Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the various speeches that were made here yesterday. In fact, I was in the House all the time, and after having listened to the speeches by members on both sides of the House, I came to the conclusion that I had introduced a very good budget. [Interjections.] Since speaking briefly at the outset, at the adjournment of the debate last Wednesday, the hon. member for Orange Grove has paid tribute to the Railways Administration and its activities. The hon. member said, inter alia—

Within two or three minutes saying that, in the short speech which he made then, the hon. member reiterated—

I thought it was significant that the hon. member for Orange Grove, who is the Official Opposition’s main speaker on Railway matters, twice in his brief speeches paid tribute to the Railways for what they had done. Mr. Speaker, may I say at this stage that good speeches were made here yesterday. In particular, I want to convey my appreciation to the hon. members on this side of the House for the very constructive speeches which they made. Of course they see matters in the same light as I do. That I admit. I should like to convey my appreciation to them.

If I were to summarize, I do not think that this debate has been conducted in a manner to which we are accustomed. The limited criticism of hon. members on the opposite side gradually dried up. When I said just now that I thought I had submitted a good budget, I came to the conclusion at the same time that there was only one minor mistake around which the hon. members’ objections revolved. That was the tariff increase of 8,6%. That was really all which they had to munch on and worry at—the tariff increase of 8,6%.

Actually the hon. members on this side of the House replied very effectively to the criticism. There are however certain aspects which I should like to elucidate. The criticism raised by the hon. members on the opposite side, was so effectually replied to that it happened that several hon. members on this side of the House made speeches in which no mention whatsoever was made—and in which, in fact, it was also not necessary to do so—of arguments raised by the Official Opposition or by the NRP. Several hon. members had a fruitful discussion on aspects of their own choice.

I found it strange that hon. members on the opposite side were surprised that tariffs had been increased. During my budget speech there was even a murmur of surprise when I announced that I had come to the conclusion that I was approximately R240 million short and that I had no other choice than to increase the tariffs. I find it strange that the hon. members on the opposite side were surprised. Obviously no one else in the country was surprised.

I am not inclined to attach undue importance to newspaper reports. Nevertheless there are many people who are inclined to do so, people who do not want to think for themselves and who are therefore impressed by newspaper reports. On the one hand we get in newspaper reports the impressions of people who are experts on certain subjects and who, as a result, and after a study of the subject, express an opinion on it. To thinking people, this is evidently not necessary because they make their own calculations. But those who are not so well informed or who do not make their own calculations, are in fact influenced by reports which they read in newspapers. Before delivering my budget speech, I kept an eye on the newspapers. Almost every single newspaper in the country ventured to predict that there tariff increases were imminent. On the Friday before the Wednesday of the budget, I flew down from Johannesburg. During the flight I read The Star. In that I read—

The report continued—

This was just before the budget—

By the way, it was not as high as that. Nevertheless, the inference was made that the tariffs would have to be increased as a result of those cost items. But, Sir, hon. members on the opposite side were nevertheless surprised. Other newspapers went so far as to say that the tariff increases would probably be between 10% and 12%. There was not a single paper which made a lower estimate than 8%. Nevertheless the Opposition were surprised when they heard that the tariffs were in fact being increased.

I referred a moment ago to the impressions created by the newspapers. Last Sunday a cartoon appeared in the Sunday Times which I thought was very unfair. I concede at once that the cartoonist is probably no expert in the field of economics or of our finances. Nor do we expect him to be. Nevertheless, his impressions have a wide impact, for what people see in cartoons, leaves them with certain impressions. And then it is also true that these people do not take the trouble to read the opinions of the experts. In this particular cartoon, there was a drawing of a rocket or projectile. It was a missile which was on the point of being fired into space. Tied to the rocket was a little man. At the top of the rocket was written “COL”—cost of living. I was pictured next to the rocket, getting ready to light the fuse.

That sounds like a pretty good picture!

It is perhaps a good picture of a presentable man! [Interjections.] I think it is totally unfair to create the impression that an 8% increase in the Railways will cause the cost of living to soar. The ignorance of hon. members on the opposite side is shown by the fact that the greatest experts have already calculated that the effect which these tariff increases will have on cost-of-living increases, will be in the region of 0,5% to 1%. That is why I say that a cartoon like this is unfair. I accept, however, that it is a cartoon, and that it was probably not made by an expert in the field of economics. In Rapport there was also a cartoon. The drawing was of a locomotive, and when I as a railwayman looked at it carefully, I discovered a number of mistakes, because the drawing shows the locomotive with the configuration of a 15A with certain characteristics of a 16E! [Interjections.] Railway people will be able to discuss that for a long time. In the cartoon appeared the words “Rich man, poor man” and the last words were: “Net die armes bly oor.” I have no serious objections to that, Sir, but there is also a drawing of me in the driver’s cabin. Even this would have been acceptable, but the cartoonist pictured me with a tiny arm which seems to be rather emaciated. I know that I no longer have the muscles I used to have, but this tiny arm looks, as my father used to say, like the wing of a strandloper.

Now, Sir, we come to the greater experts in the field of budgeting. In this connection I just want to refer to an article which appeared in the same issue of Rapport under the headline “Spoorweë op dun ys”. I do this especially in view of certain comments which the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South made yesterday. He must have said ten or twenty times: “What about the farmers?” I would suggest that he do his homework more thoroughly and make a longer speech. This report was written in consequence of an interview with a certain Mr. Van der Walt, the Operations Officer (Meat) of the S.A. Agricultural Union. Mr. Van der Walt said, inter alia, that in connection with the transport of livestock, the Railways had already been compelled to concede a large portion of its market to private hauliers. I have said in this House before that a businessman does not continue with a section of his business which is unprofitable. Because the transport of livestock is so absolutely unprofitable to the Railways, we have said before that if it can be proved that livestock can be conveyed more economically some other way, we would have no objection to such transport. Indeed, we have no objection to that. However, let me tell the hon. members what is happening. They can go and take a look at the road to South West Africa and see what it looks like. That is a road that cost hundreds of millions of rands which the trucks are ruining. They are not responsible for maintaining the road in a state of good repair, whereas the Railways Administration is responsible for building the railway line and maintaining it in good repair. I quote further—

The article continues in this vein. Mention is made of the cost of marketing a beast and having it slaughtered, and it is said that the railage is now the highest item. From Louis Trichardt to Johannesburg it is now R10,00 and it is stated that this is more than the R8,81 which the farmer has to pay in agent’s commission and also more than the R7,02 which he has to pay in abattoir fees.

I want to begin with the first point and refer to what Mr. Van der Walt said about the rise in transport costs during the past few years. I do not want to argue with Mr. Van der Walt, because he is not here now and he is unable to reply. In fairness and honesty towards the Railways I must however also state our standpoint. I have an index graph here before me of rising prices. The graph starts at the beginning of 1970. The graph indicates the prices of various commodities and also the average tariff index of the Railways. If one takes the tariff index for 1970 as 100, then it has since risen to 210, i.e., an increase of 110%. The producer price index for livestock—the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South who kicked up such a fuss here said he was a cattle farmer—has, in comparison with the Railways’ tariff index increase of 110%, risen by 165%. The producer price index for livestock has therefore risen by 165% since the beginning of 1970 in comparison with the Railways’ tariff index increase of 110%. I do not begrudge them that increase! I have no objection to that, but the Railways has to buy that meat for its catering department. And for that they have to buy meat which has shown a price increase of 165% since 1970. But it is expected that despite that rise in costs, and many others which I could mention, the Railways must not raise their tariffs.

Let us take a closer look at the same picture. I can remember that my father sold fine wethers at auctions for 6 shillings and 7 shillings—in those days it was still shillings—per wether. Then his neighbours would come to congratulate him and say “Congratulations, Fanie; you got a good price.” Today, one can hardly get half a kilogram of good lamb for that amount If one places the tariff at 100 for the year 1939, one will find that since then the Railway tariff has risen nine-fold. In other words, if in 1939 one paid R1 for the transport of a beef animal, one must pay R9 for that today. I make so bold as to say, however—although I am doing it without my book and might be wrong—that mutton, lamb and beef prices have, in comparison with those days, risen not nine-fold but probably twenty-fold.

They have a good Minister!

The hon. the Minister of Agriculture says: “They have a good Minister”. I concede that, but then they must please not come and quarrel with me when, as a result of rising prices, I am compelled to raise tariffs, as I have indeed been compelled to do. I do not begrudge them this in the least, but then they must not begrudge the Railways anything either.

I do not wish to elaborate any further on this subject, except only to refer still to that little newspaper report which my friend the hon. member for Orange Grove does not like. I am now referring to the brief report which appeared in the Sunday Times. That brief report is a fine testimonial to the Railways and also serves as a reply to all the questions which hon. members on the opposite side have asked.

You can tell a man by his friends.

The difference is however that this report appeared in the Business Times and for that reason I concluded that it had been written by a man who is an expert in this field.

But what about the report which appeared in Sake-Rapport?

I have already dealt with the Sake-Rapport. Where was the hon. member? [Interjections.] I shall now read out a short paragraph or two from this report, whether hon. members on the opposite side like it or not.

Was that piece tom out or distributed?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Point is now coming here with an old story. He must now move on to another point. The writer of this report stated—

Surely that is true. If one takes the cost of living into account, it has in fact decreased in real terms. That is what it boils down to. He said further—

What did Die Transvaler, Hoofstad, the Financial Gazette, Rapport and other newspapers say?

The hon. member carried on in that vein yesterday as well; so much so that Die Burger even said that he kept on exaggerating to an excessive extent. If one exaggerates the way he exaggerates and repeatedly states the most extreme standpoint, then other people are eventually inclined not to listen to one.

I now want to express a few thoughts on the tariff increases themselves. I want to begin by saying that, since the hon. member for Orange Grove and other hon. members on the opposite side of the House are members of the Select Committee on Railway Accounts, they were neccessary to and instrumental in pushing up the Railways’ expenditure.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti as well.

Yes, he, too. We are moving in the direction of inflation accounting—I do not wish to blame the hon. members for that; I wanted it that way myself—whereby we eventually want to write off our assets in accordance with the replacement costs of such assets and not in accordance with the historic costs. That is why this matter was before the Select Committee last year and the committee agreed that we could increase write-offs by 20%. That meant that an additional R50 million had to be taken from revenue for that purpose. This year the matter came before the Select Committee again and the hon. member for Orange Grove agreed that write-offs could again be increased by 20%. This year, however, the additional amount that has to be taken from revenue is not R50 million but R65 million. That is why I say that they are jointly liable for at least that amount of R65 million. I know that they will not object to that. They must tell me if they have objections to the other items which I am going to mention. Another item to which I wish to refer is that I took an additional R50 million from revenue and paid it into the Sinking Fund for purposes of capital expenditure. I did not hear any of them objecting to that. That is already R115 million, including the R65 million to which I referred a moment ago. There are other items as well, and those hon. members must tell me if they have any objections to them, because they said nothing about them. With effect from the pay-month January 1978, salaries were increased by 5% and that requires an additional expenditure of R60 million per annum for the full year. Apart from that I gave my approval in December last year to a substantial improvement of widows’ pensions, and this meant an additional expenditure of approximately R15 million per annum. Furthermore we are also making provision for an improvement in the pensions of Railway pensioners, and in this budget an amount of R6 million has been set aside for that purpose. Furthermore, provision is being made for an additional amount of R3 million in respect of cost reimbursement for the staff. The expenditure so far amounts to R199 million, one could almost say R200 million. When hon. members talk again they can indicate whether they have objections to these expenditures having been incurred. Although I was therefore looking for revenue to cover expenditure of approximately R240 million, I have already referred to an expenditure of R200 million now and to that, so I gather, the hon. members on that side of the House have no objection.

Mr. Speaker, may I point out to the hon. the Minister that as far as the Capital Account is concerned, we on this side of the House who serve on the Select Committee agreed that the rate of depreciation should be increased and that a reserve sinking fund should be established to pay the debts that the Railways has incurred. My question then is this: Does this mean that the Railways Administration must continue to put itself even more into debt, as is reflected in this capital budget?

Mr. Speaker, I do not think this is an opportune time to reply to that question. I shall discuss the capital position of the Railways in detail a little later on and then I shall show the hon. member where we get the capital from, how much of it we are spending, what our debts are and how we deal with our debts, etc. The fact of the matter is that in this way—and I agree with that, for that was how I wanted it—we shall become more self-sufficient in respect of our capital requirements from our own revenue. In this way we shall lay a sound foundation for the Railways Administration for the years that lie ahead.

One can also approach the matter from another angle. I have just indicated what makes up R200 million of the required R240 million, and I take it that we do not differ on those items. I must still account for a further R40 million now. That I cannot do, because it is expenditure which is ascribable to cost increases as a result of commodity prices, etc. being increased. If I were to put the position the other way around, I could say that last year I took R52 million and this year I took R100 million from the Revenue Account to pay into the Sinking Fund. Moreover, the additional 20% which was decided on last year and the 20% which was decided on this year to make provision for the writing-off of assets, amounted to R115 million. Expenditure in respect of those two items alone which is being taken from Revenue for Capital Expenditure for 1978-’79—and hon. members are free to criticize that if they want to—amounts to R215 million. In other words, if I had not done those two things, it would not now have been necessary for me to raise the tariff. A tariff increase of 1% brings in revenue to the amount of approximately R25 million. Tariff increases of 8% therefore bring in additional revenue to the amount of approximately R200 million. That is putting it in round figures. Therefore if I had not taken those two steps, it would not have been necessary for me to introduce tariff increases. But I did so because it was fit and proper that the Railways’ finances should be placed on a sound footing.

The hon. member for Orange Grove referred to the Railways’ interest burden. He alleged that proportionally, this interest burden was becoming too heavy. This argument is still based on the supposition that it is our policy not to pay off loans, and as a result the inference is drawn, or the impression is created, that our loan debt subsequently becomes completely unbalanced. It is not quite correct to put it so simply. As long as one’s interest burden, as a percentage of one’s total expenditure, is within reasonable bounds, then there is basically nothing wrong in not repaying the loans. Because we regularly replace our assets by writing-off, our assets do not decrease, but rather in crease. The percentage to which I have just referred has increased from 14% in the early ’forties, to 15,7% in 1976-’77 and further to an estimated 16,4% in 1978-’79. The increase from 14% to 16% is obviously—any hon. member will know this—as a result of the vast capital projects which we have recently undertaken. In this connection I am thinking, inter alia, of Richards Bay and the Saldanha-Sishen scheme. The interest burden of all these great new projects is included in the figure which I have mentioned. Over and above the high rates of interest which are payable in South Africa, as is the case in other countries of the world as well, there is a tendency to make the Railways more capital-intensive since that is the obvious way in which to raise the productivity of this undertaking. It is a fact that the net allocation which the Railways obtained from the Treasury, has recently been reduced. I mentioned this in my budget speech and I now want to supply some figures in this connection. In 1976-’77, the net allocation which the Treasury made available to the Railways, amounted to R563 million. As a result of the difficult financial circumstances and the fact that money was no longer all that readily available, the net allocation by the Treasury in the year 1977-’78—that was the year after—was reduced to R389 million. That is to say, the amount was reduced from R563 million to R389 million. For the 1978-’79 financial year, the net allocation is R467 million. “Net” allocation does have some meaning, but I should not like to go into all the details. In other words, our allocation—as I said in my introductory speech—is in real terms approximately the same this year as it was last year. The year before it was considerably more. Because we obtained a considerably lower allocation last year as a result of the difficult circumstances in the loan capital market, of which our operations had to take cognizance, it has become necessary for us to meet our capital requirements from revenue to a greater extent.

