Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday the hon. member for Durban Point was the first speaker on that side of the House. The hon. member for Parow referred to him and said that it seemed as though he was angry with everyone. He had even kicked the cat, and I don’t know what else. My advice to the hon. member for Parow is that he should exercise a little patience with the hon. member for Durban Point. That hon. member has his problems. He is running out of firemen and drivers. [Interjections.]

All he has is fire-brands. [Interjections.]

In 1973, when the hon. Minister of Community Development was still sitting on that side of the House, the hon. member for Durban Point said the following (Hansard, Vol. 42, col. 2806)—

Mr. Speaker, things have moved. And where is the hon. member to whom the hon. member for Durban Point was referring here? In 1974 the hon. member for Durban Point had the following to say, with reference to the hon. member for Maitland (Hansard, Vol. 51, col. 3914)—

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bloemfontein East is no longer here. On the previous occasion—in 1973—when the hon. member for Durban Point referred to the then hon. member for Yeoville, who is now the hon. the Minister of Community Development, the hon. the Prime Minister said the following by way of an interjection (Hansard, Vol. 42, col. 2806)—

To which the hon. member for Durban Point replied—

[Interjections.] Now the hon. the Minister of Community Development is no longer with him. The hon. member for Maitland is no longer with him either, nor the present hon. member for Yeoville.

And Japie is on the pump trolley. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Parow must now exercise a little patience with the hon. member for Durban Point when he appears to be angry with everyone and is kicking the cat.

In his introductory speech in this debate last Wednesday, the hon. member for Durban Point made certain statements. Inter alia, he said the following in regard to the tariff increases (Hansard, 9 March 1977, page 0.2)—

The hon. member was terribly surprised that it was more than the 8% or 10% which he had envisaged. However, let us consider what the hon. member for Durban Point had had to say a few weeks ago in the debate on the Additional Appropriation (Hansard, 23 February 1977, col. 2024)—

Mr. Speaker, it was on Wednesday, 23 February of this year, that the hon. member ventured that prediction with regard to passenger services. Indeed, his other predictions were also quite accurate. If they were not entirely correct, they were at least pretty close. Now the hon. member is saying, as it were: “Let us pray!” He has thrown his hands into the air, so shocked is he. He is shocked because his prediction of a few weeks ago has come true. In spite of the pocket calculator which the hon. member had with him, he nevertheless made a few errors in his calculations once again. He is inclined to allow his decimal point to waver a little. The hon. member referred to the gross national product as being R2 600 million. It is indeed not R2 600 million; in 1975 it was R26 000 million …

I corrected myself.

The gross national product was in fact R26 000 million in 1976 and, conservatively calculated, it is approximately R29 000 million today. The hon. member then made calculations in regard to the primary increase of 1,2% to which I had referred, and which I do not want to discuss in detail again. But I just want to say in this regard that the hon. member pointed out that while the official gross national product in 1975 was R24 285 million, it may be conservatively calculated to be R29 000 million today. The deficit for which increased rates are being requested, has to be related to this and then the hon. member for Durban Point Will find that the amount which he disputed on this occasion, differs from the amount by 1,2%.

I should like those hon. members who are interested in this to work out a calculation with me, because I should like to analyse the deficit of R344 million which I have to obtain by way of increased rates. In that way I want to try to ascertain clearly on what points we are at issue. It goes without saying that there is an increase in revenue each year. This year there was an exceptional increase in revenue as a result of certain events, among them being the take-over of the Sishen-Saldanha railway line by the Railways, the fact that we introduced a rates increase on 1 September 1976 which will have its full effect in the coming year and also as a result of an expansion of the traffic. The additional revenue is expected to amount to R285 million. Unfortunately an amount of R60 million has to be deducted from this, which we believe will result from loss of earnings owing to the shift from high-rated traffic to low-rated traffic. This means that the expected net increase in revenue is R225 million. When we consider the expenditure side, we find that under capital costs there is a very substantial increase in expenditure, i.e. an amount of R224 million which consists of: Interest, R113 million and depreciation, R111 million. The increased interest is as a result of the take-over of the loans of the Sishen-Saldanha railway line.

The depreciation, which has increased by R111 million, is also, inter alia, as a result of the Sishen-Saldanha take-over—assets of R650 million. Then there are our own augmented assets and the 20% increase in depreciation contributions which we announced. In other words, under capital costs there is an additional expenditure of R224 million. Our material costs—steel, electricity, petroleum products and coal—alone resulted in an increased expenditure of R100 million. However, this is not the only increase we have had in respect of material costs. There are others as well, and the total additional expenditure in respect of material costs is R70 million. In addition there is still the increase in labour costs, the full effect of salary adjustments which I have to add here as an additional expenditure because I included them in the additional revenue, the salary increase which we granted on 1 July and which will amount to nearly R40 million for a full year, additional staff for the Sishen-Saldanha project which will require R5 million as well as the annual scale increases of R20 million. This means that labour costs entail an increase of R65 million.

Then we come to the other, for example the Betterment Fund. To cause the books to balance, we are paying R25 million less into the Betterment Fund during this financial year than we envisaged doing last year. Therefore there is an increase of R25 million for the coming year in respect of the Betterment Fund, because we are making provision for paying into it the same amount which we envisaged last year. In other words, this means additional expenditure of R25 million in respect of the Betterment Fund.

Finally I want to come to the Sinking Fund. For the Reserve Account in the Sinking Fund we are now making provision for capital expenditure from revenue to the amount of R51 million. The Betterment Fund and the Sinking Fund amount in the aggregate to R76 million, i.e. the grand total for additional expenditure is R535 million as against the additional revenue of R255 million. This results in a deficit of R310 million. If one adds the deficit of R34 million expected for this financial year, it gives one a deficit of R344 million. This is the analysis of the situation now. If we analyse the various items, as a result of which there is going to be increased expenditure for which we have to raise the rates, we begin with interest.

There can be no argument about this. There might perhaps be an argument in the case of depreciation. The hon. member for Maitland asked, inter alia, whether this was an appropriate time to increase the write-off by 20%. Let us leave this aside for the moment and concede that it is a debatable point. This gives us an additional expenditure of R50 million. In the case of labour costs there is nothing we can do. Everyone agrees that there is nothing we can do about the salaries, the additional staff for the Sishen-Saldanha railway line and the annual scale increases. Nobody denies that we have to agree to this.

No one disputed the additional R25 million for the Betterment Fund. I assume that no one is disputing this because this year we are doing precisely what we envisaged doing last year in respect of the Betterment Fund.

Only one item remains, i.e. the Sinking Fund of R51 million. As far as the Sinking Fund is concerned, I think that the possibility of an argument exists on this score as well. The hon. member for Maitland asked whether this was the appropriate time to make provision for capital expenditure from revenue. This is the only point of argument in respect of the expenditure. The others are faits accompli, for which, and this is accepted by both sides of this House, provision has to be made, as a result of which we have no alternative but to increase the rates.

I should now like to debate the two remaining points. Let me begin with the question of depreciation. An increased write-off was last considered in April 1971 when a rationalization took place. Previously there had been increased write-offs in respect of certain items for the purposes of the Betterment Fund. Since April 1971, however, no increase has yet been introduced as far as a write-off is concerned. Everyone will understand that since 1971 there has been a tremendous escalation of prices owing to increased costs. The point is frequently made that the Railways does not redeem loans obtained through the Treasury. The reply we give to this is that we are not, by so doing, placed in a bad position in the long term because we replace our assets from time to time by means of the Betterment Fund. Assets which are purchased with loans obtained through the Treasury, never disappear, because from time to time we replace our worn-out assets from the Betterment Fund. This is a sound and justified reply, but then the Betterment Fund must be able to replace those assets. With the tremendous rise in the costs of materials and assets, this fund is drying up, and if we do not keep the fund strong, we shall not succeed in replacing the assets we want to replace, because we are unable to obtain loans. On these grounds I maintain that it is sound and justified to strengthen this fund now.

The hon. member for Maitland asked whether this was the right time to vote an amount of R51 million for the Reserve Account of the Sinking Fund. The hon. member’s argument put me in mind of the story of the man and his friend who were sitting in the house one day while it was raining. The roof of the house was leaking, and the man’s friend asked him: “Why don’t you repair the roof?” To which he replied: “Look how hard it is raining; surely you do not expect me to go out in this rain to fix the roof?” Whereupon his friend said: “You should repair the roof when it is not raining.” To which the man replied: “But then the roof does not leak. ’ ’ The fact of the matter is that the extremity and the need exist now, and whether it is raining at the moment or not, I should like to repair the roof. Therefore, I not only find it essential to introduce an increase in the write-off for the renewal purposes of the Betterment Fund, but in view of the present economic circumstances it is equally essential that we begin making provision for capital expenditure from self-generated funds. My intention was initially to begin with an amount of R104 million this year. After considering the effect which this would have, and in view of other detrimental factors which would be implicit in this for the Railway budget, we decided to reduce this amount by half, to approximately R52 million. This is the amount we are now going to vote. In view of the fact that this will enable us to achieve a better balance within the Railways between self-generated funds and loan funds, and in view of the problems involved in obtaining loans on the international loan market under the present circumstances, we feel that it is a small beginning, but that it is a step in the right direction. If it is in any way possible we can subsequently endeavour to increase the amount.

Since these are the only two items of expenditure which I could find, against which a query could be placed, I think that hon. members will accept that what we are doing in regard to these two items under the circumstances is sensible.

The hon. members raised a variety of other subjects and I should like to discuss them one by one. For example the gap between high-rated and low-rated goods was discussed, and it was alleged that we are not doing enough to narrow and eventually eliminate the gap between the rates for high-rated and low-rated goods. I want to indicate by way of a few figures what we have already done in this regard. In 1964 rate category 1 was 15,54 times higher than the lowest rate category, rate category 15. In this way it dropped from year to year. In 1966 it was 14,52 times higher and as from 1 April 1977 rate category 1 will be 10,28 times higher than rate category 15. In other words, over this period the gap was narrowed by 33,85%. In this budget there is a reclassification of certain traffic. The rates line over longer distances has been raised slightly in order to bring it closer to the cost line. With this reclassification of rates we are therefore trying to bring long-distance traffic closer to payability than was previously the case.

The hon. member for Durban Point asked why Mr. Scheffel did not receive compensation for the bogy which he developed.

I said that I had not seen any mention of it.

Yes, the hon. member said he had not seen any mention of it. It is true that no mention was made of it. Nor was any compensation given to him, as was done in the case of Mr. Merrifield. Hon. members will recall that Mr. Merrifield developed the dolos, which is now being used all over the world for the construction of breakwaters. The reason for the difference is that Mr. Scheffel had all our research amenities at his disposal in the first place. Everything we had at our disposal, we placed at his disposal to develop and to perfect this patent. In addition he worked in private for long periods to devote his attention to the development of this bogy. The Railways assisted him in regard to the registration of world patent rights throughout the world. The S.A. Railways has the right to manufacture this bogy, and Mr. Scheffel’s interests in the invention are protected in all other parts of the world. In other words, throughout the world wherever patent rights are registered and where this bogy will be developed and built, Mr. Scheffel will receive financial benefits. We feel therefore that he is receiving adequate compensation.

Mention was also made of the change in the name of the organization, and the fear was expressed that this might involve expenses. I should like to give this House the assurance that the expenses caused in this way if we should proceed to change the name of the organization, will be minimal. As regards the assets of the organization the names “SAL-SAA”, or “SAS-SAR” will remain until such time as they have to be renovated in the workshops when it will be convenient to effect the necessary change. Existing supplies of documents will be used up. Only certain documents such as contract documents will have to be adjusted immediately. In the case of overseas correspondence, too, we will naturally be obliged, for the sake of neatness, to effect these changes. If we do proceed to this change, matters will be arranged in such a way that it will involve the minimum expenses for the Railways.

The hon. member for Orange Grove referred to our airways rates which, as he said—and he is also inclined to exaggerate a little—are the most expensive in the world. I think the hon. member for Kempton Park replied very thoroughly to this particular subject yesterday. The fact of the matter is that this increase of 15% on domestic flights, which will come into operation on 1 April, will more or less bring us on a par with the position in the USA and Australia. However, we shall still be far cheaper than the European services I know of.

The hon. member for Durban Point made a statement with regard to the payment of contractors. I should like to inform this House, and the hon. member in particular, that there is no truth whatsoever in his statement that we fail to meet our commitments. The hon. member created the impression here that we do not pay our accounts, and the inference which may certainly be drawn from that is that we do not have the money with which to pay our accounts.

I was referring to delays in payment.

The hon. member says that there have been delays in payment. Anything may be inferred from “delays in payment”. The hon. member could so easily obtain information from me, or from the Railway officials. But there were newspaper reports again, and whenever a newspaper report appears they run after that newspaper report. I should like to give the hon. member the assurance that it has been and still is the case that when the conditions of a contract have to be complied with, payment is at all times punctually made. Reference was made to an amount of approximately half a million rands, or so I am given to understand, for I did not see the report myself. But in this particular case all the provisions and conditions of the contract had not yet been complied with. Surely the hon. member will agree with me that it is only fit and proper that a contract be concluded properly before final payment is made.

Mr. Speaker, a great deal was said about spare capacity and it was said that we were justified in allowing our capital cutbacks to take place as we did in fact do. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti went a lot further, however, and said that we should reduce our capital expenditure to a far greater extent, because we were saddled with excess capacity and did not know what to do with it. But that is not the whole story. In respect of certain sections and certain divisions of the S.A. Railways, there is indeed spare capacity.

There is no doubt about that. Surely it is understandable that the railway line to Richards Bay is a new project which was only put into operation last year and one cannot expect the full utilization of a project such as this, which cost hundreds of millions of rands, to be possible from the outset. Of course there must be spare capacity. The same applies and will apply in respect of the railway line from Sishen to Saldanha, which we are now taking over. Therefore it is true that in certain areas there is spare capacity, but I should like to tell the hon. member that in respect of other sections there is an urgent need for capacity. Where problems arise we have to create the necessary capacity from time to time, as we are indeed doing. Consequently to say that we now have to curtail our capital projects because we have excess capacity is not in any way correct.

The hon. member for Durban Point also referred to dissatisfaction among the Airways staff. I want to give him the assurance that the Management and I have no knowledge of any material dissatisfaction among the Airways staff. I shall furnish the hon. member with figures in a moment which will to a large extent convince him that this is indeed the case. I admit, because I cannot do otherwise, that there is a need for higher salaries. The same that applies to the Railways also applies to the Airways. I am not denying that there is a measure of dissatisfaction among the staff. However, to allege that there is large-scale dissatisfaction among the Airways staff is not true at all. During the 1976 calendar year 1 003, or 12%, of the staff members of the total establishment of the S.A. Airways resigned. Most resignations, viz. 8%, occurred in the junior grades such as clerks grade II, freight handlers and ground stewardesses. This is a normal tendency for any business undertaking. Among technicians the number of resignations was only 3% and among pilots, only 1%. I think that the hon. member will agree with me that, judging from these figures, it cannot be deduced that there is substantial dissatisfaction among the Airways staff.

Mention was also made of the achievements of the Airways and the expected deficit of R22 million on the operating of the Airways for the coming year. It is my duty to point out a few aspects, aspects which not only gave rise to this, of course, but which were also the real reasons why such a deficit may be expected on the operating of the Airways. Let us for a moment consider the fuel prices. During the past few years fuel prices soared. There are two reasons in particular why this happened: Firstly, the Opec price increases, and, secondly, the effect of devaluation. In 1973-’74 the Airways fuel account was R20,7 million; in 1974-’75, a year later, it was R55,8 million; in 1975-’76 it was R63,3 million; and in 1976-’77 it was R78,7 million. In other words, the fuel account of the Airways, between 1973-’74 and 1976-’77, i.e. a period of four years, rose from R20,7 million to R78,7 million. A second factor which causes the costs to increase is the increased interest rates. Hon. members are aware that we recently purchased a considerable number of aircraft and now have a splendid modern fleet … We bought the SPs and recently the Airbus aircraft. This led to increased interest payments. In addition there are the increased landing and handling fees overseas. We simply cannot get away from those facts. In addition to that, there has been a levelling-off throughout the entire world in the use of airlines.

Hon. members are aware that this levelling-off did not take place in our country only, but in other countries of the world as well. Let us believe, however, that the economic upturn is coming and that we shall be able to utilize the aircraft we have to the benefit of the country. Finally it must be borne in mind that we are actually lagging behind other airlines because we have to fly around the bulge of Africa, which means an additional annual expenditure for us of millions of rands. The hon. member for Kempton Park discussed this matter yesterday evening.

The hon. member for Durban Central referred to the rapid turnover of staff. Let me point out that that tendency was far worse a year or two ago. As a result of the changing circumstances in recent times, all the indications are that there will be far less of a staff turn-over than before. In other words, the grass is no longer quite so green on the other side of the fence. They realize that the Railways offers them security.

The hon. member for Durban Central also commented on productivity. He said that it was not entirely correct to relate the freight tonnage with the number of workers in the S.A. Railways. I want to concede that he is correct on that score, although it is popular and easy to draw comparisons in that way. On the Railways productivity is calculated as the ratio between the volume of traffic conveyed, i.e. the output, and the transportation capacity, the input. The volume of traffic which is conveyed is expressed in ton kilometres as far as goods are concerned, and passenger-kilometres, as far as passengers are concerned. The input, i.e. the transportation capacity represents capital investment plus labour. If one relates these factors to one another, one approaches as close as possible to an accurate position in respect of productivity. If we now consider this position and we use the method which I have indicated to hon. members and at which the hon. member for Durban Central is nodding his head to indicate to me that he agrees that it is the right method, we find that between the years 1961-’62 and 1975-’76 this index rose by 33,4%, or 2,1% per annum. In other words, I maintain that between the years 1961-’62 and 1975-’76 the productivity of the Railways increased by 2,1%. I think that is a surprisingly good achievement.

During the Second Reading debate there were complaints about the dead wood which has to be eliminated. I should like to give the assurance that, particularly at this juncture, we are expecting greater productivity from our people. As far as employment is concerned we are seeking the best and they are being afforded the best training in order to be of the greatest benefit to the South African Railways. Until recently, while we had a very real staff shortage, we employed many pensioners. We are now asking those pensioners who are already past the age of 65 and are still in service, under the present economic circumstances, preferably to retire. However, I want to advise this House that it is generally accepted that there is a large measure of security in the Railways service, and that we do not simply get rid of officials left, right and centre just because things are not going too well. I have experience of the Railways—I was an artisan on the Railways—and I recall that during the war years two of us worked on the same machine. We made shell casings, day in and day out, seven days of the week. I worked from 7 o’clock in the morning until 7 o’clock at night, and then handed over the machine to my colleague. He then worked the same machine with the same material from 7 o’clock in the evening until 7 o’clock the next morning. Then I took over from him again. We did piece-work. It then happens that the one person may succeed in maintaining his 50% piece-work, while the other person does not succeed in maintaining more than approximately 25%. However, this does not mean that he is a poor artisan and that we should get rid of him. Those people are the salt of the earth. These are the people whom the Railways must keep going and see through these troubled times. It is not only the upper crust which must be retained. Therefore I want to emphasize that it should be accepted that there must at all times be a large degree of security for our workers in the Railway service.

Hon. members also referred to the Sishen/Saldanha project and various members tried to imply that we took over this project at an exorbitant cost, to the detriment of the South African Railways. I honestly thought all the particulars were already available to hon. members. The hon. member for Orange Grove, who was being very ignorant again, had probably not been listening to what I had had to say before, and consequently I want to deal with this again briefly. This project is being taken over at cost and operated under a volume guarantee, at cost orientated rates, which include capital redemption.

The financing of the project consists primarily of short-term foreign loans which were obtained at competitive rates of interest. The undertaking was received from the Treasury that the funds required to complete the project, as well as those required for the redemption of the foreign loans, additional to the normal loan requirements of the Railways, would be considered. Provisional inspections indicate that the railway line complies with the required standard. The railway line and the project were taken over at cost. The construction work was done by contractors. According to all indications there was keen competition between the contractors. We find the railway line in a good condition and we have no reason to say that we are paying money for which we are not receiving the same value. Because this is true, I am sorry that unfavourable reports appear in the newspapers from time to time. I am referring for example to a report in The Cape Times this morning. Under the caption “Major set-back to inflation battle”, on page 22, the following, inter alia, is stated—

Mr. Speaker, surely this is not true. This is complete nonsense. I have just explained here that that railway line will be taken over and operated on a guarantee basis. The only responsibility which the Railway Administration has to accept—and I have also explained this before—is the possible loss during the first three years. The amounts for which the Railways Administration has to accept responsibility are: R15 million for the present financial year; R15 million for the coming financial year and R5 million for the ensuing financial year. These amounts are not going to be a dead loss to the Railways. That R35 million—if the Administration has to pay it in as a contribution to the losses in the initial years—will be paid back to the Railways Administration again by way of increased rates at a later stage. In other words, the Railways stands to lose nothing unless of course the heavens descend upon us and things happen which are completely unforseen at the moment.

They were talking about capital, not about losses.

Mr. Speaker, the redemption of capital is included when rates are determined, and rates are calculated on a guaranteed volume of traffic. In other words, they are covered by the revenue the Administration expects to earn. I must add that the situation appears to be so favourable that it is expected that it may even happen that no loss is suffered at all on this scheme during the coming year, and if a loss is suffered, then it will be a very small loss. At this stage I do not want to say too much about this.

According to the hon. member for Orange Grove I was supposed to have alleged that the effect of the increased rates was calculated in such a way that they would have a minimum effect on our economy. That is in fact what we tried to do. I do not want to go into this in too much detail, for time does not allow me to do so. However, we have tried in various spheres to have a minimum effect, as far as possible, on our economy. In this regard there is one matter in particular I want to emphasize. Since the rates on raw materials are very low, it is fit and proper, and it is even advocated by hon. members in this House, that those rates should be increased and brought more into line with the actual costs. But it is equally true that increasing the rates on raw materials has a far greater cumulative effect on the economy than when the rates on consumer articles are increased just before they end up in the hands of the housewife. Surely it is obvious that when the rates on raw materials are raised—be it ore or any other raw material—there are so many phases in the process that the upward cumulative effect is far greater than the effect on the finished product. Consequently that is why we have to act with great caution in regard to this matter.

Finally I want to come to the hon. member for Bryanston, who made a few allegations, including a statement which was completely incorrect. It is a pity that cognizance was taken of this, for it is stated in the newspapers this morning that a luxury coach is being built in Salt River for the General Manager of the Railways. There is not a grain of truth in this.

I asked whether it was true and gave you an opportunity to reply.

The hon. member is now saying that he did not know whether it was true or not. The hon. member did allow a measure of doubt to accompany this statement, but it is reported in the newspapers this morning. The story is completely untrue. At present coaches are not built in Salt River and in any case the General Manager already has his own coach, which is not here, but in Johannesburg. There is not even any question of alterations which are at present being made to his coach. [Interjections.]

There are another few matters I want to discuss. Various members on this side of the House referred to the salaries of Railway staff. I think I said enough in my Second Reading speech about the appreciation we have for the co-operation of the Railway staff, despite the fact that they have to live with substantial inflation for which we cannot compensate them at this juncture. It goes without saying that when the opportunity presents itself and it is in any way possible, consideration will be given to the salaries of our employees. There is no doubt at all about that.

The hon. member for Durban Point made a statement in regard to pensions. He referred to the 2% increase which is granted annually to pensioners. Because I am not certain whether he made this clear, I want to make it clear for the purposes of the record that on 1 October 1976, over and above this 2% increase, we also gave the pensioners a 10% increase with a minimum of R25 per annum. A 20% increase was granted to the pensioners who retired on pension prior to 1 December 1973. Hon. members who are interested in this will know about the measure of dissatisfaction which existed because these pensioners fell under the old dispensation.

I said that this was the case.

Yes, but I just want to make it clear for the purposes of the record, because the hon. member is inclined to say certain things rather softly.

The increase was welcome, but it was not enough.

