Mr. Chairman, before the House adjourned last night, I pointed out that the Railways takes good care of its people. No matter where they live, the railwaymen take their rightful place in society. The idea that railway people are a separate group of people with their own problems has gone out of existence a long time ago. The railway family has become an integral part of the community in which it lives. Railway people perform a service for their fellow man. We find them in church councils, on city and town councils, in cultural organizations and on sports committees. They are active everywhere in their community. When a railway family is transferred, it is usually a great loss to the community they are leaving. A railwayman who lives happily with his family in the rural areas—often he is a native of the rural areas—finds it very difficult to move to the city. It is also difficult to replace a family like this in the rural areas. Very few of them really become city dwellers.

If we accept that a railwayman forms an integral part of the community in which he lives, and if we also accept that the Railways Administration is responsible for his welfare, it is obvious that the Administration is also, to a certain degree, responsible for the whole community in which he is living. This is particularly the case in communities in which virtually 70% of the people are often railway people. At the moment the largest single organization which is still able to oppose the depopulation of the rural areas, in some or other way, is the Railways Administration. In many rural towns the activities of the Railways are actually the only activities of importance. In my opinion this is a serious matter, because many of our rural towns are dying out. Therefore I want to request the hon. the Minister to please help where he can. I want to ask him seriously to have thorough investigation made of rural towns, especially in the Cape, where the rate of depopulation is being accelerated by virtue of the fact that the Railways Administration has to transfer more and more of its activities from the rural areas to the cities. I strongly want to urge that the Railways Administration should try increasingly to channel activities from the cities to the rural areas. Must the word “decentralization” become a swear-word for the people in the rural areas? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, during the past three days in which we have been debating the Railway budget, one thing has become very clear, i.e. that the economic situation in the country is reflected clearly in the Railway budget. The economic slump is also reflected in the results of working of the Railways. Price increases in many spheres have also left their mark on the Railways. However, the Railways Administration cannot normalize the economic situation in South Africa. The Railways is only a cog in a much greater economic machine, if I may put it like this. Therefore one can expect that the Railways must try to make a contribution towards the attempt to assist in normalizing the country’s economy, by means of increased efficiency and productivity, at the lowest possible costs. Hence the stimulus function the Railways must also perform in this connection. However, the Railways must be judged on its results of working for the past few years. No hon. member on the Opposition side criticized this aspect of the Railways. No hon. member on the Opposition side could point a finger at maladministration on the part of the Railways. So far this debate has been, for me, a brilliant testimony of the efficiency of the Railways Administration.

The question the hon. the Minister and his top management were faced with in drawing up this budget was a simple one. They had to find an answer to the question as to whether expenditure had caught up with and overtaken the revenue. That is all. If the answer was positive, the reasons for this had to be sought and analysed. However, this is something I do not want to go into now. The second question the hon. the Minister and his top management had to deal with was how to balance and how to supplement shortages. Let the method for obtaining additional revenue be criticized. However, in the process people who criticize must not forget to come up with some suggestions themselves. It is very easy to criticize without suggesting alternatives. In this regard we have had extremely few suggestions from the Opposition side. In my modest opinion, the man who came closest to being honest in this debate was the hon. member for Maitland. When the hon. member for Maitland spoke …

The closest to being honest? I was completely honest.

When the hon. member for Maitland spoke about the vicious circle of price increases, increases in rates and in the cost of living, he threw up his hands in the air and said: “I do not have the answer. I do not know what I would have done. All I can say is that the cost of living is going to increase even more.” That is what the hon. member for Maitland said in his speech during the Second Reading debate. [Interjections.] But I did say the hon. member was being very honest. He even admitted that he did not have any solution. It is a very difficult and ticklish situation. However, I want to point out one particular aspect which has contributed towards making the picture look a little less sombre than it could have looked. I also want to take up the cudgels for the top management and staff of the Railways. Over the past few years the Railways Administration has maintained a level of production which is really worth emulating. If we look at the five-year period from 1970-’71 to 1975-’76, it is apparent that there was an increase of 2,59% in the staff of the Railways during that time. As regards the services furnished, the Railways showed the following results in the same period: the number of passengers transported by rail increased from 552 million to 643 million, an increase of 16,48%. The tonnage of goods transported by rail increased by 18,75% and the average net load per goods train by 28,6%. Thus one can also mention other results. The number of air passengers increased by 86,08%, while the tonnage of air freight increased by 120,52%. All these increases took place despite the fact that the number of employees increased by only 12,5%. These increased production figures are also largely due to the employment of latest techniques, inter alia, computerization, modern signalling, telecommunications and signal control systems. To mention only a few more examples, there is the application of research results in various spheres, improved handling facilities, powerful locomotives, special trucks with increased tare and mass ratios, long, heavy trains with air brake trucks for transporting minerals and other mass traffic and wide-fuselage aircraft. As regards traction we can say that the number of normal gauge locomotives in service increased from 31 March 1971 by only 12,5%, while the traction in the corresponding period rose by 25,5%. Based on an index of 1 000 for the year 1950, the productivity figure for the year 1962-’63 was slightly more than 1 200, with a figure of 1 800 in 1975. This represents an average growth of 2,1% per year over the period 1962-’63 to 1975-’76. This is a tremendous achievement. I want to emphasize that the growth is also due, inter alia, to the fact that the Railways did not spare any money or effort to create the necessary facilities for research in many spheres. For instance, I have in mind the test centre at Koedoespoort. One only has to go and have a look to realize what work is being done there. In this connection I want to advocate that the good work in the various fields of O. and M., the test centres and research be continued and that we do not try to save money in this connection.

I conclude by saying—as the hon. the Minister also pointed out in his budget speech—that the Railways has had to absorb considerable price increases in regard to commodities to which it is extremely sensitive due to the extent and nature of its activities. In spite of all these factors, the Railways succeeded in saving on its estimated expenditure. This is evidence of motivated team-work. In this way the Railways has set an example of what can really be expected, and therefore every railwayman in the country deserves the gratitude of this House.

Mr. Chairman, due to the nature of the activities of the S.A. Railways, it is quite possible for the industry to assist in the problem of the depopulation of the rural areas in those towns in which it operates. At this stage I want to say that it is not fair of us in the rural areas to expect the Railways alone to solve this problem. My plea is simply that the hon. the Minister instruct his people where possible to bear in mind the rural towns in all their planning at all times.

Furthermore I believe that there are activities of the organization which can be brought back to the rural areas very profitably. I have in mind, for example, the tarpaulin shed which was recently closed down at Noupoort. Here we have the situation of this tarpaulin shed having been transferred in spite of the fact that the largest client was Ulco, and a major part of its operations, as I understand, has been transferred to East London. I believe that this tarpaulin shed can profitably be brought back to Noupoort. I am thinking of the workshops at Noupoort and De Aar where the operations are no longer going ahead full steam. One wonders whether repair workshops for the electricity division cannot be erected at De Aar, where we are going to electrify in any event. The workshops at Noupoort which deal with dieselization can also be extended.

I am asking the hon. the Minister whether the Railways should not make a larger contribution, so as to prevent the rural areas from dying and so as to prevent empty Railway houses at De Aar and empty Railway hostels in the rural areas from accusing us of not having been in earnest about the problem of the depopulation of the rural areas.

Mr. Chairman, I have made precious little progress in my discussions with the hon. the Minister so far. The reason the hon. the Minister gives me, is that our respective philosophical approaches differ. I am now going to try another approach. I am going to talk about something regarding which we may have a similar philosophical approach.

I want to talk about the planning section of the S.A. Railways and about certain investigations and planning which I would like them to undertake in connection with the Randburg-Johannesburg-Sandton area where a particular need exists. The hon. member for Sandton does not have to turn around and look at me in that way. I see from the report of the planning section an indication that it is prepared and equipped to co-operate with local authorities, provincial administrations and any other utility organizations which are involved in the transport field. I want to refer to the question of the transportation of people to and from work in the particular complex I have mentioned.

The position on the Witwatersrand is that initially the primary development followed the gold reef; in other words, the gold mines, the industries and the residential areas all developed in close proximity to the gold reef, so that one had a ribbon development running the length of the Witwatersrand. Following on that, as the gold industry started to recede in importance and secondary and tertiary industries started to increase in importance, development started to spread north and south of the gold reef. As that development spread north and south, so residential development spread as well. The result is what we are experiencing today, viz. the urban sprawl of the southern and northern Witwatersrand. The areas of Randburg and Sandton are specific examples of this phenomen. Large dormitory towns developed there, the residents of which live there by night and mostly work in other parts of the Witwatersrand during the day. There are certain specific problems that apply. The vast majority of the Black workers of this area are living-in male and female workers. Very few of them come from Black residential areas to work there during the day. In the Alexandra area there is a transition from families that lived there previously to large concentrations of single Black male and female workers.

There are other problems that arise in regard to the transport of the people of Sandton and Randburg to work during the day. There are the problems of congested roads, of the one-passenger motor-cars, of the high fuel consumption and of the failure of these authorities to provide a really reliable well-used bus passenger transport system. I believe a very good case can be made out for the construction of a mass passenger transit rail system, starting in the south-west from Soweto and proceeding in a wide arc and ending up in Alberton. I should like to give the route of that system in a moment. Before I take the matter any further, however, I want to emphasize the absolutely essential nature of any such investigation and planning taking place in very close consultation and cooperation with the municipalities concerned. In this regard I am thinking particularly of the municipalities of Randburg and Sandton.

The situation is such that if any such investigation and planning should take place without the close consultation and cooperation of those municipalities and all the relevant organizations representative of those communities, only difficulties and problems can arise. If the principle that the Black workers should have a normal family life, i.e. that they should be allowed to live with their families, is to be accepted and if we accept for the time being the Government’s policy of not allowing Black residential areas closer to Randburg or Sandton or of not allowing mixed residential areas, it is essential that there should be reliable, effective, rapid and economical public transportation from the areas where the Black people live to the areas where they work, namely from Soweto in the south-west to Randburg and Sandton in the north-west and the north-east. With a route running in an arc from Soweto through the Johannesburg West/Roodepoort axis, through Florida and Randburg, it will be possible for people who live in Soweto to be at their places of employment, whether it is in the residential or the industrial areas of Randburg, within half an hour. At Randburg there is a small industrial area and there are something like 60 000 residents in Randburg at this stage. It is expected that the number will be 100 000 in a few years’ time and that it could become 200 000 people in another decade. Such a transit system can also serve the industrial areas of Johannesburg West as well as the industrial areas of Roodepoort. The arc could then continue through Sandton, where there are about 50 000 residents at the moment, through the Wynberg/Kew industrial areas, where there is a large number of industrial workers. It could then connect with Alexandra, where several thousand of Black industrial workers live and continue through the Johannesburg East/Germiston area to the Alberton industries. If a mass passenger transit system that follows that general arc is constructed, it will bring into communication with one another the hundreds of thousands of citizens of Soweto of whom many thousands may find themselves employed in the north-western areas. It will bring into communication with Johannesburg the Whites of Randburg and Sandton and it will bring into communication with the industries of Kew and Wynberg, Alberton and Johannesburg East, the Blacks of Soweto, Alexandra and of the Black residential areas which lie to the south of Alberton. I believe it will be a feasible proposition and that it would be valuable and worthwhile if the hon. the Minister could arrange for an investigation to be carried out. I want to emphasize that such an investigation can only be effective provided that it is carried out in co-operation and in consultation with all the authorities that are involved, and provided it dovetails with the many other investigations and studies on passenger transport that have been carried out in that part of the world over the past 10 years. One of the particular problems that has been experienced is that the local authorities, as well as the provincial administration and other authorities, have all carried out public passenger transport surveys and have all worked on plans in that area in isolation from one another. A problem has therefore arisen in that there has not been the necessary liaison and co-operation, which has meant that it has not been possible to consolidate effectively the information gained and the plans that have been forged. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would be prepared to respond to my representations.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bryanston will realize that I cannot react to his arguments because I should like to bring another subject to the attention of the hon. the Minister. Everyone of us is aware of the fact that a total onslaught is being directed at South Africa in every sphere. An onslaught is also being made on South Africa in the economic sphere. We know that in the economic sphere the world is generally experiencing difficult times. This also influences the S.A. Railways directly or indirectly. We all realize, too, what the answer to this total onslaught must be, and this is that each of us must make a sacrifice. However, I do not believe that we have to make any dramatic sacrifices; we only have to make simple, everyday sacrifices in various spheres. I want to bring one specific example to the attention of the House. It will only require a small sacrifice on our part. If this is supported by all of us in this House and done by everyone outside the House, it can save South Africa millions of rands. I am referring to the general introduction of staggered working hours, with particular emphasis on the Railways, because this would be in the interest of the country. Allow me to explain a few facets of this to the House.

According to projections the expected increase of non-White commuters in the various metropolitan areas over the next 10 years will require additional rail and road facilities which will entail considerable capita.1 expenditure. Great problems are already being experienced in the four major cities of the Republic with the transport of commuters during peak hours, and the additional facilities needed to keep pace with the growth will be very expensive. 60% of the commuters travelling daily in one direction between Soweto and Johannesburg are transported in the major peak period of 5.30 p.m. to 7 p.m. 82% of all the commuters daily travelling in the same direction are transported from 4 o’clock to 8 o’clock.

We have now reached the stage where additional facilities, at great cost, are unavoidable in the central city areas, despite the large losses incurred annually on passenger services. Taking into consideration the fact that there is maximum utilization of suburban railway stations and railway lines for approximately 90 minutes in the morning and again in the evening, and that they are underutilized during the rest of the day, the practical solution is longer peak hours with a consequent uniform distribution of passengers.

This can only be achieved by better distribution of starting hours and corresponding closing hours. If a major peak period of three hours, instead of the present 90 minutes, could be brought about by means of staggered working hours the Railways would be able to convey an estimated 17% more commuters on the busy railway lines. Additional rail facilities, costing at least R500 million, to provide sufficient transport to and from the non-White residential areas, would then only have to be provided over a much longer period of time; in other cases it could be eliminated and even included in renewal schemes at a later stage. Better utilization of the existing facilities is an advantageous way of combating losses on commuter transport services. Shortages are aggravated because facilities are only used intensively for that limited period, whilst being under-utilized for the major part of the day. Staggered working hours do not only aim at bridging transport problems, but also at running essential transport services at low rates, it being possible to keep subsidies as low as possible.

It is, of course, an extensive task to collect statistical data so that the traffic frequencies on various routes can be determined before staggered working hours are implemented, because the simultaneous adaptation of the public transport services is of the utmost importance.

Mr. Chairman, I think that one would be failing in one’s duty if one did not thank and congratulate the various Government departments, especially in Pretoria, who begin work a quarter of an hour earlier in order to relieve the peak traffic congestion and to bring about savings. The S.A. Railways must be mentioned. Apart from the progress already made in the Pretoria area as regards the Railway staff, it can be mentioned that the Railways in the Johannesburg area has already taken the lead in appointing a committee to undertake non-stop investigation into this and to accelerate its implementation. Unfortunately commerce and industry in Pretoria has not seen its way clear to implementing it as well. The programme in Pretoria will not succeed before this happens.

The co-operation of the various Government departments is not all that is necessary to make the whole action of staggered working hours an effective one; the cooperation of the private sector is necessary too. To utilize the full advantage of staggered working hours, the system will have to be forced upon primary, secondary and tertiary industries by statute.

The private sector will benefit in the form of longer shopping hours, longer time for the delivering and handling of goods, distributed power and fuel consumption and the better utilization of manpower as a result of more convenient travelling facilities. Undertakings operating on a flexitime basis are already using this as one of their conditions of service to act as bait for prospective employees.

Undertakings which have already instituted flexitime are convinced that there is increased productivity and better personnel relations. Apart from that it is alleged that it promotes a better team spirit and greater efficiency.

On the other hand, however, numerous problems are experienced with the lengthening of peak periods. I shall mention a few of the most important. Firstly there is the unwillingness of the working population to change existing office hours. Secondly there are certain social problems for the family due to differences in working hours amongst family members. Thirdly there are seasonal changes which make advance planning difficult. Fourthly there are existing statutory limitations on the length of office hours, as in the case of shops, and fifthly we find that the flexitime system is preferred by most private firms.

The usual objection concerning communication between various departments or mutual liaison ought to be eliminated by the provision of key working hours, as is the case in banks which already have certain hours in which to provide certain services.

There will nevertheless have to be a thorough investigation into the distribution of White and non-White workers in the industrial areas and also dealing with how their various working hours ought to be divided up, in relation to the size of the group, so that the subdivisions can be a long-term asset for South Africa and save short-term costs.