If one takes a closer look at the tariffs of the Railways and makes a study of the graph of the tariff position of the Railways, one finds that since approximately 1973 the tariffs began to rise far more rapidly. That was as a result of the oil crisis which developed towards the end of 1973. From then on, prices went mad, the rate of inflation accelerated and the Railways was also compelled to raise its tariffs more rapidly. The hon. member for Orange Grove said—and whether he was referring to a period of two years or three years did not matter—that the increase in Railway tariffs was greater than the consumer cost of living index. That may be so, especially if one applies the data over a period of one year or two years, as it suits one. If, however, one considers it over the long term, as in the graph which I have here before me and which furnishes the data as from 1950, the consumer price index is consistently higher than the tariffs curve of the Railways. It is indeed a fact that the consumer price index, during this period, rose by 287%, whereas Railway tariffs rose by 258%. In other words, the increase in Railway tariffs was 20 index points lower than the consumer price index. I think that is the correct way to calculate it, rather than to take the figures for a few years, as it suits one. I think it is also more fair and correct that we should relate the Railway tariff index with the wholesale price index and not with the consumer price index, because the Railways also buys all its goods at wholesale prices. Let me therefore compare the Railways’ tariff index with the wholesale price index. I have a graph here which draws a comparison between the two indices since 1973. The position is that since 1973, the Railways’ tariff index has risen by 70,9% and the wholesale price index by 97,7%. The Railways was therefore able to keep its tariff index below the wholesale price index, i.e. the index at which the Railways buys its materials.

Let us look for a moment at the private carriers, a matter about which so much is being said. The private carrier is the competitor of the S.A. Railways. The Seifsa index for private road transportation costs which was compiled since 1973, shows that private road transportation costs have risen by 104%, whereas the Railways’ tariff index has risen by 70,9% over the same period. In comparison with its competitors, the user of the Railways is therefore much better off. It must also be taken into account that the Railways’ market share of the total transport market is at present approximately 50% and if the increases in Railway tariffs are compared with those in the private transport sector, it means that the Railways’ tariffs are not the factor which causes transport costs in general to rise but that the tariffs of the private carriers are in fact the cause. I think I have now said enough about the tariffs, a matter to which the hon. member for Orange Grove referred.

The hon. member also spoke about concessions. The hon. member for Uitenhage asked him what he wanted to do with the particulars of what the concessions cost the Railways and whether he perhaps wanted the concessions done away with. I could put the same question to the hon. member. The costs of concessions to our own personnel amount to approximately R16,1 million per annum. The costs of free passes and privileged tickets are all included in this figure. I want to add that this figure has been calculated on the cost of the ticket, or the difference between what a man pays for a privileged ticket and the real cost of the ticket. Therefore it does not inevitably entail additional costs for the Railways, because the train must run in any case, the accommodation is available, etc. Over and above this expenditure on concessions to Railway officials, the concessions for all public servants are calculated at approximately R2,2 million per annum. That of course includes the hon. member’s little green pass. I do not know whether he suggests that we should withdraw this little green pass. The hon. member can tell us during the Committee Stage.

The hon. members for Orange Grove and Green Point discussed Richards Bay and Saldanha Bay, respectively, and asked when these projects would become profitable, etc. It goes without saying that a person cannot expect that an undertaking such as Richards Bay, which costs so many hundreds of millions of rand, will show a profit at an early stage. Richards Bay was not built so that it could be a paying proposition within a short while. It was built because of many other considerations, inter alia, because Durban harbour was no longer able to handle all the traffic during peak periods. For that reason the harbour at Richards Bay was constructed, and we shall have to wait and see when the harbour at Richards Bay becomes profitable.

The hon. member for Green Point also discussed Saldanha. The Saldanha project is of course a guaranteed project as far as the Railways Administration is concerned. Although the decision has already been taken by the Government that it should be available for all traffic, we have no objection to handling other traffic, but naturally one must first see what the extent of the other traffic is going to be before one proceeds to create additional facilities there. The tariffs will have to be determined on that basis. We must, however, bear in mind that we gave Iscor certain undertakings—it is Iscor which gives the guarantees in respect of the use of the railway line by the Railways—and this is, namely, that no matter what may happen in respect of other traffic—so it has been arranged—the transport of Iscor goods will not be delayed to such an extent that it will be detrimental to Iscor.

I do not think it is necessary to reply to the request that members of the Defence Force should travel by air at concession tariffs, because I do not think it is the duty of the Railways to do that. In any case there are practical problems attached to that. Hon. members will know that the Defence Force men in general prefer to travel over weekends, and that is exactly the time when our aircraft are full. We could still consider concessions at times of the week and times of the day when we know that seats can be occupied without prior reservations in order to fill the aircraft, and that it will therefore not make such a big difference to us. But to allow reservations, especially over weekends, will not be an acceptable proposition to me.

I think I have replied adequately to the matters raised by the hon. member for Orange Grove.

Mr. Speaker, I asked the hon. the Minister a question about foreign loans, and whether the fact that the rand was tied to the dollar was adversely affecting foreign loans and their repayment.

The rand is tied to the dollar to this extent that if the rand were to be devalued as a result of a devaluation of the dollar, those loans which are payable a long time afterwards, would have to be repaid in larger amounts. That is the case with all foreign loans.

How substantial is that?

As far as the Railways are concerned, it is not very substantial. I should rather not furnish the hon. member with a figure now.

I should like to tell the hon. members on that side of the House that, in the nature of things, I shall not deal with all their speeches, except here and there where circumstances justify it. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti said he was an engineer. I just want to clear up one little matter with him.

†He referred to an amount of R1,3 billion. It is not R1,3 billion, but R1 300 million. In the English language, billion means a million times a million.

Thousand million.

A thousand million is an American billion. In English it is a million times a million.

What about South Africa?

That matter must still be settled. [Interjections.] It is for that reason that I raised the matter. I think at some stage or another, we can reach agreement on whether a South African billion is a thousand million or a million million.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti raised one point. He criticized the Railways and said it should itself absorb 30% of the costs. I do not think that the hon. member can in all fairness, if he is aware of the circumstances, make such a request to us. This idea of 30% of the cost being absorbed, by the undertaking itself, is applicable to companies which make a profit and which make a profit of more than 15%. Because they make such profits, they are in a position to absorb a part of the cost increases. But the Railways is not a profit-making organization. The Railways does not make 15%. The Railways is not supposed to make any profit whatsoever. In what respect must the Railways be able to absorb 30% of risings in cost when it is already continually doing its best to keep costs as low as possible? The Administration of course adopted a standpoint in regard to staff associations, and the staff associations accepted it, that for the period under discussion the staff would make a sacrifice of 30% in respect of salary increases.

The hon. member asked me to say where all the money was going to be spent. Is it really necessary for me to tell the hon. member where these amounts are going to be spent? Surely he himself knows about an undertaking such as Richards Bay, the total estimated cost of which already amounts to R483 million, while the envisaged expenditure on suburban passenger amenities in the Durban area, including the new Durban station, for 1978-’79 alone, amounts to R41 million and the total estimated cost of that scheme will amount to R292 million. Does he not realize that in 1974 a decision was made, not by the Railways Administration, but by the Government itself, by the Department of Commerce, that there should be a changeover to containerization in South Africa? The Railway Administration had to fall in with this. The estimated total cost of containerization even now amounts to R440 million, and we only started in 1974. Then there are still other schemes such as Mitchell’s Plain, Mabopane, Soweto and others, in regard to which we receive representations from time to time that those schemes should be expedited. Hon. members on the opposite side are themselves asking for these schemes to be expedited. There is therefore more than ample proof of what we are spending this money on.

In connection with the elucidation of the capital position, I should like hon. members please to look at the Brown Book, page 2, where they will see the total capital expenditure for this year. Hon. members are inclined to look at page VI, the previous page, where they will see in bold print the amount of R1 137 million. This R1 137 million is the amount for which we must obtain parliamentary authority. The amount next to that, namely R248 million, is also used for capital expenditure, but for that we do not need parliamentary authority. That is why the detailed picture of our capital estimates appears on page 2. There hon. members can see it. Loan funds amount to R866 million, and of that R866 million—so we have agreed—my colleague, the hon. Minister of Finance, will supply R766 million. In other words, by way of loan funds, the Railways is obtaining R766 million from the Treasury. R100 million we must find ourselves on the capital market. The other amounts will have to be appropriated from our own funds. If the hon. members look at this picture, they will notice that only R866 million are loan funds. The balance of approximately R520 million has already been allocated from our own funds. Now the hon. member for Durban Central has asked me whether I would be in favour of this. I think it would be a good thing if we could finance approximately 50% of our capital requirements from revenue. We are not far short of our target as it is. The hon. member is free to examine the figures. Then he will see for himself what is going on there.

The hon. member for Groote Schuur asked me certain questions. I want to request the hon. member not to pay so much attention to George Young.

That is not a reply.

I shall give the hon. member a reply in a moment. This was only a remark in passing. It was not meant to be a reply. [Interjections.]

*The hon. member for Groote Schuur is inclined to take Mr. George Young rather too seriously. Our experience with Mr. George Young is that he has written nasty things about the Railways Administration, and especially about Table Bay harbour, in his newspaper. He has also published writings which were not justified in the light of the true circumstances.

Was he also responsible for the finding of the Court of Marine Enquiry?

No, he was not responsible for that. I shall reply to the hon. member on that. [Interjections.] The hon. member began by referring to the control tower in the Table Bay harbour and said: “It is not an unqualified success.” That is his opinion. I am not going to quarrel with him about it. If he thinks this is the case, he is entitled to his view. However, the hon. member asked me a number of questions in this connection. He asked certain questions about the control tower in Table Bay harbour. This is the Lourens Muller building.

With reference to the question which the hon. member put to me in connection with the documents, I want to make it clear to him that it was never the intention that these documents should be handled in the specific office in that building. In my reply to that question I said that I suspected that the documents he was referring to were documents dealing with the movement of ships in the harbour. Those documents—if this is so—are at present still being handed in at the old office, the office of the Harbour Captain. That I have already said in my reply. However, I am beginning to think that it may be argued that it is inconvenient to hand in the documents there because it is perhaps one and a half kilometres from where the actual movement takes place, in the vicinity of the tower. For this reason it is our intention—in fact, we are already engaged in the preparatory work—to convert the small building of the Union Castle company at the A wharf into an office for handing in the documents referred to by the hon. member. This little building is available because the mail-boats have now been withdrawn from service and the company no longer uses the building. I hope the hon. member will then be satisfied, because the building is only a few yards removed from the tower to which he referred. My reason for saying that this tower was never meant for that purpose is that it is a prestige building. We should like it to remain a prestige building. The documents referred to by the hon. member are handed in at the office of the Berthing Master. The people who go to his office to fetch the documents and to make the necessary arrangements are people working on the tugs. They often wear rubber boots and are dirty and wet because of the circumstances in which they work. That is why I say that this tower was never intended for that purpose. Therefore it is not a suitable place for handing in those documents either. But to satisfy the hon. member, I want to tell him that we are going to fix up a small office in that vicinity where it will then be possible to hand in the documents.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he knows what happens to the documents after they have been handed in to the Berthing Master.

Sir, they are then the responsibility of the Berthing Master.

They then go to the control tower.

No. The people responsible for handling and moving the ships in the harbour have to go and fetch them there.

The hon. member also advocated the introduction of a coast-guard. I want to say at once that the creation of such a coast-guard does not rest with me alone. There are many other departments that will have to be involved in this matter if consideration is given to the creation of a coast-guard such as the one envisaged by the hon. member. I do not want to reject the hon. member’s idea out of hand, but I want to say that the creation of such a coast-guard is not a matter for my department at all. The Railways organization provides services which are paid for, and a coast-guard of that nature would have to render services from money appropriated from another source, and would not receive payment. It is for this reason that I say that this is not a matter for me at all. There are several organizations today which are responsible for certain functions which have to be performed. The hon. member also referred to the collision between the Venpet and the Venoil. This matter is not really relevant here; it is a matter for the Department of Transport. However, I just want to say in passing, since the hon. member has raised the matter, that we have received the greatest praise from all over the world for the way in which we handled the accident. I do not think we should discuss this matter any further now. When the Transport Vote comes up for discussion, there will be an opportunity to discuss the matter. Then I shall be glad to listen to the hon. member’s standpoint.

The hon. member mentioned one matter which I regard as a delicate one, i.e. the question of the marine court sittings to which he referred. I am indeed aware of the facts of the matter. In fact, I have the relevant documents with me. The hon. member referred to the ruling which had been given by the chief magistrate—I think it was Mr. Roberts. He was the chairman of the marine court and he was assisted by two other persons. I have read the facts carefully. The hon. member may want to ask what is being done in respect of the officials who were mentioned in the ruling. I want to tell the hon. member in all fairness today that I am having some problems in that connection. I do not say this because I think that the finding of the magistrate was not correct. The various parties were represented, and I must accept that ruling.

However, my problem lies in the fact that I have to decide what to do under these circumstances. For that reason I do not want to discuss the matter now. The hon. member will realize that large claims are pending in respect of these events. Actions involving large amounts of money will probably be brought in the civil court. For this reason I believe that it would be wrong of me to elaborate on that matter any further now. I cannot do that until such time as these matters have been disposed of. I think the hon. member will agree with me that we should leave the matter at that. I might be able to comment on a few aspects, but I think I should rather refrain from doing so under the circumstances.

The hon. member for East London North referred to a train which allegedly took 12 days to get to Johannesburg. There may have been one or two trains that did take so long. We have also heard that story. The story has reached Head Office, and this has led to an inquiry. I should like to assure the hon. member that the story of 12 days may be true. It is possible. However, it is a completely isolated case. Secondly, the necessary arrangements have now been made for express trains with block-loads to run between East London and Johannesburg. The optimum period—in other words, the best time achieved—is three days, with an average of approximately five days. In the light of the circumstances and of those figures the hon. member should be satisfied. I see that he wants to ask me a question.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether that is purely the train time from East London to Johannesburg or does this mean that the recipient of the goods in Johannesburg will have the goods which were shipped from East London, within five days?

That I could not tell him. I understood from the hon. member, however, that the 12 days he referred to was the running time of the train, and it was on that assumption that I replied.

No, he mentioned the loading at both ends.

It could be different.

*I shall go into the matter and let him have the necessary information. The hon. member spoke of pineapples. Because of circumstances at East London harbour, we do not intend to build a container harbour there like those at Cape Town, Port Elizabeth and Durban. For this reason, it has been arranged with the harbour in East London that the coasters will pick up the containers in East London and convey them to other harbours, such as Durban, Cape Town or Port Elizabeth, where they will have to be transferred to ships bound for Europe or anywhere else. In the case of pineapples, it has been arranged that containers will be loaded at Kidd’s Beach, where the factory is situated, and kept in cold storage, which I understand is available there, until they can be transported by road to Port Elizabeth, where they will then be loaded on ships as refrigerated cargo and be conveyed overseas. This is one alternative. The other alternative, of course, is to put them on the coasters and send them to Port Elizabeth or to Cape Town harbour to be transferred to another ship there. Personally I believe that sending the containers by road from Kidd’s Beach to Port Elizabeth, for example, where they can be put on the overseas boat at once, will most probably be the best procedure under the circumstances.

