Mr. Speaker, the S.A. Railways and Harbours and the Airways is a splendid undertaking. It is an undertaking in which every citizen of this country is a shareholder and therefore we are all proud of this undertaking. We are proud when we think of the results achieved by the Railways during the year under discussion. Just think of the one item, labour; 47.45 per cent of the total expenditure was spent on labour. That shows us what a stabilizing influence the Railways as such can have on the economy of the country. All this is money which is being spent.

I should like to talk, however, about the elimination of railway crossings. That is a matter which affects all of us and which is of general interest because there are so many unprotected crossings in our country. Sooner or later one of us is bound to pass over such a crossing and be exposed to danger. The elimination of railway crossings is achieved firstly by the building of bridges, secondly by the building of subways, and thirdly by rerouting the roads. According to the report for the year 1961-2, inter alia nine bridges were built and one subway, and one crossing was eliminated by re-routing the road. The cost of these 11 eliminations was born by the S.A. Railways. A further five railway crossings were eliminated by the Roads Departments of the provinces and by municipalities, and portion of these costs were paid by the Railways. Since 1927 an amount of R14,259, 194 was devoted to the elimination of railway crossings in our country. Of this amount R9,151,781 was borne by the S.A. Railways, whilst other bodies contributed R4,649,039 and R458,374 was contributed by the Fund for the Elimination of Railway Crossings.

In this regard it is as well to know that in terms of the Elimination of Railway Crossings Act, No. 41 of 1960, the National Road Fund and the Consolidated Revenue Account are compelled to contribute to the elimination of crossings. During the past year an amount of no less than R1,441,608 was devoted to the elimination of crossings, which is a record amount in the history of the S.A. Railways. Since 1928 and up to 1962 altogether 510 crossings were eliminated, of which 214 were eliminated by means of bridges and 76 by means of subways. According to the annual amounts spent, it is clear that since 1956 the elimination of crossings has been seriously regarded by the Minister and his Department. It should be noted that already in the year 1956 an amount of R1,419,000 was spent on the elimination of crossings, and almost the same amount was spent in 1961-2. It is encouraging to know that during these six years an appreciably larger amount was spent on eliminating crossings than formerly. If, however, we take into account that at the moment there are approximately 588 unprotected railway crossings in the Republic, then even at the present tempo it will take approximately 20 to 30 years to catch up with this backlog and to eliminate all these crossings.

It is necessary for the tempo of elimination to be speeded up. If we have regard to the number of accidents, the figures are disturbing. In 1958 there were 352 accidents, in 1959 325, in 1960 the number was 322, in 1961 it was 315, and in 1962 it was 344. In these accidents which took place in 1960-1 no fewer than 85 persons were killed, whilst 118 were injured, and in 1961-2 79 people were killed and 106 injured. There was therefore a small decrease, but it was very small. It is also significant that in most of these accidents on crossings White people were concerned, evidently due to the fact that large numbers of Whites travel in motor-cars on our roads. That is a very serious matter for the country. We bring in immigrants on a large scale, but here we are losing people, whereas if we can take the necessary precautions we can prevent many people from losing their lives. We must take steps to prevent this slaughter.

Now it may be said that the numbers I have mentioned are small in proportion to the number of road accidents which take place, and which of course is not under discussion now, but the point is that cases of accidents on crossings can be prevented if the necessary measures are taken. In the case of road accidents one can also take measures to reduce the number of accidents, but in the case of railway crossings we can eliminate those crossings and thereby definitely reduce the number of accidents. Apart from the human lives lost in these accidents, one thinks of the pain and suffering which is caused and the financial implications not only to the Railways but also to the individual. One thinks of the indirect results when a breadwinner loses his life. In this result it is gratifying to note that a permanent committee in regard to railway crossings has been appointed to serve as a watchdog in regard to this matter. I therefore want to ask the Minister to ensure that this committee considers short-term measures which will lead to greater safety. I have in mind road signs, but road signs alone are not sufficient. In the second place I want to ask that the Minister’s committee should deal with the matter in close co-operation with the local authorities and the National Roads Department and that effective steps should be taken. Thirdly, I feel that serious consideration should be given to speeding up the rate at which these crossings are being eliminated, which will obviously require larger amounts being put into this fund, so that more money can be used for this purpose. The law provides that the Departments I have mentioned should also contribute. Sir, it is absolutely essential that more money should be provided for this fund so that the crossings may be eliminated more speedily.

Another matter on which I just want to touch briefly is our road motor services. The results show that there was a fairly large loss on these road motor services during the year under discussion. I want to thank the Minister for having given us the assurance that he will not recklessly stop uneconomic services where they are essential and in the interest of the country. In this regard I want to refer the Minister to the drought prevalent in the whole of the northern Transvaal, and particularly in my constituency. There we find farmers living in the outposts of our country, people who have developed the interior of our country and who are suffering from drought at the moment. If these road motor services were to be stopped it would affect them very seriously, because they already have a lot of trouble, and if in addition these services are withdrawn because they are not economic it will seriously affect those people. Now the position is of course that during a drought one’s production is smaller and the agricultural activities shrink because they try to avoid all unnecessary costs, in view of the drought. Therefore I want to ask the Minister to consider the matter seriously before curtailing these services. In this regard I want to thank the Minister for the assurance he gave that he will not lightly do so and for the goodwill he has already shown in the past. I know that in future we can also rely on him and on his goodwill towards the farmers.

I support what the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Niemand) had said when he asked for the removal of these dangerous railway crossings. The hon. member himself pointed out that at the existing tempo it would take between 20 to 30 years to eliminate those dangerous crossings. That is far too long and any attempt which may be made to expedite this matter will have the support of this side of the House. I think the hon. member for Pietersburg should have been a little less profuse in thanking the hon. the Minister for everything he has done and elicited more information from the Minister as to why northern Transvaal is to-day the Cinderella under this Government because of the inability of the hon. the Minister to see to it that northern Transvaal is opened up by lengthening the railway line from Beit Bridge to West Nicholson, a project which has now become an idle dream.

At the outset I should like to say a few words in connection with the allegations which were made yesterday against the railwaymen, reprehensible allegations by the hon. member for Mossel Bay. The hon. member alleged yesterday that it was wrong to place railway staff who had free passes in the same compartments as other travellers, particularly travellers from overseas.

I never said that.

I regard it as a reprehensible insinuation against the railwaymen of South Africa and I am sure they will settle accounts with the hon. member for Mossel Bay. We on this side of the House maintain that the railwayman is the salt of the earth in South Africa and I want to say that although he does not always hold a doctor’s degree or has not always had a high education …

On a point of order. Is the hon. member for Mossel Bay entitled to say to the hon. member “You know you are telling a lie ”?

I said that if he continued to say that he would be telling a lie.

Sir, we shall check the Hansard report of the hon. member’s speech. The second reprehensible allegation which he made was that he resented it that the railway workers at Salt River took their sandwiches to the hotel during their lunch hour and probably had a small beer with their sandwiches. What right has he to snoop around like a blue-nosed spy to find out what the railway workers do in their own time? It is an insult to the railwayman of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, let nobody tell us to-day that the Railways are so sound and prosperous. The hon. the Minister has drawn a smoke screen around the Railways in this Budget, but things are happening behind that smoke screen which I intend disclosing to-day and which will certainly shock the country.

Who will suffer under this Budget? The ordinary man whose cost of living will rise on account of the increased tariffs, the housewife who has to buy food, canned food and other household goods to keep her family going.. She is going to be prejudiced. Who else is. going to suffer? The ordinary man in the Western Province. The Cape Town Municipality alone will have to pay an additional R200,000 in freight on coal and if the price of electricity goes up the price of practically everything goes up in the Western Province. The gold mines will also suffer. You have those big cities on the Reef where the marginal mines are situated, mines which are on the point of closing down and which will have to close down as a result of this tariff increase. How many mineworkers will not become unemployed as a result? Those mineworkers will not thank hon. members opposite for the unemployment which this hon. Minister has caused.

It is tragic to learn that this pipeline will not benefit us on the Witwatersrand as far as the price of petrol is concerned. Do you know what the profit on the conveyance of petrol is already, Sir? Let me give a few figures. It costs the Railways R4,600,000 annually to convey petrol. Do you know what the Railways make from that transport, money which has to be paid by the consumer? Not less than R 16,400,000. The Railways are making a 300 per cent profit on the conveyance of petrol in South Africa. Is it not scandalous that we who live inland and the farmers who live inland should have to pay such a high price for petrol so as to balance the Minister’s Budget?

I want to deal with the tariff increases and the wage increases. The Minister tells us that he had to increase tariffs by 10 per cent so as to give the wage increases to the railway workers. I maintain that it is absolute nonsense to allege that. In the first place there would in any case have been a surplus. The hon. the Minister tells us that he expects a surplus of R 10,000,000 on 31 March. Can I bet the Minister that it will not be R 10,000,000 but closer to R 12,000,000? Last year, three weeks before the end of the financial year, the hon. the Minister predicted that he would have a surplus of R8,600,000. Three weeks later he discovered that his surplus was not R8,600,000 but R14,300,000. Three weeks before the end of the financial year therefore he was 60 per cent out in his predicted surplus. He now predicts a surplus of R 10,000,000. I am sure that it will be so much more that he would have been able to grant that increase to the railwaymen without this unnecessary increase in the tariffs.

Let me say at once that we in the United Party approve of the wage increase to the railwaymen. It is good that that was done, although there are still many cases where the increase could have been higher. We should not forget, however, that it took more than a year, that it cost the railwaymen 18 months of hard fighting against the obstinacy of this Minister to get this increase and that the staff associations had to plead month after month and to say that there were threats of go-slow strikes—that all those things had to be done to get the Minister to give these wage increases. I am proud to say that we of the United Party did indeed play a role in that by pleading for those increases right from the start. These increases should already have been given a year ago. This additional amount of R 15,000,000 was due to the railwaymen last year already. It is really R 15,000,000 which the Minister kept out of the pockets of the railwaymen last year.

Let us look what the Minister did in order to balance his Budget. There are two ways in which you can make a Budget balance. The first one is a very easy way if you are the head of a monopolistic organization: You simply increase your tariffs thereby increasing your revenue. Forget about poor John Citizen. But there is another way in which you can get your Budget to balance and that is to decrease your costs by more efficient administration and to stop wasting money. The hon. the Minister could have reduced his expenditure to such an extent in that way that he could have granted the wage increase to the railwaymen without increasing tariffs.

Listen how he is insulting the railwaymen!

No, I am starting right at the top with the hon. the Minister himself. At Cabinet level the hon. the Minister could have done much more to ensure that the Railways were administered efficiently. Why does the hon. the Minister ignore the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council? I know he has a small Planning Council of his own with a few “sacred cows” on it but why does he ignore this every important advisory council which the hon. the Prime Minister himself called into being?

There is, for instance, a total lack of coordination between the Railways and the other Government Departments. Think of the lack of co-ordination with the Department of Bantu Administration. Think of the millions of pounds of material which is rusting away on the Cape Flats line simply because there was no proper co-ordination. Think of the lack of co-operation in connection with the line at Germiston. Think, in passing, of the danger which Bantu Administration is to-day creating for the Railways. I put a question to the hon. the Minister from which it appeared that during the past year no less than 25 per cent of the White railway workers in the Transkei asked to be transferred. If 25 per cent of the workers in the whole of South Africa asked to be transferred it would mean that 20,000 White workers would have asked to be transferred. That is how bad the position is in the Transkei. The hon. Minister tells us that it is for domestic reasons. I shall tell him what those domestic reasons are. The railwayman is afraid of what the future might hold for him in the Transkei. He is afraid to leave his home because of what might happen; afraid to leave his family alone behind so as to do his day’s work. I plead with the hon. the Minister to guard those railwaymen in the Transkei better than he is doing at the moment; that he should also do so by means of railway police. I think of the lack of co-ordination with the Department of the hon. the Minister of Finance. Up to the end of last year, and perhaps up to the present, no finality has been reached in connection with the guaranteed line to the new Bantustans and who is to pay for that line. In December 1963 the General Manager wrote and said that he hoped that finality would soon be reached. I should like to learn from the hon. the Minister whether finality has been reached, and if not, why not?

I have referred to maladministration and the wasting of money. Let me enlarge a little on that under the following five heads: (1) Poor planning and administration; (2) wastage in the catering department; (3) accidents and delays; (4) thefts; (5) far-reaching irregularities.

Let me start with poor planning. I want to give a few examples. Last year by way of a question in this House I brought the fact to light that there were 102 railway houses standing empty at Usakos in South West Africa, railway houses which had cost hundreds of thousands of rand. In his reply the hon. the Minister himself said that the chances of selling or letting them were “extremely remote”, very flimsy. Talking of houses, let me tell the hon. the Minister about a prefabricated house which has been lying at the station of Okozongoro for three years; it is lying there on the ground; it has not even been erected as yet. Will he tell us what went wrong with that house? Let me give another example: Not a mile away from where we are sitting here the Railways erected a new laundry at Culemborg, a large building where the laundry of the Railways would have been washed and dry-cleaned in future. For the past four years that building has been standing there like a white elephant. Machinery was originally ordered and then it was discovered that it was not the right machinery. That building has not been utilized for the past few years for the purpose for which it was originally intended. Another case where tens of thousands of rand are lying idle. That is what I mean when I refer to the wasting of money in South Africa.

I think of cases of duplication. There is duplication of services, for example, in the case of the S.A. Tourist Corporation and the Publicity Department of the Railways. To give an example: Both these Departments have an office in London and there is consequently a duplication of staff, a duplication of personnel and the Minister’s Department is still giving an annual subsidy of R500,000 to the South African Tourist Corporation thereby encouraging that duplication still further. Furthermore why this delay in connection with the Work Study Section? The Work Study Section was introduced in 1956 and until to-day no final decision has been arrived at as far as the introduction of organization and methods in all the sections of the Railways is concerned. Mr. Speaker, what we need is a works study section to go into the activities of the work study section.

We have this terrific, growing, increasing deficit in the pension funds of the railwaymen. That deficit has to-day reached the figure of R78,000,000. That money belongs to the railwayman, to the pensioner concerned, and nothing is done to-day to improve that position. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) gave us figures yesterday in connection with railway pensioners. I wish to give certain amended figures which he had put at my disposal. It is this, that there are 15,500 railway pensioners who receive less than R600 per annum, that includes cost-of-living allowances, and of those no less than 6,300 receive less than R200 per annum. How can a pensioner live on that? There are 6,300 of them.

I come to the second instance where there is maladministration and that is the Catering Department. The Catering Department is one of the departments which is in the greatest chaos to-day. Last year the loss suffered in the Catering Department was no less than R818,000, the highest loss in the history of South Africa, an increase of more than a quarter of a million rand on the figure for last year, a loss which is five times as great as it was in the days of the United Party. Sir, the position is so serious that the Auditor-General has instituted a special investigation; the position is so fantastic that the hon. the Minister had to appoint a special commission of inquiry to investigate the position in the Catering Department; the position is so fantastic that the General Manager himself said that he was going to place the paying-out section of the Catering Department directly under Head Office, because everything was not right in that department.

Let us see what the position is in the Catering Department. The staff is dissatisfied. There are cliques in that Catering Department. The members of the Catering Department have a grievance because men are taken on from outside, in many cases men who lack the necessary efficiency, and placed above them. There has been a change in staff which was unjustified and wrong. There is seething discontent among the staff of that department.

A tremendous loss is suffered at the restaurants. I have already said that the total loss amounted to R818,000 last year. I maintain that bad management is partly responsible for that. Will you believe it, Sir, when I say that at Braamfontein where 18,000 Natives pass through that station every day no restaurant has been a success? That is management at a loss and it has been taken out of the hands of the Railways. I know of many other cases where a loss is suffered in the restaurants, but after they have been handed over to private enterprise under contract, they have immediately turned into little gold mines. Why do these things happen under the Catering Department? I think of the losses suffered in the dining-cars. Do you know that the loss suffered in the dining-cars last year amounted to R827,000. We are pleased about the new air-conditioned saloons which have been introduced but what about the single dining-cars on the smaller lines, the single dining-cars of which many are over 50 years old? The cost of repair is so great annually that their retention can hardly be justified. They should be replaced by new ones.

I think of this half-baked experiment which is carried out in the dining-cars, this new idea of planning and determining in advance exactly what meals are to be provided on a journey and what those meals are to consist of with the result that there are left-overs which have to be thrown away. Will the hon. the Minister ask any efficient railwayman in the dining-car what he thinks of this half-baked experiment?

I think of the paying-out section. Do you know, Sir, that at one stage last year no fewer than 162 big accounts, some of them for hundreds and thousands of rand, had been outstanding for over four months in the Catering Department? On 15 March last year the outstanding accounts amounted to R400,000. I have proof to the effect that the position is extremely unsatisfactory. In a letter dated 20 November 1962 the General Manager himself referred to “the unsatisfactory position of the accounts in the Catering Department”. It is not I who is saying this but the General Manager. That is why a special commission has been appointed to go into the affairs of the Catering Department, a commission consisting of a director of the South African Brewers’ Institute, a hotel manager, and for some unknown reason somebody from the Kruger Game Reserve.

I want to insist that the whole question of free meals in the Catering Department also be investigated. Do you know that last year 228,000 meals were sold to the public at restaurants but that 489,000 free meals were served, twice as many as those sold? You can get the figures in the report of the Auditor-General.

I come to the third main charge in connection with maladministration and that is the delays which occur on the Railways in regard to important work that has to be done and the large number of accidents. We have already been told by the hon. member for Pietersburg that it will take 25 years to eliminate all the dangerous level crossings. That is one of the important delays. The General Manager says in his report that there have been no fewer than 168 cases on the Railways where works have been delayed, where work has been kept back, where plans have been changed, where the work has progressed slower than expected, where there have been delays in delivering. There have been no fewer than 168 cases involving an amount of R30,000,000. I cannot mention all the cases of delays, but I want to mention a few: There is a delay in connection with the railway line between Southfield and Plumstead; there is a delay on the railway line between Langa and Athlone; the railway line between Glencoe and Newcastle; a delay in the doubling of the railway line between Duff’s Road and Veru-lam. There is a delay in connection with the erection of the new station for passengers at Cape Town. There is a delay in connection with the new station for passengers at Johannesburg. As a matter of fact in the previous financial year R208,000 worth of work was in arrear at the Johannesburg station; R600,000 worth of work was in arrear in connection with the electric locomotive shed at Umbilo. There is a delay in regard to the elimination of this big bottle-neck between Beaufort West and Kimberley; there is a delay in the electrification of the railway line between Union and Volksrust; a delay in R600,000 worth of work in connection with the construction of landing stage No. 8 and the turning basin at Island View, Durban; a delay of R2,700,000 in the construction of 1,000 fruit trucks. What will happen to the fruit farmers in the Western Province if a delay of that magnitude is to continue? So I can go on and mention many other cases of delay and these delays are underlined in the report of the General Manager and reference is made to it in the report of the Auditor-General for this year. What is the result? The result has been that there has been definite over-budgeting as far as the capital programme of the Railways is concerned, over-budgeting to the extent of 30 per cent, involving R29,000,000. Just imagine, Sir, the hon. the Minister asked Parliament for R29,000,000 more for capital works last year than he should have done.

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the accidents. I should like to have some more information from the Minister in regard to the derailment of 11 coaches at Randwater. He can then tell us whether there were signs to indicate that it was an act of sabotage and whether it is true, as we have heard, that railway material which was lying about was used to commit that act of sabotage on the railway line. I take it that it was not done by the railwaymen themselves, but by people who used that material which was lying about to cause that derailment. I want to ask the hon. the Minister about the train which fell into the river near Stormdrif and where the engine driver was at the moment. Is it true that the stoker was in control of the locomotive while the driver was in the conductor’s van at the back, and I will not mention what he was doing. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must not make so many interjections.

I again want to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister the serious cases of trains that come to a standstill in the tunnels between East London and Queenstown. There were two serious cases last year where both the stoker and the driver landed in hospital as a result. I say it is serious because we remember that a few years ago there was a similar incident in Italy where a passenger train came to a standstill in a tunnel and the gas fumes were so bad that 160 persons died. The Minister must be careful that a passenger train does not come to a standstill in one of those tunnels and that we have a similar catastrophe here in this country. The Minister may perhaps try to blame the railwaymen and the drivers, but it is not their fault. He can do a great deal to make those tunnels safer.

Let me come to the thefts. Last year the Railways suffered an unheard of number of thefts. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that last year we had the greatest theft of cigarettes in the history of our Railways, a theft which involved no less than 2,500,000 cigarettes, the theft at the refreshment depot at Kazerne … [Interjections.]

Who stole them?

If that hon. member, who is a chairman of the Select Committee on Railways, had read the reply of the hon. the Minister to a question of mine, he would have known that three railway officials were concerned in that theft at Kazerne. How is it that the hon. member does not know about it? There are many other cases which I can mention. Altogether R18,000 is involved in this. There was another case of a big theft at Germiston, I think, in which over R9,000 worth of second-hand goods which had to be sold to the public of the railway staff was claimed unto themselves. I mention these cases to show and to prove that there are major hitches on the Railways and that if those are removed the hon. the Minister’s expenditure will be far less and that it will not be necessary to raise rates.

The final point I wish to raise is in connection with the irregularities on the Railways. Before doing so I want to say that I have full confidence in the greater majority of the railwaymen of South Africa. They are good, faithful and hard workers and they do their work dutifully under difficult circumstances and I think the hon. the Minister ought to do much more for them and show greater appreciation for what they are doing. There is a small section of them, however, who make themselves guilty of irregularities and the hon. the Minister must bear the responsibility for that. You may ask what those irregularities are, Mr. Speaker. Well, here I have a document and I think the General Manager will let the Minister have a copy of it. It says at the top: “Summary of Most Important Irregularities.” Let me read to the House what it says here so as to show what irregularities do indeed take place on the Railways. As far as material is concerned, it says the following—

Unproductive capital! That is what sends up expenditure on the Railways so much. It also states—

I get my information from the same source as hon. members opposite get theirs, from persons in the Department. Under “Unprotected Stocks” the report says this—

In connection with technical matters, it says the following—

I am reading one out of every ten cases which are mentioned here, because time does not permit me to read them all—

I want to conclude by saying that I will not be far wrong when I say that the Railways are to-day an Augean stable which should be cleaned. We know in classic mythology that Hercules was asked to clean that stable, a stable in which 3,000 cattle had lived for 30 years without it having been cleaned. Hercules’ solution was to divert the two rivers Alpheus and Peneus through the stable in order to clean it. I say that what we need here in South Africa is the river of a new Government, the river of a United Party Government which will clean that stable, which will do justice to the railwayman, which will protect the White taxpayer, keep the Railways prosperous and quickly wash the hon. Minister and his Railway Board out through the door.