In conclusion, staggered working hours should be instituted by the Railways as quickly as possible to alleviate suburban transport problems. Since these measures are in the national interest, problems in introducing them should be eliminated by statutory measures.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday the hon. the Minister told us here in the House that he would like to see us as shareholders in a large company who attend the annual general meeting of the company to discuss matters. It seems a fair comparison to me, and looking at it from that point of view, I think it is also a privilege for us to be able to make a positive contribution to the affairs of our company. However, that is not the sort of contribution we received from the hon. member for Bryanston. I see that he is not in the House at the moment; therefore I shall leave the matter at that. I do not think we can consider the type of contribution we received from him as being a positive one.

I should like to make a few positive remarks and put a few ideas to the hon. the Minister for his consideration. If we look at the S.A. Airways, we see that the provision of catering and parking facilities at our airports is chiefly in the hands of the private sector. I do not want to advocate greater participation of the State in this connection, but catering facilities and parking really are two spheres which, in my opinion, fall completely within the activities of the Airways. I do not believe there can be any doubt about this. I believe that the past few years have taught us that the catering service of the Railways will provide a better service to the general public and that it will also be cheaper.

There is another matter I should like to remark on, and that relates to what was said by the hon. member for Bloemfontein East, who has just resumed his seat. It concerns the question of passenger services. If we analyse the present loss of R209 million, we see that there was an amount of R42 million for first class main line services, R54 million for second class and R16 million for third class services. This gives a total of R112 million. As regards commuter services, the losses for first class amount to R57 million and R40 million for third class. This gives a total of R97 million. If one analyses this further, one sees that the latest average figures for the utilization of main line train services over a period of six months are as follows: First class 48%, second class 46% and third class 80%. Furthermore, if one takes into consideration the fact that 92% of all journeys are undertaken by third class passengers and that the loss on that service, as I have said, is only R16 million, one can draw the conclusion that the favourable utilization of the third class service is most probably responsible for the smaller loss in this connection. Similarly it can also be concluded that the large losses on the first and second class passenger services are due to a lesser degree of utilization. I wonder if the solution to this problem does not lie in the fact that the number of trains must be brought into line with the demand for services. I realize that this ould lead to services which are not fully utilized going by the board, but since we are looking for revenue for these services these days, I want to ask whether we should not accept this as being unavoidable.

Mr. Chairman, I must say I was a little disappointed in the speech made by the hon. member for Verwoerdburg, particularly as it came just after the speech made by the hon. member for Bloemfontein East. I believe that the hon. member for Bloemfontein East certainly did make a contribution and that the hon. the Minister should look very carefully at the suggestions he made, because I believe, too, that in the future commuter services need greater attention by the Railways. This is part of the forward planning that must be done.

However, I do not wish to deal with that aspect at the moment. I wish to deal, rather, with the question of pensions, particularly relative to the Coloured persons employed by the Railways. I raise this matter here because it appears to me that, unfortunately, there is no real consideration given by the Railways to staff, and particularly Coloured staff, who have literally spent a lifetime in the employ of the S.A. Railways. I am going to mention two cases here, and I shall do so not because I want the hon. the Minister specifically to deal with those two cases, but in order to highlight just what is happening in regard to those persons who have served the Railways so well over all these years and have subsequently been retired due to superannuation. The first case I want to deal with concerns a gentleman who, when he retired due to old age, held the post of a senior bedding-attendant, special class. He had had 37 years’ service with the Railways and I believe that, in any man’s language, that is a considerable period of time. What is more, that man had an unblemished record over those 37 years. He was retired in 1975, but in 1974, after 36 years’ service with the Railways, he was offered the option of either a pension or a gratuity. In his ignorance, I believe, he elected to take a pension. What was his position when he retired a year later? He was then earning a salary in the region of R232 per month and, on retiring, found he was entitled to receive, in addition to his pension, a gratuity. The gratuity that he received was R550, but the pension which he received and which he is going to enjoy for the rest of his life, is R32,58 per month, on which he receives a temporary allowance of R14,50, making a total pensionable income to this gentleman of R47,08 per month. This is after 37 years of faithful service to the Railways. He obviously has letters to justify this statement that he has a completely unblemished record.

The second case I want to mention, and then I shall deal in general with both these cases, is that of a Railway police constable who served with the S.A.R. for a period of 32 years. He reached the rank of sergeant in the Railway Police and retired at the age of 63 years. He had an absolutely exemplary record and was earning, when he retired, the sum of R189 per month. He was in the same position as the previous case which I mentioned, and was offered the option of either accepting a pension or a gratuity. He opted for the pension. Unfortunately, when he came to retire, it was found that he had no right to a gratuity at all, whereas the other gentleman did have a small gratuity payable to him. This man received a pension of R14,61 per month after 32 years of service with the Railways. He also receives a temporary allowance of R25 per month, making a total of R39,61.

Being a married man, I wonder if anyone of us here can possibly imagine how he can come out on a pension of such a miserable amount after all these years of service. I believe that this is a disgrace. I believe that the hon. the Minister should be able to get up and explain what arrangements are being made to meet cases similar to these, where persons have been serving the Railways in a vital capacity in all respects, for example, in the Police and also in service on the trains themselves. One must also bear in mind that these gentlemen, after they have retired, receive no medical benefits whatsoever. I believe that it is right that these matters should be raised in this House, because if one looks through the estimates one will see that under sub-head 53 there is an amount of R387 000 which is being applied as a contribution to reduce the deficiency in pension funds. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether this amount is going to be utilized towards supplementing the pensions and the special allowances to persons who are in the same situation as those two which I have just mentioned.

In the limited time at my disposal I should now like to deal with something else, namely the harbour facilities at East London. It has been said on occasion that if one had a National Party representative, then one would be entitled to receive perhaps a little bit more than if one had a representative coming from an Opposition party. I believe that this is not true because I know that arrangements have been made whereby the majority of Railway material that is imported from overseas is guided through the harbour at East London. We are very grateful for this, but we do believe that the hon. the Minister can perhaps look at the East London situation in regard to the harbour and decide whether, from a future planning point of view, all is well. I believe that for the reasons which I am now going to give the hon. the Minister, all is not well in the future planning of East London harbour. I want the hon. the Minister to consider two aspects. The first is that I want him to bear East London in mind in particular when he re-negotiates the Ocean Freight Agreement which I understand is up for re-negotiation very shortly. He will re-negotiate of course with the Conference Lines but in any event I believe that the Ocean Freight Agreement is not to the advantage of South Africa. But, be that as it may, I believe there is going to be a re-negotiation.

I do not negotiate that; it is the Minister of Economic Affairs who does that.

That is all the more reason why the hon. the Minister of Transport should go to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs and say to him that he must remember East London when he re-negotiates this agreement.

Secondly, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider the whole situation in the East London area. In the first place the whole East London, Berlin and King William’s Town area has been declared by the Department of Planning as a metropolitan area. In the second place, it is the only port which is nearby and which can be of service to the newly independent State of Transkei. In the third place, there is an emergent independent State of the Ciskei which can only use East London harbour facilities for export and import purposes. Finally, he must bear in mind the fact that there is impending containerization and that, although East London is not declared as a container port, it will certainly handle container cargo.

The hon. the Minister will know of the incentives which have already been given in regard to railage rebates, particularly because of the fact that East London, Berlin and King William’s Town have been declared growth points for decentralization. I believe that to encourage the maximal use of the harbour, we must have certain specific facilities. I am quite sure that the hon. the Minister knows that East London has the best record for cargo-handling of all the ports in South Africa. However, we must plan ahead, because when containerization comes to East London, it is going to mean that there will certainly be a fall-off in the ordinary conventional type of cargo handling in East London harbour itself. We will have coastwise traffic which will have their own derricks, but I do want the hon. the Minister to realize that the smaller container ships, which will be plying from overseas ports to South Africa, will also have derricks. However, not all of them will be equipped with derricks. Secondly, those that do have derricks, and those shippers who ship by those ships, must know that if the derricks are not operationable, there are facilities at East London harbour for offloading the cargo. At the moment there are no such facilities. The only cranes we have in East London harbour are ten-tonners. We must get a large crane in order to enable us to give this backing-up facility. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for East London City must please not hold it against me if I do not react to his speech. However, I have barely ten minutes at my disposal and there are other matters I should like to speak about. We have often listened to words of wisdom in the House and also to loads of rubbish from the other side. If we observe the political circus before us, we note that there two species, species I should briefly like to mention in passing. One is the type who speaks about chopping out dead wood. The other is the type who speaks about uneconomic Ministers. The one always reminds me of the kind of thing one finds in any circus. I am referring to those poodles which dance around on their hind legs with their forepaws stretched out in front, farcical little dogs in point of fact. Everyone likes them and laughs at them but people actually pity them. The other figure of fun is the political clown; the uneconomic political clown. We all just laugh at him. In these circumstances, how can any attention at all be paid to this type of political circus we see on that side of the House?

However, Mr. Speaker, I now want to dwell on the S.A. Airways for a few moments. There is very strong competition between the various airlines; harsh competition. It is actually a cut-throat business. The competition is becoming even fiercer as a result of ever-increasing costs and other factors quite beyond South Africa’s control. Factors which also contribute towards this are, inter alia, the increase in the price of fuel, more expensive landing rights, devaluation, increased interest, a decrease in the number of passengers and, of course, also the fact that our aircraft must fly around the bulge of Africa. At the moment there is a big campaign here in South Africa, the “Buy South African” campaign. I now want to apply the slogan “Buy South African” to our airways as well. I want to appeal to every South African to support our airways, especially when he travels abroad. I want to appeal to everyone to do so, because it can be considered as a patriotic contribution. In this way we can possibly succeed in eliminating the shortage of R22 million for the Airways. Just think of all the immigrants who come to South Africa. If I remember correctly, 25 000 immigrants came here last year. If every immigrant and tourist who comes to South Africa by plane were to travel on the S.A. Airways, I am convinced in my heart of hearts that we would be able to operate on a profit once again, as we did so many years ago.

The second matter I want to raise—and I refer to this with a feeling of excitement—is that we have heard that Coloureds and Indians are being trained as ground hostesses. Initially Coloureds girls will be trained in Cape Town and Port Elizabeth, but later Indian girls will also serve in Durban. I am equally grateful and delighted at the fact that Coloured and Indian salesmen are being trained at the same time. I am delighted about this decision because it is a direct result of a unanimous decision by the Cabinet Council. I hope that with this new step no distinction will be made in the dress of the staff. I also want to appeal to the hon. the Minister not to employ these people just because they are of another colour. We must not employ them simply because they are Coloureds or Indians, but because their services are necessary.

In addition they must come up to the required standard and, if not, they must be discharged immediately. If we are prepared to do this, we must also be prepared to gradually adapt the salaries of those who do comply with the requirements, to the salaries of the Whites. On this basis I believe we will be able to progress with the maintenance of racial harmony and peace in South Africa. If we do this when new posts are created in the Airways, I see only fair weather ahead for the S.A. Airways.

Mr. Chairman, I think that a very well-balanced attitude has developed in the House over the past few years concerning the various divisions of the S.A. Railways. I could not determine whether any distinction was made in the past between the various divisions. One has never heard anyone describing a certain group of people as the most important group in the S.A. Railways. That is the right and proper attitude, but in expressing one’s appreciation one could easily neglect some of the divisions. This afternoon I should therefore like to express a brief word of appreciation to the S.A. Railway Police. This group of officers and men are responsible, amongst other things, for maintaining law and order on our Railways, in our harbours and at our airports. They are entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring that our national transport organization is managed in an orderly way. They are also responsible for ensuring that the persons using those services can exercise their legitimate rights. One believes that the lack of this protection would have influenced the economy. Our travelling public, Whites and non-Whites, look to these people to protect their person and property. Illegal interference with goods or services is mercilessly rooted out by this small group of people. We also want to express our appreciation to the Black members of the police for their loyalty to the force, an attribute they have already proved without a doubt. On main line routes they protect the interests of the Black passengers against adventurers and act as a link between the White staff and the non-White travellers on the trains. I think our Black passengers have already seen, in the past, that they can, in fact, rely on the Railway policemen as their friends. Of great importance is the fact that our airports are the gateways into and out of our country. The objective implementation of the law is here of the utmost importance to our country. However, this is where the uninformed visitor to South Africa can so easily gain a wrong impression of our country. Often these policemen are the first South Africans a visitor to the country sees and consequently they convey an image of the country. We also want to express our appreciation to the Railway policemen for the good impression and image they create at our harbours and our airports. That is very important as far as I am concerned and I think it is necessary for us to express our great appreciation for it.

During the recent riots in our Bantu residential areas, especially those on the Rand, our bus services soon came to a halt. The train service was the only available service to provide transport to and from our Bantu townships. Without the labour, etc., our industries would have been dealt a grievous blow. It is just as important, however, that these travelling facilities should be available to take these people, in their thousands, to their homes in the Black residential areas. A chaotic situation could so easily have developed on the stations and trains. The members of the force worked long, exhausting hours to ensure that Black travellers were not intimidated and that law and order was maintained on our stations and trains. I think that very little has been said about the part played by our Railway policemen in this connection. During those times they played a large part in maintaining law and order under extremely difficult circumstances. Therefore we want to thank the Railway policemen very much for their competent and responsible contribution towards maintaining law and order when the situation proved very difficult.

Our Administration finances the police force not only to protect its own intrinsic interests, but also to protect the interests of all users and the State against unlawful interference. This force is, as it were, the eyes and ears of the Administration. They are the senses without which the Administration cannot manage. To take up the cudgels for the S.A. Railways policemen, may we ask that when possible, a proper base be created for their head office. The present location cannot do justice to the Commissioner and his staff. We also want to ask that everything possible be done to make the working conditions of the S.A. policemen as easy as possible on our stations, especially in the rural areas where the working conditions are not always easy, because I believe they deserve it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bethlehem has spoken about the job done by the S.A. Railway Police. I echo the sentiments that he has expressed. We are all grateful for the work they do.

In his reply to an earlier speech of mine during the Committee Stage, the hon. the Minister claimed that I asked too many questions and that he could spend the rest of his life in answering them.

Are you going to make a speech now?

I shall make a speech. However, I regard the Committee Stage as the Stage when one normally does ask questions. He certainly gave very few answers. I asked him, for example, a simple question as to whether or not the Railways Administration is losing money on its operation in the Transkei and he said that he did not know. I asked him whether the Republic of the Transkei approved of his tariff increases, and he did not answer that. I believe South Africans are entitled to know what sort of financial aid the Railways are giving to a foreign country, but apparently no answer will be forthcoming on this. I raised another specific point on another matter concerning the random selection of containers instead of choosing containers in sequence, but all the hon. the Minister tells me is that they have the benefit of advice from all over the world. He does not give me an answer to the specific question. Perhaps he does not know the answer.

Another matter occurred to me when I read the S.A. Railways’ annual report of this year. Last year I raised the matter of certificates that had been published in regard to permanent ways, works, buildings, harbours and dockworks. These are the certificates issued by the chief civil engineer. I drew attention to the fact that these certificates were qualified and I wanted to know the reasons for these qualifications. The hon. the Minister answered me, but this year I notice that we do not appear to have any such certificates at all. Is it because these certificates have further complications? I believe that we should have these certificates and I should like to see them back in the General Manager’s report, because I believe Parliament is entitled to have the reassurance which the certificates provide. In fact, I should like to see these certificates extended to Airways as well.

I should like to give one bouquet, if I may, for the help I received from the Railways Administration in the Transvaal. I received complaints concerning the facilities and amenities which are available at the non-White section of the Johannesburg station. Every facility was placed at my command. I was asked to inspect them and I did so. Mr. Engelbrecht, Mr. Havenga and others were very helpful indeed and I think the visit was a very useful one to all concerned. There is certainly some ground for criticism, because the facilities and amenities for different race groups on the Johannesburg station are separate, but certainly not equal. I very much appreciated the spirit in which I was given the opportunity to investigate the matter.

The local system in the Western Cape is going to give me the opportunity to visit the housing for Black migrant labourers who are employed by the Railways and in the docks. I asked whether I could make this inspection, because a working paper produced by the S.A. Labour and Development Research Unit of the School of Economics of the University of Cape Town is highly critical of conditions, and Press reports which followed the publication of this paper have been very unfavourable indeed. I should briefly like to quote small sections from the report. It refers to the SAR and H compounds and it says—

Later on, when they comment on the quality of the accommodation supplied for these workers, under the heading “Objectionable Structures”, they go through the building regulations and municipal regulations relating to what are “objectionable structures”. They talk about buildings showing signs of becoming unhealthy, insanitary, unsightly or objectionable. They then go on to say—

They go on to say—

In the docks the old army barracks are used for these purposes—

Later on it is again made clear that these people are genuinely dissatisfied with their living conditions. I look forward to being able to visit and see for myself what the position is, but I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to give the matter his attention, because I believe it is a responsibility of the Railways to see that its workers are adequately housed.

