as Chairman, presented the First and Second Reports of the Select Committee on the subject of the Moratorium Amendment Bill [B. 7—’78] (Assembly), reporting the Bill with amendments [B. 7a—’78].

H. J. COETSEE,

Chairman.

Committee Rooms

House of Assembly

22 February 1978

Reports and proceedings to be printed.

Mr. Speaker, after the Railways and Harbours Budget has been disposed of, which will be at approximately 15h30 tomorrow afternoon, the House will proceed to deal with the Orders of the Day on the Order Paper. Precedence will be given to the Alteration of Provincial Boundaries Bill and the Diplomatic Privileges Amendment Bill.

The House will adjourn a little earlier tomorrow afternoon to accommodate hon. members who have been invited to attend the reception given by the State President. On Friday private members’ motions will be discussed. We shall probably devote Monday and Tuesday to the disposal of the Post Office Budget. On Tuesday, 14 March, the House will also adjourn a little earlier to enable hon. members to attend a reception given by the Cape Town City Council. This will be after the Post Office Budget has been disposed of.

Mr. Chairman, I should very much like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister a matter arising from the two big home-ownership schemes which the Administration manages on behalf of the employees of the Railways. Before I come to the actual request which I want to address to the hon. the Minister in this connection, I first want to say that, in my humble opinion, the very great, purposeful attempts of the Administration of the S.A. Railways and Harbours to accommodate our people properly, actually receive very little publicity. If we read the documents before the House, together with the Second Reading speech by the hon. the Minister and the annual report of the General Manager, it gives us an overall picture of the housing projects of the Administration. For instance, we find that the enormous amount of R121 million is going to be employed in the new financial year, not only to accommodate our people properly, but also to make them home-owners. Secondly, one also finds that the whole housing system of the S.A. Railways grips the attention and imagination of everyone interested in the housing of our people. Perhaps I may just mention that the system used by the Railways, may be divided into two facets. Firstly, there is the ordinary departmental rented house scheme, in terms of which more than 25 000 houses have been put at the disposal of our people over the years. We can call the second facet the actual method according to which our employees become owners and proprietors of dwellings. We are dealing here with the very well-known 10% housing scheme, which is backed by the building societies, in terms of which the railwayman immediately becomes the registered owner of his dwelling. We cannot find fault with this system. It was established in 1954, and since then a great many houses have become the property of our railwaymen in terms of this scheme. The other two well-known home-ownership schemes are known as the “100% schemes”. One is backed by the pension funds and the other by ordinary Railway funds. These two schemes have one characteristic in common, and it is in this regard that I should like to make representations to the hon. the Minister. The one characteristic which they have in common, means that the railwayman does not become the registered owner of the dwelling when it is purchased. In practice then, the Administration is the actual purchaser of the dwelling. The dwelling is registered in the name of the Railways Administration. The Railways Administration pays the purchase price and then a mutual agreement is then drawn up between the railwayman and the Administration, and that mutual agreement then determines the usual aspects, for instance when the railwayman will take possession of the dwelling, what the instalments will be as well as when he will eventually be able to take transfer of the property.

In this regard I want to raise a matter for the consideration of the hon. the Minister. I think our deeds legislation is able to afford the Administration adequate protection. I also think that the Administration has shown over the years that we can trust railwaymen in matters like this—and Railwaymen have never abused this trust. I also think that if we accept this proposed system, we can eliminate double transfer costs. Therefore, my request is that the railwayman should act as purchaser in the negotiations. The property must be bought in the name of the railwayman, transfer must be made in his name and the Administration must be properly protected in terms of a bond or by means of whatever conditions the Administration may decide upon. I think that if we were to adopt this system, we would, as I have already said, eliminate double transfer costs. We would also be proving to the railwayman what we have always known and believed, viz. that he will never let the Administration down. What is more, we shall give him the opportunity—if I may illustrate it like this—to have in his hands, the evidence of his real, major economic asset, viz. his dwelling. We shall give him the opportunity of having his deed of transfer in his hands. Not only will this mean a great deal to him in the years ahead, both morally and materially, but it will also give him the required stimulus of knowing that the necessary confidence has been placed in him, that he is the boss and the registered owner of his house and that the Railways is protected as well. I believe the hon. the Minister will consider this request of mine. In this way we can do the railwayman a big favour as well as saving him a great deal of money.

While I am on the subject, I should also like to express another idea. We are talking here about the tremendous attempt which the Railways is making to provide the railway-worker with accommodation, and talking like this, one is tempted to add something else. Although the Railways is the biggest single industrial establishment in South Africa and although the Railways has also spent an amount of almost R586 million on housing over the years, is it not possible for other industrialists to follow this fine example of the Railways in the times in which we are living? Could they not also put shoulder to the wheel and try to do for their employees what the Railways is doing for the railwayman? Could they not also try, not only to accommodate their employees, but also to make them, in actual fact, the registered owners of their dwellings?

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Newton Park made a fine plea for Railway workers to be housed well, and I think it is indeed commendable that working people are decently housed. What bothered me about his speech, if I may refer to it, was the fact that he did not mention that there are also a large number of Black and Coloured workers on the Railways. I should just like to associate myself with what he said and ask the hon. the Minister to give these workers their rightful share in these facilities too. Home ownership is just as important to these people as it is to our hardworking White Railway workers.

Mr. Chairman, from the debate which has been in progress for the past two days, it is clear to me that there is some sensitivity about the tariffs on agricultural goods in particular. I put a number of questions to the hon. the Minister during the Second Reading. I also tried to explain what the effect of the increased tariffs on the agricultural sector would be. In this regard I referred to the agricultural sector of the Western Cape in particular, because this is the area which I know most about. The hon. the Minister replied to many questions and covered a very wide field, but he did not answer the questions which I put to him on that matter, nor did he repudiate my statements in this regard. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to do so nevertheless on a later occasion.

I also found it interesting that the agricultural speakers on the other side did not participate in this debate.

They participate in the agriculture debate.

The hon. members for Malmesbury, Carletonville, Paarl, Bethal and Heilbron remained silent in this debate. It is interesting that two motions on agriculture were moved by members on that side of the House on 10 and 17 February. No fewer than 18 speeches were made on those two motions. What is very important, is that everyone in the House agreed that the agricultural sector is going through an economic struggle. It was pointed out that the total agricultural debt for the period 1975-’76 alone, increased by approximately R304 million to a record amount of R2 310 million. If we look at the increased tariffs on agricultural goods, it is clear, to me at least, that the Minister of Transport does not care very much about the agriculturist. It is also clear to me that hon. members on the other side who participated in those agricultural debates and who, theoretically at least, have to put the case for the agriculturist here in the House, do not have the courage to stand up and criticize their own hon. Minister and say: “Look, we do not agree with you on this and that”.

They are as quiet as mice now.

I must say in all fairness that there were in fact a few speakers who referred to agriculture in this debate. The hon. member for Prieska in particular raised a few good and important points and I hope the hon. the Minister will react to them. The rest of the hon. members, however, did not raise that matter, except for the hon. member for Boksburg. I think that that hon. member must be singled out, because while he was on his feet, he made a calculation very quickly and easily. He worked out that the tariff for transporting a head of cattle from Messina in the Northern Transvaal to the abattoirs, had increased by one rand and a few cents. Then he worked out that the farmer would have to pay between half a cent and one cent more per kilo to get that animal to the abattoirs. I find it strange that immediately after that he suggested that the floor price could perhaps be lifted to make up for that loss.

You did not listen. I did not say that.

He suggested that this be done. [Interjections.] However, I wonder whether he had already discussed the matter with the hon. the Minister of Agriculture at that stage. If one takes another look at that calculation, one gets the impression that that hon. member is under the impression that a farmer can herd an animal off the veld, load it onto a train and then send it to the abattoirs. What about the other prices which will also rise as a result of the tariff increase? What about the price of fertilizer? What about the price of fodder which will increase as a result of the tariff increase? What about the price of sprays and, last but not least, what about fuel? I do not mind the hon. member participating in the debate, but then he should rather not talk about agriculture.

The hon. the Minister did in fact make one or two remarks about agriculture. He referred, inter alia, to the fact that rail tariffs had increased by 110% over a period—I think it was from 1973 to the present—and pointed out that the price of meat had increased by 165% over the same period. With all respect, Mr. Chairman, I cannot see how the hon. the Minister can compare these two things and then say that the farmer is not so badly off. After all, rail tariffs are not the only factor which influence the end price of the agriculturist’s product. There are many other factors which influence it. As if this is not bad enough, the same story was retold last night on both radio and SABC-TV, in order to create the impression that the farmer is the one who is being favoured. It is intimated that the price of his products increased by 165% over this period, while the poor Railways received only 110% more. The impression is being created that the farmer is the one who is accumulating wealth in this country. This is an unfair comparison, and I believe it may bring the farmer and the consumer into conflict with one another. I do not think it is fair to draw that comparison and to refer specifically to the price of meat as compared with the transport costs. As if this was still not bad enough, I noticed that the General Manager of the S.A. Railways repeated more or less the same story. All I can do, is to use the English expression and say: “They are ganging up on the farmers.” And this is not right.

You are talking absolute nonsense now.

I want to come back to the problems which the agriculturist experiences in the Western Cape. I have already referred to this during the Second Reading and I am going to refer to it again now, although I am sorry that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture is not here. I want to predict—and I am being quite serious now—that these tariff increases are the beginning of a new inflation spiral in the country. I also want to predict that within the next 12 months, the consumer of maize, for instance in the Western Cape, which is transported by the Railways to a very large extent … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the course of my speech I shall refer to what the hon. member for Wynberg said. At this stage I should like to express my gratitude to the hon. the Minister … [Interjections.] I expected a chorus from that side of the House, because all the Opposition can do these days, is to “encore”. I should like to express my gratitude towards the hon. the Minister for the inspection tour we were able to undertake last year. It was a very interesting and informative tour and I should like to suggest that the hon. the Minister invite the groups concerned for another such a tour this year. The hon. the Minister should not forget to address an invitation to the Opposition as well. Last year they could only participate in a part of the tour as the announcement of the election was made half way through the tour and they rushed off to their constituencies to try and save their sinking ship.

With regard to the importance of the role played by the railways, harbours, pipelines, road transport and the airways in our national economy, the Opposition has succeeded thus far in overlooking it, to a great extent. The Railways, like any other undertaking, has to be run according to business principles. However, the Opposition loses sight of the fact that the Railways also has a service motive and that the Railways also has to be managed in the national interest, in contrast to the profit motive and the promotion of limited interests. The Railways is a stimulant for our economy and its influence is far-reaching. The Opposition now maintains that the Railways is an ogre which imposes rates right and left. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti even went so far as to refer to the Railways as a parasite. Railways and Harbours is the mainspring of the industries in South Africa today and the hon. Opposition loses sight of this fact. I also want to make a wild statement, as the hon. member for Amanzimtoti did—I am somewhat hesitant to turn his statement around—by saying that many industries in South Africa are basically parasites on the Railways. I say this in good spirit, because I mean by that that many industries are, to a great extent, dependent on the work they receive from the Railways.

Let us for one moment look at what the Railways ploughs back into the South African economy. I repeat that the Railways is the most important mainspring of our South African economy and I briefly want to discuss certain relevant details in this respect. In the first place, I briefly want to illustrate the role of the Railways as provider of transport. That is the basic function of the Railways and I believe all the users, i.e. agriculture, mining, industry and trade, will agree that the Railways has always fulfilled its function as the largest haulier in South Africa very scrupulously. The Railways is responsible for more than half the total transport in South Africa. It is true that more than R4 000 million is invested in capital today. That represents the purchase price at the time, the so-called “historic value”.

The following statistics give a good indication of the extent of the services rendered by the Railways. In the 1976-’77 financial year 141 million tons of goods were transported as against 97 million tons eleven years ago. Certain hon. Opposition speakers said yesterday that one should consider the situation over a period of a few years.

I am regarding the situation here over a period of 11 years. Over the past 11 years there was an increase of 45%. During the same period the tonnage handled in our harbours rose by 133%—from 27 million tons to 63 million tons. For interest’s sake I may mention that there are 1 026 railways stations in the Republic and South West Africa which the public can use. At the moment the Railways use more than 4 652 electric, diesel and steam locomotives, 182 594 wagons, 10 013 passenger coaches, and 17 185 road transport vehicles and trailers. Our airways has a fleet of 41 aeroplanes. The airways’ schedule includes overseas flights, to a number of neighbouring African countries as well. With regard to our harbours, I can mention that the importance of the harbours has grown, on the one hand as a result of increased exports and, on the other hand, to provide for cargo containerization which is being implemented at an unheard-of rate. By 31 March 1979 we will have spent R440 million on equipment and improvements to harbours for this containerization project.

To paint the overall picture very briefly, I want to point out that the working estimates for 1978-’79 are nearly R3 121 million. An amount of R1 100 million has been provided for capital and betterment works. More than half of this R1 100 million will be spent on contract work, which also includes contracts with regard to rolling stock. Where can one find a better example of spending in the local industry, of the fact that the Railways ploughs back into the South African economy and that the Railways is the great mainspring of our local industries?

Let us consider the Railways as a work provider. It is interesting to note that if one includes all the pensioners and dependents, a million people are dependent on the Railways today. The Railways’ well-motivated workers’ corps consists of people with good conditions of service. On this occasion I should like to pay tribute to those who are loyal to their department in these times of the rising cost of living, and not only loyal to their department, but also to their fatherland. The department takes an interest in its people. Bursaries are available for those who want to study and special attention is paid to their training, especially in-service training. I shall not pursue this matter any further because my time has nearly expired.

I now want to deal with the role of the Railways as consumer. I have already referred to the capital programme and have said that it is a vast stimulus for our manufacturing and construction industries. It is important that we should know that the Railways purchased goods to the value of R700 million in South Africa during the past financial year. It is also interesting to note that the buying power of the railwayman in South Africa will be at least R1 000 million in the next financial year. That is what the Railways ploughs back into industry by means of its people. It is therefore clear that the Railways makes a big contribution to the growth of our industrial and commercial sectors. That is, however, a matter the Opposition never considers.

Let us now look at the role of the Railways as supplier of capital. The credit balance the Railways has in its various funds—the Renewal Fund, the Rates Equalization Fund, etc.—is invested with the Public Debt Commissioner and is therefore available as loans to Government undertakings. On 31 March last year a total amount of R242 million was available in this way. That is an immense contribution to satisfying our country’s capital needs. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think it is now an opportune time for me to reply on certain of the matters which have been raised in the Committee Stage. The discussions are in a somewhat different vein because so many hon. members, especially on the Government side, made objective speeches on certain aspects of the Railway service. The speech by the hon. member for De Aar, who has just resumed his seat, was a very good example. I think the reason lies in the occurrence to which the hon. member has referred, namely that last year so many members paid a visit to the college at Esselen Park, to Koedoespoort and to the airport to observe the activities of the airways. That stimulated them and led to many of the speeches which we have heard here. I am not saying that only good things were said in those speeches; here and there criticism was levelled or recommendations made which we shall look into thoroughly. But in general the speeches do not really elicit comment on my part, and hon. members will understand why. I should only like to express my appreciation for that and to give the hon. members the assurance that everything they say and all the recommendations they make in this connection, will be carefully considered by me. The hon. member for De Aar has also expressed the view that visits such as we made last year, should be undertaken more often. I have taken note of that recommendation.

I want to touch on the different aspects which the hon. members have discussed. In the first place, however, I should like to reply to a question which the hon. member for Orange Grove put to me at the end of the Second Reading debate. I did not reply to it then, because I felt that at that stage I had already answered enough questions. He referred to the question of a tariff rebate. I stated in my budget speech that tariff rebates applicable to private containers would no longer be granted. To this day, in fact, a tariff rebate of 10% is still being granted on private containers. Private containers do not necessarily belong to the users, because they may have been hired by them. There is however a difference between a private containers and an SAR container, which belongs to the S.A. Railways. In the past we allowed a rebate to stimulate and encourage the use of private containers and to compensate people for the capital invested in those private containers. In the case of the unit container tariff between Durban and City Deep, this rebate did not apply and a hire tariff was levied on SAR containers. As has already been said, however, this tariff rebate on private containers will be discontinued as from 1 April 1978. But to obtain parity between the use of private containers and SAR containers, a hire tariff will be levied on all SAR containers with effect from 1 April 1978. The rebate on private containers will be discontinued and a hire tariff is being levied on containers of the S.A. Railways. This hire tariff is R45 for the movement of a container between City Deep and Durban, R55 between Port Elizabeth, East London and City Deep, and R65 between City Deep and Cape Town. In other words, hon. members will be able to gather from that that the period for which a container is used, determines the rental which must be paid on the container. In the nature of things, it is perhaps totally correct and a rental is justified because the S.A. Railways have invested a great deal of money in these containers.

At this stage I should like to reply to the matter which was raised by the hon. member for Maitland. He has already written to me about the same matter on a previous occasion. The matter has since been investigated and I am now able to give him a reply. I am really sorry that I do not have good news for him. The hon. member asked that the subway at Koeberg Halt should be replaced by a footbridge. Our experience has been that all kinds of mischief occurs in subways. The lights fitted in the subways are smashed; it is dark in the subways and we have received complaints from all over the Peninsula about these subways. My problem with the subway at Koeberg Halt is that this subway is not one which leads to the platform; in other words it is not a subway for the purposes of the S.A. Railways. It is a subway which only takes people from one side of the railway line to the other. Consequently the maintenance of that subway is the responsibility of the local authority.

If a bridge were to be built there, as the hon. member requests, it will also have to be undertaken by the local authority because it is not the responsibility of the S.A. Railways. Those are unfortunately the circumstances and as I have said, I am sorry that I am not able to give a favourable reply to the hon. member in the circumstances. I am aware that this is a problem which exists, as it does at other places too.

Allow me now to discuss the various aspects which have been raised by the other hon. members. I shall begin with the hon. member for Orange Grove. He has raised quite a few matters which I can tie in with on certain statements made by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. I want to begin with Belle Ombre. The hon. member asked me what was causing the exorbitant cost increase at Belle Ombre. That is on page 5, item No. 9 of the Brown Book. To start with, I want to read out the details which I have at my disposal here. This is in regard to an increase of approximately R28 million in the cost of Belle Ombre. It reads as follows—

I should like to emphasize “revised layout of station complex”. I should like to explain to the hon. member that although Belle Ombre was to have been simply suburban station, it is now being developed into a major station where, it is expected, a quarter of a million people per day will be handled. Main line platforms are also being built to accommodate seven trains per day in peak periods, and there will also be baggage and parcels facilities.

It now transpires that that trains must also be able to run through to Pretoria station and that six additional bridges must be constructed for that purpose. These six additional bridges alone will cost R6,5 million. I do not wish to go into details, but one outstanding feature of the increased costs is that this project will have to be completed over a much longer period. As a result of this, coupled with the higher rate of interest which has to be paid, the provision for interest for the completion of the project will be much higher than was originally planned for. Among other things a bus terminus is being erected conjointly with the station as an integrated scheme. The bus terminus will of course be the responsibility of the local authority.

Now I turn briefly to the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti also referred inter alia to Belle Ombre. He went on to refer to other heads in the Brown Book where, as he alleged, there had been excess spending, where more had been spent than the estimates had originally made provision for. One example which he quoted, I think, was item No. 191. Be that as it may, I wish to refer the hon. member to Railway Board Regulation No. 4. In terms of Railway Board Regulation No. 4, the General Manager and the Minister are empowered to increase the estimated amounts in connection with separate budgets. The General Manager is empowered to approve increases, provided they do not exceed 10% of the cost of the project or R50 000. In all other cases where the estimated costs of such projects are increased, the Administration, in other words, the Minister together with the Commissioners, shall decide on the matter.