The hon. member referred to the wool sales in East London. May I just tell that hon. member that he actually made a speech which should have been made in the Committee Stage. It is customary to discuss the budget during the Second Reading debate and then to advocate local interests during the Committee Stage. However, I am replying to him now, so I shall deal with that aspect if you do not mind, Mr. Speaker. A characteristic of this discussion of the budget has been that so many questions have been asked. The hon. member for Orange Grove and the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, for example, have asked many questions.

They are very ignorant.

If they are so clever, they should tell us what to do. They should not just ask a lot of questions. But this is only by the way. As far as the wool sales in East London are concerned, this is a matter for the Wool Board. We are prepared to handle the product there, but the hon. member will first have to apply elsewhere before coming to me in this connection. Allow me just to say to the hon. member for East London North, with reference to his little speech, that I personally think he has done East London a great disservice. After all his jeremiads about East London yesterday I do not know where he is going to find a man whom he will be able to persuade to go to East London. He presented East London in a very unfavourable light. On the Government’s side we try to do what we can—you know this, Mr. Speaker—to stimulate East London and to make things more attractive for East London, but I think the hon. member has done precisely the opposite.

He is a one-term member.

The hon. member for Tygervallei made a plea here with regard to the container tariff for the harbours other than Durban harbour, i.e. the container tariff for East London, Port Elizabeth and Cape Town. It is actually a pity that the hon. member did not speak before the hon. member for East London North, for I think that this rather upset the case of the hon. member for Tygervallei.

Yes, it did.

We shall leave it at that. The plea made by the hon. member for Tygervalley refers to all three those harbours and not only to East London or Cape Town.

I should like to say on this occasion that we have conducted a thorough investigation into this matter. I do not want to argue about the figures quoted by the hon. member for East London North. He spoke of a figure of R1 700, and I dispute that figure, but I shall leave it at that, because it does not matter to us. It will not improve his argument. In order to ensure that imported containers intended for the Rand are in fact conveyed up-country instead of being unpacked in the harbour, unit container tariffs have been introduced between Durban and City Deep. Those tariffs refer to the container which is off-loaded from the ship, placed on a train in our container yard in the harbour and conveyed to City Deep. We should like it to be done this way, and we have made our arrangements accordingly. In other words, we do not want the container to be handled in Durban as well. The new tariffs which will come into effect on 1 April, i.e. the increased tariffs for the handling of these containers—hon. members who are interested may write this down—will be R485 in respect of import and local traffic between Durban and City Deep. This is the railway transport cost between Durban and City Deep for a container of six metres. In order to promote exports, the tariff for export traffic from City Deep to Durban will be R225 per container. Once again, this is just the railway transport cost. Empty containers, which will of course be able to move in both directions, will be conveyed at R120 per container. These unit container tariffs are much lower on an average than the relevant commodity tariff would be. In certain cases, the unit tariff is less than half the commodity tariff.

Shortly after the introduction of these tariffs on 1 July for the import and export traffic and on 17 October for the local traffic, strong representations were made to us by other harbours in particular, as happened again yesterday, with regard to the introduction of unit tariffs between City Deep in Johannesburg and the other harbours, i.e. East London, Cape Town and Port Elizabeth. However, our reply throughout has been that the introduction of unit tariffs is dependent on sufficient container traffic to justify the running of unit trains between the sophisticated container terminals. We have now decided on the conditional introduction, with effect from 1 April, of the following unit tariffs between City Deep and the harbours of Cape Town, Port Elizabeth and East London. I want to emphasize that this is being done conditionally. The tariff is applicable to six-metre containers. The tariffs are applicable from City Deep to Cape Town and apply to both import and local traffic. The tariff for a full container from Cape Town to City Deep is R875. As regards export traffic from City Deep to Cape Town, the tariff is R400, while the tariff for empty containers is R200. For the journey from Port Elizabeth to City Deep in respect of import and local traffic, the tariff is R600 for a six-metre container. As far as export traffic is concerned, it is R260, while the tariff in respect of empty containers is R140. The tariff from East London to City Deep—and this is the tariff which the hon. member for East London North is interested in—is R550 for import and local traffic, i.e. if the container is not handled. The tariff in respect of export traffic is R240, while that in respect of empty containers is R130.

I believe that this is a fair dispensation and I should like to give further particulars. In the case of Cape Town, as far as tariff class 1 is concerned, it represents a reduction of 47%. As far as tariff class 3 is concerned, it is a reduction of 31%. As far as Port Elizabeth is concerned, the reduction in respect of tariff class 1 is 42% and that in respect of tariff class 3 is 26%. In the case of East London, the reduction in respect of tariff class 1 is 47% and that for tariff class 3 is 32%. These tariffs are considerably lower than the commodity tariff and we are introducing them conditionally. I want to add that this assistance can only be justified in the short term, and we reserve the right to reconsider the concessions after a year to ascertain whether they are in fact justified by traffic growth or not. I think the hon. member for Tygervallei should also feel happy about the tariffs we have decided on.

The hon. member for Green Point spoke about housing in the Railways, but he has already been answered by another hon. member. The hon. member also discussed the Widows’ Pension Fund. I know that several requests have been addressed to us to give retrospective effect to the improved Widows’ Pension Fund benefits. However, we cannot comply with the many requests that this measure should be retrospective. This is the way pensions work. They are introduced as from a specific date, and such a concession would therefore impose a great additional burden on the Railways.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he is prepared to make any concessions to the old pensioners, i.e. those who retired before 1973?

I mentioned this a short while ago, but then the hon. member said that it was a trifle.

It was R6 million.

That R6 million has been set aside for pensioners.

Is it the 2%?

The R6 million is in addition to the 2%. In other words, Mr. Speaker, we have decided on a pension improvement, and this applies to everyone, irrespective of whether they retired before or after 1973. The hon. member will know that we granted a very favourable pension improvement two years ago for those who retired before 1973. When we gave the others a 10% increase, we gave them 20%. So it was a very favourable increase we gave them. However, I do not see my way clear to making another improvement in this connection at this stage.

It was 10% with a minimum of R25. They are having a very hard time.

As from 1 April we want to introduce another pension improvement, including the 2% which has been incorporated there. In other words, the 2% is deducted and the total improvement amounts to 5%, with a minimum of R12,50. The new pensions will take effect on 1 April.

The hon. member for Green Point asked me an interesting question in connection with steam locomotives. He wanted to know whether it was strategically correct for us to use diesel locomotives. There is a very interesting explanation for this. There are many advantages attached to electric and diesel traction. One of the most important factors is that for a steam locomotive to work, two men are required for every locomotive, while in the case of diesel locomotives, two men can handle twelve locomotives. If it should become necessary to have one train drawn by 12 locomotives, only two men are required to handle all the diesel locomotives. If steam locomotives are used, two men are needed for every locomotive. That is one factor. The other is that much longer trains can be drawn by diesel locomotives. Actually, we consider diesel to be an interim stage at the moment, because we intend to electrify in the future wherever possible and depending on the volume of traffic. However, it is not possible to electrify everywhere, for electrification is enormously expensive. One cannot electrify a branch line which carries only one train a day, for that would not justify the money invested in electrification. Therefore diesel is being used as an interim stage for the more important lines, and we shall electrify gradually, as the capital position makes this possible.

The hon. member for Simonstown referred to productivity. This hon. member has apologized for not being able to be present today; he is unwell. The hon. member made certain calculations and came to the conclusion that we had only 59% productivity efficiency. On the one hand, the hon. member’s calculation was complicated, and on the other hand it was so superficial that I cannot argue about it in depth today. I want to advise hon. members to look at page 9 of the annual report. Under the heading “Productivity” one finds the calculation we have made in this connection. It reflects the ratio between input and output. The input includes labour and capital and the output reflects gross ton kilometres, as far as goods are concerned, and passenger kilometres as far as passengers are concerned. This is the only way in which one can really calculate productivity. If hon. members want to take the trouble, they will also find a graph on page 9.

The hon. member for Durban Central also referred to pensions, but I have already discussed the matter by referring to the built-in 2% and what follows from this.

I believe that I have now dealt with the most important aspects of the debate.

I would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether the principle of rebates in regard to privately-owned containers is going to be allowed to remain.

There is a new arrangement in this connection and I shall furnish the information to the hon. member at a later stage. I have already discussed the matter earlier today, but I shall reply to it in greater detail at a later stage.

I want to conclude by saying that the Railways has done certain things last year and this year which have obviously forced us to increase our revenue. There is not the slightest doubt about this. In the process, however, we have laid the foundations for a financially sound railway system, the benefits of which we shall enjoy in the years ahead. However, this process has caused hardships for us over these two years and it is obvious that we shall not be able to continue with it. Of one thing I am sure, however, and that is that we have done something for South Africa in this way which will be of great benefit to us in the years to come. That is why I had the confidence to introduce this budget.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—121: Albertyn, J. T.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzer, H. S.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, R; Cruywagen, W. A.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Du Toit, J. R; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, J. P.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, R; Heyns, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jordaan, J. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Marais, J. S.; Marais, P. S.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. R; Muller, S. L.; Myburgh, G. B.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nortje, J. H.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Pretorius, N. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, J. H.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van der Westhuyzen, J. J. N.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mosselbaai); Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Vuuren, J. J. M. J.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wilkens, B. H.; Worrall, D. J.

Tellers: L. J. Botha, J. H. Hoon, N. F. Treurnicht, A. van Breda, W. L. van der Merwe and J. A. van Tonder.

Noes—24: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Dalling, D. J.; De Beer, Z. J.; De Jong, G.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Lorimer, R. J.; Malcomess, D. J. N.; Miller, R. B.; Myburgh, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Rossouw, D. H.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Sutton, W. M.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.

Tellers: B. R. Bamford and A. B. Widman.

Question affirmed and amendments dropped.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Schedules:

Mr. Chairman, I listened with a great deal of interest to the answers of the hon. the Minister to the Second Reading debate, and, certainly, some of the answers we in these benches did not find satisfactory. However, most of them we shall discuss again in the Third Reading when we talk in more general terms on Railway affairs.

The first matter I wish to raise this afternoon in the Committee Stage concerns long and middle-distance passenger services. We all know that these are very unprofitable and I am certain that the Administration will breathe a sigh of relief if they were absolved from the responsibility of running these services. Regrettably, I am afraid the responsibility for these services will have to remain with them for quite some time. However, I wonder whether there is not a method of rationalizing passenger transportation, and the suggestion I would like to make is as follows: In nearly all developed countries today there is a network of express motor-coach services. Instead of travelling by train, thousands of passengers make their way to the bus terminals and are able to catch an inter-city luxury bus, which gets them to their destination sometimes even faster than by rail and in most cases much more economically. I only have to mention the Greyhound service in the USA to give hon. members an example of what I am talking about. I know that for years it has been the policy of the Railways to ask for protection for passenger services and it has been Government policy to grant that protection. I am also aware of the fact that there has been a progressive loosening of that protective screen, but we nevertheless still do protect passenger services on the assumption that they will become even less profitable if they were not sheltered from competition.

We are, in fact, watching over a considerable investment in buildings, in rolling stock, in passenger coaches and in equipment, built up over many, many years to handle passengers. But at the same time, year after year we pour millions of rand down the drain to support a losing operation. I think the time has come when the hon. the Minister should investigate much more closely the possibility of encouraging private enterprise to institute long and middle-distance motor-coach services, perhaps in the first instance only on a few selected routes. This should be done in the hope that the burden of loss being carried by the Administration might eventually be removed. I am sure that the hon. the Minister is aware of the fact that many routes in the USA are now handled almost exclusively by motor-coaches. Trains are very few and far between. For example, the railway station at Boston, at one time a very big railway station indeed, one which at one time had 10, 15 or maybe even 20 lines, now probably only has two or three lines operating. The argument that has frequently been put forward in the past is that if we gave an opportunity to private enterprise, they would be keen only to operate on the well-used main lines, which are the most profitable. But when it comes to the routes that cover the more sparsely populated areas of the country, it would be difficult to find operators who would fulfil a necessary social service, because if they did cover those areas, they would not make a profit. In other words, the Railways would be left with the responsibility for the least profitable section of the passenger network. This is a very powerful argument indeed. However, I have come to the conclusion, looking at the example of other countries, that in the long run the Administration might well do better to get rid of anything it possibly can to do with passenger services. I believe that investigation into the possibility of subsidizing private enterprise on the less profitable routes might well reveal that it might be cheaper to do this than to run at the level of losses which are being incurred at present. One could even consider the possibility of the Railways themselves running motor-coach services. But I realize that it is not all that simple. It is not as simple as it sounds in the way I have expressed it Some operations, such as the parcel service, have also to be taken into consideration. Perhaps the answer would be for the hon. the Minister to appoint an investigating committee consisting of knowledgeable people, both from private enterprise and from the Railway Administration, to do a feasibility study into this matter. This sort of rationalization could well save the taxpayer a considerable amount of money—obviously, I do not know—and relieve the Railways of at least a part of a very unwelcome responsibility.

The next matter I want to deal with concerns the new station at Belle Ombre, with the connecting lines at Golf and Bantule—and I refer to page 5 of the Brown Book; item 9 under Head No. 1. I see here that an additional amount of R28,263 million will have to be approved by Parliament for this project. Last year we were asked to approve an additional R4,646 million over and above the original R15 million which had been approved until that time. Presumably the original estimates were raised and brought up to date last year, otherwise we would have been asked for an additional R4 million.

Can the hon. the Minister tell us why we are now being asked to approve an additional R28 million? I notice that the total of estimated costs is noted as being a provisional estimate. I know that this is a guaranteed line. Perhaps we can be informed why R15 million in the first instance, now becomes R48 million. We are continually being put into a situation—as we were also put with the new Durban station and the additional estimates—in which Parliament is advised that a certain project is going to cost a certain amount of money, and then we finally find ourselves paying two or three times that amount. That means that we are paying two or three times the amount originally envisaged. Once one has started with a project of this nature it is very difficult to stop. Once one has committed oneself to building something one cannot stop because money has become invested. When one budgets like this, when Parliament is not being kept fully informed about what is happening, when we are spending an additional R28 million, it makes it very difficult for Parliament to have any meaningful form of budgetary scrutiny.

The third matter I wish to raise concerns a subject of less importance, perhaps. That is the baggage allowance for Railway passengers. I believe that the time has come that the Administration should grant a weight allowance and should not concern themselves with what is contained in the luggage which a passenger is carrying.

Last Christmas something was brought to my attention in connection with thousands of Black passengers returning home to other parts of the country. The instances that were brought to my attention concerned people who were leaving Johannesburg on their way to King William’s Town, to the Ciskei, the Transkei, etc. Thousands of Black passengers going home for the holidays had to pay vast sums of money for additional baggage because they were taking along with them such items as groceries which are not termed personal effects. They were taking home groceries for the family Christmas celebrations and other sorts of things. I believe that as long as passengers’ luggage falls within the weight limit there should be no restrictions on what that luggage is, obviously of course, apart from dangerous substances or fragile things and the like. It is manifestly unfair to me that a Black person who chooses to take foodstuffs to his or her family should be penalized when such effects are not accepted by the Railways Administration as being personal effects. Both people—the one carrying personal effects, and the other carrying effects which are not classified as personal—are paying an equal amount for their tickets, and I believe that it should not be any concern of the Railways what is being transported. I must say that this situation causes a considerable amount of resentment and ill feeling and I hope that the hon. the Minister will see fit to do something about it.