Mr. Chairman, we probably have to be grateful for the fact that the hon. member for Orange Grove did, at least, express a word of appreciation to the Administration this afternoon. We certainly cannot expect more than that from him. Sir, there are very favourable signs that there is an acceleration in the economic recovery throughout the world, particularly amongst our most important trading partners. South Africa is undoubtedly a favourable position when it comes to benefiting from this economic upsurge. Few countries have the variety and range of natural resources that South Africa has. Then, of course, we also have the most developed infrastructure in Africa.

The fact that we can place our natural resources and products on the world markets on a large scale today, is largely due to the clever planning of the Railways and Harbours Administration. I can probably refer to no better example than the Richards Bay project to support the truth of my statement. The rail link with the harbour, which involved a capital expenditure of approximately R800 million, is going to have far-reaching economic benefits for South Africa. That project has already established South Africa’s position as an important international coal exporter. It is expected that within the first year of use, which is almost past now, the earnings from the export of coal will amount to R100 million and that by the year 1980 it will already amount to R700 million per year. This calculation is based on the present prices. Other raw materials are already being exported there, and from next year additional raw materials will be exported. For example, I have in mind minerals such as crude iron, phosphoric acid, titanium and zircon. At the present prices, the earnings from these commodities alone, together with the earnings from coal to which I referred a moment ago, will amount to the enormous sum of R1 000 million by 1980. If one takes into consideration the fact that the value of our total annual export, excluding gold, amounts to approximately R4 000 million, one realizes the immense economic significance of a project like the Richards Bay project.

This project could certainly not have been made available at a better time. At the moment our big economic problem is our relatively poor balance of payments. The only effective practical solution is a purposeful export campaign, and we have the sources and the means with which to do so. The mining industry, commerce and agriculture are certainly entitled to expect the Railways and Harbours Administration to make export facilities available. The department, with its harbours and its railway network, has done so. It is also reasonable to expect the mining industry, commerce and agriculture to give the export campaign top priority.

At the moment there is not yet optimum utilization of the Railways and Harbour’s export capabilities. It is gratifying to note that the Republic’s various manufacturing industries are venturing into foreign markets to an increasing extent. At Durban Harbour one can see caravans, prefab huts, tent trailers and holiday houses being shipped to Iran. One can also see mining machinery, hardware, pump installations and generators being shipped to countries like Chile, Bolivia, Peru and Ecuador. In spite of this there is still a great deal of unexploited territory for the Republic’s industrialists in this sphere. I want to quote a few ideas expressed by Mr. Segev, the chief of a division of the Israel Export Institute. He states—

Mr. Chairman, of course it is also encouraging to note that an increase in the production of basic minerals is taking place through-out the Republic. One reads about and sees projects which are being undertaken, inter alia, vanadium, fluorspar, manganese, antimony, asbestos and others. Since everyone agrees that exporting is now of great economic importance for our country, it is also necessary for the private sector to clearly determine its capital utilization priorities. Capital works which will stimulate export must not be curtailed now; an attempt should rather be made to expand them in order to provide for the larger demand which, according to all reasonable indications, is going to arise.

Work has been done on the existing harbours of the Republic in recent years and the new harbours of Richards Bay and Saldanha have been created. By doing this I believe that the Railways has effectively placed the ball in the court of commerce, agricultural and mining as far as an export campaign is concerned.

Finally I just want to refer the hon. the Minister to a matter which he and his Department are investigating at the moment, and that is the reconstruction of the Mfuli bridge which was washed away between Empangeni and Nkwaleni during the recent storm damage. I just want to ask the hon. the Minister to ensure that all possible attempts will be made to put that bridge into operation again by the end of April of this year because that particular valley is a very intensively cultivated one. Citrus and sugar cane are grown there. The major portion of the citrus is exported, and it is therefore of great importance that that bridge should come into operation before the next harvesting season. However, I know that the department and the hon. the Minister are giving this matter their careful and very sympathetic consideration.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to take this opportunity to rebuke the hon. member for Durban Point for having thought fit to drag our airways staff, especially the pilots, into the political debate yesterday and the day before. Behaviour of that kind does not build up good relations; it undermines authority and bedevils sound attitudes. If the hon. member or his party really intended to support the airways staff, there are other, better and more suitable ways of doing so. I know that the staff relations are very good. There is a great deal of confidence in the management and whole-hearted co-operation. In general our pilots are happy, satisfied and motivated, and their morale is very high. As has been mentioned earlier today, they are definitely shareholders in our airways. Our pilots fly the best and the most modern and sophisticated aircraft that exist. Our airways compares favourably with the best airlines in the world. The fact that, in spite of all our problems, we are now able to acquire wide fuselage aircraft, and put SP’s and Airbus ’planes into service at virtually the same time, is proof of the activity of the airways. Nor was it necessary to enlarge the staff very much. It is a notable achievement at the present time and proof of the high morale amongst the staff. Our pilots inspire confidence because they maintain an unequalled safety record. Names like Pine Pienaar, Capt. Van Reenen and Capt. Flemington have already become household words in our country. I know them; they are top-notch people. Our airways staff serves a very wide international network. They are our ambassadors in the farthest comers of the world.

If our people have problems—there are certainly some of them who do have problems—the necessary channels are there. We are not living in a vacuum today, as was the case in the old SAP days. The doors of the hon. the Minister and of the General Management are open to the staff. We know our people. After all, these Railway and Airways people serve on my committees. They are chairmen of branches; they serve on divisional committees. We therefore know them. They know where they stand with us. They know their MPs. We are therefore proud of them and should like to maintain the good relations that exist.

However, I can understand what the hon. member’s problem is. It is his morale which is so low. He is the one who is frustrated. He has to work himself to death here; he stands quite alone. When he does calculations, he makes mistakes. With or without his calculator, he goes on making mistakes. I understand his problem. I am even sorry for him, to a large extent, because when I see the onslaughts he has to put up with here, I ask myself where the hon. members for Bezuidenhout, Edenvale and Von Brandis are. Poor Vause!

Where are the Airways people who will vote for you?

They all vote for me. The hon. member has to hold the fort alone. He reminds me very much of the concrete dolosses which are used in the harbours and which have to hold their own against all the storms. Watching him holding out against all the storms here, I ask myself where Japie, Nic and Derek are. They are pulling strings behind the scenes; they are plotting while he has to hold the fort alone. I can understand it. This is probably also why he can sometimes be so deliberately wilful and so often act like a naughty boy. Some days he even tends towards irresponsibility.

In the minute which remains to me I should just like to broach an idea here in connection with the Airbus. I think that with the introduction of the Airbus we have entered a completely new era in our domestic air service.

However, there is one aspect I should like to bring to the fore: I find it a disadvantage of the Airbus that the toilets are right at the back of the aircraft; as a result it makes it very difficult for the people who sit in front to move in the aircraft when passengers are being served. If the management would consider making some improvement in this regard—I think there are ways of doing so—this problem would be solved easily.

The other day I personally carried out a test—I am just mentioning this as an item of general interest—and found that precisely one minute elapsed from the moment the Airbus stopped until the doors opened and the people began to leave. When we entered the reception hall, the first-class passengers’ baggage was already on the conveyor belt. I definitely think that is an achievement and I think with the Airbus we are entering a new era.

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to discuss the Airbus toilets in this Committee. I wish to raise certain matters which are pertinent to my own constituency and some of which are pertinent to our farmers in South Africa and our industrialists in the Border. The first matter which I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister is the need for assistance to Grahamstown in getting a railway spur to the industrial area. One cannot blame the city council of Grahamstown for the fact that the planning of that city has ended up with a gaol where the industrial area should be and an industrial area where the gaol should be. However, the position is now that the gaol is situated next to the railway line where it would have been easy to construct sidings and the industrial area is situated where there is no railway and where it is not so easy to construct sidings. The old railway line up to the military camp, which was pulled up some years ago, could be relaid to the military camp and it could very easily be extended from the military camp along level ground to where the industrial area is situated. I believe that from the security point of view it is important that we have a rail link with our military camp.

When the hon. the Minister looks into this, he must remember that Grahamstown is a city which provides educational facilities and legal facilities for the whole of the Eastern Cape and further. It is a city which is 52% derated. It is not a town that can grow unless it has a rail link to its industrial area. Industrialists will simply not start an industry where they do not have a direct siding of their own. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to look at this. I know that times are hard at the moment but if we knew that in the long term something was being planned to assist Grahamstown to get a link up to that industrial area and to get a link to the military camp, it would be of great importance to that area. The old spur that ran to the military camp now ends at Blake’s Bricks, a considerable way from the industrial area of Grahamstown. This is a very important matter to that city, and I appeal to the hon. the Minister to look into it.

One of the most important matters I wish to raise is the question of compensation paid for veld fires. With the consistent good seasons and heavy rains which have fallen all over South Africa, there are going to be more veld fires, because I believe that veld fires are not only caused by steam locomotives, they can also be caused by hot brakes on diesel locomotives, especially in the case of long trains. The Act provides only that the farmer be compensated for the prairie value of his veld which was burnt. The Act does not provide for one’s plastic water pipes which are melted under the ground and it does not provide for compensation to be paid for one’s fencing which is totally ruined once it has been burnt because all the galvanizing has been burnt off and many of the poles are burnt as well. Today fencing is extremely expensive. The Act does not provide for loss of grazing. The hon. the Minister should look at the Soil Conservation Act, which exonerates the Railways from certain of its provisions, although it does not exonerate the farmer from any of those provisions. It also does not exonerate the farmer for the fact that he has to rest his veld for at least 12 months after burning, whether he has burnt it himself or whether the Railways have burnt it. There is no compensation provided for that. I would appeal to the hon. the Minister to look at the Act with a view to improving the compensation to farmers in cases of veld fires. The hon. the Minister knows that I am arranging with him now for a deputation to come and see him about this specific matter. It is of vital importance that farmers be properly compensated for veld fires. The cost of plastic piping used to be cheap, but since the Opec countries put up the price of oil, plastic piping has become nearly as expensive as galvanized piping. When thousands of metres of this piping becomes melted under the ground through no fault of one’s own, one certainly gets a little bit cross when one is not compensated therefor.

I am glad to see the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs sitting behind the hon. the Minister of Transport because another matter which I would like to raise is the question of the railway rates to our ports. I am speaking in particular with reference to East London. I know that the East London line is heavily subsidized. It would be rather naïve of me to plead for heavier subsidization on that line now, but I believe his hon. colleague, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, and he are reviewing freight charges. I therefore want to appeal to this hon. Minister to discuss with him some way of getting a more balanced form of ocean freight charge.

At the moment freight charges to East London and Durban round the Cape route are exactly the same, but the rail link between Durban and the Witwatersrand, which is our main market, has lower rates because it is shorter. In spite of the fact that the East London line is subsidized, very little actual development is taking place in the Berlin-East London-King William’s Town complex simply because of the length of that line. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to talk to his colleague. I am glad to see that he is discussing it with him now. There should be a way of balancing out one’s ocean freight charges and one’s rail tariffs to equalize the situation between the Border and Natal. After all, the distance round the Cape to East London is much shorter than that to Durban. I think this is an important factor because all of us want to see rapid development in the East London-King William’s Town area. In that area, as we all know, there is the independent Transkei on the one side and the Ciskei, a self-governing homeland, on the other side with vast numbers of Black people seeking employment. Without industrial growth in the area where they live we are going to be more and more compelled to rely on migratory labour, because those people will have to migrate somewhere in order to find employment. I, therefore, lodge a very urgent appeal with the hon. the Minister to look into this matter and to try to keep the people where they live in order to make that area viable. That, to my mind, is of utmost importance.

As far as the veld fires are concerned, I appeal to the hon. the Minister to have a good look at this legislation, and to think of the farmers, too. I also want to ask the hon. the Minister to have a look at the Soil Conservation Act and to see how the farmer is affected by the provisions of that Act. Penalties are prescribed for contraventions of the Act, especially in respect of overgrazing of veld. I believe that there should be legislation providing for compensation for loss of grazing, as well as for the other things I have mentioned.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Albany must please excuse me for not reacting to his speech. However, I briefly want to raise two matters, one in connection with my own constituency. The other is a general matter. I shall first deal with the latter because it is very brief. It concerns the general appearance of railway premises, particularly in the large cities. It often happens, as is the case here in Cape Town, that outsiders enter the city via the National Road, and that Railway premises directly adjacent to the National Road are in a condition which is definitely not very attractive. I have been in the House for some considerable time and every morning when I come into town from Acasia Park I see the beautiful national road to the left of me and right next to it, inside the Railway yards, there are scrap heaps, heaps of gravel, broken asbestos pipes, ditches, wrecked cars and so on. All those things serve to deface the city. Of course, one cannot normally expect Railway premises to be very clean. We accept that Railway premises are places laden with soot and coal and so on. For the same reason one would, for example, normally expect more people to die in a hospital than in a church. Nevertheless I do believe that some attention should, in fact, be given to the matter. I think that if the hon. the Minister of Transport were to consult with the hon. the Minister of Railways, the problem could possibly be solved. It seems to me that some of those disfiguring heaps of rubbish have been lying there for 30, 40 or 50 years, or even longer. This, of course, spoils the whole view a visitor from the north has of the city, and in so doing it creates a very poor impression.

We think, for example, of the Cape festival which is to be held shortly. It is important that anyone entering the city from the north on the national road should not have to look straight onto these scrap heaps and rubbish heaps when they pass the Railway premises in Roggebaai.

The other matter I want to touch upon concerns my constituency. We appreciate the fact that the Railways Administration has given cattle farmers the opportunity of transporting their own livestock to the markets. In this regard I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central and the hon. member for Graaf Reinet. Both of them spoke about this matter yesterday.

With the continually increasing rates on the Railways this is, of course, gradually being done on a larger scale. This is inevitable. Our farmers have everything working against them. One could almost say that everything, from the wheat-louse to the tax collector, is gnawing a hole in the farmer’s pocket. Our farmers also have to economize. To an increasing extent farmers in my constituency—and I am referring particularly to Gobabis—are having to bring their cattle to the Cape markets every week and then drive back with their empty trucks or with their own products—lucerne or whatever. This costs them money and one must accept that fact. However, I still think that the hon. the Minister of Transport could specifically use that problem to the benefit of the Railways. In other words, if a truck comes to Cape Town—Maitland, for example—to offload livestock and the farmer has to drive back with his empty 20 or 30 ton truck, an arrangement could be made whereby, after the farmer has offloaded his products, he could go to Cape Town station and find out if there were any goods destined for transport to Gobabis. The Railways could hold back specific goods for transport to Gobabis, or wherever the case may be. In this way the hon. the Minister of Transport could use the transport contractor as an agent. He could be told to transport the goods for a percentage of what the Administration would have levied on the amount. This could be a quarter or half of the amount. The hon. the Minister can work out the formula for himself. This would enable the hon. the Minister to have goods transported from Cape Town to Gobabis—a distance of almost 2 000 km—without lifting a finger. He would not have to handle the goods. Rolling stock would not have to be used and the tremendous wear and tear costs would be avoided. All the hon. the Minister need do is sit back and simply put the revenue in his pocket. The hon. the Minister could give a small percentage of the compensation to the farmer who has to use this method, so that his own livestock need not be transported at what is normally such a tremendous loss. To my way of thinking that deficiency just happens to exist—and I fully understand the position of the hon. the Minister—but it can nevertheless be of use to the Railways, the transport contractors and farmers. That is why I am addressing the request to the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, in the few minutes available to me I want to deal with a matter raised by the hon. member for Klip River, when he spoke in this debate in respect of statements I had made concerning the carriage of containers in Durban harbour. Firstly, I want to take exception to the implication by the hon. member for Klip River that I was acting as “spreekbuis”, as a spokesman, for an interest group. I want to make it clear to him that if that is his tactic, or that those are the tactics followed by his party, I certainly do not follow them. I am firstly interested in what is fair and just and, secondly, in what is the truth and, thirdly, in what I regard as a wastage of the taxpayer’s money, a wastage which was avoidable and which need not have taken place. It was for those reasons that I raised the matter, and not as spokesman for any interested group. In fact, I have over the years criticized and attacked the Harbour Carriers’ Association for being a closed shop and for having by a deal with the Railways, cornered all the carriage in the harbour. They had an agreement with the Railways that the Railways would not give a permit without their recommendation and that they would not accept a member unless he has a permit.

I want to deal with some of the statistics which the hon. member claimed he had received from official figures given to him by the department. I refer to his Hansard, and the first point I want to raise, concerns his claim that the Harbour Carriers “would retain 56% of the traffic”. He asked me where I obtained my figures. I obtained them from an investigation and a report by a specialist firm of town and regional planning consultants of which one of the partners is the same Dr. McCrystal whom that hon. member’s Government has appointed to handle the control of inflation. If that is not a responsible source,

I should like to know what is one! If the hon. member wants to query my figures, he can go to his own Government. As I have said, he claimed that they would still retain 56%. According to this report—and I do not have time to deal with it in full—the loss of turnover which was found to be the likely loss to the Durban Harbour Carriers, represents 86,9% of their total transport business in Durban harbour.