In discussing this matter I should also like to draw the hon. member’s attention to section 6 of the Railways and Harbours Finances and Accounts Act—Act No. 48 of 1977. Section 6 of that Act provides that a saving indicated under one Vote may be applied under another Vote. As a member of the relevant Select Committee, the hon. member will be completely familiar with that procedure.

In connection with item No. 9—i.e. Belle Ombre—as well as No. 191, to which the hon. member referred, I consequently granted the necessary authority during the current financial year for the total estimated amount as it appears in the Brown Book, to be increased to the amount indicated in the Brown Book. I now want to state the position as I see it. In the Brown Book, the estimated total cost of a project is usually indicated in the left-hand column. From time to time, however, provision is made in the estimated total cost of a project for additional amounts. I can put it to the Committee that the amounts indicating the total estimated cost of a project—those are the amounts in the left-hand column—may be augmented by the General Manager and the Minister depending on the circumstances. The actual amount for which the sanction of Parliament is requested, is the cash provision which appears in the column printed in bold type. That is the only amount which the hon. member, or rather Parliament, must sanction. The column on estimated total costs, I have the authority to modify as the need arises. I am elaborating on this subject because the hon. member created the impression that we are in an irregular manner exceeding the amounts which were previously approved by Parliament. That is not the case. All that is before Parliament today, is this Bill, and Parliament must approve what is contained in this Bill. What is contained in this Bill, includes those amounts which are printed in bold type in the Brown Book. Those are the amounts which we wish to spend this year, and that is what we are asking Parliament to approve. We are not asking the approval of Parliament for the estimates in respect of the projects which appear in the left-hand column.

If the estimate is exceeded, does that mean that more is being spent than Parliament appropriated?

No, Parliament does not appropriate the estimate. The estimate does not appear in the Schedules to the Bill, but only those amounts in the Bill which have been submitted to Parliament for approval. The estimates do not appear there. All that Parliament has to approve is the money which we wish to spend this year.

In the case of the new Belle Ombre project, for instance, why is it that the details “approved by Parliament—R19 million; additional amount required—R28 million” are given in the Brown Book if approval by Parliament is not necessary?

It is because that has already been before Parliament. However, Parliament is not being asked to approve that amount by means of this Bill. All that is in this Bill is the total amount requested for expenditure during the coming year. These amounts are set out in the Schedules to the Bill. These Schedules reflect the amounts which we intend spending during the coming financial year.

There is another interesting phenomenon which I should like to point out to the hon. member. It may be asked why Schedule 4 appears in the Bill. Schedule 4 was included in the Bill because the two projects mentioned in that schedule are the only two projects in respect of which this Parliament has determined an amount. These two projects are a new station at Belle Ombre and a new railway line from Thabazimbi to Ellisras. These are the amounts which appear in the Brown Book under Head No. 1. We introduced a Bill in respect of these projects on a previous occasion. We came to Parliament with those items and Parliament said: “You can carry on with that railway construction at a certain cost.” Because the amount which is now required in respect of Belle Ombre, is a departure from the amount which Parliament previously approved in respect of that project, the item in respect of Belle Ombre is now being included in the Bill. The same reason applies in the case of the Thabazimbi-Ellisras project. However, it does not apply in the case of the other items in respect of which there is an increase in comparison with the estimated amount. I should be pleased to listen to the hon. members if they have a different view of this matter.

The hon. member for Orange Grove has also spoken about medium and long distance railway passenger services. He suggested that the possibility should be investigated of conveying this traffic by road rather than by rail. I want to agree with the hon. member, but this matter will in all probability be considered mainly when the new plans in respect of urban traffic are drawn up. That is something which is being done by the Department of Transport. As far as that matter is concerned, it will be determined on a broad basis what type of traffic should be handled by the Railways and what type by the bus services, etc., and in what circumstances that should be done. We have very ambitious ideas in that respect. What the hon. member has suggested, is desirable, provided it is economical. Where for example we introduce a bus service in contrast to transportation by train, we must ensure that the overall support of the public will not in that way be lost. In other words, we must see to it that we do not in the long run convey fewer passengers than we did before. Up to now we have only done that in the case of branch lines. It stands to reason that if we were also to try to introduce that system in the case of main lines, it could only succeed if the main line service were discontinued altogether. Otherwise it would not make sense.

The hon. member also referred to non-Whites baggage. I do not know whether I should elaborate on that. The hon. member will realize that we have considerable problems with it. It has become necessary for us to limit the amount of baggage which the non-Whites may take with them on the trains, otherwise the matter would simply have got out of hand. It has happened that Black passengers have turned up at stations with baths filled with personal possessions. These must then be loaded aboard the trains and they expect them to be transported. That is why it is essential that we should impose certain restrictions. The hon. member will understand. He will also understand that it is even more essential when it comes to commuter services. On the main line services we are very obliging, provided of course other passengers are not unduly inconvenienced by the excessive baggage. We are obliging, because we realize that those people are either going home or they are going to their jobs, and that they will be away for a considerable time. The successful operation of commuter services is of course dependent upon whether one can load the trains to full capacity. Every train must be filled to capacity with passengers if it is at all possible, especially during peak periods. That is why it is essential that we should be more particular about the amount of baggage which commuter passengers may take with them. That is why a levy is imposed on parcels, regardless of the mass of the particular parcel.

I have already dealt with the matter which the hon. member for Amanzimtoti raised, namely the question of excess spending. Therefore I do not think it is necessary to elaborate any further on the matter. I should be pleased to listen to the hon. member if there is still any difference of opinion between us on this matter. The hon. member has said we should advise the people that they should address their containers to City Deep if the containers come from abroad and are destined for City Deep. But I do not think it is our task to do so. We are working in the closest co-operation with the Chamber of Industries, with the Sakekamers and Chambers of Commerce. These are the people who have contact with the consignors, and I think it is right that they should advise the people abroad that it is in the interests of their clients that consignments should be addressed to City Deep if their destination is City Deep.

The hon. member for Von Brandis spoke about the different types of locomotives we have. Our attitude at the moment is that we are keeping the good, modern steam locomotives in reserve. The replacement of steam locomotives has been slowed down lately, precisely in view of the strategic value which the steam locomotives may have because the energy which is generated in steam locomotives is obtained from the soil of South Africa and need not be imported. We are electrifying wherever it can be justified, but as I said yesterday, it cannot be justified in all cases owing to the volume of the traffic. Electrification can only be justified where there is a high traffic density, because the attendant capital outlay is very high.

There is of course another factor which the hon. member must take into account, or rather another factor which he must remember, and that is that steam is no longer able to make the grade with the present operational methods which we have. The steam locomotive is simply not able to pull the longer and heavier trains which we have and with which we are able to transport such larger quantities of goods. For that reason, the steam locomotive is simply no longer comparable with the diesel and the electric locomotives. Apart from that, there is also the reason which I mentioned yesterday, in connection with operational staff. We require only one driver and one assistant, for quite a number of electrical or diesel locomotives, while we require a driver and an assistant for every steam locomotive. The final interesting matter which I wish to point out in this connection, is that the diesel consumption by the S.A. Railways according to present day standards is, according to estimates, approximately 2% of the total fuel consumption in South Africa. Well, 2% is not to be meezed at, but it is not all that much either. We are nevertheless keeping the steam locomotives in the background. If it should become necessary to use them to a greater extent, we can always do so. There are of course other factors, too, which play a part, for example the supply of water along the way, etc. Anyhow, the steam locomotives are still there.

The hon. member for Kimberley South has told us of his flights on the S.A. Airways. He intimated that he felt quite humiliated when he had to drink wine from a plastic glass. I sympathize with him.

Give him a bottle.

If it is at all possible, one would like a proper glass.

He can always take a straw with him.

I should like to tell the hon. members that in the past, when we still used ordinary glasses, it was our experience that thousands of glasses were broken. In these days of economizing, we are therefore compelled to supply plastic glasses, even though one does not really like doing it. I fear we shall just have to continue with that practice. In any event, we are using the very best plastic glasses that are available.

The hon. member has also spoken about the sweet-smelling napkins, those scented napkins. He has asked us to make them available again. The fact of the matter is that we found the use of those napkins to be particularly wasteful. Many of them were not used at all. It is a sheer waste and therefore we cannot see any necessity for supplying them any more.

The hon. member for Yeoville asked me again about the Defence Force men. I said the other day, and I just want to repeat it briefly, that I do not think it is a practical suggestion. The trouble is that the Defence Force soldiers only has a few days home leave, and those few days are normally over a weekend. Over weekends, the aircraft are usually more fully booked than during the week. Apart from the financial aspect, that is the unpractical side of it. Now it has been requested that I should allow it on a sort of stand-by basis. In other words, a Defence Force soldier has to be at the airport and if there is a seat for him, he can travel and if there is no seat, he cannot. Now it can happen that although he gets only two or three days’ leave, he may have to wait a whole day without being able to get a seat. You will realize, Sir, that if we agree to such a plan, many of these men would be eager to make use thereof. Therefore it simply does not appear to me to be practical suggestion. In any event I do not believe that it is my task to provide such a service. The hon. member for Yeoville would have noticed that the hon. member for Orange Grove has already asked me what the concessions which are granted cost. I had to reply that it is already costing the Railways more than R2 million just for public servants, MP’s and so on, people who are not on the staff of the Railways. I could hardly extend such concessions any further.

The hon. member for Yeoville has given the S.A. Airways an excellent testimonial. I wondered … But I accept that it was meant. It would even …

You can say what is on your mind. You are a pessimistic person.

I appreciate the nice things he has said and the testimonial which he has given the S.A. Railways. I also say that our Airways—and especially the overseas services—is second to none. That is indeed the case, and we are very proud of it. I appreciate all the nice things which have been said here about the Airways. I also wish to point out to the hon. member that the cost reimbursement of the Airways staff was recently improved. As far as salaries are concerned, I think the hon. member will agree with me that we cannot single out one group in the Railways and elevate them as a separate group above all the others. Apart from that, I think that their salaries today are good. The hon. member has stressed that their salaries should not be compared with South African conditions, but with international conditions. I do not quite see the sense in his argument. After all, these people are in South Africa and their position must therefore be judged according to the living conditions and the cost structure in South Africa. For that reason I cannot quite agree with him when he suggests that we should allow ourselves to be guided by other countries as to what our Airways staffs remuneration should be. In the nature of things there will, however, be some connection between the wages of the staff of the various airlines.

The hon. member also had something to say about the flights from Europe to Nairobi in Kenya. I think the flights he was referring to, were chartered flights. Chartered flights are undertaken to Nairobi. Hon. members who have visited SAA offices abroad, will know about all the advertisements on display there in connection with sightseeing in South Africa, especially as far as our fauna is concerned. In fact, I have thought that we sometimes go too far in stressing our fauna in such advertisements.

It is not the advertisements, but the cost.

Yes, I understand, and that is of course our problem. If one wants to see elephants for example, it is far cheaper to fly from Europe to Nairobi than it would be to fly to Johannesburg. That is a fact, but we cannot shorten the distance, although we do advertise where it is at all possible.

The hon. member for Musgrave has asked me quite a number of questions in connection with training. I should like to invite the hon. member, when it suits him, to pay a visit to our college at Esselen Park. I think if the hon. member were to do that, all the questions which he has asked would be answered. I am quite prepared to make all the necessary arrangements for him so that the visit may take place on a day and at a time which would suit him. For the sake of the record, however, I wish to furnish some information in regard to training. At the college at Esselen Park approximately 3 000 servants are trained every year for their functional task in the field of human relations, supervision, etc. There are also branches of the college at Bellville, Bloemfontein, Germiston, Koedoespoort, Port Elizabeth and Wentworth. At these branches approximately 4 500 servants are trained every year. That brings the total to approximately 7 500 per annum. The hon. member expressly asked whether any extensions were being envisaged. There is no need at present for extensions, and none are being contemplated. The training of the middle management group will also be undertaken at the college now, and more and more attention is being concentrated on this type of training. As far as bursaries are concerned, decisions on these are taken every year, mainly with a view to the needs of the technical departments and provided funds are available, of course. The matriculation results of applicants are considered and only those with a first-class pass are considered for bursaries. Naturally it goes without saying that the subjects which the applicant has to take, must be acceptable for the purposes of the Railways. In general we have a very happy past record in connection with training and, in particular, in regard to our bursary awards to students. Students enter the service of the Railways after completing their training.

The hon. member also put questions in connection with housing. I said earlier that we are experiencing certain problems in connection with the acquisition of land for the building of homes for Indians. Negotiations are now in progress with the Durban Corporation and with the Department of Community Development and we trust that towards the end of the 1977-’78 financial year, 12 homes for Indians will already be available. The hon. member has also referred to the hostel at Umlazi, and I should like to point out to him that this hostel—as hon. members will notice from the Brown Book—will cost millions of rand and that it is really intended for single persons or for workers—not necessarily unmarried ones—who come to Durban and environs on a temporary basis. These people work mainly in Durban harbour and vicinity. For the amount which we are spending on that hostel, we cannot build anything like the same number of houses to accommodate the number of workers which we intend to accommodate in the hostel.

The hon. member has also referred to the wage gap and I am convinced that hon. members are aware that we are continually trying to narrow the wage gap. In 1976, we granted a salary increase of 10% to Whites, 12½% to Coloureds and Indians and 15% to Blacks. This same pattern was followed in connection with recent salary increases and we intend to continue with that process.

The hon. member for Edenvale has suggested that we should show films on Railway matters in the wide-bodied aircraft which we use for domestic flights. I shall take note of his suggestion and shall give it careful consideration, but at this stage I do not know whether such a thing will be practicable.

The hon. member for Prieska …

He made a very good speech.

The hon. member says he made a very good speech. Well, he is in the right party after all, so we expect that from him. In particular the hon. member has referred to the method we should try to employ in transporting small animals. We have given attention to that matter in the past, and I am convinced that now, with the introduction of the modern double-decker wagons, we shall succeed in transporting small animals in a more satisfactory way. The hon. member has requested us to proceed with that as soon as possible.

The hon. member for East London North referred to certain items in the White Book, where there were particular increases, and I now want to single out some of these items and explain the reasons to the hon. member. The increase in administrative costs can primarily be ascribed in the first place to the change in the accounting procedure. The rental of teleprinters is now debited against this account—this is the account to which the hon. member referred—whereas it used to be debited against account No. 3125. If I remember correctly, the hon. member referred to account No. 3101. The amount was formerly debited against account No. 3125 and is now being debited against account No. 3101. The hon. member will notice in the White Book that account No. 3125 shows a much larger decrease. The increased administrative costs are caused, in the second place, by the salary increases which have been applicable since the 1 January 1978 pay month and in the third place, by the influence which the expected increase in traffic will have on the administrative costs. From the nature of things, we are expecting an increase in the volume of traffic during the coming financial year.

The hon. member has also referred to the drop of R2,9 million in fuel costs. I should like to state for the information of the hon. member that a considerably favourable contract price was recently negotiated by the airways in this connection. With reference to the hon. member’s inquiry in connection with aircraft spare parts becoming obsolescent, I should like to quote to him the resolution which was adopted in 1957-’58—

The hon. member will realize that in the case of the airways, there are certain parts which, whether or not they are used, will become unusable after a certain period. In the nature of things we have to take account of this. The total stock supplies of the airways amount to approximately R80 million.

In respect of the subsidy on housing loans, the increase there is caused mainly, by the fact that interest rates have gone up and that during the 1978-’79 financial year considerably more will have to be spent on housing. I have not dealt with all the points raised by the hon. member, but I think I have replied to most of them. I also think the hon. member will be able to understand the nature of the increase.

Mr. Chairman, the one item the hon. the Minister has not reacted to was account No. 3143 where there have been agency fees and commission increases totalling R7 million and I would be grateful if the hon. the Minister, perhaps the next time he replies to Committee Stage speeches, could react to that particular item.

I thought I had notes on this with me. I shall reply to that in full at a later stage.

The hon. member for Green Point referred to the Sishen-Saldanha railway line again. I do not know whether it is necessary to elaborate on that again. The Sishen-Saldanha railway line was built for bulk traffic. What upset me a little was is that the hon. member said that the problem with the Sishen-Saldanha railway line had been transferred from Iscor to the Railways. Now I should like to know from the hon. member, in the first place, whether he thinks that we should not have built the railway line. I have already indicated, in my budget speech to the extent … [Interjections.] … of the contribution which the two harbours, Richards Bay and Saldanha, have made in recent years in earning foreign exchange for South Africa. I think I mentioned an amount of R450 million in my Budget Speech. I hope and trust that the success of the Sishen-Saldanha railway line will still be manifested in future, and that in years to come, it will still constitute a great advantage to the country. When the need arises for the railway line to be used for general traffic as well, we shall possibly have one train a week to start with, without causing any disruption whatsoever on the railway line. The hon. member does not realize what a simple railway line this is at the moment. Only two ore trains per day run on that line. Now what is that? In the experience of the Railways, surely that is nothing. It is the simplest railway line one can imagine. Perhaps we could initially allow one train to run for general goods, and if the demand increases and a need arises we could perhaps build more crossings to increase the capacity of the line in that way and so prevent the transport of Iscor’s traffic from being hampered in any way.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he is aware of the fact that the nearest railway station to Kenhardt is 25 miles away?

Now that is exactly the argument which the hon. member for Green Point advanced. He mentioned that the railway line should run through towns. [Interjections.] I want to know now whether he wants to suggest with that …

The railway line runs past Kenhardt. There is no other station.

I have told them that if it became necessary we could build a station there. It is surely not such a complicated business to build a siding. The hon. member for Green Point wants this railway line to run through the towns. I can do it in one of two ways: Either I must bring the town to the railway line, or I must bring the railway line to the town.

It depends upon who is Mohammed.

This railway line was built to follow the shortest route between Sishen and Saldanha. It is the simplest thing in the world to build siding facilities or a station as and when it becomes necessary and the circumstances justify it. No problems are being experienced and the Railways do not experience any problems because it is a guaranteed railway line. We cannot lose on the railway line, nor will we accept traffic which will cause us to suffer a loss on the railway line. The hon. member is therefore conjuring up spectres.

Yesterday the hon. member for Gezina talked about bus services from airports. That is quite an interesting subject. He referred to the bus service between, for example, Jan Smuts Airport and Pretoria and explained that one aircraft arrived just too early and the other just too late for the bus service. I have now decided on another procedure as from 1 April 1978, and that is that we are no longer going to supply bus services from the airport. We have gone into the matter and in this connection I want to give the hon. member some interesting figures. We made an investigation and came to the conclusion that among the passengers making use of the airways there were 4,22% for Kimberley, 6,82% for Bloemfontein, 1,98% for Port Elizabeth and 7% for East London who made use of the Administration’s transport service from the airport to the city. On the other hand, in the case of the larger cities, in Windhoek 24,6%, in Cape Town, 9,22%, and in Durban, 11,39% of the passengers made use of the service. I have now given authority for the bus services at Kimberley, Bloemfontein, Port Elizabeth and East London to be withdrawn altogether. On the part of the airways we shall not try to do anything further. In respect of Durban, Windhoek, Cape Town and Johannesburg, there will be negotiations with private organizations to introduce a transport service between the airports and the city terminuses, with the inclusion of such other convenient points as may be necessary to make the conditions of service attractive enough. I think hon. members will agree that this service which we have been rendering, to have that big bus running between Pretoria and Jan Smuts Airport…

Use a smaller bus.

Even if you use a smaller bus it will not solve the problem, because if a certain flight lands, the bus is too small again.

Then send two.

To render such services is, from a cost point of view, completely unprofitable to the Administration. Therefore it has been decided that where we get no support whatsoever or where the support does not justify the service, we shall do away with the service and we shall try to institute a private service at Windhoek, Cape Town, Durban and Johannesburg.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central made a plea for his station. Yesterday I wanted to ask the hon. member when last he travelled by train and when last he made use of the station.

