Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned last night, I had lauded the hon. the Minister for his long service in this particular department. What I am about to say now in no way diminishes my respect for the hon. the Minister, but I believe that it has to be said. As I mentioned last night, one cannot help but reflect on how different things would have been in South Africa if the hon. the Minister had acted in a different manner to the manner in which he chose to act. I intend to point out some of those things. One cannot escape the conclusion that very often the hon. the Minister, with all his talents and drive, acted in the interests of the Nationalist Party Government rather than in the interests of South Africa. I believe it is an inescapable conclusion one must reach that very often what is of benefit to the Nationalist Party is of no benefit at all to South Africa. I believe that the hon. the Minister, despite all his talents, has not given South Africa the service he might have given had he at times acted in the interests of South Africa and not in the interests of the Nationalist Party. Let me point out one or two incidents in this regard.

The hon. the Minister, who has held this portfolio for 20 years, will recall his objections and his resistance over the years to the full exploitation of our labour re-sources. For years he dismissed appeals by this side of the House and by economists to make full use of our labour resources. For years he remained publicly silent on the issue of immigration, which could have gone a long way towards solving South Africa’s labour problem and the problems in the very portfolio he has held for so long. When this was happening, the hon. the Minister was silent. Now, of course, we have moved, very belatedly, into realms where we are making better use of our non-White labour in the Railways. One cannot, however, help but reflect, as I am quite sure the hon. the Minister does, on the wasted years for our economy, which I believe will haunt us for many generations to come. The hon. the Minister has now introduced over 6 000 non-Whites into jobs in the Railways formerly done by Whites. The hon. the Minister of Defence, who is sitting alongside the hon. the Minister, will probably recall how this Minister, during his first speech in this portfolio, resisted this very issue 20 years ago. But things have changed, and the hon. the Minister has now had to move in this direction. What is the result? The result has been that the Railways have stumbled along for 20 years and that it has always held back the economy of South Africa. In my own city of Durban the harbours are today battling to cope with the work. As a result, shipping lines have increased their tariffs. Here again is an example of what the hon. the Minister did not do. It is an example of how he did not exercise his tremendous powers as he should have done over the years. Should he have done so, should he have made better use of our labour, how much less would it have been necessary for the shipping lines to increase their tariffs because of the delays brought about in the harbours.

Turning to the question of salaries, the hon. the Minister and hon. members on that side of the House have said that salaries have nothing to do with politics, he hon. member for Yeoville, for instance, trotted out some figures. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister why he did not endeavour to take this issue of salaries out of the political realm during his 20 years in office? What has happened is that the railway employees through the years have come to know that either they are going to receive an increase before an election or that they are not going to get the increase because of an election. Either way the railwayman loses out. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister why he has resisted calls from this side of the House and from leading railwaymen themselves to have their salaries linked to a cost-of-living index so that at least the increases in salaries will not be dependent on the political winds of change and the party in power? Why did he resist these pleas for 20 years? I believe that in this instance alone, the Minister could have left a monument for himself if he could have removed out of the political arena this hardy annual of salaries. It seems to me that a person who is battling to make ends meet and who is battling to fight the high cost of living, should not be dependent upon the whims of the hon. the Minister of Transport or of any political party as to whether or not he should get an increase. In this regard I would like to draw attention again to what the hon. member for Uitenhage said last night. He said that it made no difference if a man in the Railways earned as little as R130 per month because he could always go to the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions for assistance.

Did he say that?

Yes, he said that. I want the hon. the Minister and the Government to know that I certainly will let all the railwaymen in my constituency know that the Government expects the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions to supplement the salaries it pays on the Railways. I believe that it is a disgraceful thing which the hon. member said and furthermore I believe that this epitomises the Nationalist Party’s thinking. It supports my contention over the years that the Railways and the Government have deliberately set low salaries for the railway employees to ensure that they have to work overtime in order to make ends meet. I have said this two or three times in this House and I will go on repeating it until each and every railwayman receives a salary or a wage which is due to him for the amount of work that he has done.

It will have no effect on them.

That hon. member says that it will have no effect on them. It will probably not have any effect on that side of the House because they have long since lost touch with the ordinary voter of South Africa. They ask: “Why then did they vote for us?” In the last election less people in the Railway constituencies voted for the Nationalist Party then had been the case in previous years. I want to tell the hon. the Minister, who will not be occupying this portfolio after the election, that the same thing is going to repeat itself in the coming election. The people are sick and tired of a Government manipulating their incomes according to the political climate of the day. I must ask the hon. the Minister that even if he does not do anything else before he takes his well-earned rest, he must see to it that railway salaries are removed from the political arena and from the discussions in this House. Until they do so, I for one will go on pleading for a decent income for railwaymen and for every other worker in South Africa. Surely a railwayman is entitled to have his income secured against the whims of the Nationalist Party, who have so often in the past proved to have treated them badly.

I would like to raise one or two other issues to this hon. the Minister. These are matters of probably more local content, but nevertheless matters which should be raised here. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister how many drivers in the Durban area have had their promotion blocked because they are engaged in steam locomotion. How many of them are not able to advance to the grade of special driver because they are needed in the Bay Head area in Durban? I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to institute an investigation into the conditions of the railway drivers in Durban to see just what discontent there exists amongst them in regard to their opportunities for promotion.

I am not sure what the hon. member means. Drivers’ promotion to what?

Drivers on steam locomotives to be promoted to special grade drivers. Steam locomotive drivers find their avenues of promotion to diesel or electric locomotives blocked for various reasons. It is true that it has been said that these drivers could get promotion if they went to other depots, but I think this is unrealistic. The Minister will agree that a man who is settled in a community, and who is probably nearing his pensionable age, should not be asked, merely because he wants promotion to a grade to which he is entitled, to accept transfer elsewhere.

I would also like to draw to the attention of the hon. the Minister the different matter which I have raised with him before he goes on retirement. For example, I have complained to him for years about shunting noises in my constituency. He has had investigations made and has written to me to say that these noises are not excessive. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that the noises are still excessive and I wonder why the Railways cannot follow the practice of other countries where they seem to have eliminated the noises in built-up areas. [Interjections.] Members on my left are making as much noise as the trains do in my constituency. I would also like the hon. the Minister to explain to me and to his colleagues why we find under this Government, which claims to be the protector of the White worker, that a White railway policeman has to work a six-day work week whereas a non-White railway policeman works a five-day work week. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will explain this difference to me. Perhaps the hon. the Minister too will explain to me why it is that a worker who accumulates leave before he goes on pension loses that leave if he happens to become ill just before he goes on pension.

In conclusion let me say to the hon. the Minister that I believe that he could have served South Africa to a far greater degree than he has done if he had served South Africa and not the Nationalist Party. Let me say to the hon. the Minister that I wish him a happy retirement. The Railway wheels will squeak more and the House will be less distinguished because of his absence.

Mr. Speaker, in the past few days homage to the hon. the Minister has streamed in. For the purposes of my thanks and my homage I could find no finer words or more sincere idea than in the Great Book. If it were within my power to grant the hon. the Minister anything, or if it were in the power of the railway officials of Bethlehem to do so, it would have been our desire to make the following words applicable to the hon. the Minister. They are written in the Book Esther and refer to the Jew Mordecai, who at that stage of the Jewish people’s history had made an inestimable contribution to national unity under those people. In the Book Esther, in chapter 10 verse 3, the following is written, something we would also like to attribute to the hon. the Minister—

In the English version it runs as follows—

Minister Schoeman, that is our homage to you. One knows it is not easy to produce a balance sheet of a person’s life on the basis of which the public can say that of any person. We also know, though, that if there is a love for one’s country and for one’s people that is urging one, one is able to do it. Therefore I should like to say to you, and I also want to say this on behalf of the railway officials of Bethlehem: “Thank you very much for having been available to the people and to our country, South Africa”.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think this is the opportunity or the place for the empty flattery of the Railways Administration or the railway officials, but I do think it gives one the right to respond to attacks and criticism from that side of the House. The hon. member for Port Natal, who has just resumed his seat, stated, inter alia, that the measures and decisions of this side of the House are to the National Party’s advantage and not in the interests of South Africa. However, that side of the House cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, attest to a clean record. Yesterday the hon. member for Yeoville gave an excellent indication of the honesty of this side of the House with respect to the public and the railway officials.

Do not pay much attention to what he says.

What other test can we apply to that side of the House other than a review of the days when they sat on this side of the House? I want to submit that not only was that side of the House politically dishonest as far as the railway officials were concerned, but also that they were dishonest as far as the South African public was concerned.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “dishonest”.

I withdraw the word “dishonest”, Sir. Unfortunately I cannot think of a more suitable word at the moment. When looking at their record of those years, we read in the Railways Annual Report of 1947, which appeared at the beginning of 1948, just before the election in 1948—

Then there is this sentence—

The sentence I want to refer to is: “although the Administration’s power and truckage resources were such that it was invariably possible to keep pace with this traffic ’” This was just prior to the election at the beginning of 1948. In the annual report of 1948, which appeared just after the election—i.e. within the space of a year—we read the following—

Then you cancelled all the orders.

That definitely gives no indication of sincerity towards the South African public. I have said that this is not the occasion for the empty flattery of the Railways Administration, but that we have the right to try to refute attacks and criticism from that side of the House—in many cases unfounded criticism. When one looks at last year’s annual report, one finds that the General Manager viewed the Railways’ responsibility in the following light, i.e. that the injunction laid upon the Administration by our constitutional founders is to aid the development of the country. One realizes that this responsibility is a particularly great one, but if one looks at the restricting factors that are also included in this injunction, one cannot but come forward with the true facts to refute the unfair criticism from that side of the House. In other words, it is expected of the South African Railways to help with the development of the country, but the restricting factor is that although the Railways has to institute an efficient transport system at the lowest possible rate for the consumer, this does have to be based on business principles and the necessary concessions and adjustments have to be made for agriculture and or industrial development, in spite of that, the rates must be such that the revenue will, as far as possible, not exceed a figure sufficient to cover the expenditure. When one sees these limiting factors within the framework of the responsibility of and the injunction to the South African Railways, one realizes that in so wide a field there has been a brilliantly successful achievement in having rationalization take place within the South African Railways. To be able to plan, in spite of this broad field of rationalization, and in a period like last year—probably now as well—of uncertain economic conditions throughout the world, requires an almost superhuman endeavour on the part of the S.A. Railways Administration. We can today attest with gratitude to the fact that the responsibility is being carried out by the Railways Administration. When one looks at the future prospects that were presented by the hon. the Minister in respect of the estimated surplus for the present financial year, one realizes that the planning, in spite of these uncertain economic circumstances, again attests to insight into the problems and interests of South Africa as a whole.

But not only is it expected of the S.A. Railways to meet its responsibilities in the financial sphere. It is also expected of the Railways to plan for unforeseen circumstances. I am now referring to the unexpected restrictions on the oil supply in recent months. Let us just look for a moment at the measures introduced by the S.A. Railways to bring about a saving in fuel. By the Administration alone, in the sphere of those sectors which bring in no revenue, travel by the officials was restricted to the absolute minimum. The joint use of transport by the Management and heads of departments for meetings and also for investigations is being encouraged as far as possible. Use is being made of public transport as far as possible to eliminate additional journeys. As far as transport in the sphere of the revenue earning division is concerned, various services have been reviewed with the understanding that there will be no inconvenience to the consumer public. The oil heating of buildings has been reduced to the shortest possible time without causing inconvenience. For industrial heating coal and electricity are being used as far as possible. Locomotives are not being allowed to idle at all. Then there is also the speeding up of electrification and the more efficient and intensive use of rail facilities. That is what is being done on the administrative side. But, Sir, although no reliable information exists about the extent of the possible reduction, a figure in the region of 20% to 30% is being proposed. The obvious action by the Railways is apparently to extend electrification as rapidly as possible. But such a move cannot be made at short notice, because the purchase and installation of this equipment takes a long time, and also because Escom cannot extend its power supplies to the Railways greatly at short notice. The petrol consumption by diesel locomotives, to which the hon. the Minister also referred, at present represents about 2% of the country’s total consumption. Since the beginning of the present financial year, diesel locomotives have used an average of about 25 million litres of diesel oil per month as against total consuming imports of 1 450 million and a monthly consumption rate of about 1 300 million litres. According to this it is clear that the S.A. Railways’ diesel locomotives are using only about 1,7% of these petroleum products. Therefore, if the services of all the diesel locomotives were suspended, this envisaged saving would not even nearly be equalled because, although the exact figures for private motor vehicles and private road transport cannot be quoted, about 63% of the total quantity of refined fuel is used by transport, including departmental transport. It therefore appears that road transport is responsible for the consumption of virtually the full amount of petroleum products. It is also informative that, notwithstanding the fact that a large percentage of the road transport is undertaken by diesel vehicles, petrol consumption in the country amounts to about 50% more than the diesel consumption. But now the South African Railways has been instructed to continue with the development of the country and if it is accepted that industrial growth should be tampered with as little as possible, the means of transport that can furnish the least fuel consumption per ton-kilometer and passenger kilometer must enjoy preference. In the past there has been criticism in connection with the diesel locomotives used. According to studies made at the Car-negie-Vellon University in the U.S.A. to which the hon. the Minister referred—for example to the effect that the steel on the steel tracks was not the cheapest—indicated that trains evidenced an overall efficiency of 550 ton-miles per gallon of diesel oil as against the 37,6 ton-miles per gallon in respect of road transport. This indicates to us that the proper action on the part of the South African Railways will be to extend its electrical traction within the limits of Escom’s potential, to utilize its diesel services to the maximum and to delay the steam elimination process where this is possible in practise.

As far as steam power is concerned, it must of course be borne in mind that diesel as well as electric traction can give greater capacity to a section of line than is the case in connection with steam. Another factor that must also be borne in mind is that with steam power more men are needed to man the locomotives. Therefore it is essential for the South African Railways to increase its capacity with every kind of traction which it has at its disposal and which it can obtain in the shortest possible period, but to change-over to electrification on a long term basis. That is exactly what the South African Railways will do in South Africa. It is also interesting to take note of the fact that in the case of diesel locomotives one gets from 35% to 40% effectiveness, i.e. 35% to 40% of the total energy potential of the fuel in the tank is responsible for driving the wheels. In comparison, a steam engine achieves an effectiveness of only about 7% and an electric unit an effectiveness of 85%. With further reference to savings, the saving on the part of the South African Airways was 6,9% for domestic flights and 20% for international flights.

Mr. Speaker, we have, for a moment now, taken note of the saving measures which the South African Railways introduced and the campaign launched by the South African Railways. But I think it is a good thing for another appeal to be made from this House to the consumer and the South African public to make more effective use of the services offered by the South African Railways. This is an appeal we can address to all consumers, all manufacturers and all travelling tourists, i.e. make more use of those services. One is grateful that this appeal we are making does not have to be an empty or hollow sounding appeal as a result of the services not of the best quality, because it is with pride that one can in fact recommend to the various sectors the service offered by the Railways. When we look at the train services, the named trains, or whatever one might call them, there is probably nothing to equal the Blue Train anywhere in the world. I think it would be difficult to find trains equal to the Drakensberg, the Orange Express, or even the Trans-Karoo in any country in the world. But when one looks at the transport services involved in the transportation of workers and officials, one realizes, too, that in this sphere the South African Railways offers a service that can bring about a tremendous saving in the consumption of fuel. Sir, I had a look at a time-table in the Witwatersrand area and at the service that is offered there. This is between the Johannesburg complex and places like Springs, Pretoria, Kempton Park and Randfontein. When one looks at these services that are being offered to these relevant places, one finds the timetable to cover the period between 5 a.m., when the first train departs, and 9 a.m. when the last train arrives. We find that between Johannesburg and Springs there are 12 trains with an average running time of one hour and five minutes at a monthly fare of R11-66; between Pretoria and Johannesburg seven trains with running time of one hour 25 minutes, at a fare of R13-51; to Kempton Park twelve trains with running time of 40 minutes and fares of R9-20 per month; to Randfontein nine trains with a running time of one hour and five minutes at a fare of R11-25. Weekly tickets can be obtained at the price of four return tickets or monthly tickets at the price of 16 return trips. I therefore think that one has every right to say that Railway transport is still the cheapest transport for the worker of the official in South Africa. It is indeed true that in the past year about 1 000 uneconomical passenger services were eliminated at a saving of about R1½ million, but road transport services were instituted in their place without any inconvenience to the persons making use of them. Sir, when looking at the transport of material—and here I include the road transport service and also the South African Railways—we again find that the Railways provides the cheapest transport. Sir, it is interesting that with this responsibility attributed to the South African Railways, ample provision has been made for the private contractors. In the Road Transport of Goods in South Africa by Verburgh, which appeared in 1957, one finds that 67 million tons of goods were transported by private contractors, as against 65 million by the South African Railways. In 1970 the mass of road transport was 75 million tons as against the Railways’ 119 million tons, and it is calculated that in the year 1971-’72, two and a half times more was transported by transport contractors than by the South African Railways. It is interesting to note that the difficult work is left for the South African Railways. The average route distance covered for the road transport service was 36,6 kilometers as against the average route distance of 501 kilometers in the case of the South African Railways. When the present speed restriction of 80 km is taken into account, and we accept the fact that the most important complaint against the S.A. Railways concerned the question of time, then this objection is also eliminated and one can make an appeal to the consumer and the manufacturer to make more use of the services which the Railways service offers.

Sir, I think there is a further basis for an appeal to the public that greater use be made of the services of the South African Railways, and that is on the grounds of loyalty. Sir, it so happens that reference was also made yesterday to the fact that the South African Railways has 229 000 officials and labourers in its employ at the moment, with an annual salary of about R500 million. The orders placed by the South African Railways amount to about R500 million per year. On this basis I think that the S.A. Railways can rightfully lay claim to the loyal support of the public, the consumer and the manufacturer. When a comparison is made with other commercial spheres, it is found that the S.A. Railways’ annual purchases equal South Africa’s annual exports to Japan, the U.S.A. and West Germany put together. About three-quarters, or R342 million, of this is spent in South Africa. It is so easily stated that it is not necessary to be loyal to the Railways because the contracts offered by the Railways are such that no small industrialist can compete. But the largest single order for rolling stock of R42 million for 650 main line passenger coaches was granted to a South African company at Nigel. Sir, when note is taken of future planning and the value that can be obtained by the manufacture of electric and diesel locomotives at R200 000 for an electric locomotive and R225 000 for a diesel locomotive, one realizes that a tremendous field lies open here to the industrialist. One can also add that some of these orders that are now being placed in South Africa for rolling stock, have a local content as high as 70%, and in some cases even 75%. When one looks at the smaller orders, one finds that there are also opportunities for the smaller industrialist in this sphere. Sleepers are ordered at a rate of 800 000 per contract, and annually R2,5 million is spent on nuts and bolts alone, R2 million on clothing, and R10 million on coal; R2 3 million on a small item like paint and R2,7 million on stationery. Sir, when one looks at this one realizes that there is also a responsibility resting on the consumer, the manufacturer and the tourist to give more support to this organization, in the interests of the South African Railways, with a view to the extension of its services, and then it will not be necessary for the hon. member for Durban Point to have to come with requests for initiative on the part of the Railways for the transportation of motor cars, etc.; there are enough spheres in which the S.A. Railways offers a service that we can use in South Africa. One realizes that the value of the South African Railways for the development of the industries, for the spending of money, if one looks at the total payroll, is so great that no one can fail to appreciate it, but I also believe that if we make more efficient use of the S.A. Railways, its contribution in the fuel saving campaign will also be indispensable.

Mr. Speaker, only this in conclusion: During the past recess I had the privilege of attending several meetings of various staff associations in the S.A. Railways, and without exception the message from railway official to railway official was that service must be given, because only by giving service, as they put it, can the revenue of the S.A. Railways be increased, and only if the revenue if the Railways is increased, is there a reasonable hope of salary increases. Sir, the hon. the Minister has frequently said that the railwaymen know where they stand as far as he is concerned; if there is money and they can make out a case for themselves, they can obtain an increase. Although we do not know who the next Minister of Transport is going to be, we at least know that he is sitting on this side of the House, and we want to express the hope that this standpoint of the present Minister will also be adopted by Ministers in the future, i.e. that when the railway officials furnish a service, and when the money is available, the railway officials will also be given recognition for their service. Yesterday the hon. member for Umhlatuzana said here: “Once a railway official, always a railway official.” Sir, I think one can also add this: “Once a railway official, always vote Nationalist.”

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Bethlehem will forgive me if I do not comment on his speech; it was very informative. I have a number of other subjects to raise with the hon. the Minister. I want to say, first of all, that the hon. the Minister has received so many bouquets over the last couple of days that I doubt very much whether he would miss it if he did not receive one from me. However, Sir, I must say that I was here when the hon. the Minister delivered his maiden speech 20 years ago as Minister of Railways and I was still here yesterday when he delivered his swansong as Minister of Transport, and therefore I do want to associate myself with these members here who wished him a long and happy retirement. I would like to add this rider: I hope he does not spend too much of his time in shooting our wild life during that period.

Sir, I do want to hand out one bouquet, not to the hon. the Minister but to one of the departments under his jurisdiction, and that is the South African Airways. As one who is a frequent user of South African Airways and as one who uses many airlines overseas, I have no hesitation in saying that I regard South African Airways as one of the best airlines in the world today, both in its record of safety and its record of punctuality. I must also commend it for a couple of bright ideas which it has put into practice over the last year or so. The one is what was introduced on the Jumbo jets, the separate vanity cabinets, so as to relieve that ghastly pressure on the toilets in the early mornings. I think all overseas travellers will know what I am talking about, those anyway who use the economy class. The other excellent idea which appears to be bearing fruit is the idea of the air-hotel combination whereby people can spend 10 days or more at a first-class hotel for very little more than the return air fare. I think those are two excellent ideas and I would like to commend the Airways for it.

Now I want to raise a subject with the hon. the Minister which will bore him, I know, because I have raised it on several previous occasions, but I want to take this final opportunity of raising it with him in the hope that perhaps he will pass on some of these ideas to his successor. That is about the provision for improvement on the railway lines between the African, Coloured and Indian townships, and the industrial areas and central city areas which they serve. To a large extent, in fact to an enormous extent, these cities are dependent on the labour provided by these townships and it is common knowledge to all of us that all these trains are grossly overcrowded and that people spend many hours getting to and from work, with the resultant bad effects on productivity, not to mention of course the constant friction as far as race relations are concerned. We have read and heard a great deal lately about the removal of petty apartheid by city councils and other local authorities but I can think of nothing that causes more harm to race relations than the double daily dose of discomfort which is experienced by Black workers, particularly Africans but also others, in travelling to and from work, day in and day out, and year in and year out. One merely has to go to the stations at peak hours to understand something about the overcrowding and the acute discomfort in which these passengers have to travel.