I should like at the outset to refer to the charge made by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) against the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop), namely that he is alleged to have said that railway workers with free passes usually travel with members of the public, Members of Parliament, etc., and that according to the recommendation of the hon. member for Mossel Bay, the impression is created that we are not prepared to travel together with railway workers. Mr. Speaker, if that is the spirit of the arguments the hon. member used, and if everything is so remote from the truth as this charge, you will not blame me if I am not prepared to follow the hon. member further in his arguments. Here I have the Hansard report of the speech of the hon. member for Mossel Bay, and this is what he said: “There are enormous numbers of people, including Members of Parliament, who have free passes on the Railways.” There is not a single reference to a railwayman. Some people are so used to slinging mud that they remain lying in the mud, and from their appearance they remind me of something I have frequently seen lying in the mud. During my five years in this House, I have never yet heard such a scandalous attack on the officers of the Railways. There is dissatisfaction among the staff, unheard of theft, negligence, and I was just waiting for him to say that railwaymen had stolen ten locomotives. Mr. Speaker, you have to take note of the morality of these people after the mean reference to the driver of a train who was found in the back of the guard’s van of that train, and he prefers not to say what he was doing there, but he does cast a reflection. I think it is a terribly unfair reflection that was cast. But the hon. member went further. He referred to so many thousands of meals that are consumed on the Railways, without substantiating that statement and telling us for what purpose it has been done. These meals have been provided for the staff of the Railways, people who work on the trains, the catering department’s personnel. Does the hon. member suggest that these people should work without eating?

I did not mention the trains; but the refreshment rooms.

These meals are regarded as part of the remuneration of these people. But I should like to dispose of the hon. member by merely repeating that his appearance reminds me of something that is very fond of mud, and as far as I am concerned, he might as well continue lying there.

It is not a skunk.

*Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ: No, it is meercat.

With the exception of the speech of the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) and that of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) I honestly must tell you that my impression of the debate carried on on the part of the Opposition in connection with this Budget before us, was that it was nothing more than cheap flycatching. Not a single positive thought has been expressed by our Opposition, save in regard to salary increases, but with a prolonged bu-ut…. Mr. Speaker, if in this Republic, while we are dealing with a national undertaking, we have to continue wasting our time listening to criticism such as that we have found here, I would just say that the cry of “How cruel the despotism of democracy” will become louder and louder. One would have thought that a reputable Opposition would try, in a debate such as this at least, to find a common basis on which we could discuss one of our greatest industries in this country, the Railways. From the submissions that have been made here, one gains the impression that those people believe it to be in-controvertibly true that it derogates from the dignity and the good name of an Opposition to be positive and to produce positive criticism. What does that lead us to? I am making these few introductory remarks because in my heart I am convinced that the Budget we have before us is the finest and the best railway budget we have had for the past 14 years, and in the course of my submissions I should like to produce my proof of that.

But what was the reaction from that side of the House? That we are merely occupying ourselves with thanking the Minister instead of attacking him. Is that an argument? While there has been reference from so many sides to the merits of this Budget, they have only this one hackneyed theme, that we should stop thanking the Minister. Do you know what the basis of that is? A guilty conscience. They know this Budget is too good for them to be able to take the short road so that possible mistakes that may have crept in here, may give them an opportunity at a next Budget to exercise better criticism; and that also is the basic difference between this side and that side of the House, the difference between the two points of policy of a healthy long-term policy and that of the short road, of the speculative. We are living dangerously and on the border, and if time plays into our hands, we have the weapons with which to strike—thus the Opposition. But those people are going to be very disappointed, because we have a Budget here that indicates that the draftsman of it and those in charge of our Railways know what they want. They have a fixed, outlined plan and that is a basic requirement for the control and management of any business undertaking. In the second place we have here the proof of scientifically applied planning, and thirdly, of a rational basis of division of work. Any sound business at the present time is controlled on these foundation stones, and I pay tribute and honour to the hon. the Minister and his staff for the competent manner in which they have produced the proof of this basic proposition of mine. Judging from their arguments, the Opposition would prefer to see the Rates Equalization Fund not being augmented further, and that the Minister should produce deficits rather than surpluses. It suits them better. But instead of that, the hon. the Minister and his staff come along and indicate that their aim is a Rates Equalization Fund of R70,000,000—not in his own words, but we know what it signifies. The Minister has told us that during the past eight years he has contributed R70,000,000 to the salary increases of his personnel. Those are things that hurt the Opposition and overcome them with uneasiness and impatience, because they are in a corner. They are panic-stricken people who see no way out, and no hope of better grounds for sounder criticism and a better contribution to the debates of this House. The coffers of the Railways must be empty, according to the words of the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay). This large sum of money, merely to spend, is an evil, and it should not happen, and this Minister of ours should lend his ears to people who have a sound knowledge of finance and economics, such as the Economic Advisory Council and the Chamber of Commerce, etc. This Minister, in terms of his own Statute, has his own specialized Planning Board and his own specialized financial heads. Is there an insinuation also that those people are incompetent and not able to handle their own domestic affairs? If that is so, why then the cowardice to remain silent on it and not charge those people directly with it? No, it is an evasion of the facts. To summarize, I should like to say that the theme and the message of the Opposition that is being addressed to the citizenry and the officials of the Railways is this: You have a hopeless Minister because he administers the Railways too well; we think he is hopeless because he gives us no opportunity for positive criticism or a constructive contribution; this Minister is hopeless because he is too smart for the United Party. He is hopeless because he is helping to build up a magnate state of the Republic of South Africa on a sound basis, guided and inspired by a long-term policy.

Reference has been made here to prejudice to the industries in the private sector in consequence of the tariff increases. Now you should listen carefully, Sir, to this splendid example of the logic of the United Party. A great tobacco magnate has alleged that his total cost of production of his article is less than the railway rates he has to pay on his raw materials to his factory. This statement has been made here unashamedly and without qualification, and it so happens that this tobacco magnate is known not only in the Republic but throughout the world for the format of the companies he heads. It sounds somewhat Irish to me, but that is the type of logic and argument we have had to listen to here for two days already. The responsibility of a strong Government to have to struggle, apart from its own problems, with the ineffectiveness of an Opposition is very difficult, particularly in our case, and one cannot help supporting the Government with all the power and loyalty at one’s disposal. But the doom of those who revolt against history has already been sealed. The doom of those who still argue and quibble about things that already are facts, has been sealed and I regret to say that in my modest view, that is the lot of the Opposition to-day.

To come to positive things, I should like to refer to one aspect in particular of the Budget before us, and that is the support the Government, as one of our greatest industries, is giving to the industries in the private sector of the Republic. We find that the graph of its development and expansion grows parallel to that of the general economy of the country and to that of the industries in the private sector, and that it shows an ascending tendency. One would have thought that the so-called representatives of private industry would at least have shown this gratitude by giving the Railways the credit that is due to them on behalf of the industries in the private sector for the stimulus it gives the industries. If we analyse the figures, we find that for the year 1961-2, the ratio of imported articles to locally manufactured articles as regards the requirements of the Railways, was that of R10,000,000 to R119,000,000. In other words, local industries, factories, the mines and agriculture, were benefited and stimulated to the extent of more than R100,000,000 per annum. Do these people realize how the economy of the country has been given a shot in the arm and strengthened by this sound policy of our Minister and his officials? That is building work. That is the long road on a sound basis and a sound foundation, and it is facts such as these that cause the young, refreshing breeze of the new climate in the Republic to be driven forward so pleasantly, richly loaded with the aroma of national pride and honour. The Railways, not for the sake of the Railways—no, but for the sake of and in the interests of the broad whole, the magnate state of the Republic of South Africa. These figures are still more striking when one compares them with those of 1947-8, when the United Party capitulated. Last year the Minister and his Department imported slightly less than 13 per cent of their total requirements from overseas. He took over from the United Party Government when this percentage was 38 per cent. That is proof and an indication of how these two graph lines are climbing parallel to each other. Mr. Speaker, if ever there were anything of which I am duly grateful personally, which I feel we should acknowledge and of which I feel one should speak with praise on an occasion such as this then it is this tendency, this proclivity, and the policy of the Railways and the application of that policy. But that does not suit the hon. members of the Opposition, for with a policy such as this, and from the results of a policy such as this, there will be no opportunity for fly-catching or vote-snatching. The value of stores produced in the Republic amounted to R97,989, 597, as against about R73,000,000 during the previous year. In 1948 this figure was not R97,000,000, but it was only R37,000,000 under the United Party Government. The stores imported by the Railways amounted to R30,000,000 during the past year, and comprised mainly petrol, paraffin, motor vehicles, electrical and electrification materials, spare parts for rolling stock, etc., etc. The value— and this also is very important—the value of materials ordered under contract from overseas, amounted to only the insignificant little amount of R1,615,000. Here again we have a very striking proof of the insight, the intuition and the sense of responsibility manifested by the Minister and his staff towards our national aspirations and struggle in this country.

There are only two further matters I should like to refer to in passing. I notice that an amount of R1,384 was spent in 1962 in respect of suggestions and inventions by members of the staff, which resulted in a saving of R1 8,596 to the Railways. That also is proof to me that the staff of the Railways are imbued with deep seated interest and pride in their task and vocations. The figures furthermore show that a similar invention in 1961 resulted in a saving of R38,000, in 1960, R73,000, a total of no less than R1 20,000 over the past three years. If I were to permit myself to make any positive recommendation, I should like in this regard to recommend for the consideration of the hon. the Minister and his technical heads, that for the expression “reward” appearing in the Statements in this connection, there should be substituted the expression “prize money”, for I am convinced in my soul that there is no question of reward. There are examples, e.g. where an amount of R40 was paid to a crane driver who suggested a change in regard to a certain type of crane to lower loads with greater safety, and there are other examples I could quote that in my opinion indicate that the consideration or the stimulant and the practical benefit or result of such an invention is quite out of proportion. I should appreciate it very much if my suggestion could be adopted. It would be a fine thing if the Minister could devote special attention to improve this stimulant to higher productivity and progressiveness in his organization machinery. He has the materials and he has the interest, and if we look at the figure of savings, I sincerely think that it is more than warranted.

I conclude by referring to the excellent liaison service of our Railways. When one calls at the main station buildings in Johannesburg and elsewhere in this country, and at the airports in the cities and even at the smaller stations in the country, and you notice the neatness, the youthful freshness, the adaptation to modern times and needs, you feel very proud indeed, and you cannot help feeling that this also is a national asset. It bears the outward characteristic of someone who is imbued with self-respect, one who attaches the necessary value to dignity. I would say that as regards the buildings, the platforms and the stations in our country, it is a very real pleasure to make the acquaintance of the Railways of the Republic of South Africa and I hope and trust that these important merits will not be neglected in the future, but that they will be developed and expanded as fast and as effectively as possible. Then also as regards the personnel, it is a pleasure and delight when one travels through the country and opens a discussion with the officials of the Railways. One is immediately struck by their amicability and the intelligence with which they view any subject, and by the interest shown by them. It is a very pleasant experience indeed, and I think it is something that ought to be mentioned here to the great credit of the spirit that permeates the staff from the higher circles of the personnel to the most lowly paid officials in the service of this undertaking.

I conclude by saying this: All honour and bravo to our Minister, his officials and their policy, and my sincere sympathy to the Opposition. I should like to tell them that we understand why they are so jealous.

The hon. member who has just sat down appears like all his colleagues to be amazed at any sign of progress. Whenever they come across something which has improved over the years, they are so surprised about it that they base their speeches on it. But I want to come back to two of the issues raised by the hon. member for North-West Rand (Mr. J. C. B. Schoeman), and the first is his defence of the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop). The hon. member for North-West Rand denied that the hon. member for Mossel Bay had insulted the railway workers of South Africa. The hon. member for Mossel Bay himself denied it and was forced to withdraw the words which he had used in that regard. I have here the Hansard of the speech of the hon. member for Mossel Bay and I want firstly to refer to the quotation which was read out by the hon. member for North-West Rand. He quoted the following sentence from the speech of the hon. member for Mossel Bay.

He stopped there and said that this was not an insult to railwaymen. He must realize, as any member on the Government side must realize, that the railwaymen are the biggest single section of the people of South Africa who carry free passes and that when you refer to the users of free passes, you automatically refer to people the majority of whom are railwaymen. The hon. member for Mossel Bay goes on to suggest that the holders of free passes should be put in separate coaches, screened off from the decent, clean gentlemen who are tourists.

What a shame.

He suggests that they are not fit—and that includes Members of Parliament —to travel with the ordinary public and that they should have separate coaches. He said—

That is what he thinks of the South Africans who travel on our trains. He believes that tourists should not be contaminated by mixing them with South Africans. But, Sir, that is not his only insult. A far more serious insult is the one with which I now want to deal. He said the following—

What is the implication?

The implication is quite clear. But he continues—

Sir, this is a serious insult to 3,200 workmen employed in the Salt River workshops, and I want to tell the hon. member that he owes those workers an apology because the Salt River workshop has won the National Occupational Safety Association merit award every year since 1959. They won it in 1959,1960 and 1961, and they have just been informed that they have won it again for 1962. For the last four years these workers whom he insults by implying that they spend their time and money drinking, have won the safety association merit award, and I demand that this member either apologize to those workers or I challenge him to come with me and hold a public meeting outside those workshops. I challenge him to come with me and the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Timoney). We will arrange a meeting; we will promise him a hearing and I ask him to repeat these allegations to the workers of Salt River at a public meeting on the square. We will arrange the meeting for him and will let him repeat this allegation to the people whom he has insulted. They have half an hour for lunch; that is all they have, and this member implies that they spend their time drinking. Does he know that there is a cafeteria available?

He did not say that.

There is his Hansard. The implication is clear—

A number of people.

I quote further—

Then he goes on to say—

Then he goes on to say—

“’n Groot gedeelte.” Sir, I repeat my challenge to the hon. member for Mossel Bay to repeat those statements before the workers of Salt River; to go to them like a man and say, “that is what I said”, and to see what their reaction is.

There will be one Nationalist less then.

Yes, I think they would lose their merit award, particularly if he repeated the statement that—

Is that an insult?

That is an insinuation which I ask the hon. member to repeat.

Now I come to the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg). He denied the statement of the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) that the railway workers had battled for 18 months to get their increase in pay. He said: “Dit is nie die waarheid nie.” He denied that the workers had had to fight for 18 months for their increase. Sir, I have here the Artisans’ Staff Association magazine of August 1961 ..

Not the whole of the staff.

On page 3 of this magazine there appears the agenda of the meeting with the Minister on 6 and 7 September 1961. I do not know if the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) can count, but if he can he will see that that is more than 18 months ago, and there on the agenda are the demands of the Artisans’ Staff Association for increases in pay. Last year in this House we supported their claims for increases, and the hon. member denies that the battle for an increase has taken 18 months. Does he deny now?

That is not the whole of the staff. The hon. member for Orange Grove said “the whole of the staff ”.

No, that battle started more than 18 months ago and the hon. member knows it. That battle was supported by us in this House last year during the debate.

The hon. member for North-West Rand also accused the hon. member for Orange Grove of denying workers on the Railways their free meals to which they were entitled. He is not here now but I want to point out to him that the hon. member for Orange Grove referred clearly and distinctly to free meals in refreshment rooms and not on trains.

The other matters which have been raised I will deal with in the course of my address. This debate followed a certain pattern. But before coming to that I want to raise certain matters of importance with the Minister. The first of these matters is one which also affects my constituency but is a matter of general importance to the whole of Durban. I want to refer in the first place to the position with regard to the Durban station. I want to charge the Minister with shilly-shallying and dillydallying in regard to this matter. The site of the new station has recently been announced, and when we have tried to pin the Minister down to some clear statement of intention, some clear indication of the programme to be followed, he has avoided every attempt that has been made to pin him down. Hon. members on this side of the House have been trying consistently to get some clear answer as to the position in regard to that station. The Minister must know that he is holding up the whole development, the whole future planning of Durban. The whole future planning of Durban depends basically on the siting of the station, and I would appeal to the hon. the Minister to take this opportunity to tell the people of Durban exactly what the position is in regard to this new station. Similarly I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to tell us more in regard to the harbour development plan, which again he is dealing with piecemeal, little by little, piece by piece. I am not going to deal with the detail in this debate; we can deal with that in Committee of Supply but I do want to deal with the broad principle and ask him whether it is correct that he has cancelled allocations of land for shipbuilding and ship repairs, and if so, what are his intentions in this regard? As he is aware, land was allocated to different firms. The Norval Commission reported in regard to the shipbuilding industry and we understand now that all allocations have been cancelled. They have been cancelled after firms have made plans to work on the basis of what had been granted to them. I think the hon. the Minister owes an explanation to this House and I trust that he will state the position clearly so that all may understand it.

Another matter that I want to raise is in regard to the mission to Japan, which is reported upon by the General Manager in his Annual Report. There is a passing reference to the fact that a mission went to Japan amongst the Yellow-White men; whether they were playing around with pig iron or what they were doing we do not know, but that mission reported to the Minister. It cost a certain amount of money, money for which the Minister is responsible, and I believe that the Minister owes this House a report on what the findings of that mission were and whether it has brought any benefits to the Administration or come back with any new ideas; in other words, whether it has been a valuable mission. I hope the Minister will give us some indication in that regard.

To come to the debate itself which has taken place, I want to say that it has followed the typical pattern which we have come to expect from hon. members on the other side when it comes to debates on railway matters. We on this side of the House do not minimize the improvements which have taken place; we do not deny the fact that there have been improvements in many fields. It would obviously be ridiculous to deny it. But the Government on the other hand goes to the other extreme. They see a bright spot and are so blinded by it that they are unable to see anything else. The odd thing which had impressed them as being good and progressive or an advance blinds them to all the other issues. We look at the Railways as a unit, as a whole, and we look upon that whole as part of the economy of South Africa, and we try to see the problems of the Minister not in isolation, not in a separate waterproof compartment, but as part of the economic problems of the country as a whole. I believe that the Minister tries to cut himself off from the reality of that greater whole. You can see that there is still a little bit of United Party training left from the old days, in his budgeting particularly, when he realizes the harm that Government policy is doing to the economy as a whole and when he bases his forecast on the expectation that greater harm will be done to the economy than is in fact done, because he has lost faith in the resilience of our economy, in the strength of private enterprise and private initiative to withstand the shocks of Government policy. He plans, apparently, on the basis that the effect of Government policy will be to hamstring progress, and when he was faced last year with demands from workers he held up his hands in despair and said, “I cannot meet the demand without increasing rates". Did he not have any faith that there would be an improvement or that the economic machine would still keep going? Did he not plan for any improvement? Because what are the facts? The facts are that at the end of the year which is now closed, the Minister has a surplus. There has been an increase in traffic and a further increase in traffic is expected in the coming year. But the Minister closes his eyes to the increases and says, “No, I had to increase rates ”. What he is in fact doing is either to say that he has no faith in the prospect of increases or that the increases are not going to be met by continued increased efficiency which will bring greater profits. Because if he is going to have more traffic and if he is efficient then his profits must increase. Sir, I am not going to repeat all the arguments but we on this side of the House have made out a clear-cut case that the Minister could have met the increases in pay without imposing that burden on the people of South Africa. That case has not been answered by any member on the other side of the House and I trust that the Minister will be able to answer it before the end of this debate. Sir, listening to Government members trying to answer our case, I am reminded of little boys who suddenly come upon an unguarded orchard; they climb in and revel in the other man’s fruit; they enjoy it while it lasts without looking to the ultimate consequences. That is what Government members have been doing in this debate. They have been taking the fruits of the strength of our private enterprise in South Africa and they have been using those as the basis of their approach to this railway Budget. But we as an Opposition have to look further: we have to look to the effects, which have been outlined so well from this side of the House, on the economy of South Africa. All we have had from Government members, however, is an almost hysterical praise of the hon. the Minister. I do not know whether there is a vacancy cropping up on the Railway Board or what the explanation is, but I warn hon. members that they ought to know what happens when they create vacancies in this House by making people Railway Commissioners. Look what they got last time. I would not advise them to play along those lines again; if they create a vacancy they might—I do not know whether it is possible—get something equally difficult for them to swallow. Sir, they are trying to build up a Father Loco image of the Minister, and they seem surprised that the United Party is not impressed and that we should dare to criticize this great Minister of Railways. How great is he in fact? I think the hon. member for Berea (Mr. Wood), in the figures which he gave the House yesterday, showed up the tremendous advances which the Minister has achieved over recent years, when he showed that with electrification and with doubling of lines and new equipment, it is still taking longer to move people from one point to another, on many of the lines in South Africa than it did ten and more years ago. Those are the things which happen to-day under our eyes, and all we get from the Government side is praise, paeans of praise, from the Mgongo brigade.

Why do you not speak Afrikaans? You cannot speak Xhosa.

That does not happen to be Xhosa.

It will be an official language, you know.

That will only come after the Government has finished cutting South Africa up.

Another matter in which the Minister has been high-handed has been in refusing to accept advice. Again various members on the Government side have tried to defend him. The Prime Minister appointed an Economic Advisory Council to advise him, a council designed specifically to give advice on economic problems, but this Minister is too big, too high-handed, to consult the council on the effects of increasing tariffs. He says that he is not going to listen to them, it has nothing to do with them. To blazes with the effect of an increase in tariffs on the economy of South Africa! I think the Minister knows what the views of the Economic Advisory Council were. He says that they were not consulted. They may not have been officially consulted, but I think the hon. Minister knows what their views were in regard to a tariff increase. But he was the know-all. He was the man who knew everything; he was the man who was not going to consult with experts; he has his own experts and he himself is the greatest of all experts. Sir, we believe that the Minister is not such an expert and that it is his duty when dealing with a matter affecting the economy of South Africa to consult, and I hope that in his answer to this debate, he is going to deal with the argument put forward by the hon. members for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje), Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman), Zululand (Mr. Cadman) and other members who have raised specific issues to which his own supporters have so far failed to reply. For instance, I take the attitude of Government members to railway pensioners, particularly the pre-1944 pensioners, the old pensioners. What sympathy do they get from members on that side when we plead their cause? No sympathy. All we are told is that they are better off than they have ever been before. When the hon. members for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) and Maitland (Mr. Hickman) were dealing with this, did any Government member come to our support and speak up for these deserving people? No, we were told: “That is tripe; they do not need any more.”