Another question on baggage—a matter which also causes resentment—is the matter of hand luggage on suburban trains. I have received some reports from Durban of Black passengers who were arbitrarily levied with amounts of money for excess baggage without their luggage even being weighed. A group of women did tests on this and they found that this was in fact so. It was a group of women consisting of White and Black people. When they carried out similar tests for White passengers they found that the same amount were not levied. I wonder if the Railways Administration could look into this matter in order to find out whether there is a justification for this complaint.

Mr. Chairman, a great deal has already been said in this budget debate about tariff increases and related matters. I should like to refer to one aspect of this to which a great deal of publicity has been given. The hon. the Minister referred to it today as well. In my opinion this matter has elicited a great deal of unfair comment, both in the Press and on television, comment to the effect that the farmers alone are detrimentally effected by these tariff increases. In this regard I refer to a certain Mr. Cilliers of the Agricultural Union in particular, who said on a television interview one evening that it was unfair that the farmers had to subsidize passenger services—and he was referring to urban traffic in particular. What is more, Sir, I think he did this in a very arrogant way. In this regard I also want to refer to a report in Die Transvaler of 2 March, in which a certain Mr. Coetzee, also of the Agricultural Union, said, inter alia, the following—

I think that these statements are very unfair, and I think that they reveal some ignorance as well. To start with I want to say at once that it is true that the passenger services are being run at a loss, but it is not the only service of the Railways which is running at a loss. There are many others. We also know that railage over long distances does not place heavier burdens on the farmers alone. That burden is placed on everyone who is far from their suppliers and their sources of supply. If those people who use rail transport want to obtain their supplies or market their products, they, too, have to carry that burden.

Sir, I do not intend to play the farmers off against the consumers today, but I think everyone with any common sense should realize that the consumer and the producer are dependant on each other. Remarks like the one to which I have just referred, coming from people whom one would have expected to be responsible people in the Agricultural Union, will therefore not bring us any closer to one another. Nor will it bring us any closer to solving those problems. That is why I should like to point out for the record that the Railways also sees to the interests of the farmer in various spheres. If I may quote a few examples, I want to mention that even after the tariff increase for livestock, only 61,3% of the Railways’ costs are covered in this regard. Fruit, for example, is transported at only 66,3% of the cost. In the case of vegetables the figure is 49%, in the case of potatoes, 62% and in the case of the stock-farmers, 49%. Approximately 73% of the total quantity of agricultural products transported, is transported at tariffs below cost. A great fuss has been kicked up about the tariff increases for livestock. I made some inquiries and discovered that the transportation costs of one head of cattle from Messina—this is in the northernmost comer of the Transvaal—to Johannesburg was R12,12 prior to the increase. After the increase this rose to R13,21, an increase of R1,09. Now, one can make some calculations on the basis of the average size of a carcass, say, 200 kg. One finds that the increase amounts to approximately half a cent per kg. To me, the irony of the matter is that this increase, which is now being paid directly by the producer, will ultimately have to be borne by the consumer, because when floor prices are determined, not only the production costs of the relevant product are taken into account but also the transport costs. However, irrespective of what is taken into account, it will be supply and demand which will ultimately determine the prices of the relevant products.

As the hon. the Minister said, a great deal had been said in the past about the costs of the transportation of livestock. It was advocated that private carriers could do this more economically and that they should be given the opportunity to do so. In fact, it was two years ago that the hon. the Minister said that in cases where private carriers could do this more economically, no objection whatsoever would be raised with the Road Transportation Board if such carriers could do this more economically and if the farmers wanted to make use of those services. The hon. the Minister kept his promise. However, this is the very matter that there is such a fuss about now. It is said that it is the passenger services which are being subsidized by the farmers. This is being dragged into that matter.

I want to sound a very serious warning today and I want to make a polite request as well. We must not play group interests off against one another. This holds true in this case, too, i.e. of the producer and the consumer. I want to say in all sincerity that the way in which it was put—as I saw it on television—gives rise to these gentlemen owing the hon. the Minister an apology.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the idea expressed here by the hon. member for Boksburg, viz. that we are not here to promote group interests. If one looks at the extent of the activities of the Railways in the Republic, one gains a good idea of what these entail if one takes into consideration the fact that during a 24-hour period, 6 300 trains are running, more than 2 million passengers are travelling, 435 000 tons of goods are being transported, approximately 100 flights are being undertaken by the Airways and 44 ships are being handled in our harbours. That is why it is commendable that, in the midst of all these activities, the Railways can still continue to cultivate and propagate plants and to lay out and decorate gardens at stations and of departmental houses in order to improve the surroundings.

That is why we were proud to take note of the fact that the C.M. Hoffe Trophy for the best-tended station and yard was won by Dewetsdorp. It was only because of the team effort on the part of all the Railway officials that Dewetsdorp achieved this distinction. It is interesting to know that this Free State station has already won this trophy five times in the 20 years of its existence.

Last year the transportation of livestock dropped by 31,5% by rail and by 41,2% by road. The number of waggon loads of livestock decreased by 30,5%. The reason for this is chiefly that more farmers are transporting their cattle themselves or having them transported. Another reason is that over the past year there has been a great shortage of permits for the slaughter of large stock in the controlled areas. I should like to refer to page 37 of the annual report of the S.A. Railways and Harbours. There, one reads—

While less livestock is being transported by the Railways at the moment, circumstances can, however, change overnight. An oil boycott or an increase in oil prices may lead to a change. Indeed, the Republic is often subject to serious droughts which, in the first place, mean that considerably more cattle are slaughtered in the controlled areas, and secondly, that a large number of animals must be transported from one grazing area to another. That is why I want to ask for the reduction in the number of cattle waggons to take place very judiciously so that the S.A. Railways will not subsequently find itself in a position where insufficient cattle waggons are available for the transportation of livestock, especially if a state of emergency should arise.

It is gratifying to hear that the introduction of double decker waggons for small stock is being considered. I believe that these waggons will be both practical and economical and that it will mean a reduction in the tariff for the transportation of small stock.

While large businesses in the country have been hit by the recession conditions and higher rate of inflation, the S.A. Railways has been hit even harder because it is one of the biggest expanders of capital, one of the biggest purchasers of consumer goods as well as being one of the biggest employers in the country. That is why the S.A. Railways is just as vulnerable. In addition to the increases in the prices of coal, steel and electricity, to which I shall refer in a moment, more expensive oil and imported capital goods placed a very heavy burden on the S.A. Railways, as the hon. the Minister correctly pointed out. Prices are still soaring and the S.A. Railways is compelled to pay these higher prices and therefore has to make allowances for them.

I just want to compare the price indices of the most important commodities with the tariff index of the Railways over a period of two years. If we put the 1970 price index at 100, we find that the tariff index of the Railways was 147 by the end of 1975 and that the price of cement was 168; electricity, 168; the producer price of livestock, 210; petrol, 212; Iscor steel, 230 and coal, 268. If one takes a look at the position at the end of 1977, one finds that there was a tremendous increase in the price of those commodities over that two year period. While the Railways tariff increased to just over 200, the price of cement increased to 228, producer prices of livestock to 255, Iscor steel to 292, petrol to 290, electricity to 300 and coal to 395. The increase in the price index for coal was therefore double the increase in the tariff index of the Railways. When I look at the graphs which I have here before me, it is very clear that from 1970 to the end of last year the tariff index of the S.A. Railways moved at a lower level than any of the other commodities to which I referred.

Indeed, the level was very much lower than that of the commodities which the Railways needs and uses every day. However, the S.A. Railways is also a dynamic organization and must therefore be constantly reviewing its policy in order to keep up with modern requirements and ideas, especially as far as its financial policy is concerned. I think that the present economic climate emphasizes two very important aspects which are extremely important to every business concern, small or large, and therefore to the Railways as well. In order to ensure that the S.A. Railways remains economically strong, it is absolutely essential for adequate provision to be made in the first place for the replacement of its assets at the end of their economic life. That is why, in the light of the continued high rate of inflation, it is the wise and the right thing to allow for depreciation at the rate of 20%, in order to ensure that sufficient funds will be available to replace assets at the end of their economic life. Secondly, I feel it is essential for the S.A. Railways to provide a portion of its capital requirements from its own income. Apart from the fact that it is more difficult nowadays to obtain sufficient funds at a reasonable rate of interest on the capital market, the financing of all new investments, will ultimately place an excessive burden on the Railways if the money has to come from the loan fund only, and it may even damage the status of the Railways as a future borrower. That is why I welcome the S.A. Railways decision to further expand last year’s policy of self-financing by allocating R100 million this year from revenue for financing capital works. This represents 9,5% of the net investment programme. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer briefly to what the hon. member who has just sat down said in regard to the self-financing of capital expenditure. We in these benches believe that a certain degree of self-financing is required, that is to say that a certain amount of revenue funds should be used to finance the capital programme of the Railways. However—and I want to make this quite clear—we in these benches, the NRP, view with grave concern the whole aspect of the spending of capital in South Africa today. I think this has been made very clear in this debate as also in past debates and I, in particular, have made this very clear. It is of extreme concern to us that the forward financial planning of capital projects by the Railway Administration should be of the highest order.

In this connection I refer to last year’s second report of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours. In paragraph (4) on page xviii appears the report of the discussion on the subject of forward financial planning of capital projects. Mr. Chairman, you will see from the report that the Auditor-General states in his report that he found that on numerous occasions expenditure had exceeded the amounts approved by Parliament. He mentioned that approval of the overspending often takes place on an ex post facto basis. He went on to point out to the General Manager that his replies did not contain sufficient indication of forward financial planning. He said that the following was regarded as the most important factors—

1. (a) Final detailed planning of a project to requirements, with an absolute minimum of amendments to the project.
2. (b) Accurate pricing with full cognizance of cost escalation tendencies, before funds are requested in the estimates.
3. (c) Consideration of the economic viability of the project.

That is something which we in these benches have consistently fought for—

1. (d) Complete reconsideration of factors (a) to (c) when major amendments to a project are considered necessary.

This statement sparked off quite a debate and the General Manager explained a lot of the problems which he and his department have to encounter. He said that it was their policy to examine in great detail the economic viability of any capital expenditure project. He went on to say that the extent of the studies carried out is limited only by the information and time available. This is understandable. I am not going to read the entire report, but I would like to read the final paragraph (page xxii)—

I want to stress this particular comment—

This I stressed yesterday during the Second Reading debate—

This is another aspect which I stressed yesterday—

In that regard I want to assure the hon. the Minister that, as long as I sit in these benches, this is going to be my continual aim. The reasons for this can be found in the Brown Book, a book which I like studying. Hon. members will find in Hansard that last year and the year before, I discussed the variations in estimates over the years where a project is put before the House at an estimated cost of so much, but then we see a progressive escalation of these costs. This year I decided to find out where the Administration actually overspent beyond the amount which was approved by Parliament. After studying the information, I came across 82 items in the Brown Book in respect of which the amount of money which was approved by Parliament had been overspent. Of these items only seven are below R5 000. The total amount that was overspent on these items amounts to R34 206 000. This is a considerable amount of money and is equal to 10,4% of the amount which was originally approved for these items. Some of this overspending is considerable. I can refer hon. members to item 191, where there was an overspending of 118,6% on the amount approved by Parliament. That only amounted to R141 600, but there are other projects, like item 867 which was overspent by R1 831 600. These are considerable amounts of money.

Why do you not analyse one of them?

That is not the point. Hon. members on that side of the House want to know whether we have analysed the projects, but that is not the important point. This debate is about financial control over the budget of the S.A. Railways and Harbours. I would like to know about any business in the private sector that would allow its management to over-expend to this extent. We are now only dealing with the items in regard to which there was overspending on the amount approved by Parliament. I am prepared to wage it that this average of 10% of overspending applies to the entire Railway budget of R1 340 million. That would amount to R134 million of over-expending on the budgeted figures of the Administration. [Interjections.] My case in this regard is that I want those hon. members on that side of the House who serve on the Select Committee to look at what was said in the report of last year’s Select Committee in this regard. Here it is in this budget:; a 10% overspending. What sort of budgetary control is this?

Give us another example.

There are plenty of examples if one takes the time to read and study it.

Give us one.

I mentioned earlier that there are 82 such items, so I shall not say any more about that now. I would now like to refer to containerization. I have been told that there are overseas consignees who are still consigning their containers to Durban. For instance, a business in Canada is still consigning its goods to Durban instead of City Deep and this is causing a considerable amount of trouble. I should just like to say to the hon. the Minister that if this is the case, he should perhaps through his publicity or public relations department try to get through to these overseas firms and make it known to them that if they are sending goods to the Witwatersrand area they should consign it to City Deep.

Finally, I want to talk about the Railway Board. I see in a cutting from the London Daily Telegraph of 14 January 1978—which I have here—that one of the labour union leaders on the railways of Great Britain, Mr. Dave Bowman, was appointed to the British Railway Board when he retired. The question of the people on the Railway Board is something which the hon. member for Durban Point has raised from time to time. I should like to make once again an appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider appointing to the Railway Board representatives from trade and industry, and possibly even people from the Railway Staff Associations, say a prominent employee who has retired. I am quite sure that with the diversity of opinion which would be available if the board is composed in this way, the Railway Board might find that it could have a far broader discussion on matters which come before it. This, I think, would be in the interest of the Railway Administration.

Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, as I also did in the Second Reading debate. I seem to get the impression that the hon. gentleman has a very wide financial knowledge. He says he is making it his task in this House to make sure that there is no wild spending by the Railways Administration as far as capital works and other expenditures are concerned. I hope I am giving a correct interpretation of what the hon. member said. However, he then blithely throws across the floor of the House figures coming to millions of rand and says that what is to be spent in terms of this Brown Book does not comply with the decisions taken by the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours. This is not a very sound argument. However, when I asked the hon. member to give an example other than the one he gave he could not give it. He said that he did not have the time. He only gave one simple example, item 191 on page 25 of the Brown Book. What does this item say? It says that the original amount approved by Parliament for a carriage and wagon depot at Cor Delfos was R119 400 and that the additional amount now required is R151 700. I have no personal knowledge of the construction of this depot or about what is going to happen in Cor Delfos in this regard, but I have sat on the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours many, many more years than the hon. member for Amanzimtoti has. [Interjections.] We know that when the original estimates are drawn up by the Administration, this is done only after pre-planning. These estimates are drawn up on the assessments of the engineers and taking into account the requirements of that period. Does the hon. member expect that the Railway Administration should be so rigid in its planning that having once put an estimate for an item on the Brown Book, it has to stand by that and that there can be no change in the plans or additional amounts required?

This is over-expenditure of amounts approved by Parliament.

The hon. gentleman has the perfect right to come and ask what the reasons for the additional expenditure are. There is a reason for it. However, he has no right to make the accusation of inefficiency and bad planning in the Administration. That is the inference of what the hon. member was trying to convey in the House. He makes this accusation simply because additional amounts for works which have already been approved in principle by Parliament appear in the estimates. What Parliament does in the Brown Book is to approve the works that are placed before it as per the estimates. However, that does not mean to say that the total expenditure is binding on that particular work. The hon. member ought to know that. He must not attempt to make political capital by throwing arguments relating to some R84 million across the floor of the House, and then giving one little, single example of expenditure of R119 400. I hope I shall have the opportunity at Third Reading to deal with the great financial knowledge of the hon. member for Amanzimtoti.

They will not let you talk again after this.