I quote further from his Hansard—

2 000 vehicles, yet in his own speech he admits that there are 380-odd vehicles controlled by the harbour carriers. I want to give him the actual figures. The actual figures indicate that 200 mechanical horses and 200 trailers are available and suitable for containerization. The cost of converting some of the trailers will be some R170 000. I find I do not have the time to give all the figures. At the moment those carriers are handling all the coastal container traffic, and from a reply by the hon. the Minister to a question, that amounted to 2 613 containers per month over the last three months of last year. If they were handling them with the 20 trailers which that hon. member claims are all they have available, those 20 trailers must be working about seven days per day! His figures are out of line with the facts. I have no time to deal with them, but I refer to the questions I have asked in this House and to the replies given by the hon. the Minister.

They do not differ very much, but the figures quoted by the hon. member for Klip River differ to some extent in almost every case from the figures the hon. the Minister has given. They do not differ to a large extent, but they still differ from the figures the hon. the Minister has given me in reply to questions concerning the number of vehicles delivered or standing on blocks, etc. My time is up. My case is—and I stand by it—that there has been a wastage of taxpayers’ money. Capital expenditure of over R7 million could have been avoided, because the facilities are there and there is no reason why private enterprise could not have lifted that burden from the taxpayer and contributed to the smooth running of this container traffic.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a few things of public interest as far as my constituency is concerned. We have had problems with sinkholes in that dolomite area. As a consequence of the sinkholes, a certain section of the main line between Oberholzer and Johannesburg, namely at Bank, was closed for a long time. I questioned the chief officials of the Railways on this and they told me that, apart from a speed limit which was being imposed on passing trains, all restrictions had been lifted and everything was quiet and peaceful. I am pleased to be able to say this. I want to thank the chief officials of the Railways very sincerely on behalf of that part of my constituency, for the excellent manner in which they dealt with the whole situation. We are not blind to that. We took note of it and I express my hearty thanks and appreciation to them. I also want to mention the electrification of the section between Welverdiend and Lichtenburg. That section, of course, runs through one of the most important stations in South Africa, the Rysmierbult station. That is where I live. I want to thank the Department of Railways very sincerely for having now electrified the section up to Lichtenburg. I have heard that that work has nearly been completed. The section was electrified mainly with a view to transporting cement for export purposes. This also attests to the good work done in this regard.

It is true that the Railways performs a socio-economic task, but in future the Railways will have yet another task to perform, a task which will assume ever greater proportions as the years go by. We have a policy embodying the non-permanence of Black people in White areas, and fortunately we are geographically so situated that no Black country, be it the Ciskei, Vendaland, Lebowa or Bophuthatswana, is of reach of labour-intensive centres such as the Vaal Triangle. Although we can apply the principle of border industry development and can stimulate and implement development within the homelands, we shall always be dependent on employing a certain number of Black labourers in White areas. It is in that context that the Railways will have to play an extremely important part in future. During the past six months I have been to Bophuthatswana three times. I have also been to Vendaland, and in my opinion there is an ever-growing desire amongst the Black people to go to their Black countries. Over weekends they show a great desire—one can actually see it—to go to the Black countries. One can drive around there now, and then go back in two months’ time and already see the remarkable increase in the number of Black people inhabiting the homelands. In future the Railways will have an extremely important task to perform in relation to that movement away from the White country to the Black country.

I also travel often by train from Pretoria to Louis Trichardt and I should very much like to mention a certain aspect here in the House. I put the matter to the General Manager of the Railways yesterday, but I should like to mention it here as well because I think it is in the public interest and in the interest of the maintenance of good relations. The train that runs from Pretoria, via Pietersburg, to Louis Trichardt in the evenings is so jam-packed with Black people that there is no room for a mouse to move. Yet there are only four, five or six White passengers on the entire train. On occasion I have been the sole White passenger in a carriage on that train, whilst the carriages for Black passengers are so jam-packed that the people even have to sit in the toilets and in the corridors. Once one has boarded the train, one cannot move until one gets off. I really think we have to bring about some improvement in this regard. I once again want to make an earnest appeal to the hon. the Minister to give some attention to the matter because it is hurtful to see this happening. I referred to the same matter two years ago. That is a wrong state of affairs that must definitely be improved. I do not mean any harm by this criticism; it is well-meant. Since I shall be one of the last speakers in the debate, I think it is fitting that I should tell the hon. the Minister and the Railways Administration that it is with great appreciation that we take note of the thoroughness, the preciseness and the dedication with which the Railway staff performs its duties. It is a large organization and small mistakes do occur here and there. However, I think I am speaking on behalf of all of us when I say that in general we can attest with great appreciation, to the good work the S.A. Railways is doing at present.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Carletonville has raised the same problem that I have, viz. the hopelessly inadequate number of coaches for non-White people. In my case these coaches are needed on the journey to the dockyard at Simonstown in the morning and to a lesser extent when the workers return from the dockyard in the evening. It seems that they work shifts during the day, but the accommodation for non-White passengers on the trains that run to Simonstown from about 04h30 to 07h30 in the morning is completely inadequate and I would recommend to the hon. the Minister that this matter be investigated. I have been to see all those trains myself and it is a most unwholesome state of affairs. They are hopelessly overcrowded.

I want to draw another matter the hon. the Minister’s attention and that concerns the Kalk Bay harbour. The harbour at Kalk Bay is under a tripartite control. It is administered by the Department of Sea Fisheries, the access to the harbour is controlled by the Railways, and this includes a level crossing, and the land on the sea side of the railway line, adjacent to the harbour, belongs to the Cape Town municipality. The problem that arises there is that there are a number of people who fish from the harbour every night. There are professional fishermen that go out in boats and amateur fishermen who go there to fish from the quayside. The level crossing gates open at 08h30 in the morning and they are religiously closed at about 16h45 in the afternoon. Whether they are supposed to stay open until 17h00 I do not know, but they are certainly usually closed at about 16h45. Cars are often locked inside the harbour because people forget about this arrangement and also because boats are sometimes delayed and cannot get back to the harbour in time. These people can accordingly only get their cars out of the harbour the next day. I believe that that is a facility that the Railways can certainly improve for the public. As the Railways have a man with a flag on duty at the level crossing, I can see no reason why such a man cannot do duty even until say midnight.

I realize that it involves extra expenditure but I think it is a worthy cause as it is a very popular facility for the public. The reason why I am bringing this matter up at this stage is because it will be a short-term arrangement only. I have recently managed to arrange with the Railways that they see officials of the Cape Town municipality about the closing of that level crossing and its replacement by some form of either subway or bridge. The most popular theory at the moment is that a bridge can without very much difficulty be constructed over the elevated portion of the road, across the railway line and on to the land that I referred to which belongs to the municipality. Those discussions have recently been held and there seems to be enthusiasm both from the municipality and from the Railways, and I think with a little bit of a push we can probably provide that much-needed access to the harbour. It is much needed because the hon. the Minister will know that there is not a single small boat harbour in the whole of False Bay at the moment. The harbour at Gordon’s Bay is controlled by the Director of Sea Fisheries as is the harbour at Kalk Bay and limited mooring facilities exist at the Strand and Simonstown and the Department of Sport and Recreation is creating a facility in the form of a breakwater at Rumbley Bay for the ski-boat club. The only berthing facility in a harbour controlled by the Director of Sea Fisheries is at Kalk Bay. One has a limited number of amateur fishermen who tie up their boats there, apart from those who fish off the quayside and of course there are the professionals. I think it is quite wrong for such a situation to be allowed to continue in terms of which access to the harbour is governed by a gateman whose hours are from 08h30 in the morning until 16h45 in the afternoon. There are parking facilities in the harbour and if the hours at that gate were to be extended, people would be able to fish there in comfort and be able tot get their cars in and out until such time as the bridge is built. I do hope that something would be done in this respect. There is a third reason why it should be done. The access to the harbour and the exit from the harbour from the main road is at the narrowest and most congested portions of that road. It is a strategically important road and the only direct access road to the naval base. At times the road carries very heavy traffic. Only last year the Admiral was trying to keep an appointment at Wingfield and arrived at the appointment something like an hour late, because he was caught up in the heavy traffic on Saturday morning. One can imagine what the position could be if there were any kind of emergency.

One of the main causes of congestion at that particular point is the exit from the harbour, which is, as I have said, controlled by a level crossing with old-fashioned gates and one flagman. I would ask the hon. the Minister to give consideration to this problem, firstly because of the strategic value of the road and, secondly, because of the number of members of the public who get a lot of pleasure out of using the harbour, both during the day and at night, as amateur fishermen from the quayside, amateur fishermen from boats and, of course, as professional fishermen who make a livelihood out of the use of that harbour.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to try to reply to all the matters which were raised. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to express my appreciation for the interest which was shown in the affairs of the Railways and particularly for the wide variety of subjects which was discussed in such an objective way. There was only one false note, and you must pardon me for mentioning it, Sir. It was the hon. member for Orange Grove. I thought that that hon. member, in contrast to all the other hon. members, was rather unmannerly.

I want to point out, and I think hon. members will understand this, that it is not humanly possible to furnish a reply immediately, or to furnish particulars on every aspect of the activities of the Railways which has been raised here. It is no use our arguing otherwise; it is a fact. The hon. member who made acrimonious remarks here this afternoon—in fact, I think he was not only unmannerly, but unsavoury as well—did not adopt the correct manner of debating. He said—

I do not feel like reacting to the hon. member’s speech.

I still owe the hon. member for Durban Point a reply on one aspect. It is in connection with leave matters pertaining to the S.A. Airways.

I referred to the ground staff.

Yes, it was in connection with the ground staff. This is in addition to the matter which he raised in respect of the carriers in the Durban harbour, about which I really do not want to say very much more. Owing to the working conditions of the Airways, it is essential that overtime be worked occasionally. Recently, as has already been said here on many occasions, we have been trying to confine overtime to a minimum, particularly because we want to economize as much as possible. There is no dispute in this regard. To achieve this it has become necessary for us to restrict leave to the non-accumulative period of 14 days. This does not mean that it is the law of the Medes and the Persians. Where merit justifies it, it is possible to deviate from it. We are confining ourselves to this, for the reasons I have just set out.

While I am referring now to the hon. member for Durban Point, I want to repeat that I should not like to reopen the subject of the harbour carriers. We discussed the matter ad nauseam in this House last year. We went through all the procedures, and in the course of the year we also received representations in this regard. The carriers even went so far as to make representations to the hon. the Prime Minister. He referred those representations to a Cabinet Committee, which is there for the special purpose of protecting the interests of the private sector. This Cabinet Committee went into the matter. Even the Economic Advisory Council of the hon. the Prime Minister deliberated on the matter, and the ultimate decision was as we had initially envisaged. It is no use our beginning to argue about this matter again, because we have in any case progressed too far in regard to the matter.

Last night I stopped after I had replied to the hon. member for Moorreesburg. The hon. member for Smithfield, who spoke after him, made a very instructive contribution on the financial aspect of the Railways. It is not necessary for me to make any comment on it.

After that the hon. member for Green Point took the floor. It seems to me that the points he raised conformed to a great extent with a newspaper report pertaining to Mr. George Young. Now I do not know whether he gave Mr. George Young these ideas or whether Mr. George Young gave him these ideas. It does not really make any difference either. This is the hon. member’s constituency; let us therefore accept that it was he who gave Mr. George Young these ideas. It is true that we have laid down restrictive measures in regard to visitors to the harbour. Hon. members will recall that, during the time when the harbour was so active …

I got it from the director personally.

Is that so? At the time it was very difficult to do all the work that had to be done with so many visitors in the harbour and the restrictions have since then continued to apply.

I should like to inform the hon. member that at present we are considering applications from the fishing industry to have certain quays, to which the hon. member also referred, i.e. in the Alfred Basin and also in the Victoria Basin, but specifically those in the Alfred Basin, placed at their disposal if it is in any way possible. I shall give attention to this matter and see what we can do in this regard. I must say in all honesty and fairness that a harbour is usually a very interesting place. It is true, as the hon. member said, that people like going there to watch the harbour activities. One would not like to deprive the public of that privilege. Therefore I think it is desirable to see whether we cannot, as the hon. member requested, allow the public to have access to the harbour more readily and more easily. The hon. member also referred to the Loerie, the police launch, on which I do not really want to elaborate at this stage.

I do not blame you.

I just want to tell the hon. member that it is very doubtful whether such a vessel is justified. There is not really very much work for such a vessel. If there should occasionally be work requiring the use of such a vessel, it is always possible to use a pilot boat or some other boat to do the work which would have been done by the Loerie.

Yesterday the hon. member for Stilfontein raised a very important matter here, i.e. the exporting of our minerals. One appreciates the interest which he had in this regard. At present it is our major task to promote the export of our minerals as much as possible, but in future we shall have to apply ourselves more to the beneficiation of our minerals to a greater extent. That is why a project such as the one to which the hon. member for Moorreesburg referred, viz. the semis factory at Saldanha, is so important. I am simply using that factory as an example, for when one uses 1½ tons of ore to manufacture one ton of steel, one is able to procure more than R100 in foreign exchange for our country, while the same amount of ore exported directly earns perhaps only R12 to R15 in foreign exchange. That is why it is so important that we should not only consider the exporting of raw materials, but should also concentrate on refining our raw materials to a large extent.

The hon. member for Constantia referred to the fact that the Airways was unable to export certain perishable produce. He referred, inter alia, to a consignment of raspberries which was offered and was unable to make the Lufthansa flight the same evening. I caused an investigation to be made, and it appeared that as a result of technical problems experienced that afternoon on flights between Cape Town and Johannesburg, the delivery of the raspberries in Johannesburg was delayed, and as a result of that the goods were unable to make the Lufthansa flight to Europe.

That is the most overworked phrase in the Airways dictionary—technical difficulties.

No. If the hon. member would only consider the limited number of delays which have occurred during the past year, as indicated in the statistics on the Airways, he will himself arrive at the conclusion that, even if they are all technical, the delays themselves were very limited.

Everything is technical!

The hon. member must simply realize that by December, by the end of the year, when the export of perishables is at its peak, the passenger bookings are also very high.

Which is more important?

The passengers are of course the most important. That is where the greatest benefit to the Airways lies. That is where our problems arise, and that is also why, during December, while we were having so many talks, we restricted the perishable freight on flight SA-224 to London to 400 kg.

In addition the hon. member also referred to flowers and other commodities which could not be delivered or conveyed. This was also due to the fact that there was a strike in London among the freight handlers who had to handle freight there. As a result of that, as I have already said in reply to a question put to me, British Airways did not want to accept the freight.

The introduction of the Airbus has now increased the capacity between Cape Town and Johannesburg considerably and it is now possible for us to convey far more freight to Johannesburg from Cape Town, where a great deal of our perishable freight originates. It is also our intention to introduce a SP flight to London as from 1 April of this year, which will then provide additional capacity from Cape Town to London. The hon. member must just realize that perishables are season ally bound and that the capacity which is booked in advance frequently cannot be utilized as a result of this factor. Therefore it is the policy of the SAL only to accept freight when capacity is available.

†It is interesting that only this morning the Department of Transport handed to me statistics in connection with the export of perishables during the six months from July to December last year and also for the period 1966 to 1976. These statistics cover the export of fruit, meat, vegetables, flowers, frozen products, sea products and others. It is interesting to note that the export of fruit has during the period from 1966 to 1975 increased from 450 000 kg to 5 800 000 kg. I am prepared to make this information available to the hon. member if he is interested. I am also prepared to make it available to any other hon. member who may be interested.

*Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bellville discussed the role of the Railways in regard to our neighbouring states. Recently the Railways has, in the nature of things and as I have already indicated in a speech, played a very important part.

We in South Africa do not, of course, believe in boycotts and sanctions. This is also the policy of the Government. We believe in economic interdependence. It is on the ground of these basic considerations that the Railways is continuing—here and there the Administration is of course being criticized a little—to convey goods across the borders to our neighbouring states. As a result the railway line via Komatipoort to Maputo is being used as extensively as possible and the harbour of Maputo is also being used.

The hon. member for Humansdorp asked an interesting question. He wanted to know whether the Railways had any choice in regard to the introduction of containerization, particularly in view of the fact that it will cost the Railways approximately R370 million. My reply to that is “no”. Actually the Administration had no choice, unless it was willing to fall completely behind the rest of the world. In 1974 negotiations were held between the Department of Economic Affairs and the shipping lines. On that occasion it was decided that containerization should be introduced. As a service-rendering organization I believe that the Railway Administration was obliged to prepare itself for the introduction of containerization. According to particulars at my disposal the introduction of containerization is costing the Administration approximately R370 million. The amount which the shipping lines had to invest in new vessels is R1 100 million, according to my information. What it amounts to, therefore, is that those two items only, i.e. harbour provision in South Africa and what goes with it, together with the cost incurred by the lines, amounts to R1 470 million. Therefore, that is what it is costing to introduce containerization in South Africa.