On 18 January I travelled from Port Elizabeth to Bloemfontein.

It often happens that people ask for new stations and when these are supplied, they make very little use of them. At present there are no funds for the building of a new station at Port Elizabeth. Priorities for the building of stations or for the replacement of station buildings are determined, inter alia, by the extent of the utilization of such stations. It depends upon the extent of which such a station is used by the public. That is one of the ways in which priorities are determined. I can however tell the hon. member that Port Elizabeth is now on the list for renovation and we shall start with that very soon.

That is all I asked for.

The next point which the hon. member raised, was in connection with the ore tippler at Port Elizabeth. He talked about the ore dust which creates such a problem at Port Elizabeth. I am fully aware of that. I think it is a terrible burden. It is physically impossible to erect suction equipment, equipment which can extract the dust from the tippler. It can be done, but at a cost of R250 000. It would take approximately two years to build such an installation. If the hon. member will look at item No. 1395 in the Brown Book, he will notice that provision has been made for a spray installation to spray the ore.

I said tenders were being called for to do it.

Yes, but you said that at the moment this was being done by hand. We regard this as a temporary measure, and as it is intended that the loading of ore should gradually be moved to the harbour of Saldanha, I doubt whether it is necessary and whether consideration should be given to incurring any further costs in that connection. I am sure the hon. member will agree with me on that point.

Mr. Chairman, I think that is all I wanted to reply to. I shall gladly listen to what hon. members now have to say.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister announced yesterday that block-load tariffs were going to be introduced for Port Elizabeth, East London and Cape Town as well. I should like to express my appreciation for that concession by the hon. the Minister. I am doing so, not only because Port Elizabeth, East London and Cape Town are involved, but also because I see it as an incentive to exporters. I think all of us realize the magnitude of the service rendered by the Railways Administration. By rendering a service to our exporters, we earn foreign exchange for South Africa.

I am a citrus farmer and I realize that citrus farmers are largely dependent on the export of their products. When one exports one’s products to the outside world, it is very important that one should be able to compete in the outside world. Therefore every possible saving is to the benefit of exporters. We learned that the hon. the Minister had no choice but to increase the railage on agricultural products. The tariff on the export of citrus fruit was increased by 11,4%. That is a considerable increase. On an export turnover of 24 million cartons that is an increase of R670 000. That is the additional amount citrus farmers will have to pay to get their fruit to the ports.

The tariff for the transport of fruit for the domestic market has also been increased. That increase involves an additional amount of R214 000 which the citrus farmers will have to pay as well. Last year citrus farmers received a railage rebate of 50% on export fruit. I think we should start asking even at this stage for the reintroduction of that subsidy. We cannot really make the grade without it.

It is true that exporters earn foreign exchange for our country. I just want to mention the sum which citrus fruit earned for South Africa last year. It is R150 million. Therefore, it is worth while for the Government to support the citrus industry. The tariff increases which apply to citrus fruit, mean an extra 2,3 cents on each pocket and 2,7 cents on each carton which is exported. The bill the citrus industry will have to pay to the Railways this year amounts to R8,6 million.

Last year fruit farmers, by way of experiment, started using containers. I think we can say even at this stage that the use of containers was successful for the most part and consequently fruit farmers will use them on a much larger scale this year. I should like to thank the Railways Administration for the quick and efficient way in which the containerization system has been put into operation. To handle expenditure amounting to R450 million in such a manner over a period of only 14 months is truly a major achievement. I also want to congratulate the Administration on the research which has been done in connection with containerization. Containerization is going to mean a great deal to our exporters. I am sure that various new marketing methods will develop as a result of the introduction of containerization. I am thinking, for example, of the mass transportation of fruit. It will then no longer be necessary for fruit to be placed into expensive packaging. Another adjustment which it will be possible to effect in the sale of our fruit abroad, is that it will be possible to make use of pre-packaging. It will be possible for such a mass container to go directly to the particular chain store, where it can be emptied without any re-packaging of the fruit. This new system can only bring major benefits to our exporters.

Initially there was some doubt as to the heavy expenditure involved in the introduction of mass container traffic. If we add together the various amounts, we shall probably find that it cost the Railways and the companies R2 000 million. Consequently there was some doubt as to whether we would be able to repay even the interest on these amounts. I should like to point out, however, that the introduction of the system has tremendous benefits. In the first place there will be far less damage to goods. As a result of the introduction of this system it will be possible to reduce damage and theft to an absolute minimum. In addition, there is, of course, a marked saving in manpower resulting from the easier handling of these containers. We read in the newspapers of overseas’ strikes for the very reason that less manpower would be required. Once these labour problems have been solved, our export products will be transported more cheaply and more effectively. There is also the question of the rationalization of our rolling stock. The new system will result in the more effective utilization of our trucks and trains. If one works out the relevant figures, one will find that this will bring about tremendous savings. In addition there is the simplification of documentation. It will now be possible to transport goods directly to and from City Deep in Johannesburg. I hope it will be possible in future to export also our citrus fruit in this direct way.

There is just one more small matter to which I should like to refer and about which I am very glad. I notice in the annual report that the Railways imported far less timber than in previous years. I take a keen interest in the timber industry, and I notice that while the Railways imported 76% of its timber requirements the year before, it imported only 24% in the past year. Consequently far greater use has been made of local timber. Also as regards the transportation of timber, good progress has been made. The transportation of timber is more expensive now, but as a result of research the Railways have found that it can load as much as 50% more timber into the trucks. Therefore, in this regard, too, this Budget has advantages as well as disadvantages for the timber industry.

Mr. Chairman, hon. members might find it boring, but I intend breaking a lance for the farmers. I must say, in all sincerity, that the hon. members on the opposite side who are actually supposed to be the champions for the farmers are few and far between.

†I intend to give those hon. members a chance to show where their hearts lie, because I wish to move an amendment. I am sure that the hon. members who are lovers of the farming community will support me. I therefore wish to move as an amendment—

If the hon. the Minister looks at page 2 of the Green Book, i.e. the Statements of the Estimated Revenue and Expenditure, he will see that this is the estimated increase in revenue in respect of the railage of livestock. Last year he budgeted for revenue of R20 million, and that amount was reduced, on a revised estimate, to R11 850 000. With the increase he proposes to include this year, the total is brought up to an amount of R12 985 000. I now wish to reduce that amount. I appeal to the hon. the Minister that when the amount is reduced and he has a saving, he will then devote that saving to a reduction in the amount which the farmers have to pay on livestock.

Are you being frivolous?

No, I am not being frivolous. I am being absolutely serious. I am surprised that the hon. the Minister can think that anyone can be frivolous in a situation like this. I think the hon. the Minister will experience, in the course of this year, an upsurge in the economy which I think is on the way, and I think he will come here next year with a pleased and happy smile on his face, all surprised at the fact that he suddenly has a surplus of something like R100 million which he will tuck away into some account, and that amount of R1 135 000 will not even be noticed!

Then he will put the fees up again.

Yes, he will more than likely put them up again next year. I thought there would have been hon. members on the other side who would have said something about the farming community. The fact that he put up the railage on fertilizer, in the situation in which we are living today, leaves me completely surprised. I think the hon. the Minister should make his position quite clear. He said it was so uneconomical to carry livestock by rail that he had allowed the private sector to take this over. He also hoped they would take over more and more of it. I therefore think he should tell us whether it is his intention to eliminate this completely from the activities of the S.A. Railways because then we will know where we stand and people can begin to make some sort of plan.

The hon. member for Parow, who is a Chief Whip on that side and a member of the Select Committee on Railways, said there was a trend amongst the farming community to make increasing use of railage facilities for the transportation of livestock. I think we would like to know exactly what the hon. the Minister’s intentions are. Let us understand the situation. Members of the farming community—and I am referring specifically to the livestock farming community—are people who are in a special position. Every single thing they have is going to go up. Everything on their farms, every product that they need to produce what they have to live on, is going to be increased as a result of this budget, and has been increased in past years as a result of other budgets by that hon. Minister. That is not all, however. Everything else is also going to increase. The abattoir charges at Cato Ridge and everything else are going to increase. If the hon. the Minister of Agriculture were here, he would tell that hon. Minister what he knows as well as I do, and that is that today the livestock farmer is facing consumer resistance to an increasing extent. It is becoming a very serious problem indeed, so much so that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and the Meat Board had to offer meat at a special price last year. The meat that was being held in storabe was not being brought by the public, and special prices had to be introduced so that that meat could be cleared from the Meat Board’s storehouses. If there is any principle involved in transportation by the Railways, the hon. the Minister should reduce the railage on livestock in preference to increasing it.

I think there are certain things the hon. the Minister ought to do. If he is going to continue with the railage of livestock, he should try rationalization. There are stories about special trains being run from certain areas on certain days, trains which can be booked, filled and sent to livestock markets, etc. I would like to know whether he considers this an aspect which the Railways is going to phase out altogether. I should like to know that from him. The hon. the Minister said people are using road transport to an increasing extent. As with everything else, however, the cost of road transport is going to go up. Everything is going up. The cost of the vehicles themselves, the fuel that is being used and the cost of transporting the fuel to inland centres via the pipeline are all putting up the cost of that particular service provided for the farming community. The hon. the Minister said that over the past three or four years his rates had only gone up by 110% whereas the producer price of meat had gone up by 165%. He therefore felt he was being reasonable. Perhaps the hon. the Minister was being facetious when he said that. I do not know. He did not take into account, however, as the hon. member for Green Point quite rightly pointed out, that his 110% increase is only one of the factors involved in the final price the farmer gets for the livestock he is marketing. What is, in fact, happening?

Let us look at some of the figures. On a journey of 320 kilometres the railage for one animal was R4,55 in 1974-’75, R5,10 in 1975-’76, R6,91 in the next year and now R7,60 in terms of the hon. the Minister’s proposal. That represents an increase of 67% since 1974. Set against that, the average net price realized by the farmer per kilogram was 84c in 1974, 77c in 1975, 78c in 1976 and 75c in 1977—an 11% decrease. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that this is not like people who have a factory and produce boxes of shoes, bottles of wine or anything like that, which they then put on the train and off it goes somewhere else. The farmer carries livestock which he has to fatten. He is spending money. When his stock gets to its destination, he has got to accept the price at which the market is prepared to absorb his stock. It is not like shoes which can be kept for months and months at a time at a fixed price. When the animal reaches the abattoir, it gets the chop and that is the end of it. I do not think that the hon. he Minister is in any way being fair to the livestock-farming community with his particular proposal.

I should like to go further. The hon. member for Humansdorp is a member of the forestry group on the other side of the House. When he stood up here, I thought that at last we were going to hear a few words in favour of the people who farm with timber for a living.

You do not need that type of propaganda.

Mr. Chairman, that hon. member knows absolutely nothing, zero, about timber farming.

He has got timber between his ears!

What is the situation with which we are faced? Railage is a vital factor in all the negotiations that take place between timber growers and the users of timber. It is estimated that the timber industry is already today in a very serious position. We face two problems. The one is that we know that there is going to be a shortage of timber in South Africa over the long term—and timber is a very long-term crop; it takes a long time to get the crop planted and one has to look after it for many, many years which costs a lot of money.

Do you think the hon. the Minister does not know that?

I farm with timber myself and I know what is going on there.

Well, if the hon. the Minister farms with it himself, he will know precisely what I am talking about.

Well, why then try to teach me a lesson?

Well, why put up the railage on such a commodity and discourage the whole industry which is going to end up in such a parlous condition as a result of what he is doing? [Interjections.] The problem we are facing is that the private sector is required to be involved in this to the extent of planting 25 000 ha of timber per year, while in fact hardly a single hectare is being planted with timber today. Confidence in the timber market has simply fallen right down to the bottom. I believe that the least the hon. the Minister can do is to indicate today that he will accept the proposal that there should be a five-year period over which timber railage charges should be fixed at a certain level, because that is a vital factor in all negotiations of prices. If the hon. the Minister cannot accept that there should be one element of stability, he is going to complicate to a large degree the whole relationship between buyers and sellers. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I find it necessary to reply to this amendment immediately because I am obviously not at all prepared or able to accept it. I think the hon. member made a lot of ridiculous statements. He made himself ridiculous. Mr. Chairman, just imagine the ridiculous situation: He comes here and pleads the cause of the producers of livestock, and then he is surprised that the hon. member for Humansdorp in his speech did not request in the course of his speech that I should do away with the increase on timber! I should just like to ask this simple question: If everybody were to make representations on behalf of his industry and I were to give them what they wanted, where is the money to come from? [Interjections.] Then I will not get a cent of the money which I need to balance my budget.

What will you say when you have a big surplus next year?

I shall be only too thankful. The hon. member comes along here with a tale of woe, saying that the timber industry is experiencing hard times, and he mentions other industries to which the same applies. As a result the hon. member expects me to depart from the measures which we have always followed, measures which are based on sound economic principles and which are essential to the management of the Railways.

He was not serious.

Yes, I know. That is why I asked him: “Are you being frivolous?” He is poking fun in the House; that is what he is doing here. [Interjections.] He is lowering the status of this Committee to that of a circus. The fact of the matter is that the Railways organization is a national transport service. Consequently, as long as livestock is offered to the Railways for transport, there is no question of our ever saying that we do not want to transport it. It is not my intention to say that or to avoid the transport of livestock by other means. I cannot do that. The Railways was established for that purpose and therefore I shall have to transport livestock. It has been our policy for a long time—in fact it is a policy that we pursue as a result of the recommendations of a commission which made a thorough investigation—that the tariffs of the various services should be brought more into line with the cost of those services. Therefore we have pursued the policy in the past that the tariffs for those services which are not paying, should be increased by a bigger percentage than in the case of other services to bring them more in line with the cost of those services. However, I specifically stated in my speech that in this case I place the interest of our country before the interests of the Railways and before that policy which we wish to pursue. For that reason we did not draw the distinction in this instance. In the case of livestock, therefore, I have increased the tariff by the same percentage as in the case of all the other commodities. An equally good case can be made out for many other commodities as for wood and livestock, for example. However, the hon. member is still not satisfied that I deviated from the former policy and am now introducing more or less the same tariff increase, viz. 9% for big animals and 10% for small stock. The hon. member is still not satisfied with that. I thought the hon. member was joking when he made those proposals. As a matter of fact, I still do not think he was serious. I think he should grow up now so that he can be serious. Therefore I should like to tell him—and I do not want there to be any doubt about it—that I am neither able nor prepared to accept those amendments. It is not possible. In fact, to me they are absolutely absurd.

Mr. Chairman, it is with great regret that we learnt this afternoon of the announcement by the hon. Minister regarding the bus service from airports to terminal buildings. Mr. Chairman, I should like to do everything in my power to ensure that this decision be reconsidered. One calls to mind, for example, the distance between Johannesburg and Pretoria. What is it going to cost somebody who has to travel from the airport to Pretoria in a private taxi? In the case of other airports, too, this service was also of great help to the travelling public, although in some cases a very low percentage of the passengers made use of the service. I know the hon. the Minister is a very sympathetic person and I therefore have no hesitation in asking him to reconsider this decision.

The S.A. Railways cannot be separated from the world in which it operates. It forms part of the world economy and the state of the world in general. When we look at the world of today, we find an economic slump, economic pessimism and labour unrest. In contrast to this the S.A. Railways, in spite of these critical conditions has held its own as a giant. The S.A. Railways projects an image which fills one with pride.

I should like to refer to some aspects of the budget under discussion. In the first place, I should like to refer to the increase in the inflation rate which is at present approximately 11%. As against that we now have a tariff increase of—this is also approximate—8%. This indicates that the S.A. Railways is contributing substantially to the fight against inflation. In the light of the general decrease in our economic growth rate, the S.A. Railways boasts a 21,1% increase in revenue. This achievement is unique in the light of the declining trend in the world economy. Another significant point is the pruning of expenditure in the present budget. There is a saving of R89 million on the budget expenditure for the past financial year. In other words, not only was there a growth of 21,1% in the total revenue of the Railways, but also a drop in the expenditure. Those I regard as two important components of a sound economic policy.

On both sides of the House many references have been made to the tariff increases in the transporting of livestock and I should also like to make a statement in this regard. A wrong impression has been created, namely that the consumer will have to pay the tariff increase on the transport of livestock. It is the farmer, however, who is going to pay this increase. I just want to make this clear. The industrialists utilizing railway transport, can recover this cost increase from the consumer, but the farmer must pay the increase himself. The farmer is not compensated and although the price of his products has been increased, the farmer’s production costs have increased far more rapidly than the prices he has been able to negotiate. So that is the difference. The price of the industrialists and traders’ products is fixed, but the poor farmer has to negotiate his price in the light of the demand. That makes matters considerably more difficult for the farmer.

In the economically unstable world we live in, we find a special characteristic in the policy of the Railways. I am referring to the fact that the Railways are planning not only for today, but also for tomorrow. Hon. members have often referred to the heavy expenditure on the establishment of harbour facilities, railway lines and containerization. However, if one studies the planning of the Railways, one notices, with great pride, that the Railways plans for the future. In this regard I have a particular appreciation for the farsightedness of the Administration. The expenditures regarding the introduction of containerization and the extension of harbour facilities, are investments the benefits of which will certainly be reaped in the future. This planning really deserves great appreciation. When I refer to all the favourable aspects of the Railways, the economic leg on which this great concern stands, I must also refer to the other leg, namely the political and labour unrest existing in the world. In the Railways, a mighty organization with more than 263 000 employees, there is commendable labour peace. When I consider the self-control and self-discipline which this labour force of 263 000 employees has displayed with regard to higher salary demands, I wish to state that the Railway employee deserves only the highest praise and appreciation of all the inhabitants of the Republic of South Africa. The sense of responsibility which the Railway employee displays, reveals to me an attitude which one would like to see in the labour forces of today. In this respect, too, the South African Railways is unique in a world of labour unrest.

The Railways has done very well, but the Railways Administration could not have achieved this without its excellent human material. When I think of the development of the potential of the Railway employee I find it an example worth following. We have here a group of people who do not only render a service; I prefer to see the Railway employee as, figuratively speaking, a bridge builder. I am saying this because if one considers the thousands of inhabitants of the Republic of South Africa, of all population groups, who are handled by the Railways every day, also in certain non-White townships where unrest prevails, the manner in which the Railways Administration performs their task is really something which catches the eye. This bridge-building of the Railway employee is not confined to the interior. There is also the tremendous task, the pioneering work, which is being done by Railways with regard to the bridge-building with our neighbouring States, with other countries in Southern Africa. This bridge-building of the South African Railways, at home and internationally, is a characteristic which is not widely publicized, but I think it deserves the greatest appreciation, not only of this House, but also of the inhabitants of South Africa. It is an image which is projected by the Railways, from the General Manager down to the most humble employee. We, and the Republic of South Africa, convey our sincerest thanks for this building of bridges.

Mr. Chairman, containerization is the most recent addition to the series of services rendered by the South African Railways. It is indeed the showpiece of the South African Railways. It not only modernizes of our internal services, but also serves as a gateway for the Republic’s foreign trade. What is more, if one analyses the introduction of containerization and reviews the most recent developments in this field, one can come to no other conclusion but that the South African Railways is second to none in the world. The introduction of containerization is not only a matter for satisfaction and pride; it also gives one courage and inspiration for the future. Our country has the will, the knowledge, the expertise, the insight and the initiative to meet the challenges and to cope with them successfully. In the light of this and against this background I should like to single out, examine and evaluate certain aspects.

It was officially announced as recently as, March 1974, that containerization on the South African sea trade routes would be introduced in 1977.

