sentence intrigued me; it said—

Sir, what are the facts? If we take the Cape Town-Durban route again, we find that 268 miles of track have been doubled in the last ten years and that there has been a great deal of electrification. We find in the areas where the improvement has been effected that there is a considerable saving of time, but that is more than made up by the fact that a great deal more time is spent in the stations and on the sections where apparently no great improvement has been effected, the train is going more slowly than it was ten years ago. That is something which is quite beyond me, but the figures in the timetable show that it takes ten minutes longer than it did ten years ago to cover the distance between Kimberley and Bloemfontein; between Kroonstad and Bethlehem it takes 15 minutes longer and between Bethlehem and Harrismith it takes 14 minutes longer; and bear in mind, Sir, that the only change that has been effected in the last ten years has been this insignificant reduction in overall travelling time.

As far as the Trans-Natal Express is concerned, I have indicated that there has been a reduction in the overall time, but the same pattern is observed in regard to the time wasted in stations. Whereas in 1952 the distance was covered in 16½ hours, it is now covered in 15 hours. In the old days, the good old days, however, 37 minutes were spent at stations but to-day, with this shorter time, the stopping time is 65 minutes, and in that time I have not included, because I was unable to get figures for a comparative period ten years ago, a five-minute stop at Estcourt plus 28 minutes at Germiston to effect a simple shunting operation; so the total stopping time now is 98 minutes as against something like 37 minutes ten years ago. In the reverse direction the position is even worse because although the travelling time is the same, in effect the stopping time that used to be 49 minutes is now 84 minutes; that is the time that the train spends in stations, and that does not include the additional wait in Germiston and Estcourt which totals 27 minutes making a total of 111 minutes spent in stations.

Sir, the hon. Minister referred to passenger convenience. I believe that passenger convenience would be suited for the passengers on the Trans-Natal train from the point of view of the businessman and possibly the holiday maker if they could arrive at their destination perhaps half an hour earlier, namely at 8.30 in the morning, and I do not believe it would inconvenience the travelling public really because the only major intermediate station that might be affected would be Pietermaritzburg, and it is interesting to note that already the train waits half an hour in Pietermaritzburg, so it will merely mean that the train would be leaving Pietermaritzburg at the present time at which it arrives there. As far as the Trans-Karoo Express is concerned, I have indicated that there has been no recent improvement in time, but it is interesting to note that the Trans-Karoo is covering the distance in an hour and a half less than the time that was taken by a similar train ten years ago, however, the number of stops has increased. Whereas in 1953 there were 25 stops, to-day there are 34.

The Minister referred to various aspects in his reply last year. He said when the question of delays at stations was raised—

If we take the Orange Express once again, we find that 268 miles of track have been doubled in the last ten years and that 327 miles of track have been electrified in the same time. We find too that there has been a saving of approximately 92 minutes. In the old days it was necessary to take on water between Beaufort West and Cape Town. Nowadays electric traction is provided. But there are other factors which are puzzling and which I feel do require some explanation or some improvement. Firstly, if one observes the figures which the Minister kindly supplied in reply to a question, one finds that it takes usually twice as long to effect the changing over of a locomotive when it concerns the Orange Express as it does when the Blue Train or the Trans-Karoo train is in operation. Then there is another aspect which is puzzling and that is in regard to the range of locomotives. It appears to be greater in the case of the two Transvaal trains than in the case of the Orange Express, and as far as the vintage of locomotives is concerned, I think the vintage of the locomotives used, particularly to haul the Orange Express over certain sections in the Free State, is much older than the comparative locomotives used for steam traction on the other routes. We find that the locomotives used to haul the Orange Express through the Free State were put into service between 1935 and 1939 while the 25-class and the 25 N.C.-class used to haul the Blue Train and the Trans-Karoo train from Klerksdorp to Beaufort West, were in fact put into service in 1953-5. Another very interesting point is in the journey between Ladysmith and Durban on the Orange Express. We find that in 1953 the train stopped 22 times at stations; It now only stops three times between Ladysmith and Durban and the time of arrival has improved by five minutes.

That is progress.

Another interesting point is this: I found on studying the timetable that the daily passenger train, which is not designated as an express, between Cape Town and Johannesburg covers the distance of 132 miles between Bloemfontein and Kroonstad in 20 minutes less than the Orange Express. When one comes to other comparisons between the Blue Train and the Orange Express, I find that the figures which the hon. the Minister gave me do not correspond with my interpretation of the figures in the timetable.

The Minister is always wrong.