That is nonsense.

If that is not so, why did no member on that side get up and plead for more? Why did they silently acquiesce with the Minister’s attitude; why did they not get up and support us? They cannot have it both ways. If they believe that the pre-1944 pensioners deserved more then they should have got up and said so, and not sat silently and merely praised the Minister. Not one single Government member got up to add his voice to that of the United Party. The Minister himself through practically the entire speech of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) sat talking to the Minister of Agriculture behind him; he did not even listen to the case which was being put up. I do not know whether he was discussing the mealie “pap” which he believes is all the pensioners should eat, but he was certainly not listening to the argued and logical case put up by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. We have had no answer to the plea of the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) on behalf of the marginal mines or on the question of the pipeline. These and other issues which were raised are still unanswered from the Government’s side. I think the real reason is that they do not know anything about it. I hope, however, that the Minister will deal with these issues and tell South Africa why he is not prepared to accede to the logical and reasonable arguments put forward by us.

I want to deal with one other matter. The Minister will remember that last year he made a violent attack on me personally. He exercised his undoubted talent—I leave the House to judge what those talents are—and in the process he gave a certain amount of pleasure to his supporters. I do not begrudge them a little cheap satisfaction; it is not often that Government members get it. But the Minister knew when he attacked me that I could not refute his facile presentation of so-called facts without disclosing the source from which I had got them and that therefore I was not able to refute many of his arguments. But I think it is necessary now that a year has passed to put the record straight on certain of these issues. Last year I claimed that the Minister was not being frank with this House; I claimed that he was withholding from this House information which it was the right of this House to have. I accused the hon. the Minister of trying to withhold from this House facts which were at his disposal. to-day I want to give to this House four examples of the Minister’s evasions, and not only evasions but incorrect and false facts which he gave to this House during the course of that debate. He called me politically unscrupulous and although that was removed from the record, I want to leave the House to judge on the facts. I raise it here not because the issue itself is important but I think that the attitude which the Minister took is important. That is the important issue, the Minister’s attitude to this House. The Minister will realize, of course, that I am referring to the issue of the purchase of certain aeroplanes by the South African Airways. He will remember that on 6 February last year—and the dates are important —he announced an agreement to purchase two Viscounts for R1,540,000. He made no reference at the time to any trade-in or any other detail. On 13 February he gave further details in regard to that transaction. On 14 March in this House he debated the issue and gave further facts to the House, and again on 20 March. I want to look at these facts which the Minister gave to the House. Let us take-them separately. To start with I quote from Hansard, volume 3, from 20 March 1962. This is the Minister of Transport speaking. He is referring to the Viscounts and he says—

I repeat—

And the Minister said that to this House. I challenge him now to deny that it was not the identical plane; that the planes South Africa is using are Viscounts series 813 and that the Viscount purchased from Cuba is series 818. The Minister, in reply to a question on 15 February, this year stated that modifications were necessary—

This was the identical aeroplane but the whole lot, brake system, oxygen system, instrumentation, radio and radar, etc., had to be modified at a cost of R68,750, but a year ago the Minister told this House, as I have just quoted, “that these were the identical planes ”. I shall leave it there for the moment because I am coming back to this. I am dealing with the accuracy of the Minister’s facts which he gave to this House.

Do you know what the difference is?

The hon. member will get the difference. On the same day the hon. the Minister also addressed this House on the issue and he dealt with the delivery of these aircraft. I want to quote what he said on that occasion. He said—

I ask the Minister to remember the tense in which he spoke—

I emphasize “would have been responsible” and “… had been necessary”…

It is even more clear in the Afrikaans Hansard. It is very clear that the Minister was speaking in the past tense of aircraft which he had purchased for South Africa. I challenge him to deny that on 10 March, ten days before he made this speech, he was aware that he had only received one of the aircraft; he was aware that the other aircraft had not been delivered to South Africa. I challenge him to deny that it is untrue that both aircraft were inspected and taken over on 10 March. Now, a year later, we find that one was taken over on 10 March and that the other has not been delivered at all. But the Minister does not tell the House that. He comes to this House and tells the people of South Africa, through Parliament, that he has bought two planes, that he has protected them and the Government against any loss, that they were inspected and he implied that the planes had been taken over. But, Sir, those planes had not been taken over. One plane was not finally delivered to South African Airways until 6 August. On 20 March the Minister knew and should have told this House that. I accuse him of withholding information from this House. He knew on 20 March when he made his speech that only one plane had been delivered. He failed to tell the House and I say further that he withheld the information from the House that in terms of that contract those planes should have been delivered on 15 January, that already they were nearly two months past delivery date and that the one had been delivered and that the other had not. But let us look further into this. The Minister spoke on 20 March. I challenge him to deny that he knew on 20 March that the man from whom he had bought these aircraft, Mr. Jerez de Perez, was on his way to South Africa; that he arrived on 22 March and that he had discussions with the Minister’s Department. The Minister admitted it in a question which I asked him on 30 March. But two days earlier, on the 20th, he did not tell this House that Mr. Jerez de Perez was coming out here. Did he not know? Does he not know when a matter involving R1,000,000 is being dealt with? I knew, and it was common knowledge, that the planes had not been delivered, that there was difficulty. Why did the Minister withhold that information from this House? Why did he, when he answered the question on 30 March, when he admitted to discussions with Mr. Jerez de Perez, not then honestly tell this House that he was unable to take over both the planes which we had purchased? He failed to do that and I say that he withheld information from this House.

But the next point is even more serious. On 14 March, in his speech to this House the Minister dealt with the question of the trade in of Constellation aircraft. He said the following—

Those aircraft were not handed over, the implication of the past tense used by the Minister here in both the Afrikaans and English versions is that he had traded in two Constellation aircraft. But what is far more serious. Sir, is that he gave a false figure to this House. He said that those aircraft had cost R11.400 to recondition. That was on 14 March 1962. The Auditor-General’s report for the year states on page 63—

The Minister told this House that it had cost R11,400 to put those planes in flying order. I will quote him again—

He did not say it was a partial expenditure. That was to get them into flying order. The Auditor-General reveals that R55,954 was spent, virtually R45,000 more. I say that the hon. the Minister gave this House false information in regard to the cost of the repair to those aircraft.

In reply to a question of mine this year— my question was whether the licences of the pilots were valid for these aircraft—he said “Yes”. Does the Minister really stand by that statement? Is he unaware that pilots of South African Airways were registered or licensed to fly type 813 Viscounts and that in terms of their licence as pilots they were not entitled to fly a 818 Viscount and that they had a short conversion course? Does he deny that their licences were amended to include type 818? But because the Minister thinks he can get away with that type of statement, because he thinks he can bulldoze his way through anything, he says “No” flatly. I challenge the Minister to deny that amendments were made to the details of the planes which our pilots were entitled to fly. I agree it was a minor course, but it was a technical point and I asked the Minister the question particularly in view of the fact that the Minister had made such a fuss of the fact that we were buying the identical aircraft. He tried to make a mon key out of me by saying that these aircraft were identical, that they were exactly the same. I have proved to this House that they were not exactly the same and that the money of the taxpayer of South Africa had to be spent in order to make them the same. This wonderful bargain of these two planes had produced for South Africa in a whole year 150 hours of flying. I asked the Minister a question as to whether the plane was in commercial service in South Africa. I knew the day before I asked that question it was not in service. Whether it was pulled out onto the tarmac specially so that he could answer the question I do not know but the Minister’s answer was that that plane was in commercial service. It has flown 150 hours since we took it over in August last year, 20-odd flights. And this is the great bargain which the Minister drove, the bargain which he has accused us of trying to belittle. That is the result of this clever business deal which the Minister made. He is sitting with reconditioned Constellations which he was not able to trade in, he has spent some R56,000 on putting them into flying order. He reconditioned the other two Constellations for charter work and only one of them is working. There is an amount of over R60,000 spent, wasted, so that one plane can do charter work.

I want to refer to that charter agreement. The Minister refuses to tell this House the details of his agreement with Trek Airways in regard to the chartering of South African Airways planes. I believe that South Africa is entitled to know the details of that agreement. The Minister hides behind the fact that it is a business undertaking. This is a public budget which we are passing; it is the money of South Africa and I demand that the Minister discloses to this House the details of the agreement which he has in regard to the use of South African planes. I ask the Minister whether it is true that when South African pilots are booked off for five or six days, they are allowed to do flights overseas for which they are paid only their overseas allowances by the hirer and continue to draw their salaries from South African Airways. I ask the Minister to check on that and I think he will be surprised to find out that South African Airways First Officers were permitted to accept flights, when they were booked off, overseas in chartered aircraft which were chartered from South African Airways, I think the Minister owes this House—and this House has the right to demand—the details of this agreement which he has entered into.

In conclusion I want to say that I have raised this matter because I think it is right that the Minister should realize that he cannot get away with the sort of thing he did last year in the hope that we will not be able to produce the facts. Unfortunately for him facts nave a habit of coming to light by themselves.

I just want to refer in one respect to the speech made by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. I must say I am not surprised that he said what he did because we know him in this House. He referred here to the appointment of a member of the Railway Board, one of the railway commissioners, and he said, “You see what you have got”. With your consent, Sir, I want to describe that statement by the hon. member as a vile one. To make such a statement about a person who is not a member of this House and who is not able to defend himself is something which can only be expected from a man like the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw).

He said further that the Minister would have to reply. I want to say that if the hon. the Minister elected to be as discourteous as the hon. member was he would not reply to any speech made by the Opposition.

That is ridiculous.

Do you know what is ridiculous? Look at yourself and you will know. This is the third day we have been dealing with this railway Budget. For most of that time I have been sitting here trying to discover what the policy of the Opposition is. I began to feel sorry for the Minister in respect of his reply to this debate. Because of his courtesy he will always reply to questions put to him, but when one has regard to the speeches made here it is easy to understand that the Minister will find it difficult to reply to them. But because we have had nothing from hon. members opposite in regard to matters of principle, I believe that the Minister will make something out of nothing and give them a reply. Only he can do that.

Not a single point has been raised here which can in principle improve the administration of the Railways. I think it was the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) who went so far as to make a comparison between the time when the United Party was in power and the time when the National Party was in power, and still is. I would never have thought that anybody could make such a stupid comparison, because if we compare the position of the Railways to-day with what is was in 1948 when this Government took over, the two simply do not bear comparison. The Minister has this year introduced his ninth Budget and I think it is necessary to analyse his Budget speeches over the last few years. When the hon. the Minister took over in 1955-6, he announced a surplus of R5,573, 964; in 1956-7 he had a deficit of R4,261,960.

On the conclusion of the period of 13 hours allotted for the motion to go into Committee of Supply, the business under consideration was interrupted by the Deputy-Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 105.

Some two weeks ago the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) stood up and shouted across the floor of the House that United Party principles were not for sale. I wondered at the time to which principles he was referring because I know that the long opposition road that the United Party has travelled is strewn with discarded principles. After much thought, however, I realized that there was one principle which they had not discarded—although they will probably not find a buyer for it on the open market—and that is the principle of political opportunism. This debate has again shown how strongly they cling to that principle of political opportunism. They claim credit for the wage increases but they also try to get the support of commerce and industry. They are running with the hare and hunting with the hounds. There is an old saying which says that when an Opposition claims credit for the good deeds of the Government it is an indication of their political bankruptcy. It seems that the United Party’s approach to almost every matter which comes before the House is what political advantage they can make out of it. It is merely a question of vote catching. Surely, Sir, an Opposition which regards itself as the alternative Government of the country should have some sense of responsibility and they should at least sometimes place the interests of their country before the interest of their party.

Especially when the Government does not do it.

I say sometimes. They should at least sometimes place the interests of their country before their own interests and not merely concentrate on vote catching. Let me sum up their attack. I must say, Sir, that had there not been a rate increase I do not know what hon. gentlemen opposite would have talked about. I do not know how they would have been able to pass the time, the 13 hours allowed. However, it was just their good fortune that there was a rate increase and that gave them something to talk about. They say that railwaymen are justified to receive an increase in wages. They support that.

We asked for that last year.

You have asked for so many impossible things because you are quite irresponsible. They know that if the Government at some future date does something which they have asked for, they can claim the credit for it.

They say that the increase to the railwaymen is quite justified but they claim that railway rates should not have been increased. Why? Because (1) it will have a devastating effect on the economy of the country and that it will put a brake on industrial development; (2) it will increase the cost of living to such an extent that the increase in the wages will be completely wiped out. That was what the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) said. They said that the rates should not have been increased and that I should have used the Rates Equalization Fund to cover any increase in wages. What is the actual position? I said in my Budget speech that if there were no increase in rates I would have closed the year with a deficit of R2,750,000. At the same time there would have been no appropriation to the Betterment Fund of R4,000,000; there would have been no appropriation from the surplus—because there would have been no surplus—of R2,000,000 to repay the Loan Fund which was allocated from the Betterment Fund some years ago. In other words, I would have been R8,750,000 short had there not been a rates increase.

Did you estimate for that?

I would have been short R8,750,000 had there not been a surplus and had there not been a rates increase. I say again that on the ordinary working there would have been a deficit of R2,750,000, without the rates increase, and there would have been no money to utilize for the Betterment Fund and for the repayment of the amount that is still owing to the Loan Fund. In other words, there would have been a deficit of R8,750,000.

In regard to the Budget for 1963-4 I stated in my Budget speech that had there not been a rates increase there would probably have been a deficit of R22,000,000, but I have made provision for R9,000,000 to be credited to the Betterment Fund. So if there was no rates increase and I made no provision for the Betterment Fund, there would have been an estimated deficit of R13,000,000 at the end of the next financial year. Now, Mr. Speaker, the estimated expenditure from the Betterment Fund for 1963-4 is R9,000,000. So if no provision was made for an allocation to the Betterment Fund next year and no appropriations were made out of the surplus of the present year for the Betterment Fund, there would be a deficit in the Betterment Fund at the end of the financial year of R7,000,000 and R2,000,000 would not have been allocated for the payment of the amount that was borrowed from the Loan Account.

Hon. members know that the Betterment Fund has a specific purpose. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) was very concerned about the rise in capital expenditure and the increased interest burden. The Betterment Fund is a statutory fund designed specifically for the purpose of doing certain capital works out of revenue, in an effort to keep the interest burden as low as possible. But I repeat again that if there was no increase in rates, there would have been a deficit of R22,000,000 at the end of the next financial year. Now the hon. member says that the Rates Equalization Fund must be utilized to cover this deficit. The balance of the Rates Equalization Fund to-day is R24,400,000. If there was a R2,750,000 deficit this year and a R22,000,000 deficit at the end of 1963-4, the Betterment Fund would be completely exhausted. And then we must still bear in mind that the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Timoney) wants lower rates, not only that there should be no increase in rates, no, he wants lower rates, and the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) wants even more road competition. Now the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) prides himself on being a successful businessman. Will he in his business exhaust his only reserve completely to give an increase in wages to his staff and make no provision for the future but merely trust to luck?

I would run my business efficiently.

Would he exhaust his reserves and make no provision for the future and merely trust to luck that something might happen to carry him over? If that is the way in which he runs his business he would probably be insolvent in 12 months’ time.

I would try to decrease costs.

I stated that the Rates Equalization Fund could not be used for the specific purpose of meeting wage increases and I repeat that. I am not prepared to accept the questionable interpretation and the devious method to circumvent the provisions of the Act as has been suggested by hon. members opposite. But it must also be remembered that the hon. member for Wynberg in past years advocated that the Rates Equalization Fund should be built up to a credit balance of at least R60,000,000. But now he is quite prepared to have that reserve fund completely exhausted instead of having tariff increases. I want to recall the debate last year. There were demands from a staff organization for immediate wage increases which I refused. I told them that if one section of the staff gets an increase then the whole of the staff must get an increase and that it would probably cost R20,000,000. I said that there was no money and that I was not prepared to increase rates at that stage. It must be remembered that at that time there was no indication of an upward surge in our economy. As a matter of fact, we were standing before a very serious position at UNO, and, as everybody knows, the improvement in our economy only started to take place towards the end of the first half of the financial year. Of course, at that time the United Party saw a chance of adopting the role of champion of the workers and they demanded that I should immediately accede to the demands of the workers. Now this is what the hon. member for Wynberg said, and it might interest him to hear what he said in regard to that matter. I interjected while he was speaking and I said—

This was on 14 March. That was my question to the hon. member for Wynberg and then the report of the debates continues—

That was in March, last year. I interjected and said—

At that time the hon. member was not concerned about the “devastating” effect on our economy that the increase of tariffs would have. He was not concerned about “the brake on industrial development”, he was not concerned about the “increase in the cost of living ”. And it must be remembered that at that time there was no indication of an upsurge in our economy. That only started towards the end of the first half of the financial year, as everybody will tell him. But at that time he wanted me to give an increase in wages up to R20,000.000 and immediately raise rates and tariffs, and he did not care a hang about the devastating effect on our economy, the brake on industrial development and the rise in the cost of living. But now where there is. an upsurge in our economy, when the tempo of industrial development has considerably increased, when these rates can be borne by our economy, the same hon. gentleman says that it has a devastating effect on our economy, it is a brake on our industrial development and it causes a rise in the cost of living. Now when I speak about political opportunism and accuse those hon. gentlemen of being political opportunists, am I not right in doing that? They are out to catch votes, Sir. Now of course they want the support of railway workers and that is why they say the increase is completely justified, but at the same time they want to retain the support of commerce and industry and therefore they say that the rise in rates is not justified. In other words, the old role of the United Party: They are all things to all men.

I want to deal with their reasons for opposing the increase in rail rates. I come first to the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay). That hon. gentleman said in the course of his speech—

The hon. gentleman painted the heartbreaking picture of a poor housewife who because of this rise in rates has to tramp from shop to shop to see if she cannot get an article half a cent cheaper.

She does not even have a car to run around in.

Mr. Speaker, Montaigne, a very distinguished writer, once said “No one is exempt from talking nonsense. The misfortune is to do it solemnly”, Now what are the facts? If the actual increase in rates is passed onto the consumer, it will mean a difference of 30 to 36 cents a month extra in a family’s budget. But then the hon. member for Jeppes said that most industries have absorbed this increase in rates. Consequently this increase in the cost of living must even be less.

He deliberately spoke of export industries.

But they do not only manufacture for export.

No. but you misquoted the hon. member for Jeppes.

Does the hon. member mean to say that these industries which export, manufacture for export alone and not for the home market as well? Surely even he should know that that is not so. The hon. member said that most export industries have absorbed the increase in rates. But they do not manufacture for export only, they manufacture for the home market too.

The industrialists have absorbed the increase in respect of raw-materials, but what about the increase in between the industrialists and the shop and the consumer?

Well, even allowing the hon. member to run away from his argument, I still say that even if they did not absorb it, if the actual increase of rates was passed onto the consumer, it would mean a difference of 30 to 36 cents a month in the average consumer’s budget.

You try and convince the average householder.

That is the position. But what happened was that many of the traders made use of the opportunity of making additional profits on the commodities that they sell. However, let me quote a very recent article in the Cape Argus, on 28 February some months after the rate increase, some months after this tremendous rise in the cost of living according to the hon. member. The heading of this article reads “grocery prices drop ”—

They give a long list. And here I have another recent article also on 28 February—

According to these articles prices are dropping, but the hon. member says that the increase in rates has resulted in the wage increase being completely wiped out. In other words, there are some of the railwaymen who received a wage increase of up to R20 a month, and according to the hon. member the cost of living has increased by R20 a month in respect of the average budget. Can I be blamed in quoting from Montaigne and telling the hon member please not to talk nonsense?

The hon. member also said that the rates increase must have a devastating effect on the economy and must be a brake on industrial development. In this regard I let the people talk who are intimately concerned with our economy and industrial development and who at least know what they are talking about. I want to quote from the December “Economic Bulletin” of the Netherlands Bank, a bank of which the hon. member for Jeppes is president. This is dated 8 January 1963. The rates increase came into operation on 1 September, and therefore this is several months after the rates increase—

I do not know whether the hon. member for Jeppes is partly responsible for this statement or not, but in any case that appeared in the “Economic Bulletin” of the Netherlands Bank.

The Cape Argus of 22 January wrote—

What does that prove?

I am just reading a few of many extracts I could read, and the hon. member can put his question to me after I have finished my quotations. I quote from The Friend (18/l/’63)—

But hon. members opposite talk about a brake on economic development and a retardation of industrial development. The Rand Daily Mail on 8 February 1963—

The Cape Argus on 4 February—

I can go on quoting dozens more, but there is only one further quotation I want to make and this is from the Federated Chamber of Industries. After all they should know what they are talking about, and they should know if there is going to be such a brake on industrial development this year as a result of this rise in rates, but this is what they say—

1. (a) That the average expectation is that domestic demand in manufacturing industry will increase by about 8.8 per cent in the next 12 months;
2. (b) that the average expectation is that rail transport demand in manufacturing industry will increase by about 11.4 per cent in the next 12 months;
3. (c) that 52 per cent of all returns speak of actual or intended expansion of productive capacity in the next 12 months;
4. (d) that 33 per cent of all returns speak of the existence of “excess capacity”.

This is dated 27 February 1963 some five months after the increased rates came into operation.

Tell us what they said about the increase?

This is what they say about the prospects of the manufacturing industry for the year lying ahead. In reply to the hon. member I want to say that of course they did not want an increase. Who wants an increase? Of course they would rather have a reduction in rates instead of an increase. I am only mentioning what the prospects for the year are in view of the fact that hon. members opposite say that the increase in rates would put a brake on economic development. I do not want to weary the House with further quotations, but let us go back for a moment to 1958-9. In that year there was a definite slackening in our economy and industrial development had almost come to a standstill. I closed that year with a deficit of some R17,000,000. I did not increase rates then, notwithstanding that deficit. I knew it was not a propitious time to increase rates. We wanted to stimulate our economy. Instead of an increase I economized and reduced expenditure to such an extent that I took some R10,000,000 out of the pockets of my railwaymen and they were quite prepared to do so. But now there is an upsurge in the economy, and this increase in rates cannot only be borne by industries, but it will not restrict or retard industrial development, and it will not have a davastating effect on our economy.