The hon. member for South Coast raised certain matters which I do not intend elaborating on in very great detail. As a former Railwayman the hon. member spotted certain things, particularly in the report of the Auditor-General. With all due respect to the hon. member, I want to point out that I doubt whether other hon. members, hon. members who are not former railwaymen, would be very interested in an intensive discussion of this subject. However, I should like to reply to one of the matters he raised. I am referring to the question he put in regard to deviations from the amounts which had been budgeted for. In cases where the expenditure was in excess of what had been budgeted for, the hon. member expressed criticism. Phenomena such as these in recent times are usually attributable to a sharp increase in costs and not, as the hon. member stated as a possibility, owing to failings on the part of the organization. The hon. member raised quite a few other matters as well. I took cognizance of them, and I also have the replies with me here. However, they are a little long and complicated and I should prefer to give the hon. member this information in writing. In this way I shall furnish him with all the information in regard to these matters. Apart from that I just want to point out that these are particulars which occur in the report of the Auditor-General and which should really be discussed on the Select Committee.

The hon. member for Gezina, the hon. member for Hercules as well as the hon. member for Wonderboom discussed the Mabopane-Winternest-Belle Ombre railway line. With that project the conveying of Tswanas to Pretoria is being envisaged, and hon. members have now expressed their concern because the scheme is being delayed.

It is unfortunately true that the scheme is being delayed by approximately two years. This does not mean to say that the project is coming to a complete halt for we are appropriating R3,3 million for the coming year. However, we had originally intended appropriating an amount of R13,4 million for the scheme this year. As a result of the economic situation and the cut-backs on our capital expenditure we are now appropriating only R3,3 million. Most of the inhabitants of Mabopane will be employed in Pretoria, and the expectation is that by 1978 more than 50 000 passengers will have to be conveyed each day from Mabopane in the direction of Pretoria. It is being presumed that they have to be conveyed by train. I do not want to go into all the details. It is my intention to reply more specifically in the Third Reading to the capital expenditure and cut-backs which we have been forced to effect. The fact of the matter is, however, that at present we are only busy with the earthworks of the railway line from Mabopane to Winternest. The railway line to Winternest will be completed by approximately 1980. According to the present planning, with the cut-backs which have now occurred and provided of course that we shall have the necessary funds at our disposal in future, it is hoped that the entire scheme, including Belle Ombre station, will have been completed by 1984. I share the concern of the hon. members in regard to this scheme. I know how essential the scheme is, but circumstances compel us, we cannot do otherwise.

The hon. member for Bryanston has spoken on two occasions, yesterday and again today in the Committee Stage. However, I want to turn first to the hon. member for Hercules. He asked whether the funds which were to have been used for the construction of the P.W.V.9 road could not be made available for the construction of the project from Mabopane to Winternest and Belle Ombre. I am afraid that such negotiations would be very difficult. It is a provincial road and therefore does not fall under the Department of Transport. Consequently I think that it would be impractical to try to effect such a change-over.

I come now to the hon. member for Bryanston. According to a newspaper report this morning I dealt with the hon. member rather curtly. The report states that usually I am supposed to be such a soft-natured person, but have now become rather precipitate with the hon. member. I have no objection to the newspaper saying that I have become precipitate with the hon. member, but I am concerned about its saying that I am soft-natured, because it reminds me so much of the things they said about Dr. Wassenaar. Be that as it may, I think I should prefer to be called “long-suffering Lourens” in the Committee Stage, for one really has to exercise a great deal of patience with the questions which are put. The hon. member for Bryanston discussed apartheid again. On the Railways apartheid has two aspects. The one is the aspect which affects the staff, and the other the aspect which affects the user of the Railway service. The hon. member knows, or ought to know, that as far as the first aspect is concerned, we are constantly making changes. On the Railways changes are probably being effected more rapidly than in most other spheres. However, these changes are only effected in consultation with the various trade unions. We shall continue in this way and effect changes wherever and whenever they are necessary. As far as the second aspect is concerned, the feelings of the passengers are constantly taken into consideration by the Railways. That is why I said that the hon. member should preferably make his peace with the people. We do what we are doing on the Railways because we know what the feelings of these people are. I want to state that, in any event, many changes have recently been effected on the Railways. These are changes which have been effected to apartheid measures which have become obsolete over the years and which, as a result of circumstances, were no longer so essential. I want to add to that, however, that the steps which are being taken by the National Party Government in South Africa are always regarded by the hon. member as being protection for the White man. However, they are not only for the protection of the White man, but for the sake of good relations between all the various race groups in South Africa. Where friction might be caused through the removal of apartheid measures, I maintain that we should continue with these measures, for to us it is of far greater importance that there should be peaceful co-existence in South Africa than that measures should be removed merely for the sake of ideologies, in that way causing friction between the population groups. This is the standpoint of the NP, and in that way we and also the Railways shall continue.

The hon. member for Somerset East referred to many of the plus points of the Railways, and we appreciate this very much. The hon. member for Umlazi—I am pleased that I was not sitting near to him last night, for he became a little heated under the collar at the hon. members to the left of him—very clearly revealed his interest in the railwaymen yesterday evening. In support of the hon. member for Uitenhage he discussed the pensioners. He also spoke about the aircraft. I have already furnished the reply to that. I want to ask the hon. member whether we should not “hasten slowly” and continue with the experiment which we have already commenced. Let us see what progress we can make with it. He also asked for an intercom system for dwellings in the remote areas in which railwaymen have to work. I do not know whether it is practical proposal, but we shall go into it in any case. I appreciate the interest which the hon. member displayed.

This afternoon the hon. members for Potgietersrus and Carltonville raised a very important matter, which is causing us considerable problems. The reservation of seats for third class passengers is a new service. There are still many problems which have to be ironed out in that regard. By means of the Press, public-address system announcements and notifications we are trying to make publicity for the reservation of seats and how it should be done. Hon. members must realize, however, that it is not so easy to train these people and introduce them to a sophisticated system such as the one to which we have grown accustomed over the years. At present seat reservations are being made on 115 trains per week. To overcome the problem it is being arranged that the 19h14 train on Fridays from Pretoria to Pietersburg will, as from 18 April 1977, depart from Johannesburg and a seat allocation is being given to Pretoria. However, it is being arranged that as from 18 April 1977 the set will also depart on Mondays and Wednesday from Johannesburg to Pietersburg, and return on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundays. Only passengers with reserved seats will be conveyed by these trains. I already foresee practical problems in putting this into operation, but this is what we are now going to try to do. The possibility is also being investigated of allowing the train which at present departs at 18h48 on Fridays from Pretoria to Pietersburg to depart from a point between Germiston and Pretoria. A random sample was carried out during the weekend of the 28th, 29th and 30th January in order to establish how many of the passengers who arrived at Pietersburg were not in possession of tickets. In the seven trains which were samples, there were only 54 such passengers, i.e. an average of eight per train. This is, after all, a relatively small number. The possibility is at present being investigated of either introducing suitable barrier systems at the more important stations or augmenting the ticket examining staff on the train. Hon. members must realize that we share their concern at the handling of the large number of passengers making use of the train services, but that it is not so easy to deal with the situation. We shall in future bear in mind the ideas expressed by hon. members in this regard, and see what we can do about it.

In addition to the Mabopane-Belle Ombre project the hon. member for Wonderboom also referred to expropriation and asked for better correlation. I have no knowledge of the four properties to which the hon. member referred, but I can inform him that in addition to the valuators of the Railways, we also make use of private valuators. I accept that all the merits of a property will be taken into consideration when that property is valued. If the hon. member could let me have the particulars, I shall cause the matter to be carefully investigated.

The hon. member for Sea Point referred to the railway line to Atlantis, but I do not think the hon. member expects very much of me in this regard, because he said himself that the railway line was not being constructed by my department. However, he would like to see us giving the project a boost. After I had made a thorough study of the matter, I arrived at the conclusion that for a considerable time there will probably be no justification for building the railway line from Chempet to Atlantis. At present a high-standard road is being constructed, which will be completed by the end of the year. We foresee that a high-standard railway line will eventually have to be built to extend the Chempet-Atlantis line as far as Saldanha. We must alse bear in mind that at present we do have a railway line running from Kraaifontein to Saldanha Bay. The railway line from Kraaifontein to Saldanha Bay is very under-utilized. There is a great deal of capacity on that line. This will play a part in any future consideration of the extension of the Chempet-Atlantis line to Saldanha Bay.

The hon. member then referred to circumstances in the Western Cape and asked certain questions in this regard, particularly with regard to the passenger services to Mitchell’s Plain. It is very interesting to note that, after I had had to listen for hours yesterday to hon. members alleging that the Government was overspending, a brand new refrain was heard yesterday evening onwards, i.e. that certain projects should not be delayed and that other projects should be built. How can I do this without additional capital expenditure? The hon. member for Maitland was one of the culprits, or was it the hon. member for Sea Point, who said that capital expenditure should be restricted to the minimum? If I remember correctly, it was one of his nine points. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti said that we should eliminate capital spending entirely. Be that as it may, it is unfortunately the case that the project to Mitchell’s Plain is also being delayed as a result of the cut-backs. I hope to be able to analyse these projects, as well as the Mabopane-Belle Ombre project to better effect during the Third Reading. The hon. member expressed his appreciation for the work which was done in this connection last year when a committee was appointed to eliminate certain problems, a committee on which Whites and non-Whites co-operated. I am grateful that the hon. member did at least pay us this compliment. In Johannesburg there is regular liaison with representatives of Soweto already. A committee for the Coloureds and Black people of other townships is to be established soon. In Pretoria a committee for Coloureds has been established, the first meeting of which will take place on 30 March. A committee for Black people is also to be established there soon. In Durban there is a committee for Black people, which has been functioning since 1976, and a committee for Indians is to be established soon. As we see it, these committees are functioning well, they are doing excellent work, and we shall continue with them.

The hon. member for De Aar advocated steps to counteract the depopulation of the rural areas, and he referred in particular to the tarpaulin depot which has been moved from Noupoort to East London. The hon. member will realize that this is the cause of economic circumstances which are compelling us in this direction. If one considers the Railways, one finds that a complete change has taken place with the elimination of steam traction and the substitution for it of diesel or electric traction. In the old days we were accustomed to repairing and renewing the old steam locomotives from top to bottom. The various spares were manufactured in our workshops. However, if one were to go to the Salt River workshops now, one would see that the position is completely different to what it was 20 or 30 years ago, because the work which used to be done on the steam locomotives, is no longer being done. The same applies to De Aar, Beaufort West, Touws River and all the places where there used to be such large steam depots, and where the fitters, the turners and the boilermakers did a great deal of work on the locomotives. The modern tendency is for the diesel or electric locomotive to go to the workshop for reapirs. The workshops are of course centralized in Salt River or Uitenhage, or wherever they may be. The tendency with that kind of locomotive is merely to fit new parts. The new part is assembled and when the locomotive comes in, it is simply fitted and the locomotive goes out again. Unfortunately these are circumstances we cannot do very much about, for it is the tendency of the time which is dictated by economic circumstances.

The same applies to the tarpaulin depot which used to be situated at Noupoort. We found that it was more beneficial for the Railways to place the tarpaulin depot under the supervision of a mechanical engineer, so that bonus work could be done as far as tarpaulins were concerned. Therefore the tarpaulin depot was moved from Noupoort to East London. However, I sympathize with the hon. member because I was born in Beaufort West myself, and I grew up there, but economic circumstances are compelling us to move in a certain direction, and there is not much we can do about it. But if there is anything which we can do to stem the depopulation of the rural areas, we shall gladly do so.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort refer red to the achievements of the Railways. The testing centre at Koedoespoort is really worthwhile seeing. In this respect I agree with him.

The hon. member for Bryanston said once again that he wanted to cause a semi-circular road to be built from Soweto around the northern part of Johannesburg as far as Alberton. I want to assure the hon. member, however, that the scheme will cost millions of rands. But this is something which could more appropriately be considered by the urban traffic board which is going to be introduced in terms of the recommendations of the Driessen committee and the legislation in regard to urban traffic which I shall introduce during the course of the present year.

Sir, the hon. member for Bloemfontein East raised a very important matter, i.e. the staggering of working hours. As far as the Railways are concerned we shall of course welcome this, because we have a tremendous peak hour traffic density problem every morning and again every afternoon. As far as our people are concerned, we are willing. This has already been done in Pretoria, where an attempt has been made in this direction by the Department of Planning. On our part we shall do whatever we possibly can. As the hon. member said, it is important that everyone in the private sector should play their part and be willing to stagger the working hours.

The hon. member for Verwoerdburg raised certain matters here in regard to catering by the private sector. I do not know whether I misunderstood the hon. member. However, I just want to point out that the catering, on the Airways as well, is done by the S.A. Railways catering department. It is no longer done by the private sector. We have a large building at Jan Smuts Airport where all the meals for the S.A. Airways are prepared and packed for the aircraft. Indeed, we are doing this for the other airlines as well, not only for the S.A. Airways.

At the airports as well.

Yes, but the airports are a matter which falls under the Department of Transport. The catering areas on the airports are leased by the Department of Transport. As far as the Railways is concerned, we do not feel very inclined to stick our necks out too far, for we are frequently criticized for taking over too many of the functions of the private sector.

The hon. member for East London City also asked for increased expenditure.

†The hon. member mentioned the case of two pensioners. I should like to bring to his attention that the fund for non-Whites only came to existence in 1974. I am certain that it will improve as time goes on. I should like to tell him that where there is hardship, in a case like this, we have a Benevolent Fund from which we can give assistance. The System Managers should be approached for assistance if there is hardship of some kind.

*The hon. member also discussed the cranes in the East London harbour. Cranes for containerization cost in the region of R1¾ million. At present the prospect is that the extent of the activities there will not justify such an expensive crane at this stage. However, we shall see how matters develop.

Sir, the hon. member for Bethlehem referred with appreciation to the Railway Police and the work they are doing. We appreciate that.

The hon. member for Orange Grove also asked certain questions here. I told him yesterday that we do not keep separate accounts as far as the Transkeian territory is concerned. He wants to know whether the Transkei was satisfied with these rates increases. According to the agreement the railway line is exclusively in our hands. In other words the rates increases we are applying here are also being applied in the Transkeian territory. As far as the bus services which they took over are concerned, it is their business what the tariffs should be. As far as the Railways are concerned, they have to fall into line as far as the rates which we are making applicable to the Railways are concerned.

The hon. member for Eshowe referred to a bridge. I have the particulars of the extent to which the bridge was destroyed. A well-equipped bridge team is already replacing the bridge at an estimated cost of approximately R310 000. The expected date of completion is the end of August 1977. Everything is being done to complete the work sooner, if that is in any way possible.

The hon. member for Kempton Park referred to the achievements of the Airbus, and the Airways in general.

The hon. member for Albany referred, inter alia, to veld fires. He spoke as if the Railways were responsible for the damage caused by all veld fires. It must first be proved that the Railways was responsible for such fires and therefore has to bear the cost. Once he has cleared that hurdle and it appears that the Railways was in fact responsible, all damage is taken into consideration. The plastic tubing and all kinds of commodities to which he referred, are also taken into consideration. The hon. member referred to a railway line to the industrial areas in Grahamstown. Naturally this is a matter to which I cannot furnish an immediate reply across the floor of this House. We shall give this matter our attention and I shall be in touch with him again.

The hon. member for Middelland raised a very important matter. On a previous occasion I did, to a limited extent, hold talks on this matter with the General Manager. It involves a greater measure of neatness in and around Railway property. I appreciate the remarks which he made, and I think they were important. But the hon. member should at least know that we have a problem, particularly at stations and where passenger trains are running, for the public in general is very untidy: Everything is tossed out of the train windows. It is not a simple task to keep the area next to the railway line clean. However, we are doing what we can. The hon. member also proposed we should allow freight which is otherwise conveyed by rail, to be conveyed by road. In my opinion this is a very complex matter. I doubt whether it is a practical proposal. However, the hon. member may leave the matter with us. We shall look at it again in any case.

I have already referred to the hon. member for Carletonville. The hon. member for Simonstown, who spoke after him, also referred to Kalk Bay. I know Kalk Bay. I know very well what it looks like there. I know the circumstances there. This is another case in respect of which I cannot of course tell him that the Railways will do certain things. The entire layout of Kalk Bay and the harbour there is very complicated. The hon. member himself said that three different bodies are involved. I shall consider the comments made by the hon. member closely, and if it is possible, the Railways will do something about it.