When it comes to socio-economic services, we could spend a long time discussing them. I want to deal with this very seriously in a few sentences today. We have no objection to rendering socio-economic services. In fact, it is incumbent on the S.A. Railways to render socioeconomic services. If one looks at it in isolation, however, at our having to render certain socio-economic services at a loss, it is in conflict with the statutory provisions referring to the Railways. But it is also true that the entire system does not work in isolation; the one supplements the other. It is equally correct to say that if one has losses on services which have to be subsidized by other services, it means that those who utilize the other services have to subsidize the service which is unprofitable, while it is in fact the responsibility of the community in general. With the system under which we are now operating, one allows certain utilizers of the Railways to pay for services which are just not their responsibility. Therefore I say that although we believe that the socio-economic services have to be rendered by the Railways, it is equally true that this implies material and important financial obligations for the Railways. That is why we have objections to the financial responsibilities or losses which are caused as a result of those services.

Research is now being done to determine which part of the total losses are of a socio-economic nature. As soon as it has been completed I shall make it my task to negotiate with my colleague, the hon. the Minister to see what we can do in this regard.

After all these years!

I said it last year already. In fact, I think I said it the year before last as well. There will be agreement if I say that in the present economic situation we should share the financial burdens of the country. As the hon. member for Maitland said in respect of other aspects, this is a very appropriate time to make such demands.

I just want to say a few words about the comments various hon. members made on the Railway Commissioners. I venture to say that the comments which were made on the Railway Commissioners were politically inspired. There is no doubt whatsoever about that. The Railway Commissioners have been there since the beginning, when the Railways was still a small organization. Now several hon. members were speaking as though the Railway Commissioners should be done away with.

Pull an Oberholzer and appoint a few UP men.

The hon. member would like that. [Interjections.] Firstly, I want this House to realize what the scope of this organization is and what its responsibilities are, as well as those of the Department of Transport, for which the responsibility rests on the shoulders of the Minister. When the organization was still a small one, it was thought fit at the time to give the Minister a board. It is called a board (raad), not merely for the sake of calling it something but because it is provided in the Act that the commissioners shall advise the Minister (van raad bedien). In view of the scope of the functions—on which I do not want to elaborate—of this large organization, which is enormous, and since we are dealing here—as hon. members may see for themselves—with an appropriation of approximately R3,8 billion, the commissioners, as far as I am concerned, are of tremendously great value to the Minister. I want to state today that I depend heavily on the assistance and advice received from the commissioners. We try to act in the spirit of the Act in terms of which the commissioners were appointed. The commissioners are full-time officers. The hon. member for Durban Point discussed the possibility of a directorate. I do not know whether he meant that with a directorate provision should be made for directors on a part-time or full-time basis. The scope of the functions is such that to my mind there is no possibility of one getting people to be of assistance to one on a part-time basis. It is not comparable with the services and the responsibilities which are borne by the commissioners. I understand the frustrations of hon. members, for they have been sitting on the opposite side since 1948. [Interjections.] Since 1948 they have not been able to appoint a Railway Commissioner. It is frustrating, but they should please reconcile themselves to it. I appreciate the services of the Railway Commissioners. They are not able to defend themselves here against what was said of them, and therefore I am doing so most gladly.

There is just one last little matter I want to touch upon regarding the hon. member for Durban Point. I have to correct so many things which he says, and it is a pity. I said very emphatically in my speech that during the months of December and January we had reduced our number of workers by approximately 4 000. We did this by not filling our vacancies. However, the hon. member, with much gesticulation, said: “We find that the Railways, in two months, have reduced their working staff by over 4 000 workers. Four thousand more people are now joining the queue of the unemployed.” That is not true, for most of the people who left were people who retired on pension and not people who joined the queue of the unemployed. The hon. member now wishes to create the impression that we dismissed people, but I can give him the assurance that we certainly did not do that.

The hon. member for Orange Grove referred to a “general rates fund”. I do not know what he was referring to in this connection, but I suspect he was referring to the Rates Equalization Fund. The hon. member requested that the deficits be subsidized from that fund. In this regard, however, I have bad news for the hon. member, i.e. that by the end of the present financial year the Rates Equalization Fund will have been depleted. At present there is only approximately R36 million in the Rates Equalization Fund. We expect a deficit of nearly R34 million, i.e. there will be approximately R2 million left in the Rates Equalization Fund, and therefore there is not much I can do with that.

The hon. member for Orange Grove and the hon. member for Amanzimtoti said: “There will be racial unrest.” I want to take this matter up with these hon. members today. If the hon. member for Orange Grove makes a statement like this, it receives publicity, particularly because he is a Prog. Yesterday morning there was only one photograph in The Cape Times and it was a photograph of the hon. member for Orange Grove, and in my opinion he made the worst speech. In The Cape Times this morning there was again only one photograph, i.e. that of the hon. member for Bryanston and in my opinion he also made a poor speech. However, they receive publicity simply because they are Progs. The hon. member for Orange Grove alleged that there would be “racial unrest”. I should now like to know from the hon. member whether he thinks and wants to allege that there is real justification for the race unrest.

Are you aware of the fact that I was quoting Mr. Sam Motsuenyane, the president of the African Bank in my speech?

That is correct; I know the hon. member was quoting that gentleman, but before he quoted him, he had already made the statement, for here it is reported in The Cape Times this morning: “Rail fare hike may cause race unrest.” This is now being noised abroad. Non-Whites have to read this and then decide that because increased rates have been introduced, they should be dissatisfied about it [Interjections.] If the hon. member thinks that a real reason exists for race unrest, he should spell out the reasons here. It is inevitable that the rates should be increased, that costs are spiralling, but it is also true that salaries are being increased. Throughout the country the Government sector as well as the private sector are applying a system of narrowing the gap in salaries and increasing the salaries of non-Whites to a greater extent than that of Whites. The hon. member does not talk about that. He will never say anything about that. Now he comes here and looks for trouble. I wanted to tell him: “It is wishful thinking,” for that is what I think it really is. The hon. member actually wants it to happen.

Finally, the hon. member said that Parliament did not have an opportunity to consider the priorities of the capital projects. That is quite correct, Sir. This Parliament plays the same role as shareholders of a company at an annual general meeting. They may criticize left, right and centre and say what is wrong in their opinion and what has not been done correctly, but they have no share in the administration of the organization. Surely that is the case. Therefore the hon. member will simply have reconcile himself to it.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti complained about our major capital project and said that they should be pruned. I think I have replied sufficiently to that.

The hon. member for Maitland also raised a few other points. He said that subsidiary services should be abolished where they were not justified. I can give the hon. member the assurance that this is being done. There are numerous hon. members sitting in this House who will be able to testify to the number of occasions on which we have curtailed services. Bus services have been curtailed, stations closed etc., and this was done as a result of circumstances which are no longer as they used to be. In addition the hon. member asked for overtime to be cut down. I have already stated in my speech that this is being done.

The hon. member for Durban Central, in contrast to his colleague from Amanzimtoti, complained about certain projects which are now being delayed.

No, I said I agreed with him. Read my Hansard.

His colleague complained to me because I am spending too much capital, so they will have to settle that matter between them. He went further and flung his hands into the air because, according to him, the cost of electricity had risen to such an extent as a result of the conveyance of coal to the power stations. Apparently the hon. member does not know that by far the most electricity which is generated, is not generated with coal which is conveyed; it is generated in power stations situated near the mines. As a result there are no transportation costs in respect of that coal.

The hon. member for Mooi River made quite a number of statements which were not true. He began by saying: “The Minister said he was taken by surprise”. I should now like to know from him when I said that. He can look for it now, and he can look for it next week. In fact, I shall give him the rest of the year to look for it, so that he can show me where I said that. Immediately afterwards he said: “The Minister said it would not affect the cost of living. ’ ’

I said “by 1%”.

They say these things, Sir, but they do not weigh their words. I spelt out emphatically that the primary effect on the cost of living would in my opinion be approximately 1,2%.

I said I did not believe it.

Sir, the hon. member made these statements and blame me for 101 different things. The hon. member also made a plea on behalf of the farmers. He said that the farmers were having such a hard time of it. [Interjections.] They have all become farmers now, Sir. I should like to point out to the hon. member that, from 1970 to 1976, the price of spares for farm machinery rose by 91%.

That is also a disgrace!

Yes, it may be a disgrace, but these are imported goods. The cost of machinery, equipment and implements has risen by 107%.

Is that also imported?

Yes. Most of the machinery used by the farmers is imported. The price of fertilizer rose by 103. This is not imported. The cost of fuel, which is imported, rose by 202%. These are things with which not only the farmers, but I as well, have to live. The hon. member asked me to plead with my colleagues for diesel to be made cheaper. Listen to this, Sir. I must plead with my colleagues for diesel to be made cheaper and that all contractors who want to convey goods per road, should be afforded an opportunity to do so. In other words, I should not only help them to make the operation cheaper, I should also give them my paying business. Sir, that one should have to listen to so much nonsense!

The hon. member for Bryanston said that I should set an example and abolish all apartheid. I do not want to argue with the hon. member who has a certain philosophy, and I have another. He is obsessed with that philosophy. He is obsessed with the philosophy that apartheid should be abolished. Sir, I should prefer him to settle the matter with the people of South Africa. He should not take issue on this matter with me, for who is he? Who is he that I should listen to him? There are hundreds of thousands of people who placed me on this side of the House, on the basis of the policy of this NP.

Why do you give undertakings to the world if you are not prepared to carry them out?

Now he comes here and asks me such nonsensical questions. Sir, I do not want to elaborate on this any further.

I want to conclude by expressing my appreciation for all the contributions I received in this debate, and I must say that Railway matters were discussed with insight on both sides of the House. In particular my appreciation is for the members on this side of the House who replied to the arguments advanced from the other side of the House. I think we have had a good year. We can look back on exceptional achievement, Sir. Just think of the Richards Bay and Sishen/Saldanha schemes. Think of containerization which cost R370 million and will be put into operation one of these days. The Railways has received recognition for Richards Bay as the best civil engineering project carried out last year. The hon. member and I personally have already referred to this. The General Manager received recognition for his achievements. The hon. member for Durban Point referred to that. I join him in expressing my appreciation as well to the General Manager, his entire staff and I wish, in particular, to convey my congratulations to him on his achievement. We have had an imaginative budget, a budget which contained certain innovations. That is why it was imaginative. I maintain that this lays the foundation for a sound and excellent future for this organization.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the privilege of the half hour.

*Mr. Chairman, we have had an interesting reply from the hon. the Minister, because for the first time in years he did not begin by saying that there was no criticism to reply to, and that he would therefore be brief. The difference is that the criticism was there, but that he did not even try to reply to the real criticism. He tried to evade it. He ended by saying that this was an imaginative budget. Is it imaginative in the sense that it is imposing a burden of R344 million in increased tariffs upon the people of South Africa? Then he speaks of an imaginative budget! However, he did use his imagination, for he spoke of the previous member for Yeoville. It is easy to reply to that, for what happened there was that the hon. member was derailed and lost his driver’s licence. His licence was taken away from him. Then he referred to the next hon. member for Yeoville, but that hon. member was not content to be a driver; he wanted to be the general manager, but his attempt came to grief. He grew overheated and blew up. That was the end of him. The problem of the hon. member for Maitland was simple. He was one of the old steam locomotives who had lost his steam. He had no steam left. He is now waiting on a siding for someone to come and stoke him. However, the problem with the Government is that they act like a lot of train marshallers. They do not act like shunters; they act like train marshallers. They try to put together a train from bits and pieces of problems, of financial difficulties, of capital shortages, and finally they take the money from the pockets of the people to build a fire in an attempt to get that train going. That is the problem with this budget. It takes the money of the people to get the train of the Railways going. Let us now examine a few specific points.

The hon. the Minister referred to the forecast I had made at the time of the additional appropriation. He did refer to it, but he did not go any further than the first figure. He only quoted the first figure, where I said that railage would go up by between 5% and 20%. This budget only provides for an increase of 14,4%, and the hon. the Minister asks why I am surprised. However, let us look at the same figure which the hon. the Minister mentioned, my 5% to 15%. I predicted that there would be an increase of 5% to 15% in railway tariffs. What has happened? The increase for high-rated traffic is 20%, and for low-rated traffic it is 23%, which is almost twice as high. I said it would be between 5% and 15%, and the hon. the Minister has now proposed increases of 20% and 23%. Then he wonders why I am surprised. I predicted that there would be an increase of between 10% and 15% in air tariffs. I was right. It is true that this increase was 10%, but in general, where I spoke of 5% and 10%, the increases are 20%, 23% and 25% throughout. Therefore I am entitled to say that South Africa and I are shocked at the extent of the tariff increases.

†Mr. Chairman, let us look at the hon. the Minister’s next accusation. His next accusation was that I was totally incorrect when I said that the primary effect on the cost of living would be more than 1,2%. While the hon. the Minister was talking I switched on my computer, and I did a little sum. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister himself admitted that in December 1975 the GDP was R25 000 million. I originally said R2 600 million, but then I said this was the SAR budget and referred to the figure of R26 000 million of which it comprised 10%. The 10% I gave as R2 600 million, was the Railway expenditure. The hon. the Minister cannot argue over those figures. What I did, was to take the real growth. The real growth was somewhere around 2%. The actual growth figure was 12%, but the real growth was only 2%. Two per cent on R25 832 million I make R516 million, which gave me my figure of R26 000 million. On that I came to an increase, in effect, of the cost of living of 1,5%. However, let me take the hon. the Minister’s R29 000 million. Working on a Railway revenue figure of R2 814 million, that comes to 9,6% of the GDP. If one takes an increase of 14,6%, which the hon. the Minister says he is going to get from his tariffs, it comes to 1,4%. So, even on the hon. the Minister’s own figures, if one works on an increase of 14,6%, it still comes to 1,4%. The hon. the Minister has calculated R344 million—and I have made a few sums in order to find out how he got to it—using that figure of R29 000 million as GDP. However, on percentages it comes to 1,4%. So, the hon. the Minister is still wrong.

But the R344 million is included in the R2 814 million. [Interjections. ]

Well, I do not know. I worked on percentage. The total percentage on the GDP is 9,6%, and 14,6% of 9,6%, as I have worked it out, is 1,4%. [Interjections.]

Let us however not quibble with figures. Let us ask the housewife of South Africa what the hon. the Minister’s last 1% costs her in goods in her basket in the supermarket. Then, we shall get the answer. One can play with figures all day. Ultimately somebody goes and buys something at a shop. And what do we find when the hon. the Minister goes shopping for his business? When he goes shopping for his business he finds that it is costing him—after all his savings—27% more to run his business. In some things it is costing him 60% and 52% more. So, one has one story for the statisticians and the record book and the soft-soaping and the soothing syrup, but when one comes to apply that picture to the hon. the Minister’s own business, one has a very different picture with which to deal.

While I am dealing with figures, the hon. the Minister took me to task for my reference to 4 000 people unemployed. Obviously, if 4 000 less people are employed, there is a reduction in staff. Has the Railways Administration not reduced? What I said was that the Railways had reduced their staff by 4 000. However, if the Railways had filled those vacancies, 4 000 people would not have been in the unemployment queue but would have been in work. Therefore, by reducing the total in employment the Railways reduced the figure and there are 4 000 more people in the unemployment queue who would have been working for the South African Railways had they not reduced the staff. Yet the hon. the Minister tried to make a debating point of it.

The hon. the Minister made only one good point in his reply. After all the years that we have pleaded, begged, cajoled and moved amendments to the effect that uneconomic social services should be subsidized from central revenue, the first glimmer of light, just the first little flicker of a sign of understanding has got into the hon. the Minister’s head. He says that there is now going to be an investigation, that there will be “navorsing”. So, after all the years we have got the hon. the Minister to the stage where there will be “navorsing”. I hope it will not be as many years before we get him past the stage of “navorsing” into the stage of doing something about it.

I want to refer for a moment to the hon. the Minister’s reference to a new financial approach. I know that the Franzsen Commission in its third report recommended self or integrated financing, but placed a limit upon it. We believe, and I believe that practical businessmen and economists will agree, that that limit which was envisaged by the Franzsen report was far too high. The principle of integrated financing is fine, but I believe that that should not exceed 15% of your revenue budget. If the hon. the Minister is thinking, as he appears to be thinking, in grandiose terms of making a real impact on his capital budget by integrated financing, I think he is going to place a load, an additional burden on the railway user which is unjustified and unrealistic. It will also be unreasonable because he will be asking the present generation to pay for services which will go on virtually forever and ever. However, what is more serious and what the hon. the Minister forgot to say, was that he has come to the Select Committee with a resolution asking for inflation financing. [Interjections.]

We could not refer to this during the Second Reading debate because we did not have the report of the Select Committee before us. It was not on the Table, but it was tabled yesterday and we are now able to refer to it. In this report we find a resolution asking for a vast increase in limits. Let us look at the Minister’s inflation. According to the report increases are asked for from R1 000 to R2 500, from R2 000 to R5 000 and from R20 000 to R50 000. That is the sort of inflation the hon. the Minister is talking about. The Select Committee accepted that, but then the hon. the Minister wants to increase those limits of expenditure annually in terms of the wholesale price index. Once you start inflation budgeting you are giving a green light to your planners and your budgeters to assume that every year they can just go on adding to their limits. This is a principle that becomes dangerous, and we opposed and voted against it in the Select Committee.

Then we come to the figures that the hon. the Minister gave on the narrowing of the gap between high and low-rated traffic. I accept that there has been a narrowing, but the hon. the Minister did not mention that the ratio has worsened. The ratio between high and low-rated traffic has dropped in the past year to an all-time low. It is expected to drop even lower this year. It is down to 14%, whereas it has always been around 20%. It does not help if the gap between high and low-rated traffic is narrowing if the ratio between them is changing at a faster rate, as this affects the Railways’ income.

I do not have the time to deal with all the hon. the Minister’s arguments, but I still think that his reply in regard to Mr. Scheffel is a very petty and small-minded approach to a great invention. In his speech the hon. the Minister—I shall not quote it, but it is on page 34—referred to the agreements entered into with foreign manufacturers. Those, however, are agreements between the Railways and the foreign manufacturers.

No.

It reads in his speech as though it is an agreement by the Railways.

He gets the royalties.

It does not appear in the hon. the Minister’s speech. He now mentions it for the first time. I do feel, however, that when somebody makes a major contribution like this to the Railways and the economy of the Railways, there should be something, even if it is a token amount, to indicate the gratitude of an Administration for some major invention which is going to save them millions and millions over the years.

I leave it to the hon. member for South Coast to deal with payments of contractors.

I now want to deal with dissatisfaction in the S.A. Airways. Obviously the hon. the Minister is not going to know—he will be the last to know—if there is dissatisfaction. What I ask him to do, however, is to allow an unidentified opinion poll to be conducted in which members of the staff can indicate, without giving their names, whether they are dissatisfied and whether they want an inquiry or not. He would be shocked to find the overwhelming vote for an independent inquiry. Where, for instance, can a pilot go? The hon. the Minister referred to 1% resignations, but the Airways are a monopoly. They are a total monopoly in the case of the bigger planes, 747s, etc. So there is nowhere for them to go. Others have established pension rights and they are not going to give all that up. I want to ask the hon. the Minister in all sincerity and in the interests of the Airways to go into this. He will then find that I am not playing politics. I am not just saying it, but it is something which I have been hearing consistently for the last six or more months. It is a reality and I ask the hon. the Minister really to go into it.

I want to refer to various other matters, the first of which is the Sishen/Saldanha purchase. Here we have a Bill which provides for the Railways to purchase the Sishen/Saldanha line. It is on the Order Paper and has not been passed by the House. On the capital estimates, however, we find that an amount of R545 million is shown as expenditure already expended up to 31 March 1977. Although Parliament has not passed the Bill, here on the estimates an amount of R545 million is shown as having been already expended before we have voted on this Bill. I suggest that that is treating Parliament with contempt, just as it is treating Parliament and the Select Committee with contempt to abolish the record of posts in each department and sub-department which the estimates have always shown. In the Select Committee report itself the General Manager in a memorandum accepts that it is tradition that before any intended change in the form of the estimates is made, it is to be submitted to the Select Committee beforehand for consideration and report. The Select Committee was presented with a fait accompli. The estimates had been drawn up and we were told: “Sorry, whatever you decide, it is too late because the estimates have been drawn up in this form.” To my mind that is contempt of the Select Committee and of this House, whatever the merits may be. In the Select Committee we voted against that change, because it means that it is now impossible to tell in which department there have been increases in staff and where there have been savings. One cannot judge, because one now only gets a globular figure showing the incomes. In passing I see that the income of members of Parliament falls in the same scale as that of a station master, not of a big station, but a small one!

Such as Howick station?

Yes, something like Howick station. The only information one can now obtain is the scale of pay and the globular total of people, but one cannot see where staff is increasing radically. Was this because of the vast increase in planners and data processors which took place in the central administrative offices last year and the criticism which we offered or the reference we made to that? Is it a sensitivity about showing where increases in staff are taking place? What is the reason for it? I can see no real reason for it. I can, however, assure the hon. the Minister that we do not object to increases in staff per se. We only object when we do not believe that it is justified or warranted. I should like to deal with a number of issues about which I believe the hon. the Minister and his department have not been frank. First of all I should like to refer to Richards Bay. I asked on a number of occasions whether trouble had been experienced in regard to the entrance channel and whether rock had been encountered there which was not foreseen. Does the hon. the Minister remember? Yes, the hon. the Minister remembers. It was, however, flatly denied and I was told that I did not know what I was talking about, because there was no problem with rock, nothing at all. On 15 February the hon. the Minister referred to patches of siltstone which cannot be dredged because of the swell. I have a photo here which appeared in the Zululand Observer of 16 July on which the hon. the Minister can see his little bit of siltstone going up into the sky in a fountain. It looks almost like an atomic bomb going off. That kind of blasting is taking place up to four times a day and everybody in Richards Bay knows that they are blasting pinnacles of rock and not merely a little bit of siltstone. That, at least, is the common talk. Why is the hon. the Minister not frank when we raise these matters? Why does he not say frankly: “Yes, we missed it.” Or is he going to stick to his story that it is just a little siltstone which cannot be dredged because of the swell and that it is not rock at all? Is the common talk, in which it is referred to as pinnacle blasting, totally untrue? We shall know in the end, because these things can only be hidden for so long. While I am dealing with the matter, I want to refer to the houses, which, since the blasting started and not before, are starting to show wall cracks all over. In some areas of Richards Bay one can hardly find a house of which the walls are not cracked all over. I am afraid the hon. the Minister will have to go much further with the question of his responsibility for the blasting which is causing these walls to crack.

Another example where I believe the hon. the Minister is being less than frank with this House, is the question of modifications to Boeing aircraft. The hon. the Minister said that the modification costs were included in a package deal negotiated with the Boeing Company when the last three aircraft were acquired. The hon. the Minister starts off by saying that these Boeings have done all that was expected of them. If they met their specifications and their requirements, why was it necessary for the hon. the Minister to send them back for water-injection systems for increased thrust and for better performance? Why does he want better performance if they were already performing to the peak of their designed performance? One cannot have it both ways …

They were performing according to specifications.

My question was whether their performance was up to expectations. What are the facts? The facts are that since these Boeings have been in operation—and I have the figures here for the last 30 non-stop flights—only on two occasions have full passenger loads been carried and then there was a very much reduced freight load. Is it just coincidental that when the freight load goes up the number of passengers carried goes down and when the number of passengers goes up the freight load goes down? Why is it that the freight has to wait because it cannot be accommodated on the planes? On no single occasion in the last 30 non-stop flights was the full load of 22 200 kg carried. The highest freight load carried in that period was 12 000 kg in one case. Freight is therefore being left behind because there is no capacity. However, the hon. the Minister tells this House that there was nothing wrong with these planes. Their load capacity is 265 seats and 22 000 kg of freight and yet they are not carrying it. The freight is available and they are sending the planes back and ultimately we find on the additional estimates that these modifications were not included in the gross price and that an amount of R3,2 million was required for those modifications. However, I asked the hon. the Minister a question in this regard and as I have all the statistics available, I will take the matter no further.

I also asked the hon. the Minister a question as to whether an overseas airline had withdrawn charges for earphones and drinks on overseas flights. The answer given was “not known”. I think the hon. the Minister should bring himself up to date because on 27 August a South African Airways spokesman said, and I quote from the publication Getaway—

A spokesman for S.A. Airways told Getaway today that SAA had noted the Qantas decision and would await the outcome of the lata processing before deciding whether or not to follow suit.

I could not find that spokesman.

The hon. the Minister has never heard of it but here is a publication which quotes a spokesman of the S.A. Airways.

You are making a fool of yourself.

No, I am objecting to the principle of asking questions in this House and getting evasive answers instead of frank and full answers.

The question must be to the point.