Why not double the rates and have a real boom!

If I were as foolish as the hon. member and if I knew as little about these matters as he does, I would probably do so, but fortunately I know better.

I am coming to the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross). I do not know whether the hon. member is just naturally offensive or whether he is offensive by design. I can only say that offensiveness makes no impression on the House, it merely makes a man detestable.

Hear, hear!

He stated in so many words that I am closing a number of marginal mines by the rates increases, which of course is absolute nonsense! I want to ask the hon. member a very simple question: There are negotiations taking place at the present time for an increase in miners’ wages and better conditions of work, which will increase the costs of those mines considerably. Is the hon. member against that?

Why ask me?

Is the hon. member against an increase? His whole argument was based on increased costs to these mines as a result of the increase in rates, and he said that I would close those mines. Increased wages and better conditions are going to mean a considerable increase in the costs of these marginal mines. Is the hon. member against that increase in wages?

I will talk to you about that later.

After all, the hon. and gallant member for Benoni is a very courageous man. Surely he should be prepared to reply to a very reasonable question, “yes” or “no ”.

I will speak to you later about that.

How did the hon. member ever reach that exalted high officer’s rank without being courageous?

I have now shown that there is no substance in the Opposition’s arguments. I have shown that there is no substantial increase in the cost of living and that the rates increase will not have a devastating effect on our economy and be a brake on industrial development, and I have shown that the rates increase was absolutely justified and necessary. I think I have also shown that the Opposition is once again guilty of blatant political opportunism.

Now I want to deal with the pipeline. The hon. member for Wynberg stated that I have completely somersaulted in this regard, and that I said in 1958 that I won’t consider the building of a pipeline for seven years. I would suggest to the hon. member that he should stick to the truth. What are the facts? I am referring now to a debate that took place in this House during 1958, on the question of a pipeline. Mr. Russell said—

Remember this was five years ago—

I think, Mr. Speaker, it is perfectly clear what I said. I can quote further extracts from the debate, but I will quote only one more. I also said—

Was not the evidence of the Railways to the Pipeline Commission that they could carry all petroleum products until 1968?

I am not concerned about what the Railways said to the Pipeline Commission. I am concerned with what I said and what the hon. member accused me of. The hon. member did not accuse the Railways. The hon. member said that I said that it will not be built in seven years’ time. Sir, I do not like this sophistry at all. The hon. member should at least be prepared to stand by what he said. I said in 1958—

Now five years have passed, and there is justification to build a pipeline. As I said “if the tempo of industrial expansion continues unchanged the position may be completely different ”. I think it is quite clear therefore that there is no somersault, that the hon. member made a quotation of something that I never said in 1958, because he said that in 1958 I have said that I would not consider it for seven years. I think the hon. member realizes now that there is not a word of truth in that.

Now what are the facts in regard to cheaper petrol. I reiterated in my Budget speech what I said in 1958, namely, “that the Railways will operate the pipeline and that the Railways will have to recoup themselves for the loss in revenue they might suffer as a result of petrol being conveyed by pipeline ”.

You said something else too.

Yes, I do not think it is fair that the railway users as a whole should be burdened with an extra £6,000,000 which I will probably lose if petrol goes through the pipeline and if I am not allowed to recoup my losses. That surely would not be in the interests of the Railways.

It would be to the benefit of the inland consumer on the Witwatersrand, but it certainly won’t be to the benefit of the whole country. But apart from that, I said in 1958 also that we will have to take into consideration the position of Sasol. If the price of petrol is reduced, the price of Sasol petrol will have to be reduced, and that will mean a Government subsidy to Sasol. They would not be able to make ends meet, and Sasol has to be protected and we are going to protect Sasol. That is the position. I stated the position very clearly in 1958, and I repeat it now that the Railways will recoup themselves for the loss of revenue and that Sasol will be protected. I state again that as a result of that there is no immediate prospect of the price of petrol being reduced.

The Railways now also dictate the policy of Sasol?

The Railways are dictating their own policy, and they are doing that in the interest of the country.

I now want to deal with a few matters raised by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman). He wanted an explanation in regard to the statement made by the Auditor-General on the loan from the Export-Import Bank. This happened because of the difficulty experienced in obtaining the required documentation, as the hon. member said, and he wanted an explanation as to why an amount of R615,361 could not be drawn. That was the actual figure at the end. The position is that 307 cases of aircraft parts were transported by air during the course of delivery of the Boeings. The suppliers’ invoices were enclosed, but it could not be established subsequently against which specific indents the material was received. Furthermore 251 bills of lading, including those in respect of the spare engines were received in respect of material freighted by sea, but they did not bear reference to all indents, whilst in many instances up to 50 indents were involved in one bill of lading. The invoices and declarations of values forms, approximately 10,000, required in respect of shipments to South Africa were received, but also contained no reference to the bills of lading or the vessel. Approximately 25,000 items of spares were involved and the bank’s requirements included marine insurance documents, freight forwarding documents, the supply of certificates of four different types, as well as an itemized statement of expenditure. In addition, it required that the various documents should be cross-referenced with each other and this presented considerable difficulty. It must be clear that the Administration is largely dependent on the suppliers for the required documentation. As the amount of the loan which could not be paid due to absence of documentation amounted to only R615,361 and the position as regards the availability of capital in South Africa was much more favourable than when the loan was negotiated, it was decided not to pursue the matter further.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) also referred to the question of capital investment on the Railways and suggested that in my Budget speech I should have given an analysis of what our programme for 1963-4 entails. I have already dealt with this matter last year in my reply to the hon. member. The hon. member knows that the Administration’s programme of capital and betterment works is set out in detail in the Brown Book. There each item is set out in detail, and it also contains a summary against the main heads of the Vote. In addition, this summary provides a comparison of the amounts voted in the previous financial year and to be spent on the corresponding heads. Consequently a ready indication of the trend of capital spending is available, and in the Committee Stage the opportunity exists for detailed discussion on specific items. The hon. member acknowledges that it is impossible in the Budget speech to deal with the justification for the 1,400-odd items in the Brown Book. At the same time I hardly think the House needs to be assured that before the Administration embarks on any scheme involving capital expenditure, all aspects, including in particular the financial effect and the economic justification, are fully examined. Last year and this year I referred to the activities of the Planning Council within whose purview this particular task falls. In view of this, I was surprised that the hon. member suggested that capital investment is made in a haphazard manner.

It is 30 per cent in one year and 45 per cent in another.

Surely it depends on the requirements of the economy and the needs of transport. If the hon. member knows anything about railway development, he should know that it cannot be uniform over several years.

It is bad financing.

It is not bad financing. The hon. member does not know what he is talking about. The hon. member also referred to the great capital investment in the Railways and its associated interest burden. As the House knows—and I have dealt with this matter previously—the Constitution Act makes no provision for the Railways to redeem capital. But the hon. member was unable to offer a solution for this problem and merely suggested an investigation.

Surely that is the best way to start.

There can only be one solution, and that is the creation of a redemption fund, or that the Central Government should be prepared to write off some of the capital, and that does not require investigation. I told the hon. member last year that if a redemption fund had to be created, it would mean an increase in rates because I would need additional revenue, and a redemption fund of R2,000,000 or R4,000,000 a year will be absolutely worthless. It will not reduce the interest burden to any appreciable extent.

So we just go on as the ox-wagon did.

Well, why does not the hon. member suggest a solution then if he knows so much about it? But it is the old thing. He wants an inquiry. What can an inquiry bring to light?

I want to deal with the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Timoney), who said that a certain manufacturer stated that it cost more to rail cigarettes from Cape Town to the Witwatersrand than to manufacture them. I think that statement was made outside. The hon. member for North-West Rand (Mr. J. C. B. Schoeman) also referred to it being made by a prominent tobacco manufacturer. I want to give the House some facts. If this statement is correct, and if production costs are the same as the railage, which is 10 per cent, then the costs of production per 1,000 cigarettes must be 1.5.07c, because the railage is 15.07c. The excise duty is R4 on 1,000 cigarettes. That gives a total of production costs plus excise duty, plus railage, of R4.30. The retail selling price is 20c for 20, or R10 for 1,000 cigarettes. So there is a difference of R5.69 in the selling price, and something must be out of balance.

The hon. member wanted to know whether I considered the completion of the Hex River tunnel scheme. My reply is no, it has been investigated but has been found not to be economically justified at this stage.

So investigation does have some value.

It is at least more valuable than the investigation suggested by the hon. member and the type of statement he sometimes makes in this House. The hon. member is under the impression that he is a financial expert, but I only regard him as a glorified bookkeeper. The completion of the Hex River tunnel scheme is not economically justified at present. It just shows how hon. members contradict each other. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) is concerned about the increased capital expenditure, but this hon. member wants more capital expenditure, and that is what we have had in every debate during past years. One wants more capital to be spent and the other is concerned about the increased interest burden.

The hon. member for Jeppes suggests that the return on the capital investments in the Railways is diminishing and he therefore assumes that the Railways are over-capitalized. Now this is an economist speaking. He knows, however, that the underlying principle of the Railways is that it is not operated as a profitmaking concern. The major portion of the increase in cost of operating the Railways has arisen from the improved pay and other conditions awarded, although the Administration, like other undertakings, had to contend with higher prices for a number of the commodities it uses, but there has been a considerable growth in tonnages carried over recent years, 12,500,000 tons in a period of five years, whilst the number of staff employed has actually decreased. It was 214,957 at the end of March 1962, compared with 234,074 in March 1957. This has only been possible because of the investment of capital which has yielded beneficial results.

Then with reference to the hon. member’s statement that the cost of running the Railways has increased on an average by about 7 per cent to 7½ per cent per annum since 1960 as against a general increase in the economy of 2 per cent to 21 per cent, this is altogether too general a statement as the hon. member has completely overlooked that in 1963-4 we are making full provision not only for higher replacement costs but also for R9,000,000 for purposes of the Betterment Fund. Although in 1962-3 provision was made for the higher replacement cost, this was not done in the earlier years, and as far as the Betterment Fund is concerned temporary arrangements had to be made to utilize loan funds to finance the work. Another factor is the substantial benefits that have been granted to the staff and which must have the effect of increasing the annual expenditure.

Then the hon. member drew attention to the fact that the increase in total revenue was R25,200,000 for 1963-4 over 1962-3, as compared with the increase of R38,000,000 in 1962-3 over 1961-2, and he wanted to know why provision was made for a smaller increase in the coming year than for the current year. The hon. member also made the statement that the greater part of the R25,200,000 increase will accrue from the increase in tariffs. That is not so. It should be remembered that although the increased tariffs will apply throughout this year, increased revenue from this source will accrue only for five months more than in 1962-3. A considerable proportion of the increase in revenue in 1962-3 was in respect of agricultural products, mainly maize, coal, parcels, passenger traffic, harbour earnings, interest on investments, and these have also been responsible for the improvement in 1962-3 over 1961-2. Just let me give the figures to the hon. member. Goods, mainly maize: No provision has been made for an increase in maize traffic this year, but when I estimated the revenue for the current financial year I estimated for a considerable increase in maize traffic over the previous year, and the difference is R3,200,000. In regard to parcels, I estimated for a bigger increase in parcels traffic for the current year than for next year, and that is R400,000. I estimated for a bigger increase in passenger traffic in the current year than I am estimating for next year, and that amounts to R2,400,000. The same applies to coal, R2,500,000, and livestock, R200,000, giving a total of R8,700,000, and then there is grain elevator traffic which is R800,000, R.T.S. R900,000, and interest on investments R2,000,000. That is the reason why the Estimates of increased revenue for 1963-4 are less than the Estimates of increased revenue for the present financial year.

Then there is only one other matter that the hon. member for Jeppes dealt with, and that was that the hon. member said that the country is saddled with a high-cost transport system and that competition should be allowed to develop as in the U.S.A. and Britain, and it will lead to a cheaper cost. The whole tenor of his argument was that in Britain there is almost unlimited competition between road and Rall, with the result that the public receives the benefit of cheap transport and the economy is benefited. His argument has always been over the years that not only should it be the primary function of the Railways to provide the cheapest possible transport but that the user of transport is entitled to the use of the cheapest possible form of transport he can obtain. Now it is unfortunate that the hon. member for Jeppes took Britain as an example and that he wanted to compare the British transport system with the South African system. There is almost unlimited competition between road and rail in Britain but the fact is that there has been a greater percentage increase in rates over the past ten years on the British Railways than on the S.A. Railways. They have an accumulated deficit for the four years from 1958 to 1961 of R460,000,000, which has to be shouldered by the taxpayer. But that is the comparison he wants to make. The British Railways had a greater percentage increase in rates than the S.A. Railways and they have an accumulated deficit, in spite of that, of almost R460,000,000, so that is not a happy comparison to make.

May I ask a question? If you can cut the transport bill of the country by R100,000,000, would you not be prepared to have a deficit of R20,000,000, and is that not what is happening in England?

No. The taxpayer is paying for that deficit. Does the hon. member think it falls out of the sky? The taxpayer is a consumer and he gets the benefit of cheap transport on the one hand, but he has to pay for that cheap transport in the form of increased taxation, on the other hand. In other words, it is robbing Paul to pay Peter.

I now want to deal with pensions. Let me say that I have every sympathy with the pensioners. As the House knows, whenever it has been possible I have assisted the pensioners, but I think we must be realistic in regard to this matter. Hon. members create the impression that pensioners are legally entitled to increased pensions from time to time, but that is not the position. Pensioners, when they become members of the Superannuation Fund, enter into a contract to make certain contributions and in return for that they will receive certain pensions. In any private undertaking which makes use of insurance companies to institute a pension fund for its workers those workers cannot afterwards claim from the insurance company increased pensions because the cost of living has increased.

But the Government has decreased the value of our currency, and that is the trouble.

Then those pensioners must also call on the Government to increase their pensions. I want to give the House a picture of what pension benefits the ordinary railwayman actually receives. I take an artisan who retired before 1 April 1944, having had about 43 years of service, which is the average. His contribution that he has paid over 43 years amounts to R941.10 The commutation value is R1,788. His net pension is R363. The pension drawn over a period of ten years, if he lives ten years, is therefore R3,634, together with a commutation amount of R1,788. In other words, he receives more than R5,000 for a payment of R941. If he lives 20 years, he receives in net pension R7,268, plus the amount commuted, R1,788, giving him about R9,000. [Interjection.] I am not saying that this should not be so; I am giving hon. members the facts. Then I want to show how pensions have been increased in the last nine years. I also take an artisan with 43 years’ service. If he retired in the last 12 months, the total contributions he will have paid is R2,252, and he receives R3,441 if he commutes one-third of his pension and his net pension will amount to R1,000 a year. He will receive therefore a total over 20 years of approximately R20,000, plus the amount commuted, R3,441, i.e. approximately R23,000, for a payment of R2,252, which is an excellent investment. These are the facts and hon. members should know that.

The person you have just quoted, is that only after one year’s full consolidation?

This is the artisan who retired in the last 12 months.

So he will be better off.

Yes. I am not saying that this is not justified; I only want hon. members to know the facts, and to appreciate that any contributor to the pension fund receives a very good return on his money. But I have every sympathy with the pensioners and whenever I have been able to do so I have assisted them. But what the hon. member for Umhlutzana suggests by implication is that I must dismiss the actuaries, abolish Superannuation Fund Committee, take control of the Superannuation Fund and start dishing out. I am sure the railway staff will not thank him for that. The hon. member wanted to know whether railway pensioners who are in receipt of civil pensions will have to sacrifice portion of their civil pensions in order to qualify for the full increase in the special allowance announced by me in my Budget speech. Up to the present it has been the policy to reduce the civil pension by whatever amount the railway pension is increased by. As I indicated in my Budget speech and during the debate, I am not in a position to say what concessions the Minister of Finance will make in this connection, and consequently I cannot say whether the status quo will be maintained, or whether pensioners will be allowed to retain their civil pensions in addition to the enhanced temporary allowance.

The hon. member also stated that the position of the Superannuation Fund was very grave because there was a deficit of R78,000.000. He rightly stated that actuarially the Superannuation Fund could carry a deficiency of R58,000,000 without it being necessary to make payments to cover that deficiency. It is anticipated, and it is rightly said, that rationalization will increase the deficiency by R20,000,000. The actuaries consider that payments of R100,000 per month would redeem the anticipated deficiency of R20,000,000 in about 30 years. It was indicated, however, that payment could be deferred until the result of the valuation as at 31 March 1964 is known, provided the Administration guaranteed that it would make the arrear payments from 1 September 1962, and whatever monthly payments are required thereafter to meet the increase in the liabilities arising from the latest improvements in salaries and wages, and the Administration decided to adopt that course. The hon. member also stated that the increased deficit in the fund was ascribed to wage improvements. He said that improvements amounting to approximately R62,000,000 which were granted during the period 1948-9 to 1953-4, resulted in a deficit of the fund of only R2,600,000 on 31 March 1954, whereas it was increased to R78,000,000 in the period 1954 to 1962, during which period improvements to the amount of only R48,000,000 were granted. The position is as follows. The improvements of R62,000,000 for the period 1948-9 to 1953-4 consist of the following amount which had no influence on the Superannuation Fund. The increase in the cost-of-living allowances, temporary enhancement of the Reef and Pretoria allowances, which amounted to R47,000,000. But that had no influence on the fund. For the period 1954-5 to 1961-2 the cost of improvements amounted to R48,000,000, and this sum includes additional costs in respect of salaries and wages which affected the fund as well as other payments, like overtime and Sunday time, which did not affect the fund. When payment of annuities to widows was introduced in 1951, that also represented a liability of R1,100,000.

The hon. member for Simonstown said he had recently read in the Press a suggestion that the Railways were seriously considering taking over control of the shipbuilding industry. The hon. member immediately assumed that this is correct, because he went on to say that it was another instance of the Railways’ interfering in private enterprise in this country.

Do you remember that I said, “Heaven forbid that it is so! ”

Yes, but the hon. member immediately assumed that it was correct, because he based his speech on this rumour he read in a newspaper, and he said this was another instance of the Railways laying a hand on private enterprise. But there is not a word of truth in that. [Interjections.] I have read what the hon. member said, and I want to say that there is not a word of truth in that rumour. It is absolute nonsense. The hon. member also blamed the Railways for the delay in the allocation of sites to shipbuilding firms. The hon. member knows that the Norval Committee was appointed to inquire into the matter of shipbuilding in South Africa and it made certain recommendations. This report was tabled, so the hon. member should know what the findings were. That matter has been referred to the Department of Economic Affairs, which must decide who must have the right to establish a shipbuilding industry. The Committee suggested that it should be a consortium and that ship repairs should be combined with shipbuilding. Consequently it is not a question of refusing sites to people. I am waiting on the Department of Economic Affairs to give their decision, and then the sites will be provided.

Is that your reply to James Brown’s statement published in the Press?

They have been advised of the findings of the Committee, and all the interested parties have been asked to comment on the findings of the Committee, by the Department of Commerce and Industry.

The hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Wood) seems to have adopted as his life mission the speeding up of the running times of the Orange Express. I must say, however, that comparatively speaking it takes the Orange Express almost as long to go from Cape Town to Durban as it took the hon. member to state his case. I can only say that I will ask the management to give it attention, and they will certainly go into the matter to see whether that train can be speeded up. In regard to the general question of the speeding up of trains, hon. members must remember that the locomotives purchased to-day are no faster than those purchased 30 years ago; they have the same maximum speed, and the same maximum speed is still applicable on our Railways. The gauge has not been broadened to 4 ft. 8½ in. In other words, we have the same limitations on speed to-day as we had 30 years ago. The average speed is still 65 miles an hour on the highest class railway lines. No railway system can maintain the maximum speed as an average speed.

You are talking nonsense now.

What is the nonsense?

You know perfectly well that the average speed can be raised administratively.

Does the hon. member suggest that an average speed of 65 miles an hour can be maintained from Cape Town to Durban? [Interjections.] That is what he said. The hon. member should think before he talks. I say that no railway system can maintain the maximum speed as the average speed. Does the hon. member maintain that the Orange Express can maintain an average speed of 65 miles per hour? [Interjection.] The hon. member must not talk about talking nonsense, if that is what he said.

Why are you trying to delay things?

I am not trying to delay things. I told my hon. friend over there that I was acceding to his request and that the matter would be gone into. The hon. should open his ears and listen to what I say.

The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) spoke about the increase in the rentals for sites. I just want to give him the facts. The site rentals before 1 December 1962, were as follows, inclusive of siding facilities: For the special class station the rate was R6 per month for the site; for a first-class station R5; a second-class station R4, a third-class station R3. Those are the rentals with siding facilities. Without siding facilities, the rentals were R5 in the case of special-class stations R4, R3 and R2 for the next three classes. The hon. member will realize that a rental of R2 per month for a site is very low indeed. After all, the Administration has a capital outlay in providing the site; other facilities have to be provided, and in addition to that the Administration has to pay assessment rates to the municipalities on those sites. That is why it was decided to double the rentals and even after doubling the rentals I think the rentals for those sites are still very low. It means that for a special-class station without siding facilities it will only be R10 per month and for a third-class station, R4 per month. Many of these site owners use these sites for storage purposes. If they had to hire a similar site elsewhere for storage purposes they would pay a very much higher rental. I think therefore that the increase is quite justified.

*As far as the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) is concerned, I do not believe that anyone would expect me to reply to that nonsensical tirade of his. I do not think that in such a short time I have ever heard so many misrepresentations, half truths, exaggerations and stupid statements.

Prove it.

To criticism which is based on facts I shall always reply with the greatest pleasure, as I have done here now, but I do not think I should waste the time of this House by replying to such stupid statements and half truths and exaggerations.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) asked me about the Durban station. I have said before and I repeat to-day that there is no immediate prospect of that station being built. The capital is not available. There are many more urgent works. The General Manager has in consultation with the mayor and the Council of Durban come to an agreement as to where the site should be, but I think it would be quite wrong to give an indication at this stage as to where the site will be because it will immediately give rise to land speculation.

But it has been announced.

Well, then it is most unfortunate, but the station will not be built in the immediate future.

It is blocking the whole development of Durban.

Well, that is just too bad. Durban will have to wait. As far as the shipbuilding matter is concerned, I have already replied to that. The mission to Japan did some excellent work and gained some valuable information, but the report is a departmental report; it is not for public consumption.