Schedules agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, I rise to lead the Third Reading debate after some sixteen hours of debate on the other stages. Having listened to the debate so far, I feel that we must all agree, in view of the effect it is going to have on the consumer, that this budget has come as a shock not just to the hon. members on this side of the House, but, I believe, also to every housewife and consumer in South Africa. I do not believe for one moment that anything that has been said by members on the Government side can alter this fact. The fact is that the housewife is going to suffer greatly as a result of the inflationary effects of this budget. She is going to find that foodstuffs, clothing and household goods will undergo another cycle of price increases. Her husband is going to find that his fuel is going to cost him two cents more per litre. In this connection it is interesting to note that we are now paying as much for our fuel as people in Britain, whereas two years ago we were paying 30% of what it was costing the British people for their fuel. The commuter too is going to find that it is going to cost him R4 to R5 a month more to get to and from work. What amazes me is that there has been a total lack of sympathy or concern on the part of hon. members on that side of the House. Rather, they have adopted an attitude that the public must now be thankful to this hon. Minister for what they consider to be a wonderful budget. It seems to me from what they have said that they appear to be totally uncon cerned that many families are at present suffering financial strains as a result of inflation, and now this budget is going to make matters even worse.

There are other members of the community who I believe are going to suffer considerably and that is the farmers. The hon. member for Mooi River had a lot to say about this earlier on in the debate and he mentioned how the poor farmer has to pay these increased Railway rates both ways. He pays for goods and supplies to reach his farm, and after producing his products he then has to pay these high tariff rates to the market. It may be of interest to the hon. the Minister to know that these increases in rail tariffs are going to hit many forms of agriculture. For argument’s sake, let us take lettuce growers in the Lions River area of Natal. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister appreciates the fact that while a lettuce farmer in Natal gets as low as 216c per head of lettuce, by the time the housewife buys it, she has to pay up to 75c for a single head of lettuce. The lettuce farmer himself has a very small margin on which to work and now he has to pay an added increase in his transport rates. I have been led to believe, and this is one question which I should like to put to the hon. the Minister, that it costs more to transport lettuce from Bayhead in Durban to Louis Botha Airport than it does to transport that lettuce from Louis Botha Airport to Covent Garden in London. I would like the hon. the Minister to check these figures for me to see if they are correct. I believe that these increases in tariffs for farmers are going to result in a tremendous outcry which the hon. the Minister of Agriculture will hear in due course. Unfortunately many farmers are going to go under as a result of these tariff increases.

Then we turn to the plight of the businessman. We have heard from the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut that the businessman cannot carry these increased costs and as he cannot cover them himself he will have to pass them on to the consumer. Does the hon. the Minister really appreciate how bad business is in South Africa? Hardly a day passes by without reading in the Press of a large company or small company, as the case may be, going into liquidation. This is especially so in the property market. The property market has crashed because of inflation which has eroded the housebuyers’ purchasing power and they now find that they just cannot afford to invest in property, or to build houses for that matter I have a letter here which I received this week from someone in my constituency, the wife of a person whom I know, and she writes as follows—

This is the point that worries me. The letter states further—

This is becoming a daily occurrence in South Africa in every form of business. At present the motor business is also suffering a tremendous slump. Car sales have plunged. What is the reason for this? It is quite simple.

It is the Railways!

The hon. member says it is the Railways. The Railways are just part of it. The reason is that we have inflation in South Africa because of excessive Government spending. There is no other reason for it. The consumer, the person who earns the money, is being bled by the Government to pay for their excessive spending. There is no other reason for it. Therefore, I say that we all have to agree—hon. members on that side have to agree—that this is an inflationary budget, and I believe it now kisses goodbye for all time the anti-inflation campaign of the hon. the Minister for Economic Affairs. I believe that the two hon. Ministers, who are having a nice chat right now, are going to find that the one has torpedoed the other. Yet, they can still smile at one another. I wonder whether the consumers in South Africa also feel this way.

You are really nothing but an old sourpuss!

The result of all this is that the standard of living of our people in South Africa is dropping. It is going to continue to drop as long as this Government is unable to come to terms with the economic facts that exist in this country. This budget, I believe, is also an admission by the hon. the Minister of Transport that he is incapable of stopping the erosion of our wealth and the fall in our living standards. Surely, this is evident in the hon. the Minister’s own admission, that during the period from June 1974 until December 1976 his own Railway staff had to make a tremendous sacrifice of 18% of their purchasing power. This is because this hon. Minister has been unable to give them the necessary wage increases in order to meet the inflationary trends in South Africa. Here, the hon. the Minister has put up tariffs, and, at the same time, he is asking his Railwaymen to pull in their belts and to suffer the consequences of this type of economic chaos.

One would have thought that with all the reports which the hon. the Minister and others have made during this debate, reports of increases in productivity, reports of savings in labour resulting from the department’s campaign against inflation, the hon. the Minister would at least have been able to give his own staff the increase in salaries which they need to meet this rising cost of living in South Africa today. The fact is that the hon. the Minister simply cannot afford it. I believe that this fact casts doubts on his claims of increased productivity. This, I feel, seems to be borne out by the fact that the hon. the Minister said that in December last year and in January this year he saw the reversal of the upward trend in his staff complement as a result of a reduction during that period of some 4 000 work units. Yet, he also stated that in January this year his staff complement stood at 259 221 men and women. Yet, his very budget is making allowance for 264 400 members, which is 5 200 more than his staff figure for January. Yet, he came to this hon. House to say that he had made this tremendous reduction in staff of 4 000. Meanwhile, he is budgeting for an increase of 5 000 for the coming year. We must, therefore, assume that the number of staff members in the Railways is going to increase. If this is the case, I believe that the hon. the Minister’s claim that there have been staff reductions as a result of improvement in the …

I told you I was still short of certain grades of workers.

The hon. the Minister says he is short of certain grades. I still believe that this reduction he talked about, is not valid, because if one studies the monthly figures of staff employed by the Railways for the period January 1976 to January 1977, one notices that there was a monthly fluctuation of about 1 372 a month, either upwards or downwards. One finds that in August last year the number actually increased by 5 898. Therefore, I wonder whether this is really a permanent saving in the numbers of staff which the hon. the Minister has mentioned to us.

The hon. the Minister says that there still are certain grades in which he is short of workers. However, he actually quoted the change in the staff structure of the Railways during those two months, as being a saving, while I believe that this is just part of the normal fluctuation. Much has been said during the Second Reading and the Committee Stage about the need for staff to be reduced and for dead wood to be cut out. After studying the staff figures and looking at the capital expenditure over recent years, when large amounts of money have been spent on labour-saving devices such as material-handling equipment, on containerization, on the hauling of longer trains and carrying heavier loads, plus all the training that has been going on together, no doubt, with a lot of research into new work techniques, one would imagine that there should be a saving of labour on the Railways. The hon. the Minister mentioned the method by which his productivity index is determined. He said that it was a ratio of the volume of transport to the capacity of the Railways to transport goods or, put another way, it is the ton kilometres of freight plus the passenger kilometres of passenger traffic divided by capital expenditure and labour. I would just like to ask the hon. the Minister whether at some time in the near future he could provide this side of the House with more details as to exactly how this formula works, because I would like to have a closer look at it. I say this because I believe that productivity is an extremely important part of this whole inflation battle that we are fighting and these two items of capital and labour as represented in this budget represent some 68% of the total expenditure to be defrayed from revenue, the remaining 32% being for other items such as fuel, etc. I believe that it is in the area of capital and labour expenditure that the greatest potential for saving lies in this particular budget. It can be said that these two items are the fixed costs of the Railways. Capital expenditure is certainly a fixed cost and labour, with the security which the Railways offer to their labour, is certainly also a fixed cost. However, the question is: Which of these two cost centres will give the best cost/benefit ratio for every rand spent on either investment or labour? I would like to ask the Minister, which of these two cost centres give the best cost/benefit ratio?

I believe that the hon. member for Mooi River earlier in the debate referred to the trend today towards a capital intensive economy; away from a labour intensive economy. This is an important point, because this is one of the major dilemmas which I feel our present highly technical and industrial society now faces. Somehow our society is forced into extremely high cost capital expenditure. We are told that we have to mechanize to save labour, modernize to keep pace with things, and containerize, computerize and systemize. In this modern day and age this is all very necessary, but I often wonder where it really gets us. Is it not a fact that we often end up employing just as much labour as before? I speak from experience in this regard, and despite these modern ideas of computerization and so on, we still end up with just as much labour as before and if not, we find that the labour that we do employ costs us more than it did before, because we now have to employ more highly skilled labour, which is more expensive. This is borne out in some of the heads in the budget. I take, for argument’s sake, the General Manager’s office. I have made a very interesting observation, and the hon. the Minister might give me the reasons for it. You will find that over the last four years the labour complement of the General Manager’s office has actually decreased. In fact, I think that last year it decreased by about 200-odd men. The office has a total of about 2 600 men. Yet the actual salary cost of that department is this year increasing by 37%. Over the last three years it has in fact increased at an average rate of 30%. How did this happen? We are reducing our labour and yet it is costing us far more. To get back to the point, however, there is a great need in these very difficult times for cost benefit studies—and not just as it applies to capital—to be undertaken. I was very pleased to hear in the budget speech of the hon. the Minister that he is looking into this in far greater detail in respect of capital. I also believe that there should be a greater effort in this direction as far as labour is concerned. There must be plenty of potential for further savings. This is the time when everybody, not only the Government, but also the business sector, should have a look at it.

In conclusion I should like to say a few words about the hon. the Minister’s statement that the S.A. Railways must have a higher degree of self-financing. If I heard him correctly—and I believe I did—he said that a desirable figure was 50% of the capital budget. After looking at the budget, I should like to say to him that he has in fact this year come pretty close to that figure and that he has nearly achieved it, but only because he has reduced his budget by R200 million. This coming year he plans to spend R807 million on capital works. If one takes the funds which he will get from the betterment fund and elsewhere, plus depreciation, he has R376 million in hand, which is just R28 million short of his 50% target, which would amount to R404 million. However, the only query I want to raise with him is how hard does he believe he can squeeze the rail user when it comes to his formula of 50%? Had the capital budget not been cut, and had it remained at a figure of R200 million more than the amount to which it has now been reduced, he would have needed an additional R100 million which, plus the shortfall of R28 million to which I referred, would have meant that he would have needed to find another R128 million. The question I want to ask him is how much higher would he have had to raise his tariffs in order to have obtained this additional R128 million of capital expenditure from revenue. I believe that the hon. the Minister—this is my own view—must at this time take a conservative approach to this particular type of financing. The South African economy has to be turned around from its present depressed state. The private sector has to be revitalized and this requires an injection of investment capital. Right now people are either too afraid to invest if they have liquid assets, or, if they are able to obtain capital, they feel that the high interest rate which they have to pay, would make it an uneconomic operation. I therefore believe that this whole matter of investment must be treated as a very delicate issue, because I believe that a high degree of balance is required in the capital expenditure of the public sector, to the extent that it does not operate in a detrimental way towards the private sector. I therefore believe that the hon. the Minister must be flexible in determining the percentage of self-financing in capital expenditure.

Finally, I still believe that the imbalance of the Railway capital budget—relative to the economy over the past two years—has contributed to the derailment of the South African economy and has cast it into these depths of recession in which we presently find ourselves. I am not just referring to this budget, but also to all those budgets controlled by the Government and the State corporations. I believe—as I said in the Second Reading—that this reduction of R200 million is going to help the situation. I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will be more careful in future as far as this high capital expenditure is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I have now listened to the hon. member and during the past week we have listened to speeches on the Budget but I still feel, in all honesty and sincerity, that facts that are not difficult to furnish, should be furnished correctly by hon. members. The hon. member has already mentioned a few times that the Railways makes a profit of two cents on the transport of petrol. The hon. member forgets completely about the commas. For example, what has the Railways to do with an increase that concerns Sasol? I think we should confine ourselves to the important aspects. We should also stay as close as possible to the truth. The hon. member says that some of his voters out there are fighting for their lives. Is that correct?

† Did the hon. member say that these people were fighting for their lives? Why did he say that? I am talking about the two people to whom the hon. member referred in his speech. A man who signs surety has nothing to do with the Railways. Has it got anything to do with the Budget at all?

It means that you are secure in South Africa today.

Any man who signs surety and who signs his own hand away, cannot plead innocence in this House. I think the hon. member, as his representative, should talk to him about it quietly. It is a wrong thing to do and I want to refer the hon. member to the Bible, where it says “not even for your brother”.

*One should never sign for anyone, then one will keep out of trouble. What have the problems of the man who stood surety to do with the Railways? I think that in today’s economic situation, everyone has difficulty administering his own affairs properly without standing surety. However, as regards a business concern, it is not so easy. We must stick to the facts, however. The hon. member alleges that as a result of the increased railway rates, consumer goods on the consumer’s table are undergoing price increases in various ways. Surely this is not true either?

Something else I have against the hon. member’s approach, is the fact that he says, “Look, I am saying it costs more to take lettuce from a farm in Natal to the airport than it costs to fly it from the airport in Durban to London”.

†Then he claims that the Minister should go and find out what the cost is of transporting the lettuce from the farm to the airport as well as the cost from Durban to London.

Why does the hon. member not do his own homework? Is the hon. member not prepared to tackle his job in the House? If the hon. member wants to make suggestions and if he wants to define the cost of articles, he should make sure what it is, and not merely place the responsibility in the hands of the hon. the Minister. The Minister is overworked.

The lettuce farmer was sitting in the gallery.

Well, in this House we are not interested in lettuce farmers or whether they are sitting in the House. We have to stay with the facts.

Do you deny the facts?

Honestly, look at this young man! [Interjections.] Hon. members must please not waste my time. I shall answer them when we talk about butter and cheese, but not now.

*Mr. Speaker, 29,9% of everything conveyed by the Railways leaves the country and comprises export goods. How could this possibly increase the prices of the goods on the consumer’s table? 30% of everything conveyed by the Railways, is export goods. The hon. member says we must be fair, but does he know under what conditions the railway officials work? And then the hon. member does not even show gratitude in this respect. After all, the hon. member knows the economic situation the country is in. A certain English writer, Hazlitt—I like the English now and again because in my opinion, they have had some of the best writers of great truths. Hazlitt said that there were two types of economists. He put it very briefly, viz. that there are bad ones and good ones. He alleged that a bad economist saw only the immediate and that he never weighed the long term and the short term against each other. Moreover, the bad economist only makes provision for the group to which he belongs and forgets about the group as a whole. I therefore ask the House: Who are the bad economists and who are the good economists? Hon. members would do well to reread the speeches of the hon. members for Tygervallei, Vanderbijlpark, Parow and Bethlehem. These people spent time preparing their speeches and really went into the matter. I tried to make the point yesterday evening but perhaps the hon. member did not understand it then, and I therefore hope he will understand it now. If hon. members were to read the speeches, they would see—I am talking about labour now—that 42% of the Railways’ expenditure is on labour and I think this is a record that will remain unsurpassed. Hon. members must remember that we have experienced an upswing in the economy but that we are now experiencing a downward swing. If we look at these things, we can only take cognizance, with thanks and appreciation, of what the Railways has done in recent times.

I want the hon. member to remember, however, that an increase of only 0,2% and not 2%, was experienced. I want him to rectify this, otherwise next year he will work with a figure of 2% for all the litres of petrol and then he will end up with a completely incorrect sum. I do not want the hon. member to make two mistakes in one year.

Yesterday, the hon. member for Durban Point carried on here like the whistle of an electric train.

No, I like the hooter of a diesel train.

More or less half diesel, half electric. The hon. member really attacked us and I cannot imagine how he could ask that a new container system should be handled with the old plant that the hauliers of Durban use. The fact remains, however, that it is old plant and that it is plant to which the hauliers are going to attach a certain value and then the Railways will have to take it over at that value. If the Railways does not take it over, it will be a poor business manoeuvre. If the Railways does take it over, however—and it will be a flop if it does in fact take it over because then it will not be looking at the long term—it will also be hauled over the coals because in that case it will have bought other people’s old plant without paying any attention to the taxpayers’ hard-earned money. How can they ask anything of the kind? They are also asking when the trailers were delivered. I cannot imagine the Railways not making provision for obtaining these machines and trailers in good time. There is no need for him to go back a year or two. The hon. member can look up the questions and answers in Hansard and then he will see that it was late in 1976, namely in October 1976 and November 1976. January 1977 is also mentioned. Why does the hon. member make this sort of attack and why does he give the public such a wrong picture? The hon. member made a good speech on capital intensiveness and he has a good point there, but he is not completely correct. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to go into this today. It is a good point, however, and we can definitely discuss it further. These are things one has to consider and I therefore agree that the hon. member gave thorough consideration to this matter and that one could possibly give further consideration to it. I think we must be fair however when we make statements across the floor of the House because the South African outside needs security today and he has to feel that all of us in this House have one purpose, namely to inspire confidence in South Africa’s transport system amongst all her people.

Let us take a look at what the Railways has done in recent times. The hon. member for Maitland—he is always a sound thinker—has posed various questions throughout this debate and the questions had to do with the socio-economic services rendered by the Railways. This is an important matter. In the debate, reference was made repeatedly to the necessity for the Railways’ rate structure to move closer to a cost basis and for the Railways to be relieved of the financial burden of rendering socio-economic services. The Minister of Transport stated the matter very clearly last year. If the hon. member pleases, he can read it in Hansard, 1976, columns 2385 to 2386. I think all the members who served on the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours and who are speaking in the Railway debate would benefit by looking at it once again.