The hon. member for Yeoville ought to know by now that when I am on my feet he should keep quiet, because he is going to have a very difficult time in the future. I have not dealt with the hon. member for Yeoville. I am surprised that throughout the whole Second Reading debate, while we were dealing with important amounts of millions of rand, an average of just four members of that “united, effective Opposition”, which wants to look after the interests of the railwaymen and the vast transportation system of South Africa, were present. [Interjections.] This is the “united, effective Opposition” which is going to show South Africa how it is to be done.

[Inaudible.]

Harry, you run away when an Englishman speaks on this side of the House, don’t you?

It is no wonder the hon. member has to refresh himself with water at the present moment.

When I see you I need water.

I want to come back to another matter. I want to raise certain questions regarding the policy followed by the Administration and I want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister the present tractive force policy applied at the present time. I do so because I think it is a matter which will be very pertinent in this debate in view of what possibly lies ahead in the future for South Africa.

In the early ’seventies it was decided as a matter of policy and in the interests of operating efficiency in the circumstances of those times that the use of steam locomotive traction should be phased out and replaced by diesel and electric traction. With the acceptance of this programme at that time it was anticipated that steam traction would be entirely phased out by the year 1991-’92. There was no argument at that particular time that this was not a sound policy to be followed by the Administration, because it had obvious advantages. A greater use of diesel and electric traction had advantages of longer train haulage, greater traction force, savings in personnel, increased speed, faster tum-round of trucks and hence overall greater efficiency in the haulage side of our transportation system. Hand in hand with this policy was the policy of greater electrification of our railways. The policy of electrification has been followed for virtually more than two decades with increasing traffic density in the late ’sixties and in the ’seventies.

With the phasing out of steam traction it was also anticipated that after 1981 no further purchases of diesel locomotives would be necessary and that with increased electrification diesel locomotives would become available for replacement on those lines where steam traction was still necessary.

In spite of the millions of rand in capital expended over the past years—the hon. the Minister indicated in his reply to the Second Reading debate that a policy of further electrification would require millions more—today we still have only one-third of the total track of the S.A. Railways, some 33 400 km, electrified. I think 10 634 km has been electrified, largely covering the high-density routes. One recognizes that further electrification will under present circumstances, taking into consideration the difficulty of obtaining capital and our existing economic conditions, take place at a slow rate. The point I am trying to make is that in the 1970s the policy of phasing steam out was fully justified. Different economic circumstances prevailed then. Different international circumstances prevailed then. It still remains the basic policy of the Railways to electrify as far as possible. We still face the situation today, since the acceptance of this policy, that steam locomotive units exceed diesel or electric units. I do not have the tractive force figures, but steam units number 1 911, electric units number 1 605 and diesel units 1 136. I draw attention to these facts in the light of the circumstances of today, and ask whether the policy of phasing out steam locomotion should still be retained, or whether it should be held in abeyance. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the behaviour of the Official Opposition reminds me of the Africa syndrome. Nothing the Government does, or nothing it is asked to do, or that it is expected to do, or even that it is demanded to do, will bring satisfaction to these people. That is why I say that they are suffering from the Africa syndrome. I ask myself: Why is this so? I arrive at one answer only, and that is that these people are negatively orientated. They are negative in their thinking, their behaviour and in their being. One speaker after the other stood up in this debate on the Railway Budget yesterday and today and tried to belittle the top personnel of the Railways and the Railways in general; without success. The hon. member for Orange Grove, after he had heard the hon. the Minister’s budget speech and after he had slept on it, said that he was all the more convinced that this was an inflationary budget But in the same breath he asked that national servicemen be given a rebate on weekend flights to be with their mothers. I wonder who will ultimately pay for this.

When other hon. members on this side of the House very successfully pointed out the economics effected by the Railways in recent years, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti said that those economics were irrelevant. When we save millions of rands per annum, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti says it is irrelevant.

When did I say that?

Go and read your speech. You will see that you said it. In addition to the economics which have already been mentioned here, I want to mention one or two more. I do not want to refer to the pruning of overtime, the elimination of Sunday time or the multitudinous types of trains which were cancelled for some reason or other, because it was not possible to utilize these to the maximum at that specific stage. The hon. member for Orange Grove has just said that we should make more use of motor-coach transport. This is the very thing the department has been doing over the past year. The department has cancelled trains and has been transporting passengers by motor-coach. People in rural areas in particular will be able to testify to the fact that the Railways even went so far as to close down a number of small stations. However, I do not want to elaborate on that any further. I want to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Smithfield when he was dealing with the research being done by the Railways with a view to bringing about effective saving. The hon. member referred to the new experiment with the new type of double-deck truck for small stock, a truck already in use at Beaufort West. According to information at my disposal the volume of transport is growing, and if it grows any further and—as the hon. the Minister rightly remarked—the undertaking proves to be successful economically, the hon. the Minister will grant us a railage rebate in this respect as well. I also want to refer to another type of railway truck which has been designed for the transport of timber. At the moment the Railways transport timber in 20-ton trucks. With the necessary changes and adjustments the same trucks can transport 50 tons of timber. Then I want to mention another experiment which is in progress in the Railways’ workshops. That is the design and construction of a self-service dining car, an innovation which, in my opinion, will ultimately replace the existing dining cars altogether. It is a dining car in which the same method will be employed as that which is employed in providing take-away meals everywhere in our large towns and cities. All these things are of an anti-inflationary nature. One should be grateful to the Railways for that, because if the Railways had not made these efforts, the deficits would have been much larger.

In conclusion I want to take leave in all humility of the very well-known Drakensberg train, a further result of the pruning of expenditure. The hon. the Minister rightly remarked that the Drakensberg had become uneconomic and that the service would be suspended altogether as from 1 June this year. Therefore, while the Railways is saving literally millions of rands annually, and is going to save more millions in future, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti alleges that it is all irrelevant. [Interjections.] I regret that the hon. member for Simonstown is not here today. Now, however, I understand why he is not here. It is because he was so ineffective yesterday. That is why he cannot be here today.

He made a good speech yesterday! [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to see to it that the Airways return to the use of glasses. This is something which is near to my heart. It is a small thing, but yet important. Last year I travelled by aeroplane from East London to Kimberley and I ordered myself half a bottle of good wine. [Interjections.] My disappointment was great, however, when I had to pour that good wine into a plastic glass before drinking it. [Interjections.] I had the same feeling then as I experienced at that time when the NP lost Queenstown by 13 votes. It is a feeling of despair. [Interjections.]

Sir, there is another small matter with regard to domestic flights to which I want to refer, and that is the small, wet “Coolette” face cloths which used to be distributed to passengers. It might perhaps be said that the distribution of these face cloths was stopped as a result of the economy campaign. That may well be, but the provision of those cloths went hand in hand with a prestige service.

I want to conclude by thanking the hon. the Minister for the extensions made to our airport in Kimberley. It is very hot in our part of the world …

Order! I think the Kimberley train should come to a halt now. Its time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is unfortunate that the hon. member for Kimberley South should have attacked an hon. member in his absence after the Minister had already said that he could not be present on account of illness. The hon. member for Simonstown is not one of my political colleagues, but he is a colleague of mine in the House, and I think it is totally unreasonable to attack someone when he is ill. In the second place, Sir, I want to say that we in these benches are used to being attacked and insulted by members of the ruling party, but is it necessary for the hon. member to insult Africa as well? He said that certain people were suffering from an Africa syndrome and then he proceeded to give his own definition of what that Africa syndrome is. I think it is totally unnecessary for that hon. member to thwart the work of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs with these insults about Africa.

†The hon. member found it necessary to make an attack on the hon. member for Orange Grove because the hon. member for Orange Grove had suggested that some concession should be given to servicemen. He indignantly said: “Who is going to pay for it?” The hon. the Minister will know that there is a system in existence in airways throughout the world whereby, for example, staff can board aircraft after they have waited to see whether there are seats available when the aircraft is ready for take-off. This they do on a stand-by basis, and I think it would be very easy to introduce a similar system for servicemen whereby, once the full fare-paying passengers are aboard, those servicemen can take up those seats which still remain, at a reduced rate. That will cost one no more than the meal which the man takes. It will cost virtually nothing to allow him on the aircraft at that stage. If that is a price to be paid in order to give such a service to a servicemen, I would suggest that it is well worthwhile. That hon. member contemptuously said: “Hy wil huis toe gaan na sy ma.”

*Sir, I think it is important that that man should go home to his mother. I think it is an insult to those young men who are serving our country for that hon. member to refer to them in such a way. It is an insult, and we cannot refrain from pointing that out.

†Mr. Chairman, I want to deal today specifically with South African Airways. I speak today not merely as the member for Yeoville, but as a customer—and I think a very good customer—of South African Airways in respect of its overseas services. I want to relate the tale of flight SA 251, a flight which goes regularly from London to Zurich to Windhoek and to Johannesburg. I refer specifically to one of those flights, a flight which was delayed firstly by industrial action in London. It departed late and the passengers were irritable when they were on the plane. They were irritable when they arrived at Zurich. The plane took off late from Zurich, and a message was then given to the passengers that there would be a stop for technical reasons at Las Palmas.

The passengers were then landed in Las Palmas, went into the airport lounge and were delayed there for half an hour, then for an hour and then for two hours. They consequently became irritable and cross. Eventually it became apparent that there had been a bomb scare, and that in fact a message had come to the captain of the aircraft from Frankfurt reporting that there was allegedly a bomb on board. I want to tell hon. members that the service that those people on the aircraft rendered to the passengers who were there is something that I think every single person in this House could be proud of. There were people who had drunk too much and became belligerent, and there were people who became a little hysterical and said that they would not go back onto the aircraft. Let me say that the approach of the S.A. Airways personnel to these passengers can only be described as outstanding. That is not all, however. The aircraft was towed right to the other end of the airport. The local people left it alone, but our own staff, from the captain downwards, worked on that aircraft all night unloading it themselves, checking to see whether there were bombs on board and, in fact, seeing to it that the luggage and the cargo went back on board. They worked the whole night through, flew the aircraft the next day and rendered, under the most trying and difficult of circumstances, with passengers in a most irritable state, what I can only describe as outstanding service. It was outstanding in every respect, a striking instance of dedication to duty. In the overall situation they even dealt with individual problems. If one sees a S.A. Airways hostess attend to a mother and her baby, one is seeing something which typifies service far beyond the call of duty. If one sees a man working the whole night and then flying the aircraft the next day, one is seeing a service I think we can, without any hesitation, be proud of. As a passenger of S.A. Airways, I do not want to compare us with any other airline. I do not want to say that we are better than any other airline, but there is no airline in the world that is better than S.A. Airways as far as its international service is concerned. I am prepared to say that in the face of all comparison. There is no question about it. Here I want to pay a tribute to the men and women of S.A. Airways whom I believe are outstanding and are a credit, not only to that service but also to the country. I relate the tale of flight 251 only as an example, because if one looks at what those people do by way of courtesy, by way of service rendered and in every other respect, I do not think one can find anyone else to surpass them. We can all have petty criticisms. I might not like the breakfasts on the internal services and I may not like this or that or the next thing. Compared with other services in the world, however, this service need not take second place to any other service whatsoever.

I have very strong feelings about this. I should consequently also like to make some suggestions to the hon. the Minister. We know what has happened to the rand and its purchasing power. The hon. the Minister knows, as well as I do, that when air crews are overseas, on what they get paid their money does not go very far. I should therefore like to appeal to the hon. the Minister by asking him whether, in existing circumstances, it is not possible to give them some allowance which will compensate them at least for the depreciation in the rand when they are overseas and make their own little purchases for entertainment or whatever the case may be. I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister for such an allowance for them.

I should also like to make a second appeal to the hon. the Minister. When there are delays or when extra duties arise, is it not possible, on a time basis, to bring in some extra allowance to compensate for that and to show some degree of appreciation?

Thirdly I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not look again at the salaries of those individuals, not only in comparison with South African salaries, but also in comparison with world salaries because they fly in the world at large. I do not believe that our people are the best paid in the world, even though they may well render as good a service as anyone else in the world.

On another tack, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether we cannot do something to get some of the package business that is presently being handled in large amounts particularly by Kenya. Our game parks are as good as anybody’s. Our hotels in South Africa are cheaper than most hotels in the world. The service people get in South Africa is also better. However, the cost involved in coming from Nairobi to South Africa changes the whole cost structure and that is why we do not get our full share of that kind of tourist traffic. I believe that since, in existing circumstances, we need that foreign exchange, the hon. the Minister should apply his mind to our getting a bigger share of that traffic of tourists who want to go to game parks and see animals and that kind of thing. Kenya is beating us completely in this respect, while I think we have much more to offer than they have to offer. Certainly, we can equal what they have to offer in many other ways.

Sir, the hon. the Minister knows that I hold certain views on travel facilities. I think many things can be said in regard to what can be done for passengers on the smaller basis. He knows that in my view the businessman using Jan Smuts Airport should have better facilities available there for consultations. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to carry on where the hon. member for Yeoville left off and I want to endorse what he said about the S.A. Airways. I am glad that he paid a compliment here to our international services. I think that those people who make use of it will fully agree with him. Let me add, however, that I think we may rest assured of the safety of our airways. I want to address a word of thanks and appreciation to the Administration and the hon. the Minister for having enabled us to undertake an inspection tour of Jan Smuts Airport and to see the immense job being done there to keep our aeroplanes safe at all times. I believe a film should be made of what is done there and that it should be shown on our flights, not every day, but from time to time. In the Airbus on our internal services there is space at the back where a screen can be put up for that type of film to be shown on our internal flights so that people can see what is actually being done to keep the aircraft in a safe working condition. I think it should also be shown on overseas flights. The travelling public should be kept much better informed with regard to this matter.

Mr. Chairman, this is my first speech since returning to the House after I had been absent for a while. Under the circumstances it is gratifying to be able to speak about the Railways on this occasion, because exactly 40 years ago I also sat in the benches where the Railway officials now sit. It was then a staff member of the Parliamentary team of the Railways. I do not think many of the people sitting there were in the service of the Railways that time. I joined the Railways as a messenger to the General Manager’s father when he was chief engineer in the Railways. Therefore I am glad that I can participate in this debate today. When I was last in the House, I did not belong to the Railways group. As the constituency of Edenvale is only five minutes away from one of the most important airports in the country and as many people who work at Jan Smuts Airport or in the air transport industry live in that constituency, I took it upon me to join this group in order to look after the interests of those people. Many of the airways personnel and the workers at the Airport live in my constituency. Therefore I am particularly honoured to take part in this debate today. I want to say that we are proud of our airways and of the people who work there. We are also proud of our pilots, who are people of a very high calibre. We will also look after their interests at all times.

There is another matter which I should like to discuss on this occasion, and that is in connection with a statement made by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti in the House yesterday. I think that he owes an explanation in this respect not only to the House, but also to the railwayman. I think he should apologize to the railwayman for this statement. A report appeared in the Rand Daily Mail this morning and the heading read “Muller urged to review priorities”. The Rand Daily Mail quoted the hon. member for Amanzimtoti as saying, “Transportation is a necessary evil”. I had a look at the hon. member’s speech and what the Rand Daily Mail, has quoted here is a correct version of what the hon. member said during his speech. According to the report he said the following—

Mr. Chairman, I think this statement is such that the hon. member for Amanzimtoti should stand up here and explain to us what he means by it. My interpretation of what he said, however, is that he wants to imply to the world at large that the Railways is a necessary evil and a parasite in this country. That is an irresponsible statement made by the hon. member and I want to draw the hon. member’s attention to …

[Inaudible.]