In regard to the other matter that the hon. member raised where he accused me of giving the House false facts, the hon. member’s figures and facts are invariably so unreliable that I will first have to check up on them and reply to him at a later stage. [Interjection.] He can rest assured that I will reply.

I want to express my appreciation to hon. members on this side of the House for their constructive contributions. [Laughter.] Mr. Speaker, hon. members opposite laugh but one reads in Ecclesiates: “As the crackling of thorns under a pot, so is the laughter of a fool.” I want to convey my thanks to hon. members on this side for their constructive contributions and for the nice words that they addressed to me and to the staff.

“Thank you for thanking me.”

I am not concerned about being thanked myself, but I always appreciate it when my staff is thanked because I think they deserve it. If hon. members opposite are dissatisfied with that and choose to laugh about it, then I hope that the staff will take notice of that fact.

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) on the way in which he demolished the arguments of the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell). After he had dealt with the hon. member there was really little left for me to say.

I want to reply to some of the points raised by hon. members on this side. The hon. member for Welkom (Mr. H. J. van Wyk) has asked that a connecting line be built between the Vierfontein-Bultfontein line and Allanridge. He has made out a good case for the building of that connecting line. I just want to tell him that I am very sympathetic as far as the building of this line is concerned and that I am again having it investigated specifically. It is not merely a matter of building this line of six or eight miles between Allanridge and the Bultfontein-Vierfontein line, but if that connecting line is built, then the whole Bultfontein line will have to be strengthened; in other words, it will have to be relaid, and it is the relaying that will involve heavy expenditure. But I can assure the hon. member that I am very sympathetic as far as this matter is concerned, and if it is at all possible I shall make provision next year for the building of this line.

The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. P. J. Coetzee) said that in his opinion the pay of railworkers was still very low, That is so. I just want to add that the maximum of R80 per month is for new entrants; that the maximum of the older railworker is R100 per month. I have improved this position. But it must be borne in mind that there must be a gap between the maximum salary of the railworker and the minimum salary of the graded worker. If the gap is too small then there is no incentive for the railworker to strive to obtain a graded post. In other words, the railworker should be encouraged to accept a graded post. There are many opportunities for the ordinary railworker to become a graded worker, but if the gap is too small between the maximum of the railworker and the minimum of the graded worker, then there is no incentive for the railworker to accept a graded post.

As far as stewards are concerned, the hon. member says that we should come to their assistance. I just want to give him the figures: When rationalization took place the wages of stewards were increased from a minimum of R74.57 per month and a maximum of R103.97 per month to a minimum of R90 per month and a maximum of R115 per month. They have received a reasonable increase therefore.

Then I come to the question of level crossings. The protective measures which he touched upon here, for example the question of half-gates, have already been investigated, but they cost money. Many of these protective measures which have been proposed, have to be operated electrically; then again on many of the railway lines electricity is not available. That is also my reply to the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Niemand); that is why it is not possible to accelerate the tempo of elimination of level crossings. It is simply a question of finance. There are so many things which are needed and so much money has to be spent on urgent works that the available capital has to be allocated and it is because of lack of funds that the tempo of elimination of level crossings cannot be further accelerated. At the same time I also want to assure the hon. member for Pietersburg that the road motor services in the north will not be withdrawn while the drought lasts and while the farmers are struggling so much. I just want to say to the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzd) that he raised a very important matter in the course of his speech with regard to our Airways. I fully agree that the S.A. Airways must be protected against private, unscheduled airlines, and that is what we are trying to do through the Department of Transport. As the hon. member knows, these airlines make use of Lourenco Marques. I had discussions with the Portuguese Government last year and as the result of those discussions the activities of these airlines which operate on Lourenco Marques have been considerably curtailed. I quite agree that our own Airways ought to be protected. Indeed that is also in the interests of the public. We saw what happened recently to members of the public who made use of a certain cheap airline. As far as freight is concerned, it is increasing and it has already been decided specially to set aside one DC 7B solely for the conveyance of freight between Johannesburg and Cape Town. We do have spare aircraft; we still have the Constellations which are not being used and it is unnecessary therefore to purchase additional aircraft. The hon. member has also suggested that we should purchase jet aircraft for our internal services. That will be done when the Viscounts have to be replaced, but the Viscounts are still practically brand-new aircraft. They are giving us excellent service and they can still last many years. It is only the Dakotas that will have to be replaced, and jet aircraft are entirely unsuitable for the routes on which the Dakotas operate because most of the runways are earth runways and a jet aircraft cannot be used on an earth runway. Many of the aerodromes on which the Dakotas land are far too short for the use of jet aircraft.

The hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Knobel) has asked that a hostel be erected in Bethlehem. That is a matter which is being investigated.

I am quite convinced that the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) did not intend to insult railwaymen and the reaction of hon. members opposite is just another indication of the way in which they try to make political capital out of matters which are raised by members on this side because they consider it to be in the interests of the Railways. They are simply out to catch votes and to incite the railwaymen by saying to them. “Look, that is what the hon. member said about you.” I agree that certain accidents have taken place because of the fact that railwaymen were under the influence of liquor. Serious accidents have taken place recently in which it has been proved in court that the footplate staff were under the influence of liquor. The instructions are that any servant who has anything to do with the safe operation and working of the Railways must be discharged immediately if he is found to be under the influence of liquor. That is a very strict instruction. Instructions have gone out from the management that the use of liquor by railwaymen on duty must be combated very strictly and that the heaviest penalties must be imposed where such offences are brought to light. The other suggestions which have been made here are all suggestions which can be considered.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. Schlebusch) has asked that the present allowances of pensioners should be consolidated with the basic pension. Unfortunately that cannot be done, for one reason only. The allowance is paid out of Revenue while the pension is paid out of the Superannuation Fund. It is impossible therefore to consolidate the allowances with the basic pension because the entire burden would then be placed on the Superannuation Fund.

I think I have covered all the points which have been raised here by hon. members. In conclusion I just want to say that I think that hon. members will agree that the Opposition have been completely exposed in this debate; their political opportunism has been exposed and their lack of principle has been revealed here once again. I want to say too that if the Opposition had been in power and had administered the Railways in accordance with the proposals which they have made here in recent years and the criticism which they have put forward here, the Railways would have been in a mess, but fortunately they have not been in power and humanly speaking they will not come into power in the foreseeable future and the country and the Railways are safe therefore. Lastly, I want to say that the Railways will continue to go ahead in spite of an Opposition which, as I have said previously, South Africa really does not deserve.

Question put: That all the words after “That”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—69: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coetzee, B.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Wet, C.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotze, S. F.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden. J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vosloo, A. H.

Tellers: J. J. Fouché and M. D. de la R. Venter.

Noes—41: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. D.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Suzman, H.; Timoney, H. M.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

Question affirmed and the amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

House in Committee:

Estimates of Expenditure to be defrayed from Revenue Fund:

On Head No. 1.—“General Charges”, R8,997,000,

We will probably have to traverse a great deal of ground under the Minister’s first Vote, and the first thing which I think this House would like me to ask the Minister —and I ask him most sincerely—is how the courtesy campaign on the Railways is going at the moment. I understand that the Minister has instituted a courtesy campaign on the Railways and that railwaymen in future will do their best, even under the most trying circumstances, to be polite.

Even in spite of the Minister.

May I say that the Minister has not set a good example for his men. When a man of ability descends to personalities it is rather distressing. It does him no credit nor the high position he holds in this Parliament. I hope he will realize that as far as we are concerned we will not retaliate in kind. I would recommend to him a little motto which is taught to many a school boy. It is “manners maketh man ”.

We will, I presume, renew the main argument on this Budget when we come to the second and the third readings. But under the Minister’s Vote—I think this is the appropriate time—I would like to ask the Minister to state as simply and as shortly as he can what his policy actually is in regard to the provision of cheap transport which the Act lays down should be his main aim in running the Railways. Sir, the Act lays down …

Order! The hon. member cannot continue on those lines.

Sir, I am discussing the Minister’s Vote, the Minister’s salary, the Minister’s policy.

Order! Has the hon. member asked for the privilege of the half-hour?

I am asking for it.

I am sorry, the hon. member should have asked for it at the commencement of his speech.

Sir, let me ask the Minister what his policy is. It seems to us that he regards the increase of 10 per cent in rates as some minor matter, as something that does not have any adverse effect at all on the cost of living; as something that does not tend to retard industrial progress. Apparently the extra burden has no effect whatsoever on railway users. Sir; one is amazed at the Minister’s moderation. One wonders why he did not make a really good job of it and increase rates by 15 per cent or 20 per cent. Apparently a rise in rates has a stimulating effect on our economy. Apparently it makes people work harder and produce more. But why did the Minister feel he had to excuse himself at all for imposing this surcharge. He says he resisted the desire to increase rates strongly and has only given way now because “he did not know that our industry and commerce and our economy would stride ahead in the coming year ”. He said that he felt that we were in for a period of stagnation …

No, I did not say that.

He said that at the time he made his decision all indications were that we were going to go through a period of recession.

When did I say that?

In your speech.

I challenge you to produce my Hansard. May I say what I did say?

Certainly. I will yield to the hon. Minister.

I said that there were no indications in March last year that towards the end of the year there would be an upsurge in our economy, and I said that at that time we were in a difficult position internationally in regard to UNO.

Mr. Chairman, now that I have risen again may I ask for the privilege of the half-hour?

The hon. member may ask for it when he rises again to speak.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I will take it. The Minister did not realize that there was going to be this forward surge in our economy. I suggest that if he had taken the proper precautions he could have known it. I suggest that if only he had consented to consult economists who were available for consultation he might have learnt this important fact. The Minister knows that, at this critical juncture, when he was considering whether he should raise the rates or not, the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council was sitting. It was sitting in that month, the critical month of August, and he did not consult this particular body. I would like to ask him a few questions about this body. This is what he said according to a report—

Does he not consult bodies like this? Has he not a representative on this body? If so, why is he there? Is he not even advised of their meetings? Did the hon. Minister not know that this august body of economists was meeting? Did he not know that they were meeting in Pretoria which was convenient for him? Does his representative not report to him regularly on the findings of this committee? Does he ever take any note of what they report? The Prime Minister certainly does and reports his reactions to their suggestions publicly. He knows very well that this Economic Advisory Council had met to consider trends of economic progress and to examine the advantages as well as the resistances to our development in the coming years. He knows that they were going to try to suggest means of co-ordinating Government financial and economic policies and to advise the Prime Minister in that respect. They did advise the Prime Minister especially on the question of co-ordinated budgeting. Surely, Sir, the Railways need, above anything, what is called “economic budgeting ”. They need to consider the good of the country when they are budgeting for their own surplus. Surely he should be anxious for guidance from this body of experts, specially chosen, perhaps handpicked by the Prime Minister; this body which represents all facets of our economy. I know there is only one railwayman on the Council but this Minister does not even know what his representative is doing. He does not even know when a meeting is to be held …

Do you suggest that the Minister of Finance should consult them in regard to his Budget?

He should be guided by their general opinions when he frames his Budget. I will read out something to show what the Prime Minister thinks of this body and of the financial suggestions they make. The Minister knows nothing about what is going on in the economic spheres in this country, yet he is in charge of the biggest monopoly concern which we have. I cannot conceive myself how any meeting of this Council could take place without discussing this large concern which the Minister controls. I can tell him this that, had he consulted the council, it would have told him that over the next ten years private enterprise, together with Government projects like Sasol, Escom and Iscor, propose to spend no less than R400,000,000 in development. He should have known, and they would have told him, that the ordinary natural increase in population would increase consumption and create more jobs and call for more transport. He should have known that over the next ten years another 1,000,000 Black workers alone will have streamed into urban areas causing increased demands for transport. He should have known that there presence will increase trade and build up our internal market. It seems to me that, in spite of this Government, South Africa is going to thrive; South Africa with its great potential cannot be put back by this Government; it cannot even be held back by untimely increases in rates. But unnecessary burdens do slow down the tempo of development. The Minister should know that. He should know that his own Prime Minister listens to the council with great attention. The Prime Minister accepts their advice but this Minister tells them to mind their own business. This Minister has this besetting sin; he thinks he can manage everything without advice or assistance; that he is right and that everybody else is wrong. He said so quite blatantly. But this is what the Prime Minister said: He said that he was in full agreement with the Economic Advisory Council—

this was in August; this was the critical stage when the Minister said he did not know that our economy was poised to go ahead and therefore he was compelled to raise rates …

That was in March.

March! I am talking about the raise he made in August. Why did he not wait a month to see what was happening. Any sensible person would have waited a month to see what trends were showing …

You are misconstruing what I said.

I am not intending to misconstrue your words. I am now quoting the Prime Minister. He said he agreed with the Council that—

That does not mean that they justified a higher rate on the Railways—the very opposite.

But this Minister says he will not let the council teach him his job. The Prime Minister went on to say—

This is the economic budgeting which I have recommended to the Minister. This is taxation policy that can be modified by sage advice.

That is an asset in anyone—

The “country as a whole ”. Not the Railways in particular—

Then the Prime Minister went on to talk about fostering the welfare of all sections of the population. It seems clear to me that if we have an important council representing all facets of our economy, the least this Minister could do, if he is teetering on the edge of a temptation to increase rates, which might have some deleterious effects of our economy, should be, at least, to consult the council. He should not dismiss the very idea of taking their advice with contempt. I believe that the Minister has grossly neglected his duty in not making absolutely certain, by proper, prior consultation with an Advisory Council which was available to him, that an increase in railway rates was the only way out of his dilemma. Consultation with the council might have led him away from making a disastrous mistake. When I say disastrous, I do not want anyone to imply that I am asserting that we are going to be ruined by this. We are a tough country. We have magnificent resources. We have to bear with the Minister and his policies it is true but the fact remains that we can and will withstand great shocks. However, the Minister should have done everything he could to see that this country went forward unhindered in the advance which the Prime Minister himself foretold. The Prime Minister said himself that the main Budget proposals might not have been so burdensome had it been known what he knew after the meeting of this Economic Advisory Council. It seems to me that the tariff policies of this Government should be very closely examined. I do not know what Railway policies really are. It has been suggested that they had to raise tariffs in order to meet what are called deficits but which are items and amounts which have never been budgeted for. The Minister seems to have the strange idea that when he has an unexpected surplus he can dispose of it by putting large and unexpected amounts into various funds, like the Betterment Fund and the Rates Equalization Fund and then say “If I had not raised rates I would have had an inflated deficit which I never budgeted for at the beginning. When it comes to the point he says: “I would have had a deficit of many extra millions if I did not raise the rates.” That is a curious way of estimating; it is a strange way of bookkeeping. Even if he does call my distinguished colleague the member for Port Elizabeth (South) a “glorified bookkeeper”, the words of my ex-Auditor General friend count far more with me and the country than the words of the Minister.

The Chairman on the Railways and Harbours Committee made some strange suggestions when he spoke on an earlier occasion. One suggestion was that we should raise rates to strengthen the Statutory Funds. “How are you going to strengthen the Statutory Funds,” he said, “if you do not raise rates; how are you going to strengthen the Rates Equalization Fund if rates are not raised?” It seems to me that their policy is that we should raise the rates to build up a fund to guard against a raise of rates. That is what it amounts to. That was exactly what was suggested. They said: “The hon. member for Wynberg says we must build up our Statutory Funds how can we do that without raising the rates? He then went on to quote the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) as saying (with me agreeing) that the Rates Equalization Fund should be built up to between R50,000,000 and R60.000,000. I hope it will be built up to that extent. That is what we are all aiming at. But the hon. gentleman did not go on to say that the hon. member for Vredefort, an ex-railwayman and a former chairman of the Railways and Harbours Committee, had said that the Rates Equalization Fund was there “to prevent an increase in tariffs, or a cut in salaries and wages that it was there “to protect the workmen’s wages as much as it is there to prevent an increase in tariffs The Minister says he will never use it for that purpose.

No, I never said that; of course it is there to protect wages.

Mr. RUSSELL; What the Minister told commerce and industry was this, and no wonder it puzzled them. He took advantage of their lack of knowledge of the technicalities of the matter; their lack of knowledge that a Finance Bill had to be passed when the Minister disposes of his losses and he said this: “It would be illegal for me to raise salaries and wages out of the Rates Equalization Fund.” Of course it would be. But, as I have explained to the Minister, that is not the way it works, and he knows it. He failed to answer one question I asked him: If he has a deficit next year that deficit will be caused by the fact that he gave raises in salaries and wages this year …

No.

Of course it will—the Minister said so himself. What an extraordinary way of arguing. The Minister increases wages and salaries (an expenditure which is recurrent) therefore if at the end of 1963 there is a deficit, he said that deficit must be ascribed to the increase in wages he had given during the preceding year. In the coming year he still has to pay those increased wages and if there is a deficit he says it will be all right for him to meet that deficit from the Rates Equalization Fund yet that deficit will have been caused by those increased wages. You cannot argue both ways. The Minister knows what the financial process is. He knows that each year overheads go up by a certain amount. It is inevitable. New stores are needed, extra costs of all sorts are incurred including the cost of rationalizing wages. That becomes part of his normal overheads. If at the end of the year he has a surplus, he disposes of that to certain Statutory Funds. If he has a deficit, he gets parliamentary appropriation by way of a Finance Bill and disposes of his deficit from the Rates Equalization Fund. Does the Minister agree with me there? Is that the process? Is that not what he would have done had he had a deficit this year? How would he have disposed of his deficit?

I shall explain it to you when I reply.

Had the Minister not done that it would have surprised me greatly. I will be very interested to know how he would have disposed of it.

The Minister’s first excuse was that he would have had a deficit of R2,750,000 had he not raised rates. I pointed out to him that he had already estimated for a deficit of R2,750,000. In fact if he disclosed a deficit of R2,750,000 he would have almost hit the nail on the head. We would have been very pleased with his estimating. I am sure he would have used the Rates Equalization Fund for that deficit. He now changes his ground and says, “Oh no, I would have had a deficit of some R22,000,000 I would not have been able to put R9.000,000 into the Betterment Fund and R2,000,000 into the Rates Equalization Fund”. Sir, that is quite crazy finance. He is only trying to excuse himself for making an inexcusable increase in rates. He is trying to excuse it by saying that it will have no effect on the economy of the country. The Minister knows himself that the arguments he used to justify his increase, namely that a 10 per cent increase would have no effect on the economic position of industry is not believable in connection with the marginal mines. The Minister will be answered by people who are experts on this question. He must know that there are many mines that are running so close to the margin between profit and loss that this small increase in rates of 10 per cent means that their payability is brought into doubt. They are on the edge of profit and loss. The Minister should know that they are some of the best customers of the Railways; they have spent millions over the years with the Railways; they have done so over a number of years. The Minister also knows that they pay out in their particular areas millions of rand in the form of salaries and wages. The Minister knows that if he puts a marginal mine out of business he not only loses a good customer but can cause unemployment and distress in that particular town. I do not think the Minister should dismiss this in that cavalier way by casting some reflection on my colleague behind me who raised this matter in a most able way. He provided the Minister with statistics and figures which he did not attempt to refute; which I do not think he can refute. [Interjections.] The Minister is sometimes rude, but I think he regrets it and I do not think we will have a repetition of it.

Sir, I have said what I intended to at this stage. I am certain that nothing can stop our industrial expansion but I am also certain that there is nothing that this Minister has done in his Budget this year or in his disastrous reasoning of last year when he raised rates, which will aid that growth. I think it will be in spite of him and not because of him.

I want to dispose of the matter of the Economic Advisory Council in the few minutes that are left. I want to say first of all that the hon. member took exception to certain things I said. He said that manners maketh the man. I hope he will bear that in mind. I think in regard to offensiveness in the House, the hon. member will admit himself that there are very few members who are his equal; not towards me in particular, but in other debates. Hon. members also know that I do not indulge in personalities unless I am provoked or by way of retaliation. [Laughter.] Let me deal with this Economic Advisory Council.

Do not fall so easily.

I never squeal when I am attacked. Hon. members have indulged in the grossest personalities as far as I am concerned.

Not me.

You started it but you fortunately stopped in time. The hon. member will remember his first speech on behalf of the Opposition when he discussed the Budget.

In regard to the Economic Advisory Council hon. members will probably recollect that the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) asked the hon. the Prime Minister a question. On 19 February the hon. member for Durban (Point) asked—

Let me say first of all that the Economic Advisory Council is responsible to the Prime Minister alone and my representatives have not the right to give any reports of what is happening on the Economic Advisory Council. No member on that Council has the right to give his own organization information as to what has been discussed there. They discuss matters there in complete confidence; a report is then drawn up and presented to the Prime Minister. That report is circulated to all the members of the Cabinet and the Cabinet then decides what part of the report must be published. That is how it works. In reply to the question the Prime Minister said—

That was the reply of the Prime Minister to whom this Council is responsible. Just as the hon. the Minister of Finance can certainly not discuss budget proposals with the Economic Advisory Council, whatever effect it may have on the economy of the country, I cannot discuss a rate increase before the time with the Economic Council. Directly the matter leaks out there is going to be trouble and the hon. member should realize that. In regard to rate increases, that is a matter for the Cabinet to put its seal on my decision. And that was what happened. In a matter such as rate increases, which is a matter of policy and in such matters as budget proposals by the Minister of Finance which are matters of policy, they cannot be discussed with that body; they must be decided by the Cabinet. That is why this body was not consulted.

Could you not just have asked them what the economic trend was likely to be?

We knew what the economic trend was likely to be. That was one of the reasons why I decided to give an increase in wages. Had there not been an economic upsurge in August, had there not been any prospects for increased economic activity I would not have given this increase in wages. If I had had to give the increase in wages and there had been no upsurge in the economy the rate increase would have been very much bigger. But I took that into consideration. I took into account the fact that there was an upward trend and that I could safely risk giving an amount of R22,000,000 to the staff and only levy a 10 per cent increase to cover that. All those facts were taken into consideration. In my speech this afternoon I said that in March of last year there were no indications of this upsurge in our economy. We consulted all the different bodies before I presented my Budget last year, as we usually do. We even consulted the Netherlands Bank of which the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) is chairman.

You do not listen to what they say.

We do and I base my Budget on that.

That is the tallest story I have ever heard.