I want particularly to say something about the Soweto line because I am more familiar with that than with the others. I believe something like a quarter million passengers are using the Soweto line today. The hon. the Minister has agreed in the past that the position is highly unsatisfactory and he certainly has done something to improve matters over the years, but to my mind of course not nearly enough. He has doubled the lines and has put on more coaches and more trains, etc., but the situation overall remains extremely bad. I believe that forward planning is sadly lacking. I know that the hon. the Minister has inherited a bad system and bad planning. I have always said that it was absurd for South Africa to plan her townships all in one geographic area so that early in the morning there is an enormous number of people moving from point A to point B and later in the afternoon the same enormous number back from point B to point A, instead of scattering the townships on the perimeter of the city so that there is not this tremendous pressure on the same lines. He has inherited that bad planning, and I am hoping that if he is asked to make any comment about future planning, he will have something to say about the geographic distribution of the townships serving our large metropolitan centres. I think a lot of this forward planning is perhaps still due, although I must say it astonishes me if this is true, to the idea that by 1978 the urban population, the Black population, will be streaming back to the homelands. 1978 was that magic year coined by Dr. Verwoerd, although he could never give any reasons as to why it should be 1978, and those of us who have been here quite a long time, now realize that it is only four years ahead to 1978, and of course we see no sign whatever of the prediction of Dr. Verwoerd coming true in this respect. All population projections which are made on that basis must therefore be discarded. One must be realistic and understand that greater pressure is going to be put on these urban railways, both because of the natural increase and also because of the increased numbers of Blacks that are going to come into the cities. It is true that we had a few euphoric ideas from the hon. member for Carleton-ville the other day when he suggested to us that Black workers, migrant workers, would soon be visiting their families daily, weekly, or monthly, when all the rail services and other transport facilities were provided. Frankly, I do not see this happening for very many years. I doubt if we ought to attempt to provide for that sort of thing. We do, however, certainly have to provide for the urban population that is permanently in our midst.

The hon. the Minister’s responsibility for the future will soon end, but I wonder if he will tell us whether the plans which were mentioned in the House in 1971 by the hon. member for Langlaagte regarding an increased number of coaches have yet been finalized. He mentioned that there would be new sliding-door coaches and said that they ought all to be in service by the end of 1973 on the Soweto-Johannesburg line. He told us that these coaches would be able to take a 25% increase in the number of passengers. I should like to know whether this has in fact been accomplished.

I wonder, too, whether the hon. the Minister will do something about ensuring that there are more railway police on this particular line. I cannot stress too strongly what a hazardous business it is for Africans simply to get home from work on Fridays, which are pay days, or on those days, for instance just before Christmas, when factories and building and construction firms close for the Christmas holidays and it is known among the thugs and the tsotsis that workers will be travelling home with fat pay-packets. Even at other times these thugs and tsotsis make the lives of the decent, hard-working citizens an absolute misery every day and it is absolutely hazardous for these people to get home. If there is one thing which would earn the everlasting gratitude of these decent, ordinary citizens and workers, it would be to know that instead of being harassed by the police for passes and so on, they were sometimes being given protection by the police against people such as the thugs and tsotsis I have described, who prey upon them.

I want to mention one or two things about other centres, although I say at once that I am not as au fait with the situation in the Cape or in Durban as I am with the Johannesburg situation. I have withdrawn a question which I had on the Question Paper for next week about the provision of a railway link between Mitchell’s Plain and Cape Town because I should like to have the hon. the Minister’s answer across the floor of the House. As we know, Mitchell’s Plain is between 27 and 30 km from Cape Town. I know that negotiations have been proceeding between the hon. the Minister and the Cape Town city council for a number of years on this question. Mitchell’s Plain, I gather, is the only available piece of land for future residential townships for Coloured people living in Cape Town. It is absolutely essential that something be done to expedite the provision of houses. There is an estimated shortage of housing for 30% of the Coloured people in Cape Town.

Thirty per cent of them need housing, and the projections are quite frightening. Heaven knows how many thousands of houses will be needed by the year 1980. Some very frightening projections for the future have been made by Prof. S. P. Cilliers on this question. I know that the immediate waiting list is for 16 000 houses. Sixteen thousand families are on the waiting list. As everybody knows, the waiting list is in fact a gross underestimate of the number of houses required because many people do not even bother to put their names on the list; they know that there are people whose names have been on the list for as long as eight years and that they do not have a snowball’s chance of getting a house.

Also, of course, everybody knows that in any case half the houses that are built by the city council are immediately snatched by the Department of Community Development in order to rehouse people who are being moved under Group Areas proclamations or under slum clearance schemes. Mitchell’s Plain is, I understand, planned to accommodate about ¼ million people eventually. The hon. the Minister has in the past admitted that since resettlement in group areas is part and parcel of overall Government policy, the Government therefore must take the responsibility of subsidizing transport to these outlying areas. I know that he has given certain undertakings to the council about Mitchell’s Plain. He has stated that the many improvements which are going to be required before there can be a proper railway link are already under consideration and being planned. I know that this involves the quadrupling of several lines, the doubling of other lines, the improvement of the stations and the provision of better signal boxes, etc.; all that is common knowledge. I believe most important of all is to improve the position as far as the Salt River junction is concerned because unless this is done; it would be quite hopeless even to provide the railway link since the junction is already stretched to its limits. Certain planning would have to be undertaken in order to make this whole scheme feasible. What I would like to know is how far this planning has gone and whether actual construction has already taken place.

I know that the Interdepartmental Committee has approved the scheme in principle, but I understand from a cutting from The Argus of 7 November 1973 that the Joint Technical Transport Committee under the chairmanship of the System Manager of he South African Railways has approved the construction of the railway together with the allocation of capital funds which, according to the report “will be sought at the next session of Parliament”. This brings me to now because this is “the next session of Parliament”. But I cannot see anything on the Estimates. I have searched through the Estimates and I may have missed it but I see nothing on the Additional Estimates relating to this particular plan. I also obtained the Brown Book of last year and have gone through that. Although I may have missed it, I see nothing on the Estimates. Therefore I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us before he departs, what actually has been done in order to provide this vital railway link between Mitchell’s Plain and Cape Town.

Now I want to raise a few miscellaneous matters with the hon. the Minister. Three years ago, when the hon. the Minister and I were still on speaking terms—we are now only on debating terms because the hon. the Minister is on my list of unspeakables and he knows why—I raised the question with him of the inadequate facilities provided on third-class carriages. I referred to the unequal facilities provided on the second-class trains for non-Whites, compared with the second-class facilities for Whites. I believe that the situation is still pretty bad.

For instance, and I am going to give him only one example since I have no time to give more, on 12 January this year, the Natal Mercury reported that hundreds of Africans spent 18 hours standing on the Durban to Johannesburg train in third-class carriages without any food, water or toilet facilities. I believe that is a shocking state of affairs. The explanation that was given was that there were no booking facilities for these third-class compartments on the trains. I think that is a most ridiculous situation. These are long distances that are being travelled and there were many children on the train. The whole situation was chaotic. The least one can do is to provide proper booking facilities for third-class passengers. As I say, I would like to know too what is being done to equalize the services. I know that we have a Separate Amenities Act which was passed in 1953—the first year I came to Parliament—which states that there is no duty on the Government to provide separate but equal facilities, unlike the position in the U.S.A. Nevertheless one would imagine that there would be an attempt in this day and age to level up on the provisions of these separate facilities and on the quality of those separate facilities.

There is no food for Whites on those trains either.

Well, there may very well be no food for Whites on certain trains, but there are restaurant facilities to the best of my knowledge, in most of the second-class carriages. Yet there are many second-class carriages where there are no restaurant facilities for Blacks. That is my complaint, among other things.

Then there is another example I would like to give. For instance, the Natal Mercury also reported on 9 January of this year that the midnight train service to Chatsworth was discontinued without any prior notice at all so hat hundreds of waiters and other late-night workers simply found themselves stranded and unable to get home.

On what date was that?

I think it was on 9 January, but I cannot swear to it. I think that this shows a remarkable lack of consideration for people who, after all, are among the hon. the Minister’s passengers. I think he ought to take more care of them.

The third example I want to mention is the 16% increase in fares between the terminal points in Chatsworth, Kwa-Mashu and Umlazi to the centre of Durban. This increase was introduced at the beginning of last year again without any prior warning. Not that this would have helped the overall economic situation, but at least workers would not have been shocked, when coming back from the Christmas vacation, to find that these fares had been increased. For workers who are already below the poverty datum line at 16% increase in fares is a serious business. The concession ticket went up from R2-85 per month to R3-30 per month.

It is considered that this was one of the direct reasons for the strikes in Durban last year, because workers already below the poverty datum line found this an enormous hardship. There too, I would like the hon. the Minister to advise his successor not to allow the Railways to be as greedy as they are in trying to snatch all the road transportation services. I will give an example of this. The Railways applied to the Road Transportation Board to oppose the renewal of bus licences to the Indian bus owners who were providing a valuable commuter service for Chats-worth workers. What was the point of that? The Railways said that they were providing an adequate rail service, but what they forgot to say was that the railway line apparently runs right round the periphery of the township and workers have several miles, as much as five miles I understand, in some cases, to walk from the periphery where the rail service is provided to their homes inside the township, whereas the buses drive right inside the township.

Are there any feeder services?

Yes, but it is very expensive. I think it was quite wrong for the Railways to oppose the renewal of these licences. What is more, my view was upheld by the Appellate Division, which chucked out the decision of the Transportation Board and allowed the bus owners to have their licences renewed. This I think is something which should not occur, and the hon. the Minister should see that his successor uses a little better judgment in that regard.

Finally, I would like to raise three less contentious but quite important questions. The one is simply a question; I wonder if the hon. the Minister can give the House any information about when the national airport at George is going to be completed.

Do you have a plot at George?

Not at George, but nearby. I have to admit to a personal interest in this. I had better disclose it at once, but I am anxious to know. The second matter is perhaps a little less contentious. I notice that the hon. the Minister said when he made his speech yesterday, which I have read very carefully, that “the decision to extend the employment of women and non-Whites has paid handsome dividends”. I like the way we oppressed classes are lumped together! I would also like to ask the hon. the Minister what he is going to do about the rate for the job in this regard. I believe it is quite wrong, although I know that many jobs which are done by Whites are often highly paid simply because they are being done by Whites. I know it is important to get a proper job valuation, but I think the discrepancy in what is paid to Black workers who are doing jobs which White workers used to do, is very great indeed. I do not know what the position is with women and whether the hon. the Minister is underpaying members of my sex when they take over jobs which were formerly done by men. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Houghton deal in the main with the problems of Bantu transport. I was overseas last year and I can assure the hon. member that these problems concerning peak hour commuter transport are not confined only to South Africa. You find them throughout the world. I think it is a difficult problem, but I think to a very great extent the hon. member has given the answer to her own problem by telling us about the difficulties experienced in regard to the Mitchell’s Plain railway line. She told us that the Railways were busy with the planning of this railway line. That is the answer to the problem; the Railways are busy planning this project and all traffic offered will be transported by the Railways to the best of its ability.

*I should also like to link up with the other members who thanked the Minister of Transport for what he has done over this long period. In contrast to other people, I can tell him that he has said “no” to me more often than “yes”. I began by asking him to broaden the narrow line in the Humansdorp constituency, and he thought fit to say “no”. What I appreciated about him is that when he said “no”, one knew it was “no”, and one knew there was a good reason for it. It was not a case of “yes and no”. Although he could not broaden the line, he did do his best to keep that line as productive as possible. He improved the permanent way for us and sent along diesel locomotives which will greatly improve the traffic. Here I just want to lodge one plea. A train such as that narrow-gauge train is a tremendous tourist attraction. In America I saw thousands of people standing in a queue to ride on such a train, particularly when it is a steam train to boot. I think there is a lot to be said for keeping such a train there, even if it is only for the tourists who would even come thousands of miles to ride on such a train.

The United Party tried to make out a case here, and they put forward four points. For a moment I should like to go into it four proposals they made. The first proposal is that uneconomic services should be financed from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. That unds very fine, but what would the consequences be? We would have to increase taxes because the Consolidated Revenue Fund would have to be supplemented from taxes. This would, of course, give inflation a further boost. The man in the street, for whom the United Party is so fond of putting up a fight, will then have to pay more income tax.

Let us look at their second proposal, i.e. that the basic wages of labourers from sub-economic grades on the Railways—that is what they call them; I do not acknowledge that this is the case—must be increased. What would the result be? In the first place this would narrow the gap between the lower income groups and the higher-income groups, which would perhaps not have a desirable result for a business undertaking. Is it not perhaps just the reverse? Must one not perhaps pay one’s higher grades even more than the lower grades? Is it a good thing to reduce that gap? If one wants to increase the wages of the lower groups and one wants to adapt those of the higher groups to them, as they propose, the necessary money must come from somewhere. Where are they going to get it? This would necessitate an increase in rates so as to find those wages. This is a further cause of inflation, because the increase in railway rates, as we know, permeates the entire economy. It would give further impetus to this inflationary spiral we are fighting against.

Let us look at their third proposal. They want the more rapid transport of passengers and goods, particularly with respect to transport to the outskirts of the cities. What is the solution there? In the large cities throughout the world tube trains are being built, but only at tremendous cost. Not millions of rands, but hundreds of millions of rands, even thousands of millions of rands are involved in such tube train systems. Therefore the money necessary to supply faster transport is also going to encourage inflation. Such systems today cannot solely be financed from revenue. They must also be heavily subsidized either by the State, by a utility company like the Railways or by local bodies such as municipalities. This would mean that even there increased taxes would have to be levied, which would be a further cause of inflation.

Today I want to speak a while about our harbours. One grows concerned to think that one day the Suez Canal is going to be opened. What is the effect on our harbours going to be? Have we done the right planning? Should we perhaps be planning differently? The increasing costs also give reason for concern. Is this not going to affect our export trade adversely. I read a bit from the report of the Reynders Commission, and I think they sum up very well the situation and the duty of the State, the Railways, in respect of this matter. I quote—

Sir, I have quoted this to indicate how important it is that planning should be correct planning, that the costs should not be too high and that the State should also make a contribution to assist in the export of our products.

We now find that there are many new avenues in transport, particularly at sea. There are many possibilities that have to be investigated. Difficult decisions must be taken. A wrong decision will entail tremendous costs. As an example I want to mention the position of our export fruit. The conference lines appointed a study committee to investigate the replacement of the present conventional ships by new types. After three years of study they found that there were, in actual fact, only two new methods which were worth considering, i.e. container ships which are fully containerized, or the “roll-off-roll-on” ship. They subsequently made an intensive study of them and worked this matter out very well. It is interesting that these container ships can transport about 2 400 containers, 400 to 500 of which can initially be used for perishable products in general. This means that a quarter of a million tons of perishable products would be transported during the 35 week season if they build 12 such ships. This would be able to supply a very good service; they will supply a fixed six or sevenday service and touch at Lourenço Marques, Durban and Cape Town, and freight will be unloaded in Southampton, Rotterdam, Hamburg and possibly Antwerp and Bremen. This is ideal for our fruit export. But if we now look at the cost of these container ships, the picture is slightly different. Based on present shipbuilding costs and other costs, which were fixed in 1973, freightage will come to an estimated figure of approximately R1-21 per carton of citrus fruit. This still does not include the cost of the necessary pallets. By comparison, the price today is 86 cents per carton. This means, therefore, an increase of about 30%. The “roll-on-roll-off” ships are also a very practical possibility, but if one looks at the cost of these ships, one finds that they would entail a freight cost of R1-34 per carton as against the said 86 cents. We see, therefore, that these new avenues are going to entail much greater costs. One is also concerned because one must equip harbours to handle these container ships. Is this not also going to mean that we shall have to ask higher prices of our exporters for the use of these harbours? I should like to obtain an assurance from the hon. the Minister that this matter will also be kept in mind and that exports will not be restricted in this manner. However, we are aware of the fact that the hon. the Minister is doing good planning in connection with these container harbours.

I just want to mention a few facts in connection with the Durban harbour. After an investigation and consultations with interested shipping lines, it was decided to provisionally introduce unit freight handling and container handling in Durban Harbour. Shed No. 107 was specially set aside and equipped for this purpose, and the first ship, the “Thorswave”, which fully complied with the requirements of a unit freighter, docked at the quay on 15 November 1973 to be loaded. The handling and control of the freight was undertaken according to guidelines that have been laid down, and the satisfactory result of 36 mass tons per crane-hour, about 55 harbour-tons per crane-hour, was achieved. By comparison an average of only about 15 harbour-tons per crane hour is achieved with loose freight. This is consequently a very great improvement. This new handling technique holds promise. It created wide interest and favourable comment was forthcoming from various sources. We see, therefore, that the Administration is dealing with this matter, and I am glad to learn that Port Elizabeth is also planning to establish harbour facilities for container ships.

What about the whistles in my constituency?

I do not know what the hon. member’s problem is. He will have to come and tell me what his problem is. The Administration is engaged on big schemes in connection with our harbours. We think of Saldanha; we think of the Table Bay harbour, and in this connection I have noticed, in the Additional Estimates, that R100 has now been made available for spending in connection with the third phase of the Table Bay harbour, and we cannot but say that the Administration is trying to keep pace with the problems and needs of our country. They do not only look at the big things. The Administration also takes a look at bringing about savings, for example with the documentation that is necessary for freight. In this connection new methods have been worked out. There is a suitable composite document which they call a “transit letter”. This is for coastal freight, and serves as a shipping order, makes receipt, freight letter and release, delivery and dispatch order. This document was designed and introduced on 1 January in addition to the existing method of clearance. The advantages of this scheme involve the simplified way in which the one basic document is prepared for reproduction instead of the completion and reproduction of several documents under the existing method. In this way, through the utilization of modern computer systems, the harbour authorities are also mechanising, and in this way they are bringing about a saving in costs. Just like other sectors in our country, our harbours have staff difficulties. Yesterday and today we heard quite a bit about the staff problems, and I do not want to go into them again. I just want to say that there is also a rapid staff turnover in our harbours, and that is why they have begun to use women as tally clerks in Durban; non-Whites are also used in jobs which were previously done by Whites, but this replacement of Whites by non-Whites is always done in co-operation with the staff associations, and that is why it also creates satisfaction and why one never hears White staff complaining.

Sir, our harbours, a section of the S.A. Railway, is also doing a tremendous piece of work for our farmers in that our export products are handled there. We owe thanks to them for what they are doing in this connection. Often this work is done under great pressure. We have in mind, for example, the export of large quantities of maize when there is too much maize for local consumption. The harbour staff must then work day and night to handle this. Sir, I want to say this to the hon. the Minister and his successor: Good work is being done by the Railways Administration; they are furnishing a service to our country, and they must continue with that service, because it is not only a service to our farmers and our exporters, but also a service to our whole country.

Sir, the hon. member for Humansdorp criticized the United Party for having advocated that uneconomic services should be financed from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. We advocated that the Railway rates on the conveyance of foodstuffs in particular should be subsidized from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The hon. member argued that this would lead to increased rates and would therefore result in higher taxation, but I want to tell him it would cost less to subsidize those services than it would cost this country as a result of the higher wages which these increased rates bring in their wake. The second point on which the hon. member for Humansdorp criticized us, was that the hon. member for Durban Point had said that the basic wage should be increased. The point which the hon. member for Durban Point made was that when increases are granted, this should not be affected on a percentage basis, for the person earning a salary of R150 per month, receives only approximately R22 per month if he receives an increased of 15%, while the person who receives R700 per month receives a tremendous increase, and these increases are actually intended to counteract the increased cost of living. The cost of living has increased tremendously for the man with a low income, for the cost of his basic essentials has increased tremendously, and a method has to be found of assisting that person for it is almost impossible for him to live today.

The hon. member for Humansdorp also criticized us for having advocated underground transportation. He referred to the tremendous costs which that would involve. It is true, Sir, it would entail high costs, but, Sir, South Africa is no longer a small country. The hon. member for Humansdorp should look far into the future, as the United Party does. We have a population of 21 million today, and by the end of the century we will have a population of 52 million people. And if one does not devise the plans now, when will that side of the House ever do so? [Interjections.] It is a big country, but then we must also have a big Government which is able to plan for the needs of such a big country.

Sir, I want to associate myself with the hon. members who paid tribute to the hon. the Minister as a person. Undoubtedly the hon. the Minister has been one of the most colourful figures in South African politics. I do not think one can have been a Minister for 26 years if one is not above average. When I think of the Minister, I always think of a man who is the personification of strength, a man who lets nothing stand in his way. He routs and shatters his opponents; he is a man who lets nothing stand in his way. Although he is an opponent of ours now, I think that South African politics needs a man like that. I think the world has need of a man like that today. For that reason, although he is our opponent, I believe that, as a person, it will be a great loss for this House when the hon. the Minister is no longer here. I must say that for me, as a young member, it has been an exceptional privilege to have sat in this House and to have been enable to observe the actions of such a man at close range. Having said this, Sir, I want to add at once that I do not in any way associate myself with the lyrical hymn of praise which the hon. member for Yeoville, and even my good friend, the hon. member for Unhlatuzana, sang to the policies of the Minister, as if he were the best Minister we have ever had. I differ with him as day does from night as far as his policies are concerned, and I just want to mention a single example. The hon. the Minister mentioned in his speech here yesterday that we are going to have a considerable surplus this year. He did not mention the figure; in any case, I have been quite unable to obtain the figure, but he said that it would be considerably more than R7,8 million. We do not know what the figure is, but there are speculations to the effect that it will be more than R40 million.

As much as that!

Do you dispute that figure? Since we do have such a big surplus now, I want to ask the Minister whether he was right in having announced those tremendous rates increases last year, not less than an average of 20% on all goods. But what is more serious is that the Minister was also able to come here—and this also serves as a reply to the question put by the hon. member for Humansdorp—and increase the cost of the basic essentials of the people. The rates on livestock were increased by not less than 60%, and this is the meat the housewife of South Africa has to buy. What is more serious, that the Minister could increase the rates on vegetables by not less than 57%, and that he could increase the rates on butter by 39,7% on eggs by 59,2% and the railage on maize by not less than 37,4%, on maize which forms the basis of the country’s food supply. The effect which these increases had on foodstuffs in South Africa is very extensive. In addition there is maize-meal, the basic, staple food of our Bantu population in South Africa. The rate on that was increased by not less than 36,4%. Now the hon. the Minister has a tremendous surplus this year, and I am asking whether this was the right thing and the fair thing to do. That rates increase of 60% on meat, the food which the housewife has to buy, is no longer a 60% increase once the ripples have spread to the consumer. Bear in mind that the wholesaler can take a 50% profit on it, and the retailer another 50%, and by then it is already 135%.

Is this on livestock? What about the abattoirs?

But surely one does not rail dead sheep? One rails them alive, and then they are slaughtered. [Interjections.] That still makes meat more expensive. That is why the housewife today has to pay R2,28 per kg for mutton chops, and what does the farmer of South Africa get? What does that hon. member get? He has to come to Parliament in order to make a decent living. Sir, what effect has this increase had? It has meant that the man in the street was unable to make a living, and we have had a spate of strikes in this country which caused me to shudder. And what effect did that have in turn? We had a spate of wage increases in this country which were unparallelled in its history. Everyone simply asked for higher wages. A wage increase of 22½% was nothing.

Did you do so as well?

I had to do so, otherwise I would have been unable to obtain labour. After all, you set the example. But I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that there are limits to the level to which one can increase wages without an increase in productivity. Discuss this with any industrialist or producer. There is a limit to it, and these people who are crying out for higher wages, did not consider the effects this would have. [Interjections.] I know that there are people who are not getting enough in South Africa, but the solution is not simply to increase wages and rates. The solution is to give the non-White population an education as quickly as possible, basic education. Then one must give him training, differentiated education, and then one can train him in certain directions. Then one has increased productivity, and then one can pay him higher wages. That is how one stimulates the economy. But there is an endless spiral of higher wages and an increased cost of living, and where is it going to end? What was the result of the increase in rates? The result was that every other employer had to grant increases. The Minister of Agriculture increased the price of brown bread.

Are you opposed to that?