It was a major task. The South African Railways, as national transport organization and harbour authority, had to build new container terminals at harbours, as well as at certain inland centres and equip them properly. As a result, container berths served by container cranes had to be built, and enormous stacking areas, transit storage facilities, rail terminals and maintenance facilities for equipment had to be constructed, as well as administrative buildings.

Because this new country-wide project came so soon after the Richards Bay project, it was a comprehensive task. The construction of the initial facilities, which will cost round about R370 million, will be fully completed by the end of 1978. Consequently the Republic of South Africa could enter the international containerization field on 1 July 1977, just more than three years after the announcement had been made in 1974.

Do we realize that the coming of containerization to South Africa introduces a new era? It has far-reaching implications which will affect not only the harbours and the internal transport system, but also everybody who is in any way involved in the marketing, packaging, distribution and transport of goods. Its effect, on the handling of cargo at harbours, for example, will be a dominating factor. According to the estimates of shipping lines operating in the ports of the northwestern continent and the Mediterranean, more or less 70% of the present volume of cargo will probably be containerized within the next two years, only two years after its official introduction. If these estimates are well-founded, there can be no doubt that containerization will dominate the handling of cargo in South African ports.

Do we also realize that apart from the benefits afforded by the practical efficiency of containerization, for example the utilization of long, heavy unit trains which reduce transport costs, the efficiency of the container in preventing theft, the prevention of damage and the saving in packaging costs, the tariff benefits are also of considerable importance.

Do we further realize that when the volume of traffic at City Deep, Johannesburg, reaches 2 000 containers, it will be the biggest inland container terminal in the world? Indeed South Africa need not take a back seat to anyone.

The facilities offered, too, are excellent, for example the container terminal at City Deep which makes provision for the following facilities—and I am only referring to only a few: three parallel railway lines, a two-lane service road, a demarcated and numbered area in which approximately 594 containers can be stacked in piles of three, a numbered parking area with through-run areas, where 1 544 trailers, carrying containers to be delivered by road or conveyed by rail, can be parked, and a stacking area which will eventually be served by two stacking cranes, each with a range of 28,13 metres, and where 880 containers can be stacked in piles of two.

The same applies to the services rendered. Apart from the shipping and unshipping of containers, other services are also provided for the users of containers. At the container terminal of each harbour a special area for refrigerated containers was provided, where containers with perishable products can be stored at a given temperature. Furthermore, container trains with air brakes, consisting of 40 SHL trucks for the transportation of imports and exports as well as for the transportation of local containers, are running daily in both directions between City Deep and Durban, covering the distance in 17 hours. I want to refer to another example. Containers from City Deep destined for Port Elizabeth, East London, Welkom and Bloemfontein are dispatched daily in an express goods train, No. 701, to Bloemfontein, from where an express connection is arranged. Except on Saturdays and Sundays, there is a special container train running from Port Elizabeth to City Deep. Containers coming from East London, Bloemfontein and Kroonstad, are also carried by this train.

In spite of the fact that the Administration has held many seminars and issued several brochures on the completion and distribution of the document system, the importers and exporters seem to have paid little attention with the result that there have been many problems in this regard.

In keeping with its promise, the South African Railways was ready to receive container ships on 1 July 1977, and will be capable of handling the volumes offered in future. It is a fact that as a result of the downswing in the world economy the flow of commercial traffic is at this stage considerably lower than estimated by the shipping companies, the estimates which we have made provision for. But what is most important is that when an upswing occurs, we shall be ready.

Containerization in South Africa has been launched without any big or insurmountable hitches and good results of working have so far been achieved. South Africa is proud and grateful to the South African Railways for what it has accomplished regarding containerization. It is indeed the showpiece of the South African Railways today.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bloemfontein East has detailed some of the advantages that will come to South Africa and some of the benefits we shall enjoy with the advent of containerization. A propose of that I must thank the hon. the Minister for his answer concerning the withdrawal of the rebate and for stating that SAR containers are now going to be hired. This in fact means that not only has he raised rail rates for containers, but he is making people pay an additional amount, which I find comes to an increase of 23% in some instances, for bringing a container from Cape Town to the Reef. Sir, we have got used to a fair number of shocks in the presentation of this budget.

I wish to refer to a couple of matters which were raised by the hon. member for Somerset East. Firstly, he talked about the building of bridges. I must say the SAR are some of the biggest bridge builders in South Africa. They always duplicate, because they build one bridge for Blacks and one bridge for Whites. This sort of duplication costs an enormous amount of money. The hon. the Minister talks about the bridges that have to be built in the Belle Ombre complex which are going to cost something like R6,5 million. I hope we are not going to build further bridges for Blacks or for Whites.

Another part of the hon. member for Somerset East’s speech was quite interesting, because he defended the farmers and told the hon. the Minister again how difficult life had become for the farmers. It is refreshing, if I may say so, to hear a little criticism from that side of the House, although it was muted criticism.

I must refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Mooi River. The hon. the Minister became quite cross about the amendment moved by the hon. member for Mooi River. I, too, have certain worries about this whole question of upping the cost of moving livestock, because we are in a situation where a lot of farmers have decided that it was far better to move their cattle by road. The hon. the Minister said they were beginning to drift back because they were finding that road transport was not all that satisfactory. I think the hon. the Minister got a shock when they started to drift back, because he does not really like transporting livestock. He therefore thought that he would up the rates again so that he could force the farmers away from the Railways and back onto the road. My particular worry with regard to this issue is that there is a lot of rolling stock right round South Africa at the moment which is used for the transport of livestock, but which is standing idle. I do not know whether we are in the process of writing this off. There are stockyards which are hardly used at all. Very few cattle pass through them. There are many loading-banks which are not at all used to capacity. This worries me. Are we in fact doing this a little too fast? An assessment I made, I think it was last year in the discussion on the Railway budget, was that at that stage the cost of transporting livestock had been pushed up 354% in a very short time, a matter of two or three years. I think it went up 50% last year. Generally the hon. the Minister has been following the recommendations of the Schumann Report, namely that goods should be carried at an economic rate. I think that he too has accepted that this must be done reasonably gradually. It is nothing else but a gesture, because I believe it is important that one should look after the farming community at this stage. They are going through very hard times. Therefore we shall support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Mooi River.

I now want to move on to another subject. In his introductory speech the hon. the Minister spoke about the drop in the percentage of high-rated traffic. He attributed it to the weaker performance of the industrial and commercial sectors. I think that, certainly to an extent, the lower levels of activity in commerce and industry have had effects. However, I am afraid that I do not believe this is the complete story. I regret to say that the Railways lose some of their high-rated traffic because the service they provide is not entirely satisfactory. I think that a visit to the offices of any local road transportation board will prove that what I say is correct. There is a continuous stream of applications for permits to transport goods by road because of the inability of the Railways to handle goods in a satisfactory manner.

Commerce and industry get fed-up with the aggravation which comes as a result of damage to goods and the complicated procedures, as well as the troubles that have to be taken in submitting claims. One cannot deny that this does happen. I do not know whether any other Railway service could do it better. Perhaps it is intrinsic to the running of a Railway that this is absolutely inevitable. However, I do not think anybody can deny that it does happen. I know from my own experience during the number of times that I have had damaged goods delivered to me, that I have had to go through the whole process of lodging claims, of fighting with the Railways in order to see whether it was possible to get my money back, and I can testify to the considerable inconvenience which seems to be absolutely inevitable as a result of this.

Although to a certain extent, over the last two years, matters have improved, I am absolutely certain that a considerable effort has been put into trying to improve the situation. However, I regret to say that the image of the Railways as far as this is concerned is pretty bad. People use the Railways because they have to, not because they want to. High-rated goods tend to be those goods that are most susceptible to damage or more attracted to thieves. I am certain that containerization will solve some problems, but I do not think that the hon. the Minister must be over-optimistic about any sharp increase in the percentage of high-rated traffic. As protection for the Railways is gradually removed and we now have, I think, only eight and a half years to go to the time when the Railways have said they will no longer need protection at all, more and more high-rated traffic will be lost to the Administration. I think they must be realistic and that they must plan accordingly.

While I am talking about the image of the Railways, I would like to say also that there is still considerable room for improvement in the way that the public is handled by some Railway employees. This is by no means true of all Railway employees who come into contact with the public. Some of them are very good indeed. Again there has been a considerable improvement over the last few years, but I can certainly say that it is a very unfortunate fact that a percentage of employees let the Administration down. In the technical field I feel that the Railways are very good indeed. Their top level of management appears to be very efficient and very highly motivated. However, one cannot always say the same about Railway employees who come into contact with the public. Perhaps this expertise in the technical field is being transposed to others because I know that we are having a considerable number of mechanical engineers who are moving into top management positions.

I want to move on to another subject. This is a plea for the commuters of Cape Town. Over the last couple of weeks they have been having a very hard time indeed in that trains have been running late and that some trains have been cancelled on the suburban lines. This has been particularly the case on the Simonstown line. I gather that this is because of teething troubles—I do not know whether I am correct in this—with new computerized signalling systems. Unfortunately this has meant a lot of inconvenience to Railway passengers travelling on trains in the suburban system, particularly, as I say, the Simonstown line. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can enlighten us by telling us what exactly the problem is. It was a terrible situation this morning. I think there is one aspect of this that we should look at. Information to passengers as a result of the cancellation of trains or of trains running late has been absolutely minimal and it is quite apparent that Railway servants have not been briefed on how to deal with the public in this type of situation. One finds passengers milling around, running from one platform to another. On the suburban stations they do not even seem to know which train they are catching because trains are running late and there has been a lot of confusion. I would like to hear from the hon. the Minister what in fact has happened. The particular point I want to make is that public relations in this period have been very bad indeed. I believe that the conductors and ticket barrier attendants should be advised of what is happening so that they can deal with members of the public in a better fashion than they have. This matter has not been satisfactory at all.

In the limited time left to me, there is a matter I would like briefly to touch upon. I should like to know a little more about the progress of the electrified single line between Thabazimbi and Ellisras. This project is going to be built at an estimated cost, at this stage, of R42 million. This is a column 2 and 3 item in schedule 4. In other words, before one increases the price, one has to come back to Parliament. This line is, I believe, a guaranteed line as far as Iscor is concerned. I am a little unclear in my own mind as to exactly how these guarantees work. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will be able to enlighten us on this score. Is it purely on operating costs that we have guarantees? Does it cover capital costs to any great degree, or is this in fact the responsibility of the Railways Administration itself? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, to me the Railways and Harbours Administration is one of the most sophisticated, most delicately balanced enterprises in the Republic, and the emphasis here definitely falls on the latter quality. In the first place, the hon. the Minister and his department are expected to run this enterprise on business principles. That is why it is astounding to one to hear criticism of the fact that there have been tariff increases. On the other hand, the Minister is expected to run this department as a service department. It is an extremely delicate task to balance these two motives, but I think the hon. the Minister has succeeded in doing so. He and his department deserve to be congratulated by all of us for this. I want to tell you, Sir, that I do not have any fault to find with this duality. On the contrary, I think that transport in South Africa is one of the major elements contributing towards the creation of an infrastructure. The Republic is a vast country with remote communities, whose progress in some cases is entirely due to the fact that rail connections bring them into contact with remote markets. May I say that I hope that this service motive will never be abandoned.

In this regard I should like to say at once how pleased I am that the rail connection with Mitchell’s Plain now evidently forms part of the building programme. As I am one of those who have had a hand in making representations over the past 10 years for the establishment of this project, this, to me, is, of course, a very happy day. Further to the representations made earlier on by the hon. member for Tygervallei with regard to assistance for the Western Cape, I want to make the statement today that the Mitchell’s Plain project, seen in conjunction with the extension of the Chempet railway line, will mean a great deal to the Western Cape. These two projects will definitely make a big difference indeed as far as the Western Cape is concerned. As regards the Chempet extension, may I just ask the hon. the Minister to ensure that there will be a passenger line as well and not only a goods line. Other hon. members made representations to the effect that consideration be given to an alternative for the rail connection, and said that people could be transported in large numbers by motor vehicles. In my opinion this is not possible, and that is why I am asking for this railway line to be made available for passenger purposes as well. I am asking this because I believe that here we are dealing with an entirely new concept. On the one hand we have Atlantis, which is going to become a city and is going to result in new schools of thought in the Cape Peninsula. That is why one can envisage the need for having an adequate connection between the Coloured city of Atlantis and the city of Cape Town. In any event, there will have to be to and fro traffic at all times for passengers who travel back and forth to work. Of course, one would also like to see a link between these two cultures one day, the one supplementing the other.

It is interesting to see that various comparisons have been drawn concerning rail costs. I think the hon. member for Simonstown tried to prove that the Railways was operating only 59% effectively or productively. Arising from this, I should like to refer to a book which was published in 1973. The title of the book is The Train That Ran Away. The following is said in that book with regard to British operating costs in 1952, and I quote—

If one converts this, one sees that it amounts to 80c per kilometre for diesel and R2,80 per kilometre for steam, and now I am referring to 1952, of course. If one takes the rate of inflation into account, one gets present-day figures of R4 per kilometre for diesel and R10 per kilometre for steam. Therefore the average running costs per kilometre for our locomotives, which include repairs and maintenance costs, compares very favourably because the costs are R3,5 per kilometre for steam and R1,34 per kilometre for diesel. What this amounts to, is that our running costs per kilometre compare very favourably at the moment with those of the British system, and I think that this is an average which one will find in many other European countries as well.

Since we are dealing with the service motive at the moment, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a question in this regard. Is it correct to say that the new railway line from Bellville along the national road past Goodwood will also include a passenger transport service? If so, how many passenger stations will be provided? I am asking the question since there is a great deal of interest in several constituencies. If there is any doubt, however, I want to say at once that I want to advocate this very strongly, not only because I believe that it is and will be an essential service, but also because I believe that it will be very successful. Acacia Park is a very important place, of course, and I think the residents of Acacia Park will welcome it very enthusiastically.

When one considers all the positive elements contained in the hon. the Minister’s Budget, one realizes immediately that this Budget includes two extraordinary elements. Firstly, it is anti-inflationary, and, secondly, it also contains a deflationary element. It is anti-inflationary in that I believe it budgets conservatively for increases, extensions, capital and running costs, while, on the other hand, expenditure has been realistically pruned. It is deflationary in that the revolving fund is now being used in a positive way. I believe that this revolving fund will still bear fruit in the years ahead. There are so many aspects which one can mention in this regard that one could talk about them for a long time. Let me just refer to a few of them. I want to convey my congratulations and thanks to the hon. the Minister and his department, especially for the personnel development unit which was established in 1976 with the accent on middle management training. It is a recognized fact that we in South Africa have some of the best people in the top echelon. This is definitely so as far as the Railways is concerned. However, it is also accepted that sometimes our second and third lines of management are not as strong. That is why we are pleased that so much attention is being given to this matter and that we can already see that it is beginning to bear fruit. The question of job evaluation studies with a bonus reward for high productivity is another of the factors which make one feel pleased.

Finally, I should like to refer to the followup of the economic evaluation studies in respect of all new capital expenditure. One notices that this has been done to an increasing extent in the past few years. That is why we have begun to reap the fruits of those studies today and that is why we have a lack of criticism from the ranks of the Opposition. I want to say that the highest tribute which the hon. the Minister can receive for his Budget, is the lack of criticism from the ranks of the opposite side.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Orange Grove and the other Opposition members have harped on just one string from start to finish, viz. that the budget is inflationary. They could get no further in any respect. However, the hon. the Minister indicated that the increase of 8,6% which was announced, was in no respect a real increase. I want to suggest respectfully that this shows the confidence which the hon. the Minister has in the Railways, as well as in the economic future of the country. What I find rather comical and amusing, is the fact that the hon. member of Orange Grove is also speculating at this stage about the question of the possible increase in petrol prices. He added that it was a possibility in spite of the large profit which the pipeline showed. One asks oneself what the hon. member’s idea is. Apparently there should be no increase in respect of those aspects of the industry which showed a profit, while there should be further increases in respect of those aspects where there was, in fact, a loss. This is completely naïve. I cannot see any logic in such an approach.

Do not expect logic from them.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member next to me says that one must not expect logic from them. I can understand that better.

I just want to elucidate a few aspects of the influence of the tariff increases on bulk exports. Several hon. members on both sides of the House alleged that the tariff increase was going to have a detrimental effect on the export of raw materials in particular. The tariffs for most ores and minerals, especially those exported on a large scale, for instance iron ore through Saldanha and coal through Richards Bay, are fixed according to existing transport contracts and escalate according to standard formulas. Those tariffs are therefore not subject to tariff increases. In this way, contractual exporters are able to stipulate prices beforehand and build them into their selling price. Similarly, the export of manganese and iron ore from Sishen and Postmasburg through Port Elizabeth is also subject to special tariffs and, as the hon. the Minister announced, the tariff on iron ore is being increased by 8% while manganese ore is subject to the same increase as applies to the lowest tariff class, viz. 12%.

The Railways are also being accused of a lack of efficiency and planning. In this regard I should like to single out a few aspects and indicate that the Railways has, in fact, adapted and is still adapting itself outstandingly well to the developments and requirements of our time. In spite of the decrease in high-rated traffic, which does create problems, it is the declared policy in the first instance, as is apparent from the report of the Railways, that the service of the Railways be improved throughout, that they regularly consider improved methods, that they are taking note of relevant modernization and that they are doing those things to compete, as far as possible, with private road transportation and other transport undertakings in a free enterprise economy. The question is: In the light of all these circumstances, how can the Railways succeed in spite of that competition? This is not a matter which was begun today, as is the case with the Opposition. The Railways has been working on this for years. If one looks at the systematic building up of an infrastructure like the construction of roads, the development of harbours like Richards Bay and Saldanha, the continual construction of railway lines and the electrification thereof, one can realize why the Railways can say with a great deal of confidence at this stage: “We accept that challenge. We are not opposed to a free enterprise economy and therefore we are not always asking for protection.”

In this way, one can look at different facets of the Railways. There are the special purpose trucks, inter alia, which can carry up to 59 metric tons each and do not have to be shunted. This is only one facet which testifies to planning, efficiency and the purchase of the right material. Furthermore, passenger coaches are always being developed and since there is a demand for a high class of service, the service which the new Blue Train provides, is an excellent example of this. Then, practical matters are also seen to from day to day concerning the large number of passengers to be transported. It is becoming standard practice to provide sliding doors to make more space available. Indeed, all sorts of aspects are being looked at. For instance, shorter trains are made use of during those times of the day when there is no peak traffic. The hon. the Minister pointed out this afternoon that in spite of the fact that due to the energy crisis, attention is being paid to electrifying railway lines on a large scale, steam locomotives are being retained because these locomotives can still be utilized by making use of our local coal. The use of alternating current instead of direct current only is also being considered for the propulsion of electric locomotives. Where, then, is there any question of stagnation and lack of planning?

An aspect which deserves a great deal of praise, is the question of centralized traffic control. At this stage there are already more than 2 742 km of rail which are linked up to this device in order to promote carrying capacity and operating efficiency. Computerization also assists in this regard.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein East has already referred to the question of containerization. These are additional aspects which are a pointer to the positive planning taking place in the Railways. Furthermore, a new department was established on 1 April 1977 to expedite the settlement of claims. The Railways is constantly making an effort to streamline working procedures, etc. The Railways are modern and therefore they see to these things. There is also the question of the bigger trainloads which the Railways is handling. In fact, there is no end to all the things to which the Railways is giving attention.