I asked a question about a building in Windhoek last year. On that occasion I asked whether plans had been drawn up for alterations to the Sokolic building. The answer was “no”. Here I have not an interview but a letter written by the System Manager in which he says—

The System Manager says that the plans are “ver gevorder” and the hon. the Minister says that no plans have been drawn up or submitted for approval. These are not in themselves matters of major concern, but it indicates a contempt for Parliament and for the rights of members of Parliament. When we as members of Parliament raise matters in this House we are entitled to frank and full information in regard to the things we ask for.

The hon. the Minister in his budget speech spoke of the carrying capacity of the Railways and he said: “Oor die algemeen is daarin geslaag om aan eise te voldoen.” He did not tell us about the cement shambles in Zululand and the fact that the cement was not coming through to the extent that firms were starting to lay off workers because building construction had to be stopped. There was not a pocket of cement to be had in Zululand and the whole growth area of Richards Bay was being starved of cement. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat referred to the NP and the Government as if they were train marshallers who have to marshal trains. All I can say to him is that he should rather take a look at his own party. There is no one left on their train any more, because Japie is busy with a pump trolley on a siding. The hon. member made a few more allegations. In the first place he launched an attack on the rates we are now levying in order to provide for the additional amount of R344 million. The hon. member referred to that and tried to increase that amount. We can analyse that amount, and I shall do so. We must bear in mind that that R344 million the Minister wants to obtain by asking this House to approve the higher rates cannot be repeated two or three times in every eventuality or be taken into consideration as a percentage throughout where price increases are concerned. In the first place a percentage of that revenue represents air traffic. What do domestic and overseas flights have to do with the issue? There is also all the export traffic. I have in mind, for example, the maize and coal that is exported. We expect to export 50% more coal. That is a freight rate that has to be paid only once for the transportation of that product. How can the hon. member repeatedly multiply that figure each time and say that the amounts that will come from the housewife’s pocket will be very much higher? Surely it is ridiculous to argue in that fashion.

That will unavoidably be the outcome.

There is also all the ore that is exported. That is something that is taken out of the ground and exported. Because it is sent out of the country, it is revenue that is earned only once. One surely cannot argue each time that the figure must be multiplied until it is eventually as big as the hon. member for Durban Point. One must, after all, be reasonable when one makes these statements.

The hon. member also referred to Richards Bay, to the blasting that was done there and to the walls of the houses that cracked. If I remember correctly, there was a question on the Order Paper in which an hon. member specifically put this question to the hon. the Minister. If my memory serves me correctly, the hon. the Minister said that the whole matter was being investigated and that an answer would be supplied in due course. I do not know whether the hon. member for Durban Point himself put the question, but he levelled this accusation at the hon. the Minister.

The hon. member for Durban Point also referred to the amended form in which the budget is now drawn up in the sense that the staff complement is now set out at the end of the budget. I think this is a big improvement. I can remember the confusion in this House last year. I think it was the hon. member for Maitland who, specifically because of the previous composition of the budget, could not understand how salaries were calculated in the relevant expenditure Votes. This is a tremendous improvement, but the hon. member has further objections to raise. In the Select Committee he had the opportunity to vote against it and to discuss the matter.

I did vote against it.

Yes, he did vote against it, and we voted for it, and because we had the majority, this is now being implemented. That is the way it is. The hon. member must not just level accusations.

I just want to refer to the low-rated and high-rated traffic. We are trying to narrow the gap between the two. The hon. the Minister did not try to gloss over the fact that he expected 3,2% less high-rated traffic to be transported in the coming year. The hon. members opposite, however, are the very people who asked that the high-rated traffic should be handled by way of road transport.

The road hauliers.

Yes, by the road hauliers. I think we must take a very serious look at whether we should not have the low-rated traffic transported by road and the high-rated traffic by the national transport service. If that were to be done, we would be moving in the right direction.

Unfortunately I do not have the time to elaborate further on that aspect. Let us just take a look at the Railways’ revenue which the hon. member made such a song and dance about. It is estimated that the increase in rates will bring in an additional R344 million. In the Second Reading debate, which lasted eight hours, hon. members opposite had the opportunity of coming forward with proposals for economizing, but no such proposals were made. Now, apparently, the Railways must not have the revenue either. Let us look at whether the R344 million is justified. On passengers the Minister is requesting an average increase of 16%. Calculated on the expected revenue for this year, this will amount to R24 million. An additional amount of R24 million is all that is being requested, although the Railways’ passenger services ran at a loss of R191 million during the past year. This indicates how large the backlog still is. In respect of parcels an increase of 20% is requested, and this will give an amount of R8 million. For postal items there is also a request for an increase of 20% which will give an amount of about R1 million. As far as goods traffic is concerned I base my calculations on an average of 20% since for low-rated traffic the increase is to be 20% and for high-rated traffic 23%. This gives the Railways additional revenue of R218 million. For coal the increase is 22% on the average, which will give an amount of R30 million. In respect of livestock the increase is also 20% which will give an amount of R3 million. As far as the road transport service is concerned, it has already been stated why the expenditure has increased. At an average of 15% the Railways will obtain, in that regard, an additional R7 million. This brings the total on transport services to R288 million. Then there is still a shortfall.

Let us look at the revenue on harbours. It is expected that the increase will average 5% and this will give, from that source, additional revenue of about R6 million. Let us go further and analyse the expected revenue of the airways. There an increase of 7,3% is requested. Last year, when an increase of 15% was granted, the hon. member for Durban Point went for it hook, line and sinker by working out what 15% of the total revenue was and forgetting that overseas flights had to be excluded because overseas flight rates are not determined by the Railways but by IATA. The average increase of 7,3% in the airways gives additional revenue of R21 million. For the pipelines an average increase of 20% is expected which will give additional revenue of R22 million. If we add all this together we find that an additional R337 million is expected. Let me then ask: Where is the Minister asking for more or taking more out of the housewife’s pockets than he needs to balance this budget? I think the rates are fair and, as I said, if the hon. members opposite had spent a little more time making some suggestions for economizing, we could possibly have made a great deal more progress.

Mr. Chairman, one must say one thing and that is that when one listens to the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark, whatever he says he certainly says loudly and boisterously, but the quality of what he says is somewhat lacking. One could perhaps say that he tells a tale full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing. Perhaps he is the right person to put in at this stage of the debate, following the hon. the Minister in his reply to Second Reading, because that hon. Minister has a remarkable ability for never quite answering the question. He gets nearly there, but then slides round and goes on with something else. Otherwise he tells us he has heard something about the other side of the House, and then he goes on and tells a very nice story. He does it very smoothly and it all sounds very good until one starts to analyse it. Then it is not quite so easy.

What I am going to ask of the hon. the Minister in the very brief period I have at my disposal, is to reply to a couple of questions, and I trust it is not a vain hope that on this occasion the hon. the Minister will give a definite, articulate and straightforward reply to the questions. The first of these concerns the operation of the S.A. Railways within the area of the Republic of Transkei. I refer to a statement originating from Railway headquarters at the end of October. One never knows quite who these spokesmen are who originate these statements; they simply appear as paragraphs in the Press.

Apparently they disappear too!

They seem to disappear as well. Last year it was stated that the S.A. Railways would continue to operate in the Republic of Transkei on the same basis on which it administers, controls, manages and operates its own rail services within the Republic of South Africa, until such time as those services are taken over in their entirety by the Government of Transkei. I am unaware of any treaties with the Transkeian Government which may have come into effect or were in effect at the time of independence. There were a number of treaties that were made at that time, but we had no knowledge at that time of any treaty between the Transkeian Government and the S.A. Railways. We were working rather in the air on the basis that South Africa was going to continue to operate the railways in Transkei. I think we have to go further than this now. The question I wish to put to the hon. the Minister is the following: When is it planned to hand the railways in Transkei over to the Transkeian Government? I am not certain who owns the permanent way in Transkei. Perhaps the S.A. Railways still do. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will tell us something about these plans for the future, because I think the public of South Africa is entitled to know what is going on. When is this hand-over going to happen? Secondly, what does this mean to the Administration financially? This is very important. Is the Republic of Transkei going to pay us for rolling stock and other equipment which it would need to run a viable railway over its system? Frankly, I do not know where it would find the money, but this is another matter entirely. For the purpose of this debate, I would like to know what the present and the future financial implications are for the Railways Administration. Are the Railways losing money in Transkei at the present time? If they are losing money, what is the extent of those losses? For how long are these losses likely to continue? I presume the fares, freight rates and other charges in Transkei are the same as those in South Africa. I would be interested to know whether the Transkeian Government has any say in matters of fares, freight charges, etc. Were they consulted before the hon. the Minister announced his budget? It would be interesting to the Committee if we were informed how the Transkeian Government feels about these tariff increases.

What about internal road transport services? I gather that feeder services from places such as Cala, Kokstad, Port Shepstone and Matatiele will be taken over progressively by the Transkei Development Corporation on behalf of the Transkeian Government. Is this correct? I also understand that the Government of Transkei may at is discretion revise and adjust the fares and rates structures and the conditions of transport for internal road transport and feeder services. If this is so, if they can change at their discretion tariffs in Transkei for road transport, do we have the right to pull out? Or could we be placed in the position of losing money and just having to put up with it? What I am trying to get at is how much South Africa is now paying, how much South Africa is subsidizing Transkei, in respect of railway and road transport services. While we are dealing with the subject of railway administration in the independent homelands, perhaps the hon. the Minister can tell us what his intentions are in respect of other homelands, and exactly what the policy is of his Government and how much it is going to cost the Railways Administration. Also, does the Railways Administration get compensated for any losses that they incur? Does the general rates fund sell out if we lose money in Transkei or any other homeland? It would be highly unfair if the Railways Administration has to incur losses in a foreign country because they are forced to run an uneconomic service through no fault of their own.

With regard to the situation in Mozambique—this is probably somewhat more delicate—I would appreciate the hon. the Minister’s comment. I am not going to question him closely on this because obviously he will not want to say very much. However, I would like to know exactly what the situation is there. There are many people, specifically on the Reef, who are being made to transport their goods through Mozambique. Many of them are not keen to do this. I would go along with the necessity to use the port of Maputo but I believe that the hon. the Minister would be doing the right thing if he made a statement on that matter.

Now, I want to change the subject for a moment. I want to talk about some disquieting reports about our containerization programme in the harbours. Evidently a certain Mr. T. Hooper of the Durban Chamber of Commerce wrote an in-depth report on container installations at Rotterdam, London and Hamburg. This report contains some very disturbing comments indeed on our own containerization programme. Mr. Hooper’s report states, inter alia, that the management of the Europe Container Terminus in Rotterdam, who are well aware of the proposals for South Africa, have certain opinions about the way the Railways Administration are doing things here. He claims that that comment— and he says it was made very reluctantly as the result of considerable questioning—was to the effect that plans put out by the South African Railways Administration were based on the operation of the Europe Container Terminus as it was years ago and that all the mistakes made in Europe since then were likely to be repeated in South Africa. This condemnation is very serious indeed when one considers the importance of a successful container operation in South Africa. I do not have to tell the hon. the Minister just how much has been invested. He told us himself a little earlier—R317 million, both by his department and by private enterprise. It is an enormous project. We cannot afford mistakes and I would like to hear from the hon. the Minister on this matter.

There was one particular point that emerged very clearly from Mr. Hooper’s report. Evidently the method of choosing containers in sequence has been discarded all over the world in favour of random selection which is strictly controlled. It has been found that random selection enables vehicles to take delivery of containers more efficiently. Of the sequential system, evidently adopted by our Railway Administration, the report says—

Mr. Chairman, we just cannot afford this sort of mistake. We cannot afford chaos. I gather that the South African Railways and Harbours on several occasions have sent over delegations who visited the European Container Terminus. In fact, I believe that the Europe Container Terminus offered to assist our Administration on a consultant basis to set up an operational system for this country, but that this offer was declined. All this is very worrying and I believe that the hon. the Minister must tell us what is happening because I feel that we need a positive reassurance on this.

While we are on the subject of harbours I would like to raise again the matter of the Durban Harbour Carriers’ Association, which has already been touched on earlier in this debate and which was discussed at great length in the Bill brought before the House last year. There is no doubt at all in my mind that this hon. Minister and the Railways have persuaded Parliament, in this instance, to legislate private enterprise out of business. The hon. member for Durban Point made it quite clear that, in fact, in a time of a shortage of capital one should use available resources. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Orange Grove spoke like a typical liberalist. Attacks are constantly being launched on the Government because it is supposedly not doing enough for the Black man in South Africa. Although the Government has displayed, at all times, its sincerity towards the Black man, has led them to independence and autonomy and has helped them in every sphere, including the Railway service, the hon. member regards those efforts as being harmful. What we do for the Black man is simply not good enough; it is harmful! That is typical of the double talk on that side. We can understand that, however, Mr. Chairman. You know, the PRP does not feel very happy about the fact that there were a handful of sensible people in Johannesburg who did not want to throw the administration of Johannesburg to the wolves. [Interjections.]

I chiefly want to confine myself to the pipeline and the increase in rates of 21%, as proposed by the hon. the Minister. The Railways is probably one of the Government departments that uses the most fuel in the furnishing of its services. The recent increase in the prices of petroleum products has increased the Railways’ annual account in respect of those products to R15 million more than the present R130 million. It is surely reasonable that the Railways should find additional revenue to defray that greater expenditure. Calls are continually made upon the Railways to make concessions on its pipeline rates so that the consumer can buy cheaper petrol. The voices were raised on the Opposition side. I remember the hon. member for Durban Point last year calling the pipeline the parasite and a blood-sucker. The. AA, an organization I have always regarded as reasonably responsible, has also joined that chorus. I quote from Die Transvaler of Thursday, 10 March, 1977, in which it was reported, inter alia—

Die wins op die oliepypleiding beloop nou sowat R100 miljoen per jaar en motoriste kan nie verkwalik word as hulle ontstoke is omdat hulle nou ’n bykomende subsidie tot die bedryf van die Spoorweë moet bydra nie, sê die Automobiel Assosiasie in ’n verklaring.

I quote further—

It is clear to me that this statement is a reflection of ignorance, since the pipeline is again being singled out as the only profitable undertaking of the Railways. The impression is created that the pipeline is the only means of transport for petroleum products. As in that statement, it is frequently alleged that the oil pipeline makes an annual profit of R100 million. What are the true facts, however? 48,1%—i.e. almost half—of all petroleum products are transported by rail; not via the pipeline, but by rail. The total estimated revenue, for the next financial year, from the transport of all petroleum products will, in line with the proposed rates, be R117,5 million, and the revenue from the pipeline alone is estimated at R50,7 million. Those amounts are not for petrol alone, but include diesel and air turbine fuel; in other words, they cover all types of fuel. The estimated revenue from the pipeline, for petrol alone, is a mere R31,8 million. That is now the petrol the ordinary motorist uses, the petrol the AA is complaining about. One asks oneself how there can be a profit of R100 million if the total revenue from the pipeline is a mere R50 million. I think only the devil and the AA could possibly work that out. What are the actual practical implications of this increase in rates for the man in the street? The Railways’ average revenue from petrol, transported by rail, road and pipeline, will be 1,22 cents per litre, if the increase in rates is approved. If all petrol were therefore transported free of charge by the Railways, this would mean that the motorist would get his fuel at 1,22 cents per litre cheaper at the pump. If the petrol were transported free of charge by pipeline, it would mean a saving to the motorist of a mere 1,13 cents per litre. If we speak of an increase in rates of 21%, this sounds like a tremendous amount, but what is the actual increase to the motorist? It works out at 0,2 cents per litre. If we express this as a percentage, it is a mere 0,7% of the present local price, if we take that to be 28 cents per litre. The hon. member for Durban Point must take note of the fact that it is merely an increase of 0,2%. That is the true effect the increase can have on the motorist.

On the other hand, how is this going to effect the Railways? If these rates are reduced by one cent per litre, the Railways will forfeit R54 million in revenue on the petrol transported by road, rail and pipeline. If this were also to apply to diesel and turbine fuel, the total loss would be R104 million—i.e. if the rates were decreased by 1 cent per litre. If the rates on the petrol transported by pipeline were reduced by one cent, it would mean a revenue loss of R28 million to the Railways. That is the position in relation to the pipeline, about which there has been all this rumpus.

We know that the Railways applies a policy of cross-subsidizing to compensate for its losses on the transport of passengers and goods, which are transported at sub-economic rates at present. The increase in rates was introduced to compensate for those sub-economic services. I want to point to a very simple example. A decrease of one cent per litre in the rates on pipeline transport would mean a loss of R28 million to the Railways. To compensate for this loss from passenger services, the price of a return train ticket from Johannesburg to Cape Town would have to be increased from R99 to R147 … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to take the opportunity to ask the hon. the Minister if he has any investigation in mind in relation to the disciplinary steps that can be taken against officials of the Railways in terms of the Railways and Harbours Service Act. The hon. the Minister will remember that in the past, in the House and outside as well, I made very friendly requests that we should look at the way in which punishment is meted out, at the way in which officials are given a hearing and—this is a very important matter—at the fact that Railway officials are not entitled to get legal representatives to handle their cases for them. I would particularly appreciate it if the hon. the Minister could let me know how far that matter has progressed. I should also like to know how far the commission of inquiry has progressed with its investigation of the Sick Fund, whether the commission has already completed its task and, if so, what recommendations it has made.

On behalf of the Railway officials I should like to convey my thanks and appreciation to the hon. the Minister for the rebate of 80% on air fares for officials with more than 30 years service. Bearing in mind that there are about 13 000 officials who will qualify for this rebate on air fares, I want to make a very friendly request to the hon. the Minister not to lose sight of the fact that there are 25 241 pensioners who have left the service of the Railways and I want to ask him if we cannot grant that concession to Railway pensioners who have had longer than 30 years’ service as well. I do not want to recommend what the period of service should be; I am merely asking that the concession should also be granted to Railway pensioners because it is my humble opinion that if we were to do that, the Railways’ revenue could greatly benefit by it.

I would particularly appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would be kind enough to give attention to the three matters I have mentioned.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Uitenhage will not take exception if I do not react to his arguments. I am sure he has a good case in respect of the plea which he put up for the Railway pensioners and I shall certainly support him in that regard.

I wish to raise a parochial matter, but before doing so I should like to say that the agricultural community, in particular the livestock farmers, are deeply perturbed by the increase in the tariff applying to livestock. The hon. the Minister made reference to the fact that there had been a rationalization. I have no doubt that there has been a rationalization, but that rationalization implies an increase of 20% on the tariff of livestock. I want to warn the hon. the Minister that the point is being reached where the farmer will find that he simply cannot pay this kind of rate and shall have to turn to alternative means. If one bears in mind that the number of livestock that is being transported today is increasing each year, and if one looks at the figures of the Railways, there seems to be a downward tendency. The reason for this is that a consumer resistance is developing amongst the farmers. They are simply employing any form of motor transport that is available to them. In my district today stock is being transferred by motor transport from the heart of the Karroo to as far as Durban. In days gone by this was done by the Railways, but fact is that it is no longer profitable for the farmer to make use of the Railways. I think the hon. the Minister will have to give consideration to the matter if he ever wishes to increase again the already high tariff in regard to the transport of livestock.

Another matter which affects my constituency and the city which I represent, is the question of ore-dust pollution which has been taking place over a long period of time. It has probably been 12 years since we started exporting iron and manganese ore through the Port Elizabeth harbour. I have no doubt that the hon. the Minister is aware of the problem, because representation has been made to him and his administration on many occasions. I have no doubt that he has witnessed the extent to which the ore-dust pollution is taking place in that city. I am aware of the fact that the Administration are taking steps to control the dust menace, which is sometimes, and rightly so, referred to as the red menace. There is every indication that the experiments which are now being launched may well be successful. I am referring to the experiments that have been made with waterjets. I believe that if these are properly applied and if extensive use of wetting agents is made, it might well be that the problem can be brought under control.

I am also aware that in the years ahead more and more ore will be shipped through Saldanha and that iron ore will no longer be exported through the installation at Port Elizabeth. We are nevertheless grateful to know that manganese will always be exported through the installations at Port Elizabeth. As the hon. the Minister knows, manganese ore is not such a serious dust-creator as iron ore. Nevertheless, unless something is done, we in Port Elizabeth will continue to be saddled with this source of pollution. I am raising this matter across the floor of the House because I believe it will be only right and proper that the public of Port Elizabeth get an assurance from the hon. the Minister in the House that everything will be done to see that this menace is brought under control as soon as possible. I say this very advisedly because I believe the public of Port Elizabeth have been very tolerant indeed in this regard. We have been saddled with this problem and we had high hopes at one time that the problem would be solved by the St. Croix project which would then have transferred the ore dumps and the handling of the ore away from the city. Unfortunately, in that regard, our hopes have been dashed and as I see the situation there is no likelihood that the St. Croix project will be built in the near future. Port Elizabeth therefore has to face up to the fact that some means have to be found to control this ore-dust problem at the present time. Those in the city suffer many handicaps and suffer them patiently. We suffer under set-backs brought about by the Physical Planning Act and we suffer set-backs in that we are in a city based on one large industry, namely the motor industry, which is presently being very severely handicapped by the economic situation. To overcome some of these problems, Port Elizabeth is developing its tourist industry. Great strides have been made and we are grateful to the hon. the Minister for the steps he has taken to popularize the Apple Express which is a way of attracting tourists to Port Elizabeth and is becoming increasingly popular as diesels replace steam engines. The Apple Express is certainly a very popular tourist attraction and on behalf of the city of Port Elizabeth I wish to congratulate the hon. the Minister in that regard. We have a great potential as a holiday resort, but, as the hon. the Minister knows, the ore-exporting berth is right next to the King’s Beach holiday resort. The ore-pollution tends to distract from this very popular holiday resort. From our point of view, and from my own point of view, this is a matter of extreme urgency and I would therefore like to ask the hon. the Minister to give us an assurance that everything will be done from his side to bring this matter under control as speedily as possible.

Finally, on a completely different note, as it is an agricultural matter, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether steps cannot be taken in his Administration to do something to control the devastation which is being created in the country by veld fires created by steam locomotives. The hon. the Minister will know to what extent pastures, grazing, have been ravaged as a result of the situation, especially as a result of the improved seasons we are having. The veld is far more combustible than it used to be. Some areas in the Karoo are highly susceptible to veld fires. Not only is there damage to grazing and a loss of potential grazing, but also a loss of fencing and other installations. I think if the hon. the Minister and his Administration apply their minds to this situation and if greater control is exercised in regard to veld fires caused by sparks from locomotives and injudicious release of ash, it can in a great way obviate this kind of problem that is now being encountered in vast areas of the country. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth that the increase in rates for livestock on a 2 853 km journey is only R2,36. Anyone who has to pay only R2,36 more to transport an animal a distance of 2 853 km will surely accept this. Private transport would cost quite a bit more. We shall only be able to see what the consumer resistance is when the results come in at a later stage. Mr. Chairman, the other afternoon the hon. the Minister said something here which is of tremendous importance, not only to the House, but also to the whole of South Africa. He mentioned a change in the name of the South African Railways. I think we must debate this issue a great deal more meaningfully because if one gives someone or something a bad name one is well on the way to killing that person or thing. We do not want to kill the South African Railways, a fine organization which was called into being on 31 May 1910 and to which were added the Railways of South West Africa and Lüderitz harbour in 1922. The name recommended by the Minister, i.e. the S.A. Transport Administration is, in my opinion, altogether too long. We live in an era when everything must be done quickly. A short name is necessary. One must not have to struggle with a long name. It must be a name which exactly describes the thing. It must be short, bearing in mind the question of stationery and the typist who must type the name. I have consulted several works and made a study of this matter. What happens in the private sector? If we look at Die Ekonomiese Stelsel van Suid-Afrika, written by Prof. Lombard and Prof. Stadler, we find a chapter on transport. The chapter deals with rail transport, road transport, sea transport, air transport and pipelines. It covers everything that is the province of this department, except sea transport, which was initially also the province of the Railways but is not altogether the province of the Railways at present. I also consulted Die Handwoordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal by P. C. Schoonees, C. J. Swanepoel, S. J. du Toit and C. M. Booysen. It is an authoritative dictionary. This dictionary gives the following definition of “vervoer”:

We can also look at the Random House Dictionary of the English Language. I do not think that we in South Africa can say that this is not a very good dictionary. It has picture illustrations and so on and is fairly bulky. What definition does it give of “transportation”? I quote—

So it goes on. The compilers of this dictionary are authoritative people.