Yes, and I shall tell you why. While the price of bread was being increased, the farmers’ wheat price was being decreased by 20 cent per bag. Do you agree with that? And what does the Minister say? He said, inter alia, that this was as a result of the railage having been increased by 38%. The price of brown bread was increased by 22%, and that of white bread by 18%. Now I ask you, Sir, whether this is sound business practice? Anyone can run the Railways in this way, by simply increasing the rates. If I had a business and I could simply raise my prices every time, I could run that business as well as anyone else. However, one has to remain within certain confines, and still try to make a profit.

After that there were post office increases and other increases as well. There were increases in this country as we have never seen before. Sir, I want to say that there was not a single factor which made a greater contribution to the increased cost of living than this very increase in the railway rates. I have already said that I have tremendous respect for the hon. the Minister as a person, but allow me to say that, since he is retiring now, he will have to take with him the burden on his conscience of knowing that he is the person who contributed most to the high cost of living in South Africa. It was the consequence of the policy which he laid down. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, those hon. members are laughing. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance is completely out of touch with the people of South Africa. He has been spoilt by those long, black cars.

He has also left False Bay.

Yes, Sir, that is the reason why he had to move away from False Bay.

You will be out of King William’s Town.

I shall take King William’s Town; the hon. the Deputy Minister need not be concerned about that. They must be careful, though, that it is not with an increased majority.

Sir, the railways affects every sphere of growth in South Africa. I should now like to put a question to the hon. the Minister; or perhaps I should put it to those farming members instead. If one buys a wagon-load of droppers today, the railage is more than the cost of the droppers. If one orders a wagon-load of anthracite from Newcastle to De Aar, the railage is greater than the cost of the anthracite.

What is a wagonload of droppers?

I buy them in Natal, for you cannot produce them in the Free State. Sir, the railway rates affects every sphere of our growth. I now want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is satisfied with the infrastructure he has created. To have growth, one needs capital, labour and the necessary infrastructure. Not very long ago the coal exporters were complaining about suffering great losses because the necessary rail facilities were not available. How much did we not lose in the case of iron ore as a result of this? Three years ago we were not even able to export our entire sugar crop, as a result of the lack of rail facilities. I still recall what Mr. Loubser, the General Manager of the Railways, said when he was still Deputy General Manager—

We simply do not have the facilities. That is what our Railways looks like, Sir. We cannot even export our goods, and this in a period in which the world experienced its most prosperous year ever. In 1969 money was so abundant in this country that the hon. the Minister of Finance said that we had to drain money from the country.

Was the railage too expensive to send the money out of the country?

There was so much money in this country that the National Party was unable to handle it. Sir, you will recall what happened in 1969. That was the time when we had money. Now one has to borrow from overseas at high rates of interest. We should have developed an infrastructure when we still had the money. But, Sir, we had a shortage of labour. This was a result of the actions of that Government which had, year in and year out, refused to train the non-Whites in this country. That is the basic reason why this country was unable to progress to the stage to which it should have progressed. For that reason I want to say that when the hon. the Minister retires now, his conscience will be burdened with the knowledge of the lost chances which South Africa had. Just imagine how South Africa could have developed if we had only made use of our natural resources and if we had created the infrastructure which we should have created. Since I am now discussing an infrastructure, I want to refer to the Eastern Cape. It is this Government’s policy to decentralize. Under certain circumstances that is the right thing to do. There lies the Eastern Cape, the area with the greatest potential in South Africa. It could become a second Witwatersrand, for in that area one finds all the labour one needs. There are all the water resources which can be utilized—if one had a good Minister of Water Affairs of course. It could become a second Witwatersrand if the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development were not going to give it all away. [Interjections.] That area has the greatest potential in the country. What is happening now in the Eastern Cape? The municipality of East London has done everything in its power to develop Berlin, and spent no less than R6 million. Speak to the industrialists and they will tell you that the place cannot get off the ground because of the high railway rates. I know the hon. the Minister could tell me that there was a 15% concession, but any industrialist will tell you that it is not enough, he cannot compete because he has to convey his raw materials there. Then he has to convey his product to Johannesburg, and he cannot compete.

But your policy is that the Railways should convey no uneconomic goods.

Our policy is that it should be subsidized from Revenue Account. Any industrialist will tell you that it takes so long to dispatch goods by goods train that they dispatch them by passenger train. It is uneconomic, and that is one of the reasons why they are unable to make any progress. What amazes me is that there is no co-ordination in this Government. The one Minister says he wants to decentralize, the other Minister says he wants to consolidate, but there is no co-ordination by the Ministers, and they do not support one another in going to the Minister of Transport to tell him that he should lower the railway rates. If hon. members were to visit those parts of our country they would see that if one is not prepared to make a greater concession in respect of railway rates, those areas cannot develop.

In addition, we have the harbour facilities there. The hon. member for Humans-dorp discussed harbours. In that area we have a harbour such as East London, which is only being used to 60% of its capacity. In Durban ships are having to lie up for 14 days to get into the harbour. What is the hon. the Minister of Transport, who is also the Minister in charge of harbour affairs, doing? If he would make a concession in respect of railway rates, that harbour could be used and developed. At the moment all the traffic is passing through Durban.

East London is too far from this place.

Would that hon. member say that in my constituency when he comes to do some organizing there in 14 days time?

For the reasons I have just mentioned, I say that methods will have to be found for solving this problem. For that reason we have advocated that if necessary, uneconomic services should be subsidized from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Either the hon. member for Humansdorp or the hon. member for Bethlehem advocated that we should keep our trains full and that we would be demonstrating our loyalty by doing so. The trains would be full if the rates are right. The ordinary citizen, however, cannot afford to go by train. If one were to make the rates cheaper, the trains would be fuller, and there would, in addition, be increased income. It is that simple. But the tariffs are constantly being increased, and now the trains are only half full. It has now been said that the people should demonstrate their loyalty by filling the trains, but is it economic for a person to travel by train? I often travel by train and only last Sunday night I travelled on the Orange Express, which is supposed to be a luxury train.

But you travel free of charge.

I know that, and that is why I travel by train, otherwise I would not have been able to do so. There are bottles of water on the train, but the water is so warm that no one can drink it. I now want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he wants to tell me, in this modern age in which we are living, that they cannot install ice-water dispensers on those trains from which to slake one’s thirst? The train services are not attractive, and the rates are too high. That is why pleas are being made here for people’s loyalty. But that is not how it works. People are economically minded, and they will only travel by train if it is an economic proposition for them. Although I have said, therefore, that I have great respect for the Minister as a person, and since I am sorry he is leaving this House, and since I do not want to say anything derogatory on the close of his political career, I do want to say that I think that it would be a great improvement, not if there were another Minister, but if there were another Government, and there were a Minister who was able to operate in a different framework and with a different policy.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for King William’s Town has just addressed the House in his customary humorous fashion. Not that he meant it to be that way, but that is what it was. He referred here to a matter which he also raised in the debate last year, namely the rather sharp increase in railway rates, particularly on livestock and certain foodstuffs. Allow me to point out to the hon. member once again the factual position in respect of livestock. I think the information was given to him last year, but for some reason or other it has not penetrated to him what the circumstances really were. The facts of the matter are that the rates for livestock had, until they were increased in 1972, not been increased since 1958. Whereas in 1958 the rates were already low and covered only 50% of the costs of the transportation of livestock, they diminished over the period until 1972 to a cover of only 22% of the costs. In 1972 in fact there was a loss of about R27 million on the conveyance of livestock alone. When the rates for the conveyance of livestock were increased by an average of 60%, the loss which had to be borne by the Railways was still 64%. In other words, the rates increase resulted in the cost cover still being only 36%. Then the hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for King William’s Town say that this entire loss should be covered from the Consolidated Revenue Fund! But do the hon. members know what that would mean? It would mean that an amount of probably more than R100 million from the Consolidated Revenue Fund would have to be utilized on subsidies for Railways rates. I referred a moment ago to the loss on the conveyance of livestock alone. Yesterday, when the hon. member for Durban Point was speaking, I made certain calculations on the basis of the figures which he used. He said that 20% of the goods was producing 80% of the revenue. If that is in fact the case, and even if it is only approximately the case—I do not want to go into the full details—I want to point out that certain particulars which I received from the officials indicate that the total goods revenue, with the exception of coal and livestock, amounts to approximately R540 million. In other words, if 20% of the goods produce 80% of the revenue, it means that 80% produces only 20% of the revenue. According to the hon. member for Durban Point’s calculation the average rate in respect of the 80% is only 1/16th. of the rate in respect of that of the 20%. If the rate for all goods had to be equalized, there would have to be a 60% subsidy on the 80% carriage. Sixty per cent of R540 million is R300 million. It would then be possible to equalize the rates, and a subsidy of more than R300 million would have had to be provided.

Did you never do elementary arithmetic?

I challenge the hon. member for Durban Point to prove at any time with his calculations that I am wrong.

You lack the intelligence to understand it.

If there had to be only a small change, namely that the low-rated goods be doubled, it would mean that 20% of the goods would still be producing 60% of the revenue, while 80% of the goods would still be producing 40% of the value. Then, since there is still such a enormous difference in rates, it would mean that the subsidy they are requesting would be 20% of the R540 million. Just as a result of that small change the subsidy would in fact be more than R110 million, an additional subsidy which will have to be found in the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The hon. member for King William’s Town also mentioned certain statistics. For example, he referred to the percentage increases in the rates of certain foodstuffs. What he did not mention was that the Railway rates for the conveyance of these foodstuffs are so low that the actual increase as compared to the total cost would be extremely slight. It is spectacular to come here and to say that the increased railage on butter is 36%, but in actual fact it is a fraction of a cent per packet which is involved because the rate for the transportation of butter is very low. The 36% is perhaps spectacular when it is used at a United Party meeting, but it is a fact that the rates in general for foodstuffs are exceptionally low. Even if there was an adjustment in 1972, therefore, it was a necessary adjustment so as to reduce the tremendous loss which resulted over the years from a general cost increase at least, and not to eliminate.

However, there are other matters I should like to touch upon. Before dealing with them, I should just like to pay my tribute to the hon. the Minister who has been rendering service to this department for such a long period of time. One of the characteristics of the hon. the Minister can, I think, be demonstrated by a rejoinder which I heard one day at a meeting when particularly difficult problems were being discussed. One person remarked that if a lion were charging at you, there had to be a tree nearby into which one could climb. The hon. the Minister’s reaction was: “Rubbish! It is nonsense to want to flee. If problems crop up you must face them squarely, meet the confrontation and solve the problems.”

Is that what you did to Hanekom?

Yes, that, too. That is an attitude which will cause that hon. Minister to stand out as a person who has always faced any problem squarely and solved it to the best of his ability. That is how he solved the problems of the Railways, for when he took over the portfolio, there were problems on the Railways. He, more than anyone else succeeded in solving those problems successfully.

Now, I find it interesting that one of the main reasons why the Opposition has such a high opinion of the hon. the Minister is that they think that, in conflict with the National Party policy, he appointed non-Whites to certain posts on the Railways. One could not help noticing that most “hear, hears” came when speakers referred to his having appointed non-Whites in certain grades that had previously been filled by Whites.

Are you opposed to that?

I am not opposed to that. That is precisely what is so nonsensical on the part of the United Party, i.e. that they think that this was in conflict with National Party policy. The National Party has never obstructed the progress of South Africa where it was in the interests of the country as a whole. The contribution of the Railways is one of the most important to the infrastructure of the South African economy, and it goes without saying that, when it was essential for certain activities or grades to be maintained, there was consultation of the staff by this Minister in terms of the policy of the National Party. After consultation, and in the majority of cases full agreement was reached, this step was taken. I have particulars here of the various grades in which non-Whites have been appointed in posts previously filled by Whites. It affects not only shunters, but extends over 45 different grades, and a total of 6 130 posts. But, Sir, this represents less than 6% of the total White staff on the Railways. There is not a single White who lost his work through this policy of the National Party or found himself in a worse position than that in which he had been before. On the contrary, everyone had a better basic income.

However, there are problems as well, and I should like to raise those problems here, because I am aware that problems arise as a result of changes of this kind. One of the problems arises when a group of persons cannot, as a whole, be moved to another avenue of employment. When, for example, half the staff have to be replaced, they are transferred to other sections where it is not necessary to bring about—if I may use the favourable term of the United Party—“integration” in that grade. At times problems have arisen in that staff had to be moved to places where they were perhaps unable to work as much overtime, as a result of which their net earnings dropped. But then, too, it was nevertheless in the interests of the general position, and in that case as well the staff association consented to it. There are other cases as well, for example, where staff were transferred to work for which they felt they had not been trained effectively enough. Or they were not entirely happy about doing that specific kind of work. But these are problems which are being ironed out by the staff associations. One of the greatest monuments to the hon. the Minister is the staff structure of the South African Railways. It is a staff structure which has been built up in such a way that with a total staff of more than 100 000 and with dependants of approximately a quarter million a structure has been established which is unique in the world. The reason for this is that every staff member can feel that he is able to make a contribution and is able to participate in the control of the entire structure of the South African Railways. The seven staff associations are constituted in such a way that discussions among the staff of all the 630 different grades do in fact take place regularly, and it is probably the sound staff structure which, more than anything else, makes it possible for the work to be done with the least possible problems. It goes without saying that no major enterprise will be without problems, and on the Railways, too, there are problems which crop up from time to time, but those problems are confined to an absolute minimum by the staff structure which has been built up and which serves as a foundation to the monument to this hon. Minister. I also want to say that this staff structure has been developed in such a way that it is controlled by the staff itself, and that as little outside intervention as possible occurs, intervention for example by the political parties. It is sound practice to do it in this way for then the staff matters do not lend themselves to political exploitation.

The hon. member for Port Natal advocated that the salary structure of the Railways be removed from the political arena. However, under the control of this hon. Minister it has never been involved in politics.

What a joke!

The salaries of the staff are arranged through discussions, negotiations and agreements between the Management of the Railways and the various staff associations.

Tell him; he does not know this yet.

Now I want to say that since there are 630 different grades, and only seven associations, it is inevitable that there will be certain grades whose specific interests do not receive the best possible attention at negotiations. It goes without saying that a thing like this will happen. But those grades which feel that their interests are not necessarily being looked after to their best advantage by the staff representative, have the right to have their problems solved through various bodies on the Railways, which were specifically created to give attention to those problems. It is a structure which lends itself to the minimum of intervention by both sides, on the part of either the Government or the Opposition. I think that most members of the railway staff are grateful for that.

Housing for railway officials received a great deal of attention. Over the years, over the decades, a tremendous amount has been done. There are probably few staff organizations of major enterprises which are treated so favourably, for example, in the form of housing provided for them by their employers, than the staff of the South African Railways. There are probably few other persons who can pay as little as R15 per month for a house and yet, precisely because this is the case perhaps, because housing is being made available on such favourable conditions to the railway staff, we find that there is a tremendous housing shortage among them which still applies at this stage. But I still want to ask whether it is not perhaps in any way possible for additional funds to be made available for the housing of railway staff, particularly in difficult cases. In general housing is allotted on a points system, a points system which is in turn compiled by the staff associations, with the approval of its members. But there are certain cases which crop up from time to time which result in genuine problems for certain staff members, staff members who are quite simply unable to find housing. In respect of growth points such as Ladysmith where housing at the moment is particularly scarce, where it is extremely difficult to find housing—there is no housing being made available by the town council, and in the private sector housing is virtually unobtainable except at excessive prices—and where a long waiting list exists for railway housing, I want to ask whether it is not possible to make a further effort to find a quicker solution in this context. I wonder whether a temporary remedy cannot be offered by making available subsidies for the renting of houses on a wider level.

There is another matter which I want to raise, a matter which I know does not fall directly under the hon. Minister since the staff actually exercise the greatest measure of control over it, and that is the Sick Fund. This is a fund which is probably among the best in the world. It is a fund which is truly a pillar of strength to the staff of the South African Railways. I have heard of cases where staff members who were offered employment at a considerably higher salary than the one they were receiving on the Railways who said that they could not afford to resign from the railway service because the Sick Fund benefits would then be available to them. The Railways Sick Fund is one of the best sick funds in comparison to others. There is, however, one aspect which once again affects my constituency, and that is the making available of the services of specialists. I am referring specifically to the services of gynaecologists. At present it is necessary for the wives of railway officials to travel from Ladysmith or from Glencoe to Pietermaritzburg if they require the services of a gynaecologist. Gynaecological services are causing particular problems for the families of railway staff. It means that if the wives have to go to Pietermaritzburg, they are away from their homes, their children are alone and their husbands are not able to give the necessary attention to their work which would normally have been the case. The services of a qualified gynaecologist are in fact available in Ladysmith; in addition, there is a provincial hospital there which can offer all the necessary services. This makes it possible to assist the large number of railway staff members’ wives from Ladysmith and also from Glencoe in Ladysmith if only the Railways Sick Fund would make these services available to the staff there. I know that one of the problems standing in the way is that these specialists are appointed on contract. The income of a specialist in Pietermaritzburg would perhaps be reduced if all the railway staff members’ wives from Northern Natal were then no longer able to come to Pietermaritzburg. But, Sir, what is at stake here is not so much what is to the advantage of the gynaecologist himself, but rather the convenience and the family circumstances as a whole of the railway staff and their wives. Through that the interests of the Railways Administration as a whole are being affected. I therefore want to advocate that this matter receive attention on a ministerial level, in that the Railways Staff associations which control the Sick Fund should be asked to give this matter their urgent attention.

I feel that there is a further aspect to which attention should also be given. That is the question of salary increases and the way in which salary increases are granted. This is not a political issue, and if this matter should also happen to be raised by members on the opposite side of the House, I would agree with them, because I feel that this is a matter which does not belong in the party-political arena. Salary increases on a purely percentage basis are in my opinion, under these circumstances where we are dealing with such a tremendously large staff and where there is such a great gap between the wages of the high income and the lower income group, not entirely fair and just. Last year already I discussed this matter with various people. In particular, I want to point out that the lower income group are forced to spend their salaries mainly on the basic essentials. Last year, as a result of the inflation we experienced, the prices of these basic essentials increased to a greater extent than the average increase in the cost of living throughout the entire income structure in South Africa. I have seen figures—how reliable they are I do not know—which indicate that the cost increases in the case of the basic essentials was approximately 20%, while the average increase in the cost of living was approximately 10%. Since the less well-to-do have to spend almost their entire wage on basic necessities, I feel that if salary increases are granted, this ought to be done on a sliding scale. The lower income groups might then perhaps receive an increase of 20%. Staff members up to a certain income group will then receive that increase, the income group immediately above them will then receive an increase of, say, 17½%. The other more highly paid groups will then, for example, be able to receive increases of 15% and 12½%. This will entail that staff members in one grade will not receive less than those in another grade. No person in a higher grade ought to receive a smaller increase than a person in a lower grade, but in general the percentage increase will be more in proportion to the increase in the cost of living, which hits the lower income group far harder than the higher income groups. The S.A. Railways itself set us an example last year. I think the salaries of the non-Whites in the lower income groups were increased by approximately 22½%, as against 15% for the higher income groups. In other words, the principle was already being applied then. I want to advocate that this aspect be taken into account in the calculation of any future salary increase, which I think will logically have to come if we take price increases in general into account.

I feel that South Africa can be proud of its Railways system and on the excellent Minister we have had, and on the entire railway staff. Last year the hon. member for Umhlatuzana said that the morale of the railwaymen was low. He dare not say that this year, because this year the morale of the railwayman is without doubt exceptionally high.

After listening to the hon. member for Klip River criticizing my colleague, the hon. member for King William’s Town, for about ten minutes, I thought that this side of the House was in for a torrid time. Then he spent the next five or six minutes thanking the Minister, as is the custom of hon. members opposite, and then he went on with a panegyric of praise of what his party had done for the Railways and I thought that I was in for a tough time. But then he suddenly switched and spoke about housing. He advocated nothing else but United Party policy, and spoke about the sick fund, which we all agree is a very good institution. I agree with him entirely about it having more elasticity so that benefits will be within easy reach of all workers. Then he said something about salary increases. Of course he had to say something about that.

I do not think any Minister has had more praise lavished on him than the hon. the Minister of Transport has had during this debate. More eloquent speakers than I have spoken on the subject, and all I can say is: “Well done, thou good and faithful servant.” More than that I cannot say, but it comes from the heart.

But before I go on to the attack I have one favour to ask. When you think of fixing up these six seats in a row on the Boeings, you will think of my colleague here, the hon. member for Durban Point, and myself trying to get into a three-seater. We are not bean-poles; we are strapping South Africans. I hope that there will be a bit of leg room and seating room for us, instead of strap-hanging.

To be more serious, my one criticism of the hon. the Minister is that in his 20 years of uninterrupted management of this vast department he has failed to remove it from the political arena. It is a sad and sorry fact, because make no mistake about it, in spite of what the hon. member for Klip River said, the railwayman does go to outside sources. There are some who keep grievances within themselves, but, generally speaking, the railwayman does go to other sources, outside his department. That is my one complaint against the hon. the Minister—I will not use the word “accusation”—that he failed to bring the Railways out of the political arena as far as the workers are concerned. The other one, of course, is that he still has to tell us why he resigned from the cost-of-living committee of the Cabinet. The House is still waiting for that explanation.

It was due to the cost of living.

Whatever the Minister may say, and I am speaking as an old Government servant myself, I have never found any other Government department or undertaking so riddled with politics. The railwayman, for some reason or other, carries his grievances outside. Men in the other departments have had their disappointments, but they do not carry them outside. They have loyalty to their department, but there is something of that lacking in the Railways and I should like to know from the Minister what he and his Administration are doing bout putting this matter right, because it is a serious matter. One hears grouses about the disciplinary code. In this regard I must confess that I have found that the men do not seem to have any confidence in it. However, what strikes me is their absolutely abysmal ignorance of what their rights are and how to go about things. I do not know whether they have lectures in the Railways on their rights and privileges, but it is this abysmal ignorance that drives them to seek help outside the Railways Administration.

But there is nothing wrong with seeking counsel.

No, I do not agree with it; it is wrong. You do not get this phenomenon in other departments; the staff employed by other departments take their medicine. I agree with previous speakers that there should be a commission of inquiry into the disciplinary code and its application. You find that men who are under suspension, apparently because of some misdemeanour, are sitting at home. They do not receive wages or salaries and the next thing their furniture is taken away, the electricity is cut off because they have not paid their electricity bills and eventually they get the sack. I should like to plead that this policy of suspension from duty be applied very sparingly. After all, we are experiencing a shortage of manpower; why not allow the man to continue his work so that when the “chop” does come, he knows that it has come and he has some money available and he can leave the Railways without any grouses.

We have heard a lot about salaries. I think that if we were to give a man a living wage so that he could be proud of the fact that he was working on the Railways, and so that it would not be necessary for him to run to the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions to augment this pittance, we would find a happier core of workers in the Railways. For a member of this House who represents a Railway constituency to tell us blatantly, as he did last night, that that was what was being done in order to augment the salaries of railway workers, I think is a slur on the Administration and the Government which runs the Administration. A man who ekes out a living on a measly basic wage plus overtime, which he is forced to do, can receive a grant from the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, but is this going to make him a happy railway worker? Certainly not! If the man is treated squarely and with justice and he sees that justice is swift, he will be satisfied with the medicine which he gets after his misdemeanours. I know that there are welfare officers employed by the Railways, but something is lacking at the supervisory level in the leadership because the Railway workers are not made to feel that they are part of a team. They could not care less and the whole structure seems to break down as each man tries to score over the other one.