In the technical sphere, the Railways is taking a look at the transport of block loads. In his budget speech, the hon. the Minister announced that a system of block load tariffs would be introduced. The hon. the Minister indicated that these tariffs would only be applied to traffic which moves in block loads from one private siding to another and that the tariff rebate would be 5%. The importance of this announcement must not be underestimated in any circumstances. It is mainly raw materials which are transported in block loads. In general, raw materials are very sensitive to tariffs. Due to the fact that these substances are used over and over again in the production process, first as basic raw materials and then as an intermediate product, the cumulative effect of a tariff increase on a product like this can be considerable. Therefore, by granting a tariff rebate on raw materials, the tariff rebate is repeated. Once again, this step is evidence of the Railways’ awareness of the problems which our country is experiencing in the economic sphere. That is why the Railways has a positive attitude towards so many aspects. The hon. member for Wynberg is not in the House at the moment, but I think that this particular aspect has to do with his reference to the poultry farmers. The tariff increase to which the hon. member referred, also has an influence in this regard on the building industry, and the same arguments also hold good in this respect. They allege that the transporting of cement as well as the transporting of maize feed may have a detrimental effect on the poultry industry. If the block load principle is applied to this traffic, the tariff increase will be 5,1% and 5,3% for the building industry and the poultry industry respectively. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is obvious to me that the hon. member for Roodepoort has insight into Railway matters, but his statement that the higher rates will not contribute in real terms to an increase in the inflation rate and the cost of living of the country, is totally wrong.

†As a member of the Opposition I too had the privilege last year of visiting the Esselen Park training centre and the Koedoespoort workshop. I too would like to add my appreciation to the Administration for organizing that most informative tour.

I now want to raise a matter which, at first glance, would appear to be a purely parochial matter, but which in fact has far wider implications. In built-up areas trains, especially during the days of the steam locomotive, used to be a great source of air pollution. Since the emergence and the advent of the electric unit and the diesel locomotive, we have in fact succeeded, to a great extent, to combat air pollution emanating from trains. Wherever one finds a railway line in close proximity to densely populated areas—such as urban areas and residential areas in the city regions—trains also cause another type of pollution, i.e. the high level of noise which causes a lot of inconvenience to the residents of these areas. To combat any sort of pollution created by trains, especially if it is excessive noise, is of course very difficult. I appreciate that. I would like, however, to see the Railways Administration to be very sensitive at all times about this particular matter. My information is that a diesel locomotive, for instance, causes a far greater noise than the electric unit. Therefore one would like to see the situation, especially in central city areas, that only electric units are used in order to try and cut the noise level to as low as possible.

In my constituency we have a problem with excessive noise caused by trains. I have already taken the matter up with the local System Manager and I am not raising the matter here because I am dissatisfied with his answer, but because it highlight a problem and I believe that something on a wider basis should be done in regard to the problem. This problem is not only confined to my constituency. One of the most densely populated areas in Durban is the area along our beautiful Esplanade. Because it is a flatland area the residents are already subjected to excessive noise from normal road traffic and, of course, that section of the public which, at all times, wishes to create as much noise as possible.

In addition there is a railway line along the Esplanade linking up the Point with the harbour area. It only handles cargo traffic. I have been informed by the System Manager that cargo cannot be handled on electrified sections and therefore the various wharves and sidings in the Point and other harbour areas must out of necessity be served by diesel shunting locomotives. I am not an engineer or a railwayman; so I am a bit at a loss as to why they have to use this type of locomotive. However, the System Manager clearly stated that diesel locomotives have to be used on these sections. The residents in this particular area are convinced that these diesel locomotives cause excessive and unnecessary noise, and whilst one welcomes assurances that great care will be taken to keep the noise level down to a minimum, I must ask—that is the reason why I am raising this point—the Administration what research and experimentation is being done to investigate the possibility of cutting down the noise level by means of certain forms of modification, etc.

We know that in the field of aviation the first Boeing, or jet aeroplane, had a terrific noise level. But a lot of research was done and eventually they cut down the noise level. As far as I know they have even succeeded in cutting down the noise level of the Concorde. I am the first one to appreciate that when one is dealing with a steam locomotive one would possibly throw one’s hands into the air and say that there is nothing one can do. However, I think a diesel locomotive offers opportunities. I am not qualified in this field, but I think something can be done about it and that is why I am raising the matter here. On the tours which we undertook I was most impressed by the research which is done and the things which the Railway personnel are capable of doing and designing. All that is needed in this respect is the necessary motivation. We must ask ourselves whether there is not some modification which could be made to the diesel locomotive which will cut down its noise level.

There are some people who say that it is purely a matter of how the locomotive is handled which causes the extra noise. I want to appeal to people working in this area to keep my voters in mind, because a lot of them are old people who need rest. If the young people want to have noise they can go to disco’s any time.

*I want to refer briefly to one other matter. I know the hon. the Minister is somewhat allergic to everyone talking about the extension of concessions and I know what his answer is basically going to be, but I want to suggest something with regard to concessions which will not involve us in any additional expenditure but which will actually bring in more money on the whole. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give serious consideration to enabling also pensioners to make use of concession flights on the S.A. Airways, instead of giving them their normal free pass. There is a big difference here. The hon. the Minister does not receive anything for the free pass. The privilege of concession flights has been extended to people who are permanently in the service of the Railways. Letters I have received from pensioners make specific mention of the fact that whenever a privilege with regard to concessions was extended in the past, pensioners were included as well. I can understand that problems may arise in this regard. I shall accept it if the hon. the Minister says that they should not fly at peak periods. One could, however, work out something so that certain conditions are imposed to prevent them, for instance, from making use of flights during peak periods. For instance, most of them are prepared to say that while they can obtain a free pass on the Railways, they are prepared to pay a certain percentage on an air ticket. In other words, if it does this, the Railways will obtain additional revenue because at the moment people simply use their free passes for journeys by train which, in general, does not benefit the Railways at all. Basically the reason for this is perfectly obvious. People are prepared to pay a certain percentage. I have in my possession letters from people saying that they are 70 or 80 years old and that they would rather travel by air than endure the inconvenience of a train journey lasting from two to three days from point A to point B. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the issue of noise pollution in urban areas, to which the hon. member for Durban Central referred, is a very real issue in a part of my constituency too, and is particularly so in the constituency of the hon. member for Walmer. However, a great deal of attention has been given to the matter, as the hon. the Minister knows. As far as I know reasonably satisfactory arrangements have been made in this regard, particularly by the curtailing through legislation or regulation of the duration of a train’s whistle. This has certainly resulted in a reasonable degree of satisfaction in my part of the world.

The hon. the Minister and his staff who were co-responsible for the preparation of this budget certainly have reason to be satisfied today. The consensus in responsible circles is clearly that this is a very good budget. If the criticism levelled is taken as a yardstick, then this is certainly a very good budget. Both the quantity and the quality of the criticism, or, as the hon. member for Vasco said, the total absence of criticism, are perhaps the finest testimonial and yardstick whereby to determine that this is a good budget. I think that the hon. the Minister deserves our congratulations on so outstanding a budget and on a fine annual report. On behalf of my constituency, too, I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on these achievements. A large percentage of voters in my constituency are employees of the Railways—as administrative staff, technicians and more humble workers—and it is therefore understandable that many of the problems I deal with among my voters derive from members of this group. On their behalf I want to convey my thanks to the hon. the Minister for the way in which representations I have made to him have been handled. These representations have been given sympathetic and very thorough attention. Not only the staff but the hon. the Minister himself have given personal attention to them and this is very highly appreciated.

I should also have liked to testify to the outstanding services which the Administration provide for the public at large, particularly that part which we as members of Parliament are more particularly concerned with, namely the S.A. Airways, but so much praise has been showered on them by hon. members on both sides of the House that I do not deem it necessary to dwell on that any further myself. I whole-heartedly endorse all of it. Instead, this afternoon I shall look at a less well-known facet of the activities of the S.A. Railways. The hon. the Minister pointed out that the Railways was a business enterprise and that services were only provided for reward. The fact of the matter, however, is that many fine services are also rendered for deserving cases on a different basis, a valuable service which is not profit-orientated. For that, too, I should like to praise and pay tribute to the Railways today.

The other day, Dr. Anton Rupert made a very striking remark when a gold medal for conservation was awarded to him by the Provincial Administration of the Cape. He referred to the footprints of our forefathers which were being effaced, and he asked everyone who could contribute towards preventing those footprints from being effaced to make their contribution. The less well-known aspect of the Railways’ activities to which I want to refer is the fact that the Railways does a great deal to prevent the effacing of traces of cultural historical significance. We live today in an era of tremendous conservation consciousness, and that is why it is inevitable that people should feel really conscious and heartsore today about the fact that so much has already been lost in this regard. However we also have reason to be very grateful for what has been done to conserve it. The fact is that as a Government department the Railways deserves a great deal of recognition and praise for the efforts and contributions it has made in this field. Conservation bodies are very grateful when they are given co-operation and assistance by Government agencies. Unfortunately the fact is that not all Government departments, provincial administration and local authorities are equally well-disposed and helpful as regards conservation. As far as this is concerned I can attest to the fact that the Railways has distinguished itself as one of those bodies which adopts a very positive and sympathetic attitude towards this matter and also gives its active co-operation. The conservation bodies are full of praise and recognition of this.

I refer in particular to the two national bodies concerned with conservation, namely the Historical Monuments Commission for the public sector and the Simon van der Stel Foundation which operates in the private sector. For example, the HMC refers to “exceptionally close co-operation” given by the Railways for the cause of conservation, and that is something to be grateful for. The Railways makes its contribution in this regard in various spheres. There is one sphere to which I just want to refer, namely the Railway Museum in Johannesburg, a museum which has a very good name, a museum which is a good tourist attraction, not only for our own people but also, and particularly, for overseas visitors. The annual report attests to the fact that the number of visitors increases every year. Last year the number of visitors increased by 8%, from about 54 000 to 58 000, which attests to the importance of the service rendered in that regard.

There has also been excellent co-operation in regard to the conservation of buildings. Not only are there a number of railway stations that have been declared national monuments with the permission of the Administration, but there are also cases in which the Railways Administration have themselves made a substantial financial contribution. There are other structures, too, such as lighthouses and the clock tower in Table Bay harbour.

I want to refer in particular to the contribution by the Railways of a more functional nature which has also earned high praise. For example, in its close co-operation with the National Monuments Commission concerning the provision of historical information, and this is done chiefly by way of the Railway Museum in Johannesburg. There is one project in particular which is a matter of current interest at the moment and in regard to which the Railways can also make a very important contribution and have been sympathetic up to now, although they have not yet accepted any commitment. This is the project to establish a whaling museum in South Africa. The idea is to equipment it in the form of a floating museum on the flagship of the old whaling fleet. It would be moored in the Durban harbour. Of course the museum could only be established with the assistance aseum could only be established with the assistance and co-operation of the Railways Administration. The bodies concerned with the matter are grateful that they have at least been shown a considerable degree of sympathy thus far in regard to this project. Without requesting the hon. the Minister to commit himself in any way I should like to express the hope that the realization of this laudable ideal will in fact be made possible. Apart from the aid and assistance given by the Railways Administration there are other bodies, too, that are co-operating on this project, particularly the Durban city council, the provincial administration of Natal, the HMC and others. I am sure that the whole country will be eternally grateful to those bodies and the Railways Administration in particular for their assistance and contributions with regard to the establishment of the envisaged whaling museum.

The museum is important not only because it concerns an industry which is no longer pursued in South Africa but also because it relates to an industry which will soon belong to the past throughout the southern hemisphere. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the speech made by the hon. member for Algoa. He talked about the possibility of the establishment of a whaling museum, and I would like to associate myself with his remarks. It is a very good idea to my mind, and something which we would certainly like to see. I also would like to associate myself with his comments on the Railway museum in Johannesburg, a place I have visited myself and which I have found to be very interesting indeed.

I now want to come back to the answer given by the hon. the Minister earlier this afternoon to questions on capital expenditure, questions which were raised by myself and by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. In his replies the hon. the Minister made the most outrageous statements. He said the only thing we were concerned with when we were talking about this budget were the figures printed in bold type in the Brown Book. This I find most extraordinary. I would like to refer the hon. the Minister to the Bill itself. If he reads clause 2 very carefully he will see that it states—

Well, those estimates comprise the entire book, and not only the figures in bold type. Certainly, when we are asking for money we are only asking for the amount of money for this year. However, how the hon. the Minister can suggest that we can look at that money only in isolation without giving consideration to any other figure in those estimates I find most extraordinary. Surely, how is it possible that we could be placed in a situation in which we have, for example, to vote for a nominal amount? Of course, we often do this when a new project comes through. We vote an amount of R2 000 or R50 so that it is reflected in the estimates. Thus we can get that particular job under way and get the work to start. Perhaps we only spend a few thousand rand and we are committing ourselves to, in many cases, millions and millions of rand. Once one has started, it is very difficult to stop. I find it extraordinary that the hon. the Minister can even suggest that we shouldn’t give consideration to everything else in the Brown Book.

I did not say that at all!

Well, that is what we understood the hon. the Minister to say. He said that the hon. member for Amanzim-toti really had no right to suggest that one could criticize over-expenditure when money that had been appropriated by Parliament had been overspent, or that when an estimate had been submitted to Parliament and had been approved by Parliament—because I believe that we are approving everything in the Brown Book …

Are you claiming that it is irregular that we have overspent…

No, I am not, because in terms of legislation you are allowed to overspend to a certain extent, but the criticism levelled at the hon. the Minister was that it is bad, very bad indeed, if one is going to scrutinize Railway spending adequately, for this continuous overspending to take place. One wants to know what one is talking about. One looks at the estimates and one finds that the hon. the Minister has put in those estimates that a particular project is going to cost so much. [Interjections.] We hope that he is not going to overspend. This is how we assess priorities. We look at a project and we say whether or not we are prepared to support the appropriation of that much money in terms of the amount of money available not only for the Railways, but for South Africa as a whole. I always find it difficult with this Government to assess how priorities are worked out. For instance, is a Richards Bay more important than a Hendrik Verwoerd dam? That Minister is a member of the Cabinet. They make decisions on priorities. If he is going to spend hundreds of millions of rand on a project, he has to talk to the hon. the Minister of Finance. He has to say: “This is what I want.” The hon. the Minister of Finance also has to look at other projects, such as those put forward by the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs. The Minister of Water Affairs may say: “My job should have priority, if we have money available from the Treasury.” How are these priorities worked out? They are worked out, firstly, by the Cabinet, who submit their ideas to hon. Ministers. They in turn transfer the amount of money that they can make available, to the estimates that they submit to this House. The hon. the Minister of Transport submits Estimates of Expenditure to be defrayed from Revenue Funds and Estimates of Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works. When we pass his budget, i.e. this Appropriation Bill, we are in fact approving both these estimates of expenditure. Really, I find it most extraordinary indeed that the hon. the Minister should contend that we cannot criticize when he overspends.

No, I did not say that.

Well, that is certainly the impression that he gave.

You are at liberty to criticize, but it is not irregular.

No, it is not irregular, but it certainly is very bad practice, because it makes nonsense of parliamentary scrutiny.

Then we do not disagree.

Well, I am glad to hear that, Sir, because he had us very worried, I must admit.

I should like to refer to a comment made by the hon. member for Roodepoort, who is not here at the moment. He took me to task because I expressed criticism about the enormous profit on the pipelines, amounting to something over 400%, and said that this was milking the motorists. He said that it was quite legitimate that this section of the Administration’s operations should be used to finance other sections. I should like to refer the hon. member to the Constitution Act, because I believe that the pipelines should not necessarily be allowed to make that profit in terms of the Constitution. I would like to take legal opinion on this. As the hon. the Minister knows, section 103(2) of the Constitution Act reads, inter alia, as follows—

In other words the Railways should not make a profit; they are there to provide a service. In fact, this provision applies purely and simply to ports, harbours and railways. Pipelines are something else. Pipelines are something which has crept into the ambit of the Railways Administration because it is very useful to the hon. the Minister to have those pipelines to help him balance his books. I do not know where he would be without those pipelines. The fact of the matter is that the petrol transported in those pipelines is finally paid for by the motorist. When the hon. the Minister makes a profit of nearly 500% on the transport of that petrol, it is the motorist who suffers. It is the motorist who, in the final analysis, has to pay for it. There is no doubt at all that this amounts to a selective taxation of the motorist. The hon. the Minister has in the past attempted to justify this, and one must accept that the pipelines are under the control of the Railways Administration. There is nothing much we on this side of the House can do about it, except to say that we thoroughly disapprove of it. I think it is unfair that that section of the community should be milked in this manner.

Where do you suggest that I get that money from?

Sir, the hon. the Minister always asks me that question. I would like that hon. Minister to place himself in the situation in which private enterprise finds itself. They do not have the bottomless pit of the Treasury to run to to get money from. They have to face a competitive market. They have to cut their coat according to their cloth. When the money is not available, one does not spend it. Somehow or other one simply does not spend it. It is very nice to have many of the things the hon. the Minister is putting before us, but it is very difficult for us in these benches to assess how important the development of open lines is. We cannot judge, because we are not in the management situation. What we can say, however, is that if one does not have the capital one must not spend it. It is as simple as that. Private enterprise operations find themselves in this situation everyday. They just have to cut back, because they cannot get the money from anywhere to finance their projects. It is not a matter of disapproving of what he wants to spend his money on. What we are saying to him, however, is that he must cut his coat according to his cloth. The money is not available and should not be made available. One simply has to cut back.

Finally, in the very short time I have left, there is one particular point I should like to raise. For a long time we have told the world that we are getting rid of race discrimination, and yet one arrives at South Africa’s international airports … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Orange Grove had a few complaints, as was the case in his previous speech. Among other things, he complained because money was being spent on Belle Ombre. Now he is again asking why money is being voted for a project if the project cannot be finished. There is a saying: “Well begun is half done.” However, he wants us to make that vital section of line from Wintersnest to Pretoria and the Belle Ombre station a long term project. We are not to make a start on it. However, one gets the impression that there is an ulterior motive involved. After all, those hon. members do not want the Black people to be conveyed from the homelands. They want us to have a mixing of the races and they want everyone to travel together. That is the impression one gets listening to that hon. member. He wants the people of Pretoria to struggle for all they are worth. We have held hours of discussions with the S.A. Railways and with other people concerned with regard to that work which must be started. Why? We did so because some of those working people—those commuters—get home very late at night and have to get up very early so as to be productive again at work the following day. I should be obliged if that hon. member would just listen. Then he will at least know what it is all about.

I want to do the opposite of what that hon. member tried to do, and I do so with great conviction. I want to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. the Minister and the Management of the S.A. Railways for the remarkable effort they are making to solve this major problem, namely the conveyance of commuters as conveniently as possible. If one wants a horse that will win races, one does not go and catch a horse in the veld. One takes one’s horse to the stalls and gives him the finest possible treatment. If one wants milk from a cow, one takes the cow to a stall. If one milks a cow that is roaming wild in the fields, one must be satisfied with what one gets. Therefore far more fundamental and serious matters are at issue here than that hon. member realizes. As far as Pretoria’s members of Parliament are concerned I want to say that we shall continue to make representations but on the understanding that we are aware of the problems which the Railways and the Minister are saddled with. We realize that this enterprise is geared to performing a certain task. All we look at is the attitude of the people in the enterprise. As far as that is concerned there can be no doubt—and that goes for the Opposition, too—that we encounter an attitude of service in every respect there. Consequently I am unable to support the hon. member. Nor can I agree with him that we must make more use of road transport. The fact remains that the Railways is a system of mass transport. I should prefer to see buses being used to convey commuters from the various stations to their destination, but not to convey workers all the way from their homes to their jobs.

I have a few expressions of gratitude to convey. Whenever I have brought a matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister and/or the Management of the S.A. Railways, they have taken appropriate action even under very difficult circumstances. I want to convey my sincere gratitude for the steps taken to solve the problem of the friction which arose at Mountain View station between the high school children using that station and the Black people who also use that station. Leaving aside the question of where the fault lay, the Railways immediately gave attention to the matter and I want to thank them sincerely for doing so. I also want to express my wholehearted gratitude for the Hendrik Street crossing which cost the S.A. Railways a vast sum of money. I am also grateful for the subway that was built and the wall constructed on request to muffle the sound of heavy vehicles crossing the bridge, which was upsetting education in the school directly opposite the bridge. The S.A. Railways acceded to that request as well. The money to do that had to come from somewhere. It was found, and the work was done.