I now want to come to my theme. I want to suggest that the word “vervoerwese” be considered. We could speak of the “Suid-Afrikaanse Vervoerwese”, but what is the purpose of “Suid-Afrikaanse”? Everyone in this House and in this country knows that it is the “Suid-Afrikaanse Vervoerwese” we are dealing with. We could perhaps call it the “S.A. Vervoerwese”. The letters “S.A.” could be used in both English and Afrikaans: “Suid-Afrikaanse” and “South African”, i.e. “Suid-Afrikaanse Vervoerwese” and “South African Transportation”. I want to request that only the word “vervoerwese” be used. I want to point out that the word unit “-wese” is already in use in South Africa. In the initial pages of Hansard volumes and in other publications one sees: “Minister van Pos- en Telekommunikasiewese.” Throughout the word “Poswese” is mentioned. That is a beautiful word we use in South Africa. The HAT dictionary defines “wese” as “iets in sy hele omvang, byvoorbeeld Poswese, Waterwese, Muntwese”. “Vervoerwese” therefore includes the whole sphere of transport. It includes all four subdivisions, i.e. the pipeline, the airways, the railways and the harbours. Therefore I request that the word “transportation”—“vervoerwese” in Afrikaans—be used. Since we are going to christen this baby—in the eyes of Methuselah 67 years is a short period—I hope that that christening, at the right time and place, will be made a ceremonial function.

I think we should go a bit further. I think the time has come for us to include the Department of Transport as such in this department. The hon. the Minister is responsible for both. Why must there then be two separate departments? I think a good case could be made out for the argument that the S.A. Railways and the Department of Transport be combined. The word “Transportation” can beautifully serve for both and links up with my suggestion that that name be used.

I also want to refer to the finances of the Railways. At present we are being punished for the sins of our forefathers donkeys’ years ago. I want to come back to the question of subsidies and the aid granted to certain people by the Railways. I ask myself with what object in mind the Railways was brought into being in 1910. Section 103(1) of the Constitution reads as follows—

Mines, with the exception of the gold mines, are in fact subsidized as far as the export of ore is concerned. I ask myself whether this is justified: the answer is “yes” because, apart from agricultural products, ore is one of the commodities we can export. A few years ago I asked that more attention be given to the production and export of minerals with a view to balancing up our balance of payments figures. It is a good thing that the Railways subsidizes the mining industry by way of the cheap transport of ore. The ore destined for the local market is also transported by the Railways at lower than cost prices. In this regard one thinks of iron and similar ores.

To what extent is the gold mining industry subsidized? In previous years it was subsidized by having Bantu mine-workers transported cheaply and by having goods conveyed cheaply from the harbours. The only subsidizing of the gold mining industry these days is in respect of the unprocessed wood which is used for mining struts. That is covered by rate No. 13.

Let us look at the manufacturing industry. Apart from raw materials which are transported at lower than cost prices, the industry gets no subsidies. No help whatsoever is given as far as the commercial aspect and the final products are concerned. I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for the fact that he is now going to subsidize capital works from the Revenue Fund, as in the case of Posts and Telecommunications where the ratio is 50-50. I think our aim should be to finance between 35% and 40% of our capital expenditure from revenue. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what his objective is. Is 35% to 40% too high or too low, or what does he envisage? What percentage of capital works must be financed from operating revenue? I think the time has come for the Railways to be orientated in that respect. We must prepare the public, commerce and industry, the mining industry and the agricultural sector for the fact that capital works must also be financed from revenue. We cannot load everything onto future generations. This year R52 million has been voted for that purpose and we are very grateful for that fact. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, there is much I should like to discuss, but in the short time at my disposal I want to start off with the alarming fall-off in passenger traffic which we find throughout the country. I am sorry to say so, but I believe that the Administration is unable to do something to remedy this problem. If I think of my school days when I used a train frequently, as I still do when we are in recess, and I travel along the same line between East London and the up-country areas, I find that we are still using the same old coaches which are vintage coaches today. We are still using the same old vintage dining-saloons and antique furniture. I cannot understand why people should bother to travel from Cape Town to Matjiesfontein to sleep on an antique bed when they can do so every night between East London and Burgersdorp, at no extra cost. I am not suggesting that the Administration must do away with the antiques and the vintage coaches on that line because I feel that that should be an inducement to the people to use the railways. After all, everybody is crazy about vintage motor-cars and antique furniture today, and this is a wonderful opportunity for them to enjoy themselves and to imagine that they are living in times 50 years gone by.

Look at how many people go to Pilgrim’s Rest!

I believe there is a solution to the falling off of passenger traffic. As I say, I frequently use the train services myself, and I know precisely what is taking place. I therefore want to suggest that the Administration seriously considers reducing passenger fares. There is a resistance being built up against using trains because people are not able to afford the expensive rail fares today. I noticed in a magazine how the Canadian Railways have been improved. The Canadian National Railway was in very serious trouble. This was during the period 1962 to 1967. They were faced with the same problem and they had tremendous opposition from road motor transport and airways, to which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central referred earlier. They had opposition from the road motor transport system and they appointed a certain Mr. Donald Gordon to investigate the problem of the Canadian National Railway. He suggested a reduction in rail fares. During the five-year period 1962 to 1967 Canadian National Railways reduced the passenger fares by almost 50%. Canadian National Railways are one of the largest railway systems in the world, as the hon. the Minister will agree. Today it is a paying business. Passenger traffic is paying very well indeed because now the people can afford it. As I say, if we retain our vintage coaches and antique furniture together with reduced fares, people will patronize the system all the more.

I am interested to see—it has become quite a hardy annual—when I examine the capital estimates of expenditure in the Brown Book, that East London is to get a new harbour tug. I notice that every year without exception, and this is according to the Brown Book. Last year the old Schermbrucker was to be replaced by a new harbour tug which was going to cost over R1 million. When I last visited East London harbour the same old tug was still operating. Now I see again East London is going to receive another new harbour tug. According to the Brown Book the E. S. Stadler is going to be replaced by a new tug costing no less than R2 610 000. One would imagine, studying the Brown Book year after year, that East London harbour would be packed by new tugs. [Interjections.] Heaven alone knows what happens to these tugs, but we do see them in East London harbour. [Interjections.] I believe, so much has been placed on the overloaded capital expenditure for other harbours that it is pushed off onto East London. However, we do not see those tugs.

Much has been mentioned about a new name for the Railways Administration. Now, this is something I have thought about often. It is a problem, but I do not think that by choosing a new name, by giving the Administration or the system a new name, we are going to be saved from the problems facing us today. The railway system is in serious trouble and we are in a dilemma. I do firmly believe that the whole transport system today has become so large that we should seriously consider dividing it up into three different sections; that we should have the Railways, Harbours and Airways under different Administrations. I believe that if we had a Minister and Deputy Minister for each system, we would be able to better analyse our problems and the whole system would work more efficiently. The Administration should be divided into three Administrations, instead of the one we have at the moment, which seems to be top-heavy.

Talking now as a passenger, I believe that the Airways, as a service is bad. It could not be less comfortable than it is at the moment, especially with three passengers sitting abreast. One cannot even stretch one’s arms and read a newspaper on board an aircraft anymore. What is more, all the seats are computerized today. When one complains to the air hostesses, as I have done myself, about sitting very uncomfortably between two other people, while there are other seats empty on the same aircraft … sometimes there are rows of empty seats. So why not move some of the passengers into the empty seats. I have already urged air hostesses by saying: “For heaven’s sake, try and make us comfortable.” The only answer I keep on receiving is: “Our seats are computerized, so passengers will sit computerized.” [Interjections.] And there we have to stay. It is a most uncomfortable state of affairs. [Interjections.]

It is better than being containerized.

Yes, one almost feels containerized. After all, our air fares are expensive compared with those of other countries, and when people have to pay vast sums of money for air tickets, the air hostesses and the stewards should consider the comfort of passengers. Once the aircraft is airborne the people should be shifted around and made to feel more comfortable.

The hon. member for Sunnyside talked about what he called a “slight increase” in railway charges on livestock. The way the hon. member puts it, it does sound minimal, R2,40 odd cents per beast for so many kilometres, but that is not where the producer’s expenses began and end. We know that apart from the heavy rail charges, not the consumer, but the producer has to pay abattoir, municipal, auctioneer and slaughtering fees. By the time he receives his cheque there is very little left. No matter how much the Administration increases the charges on livestock, the producer still has to pay while the consumer’s price stays the same. All said and done, agriculture today is the life-blood of our country. It is the life-blood of all our industries. We talk about the gold industry, about the amount that we are spending on defence, about which nobody is complaining, about our industries, our railway system and our motor industry, but none of these services can survive without a healthy agriculture industry.

Mr. Chairman, the most important news contained in the Railway budget is surely the news that the Railways is taking over the Sishen-Saldanha project and that the Minister will in future have control of the most ideally formed harbour on South Africa’s 2 000 mile coastline, and over the longest trains which run in South Africa. I am aware of the major role which the hon. the Minister played as the Minister of Economic Affairs at that time in making the project a reality. I spoke to him at the time, and I do not think there was ever any doubt as to the question whether there had to be two bodies in South Africa to run the railway network and the harbours. Even in the period when the Minister was doing important work to see to it that the project came into its own, the underlying thought was always that the day would dawn when the Railways would take over the project. This is happening now. Incidentally, it is taking place under the control of the same Minister who finalized the project at that time. In passing, I just want to say that I think Iscor deserves the highest praise for the project which it has transformed into reality in the area in question. I do not want to let the opportunity go by without saying a good word about them.

I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister three aspects relevant to the new situation which is emerging. The first aspect concerns the labour structure which is now going to develop to serve this ambitious new railway line and harbour project. I do not want to motivate this at length but I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether we cannot create a situation in this particular regard in which White and Brown people complement each other. In other words, the project with all its magnifications must develop, under the control of the Railways, as a project built with White and Brown labour and, through the medium of the Railways, we must resist any form of Black infiltration in that particular area. Actually this will only be a continuation of what Iscor has already done here, because after completion of this line—in which thousands of Blacks participated in a temporary capacity until such time as the project was completed—Iscor went on to establish one of the most beautiful towns in the Boland today. In the twin-town pattern, there is a Brown town next to Vredenburg today. These are the people who perform most of the labour in that particular area. The statistics may be consulted; I do not want to weary the House with them. The statistics show that these people play their part and render the necessary service. All I am asking the hon. the Minister is that we should continue in this fashion, that we should not involve thousands of Blacks in this particular area—because I assume that workshops will soon have to be constructed—and that the labour structure be based on White and Brown, who will complement each other.

The second aspect I should like to put forward is the question of semis. Mr. Speaker, you will immediately say that that does not belong in this debate, but it is vital that the necessary momentum for growth be generated in this area, because the harbour and the long trains that stop there fall under the hon. the Minister. It is vital that the necessary growth momentum will centre around this project of the Railways, in other words these semis works, the processing unit in this particular area, must be built as soon as possible. If I analyse the situation correctly and inspect it closely, it seems to me that if we were to wait for a body such as Iscor—I may be wrong—we would wait for many years.

I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister—because it is in the interests of the project he is taking over for this momentum to develop—to approach the Government and ask that we should form a consortium in South Africa, one which could tackle this project, a consortium of South African interests. He could talk to people such as Dr. Wassenaar, Dr. Harry Oppenheimer and other members of the private sector who could form a consortium to make this project a reality, because I do not think for one moment that we are running a risk here. If this does not work, there is the other possibility that the hon. the Minister should exercise the necessary influence on the Government to get bodies from abroad capable of undertaking the implementation of this project. I repeat that I think it is in the interests of the hon. the Minister that this growth momentum is being generated in this project and that we cannot wait until Iscor is eventually in a position to do it.

Finally, there is another argument that I want to advance. The entire economic growth of the area I am discussing now was, in the past, based on the fishing industry with all its various facets, the white fish industry and the processing thereof, and the rock lobster industry. The hon. the Minister will agree with me—he will know what I am talking about, because he was the Minister of Economic Affairs at that time and therefore he does have the background and knowledge of the situation—that the beautiful harbour of Saldanha was used very freely by the people who caught rock lobster. The lobster boats sailed under most picturesquely in the beautiful harbour of Saldanha. There was nothing to stop them. The white fish industry was booming there and today the largest white fish factory in South Africa stands in Saldanha Bay. There is a processing plant there. I am asking for a reasonable mutual agreement under which an investigation will be instituted into all the various facets. In other words, I suggest the time has come, now that the take-over is to occur, for the Railways to take the initiative in bringing together Viscor, Seekor and all the private initiative with interests in the fishing industry in the area so that a conference can be arranged in which we can hold proper discussions about a master plan according to which we can operate the harbour and allow it to function in the future.

Mr. Chairman, the South African Railways is one of the most important factors affecting the stability of our economy as well as the security of the Republic of South Africa. It is therefore not only the task of the Government but that of a responsible Opposition as well to adopt a constructive and positive attitude to the expansion of a sound and strong railway organization. The point is that we are faced with a substantial problem in this regard, viz. how to bridge the gap between the expenditure and the revenue. There are various ways in which one can do this; by dismissing staff, for example; by pruning the salaries and wages of staff; by bringing about higher productivity and improved efficiency; by implementing a better economic policy, or by way of a general or selective increase in railway rates. The first two ways, viz. the pruning of salaries and wages and the dismissal of staff, are unacceptable to the Government. As far as higher productivity, greater efficiency and a better economic policy are concerned, no-one would want to deny that these are developed to the maximum at the moment. If one looks at what the Opposition recommends in this regard, I should like to refer to what the hon. member for Durban Point said in the Railway additional appropriation and in the second reading debate of the Railways and Harbours budget. The hon. member said that in order to bring about improved efficiency and greater economic stability, the hon. the Minister ought to take a look at what another railway organization, the British railways, had done. I do not want to elaborate on this further because both the hon. the Minister and the hon. members for Bloemfontein North and Bethlehem replied very effectively to the hon. member’s argument. I should like to state the other side of the case, however, by maintaining that the top management of the South African Railways is in extremely capable hands and I want to offer proof of this. I should like to refer hon. members to the 1975-’76 annual report of the South African Railways and I quote the following from page 4—

That is not all however, because the following also appears on page 4—

I therefore want to maintain that the management of the S.A. Railways is in extremely competent hands. It is as effective as they come and I should therefore like to pay tribute to the determination, the responsibility, the loyalty and the productivity, not only of the top management of the S.A. Railways but of every railway worker as well. The S.A. Railways has succeeded in providing the country with an efficient and economic transport system equal to the transport system of any country in the world. As far as the other alternative is concerned, namely the increase in rates in one way or another, we find that although the total tonnage has increased and the total revenue has risen by 9,2%, the ratio between high-rated and low-rated traffic has not increased proportionately. In fact low-rated traffic has increased by 12,1% whilst high-rated traffic has decreased by 3%. We find a further example if we take into account that in the financial year 1975-’76, the tonnage of low-rated traffic was 74,4% of the total tonnage whilst the revenue from this low-rated traffic comprised only 39,4% of the total revenue. Whilst the tonnage of high-rated traffic was only 25,3% of the total tonnage, the revenue from that high-rated traffic comprised 52,7% of the total revenue. If one compares the revenue earned from high-rated traffic over the past few years, a percentage drop is evident in every year and it is expected to drop by a further U/2%. It is therefore very clear that only one avenue remains open to us and that is to proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Schumann commission in order to make uneconomic services more economical. In other words, we are gradually narrowing the gap between high-rated and low-rated goods and at the same time we are trying to rectify our economic services.

What positive direction has the Opposition actually indicated to us concerning how this problem ought to be solved? You can criticize this budget if you like and adopt one of two points of departure. The first is to say what is wrong with the budget, what should be omitted, in what respects we should cut down, and what is to be done to prevent rates being increased. Secondly, one can accept that expenditure will inevitably exceed revenue and that revenue must be obtained from somewhere. Then one can criticize the way in which additional revenue is in fact obtained. I am afraid that as far as that is concerned, the Opposition has failed completely. If one looks at what the hon. member for Durban Point has said about the railway budgets of the past few years, we shall see that whereas there were no tariff increases in 1975, he branded it as a colourless and unimaginative budget. Last year, when there were in fact tariff increases and he could make party-political capital out of it, he said the budget was a total disaster. His party’s alternative at that time was the subsidizing of the S.A. Railways by the State from the General Revenue Fund. Oddly enough, not even that is being recommended to us this year. No, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member throws up his hands and describes this budget as “an economic disaster on wheels”. His attitude is that “it is too late to do something”. It is no good wanting to be popular because as a result of their fine words, double talk and accusations, the Opposition is sitting there today as three and possibly four or even more parties which have sprung from the once powerful UP.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to deal with those matters which the hon. member has covered in his speech as I want to refer to the portion of Cape Town which has become almost invisible and hidden behind the elevated carriageways of the Table Bay boulevard. That is the Cape Town docks. From a visit to the Cape Town docks one finds that with modern developments and marine trade practices, shipping methods and the size of ships, there is a demand for an adaptation and a replanning of the harbour facilities and procedures.

In Cape Town, in the Table Bay docks, there are evident consequences of containerization. One aspect of this has been the decommissioning of certain services in portions of the docks and a vast new expansion of the berthing facilities in the extensions. Naturally, this decommissioning occurs in the older section of Table Bay harbour. It has commenced in Victoria Basin, where the dockside cranes and auxiliary services are being withdrawn and the use of wharfage has been drastically reduced as the demand for this has been reduced. I want to appeal this afternoon to the hon. the Minister to give particular attention to this portion of the docks and to prevent any neglect and dilapidation occurring in that part of the docks. I do so, because the Victoria Basin is the most historic part of the Cape Town docks. It is adjacent to the old buildings of Ports wood Road and includes certain underground tunnels. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister is aware of them as also of old fortifications. It includes old, but usable slipways, as well as buildings such as the old port offices and the old clock tower which is a landmark in that area.

The hon. the Minister will know that some years ago I raised with his predecessor, Mr. Ben Schoeman, the question of the development of a marina in Grainger Bay. Subsequently the responsibility was transferred, although the Minister then agreed in principle that it was worth investigation. It has been transferred from this hon. Minister to the hon. the Minister of Sport for investigation and a feasibility study. A start has been made with the opening of the Oceana Power Boat clubhouse and launching area last week. I would, however, like to say that while this feasibility study is being done, it should be realized that with the financial situation being as it is at present, where there is unavailability of capital, the development of this marina in Grainger Bay will have to be regarded as very much a long-term project and one will have to anticipate some very lengthy delays before it can be undertaken. For that reason I want to urge the Minister to turn his attention to the possible use of Victoria Basin, not as a marina, but as an area to be used for public benefit. I believe it could be turned into a revenue-producing area in the Table Bay harbour instead of being allowed to fall into disuse. That area could quite simply be excluded from the main security fenced area of the docks as it has easy access from both Portswood and Beach Roads. I believe that consideration should be given to opening up this area to give Capetonians and visitors to Cape Town somewhere where they will be able to go into the docks and walk around to see what is happening. It is a terrible frustration to many people who come to Cape Town, and I suppose it will be more so now that there are no Sunday cinemas, not to be able to go to the docks on a Sunday. They cannot gain entry unless they have a permit. I believe that the Victoria Basin area could be opened without impeding the working of the docks, and fishing could again be allowed from the breakwater as in the past. I believe that steps must also be taken to preserve the installations and buildings to which I have already referred. I should like to think that the National Monuments Commission is giving its attention to some of those buildings. I believe they are already concerned with the old clock tower.

From information I have received, I understand that in the Transvaal alone there are some 500 ocean-going boats being constructed at the present moment—it is strange that this should happen in the Transvaal. The construction of ocean-going boats is gaining in popularity. When the boats are completed, the owners come down to Durban or Cape Town and, as they are not members of yacht clubs, there are at the present moment no facilities for them to launch their boats and no proper moorings for those boats. According to the people who are knowledgeable in this field, I believe that there must be at least 1 000 ocean-going yachts of various sizes now under construction in the Republic. As I say, these cannot be accommodated at the yacht clubs which, with the facilities they have available, are in any event, already overtaxed at present. I believe that if Victoria Basin were to be made available for use by sea-going yachtsmen, this could serve as a source of revenue since the normal wharfage dues and so on could be levied—I do not suggest for one moment that this should be a free service—and it would stimulate the boat-building industry in the Peninsula. Sir, I urge the hon. the Minister to have these matters investigated. Do not let us see the buildings falling apart, the walls cracking and the roofs caving in in storms: Let us investigate at this stage to what extent it can be utilized for this purpose. I am sure that private initiative would enter into that development. If this scheme were to be open to the general public on Sundays and restaurants and other facilities were provided, it could provide boating facilities, a continuous recreational facility, a tourist attraction and, as I have indicated, it would also preserve part of Cape Town’s heritage of the sea and her history of shipping.

The fishing industry has also requested facilities there.

Well, as I have said, I believe that that is something that has to be considered. I believe that the unfortunate state of affairs has arisen in Cape Town that, in a city of this sort, there is no access to the docks for the general public. In the past the docks have always been a great attraction. On a Saturday or Sunday people were accustomed to go and look around and browse around the docks. Today this cannot be done unless an area is set aside for this particular purpose.

What I am suggesting here, has been done in various parts of the world—I cannot deal with them all in the time at my disposal. One of the most significant and successful of these is the development and restoration of the old harbour on the Thames next to London Bridge, a development that is used for this very purpose. Apart from providing a haven for those who travel the world’s oceans in yachts, it is one of the great tourist attractions there. I am not suggesting that there is no other alternative, but I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to see that this is given consideration. I am sure the hon. the Minister of Defence will be very happy to know that more and more young South Africans are getting used to the sea so that they can serve in his navy when they get a little older.

Do you want the old station in Green Point?

No, Sir, I am not asking for a railway line to Green Point such as used to exist. What I am asking for is a little development in that area. I think it can and should be undertaken in this particular area in the docks. I hope the hon. the Minister will give that his attention.

Mr. Chairman, in the minute that is left to me, may I say that, if the hon. the Minister wants to save a bit, he must please investigate what the Loerie, the Railway Police launch in Table Bay, is costing him. When the hon. the Prime Minister went for a tour the other day, he should have had a police escort, but the Loerie only had one engine running with the result that he had to tour the docks without that escort. I think that that launch should be scrapped. I also think that the hon. the Minister should look at the necessity of keeping the five “Kuswag” ships which cost about R½ million to construct. The Fisheries Development Corporation has a fleet which is quite sufficient to deal with any oil spillage that might arise. The five “Kuswag” ships which are maintained by Safmarine for the department are quite unnecessary. The crews are there all day waiting for an oil spill which could be well dealt with by the Sea Fisheries Development Corporations fleet.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Green Point will pardon me for not reacting to what he said. The points raised by him this afternoon are of a more local nature, for example, Cape Town harbour and the problems related thereto. I am sure the hon. the Minister will go into those matters and that the hon. member will be given a proper reply to the idea he put forward and the request he made that improvements be effected.

In these times we are thankful that such tremendous extensions have been made to our harbours in the past few decades. Mammoth tasks have been undertaken in extending and constructing new railway lines. This is a very good thing because South Africa’s harbours will be worth a lot to us in future. South Africa will have to export more and more. South Africa’s imports have already declined and we shall have to export more and more. I have in my hand statistics which the department makes available and it is good to know that we shall have to do everything in our power to ensure that we become economically strong as far as our future exports are concerned.

I just want to refer in brief to the fact that gold has played a dominant role in our country’s economy over a period of many years. We know, of course, what gold means to our country’s economy, but we must also accept that this mineral is a dwindling asset. With what are we going to replace it? The only way we can replace the role of gold in our economy, is by exporting our minerals. South Africa is very fortunate in having at her disposal large quantities of iron ore, manganese, chromium ore, copper, asbestos, coal, phosphates and a whole range of other minerals which one could mention. These substances have to be transported and it is the job and duty of the Railways to transport them. Not only do they have to be transported, but the harbour facilities have to be provided as well. Today all our harbours are being used to a greater or lesser extent for the export of the aforementioned minerals. This has to be done, however. We have the harbours to export these substances.