During March of last year, Sir, there was no indication that there would be this upsurge, this increase in the tempo of industrial development. It only became apparent towards the end of the first half of the financial year. The hon. member said that I never budgeted for the Betterment Fund and that it was only a question of luck. [Interjections.] I am budgeting for R9,000,000 for the Betterment Fund next year, the coming year, and I budgeted for a contribution to the Betterment Fund in the current year. In addition to that I allocated a portion of the surplus to the Betterment Fund. If the hon. member looks at the Budget for the past few years he will see that provision is made in the Estimates for an allocation to the Betterment Fund.

In regard to the Rates Equalization Fund the hon. member asked whether, if there were a deficit in 1963-4, I would not make use of the Rates Equalization Fund? He said “If my contention is correct that it is illegal to use the Rates Equalization Fund to cover a deficit resulting as a result of an increase in wages, then it will also be illegal to use the Rates Equalization Fund next year ”. If there is a deficit the difference is this that in the current year the deficit will have been directly attributable to the increase in wages. In other words, if there was a deficit in the current year directly attributable to the increase in wages it would have been illegal to use the Rates Equalization Fund for the purpose of covering that deficit. But next year I am budgeting for an increase in traffic, an increase in revenue based on a certain volume of traffic to be conveyed or that I hope will be conveyed. If the volume of traffic is less than I am estimating and there are fluctuations of traffic, then it will be quite legal to use the Rates Equalization Fund to cover that deficit. The hon. member can disagree with legal opinion but that is the position. The Rates Equalization Fund can only be utilized to maintain rates if there is a deficit as a result of a fluctuation of traffic.

In regard to the marginal mines I just want to say this: I do not for a moment doubt the hon. member’s figures but you cannot make an exception, where there is a rate increase, for any particular section of the community. You cannot say that coal being conveyed to marginal mines must go at a lower rate than the coal which is conveyed to other mines. You cannot manipulate rates in that way. It is quite right that this 10 per cent increase in rates will increase the costs of the marginal mines.

Are you not doing something for the border industries?

No, I am not doing it. I look after the railway finances. In regard to the marginal mines that is a matter of national interest and that is the responsibility of the Central Government. If they want the marginal mines to remain in business the Central Government has to accept the responsibility. You cannot use the Railways for subsidization. We have got rid of all that. That is why I cannot exempt the marginal mines from this 10 per cent increase. There will be no justification for it. What justification will there be for the transport of coal to the marginal mines not to be subject to the 10 per cent increase but to be subject to it in the case of other mines.

You do it for farmers.

No, I have got rid of all those subsidies. to-day the Central Government is responsible for that.

But the Minister did exclude certain agricultural commodities from the 10 per cent increase. Is that not the same.

I can exclude commodities as such but then it must be applicable to all consumers. What I am trying to say is that I cannot exclude a commodity in the interests of only one section of the community. In other words, if I exclude coal, for instance, I have to do so in the case of all consumers, not only in the case of the marginal mines. That is my argument.

What is there to stop you from doing that?

But the hon. member knows that you cannot manipulate rates in that way. You cannot manipulate rates to benefit any section of the community. Once you create that precedent you will not know where it will end. There are other industries which are also working on a very small margin of profit apart from the mines. It will mean that those industries will also have a claim to exemption from the 10 per cent increase on their commodities. You cannot create a precedent like that. As I have said that is the responsibility of the Central Government if they want to keep these marginal mines in operation. The Central Government has taken upon itself the responsibility of subsidizing the farmers by way of the Railways. Take the conveyance of fertilizer, for instance. The Railways had formerly to bear that burden but I managed to get the Central Government to take that burden over. The Railways consequently do not subsidize farmers in regard to any agricultural produce that is transported by the Railways.

Did you say you got the Central Government to take over that burden?

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Evening Sitting

From time to time in this House I have raised with the Minister the question of the station in Durban. That question has already been put to-day from this side of the House and the Minister has given a reply, but I do want to discuss a slightly different aspect of it. In the years that have gone past, Sir, it has just been a question of when we are getting a new station. Now the scene has shifted a little, and we read in the newspapers that there is now a question of resiting the station, and whilst I do not want to dampen the hopes of speculators and the like, there are certain things that I think the Minister should take into consideration before negotiating the question of the choice of a different site. The hon. Minister will remember that in all his replies right up to I think last year, he has always given the answer that nothing can be done about the station before such time as the railway workshops are moved, and that he had no intention of moving those in the near future. In other words, the hon. Minister never had in mind the question of resiting the station. He obviously intended when he did rebuild, to build on the existing site.

This is the request of the Durban Corporation.

I accept that, but now I want to make these points with the Minister: The question of resiting on the site which I have seen proposed in the newspapers, Sir, is one which I think the Minister should approach warily, and I think there are many reasons why I would ask him to do so. The first one is the convenience of the people who use the trains. There are many thousands of people who use the suburban services particularly because of the convenient siting of the railway station in comparison to their work. The hon. Minister will agree that he has rebuilt the station in Johannesburg and resited it on the old site, I think, mainly for that reason. The same position, I think has come about here in Cape Town, and if you go through the larger cities, Bloemfontein Pretoria and others, the main station is sited within the town itself wherever possible, and not on the site of a suburban station, which is virtually the suggestion which has been put up in Durban. I do not believe that the people in Durban want the station moved out of the town to another site. I personally can see no reason for it, and I put it to the hon. the Minister that because the local authority has a site which it feels can be used for the purpose of building a new railway station, it should not necessarily follow that site should automatically be accepted as the new site for the station. You see, Sir, I do not believe that the people of Durban want it. The City Council has done this in an arbitrary fashion. We have had this before with the new magistrate’s court, and I speak with considerable knowledge of that situation, and we have had it with the resiting of the post office. I am going to ask the Minister most earnestly, before he comes to a final agreement on the resiting, to consider all the factors that go with it, and that he will take cognisance of the wishes of the people of Durban. There is one other aspect, at the moment there is considerable work in progress in the environs of the existing station, and I think that work was all undertaken on the understanding that if a new station was going to be built—obviously it will not be for some time—those works would fit in with the Minister’s plans in respect of the new station. I do make an earnest plea to the hon. Minister to very seriously consider this matter when it comes to the question of resiting the station.

Next I want to refresh the hon. Minister’s memory on two other matters. One is that just about this day two years ago, on 16 March 1961 I brought up the question of improving suburban services in Durban, and the hon. Minister in his reply agreed with me, as he said, “that there is room for improvement, and this matter will be borne in mind ”. That was the question of improvement and I hope extension of local suburban services. The Minister agreed with me that Durban was very much worse off regarding suburban service than any of the other larger centres. I would like the hon. Minister to tell me what improvements have in fact been brought about, and if he intends to effect further improvements in the services. I would like him particularly to deal with the question of whether he intends to plan extension of lines to areas which at the moment are not served by suburban lines.

I come to my third point. In the Minister’s reply on the same date, the Minister referred to the question I brought up, namely of an improved service on the South Cost of Natal. Once more the hon. Minister agreed with me that a great improvement could be brought about. He indicated that the line was being strengthened and that various other things were being done with a view to improving the service, and then he said—

That is two years ago, and there has been sufficient time now to make decisions and to call for tenders and in which to improve the service on that line. The Minister has admitted that the service is bad on that line, and I think that in view of the extra traffic and the additional industries that have to be served on that line, and the extra industries that are being established, this matter should receive urgent attention. There is also the establishment of the new oil refinery, although that is not exactly on the South Coast line, but Saicor and other industries do, and I believe this is the time for the hon. the Minister to speed up this matter, so that the same thing will not happen here as has happened in other cases, that the railway service comes a year or two years late. I think this service could be vastly improved with benefit both to the users and to the Railways.

The hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) has again advanced the argument this afternoon that the Minister should have consulted the Economic Advisory Council before he increased the tariffs. That argument sounds very peculiar to me coming from the hon. member for Wynberg. It seems to me that the hon. member wants to use this argument whenever it suits him, because when we come to the Economic Affairs Vote, where the same Economic Advisory Council to which the hon. member refers supports the development of industries in border areas, the hon. member and the Opposition reject the advice of the Economic Advisory Council; when we come to the Labour Vote where this same Economic Advisory Council supports the Government’s policy of gradually increasing minimum wages, the hon. member for Wynberg and his Party again differ from the Council. In other words, there are various matters in which they refuse to accept the advice of the Economic Advisory Council, but it is only in connection with the Railways that they criticize the Minister because he refuses to accept the advice of the Economic Advisory Council. I do not think that the hon. member for Wynberg can have it both ways. He should at least be logical and consistent in connection with this matter. As far as the Rates Equalization Fund is concerned, the hon. member also tries to blow hot and cold. He says that I suggested that tariffs be increased in order to strengthen the Rates Equalization Fund. I did not say that nor did I suggest it, nor can it be inferred from my words. What I did say was that the hon. member for Wynberg wanted to deplete the Rates Equalization Fund and he indicated how he wished to deplete it. I stated that if tariffs had not been increased in September last year, the Budget this year would have shown a deficit of R2,500,000 to R2,750,000, and I stated that if tariffs had not been increased we would have faced a deficit of R21,000,000 in the next financial year. It was the hon. member for Wynberg in fact who did not want the Minister to increase the tariffs. In other words, we would then have been saddled with a deficit of R2,500,000 for the year 1962-3 and a deficit of R21,000,000 for the year 1963-4 and that deficit would have had to be defrayed from the Rates Equalization Fund. Surely that is tantamount to depleting the Rates Equalization Fund. But this afternoon in the Committee Stage the hon. member again says that he is still in favour of building up this fund; he does not want it to be depleted. How does the hon. member for Wynberg want to build up and strengthen this fund? We can only build up this fund from surplus revenue. There is no other way in which it can be done. Let the hon. member for Wynberg stand up and tell us in what other way the Minister can strengthen the Rates Equalization Fund; then perhaps he may have an argument. But you cannot have it both ways and plead for a depletion of the fund when it suits you and then again plead that the fund should be strengthened when that suits you; you cannot blow hot and cold at the same time.

The Opposition have had a great deal to say in connection with railway pensions and their inadequacy. I should like to read out a portion of a letter which I have just received from my constituency. This letter comes from Mr. F. A. Gericke of Bloemfontein who says—

I am very sorry that the hon. member for Turffontein is not here. The hon. member saw fit to quote here from the speech which I made last year during the second-reading debate on the Railway Appropriation Bill. I then stated that it was not the appropriate time to increase tariffs when the whole matter had been referred for investigation to a commission. It is quite true that I said so. Unlike hon. members on the other side I do not run away from what I have said. I stand by what I said, and under similar circumstances I would say the same thing again. But what were the circumstances when I used those words? I said that that was not the appropriate time to increase tariffs because one should not increase tariffs at a time when the economy was not buoyant; that such a step could only have detrimental effects upon our economic development. That was the position at that stage and as a matter of fact while the hon. member was speaking, I said that I had repeated that statement in the speech which I made on Monday. I then said—

In connection with my statement that tariffs could not be increased at a time when the question of the tariff structure had been referred to a commission of inquiry, the hon. member must not forget that at that time the question of the tariff structure of the Railways had just been referred to the commission of inquiry, and the Minister himself took that into account in August 1962 when he increased tariffs and said—

Far from retracting what I said therefore, I want to say to the hon. member that under similar circumstances I would have used the same words.

I am rather sorry that both the hon. Minister and the General Manager saw fit to link up the increased wages of railwaymen with increased railway tariffs. I am sorry that that is the policy of the hon. the Minister. The Minister said—

And practically the same words are used by the General Manager in his report: “In order to defray the expenditure arising from wage improvements, the railage on goods and parcels, etc., was increased ”. I am sorry particularly because in view of what the Minister himself said in this House, this does not leave a pleasant taste in the mouth of the public in South Africa. You see, the hon. the Minister said in his reply to the debate last year: “I was fully convinced at the time, and I am still convinced, that an increase in tariffs at this stage would be detrimental to the country’s economy ”.

“At this stage”.

The Minister went on to say—

A year ago.

Yes, but people in South Africa are still left with that impression. I would remind you, Sir, of the great fight, the long fight which was waged between a section of the railwaymen and the hon. the Minister with regard to wage increases. You will recall that the reproach was levelled at this side of the House that we were pleading their cause for political purposes. The Minister’s defence was that tariff increases would detrimentally affect South Africa, but some months afterwards the Minister granted wage increases and at the same time also increased tariffs, and the impression that the people of South Africa must inevitably gain is that the railwayman was given something which he did not deserve perhaps and that if he deserved it he received it at the expense of the economy of South Africa. I am sorry that the Minister adopted that attitude. He ought to know that this increase in wages was deserved by the railwaymen. He should have known that nobody in South Africa deserved it as much as the railwaymen and he should have known that this wage increase, particularly in view of the fact that there has been a reorganization of his railway staff which, as he himself says with pride, has resulted in a smaller staff doing more work and better work, should not have been linked up with this increase in tariffs. But there is something else in the Minister’s policy to which I take exception. I refer to the reply which he gave this afternoon to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) when he spoke of the pensioners and said that the pensioners were not lawfully entitled to an increase in cost-of-living allowances. We all know that, but, after all, the railwayman is entitled to it. Does the hon. the Minister forget that these pensioners served the Railways for years and years? And then the hon. the Minister says that people who retired from the Service in 1944. and after 43 years’ service, which is a lifetime, paid R943 into the Pension Fund and that over a period of 10 years they were getting back R3,634 out of the Pension Fund. He then goes on to say that those who retired at a later date paid in R2,252 and that if they draw a pension for 10 years they will be getting back more than R22,000. But that is not the argument of this side of the House. Our argument is that those people were in the employ of the Railways all these years and that that fact should be recognized in rewarding them. Since improved pension scales have now been introduced for persons who will be retiring in the future or who retired a short time ago, surely the others who retired at an earlier date should also be taken into consideration. The hon. the Minister has not replied to the remarks of the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman), who has told us that it has been laid down that pensioners may earn up to R1,800 per annum together with the allowance but if they obtain employment for a few months during the year in the busy season, then their allowance is not based on their income over a full year but their earnings during the one, two or three or four months during which they work are taken into account and they are told, “If you had worked throughout the year you would have earned so much, and consequently you will not get the allowance ”.

That is not correct You are quite wrong.

I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister will show me where I am wrong. The hon. the Minister did not reply to the point raised by the hon. member for Maitland. There are numerous complaints of this nature from people who allege that their income is calculated on what they earned over a portion of the year instead of over the whole year. Their request is that their annual earnings should be taken into account, and if their earnings together with their allowance work out at more than R1,800 then they are quite satisfied that the cost-of-living allowance should not be paid to them.

But there is another matter. I am thinking, for example, of a driver in the Railway Service who has to retire at the age of 55 years. I can understand why he is called upon to retire. These people have to work overtime.

Why not?

I am merely stating the fact that these men do work overtime, so much so that they sometimes work up to 63 days per month, and they simply cannot continue to work beyond the age of 55 years. When they retire their pension is based on their period of service. I contend that it is a waste of manpower to allow a person to retire to-day at 55 years of age, and that the Railways ought to give such a person other work and that he should not be penalized when he goes out to look for work.

He has the right to stay on until 58.

That is three years longer.

I shall make it 60 if they want it.

I contend that it should be extended to 63 years. I want to ask the Minister to add another three years. [Time limit.]

It is a pity that the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) has reopened this whole matter again. She tried to save the United Party who failed so hopelessly in their criticism of this Budget. She mentioned, for example, that at a given stage the Minister had stated that he could not grant these increases at that stage. But the Minister did not bind himself for the future. He said that he would consider the matter at a later stage. Now that the United Party is in trouble the hon. member, as she always does, tries to step into the breach and she tells us how detrimentally this increase in tariffs has affected the economy of this country. But has the hon. the Minister not demonstrated to us by means of statistics compiled by the Chamber of Commerce that in spite of those increases we have still made progress in the industrial sphere? Did the hon. member mention this just so as to be able to say something? I think the time has come when we should be serious in this debate instead of acting as frivolously as the United Party has been doing here. All that they have done so far has been to try to belittle everything that has been done by the Minister and the Administration. That does not redound to their credit. It is a disgrace. I leave it at that because it is a waste of time to try to convince these people. The hon. the Minister has shown how badly the hon. member for Wynberg fared, and the hon. member for Drakensberg fared even worse.

I want to come to my constituency and bring a few things to the notice of the hon. the Minister. I think the Minister is aware of the fact that I have already brought this matter to his notice and that I received a written reply, but in my opinion the position is so serious that I feel I must bring it to the Minister’s notice again. I refer to the hovels which the United Party built in Langlaagte North during World War II, in which White railwaymen have to live. I asked whether it was not possible to demolish those hovels and to erect decent houses. I do not know whether the Minister is au fait with the position in this connection, but if he is not I want to ask him to cause investigations to be instituted to satisfy himself as to the poor quality of the houses in which these White people have to be content to live. I think there are at least 50 of them left. Then there is another serious matter that I want to touch upon. As soon as I arrive in my constituency, I find that people come and see me about this matter. I refer to a certain site which was set aside at Braamfontein station for ticket examiners for the parking of their cars. According to the information that I received they were promised that they would be provided with sheds in which they could leave their cars during the daytime when they are on duty and also in the evening. This particular site was cleared for parking but so far no sheds have been erected, with the result that during the daytime their cars have to stand out in the sun. I want to ask the Minister and the Administration please to go into this matter and to provide the necessary facilities there. This is very important, because there are quite a number of the Minister’s own constituents who park their cars at the Braamfontein station and who are in the same difficulty, but unfortunately I am the person to whom they come with their complaints and I have assured them that I will bring it to the notice of the Minister and I am sure that the Minister will go into it.

Then I want to ask the Minister whether he is toying at all with the idea of rebuilding or extending the Langlaagte station.

Durban comes first.

This station is no longer able to meet the demands made upon it. Langlaagte is an industrial area which is steadily expanding and the station simply cannot meet all the requirements. I want to ask therefore that the Minister should provide better facilities there. Even the platform of the Langlaagte station is inadequate. We now have apartheid there; there are two subways which are used by non-Whites and Whites respectively, but the platform is so short that when trains arrive, the non-Whites and the Whites have to detrain on the same platform, and there is so much hustle and bustle and intermingling of the races that there are many complaints about it. It is possible to extend these platforms at the southern end, and I want to ask the Minister please to give his attention to this.

I want to make a special appeal to the hon. the Minister to reconsider his attitude on this question of the doubling of the rentals of loading sites at railway stations. He said in his reply to the second-reading debate that in his opinion the doubling of the rentals was quite reasonable. I do not think that the doubling of a rental at any time at very short notice, arbitrarily, can be reasonable, and I think that in the country areas the doubling of the rental is a very unfortunate and a very drastic step that bears very heavily on the users, good customers of the Railways, and it has come at a time when the wattle industry has been hit very severely. The hon. Minister has not chosen his time very well, because he does say that the sites for loading are often used for storage and that if the people concerned, firms or individuals, had to rent sites for the storage of their goods, they would have to pay more for sites say adjacent to stations. Now in the country, Mr. Chairman, the site rental of railway stations for timber-loading facilities should be reasonable. You get station after station where the loading space is rarely used except when a few bags are put into a truck from a van. That argument does not apply when it comes to timber loading. When you take the wattle industry, I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that people who had private siding before to load firewood, to-day when they are on quota for wattle bark, they are loading perhaps only a fifth of the bark they loaded in previous years. The quota for many of us has been as low as one-tenth of what it was in previous years, with the result that firewood has also been cut down by one-fifth, and yet for that same loading site, which lies there most of the year without being used, they now have to pay double the amount they paid when the industry was thriving. So I would point out to the Minister that his remarks on that score are no reply to the wattle industry and I would ask him to reconsider his decision in relation to that aspect of the loading sites for timber.

I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister …

Again?

… on the wonderful attempt being made to improve the facilities for passengers on the trains to such an extent that it is really a pleasure to travel by train. Those of us who make use of the Orange Express, even the Opposition members who complain about it so much, will agree with me that that is so. On this occasion I particularly want to express my appreciation of the courtesy of the staff on the trains. They are very courteous and helpful. I trust that the Minister will, as soon as possible, also give us some of these new observation coaches on the Orange Express.

Then I would like to bring a second matter to the notice of the Minister, and that is the section from Kroonstad to Bethlehem and Harrismith. The Minister will agree with me that this is a very important section. It is a section where there is practically parallel transport to Durban. Whereas we have the Johannesburg-Volksrus line to Durban, here we have the line from Kroonstad-Bethlehem-Harrismith which serves the maize-growing areas. I think the management will agree with me that this section is so overloaded that whereas the scheduled time for a train from Bethlehem to Kroonstad and back is 12 hours, it now takes up to 25 hours. I notice in the Estimates that the Minister has set aside money for the extension of the deviation lines from Harrismith to Bethlehem, and I trust that he will devote his attention further to this section. But I want to ask the Minister seriously to consider electrifying that section up to Kroonstad in view of the tremendous maize production and the great burden the Railways have to bear in regard to the transportation of that maize.

A third point I want to raise is the matter of these Bantu workers on the Railways who are housed at the outside stations. I do not want to be inhuman and I personally feel that it is a good thing that their families should also live on Railway property, so that the Native may also have a home where his wife and children can stay, and I want to say that the farmers even provide schooling facilities for the children of those Bantu. I can mention numerous cases where the farmers allow the children of those Bantu working on the Railway to attend those schools. I think it is a good thing for us to render that service to them, but now we have the problem that not enough control is being exercised over those small locations and we have the problem that numbers of Bantu squat on Railway property. They stay with their relatives, and sometimes they go to the town to work and come back at night. And in many cases Bantu women also squat there and this constitutes a nuisance to the people in the vicinity, because they make and sell beer on a large scale. I just want to appeal to the Minister to exercise stricter control.

My fourth point is in regard to the transportation of livestock. I realize that the Administration is very strict in regard to the shunting of trucks carrying livestock, but I think that if the Administration gave this matter a little more attention it could considerably speed up the running times of trains conveying livestock. I often send cattle from Bethlehem to Durban and it takes three days to cover a distance of less than 300 miles, and it sometimes happens that the cattle arrive there very bruised. I just want to direct an appeal to the Minister. I know that he is a farmer himself and that the Administration does not like to see cattle injured, but I ask that special attention should be devoted to speeding up the running time as much as possible.