There is one other small matter which I just want to touch on, also in respect of my constituency. It relates to Daspoort station. That station causes me a number of problems. The industrial area there is situated south of Moord Street and west of the railway line. Daspoort station was of course built years before an industrial complex was established there. The station itself is situated to the north of Moord Street and to the east of the railway line. That is where the exit is. I want to ask either that that station be closed, since Hercules station, in my opinion, is situated close enough to the industrial complex, or that it be fenced off in such a way that the people making use of this station are channelled along Moord Street. The station is at the Moord Street cross-over. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could not have this matter investigated in order to see what can be done in this connection. A very large number of people from the residential area there walk past and I find that this is unnecessary. In my opinion it will be just as easy simply to channel the people who make use of this station along Moord Street.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Hercules started off with a war-like approach. He had his little private war with the hon. member for Orange Grove. He then went on with his “dank die Ministertoespraak” which he followed up by a lot of other things for which he was apparently very grateful. However, he had us completely confused with Daspoort-stasie because it appears that this station is south of North Street and east of some other place. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I wish to associate myself completely and wholeheartedly—and this may come as a great surprise to the hon. gentleman—with the tribute paid to our Airways by the hon. member for Yeoville. I do not often agree with him, but I certainly agree with what he had to say yesterday. Our pride is shared by the hon. the Minister and when he spoke here today he referred particularly to the overseas service.

South African Airways stands alone, both as far as its internal and overseas services are concerned, when it comes to courtesy and safety, but… and here we get the “but” as there is always a “but” to everything. There are certain shortcomings in respect of services and these shortcomings I hope to discuss positively and constructively with the hon. the Minister this afternoon. I want to deal only with two areas, namely meals in the air and passenger services and facilities at airports.

Firstly, I want to deal with the question of meals. The hon. member for Uitenhage suggested at Second Reading that no one on this side of the House had any specific suggestions to offer in regard to the cutting of costs. There is an old English proverb which says: “Look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves”. I have a suggestion that may seem pennies in the eyes of some, but could add up to a considerable sum of money over the years. It is simply this: In heaven’s name let us scrap those ghastly breakfasts that are served on the internal service of South African Airways. They invariably consist of a sausage with a piece of yellow substance that is akin to …

A rubber football.

A rubber football. Thank you. This passes for scrambled eggs. Then, of course, we get mushrooms with it. Mushrooms, mushrooms, always mushrooms! Why does South African Airways insist that mushrooms shall be part and parcel of a breakfast? I cannot understand it. [Interjections.] Scrap that breakfast and replace it with a continental breakfast. [Interjections.] To the uninitiated I want to say the continental breakfast consists of a roll and/or a croissant with butter. That ought to cheer up the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. I am selling his butter for him, but he is not even listening. Marmalade or jam is added plus a cup of tea or coffee. There is no need to cook and prepack and then to keep a cooked breakfast warm. This must effect a saving. There are further savings which could be effected by a complete rethink on meals which are served in the air. I believe that light refreshments plus coffee and tea and the bar—which is profitable—should be maintained.

Let me refer this House to page 28 of the timetable of the South African Airways. Did you know, Mr. Chairman, that on the flights which operate between Cape Town and Johannesburg we have some 49 permutations, 49 different flight numbers? On 27 of those 49 flights meals are served. Between Port Elizabeth, East London and Johannesburg there are 29 permutations and 19 of them have meals served on them. On the coastal route—Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, East London and Durban—we have some 30 permutations and no fewer than 21 of those flights have meals served on them. The Cinderella service of course—and it must be that way because it is only an hour’s run—is between Durban and Johannesburg, but, nonetheless, I want to examine this. On that service there are 25 permutations five of which serve meals. Every one of those five serves breakfast. Let us assume that the airline runs at an average of 65% passenger capacity. This is a figure I have from an excellent authority. I think it would be fair to further assume that they would cater for 80% of aircraft passenger capacity. This is a fair figure to cater for at all times. There are, according to the timetable, 22 flights each week between Johannesburg and Durban which serve breakfast. Of these flights, 13 are by Airbuses, eight by Boeing 737s and one by a Boeing 727. The Airbus carries 262 passengers less the 35 travelling first-class. We shall ignore them. It therefore carries 227 ordinary passengers, people like me. The Boeing 737 carries 110 passengers and the Boeing 727 carries 119. Assuming that these aircraft carried meals to cater for 80% of the passengers they transport, it means that an Airbus would carry 2 260 of those “beautiful” breakfasts each month; the Boeing 737, 704 and the 727, 95. That gives a total of 3 159 breakfasts which are carried between Johannesburg and Durban and I do not think anybody really wants them. I think it is more than reasonable to say that my suggestion of serving a continental breakfast, would save at least 50c a meal. Hon. members should bear in mind the cost of the power to keep the food warm, the cost of the packaging and, of course, the cost of the food. A saving of R82 134 per annum could thus be effected. I leave it to the imagination of hon. members to think how much could be saved if the whole situation were to be re examined in respect of the other 67 flights on which meals are served.

I now wish to say a few words about passenger services and facilities. I do not wish to criticize the Airways in this regard, but merely want to point out how varying behaviour patterns by various people have manifested themselves at different airports and have created problems. Cape Town has an arrival problem and Durban has a departure problem. All of us, at one stage or another, have arrived at Cape Town airport and I am sure that all of us have experienced it. We run the gauntlet. As one walks through the door, a sea of expectant faces look at one. It starts at the width of the doorway and narrows down to nothing and one walks through this narrowing gauntlet of people … [Interjections.] … and if anyone happens to stop to greet somebody affectionately somewhere halfway down, the rest are left out on the tarmac waiting to come in while the queue jams solidly. I do not wish merely to complain but also wish to offer a positive solution to the hon. the Minister. He should simply open another door. [Interjections.] The crowd will then stand back, because they will not know through which door their relation or their loved one is going to walk. Therefore they are all going to stand well back, out of the way, so that we, the poor passengers, will be able to walk through to go to collect our baggage.

I do not want to talk about Cape Town only. Let me also talk about Durban. I have given the hon. the Minister a solution for Cape Town’s problem and I shall give him one for the problem at Durban as well. At Durban airport the problem is that the poor passenger cannot get out of the airport building to the waiting aircraft. One of our race groups has a behaviour pattern—they are fully entitled to use our airport; let us get that clear—as they usually have large families, and all turn up whenever a friend or a relative travels. That is their way and we accept it, but we ask the hon. the Minister to put a simple solution into operation. A demarcated area should be set aside near the exit doors …

Apartheid.

I do not let myself be caught so easily.

†This area should be completely open, within the same building and simply with roped barriers with about five open area gangways to walk into so that people who are bona fide passengers—be they pink, white, green, yellow or any other colour—can at least be able to reach the point where they have to check out and walk to their aircraft. This cannot be done at the moment, and any person who goes to Durban airport will hear the appeal over the public address system time and again: “Would people not travelling by flight No. So-and-so, please clear the doorway to permit the passengers to embark.” [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the hon. member for Umhlanga has a diet problem and is now complaining about the food provided on the aeroplanes, particularly the breakfast. It seems to me as if the hon. member is not accustomed to eating breakfast and is now loudly complaining about it. I shall leave the hon. member’s breakfast problem at that. Probably the hon. the Minister will react to it.

Over the past two days the Opposition have given us the impression that they are totally incapable of analysing the report submitted by the Railways and the budget. For hours on end they have tried to convince the House and the hon. the Minister that the increased tariffs will entail an increase in the cost of living. All of us know that when costs increase, a general price increase follows. The hon. members spent hours of their time conveying this to the hon. the Minister. One of the hon. members went so far as to say that the price of milk would now be increased by 66%. One of the hon. members of the Opposition made the fatal mistake of trying to tell the world that the S.A. Railways was a parasitic organization. I think that is an absolutely scandalous remark.

No one said that the Railways was a parasitic organization.

The hon. members words were—I hope I am quoting him correctly: “It is a parasite on the wealth-earning sectors.”

He was referring to transportation.

Transportation? We are speaking about the S.A. Railways as such and about no other organization. [Interjections.] It is very clear that the hon. members do not have the vaguest idea of the importance of the S.A. Railways as a transport organization in South Africa. Nor have they the vaguest idea of the important role played by the S.A. Railways in South Africa’s economic framework. The Railways has to load and collect goods at the most out-of-the-way places and then offload the goods at other out-of-the-way places. It is not only in the national context that they play an important role but also in the international context, particularly in Southern Africa as the hon. member for Klip River spelt out very clearly yesterday. To give some indication of the extent of the collecting and distribution role of the Railways, I want to point out that the Railways has more than 22 500 km of railway line in South Africa. I do not think we are capable of conceiving how long 22 500 km is. If one were to compare this distance with the circumference of the earth, it would be about once around the earth. This is track already built within South Africa to stimulate and serve the economy of South Africa, and certainly not to parasitize on it.

I want to take a brief look at the strategic role of the Railways. I wonder where we would have stood strategically if we had not had our present railway network. How would our strategic equipment and other equipment be conveyed to our borders and to the various industrial sectors concerned with the strategic security of South Africa? Nevertheless an hon. member dares to say in this House that the Railways is a parasite.

He did not say that.

The Railways is a transport organization and it will get the hon. member for Durban Central nowhere to say that they were referring to “transportation”. [Interjections.] We are discussing the Railways of South Africa and it has been accused of being a parasitic organization. It is very clear that those hon. members have no understanding of the strategic and economic value of the Railways in South Africa. I want to leave it at that.

I want to refer to the problem we are experiencing with commuters travelling from Mabopane in Bophuthatswana to Pretoria. The hon. member for Orange Grove also discussed Belle Ombre and made certain remarks about Belle Ombre which, in my opinion, were very unfair. The problem we have encountered in respect of that section of railway line is that the Railways is not spending the money budgeted every year to finish that project in good time. When we compare the amount budgeted last year with the other amounts budgeted previously, we who live there and who know what problems are being experienced want to convey our gratitude to the hon. the Minister and the Railway Administration because last year they spent all the money voted in last year’s budget on this project. I think this is an achievement and we who deal with the problem there every day want to convey our sincere gratitude to the hon. the Minister and his staff. We also want to convey our thanks to the hon. the Minister and his people for having made R8,25 million available to proceed with the Wintersnes-Belle Ombre, Wintersnes-Mabopane and Wintersnes-Hercules project despite the economic problems in South Africa, after we had held very long discussions with them. We are also sincerely grateful for the replanning of that project. This attests to the flexibility which the Railways have built into their planning programme. The replanning of hat project will enable us to complete the section of line from Mabopane to Bosman Street by 1980 instead of 1982 as previously planned.

We are encountering a problem with regard to the influx of Black people to Pretoria from Bophuthatswana. I want to ask whether the hon. the Minister would not consider the possibility of introducing a differentiated rail tariff from the homeland to Pretoria or perhaps in general. The differentiation would have to be such that bona fide workers who are economically active and have to go to Pretoria, could travel at a concession rate, whereas people who are not bona fide workers and who are not economically active would have to travel at a higher tariff. I hope that the hon. the Minister will give attention to this.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to raise a few ideas with the hon. the Minister in his capacity as the country’s biggest employer, which I take it he is. His department has an important role to play, not only in the country’s economy—in passing, I want to assure the hon. member for Wonder-boom that there are many people in these benches who fully realize the importance of that role—but also in the labour pattern of the country as a whole. Because the Railways has in its employ something over a quarter of a million people, and because, as an hon. member indicated today, these workers, together with their dependants, number well over a million citizens, what the Railway Administration does and does not do is of importance to the stability of our society as a whole.

I want to touch on a few matters in the hope that the hon. the Minister will air his own view in this regard in due course. As a point of departure I should like to begin with the remuneration of White and non-White officials of the Railways. I quote from the hon. the Minister’s memorandum which was tabled before this debate. It is apparent from this document that on 30 November last year a total of almost 115 000 White persons and almost 149 000 non-White persons were employed. The total remuneration paid to all those Whites amounted to R490 million, i.e. approximately R4 500 per capita per annum. The total remuneration of the 149 000 non-Whites was a little under R14 million, viz. a little under R1 000 per capita per annum. The ratio of the one to the other is therefore approximately 4,5%. Let me put this in perspective.

In any industrialized country in the world it is normal that a skilled worker be paid 2½ times as much as an unskilled worker. In secondary industry in our country, the building industry for example, the figures correspond more or less with those of the S.A. Railways, namely 4 to 4½ times as much to the Whites as to the non-Whites.

What is the situation in the mines?

In the mines the ratio is higher. The gap between White to Black wages in the mines is wider than in secondary industry in general. But that has nothing to do with the point I want to make here.

A little wider. That is commendable. I like your honesty.

That is the so-called wage gap which is being discussed everywhere today and which the majority of enlightened employers are trying to reduce gradually if they are able.

Looking now at the report of the Railways and Harbours for 1976-’77, we see that it is reported that the wage index for White workers has increased by 10,1% per annum over the past seven years, whereas the index for non-Whites has increased by 10,5% per annum. Therefore it is correct in a certain strict sense to say that the wage gap is being reduced, if one only takes into account the proportion of the one to the other. But when discussing the wage gap in South Africa one must always bear in mind that there is a difference between the ratio of the one to the other and the absolute gap. Surely it goes without saying that if one man earns R400 per month and another R100, and the salary of each increases by 10%, the salary of the first increases by R40 and the other by R10; in other words, in absolute terms the gap is wider by R30. This of course is what is happening here, too, and what is happening throughout our economy—it is something which cannot be rectified overnight. In real terms, therefore, this gap is constantly getting wider. The point I really want to make is that I believe that all of us will sooner or later have to get away from this system of seeing wages in terms of race differences. It remains an unscientific way of approaching the issue of wages. One is constantly in danger of causing race friction. The only scientific and logically defensible way of determining wages is to have objective evaluations of the various types of work involved carried out, and then to ensure that every man is paid, not on the basis of his race or origin, but in accordance with the true value of his work, and nothing else. My question to the hon. the Minister is the following: What steps are being envisaged in the Railways Administration to introduce such a system of job evaluation throughout the service and make it the basis of remuneration so that sooner or later we can reach the stage at which remuneration takes place on a colour-blind basis instead of on the basis of race? In the long term this is the only way in which one can get away from hurtful discrimination between people who may be doing the same job but be receiving different wages. I repeat that this is not something which can be done in a day, or even a year. It can only take place by way of systematic planning and over a fairly long period. However, one should like to have the assurance that this is in fact being tackled.

I now want to refer to another section of the 1976-’77 S.A. Railways annual report. I have before me an English copy, and on page 9 under the heading “Staff”, I read the following—

I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the word “normally”. It seems to imply that these posts, although at present occupied by non-Whites who are specially trained for the purpose, are nevertheless regarded as being White posts, in the sense that sooner or later they can again be occupied by Whites.

I again want to ask whether it is not possible to get away from this concept. After all, we all know that the Black man is being promoted in our industries. Gradually and day by day the Black man is doing work which he has not done before, and I do not believe that by continuing to regard the Black man’s position in these posts as temporary, we are promoting productivity or efficiency. I want to ask whether the hon. the Minister has a policy in terms of which he will ultimately arrive at a stage at which all appointments will be made on merit, because in the long term this is the only way to achieve maximum efficiency, to ensure the competitiveness which results in that efficiency and to promote productivity.

The value of a system of job evaluation such as that to which I have already referred, is fairly widely accepted. However, in order to have such a system working smoothly it is most desirable that the necessary organizations for consultation and co-operation between employers on the one hand and employees on the other, be established. I should like to hear from the Minister how much progress has been made in both the Railways Administration and in the other organizations under its control, with regard to the introduction of works and/or liaison committees in terms of the legislation, whether such committees, where they do in fact exist, are exclusively for Black people, whether any consideration is being given to introducing a dual level structure for White and Brown workers as well, a system in terms of which they may be represented on both committees and trade unions.

Finally, I want to ask whether there has been any request on the part of Black employees on the Railways for trade union organizations of any kind. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Parktown referred, inter alia, to the wage gap between White and non-White employees of the Railways Administration. He mentioned a percentage from which it was evident that the Whites as a group had received a salary increase which was slightly lower than the one the non-Whites had received. Of course, I do not think that this is any sort of indication of the extent to which the wage gap in the Railways can be closed. In this approach we are treating the Whites and the non-Whites as groups, but the best approach will be for the hon. member to ask the Minister what the adjustments are in the case of Whites and non-Whites who do the same work, because, when all is said and done, these are the only particulars which are relevant to the wage gap as such. In this regard I feel it is important to point out once again that it is the stated policy of the Government to close the wage gap between persons of different colour who do the same work.

Sir, I should like to associate myself with the speech of the hon. member for Somerset East, who asked the hon. the Minister to take another look at the question of the bus transportation services between airports and the various cities. For example, let us take a look at the alternative means of transport which one has at one’s disposal if one does not make use of the bus service provided by the Airways from Jan Smuts Airport to Pretoria. There is no regular train service between the airport and Pretoria. Hon. members will know that the train service is very irregular, and also that the station is situated a considerable distance from the airport. So one has to fall back on a taxi service. I made some inquiries in this regard, and the price of a taxi from Jan Smuts Airport to Pretoria varies from R20 to R25. This is the price for a single journey from Jan Smuts Airport to Pretoria. There are other aspects of the transport service of the Railways and Airways which cannot always be profitable, and although the Railways is obliged to run its affairs on business principles, the Railways is in fact a service organization as well. Consequently I want to ask the hon. the Minister please to bear this in mind.

Sir, I should like to say a few words about the role which the S.A. Airways and the S.A. Railways are playing with regard to international trade. I am referring here to the question of exports in particular. International trade as such is of vital importance to us in South Africa. It provides communication between ourselves and foreign countries. It contributes towards forging bonds of friendship between South Africans and foreigners. It leads to an understanding of South Africa and its people. It makes South Africa better known as its products become familiar. It is true that as a result of our export trade, there are millions of people in the world today who use our products and consequently have a major interest in our export trade. The transport service plays a very important role in this regard. Two examples of exports are mentioned on page 95 of the annual report. In the case of citrus fruit, 412 753 tons are transported by the Railways for export purposes. In the case of maize, 1 810 000 tons are transported by the Railways for export purposes. The Railways is therefore playing a very important role in this regard.

Export is of vital importance to our country, of course. In the first place, we earn foreign currency in this way. In the second place, we find a market for our surplus products. In the third place, it stimulates the South African economy and also creates for South Africans a large number of employment opportunities which would have been lost if the export trade did not exist. South Africa would indeed suffer without an export trade. It is important to note that the Administration also has a marketing division in this regard. As regards the S.A. Airways specifically, there is an active marketing campaign for the very purpose of obtaining export goods for transport. In this regard the role of the Railways and Airways is very important. Goods must be transported internally to a point from where they can be shipped on. The transport costs form a very important part of the price. In fact, the transport costs can determine whether a specific product will be less or more competitive on the foreign markets. We are very grateful for the positive role the S.A. Railways is playing in this regard. We are grateful for the positive approach which is being displayed. While the Railways is obliged to run its affairs on business principles—indeed the Constitution requires this of it—it is important to note that the Railways has introduced a system of export rates. There is no central fund from which the transport of export goods can be subsidized, but there are special export rates nevertheless. Exporters are given a great deal of assistance in this regard so as to make their products more competitive on the foreign markets. The export rates are often determined in a way which, to a certain extent, has a detrimental effect on the less sensitive rail traffic, but it is most definitely in the interests of the country. We know that the S.A. Railways always wants to keep its unit costs as low as possible. I understand that export rates are determined purely on a cost basis. For purely domestic transport, the rates are determined on a service remuneration basis. There were adjustments to the export rates in the past year. The annual report also refers to the position up to and including last year. I quote (page 45)—

Of course, tariff increases do occur from time to time. It may, of course, be these tariff increases specifically which may contribute to a particular South African product being less competitive abroad. I am glad to hear that in this regard, too, there is the possibility of assistance to such people so as to assure that South African products can always be offered on a competitive basis abroad. There is a central fund. The money for this is provided by the central Government, by the Department of Commerce in particular. This fund is administered by the S.A. Railways.