Today we have Maputo harbour which is one of the closest harbours serving the Transvaal which is rich in these minerals. This is one of the cheapest harbours we can use. It is for this reason that we use this harbour as well for exporting large quantities of copper ore, chromium ore, magnesite, coal and phosphates. At this stage we are exporting approximately 1,2 million tons of chromium ore through that harbour every year. This shows us what assets we have. The Railways Administration undertook the Richards Bay project zealously. Much has been said and written about this harbour but history will teach us that this is one of the best things the State has ever undertaken. The day on which it was announced that Richards Bay was to be developed with might and main so as to help us in the future, was a red-letter day. At this stage as many as 18 million tons of Transvaal coal and 3 million tons of Natal coal are being exported through this harbour. At the present time this harbour can handle ships of a tonnage of up to 150 tons. Soon the harbour will be able to handle ships of 250 000 tons. This is proof of how, within a short space of time, a modern harbour has been successfully created from a wilderness. For this we can but thank the Railways Administration and its people. They are the brain power behind the whole undertaking. Nor may I ever neglect to refer to the NP, the NP with its farsightedness, which it reveals in planning these things … [Interjections.] … and, of course, the NP’s capable Cabinet Ministers … [Interjections.] Those hon. members may shout as much as they like. The NP continues with its planning, and in the future, we shall reap the fruits of this. An hon. member on the Government side spoke of the Sishen/Saldanha project. Just as much as has been written about that vast project. Today we heard from the hon. member for Moorreesburg how that dream had become a reality. What will the significance of this be to us? This scheme undoubtedly has the capacity to provide for all our export needs, particularly those of ore from the North-West. Right from the outset the Sishen/Saldanha project is capable of handling the export of 24,5 million tons of iron-ore per year. Let us calculate this in terms of money. Where is the hon. member for Durban Point with his … What is that machine called again? I shall simply call it a “Jewish piano”. That little machine that adds up and calculates the money in next to no time. [Interjections.] If he can calculate this for us now, we shall find that it comes to millions of rands. He calls it his small computer. I simply call it a “Jewish piano”. The hon. member for Durban Point can play it very quickly; I cannot.

There are other areas, of course, in which development will take place in future. There is the Postmasburg area. I have already referred to it. There are vast areas to be developed. Then there is the area of Aggeneys as well, an area rich in subterranean minerals. All those tons of minerals will be exported through the harbour of Saldanha Bay via this railway line. Surely this is planning. It costs money, however, and it cannot be perfected in one day. It is easy to criticize. It is a good thing too, and the shoulders of the Government are broad enough to bear criticism. In the process of planning, however, one cannot always say which things will have been completed by next year. Whenever such large capital works are planned, it takes years of planning before such works can be commenced, and once a start has been made, a project cannot simply be completed within a year. It normally takes years and costs millions of rand.

Let the Opposition give it a push!

No, my old friend, the only thing the Opposition can push is the hearse for their own funeral. However, I do not want to elaborate on this. My time has expired. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to follow up the argument of the hon. member for Stilfontein. The hon. member delivered a quiet plea for the export of minerals. The hon. member’s case was well motivated and well reasoned, and I think the hon. the Minister will in fact give this matter his attention. I just have one request to make of the hon. member for Stilfontein, and that is that he and I should take piano lessons. Then he and I would play on that particular piano he mentioned this afternoon.

My playing would be a matter of going bankrupt.

The budget before the Committee heralds a new era for the administration and policy of the S.A. Railways. I do not want to go into the reasons for this now, because they were in fact thoroughly motivated by the hon. the Minister in his Second Reading speech. It is ironic, tragic in a certain sense, that all the speakers of the Opposition are still advancing arguments which are generalized and irrelevant, even though we are on the threshold of the new era. I just want to mention a few of them. The hon. member for Durban Point referred to a “steam roller budget which flattened the people of South Africa”, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti said “the tax-payer is asked to bail out the Railways”, and the hon. member for Orange Grove even referred to a “panic budget, a disaster budget”. Hon. members on this side of the House have dealt exhaustively with those arguments. It was also pointed out that those arguments were superficial, one-sided and shortsighted.

This has given rise to the fact that all the Opposition speakers in the debate have lost contact with the economic and monetary realities within which multinational transport organization such as the Railways has to maintain itself. However, their basic premises are not only superficial and one-sided, but there is also a deeper dimension which puts the arguments of the Opposition members completely wide of the mark. To be more specific, their arguments are based on a fallacy, the fallacy that the success or the failure of any organization and, in this particular regard, of the Railways, is to be measured in terms of the raising or lowering of the general tariff structure. The Opposition member argued that if the tariff structure was raised, the policy of the Administration was a failure. These arguments do not hold water, however. There is only one criterion which one can apply to prove that the Railways has, in fact, been successful and that is the question—and the hon. member for Parow has referred to it—of the extent to which the organization has succeeded in attaining its preconceived objectives.

In order to substantiate my argument and to carry it through, I just want to refer in brief to the objectives of the Railways as such. The first objective is that all aspects of transport undertaken by the Railways Administration are to be to the benefit of the country as a whole, so that as many individuals as possible may benefit. In the second place, no sector, community, race or authority may benefit unfairly from the transport policy of the Administration. Let us test the general objectives against certain achievements of the Railways Administration during the past six years. Due to the fact that my time is limited, I just want to refer to a few aspects.

I want to refer to the role played by the Railways in the stabilization of inter-State relations. It is a well-known fact that economic realities force States closer together and that neighbouring States have to complement each other with respect to transport aspects as well. If we take a few aspects, we see that a work committee of the S.A. Railways mounted an investigation, at the request of Swaziland Railways, into staff training and certain operating aspects in order to place Swaziland Railways on a sound basis in this way. Reports were compiled and proposals made for the training of footplate staff.

Another thought that springs to mind is that discussions were held at a high level with the Government of Mozambique in order to increase the carrying capacity of the railway line to Maputo in the interests of both parties concerned.

There is another aspect that I should like to bring to the attention of the Committee. Mindful of the fact that the economies of our neighbouring States are single-phase economies—in other words, they concentrate mainly on exporting unprocessed minerals and importing necessities of life—the South African Railways makes its harbours available in order to be of assistance to our neighbouring States in this regard. I am going to give a single example. From April last year to January this year, 241 000 tons of copper ore were exported through the port of East London and this was from countries north of our borders. The total value of the ore exports in the period to which I referred, amounted to R234 million.

I think the Committee should also take cognizance of the technical and administrative achievements of the South African Railways. A few of these have already been referred to. Reference was made to the design of the well-known dolos in coastal engineering for which the designer, Mr. Eric Merrifield, the former harbour engineer of East London, received an award from the Associated Scientific and Technical Societies of South Africa. In addition, reference was made to Mr. Scheffel, the inventor of the high stability bogy. These are all aspects incorporated in the policy and administration of the Railways, in order to increase its effectiveness. I could go even further. There is the Richards Bay project. I think the Committee should take cognizance of the fact that it took four years to complete the R800 million project and that the date of putting it into operation, 1 April 1976, was determined five years in advance. So it is fitting that the South African Railways should have received the coveted award of the South African Institute for Civil Engineering for the Richards Bay project which was the most outstanding achievement of civil engineering. There are other technical and administrative aspects to which I should like to refer. The railway network was not so much designed to carry heavy traffic. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I trust that the two speakers who have spoken before me, namely the hon. member for Bellville and the hon. member for Stilfontein, will excuse me if I do not deal with the contents of their speeches in too much detail. Both these hon. members referred to the economic position of the country and the impact it has on the operation of the Railways. I wonder whether both these gentlemen are members of the course that is being attended by members of the NP. As far as the hon. member for Stilfontein is concerned, I should like to say that he raised an important issue, namely the improvement of our exports. Our balance of payments is obviously one of the Achilles heels of our economic situation and an improvement in our exports is the first and obvious way in which our balance of payments situation can be solved. I hope the hon. the Minister of Transport will place due emphasis on this aspect of exports and the handling of exports at our harbours that it deserves.

I wish to raise another matter concerning exports with the hon. the Minister. I wish to raise an apparent deficiency in the service offered by the Airways in that recently, over the peak holiday season period of December and January, the Airways were not able to accept all the perishable products for export to Europe that were offered for carriage to those destinations. This fact was admitted in a reply to a question which I placed on the Order Paper on 8 February. It was admitted that quite a wide variety of perishable articles had to be declined transport to Europe by S.A. Airways. Those articles included fruit, vegetables, meat, fish, lobsters, precious cargo and livestock, quite a variety.

Two reasons were advanced as to why the cargo could not be accepted for transport by S.A. Airways. The first reason was that the flights which would have carried the cargo were being operated to full capacity due to the peak holiday season over December and January. The second reason was that British Airways, which acts as agents as far as the handling of this cargo in London is concerned, had placed an embargo on precious cargo and livestock handled in London. That embargo covered only those two items, precious cargo and livestock, and it covered only the airport of London. I am fully aware that S.A. Airways is not the only carrier which can carry perishable export cargo to European airfields. There are other carriers, but the fact remains that S.A. Airways is by far the largest carrier of goods out of South Africa. It does not always happen that competitive airlines are in a position to accept this cargo when S.A. Airways is unable to do so. The result of this is that very valuable foreign exchange is being lost to South Africa because of the fact that perishable cargo for export is being refused passage by air.

It is not only the fact that this cargo is being refused passage from Jan Smuts airport to the European airports that is hindering the export of perishables. There are also other reasons that I have had some experience of that are hindering this export trade. I should like to quote three examples of which I know which are not only the result of the refusal of passage by S.A. Airways. A consignment of raspberries, which was sent off from D.F. Malan airport to Jan Smuts airport on 10 December, arrived at Jan Smuts airport at 3.45 in the afternoon. It was not handled sufficiently fast to catch a Lufthansa flight leaving 4½ hours later, i.e. 8.15 that evening. The result was that this consignment of raspberries reached Frankfurt 24 hours late. Raspberries are a highly perishable article and actually have to be consumed within five days of being picked. The quality of this consignment accordingly suffered very considerably due to the delay of 24 hours. The consignment was worth R4 000. A week later a consignment of the same product worth R1 800 could not even be conveyed from D.F. Malan airport to Jan Smuts airport due to technical problems on the S.A. Airways and this consignment had accordingly to be returned to the producer to be sold on the local market, with the result that that foreign exchange was lost completely.

I would like to mention at this stage that the examples that I have mentioned are in respect of commodities which are not large in bulk or in weight. I accordingly feel that the pressure that the conveying of articles of this type would place on the Airways is a very small additional pressure indeed. I am informed that very large consignments of flowers, mainly proteas, were refused passage to Europe during the peak December/January season. The value of one consignment refused, I am advised, was R32 000. Proteas are hardly a seasonal export as they are available for export for nine months of the year, so I feel that this is a commodity in respect of which South African Airways can make regular arrangements with producers as far as its conveyance to overseas markets is concerned. I believe that proteas mean a little more than the foreign exchange value that they earn for South Africa. They are beautiful flowers that are particularly associated with our country and if they are sold overseas they help to boost our image in those countries.

I realize that a lot of this traffic in perishables is offered at peak passenger seasons. However, I do believe that South African Airways should take an imaginative line in this regard and that they should investigate the possibility of building up exports in perishable items such as those I referred to at the beginning of my speech. Many of these items find ready markets in the northern hemisphere when they are available because it is at that time that they are being produced in the southern hemisphere and are not readily available in the northern hemisphere. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Constantia raised a matter which may of course be a very important one in the future, namely the export of perishable products by air. I think we are all looking forward to the time when we shall be able to export very much more in this way, but at the moment it is very expensive. The hon. member had a few complaints about delays and so on to which I cannot reply. One often arrives at Jan Smuts airport and sees the passenger terminal. But I also want to congratulate the S.A. Airways on the terminal they have built there for goods and perishable products. All the facilities necessary for inspections, customs, etc. are also there. The series of buildings and structures built for the purpose at Jan Smuts is really praiseworthy.

Mr. Chairman, today I also want to talk about importing and exporting, specifically the container industry. So far very little has been said in this debate about the container industry. It was only the hon. member for Orange Grove who came up with the gossip that we supposedly did not have the best method in the world. I cannot give an opinion on this, but I know that the Railways, Safmarine, the Conference lines and other bodies concerned made a very thorough study of the various methods of containerization in the world. If we look at containerization, we must realize that practically everything is going to be containerized in the future. Even liquids and dry grain will eventually be transported in containers. This is the method of the future. I want to return to the NP of Dr. Malan and Advocate Eric Louw when they began to create a national shipping service for South Africa. They were farsighted enough to realize that it was necessary for South Africa to have its own ships to transport our goods to the world markets. That was long ago. Since those times Safmarine, our own national line, has grown into a giant. We can be proud of it. We can be grateful to our predecessors who set these things in motion.

The advantages of having one’s own national commercial fleet are undoubtedly very clear to all. Foreign capital which we earn in this way and the security we afford the transport of our products, is important.

Safmarine has also taken the lead now in regard to containerization. Containerization is going to solve many problems in regard to export. I am thinking of the overloaded harbours, of the slow transit of freight, of the high packaging costs, of the high claims there have always been for damage and theft, of the scarcity of labour and the continual increases in wages and salaries, with the consequent high cost of labour. Containerization will save 50% in labour. Containerization is going to be introduced this year, from 1 July, and if things run according to plan, by the end of next year 70% of all imports and exports will be containerized. I hope we shall be able to achieve this goal. A containerization project of this kind is not cheap. In fact, one of the things that causes me concern is that in time it will make our imports and exports uneconomical. I should be pleased to receive an assurance from the hon. the Minister that this is the only alternative and that we had no other option apart from containerization. I believe that the whole project is going to cost a total of R5 000 million that includes ships and all the requirements. It is an extremely expensive project. It is extremely capital intensive. It frightens me to think of the fact that the interest on that R5 000 million will have to be paid by our export and import trade, just one container quay and all that goes with it, will cost R17 million. It is interesting to note that the berth at a containerization quay like this will cost R11 million and the two special auxiliary cranes approximately R4 million. Apart from that, six straddle carriers which can load 30 tons and which will transport the containers, will cost R1,3 million. Then two fork lift trucks which can load 10 tons each and which cost R70 000 are needed. Then there must still be ten mechanical horses which will cost R350 000 and ten semi-trailers which will cost R85 000. There will have to be fifteen similar containerization quays at the various harbours in the country.

It is calculated that of the R5 000 million which I mentioned, approximately 33% will be used for ships and various installations and 16% for the operation of those ships. Capital to provide the containers themselves will amount to approximately 7,2% of the total amount; the depots which must be provided, 6%; the handling of the containers, 2,3%; and container control 13,3%. It is interesting to note that immense technical skill is required in order to keep the containerization system functioning properly, as well as a very involved computer system. One must know from day to day where every container is so that it can be effectively utilized. I am pleased to learn that the Railways will be able to make use of the existing computer system in Johannesburg to control the containers in the interior. It is important that this aspect should not boost the cost further. As I said, this immense capital cost is my main concern. Is shipping freight going to increase once again in order to provide for the additional 30% which the containers are going to cost?

Of course, the Railways have to adapt to containerization. We have already learnt from the Minister that R370 million is being budgeted for containerization. The Railways was only informed in March 1974 that they should prepare themselves for container traffic. This means that within a little more than 3½ years they have to see to it that everything is ready for this major project. This is an immense task which they had to take upon themselves. The Railways is going to provide a very major service to our importers and exporters and I just want to mention a few of the services which they are going to provide. Containerization delivery services will take place day and night. There is going to be a cartage service within a radius of 70 km from the container terminal. Unit trains will run daily to Johannesburg and deliver the containers there within 16 to 18 hours. There is also going to be an inland container terminus erected in Johannesburg. In this connection I want to ask whether the Railways intends to introduce a distribution service and an unpacking service in regard to the containers. Particularly if containers can be used for the smaller consignments, the Railways themselves will have to step in. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is strange that the hon. member for Humansdorp, who has just spoken, should have spoken about containerization and expressed some of the fears which some of us in these benches feel about containerization and its future. I am certain that we all agree that it has many advantages, as he has said, but we all have fears, as was voiced by the hon. member for Orange Grove, that perhaps the planning was not all it should have been. I am not suggesting for one moment that that is the case. We only say that we hope that the planning will in the future prove to have been fully cognizant of all the facts that are required.

In his reply to the Second Reading the hon. the Minister said that it was strange that nobody had directed any criticism so far at the management of the Railways, and he included himself in that as well. He was actually patting himself on the back. I think that somebody should take up the challenge and say something about the management of the Railways. I am not suggesting that we have no confidence in the management, the General Manager, the hon. the Minister or any of the top officials of the Railways, but I am suggesting that there is a lot of dead wood in the management of the Railways at present. In a large organization such as the Railways are, it is impossible to ensure that in all branches of the organization the efficiency is 100%. If one reads through the report of the Auditor-General one realizes that there is a lot that can still be done to make the Railways fully effective and efficient. I am very proud of my association with the Railways. I am probably the oldest Railwayman in this House, except perhaps for the hon. the Minister.

And the best.

Thank you. I am also aware of the shortcomings of the Railways, having worked in the Railways for many years. One thing I want to say about this debate is that there is an unreal feeling about it. People generally tend to speak about millions and millions of rands, and one becomes afraid to speak about a small matter such as R1 000 because sums of millions of rands are thrown about here as though they were small change. One thinks that if one refers to departments which show a loss of R200, R400, or R1 000, one is wasting the time of the House. I would like to quote from the Auditor-General’s report on page 6, paragraph 6(3), where he mentions the costs of contracts exceeding the estimates by R32 million. That is not forgetting the accounting adjustment of approximately R20 million. In other words, costs have exceeded the estimates by virtually R50 million in one year. I know this sounds small change after all the millions of rands we have heard mentioned here, but it is an alarming fact that people can be so far out in their estimating, on the costing of articles, on planning or on any capital works which are envisaged. In paragraph 6(4) the Auditor-General goes on to say that the capital works cost more because, inter alia, there were incomplete original estimates. Those are his own words which we find on page 6. He then points out the correct procedure for planning and pricing. He ends by saying that the present system is not adequate for present needs. I do not know what the Auditor-General means by this. I am not going to read his whole reply, but the General Manager replies in connection with the system that is being used, by saying that the procedures “make all due allowance for cost-escalation tendencies”. If they make all due allowance for cost-escalation tendencies, how is it that they are so far out in their final figures? The General Manager ends off his remarks by saying—

What does he mean by that? Surely all the information is available to the people who do the planning, and they certainly have the time to do it. When I think back to the time when I worked on the Railways, and I think of what the planning department has today to assist them, e.g. computers and sources of information, I wonder how it is that their pricing seems to be out so much. In paragraph 7, on page 8, the Auditor-General pointed out another source of wastage, viz. stores. I know stores have always been a problem with the Railways. From time immemorial problems have been experienced regarding the question of rationalizing stores, standardizing equipment and preventing stock from becoming redundant and obsolete. I thought all this had been taken care of. Yet, the Auditor-General says this has not been taken care of. There still seems to be a great deal of duplication of stock. On page 8 there are five headings under which the Auditor-General refers to the reasons why stores control is apparently not efficient. He says there are unauthorized or surplus stocks available, and he continues to point out the various reasons why stock control has not been effective and why so much money is being wasted on dead capital lying in stores—material which will never be used. We are only too aware of this. Iron, for instance, is drawn from a store. There is a tendency to use the new iron which comes in, while the old iron is left to lie and rust for years. There is also a tendency to order too much material, resulting in all material not being utilized. I wonder whether the Railway Administration could not consider the idea which the mines seem to find quite efficient. The mines have salvage teams going around clearing out stores at regular intervals. Stock which has accumulated, which has become redundant or obsolete, is thrown out, is sold or disposed of in some way or another. In that way, they start with a clean slate again. Resultingly they have full knowledge of everything in their stores and there are never any stocks in store of which account cannot be given. There are millions of rand involved in stocks piled up in stores. I know the argument will be raised that great quantities of stocks are being ordered because prices may be going up in the near future. The counter-argument, which, I believe, is also valid, is that any such practice brings about dead capital, capital in the form of stocks piled up in stores, and very often stocks which are far in excess of those which are really required.

The Auditor-General also seems to be unhappy about the condoning of breaches of contract. In paragraph 8(4), on page 9, he refers to the condoning of 90 contracts and the amount they have cost. I really cannot understand why so many breaches of contract should be condoned. When I was contracting for the Government, it was all but necessary to approach the Privy Council in order to obtain a condonation for a contract which was overdue or which had not been fulfilled on time. No excuse was accepted, except perhaps circumstances over which one had no control, for example the weather. Whether material had not arrived, or whether there had been a shortage of manpower to complete the work, nothing was ever accepted as an excuse. It was always contended that one had no right to tender if one could not do the job. Why must breaches of contract be condoned today? Does this happen because the people concerned know the right people? I only wonder, Mr. Chairman.

Talking about contracts, there is another item which worries me. That is “Supplier Financing”. If the hon. the Minister would tell the House what it means, it would be appreciated. On page 5 there is an item for which finance was supplied to the amount of R21 million. Now, I have heard of contractors—I hope this is not true, because I can hardly believe this of the Railways—who have tendered for a job and who have subsequently been summoned on the tender day, only to be told by the management that they can have the job only if they were prepared to take, say two years over it, or if they were prepared to wait two years for their money. If this is how finance is supplied, I believe it is all wrong, because it is a way of cutting off the man who is not able to finance the Railways. In this, one does not get the best tender. The management will then only accept the tender of a man who can afford to finance the Railways. I hope this is not correct, and I trust that the hon. the Minister will explain what is meant by this “Supplier Financing”. There is also a terrific wastage, as is referred to, in the poor utilization of equipment. That can be seen from paragraph 9. It seems incredible to me that expensive machinery, sometimes costing R500 000 or more—equipment like low loaders and the like—can stand idle for more than 50% of the time. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for South Coast will excuse me if I do not reply to his speech. However, once again, like his party colleagues, the hon. member referred to dead wood in the administration and at a later stage, if there is time, I should like to deal with this. Sir, we are dealing with a difficult budget. It is definitely a budget which we should all have liked to avoid if possible. These days no one cares for price increases and rates increases any more. The average South African is already punch-drunk in this respect and no one can be blamed for starting to object to the continual increases in prices as a result of increases in rates and taxes. However, the average citizen of this country is also responsible and realistic in this regard. Although he may perhaps react with a shrug of the shoulders when increases are announced, he also knows how to handle this and how to live with it. More and more hears it said that the average South African is already so conditioned to price increases that they no longer have any influence on him and that he accepts them with resignation and a submissive attitude. I do not believe that these allegations are true. The consumer in South Africa has a greater, more intense sense of loyalty than the enemies of South Africa would like to think. South Africans realize and accept that rates increases are essential for sound economic growth in the future, so that a powerful economic potential can be built up. Therefore he is orientated to the future and contributes positively and vigorously to the economic future.

The pruning of the capital works programme gives cause for concern. It is a pity that essential projects have to fall by the wayside or be delayed as a result. In a moment I shall refer to one of these projects. However, I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the fact that he had the courage of his convictions and did not prune the budget so drastically that the sound and normal growth would suffer as a result and that he found most of his capital funds internally, chiefly by means of rates adjustments. Everyone who accepts the increased rates, contributes his share towards a purposeful investment programme which is to the advantage of South Africa because it ensures that when there is greater economic growth and progress in South Africa once again, the Railways will not be crippled due to a lack of the necessary facilities.

Before I come to a specific subject, I also want to associate myself with the hon. the Minister and other members who conveyed their congratulations and thanks to the officials of the South African Railways for what they have had to sacrifice in recent times as regards salaries and for the spirit of responsibility which they showed in regard to demands in this connection. Together with the other officials from the public sector they are helping South Africa to get through. The financial sacrifice which they made, and will be prepared to make in future, can only be to the benefit of South Africa as a whole. Perhaps their contribution cannot be calculated in terms of rands and cents, but fruits thereof will be seen once South Africa has turned the comer and things are going well again. Then these people will discover that their sacrifices were not too great. In the meantime we, as inhabitants of South Africa, must thank the Railways staff for the positive attitude they are displaying.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, in the few minutes still at my disposal, I want to discuss a specific item, No. 23 on page 6—the Belle Ombre/Mabopane railway line. The delay which could occur in this project as a result of pruning, creates real problems for the inhabitants of Pretoria, both White and non-White, but more specifically for the Black people. This project is regarded as a very high priority by the inhabitants of Pretoria and my constituency. It is an essential project which virtually does not allow any delay. We are dealing here with the transport on a daily basis of Black workers, commuters, to and from their places of employment and to and from their homes. Already by 1978, 50 000 people will have to be transported to Pretoria on a daily basis in order to work there. At the moment these workers are transported by bus. Not only does this cause inconvenience for the workers themselves—it means that they have to leave their homes early and return late at night—but it also causes intolerable high frequency road traffic in one of Pretoria’s main entries, viz. Paul Kruger street, which falls within my constituency. During morning and afternoon peak periods, 480 buses for Black workers pass along this street, a condition which leads to total traffic congestion in this street. Those of us who know what the set-up is there, know what problems and bottlenecks can arise as a result of traffic congestion. However, there are two built-in factors which afford some temporary relief in this respect. However, this must be seen as temporary relief only. The first is the opening of the north-west by-pass, the road along which run the buses to Iscor and the industrial areas. This has afforded a measure of relief. The Pretoria city council must be thanked for their share in this, and we too should like to do so.