It is a pity that when I raise certain matters here in regard to the Railways, matters which I think are of importance to the Railways itself, the hon. the Minister tries to belittle the suggestions I make by pretending that they are unfounded or nonsensical. In all fairness I must say that I realize …

Order! If the hon. member continues along those lines, a whole debate will ensure. The hon. member should confine himself to this Head.

Yes, and that is the Minister’s policy, but I will obey your ruling. There have been cases which I have brought to the notice of the Minister and in regard to which action was in fact taken by the Administration, and I am glad of it. I do not think the Minister will be prepared to say that it was done as the result of the fact that I drew his attention to it, but I do not have in mind the matters I raised this afternoon, but those I raised formerly. I am thinking, e.g., of the fact that there is this investigation in regard to the Catering Department and that quite a number of improvements have been made in regard to dining-saloons and new lines and increased salaries for the staff. I therefore do not think that the suggestions I have made have always been unfounded. However, I think there are a few matters which I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister and on which it will be easy for him to reply. The one is this: When will finality be reached in regard to the guaranteed lines to the Bantu townships?

The agreement has already been signed.

Well, if the Minister can give us any details I shall be glad. But I am glad to know that the agreement has been signed. We have been awaiting it for a long time. The Minister also indicated in reply to a question that the Catering Department is being investigated.

Order! That does not come under this Head.

Where I am now criticizing the Administration under Head 1, will you allow me to discuss also the administration of the Catering Department?

No, that may be done under other Heads.

Very well, Sir. There is one matter which I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister, namely the Sick Fund and its administration. As you know, the Sick Fund is something in which the railwaymen are intensely interested and the Minister has indicated that there have been tremendous delays by the Sick Fund in paying accounts. During the past year there were delays in regard to no fewer than 904 accounts. That indicates that there is something wrong in the administration. I wonder whether the Minister will not consider instituting a similar investigation in regard to the Sick Fund as is being done at the moment in regard to the Catering Department. It would seem that something is not quite right in the administration of the fund when one sees that since January 1961 no fewer than 140 medical officers resigned from the fund. I think that is unnecessarily high, and I hope the Minister will do something to improve the position. There are quite a number of other subjects which I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister, but I shall do so later either under the relevant heads or by means of an amendment.

It may not perhaps be general knowledge to us here in the Cape what progress has been made over the past year in connection with the facilities provided by the Railways for the conveyance of perishable products. These facilities have greatly improved, particularly in the warm parts of our country—those parts which have to provide vegetables and fruit at certain times of the year to the rest of South Africa. That is why it is possible to-day to buy highly perishable vegetables from the Transvaal in Cape Town at certain times of the year, something which was not possible a few years ago. The faster transportation services which have been instituted have made this possible and the loading facilities have been so improved that the Railways have been able to receive the goods under favourable circumstances. There has also been a great improvement in road motor services. I feel that this cannot be allowed to pass unnoticed. In my own constituency two agricultural unions have expressed their gratitude for the fact that the Railways have made it possible for so many people to remain on their feet, particularly in this branch of farming. At the request of these people therefore I want to express my gratitude to the hon. the Minister and his staff. But I also want to tell the hon. the Minister that if there is one branch of our agricultural industry which is a very risky undertaking, it is the vegetable industry, and that is so because these products are highly perishable and because such enormous losses are suffered in transit in supplying the whole country during the winter. This is a part of our agricultural industry to which the greatest risks are attached because the losses in transit are higher than in any other branch of agriculture. Moreover this is an industry in which transportation is a more important item in the production costs than in the case of other agricultural products such as maize, for example. I think of tomatoes in regard to which one has heavy packing, handling and transportation costs. Because this is so, the vegetable farmers in particular were immediately affected by the 10 per cent increase in tariffs, and I am sure that the hon. the Minister has already had a reaction from them. Indeed we know that the agricultural unions have taken note of this fact and expressed their opinion, and correspondence has also been carried on in the Press in this regard. This matter has also been discussed at many agricultural congresses. I am also aware of the fact that the hon. the Minister is not only well informed about this matter but that he has replied from time to time to bodies which have approached him in this regard. But I think it is most desirable—and I want to ask the hon. the Minister to do so—that in his reply the hon. the Minister should discuss this matter and deal with it in a way which will make it easier for all of us to deal with this matter more satisfactorily. I have said that the vegetable industry is more risky than any other industry and if there is one branch of the agricultural industry which needs help it is this one. I think that the farmers deserve some assistance. Although I say to the hon. the Minister that an appreciable improvement has taken place in the transport of fruit and vegetables over the past years, I want to ask him nevertheless to consider the question of tariffs as well.

When my time expired I was discussing the position of pensioners. The hon. the Minister said that he would allow drivers to stay on two years longer. I said that I was grateful for that but I asked whether he could not extend this period by a further three years, perhaps not for the drivers, but for the other grades on the Railways, so that they could retire at a later stage and so that their pensions would be higher. I contended that a railway pensioner could earn R1,800 over and above his pension, and that his cost-of-living allowance was only taken away if he earned more than that and that his income was calculated over the whole year but on the basis of his earnings over perhaps a few months during which he works. The hon. the Minister said I was wrong. I accept that I am wrong and I am going to hand over numerous complaints that I have received from pensioners to the General Manager so that the matter can be rectified, because there must be a mistake somewhere. There are many people who are under the impression that they lose their allowance because they work for a few months and I am pleased that the hon. the Minister has now cleared this matter up. The hon. the Minister has said that this allowance which these people receive is not their lawful right but merely a concession which is made to them. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that he pays this cost-of-living allowance to these people because they were in the employ of the Railways and when he pays them this allowance he must please see to it that all of them receive it. Additional earnings ought not to result in their losing this allowance. There are numbers of drivers who retire at the age of 55. Is it human to ask that a man of 55 should stay at home and not work? Because that is what is expected of him to-day if he wants to be paid his allowances. If he goes to work he loses the allowance. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to change his outlook on this whole matter. He must accept the fact that he is paying this allowance to these people because they have earned it through years of service. The question was put to him whether he could not consolidate part of this allowance, and the hon. the Minister said he was not able to do so because the allowance and the pension come from two different funds. The one is paid from current revenue and the other from the Superannuation Fund. But if the hon. the Minister really wants to find a solution, he will be able to do so. My argument is that the hon. the Minister should adopt the attitude that these people deserve this allowance and he should try therefore to ensure that this allowance is paid to them in such a way that they receive it even though they are working. I have spoken about drivers who retire at the age of 55 years but I have in mind the case of a man who retired at the age of 60, an ordinary worker on the Railways, who receives a pension of R35 a month. Can he stay at home and live on that pension without working? Of course not. He therefore goes out to work and thus loses his allowance.

His income must be more than R1,800 before he loses his allowance.

I agree, but I come back to my argument that these people receive a cost-of-living allowance because they have been in the service of the Railways for so many years. The hon. the Minister must not adopt the attitude that because their income exceeds R1,800 per annum, they cannot be paid the cost-of-living allowance.

But there is another matter that I want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister and that is the position of civil draughtsmen in the railway service. These young men must have matriculation and then they have to serve four years’ pupilage before they qualify. Now something else has happened. The hon. the Minister has now agreed that advanced artisans with technical certificates may also start as draughtsmen.

That has been so for years.

Then it has been wrong for years. The young man who is required to have the matriculation certificate and to serve four years pupilage gets a salary of R2,175 in his seventh year. But in his eighth year the artisan earns a salary of R2,700, while the draughtsman who has had to serve a pupilage only earns R2,700 in his 14th year. Only then does he catch up with the artisan who receives R2,700 after seven years. This civil draughtsmen section was set up by the hon. the Minister, and I think it is no more than right that when they qualify they should at least start on the same salary scale as an artisan who starts on R2.004. It must be remembered that the artisan starts on R720 and once he has had five years’ service he earns R2,004, while the other man starts on R1,050 and then he receives R1,275 once he has qualified after a pupilage of four years. [Time limit.]

A stranger sitting in the gallery in this House listening to the speeches made by the Opposition may easily gain the impression that this Minister of Transport is a person who has no affection for the railway workers at all.

Quite correct.

But it is this Minister himself who has won and retained the confidence of the worker and to whom the workers look for redress. If there is one aspect on which we are all agreed it is probably the long-distance train services that we have to-day. It is a pleasure to undertake these journeys and this is something which redounds to the great credit of the Railways. But there is one aspect which I should like very much to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister and that is the suburban train services, particularly on the Reef. We all concede that as far as those services are concerned it is a world-wide phenomenon that the conveyance of peak traffic at peak hours creates problems. Although improvements have been effected to those services year after year, I still want to make a plea to the hon. the Minister this evening. When we look at the figures we find that there is a drop in the number of passengers over long-distance journeys. We find that as far as suburban train services are concerned, there has been a tremendous increase this year of more than 9,000,000 passengers. It is not only Natives who make use of these services but also Whites. I want to urge upon the hon. the Minister that better provision be made for these workers whether they be Whites or non-Whites. When we look at the platforms we find that morning and night the workers have to stand there in wind and rain and I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the time has not come when we should have a shelter over the whole platform. When we look at the wonderful station at Johannesburg—and all the credit for this goes to the hon. the Minister and his staff—and when we look at the fine station which is being erected in Cape Town, we are very grateful for these things, but I want to make a plea for the smaller stations on the suburban services. Something must be done in that regard. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) must not interject so frequently.

When we note that more than 294,000,000 passengers make use of the suburban services every year and we realize the difficulty which the hon. the Minister has during peak hours, I want to ask whether the time has not come for us to do research in connection with the various types of coaches which are used. Bearing in mind the number of women who are on their feet the whole day in the factories and who have to stand while travelling home in the evenings by train, I contend that there are too many doors in those coaches. Why should there be so many doors and why should there be doors between the coaches? We have various bodies doing research but all that those passengers want is a place to sit down. They do not want a luxurious seat. I want to ask that improvements be effected because after all the people who make use of the suburban services are the people who will eventually make use of the long-distance train services and when we see that only 6.8 per cent of the total number of people who make use of our train service also make use of long-distance train services, then I contend that the reason why more people do not make use of our long-distance services is because they think that the conditions obtaining on the long-distance services are the same as the conditions which they have to endure each day in travelling to and from their work. I ask the hon. the Minister to give his attention to this matter because some relief in this regard is urgently required on the Reef.

I wish to raise some questions which arise out of the Minister’s policy. I should like to know from the Minister whether he could make a statement about the position of the main railway lines passing the township of Carltonville. As the Minister knows, there have been certain subsidences of the earth in the area which resulted in a tragedy at the West Driefontein mine. As a result there is a general fear on the part of the travelling public over those lines that another tragedy might occur as a result of further subsidences in the area. As I understand it, the line passes over the dolomite formations in which these subsidences have occurred. Therefore, I think the Minister ought to take this opportunity of assuring the travelling public over those lines that the Administration is watching the position very closely and that every effort is being made to divert the line concerned.

Then I should like to deal with the staff position of the Railway Administration. The Minister will remember having stated that it was his policy to reduce the staff complement of the Administration as far as is possible. And, indeed, a perusal of the estimates of past few years, bears this out. I want to be fair; I think I should state that the Minister stated that the number of staff was being reduced on account of the fact that the capital works programme was nearing completion. The figures in this connection are very interesting. We find that from 1959 to 1963, there was a total reduction of about 20,000 staff units. According to the present budget, however, there has been an increase of 2,738, and for this increase we are being asked to make provision. If we examine the Estimates more closely, we find that there has been an increase in staff only in respect of certain spheres of activity—for instance in the publicity and advertising section, the maintenance of the permanent way, the maintenance of rolling stock, on grain elevators, tourist services, lighthouses and airways. In only one instance has there been a reduction, i.e. in respect of the maintenance of harbour assets. In view of these facts I should like to know from the Minister what his policy in this respect is especially keeping in mind the efficiency programme, savings, etc. Is it his policy to create new posts? Under the Vote relating to headquarters we find that additional expenditure amounting to R89,000 is being asked for and that primarily for additional staff. Is this as a result of new reorganization, new methods of administration, or what? I ask this because I understood the Minister to say that it was his policy to reduce the staff complement of the Administration as far as that was possible. He also admitted that there was redundant staff. This is the first financial year for some years that an increase of staff is being asked for and I cannot, on the strength of these Estimates, say that that is due to an extension of the capital works programme. I shall be glad, therefore, if the Minister could clarify the position in this regard.

There is another aspect of the Minister’s policy to which I should now like to refer. The Minister has referred in his Budget speech to a decline in main line traffic …

Order! The hon. member cannot discuss that under this Vote.

May I then say that reference has been made to that in the report of the General Manager by stating that there has been a decline in first-class main line passenger traffic, as compared with an increase in the passenger traffic of the Airways. In the same report, moreover, certain comments are made in regard to the business approach on the part of the Airways to the question of obtaining passengers. Part of that approach manifested itself in publicizing the services which the Airways offer. The figure mentioned in this connection—which I take to be a consolidated figure—is R484,833—in other words, R484,833 was expended on Press advertising with the object of obtaining passengers for the Airways. Expenditure on additional items of publicity, such as window displays, promotional printed material, give-away items, etc., totalled no less than R213,000. The total expenditure on advertising, therefore, amounted to approximately R576,000. Let us now look at the corresponding expenditure for main line train services. Here we find that in promoting the services of the Blue Train or of the Trans-Karoo, for instance, only an amount of R123,300 was expended.

And let me point out that this relationship of expenditure on Airways on the one hand and the main line train services on the other hand, is being maintained in the Estimates which we are now discussing. Here the Minister is asking for a further amount of R368,000 in respect of advertising for the Airways. The Minister always refers to the business acumen of this side of the House. It would appear to me, in any case, that if the Airways had a sufficient number of passengers, while the main line trains have not, then at least some of the promotional efforts of the Administration should be directed to convincing the public that facilities do exist for providing comfortable journeys on our trains. It seems to me to be completely unbalanced considering that a paltry amount of R123,000 is being spent on advertising the facilities of travel on main line trains, in relation to an amount of almost R600,000 in respect of the Airways.

Now, I am ready to admit that as far as over-border air services are concerned, there exists great competition as between international airlines, and that in order to retain a share of this traffic certain promotional expenditure must be incurred. The relationship of these figures, however, is completely out of touch with the amount of business offering. It seems to me that by advertising the Airways to the extent that they do, the Administration is helping to convince the public that it is better to travel by S.A.A. than by means of our main line trains, because it must not be forgotten that these promotional campaigns on the part of the Administration have a tremendous effect. When you get advertisements saying that it is just as economical to travel on the S.A.A. than it is to travel on main line trains, then obviously the Minister’s efforts are diverting traffic from main line services to the Airways. A better balance should be maintained in respect of expenditure for the promotion of these two services and I should like the Minister to give further attention to this matter.

Another matter which I should like to discuss is the interest burden. This is a matter to which reference has been made in this House on previous occasions. It is, however, a matter which is of increasing concern in so far as budgeting and estimating are concerned. I took the trouble of looking up how this interest burden has grown, not since the time the Minister has taken over control of the Department, but since the time when the capital works programme of the Administration was concluded. I found that in 1959 the total interest burden represented 11.34 per cent of the total expenditure. In 1962, however, it represented 18.98 per cent, i.e. a growth of some 7.64 per cent. Looking now at the current Estimates, I find that the interest burden under the heading “Railways” alone, amounted in 1959 to about R39,750,000 compared with R65,000,000 which we are being asked to approve of in these Estimates.

Order! The hon. member is now talking about Head No. 4.

I am discussing the Minister’s policy in regard to the capital works programme.

Order! Provision is made under another Vote for a discussion of that.

I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. I am, however, not discussing that Vote, but I am discussing the Minister’s capital works programme. This I cannot do on another occasion. The point which I should like to make with the Minister is that if within the space of four years there was an increase in the expenditure on interest of about R25,000,000, then I must ask him what is the end to be. It appears to me to be inevitable it this increase in the rate of expenditure on this head is maintained, that the Minister … [Time limit.]

I want to quote from a speech which has been made here in the House and which may perhaps give rise to a certain amount of misunderstanding. The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) said the following this afternoon—

On a point of order, is the hon. member within the limits of the ruling which you gave previously on this matter?

The hon. member for Mossel Bay has asked to be given an opportunity to remove a possible misunderstanding.

On a point of order you ruled earlier that hon. members could not refer to discussions which took place during the Budget debate. May I point out that we will have a further opportunity of discussing these matters when the Bill is discussed. That is the general practice. If you are going to permit the hon. member for Mossel Bay to continue, may I say that I too have certain differences with the hon. the Minister arising from statements which I made.

May I point out that it has always been the practice in this House to give an hon. member an opportunity to clear up a misunderstanding.

If there is any objection to the hon. member for Mossel Bay making a statement now, I cannot allow him to do so because what happened this afternoon happened in a different debate. The hon. member will not be entitled therefore to make a statement in that connection now.

On the principle of give and take, we on this side of the House are prepared to give the hon. member for Mossel Bay the opportunity to make that statement now. We shall have no objection to it.

If the hon. member has stood up to make a personal explanation, we will have no objection to his doing so. If, however, the hon. member goes further than to make just a personal explanation, if he is going to defend himself, then we must, of course, have the right to debate the matter.

I just want to say that you will appreciate that I rose to explain but if there is any objection to my doing so now, I shall do so during the second or third-reading debate on the Bill.

I also want to thank the Government very much indeed for all the good work that it has done. Amongst other things there has been the regrading of the midlands line as well as the eastern line. It is noticeable that it has always been National Party Governments which have given their attention to these matters.

There is one matter to which I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister and that is in connection with the junction of the two lines. As everyone knows, the great Orange River project will shortly be started and that is why it is necessary for certain improvements to be effected to the line. The station at Steynsburg will be used a great deal and improvements will therefore have to be elected to that station. Amongst other things the platform of the station as well as the loading area will have to be improved. I also want to ask the hon. the Minister to find out whether the station at Rosmead which has not been improved upon for some time now, cannot be improved with a view to future requirements. The station is at present rather old and it must be improved in order to meet future requirements.

There are a few matters that I want to bring briefly to the attention of the hon. the Minister. The first of these deals with reflectors for goods trains. As Minister of Transport, the hon. the Minister allowed provincial authorities to make it compulsory for motor vehicles to be fitted with reflectors in an effort to combat the danger of a collision with stationary motor vehicles in the dark. I have been told on a few occasions and I have also had personal experience in this regard that on certain lines where the lighting is not so good, it is quite possible for one to collide with a goods truck, particularly if the truck has no lights. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister has given consideration to the necessity of having reflectors fixed to the sides of goods trucks?

Secondly, representations have been made, particularly from the constituency of the hon. member for De Aar-Colesberg—in this connection that hon. members will probably support me—to the effect that parents there are rather dissatisfied with the fact that when children go home during the school holidays they have to travel in mixed trains, boys and girls together, with the result that the boys molest some of the younger girls. It is true that we have ticket examiners and conductors who can be of assistance, but parents have asked me to make representations to the hon. the Minister and to ask him whether it is not possible when school children are taken home for school holidays to have a police official on the train, not with the object of arresting anyone but so as to place a damper on the surplus energy of these young boys. I bring this to the attention of the hon. the Minister for what it is worth and I shall be pleased if he will give his attention to this matter.

A third question is this: I live in the Moorreesburg constituency. The hon. member for Moorreesburg is not here this evening but I think that he would like me to bring this matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister. We have a very dangerous crossing at Hermon. We are not asking the hon. the Minister to have a bridge built over that crossing in spite of the fact that this particular road carries very heavy traffic.

This matter has nothing to do with you.

I cannot see why it has nothing to do with me. In any case, this is a very dangerous crossing and indeed quite a few accidents have already taken place there. At the particular point where the line has to be crossed, there is a great deal of shunting, particularly in the evenings. That is why I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will not give his attention to this matter and ensure that lights are installed at this very dangerous crossing.

Last year I stood up here to talk about the station building at Bonnievale. But I was off the rails then and the hon. the Minister did not reply to me therefore. That is why I want to raise this matter again. The position is that the station building is near the level crossing while the wine pressing cellars are all in the town. During the wine pressing season we sometimes find that goods trains or even passenger trains block the crossing with the result that the lorries loaded with grapes cannot get through. I have already arrived there to find a long queue of lorries loaded with grapes waiting to get through. It sometimes takes a long time for them to get through—anything from 20 minutes to half an hour.

Then there is the condition of the goods shed at Swellendam station which I want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. This is a very old goods shed which was erected years ago with rusty galvanised iron sheets. Moreover, it is far too small. Cannot we have a new goods shed built there in the near future.

A final point that I want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister is this: Six miles from Swellendam there is a station and there are a few railway houses. Because the Escom line runs close by, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will not see to it that those houses are supplied with electric light? I have already discussed this matter with the hon. the Minister and I do so again. I shall be very pleased if he can do something in this connection.

We have had pleas from members on the other side for provision of new or improved stations. I, too, should like to address the hon. the Minister in this regard. First of all, I should like him to tell us whether a list of priority for the building of new stations exists; whether it is his policy to have such a list according to which new stations or replacements for existing stations are built. I wish to speak about the station in Durban. The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) already referred to the siting of the new station and made some very interesting observations in this regard. I agree with him and support the contentions he has made. One thing which is lacking in the Durban area is a fast and efficient sub-urban train service. If such a service is to be supplied, it would be to the advantage of travellers to have a centrally situated station. Durban has a very strong claim to priority as far as a new station is concerned. Of the three major cities in the Republic, i.e. Johannesburg, Cape Town, and Durban, the first two are getting new stations. Durban is a modern and growing city but yet it has to contend with a hopelessly inadequate station with inadequate facilities. Durban has trebled its population over the past 50 years and yet it has a station which was built before Union by the old Natal Government Railways. The coat of arms of the Natal Government Railways is to-day still on the building. It is a hopelessly inadequate building and this is reaching acute proportions. This dilapidated building which stands a chance of being declared an historical monument, has been a hardy annual in this House for many years.