The Railways and Harbours, quite rightly, is the biggest undertaking which the Government has, but one is astounded at the lack of public relations which exists today. I know that there is an advertisement here and there, but there is not the sort of advertisement which projects the image of the railwayman. The image which is projected at present is that of a disgruntled worker of limited quality. Nothing is told us really about the men with brilliant brains, the engineers, the accountants, the electricians, the technicians and all the other professional men who built the Railways and made it the organization that it is. Surely, something could be done by the Administration to project the image of a vital and working body? Let us glamourize it a bit; let us pep it up. The Railways is a vast undertaking and quite rightly so. As South Africans we are proud of it. Somehow or other though, it has become weary. My hon. friend from King William’s Town spoke about the Orange Express. I came down to the Cape in the Orange Express as I usually do. The Orange express has always been considered a first class train, but I have never been so ashamed of its tatty appearance as I was this time. It looked so tatty that I thought I had been put in the wrong coach or the wrong compartment. This made me leave my compartment to go and compare my compartment with other compartments. In the end I found that my compartment was not so bad after all when compared with some others. To think that this was the Orange Express, one of the prestige trains of the S.A. Railways, took me quite aback. I am not grousing about the service that I receive on the train; what I am trying to point out is that the appearance of the train was tatty. Despite the fact that I had two showers on the train, I accumulated so much dirt that I had to have a proper bath when I reached Cape Town. I was absolutely astounded at the amount of dirt that came off.

I have also received some complaints in regard to the road motor transport service. I refer to the policy regarding liability for goods carried by train from, say, Durban to a rail head and from there to their destination by road motor transport. We all know that where no stations or road motor transport depots exist, the practice of the Railways is to “put off” articles at the side of the road, probably at specified and varying points which are known only to the driver and to the people in the locality. However, a serious matter has come to my attention in this regard. A wholesale pharmaceutical supplier lost two consignments of goods in this way. Neither the consignor nor the consignee has recourse to or any claim against the S.A. Railways and Harbours, and quite rightly so, since the goods were most probably dumped at a place along the roadside. The client is unwilling to pay for the goods which he says he has not received. Legal action would lose the wholesaler a client and so a further amount of something like R100 is written off. The company concerned asked permission to deliver these goods, but the Road Transportation Board would not grant a certificate. The danger involved here is that in both of these cases these commodities were consignments to doctors in the outlying areas. The contents were classified, in terms of the Sixth Schedule of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act of 1928, as amended, as potentially harmful drugs and some of the contents included habit-forming drugs listed in the Fifth Schedule. In this regard I think that the Railways could at least adopt a system whereby goods of this nature could be delivered to a specific agent or person so that they are not left out in the veld to be picked by some strange person passing by.

I am not going to dwell on the fiasco we had in Durban as a result of the decision of the Road Transportation Board to stop buses bringing in people from Chatsworth to Durban and elsewhere. The fact remains that this train somehow or other has a hoodoo on it. In this time of fuel conservation I want to mention that the train from Chatsworth runs through the White township of Yellowwood Park, and Montclair, a suburb of Durban. I can tell the hon. the Minister that it is very galling for these residents to see this train going through their township with empty carriages while the buses are full of Indian occupants. I wonder whether it would not be possible for the department to arrange a train for these people, because there is a station right in Yellowwood Park to pick up people and take them into town. I know this is a local matter, but I am bringing it forward here just to show that there seems to be a lack of planning and that a little bit of foresight and liaison with the locals could be of benefit both to them and to the Railways.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I should follow up on what was said by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, because we all know that he is only here temporarily. He has also made his last speech. We know he will perhaps only pop in, but they are keeping his seat for the Natal leader, because he will lose his seat and then have to take the place of the hon. member for Umlazi.

Mindful of the fact that the hon. the Minister of Transport has made his last Budget Speech here, one cannot but let one’s thoughts wander back involuntarily to the years 1947 and 1948 when there was such large-scale chaos in the Department of Labour and the Department of Transport under the previous S.A. Party Government. After 1948, when the first Malan Cabinet was constituted, no less a person than the present Minister of Transport was appointed to get the Department of Labour out of that chaos. He succeeded in doing so and brought about industrial peace. He created a happy corps of workers in South Africa. After five years there was such a happy corps of workers in the industries and the factories that this hon. Minister also got the Railways portfolio. When that Minister accepted the Railways portfolio, the Railways had not yet tom itself free of the paralysing situation in which it had been plunged under the previous S.A. Party Government. We know how serious the conditions were when the National Party took over the Railways in 1948. It was so serious that a grievances commission had to be appointed to investigate the position. Now that this Minister has been Minister of Railways for 20 years, we have a happy railways staff. Now we have people who work together, shoulder to shoulder, as one man, to put the Railways where we want it, to give service. Just as we all work together today to combat this oil crisis, so the railwaymen are today contributing their share, throughout the length and breadth of South Africa, towards a happy, prosperous and profitable Railways for us here in South Africa.

We have come to the point at which we must take leave of the hon. the Minister. We are glad he has succeeded in doing away with the intimidation and the reckless discrimination that prevailed amongst railway workers when the S.A. Party was in power. Since we now have to take leave of the hon. the Minister I am glad that, on behalf of the inhabitants of Port Elizabeth, I can say to him that we owe him a great debt of thanks for what he has done for the railwaymen. We simply want to wish the hon. the Minister and Mrs. Schoe-man a fine, happy and long life and a carefree future.

There was talk here yesterday of salary increases. A few of the Opposition members came along here and saw this as a fine opportunity to make political capital out of the salary position of the railway-men. Shortly after I came to this House, the hon. member for Durban Point accused the hon. the Minister of only increasing the salaries of railwaymen before elections. At the time I reacted to that and said: “In other words, you are now accusing us of bribing the railwaymen with salary increases, with a view to the election?” This evening I want to ask the hon. member if he really wants us to implement salary increases now, if there must be increases. But how can the hon. the Minister, who is going to relinquish his portfolio with this election, tie his successor down? What is going to be done for the railway-men is surely dependent upon his successor. Let me tell you, Sir, the railway-men are part of the Government. They are the people who put the National Party into power time and again. The hon. member need have no fear, because after the coming election we are again going to have an first-rate Minister of Transport in this House. You will now ask me: “Who is he?” Hon. members only have to look about them in the House. Any of the people sitting here can be the Minister of Transport. He could be the worst person on this side of the House and he would still be better than the best on that side.

I want to come to the hon. member for Port Natal, who is sitting there staring me in the eye like that. I think that yesterday evening that hon. member made one of the dirtiest and lowest accusations in this House against the hon. member for Uitenhage and against this side of the House.

Order! Did the hon. member speak of “dirty” and “low” accusations?

Yes.

The hon. member must withdraw the words.

I withdraw the words “low and dirty accusation”, Sir. The hon. member spoke after the hon. member for Uitenhage. The hon. member for Uitenhage pointed out that not only in the Railways, but also in factories and in any business one encounters unskilled workers with low remuneration. This is the position one encounters in all the large factories, assembly plants, shops and business institutions, and not only in the Railways. Then the hon. member for Uitenhage said that those people with their large families of four, five and six children share in the benefits of family allowances. After all, we have the legislation which makes provision for family allowances. Does the hon. member not know that there is also a Department of Community Development? That department builds houses for our people. They rent houses to those lower income groups at 3%. Why do they not state that very clearly? There is a Housing Act which provides that the municipalities are responsible for providing the lower income groups with houses. The State gives that money at 1% interest, and the city councils rent those houses to the people in the lower income groups, for whom the rental is calculated at 1%. This amounts to R7, R8 or R9 per month. Do hon. members want those benefits to be taken away? Must we take away the benefits of family allowances for persons with 10, 12 and 14 children? Must we do away with the benefits in respect of sub economic housing? That hon. member for Port Natal comes along here with scaremongering stories. Give us a chance to get to his constituency and we shall have him running so hard he will never stop again. If he comes along here, he must put the matter in the correct perspective.

Then the hon. member for Salt River comes along and asks why we are now concerned about the United Party. Sir, we are worried about the United Party because we have to go to the people now, and what do we have? We have a tattered Opposition that we now have to go to the people with. There are several members sitting on the other side, for example the hon. members for Hillbrow, Orange Grove and Benoni, who are conservative. For that reason their liberalistic, leftist leader, Mr. Schwarz, does not want them. They cannot get nominations. Here we sit with the terrible injustice that is at present being perpetrated in Port Elizabeth Central. There at the back sits a member who, because he is Schwarz-minded, did not win his nomination struggle and has not been designated as a candidate in Port Elizabeth Central yet. That is what is going on here in the Cape. The United Party is split in two. It is a tattered party. On the one hand one finds Harry Schwarz with a leftist, liberalistic element who are selecting candidates to give him the majority of votes in the caucus after the election. On the other side the Cape leader is fighting, under the command of Sir De Villiers Graaff, to retain the conservative element here. Thereby one has two clashing elements. But we are not only concerned about the political stench the Opposition party ex-hudes. We are also concerned about something else. The railwaymen of Natal are concerned. Do you know that the Transvaal U.P. leader, a provincial leader, represents one quarter of a tattered party, yet concludes an agreement with Buthelezi, the leader of the Zulu people. We have no interest in that written agreement, but we ask: “What is contained in that unwritten agreement?” Has Richard’s Bay been promised to Buthelezi? Has Natal been surrendered to the Zulu people? That is what the Natal electorate wants to know. That is what the Railwaymen of Natal want to know.

Order! The hon. member must please come back to the Railways.

Sir, yes, we must now come back to the Railways. However, we just want to express the hope today—actually this ought not to be necessary—that the United Party will at least be able to consolidate their forces with the advert of the election so that we shall be able to say that we at least have a kind of scraped-up United Party.

Then I just want to mention a few points here that are of importance to my constituency and to Port Elizabeth as a whole. I refer the hon. the Minister in this context to Koningstrand, better known as King’s Beach. According to the Budget proposals, money has been made available to build a container depot there. King’s Beach is one of the biggest recreation facilities for the inhabitants of Port Elizabeth. It is also one of the finest attractions of the Eastern Cape. The inhabitants of Port Elizabeth are a little concerned because they have to relinquish some of that fine beach area. I now just want to tell the Minister that there was a local investigation. The Deputy Minister was there. I just want to ask that they stick to the promise that the buildings that are going to be erected there will be lovely, clean and tidy, so that they will not detract from the beauty of that beach area.

Then I also want to ask that when the road transport depot is built at Swartkops, that lovely and scenic Swartkops River, precautions will be taken so that that scenic beauty well not be damaged and so that the buildings which are to be erected there will be of such a kind that they will also contribute to the prosperity of that Swartkops area.

I then also just want to refer to that locomotive in Port Elizabeth with the terribly loud whistle, which has blown the hon. member for Walmer clean out of his constituency. The people there are in revolt. That problem is not insurmountable at all. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether that whistle cannot be adjusted to a slightly lower pitch. You may believe me, Mr. Speaker, hat it is not only that whistle that is giving offence there in Port Elizabeth; there is also this dying United Party that we are saddled with here.

I just want to tell the hon. the Minister in conclusion that we on this side of the House will, for many years to come, think of what he has done, not only in the interests of the Railways, but also in the interests of South Africa. Of one thing we are convinced today: Many Ministers of Railways have come and gone, but this present hon. Minister of Transport is truly the greatest Minister of Transport South Africa has ever had.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North probably has a very poor memory. He spoke about alleged hardships prevailing in South Africa during the years 1947 and 1948. He spoke about labour unrest and of the Railways being in a mess at that time. I say he has a very short memory. We did have post-war difficulties in South Africa; this I readily admit. But South Africa was a flourishing country at that time, a country which was receiving a great deal of money for investment. I can recall only too well that during the year 1947-’48 no less than £180 million poured into South Africa. What was the attitude of the National Party towards this inflow of money at that time? The attitude of the National Party, in the words of the late Mr. Strydom, was: “If we receive money from overseas on a very large scale, we become the slaves of overseas imperialists.” That was the attitude of the National Party. People wanted to emigrate to South Africa, skilled people, people whom we had canvassed overseas, people who were well-trained, people who could have made a contribution to the future of South Africa. What was the attitude of the then Minister of the Interior, Dr. Dönges? In his first speech in his new capacity he said boastfully that all ad hoc machinery established for large-scale immigration by the government of General Smuts, had been scrapped. That was the attitude of the National Party at that time. During the post-war years the United Party devised large-scale development plans for South Africa, but these plans were either thwarted or impeded by the National Party. At that time South Africa was a popular country, one of the most popular countries in the world.

While the hon. member was speaking, I wondered whether he was talking about the United Party or about the Railways. He referred to a certain agreement in writing with a certain Chief Buthelezi. But he also referred to an unwritten agreement, an unwritten agreement with the Railway workers concerning their future in South Africa and in particular with the Railway workers of Natal concerning their future in the Richard’s Bay area. He should not put this question to us. He should put this question to his own Ministers and to his own Cabinet, because our policy with regard to Richard’s Bay and all other geographical parts of South Africa is well-known. We are not going to fragment South Africa, our Republic. Our policy is to keep South Africa as a whole. I think he will do well to make a few inquiries in his own constituency and in that of his bench-mate (Uitenhage) about the 25 000 Railway workers who have to manage on a monthly salary of less than R200.

†If he does that, Sir, he will find himself well occupied. I have some of those men in my constituency; I have met men in the different parts of the Peninsula where there are large railway concentrations. I have been into their houses, and those men are having difficulty in keeping their heads above water, as the hon. member for Maitland will tell you. Sir, in some of their houses you will find White children going barefoot to school; you will find them having difficulty in having a change of clothes to go to school and you will find that theirs is a standard of living that is not able to be maintained in the face of high living costs. Mr. Speaker, the living costs in South Africa have reached untold heights, and if only some National Party members of Parliament would go out and deal with ordinary people, especially the poor people in South Africa, they would find for themselves some of the things that we have been referring to from this side of the House during the course of this debate. Sir, it always happens when a Government has been in power too long that they get too big for their boots; they seem to lose touch with the feelings of the ordinary man in the street. [Interjection.] Sir, the hon. member for Uitenhage is more interested in nomination contests in his own constituency than he is in the welfare of the Railwayman in Uitenhage!

I want to deal now with a matter to which the hon. the Minister has been kind enough over the years to give his attention when I have referred to it, and that is the question of the suburban line in the Peninsula. I want to deal with this as a result of my personal knowledge and I want to make some suggestions to him and to his department as to how I think the position can be improved. First of all, I would like to record that the Southern Suburbs line was built as far as Wynberg in 1864 as far as Muizenberg in 1880, as far as Kalk Bay in 1883, and as far as Simonstown in 1890. In fact, if there is any railway in South Africa that should qualify as an historical monument, then I would say that the Southern Peninsula line should qualify for this honour. It was electrified as far as Simonstown in 1928. That means that you have a length of line of 22½ miles under electricity, but the line has only been doubled as far as Fish Hoek. Your main naval base is perhaps four miles from Fish hoek and there is only a single line leading to that base. I think the railway stations must have been built at much the same time as the railway line, and you will find, if you go and inspect the Southern Suburbs Line, that there is a Victorian era building at most of the old stations, a Victorian building complex with outdated facilities and antiquated buildings. I think the upkeep of those buildings must be enormous. There are no parking areas big enough to cater for cars of people in a rapidly expanding area who wish to use the train services but are consequently prohibited from doing so. Most stations have large gardens. Many years ago there was an annual competition, keenly contested by station masters in the area, as to which station kept the best garden. I do not know whether that competition still exists. All I know is that the gardens are not in anything like the same condition that they were before. I get the impression that there is not the same pride that there was before in the appearance of either the gardens or the stations. I have mentioned to the Minister before that there are loiterers on the railway stations at night, and yet to me—and I travel frequently on the trains—there seems to be a complete absence of Railway policemen, as we used to know them in the old days. I have also mentioned to him that apparently with a view to saving expense the clocks have been removed from the stations. There are no railway clocks that you can see to advise you when the next train is due. Ticket offices, as we know, are on a sort of part-time basis. In most of the seaside areas they are closed over the weekends, and in the evenings they close very early—in most cases, to my knowledge, somewhere around 4.30 p.m. Sir, I think you have a situation here where you have an outdated, antiquated railway system leading to the Southern Suburbs. I would not like the Minister to think for one moment that I do not think it is a reasonably good service; I think it is, but I think it is out-dated and I think it must be modernized and I am going to give him some ideas as to how I think it should be modernized. The same applies, of course, to the railway station facilities to which I have just referred. They are out of date. They should be modernized. I believe that in many cases they can be pulled down and replaced by modern buildings, but I have other suggestions in that connection presently.

Then, Sir, I want to refer to what seems to me, as a resident of this part of the Peninsula, to be a complete breakdown in communication between the Railways and the municipality of Cape Town. The municipality of Cape Town covers the area through which the Southern Suburbs line runs. I have mentioned to the Minister from time to time the difficulties that we have in getting finality from the Railways or from the municipality as to what railway land is surplus and what can be made available to the municipality for road-widening or for parking areas of one kind or another.

For some years, for example, at the station where I live there have been pot-holes in the parking area or in the drive-in portion—the access to the station—and I have tried to get the municipality to repair those pot-holes; I have also taken it up with the Railways, and they both pass the ball from the one to the other. Therefore I go so far as to say that it seems to me as if there is not that close liaison that there ought to be between the Railways and the municipality. The same applies, of course, to large portions of land where there is a very, very narrow main road, where the municipality says that it is trying to acquire the land from the Railways; the Railways on the other hand say that it is always having to contend with the municipality changing its mind about this, that or the other thing. I do not have a particularly high opinion of the municipality of Cape Town, but some finality must be sought in the negotiations between these bodies, both of which have to serve the public in very important capacities.

I think the Minister must ask his department to have a look at the situation on the Southern Suburbs line and to see where at different stations part of the gardens can be removed; where some of the road entrances to the stations can be widened, and where greater facilities can be provided for the public to park their cars. The same applies to the question of subways. I think it was last session that I raised this matter of subways with the Minister, and his difficulty is that the subway entrance is on the one side of the railway line and the subway exit on the other side, and both the entrance and the exit, in many cases, are controlled by the municipality, I understand that in a situation like that it is expected of the municipality to see that the subway is kept clean and tidy. Sir, I think here you have the problem that the Railways think the municipality should do the job, and the municipality thinks that the Railways should do the job.

Overall the impression I get is that there is a hopeless lack of co-ordination and joint planning and getting things done. I would commend to the hon. the Minister that he should set in tow an investigation of the sort that I have suggested to him, namely that the relations between the Railways and the Southern Suburbs line and the municipality should be very carefully gone into with a view to both of these very important bodies providing a better service to the public. Sir, as to the standard of the service, I have brought to the Minister’s attention for some time in years past the squeaking of brakes on the suburban line. I think that has been practically eliminated. I think that the Railways have been very thorough in this matter and they seem to have eliminated most of the squeaking of the brakes.

Sir, I also referred a few years ago to the jolting and jarring of the carriages, jolting and jarring which is a most unpleasant experience particularly for old people using those trains. Here again, I am pleased to say that in the last six months there seems to have been a very great improvement and I would like to congratulate the department on what they have done with what was obviously a very difficult problem to solve.

Another matter that I have raised is the question of the cleanliness of the trains, both inside and outside. I know that outside you have difficulties, for instance, with the wind. Inside the trains are certainly not anything like as clean as they should be. If you want to have a high-standard service and if you want to attract passengers to the suburban line, you have to see that the floors, and the seats particularly, are kept clean. I find that a lot of school-children, as often happens, write on carriage walls, and that I think also requires some attention. They can be painted and some of the new methods we have for taking dirt off walls could be used.

Then I refer to the matter of more express services to the southern suburbs, which are growing very fast. The naval base, the dockyard, Fish Hoek, Noordhoek, Kommetjie and all those places are growing enormously. It is one of the few areas left in the Peninsula where there can still be population expansion. I have said that I think there should be a restoration of what used to be called the seaside express service. In the valley hours, of course, there is not so much of a problem, but the Railways say it is difficult to have expresses at the peak times and therefore they are looking for an alternative, which I shall also deal with in a minute. But I want to say seriously to the hon. the Minister that I know an enormous number of people, thousands and thousands of people who live in the southern peninsula, who are now making arrangements for their children to be taken to school by car because the parents cannot afford to send the children to school by train as we used to go to school by train.

You find also that a number of people who would like to use that suburban line are now arranging lifts so that they can come to town or go to Claremont or Wynberg on business. So the Railways are losing an enormous number of potential passengers as a result of the increase in the fares during the last few years, especially on that suburban line. Now I accept that it has been necessary to put up the fares a little. I accept also that the figures that have been given to me by the hon. the Minister to the effect that the increases, by comparison with other sections of the Railways, have not really been spectacular, but I can only tell you, Sir, that when a return ticket from Simonstown to Cape Town costs more than 75 cents for a housewife or a businessman to use this services two or three days a week, this involves an enormous lot of money. It is only 22 miles.

I am not as well acquainted with the northern suburbs lines as I am with the southern suburbs line, but there I have the same complaint, that there are not enough express trains at peak periods, that there is overcrowding during peak periods and that the standard of cleanliness in those trains is certainly not what it should be. Now I know it is no good looking at my friend over there, the hon. member for Parow. He does not know what happens in a train. He only travels in his Mercedes, and his bench-mate, the hon. member for Vasco, is in the same position. You see, Sir, these people no longer have any feeling, as we have in the United Party, for people travelling by public transport. We suffer in the same way as the general public has to suffer. They have lost touch with those things. [Interjections.]

When I raise a matter in Parliament I try to do some research and I try to make sure that when I stand up here to speak I speak from personal experience. That is why I recently travelled also on the Cape Flats line. I joined the Cape Flats line at Heathfield and came through to Cape Town. All the things I have said about the southern suburbs line are equally applicable to the Cape Flats line.

Now I want to speak to the hon. the Minister about what I regard as absolutely essential new services. These are new services to the Coloured and the Bantu townships on the Cape Flats. It has often been said in this House that it is vitally important that before the new town on Mitchell’s Plain is to be built, there must be adequate rail services. I agree with that. I think it is necessary that provision must be made for this embryo town, which I understand is going to have something like 250 000 people. But we not only have residential areas that have to be served by the suburban rail service; there are also seaside amenities, such as the Coloured centre at Strandfontein, a development which I think is a credit to the city of Cape Town and one that is very popular indeed with an ever-growing number of Coloured people.

You have the Bantu seaside area at a place called Kapteinsklip. You can see it from the air when you fly over False Bay. There are first-class facilities there for the Bantu. There are admittedly roads leading both to Strandfontein and to Kapteinsklip and to Macassar, nearer the Strand, for that matter. But it is vitally important that those areas also have to be served by a rail link. Therefore if the Minister is going to build a rail link to Mitchell’s Plain, as I hope he will, I hope he will also give consideration to a rail link being provided with reasonable access to these very popular and very necessary seaside amenities in the non-White areas. Not only is it necessary to serve these people in so far as getting them from their work to their residences is concerned; but if you are going to have separate facilities, with which I agree, you have to provide them with access to those separate facilities.