In the case of the socio-economic services rendered by the Railways at uneconomic rates, it is obvious that it neither is nor can be the function of the Railways to bear a financial burden in respect of these services. If the Railways does in fact bear such a burden, it means that the burden of these socio-economic services rests on only one sector of the population, i.e. on the shoulders of the railway user. If there is a necessity for the socio-economic services, these must be sponsored by all taxpayers. A further consequence of the Railways carrying this burden, is that certain services will probably be rendered under the erroneous impression that they are justified for socio-economic reasons, whereas this may not be the case at all. A further aspect is that the loss the Railways suffers on certain of these services, entails serious financial problems for the Railways. A striking example of this is the Railways’ passenger service. The estimated loss on passenger services during 1975-’76 was R209 million.

Other members have already quoted this but I think we ought to take another look at it. The surplus from the pipelines was R83 million and that from harbours, R57 million; i.e. R140 million altogether. Consequently, these two services did not provide an adequate surplus wherewith to carry the loss incurred on passenger services. Losses on passenger services must therefore be carried in part by goods. High-rated traffic, profitable traffic, has therefore not only to carry the low-rated traffic, but the passenger traffic as well. Since the economy is moving at a low level today and since the Railways also has to contend with competition, the ability of the high-rated traffic to carry this burden, is limited. In order to keep the Railways’ finances sound, therefore, it is essential that ways be found by mediums of which the financial burden of these socio-economic services may be carried by the State Revenue Account. It is obvious that this cannot be done under present conditions. The Driessen report already makes provision for partial compensation for suburban passenger losses. It will also be possible to establish the machinery for main line journeys. It is important, however, to note that losses per se are not equivalent to a burden of socioeconomic services. As has been stated, certain services that are not at all justified socio-economically, are provided at a loss. In order to hasten the process of transferring the financial burden from the Railways to the central Government, it would be as well if the Railways were to identify which unprofitable passenger services were not in fact socioeconomically justifiable, withdraw those train services and apply to the central Government for compensation for the other services. The fact is that we continue to discuss socioeconomic services year after year but the necessary steps are never taken. The matter has to be investigated further and rectified. We must be told whether there are other reasons why the central Government cannot be approached and if so, what those reasons are. Then we should at least know.

Before we forget, I think it is important that we should thank the Railway staff for what they have done in recent times. Allow me to assure the hon. the Minister that I am not asking for extra money to be voted. I want to ask that the people of Langlaagte North and Crosby, as well as others who are living in rented houses today, be permitted to buy those houses. I know there are problems involved in this. I have been told that if the inhabitants move out, a worker who needs that house has to move into it but in my opinion, that is no reply in the case of a man who leaves the service and who has to go and buy another house after living in one for 22 years. The hon. the Minister has already discussed this many times and I should like to thank him for all the letters he has sent as well, but I still think that that man is entitled to his little house.

There is another matter I want to raise. I want to thank the General Manager personally for what he did in Soweto during the riots. During the riots, the General Manager and other Railway staff flew over the various railway lines in a helicopter to check whether the lines were open. In addition, they went to stations in which staff were working in buildings that the rioters had damaged by stone-throwing. The Railway police stood shoulder to shoulder with the police. Together with the General Manager, the chief officials of the Railway police and others placed their lives in danger by visiting stations in Soweto. They succeeded in transporting 200 000 people to the city and back every day. This is something we should be really grateful for. I do not think we really appreciate the value of that action in those difficult times.

Hon. members know what conditions were like there but many railway staff, often alone, worked on the railway lines there. The non-White staff of the Railways acted in a public-spirited way. This sort of action throughout the department can only be attributed to leadership from above. There was not a single case in which any railway official refused to work under those conditions. It is for that reason that I want to express my thanks from this House to everyone of those people for being at their posts and for keeping South Africa’s economy going. It was seen to that trouble-makers did not keep people away from their work. Hon. members must remember that there were many days when the Putco buses did not run at all. The trains ran, however. They were on time every morning and brought the people back again in the evening. One can only say thank you for this.

This emergency is now something of the past, but I think the general public should realize how the Railway staff acted. Then there is the position in Mozambique which people probably do not want to talk about much; however, Railway staff are doing the necessary work in that regard without receiving extra compensation for it. They work anywhere and no complaints are received from these people. I think we ought to be very grateful for this.

Before I forget, the hon. member made mention of the increase in rates for the agricultural sector. We know this is a bit of a problem. We know that at the moment, it is essential for us to do things in South Africa that we did not do two, three or four years ago. It is world conditions that have changed. For example, if we think of the shortage of capital at the moment, this is not something to be found only in our country. I could prove this to hon. members. I think I still have reports on it that prove that Americans such as Jeffreys and others, predicted as early as 1975 that America would have a deficit of millions of dollars and that it would not find it easy to provide for even its own capital requirements. Predictions were also made about Europe. We must remember that in Europe, the borders of countries are no further than 400 miles apart. If they experience a shortage of capital in their countries, they prefer to support each other and lend each other capital in order to stimulate their own economies in this way and provide work for their own people. There is no reason why we should refer to capital shortages as if they only occurred in the Railways or only in South Africa. There is no such thing. The fact is, however, that there is a world-wide shortage of capital. Consequently, we have to try and finance from our own funds. If a farmer wants to transport his livestock by way of the road transport service, no one will tell him he has to transport it by rail. He may use the road transport service without a permit if he is transporting livestock. But I say that all the farmers are going to come back to the Railways. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with almost a sense of wonderment to the pearls of wisdom that came from the lips of that hon. member for Langlaagte. Perhaps he fulfils a certain role in this House, and that, perhaps, is the role of court jester. I listened to him last night, and, quite frankly, I found his speech to be almost incoherent. I listened very carefully, but I found it very difficult to understand what he was saying.

Do not blame me for your low IQ.

One makes excuses for last night, because the hon. member’s speeches on occasions like that tend to be a little more stimulated than stimulating. But the incoherence which followed on today … I say I listened in wonderment—because it amazes me that that hon. member should have the opportunity to speak as a financial spokesman, among others, for the members who sit in the benches opposite. He is obviously one of the financial geniuses on the other side, and if this is so, one can only shudder to think what this country is coming to with a Government like that. I did not know what he was talking about half the time and, frankly, I am not even sure that he knew what he was talking about half the time. Certainly, he is humorous, because he makes jokes, but he is usually laughing so much at his own jokes that we on this side of the House are deprived of the benefit of listening to them. However, there was one thing on which I did find myself in agreement with him, namely that the Railways Administration should be congratulated on the way in which it kept the Soweto line open during the disturbances. I think they did a very fine job indeed, and I am glad that there was at least one part of his speech—and that was one of the few parts that I could understand—with which I was able to agree.

During the Committee Stage the hon. the Minister, because of the fact that I asked questions, found that my “standpoint was unsavoury”. It was because I was dissatisfied with the quality of the answers I was getting to my questions. I am just going to go back to the answer the hon. the Minister gave to the Second Reading speech, when he commented on my warnings of possible discontent among Black commuters faced with the 15% increase in the fares they have to pay to get to their places of work.

The hon. the Minister—and I find this highly unsavoury—said to me that this was just a bit of wishful thinking on my part. I strongly resent that, Mr. Speaker. I find that sort of remark totally distasteful and I am very surprised that the hon. the Minister should say that sort of thing when he knows that there is no substance to it. [Interjections.] It is my duty to warn this House and that hon. Minister if I find something wrong in the way they are doing things. We have warned hon. Ministers before. We have on one occasion issued warnings to an hon. Deputy Minister, and the result was the unrest we had in Soweto. That was because our warnings were totally disregarded. [Interjections.] However, we will continue to issue warnings when we believe that they are justified. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister does not like this question of questions at Committee Stage. With respect, Mr. Speaker, what is a Committee Stage for? The hon. the Minister has his whole department there to back him. All he has to say if he does not have the answer ready, is that he will have to give me an answer some time in the future, instead of just saying to me: “Oh, you ask too many questions.” There were many things for which I wanted answers. I sincerely wanted answers. [Interjections.] However, I found very little given me by way of answers.

Returning to the budget itself, one can only stress at this Third Reading stage of the debate, how serious the effect of this budget is as far as the country and the economy of the country are concerned. There is no doubt—and here I am reiterating what I said during Second Reading—that the cost of living will rise and that living standards will go down. Specifically as far as the poorer members of the community are concerned, the extra fares that they have to pay are getting to the stage where they become a burden these people just cannot bear.

Who are they?

I said the disadvantaged people of the community; the poorer people of the community.

Yes, but who are they?

Many of them are Black and many of them are White. Many of them are probably voters in the constituency of the hon. member for Mossel Bay. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I venture to suggest that the voters of Mossel Bay who travel by train are not going to be so keen to vote for that hon. member in future. [Interjections.] We talked a little bit during this debate—some of us sensibly, others not so sensibly—about the questions of the Railways having to carry socio-economic burdens as part of their function. Well, it has been my contention over the years—the few years that I have been in this House—that it is not the function of the Railways to do this. Money should be obtained from the Central Rates Fund. I believe that if this was done, we would be getting our priorities a little more in line. I believe that when hidden subsidies are being given by the Railways it frequently happens that things are subsidized when they should not be subsidized and when the available money should in fact be used in more sensible directions. We have criticism that the Railways have missed their priorities. The hon. leader of my party, during his speech at Committee Stage last night, talked about the question of Mitchell’s Plain. We know that this is not getting off the ground. The hon. the Minister said in his reply that this is something he would like to do. He did say that he was going to reply to this more fully during Third Reading. I am looking forward to that. The squatter problem in the Cape Province is one of the most serious problems which South Africa has to face. The building of homes on Mitchell’s Plain is a possible solution, or part-solution, to the problem. We believe that the building of this railway should be one of the top priorities on our list. When one talks about an amount of R5 million or R6 million when it comes to the improvement of the lines to Langa and out to Mitchell’s Plain, we believe that our priorities are not totally correct, specifically when it is seen in terms of the total value of our Railway budget.

When one looks at the budget and listens to the virtual eulogy that has come from the members on the other side of the House, one wonders what is really going on. However, one must appreciate that the other side of the House is going into the “pre-election cycle” and is now getting rid of all the bad news: The additional taxes, higher tariffs—all the unpleasant things of life—in the hope that by the time the election comes round in about 18 months or two years’ time, the economic position would have got better and that the people would have got used to the unpleasantries put before them in a budget of this sort. These unpleasantries are handed out at this stage of the pre-election cycle so that, by the time the election comes round, the Government can perhaps give wage increases to its employees in the hope to bribe them to the extent of voting for the Government. [Interjections.] Of course, in this instance the Government is running a very serious risk, because so serious are the economic difficulties that we are facing at the moment that they are running a very serious risk of not moving into the good times at all. We are hearing the bad news now, and so bad is it that it is going to be very difficult for the South African economy to show within a short while any signs of resurgence at all. During this Third Reading debate we heard a member from the benches on my right talking about the inhibiting effect this budget has had on economic recovery. This is certainly so. It is having an inhibiting effect and it is going to put back economic recovery.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he is trying to imply that the Railwayman is susceptible to bribery and that the Government will therefore try to bribe him with an increase in salary?

The hon. member knows that I am suggesting nothing of the sort. He knows perfectly well that during the Second Reading debate I suggested that railway workers deserve an increase right now.

You said “bribe”.

I said that that was the hope of the hon. members on the opposite side, i.e. that if they produce the raise at the right time, the people will feel grateful and vote for them. However, let me add for the benefit of the hon. member that one cannot fool all of the people all the time. People will find them out and are not going to fall for the same trick again. Mr. Speaker, through you I am saying to that hon. member that people cannot be deluded and bribed like that. I am spelling out the warning to them that what they are doing is very dangerous for their position, because the bad news is so bad that I do not think there will be time to recover.

Order! The hon. member’s statement is giving me some difficulty. He is suggesting that certain hon. members are prepared to bribe voters. If that is correct, the hon. member must withdraw it.

On a point of clarification, Sir, nothing is further from my mind than to suggest that. [Interjections.] I am sure hon. members on the other side of the House will never take any such steps at all.

Order! The hon. member used the word “bribe”. It was not clear, but from his explanation now it is clear to me that he was in actual fact saying that the hon. members on the other side are prepared to bribe voters.

Mr. Speaker, if you feel that I have implied that, I withdraw the word “bribe”.

I think I should perhaps come back to the whole question of lack of planning and co-ordination between the various departments of the Government. I raised the question of abattoirs and the mistake—evidently in general Cabinet policy because this hon. Minister disclaimed responsibility for it—of building centralized abattoirs instead of local abattoirs. This means that we are saddled with the recurring problem of having to transport large numbers of livestock. Here I want to express a word of appreciation towards the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet, who made what I regard a very sensible speech indeed, a speech that certainly has been to the benefit of the farmers. The hon. member said it was too late to change our policy in this regard. I hope that he is not right. After listening to the budget, one can certainly say that the Government can no longer be said to be the friend of the farmer. The increased cost to the farmer, as a result of the tariff increases, is going to be phenomenal. In particular the stock farmers in some of the outlying areas are going to be in an impossible situation. Many will have to change their mode of farming, because it will no longer be economical to sell their meat at the present floor prices while costs are escalating at such a tremendous rate.

Finally, I want to say a few words about interest rates and loans. I raised this whole question during the Second Reading. We in these benches fear that the Railways have been saddling themselves with too many short-term high-interest loans. We know that loan capital is indeed difficult to obtain. In a moment I shall go into the reasons for that. We should like an assurance from the hon. the Minister that the Railways is not overburdening itself with too large loans at too high interest rates, because the day of reckoning has to come and we have to pay those loans back. We believe that one of the difficulties the Railways have run into during this period, is that they have to pay too high an interest and that they have to repay too many loans over a short term.

Capital is short and very hard to come by. This is an international problem. We must be under no delusion, however. Capital is available, provided the risk is right. The fact of the matter is that South Africa is becoming a bad risk because of the policies of the Government.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of his irresponsible speech the hon. member for Orange Grove made what is definitely a most irresponsible and unpatriotic statement when he said: “South Africa is a bad capital risk.” The hon. member began his speech by saying that the hon. member for Langlaagte was incoherent. The word he used was “incoherent”. His speech, however, was a web of incoherent ideas which had no logical connection whatsoever with one another. That, however, is not my strongest objection to the speech of the hon. member for Orange Grove. I take the strongest exception to the sarcastic tone he adopted, thereby definitely lowering the level of this debate. The hon. member referred to the hon. member for Langlaagte and spoke very sarcastically of his “pearls of wisdom” and “financial genius”. [Interjections.] If the hon. member would only have the courtesy to listen to me, I would not have to accuse him of discourtesy in addition to sarcasm! He did not damage the hon. member for Langlaagte’s reputation; he damaged his own standing by revealing himself as an irate individual with a heart filled with rancour.

In the few minutes at my disposal I should like to speak about the approximately 104 000 Blacks, 18 000 Coloureds and nearly 1 600 Indians working on the Railways. I want to associate myself, in general, with the eulogy to the staff, the work they do in these difficult times and their high productivity— figures were quoted by several speakers. Higher productivity is the way to greater prosperity. In addition we also want to express our thanks to the staff of the Railways for their understanding in the present difficult economic conditions, for the self-control they have displayed, for their generosity and for their patriotism in not insisting upon higher wages at the moment. This is probably the first time since the Government came into power that salary increases have not kept pace with the increase in the cost of living. Our people, however, have displayed an understanding of the situation and have not insisted on higher salaries, in spite of the fact that their standard of living has undoubtedly decreased in recent times. Railway officials know that in better times the Government has given them increases considerably in excess of the increases in the cost of living. In the past pleas were made by the Opposition to the effect that the Railways should introduce a system of indexing in terms of which salary increases could keep pace with the increases in the cost of living, but fortunately the Government has never responded to that request because the Railway officials would get the short end of the stick. I can quote figures to indicate that, except for the past two years, salary increases have always been considerably higher than the increase in the cost of living.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti then came to light with some astounding logic when he referred to staff matters and said the expenditure was too high. The hon. member said the “over-spending of this Government” is one of the chief reasons for our economic problems. Secondly, the hon. member advocated higher salaries for railway officials. Thirdly, to completely confound his logic, the hon. member said: “In the field of labour, there is the greatest potential for saving.” The hon. member wants us to increase salaries, but at the same time we must cut down on labour. Fortunately railway officials will not allow themselves to be misled by that kind of logic. Those are pious statements with which the hon. member will not gain a single vote.