The customer is always right and the railway passenger, is, I believe, the customer. I find in comparing the time taken by the Blue Train to cover the distance between Cape Town and Kimberley, compared with the time taken by the Orange Express, that the comparison is unfavourable to the Orange Express because it takes 38 minutes longer, and as far as the reverse journey from Kimberley to Cape Town is concerned, the time taken is an hour and 30 minutes longer. That, Sir, is according to my mathematics although the Minister gave me the answer of 30 minutes and 18½ minutes respectively.

Reference has been made to the convenience of passengers. The Minister has referred to it and I have tried to indicate that there are certain aspects involved in this matter but I submit that it is not convenient for holiday makers or businessmen to leave Cape Town at 3 o’clock in the afternoon when they could well, with the existing facilities available to the Railways, leave at, say, 7 o’clock in the evening. As far as intermediate stations are concerned, the only ones which might be affected by such an improvement would be Touws River, Laingsburg and Beaufort West, all of which, I believe, are amply catered for by other services. In the reverse direction it is true that if the train left Durban at 7 p.m. it would get to Pietermaritzburg a little later than it does at present, but one must bear in mind that the train leaves Durban for Cape Town at 4 p.m. and not at 3 p.m. I think that the Orange Express should not be just an express in name only; it should operate efficiently and fast and give a twice weekly service between Durban and Cape Town at the fastest speeds possible. There are further failures in certain aspects of the operation of the Orange Express which I wish to bring to the notice of the House. The journey takes overall 42¾ hours, and according to my calculations—and I have been pretty painstaking about it—six hours of this time is spent in stations. Ten years ago the time was four hours. But, Sir, the strange position exists that if one wants to get to Cape Town more quickly by train, it is quicker to take the Trans-Natal train leaving Durban at 6 p.m., arriving in Johannesburg, waiting for 1½ hours for the Blue Train and then catching the Blue Train to Cape Town. You save a quarter of an hour but you travel 168 miles extra.

That is value for money.

I hope the Minister will not say that it is impossible for the Orange Express to leave Cape Town or Durban stations at a later hour because of traffic congestion at the terminals. I do not believe that that is a valid reason. I was very interested to see a cutting in the paper which had obviously been supplied by the publicity section of the Railways, in which it is proudly said: “Specials laid on for rush” and it indicated that 128 special trains would cope with the Christmas season rush; into Durban would come 67 trains and out of Durban would go 61 trains and that would be in a limited period from 6 December to 29 January. Sir, I made it my business to find out what is the approximate arrival times and departure times of the trains because the Minister had indicated previously that that presented certain administrative problems and I found that these trains arrived at times between 5.15 a.m. and 9.45 a.m. and that the departures were effected between 12 noon and 8.30 p.m. I submit that those are mainly peak hours and if it is possible for the railway authorities to operate these special trains at seasonal intervals four times a year, it should not be beyond their wit and resources to provide a bi-weekly satisfactory train service between Durban and Cape Town. In the matter of comfort the General Manger in his report has indicated the steps taken in regard to lounge cars. I would like to point out that a lounge car is provided on the Trans-Natal train, which probably serves passengers for a limited period of about six hours during the trip because most of the trip is during sleeping hours, but in so far as the Orange Express is concerned, no lounge car has been provided yet although it has been budgeted for in the near future, so it means that people who are travelling for approximately two days do not have the comfort of a lounge car when they pass through the Karoo at the hottest time of the day.

I know that there are various factors to be taken into consideration and I do hope that the Minister will not say that he has difficulty and that some of the delays have been caused through the quadrupling of the lines between Booth Junction and Durban because I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to Hansard, Vol. 83, dated 1953, when the hon. member for Umlazi, as he was then, the present member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) asked the Minister what progress had been made with the quadrupling of railway traffic between Durban and Booth Junction. This was in 1953. The answer was that preliminary investigation had not commenced; that it had been necessary to revise the scheme because the cost was not finalized. Sir, should the Minister say that Durban station is the stumbling block, I feel that the Mayor and the citizens of Durban would react to that in language which you, Sir, would deem to be unparliamentary.

In concluding I would like to make an appeal to the Minister to consider the working conditions of the reservation staff at the Durban station. Sir, anybody who has seen these people working efficiently and cheerfully in contact with the public will realize that the facilities there are overcrowded, cramped and extremely hot, and I think the good job of work that they are doing merits some consideration from the Minister in this respect. I do sincerely hope that he will give this matter his consideration.

I do not want to follow the hon. member along the road he travelled. The hon. member always has the Orange Express in his mind, and I can hardly understand how he can compare the Nyasaland Railways with ours. In view of the lateness of the hour, I wish to move—

I second.