A second aspect which played a considerable role in the smoother traffic flow, is the staggering of working hours. The role which the Railways, the Public Service and the Pretoria City Council have played in this connection, must not be underestimated. We have noticed this and it is very highly appreciated. The traffic flow improved considerably as a result of this, to such an extent that Paul Kruger Street as well as Voortrekker Road are almost passable once again. Pretoria would like to thank all those who contributed towards making this staggering of working hours possible and implementing it.

We realize that this was not done without sacrifices. Every official who played his part in this connection, deserves the praise and thanks of every inhabitant of Pretoria. The Railways’ share in building the subway in Ninth Avenue in Gezina, is also noticed and appreciated. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should also like to express my thanks and appreciation to the hon. the Minister and the management of the Railways. [Interjections.] I do not want to be as imprudent as the hon. member for Amanzimtoti who alleged that the S.A. Railways should establish a system of greater capital spending in spite of anything that might happen. We on this side of the House find it strange that although the hon. Opposition wants greater capital spending, at one and the same time as they admonish us to watch our step and are worried that we do not take things more slowly. That is also why there is a split in their ranks, with some of them sitting on that side of the House and the rest not knowing where to go. We want a much more sensible approach to the matter. I am grateful that the hon. member for Gezina raised the problem of the Mobapane to Belle Ombre project in Pretoria. The envisaged plan is, eventually, to transport 50 000 commuters per hour in each direction.

The project has been postponed for two years.

The project has been postponed because one can only cut one’s coat according to one’s cloth. Being responsible and being irresponsible are two different things. The Government and the S.A. Railways are responsible institutions. Eventually there will be 500 000 Black people living at Mabopane, and the idea is to transport the Black people as commuters to Pretoria. There are many recriminations now being flung to and fro, but I want to mention that because certain things are being done, and even certain mistakes being made, we cannot expect the S.A. Railways to simply solve the problems in a jiffy. When I came to Pretoria the area to the north of Church Street was a residential area, and today one finds light industries there. It is definitely not the fault of the Railways that the light industries developed there.

In 1974 I spoke very highly here of the fact that we eventually got what we wanted. This evening, however, I must express my disappointment, but I do at least want to add that I appreciate that fact that the Railways has nevertheless tried to do what can be done. The reduction of R10,1 million affects us in Pretoria very extensively, as it does the whole of South Africa.

The Railways is being compelled to decelerate that project, together with the envisaged Mitchell’s Plain scheme and the bolstering of the Soweto railway lines. The implications of the enforced decision are apparent to all, particularly when we bear in mind that railway transport is the recognized and obvious mode of transport for the mass conveyance of passengers. In that case it is even more important because the only workable policy for South Africa, i.e. one incorporating various peoples, is hereby affected. I now want to know from the hon. the Minister whether, if money is voted for the PWV9 road system, it is not possible for that money to be paid into the Railway Fund. The road system is a temporary solution and not a permanent system to meet the transport requirements of the people. At the moment we have tremendous traffic problems in Pretoria. At present, for example, 42 000 passengers—and this applies only to single journeys—are transported by 270 buses of African Bus Services. By 1980 there will be 422 buses transporting 64 200 passengers— again I am referring only to single journeys. If we build PWV9 road system to gain access to Sandfontein, I am afraid we shall not be able to go any further with those people. The 600 morgen of land at Sandfontein have been zoned for industrial purposes because of the sins of our fathers, since that area should not be an industrial area. I make representations to the effect that the industrial area at Hermanstad should adjoin the railway line. In my estimation that is the solution. Since there is a shortage of industrial land in Pretoria, it would also facilitate matters if the industrial area borders on the railway line.

There is also another matter I want to raise. Our homeland policy is Government policy and the people who have to be transported are transported in accordance with the Government’s policy. It should therefore not be thought strange if I propose that the State intervene in this matter. To give hon. members an idea of the high price other countries have to pay for their policies, let me mention that at present Britain subsidizes its Railways to the tune of about R600 million per year. West Germany subsidizes its Railways to the tune of about R3 000 million per year. The Netherlands subsidizes its Railways to the tune of about R300 million per year and in France the Railways are subsidized to the tune of about R1 500 million per year. Consequently one should have even greater appreciation for the S.A. Railways which has always been able to stand on its own feet without asking the Government for a subsidy. The Opposition must show me one transport system in the world that makes a profit and can stand wholly on its own two feet. That is what the S.A. Railways has always done. Because the Government’s policy is one of recognizing various peoples, the State should determine its priorities and, in this case, also subsidize the Railways in the financing of the railway line from Mabopane to Belle Ombre.

In Pretoria we cannot afford to have a larger volume of bus transport on our roads. We already have people travelling by car from the north, from Bophuthatswana. I can assure hon. members that the roads of Pretoria are completely congested. One could possibly think that everything could be ironed out by changing the times that people have to start work, but let me assure hon. members that anything like that is out of the question. There is not even any question of that being the solution. The only solution to the transport of commuters from Bophuthatswana to the Pretoria industrial area is having the railway line built. This has been proved over and over again by the Railways, and by the hon. the Minister when a deputation from the Pretoria council of the National Party, of which I was a member, went to discuss matters with him. The scheme was postponed to 1984 but we tried to persuade the hon. the Minister and the Minister and the executive management of the Railways. We thus obtained a blue-print of the scheme and the final planning for everything was done. The only obstacle is the question of financing. The fact that Hercules station, which is a large junction, has been planned, is proof of the seriousness with which the Railways regards the matter.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Hercules alleges that the S.A. Railways stands on its own two feet. I should say that it would probably be technically more correct if the hon. member had to say that the Railways was standing on its own wheels. It would be better for the S.A. Railways, rather than standing on its wheels so much, to move on them.

The hon. member also said that there was a relationship between the Railways’ policy and South Africa’s national policy. It is with a view to that very concept that I should like to address a few words to the hon. the Minister. I was bitterly disappointed in the reply which the hon. the Minister gave to the appeals which I addressed to him in order to ensure that the S.A. Railways was moving away from apartheid and racial discrimination. It is deplorable that the hon. the Minister did not see his way clear to giving this House any indication at all that the Railways was prepared to give substance to the promise of the South African Government made to the world as a whole by its ambassador at the UNO. The promise was that the Government would commit itself to moving away from racial discrimination. Whereas a Minister of the Government is given the opportunity in this House to give substance to that promise and announce steps to indicate that the Government is prepared to move away from discrimination, the Minister is rapidly moving away from the undertaking to move away from discrimination. I consider this deplorable. Unless the Government is prepared to carry out its policy in regard to the removal of discrimination frankly and honestly, and unless it has the daring and courage to do so in an organization like the S.A. Railways, in which many opportunities exist for it to prove that it is prepared to so, the Government will only be proving to the rest of the world that it is not prepared to carry out its promises to South Africa and the rest of the world. After all this fits in with what is happening between the UP and the NP in South Africa at the moment. [Interjections.] Hon. members can carry on as much as they want, but if I was a member of the UP, I would hang my head in shame. [Interjections.] You know, Mr. Chairman, that the coalition between the UP and the NP in Johannesburg … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member has already digressed on the subject of the UNO and the UP, but he must return to the S.A.R. now and leave the Johannesburg municipal election at that.

The UP are completely off the tracks. All I want to tell the House, and I shall content myself with this, is that when the UP/NP coalition has been in power in Johannesburg for 24 hours, it announced that it wanted to institute apartheid in Johannesburg again.

Hear, hear!

Hon. members ought to be ashamed of themselves. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must return to the subject under discussion.

Not only did the Government promise to move away from discrimination, but I also want to quote what Mr. Driessen, former Secretary of Transport, said. Do you know, Mr. Chairman, that in November last year Mr. Driessen suggested that racial discrimination and racial separation on buses and trains should be done away with. The point that I want to make is that the removal of discrimination is in accordance with the policy of the Government and that the Government receives this good advice from its own highest officials, as well as from its own newspapers and even from the people in its own benches. Then why is the hon. the Minister so afraid? Why is he terrified? Why does he not want to do what must be done?

When my colleague, the hon. member for Orange Grove, discussed the dangerous situation which would arise as a result of the increased rates for commuters on the S.A. Railways, when he addressed a warning as to what the results of it could be, the hon. the Minister discarded his statements without further ado. He rejected the standpoint and tried to create the impression that it was expressed only by the hon. member for Orange Grove. I want to ask whether the hon. the Minister has consulted the urban Bantu councils or any urban Bantu leaders. Before he considered it necessary to increase these rates, did he take the trouble to do his duty and carry out his responsibility towards South Africa by consulting with the people who would be affected by the increased rates? Did he not realize that the people who have to pay those increased rates cannot afford it? Does he know that some of those people have to spend 30% of their monthly income on travelling costs?

Horace, you cannot prove it.

It is the Gospel truth. Thousands of Black and Coloured people have to live far from where they work, not because they want to live there, but because they are forced to live far away from their work as a result of the NP policy.

Mr. Chairman

No, Mr. Chairman, I do not have time to answer stupid questions.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Do you not think it would be advisable for that hon. member to be removed as a political squatter? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, the hon. members on that side of the House can laugh and carry on as much as they wish, and the miserable “bywoners” of the NP, i.e. the UP, can laugh too, but the policy of the Government is directly responsible for the unrest which arose in the Black urban areas in South Africa. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, at the moment I am speaking about the travelling costs of Black people.

Order! Hon. members must please give the hon. member a chance to deliver his speech.

Years ago thousands of Black people were resettled. They were not resettled because they wanted to be resettled. They were resettled in terms of the policy of this Government.

You are off the track.

Why does the hon. member not rather listen? Now they have to travel much greater distances than before in order to get to work. At that time the Government decided to subsidize the transport of those people. But that subsidy was summarily done away with recently with the result that those people who were resettled at the time, now have to accept a double increase in their travelling costs, and this at a time when the cost of living is causing these people tremendous financial problems. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think we must quieten down and listen to what hon. members have to say.

Tell us a bit about the coalition!

If there is one man who should be absolutely quiet, it is that hon. member! He has never fought an election to ask the people in Johannesburg whether they agree with his joining the Progs … [Interjections.] I think it is about time he showed his true colours and became a true Prog and did not hide behind the skirts of the hon. member for Houghton who sits in front of him …

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

I shall take the hon. member for Yeoville into my confidence outside, after the sitting, but this evening I want to talk about the Railways.

*Let us look at the whole situation in which South Africa finds itself and let us look at it from a political point of view and not through the spectacles of the hon. member for Bryanston whose spectacles are, in any case, bifocals. His problem is that he has to look through the bottom and over the top, and because that is so, in most cases he cannot distinguish the truth from lesser shades of the truth. The bottom portion of the hon. member’s spectacles, the portion he was looking through this evening, were focused on the Black man of Soweto. Who has a deeper feeling for those Black people than S. P. Barnard?

Who is S. P. Barnard?

Not the hon. members on that side! I know my people. For years I was their representative. I looked after the affairs of the non-Whites, not because I expected anything from them, politically speaking, but because I got to know them as people; because I got to know their circumstances and learned that they need the same services as anyone else and did, in fact, get those services from the Railways.

Why do they not get the same services?

Over the years I have lodged pleas for these things. The hon. member for Yeoville must just keep quiet for a moment or two. Mr. Chairman, pardon me if I haul him over the coals. I shall have to do so in a moment. If he does not sit still, I have to do it. However, so much for the hon. member. I shall now come back to the Railway debate. I challenge that party to show me a municipality with equally low administration costs, a municipality where work is done with the same efficiency as in the Railways, show me a municipality, in Natal or anywhere else, with administration costs of only 42 cents in the rand and I shall bow down my head.

Go ahead and bow!

Such a municipality does not exist, but the Railways gets no thanks. Have those hon. members had a look at the renewal costs?

You are making yourself look ridiculous!

No, no. The hon. member must not sit there laughing. I just want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville that he must never cross swords with me. For three years I have left him alone. For three years I have been charitable to him. However, I warn him: Watch out! After all, we Jews do not easily fight amongst ourselves. [Interjections.] Hon. members must just think about the fact that the loss on passenger transport was R209 million. That is a socio-economic service the Railways furnishes to this country.

Who pays for it?

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti wants to know who pays for it. I can tell him who is paying for it. [Interjections.]

Order!

The fact is that in the past few years the Railways has been burdened with certain costs that I shall be discussing in the Third Reading debate. [Interjections.] During the Third Reading debate I shall explain the matter to hon. members. It is important to note that the Railways furnishes a service to South Africa, the kind of service that has not been furnished in years. What happens, however? In prosperous years no mention is made of that fact and there is no evidence of gratitude. This year there is evidence of gratitude. This year there is recognition of the fact that the Railways furnishes a service, a service that goes far beyond its normal services.

I now want to refer to labour. I take it hon. members have seen the 1976 annual report of the Railways.

Where?

Do not ask me. It is high time the hon. member for Yeoville read the stuff he gets. [Interjections.] Let us see what the annual report has to say about labour.

You have got it upside down!

On the Witwatersrand there are …

On what page is that?

You have got it upside down!

Leave him alone!

No, I should like him to get a word or two in. [Interjections.] On the Railways 42 cents of every rand spent goes for labour. I again challenge those hon. members to indicate where there is a municipality—of course a municipality controlled by the PRP. [Interjections.]—which can equal this achievement. I am being serious now. There is not a municipality in the country that can do so. We must remember—and I am now speaking to intelligent people; at least I think so—that Sunday time … [Interjections.] … that Sunday time and overtime … [Interjections.] There is no municipality where all the people do not stop working on Fridays when all the doors are locked. However, services are furnished to the public by the Railways every day, including Saturdays and Sundays.

I want to say a few words to the hon. member for East London North. He is surely an intelligent man. Does the hon. member know that the Railways Administration subsidized the transport of agricultural products by 77% last year? Does the hon. member know that the transport of products for the mining industry was subsidized by 74%? Where is the hon. member for Johannesburg North? The industrial sector was subsidized by 30%. I hope hon. members understand that a time will come when we, in this House, shall have to ask for a greater measure of realism. A time will come, in this House, when the Government will have to be asked to stop the subsidies on those services which are furnished at lower than uneconomic rates. Yet someone will have to pay for that, someone other than the Railways. That, of course, is important.

The hon. member for Bryanston must please not refer to the question of non-White train passengers. Non-Whites fill the trains to such capacity that the doors cannot close. I can give the hon. member that assurance. [Interjections.] Does the hon. member for Bryanston know by how many millions of rand those non-White train passengers are subsidized on the Witwatersrand alone? By R26 million. [Interjections.]

Order! And with that R26 million the hon. member’s time has expired. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Langlaagte and the hon. member for Bryanston were both guilty of bringing petty party politics into the House tonight by speaking about the municipal elections in Johannesburg. The hon. member for Bryanston in particular let fly at the UP. This happens when two political parties have committed political adultery. [Interjections.] It reminds me of the saying: “Hell has no fury like a woman scorned.” [Interjections.] We as the responsible Opposition are not going to participate in these things, while the people of South Africa are groaning under the pressure of the rates increases which have been announced. These are increases which follow on increases of R140 million announced by the Minister of Finance a few days ago. I think that at a time like this, it is not fitting to play the fool in this House and waste the taxpayers’ money here with the type of thing which the hon. member for Bryanston and Langlaagte did. [Interjections.] Today I listened to the hon. the Minister when he replied to the Second Reading debate. The hon. the Minister said with great satisfaction: “What else could I have done?” He pointed out that prices of fuel, steel, electricity and coal have risen. He also pointed out how rates of interest have increased. However, who is responsible for the increases in the prices of these items? The hon. the Minister, as a member of the Cabinet, is co-responsible for all those increases. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister referred to the increases, but I want to point out to him that every businessman, every industrialist and every farmer in South Africa is, surely, faced with the same problem as he is faced with. Is the hon. the Minister going to tell the farmers and industrialists to increase the prices of their products by 20% because the prices of steel, electricity, etc. have risen? After all, this is no argument. On top of that, rubbing salt into the wound, the hon. the Minister says that the price of farmers’ implements increased by 91% and that their other costs increased by more than 100%. Now the hon. the Minister wants to know why the farmers are going to complain when the transport costs for livestock increase by 20%. In other words, the hon. the Minister’s argument is that, since the farmers have to bear the immense increases and burdens, he can place an extra burden on them.

The hon. member for Maitland made a very responsible statement yesterday and tried to advise the hon. the Minister on how to cut down on his costs, because we cannot carry on in this way. The hon. member said that there were many responsible railway people in the country and that we must look after them. They can even be paid higher salaries, but of necessity in a large organization like the Railways there is necessarily dead wood. The hon. member said: “Get rid of them!” Then the hon. member for Uitenhage says that he is now going to have the greatest election success he has ever had, because the hon. member for Maitland wants to eliminate the dead wood. [Interjections.] The hon. member wants to retain the dead wood in order to recruit votes; they want to retain these people for their vote. [Interjections.]

You are the dead wood.

I shall tell the hon. members who is the dead wood. The hon. the Minister himself said who the dead wood was today. He said that when he was an artisan and worked shifts, there were people who only contributed 25% towards the work. [Interjections.]

You have got it completely wrong. I made that statement in connection with the machinery.

Then what did the hon. the Minister say? [Interjections.] We are not dealing with machinery now, but with incompetent people. The hon. the Minister said this himself. He went on to say: “They are the salt of the earth.” In these times we cannot afford to be sentimental and to speak about “the salt of the earth”. I am not saying that the Railways should dismiss these people, but a man should be paid what he is worth. [Interjections.] The • hon. the Minister says that the Railways cannot pay for the socio-economic services, but these services are carried out by incompetent railway staff. Is this, then, how things are done?

I now want to return to the farmers once again. The hon. the Minister burdened farmers with railway rates. Since 1973 the railway rates have been increased by at least 284% in the case of livestock, before this last increase. Now he is increasing it by a further 20%. Now the hon. the Minister asks us what else he could have done, because the steel prices increased. Now I want to ask him how the farmers are going to get by? This is the Government whose spokesmen said that the uneconomic farmer had to disappear. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the time has come for uneconomic Ministers to disappear. [Interjections.] For three full days now I have been listening to hon. members on that side of the House going into ecstasies about this good budget and the good hon. the Minister. I want to ask whether we are not living in a dream world now. Has this place affected our minds? Have we lost the thread? What is the truth? Here we have an hon. Minister saying that his expenditure is R525 million more than last year. Last year the Railways cost us R2 279 million; this year the cost providing these same services—not better services—is R2 814 million—R525 million more than last year! We do not get better services. It is an increase of well over 20%.

However, the hon. the Minister tells us that the cost of living has only increased by 10%. If the average costs of the businessman and of all other people rise by only 10%, why then do his costs rise by 20%? What is this “sports” costing us now? Rate increases of at least R344 million have been announced. This is not all it is going to cost the consumer of South Africa, because it must be remembered that this same hon. Minister increased the railway rates by 11% last year. In September he increased it by a further 9% to bring the total increase to 20%.

: That is not true.

Of course it is true. Now he is increasing it once again by a further 16,9%; a combined increase, therefore, of almost 40%.

Mr. Chairman, I regret having to cross swords with the hon. member for King William’s Town because we are sheep farmers from two areas that are reasonably close to each other. The hon. members, however, accused the hon. member for Bryanston and the hon. member for Langlaagte of making jokes. The hon. member, who regards himself as a responsible member of the House, gave a lengthy account here of how the Railway rates had increased, and his solution was that the dead wood should be chopped out. That is the only solution the hon. member can offer. However, he did not take the trouble to study the Railways’ annual reports in the finest detail. He conveniently did not pay attention to the expansion of services and the reduction in staff, yet he states here that dead wood should be chopped out. I think the time has come for the hon. members to stop generalizing. When speaking about dead wood, they must specifically indicate in what section of the Railways the dead wood is to be found.

I represent an agricultural constituency and am therefore naturally disappointed that the railage for livestock has been increased. I cannot but express my disappointment about that aspect. As a responsible member of this House, however, one must retain one’s perspective. Last year in this House we held long discussions about the transport of livestock, and I can remember that I personally suggested various avenues that must be investigated in an effort to combat that serious problem, especially in the light of the fact that the Railways was suffering tremendous losses on the transport of livestock. This year the loss was no less than R12 million. The hon. member must now tell me whether we must continue with these uneconomic services or not. The hon. member does not need to say that the farmer is going to have a hard time of it because we all know that. The hon. member must offer a solution and say whether we must continue with the uneconomic services, whether we must increase the subsidy on the services or whatever the case may be. The hon. member offers no solution for the problem.

I have here a report drawn up by the Abattoir Commission and the Meat Board, a report dealing with an investigation into abattoirs in production areas. It is with extreme regret that one notes in the report the recommendation that at this stage they do not even consider establishing abattoirs in the production areas. For a moment or two I want to go into the detail of the report and mention that for control purposes slaughtering has been done at Colesberg, Prieska, De Aar, Upington, Onderstepoort, Johannesburg and Vereeniging. It was found that the average travelling time for slaughtering stock was three and a half days. The percentage mass loss is 5,49% over a period of three and a half days while the loss in value is R1,38 per unit. I said that the average travelling time was three to four days, but when the travelling time is extended to five days, for example, the mass loss increases considerably to 9,69% and the loss in value to R2,49. The commission subsequently investigated the present abattoir capacity and gave a detailed exposition of the present capacity, including the capacity of the new City Deep and Cato Ridge abattoirs. They then estimated the slaughtering facilities needed up to the year 1990. They took all possible factors into consideration, for example a population growth rate of 2,16% per year. They came to the conclusion that the present slaughtering facilities and requirements are of such a nature that by 1980 there would be a considerable surplus of slaughtering facilities, whilst in 1990 there would still be sufficient slaughtering facilities to handle all the necessary slaughtering. The question of road transport was also investigated, and this evening I should like to record my appreciation to the Railways and to the hon. the Minister. When many applications were received for the transport of livestock by road, they kept their promise and readily granted permission for such transport of livestock by road. As a matter of interest let me point out that the transport of one small stock animal by mechanical truck from De Aar to Johannesburg costs 54 cents while a live animal costs R1,85. If the animal is transported in a refrigeration truck, the transport cost amounts to 44 cents. From Burgersdorp to Johannesburg the transport cost is 52 cents in a mechanical truck as against R1,76 for a live sheep and 43 cents in a refrigeration truck. From Beaufort West to Johannesburg the transport cost is 67 cents in a mechanical truck and 55 cents in a refrigeration truck, while the transport cost for a live sheep would be R2,41. Hence it is so regrettable that our slaughtering facilities are apparently adequate to meet the needs up to 1990 because that is why one cannot, at this stage, introduce slaughtering facilities in the production areas. The costs involved in the transport of 180 sheep by road from Van Zylsrus to Johannesburg is R270, an amount of R1,50 per animal. It is therefore considerably cheaper than rail transport and that is why we are so grateful for the fact that the hon. Minister and the road transport boards have readily acceded to requests to have livestock transported by road. However, we shall have to give our urgent attention to this matter, because the South African Agricultural Union’s express policy is still that the South African Railways should constitute the national transport system of the country. We shall therefore have to give our urgent attention to the question of the transport of slaughtering stock because it constitutes a basic commodity, a commodity which is particularly needed in our cities. We shall have to find a solution for the continual cost increases with respect to the transport of slaughtering stock.

Mr. Chairman, I think this is an opportune moment to reply to some of the arguments which were put forward here. It is hardly necessary for me to reply to the arguments of the hon. member for King William’s Town.