If we look at the picture as a whole, we realize that our national transport system, with its various services, with its air tariff concessions, transport concessions, railage concessions, railage concessions and the policy which is being followed in the positive approach which is being adopted, plays a very important role in a very important aspect of our national economy, viz. the promotion of the export of South African products to the outside world. Therefore, I am of the opinion that I am speaking on behalf of all of us when I thank the hon. the Minister and his department most sincerely for this.

Mr. Chairman, I want to raise with the hon. member for Wonderboom the question he was debating with the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. I am referring to the idea of the transport function of the Railways being a parasite on the main wealth-generating function of the economy. That hon. member has the economic knowledge and the intelligence to understand what is going on. I take it very amiss of him, therefore, for having made a political speech about a thing like this when he knows and understands the purpose for which and the sense in which the reference was made. Let us understand the position. The primary sector can be wealth generating. There is, for example, mining and agriculture. The secondary sector consists of industries and the tertiary sector of services. In none of these things does the Railways Administration function as a wealth-generating body. How can it? It is a public body providing a public service. The intention is to provide the service at the lowest possible cost. It is non-profitmaking. It is an organization that takes its revenue from the transportation of goods which are involved in the normal activities of the other three sectors of the economy. From that point of view the hon. member for Amanzimtoti was quite correct in saying that all people involved in transport must appreciate that transportation is not a creator of wealth in the true sense.

But it is a channel.

Just listen! He said that transportation is a necessary evil and that in the economy as a whole it is not a true profit centre, but rather a cost centre, and that, as such, it is a parasite on the wealth-earning sectors of the economy. I am sure that hon. member can understand that point and appreciate it and, therefore, surely need not play politics with it in that fashion.

I should now like to return to the hon. the Minister for a moment. I spoke earlier about the additional charges being imposed on the livestock industry and, in reply, the hon. the Minister said I was making a joke. Indeed, he was most hurt. He got most upset about it. He freaked out and flipped his lid here. I take strong exception to the suggestion that I was making a joke about it. Let me put the matter in perspective. Let me point out to the hon. the Minister what exactly it is that I am asking for. I am asking for the deletion of an amount of R1 135 000, which represents 0,036% of the amount involved in Schedule 1. A 1% increase in the overall profit of the Railways would cover that amount 33 times.

It is not the amount that is of consequence; it is the principle involved.

Of course the amount is of consequence. The whole of the farming community has suffered as a result. It is an inevitability. I am not on at the Minister about that. Everybody has to pay his whack in this respect. However, the whole of the farming community are having a very hard time of it and this particular sector is probably experiencing the worst time it has had for many, many years. Yet a minimal amount is at stake. As I said, it represents 0,036% of the total in that schedule. Therefore I do not think the hon. the Minister can seriously say that I am joking or anything like that. I wonder what would happen in the House if a free vote were held on that particular proposal of mine. I wonder how many members on that side of the House would vote for it, seeing that it represents a mere 0,036% of the amount under that schedule while it represents a million rand in the pocket of the livestock farmer, a million rand he is not going to get as a result of the proposal of the hon. the Minister. I do not see that as a joke—I take it as a very serious point.

If the hon. the Minister wants a joke, perhaps I should make a joke for his benefit. I have for several years now been asking that attention should be given to the station at Howick. I had occasion some years ago to refer to that station and I am going to ask the hon. the Minister to have it declared a national monument. This is one of the most outstanding examples of an “Adam Mars Globe” pre-1900 corrugated-iron station one can find anywhere in South Africa. If one wants to make Western-type movies of this kind of thing, it is an ideal setting for that. One can just imagine old Tom Mix, Clint Eastwood or anybody else lounging against the wall of that station.

It would fall over.

It might fall over, I do not know. Perhaps one should lean against it and knock it over. One can see there all the lovely rich creamy-brown colour of the PWD paint…

What is wrong with Billy the Kid?

Yes, Billy the Kid will do too. A few years ago the Minister concerned went so far as to make funds available for the station to be replaced. I looked for that item, but could not find it. I then asked him about it and, in reply, he said it was listed as number something-or-other—“Replacement of wood-and-iron buildings”. However, that was about four years ago, and since that time nothing has happened. I have been trying to find out what is going on in that respect. What I eventually found out was that it was being investigated whether they should continue to use that as a passenger area or whether people were to be transported backwards and forwards by bus. In the meantime, the people who work there have had to suffer the existing conditions which are uncomfortable in the extreme. The buildings are hot and outdated. Indeed, the main station building was erected in 1906. I know that to be the case because my greatgrandfather actually opened the building. It is still there in its original pristine glory as the Howick Station of 1906.

And now you want it closed!

Yes, I want it closed; I want a new station erected. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that, if nothing is done about it, I am going to take one of those spray cans and write rude signs on the structure to make sure that the hon. the Minister and the department have to come along and paint it. We have been battling to have it painted for three years, but have had absolutely no result at all. If the hon. the Minister will not declare the station a national monument, I sincerely hope he is going to take immediate action to at least make it look respectable so that people going past do not look at it and ask: “What is that wreck there?” as they go past the very fair village of Howick.

Mr. Chairman, there is a matter about which I should like to make a request to the hon. the Minister. It concerns the question of block loads. Hon. members will excuse me if, at this stage, I do not react to anything said by the Opposition.

They only spoke nonsense anyway.

The Minister said in his budget speech that a special rebate of 5% would be allowed in respect of block loads. He defined “block load” as a load which goes from the loading point to the unloading point. As far as mealies are concerned, it is true that there is very close co-operation between the Mealie Board and the Railways Administration in respect of the introduction of the block load system.

However, the mealie industry experiences problems in loading a load at a specific point. There was an agreement between the Mealie Board and the Railways that where a load like this could be loaded at one or two depots which were adjacent or on the same line, that load could be transported to the coast as a single load. That load would then be considered as a block load, as such it would benefit the turn-around time of trucks and in this way render a larger volume of freight possible.

This, however, will not apply to the specific concession made by the hon. the Minister, and in that respect it will be to our disadvantage. I nevertheless think, Mr. Chairman, that there is specific merit in a proposal, in the light of the co-operation there has been in the past between the Mealie Board, the Railways and all the agents, that loads which are loaded at more than one point, be regarded as block loads as well. We should like to ask this concession of the hon. the Minister.

I also want to touch on another matter, and this does not concern the question of exports only. As far as exports are concerned, we made an estimate …

I know the hon. the Minister is going to help you, my friend, because he is very fond of the mealie farmers.

The calculation we made, is based on the average railage of last year when we exported 2,5 million tons of mealies. Although the hon. the Minister expects us to export a smaller quantity of mealies this year due to the smaller harvest, there is nevertheless a possibility of our exporting a larger volume of mealies in the coming year as compared to the volume exported last year. The increased tariffs will cost the industry and additional amount of approximately R5,4 million as far as exports are concerned. Therefore, it will assist us if we can have the 5% rebate on block loads. However, there is another aspect. As far as the domestic consumption of mealies is concerned, there are certain mills, although not many, which can make use of block loads if more than one loading point is allowed. I should therefore like to ask the hon. the Minister to allow us the benefit of the 5% tariff rebate in these cases too.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, the era of the steam locomotive is rapidly disappearing. The days of the hissing steam locomotive, the giant iron monster, and the magnificent steam traction which fascinated old and young, will be something of the past in the years ahead. South Africa has become renowned for the way in which this cultural historical treasure is being preserved. Steam Locomotive enthusiasts from all over the world come to the Republic to view this treasure. Therefore it is pleasing to note that steam locomotives will be kept on for a while longer, especially on branch lines. Special train journeys are undertaken to historical places from time to time, and this is a wonderful institution. We feel it is a treasure which must be preserved. Old steam locomotives which are preserved at stations give our grand transport organization a wonderful image. Since the hon. the Minister of Transport is also an ex-railwayman, I must compliment the Railways once again … [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must at least give Sporie a chance in the Railway debate.

The hon. the Minister is someone who always does well, especially with the co-operation of those fellows sitting there. I have counted them; according to the annual report there are 12 of them, together with the hon. the Minister. They form a wonderful team which has presented us with a model budget. I do not care what the Opposition says about it, because they could not even control the Drakensberg. They do not even travel by train any longer. Where is the hon. member for Yeoville? Why is he not here tonight? The hon. member should tell us what they are up to. Where is the hon. member for Durban Point tonight? Why do those hon. members no longer travel by train? [Interjections.]

The General Manager of the Railways plays a dynamic role in keeping open the train routes to our neighbouring States. He represents the S.A. Railways with distinction on the Economic Advisory Council of the hon. the Prime Minister. He acts as a worthy ambassador for South Africa abroad, where loans must be properly negotiated. These are men of integrity and I should like to pay tribute to them tonight. Hon. members should make a deep obeisance to those men sitting there at the moment.

I also feel a need tonight to refer to the celebrated poet A. G. Visser, since it is the hundredth anniversary of his birthday this year. In one of his poems he referred to “Oom Lokomotief en Tant Treinie”, who were travelling to the Transvaal on their way home from Natal. The Opposition members from Natal are the ones who criticize the most. The disposition of the hon. member for Amanzimtoti has soured; he is no longer sweet-natured. The hon. member must listen now to what A. G. Visser had to say. He said the following—

Then the poet refers to the journey through Natal—

Then the poet refers to the journey through the Highveld. The Transvalers must listen now—

Then he approaches his home at Suikerbosrand and says—

These are the things which should form part of our national culture and I want to appeal to our national poets and authors tonight to identify these matters with our national life again and to portray them—even if it is diesel or electric locomotives. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Transport tonight, because he mentioned the three basic requirements here in this House. He said, inter alia, that the Constitution provides that the Railways must be administered according to business principles. It is also the task of the Railways Administration to exploit and utilize the S.A. Railways in such a way as to stimulate the less developed parts of South Africa and to serve the interests of South Africa as a whole. Thirdly, the hon. the Minister said that the profit motive must be excluded completely and the revenue and expenditure accounts must only just balance. The hon. the Minister of Transport and his officials have succeeded in doing so, and I am grateful to them for this.

I want to raise a few matters in connection with the rail connections to Rosettenville.

That’s it!

Yes, it is an important place; I am pleased that the hon. member says so. The Rand mineral line—as the double line from Crown to Driehoek is known—passes my constituency and also serves the large Railway goods complex at Kaserne. Almost 200 goods trains traverse that railway line daily.

That cannot be true!

The hon. member clearly has no conception of what goes on there. [Interjections.] 1 600 trucks are sent over the hump every day in the hump marshalling yard area at Kaserne. 400 000 head of livestock and 2 000 containers are handled daily. [Interjections.] Who spoke about City Deep? 280 trains run to and from Soweto on this line, which means that 30 000 passengers are transported in one direction daily. [Interjections.] Hon. members can laugh at me, but it is a fact that everything of importance runs over Rosettenville. [Interjections.] Hon. members would not have been here tonight if they had not flown over Rosettenville, because even the aeroplanes which come to the Cape run over Rosettenville. [Interjections.] Yes, they run up there in the sky. [Interjections.]

The Boeing SP-747 also flies over Rosettenville and I have gathered the following information about that aircraft. The maximum take-off mass of that aircraft is more than 315 000 kg. This is equal to the mass of three large electric locomotives. The fuel content of the aircraft is 185 877 litres, or 148 tons. This is equal to the total fuel content of 4 000 average size cars. As it flies over Rosettenville, the Boeing has 264 seats, i.e. room for more passengers than two Blue Trains put together. At cruising speed, it develops 200 000 horse-power. The aircraft flies at a speed equal to 86% of the speed of sound. This is faster than the speed of a bullet from the barrel of a 0,45 revolver. When the aircraft leaves the ground, its speed is 300 km/hours; therefore a good deal faster than Niki Lauda with his Brabham at Kyalami. The maximum speed attained at Kyalami is 280 km/hour. [Interjections.]

Order! Is the hon. member still on the right track?

Yes. [Interjections.] The range of this Boeing is 8 800 km, i.e. with a full tank it can fly between Johannesburg and Cape Town seven times. One of the 747 Super B aircraft has already completed more than 20 000 flying hours, which is equal to 4 times the distance to the moon. The SP-Boeing is certified to fly up to 45 000 feet above sea level, a distance which takes an average man three hours to walk. Hon. members can therefore see how interesting these statistics are … [Interjections.] We owe all of this to the hon. the Minister and the Railways Administration. [Interjections.]

I still have so many things which I can tell the House. Hon. members of the Opposition are now making a fuss about the tariff increases. I just want to tell them that a return ticket from Johannesburg to Naledi, a distance of 28 km, is going to cost a Black man only two cents more as from 1 April. The new price is 37 cents, while it was 35 cents before. This is therefore an increase of only two cents. What is two cents? A weekly return ticket to Naledi is now going to cost seven cents more, and a monthly return ticket 30 cents more.

I just want to point out in passing that the Sunday Times has just increased its advertising rates by 15%. They are now going to ask more than R8 800 for a full-page advertisement. The Railway tariffs have only been increased by 8,6%. The Sunday Times will now have to come to the S.A. Railways with a request to place an advertisement in the newspaper in order to help recover their costs. The Sunday Times may go ahead and increase its rates, but the S.A. Railways may not do so. It is this unfairness of the Opposition. [Interjections.] We simply cannot allow it. They take all the money in the world and we have nothing on our side. The Sunday Times can take just what they want.

I now want to refer to the Bantu train which also runs over Rosettenville to Soweto.

During peak hours there is a train from Johannesburg every 2,4 minutes. In Pretoria there is a train every three minutes during these times. In South Africa no one waits more than ¾ of an hour for a train journey. This is simply a wonderful state of affairs.

Where is the hon. member for Yeoville? Why is he not here? Why does he not tell us why he had to take the back seat? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, for the past few days I have been sitting here listening to the criticism from hon. members of the Opposition, and I have been bitterly disappointed in them. There are three opposition parties at the moment. Next to me here I have the small Opposition, an opposition party which used to consist of six members, but which had only three members returned to this House. They are orphans now, because they lost a father in the fight. [Interjections.] Their father joined the National Party, which means that they are the stepchildren of the National Party now. We have to hold a protective hand over them. Next to them is the second opposition party, the NRP. See what they look like! It seems to me as if the train of Nationalism has run over each one of them; if not, they have been devastated by the rinderpest. [Interjections.] Even their erstwhile leader was not returned to this House. Only a few of them were returned.

In these days when we read in the newspapers about terrorists, saboteurs and their fellow-travellers far from the borders of South Africa, it strikes me that that Opposition is nothing but the fellow-travellers of the people who are sabotaging South Africa. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Mr. Chairman, I did not say that they were the saboteurs, but that the members of their party were. One of them fled the country.

Order! The hon. member must first withdraw that.

I withdraw the word “saboteurs”, Mr. Chairman. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member would resume his seat, I can then put a point of order. On a point of order: The hon. used the word “saboteur”, but previously he also used a word which was as objectionable, namely “fellow-travellers”. [Interjections.]

Order! I think the hon. member has withdrawn.

We read about the saboteurs in South Africa. The vast majority, approximately 95%, of the members of the PFP outside are fellow-travellers of the saboteurs. [Interjections.] I shall prove it.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member permitted to say that members of this party are “fellow-travellers” or “saboteurs”?

He said “outside”!

He is speaking of people outside Parliament. [Interjections.] Order! I should like to remind the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North, however, that we are conducting a Railway debate.

Mr. Chairman, is it proper for a member of Parliament to tell an untruth? [Interjections.]

The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I shall tell you what is wrong with them. The Opposition is itching and is on fire. I obtained from Donald Woods some of the chemicals which he rubbed on the washing-line to deter the thieves who were stealing his washing at night. [Interjections.] It is those Marxist chemicals which those people swallow which put them on fire. That is why they are so obstreperous. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member’s speech relevant to the subject matter of this debate. [Interjections.]

Order! Is the hon. member reflecting on the Chair? [Interjections.]

Certainly not, Mr. Chairman. I merely wish to draw your attention to the remarks which have been made which bear no relevance to this debate. [Interjections.]

The hon. member may proceed, but he must return to the subject matter of the debate.

It gives me great pleasure this evening to express my gratitude and appreciation to the staff of the Railways Administration. If one bears in mind that there are no fewer than 260 000 people in the service of the Railways, one realizes what tremendously high demands this makes on the administrative staff. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to thank them as well as the thousands of railwaymen in my constituency who do their share to keep the wheels of the trains rolling. The hon. member for Uitenhage is sitting over there. He was returned to this House unopposed. I have been returned unopposed for the second time now. This is because I have a great deal of respect for the railway worker and the Railways Administration. [Interjections.] This evening I cannot neglect to express my gratitude and appreciation to the hon. the Minister for the salary increases of the railwaymen, for the increased pensions and for the improvement in the Widows’ Fund. These are things which we appreciate. These are things which will find acceptance with the voters. It gives me great pleasure this evening to say thank you very much on behalf of the voters of Port Elizabeth.

Now I should like to come to the announcement which the hon. the Minister made last week, viz. that the ore quay at Port Elizabeth will be done away with by the year 1980. I am very pleased about this. I think it is very good news for Port Elizabeth. The hon. the Minister is aware of petitions which circulated in connection with the terrible pollution experienced in those beautiful residential areas. Now the hon. the Minister has announced that that ore quay will be removed. On behalf of my constituency, I say that we appreciate it. Hon. members know how serious the pollution was there. Now we have received this good news. Tremendous development is now going to take place at South End. Millions of rands are going to be spent in the area where the revolting slums have been cleared. The pollution inhibited the development of that beautiful area to a large extent. The other evening the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central referred to South End and pointed out the fine developments which were going to take place there after that inhibiting factor had been eliminated. My hon. colleague, the member for Port Elizabeth Central, said here the other evening—

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central had a great deal to say about that. I want to mention, however, that I am the man who fought for that. They fought against it. Now he and his kind want to boast about the prestige buildings being erected there. [Interjections.]

In whose constituency does it fall?

Mr. Chairman, just listen to that! I am fond of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. I had to help him to get here, and now I still have to look after him as well. [Interjections.]

And one of these days he will be a Nationalist too!

I want to express my gratitude to the hon. the Minister …

Order! I regret having to say that the hon. member’s time has expired.

Oh no, it cannot be! [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I should now like to discuss the other matters that have been raised here. To begin with, I just want to refer to something which the hon. member for East London North has brought to my notice, a matter to which I did not reply earlier on. It is a pleasure to me to provide him with the following information in connection with the increase in expenditure relating to sales promotion and sales. The basic reasons for the expenses are as follows. Firstly, the rate at which agents’ commission is calculated went up considerably in some areas. Secondly, there was a considerable increase in the traffic which forms the basis for the calculation of agency fees and commission. The hon. member will realize, of course, that as traffic expands and creates more business opportunities for agents, the total commission involved also rises considerably.

The hon. member for Newton Park furnished certain particulars here this afternoon in connection with the various housing schemes of the Railways Administration. I just want to mention in passing that we can be proud, in my opinion, that the schemes in terms of which Railway employees are able to acquire their own homes are probably the best in the world. [Interjections.] I am not aware of any better schemes. The hon. member then made a plea for Railway employees to receive transfer of a house as soon as they have bought it. I can understand the appeal of this idea. We all cherish the desire to have a small piece of South Africa that we can call our own and to have the certainty that we …

So does the Black man!