I have built up, in my argument to the hon. the Minister, to a position where I want to give him some constructive suggestions. The first is as regards the fuel crisis. More and more people would use the Northern Suburbs, Cape Flats and Southern Suburbs lines if, I believe, those services were made more attractive in the way that I have suggested and if they were better “sold” to the public. Surely, when you have a business, you try to expand your business and you advertise your business. By implication you say what you have to offer, is better than that which your opponent has to offer. I think that is the sort of campaign that the Railways should undertake at the moment. The Railways should point to the fact that here in the Peninsula we have narrow roads. Our main road is hopelessly inadequate whether it leads to the Northern Suburbs or to the Southern Suburbs. We have freeways which, unfortunately, have not been developed as they should have been developed and we now have bottlenecks at all peak hours on those freeways. They are not freeways anymore. We have a robot system such as I have never seen anywhere on the Continent or in the United Kingdom or anywhere else in the Republic. Between the place where I live, St. James and Cape Town, there are no less than 50 robots and I suppose the distance is about 17 or 18 miles. There are 50 robots if I come to town along the main road. I think the Railways should capitalize on this inadequacy and must say to the public that they should use the train service rather than their cars. We have parking problems at each of the stations to which I have referred and we have parking problems here in the city of Cape Town. You have exorbitant fees being charged by parking garages in the city and you have exorbitantly high fees, I think, being charged by the municipality for street parking and for parking in places like the Parade. We have terrible congestion in our city area. The following comment I think is fair and I also use it. We have an uncomfortable and inconvenient bus service in the Peninsula. All of these conditions lead me to the conclusion that if the Railways, with a bit of imagination and with a bit of salesmanship, were to embark on an advertising campaign, they could attract people to a service which, with the improvements which I have suggested, could become an excellent service and certainly a profitable service for the Railways whereas at the moment I understand it is operated at a loss.

I have said that these are short-term suggestions that I have made because I believe that the Northern Suburbs line, the Southern Suburbs line and the Cape Flats line are working at saturation point. There is talk in the case of the Southern Suburbs line of a third line. I want to speak against a third line. I understand that a third line is being planned as far as Muizenberg. However, this will necessitate larger platforms being erected at the various stations and there will have to be alienation of ground, both of municipal ground and private land, which I think will be expensive. There will certainly have to be a large-scale alteration to the signalling system on the line. Both stations and platforms will in many ways have to be changed. Altogether this project of a third line from Cape Town to Muizenberg, if undertaken, will be expensive. I should rather like to suggest that we should make the present system work better than it is at the moment to attract more commuters on a short-term basis. What he must do is to give very serious consideration to a long-term solution. The long-term solution is not the provision of a third line. I think the longterm solution may well be the providing, here in the Peninsula, an underground line.

During the last couple of years I have had occasion to go overseas on occasions. More recently I have been in Lisbon, in Madrid, in Paris, in London and in a few other places where there is an underground system. I wonder if thought has been given here in the Peninsula to the provision of an underground system. There must be many advantages to it. I can well imagine that it is something expensive to install, but I would have thought that the upkeep of an underground would not be unduly high. I would have thought that there would be many advantages if we were to have an underground system; for example, you would have a saving of land. You only have entrances and exits with an underground service. Most of the underground services that I saw overseas run under existing roads, so you are not taking up additional space. The stations will disappear and that will result in more land being made available, probably for parking facilities for the underground. I think there would be a saving of staff. It seems to me that the staff employed overseas on the underground services are very much fewer than the staff that we have to employ here in the Republic. I think also that we would have a quicker service. If you think of the Cape Flats as a whole, one remembers that the Cape Flats is a happy hunting ground for moles. If you have moles on the Cape Flats, I can see very little reason, although I am not an engineer, why you should not have a “moltrein” as they call them overseas; why you should not have an underground leading to the Coloured and Bantu townships and to the beach areas to which I have referred. This is something which I think we can look forward to in the future. It is possible that this matter has been raised from this side of the House before because I am sure that such a suggestion would not have come from that side of the House! However, if this matter has been raised in this House then I am sorry I have not been able to find it in the records. Whatever the case may be, this is something which I think we should think about when we look into the future as regards modern railway development. If it has not been done before, I should like to urge the hon. the Minister to institute an inquiry into long-term plans for the development of an underground here in the Peninsula. It is a modern development and it seems to be working with considerable success in all the cities where I have had the pleasure of travelling in the underground trains.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I would speak at some length about the harbour network in South Africa in the next session. I have had occasion to go to all the harbours in the Republic and I hope that I shall be able to make a contribution in that regard in the next session. The facilities that we offer to many ships that are being kept unduly long waiting outside our harbours can also be improved, and I shall make suggestions in that regard too. While dealing with harbours, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has given further consideration to the possibility of increasing wharfage charges and dock dues of one kind or another for foreign fishing fleets. I know that this subject has come up before and I know that he has also from time to time raised the tariffs which resulted in outcries from the ships’ chandlers and other people with shipping interests, but I am not by any means satisfied that we are getting our dues from the foreign fishing fleets which are making use of our fishing waters and our dock facilities. Especially the transhipment of fish in our harbours is something which needs some examination with a view not only to the Railways receiving their fair reward for the facilities which it makes available to these foreigners, but also as protection to our own fishing fleet. Heaven knows our fishing fleets need protection at this time more than ever before in history.

I want to conclude by offering my own congratulations to the hon. the Minister on his record period of office as Minister of Transport and I wish him and his wife all success in their retirement.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Simonstown who has just resumed his seat, having apparently returned from the back-rooms of the United Party where there is a struggle in process over candidates, was so blinded by the bright lights of the Council Chamber that he was not quite certain of his forum. I am saying this because he addressed all of us here, including you, Mr. Speaker, as “ladies and gentlemen”, as if he were making an election speech here. During the first few minutes of his appearance here he really did make a typical United Party election speech with a host of clichés from the old days. Within the space of a few minutes he used almost the entire series of clichés of the Old Guard here. And with that, his speech was at an end. All that he omitted to say, if I remember their clichés correctly, was something about the war record of the National Party. If he had mentioned that he would just about have run the whole gamut of criticism against the National Party.

Now I must concede that when the hon. member began to discuss local matters he seemed to be covering more familiar territory. He presented a few pleas here in regard to which I want to support him. He made a few good contributions on suburban transportation, although I think he is taking things a little too far when he thinks that South Africa, or any metropolitan area in South Africa today, could afford an underground railway. Even the underground railway of Paris, the famous Metro, which conveys more than 5 million passengers a day, runs at an enormous loss, and it would require considerable co-operation from the United Party to obtain such funds for the Railways.

I want to refer here to the fact that speakers emphasized various aspects of the part the Railways is playing at present in the new situation in which we have been placed, namely the role of conserver of the oil resources of South Africa. The Railways is being seen in a new light now that we have been plunged into this so-called oil crisis. New emphasis has been placed on the Railways’ role as the conveyer of goods, as the medium through which passengers can be brought to their work every day and as the medium for the transportation of passengers over long distances. In addition gratitude has been expressed at the fact that the Railways has over a long period been built up into such a strong organization, and was so strongly protected in the past. In fact, new interest is being evinced for the strategic role which the Railways can in fact play for South Africa at this juncture, a strategic role for example in regard to the provision of the infrastructure for the expansion of our economy, as an existing infrastructure for the expansion of our industries which are so important to our continued, increased employment of our non-White peoples in South Africa, as a viaduct for the export to countries abroad of our products such as minerals, as a support in times of emergency for various communities in South Africa such as the farming community, and last but not least, a particularly strategic role which this same railway system will play in a time of emergency, even in a time of semi-peace as we are experiencing at the moment. This role which the Railways is able to play, has been recognized anew by the general public of South Africa and also by the industrialists and the businessmen of South Africa because they have become aware that in a time of national crisis they can at least fall back on the infrastructure, which has been built up over the years with trouble, care and a great deal of capital. The Railways has achieved this position because, to a certain extent, it enjoys a protected position in South Africa. We cannot get away from that, and we in South Africa should be particularly grateful for this. In the first place it is a fact that what we have here is a national railway system, a railway system which is controlled and owned by the State. In other countries where one finds private systems, these have long since ceased to exist economically and to play an effective role. In this connection one need only think of the United States of America, where this is the case. It leads to the railway systems in those countries not being in any way as strong, excellent or strategically developed as the system here in South Africa is. Apart from the protection by virtue of the fact that it is virtually a State institution which was developed under State control and which therefore, over the years, served the national interests under the guidance and protection of the Government of the day, it also acquired further protection in that we decided at one stage, in our wisdom, to restrict competition from motor carrier transportation. This was not done to the detriment of economic expansion in South Africa, but was done in such a way that the motor carrier transportation contractors did not compete with the Railways as is the case in other countries. In Europe I observed that a person could obtain his motor carrier transportation licence regardless of whether he could make out a good case for undertaking that transportation or not. He need only be able to prove that he has vehicles, that he has had a little experience in that connection. Here in our country we took the wise step of protecting vested interests, and capital which had been invested in the transportation industry, by way of our motor carrier transportation legislation. This protection has benefited the Railways over the years. I think that this protection should, with tact and flexibility, be expanded and applied even further. I shall perhaps return to this matter later on, if time allows.

In the third place the Railways is protected in the sense that the State itself is able to provide the capital requirements for its various expansion programmes. It was therefore possible for the Railways to find the necessary capital funds from time to time to effect renovations and expansions and to purchase new rolling stock.

In the fourth place this protection has also, over the years, covered the staff of the Railways. One is grateful for the fact that a protecting hand has also been held over them by the National Party and the government of the day and that this protected position in which some of them were placed and the labour peace which resulted within the framework of that protection, was what led in fact to the further consolidation of the strategic position of the Railways in South Africa. These men serving on the Railways will still prove in the difficult times which lie ahead that, in loyalty to South Africa they will maintain this particularly important facet of our infrastructure. This was not always the case. In the years of prosperity, in the years of cheap fuel, we frequently had excessive criticism levelled at the way in which the Railways was serving industry and commerce, criticism which frequently came from hon. members on the opposite side of the House, to the effect that the Railways was not able to form a proper foundation for the economic expansion of South Africa, as though the Railways were not meeting the requirements of industry and the export industries of South Africa satisfactorily. At one stage it was being advocated on all sides that the transportation of goods per road should be eased in competition with the Railways so that the economy could go ahead more rapidly. Fortunately for us we rejected at that stage this particular point of criticism, and continued with our existing legislation in this regard as contained in the motor carrier transportation legislation. I think that that was a wise step. It was not only I who has referred to that, but the hon. member for Yeoville also pointed out yesterday that it was an exceptionally fortunate position that we did not in the years of criticism levelled at the way in which, in times of pressure, the Railways was serving industry and commerce, fall for the idea that greater competition should be created for the Railways by way of motor carrier transportation.

The Railways has now been placed in a new period of expansion, a period in which it is going to play an exceptional role in South Africa, and it is not only an exceptional role, inter alia, as regards the best utilization of the energy resources of South Africa or as regards the transportation of its produce and goods. Varous speakers on both sides of the House referred to this almost incessantly, and one is grateful for that fact. We have taken cognizance of the plans which the hon. the Minister has for the dieselization and electrification of various railway lines, and in this way eventually for the protection of the energy resources of South Africa as far as the transportation aspect is concerned. We are grateful to know, as far as electrification is concerned, that we are from next year onwards going to obtain power from Cabora-Bassa. We were pleasantly surprised when we heard about the nuclear power-station which is going to be established near Cape Town somewhere beyond Melkbos Strand. We are aware of these matters, and we are grateful that the Railways is in this respect going to play an exceptional role in South Africa during the ensuing period, particularly in the best utilization of our energy resources as far as the transportation of goods in South Africa is concerned.

I believe that the Railways also has another very important role to play in the expansion of South Africa over the next decade or two. This has to do with the decentralization of industries, a programme which is of the utmost importance to South Africa as a whole, therefore not only of importance to those areas where these industries are to be established, but also to the whole of South Africa. This is in line with the development of our programme of separate freedoms in South Africa and the expansion of the vitality and viability of our Bantu homelands. All sectors of our society must proceed with this programme of decentralization with everything at their disposal. We, who are of the younger generation, are becoming a little impatient because the development of this decentralization of our industries is not proceeding more rapidly. However, we note with gratitude the great progress which has already been made, and the fact that large border areas in the Transvaal are already occupied by industries. We also note with gratitude the millions of rand which have already been spent by the Bantu Investment Corporation in the Bantu areas for the development of industries and the creation of new avenues of employment. I hear that it is something in the region of R100 million. But if we decentralize it is important that there should be communication between one factory and another. It is inevitably the case in industry today that a specific product is not manufactured in its entirety in a specific factory. The components come from different factories, and these have to be delivered for a specific price at a specific time. Hence the over-concentration of industries in major industrial areas such as the Vaal Triangle and other specific areas. The one industry feeds the other, and eventually one has the various components all together on the assembly-line to produce the final product. It is therefore essential that, if one decentralizes, there must be proper communication between the various factories manufacturing the various components of the final product. This was one of the factors which, in the past, led to unwillingness on the part of manufacturers and industrialists to decentralize from the metropolitan areas. In respect of the rapid and effective delivery of products between one factory and another, between factory and export harbour, and between the factories and the markets, which are also situated mainly in the Transvaal, the Railways has an enormous role to play. This is a role which it will have to tackle and play in the interests of the implementation of our policy of decentralization and the development of the viability of our homeland areas. Not only that but also as regards the conveyance of workers to and from the homeland industries to industries in the White area over long distances, daily or on a daily or weekly basis the Railways has an enormous part to play in the period which lies ahead. It will have to do so without having excessive quantities of oil at its disposal. It will therefore have to do so “on the hard track with hard wheels”, as the hon. the Minister put it here in his introductory speech. Consequently there is an enormous amount of planning which has to be undertaken and implemented in this regard during the next decade or so.

I can imagine that in the process there will have to be a revision of our motor carrier transportation legislation as well, so that motor carrier transport will be able to play its rightful part in South Africa, not as a competitor of the Railways that has to convey the goods, but as supplementary to the Railways, particularly in situations where the Railways cannot effect the delivery of goods to their destinations rapidly enough or on time. This happens time and again. Unfortunately the Motor Carrier Transportation Act is such that if one has to issue a motor carrier certificate, one cannot issue it only for the conveyance of emergency goods but for all the goods, and then one is competing with the Railways. I think we shall have to reconsider our motor carrier transportation legislation so that it will be possible to convey emergency goods supplementary to the Railways, and not the basic goods which the Railways is able to convey itself. I believe that during the next few years the Railways will be afforded enormous opportunities for rendering service to South Africa in this specific sphere of the development of our decentralization policy. If the hon. the Minister who is now going to retire wants to bequeath to us this heritage, if he will issue the final instructions—to us as the younger generation he has always been relentlessness itself, whose “yea” was yea and whose “nay” was nay, and if he would just give us this one affirmative before he retires—then we will feel that he has bequeathed to us a monument in his year.

I want to associate myself with all the tributes which have been paid to him, and I just want to make this one final request. It has nothing to do with my main argument. It has to do—and here I want to refer to the allegation made by the hon. member for Simonstown that hon. members on this side of the House were out of touch with their voters or with the railwayman—with another matter. I want to make a last plea to him. After a fruitful period he is retiring from the service of this Parliament and of the Railways. In my constituency there are numerous men who have over the years rendered service to the Railways. I have in mind one particular couple who, I think, are already in their eighties and who are trying to make ends meet on a very small pension. I know that they settled in Bellville 20 years ago. At the time they acquired a small house and paid R15 or R20 per annum in rates. Today, for that same small house in which they are living on the pension which they receive, they are having to pay R150 per annum in rates. I hear numerous cries from the ranks of this old guard who rendered years of good service to their country their people and the Railways, and who now tell me that they simply cannot go on. I want to ask whether the hon. the Minister cannot issue an instruction to his department, before we meet again later this year as a National Party Government after the election, to reconsider once again the plight of these elderly people, of whom there cannot be all that many, who are suffering hardships as a result of the price increases today.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member for Bellville dealt with the problems of decentralization and stressed the part that the Railways can play to make this policy a success. Sir, towards the end of last year we had a meeting in East London, a meeting arranged by the hon. member for East London City and which was attended by the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education and the Deputy Minister of Police. At the meeting they met representatives of the different bodies in that area, including representatives of the Africans in Mdantsane and Duncanville and of the farming associations. That meeting was also attended by the Mayor and the Town Clerk and representatives of the Chamber of Commerce. The object of the meeting was to establish the cause of lawlessness in the area. Everybody was agreed that the cause was unemployment. The answer given by the Deputy Ministers was that the local authorities should do something about providing employment by establishing industries in the area. The complaint that we had from the Chamber of Commerce and from the Mayor was that there was not sufficient co-operation from the Railways. They complained about the rail tariffs and pointed out that East London was not in a position to compete with industries inland, and they also complained about the attitude of the Railways towards road transport. Sir, the hon. member for Bellville has also mentioned the important part that road transport can play—and I wish the hon. the Minister would give further consideration to this—in assisting industries to get raw materials to their factories and also to get the finished goods away from the factories to the consumers and also to other factories. I have heard the complaint in the Transkei, especially in Butterworth, from developers that it takes a very long time for their goods to reach Butterworth by rail. They would get their goods much more quickly if road transport were permitted. I hope the hon. the Minister will take note of what the hon. member for Bellville has said. I would like to associate myself with the hon. member in pleading for more consideration to be given to the part that road transport can play in assisting the Railways to bring about better communication in the developing areas and to bring about the decentralization of industry.

Sir, talking about the East London complex, there used to be a daily passenger service, I understand, from East London to the north, but this has now been cut down to Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays, and I think there is a train on Saturdays as well. People who want to go up-country over the weekend or on Friday complain that there is no transport available for them. I do not know why this service should be confined to Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays, and why it should not be more evenly spread to include the weekend so that you can get service throughout the week and not just in the early part of the week. Sir, the service on the line from East London to the north is the worst in South Africa. I have raised this matter with the Minister before and he has said that there has not been sufficient support to justify a better service, including dining-car facilities and that sort of thing, but with the shortage of petrol nowadays and the long distance that you have to travel from East London to the north, I submit that the time has come for the Railways to provide a better service because people will now be compelled to use this service. I also want to associate myself with the remarks of others who have complained about high tariff for the trucking of cars, especially if you want to go down from the north to the seaside areas and truck your car in order to save petrol. Sir, it is practically impossible now to do this because of the exorbitant rate.

Sir, tribute has been paid to the hon. the Minister by practically every speaker on both sides of the House. He has mentioned the fact that this is his last Budget in this House. Tribute has been paid to him for the service he has rendered. I would like to associate myself with that tribute, but unfortunately I cannot do it without reservations. As far as the railwaymen in the Transkei are concerned, and as far as I am concerned, we have reservations. The Minister is aware of this. Sir, what a pity it is that he cannot leave this post having the commendation of all railwaymen in all parts of the country. I have raised this question year after year with the Minister and I have failed to get any satisfaction from him. He may say to me, “Why then raise the subject again?” Sir, I am making this last appeal to him to make amends before he leaves this House. He knows what I am talking about. I am talking about the allowance paid to other civil servants in the Transkei which are not paid to railwaymen. The railwaymen in the Transkei have always served, along with other civil servants, first in the Union of South Africa and now in the Republic, as servants of the Government, and they have played their part in bringing about development in that area. They have never been treated differently, but now we find that the public servants who are seconded to the Transkei Government are paid considerable allowances, while the railwaymen, the Police, Prisons officers and Post Office officials are not. When I first raised this matter in the House he gave me the reply that they could not receive these allowances because they were working for another Government. But whether they are working for another Government or not, they are important people in the administration of that area. I have stressed before, and I keep on stressing, that they come into more direct contact with the African people of the Transkei than do the public servants who are getting the allowances. The relations between the two Governments between the White man and the Transkeian, depend largely on the relations of the servants of the Railways, the Police and the Post Office, with the Africans in that area. They come into daily direct contact with them. It is not always very pleasant to handle the traffic, especially at peak times, and I say it is important that these people keep on the best footing with those Africans. We should see to it that they are satisfied and happy to be employed in the Transkei, but I am afraid that is not so. They are not happy and satisfied at being employed in the Transkei. They would rather be employed elsewhere, but they are compelled to go to the Transkei. They are servants who can be transferred. Now, if the Minister had said to me, “We do not pay allowances to railwaymen under any circumstances”, then I could perhaps understand the attitude. But certain railwaymen do get allowances. The railwaymen in South-West Africa are paid an allowance. The Minister says that is done because there are special circumstances and they have received it over a long period. I do not see how the circumstances of the railwayman in South-West Africa are any different from those of the railwayman in the Transkei. Also, railwaymen transferred to Natal get allowances, so why should they get allowances and not the railwaymen in the Transkei? After all, the Transkei borders on Natal as well. When I raised this matter originally many years ago the Minister gave me his reply. I raised it with him again and pointed out two years later that it was not only seconded civil servants who were getting this allowance, but that other civil servants who were not seconded were getting it, and I referred to the auditing staff. The Minister said he would check up to see whether that was right and if it was right he would have it stopped. When he came back into the debate later he said he had checked it and it was correct that there were extra allowances paid, so he went back to the Cabinet and had that allowance withdrawn, so that the people who were getting the allowance had it taken away from them. I think that was most unfair. I have raised this question with the other Ministers. The Minister of Finance has been more sympathetic than other Ministers. He has at times in the House said that he would refer the matter back to the Cabinet to see what could be done, and he has written me long letters on the matter, but it is quite clear to me that this is the Minister who is responsible, or mainly responsible, for refusing the payment of the allowances to these officials. At the present time the papers are full of what is happening in the Transkei. There are statements by the Chief Minister that he is going to ask for independence at any moment, and then another statement comes out again to say that it will be done within the next five years. We know there are claims for land, etc., and in the Transkei at present there is a feeling of uncertainty, which I will raise in another debate. I say to this Minister that he should ensure that his staff in the Transkei are happy and contented to be there and want to be there, and that he should not have a dissatisfied and discontented staff there. There is not so much involved, and the numbers of staff will decrease as the years go on because they are being replaced with Africans. I appeal to him, before he goes off, to reconsider his whole attitude towards these railwaymen.

I would also be glad if he could tell us in his reply to this debate what his policy is in regard to the Railways in the Transkei. We know that they are replacing the bus drivers with African drivers. What is to happen in so far as the trains are concerned? Will they continue to have White drivers and White officials running the trains, or is there to be a policy of gradually handing over to African drivers, conductors, etc.? This is a policy which affects the area very much. You would have seen, Sir, that the Transkei Government has advertised for all the senior posts in its service to be filled by Africans. I do not think that they will get suitable applicants for all those posts, but the policy in the Transkei is to get rid of the White officials and to replace them with Africans as soon as possible.

Despite my remarks about my reservations in accepting all the tributes paid to the hon. the Minister, I too join in wishing him a happy retirement.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Transkei, who has just resumed his seat, touched on a number of matters he had taken up with the hon. the Minister, and I shall not try to reply to him on that score. There is probably merit in the matters raised by him, but I leave it at that so that the Minister may reply to his questions personally.