That is why it is disappointing to many who have hoped that Durban was going to be blessed with a new station in the not too distant future, to learn that that is not going to be. On the 6 February 1962, a Question was put on the Order Paper asking for certain information relating to renovations and improvements to the Durban station. The Question also asked—

To that the hon. the Minister gave the following reply—

Later on in the Estimates—I know I cannot discuss that matter in detail but should like to refer to it in passing—a certain amount has been allocated for the workshops at Rossburgh. During the present Session, another Question was put to the Minister. That was on the 22 February and was as follows—

To this the Minister replied “No, not at this stage”. On the next day, however, a statement was published on the front page of the Natal Mercury as follows—

So, Sir, it did appear as if something was going to happen in regard to the new station. On these Estimates, however, there is not even a nominal amount to indicate that any start will be made on the planning of the new station. Arising out of the report in the Natal Mercury, I placed another series of questions to the Minister on 1 March. I wanted to know whether The Greyville area was going to be the new site and whether any planning was being undertaken. I also asked him whether he would make a statement in regard to the project. The Minister replied that he had seen the relevant report in the Press but refused to make a statement.

I hope, therefore, that the Minister will take the opportunity now of making a statement in regard to the prospects for a new station for Durban. The entire development of the city is being impeded by the occupation by the railway workshops of valuable land in the centre of the city. In 1962 it was stated that the building of a new station was dependent upon the removal of these workshops. From these Estimates it would appear that some provision is being made for the removal of these workshops. It is, however, of importance that the Minister gives us some clarity about the prospects of a new station for Durban and also on the question as to whether it is his policy to maintain a list of priorities and what place Durban occupies on that list.

The hon. member for Umlazi asked me to reconsider the matter before deciding on a final site for the new station in Durban. That puts me in a very difficult position. It was at the special request of the City Council of Durban that I sent the General Manager to Durban to have consultation with the Council in regard to the new site of the station. I must assume that the Corporation represents the ratepayers of Durban. However, the Corporation is in favour of the site already decided upon. But now the hon. member says that the people of Durban are not He should, I think, make it out with the Corporation first. As far as the Administration is concerned, we have agreed to the new site. It will be convenient from a railway point of view. If, as I said, the hon. member is correct in saying that the people of Durban do not approve of the site, he should consult the Corporation about the matter.

The hon. member also wanted to know what was being done to improve the suburban services there. The hon. member ought, however, to be aware of the fact that we have had to concentrate on providing a new line to Duff’s Road, doubling the line to Alice Street and quadrupling the line to Booth. Consequently, nothing could as yet be done to improve the suburban services. Until such time as those works have been completed, no attention can be given to improving the suburban services.

In regard to the South Coast line, it is correct that I stated two years ago that we intended introducing some diesel rail sets. Since then I have reconsidered the matter and have found that by the introduction of these sets, very little improvement would be brought about. The position is that only a limited number of passengers can be transported by these sets, and because the line is congested, these sets will not be able to run at a speed at which they should ordinarily run. Therefore, I found that it would be much better if this line was electrified. As a matter of fact, that would be the only solution. Once that has been done, all the traffic will be speeded up—both goods and passenger traffic. It is a matter which is being considered at the present time.

Can you give us any indication of when that is likely to take place?

No, I cannot. It all depends upon the priority which I can give to that line. At any rate, I think the hon. member might live long enough to see it come about.

The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) made a strong plea for a new station in Durban. Towards that I am sympathetic. First things must, however, come first. There is an urgent need for increasing the carrying capacity of certain sections of the line—the electrification and doubling of lines, purchasing of rolling stock, and of electric locomotives. This I regard as being of more importance than the building of a new station in Durban. I have a very limited amount of capital at my disposal. The Treasury, the Cabinet and the Minister of Finance can only allocate a limited amount of capital for railway capital expenditure. As regards priority lists, I must point out that there is no priority list for the big centres like Durban. Cape Town, Johannesburg and Bloemfontein. Every city is treated on its merits. I must point out, however, that the Opposition is already complaining that capital expenditure is too high and that the interest burden is too severe. The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) referred to this tonight, and wanted to know where it was going to end. If I have to spend another R10,000,000 to R12,000,000 on the provision of a new station at Durban, I am sure to get into difficulties with the hon. member for Turffontein, because it will mean an increase in the interest burden and that for the sake of giving Durban the pleasure of having a new station! Surely, the hon. member would not like me to be in trouble with neither the hon. member for Turffontein, nor with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South).

*In so far as the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) is concerned, I want to repeat what I said by way of interjection, viz. that when a pensioner works and he is subject to the means test, and he works for three months in the year, it is not regarded as if he worked for the whole 12 months. His pension is calculated monthly. If he works during a particular month and his income from his earnings together with his pension amounts to more than is provided in the means test, his pension is reduced. However, it is not calculated over 12 months if he worked for three months only. If the hon. member has any pensioners in her constituency who have submitted complaints in this respect, that they worked for a month or two and that it was calculated as if they had worked for 12 months, she can submit those complaints to me.

The hon. member referred to the means test. There is a means test in regard to old age pensions. It is much lower than the means test for Railway pensioners. The means test for Railway pensioners is R1,800 per annum. I think that a man can live reasonably well on £900 per annum. There are thousands of railway workers to-day who earn less than R1,800 per annum. There are between 9,000 and 10,000 railwaymen who earn far less than that, who earn less than R1,200 per annum. I think R1,800 is a pension on which one can live reasonably well. This assistance is really charity granted to all the pensioners, because it is paid for out of revenue. The intention is not that the man who receives R3,000 or R4,000 per annum should get this allowance; that would be unreasonable. If he were to get it, there would be so much less left for those who really need it. I would rather assist as far as possible the pensioners who find it difficult to exist. In order to do that I must have a means test, because our funds are not unlimited. Therefore if the hon. member pleads for the abolition of the means test it would mean that all allowances would have to be reduced, because the same amount would then have to be used to give all the pensioners an allowance, and that she does not want.

The hon. member also asked that drivers should stay on until they are 63 years of age. If they want to stay on until 63, I have no objection. I think, however, that if she puts that suggestion to her drivers, she will receive a motion of no confidence. to-day they have the right to stay on until 58, but the majority prefer to retire at 55. They will certainly not agree to stay on until 63. The hon. member should first settle this matter with the drivers.

May I put a question? Is the Minister not willing to let them stay on in a different capacity and not as drivers? I did not ask that they should remain on as drivers, because the work. is too hard, but that they should be able to stay on for the other five years in a different capacity.

Surely one cannot allow anybody to stay on in a different capacity if there is no work for him in that capacity. We find it very difficult to-day to find other work for a driver who, e.g., has to be removed from the footplate as the result of weak eyesight. If that were to be done it would mean that other people would have to be dismissed to make room for the drivers. In addition, they are trained for that special work, and not for any other special work. One cannot make a driver a ticket examiner, or a conductor or a clerk. He has not been trained for it. That is why the suggestion of the hon. member is quite impracticable.

I do not want to go into the matter of the draughtsmen. It is a matter which the staff associations have already raised and discussed. The Management and I have explained why there is a difference in wages between the draughtsman who has just left school and enters the service, and the artisan who is promoted to the position of draughtsman.

The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. P. J. Coetzee) referred to the houses in Langlaagte North. He asked for them to be demolished. I should very much like to demolish those houses, but the trouble is that at the moment there are no funds to build new ones. I do not think the inhabitants of those houses would like them to be demolished and find themselves put out into the street. It is a matter which we are bearing in mind for the future.

In regard to the terrain at Braamfontein station and the shelters for motor-cars, I can only say that that is still problematical. No decision has yet been arrived at in regard to the erection of another building which must first be built before the shelters can be provided. This is also a matter on which I hope to have finality one of these days. There is no intention to rebuild or to expand Langlaagte station at this stage. That is not justified yet and there are no funds available for it.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood) was here this afternoon, I think, when I dealt with the doubling of site rentals. I gave the reasons for that. I pointed out that the site rentals were very low and that the increase was quite justified. I do not think that the small increase is such a great burden on an individual who has to pay, say, R6 per month. After all, I have to look after the interests of the Administration too. We have to pay rates on the sites and we have to provide facilities. Very often we have to provide cement floors for these sites.

[Inaudible.]

You cannot make a difference between sites outside and sites inside an urban area because they are graded on the basis of stations namely first, second, third and special grade stations. You cannot possibly discriminate in that way.

*The hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Knobel) spoke about the section from Kroonstad-Bethlehem-Harrismith and said it was overloaded. That is quite correct. That is one of the sections which has almost reached its maximum carrying capacity. Consideration is now being given to the electrification of the section between Harrismith and Kroonstad. It is still being investigated by the Planning Council, but the possibility is that this section will be electrified.

In regard to the places where Bantu live next to the railway line, I will ask the Management to go into the matter.

The running times of trains carrying livestock are speeded up as far as possible. Delays are caused by the provision that after animals have been in the trucks for a certain time they must be off-loaded to rest and to be fed and watered. The policy, however, is to speed up the running times as much as possible. Care is continually taken to see that the trains are properly handled. Special inspectors have been appointed to ensure that these trains are handled well by the drivers and that there is no unnecessary shunting, because I am very concerned about the fact that the animals are bruised and injured. Together with one of the Agricultural Departments we experimented with putting cushions in the trucks. These experiments were made in South West Africa to see whether these cushions would not reduce the bruising. It was found that it did not reduce the bruising. Experiments are still being made to see what can be done to prevent the bruising of cattle in trucks.

The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) was very anxious that I should reply to him, but he is not here now. The hon. member for Soutpansberg (Mr. S. P. Botha) referred to the increased tariff on vegetables. It is true that I received representations from vegetable growers in regard to this 10 per cent increase, but I think that if I give a few examples here of the tariffs on vegetables hon. members will realize that these tariffs are not too high. I will give the transport costs over various mileages. It is the transport of fresh vegetables for local use, canning purposes, etc. Here are a few examples. I will take it from Louis Trichardt, because that is in the constituency of my hon. friend. To take a 20 lb. bag of green beans from Louis Trichardt to Durban costs 6.18c. To send it to Cape Town costs 7.40c, or about 8d. for a 20 lb. bag of beans. To send it to Bloemfontein costs 5.28c and to Johannesburg it costs 3.58c. You will realize that that is minimal, Mr. Chairman. That is including the 10 per cent increase. To transport a 30 lb. pocket of marrows from Louis Trichardt to Johannesburg costs 5.36c; to send a 30 lb. pocket of cucumbers to Johannesburg from Louis Trichardt costs 5.36c, and to Durban it is 9.27c. I have had representations in regard to pumpkins sent from Louis Trichardt to Durban. A bag of pumpkins weighing 150 lb. sent from Louis Trichardt to Durban costs 47.91c; a 100 lb. bag of cabbage sent to Durban costs 30.91c, and to Johannesburg it is 17.88c. So hon. members will see that even with the 10 per cent increase, the tariffs on vegetables are not excessive. Now I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the approximate loss last year on the transport of vegetables was R1,861,000. The tonnage, in round figures, was 361,000, and the estimated income was R1,200,000, but the direct expenditure in transporting these vegetables was R3,081,000. This means that the Railways suffered a loss of R1,861,000 as far as the transportation of vegetables was concerned. I really consider that the farmers ought to be satisfied with that. When the Railways transport their vegetables at a loss, what justification can there be for not applying the 10 per cent increase to vegetables? That is my answer to the hon. member and I think if he explains the position to the vegetable farmers they will realize, particularly when other railway users are taken into consideration, that the 10 per cent increase on the transport of vegetables is fully justified.

The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Bezuidenhout) spoke about the suburban train services on the Witwatersrand. He asked that an umbrella roof should be built at every station to provide shelter for passengers. I would very much like to do that, but the hon. member will appreciate that it would involve a considerable capital outlay. We do provide shelter; it is not always adequate or entirely efficacious, but the building of an umbrella roof at every station on the Witwatersrand would cost many million rand. I do not think that is warranted, particularly in view of the fact that the passenger services are run at such a tremendous loss. Where it is imperative to have a shelter at a station and when it is justified, I am fully prepared to give my favourable attention to the matter. He then spoke about the passengers who have to stand in these suburban trains. Unless passengers stand, more trains will have to be run and those sections are already over-burdened. We cannot allow more passenger trains to operate on these sections. As far as having to stand is concerned, that is not peculiar to South Africa alone. I have been in other countries of the world, and there are few countries to-day where during peak hours numbers of passengers do not have to stand. It is the only way in which the passengers can be transported. In Japan the trains run on schedule and I understand that they have special persons on the platforms who, when the train stops and the doors open, push the passengers from behind so that they can be aboard at the appointed time and the train can depart. That is also the reason why there are so many doors. The fewer the doors, the longer it takes for the passengers to alight or to get in. The object of having so many doors is to expedite the getting in and out of trains so as to reduce their running time and to ensure that trains are not delayed at stations.

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) wanted to know what the position was in regard to the main line running past Carltonville. The position is that there has been subsidence. We have been drilling there to find out whether the line is safe or not. So far the reports from the geologists have been to the effect that the line is safe, but to make doubly sure the line is continually patrolled so it is quite safe for trains. I am, however, considering the building of a line from Foch-ville to Midway as an alternative route so that if anything unforeseen does happen we will have an alternative route from Potchefstroom over Fochville to Midway. That is being considered and investigated at the moment.

Has the whole section of that line been drilled?

No, only the dangerous section and that is the section close to Carltonville. A certain section between Meadowlands and Carltonville has also been deviated through a mealie land. If the hon. member goes there he will see. It was found that the line at that particular spot was not safe.

The hon. member wanted to know what my policy was in regard to increasing the staff. The policy is to decrease staff as far as possible, subject of course to this that the efficiency of the Railways does not suffer as a result. But with increased activities, increased transport and the expanding operations of the railways staff must also increase. The hon. member will notice that certain departments require more staff. There are also many vacancies which have not been filled in the past, but the employment market is much easier now and those vacancies have been filled. That is why there is provision for more staff this year than last year.

It is right that we spend much more money on advertising our air service. Of course, as the hon. member said, air services are very competitive. We have to compete with overseas airlines and to be able to compete with them successfully we must be prepared to spend money on public relations and on promoting our service and on advertising. That is absolutely essential. As a matter of fact, according to my information, there is one particular international air line which spends more money in South Africa on advertising and promoting its service than the total amount which we spend in both South Africa and overseas. We do not spend as much money on advertising our passenger services.

Don’t you think that should be promoted?

No, I do not think so. By telling people to travel by train is not going to persuade anybody to travel by train. When you advertise you have to have something to sell to the public and if you have nothing to sell it is no use advertising. What we do advertise is when we have improved services, such as, for instance, the Blue Train. We do advertise the fact that we have better coaches on main line services, when we have them; we advertise when we have lounge cars or when the train has been speeded up. But it is no use advertising generally that people must travel by train for the sake of travelling by train. You cannot persuade people to do that. The hon. member must also realize that there is no rail competition in South Africa; we have the monopoly of rail travel. We only have to compete with the motor-car.

That was not quite my point. I admitted that in regard to overseas services we had to compete with those lines but when you come to internal expenditure it seems to be quite out of proportion; the amount spent on advertising the airways seems to be out of proportion to the amount spent on advertising train travel. The emphasis is placed on air travel and people will be more inclined to travel by air than by tail and those two services should not compete.

Yes, but that is inevitable. The experience in all the countries in the world is that the rail service is losing passengers to the air service. The internal service must assist us in making a profit on our whole service, both internal and international services. We are trying to expand those services as much as possible; it is in the interests of the country. But the hon. member must remember that the revenue all goes into the same kitty, whether it is air revenue or rail revenue it goes into the same kitty.

The hon. member was concerned about the interest burden and he asked what the end would be. Well, I do not know what the end is going to be. Unless railway expansion comes to a stand-still interest will increase. That is quite obvious and it is inevitable. If the Railways have to keep pace with the growth of our economy in South Africa they have to incur more capital expenditure; when there is more capital expenditure there is more interest to be paid. You cannot avoid that, but the hon. member must remember that the Railways do not pay dividends like a private company. In other words, we have no share capital on which we must pay dividends. Our dividends are paid in the form of interest which is paid on loan capital. Obviously when your expenditure increases your interest increases. Unless South Africa’s economy comes to a stand-still, that there is no expansion in the future, capital expenditure will continue to increase. We only have capital expenditure on absolutely essential services.

But surely your rates can only carry a certain level of that interest; you cannot go on forever increasing your rates to meet that interest.

Rates have been increased over the years. The increase is not only confined to the rates on the Railways. There is not a transport undertaking in South Africa which has not increased its fares; private industry has continually increased its prices. There has been an increase in the cost of material, an increase in wages so obviously your expenditure must increase, apart from the interest. When you bring more rolling stock into service, when you have more capital assets your depreciation increases and obviously your expenditure increases year by year and will continue to do so. Unless there is an exceptional increase in the volume of traffic offering every year it becomes inevitable from time to time to increase rates. The last increase was almost five years ago.

*The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) spoke about the stations at Steyns-burg and Rosmead. He asked me to bring about improvements there. I am unable to reply in this regard, not knowing the conditions there, but possibly we can investigate the matter.

The hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) suggested that we place reflectors on trucks. This matter has repeatedly been investigated and it was found to be quite impracticable for the following reasons: The first reason is that the accidents occurring as the result of a motor-car running into the side of a train are minimal. The great majority of accidents are head on. The second reason is that it will not be effective due to the fact that most trucks are covered with canvas. Even though there are reflectors on the trucks, the canvas will cover it. One cannot put the reflectors on the wheels. The third reason is that it will result in a tremendous expenditure which cannot be justified.

The hon. member also asked that police should be appointed to keep children in order on certain trains. I do not think the public would like our appointing special police. Instructions have been given to the ticket examiners to see that good order is maintained. In any case it would be a very bad reflection— at least, the parents would think so—if police were placed on the trains to ensure that children behave themselves. I do not think the parents would like that.

In regard to the crossing at Hermon, I just want to tell the hon. member that the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden) has repeatedly made representations in that regard. The matter is being considered. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. van Eeden) referred to the crossing at Bonnievale. I am very sorry if I did not reply to him last year. I can assure him that it was not done deliberately; it may have been that some of my notes got lost. I will have that crossing investigated. He alleges that as the result of shunting and the fact that trains stop here for a long time, the traffic is held up. In regard to the goods shed, I cannot reply to him, but I will have it investigated. I have no personal knowledge of that. In regard to the provision of electric light for Railway houses, that is a matter which cannot be done easily. There is a long preferent list of stations which must be supplied with electricity. Every year only a few stations are supplied with electricity because the capital is limited, and it must be done on a fair basis. It is not supplied for dwellings alone, but the activities at the station must be of such a nature that they justify the installation of electric power, because a fairly high capital expenditure is involved.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that this covers all the points raised thus far.

I want to draw the Minister's attention in a totally different direction, a direction in which a great deal of development is taking place as a result of Government policy. The Budget speech of the hon. the Minister of Transport contains for me, and I know for my constituency, sources of pleasure but these are tinged with some misgivings regarding each of his departments, Railways, Harbours and Airways. The hon. the Minister has promised a R60,000 grain elevator for East London to be built within three years and also additional heavy cranes for East London harbour. I can assure the hon. the Minister that this has been very well received in that area and I am sure I am expressing the feelings of everybody in that area in thanking the Minister for his promise. But the result of constructing a R60,000 grain elevator will mean that the ships …

Order! The hon. member cannot continue along that line; there is special provision for that under Head 11.

Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to discuss the grain elevator so much as the influence which it will have in other directions more general to the statements made by the Minister in his Budget speech. My point is that as a result of this grain elevator the ships will be able to turn in half the time and that that will release dock space …

Order! The hon. member can only discuss the Minister’s policy.

That is what I am speaking on, Sir. I am speaking on the Minister’s policy in general particularly as it is influenced by the grain elevator. The ships will be able to turn in half the time as a result of which there will be more wharfage space for more ships which will be needed for the big development which is taking place in the border area at the present time as a result of border industries and the development which is taking place in the Transkei. A great deal of concern is being felt by industry and commerce in East London that this increase in turnover which will be brought about by the grain elevator will possibly produce bottle-necks and that, therefore, unless concurrently with the construction of the grain elevator a well-balanced three year plan for advancing and co-ordinating the various services in that area is brought about, there will be serious bottle-necks and that we will be running into difficulties the same as happened in Natal quite recently.

I am thinking particularly of the need for the long-discussed link line between the docks in East London and the marshalling yards via a different route bypassing the city; the doubling of the line to Blainey and more marshalling yards at Queenstown and particularly the long-discussed regarding of the line north of Queenstown. These are all projects which have been discussed a great deal in the past because they have an important bearing on each other and on Government policy in that area.

If they are proceeding with the grain elevator this three year co-ordinating plan seems to be very essential unless we are going to have those bottle-necks. If development does not take place in respect of all these projects together we are likely to run into difficulties. There will possibly be delays in regard to the grain traffic. This will hold up the ships waiting for the grain elevator, otherwise there will be inordinate hold-ups of other traffic with ships waiting outside for other traffic.

How serious these losses can be through the lack of co-ordinated effort can be seen to-day in East London from the fact that one of the harbour tugs is now lying in the mud at the bottom of the harbour as a result of leaving work incomplete. The dredger, Sir Thomas Price, was taken away from working in that harbour to Port Elizabeth. The widening of the harbour was left incomplete. Rocks which were to have been taken away by the dredger were left there as a result of that this tug was sunk and other ships have received damage. What the final losses will be will only be known when pending investigations regarding the damage done to other ships have run their course. In the need for co-ordinating the efforts to meet the expanding traffic and other development in the border area I would like to include East London’s airport which is to-day a relic of war-time days.

You have to discuss that under the Transport Vote.

That has nothing to do with this Vote at all.

Well, then I shall leave that for the time being. I hope the Minister will regard what I have put forward as purely constructive and that he will give consideration to a three-year plan during the time when the grain elevator is being built and so prevent the possible difficulties which arose in Natal through developing one section and leaving the other sections to be dealt with at a later stage when difficulty has already been created.

I should like to bring a few matters to the notice of the Minister in connection with the line from Cape Town to Bitterfontein. At the moment there is one open crossing on the national road from Cape Town to South West which I hope will enjoy the Minister’s attention in the near future. The position is that in the grain-producing area of Pools in the district of Piketberg there is such an open crossing. It happens that at certain times of the year, during ploughing time and harvest time, when the farmers are very busy on the lands with their tractors, there are many lights in the vicinity. The result is that it is difficult for motorists on the road to distinguish between those tractor lights and train lights. Under these circumstances a number of fatal accidents have taken place. Seeing that this is now the only open crossing on the national road from Cape Town to Bitterfontein, I really hope that it will soon be replaced by a bridge over that crossing.

At 10.25 p.m. the Deputy Chairman stated that, in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.