The unfortunate part of it, however, is that certain irresponsible statements which are made here, are noised abroad, as I have already indicated earlier today, and create a completely erroneous impression outside. Therefore there are two points to which I should like to reply concerning the statement made by the hon. member for King William’s Town. He made a plea for the elimination of socio-economic services which are uneconomical. [Interjections.] In particular he pleaded—and hon. members should listen carefully now—for the elimination of uneconomical services. He even went so far as to say that uneconomical Ministers should be eliminated. However, if I had to turn livestock into an economic service, I would have to increase the rates by 80% to 90%.

I told the hon. the Minister what he should do last year.

Hon. members cannot ask for one thing and immediately afterwards ask for the opposite. Throughout the discussion, however, the refrain was that uneconomic services should be eliminated, that certain services of the Railways should not subsidize other services.

There should be compensation for that, however.

If a subsidy is paid, it has to come from another source; I agree with the hon. member on that score. There was also a sustained plea—and the hon. member for Durban Point was still discussing this matter this afternoon—that the gap between the low-rated goods and the high-rated goods should be narrowed, and that we should concentrate on making our services as economical as possible. However, this does not apply to livestock, and I ask you, Mr. Chairman, how far must I go?

The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet furnished the reply.

The hon. member discussed the exemptions which are being granted in regard to road transportation, and on that score I adopted a standpoint in this House last year. On that occasion I said that where livestock could be conveyed more economically, we would not object to granting permission for road transportation to be used. I still adhere to that standpoint. The indications are, however, that many exemptions have been granted, particularly for conveying goods over long distances from South West Africa. The roads are full of potholes, but the people conveying goods in trucks, do not of course pay for the road in accordance with the use they make of them. But I have to build and maintain my railway line myself. No one else maintains it for me. They have used these roads until they are full of potholes, and what is the result? The stream is flowing back to the Railways. I agree with the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet that it is fit and proper that the Railways should be regarded as the official national carrier and that it should undertake the conveyance of these goods, but I am advocating—and with this the hon. member for King William’s Town should rather assist me—that in the case of a service such as the conveyance of livestock, which has to be subsidized, the subsidy should come from another source.

The Minister of Agriculture.

They must help me to obtain this from another source. I cannot go any further than I am already going in respect of livestock, and hon. members know it. Last year we raised the rate as from 1 April. When I introduced rates increases again on 1 September, I did not introduce an increase in respect of livestock, precisely because a vehement protest was raised, a protest which was not on merit. On merit I should have introduced another increase, in accordance with all standards and theories proclaimed in this House. But I did not do so owing to the opposition which was forthcoming. Now, however, I have introduced a more or less average, viz. 20%, increase in respect of livestock.

The second point which the hon. member discussed—I am afraid that this will also be noised abroad incorrectly—is the argument which he put forward in respect of the dry or dead wood. The hon. member for Maitland referred to this yesterday. Having drawn a comparison earlier this afternoon and having referred to 25% or 50% piecework, the hon. member draws the inference that the one person is only doing 25% of the work he is supposed to do. That is why I said that he did not know enough about machinery.

Or about figures.

The fact of the matter is that the piecework system works on the basis that specific time is laid down for the completion of a specific piece of work in the workshop, and if the worker does it within that time, he earns 25% piecework. This was the case in the old days when I was still in the Railway service. If he does it faster and produces more than is required in the specified time, he can increase his piecework earnings, up to as much as 50%. This is what piecework is. If one is able to work according to the specified time, it is a high average, and it is that high average person, able to earn the 25% piecework, whom I said was the “the salt of the earth”. It is those people on whom the Railways has to rely heavily to keep the wheels of the railways turning.

Now he is a good parliamentarian as well.

[Inaudible.]

No, Sir, I regularly produced my 50% piecework. I have experience of it, and I know what it means.

I should like to return to the hon. member for Durban Point. I thought the hon. member was a little unfair this afternoon with all his allegations, questions and statements here, and I should like to deal with a few of the points he raised. He made a reference to the proposed “inflationary bookkeeping”. I think the hon. member knows as well as most of us that this is inevitable today among all major undertakings. This is a fact. It is being done almost everywhere; people have gone over to “inflationary bookkeeping”. This means simply and solely that one makes provision for the replacement of one’s assets according to replacement costs and not according to the historic value of one’s assets.

One cannot write it off against tax.

It has nothing to do with tax.

We are talking about the replacement of assets; this has to be done. I think it is a good policy, in these conditions of inflation, that it should be done according to replacement costs and not as a percentage of the historic value.

The hon. member referred to low-rated goods and levelled the reproach at me that I did not refer to the disproportion, as it were, which has arisen between high-rated and low-rated traffic. Today I pointed out specifically that, as a result of this, we expect to have R60 million less in revenue in the coming year than we had last year. However, I am grateful for this low-rated traffic for it is the coal being conveyed to Richards Bay and the ore being conveyed to Saldanha Bay, which promote our exports. In other words, it tends to promote the economy of the country although the earnings on the Railway side as a result of the high percentage of low-rated goods are not satisfactory.

But is the conveyance of ore to Saldanha Bay not economical?

Yes, it is economical. I just want to say that it helps to increase our earnings in respect of exports.

The hon. member referred to the Airways again and to the alleged dissatisfaction prevailing among the staff. He went so far as to say that the pilots have no choice. I think that the contrary is true. The pilots have international certificates which enable them to find work almost anywhere in the world, if there is work. I cannot agree with the hon. member that that measure of dissatisfaction really exists.

Why do you not try to find out?

The hon. member might as well leave it to me. We shall keep our ear close to the ground and try to establish whether there is any reason for dissatisfaction. I honestly admit, as I have already done this afternoon, that there is a measure of dissatisfaction in regard to remuneration. The people are behind with their salaries, and as a result one may probably expect a measure of dissatisfaction. Today there were further articles in this regard in the newspapers.

What about the leave restriction of 14 days?

I shall investigate the matter further. I am not able to furnish the hon. member with a reply in this regard at the moment.

The hon. member mentioned that we are at this stage already making provision in the estimates for the costs in connection with the Sishen/Saldanha project but that legislation still has to be introduced authorizing the purchase of that project. If one looks at page 3 of the Brown Book, one sees that provision is made at the bottom of that page for an amount of R70 million for the following purpose, as expressly stated there: “Purchase and equip the Sishen/Saldanha railway line and Saldanha Bay harbour.” It is therefore for the purchasing and equipping of these two projects. At the same time we are making provision by means of legislation for authority to carry out the purchase. How else does the hon. member think we should do it? The negotiations in connection with the Sishen/Saldanha scheme began last year. I think they began in October of last year. My colleague, the Minister of Economic Affairs, and I said in a statement that we were in the process of negotiating. But such negotiations, and the take-over of the scheme, cannot take place overnight. Parliament was not in session at the time, and that was why we kept all parties involved in this matter informed. As the hon. member knows, the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours was informed of this at the earliest opportunity. A special meeting was held.

Are you talking about the present year?

The present year, yes. I simply do not know what the hon. member is dissatisfied about, or what the hon. member had in mind as an alternate way for us to do it.

My point was that an amount of R545 million is being indicated here as expenditure which has already been paid. But we have not yet provided the authority for it. It is stated here in the Brown Book “Estimated expenditure to 31-3-’77.” This is expenditure which is already through, and it is shown here as expenditure which has been paid.

No payment has in fact been made. It is only there to obtain authority for it, so that this agreement may be concluded. Now we are requesting this House to furnish that authority. There is no question of an overpayment. It is solely for the take-over

May I ask the hon. the Minister: After paying the R70 million, how much will still have to be paid?

That is a completely different matter. We can deal with that at a later stage.

It shows R35 million more.

The hon. member will see that R35 million is reflected in the last column which is moneys to be spent during subsequent years, but at the moment, for the coming financial year, we are asking permission for R70 million, over and above the R545 million which will also have to be approved by Parliament.

You show it as paid already.

It is not being paid. Is the hon. member not able to understand that there is no payment? This is merely an authority to take over the loans. That is all it means.

The hon. member for Durban Point referred once again to Richards Bay. I think we have by now had enough arguments on this matter. The fact of the matter is that it subsequently appeared that there was hard material below the sand as well. By far the most of the area that had to be dredged was sand, apparently more than 90%, but here and there other material also occurred, which is referred to as “sandstone”. It is not the same kind of rock which one finds in Table Bay: it is a kind of rock which is only found in that area.

It is still rock.

Yes, but with another name.

You mean it is rock that is not actually rock?

Not altogether. It was then decided to blast the “sandstone” rather than simply to dredge it. In that regard I want to furnish certain information which I have before me.

† All the blasts have been based on recommendations of the Bernard Price Institute of the Witwatersrand University, which is a recognized authority on blasting. As a matter of fact, I already gave this information when I replied to a question earlier this year. In any event, the Bernard Price Institute has monitored on site at Richards Bay and carried out a detailed analysis of the initial five blasts in each of which 500 kg explosives were exploded. Since then every succeeding blast has been monitored by the S.A. Railways, using Bernard Price equipment. A report of the Bernard Price Institute dated 30 May 1976, recommended increasing the blasts at Richards Bay from 500 kg to 1 000 kg as being safe in relation to the township at Richards Bay. The S.A. Railways did not accept the recommendation and has retained blasts at 500 kg.

*In so far as this means anything to the hon. member, I am furnishing him with this information.

Then the hon. member referred once again to the purchases of aircraft and the modifications made to those aircraft.

Before you leave the subject of Richards Bay, can you say what caused the cracks in the houses there?

No, I cannot say what caused the cracks in the houses. It may be anyone of a great many factors. For example, it may be that the houses were built on clay. Clay is the most detrimental substratum on which one can build a house. It is worse than rock, which in turn is worse than sand. Cognizance has been taken of damage which was suffered in this way, damage which, as I have already said, will in due course be taken into consideration.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member again put questions in regard to the aircraft. I must admit that the procedure for the purchase of the five Boeing 747 models—the Super B models—as well as the subsequent purchase of the first three Boeing SP models—a further three of which were subsequently purchased—entailed that certain modifications eventually had to be made to the aircraft from time to time. This applies in particular to the first three Boeing SP aircraft which were received. The hon. member for Durban Point has already asked questions in this regard on a previous occasion. I then took the trouble of requesting a written report, a report in which the entire matter was explained. I have the report with me now. It consists of 5½ typed pages. It furnishes an explanation of the entire procedure which is adopted in effecting modifications to the aircraft. I am prepared to make this report available to the hon. member. He can in turn make it available to any other hon. member, if he wishes to do so. I think the hon. member will find all the information he requires in this report.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member also referred to the so-called “earphones” and the free drinks from Qantas.

†I would like to give him some information in this respect. In order to combat the competition on the part of non-Iata airlines, such as Singapore Airlines and Thai Airlines, Qantas contemplated the provision of headsets and drinks free of charge to economy class passengers. According to the regional manager of Qantas in South Africa there was so much opposition from lata airlines that it was never introduced. When the hon. member put his question to me on 15 February 1977, the S.A. Airways was not aware of any airline providing such service free to economy class passengers. Hence the reply was given: “not known”.

*That is the position, Mr. Chairman. Indeed it is still the position today. Qantas, which was a member of lata, wanted to compete with those airlines which were not members of lata lata objected to this, and as a result Qantas dropped the plan. Has the hon. member read another story somewhere in a newspaper? When he reads a story in the newspaper he goes quite berserk and runs away with it. [Interjections.] Wherever the hon. member read the story. In any case he read a report in this regard.

Do you not think that it is an unnecessary annoyance that passengers should have earphone charges?

The hon. member’s question is dependent on an agreement with lata. Every time an announcement is made on the aircraft that the earphones have to be paid for, it is stated emphatically that this is in terms of the rules of lata, and we are unfortunately bound to abide by those rules, unless the hon. member wants us to become a second or third class airline by not belonging to lata. We know, however, how valuable it is to be a member of lata.

The hon. member also discussed a building in Windhoek. I want to tell the hon. member that there are no secrets which I do not want to disclose and that I do not want to avoid his questions either. I want to provide everyone in this House with nothing less than the whole truth and all possible information. Nothing is taking place in the Railways Administration which has to be kept secret from the members of this House. With regard to this building the position is that the hon. member for Durban Point asked me last year on 18 June, inter alia,—

Please note that the tense used is the past tense, viz. “whether plans have been prepared and submitted to the municipal authorities”. In Afrikaans the verb “is” is not the present tense, but the past tense.

The question consisted of two sections: (a) whether they had been prepared and, (b) whether they had been submitted.

At that stage the Department was still preparing the plans, and consequently the reply at the time was that the plans had not yet been prepared. Therefore it was not incorrect when the Section Manager, Windhoek, informed the hon. member for Durban Point that progress was being made with the preparing of the plans. That tallies with the information.

To protect the Section Manager, I want to point out that he did not say this to me personally, but in a letter to a newspaper.

At present the position is that plans have been prepared and submitted for approval. The cost of the conversion is very high. The rentals of private buildings for office accommodation amount to approximately R6 OCX) per annum, and in the present economic climate it is better to continue to rent offices for a year or two. As a result of this we decided not to proceed with the proposed alterations.

The hon. member for Durban Point also asked questions in regard to cement in Zululand …

Actually along the South Coast of Natal.

… and the South Coast. In my speech I said that we could comply with all the general and all the transportation requirements. I have since heard that there were a few bottlenecks in regard to the delivery of cement in the areas indicated by the hon. member. I should like to explain that on that occasion we had instructions—on which I do not wish to elaborate now—to do certain other transportation work which ran counter to the delivery of cement to those areas. I also want to tell the hon. member that the problem lies not only with the Railways but with the cement factories as well. From April to December only 66% of the wagons made available to the factories for cement were loaded for local use. Therefore it did not mean that there was a shortage of capacity on the S.A. Railways.

[Inaudible.]

Lately we have been conveying a great deal of cement.

The hon. member for Orange Grove asked more questions than a thousand wise men could reply to in a year. All he does is to ask a lot of questions. Inter alia, the hon. member asked a question on the agreement with the Transkei, in regard to which I want to furnish him briefly with the information. An agreement which I signed was concluded with the Transkei, prior to independence. It was one of the 70 agreements which were signed in Pretoria. Eleven of those agreements affected my department. As far as the Railways is concerned, an operating agreement was concluded with the Transkei in terms of which we shall continue to operate the Railways on Transkeian territory. A gradual Africanization, if I may express it that way, of the staff on the Railways in the Transkei territory is taking place. At present there are only 56 Whites still employed on the Railways in Transkeian territory. At present I have no indication of when the Transkei wishes to take over the operation of the Railways. It depends on them to take the initiative in this regard.

How is the service operating at the moment?

It is operating as an integral part of our service. Separate accounts are not being kept. The hon. member asked me whether there were losses. Therefore the service is operating as usual.

I mean how effective the service is.

The service is functioning well. There is no question of the effectiveness of the service, for it stands under our direct supervision. The service is functioning just as well as before the Transkei became independent.

And Blacks are filling the White posts.

They are gradually being transferred to these posts in the Transkei, as they receive training under our supervision to enable them to do so.

As far as the road transportation services are concerned, there are three phases of take-over. The second phase of take-over has already occurred. The third phase, which is referred to as long distance services, still has to take place, and it shall do so at a later stage.

As far as the rates for the road transportation services are concerned, it is up to the Transkei itself to determine what the rates in their specific areas will be.

The hon. member went on to ask questions in regard to Mozambique. To that I want to explain to the hon. member that there is close contact and co-operation with the Republic. Only recently, on 10 and 11 March—last week, therefore—talks were held between officials of the Mozambique railways and our officials. On the 2nd day, 11 March, the private sector was also drawn in to attend the talks. All that I can testify to, is that the spirit and co-operation is good. It goes without saying that we are conveying goods as far as Komatipoort, from whence they are conveyed further by the Mozambique Railways to Maputo.

The hon. member continued, and on the basis of a report by a certain Mr. Harper, made an attack on the system of containerization which we are introducing into South Africa. I have decided that I would rather not express an opinion on the motives behind the unfavourable report by Mr. Harper. Personally I think that there are motives behind it. The fact of the matter—and this is important—is that at present some of our people are in Rotterdam, Bremerhaven and Southampton to receive training in the most modern methods for the handling of containers. Throughout the world I have been told on several occasions: “How lucky you are to be able to learn from other countries and then apply the best in your own country”. Containerization is no longer a novelty in other countries of the world. We therefore find ourselves in the position where we can take over the best of what is being done in other countries and apply it in our own.

The hon. member also referred to the Durban Harbour Carriers, but I am really not going to elaborate any further on that matter. We thrashed out the matter thoroughly in this House last year when I introduced legislation in this regard. Since then, however, all kinds of negotiations have taken place, so much so that the matter was ultimately referred to a Cabinet Committee for a final decision. A final decision was given, and the matter with which I came to this House last year, has been disposed of, and I really do not feel it is necessary for me to elaborate on this any further.

The hon. member for Uitenhage asked a few questions. I want to reassure the hon. member. I am thoroughly aware of his interest in the disciplinary system, for on 25 November 1976 I approved the establishment of a committee to institute an investigation into the disciplinary system of the Railways. The terms of reference of the committee are to indicate deficiencies in the disciplinary system, if any exist, and to make recommendations on the way in which these may be eliminated. The Federal Consultative Council of the South African Railways and Harbours Staff Associations will be afforded an opportunity to submit representation to the committee, as well as to give evidence before the committee. We have chosen a lawyer to serve as chairman of the committee and he shall proceed with the work, if he is not already engaged in it.

The hon. member also referred to the Sick Fund and I want to point out to him that discussions on sick fund matters and possible shortcomings in it are already taking place. I do not want to elaborate any further on the matter at this stage.

The hon. member also requested that we extend the concession to officials with more than 30 years service on the Railways, enabling them to make use of the airways after paying in a certain amount, to the pensioners as well. The officials who have more than 30 years service, who are still in the service and who may make use of that privilege, number approximately 13 000. Pensioners with 30 years service who will therefore also qualify to make use of this privilege number approximately 21 000. In this regard, therefore, I think we should go slowly. Let us rather confine this privilege to the 13 000 officials who are still in service, and first see how the scheme works. It is obvious that we should display a large measure of caution and should keep nonpaying passengers away from the Airways, and not allow too many people to make use of this scheme.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central referred to the question of the ore dust in Port Elizabeth. I am aware of, and concerned about the problem, for Port Elizabeth’s sake. I think I have on several occasions in the past expressed my concern in this regard in public. However, the loading installation is there, and the dust causes a great deal of unpleasantness. But as the hon. member himself said, we are at present restricting the dust to a minimum by means of a water jet. Whether one will be able to eliminate it entirely, I do not know, but at least we are trying to restrict it to a minimum. What the hon. member said was interesting. He carried on about the dust and said how detrimental the dust was to Port Elizabeth. In the next sentence, however, he said that he was pleased to hear that manganese ore would continue to be exported through Port Elizabeth. To reconcile those two statements is a little difficult, but I can understand that the hon. member wants activities in the harbour at Port Elizabeth.

Of course.

On the other hand, however, the hon. member is not very keen to live with the nuisance which this entails. But we hope we will be successful with the method which is now being applied, and when we proceed to export manganese only from the harbour of Port Elizabeth, the position might improve because manganese is a heavier ore—so I have been informed—and the dust settles more easily than in the case of iron ore dust.

The hon. member for Sunnyside made a very interesting contribution in regard to the invitation I addressed to hon. members to help me find a new name for the S. A. Railways. The name he suggested was “Vervoerwese”, without anything further, or that is how I understood the hon. member; “Transportation”, without anything added, not even the letters S. A., as in the past. I appreciate the hon. member’s interest in this regard, and I would be pleased if all hon. members would participate in the attempt.

The hon. member then referred to the ratio of self-generated capital to foreign capital and said that we should maintain a ratio of 35% to 40%. The degree to which an undertaking can finance itself is determined to a great extent by its sensitivity to the economic cycle, and I think the Railways is sensitive, or may be regarded as being sensitive, to changes in the economic cycle. Therefore it is probably desirable that the Railways should have a higher percentage of self-generated finance than other companies or undertakings. There fore I think it is a good thing that the ideal percentage of the gross self-generated finance, i.e. not only the net financing, but also the replacement, should be set at approximately 50% of the total financing, of which 30% may be replacement and 20% net financing.

The hon. member for East London North referred, inter alia to a certain tug boat. There are tug boats on order which still have to be delivered. East London will get its tug boat, if that is what he was interested in. The hon. member also referred to seating arrangements on aircraft and said that three people sometimes had to sit next to one another on an aircraft although, if one glanced back, one could see several empty seats behind one. To a certain extent he answered the question himself by saying that these days the computer allocates the seats. After the aircraft has taken off, a change or correction can in fact be made. But there are certain problems attached to that as well. Suppose the hon. member is flying from East London and he wants to make a change in the air between East London and Port Elizabeth. When the aircraft lands in Port Elizabeth, it may happen that he is sitting in another person’s seat. That kind of problem can crop up. In any case, changes can be effected to the benefit of the passengers as well as the Airways.

Could you not have a few seats made a little wider for people like me?

The problem is that if I were to make the seats wide enough for the hon. member for Durban Point, I would not be able to produce an economic service.

I want to close for this evening by referring to the hon. member for Moorreesburg who, as we have come to know him, again raised a few points in respect of the West Coast. He began with the labour problem in respect of the Sishen/Saldanha project. I have a great deal of sympathy for his point of view. We shall give effect to it as far as possible. At present 395 non-Whites are working on this railway line, therefore 5 short of 400. Of that number 18 are Bantu, who are stationed at Sishen because there is no place for them to live in Saldanha. As far as it is possible for us, we shall carry out his wishes. As regards the semis factory which he referred to, I cannot say much except that we should very much like the semis factory to be constructed because it will increase the amount of traffic on that railway line tremendously. The more the traffic is increased, the lower the unit costs will be, and the greater the possibility of our perhaps showing a profit there. In our agreement we provided that after a certain tonnage had been conveyed annually on this line, rates would be laid down on a cost plus basis, a maximum of 10%. These possibilities exist for the Railways, and therefore we should like to see the traffic being expanded as much as possible.

As far as the master plan for the harbour is concerned, you may rest assured that we are not proceeding in a piece-meal way, but that it will always form part of a comprehensive project that has been worked out in advance. I shall deliver the rest of my speech tomorrow.

Mr. Chairman, I want to use the few minutes at my disposal to speak about the Railway staff matters. Firstly I want to say that I have listened to the hon. member for King William’s Town’s attack on the hon. member for Uitenhage about bringing “dead wood”, as he put it, into the Railways. I think that was a very unreasonable attack on the hon. member for Uitenhage by the hon. member for King William’s Town. What the hon. member for Uitenhage proposed was a reconsideration of the matter when staff was taken back into the Railways. When I think of the exceptional respect and piety with which the hon. member for Uitenhage treats railway staff, I can only believe that he was very sincere in his pleas in that connection.

If I were to say I was very satisfied with the increase in rates on the transport of livestock, I would be guilty of hypocrisy this evening. In that connection I want to link up with the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet who also revealed to us his ideas on that matter. What strikes me in this regard is that the increase in the rates is to be borne by the producer. This is unlike the other increases, which have to be borne by the consumer. In this case however, they are borne by the producer. On this side of the House there are many of us for whom this is a very sore point.

However, let me abandon those critical ideas and rather express my gratitude to the hon. the Minister and members of his staff. I want to express a small word of thanks for the better compensation introduced by the Railways’ Administration for injuries to livestock in transit. It is also a small word of thanks for the promptness with which matters, raised here in the House, are followed up in our respective constituencies in the recess by members of the staff. I think that the way in which matters are dealt with by the staff is excellent and outstanding. Here I want to say thank you very much for the preservation of the commercial section at the Klipfontein station in my constituency, since statistics were used as a threat for the removal of the commercial section of that station. After consideration the commercial section of that station, which means a great deal to the small farming community, was preserved.