In this lage stage of the debate I feel it to be a heartfelt need to express, on behalf of myself and my voters in Kempton Park, our praise and appreciation to the hon. the Minister of Transport. We in Kempton Park will always remember him for his resolute and firm standpoints and actions, but in particular we shall remember him as a friend of the railwaymen in whom the staff and the management placed great confidence during his term of office. His Budget Speech yesterday bore testimony once again to the outstanding achievements of the S.A. Railways under his able leadership. We want to wish him and Mrs. Schoeman many more years of happiness, health and prosperity. We say thank you to Oom Ben, and to the Railways and the Railways Administration from the highest, viz. the General Manager, to the most minor official, we say that they should continue the good work and build on the sound and unshakeable foundations laid by Oom Ben and the National Party over the past 25 to 26 years. To us Oom Ben is synonymous with the S.A. Railways and the S.A. Railways is so closely linked to the National Party that if one wants to view the achievements of the National Party, one needs to page through the annals of the history of the Railways. We are on the eve of a general election and the hon. the Minister is being showered with praise from all sides for what he has been able to do on the South African Railways during his term of office and for the achievements he has to his credit. Those achievements in turn, are so intimately bound up with the achievements of the National Party that they cannot be separated. Twenty-six years have gone by, and, judging by the party’s proud past, the National Party may now go to the voters with confidence yet again. This is a party which is so strong and united that it inspires confidence in every voter. In these times in which we are living, these difficult and dangerous times, these uncertain times, and in this fluid situation, it is once again only the National Party which inspires that confidence in the voters.

While the National Party, on the one hand, towers up like a giant and inspires confidence, the United Party is in a state of fragmentation and is suffering from what one may call a kind of political fit and political convulsion on the eve of the election. Within the United Party there is so much discord and fighting now, such a lack of strong leadership, that the hon. members on the other side of this House are confused and are actually rendering it impossible for the name “United Party” to be at all accurate, because it is anything but united. The United Party is divided …

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Railways.

Mr. Speaker, I just mention this to show that when we speak of the Railways today, we are able to attest to resolute leadership. If we look at the past, and consider the United Party’s record before the National Party came into power, then it is clear to us that we can enter this election knowing that we are taking the railway people along with us. In the course of the past few days, the criticism emanating from the United Party has already been well and truly dealt with. In spite of the fact that the United Party tried to make political capital out of the fact that the hon. the Minister was not prepared to compromise himself at this stage in regard to salary increases, the hon. members would have alleged, if the hon. the Minister had in fact announced salary increases, that it was an attempt on the part of the Minister to catch voes.

Reference has been made here to the disciplinary and control measures, but that criticism, too, we were able to refute without difficulty. All that now remains is the fine and solid record of the National Party. If one were to ask oneself why things were going so well with the Railways, one could say that the Railways had succeeded and were still succeeding in transporting everything offered them for transport. This is a very important aspect which we should not lose sight of. We need only look at the situation in countries overseas; we need only look at what is happening in England today, where chaos, fear, discomfort and damage to property are the order of the day, to realize how fortunate we are here.

In the second place we can be proud of our people and our trade union leaders. They are responsible people, people who are good patriots and loyal citizens. They work via the established channels to satisfy the needs of their people and resolve disputes which may arise. Our industrial legislation is among the best in the world, and that is why we can look back with gratitude over a long period of total order and industrial peace. Wherever there have been problems, of whatever nature, the National Party has always lent a sympathetic ear to the workers of the Railways. Every problem, every claim has been dealt with fairly and justly. The National Party knows that there are people who are having a hard time of it in the Railways, but we also know that the National Party will look after those people in the future just as their needs have always been looked after in the past.

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

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, prior to the adjournment I was pointing out to the House that things were going well with the Railways and that this could be ascribed chiefly to the responsible conduct of, inter alia, the trade union leaders and the fact that we had the necessary legislation to ensure that things would go well with our people. In the last place I pointed out that whatever the nature of the Railways’ problems, this Government and the National Party had always lent a sympathetic ear to the workers and that whenever those problems had arisen, they had been dealt with sympathetically and ironing them out to everyone’s satisfaction.

There are a few other minor points concerning which I should like to exchange a few ideas. In the first place I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it would not be possible to use diesel locomotives for the passenger trains on that section of the railway line from Kimberley southwards which has not been electrified. I refer here in particular to the Trans-Karoo train on which I have had the privilege of travelling. During the summer months, when it is very hot, and one is virtually forced to open the windows whilst travelling by train through the Karoo, it can be a real nuisance when soot, dust and coal-ash fly in the window. This causes much unpleasantness. I think that it would be a solution to this problem if we were to make use of diesel locomotives on that section. I should very much like to hear what the hon. the Minister will be able to tell us in this connection.

I should also like to refer briefly to another important development which has taken place on the Railways recently and which is deserving of our attention. I mention this apropos of a reference to it by the hon. the Minister in his introductory speech. I refer to the installing and commissioning of the computer. For such a large organization with such a diversity of functions, the commissioning of a computer could not have come at a more opportune time. In view of the target of increased productivity and of the shortage of staff, the computer is an invaluable aid, particularly in regard to the replacement of clerical staff and the establishment of improved methods of control. It is interesting to note what tasks are performed by the computer. In the first place, in regard to payment—

It goes without saying that this necessitated very complex programming, but to proceed—

In the second place there is the revenue accounting—

In the third place it also handles general accounting functions—

Then there are also technical applications—

It is quite obvious that this computer is fulfilling a special function in the railway system of today which is virtually indispensable. I do not want to elaborate on this at this stage.

This brings us to the other important task performed by the computer. It allows of a proper account being given of the location of every truck at any given time, where it comes from, where it is going and what it contains. By this means the Railways are today in a position to save a tremendous amount of manpower. I think that we can congratulate the Railways on this exceptionally valuable service which they have introduced in order to meet these problems.

Mr. Speaker, as one listens to the hon. member for Kempton Park with his dissertation on the “rekenoutomaat”, one felt one could really just reply by saying: “Die rekenoutomaat is ’n wonderlike ding”. I agree with him that it performs a lot of functions, but I would not credit the success of the “rekenoutomaat” or the work it achieves to the hon. the Minister in dealing with his portfolio. The Railways and Harbours Administration is essentially an Administration in volving persons in that it involves many thousands of employees and also many, many thousands of persons who use the Railways. So that, when one introduces mechanical aids, such as the computer, there still remain the questions of the personnel and the personal problems of both the user and the railway employee. I just want to say to the hon. member for Kempton Park that only recently have I inherited, as a result of delimitation, an area in the Peninsula which contains a vast number of railway employees. Never have I found it easier to form an election committee than I have found in that particular area of my new constituency as it is now established. I have no difficulty in finding workers, and they are people who are employed by the Railway Administration. I would like to say to the hon. member that he may live on, believing that all railway workers are quite happy in the service, but that is not the experience that others of us have.

I want to deal with one matter which the hon. member for Houghton raised with the hon. the Minister this afternoon, and that is in connection with Mitchell’s Plain. The hon. the Minister will remember that I raised this matter some time ago and asked him about the question of establishing a railway line. He quite correctly and in a businesslike way said: “Well, let us see what is going to happen when the planning and the development of Mitchell’s Plain have been completed.” That is a reasonable approach. What distressed me this evening was a suggestion by the hon. member for Houghton that we are going to look forward to having from Mitchell’s Plain through Salt River junction into Cape Town a repetition of the unsatisfactory conditions, because of passenger numbers, that exist between Soweto and Johannesburg. I think if we have learned one lesson from the problems experienced in the conveyance of these vast numbers of workers at a certain time in the morning to their work and back again the evening, it is the necessity of ensuring that the industrial area and development is placed next to Mitchell’s Plain and not away from it. Here, I must say, I sympathize with the hon. the Minister, because no decisions have been made. Hon. members on the other side of the House say that these Coloured persons, ¼ million of them, who will eventually be housed at Mitchell’s Plain, must be taken right across to the west coast to an industrial area somewhere near Mamre. That, I suggest, is ridiculous. Now the hon. the Minister has been asked by the hon. member for Houghton what he is doing about a railway line. I am sure he cannot plan anything except to have a circular railway line which can deal with all the possibilities that can arise as a result of the development of that area. I do believe that this question which has been raised stresses the necessity that adjacent to Mitchell’s Plain an area of industrial development must be established to provide employment for those 250 000 people who are going to be living in that area. If the Minister says tonight that he is waiting for that decision, I say that the delay and the reason that is causing the delay are in the hands of his own colleague, the Minister of Planning, in so far as that development is concerned.

I want to revert to some question which I asked the hon. the Minister in respect of the Additional Appropriation. That was in connection with the finalization of the extensions to Table Bay Harbour. The hon. the Minister may recall that as far back as 1967, I, being interested, because the harbour happens to fall within my constituency, asked the hon. the Minister for some timetable as to what was going to take place regarding the reconstruction and the development of Table Bay Harbour. I was cheered when I received a reply from the hon. the Minister’s department, because it looked as though we were going to have some movement and some action, and that there would be speedy action in developing this harbour. I want to remind you this evening, if I may, Sir, of the planning in 1967 and of the facts as they are today. Let us look at phase I.

In phase I, it was stated, construction of the outer sea wall, etc., would be the nature of the work. The work was planned to be commenced in April 1968 and would take approximately three years to complete. Sir, what did we do yesterday? We voted more money to complete the job that should have been finished in 1971. We are now in 1974.

Now we come to phase II. I was informed that the work was scheduled to start in 1970 and was expected to be completed within 18 months. At the latest that would have been June of 1972. This is 1974 and the work is still uncompleted. As far as phase III is concerned, namely the construction of certain berths which were to be made available in 1974, I was told that certain of the berths would be available in 1973 and that others would become available in 1974 and that the Duncan Dock would thus be freed for the handling of ordinary commercial traffic. That has not been achieved. Now, in 1974, we have voted the first R100 for the work to commence at the end of this year.

What is the position in regard to phase IV? This is a matter which should already have been behind us. The roads should have been there, the trains should have been running, and we have not yet been asked for the first R100 to start the work. What distresses me, Sir, is that here in South Africa, when you have a planned programme for the development of this harbour within this period of time, we find that these delays have occurred.

The hon. the Minister will forgive me if I mention an experience I had recently when I visited Malawi. In that country, I found that they had decided in 1968 that they would build a new capital city. In 1973 they moved into that capital city with all their Government departments and everything that went with them. This was done in five years. However, the matter that we are now discussing is one which has been dragging on for some time and I believe that it is an indictment of the hon. the Minister that he has not been able to ensure that this work was completed. I know that the hon. gentlemen may say that there have been some variations or some changes, but the fact remains that this was the programme and this programme is now behind schedule to the extent I have mentioned. This type of thing causes frustration and disappointment to industry and to all those who are looking forward to making use of these facilities. When they plan, they have to plan ahead, and when they do their forward planning they find that the facilities are not on time and are not available. This is the indictment which the hon. member for Durban Point has levelled against the Railway Administration, that that forward planning is not definite and clear enough to the investor, the entrepreneur and the industrialist here in South Africa.

In speaking about harbours, I am not confining myself to the harbour at Cape Town. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give consideration to one matter which is a minor matter, but which is of grave importance to persons, to individuals, and to the safety of individuals who use the harbour. I refer, Sir, to the question of traffic control within the harbour areas. When one arrives at docks anywhere in order to meet a passenger liner that has come from overseas, one has to contend with the difficulties of finding parking. People do not go to the docks to meet these liners every week. They might only go there once in six months. There is no indication of where to park, how to get close to the vessel and where to pick up passengers. As far as the traffic in the docks on those occasions is concerned, it mills around at will without any traffic control whatsoever. It is a hazard and I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he give consideration to suggesting to his department, before he vacates the office that he holds, that they establish a branch of the Railway Police who are specialists in traffic control.

I do not believe, Sir, that this is a job in our modern world that can be undertaken by the ordinary person who is simply told: “You look after the traffic this morning.” I believe that the time has come when we should have a special section in the Railway Police, the sole job of which would be to deal with traffic, the control of traffic and the removal of possible road hazards in the dock areas. I say this because the long panned and long promised overhead bridges, pedestrian bridges and so forth in harbour areas have just not materialized. The pedestrian who wants to get from one part to another has to walk through the hazards of passing trains, lorries and cars, without any apparent control of those vehicles. Sir, I make these suggestions to the hon. the Minister and I hope he will see that some attention is given to them in the interests of persons who have to frequent these docks and particularly persons who are not acquainted with the docks.

Sir, a third point that I want to raise with the hon. the Minister is a complaint about which I feel very deeply with regard to the Administration’s attitude to pension matters in borderline cases. Sir, the hon. the Minister has been Leader of this House for a long time. He knows that when this House appoints a Select Committee and gives it certain functions, that Select Committee is appointed because this House has confidence in it; it believes that it will act in the best interests of the people, irrespective of political opinion and irrespective of status in life. The Select Committee on Pensions was appointed for a very simple reason. No law can possibly cover all eventualities in the life of a servant of the State. There must always be those on this side of the line, and others, on the other side of the line, and for that reason Parliament, or you, Sir, have seen fit year after year to appoint the Select Committee to deal with the petitions of people who feel that the pension laws, if strictly applied to them, can lead to hardship.

Sir, we have had examples of how this Select Committee on Pensions had worked to the advantage and to the benefit and happiness of many people in South Africa. Sir, let me give you one example in regard to war pensions. The law was passed many years ago that a war widow had to make her claim within so many years of the end of hostilities. Many widows were unaware of this fact; it was not brought to their notice. Sir, this Select Committee has suggested to this House year after year that the widow concerned should be allowed to make her application although it was not submitted timeously in the first instance, and year after year, to the credit of both sides of this House, those recommendations have been accepted without query and relief has been brought to hundreds, if not thousands, of people who would otherwise have been in a difficult position.

But, Sir, what happens when we deal with petitions from ex-employees or injured employees of the Railways and Harbours Administration? Those petitions come to the Select Committee because the cases are not clear-cut cases. If they were clear-cut cases that did not need some condonation or some new approach from this House, they would not come to the Select Committee; they come to the Select Committee for that very reason. The Select Committee, consisting of members on both sides of the House, considers the equities and the justice of the situation and makes recommendations to this House, and year after year either the Minister or the hon. the Deputy Minister gets up and says: “Will you please refer this case back to the Administration ‘vir afhandeling’.”

They act as total dictators.

Sir, I am tempted to suggest to you that that attitude of the Railway Administration is contemptuous of a Select Committee of this House, or should I say that it is not giving due weight to the decisions of a Select Committee of this House. The hon. the Minister knows of cases where one has had to come back to this House over and over again. In the meantime the individual concerned goes through years of uncertainty, and then eventually a benevolent official says: “This time we will approve of the recommendation of the Select Committee.” In one case where this was done we on this side of the House had to persist year after year, and it ended up by this man getting double the income that he would have had otherwise. This was a man who was injured on duty in the service of the Administration.

I do not suggest for one moment that the hon. the Minister can look at every case of this nature that comes before him, but I believe that another parting instruction can be given to his department to say: “Look, we have been wrong in treating the Pensions Select Committee in this way; if my colleagues in this House sitting on a Select Committee recommend that this should be done, then we must accept it.” Sir, that would bring no reflection on the department, it would bring no reflection on the hon. the Minister if he is just prepared to say that when a Select Committee of this House makes a recommendation, that should be sufficient for this House to give the benefits asked for in the particular case.

Sir, if you look at the reports of the Select Committee on Pensions over the years, you will see how many of these cases have become a political issue in the House, because, after all, when once the hon. the Minister moves that the matter should go back to the Administration, they do not know the details but they are backed by the weight of the Minister’s request that the matter should be referred back to them, against the recommendation made by colleagues of his sitting on the Select Committee that some alleviation should be granted. Sir, I do hope that the hon. the Minister will see fit to consider this and to see that an instruction goes out that there should be a new approach and that these matters should be left in the hands of a Select Committee consisting of colleagues of the hon. the Minister in this House, who, after all, are not here to hand out largesse but to try to assist in deserving cases.

Sir, many tributes have been paid here to the hon. the Minister. I want to say to him also that I appreciate the manner in which he has from time to time taken the bit in his teeth and has acted where something has been necessary in the interests of the Administration, even where it has been in conflict with the opinion of some of his colleagues on that side. I remember an occasion when the hon. the Minister, in presenting Additional Estimates, was able to say to us that certain funds were for the housing of Bantu workers in the Western Cape. At a time when Canute was saying the waves must go back, the hon. the Minister was a realist and said: “I am sorry; I need those waves and some of that water here for the Western Cape,” and he said that he was building these houses for the Bantu workers in the Western Cape.

Sir, one has appreciated that sort of attitude on the part of the hon. the Minister. I want to take this opportunity this evening of asking him—perhaps this is the wrong way of putting it—if he could perhaps leave a legacy in one small respect to a certain section of the people of South Africa and for the benefit of the whole of South Africa. Sir, I am referring to the inadequate facilities in this wonderful country of ours for international yachting and international yachtsmen and for the larger power-boat activities within South Africa. Sir, throughout the world power-boating and yachting and international yachting are growing considerably, and the figures are quite informative as to the extent to which this activity is extending. One finds, for instance, that in the Cape Peninsula in a matter of some three years the number of power-boats—and I do not mean boats with outboard engines—has increased from 1 500 to 2 337, and in the South-West Cape it has increased since 1970 by 500 to some 2 676. This may be an inopportune moment to be talking about power-boating, but I am optimistic as I think most of us in this House are that our fuel troubles will be overcome, and if they are overcome power-boating—I am not talking about the smaller boats with outboard motors—and yachting will grow in this country as it has grown throughout the world.

If one looks at the position in South Africa, one finds that the yachting fraternity have from time to time been moved away from the traditional areas in which they have carried out their sporting activities. I can recall—perhaps that is rather confessing my age—diving off the pier at the bottom of Adderley street where there is now a national road, and swimming where the yacht club in Cape Town used to be. But the yacht club has now moved. It has moved into the docks, and is now being moved out again because the space is required. We have the position in Durban where especially the large sea-going yachts are not very welcome in a busy harbour and one can understand that. The Port Captain is busy with commercial shipping, but where else do these ocean-going yachts go? Right around the South African coast there are places where these facilities can be extended and planned and conceived, not by the hon. the Minister alone, but in conjunction with his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Sport. There is a tourist attraction near Cape Town, which started as a small slipway in the south peninsula, and which has led to the growth of a large tunny fleet. This has become an enormous tourist attraction, drawing people throughout the world for sport fishing. That exists in Port Elizabeth and in other parts of South Africa too, but nothing is being done to provide the facilities that are required if we are going to attract to South Africa the large ocean-going yachts and ocean-going cruisers which we find in other parts of the world. If there were such facilities many of them would come down this coast. I myself have been on one, a very expensive vessel. Some of these craft cost as much as R500 000. When such a vessel comes to Cape Town it is given moorings in the docks. Sir, it costs an owner a fortune when he moves out again because of the oil pollution in the harbour, which is used for general commercial purposes. It costs him a fortune to clean his vessel. I have seen it myself; I have spoken to owners who have brought yachts to this country. When I talk about this matter, I visualize that in this country we need facilities for this sport, facilities which will attract tourists from all over the world to cruise to South Africa. We must provide for them the type of moorings and the type of attractions which one finds when one goes to the mediterranean. You find that in Corfu and in Sicily and in Malta, where there are harbours set aside for this type of sport. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give serious consideration to this matter. I am sure he has thought about it also. In the Cape Town area, to the west of the existing docks where there is a helicopter pad, there is an area which could be created into a harbour for international yachting without comparison in the other parts of the world. I am sure hon. members can think of other places around this coast also. I believe it is being provided for in Richards Bay. I believe the Minister is providing facilities in Richards Bay, where ocean-going yachts can be accommodated away from the flotsam and the jetsam one finds inside a commercial harbour. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not, before he vacates the office he holds, instigate a committee comprising members of his department and the department of Sport and Recreation, and invite persons interested in this aspect to see what can be done in South Africa. Sir, in the world of international sport we are considerably isolated, but it is very interesting to see what international status has been given to the Cape to Rio race, which is now one of the premier yachting events of the world. When the Round the World yacht race took place recently, the yachts came to the Cape, because of our winds, our position in the hemisphere, in the world surface, which is attractive to world yachting. If we want them they must be given facilities. The tourist benefit to be derived from this is immeasurable but it needs somebody to initiate it. I think the hon. the Minister could give that one spur now before the engine goes into the shed, to instigate and to establish this inquiry. If he did that he would be doing a great service to South Africa. I want to say, if I may, in conclusion, that last year South African yachtsmen were invited to participate in yacht races in no less than five other countries in the world, and I think those contacts are something that we should develop in South Africa.

The hon. member for Green Point brought to the Minister’s attention a number of matters of which he has special knowledge and for which he seems to have a special liking, such as yachting and power boats. We in the interior cannot really discuss those matters because we live a long way from blue water, although, with all the rain we are having in the interior, we shall perhaps have to come to him for a few ideas. Then we too could perhaps start occupying ourselves with that kind of sport.

I am, however, tempted to refer to what the hon. member for Port Natal said in the debate earlier today. Sir, by this time we have come to know the hon. member as one who is somewhat sour and dissatisfied when he puts a case here and we know that he goes for everyone in a somewhat arrogant way. I just want to make this remark; that hon. member wants to intercede on behalf of the railway workers. Sir, he does not have a very high opinion of those people, because the majority of those people are Afrikaans speaking and he cannot even serve them in their own language. What respect does he really have for those people? He can come and talk and try to intercede on their behalf as much as he likes, but if one wants to interface on behalf of a person and one cannot do so in his language, then I do not know whether he will attract many followers from among that group of people.

Why do you not come to Port Natal?

I am not interested in getting myself into his sour atmosphere. I shall choose the place I should like to speak and where I shall stand.

Sir, through all the years that this great organization has been established in South Africa, every Minister of Railways has had a special bond with Germiston, particularly as a result of the large scope of the railway activities in that area. The latest figure at my disposal is that 371 passenger trains pass through Germiston station daily, a great deal more than many rural people see passing through their stations in a month. This being the case, there are naturally many railway officials, too, not only in my constituency, but also in many constituencies on the rand. It is with a feeling of sadness that those people are now beginning to realize that the man who has led them all these years will no longer be there in future, and the words of the wise Solomon have occurred to many of them: “Seest thou a man diligent in his business? He shall stand before kings; he shall not stand before mean men.” It is the votes of these Railwaymen in their great numbers that our friends opposite are wooing on this occasion too. The Minister and the Railways Administration have been attacked from so many sides. They have been attacked about the financial position of the Railways, about funds which have become exhausted and funds in which unused money has accumulated. Attacks have been launched on the general administration as the hon. member for Green Point did this evening with regard to planning and so on. Objections have been raised concerning the operation and also concerning accidents. Conditions of service have also been discussed. All these speeches have had the same raison d’etre, namely to get a section of the railwaymen to vote for that side. In this debate they are angry again today because the hon. the Minister made no announcement in connection with salary increases. However, as the hon. member for Yeoville indicated yesterday, if he had done so they would immediately have attacked him in that they would have said he was trying to buy the railwayman’s vote by having made such an announcement. However, the railwayman realizes that this Government, under the leadership of this hon. Minister, has looked after him, and, what is more his vote goes to the party which enjoys his confidence.

One must admit that in the course of years and with the tremendous development and expansion that has occurred, substantial changes have taken place in this enormous staff. One of the most important changes is in regard to shortages which have occurred in various grades. Whites have simply not been applying for certain types of work on the Railways any more. In order to keep the wheels rolling, and after consultation with staff associations, non-Whites were employed. This employment of non-Whites took place in an orderly and controlled way and all interested parties were informed concerning these matters. The machinery established through the years is working satisfactorily. However, we must acknowledge that this remains a delicate matter. This is the traditional situation out of which friction may easily arise. In the present circumstances we still find that dissatisfaction does in fact exist. I refer to a matter about which I read in a newspaper report of 1 February. I shall briefly summarize the gist of this report. There is a shortage of truck and coach repairers—there is also some talk of welders, but I am not sure whether that is correct—and crane drivers because there are not enough of these people to do that work. After the necessary consultation a decision was taken to employ non-Whites. To prevent Whites and non-Whites working together in the same work situation, some of the Whites were removed from the existing buildings and had to start working in other buildings. This caused this new situation where they were no longer able to work overtime, and, in addition, received less remuneration by way of bonus. It is alleged in the report that people received up to R30 per month less. The financial position of such a person has therefore been affected as a result of this change and to some extent his honour has also been injured.