I wonder if the hon. member for Mooi River could not contain himself a little. We know that he sometimes becomes rather agitated when one treads on his toes. That was, however, an irresponsible statement. Those of us who know the economy of the country and who know how things work in the country, will agree that the Railways is one of the mainsprings of our economic development in South Africa. If we name a few of the large industries established in South Africa to meet the demand for rolling stock and for steam and electric locomotives for the Railways, the measure in which the Railways has contributed to the development of industries in this country becomes clear. If we take note of the immense volume of business done by the Railways with an undertaking such as Iscor, for the purchase of rails, it is quite clear that the Railways stimulates that industry, and therefore commerce in the country as a whole. During his reply to the Second Reading debate today the hon. the Minister talked about the large purchasing power of the Railways, especially with regard to the products of the farmers in this country. Therefore I think it is an irresponsible statement which that hon. member made and he owes an explanation to the railwayman and this House for having said here that the Railways in this country is a necessary evil and nothing more than a parasite.

Mr. Chairman, you must realize that the railwayman has made great sacrifices, and that he is still making great sacrifices, to expand the Railways so that it can operate at the lowest possible cost Those people have made great sacrifices. When the workers demanded wage increases in this country, the Railways people were among the first who said that they would postpone their request for higher salaries. Those people knew that we were experiencing difficult economic circumstances and that it would not be wise to ask for salary increases under the circumstances. The railwayman has made his sacrifices and he still does so in many spheres of life. That is why I say that we take offence on behalf of the railwayman at a statement of that kind by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti.

I want to congratulate the General Manager of the Railways on the fine annual report they have produced. It really is a document of great value to us. It contains much interesting information and it brings us up to date with what is going on in the Railways. I also want to say that we are glad that the department took the opportunity of using the photographs of such a fine group of men, members of the parliamentary groups who took part in the tours, to grace the publication. It really is an embellishment. The photographs of the chief officials of the Railways also appear at the beginning of the report. Many of them are a bit red in the face, as a result of hard work, but we all realize, that it is the printing which is not so good. It really is a fine piece of work and I want to congratulate the General Manager of the Railways on it. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is a great pleasure to follow the hon. member for Edenvale in the debate. He has entered the House again after an absence of four years. He presented his speech like a veteran and we wish him every success for the future. It is good to note that despite his four-year absence, the hon. member has not gone off the rails.

A great deal has been said about tariffs, and various aspects of the tariff increases have been debated, but there is still one aspect upon which I want to dwell this afternoon. I want to refer in particular to the general spirit in which the tariff increases must be accepted. The hon. the Minister is being criticized on all sides about an average tariff increase of 8,6%. One important characteristic of the debate thus far is the fact that Opposition spokesmen, without exception, have not been able to lay a finger on the general circumstances which have given rise to tariff increases. I want to indicate where, in my opinion, the fault lies. The fault lies in the fact that the Opposition sees the tariff increases in isolation. That is the whole problem. Tariff increases must be seen in relation to various matters. In the first place it must be accepted that the Railways is a key industry in the economy of the country as a whole. One can therefore expect that the general state of the economy will be reflected in the results of working. It is also necessary to recognize the fact that the Railways is a strategic industry in South Africa, particularly in view of the background of the international situation as regards boycotts. This aspect, too, will be reflected in the results of working. The Railways are also subject to inflation and these matters are all reflected in the results of working of the Railways. That is why it is to some extent a superficial mistake to criticize the hon. the Minister and the Administration in this House. The Opposition ought to be impressed with the fact that the hon. the Minister and the Administration have kept the tariff increases at an average level of 8,6%. This is what we would have expected, and it is also the general spirit to which I referred earlier.

Tariff adjustments by the Railways are not a simple matter. It is not simply a question of adding up expenditure and revenue, and then imposing a tariff to recover the difference. Various factors have to be taken into account before a tariff increase is imposed. I am going to mention some of the factors, not out of a feeling of superiority, but with the idea that the hon. Opposition should consider using these data in future for constructive debating. [Interjections.] Let us see which factors have a bearing on a tariff adjustment. In the first place, there are the legal provisions in terms of which the Railways operates. Then there is the issue of inflation and interest and the general economic situation.

Then a good economic situation should be reason for the rates to come down.

I am coming to that. Then, too, there is the import and export policy. Another vital aspect to be taken into account in the determining of tariffs is the fact that the Railways has a policy of moving away from a tariff structure oriented in accordance with the value of the service rendered, towards a cost-oriented tariff structure. Another fact relating to tariffs which must be recognized is that the Railways itself is the victim of its own tariff increases. All these matters must be taken into account. If the hon. the Minister and the Railways Administration weigh up all these factors and decide that a tariff adjustment must take place, it is done in the knowledge that a tariff adjustment can in fact have an influence on the consumer price index and that a tariff adjustment on low-rated traffic can have an effect on the price of the final product. That is so. These factors are all weighed up.

One would have expected the general spirit in which these tariff increases were debated, to centre around the crux of the tariff increases. What is the crux? The crux is that the tariff increases afford an opportunity to the general public to play their part in relieving the socio-economic burden borne by the Railways. That is the crux. Permit me, Mr. Speaker, to mention certain examples. To begin with, I wish to refer to the tariff increase of 6% on passenger services. This is the premium the motorist pays when he travels to work in his empty motor-car while an empty suburban train runs alongside him in the same direction. The tariff increase of 11,6% on goods traffic is the premium the industrialist pays for the fact that his raw materials are delivered to his factory at an extremely low rate. The increase of 6% in air tariffs is the premium the businessman pays for the privilege he enjoys of embarking on an aircraft at Jan Smuts Airport in the morning, being in Durban at midday and in Cape Town that evening, and then returning to Johannesburg the same day in an empty aircraft. Tariff increases must be seen in this light.

I want to deal with a very important matter about which we have heard nothing from the ranks of the Opposition. I refer to a clause from the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech. The hon. the Minister said that as far as tariff increases were concerned, Railway interests were subordinated to the national interest. I wonder how many hon. members of the Opposition understand what that really means. [Interjections.] If the hon. members do not understand that, then they must say so and if they do understand it, then I should like to know why they have not commented on it.

They do not understand it.

I think this Committee must give attention to the matter which the hon. the Minister raised. What is meant thereby? It means that it is the overall policy of the Railways to move away from a tariff structure orientated in accordance with the value of the service rendered, towards a more cost-orientated tariff structure. However, this was not done under these circumstances because the country’s economy cannot afford it, and also because if it were to happen that the Railways had implemented a cost-oriented structure, this would have meant that the price of bread, butter and all the basic foodstuffs would have risen. In this regard the Railways assisted in keeping the overall cost of living low. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bellville has followed the example of other hon. members on that side of the House by expressing apparent surprise that there should have been criticism of the hon. the Minister regarding the budget he has introduced. But it is, after all, the function of an Opposition to be critical, and it would have been a very strange debate indeed if both the Government and the Opposition have been ad idem in their praise of what the hon. the Minister has done. It is quite clearly our function as an Opposition to raise differences, to offer criticism and to do so as effectively and constructively as possible. There have been differences of opinion, in regard to the question of the increase in rates and in regard to a number of other matters. This is, of course, what Parliament is about and this is what debate on a budget is supposed to be about.

However, there is one matter on which I want to spend a little time this afternoon, one on which there have in fact been very little difference of opinion either yesterday or this afternoon. This concerns the Railway staff. I want to ask the hon. the Minister a number of questions regarding the staff situation. I think all hon. members in the House have been very high in their praise of the application and the dedication of the staff in the Railways Administration, right from the top management downwards. I think we all know that if in the private sector, in commerce and industry, any large undertaking is going to be successful, it needs to be able to rely upon the loyalty, dedication and efficiency of its staff. We also know that in any such undertaking it is essential that there are adequate training facilities and opportunities available to have an efficient staff. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to elaborate more during this Committee Stage on the training facilities which exist for Railway staff. In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister referred to some of the progress which had been made regarding the setting up of proper training facilities for staff at all levels. I should like to inquire from him whether the Administration has any plan for the extension of these facilities, because, quite clearly in this day and age, when one has to maintain a very high degree of efficiency, particularly in an undertaking the size of the S.A. Railways, it is absolutely vital that the Administration keeps abreast of the best possible training facilities and ensures that these facilities are freely available to as many of its employees as possible. We read, in the annual report of the Railways Administration that in excess of 7 000 students had been trained at the Railway College at Esselen Park and at its branches around the country. This seems to be an impressive figure, but it will have more meaning for us if the hon. the Minister could perhaps elaborate on whether that sort of figure is still impressive when measured against the requirements of the Administration in so far as the absorption of people into the Administration is concerned. It would also have more meaning if the hon. the Minister could tell us what the actual capacity of the Railway Training College is for the training of additional Railway staff. In the report of the Administration reference is made to the scholarship scheme for engineers and other professional staff. We are told that in the 1977 academic year some 113 new bursaries were granted for full-time undergraduate studies.

I would like to know from the hon. the Minister what the determining factors are in awarding these bursaries. Who determines the number to be awarded? How are they financed? Who determines the selection of the recipients of the bursaries? I would like information as to how it operates. The annual report goes on to say that altogether some 1 868 bursaries have been awarded. It then gives figures indicating that some 450 were withdrawn for a variety of reasons, and of the original 1 800 odd who received bursaries, some 908 graduated and took up work with the Railways Administration. I do not know whether this is a good figure, whether it is a good turnover or not. I would therefore like the hon. the Minister to indicate what research is done into the question of issuing bursaries to these people. If one looks at these figures, it looks as though less than 50% of those who were awarded bursaries actually take up employment with the Railways Administration. If one considers that these bursaries are awarded presumably because of the particular merit of the people concerned, great care must be taken in the selection of those people to ensure that the bursaries are put to proper use. Other figures given show a similar pattern. For example, there is the B.Comm. scholarship scheme. Again we are told that since 1960 some 360 bursaries were awarded and 191 graduated. This again gives a plus-minus 50% success figure. Over a period of 18 years an average of 20 a year were awarded a B.Comm. degree. Again I would like information from the hon. the Minister as to whether the awarding of these bursaries is being thoroughly supervised and the selection of the recipients is being properly scrutinized.

One could go on to other matters relating to Railway training, but in the limited time at my disposal I want to switch to another matter, viz. the provision of accommodation, of housing, for Railway employees. It is evident from the hon. the Minister’s comments that as far as the Whites and the Coloured people are concerned, the Railway housing scheme is proving effective and has a record of achievement. Apparently difficulties are encountered with regard to the provision of housing for the Indian employees of the S.A. Railways, and perhaps the hon. the Minister will find time to elaborate on those difficulties and will indicate what the prospects are of overcoming the difficulties.

Then I note with approval the hon. the Minister’s statement that a house-ownership scheme for Black staff has now been approved in principle. I want to quote from the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech—

He then goes on to say—

I want to draw the attention of the Committee to the difference between a house-ownership scheme and occupational rights. It may just be a question of terminology, but there could be a profound difference. I would like the hon. the Minister to indicate whether there is significance in the use of these two separate terms. While I am talking about that, may I refer the hon. the Minister to a specific item relating to accommodation for Black staff members, viz. an item which appears in the Brown Book, item No. 733, relating to a hostel for non-White Railway employees at Umlazi, outside of Durban. According to the Brown Book R15 736 500 has already been approved by Parliament while R5 882 500 is still required as an additional sum. This makes a total of over R21 million. Apparently it is a very large hostel complex which is envisaged in the Umlazi township. At the present time, we are informed by the Brown Book that only R159 700 has been expended. This is obviously a major development, but I want to ask the hon. the Minister why the Administration is looking at a hostel instead of at individual houses, particularly in the location in which it is situated, viz. Umlazi, which is a part of kwaZulu. It would seem that this would lend itself very well indeed to money of this order, viz. R21 million, being spent on setting up these employees in proper houses rather than in a hostel which, in most cases people recognize is certainly unsatisfactory, and where people are separated from their wives and families. For a scheme of this kind there might still be time for the Administration to reconsider matters, particularly in the light of the assurances which the hon. the Minister has given us with regard to the proposed home-ownership scheme which is envisaged for non-White staff.

Again, looking at the hon. the Minister’s comments during the Second Reading debate, even in this instance it will not be necessary for the hon. the Minister to wait for his colleague to introduce other legislation to make it possible, because, as I say, in the case of Umlazi one is dealing with the Umlazi township which is part of kwaZulu. Therefore there should be no great difficulty in setting up a decent and reasonable housing scheme in Umlazi rather than a major hostel complex.

These are the matters which I would like the hon. the Minister to answer. At the same time, one other matter I would like to refer to is this. Could the hon. the Minister perhaps tell us what progress has been made in regard to the narrowing of the wage gap between White and Black employees of the Administration. We are told that during the period 1971 to 1977 the wage index for Whites increased at an average rate of 10,1% a year, and during the same period the wage index for non-Whites increased by an average of 10,5% a year. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, since yesterday I have been listening attentively to the speeches made here. Now, it is true, and we must accept it as such, that we have before us an entirely new Official Opposition. Now we must also ask ourselves what we expect of those people. In the first instance, I would say that we expect constructive criticism, if they are capable of expressing that type of criticism. However, what do we get from them? I want to state this briefly and then you will permit me, Mr. Chairman, to exempt one hon. member from criticism. That member is the hon. member for Yeoville. From the rest of the Official Opposition we only get destructive criticism and insults. They must not tell me that they have not hurled insults at the officials of the Railways. They have done so. They have not come forward with any suggestions for improvements whatsoever.

However, can we expect anything else from them? I do not believe we can. The hon. Official Opposition is not interested in the slightest in the budget at present before the House. They are entitled to ask me why I say that any my reply would be that at the start of this debate yesterday, out of the total of 17 hon. members of the Official Opposition, only five, and sometimes six, were present here. Is that what they call interest?

There were 30 of you here this afternoon. Now work out the percentages.

Those hon. members do not belong to your party. It will not help you to refer to them now. The Official Opposition only levels criticism at the Railways Administration. Do those poor hon. members not realize that an airline, pipelines, road transport services, etc., also exist? However, they say nothing about that. It suits them, of course, to express their offensive criticism for the world to hear. It is levelled at the hon. the Minister, the General Manager of the Railways and his staff. They are regarded as the culprits who are responsible for the lack of any—and I stress “any”—advanced planning. That, as hon. members of the Opposition would have it, is why a budget such as this is introduced. Their criticism is levelled at the nature of the budget, and they keep hammering at the increased tariffs.

If we were to analyse in depth the planning by the people concerned, we could go on for a full week or even longer. However, I should like to concentrate particularly on one aspect of the South African Railways Administration, namely the S.A. Airways. In this regard I should like to refer to the planning carried out by the hon. the Minister and by the General Manager and his staff.

I should like to come back to the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech and refer to a part of it. Because I expected to meet with resistance from the Opposition if I wanted to quote it, I obtained the assurance from the Secretary that I may in fact do so. I quote from the hon. the Minister’s speech—

Sir, I stress the word “far-sightedness”. This was very clearly stated by the hon. the Minister, but those hon. members do not listen to that. They take no notice of it. I want to maintain that the hon. the Minister, the General Manager and those who are concerned with this matter were far-sighted. They do not simply see and forget like some of those hon. members hear and forget. They saw, planned immediately and planned in advance. Now we ask: How was this done? Sir, I find it remarkable that when one treads on those hon. members toes, they sit and hold conversations with each other. Once again they do not want to hear.