I also want to congratulate the hon. the Minister and the members of his staff on the exceptional achievements of the past year. Mention has already been made here of the achievement in the construction of Richards Bay. There is also the Sishen/Saldanha project which has also been mentioned. In addition there is the experimental ore train which transported an extraordinary load from Kimberley to Port Elizabeth. I think those are exceptional achievements. Another achievement was the exceptional speed achieved with the test unit. Having congratulated the staff of the department, I immediately want to come back to the significance of the staff in this connection. Earlier today there were repeated expressions of disappointment at the way in which the Railways is being administered. However, if we take into consideration these achievements and the vital way in which the Railways functions, we find a much clearer message getting through to us, i.e. about the exceptional quality of the staff of the Department of Transport and of the Railways. In this connection I want to quote the following on page 6 of the annual report—

In spite of all the fine technical achievements, the department acknowledges, in this annual report, that the staff is its most valuable asset. In this connection we must also bear in mind that in the past 15 years the Railways has achieved an average growth of 2,1% per year. In the past year the revenue of the Railways reached the record amount of R1 863 million, an increase of R221 million on the previous year. The staff, as an irreplaceable asset of the Railways, deserves the utmost praise not only from this House, but also from the whole Republic and all its people. This department has a labour force of 263 000 Whites and non-Whites, a labour force which, as we have heard several times from the hon. the Minister, has his and our utmost appreciation for the self-control they have evidenced as far as wage demands are concerned. This indicates to us that these people are prepared to serve not only the economy of the country but also every sector of society. We find railwaymen and women in our cultural, church and social life, and they are always distinguished by the fact that they are amongst the most useful people in our society. An employee of the Railways is not simply one of thousands. He is not simply a cog in a very big machine. As the annual report indicates, these people have an exceptional potential. I want to refer to the committee created in 1971 to measure the management potential of the staff of the Railways. According to that committee’s report, management potential centres were established in which members of the railway staff are trained.

Here we have further proof of the potential that is dormant in our Railway officials, a potential which has already come to light very tangibly. I want to conclude by saying that we all—not only in the House, but everywhere in the country—have the utmost appreciation for these thousands of people employed by the South African Railways. We therefore want to convey to the hon. the Minister and his staff our good wishes for another fine year of service to the Economy of our country and its people.

Mr. Chairman, it was quite refreshing to listen to the hon. member for Somerset East talking about the hard work which is being done by the staff of the South African Railways and Harbours. It is quite a change after listening to speaker after speaker on the benches opposite telling us what a wonderful organization the Administration is and how thankful they are to the Government, etc. They were talking about the millions but none of them, except for the last speaker and the hon. member for Uitenhage, mentioned the small man working in the Railways. This is the subject I want to follow up by talking about the small man on the Railways who gets little or no consideration from the opposite side of the House. I am a pensioner myself, and I can speak with feeling for the Railway pensioner. I was glad to hear the hon. member for Uitenhage speaking on behalf of the pensioners yesterday. He mentioned that they were not given concessions on air tickets, and in this connection I would like to break a lance on behalf of the Railway pensioners.

I feel that they have borne the heat and burden of the day in the past and that they have brought the Administration to where it is today. The Railway pensioner is getting a scanty reward for what he has done. My information is that with effect from June 1976 the privilege of reduced air fares in lieu of the annual free pass was granted to the Administration’s employees. Railway pensioners, unfortunately, have not had this privilege extended to them. I would like to know why this discrimination has been shown towards the pensioner. After all, his pension is small enough as it is and he is the man who should get some assistance from the Administration. I was also informed that until about June pensioners were usually granted concessions and privileges similar to those enjoyed by serving members. One can therefore only express dismay and disappointment that pensioners were not granted this privilege of reduced air fares on SAA. I know that the hon. the Minister has given his reply to the hon. member for Uitenhage, but in spite of this I am not satisfied, because I feel that not enough planning has gone into the matter and that the matter was not gone into deeply enough. I am convinced that something could be done for these poor unfortunate pensioners. Surely a system could be devised whereby pensioners could be graded according to their age and their pension and be granted this privilege. It is merely a question of priorities. The hon. the Minister said that thousands of people would be taking advantage of the reduction in air fares, but I am certain that when it comes down to the hard facts there will not be such astronomical figures.

I would like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister that I know of a pensioner who lives in Durban and who took his wife to Pretoria for a holiday. He made use of a PTO and he told me that for the return journey his meals, his bedding tickets and his porterage cost him a total of R23,40. Because he is 73 years of age—the same age as his wife—and they are rather frail, neither of them could get onto the top bunk; consequently they asked for the exclusive use of a compartment to and from Pretoria. For that privilege they had to pay R16,60. That brought up the price to R40. If they had travelled by air the return journey between Durban and Johannesburg would have cost them a mere R28 at the current rates. It means that this pensioner would have saved R12 on the R40 already spent on rail travel. Furthermore, the flying time from Durban to Johannesburg would have taken less than one hour. In addition to that there would have been a short bus trip from the airport to Pretoria, instead of an overnight train journey from Durban to Pretoria. I believe that this is an indication of an instance where, if the department had graded these pensioners according to their age and circumstances, the Administration would not have been inundated by applications for reduced air fares.

My second plea to the hon. the Minister concerns the security and happiness of those Railway employees who are forced by the exigencies of the service to live and work in lonely outlying areas, and in particular—as for instance in Natal and elsewhere—in or near homelands and so-called Black areas. Those people living and working in these areas are lonely. Their houses are situated right slap-up against Bantu homelands or Native Reserves, and those people live a very lonely life. I can take the hon. the Minister to railway stations in Natal where, due to the topography, one has to climb about 200 yards uphill to get to the house of the station master. Now, that house is slap-bang against the Bantu Reserves where, as we know …

[Inaudible.]

Now, Mr. Chairman, I am not going to take any notice of hon. members of the PRP. We know what the drinking habits of the Bantu are, and particularly …

What has that got to do with it?

It has a hell of a lot to do with it. [Interjections.]

That is right, Sarge! Tell them!

If this hon. member’s wife lived in a lonely area in a Native Reserve, he would soon moan about it, in just the same way as he moaned about Pinelands. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, if ever there was hypocritical talk, it comes from the benches of the PRP. [Interjections.]

And all the nonsensical orgies come from you!

It is not nonsensical. [Interjections.]

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

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it. [Interjections.] Now I would like to request from the hon. the Minister that the Administration consider installing an inter-com system from those houses of the station personnel to the stations where the husbands are usually working, whether it is day or whether it is night. That should be done in order to afford protection to their wives. This is a matter which can quite easily be dealt with without much extra cost to the Administration.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umlazi discussed a subject about which I think, most of us are always in agreement, namely that pensioners should be looked after. The hon. member almost came to blows with the hon. member for Orange Grove, and I can only say to the hon. member for Orange Grove that he must beware of the hon. member for Umlazi, because if he piles into you, it is worse than being hit by a train.

There are two subjects I should like to discuss. The one concerns non-White passengers on the main line passenger services, and the second concerns the elimination of level crossings. I do not know how popular non-White passenger services are on other main line routes, but I know that they are very popular on the main line route from Pretoria to Pietersburg in the far north. I have watched the services on various occasions and have seen what goes on there. I must say there is a difficulty which in my opinion could well be discussed and could perhaps be eliminated. I know, too, that a booking service was instituted recently for third-class passengers, but whether it works very well or not, I do not know. To go by what I have seen, it seems to me that it does not really work very well.

I want to give a practical illustration of this. The train which leaves for Pietersburg at 20h52 every evening usually stands at the platform of Pretoria station for about 20 minutes before it departs. Then the station gates open and all the non-Whites pour through the gates and occupy the carriages. The carriages are very soon full to overflowing. What actually struck me was that there is no control at the gates when the train stops at the platform. Some of the passengers may have booked their places in the carriages, but in this case this does not help at all because the carriages are so fully occupied that the conductor cannot even enter the carriages or move around in them. It is true that there is another train to the far north 90 minutes later, but if one sees how many people remain after the gates have been opened, one can only think that the later train must be almost empty. I therefore wondered whether a change could not be effected here. I know why all the passengers want to ride on the 20h52 train. It is a fast train which does not stop at all the stations. For example, the train’s first stop after the Pretoria North station is Warmbad.

I took it upon myself to discuss the matter with the conductor, and he told me that it often happened that it was impossible for him even to enter the passageways and that he could not pass through some carriages. It therefore often happens that many of these passengers are unable to buy tickets, but in fact get onto the train without tickets and then travel free. Furthermore, it also happens frequently that some of the passengers who crowd onto the train and occupy the carriages had wanted to get off at the smaller stations, but because the train does not stop there, they have to get off at the next station, Warmbad for example, and catch another train back to their destinations. Many of the passengers’ tickets are not even clipped. I was also told that sometimes the conductor could in fact enter the carriages and sell tickets to some passengers. As a result he sometimes had a few hundred rands in his pockets while among the crowds of non-White passengers. He could find this an uncomfortable and dangerous position.

I think that one of three things could be done. One could add one or two carriages to the trains, if available. In the second place, one could use some of the carriages from the later train which is not so full, to add to the earlier train. In the third place—and I think that this will in fact be the right thing to do—there could be a proper check at the gates when the train stops at the station. The passengers who booked their places could perhaps be given priority and could go through first to take their places in the train. Then the gates could be opened to admit as many passengers as could still be accommodated.

I do not know whether there has been an improvement over the past few weeks, but then I travelled by that train about two weeks ago, I again noticed this difficult situation. Perhaps it is necessary to investigate the matter further to find whether it would not be possible to eliminate some of the anomalies. I do think that the administration could earn a good few thousand rands more by the sale of tickets if a proper check were to be made there. If that is the case on this route, I wonder whether it is not also the case on many other routes throughout the country. The Administration could save thousands of rands in this way.

As far as booking by third-class passengers is concerned, I have been told that information has been furnished to third-class passengers in the sense that they have been informed that they may book their places on the train. I repeat that all the information will be to no avail because those trains are full to overflowing. If a man books his place, he still cannot obtain the seat he has booked. Perhaps attention should really be given to this matter.

There is another matter too concerning the elimination of level crossings. In my opinion this is a matter for which the Administration deserves every praise. If one realizes that the Administration also has to show a profit and must not operate at a loss, one can only be grateful for this major task they have performed in our country. This is a task from which they derive no revenue. From 1960 to 1976 almost R60 million has been appropriated for the Level Crossings Elimination Fund. About R52 million of this has already been spent.

When the Level Crossings Act was promulgated in 1960, the level crossings committee had 509 level crossings to deal with. Up to and including 1976, 253 of these 509 level crossings have already been eliminated. This has been done through the use of bridges, subways, rail deviations and road deviations. I think that this is a major task being performed by the Administration, particularly with a view to our tourism, because it ensures tourists a safe passage on our country’s routes. Innumerable lives have already been spared. I have experience of this matter, because I tried for what was probably two or three years to get a railway flyover at Pienaars River where there have been a great many accidents and much loss of life. The railway flyover was completed a few years ago. People in the far north all have the greatest praise for this flyover. I think that if the Administration continues with this good work, then may tributes may be paid to the Administration in the future for the service they have done the country.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Potgietersrus really touched on a matter of major importance when he discussed the Bantu passengers on the trains to the north. I, too, should like to support him in that connection. Our people who live there have an exceptional problem in this connection. At this late hour of the evening one cannot help comparing the Opposition’s effort in this debate to those little mini-trains one finds at many pleasure resorts. What I have in mind is the kind of little train where the engine driver sits on the coal tender to drive it. It seems to me that they are having difficulty, not only in getting drivers, but in getting the thing on the rails. We know that when Kowie Marais was the driver, six of their passengers fell off when they passed Fourteen Streams. It seems to me as if even more of them are going to fall off. However, I want to leave the hon. Opposition at that.

It has frequently been said in the course of the debate that the Railways has been guilty of inadequate budgeting. In my opinion the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark dealt with the situation very effectively. It is only a pity that not enough recognition is afforded our voters and the Railway Administration. It is also a pity that they are not informed as to how effective our Railway budget really is. It is difficult to judge the present budget, but if we look at this year’s budget, we shall see that as far as revenue is concerned, there is a difference of only 1,4% and that as far as expenditure is concerned, there is a difference of 3%. Therefore we in this House and the voters at large cannot but take note of the fact that there is no question of inadequate budgeting, but that this is a fine budget which reflects the adequacy with which the Railways carries out its budgeting.

The second aspect which was repeatedly raised, was the increase in rates. The hon. Opposition creates the impression generally that it is only they who are concerned about the rates increases. However, I think that we on this side of the House should state very clearly that we of the NP are also concerned about the rates increases. I think that the hon. the Minister and the General Manager of the Railways are just as concerned about them, because it is they who have to run the Railways. It is they who have to keep the transport network operating, that network which is of such vital importance to the Republic of South Africa. We therefore want to inform the voters that we are just as concerned about the problem as the hon. Opposition. After all, is it not this side of the House which, through the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark, made a careful analysis of every item of the extra expenditure of R535 million in an effort to find possible loopholes by means of which additional savings could be effected? After all, it is this side of the House that carried out this careful analysis so as to justify the fact that an additional R535 million is in fact required to keep the business operating in the year ahead. It is a pity that the Press has not given the electorate a far broader picture in regard to matters of this nature. They ought to inform the public that this is a responsible budget, that it is analysed by the Government and its supporters and that there are no loopholes which could involve unnecessary expense.

In the last few minutes at my disposal I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister two matters of a local nature in my constituency. They are two matters about which the people in my constituency and I are concerned. The first aspect has already been mentioned in this House, viz. the line from Mabopane to Belle Ombre. Hon. members on this side of the House, people who are responsible and who have a good understanding of the economic position of South Africa, people who know that we have a capital supply problem and who realize that it is imperative that the Railways curb their expenditure, understand that this project must be postponed. However, if we make an analysis of the items of the project—items 23, 78 and 8—which constitute the three phases into which the project is divided, we see that in recent years, R5,6 million has been voted for the financing of the line from Winternest to Mabopane.

Up to the end of this financial year, R3,9 million has been spent on that part of the project. This indicates that very good progress has been made on that part of the project, and the voters of Wonderboom want to thank the Railways for the good progress that has been made. However, if we look at the two other parts of the project, the picture becomes less encouraging. Up to the present, an amount of R2,9 million has been budgeted over a period of three years for the Hercules-Winternest part of the project and so far, only R74 000 of the R2,9 million has been spent. It is as if the expenditure on that part of the project is failing to keep pace with the amount budgeted for it. If we look at Belle Ombre itself, it appears that an amount of R2,5 million has been budgeted for that part of the project over a period of three years, but expenditure to date amounts to a mere R76 000. Again, therefore, there is a very wide gap between the amount budgeted and the amount spent. I accept that it is extremely difficult always to stay within the limits of the budget with so large and difficult a project. I make these appeals because this project is of vital importance to the voters of Wonderboom and it is therefore important that the hon. the Minister’s department should attempt to spend the funds being voted this year. In this way we can perhaps try to expedite the project instead of postponing it. Hon. members know about the Blue Train and the Orange Express. However, they have told me that an Orange bus-train runs on the Soutpan Road. I did not believe them when they said that 24 buses drove nose to tail without leaving a space for a car between them. However, I went to see for myself and counted the buses myself, and I counted 21 driving in such a way that a motor-car could not fit between them. The traffic problems this causes in the area can be appreciated because this is the only road which people can use on their way to the schools, the churches and their work. In those circumstances the importance of that road to the people of that area can be appreciated.

The second point on which I want to touch briefly concerns the question of expropriation. I am not going to discuss the amounts involved in expropriation: I should prefer to discuss the desirability of maintaining uniformity when compensation is paid or offered for land. I am not going to mention names, nor am I going to identify the properties, but I want to refer to four identical properties, properties bordering on each other. The offers made in these four instances varied from R0,51, R0,55, R0,69, R0,70 to R1,40 per square metre for identical properties. This is what causes dissatisfaction among those people, namely that one man gets R0,51 per square metre for his property, whereas the next man gets R1,40 per square metre. I therefore want to ask the hon. Minister whether there could not be a better correlation as regards the unit price those people are offered.

Mr. Chairman, I want to raise one or two matters relating to the rail system in the Western Cape area. These are matters which I raised last year, but which, I am afraid, have deteriorated rather than improved since then. The one is the question of the railway line to Atlantis. I am aware that the hon. the Minister told us last year that the Cabinet had approved the construction of this line. However, no time has been set for the construction of the line. It is the intention that the construction would not be done by the Railways, but that the construction of the line from Chempet onwards would be done as a private line. However, I believe that the hon. the Minister does have some responsibility in the matter. There has been a decision to do it on this basis, but the industrialists in Atlantis nevertheless have gone there on the clear understanding that there will be a railway line. They were told some time ago that a line would be available to them within five years of the initial announcement of the scheme. I ask the hon. the Minister to stay in touch with the Department of Planning, who he says is responsible for this matter, to push this as hard as they can because, in any event, the Railways intend taking over this line when they extend it through to Saldanha. I make this plea to the hon. the Minister to do whatever he can to persuade the Department of Planning to see that this line is built as soon as possible.

Secondly, I want to discuss the service in the Cape Flats and particularly the very crowded service through to Nyanga and the service which has not yet been proceeded with, viz. the one through to Mitchell’s Plain. I think that the hon. the Minister is aware that this service is recognized as being unsatisfactory and inadequate to deal with the expanding load of traffic taking Coloureds and Africans as far as Nyanga. There is tremendous overcrowding on this line. One only has to pay a visit to that area in the late afternoon to see that most of the doors of the coaches are wide open and that people are hanging on to the side of the train in order to get to Nyanga station. In addition to this there is a tremendous growth in the population of the Cape Flats. As the hon. the Minister is aware there is a commitment to continue this line through to Mitchell’s Plain.

*Mr. Speaker, before I proceed to criticize the hon. the Minister himself, I just want to pay a compliment to the Management of the Railways in this region, especially in regard to this particular problem. Early last year, a multiracial committee was appointed to investigate the problems which were being experienced in connection with the railway line in the Nyanga area in particular. The general reaction has been one of great satisfaction because of the fact that this committee was appointed on a multiracial basis. I have here a report in Rapport which reads as follows—

Mr. Chairman, I should like to convey my thanks for that decision to the management by whom it was taken. Furthermore, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to recommend that this kind of multiracial committee be appointed at other places where there are points of friction. Perhaps such committees could be appointed in the Soweto area and in other areas where problems arise, either between the various race groups or between the consumers and the passengers and the Administration. After this very successful multiracial conference between two Black people, two Brown people and two White people and other members of the staff, I want to suggest that this same system be used in other areas where there may be points of friction.

† Mr. Chairman, in June or July of last year a Press conference was held at which Mr. Joubert, the System Manager responsible for the railways in this area, announced the findings of the committee. He indicated that they were trying to get rid of the points of friction, but the key element of this announcement was that there were going to be improvements over the next four years involving a sum of R57 million to try to improve both the service and the conditions of the service. He mentioned increased length of trains and platforms, improved double lines between Langa and Pinelands, linking Athlone to the Cape Flats line and so forth. There was a very positive response to this announcement. Members of the CRC congratulated him. Members representing the Transkei Administration were pleased. Brig. Van der Westhuizen of the Bantu Affairs Advisory Board commended it. People like the Athlone management committee were pleased, all on the basis of a statement made in good faith by Mr. Joubert to the effect that these improvements were going to be made and that they would be tackled as a matter of some urgency. What worries us is that it appears that, because of financial stringency or because it is not rated as a priority, progress is not being contemplated this year along the lines indicated as a result of that committee last year. We should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether his department considers it a matter of priority to upgrade those services to prevent the tension and friction that have existed in the past.

Then there is the question of the extension of this line to Mitchell’s Plain. All the planners—urban planners and transport planners—have indicated that an extension of that railway line is absolutely vital to the success of Mitchell’s Plain. The hon. the Minister is aware that the Railway Board investigated this in 1973 and that in 1974 they came out with their report in which they said that a railway line through to Mitchell’s Plain and an extension on to Strandfontein in due course was vital to the success of the Mitchell’s Plain scheme. It was indicated, first of all, that by 1977 this line would be pushed through. Then it was indicated that by mid-1978 it would be completed. The hon. the Minister later said that it was contemplated that by the end of 1978 it would be completed. In reply to a question I put to the hon. the Minister earlier this session, he said that it was not being constructed and that (Questions, col. 183)—

This is a disgraceful state of affairs. Here we have the Government building the largest new town in South Africa. Here we have the Government proceeding to build a town which is to have a quarter of a million inhabitants. Already a contract has been let for R43 million and another for R40 million for housing. All the indications are that the projected increase in the population and that the potential number of passengers will be as foreseen. It was anticipated that the number of potential passengers in 1975 would be 9 000, in 1979 39 500 and in 1983 85 000.

When the hon. the Minister announced that he was going to delay the line further, there was an immediate and very serious adverse reaction. A responsible official, Mr. Brand, the City Engineer of Cape Town, indicated that it was understood that that line would be built and that it was vital to the success of the whole Mitchell’s Plain scheme. I have gone out of my way to try to get the reaction of the people living there, and I can tell the hon. the Minister that the absence of public transport in the form offered to them in the original prospectus, that transport which according to the statement of the hon. the Minister would have been completed by the beginning of 1978, is a very real, onerous burden on the people living there.

There is no direct public transport service between Mitchell’s Plain and the industrial areas of Cape Town. As the hon. the Minister knows, we have a tremendous squatter problem in the Western Cape. The Department of Community Development, together with the City Council of Cape Town, is making a very serious attempt to overcome that problem in part by building the Mitchell’s Plain scheme. I think it would be tragic for South Africa if, after all the work that has been put into the Mitchell’s Plain scheme—the planning; the pre-planning; the streets, parks, houses and amenities that have been built—we then find that the hon. the Minister is not giving priority to the building of that railway line. I do not want the hon. the Minister to be involved in any more overall capital expenditure than he has already made provision for in the Budget, but I want to put it to him that, considering the situation on the Cape Flats, considering the tinder-box situation—as I believe it is—which is developing among the Coloured and African communities over there, a top priority should be the improvement of the service to Nyanga and the extension of the railway line to Mitchell’s Plain.

Mr. Chairman, up to now the emphasis in this debate has been mainly on rates increases, extensions and the progress and achievements of the department in all spheres. As usual, the arguments have been well and forcefully stated from this side of the House.

Self-praise is no recommendation.

When such a large organization has to expand to meet the requirements of the country, it necessarily follows that much of the expenditure involved will be in respect of the purchase of material. In my opinion the most important material of this great organization is its human material. It is perhaps as well on an occasion such as this to stop for a moment, and take stock of this material, for without this material this great organization cannot function. That is why it is important that the department should ensure that this human material should be content and that they should be well looked after. At an early stage in the history of the department, the department realized that the whole person came to work, not just his body and not just his brain, and that is why provision was made from a very early stage for the spiritual welfare of the worker.

In 1941 the then Railway Board decided to make an annual grant of £500 to each of the three church bodies who were doing pastoral work among the Railway staff at the time. In 1942 permission was granted to the Railway staff to sign stoporders of six pence per month, in order to contribute to the pastoral work being done. Today the contribution made by the staff is of course a great deal more than this. Last year the staff contributed an amount of R136 000 to the pastoral work. Spore, the official organ of the Dutch Reformed Church’s general commission for industrial workers, especially Railway workers, mentions, inter alia, in its December edition of last year that through their contributions the staff have contributed the gigantic sum of R4 million to various organizations over the past 15 years. Let me mention a few of these organizations that have received contributions: St. John’s Ambulance, R92 163; S.A. Railways and Harbours Children’s Homes, R862 000; Elim Clinic, R823 000; the S.A. Railways’ War Services Union, R190 000; the S.A. Railways’ Women’s Association, R90 000; the elderly, R915 000; the S.A. First Aid League, R226 000; the Vrouen Moederbeweging of the ATKV, R12 000; the Southern Cross Fund, R60 000; the Die Transvaler Christmas Fund, R126 000; The Vaderland Kinderstrand, R73 000; Santa, R67 000; and the S.A. Guide Dogs for the Blind, R15 000. The department, too, has made its contribution from the outset by giving those responsible for the pastoral work, free travel facilities and special carriages. In the early days many of the staff lived in isolated places, far from churches, and it was difficult for them to attend church services. As a result, through the Railways’ doing, evangelists were enabled to visit people in isolated places. Since those years the distribution pattern of the Railway staff has changed. New techniques and altered methods of train control have resulted in a large-scale move to towns and cities. Today we have the situation that fewer than 4% of the staff live in isolated places. The times are changing. The railwayman has now become an industrial worker, the so-called machine-man of this century. Visits to isolated places by these pastoral workers made way for administering to the spiritual needs of industrial workers, because due to working conditions in this machine age, it has become necessary to minister to people’s spiritual needs in this field as well.