I should also like to ask the Minister for a last time something to which I want him to give his attention for this matter to be handled with utmost circumspection, because a number of things could flow from it which could eventually have adverse repercussions. In the first place the machinery for consultation could be compromised. Ultimately people would no longer accept the bona fides of the Administration nor would they accept certain undertakings. Desertions and resignations would take place which could cause the position in those very grades to deteriorate even further. If that is the picture shown to outsiders, new recruits in those grades will also be difficult to find. General discontent and suspicion in any industry simply does not make for good production and satisfied workers. We shall have to try to eliminate that situation wherever it arises. The first requirement, however, is that the matter be handled with utmost circumspection. The second point which we shall have to bear in mind, is that such a White person who has been removed from a particular place of employment has made his sacrifice. Understanding the circumstances, he leaves his traditional place of employment for another. It is not his doing which has caused him to be moved out from there; it is an over-all situation which has brought about these circumstances. What is more, he retains his know-how and skill and his know-how and skill continue to be at the disposal of the same employer for whom he has been working throughout the years. He is not replaced, but moved to another place of employment for the very reason that there were not enough hands for the work. Now apparently we are not using his labour and his know-how to the fullest extent, because, as in the past, he ought still to have the opportunity to do bonus work and overtime work. In this new work situation his financial position is affected and we shall have to prevent this in every case.

Years ago—I think it was in 1971—during the introduction of the Industrial Conciliation Act, the hon. the Minister referred to this consultation machinery on the Railways when non-Whites are employed. On that occasion the hon. the Minister said that he set two conditions. Firstly, that Whites should not be forced out of their jobs: in other words, they should not lose their jobs. That has not occurred in this case. The other condition is that the hon. the Minister did not want the wage standards of Whites to be undermined in any way through the employment of non-Whites.

Now we must admit that in this case the over-all wage standards of the White worker on the Railways are not being prejudiced. It is the wage position of individuals which is being prejudiced. This evening, at this late stage, almost at the end of the debate, I should like to make a very earnest appeal that where this new dispensation has taken effect, we should make very sure that those people who are making a sacrifice—as I outline a moment ago—should not be worse off as far as their wage situation is concerned. They should have the opportunity to continue with their bonus or overtime work, because we should remember that they have established for themselves a certain standard of living on the basis of the remuneration which their employer had previously enabled them to earn. Through the actions of the same employer their circumstances of employment have changed and now the wage level of these people is being prejudiced. I repeat that this has not occurred through their own actions, because, hard workers as they were, they accepted the circumstances with understanding. Unfortunately, some of them seem to be on the losing side.

We still have loyal employees and they will continue to serve their employer with confidence, but if we are unable to grant them the opportunity of maintaining the same wage standards with the additional remuneration of overtime and bonus work, the suggestion I want to put to the hon. the Minister is that a salary adjustment will have to be effected for those people. This plea is a serious one and this is a matter which we shall have to consider, because if this matter is not correctly handled, and these people are affected in their financial position and their honour, we are going to have dissatisfied workers and there will be a ripple effect to the detriment of the employer who in this case is the railway organization. We cannot allow this, because we should like to see the Railways running smoothly with good workers and a satisfied staff who are able to render satisfactory work and service.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members will notice from the document that has been tabled, an additional appropriation of R4 724 000 for operating expenditure is being applied for in respect of the current financial year. That brings the revised estimate for operating expenditure to R343 596 000.

The additional appropriation of R2 700 000 under Sub-head 2 is required so as to make provision for departmental expenditure on the improved pension benefits for officials which came into operation on 1 July 1973. The other major additional appropriation, i.e. R2 002 650 under Subhead 13, constitutes provision for higher payments to other postal administrations arising from a bigger increase than was expected in the telecommunication traffic to and from countries abroad. The South African Post Office does in turn derive increased revenue from this extra traffic, which makes up for the increased expenditure.

The nominal appropriations of R50 each relate to new services on which it is expected that expenditure will be necessary during the course of the new financial year, i.e. prior to the main Budget of the Post Office being presented to this House later this year. The object of the inclusion of these nominal amounts in the estimates is to ask for timely Parliamentary sanction for the new items. In the main Budget Parliament will be asked to vote the actual amounts that will be involved here.

As far as capital expenditure is concerned, only nominal appropriation is being requested for new services on which it is expected that expenditure will have to be incurred during the new financial year prior to the main Budget being presented to this House. These include 25 new buildings and the purchase of a shareholding in the South Atlantic Cable Company, to which the submarine cable between South Africa and Europe belongs. What is being envisaged in the latter regard is the take-over of the shareholding of 65% which the Industrial Development Corporation has in the South Atlantic Cable Company. As the cable company is well established and independent at present, the time has now arrived for the Industrial Development Corporation to withdraw from it. The Post Office is virtually the only user of the cable and therefore the logical body for taking over the shareholding of the IDC.

The total of the nominal appropriations for capital expenditure amounts to R1 300, which brings the revised estimate for capital expenditure to R163 001 300.

To summarize, a total additional appropriation of R4 725 300 is therefore being requested for operating and capital expenditure in respect of the current financial year.

Mr. Speaker, it is not customary to make long speeches on the second reading of an Additional Budget such as this one. As we know, the details are being dealt with at the Committee Stage. Therefore I just want to make in brief two remarks in connection with the additional estimates as presented, and then I shall deal further at a later stage with the points mentioned by the hon. the Minister in his introductory speech. The first is that all in all 33 items are reflected here on these additional estimates, and of those 33 no fewer than 32 are totally new items. In connection with the Additional Railways Budget, my colleague the hon. member for Durban Point objected to new items of this nature being reflected on additional estimates in cases where such items should really be reflected on the main estimates. It is wrong that new items such as these should be introduced, items on which only a very brief debate can be conducted, because after these items have been voted they also stand voted for the next financial year. The principle of the matter is wrong, and I hope that in future we shall see fewer of these new items on additional estimates, and more items which are really connected with additional estimates, namely amounts requested in connection with items for which too little was asked when provision was made for those items in the main estimates.

The second point is that I hope that at some time or other the hon. the Minister will be able to give us just an idea of how the additional estimates fit in with the estimates already voted by us. I do not want any details, but I think this offers him the opportunity to let us know, at least, what the state of the finances of the Post Office is, in view of the fact that this forms an integral part of the estimates we voted last year.

Mr. Speaker, in connection with my hon. friend’s objection to the effect that we have now included such a large number of new items here, just want to say the following: A large number of these new items are totally new services, such as those relating to the take-over of the Post Office Savings Bank, services which we have never rendered before. Now, parliamentary procedure lays down that I may not refer to it in the Part Appropriation, which I hope to introduce after this. Even at this early stage provision has to be made in this Additional Appropriation so that when the Main Appropriation is introduced in the latter half of the year these items will already have been reflected on these estimates. The Additional Appropriation is the criterion, not the Part Appropriation. That is the one major reason. The second is that we do of course have here quite a number of R50 items representing nominal expenditure in respect of building works which have to be undertaken. These are building works which we want to get under way in the coming month before the main budget can be introduced. We just feel that we cannot allow that essential building work to stand over until the main budget is agreed to in September, of whatever month it may be. This would involve a delay of so many months that I think the hon. member would be the first person to rise in order to complain about the delay if we were to do that.

Now I want to deal with the next and last aspect, namely how these additional estimates and the expenditure in question really fit into the whole budgetary structure. I hope to refer to a few of those aspects in my brief explanation of the Part Appropriation later on.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

(Committee Stage)

Schedule 1: Revenue Services, R4 724 000; and Schedule 2: Capital Services, R1 300:

Mr. Chairman, I have some comment to make on one of the items, but I should like the hon. the Minister, first of all, to give us further particulars in regard to it. It is a new item and it refers to the Post Office Savings Bank deposits, Savings Bank certificates and interest on those deposits. We know from an indication the hon. the Minister has given this afternoon that legislation may be coming in this connection. I assume that this may have something to do with that particular legislation and I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can at this stage give us some indication of what his plans actually are because he is asking money for that particular service at this particular stage. I think we are entitled to put that question to him at this stage.

Mr. Chairman, in this regard I am to a large extent restricted by the rules of procedure of this House. You will note, when I deliver my Part Appropriation speech later on, that I am not going to refer to the take-over of the Post Office Savings Bank at all as the relevant legislation appears on the Order Paper already. In terms of parliamentary procedure, so I have been told, it is not fitting for me to refer to it in the Part Appropriation.

You may do so if you wish.

With the permission of the Chairman I shall therefore do so with pleasure. The Post Office would now have to take upon itself the organizing of savings certificates, and so on. The propagation of the Post Office Savings Bank and of the savings certificates is going to become the responsibility of the Post Office. There are various aspects of the savings certificates which are at the moment being handled by various organizations under the Treasury’s care. The organizing and propagating of the various facets of the Post Office Savings Bank which we are now going to undertake will naturally entail expenditure for us. For that reason the answer I gave the hon. member a moment ago is also applicable here. Now we have to make provision for it in these additional estimates already. The expectation is that it will have to be transferred as soon as 1 April, in other words, that as from 1 April the Post Office is going to gain control of the Post Office Savings Bank certificates, and so on. As from that date we must incur all the expenditure in respect of these services, the propagation, etc. That is why they have to be voted in these additional estimates now.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister referred to the takeover of these facilities on 1 April. I think it is necessary for us to know what the amounts that will be taken over will approximately come to. What is the Post Office then going to do with that capital it will be getting? Look, this is capital that comes from people throughout the country. Is he going to use it for financing his Capital Account over a short period, or is it going to be over a longer period? Certain financial principles are involved here, principles about which I do not feel quite easy in my mind.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to refer to a new item on the Estimates under “Miscellaneous Expenses”, to wit item No. 20, which reads “remission or partial remission of grace or favour of telephone rental and telephone installation fees in respect of telephone apparatus provided for training purposes to institutions for the blind or partially sighted”. An additional amount of R1 200 is to be voted for this purpose. During the course of discussions last year, the hon. the Minister indicated that it was his intention to make this concession to institutions that cater for the blind and partially sighted. Consequently, we welcome this new item that is now before the Committee. However, we also seek some additional information. It has become obvious in recent times that the blind and partially sighted may obtain training to make them more economically active and productive. Indeed, it is to their psychological benefit to see to it that these people are trained in various fields. We realize that many of them have a particular aptitude for training to work with telephone apparatus and such like. Therefore we wish to see that this concession that is being granted is extended to all institutions that are providing such training. I hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to inform the Committee as to how many institutions are receiving this remission. This assistance is indeed necessary for them to receive, particularly in view of the fact that the rentals and installation fees have been substantially increased during the course of last year. We would also be pleased if the hon. the Minister could indicate to us whether all the institutions that are receiving assistance are institutions that cater for the non-White sections of the community as well—in other words, for the Coloured, the Indian and the Bantu—to ensure that the blind and partially sighted amongst those racial groups and those institutions that are providing such training, will also receive this remission which is now being provided for in the Estimates, amounting to this R1 200.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to discuss a new item under Sub-head 6, namely the new automatic telephone exchange at Florida. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that this is a matter which, as he knows, has been under discussion in Florida for a long time. In the past I heard from the hon. the Minister that it was on the books already. For that reason we are all very delighted to see it in these new additional estimates today. But, Sir, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could give us some more particulars in this regard. During the course of his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister said that these new items were being placed on the additional estimates in order to prevent delay. He went on to say that a start would be made with the erection of these buildings within the next few months. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could indicate to us when a start will be made with the telephone exchange at Florida. When will it more or less be completed and in operation? What particular area will it serve? Will it be an overlapping system and thus make available more lines in the area being served already, or is it meant to serve new areas? I think the people of Florida will appreciate it if the hon. the Minister could furnish us with the required information in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to revert to the question of the take-over of the Post Office Savings Bank by the department. Would the hon. the Minister give this House some indication of whether there is going to be any change in the policy in regard to the investments of depositors’ savings? These savings are at present mainly invested with the Public Debt Commissioners. Is it the intention of the department that there should be any departure from that policy? Is it, more specifically, the intention of the department that these funds be invested in the department’s own assets or not?

Mr. Chairman, with regard to the matter of the Post Office Savings Bank, I just want to say in reply to the hon. member for Orange Grove and the hon. member for Constantia that the investment involved here amounts to approximately R275 million. This is not money which the Post Office will be able to have all to itself; it belongs to the people who made the investments. This will at least enable the Post Office to dispose of part of it, and it will also enable it to build up reserves. As hon. members will know, the position of the Post Office in this regard is different from that of the Railways. We do not have a reserve fund or anything of that nature. Therefore, when one comes to the end of a budget year—up to now we have not landed in difficulties, but with a view to the tremendous development being undertaken by us it is possible that one may in fact find oneself in a difficult position for a few weeks—these reserve funds will most definitely be able to help the Post Office to overcome those temporary difficulties. It is also of value in that it serves as a kind of stabilization fund for the Post Office. Concerning the real nature of it, with reference to the hon. member for Constantia’s question whether we shall continue to invest these moneys with the Public Debt Commissioners, I want to say that we shall of course dispose of these funds in the closest consultation with the Treasury. Although we are now obtaining control over them, we are actually one large family consulting with one another, and in this respect one will in fact consult with one another. We realize that there may be other sources, other fields in which we could invest, and it is definitely a possibility that the Post Office will not be tied down to the Public Debt Commissioners. I want to give hon. members the assurance that this investment is taking place with due regard to the needs of our country.

The hon. member for Umbilo made inquiries about the remission of rentals and installation fees in respect of telephone apparatus in connection with the institutions for the blind. The hon. member wanted to know, firstly, where this had been done. I want to tell him that it is being done in respect of two institutions, which have applied for it. In fact, these are the only two institutions that have asked for it. The one is the School for the Blind at Worcester. We have already installed it there with a view to the training of blind persons as telephonists. The other one that asked for it, is the Trans-Orange Institute for Special Education, which now wants to train partially blind persons in their Prinshof School in Pretoria as telephonists. It is with a view to this training that the concession, the remission, is being granted. Of course, it is open to any other similar institution, White or non-White—he referred to the non-White institutions in particular—to address a similar request to us, and they will be treated in exactly the same way.

The hon. member for Florida put a question in regard to the new exchange which is about to be built there. Unfortunately I cannot promise that a start will be made with it before 24 April, but we are giving this matter all the necessary attention, and I am sure the hon. member will be delighted to know that it will serve the whole of the Florida area.

Mr. Chairman, the whole matter of the take-over of the Post Office Savings Bank will most definitely be discussed in much greater detail when that Bill is introduced, and therefore I do not wish to take up much of the time of the House in dealing with it at the moment. However, there is something I must say here, namely that it causes me concern that the hon. the Minister has said that the funds are going to be similar to the reserve funds of the Railways, such as those in the Rates Equalization Fund and the other funds, for to my mind this is a strange way to use that money, that hard-earned money of the people investing it with the Post Office Savings Bank and other savings banks, because we know how the Rates Equalization Fund and some of the other funds of the Railways virtually came to an end and then had to be built up again. I am merely mentioning this; I think it is a dangerous precedent.

†The second matter that I wish to raise is in connection with the purchase of the shareholding in the South Atlantic Cable Company Limited. This cable company was formed with, I think, a capital of £25 million, or R50 million, something like that. In any way, it was a big undertaking and we on this side approved of the company when it was formed. The cable actually started operating in 1969 and it is fully operative today. It is now the intention of the Post Office to take over this company. I should like to know whether there has been a full and thorough investigation into the financial aspects of this company and whether the hon. the Minister is satisfied that this is going to be a profitable undertaking for the Post Office itself. We must remember, Sir, that we are not dealing simply with the cable company. It includes the ship itself, with which there has been some trouble and it also includes the fact that this cable has on several occasions been broken and could only be repaired at very great cost. Has the Post Office gone into this matter thoroughly, into the question of the future life of this cable, particularly in view of the breakages, the extensive breakages that have occurred in the past? I should like to know whether the Post Office has gone thoroughly into this question. It is now taking over this cable company from the Industrial Development Corporation. Fair enough. Could the hon. the Minister tell us what dividends were paid in the last financial year, or the past two financial years, to the Industrial Development Corporation by the South Atlantic Cable Company so that we can have some indication of whether this is a profitable undertaking which is at the moment being taken over. I am not against the principle if and provided the Post Office is not going to suffer losses on this particular issue. Of course, the impression must not be gained that this will prove to be a great source of revenue which the Post Office is going to obtain, and that it will be a great expanding concern, because I believe—and the hon. the Minister can confirm this—that this South Atlantic cable can only supply the needs of this country up to about 1975 or 1976. It will then be in use 24 hours a day and further expansion will be required. In that connection it is quite essential that work should be started as soon as possible, and that we should hear what is happening, in regard to the building of a satellite station so that we could have this in addition to what is being done by the South Atlantic Cable Company. The shares of the IDC are being taken over. As far as I know, the shareholding is 8 755 000, and the American Cable and Radio Corporation of the U.S.A. own 4 725 000 of the shareholding. Could he tell us whether any of the shares of the American Cable and Radio Corporation are also to be taken over, or is the Post Office now going to share the South Atlantic cable with this American organization?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Orange Grove has just made a statement here in respect of the Post Office Savings Bank, a statement in which he insinuated things which I definitely must put right here for the sake of the record. I do not want to say that the hon. member did it on purpose; I accept that he did so in ignorance. The hon. the Minister made it very clear to us that the Post Office Savings Bank would be taken over. Sir, does the hon. member not know that what we are getting here are, after all, short-term loans? These are the savings of the public, and they are identical with the loans raised by the Post Office both locally and abroad.

Those are long-term loans.

Sir, whether it is a short-term loan or a long-term loan, it is still a loan. One still owes that money to the public. Why does the hon. member make the statement here, all of a sudden, that he is concerned about that money of the public? He is insinuating that the money is unlawfully being taken away from the public, and I think that is totally wrong.

That is why he is not a candidate yet.

Sir, I want to say that that money is just as safe as it would be with the Treasury. There is no difference; it is still the same State, whether the money is with the Treasury or with the Post Office. That money is owing to those people; but the hon. member did not hear what the hon. the Minister was making clear here. The Minister made it clear that if the Post Office had the sum of R243 524 680 to use for its financing, it could and would have the same effect as that of the Stabilization Fund of the South African railways. The State is making timely provision in the Post Office Budget so that there may be sufficient revenue for the Post Office to finance the necessary works and operating costs as well as the necessary loans. This will therefore be an additional amount which will in due course be available to the Post Office to be used in the event of there being increased expenditure or in the event of there being a deficit on loans, because it is not always so easy to borrow the amount which one has in view at the beginning of the year; there may be international repercussions and interest rates may be as high as they are in countries abroad at the moment—up to 12%. How can we pay 12% in countries abroad? Internal interest rates may be very high. We could then use this R250 million, or whatever the amount may be, to finance the Post Office. A proper rate of interest could also be paid to these depositors, and in addition to that the Post Office would be getting the necessary funds at a fair rate. Sir, I think this is a very good thing. I want to pay tribute to the hon. the Minister and the department for this foresight and for the positive step that is being taken in obtaining this money, with the result that everything will now be in one basket at the Post Office, where it belongs. We must not try to cast suspicion on this matter.

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to debate further the Bill which is before the Committee and which in due course will be debated by the House in regard to the Post Office. What I wish to do is to refer to one of these vitally urgent items which has had to be brought forward as an additional appropriation, namely the item “Durban (Point/Addington): Post Office”. I think in referring to it I must start by saying that once upon a time in the dim distant years that have gone by, before the hon. the Minister became Minister of Posts and Telecommunications and when I used to sit on a back bench, there was a post office called Addington Post Office. You will find over the years many questions and references to the Addington Post Office. It disappeared a long time ago because the premises, according to a reply, from the predecessor of the Minister’s predecessor, were too wet and damp and unhealthy, and so the post office moved out. Subsequently it became a very profitable business, and the people who ran the business in those premises did not seem to be suffering from tuberculosis or pneumonia or any other disease due to the damp conditions which chased the post office out. The effect, however, was that the pensioners who lived in the vicinity of Addington Hospital and who used to use that post office had the choice of going either to the Marine Parade Post Office, which was about six blocks away or to the Point Post Office, which was right down in the docks, in the business area of the docks, in an area where there were circumstances which, shall I say failed to attract many of the pensioners to that particular post office.

Was it near the Navigator’s Den?

In fact, it was beyond the Navigator’s Den and there were people who did not like going down there, particularly in the late afternoon. This is an urgent matter, Sir. It is a desperately urgent matter. We are now voting R50 to reinstate the Addington Post Office. I think I must tell a little more of the story of the Addington Post Office. When I took this matter up soon after being elected as the member for Durban Point, I was told: “All right, there is a new Addington Post Office coming. There is a plot of land, negotiated with the Durban city council.” Then I had representations from Tafta, the association for the aged in Durban, who had the next bit of vacant land, and they said: “If you build a post office here next to where we want to build an old age home, it will rather interfere with the plans for expansion of the old-age home in future.” So I negotiated with the then Postmaster, who has since retired, and has tragically since died, because it is a long time ago, and I negotiated with the city council. We managed to do a swop. Instead of the land in Bell Street which was allocated for the post office, we got land at the comer of Point Road and Bell Street. That was some eight years ago. The Post Office, in due course, agreed to the exchange. The land was swopped and everything was fixed, and we got the great news that here was to be the new Addington-Point Post Office. It was going to have a block of flats for post office employees living on top, and underneath would be facilities for the post office itself, and in front of it there would be parking facilities, which were also part of the negotiations.

And a telephone exchange?

No, that came later. The telephone exchange is quite a modern thing. It is only about 10 years old. In the meantime we waited for the Addington Post Office. The Point Post Office continued to operate in a building which a group approached me to try to have proclaimed as a national monument. Unfortunately the Minister’s predecessor and the Minister who handled national monuments decided that it was not quite justified as a national monument, although it was considered for some time, seeing that the main Durban Post Office was already a national monument. Of course, it has to be because it has a plaque showing that it was opened by my great-great-grandfather, who was then Mayor of Durban. So that is a justifiable national monument in Durban. But the history of the Addington Post Office has become almost a national monument, because before the Addington Post Office started to materialize, when we had the land and the plans and the promises, the Marine Parade Post Office building came up for demolition. In due course the sledge hammers and the pile drivers came in and Marine Parade, which was then the only post office that the Addington Hospital and all the people in the whole of South Beach in Durban, Escom Terrace, Prince Street, Gillespie Street and the holiday area could use, was to disappear. So we negotiated and I saw the next Postmaster. Here I must give full marks because in every case the postmaster in Durban and the regional representative were as co-operative and as helpful as it was possible for a human being to be. I had nothing but co-operation, nothing but help. I, on my side, tried to do the same by looking for premises and so on. Eventually we got a temporary Marine Parade Post Office. That was temporary because next to it was coming the Seaview Street Post Office and telephone exchange. That was due to be completed in 1974. I wonder if the hon. the Minister can tell me how 1974 compares with Mr. Blaar Coetzee’s magic 1978, because 1974 is a bit close now.