There are a few other matters I want to mention today. In the first place, I want to refer to the purchase of new aircraft. You will remember, Sir, that when there was talk of the purchase of these new aircraft the Government was criticized. They could not stop criticizing. The newspapers were full of it, but what did the hon. the Minister and the General Manager do? Because there had been advanced planning, they immediately sent people overseas to investigate the situation and to bring those aircraft back to us themselves. But, Sir, they went further. They immediately had the stores enlarged. There had to be place to park those aircraft. Furthermore, they saw to it that the cabin staff were trained. The flight kitchens were enlarged. Once again criticism was levelled by those hon. members. Today it is clear that the hon. the Minister and the General Manager took the right decision in this regard.

Today the S.A. Airways provides regular services to all comers of the globe. South African aircraft are an everyday sight on airports in Europe, in North and South America, Australia and the Far East. What is more, on the airports of states bordering the Republic our aircraft are also a common sight. By whose actions was this made possible? Now the hon. the Opposition will want to say that it was due to them. I say that it is not; it is due to the actions of this Government.

I want to dwell briefly on the passenger services. We find the data in the report and hon. members would do well to look at them. The number of passengers conveyed rose from 1 922 000 in 1972-’73 to 2 976 000 in 1976-’77. This increase was made possible by advanced planning and because those new aircraft were purchased.

Sir, I could continue in this vein by referring, too, to the figures relating to freight, but I must press on. In 1944 this Government was not in power. At that time there were no international flights, but only domestic flights. In 1945 the first international flight was arranged, a flight from Johannesburg to London with an Avro-York bomber converted to take passengers. As I have already indicated, today we have flights to all comers of the globe. The S.A. Airways is today known as one of the finest in the world, if not the finest in the world. This is where I want to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Yeoville. I want to convey my sincere thanks to him in this House today for being one of the first to give thanks where thanks were due. I am not the only one to say that it is the best airline. World travellers say so too. They are the people who mention this from time to time. However, having said all this, and having thanked the hon. the Minister and the Management of the Railways with all their staff, I want to associate myself this afternoon in all humility with what the hon. member for Yeoville had to say. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the fact is that we have looked at the past of the Opposition Parties and that they have been cursed with the patchwork quilt which they have had to carry with them throughout their history—that is just the way it is. In every discussion they want to please all the people in South Africa in every respect, and that also applies to all the Railway officials. They come along and agree with the hon. the Minister concerning the efficiency with which he has managed the Railways, but they also agree with all the complainers, with all those people who have objections. However, I only hear of people with objections from the ranks of the Opposition, I never hear about such people from the ranks of the Railway officials themselves. There are some of them in my constituency and they are also to be found throughout the country. I can attest to the fact that they are very appreciative. However, the Opposition speaks to people who in their opinion have objections and they do so in order to make an impression on those people. They want to give the impression that they are the people who fight for the interests of those people in Parliament. They want to lump them all together, even those who do not have objections or who do not know themselves whether they should have objections or not.

There are of course people who complain about their circumstances, circumstances which cannot be changed. However, if the hon. the Minister is to obtain funds to run the Railways, whom must he obtain them from? Must he obtain them from people to whom no service is rendered, or from people who enjoy the service? That is why I say that we farmers also suffer in this regard.

We know that there are problems, but whom, then, is the hon. the Minister to ask? These funds must be obtained and if the Railways cannot provide the necessary services in these times, in the interests of the development of our people and our country, there is no future for these people in this country. We must therefore co-operate in this respect. Should certain officials of the Railways be paid off so that there can be fewer people who are treated better? Recently at the Copperton Mines, I asked some of the mineworkers what should be done. I asked whether they preferred that people should be paid off or that their salaries be increased. They replied that they were in the service of their fatherland and preferred to carry on with the present salaries. In our country’s present circumstances they preferred to share the little they had because they realized that there was nothing we could do about their circumstances. This is also the attitude of our Railway people and one can see from that that they are satisfied what the hon. the Minister is doing.

There are just a few minor matters which I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. There are many of our people who fall into the low-income group. There are, for example, our shunters and checkers, who earn a meagre salary in these days of price increases, etc. However, they are people with five or six children who earn a mere R170 per month. We realize that those people are unable to maintain a very good standard of living. Those low-paid people must be looked after.

There is another matter, too, which I want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister, concerning the old pensioned-off officials of the Railways. The pensioners who retired in 1966, today only receive R173 per month. They are having a very hard time of it, and representations have been made to us asking that the hon. the Minister give consideration to the plight of these pensioners. I have before me a letter in which pensioners earnestly request that the Minister give attention to this matter, because officials pensioned off recently are far better off than the officials pensioned off in 1966 and earlier. I want to ask the hon. the Minister please to give attention to these old Railway officials so that for them, too, there can be a prospect of a better life.

I now want to deal with the issue of the conveyance of livestock. With regard to this service rendered by the Railways, requests are being received that the rate for the conveyance of livestock be reduced. I realize that under present circumstances the hon. the Minister has no alternative but to increase tariffs, but I believe that the method of conveyance must be changed. I want to thank the hon. the Minister for the indication he gave that in the near future, double-deck trucks will be provided. I think that this will make a tremendous contribution towards a reduction of tariffs. However, it is also true that there are many people who transport cattle. What are we going to do in this regard? It costs the farmer in the Northern Cape—my constituency is situated more or less in the middle of the Northern Cape—about R8,20 to market a single sheep—and that includes the cost of railage. Whereas at the moment the farmers there are threatened by drought, they are paying R8,20 to market a sheep or a lamb of 13 kg. You can imagine what the farmer gets out of that in the end! I want to ask that if the decision of the Minister in this regard be carried out, it be done quickly, because it also costs the farmer in that region a great deal to convey his livestock by road, since he is far from the market. It costs him more than R2 to convey a single sheep to the market by truck. Perhaps longer units can be used than the trucks which are only capable of carrying 12 cattle or 13 at the utmost. If this could be done, the tariff in question could also be reduced. Nevertheless, I believe that these circumstances will convince the hon. the Minister of Agriculture that we must endeavour to build regional abattoirs in the outlying parts of our country. Then we shall only need to make use of refrigerated trucks and there will be a substantial drop in our transport costs. I want to make an earnest appeal to the hon. the Minister to try to assist in reducing the tariffs on livestock in this regard. I want to tell you that at this stage the farmers in the Northern Cape are entering a period which, as we see it, is not going to be very prosperous because they are already being threatened by drought. If, therefore, the farmers in that region can obtain relief it will be greatly appreciated.

Mr. Chairman, I must admit being rather amazed at the very excellent speech made by the hon. member who has just sat down. I think it is very noteworthy that a Government member, who sits in one of the front benches, should be pleading the case of the farmer and the pensioner.

Leave him alone. I shall talk about that.

I think it is indeed very meritorious and, if I have interpreted correctly the first shaken at his back, perhaps he may be joining us over here one of these days.

You can have him; we do not want him.

Secondly, I should seriously like to say a very sincere thank you to the hon. the Minister of Transport and his officials for the wonderful news we have had in the House this afternoon in connection with the box rates for East London. I can assure the hon. the Minister on behalf of the people in my constituency that it will make a big difference in their lives. We are indeed very grateful to him.

Mr. Chairman, I want to touch on various items appearing in the White Book, particularly relating to the Airways. Without a shadow of a doubt S.A. Airways is a service that we in South Africa can be exceptionally proud of, particularly in regard to their service in the air. It is interesting to note that according to the original and revised estimates of the 1977-’78 budget, flying costs, traffic expenses and expenses on passenger services came down. In total R11 million was saved on those three items. It is, however, Mr. Chairman, a bit more worrying to note that administrative charges, sales promotion and miscellaneous expenses increased by R2,787 million. In other words our flying expenses decreased while our administrative expenses increased. This I do not think is a very welcome trend. When we look at the estimates for 1978-’79 we find that an even worse picture starts to emerge because when we look on page 31 of the White Book we see that administrative expenses are going up in the estimates for 1978-’79 by R4 191 000 when compared with the estimates for 1977-’78. This reflects an increase over the estimates for 1977-’78 of 37,6%. I maintain that an increase of 37,6% in administrative expenses is a fantastic amount particularly when one finds a little lower down on that page that the fuel and oil expenses are actually being reduced by R2,9 million. In other words, although we are getting a reduced flying bill we are getting an exceptionally heavy increase in the administrative expenses. If one further looks at the subhead “Sales Promotion and Sales” we find that expenditure under this subhead is up by R7,658 million. If one analyses this further one finds that this increase in the expenditure on sales promotion and sales represents 9,14% of the expected revenue from passenger services. In other words, 9% of our revenue from passenger services is disappearing in sales and sales promotion and then I am not including expenditure on advertising. This compares with a 1977-’78 figure of only 7,8% of passenger revenue. In other words the percentage of revenue which is being eaten up by this item has risen from 7,8% to 9,14% and I believe this is noteworthy. If we, in fact, had stuck at a percentage of 7,8% of the estimated revenue from passenger services for 1979, this particular item would have been R4 million less. I think this question badly needs explanation.

Furthermore, miscellaneous expenses have gone up by R1,15 million. If one takes these three items alone, viz. the administrative increase, the increase in respect of sales promotion and sales and the increase in respect of miscellaneous expenses, these increases total R12,956 million and this represents 3,95% of passenger revenue. In other words, as close as “dammit” is to swearing, we could have reduced our air fares by 4% for the year 1977-’78 if the Administration had not increased their expenses. If they had been able to retain the same administrative expenses, our fares could have been reduced by 4%. Obviously we cannot blame the increases on the extra fuel costs because, as I have already mentioned, our fuel costs have, in fact, reduced.

The next thing I want to refer to, is the matter of obsolescent spares …

Can you give me the Account numbers of the items you are referring to?

Most certainly. Obsolescent spares is No. 3133 on page 32 of the Estimates. I see there that the Railways are going to write off R4,2 million’s worth of spares as against R3 850 000 the previous year. In other words, the obsolescence of aircraft spares is going to cost us R8 million. I have a couple of questions to put to the hon. the Minister in this regard as I wish to make sure that I understand this item correctly. Are these obsolescent spares now being thrown away, or is this purely a provision for depreciation? If in fact it is a provision for depreciation, then my total argument falls away. I quite frankly wish that, if it is purely such a provision, they would state that clearly. I would also like to know what percentage of the total stock this amount represents and how do they work out the depreciation on spares? Obviously, our stock of spares should be a fairly small one. One should find that, with the air freight facilities from America, one should be able to obtain Boeing spares without much trouble. If one needs them urgently, one should be able to get them within a few days. After all, S.A. Airways can fly their own spares out from the States in their own aircraft at virtually no charge whatsoever. I therefore believe that these figures should be given to us and that we should be told what in fact our total stock is and what the necessity is for this tremendous write-off every year.

Proceeding with the accounts, there are one or two other matters on which I would like to ask some questions. They are in connection with some very big increases. On page 34 one finds, under Account 3501, that payment under pool agreement in respect of international traffic has increased by 127%. That is a tremendous percentage by which this particular item is being increased and I believe the hon. the Minister should give us some reasons for this increase.

Further on, on page 35, one finds that in respect of the house ownership scheme there has been an increase of 98,8% in regard to item O and of 45% in regard to item P. These are tremendous percentage increases and I believe we should have some reaction from the hon. the Minister on why exactly they have come about.

Mr. Chairman, I will not react to all the technical arguments raised by the hon. member for East London North, but I would like to react to two aspects he mentioned. He mentioned that the cost of sales promotion has gone up over the past period and that it will go up further over the next period. It is very obvious that those costs will rise. We are living in a time of worldwide recession and a world-wide reduction in tourism; people are in fact competing more intensely for a reduced number of tourists or spending power. If one looks at the figures which are available from the Department of Tourism and at the figures that are available from the Italian Ministry of Tourism, one sees exactly the same trend in both. Very obviously, to maintain one’s market share, one must, if one is sensible, increase one’s sales promotion.

The hon. member also made an irresponsible statement which cannot be ignored. He suggested that the Airways should decrease their stocks because they can fly spares in from the Boeing Corporation or from spares’ purveyors abroad. That is of course, in the times in which we live, a quite ridiculous remark to make. It borders on the dangerous. It is almost as silly as declaring East London a sort of Hong Kong Coney Island as was suggested. [Interjections.]

I want to mention something which has to do with my constituency. The hon. the Minister will know that the railway line in Maitland divides the constituency. It bisects the constituency, but it does not divide the community. The community of Maitland is one community with one set of churches, one set of schools, one set of shops, etc. Therefore, people who live on either side of the railway line must cross the railway line to use the facilities which are available to them in Maitland. They must cross it when they go shopping, when they go to school, when they go to church and when they go to work. If they want to buy a train ticket to come to Cape Town they have to cross the railway line, buy the ticket and recross it again in order to catch the train to Cape Town. [Interjections.] The problem which arises is the fact that the only way for the public to get across the railway line is by using a long, very narrow and dark subway. [Interjections.]

*Mr. Chairman, I find it interesting that the members of the Opposition take no interest whatsoever in the poor. [Interjections.] When we talk about the rich, they are interested. When the election was being fought in Maitland, they said that they did not like the smell of the food in the houses at Ysterplaat. [Interjections.] I am now pleading for the poor and they are making a noise. [Interjections.] That is typical of them.

†The subway I have referred to is dimly lit and dangerous, and assaults have occurred in it. I am complaining on behalf of some of their own people, because those members do not even know what is going on in the Peninsula. [Interjections.] People have been molested in the subway. People can conceal themselves very easily in the subway. I have inspected the subway on several occasions and I have found that the lighting is very poor at night. The bulbs themselves have been prised from their sockets on many occasions. Even after they are replaced, they have to be replaced again after a day or two … [Interjections.] I would ask that the hon. the Minister investigates the possibility of building a foot-bridge over the railway line to alleviate this problem. This has been done a few miles along the railway line in the same constituency at Maitland station. The subway I am referring to is at the Koeberg Road station. An overpass foot-bridge would reduce the problem enormously. That has been the experience at Maitland station which had exactly the same problem. I would be very grateful if the hon. the Minister would be so kind as to look at that aspect of things.

Finally, I should like to say that I understand that the Koeberg Road station may be phased out at some time in the future. However, that will not affect anything because the people on the two sides of the railway line still have to make use of a crossing facility in order to use the social facilities which are available to them.

I also want to congratulate the department and the hon. the Minister on the sensitivity of this budget. To me it is gratifying that the department sees itself also as an instrument of the general progress of our subcontinent and all of Africa south of the Sahara. The fact that the department is aware of this and sensitive to this is important and I want to congratulate them and the hon. the Minister for that attitude which emerges in all the figures and reports that are before us. Africa is a huge area of land, about a fourth or a fifth of the world’s land surface. We know that in the 49 countries in Africa there are only 28 railway systems and that of these countries 28 have populations of under 5 million. We also know that the whole transport infrastructure of these countries is very poor indeed. Since we have developed a broadly based and in-depth transport technology, we, of course, can play a far greater role than we are already playing in this direction. When one looks at the huge potential of Africa one understands that our technology and the advice that we can give may well be very useful indeed. It is so that the technological advances in transport have been so rapid that many countries in Africa will be able to make a kind of technological leap. Instead of following the classic advance from steam to diesel and electric systems, the countries which are very backward will be able to move straight into modern transport technology. They will be able to move, like we have seen in the Congo for example, and other countries in West Africa, straight into containerization. To the extent that we have knowledge of the technology required, we can help these countries with the appropriate technology which they will have to introduce in the light of their very limited resources.