I want to come back to the 104 000 Black workers, the 18 000 Coloured workers and the 1 600 Indian workers of the Railways. In particular I want to refer to the 104 000 Bantu workers employed by the Railways. There are two things of a general nature I should like to know in connection with the 104 000 Bantu workers because those are particulars I could not find in the staff appendices. One can quite understand that all the details cannot be contained in those appendices. However, I should like to know what the ethnic ties of those 104 000 people are. I think we must gradually move away from the idea of simply using the collective concept “Bantu” or, even worse, the amorphous, negative concept “non-White”. I think the time has come for us to refer more specifically to the ethnic context of the people and not speak of Bantu. I think we should more specifically speak of Zulu and Xhosa. We would also do well to distinguish between the Xhosa of the Transkei and the Xhosa of the Ciskei and speak of Tswana, Venda and others. I trust that in future statistics we shall also have those various figures.

I have another even more important question in relation to the 104 000 Bantu. Once again I have to use the collective concept, but I wish someone would think up another concept because I understand that the Bantu themselves do not like the word. I want to know how many of those people live and work in the homelands. Secondly I should like to know how many of the 104 000 Bantu live in the homelands but work in White areas on a daily commuter basis. Thirdly I should like to know how many of them are migratory labourers. The ideal strategy for homeland development—with the employment pattern of Bantu, we must take that into account—is firstly to have a maximum number of Black people living and working in the homelands. Where that is not possible, the second alternative must be to have them living in the homelands on a family basis and working in the White area on a daily commuter basis. Where that is not possible either, as a last alternative we should make use of the migratory labour of people who are single.

I should like to say a few words about each of these three alternatives. Firstly I want to speak about the need to have the maximum number of Bantu living and working in the homelands. I know, however, that it is not possible for the Railways to arrange its activities in such a way as to accommodate the homeland Bantu in their own homelands. The Railways is a locality-bound industry. The Railways’ activities must centre around areas where the greatest economic activity is taking place. However, as far as we are concerned there is a shift taking place in our economic activities—and I do not even want to say that it is a gradual shift because it is actually a rapid shift—from the metropolitan areas to the decentralized areas. We in South Africa have succeeded in doing what the rest of the world could not succeed in doing because nowhere else in the world is the gap between the Western world and the Third World as narrow as it is here in South Africa. There has been a disproportionate and very much quicker increase in the standard of living of our Black people in the homelands in comparison with that of the Whites in the White areas. This greater increase in the homelands must be reflected in the greater volume of goods and passenger traffic in the homelands. As far as goods are concerned, extensive mining development is being experienced in the primary sector, and there will be even greater mining development in the years to come, thanks to the tremendous mineral potential of the homelands. Agriculture is gradually moving away from that of a subsistence economy to that of a market economy, and all these developments are going to make greater demands on transport. In the secondary sector there has been extensive industrial development in the homelands, and this will also make demands on transport. As far as the transport of passengers is concerned, apart from the passenger traffic within the homelands, there are approximately ½ million Black people who live in the homelands and work in the White area on a day-to-day commuter basis. Probably the major percentage of them make use of buses, but an increasing number are making use of trains. This will mean that in future more and more Blacks will be employed in the homelands where they can live and work. Not only will more Blacks be employed there; their tasks may also be upgraded so that they can hold more senior management posts in the homelands. When we get the relevant statistics in the future, I believe that the number of Black people employed by the Railways in the homelands will be seen to be a barometer of the success of our policy, because our policy is only going to succeed if there is economic development in the homelands and if we succeed in making the homelands continually more economically viable. This will be reflected in the number of Black people employed by the Railways in the homelands.

I should also like to speak about the second category, i.e. the Bantu living in the homelands but working in the White area. I said a moment ago that commuter traffic between the homelands and the White area is still on the increase. The fact is that our greatest economic activity takes place within striking distance of the homelands. I therefore think it will also be possible for the Railways to have the major portion of its Black labour force living in the homelands and working in the White area on a commuter basis. Throughout Natal there is virtually no need for the Black people employed by the Railways to live in the White areas, except perhaps in the case of a few key staff members. It is therefore a pity that we still have those compounds all around the Durban harbour while KwaMashu and Umlazi are situated a half hour’s travelling time from the harbour. This applies equally to Pretoria and the whole Northern Transvaal. I think virtually every Black man in Pretoria and in the Northern Transvaal can live in his homeland and work on a daily commuter basis in the White area. The Witwatersrand, parts of the Orange Free State, the Western Transvaal and the Eastern Transvaal are, however, less favourably situated. In those areas we shall chiefly be dependent upon migratory labour. East London, however, is within striking distance of the homeland and there Black people can also work on a commuter basis. In the Western and Southern Cape Coloured labour has preference and this area is consequently dependent upon Coloured labour.

In conclusion I want to discuss the question of migratory labour. I think it is theoretically possible, in the service of the Railways, to restrict migratory labour to the Witwatersrand, the Western and Eastern Transvaal and parts of the Free State. The best way to combat migratory labour is to concentrate economic activity in areas where the labour is to be found. I am not advocating that uneconomic activities should be shifted, merely for the sake of labour, to the homelands or the border areas. However, a short while ago we heard from the Minister that a tarpaulin factory has been shifted to East London where it can be near the Ciskei. I do not know to what extent the tarpaulin factory is a labour-intensive industry and dependent on Black labour, but if that is the case, it is very well situated there.

As far as employment is concerned, a very disorderly state of affairs has developed in our country over the years. It is the fault of, and a legacy from, the private sector because of the situation that developed in the private sector. In the previous century we did not use our Zulus to work on the sugar plantations; we imported Indians and Chinese to work on the gold mines. As economic development took place on the Witwatersrand, the Bantu of all the ethnic groups, from every comer of our country, were enticed to go to Soweto.

In conclusion I want to ask the hon. the Minister to what extent he is adopting a labour zoning policy, if not officially at least in practice. By asking whether the Railways is adopting a “labour zoning” policy, I am asking whether it draws its labour from the nearest homelands. In practice this means that the Black labour on the Witwatersrand would chiefly be homogenous Tswana labour, since the Tswana homeland is the nearest homeland. This would mean that in Natal he would chiefly have to make use of Zulu and Indian workers in addition to the Whites. Unfortunately, however, there are also people of other population groups working in Natal. East London would be dependent upon Xhosa and the Western Cape chiefly on the Coloureds.

In the report of the General Manager I noticed some alarming statistics in addendum No. 18, the figures of the Coloureds and Bantu employed at harbours. I hope my interpretation of these figures is incorrect. Although it is not stated where they work, I see that the number of Coloureds working at the harbours decreased by 200 between 1975 and 1976. On the other hand, the number of Bantu increased by 400. I hope I am wrong in my interpretation that those 200 Coloureds were replaced by Bantu, and that here in the Western Cape! That is perhaps an unfair conclusion to draw, but probably the hon. the Minister could give us more detailed information. I know, however, that there are Bantu labourers at the harbour in Cape Town, and I find this regrettable because we have always regarded this area as a preferential area for Coloureds.

Mr. Speaker, there is the great danger that our population groups in South Africa will become so intermixed that our people will eventually not know who they are or where they come from. I therefore believe that the Railways can also make a large contribution towards not only making the Bantu in their employ homeland-conscious, but also towards ensuring that they are, as far as possible, concentrated in homogeneous groups at various concentration points, and the Railways can also make provision for their cultural needs. I think the Railways is setting an example to the private sector. With its pattern of employment, our Government sector is setting an example.

If, with this small contribution, I have been able to inspire the Railwaymen to greater zeal and greater conscientiousness in this sphere, I shall have been richly rewarded.

Mr. Speaker, after the “left-handed free commercial” I obtained from my friend, the hon. member for Langlaagte, it is with trepidation that I take part in this debate. What is interesting, however, is that the hon. member for Orange Grove immediately believed the “free commercial”. He was immediately so jealously angry at my friend on the other side that he attacked him with a crassness which I have not heard in the House for a long time.

This evening someone said to me that with friends like the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Minister of Transport, the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs does not need any enemies. I want to say, however, that I believe that the hon. the Minister of Transport is, more than most, aware of the economic situation in which South Africa finds itself. I therefore do not believe that the hon. the Minister, if he could possibly have helped it, would have placed the extra burden of R344 million on South Africa by way of increased rates. The immediate question, of course, is that if the hon. gentleman did not wish to do it, what other avenues there were open to him. I made a few suggestions, and I immediately want to say that the suggestions I made were nothing more than proposals that could possibly put the matter right in the long run. As far as the present is concerned, I did not discuss the additional R344 million that would have to be taken from the pockets of the consumers. I immediately want to add, however, that I do believe there are methods the hon. the Minister can employ to put the matter right. I want to express my regret at the fact that the hon. the Minister glossed over the situation so glibly. He did spot the various points, it is true. The second argument which he rightly said was in dispute is, on the one hand, the difficulty of reducing depreciation and, on the other hand, not bolstering the Sinking Fund with R52 million.

I do not think the hon. the Minister made out a good case. If one looks at the true position of depreciation, it is clear that in the past we have let our depreciation increase at an average rate of 8% to 10% per year. In the present extremely difficult circumstances, the hon. the Minister has increased the previous year’s depreciation of R167 million to R265 million this year. This is not an increase of 10% or 15% but, according to my calculations, an increase of no less than 63%. In the light of the present economic situation I honestly believe that the hon. the Minister should have been satisfied with the normal depreciation rate of, let us say, 10%. If he could have maintained that rate, he would easily have been able to save at least R80 million in this respect. That is the first point.

Secondly, in these extremely difficult conditions, the likes of which we have not seen in all the years of debating here, he saw his way clear, this year of all years, to take from revenue the amount of R17 million, which was taken from the Renewals Fund as far back as 1972-’73, a matter we have frequently argued about, and place it back in the Renewals Fund. The hon. gentleman has really not given us sufficient grounds for having had to do this.

But you asked for it.

Of course I asked for it, but he, of all people, should have been able to look ahead and realize that he should not do it this year. Why did the hon. gentleman not do it in 1974 or in 1975? Now, in 1977-’78, when we are really and truly in the gutter, he comes along and says: “I am now going to keep my promise.” In my humble opinion that is really not a good decision.

In respect of the Sinking Fund he requests an amount of R52 million, an amount we did not have any knowledge of either. Let me immediately say that from the point of view of principle I am the first to support the self-financing of the Railways, but why must we specifically begin doing so this year, knowing that we could possibly have reduced the rate increases by R52 million, R17 million and R80 million respectively? Indeed, we could have decreased the total by at least R140 million. That is a lot of money.

Now the hon. the Minister comes along and tells us that beautiful little story of the house that leaks when it rains, adding that the next day would bring sunshine. The question that came to mind was whether the Minister is not perhaps sitting in that house. Even if I am the man consulting the Minister, I truly believe, if I am judging South Africa correctly, that the sun will shine again. I therefore want to tell the hon. the Minister: “Man, do not get onto the roof now and allow yourself to get drenched by the rain. Open your umbrella; the sun will shine again and then South Africa will be able to afford these measures.” Perhaps the hon. gentleman wants to adopt too easy a course.

There is another interesting matter I want to raise. I hope the hon. the Minister will put us right in that connection. I ask myself to what extent the South African Constitution actually regards the Railways as a self-financing organization. When I read the Constitution, particularly section 103, it appears to me that that was never envisaged in the Constitution. I should like the hon. gentleman to give his attention to that matter. Perhaps he could satisfy us in that connection.

When it comes to the question of self-financing, just look at the money we have! The pipeline showed a profit of R96 million. That is money that could be employed in promoting self-financing. The harbours showed a profit or a surplus—call it what you will—of R57 million. Those are sources of self-financing. If we want to do that—I truly hope that day will come—the Railways, as an organization, must become self-supporting. Unless it does, I foresee the day when we shall simply no longer be able to pay for this extremely important means of transport in South Africa. We cannot go on like this. In that connection the hon. member for Langlaagte is correct. As far as that is concerned, the hon. the Minister did not give me a very satisfactory answer. It is no use coming to the House and complaining that the Railways must do certain work for the State. I feel that the cost of that work, which must be done, must be quantified. An amount must be stated in that connection so that South Africa and the House will know what the Railways is doing for the State. Then we shall decide where that money must come from. The Railways can certainly not continue furnishing socio-economic services at uneconomic rates and still believe it can finance itself. I think the time will come when the Railways will have to shake itself free of this situation and resort to self-financing, slowly but surely breaking away from the tremendous burden of interest it is at present saddled with.

In the last few minutes at my disposal— happily I am the last speaker—I should like to say a few words about the staff. I want to tell my friend, the hon. member for Uitenhage, who is not here at present, that if he wants to he can willingly go on making propaganda out of my view of the staff matters of the Railways. It is not necessary for me to repeat what I have already said here about the respect I have for the Management of the Railways. I also believe that the overall majority of Railway officials are outstanding people. However, with a staff complement of 250 000—the Railways is a powerful employer—no one can tell me that there is not some dead wood amongst them. Particularly in the present circumstances, the Railways has all the more reason to see itself as a business organization in which there is no room for sentiment. It must furnish South Africa with a service and endeavour to draw the best possible people into its service. If a person works for the Railways, he must be honoured to be able to say: “I not only work for the biggest employer in South Africa, I also work for the South African Railways. I am honoured to furnish a service in this respect.” When that moment comes, we will get the best possible service from the 250 000 officials working in that organization.

Mr. Speaker, we have now come to the end of the Third Reading debate of this Bill and, as far as the House of Assembly is concerned, the Railways virtually has the green light to tackle the new financial year on 1 April with the approval of the amounts for which provision has been made in the White Book and the Brown Book. Since we have heard many good things about the S.A. Railways in the discussions, I hope with all my heart that the money voted here will be used to the best advantage of South Africa and its people and that when we come together again in a year’s time there will again be praise for what the Railways has done with the money voted by the House.

Let me begin by again referring to the hon. member for Orange Grove. He objected to my saying that he asked too many questions. I have no objection; he has every right to ask questions. However, I think one should also be a little practical and remember that there are many members in the House who will all want to use their 10 minutes in the Committee Stage to put questions. It is naturally difficult to reply to all the questions. That is all I said about the hon. member, but if he takes exception and wants to go on with that procedure, he has every right to do so. However, I do not think he must expect me to answer all his little questions in detail and, if I omit one or two, make the kind of snide remarks he did make this afternoon. If he does that, he must expect me to react as I did. The hon. member put a question to me only a moment or so ago. He fears that the Railways will sit with a whole heap of short-term loans carrying high interest rates. I do not think it is the custom, nor do I think it is right, to go into detail about loans. Neither do I think it is right to give particulars about the bodies from which the loans are obtained and the interest rates and the terms of such loans. I do not think it is in the interests of South Africa to do so; it is also possible that some embarrassment may be caused in that connection. I therefore want to answer that question of his by saying that the average interest rate paid on all overseas loans is much lower than the prevailing interest rates here in South Africa. That ought to satisfy the hon. member to a certain extent.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti raised several matters which I shall probably be able to answer in greater detail tomorrow. He referred, in particular, to the number of workers and said that notwithstanding the fact that I had said, in my Second Reading speech, that over a two months’ period we had reduced the number of employees by about 4 000, provision is made in the White Book for 264 400. I then said, by way of an interjection, that I had indeed said in my Second Reading speech that there are certain grades in which shortages are still being experienced. It is indeed a fact that although we have sufficient staff in certain spheres, elsewhere we have placed people, who normally did bonus work, on day-work as a result, amongst other things, of the fact that we cut down on our capital expenditure to such an extent that in the unpopular grades, so to speak, we are still experiencing shortages that must be supplemented. There are other reasons, which I should like to mention since I am now dealing with this, why the hon. member must expect us to make provision for a greater number of workers than are employed at the moment, and why it is logical and correct for us to do this. The hon. member must take into account that the Vryheid-Richards Bay railway line has been put into service and that as the volume of traffic increases, more workers will be needed. That also applies to the Richards Bay harbour, a new harbour which was only taken into service last year and which is still in the process of expansion—there is no question, as yet, of its completion—a harbour where we shall also have to appoint additional workers as the harbour is developed further.

Another important factor the hon. member must also bear in mind is that on 1 July of this year we also switch over to the containerization system. This is a complete innovation and to a large extent we shall have to feel our way along. At this stage one does not know to what extent containerization is going to affect other activities in our harbours. It is clear to us all that the containerization, for which we are now making provision, is substantially going to affect the old and conventional portions of our harbours. The new system is going to decrease activities there to a large extent. In any case, for containerization we shall also need additional staff.

I should also like to refer to two further points before we adjourn. In the first place I want to refer to the Sishen-Saldanha scheme which the hon. member probably did not think of either. All the staff appointed for the Sishen-Saldanha scheme are additions to the establishment but are included in the 264 400. The hon. member must also take into account that the Railways employs large numbers of young people every year—apprentices, etc.—people who must be trained for the developments that are taking place. All these factors have played a role in increasing the numbers.