The next post office at Point, the Snell Parade post office, was then due for demolition. Fortunately there was a lease and we managed to get the whole building, Winchester House, knocked down except the little post office on the corner. So the Elangeni Hotel had to be built all round the Snell Parade post office with the post office still standing on the corner. Then again I started the old circuit—let us look for premises. Towards the end of last year the regional representative wrote to me and said that he was sure it would please me to know that premises had now been found for a new Snell Parade post office. This has been a long history of post offices disappearing and temporary ones coming and therefore I feel that this is a red-letter day, the occasion on which R50 is voted by the Parliament of South Africa to replace the Addington post office. I want to put it on record that Addington post office, which has served Addington Hospital which is way over 100 years old, has now been reborn on an additional estimate, this very urgent item which could not wait for the main Budget. In the years in which I have grown grey I can at least say that before I came to serve my last five years in opposition and moved on to the Government side of this House, Addington post office came on to the Capital Estimates of the Post Office of South Africa. I thank the staff concerned, the regional representative, the present and his predecessor, the postmaster who has retired, and posthumously I thank him, his successor who is retired but who is still alive and to whom I give thanks, and the present postmaster. They have all played a part in the R50 which this House is voting now.

Mr. Chairman, I think the United Party ought to hold a caucus meeting before they discuss an Additional Appropriation, for, really, we have now had in this House the greatest inconsistency I have ever heard of. The hon. member, who is the chairman of their group, objected to this whole Schedule, which makes provision for the amount of R1 300 in respect of the new services which are being placed on the capital programme. [Interjections.] The hon. member did raise an objection.

I did not.

Now I can understand why they did not want to give him the nomination, for if he is the leader of the group and he does not understand these estimates, what more can one expect? The hon. member for Florida spoke about it and the hon. member for Durban Point pleaded with tears in his eyes that the provision of these services be speeded up. How is one to understand these hon. members? On Sunday I read in the Sunday Times that it was being said that the U.P. people of Natal were no longer good Englishmen; they were always being cross-grained. It is clear to me now that the hon. member for Durban Point is cross-grained towards the hon. member for Orange Grove. They cannot agree; they do not know what they want. Therefore, while they are quarrelling amongst one another in that way—the one wants something and the other one does not want it—I should like to plead with the hon. the Minister for the work on the exchange at Eligwa Park to be speeded up, because we need it. Apparently they do not need services.

Mr. Chairman, I rather found it very interesting to see the hon. member for Durban Point making a kind of “thank-the-Government” speech tonight. It is accepted with thanks and appreciation. I do think that one should at least express thanks where it is due, and it is proper that it should come from the very front benches from which we had his criticism to which the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark referred.

Have you ever heard of sarcasm?

I want to tell hon. members that we regard this Addington Post Office as a necessity, and because it is such an urgent matter it did receive some preference, even though this post office does not fall within a Nationalist seat. It is our policy to do what is proper, and that is why we do such things. Our policy, which I stated last year and the year before, is to give preference to automatic exchanges because telecommunications are a matter of top priority with us. At the same time one must in fact erect such post offices in cases where there is an absolute emergency. That is why I can in fact understand and appreciate this “thank-the-Government” message.

Reference was once again made here to the Post Office Savings Bank, which is in fact a topic on which we are going to conduct a debate later on. For the sake of the record I nevertheless want to reply to this matter. As the hon. member for Sunnyside rightly pointed out, it is not the intention that this appropriation should now become a renewals fund. I referred quite casually to the fact that the Railways have a renewals fund at their disposal, but it is by no means the intention that this will become the policy of the Post Office. What will in fact be the case is that the Post Office, just like the Treasury at the moment, will use some of those funds for Government securities. The Treasury is using those funds for developing the country, and so the Post Office will also be able to do this. However, they are still guaranteed, for the Post Office Fund as such guarantees these funds. In effect, there will actually be only R14 million in cash. The rest of this amount of R275 million is in securities. As those securities are called off in course of time, the Post office will be able to use them for development. That will always be done with the backing of the funds of the entire Post Office. Consequently I can say that there is nothing dangerous in it. There is nothing sinister about it, and it is completely in line with the action taken by the State as applied by the Treasury over the past forty, fifty years.

Reference was also made to the question of the cable company. The position concerning the cable company is that it has now started to yield profits. The IDC is actually the obvious institution which has to help to get things off the ground. Whereas the cable company has now reached the stage where it has started to yield profits, and whereas the Post Office is the major user of the cable, the present time was considered to be the right moment for the Post Office to take it over. We consider this to be quite sound business. At the same time I want to state that it is not the intention that we shall take over the American company’s shares. They have co-operated with the IDC up to now, and we do not intend taking them over or being taken over by them.

Mr. Chairman, may I put a question to the hon. the Minister? I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the company has yielded dividends to date. If so, what do the dividends amount to?

No, they have not yielded any dividends to date, but they are now reaching the stage where they can start to do so. For that reason it has been felt that the IDC has now fulfilled its function. After all, the IDC is the organization which has to get industries off the ground and then has to transfer them, as it were.

The other point made by the hon. member was concerned with the necessity of a satellite development. This necessity is truly a very real one, for the damage we had to the cable recently and the difficulties we had in that regard were the cause of our losing substantial sums of money. Apart from the money we lost as a result of this damage, it is true that his cable is actually being overloaded. With the tremendous development of telecommunications we foresee that within the near future this cable will no longer be able to meet the needs at all. Whether the cable is damaged now or whether it is never damaged, it simply will not be able to meet the demands. To give hon. members just one indication: During the past five years there has been a thirteen-fold increase in the communications through this cable. That is why we foresee that in the near future this cable will no longer be able to carry the communications between us and countries abroad at all. It is with this in view that the two satellite stations have now been approved. The one at Hartebeeshoek near Pretoria, which will cost R4 million and will be ready at the end of next year, will radiate in the direction of the Atlantic Ocean area. The second antenna, which will radiate in the direction of the Indian Ocean, will cost R2½ million and will be completed in the course of the 1977-’78 financial year. With these two satellite stations we shall therefore not only be able to meet the growing need for telecommunications, but they will, of course, also with a view to the introduction of television, be of paramount importance in that they will at least enable us to view boxing matches here on our television by means of these satellite stations, irrespective of whether those fights are taking place in Albuquerque or in Tokyo. We are therefore very definitely engaged in meeting these needs of the times.

Mr. Chairman, there are two minor points with which I would like to deal. The first is the utter nonsensical, fatuous statement made by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark, who said that I objected to these new post offices. I do not object to them. What I did object to was that the additional appropriation was being used for the purpose of bringing these items before the House. These items should have been on the main appropriation last year, particularly the urgent ones like the one at Durban Point.

There is another issue which I want to raise again with the hon. the Minister. I am becoming somewhat concerned about the South Atlantic Cable Company, which is now being taken over by the Post Office. The hon. the Minister has told us that that company has not made any profits or paid any dividends. You will remember that the promise and undertaking he gave to this House was that the Post Office would be run on business lines. It is not proper business to take over a company which is unprofitable, as is this cable company in this case. I want more particulars about this. Apparently the arrangement has worked well in the past where the IDC has had those 7½ million shares in this company. I suggest that until that cable company eventually becomes profitable the Minister should be very hesitant about taking it over. The IDC was formed to help companies to get on their feet until they become profitable and until they pay dividends. This company, we now hear for the first time, has not paid any dividends. I also asked the Minister about the cables and the breakages of the cable occurring from time to time. What is the reason for that? It has happened more often than I would have liked to see. We must know the reason for the breakages. If there have not been any profits, by the way, what were the actual losses of this cable company? Now the hon. the Minister will have to tell this House what amounts he expects will have to be paid for that cable company, which is a good undertaking, but which is at present still not at a profitable stage where it could and should be taken over by the Post Office.

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me the hon. member for Orange Grove does not know what the difference is between a profit and a dividend. [Interjections.] From the cynical laughter of his colleagues I conclude that the whole lot of them do not know the difference either. The hon. the Minister told us very clearly here that this cable company was now operating on a profitable basis. The fact that this company is on a profitable basis now, does not mean that it has to declare dividends right now. One can accumulate millions of rands in reserves without ever declaring a dividend. However, over the years I have seen these hon. Opposition members fighting because we were giving too many things to the IDC. They even went so far as to get the previous member for Kensington to introduce a motion to the effect that the Controller and Auditor-General should audit the IDC’s books in order that they might put the corporation under cross-examination. After all, we know how they fought for that. Surely we know that only two years ago they kicked up a terrible fuss here because the IDC was ostensibly involved in so many projects. Now we are taking over this undertaking. We are not giving it to a foreign power or something of that nature. It is the Post Office, the State, which will have the benefit of this cable, not the IDC or other shareholders. I should like to know from the hon. member for Orange Grove what objection he has to the Post Office taking over a profitable concern, especially in view of the fact that it can work in practice and that the Post Office can derive money from it so that the rates may be kept low and better salaries and other conditions of service may be brought about for the staff. Why does the hon. member object to this? Why does he not want the Post Office to have that additional revenue?

Have dividends been paid?

The hon. member talks about dividends. At the moment that company is in fact a paying concern.

It is the Minister who says so.

Well then, if the hon. the Minister has said that it finds itself at that stage, then surely it does find itself at that stage.

What stage?

If it finds itself at a profitable stage, surely it is to the State’s advantage to take it over. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, as far as the cable company is concerned. I just want to emphasize that it is in fact financially sound. In one of the reports I know have available, it is stated (translation)—

The report goes further to state the financial position. The company did not yield any dividends in the past, but, as I have told you, Sir, a moment ago, it is in the process of reaching this stage now because it is starting to show profits. By virtue of the increased traffic it is able to carry now, the company is now starting to yield profits. The amount we will have to pay to take over the company, amounts to R5 133 000. It is in fact a share of the IDC we are taking over.

How much?

The Post Office will have to pay R5 133 000 to take over the share of the IDC, but this is a sound undertaking. I want to emphasize the fact that this is a matter about which there should be no concern. This is an undertaking which is going to produce handsome dividends in the future.

Reference has also been made to the question of the losses incurred as a result of damage caused to the cable. The hon. member wants to know what those losses amount to. We suffered a total loss of R295 000 as a result of the damage caused to the underwater cable. For the six days during which the cable was out of action, the loss in telephone traffic amounted to R115 000, in telex traffic, R159 600 and in subscriber’s circuits R21 000—a total of R295 000. This actually emphasizes the need for us to obtain these satellite stations as quickly as we are able to establish them.

Mr. Chairman, this also emphasizes the fact that a satellite station will not be subjected to such breakdowns. If I am not mistaken, expenditure amounting to more than a quarter million rand has been incurred on repairs in respect of one breakdown. This is a vast amount of money. The hon. the Minister has now told us that he has the financial statements of the company with him. Will he please tell us—it is very easy to do so—what the total paid-up capital of that company is, when the latest financial year ended and precisely what profits have been made on that capital so that we know what the percentage profits of this company are, because the company which is to be taken over by the Post Office apparently showed a profit only once, if ever. It may be—and I hope this is not going to be the case—that the money is going to be withdrawn from the savings bank in order to take over this company.

Mr. Chairman, the investment in the cable is R47 438 000. The report from which I quoted a moment ago states that the financial position of the SACC is quite sound. I should like to quote a further extract from the report in which hon. members will undoubtedly be interested (translation)—

The Post Office is now going to take over this portion, and the Post Office therefore at least enjoys the benefit of it.

Mr. Chairman, there appears on all balance sheets an item which indicates what the profits are. What is that item?

Mr. Chairman, we do not have the balance sheets here, but reference is made here to the profits already invested, and this surely is ample indication of the profitability of this cable company.

Mr. Chairman, I think that I can quite safely say, on behalf of this side of the House: “We are not satisfied.” [Interjections.] It is all very well for the noisy members here on my left … [Interjections.]

Order!

Let them shout; let them make a noise. It is not going to make any difference to our attitude. The hon. member for Orange Grove has asked the hon. the Minister: “Can he tell us whether it is profitable?” The hon. member for Sunnyside says it is profitable, and that they are making a profit. He sucks it out of the air, Sir. I challenge him now across the floor. He was unaware of the facts when he made that statement. Let him accept that challenge. I challenge him now that he was unaware of the facts, because his Minister cannot corroborate what he said. If the Minister was aware of the facts, he would have given it to us. Why is he hiding the facts? Why will he not tell us what the profit is? Either he does not know, or there was no profit. It is as simple as that.

But, Sir, I want to come to another matter. After the sad saga of the Point/-Addington post office, after all these years, the Minister has now finally given priority, as he puts it, to the establishment of this post office. I believe he at least owes it to the hon. member for Durban Point to give him the honour of opening that post office when it is eventually completed. That, of course, is if the hon. member for Durban Point is still alive at that stage. Although I know that the hon. member for Durban Point will have a long life, the way this Post Office is being set about, it is going to take longer still before the Point post office is completed. But I do hope that they are not going to make the same mistake as they made in Pinetown. We have here a new item under this sub-head: “Pinetown: Completion of post office … R252 000”. Out of an estimated total amount of R252 000, we are asked to vote a new item—an additional amount of R50. The first thought is, why should this be a new item to complete a post office? If one were not aware of the facts, it would be inexplicable that we should have a “new” item to “complete” a post office. But I hope that the hon. the Minister knows the facts. I want to advise this Committee of the true facts of what happened here. Once again, we had exactly the same situation as the one to which my hon. friend from Orange Grove objected earlier this evening, and that is an item being put on the Additional Estimates with a nominal amount, which then takes the control over it away from this Committee. Here we have an estimate of R252 000, and I want to say now that it is going to be near R500 000 by the time they have completed it. What is the story? Pinetown, that thriving metropolis, that growing centre on the outskirts of Durban, with a freeman of the borough sitting in this Committee, viz. the hon. member for Pinetown, who has played no mean part—I pay tribute to him for that—in the development of that town, Pinetown, with all its development, needed a new post office. This hon. Minister’s staff came along; they had a look and they went away. They never asked anybody’s advice. They took nobody’s advice, including the advice of the hon. member for Pinetown when it was offered, and the result was that they built a post office which was already too small the day when they cast the foundations. The day they finished the plans it was already too small for Pinetown as it was then. This post office was completed two or three years ago, if I remember correctly. The day it was opened it could not cope with the business in Pinetown. Now all of a sudden we find an additional item of R252 000 to complete it. I hope we are not going to get the same story with this post office for the hon. member for Durban Point. Sir, I hope the hon. the Minister has learned the lesson of the mistake that his Administration made a few years ago. I wonder if the plans, for which we are now being asked to vote R50, are adequate for todays’s Pinetown and whether they will be adequate for tomorrow’s Pinetown. Is he aware of the growth rate of Pinetown?

Thanks to the National Party.

Is he aware of the growth rate of the area which this post office is going to have to serve? Has he taken the necessary steps to see that he is able to provide the service that he should provide in that area? These are questions to which I hope we are going to get answers. I hope that these questions are going to be answered the right way, because what in effect are we being asked to do here this evening? There is a Schedule here of detailed particulars of Sub-head 6, which is “Buildings” and which incidentally totals an amount of R1 250. Then there is an item at the bottom which says “Additional amount to be voted, R1 300”, which I think the Postmaster-General can have a look at a little later. I know that the difference is the R50 in respect of the Cable Company, but, Sir, we are not being asked tonight to vote R1 250 for these buildings; we are in fact being asked to approve a total expenditure of nearly R6½ million. That is the estimated total cost of the buildings today, and I want to go on record here and now as saying that I believe that it will not be anything under R10 million when it is finally completed, judging by our experience in the past. We are being asked here tonight to vote R6½ million, with no details whatsoever as to whether in fact proper advance planning has taken place; whether in fact the department has investigated and whether these plans which we are now being asked to approve do take future growth into consideration. We are being asked to vote R6½ million at the drop of a hat. I hope the hon. the Minister can reassure this Committee that not only in the case of Pinetown but in all these cases adequate planning has been undertaken. The hon. the Minister might not recollect this because it was before his time as Minister, but it was only a few years ago that I spoke in this Committee on the same subject regarding Pietermaritzburg, and the officials of the hon. the Minister’s department will know that the day the foundations were cast for the Pietermaritzburg telephone exchange they were already too small. I hope we are not making the same mistake in any of these cases in which we are being asked to vote money here tonight, without details.

I would like to refer to the take-over of the South Atlantic Cable Company. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is going to take over the outdated cable steamer which is practically worn out. When there is a major breakdown, they have to charter another cable steamer that invariably has to come from South America. I wonder if the hon. the Minister can tell us what the asset value of this ship is. Sir, this is an important item, because to charter another cable steamer while you have one here is an expensive business. I would like to suggest, Sir, that when he takes over this particular company he should write this off and buy or charter a very much more modem boat than he has at the present moment. It has very limited power, and when there is a major breakdown between here and St. Helena he invariably has to send for another cable boat from South America.

Sir, when we come to new post offices, I notice here that they are going to build an automatic telephone exchange in “Cape Town Table View.” I would like to point out to the hon. the Minister that Table View, of course, is not in Cape Town. It falls under the municipality of Milnerton, so this description is rather misleading. I would like to point out that Table View is a growing area, and I think the people there will be pleased to know that they are going to get a better service. Adjacent to Table View, Bloubergstrand probably has the worst telephone service in South Africa. When one wants to telephone to Bloubergstrand it takes an hour or more to get through. But Table View, which is adjacent, is going to have a new automatic exchange, and I hope that the Minister can do something about improving the service to Bloubergstrand.

As far as the Pinetown matter is concerned, the department has gradually expanded its building programmes as the requirements increased. It was therefore necessary gradually to expand its building plans and for that reason one could in fact have expected from the hon. member for Durban Point and his colleagues to have welcomed this development, because this really helps to make better provision for present day requirements. One cannot say with any accuracy what the ultimate expenditure is going to be, because building costs increase, but as this has now been planned it makes provision for growth in that area. As you all know, this Pinetown area, is an area which is growing enormously and no one is so far-sighted that he could have known precisely what development would take place. But as that growth took place, we adjusted our plans to it, and for that reason I think that appreciation should be shown to the Post Office for having kept pace with this development and for not having stopped once the original planning was complete.

Have you consulted?

We consult people in the area all the time, for example with the town council and others, in order to ascertain the requirements, but I think that what has been done at present is adequate in the light of the present-day needs.

As far as the cable company is concerned, I just want to emphasize once more that to us the cable constitutes an important link in our telecommunications system, even though it is damaged from time to time. The last time it was damaged, the damage was of such a nature that one did not know exactly what had caused it. It could have been fishing boats or other vessels which caused the damage, but as a whole the cable is an enormous asset to South Africa. This is something which is profitable, and it will at least serve us until the satellite is there or even when the satellite is no longer there, and we have to maintain it. I therefore think that we should also accept this cable as a major asset to South Africa.

Schedules agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I should first of all like to take this opportunity. Mr. Speaker, to refer to the Government’s decision to change the name of the department. Telegraphs, as hon. members will know, is an antiquated concept and does not, strictly speaking, embody all the more modern techniques such as telephone, data and video embraced by the all-inclusive term Telecommunications. I believe that this change is indicative of the modernization and rejuvenation which the department has undergone and the progress it has made in recent years.

The Bill before the House makes provision for a total appropriation of R325 million for the services of the Post Office after the expiration of the present financial year until the main Budget of the Post Office for 1974-75 has been considered and approved later this year. An amount of R216 million is requested for operating expenditure, and an amount of R109 million to enable the Post Office to proceed with its capital works programme. As this Bill goes no further than proposals for the application of global appropriations, and bearing in mind that a full five years has elapsed since a new dispensation was created for the Post Office in 1968, I feel that it would be appropriate for me to include in my short account of 1973-74, a very brief survey of the Post Office’s more important activities during the period 1968 to 1973.

Mr. Speaker, in all the years I have been in Parliament I have never heard a speech in a Budget, a Part Appropriation Bill or an Appropriation Bill, for that matter, which was so weak and had so little content as the one we have heard tonight. The hon. the Minister is asking the taxpayer for R324 million! Surely, he could have given some indication of his plans for the next financial year for which the R324 million will be used. I am not asking him to go into details that will naturally be set out in the full Budget which we shall be having later this year. However, to ask this House for R324 million and then to give no indication whatsoever of the plans for the future is, to my mind, an unheard of happening in this House. The whole of the hon. the Minister’s speech dealt with the years 1968 to 1973. Nowhere do you find the year 1974-’75 even mentioned in his speech. There is a shortage of telephones, shortage of buildings and a shortage of staff. There are difficulties in regard to all these matters, yet we are given no indication whatsoever as to what lies ahead for the Post Office. He is going to the country on a Post Office policy which does not exist. Can anybody tell me from this speech what the policy of the Post Office is for the ensuing year, with which he is going to the country? Look at this speech. Read it. There is nothing about that in it. I believe we have listened to a speech which is a rhetorical and conceptual disaster. I have never yet heard a speech of this nature. The hon. the Minister should be ashamed of himself for coming to this House, asking for R324 million and giving no indication whatsoever as to what it is to be used for other than for Post Office services and capital expenditure in general.

Take one instance of the futility of this little speech we have been listening to. Early on in the speech he referred to the postal code system that has been introduced. I am not against the introduction of this postal code system. It is now an internationally accepted procedure and a very good one. I shall support any appeal made by the hon. the Minister or by the Postmaster-General to the public to make full use of this system. I am quite happy to hear from the speech of the Minister that “the postal codes introduced towards the end of last year—to which incidentally the response of the public has been heartening, since more than 60% of the letters now posted bear the appropriate code—are essential for mechanized sorting.” The public has responded and is now addressing its letters to the extent of 60% of all letters with a postal code number. That is a fine response by the public.

Now, Sir, I have a question to ask you: What was the response of the Post Office itself regarding its own mail? How many of the addresses on accounts sent out by the Post Office bear the postal code number? Remember, 60% of the public are using the postal code. What percentage of those addresses carry the code? The hon. the Minister fortunately gave a written reply to a question of mine. You probably have not read it, Sir. Not 60%, 50%, 40% or 30%, not 20% or 10%, but only 5% of the accounts sent out by the Post Office bear the postal code number in Johannesburg and in Cape Town. In Pretoria it is 8%. Is that an example to set to the country? Similarly, the Department of Inland Revenue has scarcely done better. Is that an example to be set to the country by this Government, which is going to the electorate as a “kragdadige” Government? Is that the way they carry out their own policy?

May I ask you a question? Have you received your nomination yet?

If my dear hon. friend from Carletonville, old Hägar, the Horrible, would just keep silent, I could continue with my speech! It is my speech after all.

The hon. the Minister mentioned something more. I am mentioning these matters in passing now. I shall deal with them more fully when the debate is continued tomorrow. This is just to give some indication of the things that were said in the speech of the hon. the Minister. He mentioned that the number of deferred applications—that means the shortage of telephones—is approximately in the region of 93 000 today. But he told me in the House yesterday that it was 94 529. Is he really expecting in the next couple of weeks to reduce that to a mere 93 000, by a full 1 000? He has never yet done that. As a matter of fact, the shortage of telephones today is higher than it was in September last year. I shall have a great deal to say about promises and prognostications as to the years in which we shall be without this telephone shortage. I shall be able to point out tomorrow promises that we would have no more shortages in 1973, promises that the shortage would be over by 1976 and then a statement saying that this shortage will never be overcome.

Sir, with your permission, I would like to move at this stage—