With those few comments I would like to congratulate once more the hon. the Minister and the officials of the department for a very excellent budget.

Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the congratulations and appreciation expressed by the hon. member for East London North for what the hon. member for Prieska had to say. The hon. member for Prieska gives good service to his constituency. Nor is he just any member. He returned to the House after beating another, very senior member of his party hands down in a nomination struggle in the past election. I want to refer specifically to a few statements he made. The hon. member hit out at the Opposition once or twice, but interestingly enough he is asking for basically the same things as we are advocating. He mentions the issues of pensions, the conveyance of livestock and then, too, a matter very close to my heart, namely, regional abattoirs and the general issue of decentralization. These are matters which must be considered in every department in order to prevent more platteland towns bleeding to death as has been happening for so many years.

In his budget speech the hon. the Minister also made mention of the matter of Mitchell’s Plain and said that larger amounts of money would now be made available for that project. I want to convey my appreciation for that and at the same time express the hope that in the near future the hon. the Minister will see to this project and give the highest possible priority to making funds available for the project. Probably there are few housing projects in South Africa as totally dependent on the provision of transport as that at Mitchell’s Plain. I want to venture the opinion that some damage may already have been done due to the publicity given to the fact that originally the Railways did not see its way clear to providing that railway line. This area is just far enough from any urban industrial area to make it totally dependant on transport, and it is therefore encouraging that the hon. the Minister should give priority to this project, as he is in fact doing.

As far as the Sishen-Saldanha railway line is concerned I want to point out that the hon. the Minister mentioned the fact that this railway line is a guaranteed line and that consequently it gives priority to Iscor to a certain extent. It is understandable that this should be so and it is perhaps a good thing that the Railways should be indemnified against loss in this way. However, the position is that the Sishen-Saldanha railway line is now the Railways’ problem and not Iscor’s. The question now arises as to whether Iscor has not in fact saddled the Railways with a major problem. It is clearly necessary that the railway line be made available for general traffic. The hon. the Minister gave indications to this effect although he mentioned that making the railway line available for general traffic and the extent to which the line was used for general traffic, would depend on the demand. Here again we have a situation in which it is not clear whether the cart comes before the horse or the horse before the cart, because the railway line must be adapted to so great an extent to make it really suitable for general traffic before the demand will in fact arise. We must bear in mind what applies to that railway line and perhaps does not apply to any other railway line in South Africa, namely that it was not developed with general traffic in mind. This is a problem which faces the hon. the Minister and the Railways Administration and about which something will certainly have to be done. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to what extent this railway line can in fact be integrated with the rest of the railway network in South Africa. If one looks at its course, it is clear that it was not constructed with that aim in mind. It will certainly be difficult to integrate it meaningfully with the rest of the railway network—a vital necessity. To what extent have adjustments already been made to make this railway line suitable for and attractive to general traffic? In the Second Reading debate I mentioned that a railway line which can also carry general traffic surely has to run through areas where production takes place and where there are marketing possibilities. I have also mentioned that it is necessary for a multipurpose railway line intended for general traffic to be planned from the outset in such a way that it runs through urban areas, in any event. This is certainly not the case with this railway line. We should like to have more information in this connection because I fear that this railway line could cause the Railways many problems in the future.

Finally, I want to refer to an issue raised by the hon. member for Orange Grove which in my opinion deserves more attention. He raised the possibility that the hon. the Minister make air concessions available to national servicemen. The hon. the Minister said he could not accept the proposal, inter alia, because the national servicemen usually wanted to travel on weekends when the demand for air transport tends to be high and the aircraft are of course full. However, I think this matter deserves a little additional attention since it is clearly a laudable suggestion. I do not think the hon. member for Orange Grove is of the opinion that these concessions should be made available indiscriminately and without limitation. Nowadays national servicemen are given about a week’s leave at least once and sometimes slightly more often every year. It may be expected that with the introduction of longer periods of service, the holiday periods may be extended, or else that they may go on holiday more regularly. This opportunity will undoubtedly be of greater value to families than in the past if one takes into account the fact that nowadays more national servicemen are being called up for active service on our borders. For that reason I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give consideration to the granting of a special concession to every national serviceman, even if it is only once or twice a year, so that they can visit their families. Such concessions need not apply over weekends. I am sure that in co-operation with the Department of Defence and their unit officers, national servicemen will be able to arrange their affairs in such a way that they are able to make use of this privilege during the week and on weekdays when the demand for air transport is not so great. They can make use of such a privilege in a way which need not prejudice the Railways in any way and which need not entail any loss for the Railways.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Green Point fared much better on this occasion than he did yesterday during the Second Reading debate when he furnished particulars which were not to his credit as a member of this House. However, I can find no fault with what he has now pleaded for during the Committee Stage, but I should like to leave it at that.

I want to confine myself to one of the facets of the S.A. Railways which is going to become increasingly important in future, viz. the S.A. Airways. Much has already been said about the S.A. Airways this afternoon. Reference was made to many facets of the Airways as well. The S.A. Airways will probably become one of our major means of transport of the future and will become more and more important in future. A good product sells itself. I believe that the S.A. Airways is also going to do that.

The airways is no longer merely a fashionable means of transport or a casual luxury in the transport set-up. The contribution of the airways towards total mobility is becoming more and more important. Time as a factor in the pattern of life of the businessman, the professional man, of even the holiday-maker and the casual traveller compels everyone to make greater use of air travel. The time factor obviously requires faster and more effective transport.

I want to refer to a few figures and statistics in this regard. There was an increase from 1,5 million domestic passengers in 1972-’73 to 2,37 million in 1976-’77—an increase of 66%. In the case of domestic air freight the same tendency is evident. In 1972-’73 18,74 million tons of air freight was transported and in 1976-’77 it was 30,65 million tons—an increase of 61%.

I now want to sketch a picture of the total operating results of the airways. In 1972-’73 the revenue of the airways was R140 million and in 1976-’77 it was R318,7 million—an increase of 228%. The same tendency can be noticed in the expenditure. In 1972-’73 the expenditure of the airways was R153,8 million and in 1976-’77 it was R332,6 million—an increase of 215%. It is clearly apparent from these figures, as well as from other figures which I am not going to give now, that the growth is phenomenal, a success which will be envied by every other sector in our economy. To maintain this growth there will have to be a sustained team effort to make air transport more effective and efficient. The travelling public will use air transport to an increasing extent, and the airways will have to be able to accommodate this demand. Up to now air travel has to a certain extent been an exclusive means of transport, but in future more and more members of the general public will make use of air transport. Care must therefore be taken that ancillary services, inter alia, such as catering and terminus bus transport for passengers, do not become detrimental to the service. The catering service of the S.A. Airways is definitely one of the best in the world. Although there has already been rationalization and certain meals on certain flights have been eliminated, the service remains satisfactory and excellent.

There was also rationalization with regard to bus transport, bus transport of air passengers between terminuses and airports. At certain airports this service has already had to be suspended because of a lack of support, and it is a pity that this had to happen. At bigger airports where the services are coordinated with the departure and arrival times of aircraft, for instance in Cape Town, Durban and Windhoek, the position is considerably better, an arrangement which is definitely convenient for the service as well as the passengers. This is in fact proved by the extent to which passengers use this service, i.e. up to 24% utilization in Windhoek and more than 10% in Cape Town and Durban.

I want to single out another problem, actually a ridiculous inconsistency in this service, i.e. the scheduled bus services between Jan Smuts Airport and Johannesburg and especially Pretoria. I only want to mention a few examples to prove this inconsistency or lack of co-ordination. There are many such examples. If one looks at flight SA 304 from Cape Town to Johannesburg, you see that the time of arrival of this flight is 10h00 at Jan Smuts Airport. The bus leaves for Pretoria at 10h00. The time of arrival of flight SA 308 is 12h10. The bus has already left at 12h00. The time of arrival of flight SA 324 is 16h30 and the bus departs at 16h45. That is fair enough, but in the case of the Durban flight, SA 518, the time of arrival is 16h55 while the bus has already left at 16h45.

We must buy the hon. the Minister a watch.

If a scheduled time-table has to be used, one should be careful that an empty bus does not leave for Pretoria while the passengers have to wait 45 minutes or longer at the airport or even have to make use of other transport. I hear that in Pretoria a helicopter service between Jan Smuts Airport and Pretoria has been established and that there are five of these so-called heliports if that is the right word—in Pretoria. There will be a “helivamess” if these helicopters have to replace bus transport at such a “helivaprice”.

I want to conclude by expressing my gratitude for the R5,2 million which has been voted for the ensuing year for the Mabopane railway line. This project is slowly but surely getting off the ground. The R620 000 for Belle Ombre is a small amount, but we trust that it will be increased in the near future.

In conclusion I also want to express thanks on behalf of the Railway servants and officials for the concession with regard to pensions. I think the hon. the Minister was being very modest when he referred to this in his budget speech, because he only referred to it briefly. The additional benefits which flow from this are considerable. I shall mention only one example. When he dies, the widow of a servant 48 years of age, with 20 years’ service, will receive a gratuity of R6 750. At the commencement of the new scales she will receive R10 000. The annuity is increased from R132,33 per month to R266,67 per month. The gratuity in the case of a second official who has only contributed for four years before he dies, was R3 300. Now it is R4 000. The annuity increases from R55,66 to R266,67. The Railway servant is very grateful for this. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is in fact encouraging to hear some criticism coming from an hon. member on the opposite side of this House. I myself considered the possibility of mentioning the long periods I have had to wait at Jan Smuts Airport, and late at night for that matter, because I was unable to catch the bus to Pretoria and consequently had to wait for the next one. I thought, however, that it would be taken amiss, but since it came from that side of the House, I think it will carry some weight and that the hon. the Minister will definitely do something about the matter.

The challenge was issued from my left this afternoon for hon. members of the Opposition to express some gratitude for a change. The invitation is not really necessary, because when one gets something that is worthwhile, one expresses one’s gratitude for that as a matter of course. Therefore I want to associate myself briefly with the hon. member for East London and the hon. member for Green Point in the gratitude they expressed to the hon. the Minister for the tariffs announced by him. As far as Port Elizabeth is concerned, I can assure the hon. the Minister that quite a few glasses will be raised in Port Elizabeth tonight.

Plastic glasses!

They will not be plastic glasses. We in Port Elizabeth live in style and use cutglass! I can give the assurance that there will be many joyful hearts tonight about the announcement made by the hon. the Minister.

There are probably very few hon. members in this House who can boast of having in his constituency a station, a harbour, the regional headquarters and an air terminal.

Is that all?

That is quite a lot. There are few constituencies that have that. I want to give the assurance that we in Port Elizabeth appreciate the extensions which are being made in the harbour for containerization. It is in keeping with the development of the city. We appreciate the extensions being made at the airport as well. Those, too, are in keeping with the development of the city. I am sorry to say, however, that when it comes to our station—I am talking about Port Elizabeth station—I am afraid that that building is definitely not something we can be proud of anymore. Surely such a building should fit in with the Government buildings. I am afraid that I have to say this evening that we have missed the train as far as a decent station for Port Elizabeth is concerned. I know that this matter has been discussed several times in this House in the past when times were better and when it would have been easier to have built a new station there. But we have missed the train, because now that time is past.

If you see the station at Delmas, you will cry.

There is a vast difference between a station in a city and a station at a siding.

†Mr. Chairman, the station in Port Elizabeth and all these other Government offices form part of our central business district, and all the buildings in that area are changing face from day to day. Unfortunately the station is not being changed, but I think there is a need that something should be done as far as this station is concerned, especially due to the fact that the new north/south freeway passes close to the station and more and more people are getting a better view of the station. Sometimes I feel pleased when I realize that motorists are driving past too fast to have a better look at the station.

*Mr. Chairman, it is essential that we preserve our historical heritage. I think, however, one can also carry that too far. I am convinced that if one of the old 1820 Settlers were to rise from his grave today and suddenly arrive at the station, he would be no stranger there. He would recognize the place.

†Overseas it is a tendency today to recycle buildings. I think that is the correct term which is used. I know that the money is not available at this stage and I think it will be unfair to appeal to the hon. the Minister for a new station for Port Elizabeth. However, I am going to ask him today to reconsider the possibility of recycling the existing building.

*When one enters the station building and sees what facilities there are, when one senses the atmosphere of that old building, one realizes at once that everything there is out of keeping with the railway station of a big city like Port Elizabeth. The toilet facilities, the waiting room facilities, the baggage room, and even the charge office of the Railway Police are simply primitive. I know, of course, what I am talking about. I was locked up there for an hour by the police. [Interjections.] Yes, that is correct. I was locked up there for an hour. I can assure hon. members that the security measures there are poor. If I wanted to, I could simply have absconded. [Interjections.]

What was the charge against you?

Oh no, I can definitely not tell the hon. member that. It is a State secret.

Mr. Chairman, if the existing station building of Port Elizabeth is renovated somewhat and if the interior of the building is repaired, I am sure that we in Port Elizabeth shall once again have station facilities of which we can be proud. I have no doubt that the working conditions of the station staff there are probably poor. I do not believe that they are in any respect conducive to productivity. If the hon. the Minister can find the money for that and if the Port Elizabeth railway station can be renovated somewhat, I am sure that it will once again serve its purpose and do that for many years to come.

The last question I should like to mention, is something that has been raised often in this House. That is the ore quay and the problem of ore dust in the harbour at Port Elizabeth. However, I should like to discuss that from a different angle today. There were complaints in the past. There are still complaints. Today, however, I want to break a lance for the Railways, and in particular for the present system manager in Port Elizabeth for the efforts that have been made during the past few months to cope with this problem. We know that tests have been conducted with wetting the ore and that that has brought about a major improvement. Up to now the wetting has been by hand. Tenders have been invited for the mechanization of that process and I am sure that for as long as iron ore will be exported through Port Elizabeth harbour the problem of ore dust will be contained to a large extent.

I also believe that the hon. the Minister of Community Development will appreciate this because the developments he envisages for South End will be affected to a large extent by the problem of the ore dust. Although it has been announced that the iron ore which is at present being exported through Port Elizabeth harbour will eventually be exported through the harbour at Saldanha, I am of the opinion that it will still take several years before the present situation will change completely. It is only realistic to expect that that will still last for quite a number of years. I want to suggest that the possibility of putting a roof over the tipplers be examined. The area concerned is not vast and this is actually from where the dust comes. It happens when the tipplers tip the ore trucks. When the massive load of such an ore truck is tipped out, it is obvious that a vast amount of dust will rise from that, even if the ore has been wetted beforehand. If it is possible to put a roof over the tipplers and if ventilators can be installed to extract the dust, I believe that the problem can be solved completely.

I want to assure the hon. the Minister that I am not a member of the anti-ore dust action committee coming to complain here today. I am mentioning the matter in all sincerity. I say thank you for what has already been done, and I am also grateful for the realization on the part of the system manager of the Railways in Port Elizabeth with regard to the extent of the problem. I am asking, however, that the matter be taken further, especially in view of the fact that the present state of affairs will exist for a couple of years to come. For that reason I also believe that the money that will be spent on putting a roof over the tipplers, will be spent usefully. The public of Port Elizabeth that has been saddled with this problem of ore dust for such a long time, will be satisfied, and, who knows, maybe it will also be possible for me to rise again in this House within the next year or so to thank the hon. the Minister for having accommodated us in this regard.

Chairman directed to report progress and asked leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.