Oh, you have got the Black man on your brain.

Yes, the hon. member for Bryanston is very colour conscious. One cannot get colour out of his head.

Just reply to that and do not try to argue about it!

Oh, you really are verkramp!

We all cherish the desire to have a small piece of South Africa registered as our property. This is the wish of all of us, and that is why registration, obtaining transfer, is so important. The hon. member for Newton Park did not go any further into the question of what is supposed to serve as security. Registration of transfer is delayed in the name of the organization or body which provides the money for purchasing the land, or otherwise a bond has to be registered in order to provide the necessary security for the payment of the purchase sum. I do not know whether the hon. member meant that it would be better to have a bond registered. However, I do not want to elaborate on the matter now. I should like to have further discussions about the whole question raised by the hon. member for Newton Park, in order to ascertain whether there is perhaps some way of expediting the registration of transfer, if this is at all possible.

The hon. member for Wynberg accused me of not haying replied to his arguments and his statements in respect of the farmers which he made during the Second Reading debate. I have obtained the speech which he made during the Second Reading debate, and if any hon. member can find anything in it on which I can be expected to comment, I shall do so with the greatest pleasure. The hon. member did talk about the farmers a few times. He objected to the increase in tariffs on livestock intended for domestic consumption. He also objected strongly to the increase in tariffs in respect of the transportation of maize to be used by the chicken, the dairy and the pig industries. Am I supposed to say “shame” or “so what”? What am I supposed to say about this? He then pointed out that there were farmers in the Western Cape who had fodder banks there. They used them for fattening cattle. That industry, he said, has come to grief. Because of that, those farmers are no longer here. This is what he told us.

Then he concluded on this note: The position is now that quite a number of these fodder banks are standing unused in the Western Cape and that that investment simply is no longer worth anything as far as revenue is concerned. On that note he concluded. Sir, I do not like to be accused of not paying attention to what hon. members say here or of failing to reply to the questions which are put to me. For the particular information of those hon. members who have come to this House for the first time this year—I do not like to say “young members”, for some of them are not so young any more—I want to say that from the side of the Railways we try to reply in writing to any matters which have been raised here and to which, for whatever good reason, I have not replied at the time of the discussion. We let hon. members have the necessary information in writing at a later stage. Surely hon. members know that this is so. We always do this. If there are any questions which have not been answered in this debate, we make a point of informing them in this way. Therefore, I do not like to be accused of not replying or not giving attention to points raised by the hon. members.

I think the hon. member was most unfair to the General Manager this afternoon. He said that I had alleged yesterday that the increase in the Railway tariffs had been slower, on an average, than the increase in the price of livestock. He mentioned the percentage I had referred to, viz. 110% as against 165%. Then, he said, he was so shocked to see on television last night that the General Manager had said something of the same nature. But, Sir, the General Manager never said that. I suppose there is a psychological explanation for the fact that we draw conclusions and understand things the way we would like to understand them. We do not accept things the way they really are. It is true that the General Manager appeared on television last night. He dealt with a subject which I had also dealt with in this House yesterday. However, it was not this subject. It was a different subject. However, the hon. member said that the General Manager had also spoken about the comparison between Railway tariff increases and the price of livestock. This is not so. The matter referred to by the General Manager in his television interview was in connection with the increasing costs of private transport, and the fact that the cost of private transport had increased more rapidly than the cost of rail transport in recent years.

The hon. member for Humansdorp spoke about wood, amongst other things, and I should like to tell him—he is probably aware of this—that we are now building new wood trucks which will be able to take about 40% more wood than the trucks which we are using at the moment. We believe that we can benefit the wood producers in this way, as far as wood transportation is concerned.

The hon. member for Somerset East and the hon. member for Pretoria Central both pleaded that we should reconsider the transport services from airports to the cities. This is something I have also discussed this afternoon. I want to clear up one point of uncertainty or perhaps misunderstanding. The hon. member for Pretoria Central definitely gave me to understand that he was under the impression that we were going to abolish the service from Jan Smuts Airport to Pretoria. However, this is not the case. What I said was that it was the intention—I have already approved this—to abolish altogether the transport service at some of our other airports. However, the services at Jan Smuts, Durban, Cape Town and Windhoek will remain. I have pointed out that the Railways will no longer operate the remaining services, but that we shall negotiate with private organizations to operate a service from the airport to the city in each of those four cases. I do not know what kind of service we will be able to arrange with the private organizations, but it is possible that the services operated by such a concern may be just as good or even better than the service we have provided up to now. This will depend on circumstances, of course. I furnished figures to the Committee this afternoon which clearly indicated that the existing service was being so poorly supported that it was not worth while continuing it, especially in the case of the smaller cities. I am now referring to Kimberley, Bloemfontein, East London and Port Elizabeth.

Leave Port Elizabeth alone.

Port Elizabeth put up the poorest show of them all.

The tourists do use it.

Only 1% of the passengers make use of the service.

In Port Elizabeth we are virtually in the main street when we get off the plane.

Yes, the airport is almost the city. In any event, I take cognizance of the fact that the representatives of Port Elizabeth no longer want the service. [Interjections.] However that may be, I am replying to the representations of the hon. members for Somerset East and Pretoria Central and I want to tell them that we shall watch the matter. Hon. members must give us an opportunity to watch matters for a while. I have never felt happy about the service from an airport to the city. Something must be done about it. We have now taken this course, but we shall watch the developments and we shall not leave the hon. members completely in the lurch. Hon. members need not be afraid of that.

The hon. member for Orange Grove spoke on two further occasions. He referred, amongst other things, to the livestock wagons which, he said, now had to be written off. It is not true that they are being written off. It is just one of the problems of the service that they are special wagons which are used only for the transportation of livestock and for nothing else. From the nature of the case, the wagons return empty when the animals that have been conveyed in it have been offloaded. Nevertheless, the wagons are available. We would have placed an order for more livestock wagons, but under the present circumstances we have cancelled it. However, the wagons are not falling apart. They may be getting a little rusty, depending on where they are standing, but they are available as and when there is a demand for the transportation of livestock.

The hon. member asked me about the guaranteed railway lines which are being built by the Administration and he wanted to know what was being taken into consideration in this connection. I can tell him briefly that it simply means that capital investment—interest and redemption—plus operating costs are brought into account and guaranteed to the Administration. This is the case in respect of the line from Thabazimbi to Ellisras. We are working on that basis.

The hon. member also said again that a great deal of the traffic of the Railways was being diverted to road transport. This is inevitable, for we know that the private conveyor wants to skim off the cream of the traffic, i.e. only the best, only the most profitable. He will not accept the unprofitable traffic. He uses his truck only if he can do so at a profit. I cannot say the same of the Railways organization. Whatever the hon. member or anyone else offers for rail transportation has to be transported, irrespective of whether it is done at a profit or a loss. Because the private conveyors pick out only the best parts, they are keen, of course, to handle a certain part of the traffic. The new Road Transportation Act was drafted by way of negotiation, and because of this, there is a slightly freer competition and road transportation gets an opportunity to obtain a larger share of the market. The hon. member was referring to high-rated goods in particular when he raised this point. He must also bear in mind that one of the important factors which has contributed to the reduction in high-rated traffic over the past year is the fact that there has been such a drop in imports. This is a well-known fact, after all. Imported goods are mostly high-rated goods.

The hon. member also asked me about the commuter services in the Cape and the problems which arose in this connection this morning. I should prefer not to go into this at the moment, for I do not yet have all the details available to me.

The hon. member for Vasco referred in particular to management training, a matter to which we are giving great attention at the moment.

I should also like to comment on what the hon. member for Durban Central said about noise. He objected to the diesel locomotives in particular. In the past we had problems with the noise caused by the whistle of the diesel locomotive. In consequence of this, and especially because of complaints received from the Port Elizabeth area, we then introduced certain rules regulating the use of the whistle of diesel locomotives. I think that this has considerably alleviated the position, for no further complaints have been received lately—perhaps the people there have become more patient or have grown used to it.

We are just complaining a little less.

Nevertheless I think that this has brought great relief. It appears to me that the objections of the hon. member for Durban Central were not so much concerned with the whistle as with the engine noise. It is true that when a diesel locomotive starts off, especially when it starts off with a heavy load, there is a considerable noise because so much more power has to be generated to get the train going. I cannot really tell the hon. member that it will serve any purpose to do research in this connection. The diesel locomotives are manufactured in countries such as America and I believe that the manufacturers themselves do all the research work which is required to restrict the noise of the locomotives to a minimum. When we buy the locomotives, we shall receive the benefit of that research and of the innovations which have been made.

Then the hon. member said that we should rather do the shunting in the Durban harbour area with electric locomotives.

I asked why it could not be done with electric locomotives.

The reply to that is very simple, viz. that if one uses an electric locomotive, one must have a power-line for the power supply. There are probably power-lines in the harbour area, but certainly not at all the small branch lines and shunting-yards. For that reason an electric locomotive is not an effective locomotive for shunting. It is as simple as that. Probably there are other considerations as well, but the main reason is that the locomotives to be used for shunting must often operate where there are no electric power-lines.

It has also been brought to my attention that the CSIR, in co-operation with the Department of Planning and the Environment, is doing research in connection with noise, especially in the neighbourhood of Jan Smuts Airport, in certain urban areas as well as in Johannesburg. Where research is done by the CSIR in urban areas, the noise caused by the enormous diesel trucks also becomes relevant. One will then come to the conclusion that this kind of noise does not differ essentially from the noise caused by a diesel locomotive, because powerful diesel engines are used in the trucks as well.

The hon. member also made a plea for us to provide for the pensioners by allowing them to travel by air under certain circumstances. I have had several representations of this nature in the past—from the hon. member for Tygervallei as well. However, the hon. member made his representations to me about a month too late, for I decided about a month ago that this could in fact be done. It has been decided that a pensioner who has had 30 years’ service or more can enjoy this benefit with his wife. He has the choice of travelling either by air or by train with his annual free pass. When he uses air transport, he must pay 20% of the normal air fare, just as the official has to do. This also applies to those who are employed by the Railways. This benefit falls away, of course, when the pensioner dies.

The hon. member for Algoa commended the attempts we were making to preserve objects of historical value. He made a plea for a whale museum. I do not know much about the matter yet, but we shall give sympathetic consideration to this request, as we do in all the other cases as well.

The hon. member for Orange Grove once again discussed the matter raised by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, the so-called overspending. I think we now understand each other.

I hope so.

I have no objections if they point out these things. They can talk about them for as long as they want to, but I got the impression yesterday that the hon. member for Amanzimtoti believed that I was doing something irregular …

He said the Railways was a parasite.

… because I increased the estimated cost of a project and then proceeded with the work within the framework of the funds that had been made available to me. The over-spending to which the hon. member refers only happens, strictly speaking, when I spend more money than Parliament has allocated to me for a particular year. But I am not doing that. That is the hon. member’s complaint. His complaint is that the estimated amount for a project is increased. But he and I have now decided to bury our differences about this matter because it is not an irregularity which has taken place. The hon. member commented on it and he is fully entitled to do so. I am perfectly prepared to listen to his comment.

The hon. member for Orange Grove also referred to the damaging of goods entrusted to the Railways for transportation and the claims that are laid as a result of this. In my opinion, containerization has played a very important role in this connection. Recently we have initiated a very intensive claim prevention action. I hope hon. members understand what I mean by that. We have made special attempts, launched a determined campaign, to try to prevent such claims against the Railways. Because of this, the claims for the eight months up to the end of 1977, went down by 30%. The amount which had to be paid out in claims during this period dropped by approximately 17% compared with the same period the previous year. The claims against us, as a percentage of our gross revenue, have amounted to less than 0,5% during the past few months. In 1976 this figure for a railway service in America was 1,36%, and that was the lowest since 1959. Their lowest figure was 1,36%, while ours was 0,5%.

The hon. member said that when one did not have any money, one did not spend any money. However, it is very easy to say that. We know how many requests we get from hon. members on that side of the House to provide certain services, to expand others and to make all kinds of improvements. If the services are not adequate, the hon. member and hon. members will be among the first to ask why we have failed and why the services have not been rendered. I should like to draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that I expressly said in my introductory speech that because of the limited capital resources now available to us, our capital investment is not sufficient to meet the demands which will be made on the Railways in the long run. This is quite true. I cannot sit back and do nothing. I must start to prepare for that time, when the economy revives and the demand for transport rises, so that the Railways may be able to handle it. If we cannot do that, hon. members on that side of the House will have a marvellous time criticizing us. The NP will still be in power then.

The hon. member for Hercules thanked us for certain work we had done in his constituency. We appreciate that very much, as we are not often thanked. The hon. member referred to Daspoort station. He mentioned certain aspects of the station, but I shall have to go into that, because I am unable to answer his questions now. The hon. member will understand that. I shall contact him about it later on.

The hon. member for Umhlanga referred to the food served on the flights. Was the hon. member serious? [Interjections.]

I was very serious.

It seems to me that one person wants white bread and the other wants brown bread.

I am not interested in that.

To satisfy everyone

I like mushrooms.

To satisfy everyone in respect of the food provided by the airways is not humanly possible. From the nature of the case, one cannot provide the variety one would like to offer in order to satisfy everyone, and obviously tastes differ. The hon. member now wants a continental breakfast. I thought his background was English! [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he would kindly advise us where in this world mushrooms are part and parcel of a standard breakfast?

The answer, I suppose, is: In South Africa! [Interjections.] The hon. member for Orange Grove has just said: “I like mushrooms.” However that may be, I think the old habit of having a good breakfast is a good one. I heard a great deal of reaction when the hon. member said that the breakfast should be limited to a continental breakfast. I have heard from certain quarters that if one gets on the plane early in the morning and one’s head is not too clear, a good breakfast does one a world of good. [Interjections.]

He does not know that yet.

This is a very difficult matter, and I am perfectly serious about it. We are always looking at the food served on the flights and from time to time we make changes and innovations in accordance with requests received in this connection. I just want to mention an example. There is a flight which leaves Cape Town for Johannesburg at half past two bn the afternoon as well as an Airbus leaving Johannesburg for Cape Town at the same time. At first we served no food on those flights, for who on earth eats at half past two in the afternoon? A few years ago, however, I received complaints. Businessmen said that it sometimes happened that they were engaged in consultations right through the lunch hour and then had to hurry to the airport. Then, when they boarded the aircraft, they did not even get a bite to eat.

And then the flight is delayed as well!

No, the flights are very seldom delayed. I am just mentioning this as an example to illustrate this very interesting subject. We then arranged for a light meal to be served on those two flights, even though they only left at half past two. We did this in case the passengers who had not had anything to eat during the lunch hour felt the need for a snack.

The hon. member for Umhlanga also referred to the crowding at D.F. Malan Airport when people disembarked from the aircraft and entered the airport building. I can only tell him that this problem is inside the airport building. Therefore it is a matter for the Department of Transport, and I want to advise him to discuss it with the Minister of Transport. [Interjections.] It is a problem, and I sympathize with the hon. member. I myself have often felt annoyed when I was anxious to get home and people right in front of me were embracing and obstructing my passage. It causes all movement to come to a halt. I have taken cognizance of the hon. member’s problems. Perhaps we can discuss them further during the debate on the Transport Vote.

The hon. member for Wonderboom asked that we should grant a concession tariff to Black workers in the Pretoria area, so that those who work in the Pretoria area may travel to Pretoria and back home at a lower tariff than those who simply travel to Pretoria and do not work there. I want to tell the hon. member that I do not think such a thing would be practicable. In the first place, how is one going to know who is a worker and who is not? Attempts have been made in the past to finance and regulate such a system through the employers, but I think it would be impossible to apply it in practice. Nevertheless, we investigate all the ideas raised by the hon. members.

The hon. member for Parktown discussed racial matters affecting the Railways in the way one would expect of someone belonging to that party. I do not say that he should not talk about it, but what one infers from that is that those hon. gentlemen are much more colour conscious than we. It is precisely because they are so colour conscious and so sensitive about colour matters that they are always talking about them. I have not taken offence at the hon. member’s remarks. He is free to make them, of course. However, if one considers that there is probably no organization or business enterprise in the country which has done as much as the Railways to promote the Coloured people to various positions, one doubts whether it is in the national interest for the matter to be raised here.

The hon. member will agree with me that the Railways has achieved a great deal in that sphere—probably more than anyone else. He had to concede today that the wage gap in the mining industry is greater than the one on the Railways. He enjoys a special privilege, for unlike us, who are not afforded an opportunity to analyse the activities of the Anglo-American organization and expose all its inner workings, he has an opportunity here to dig up everything in connection with the Railways organization, to ask all the questions and to make all possible inquiries.

I have already said to what extent we are narrowing the wage gap. In respect of job opportunities we enjoy the co-operation of the staff associations. The hon. member must remember that this is the secret of the success of what we have achieved on the Railways with regard to the employment of non-Whites in positions not formerly occupied by them. We have done this in co-operation with the staff associations throughout. Many jobs are involved here. The hon. member said that if one person earns R100 and someone else earns R400 a month and they each get an increase of 10%, the one gets an increase of only R10 while the other gets an increase of R40. From this he then inferred that if one gives a White man an increase of 10% and a non-White an increase of 15%, the difference in monetary terms increases. That is so. The fact is, however, that if one continues that process, they will eventually be put on an equal footing.

When?

It depends on the difference in the increases. The bigger the difference in the increases, the sooner they will be put on an equal footing. The fact is, however, that the hon. member admits in all fairness that this is not something which can be done overnight or in the short term.

When do you expect to reach that point?

I cannot predict that. It depends on economic conditions in the future. However, I think that one is making a meaningful attempt in this direction if one gives Whites an increase of 10% and Blacks an increase of 15%. We intend to continue along those lines.

The hon. member then spoke of representation, and I want to point out to him that there are two Coloured staff associations. He spoke of the non-Whites. I notice that he did not speak about the interests of the Whites. There are two Coloured associations which are registered as full trade unions. There is an Indian staff association. The Black workers are dealt with on the basis of work committees. All over the country there are 1 728 workers’ representatives among the Bantu who meet in the various branches from time to time to discuss their interests.

The hon. member for Mooi River referred again to the station at Howick. This is a national monument, he says, and therefore it must be preserved. I do not know whether Howick station is on the list, but I shall look at it again and inform the hon. member.

Finally, I should like to deal with the representations made to me by the hon. member for Carletonville. With regard to maize, there are of course regular talks between the maize producers and the S.A. Railways, because the transportation of maize is important to the S.A. Railways because of the fact that we have to convey large quantities of it. The hon. member will know that there have been consultations on many occasions in the past and that attempts have been made to lay down tariffs which would be as favourable as possible to the maize producers. The hon. member asked whether, if we compiled a unit train at two or three branch lines, we could not regard it as a unit train in the case of maize. I am afraid that I have to tell the hon. member that we cannot do this. The moment we do this in respect of one commodity, I shall be breaking a principle I have laid down, i.e. that a unit train has to run from one station to another. This is the great secret; this is the great advantage. If we compile the train at two stations, for example, and the one station is 80 km further from the terminal than the second station, there will be complications as a result of the longer distance which has to be travelled by a part of the train compared to the other part, while our whole idea is to have it run from station to station as one unit train. That is why we cannot do it. But we can have talks with the maize industry on a regular basis and see what attempts we can make to keep their costs as low as possible.

The last two speakers, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North and the hon. member for Rosettenville, must be among the best representatives of constituencies. One could see that from the way they spoke. They are Nationalists to the bone.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—24: Aronson, T.; Bamford, B. R.; 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.; Marais, J. F.; Miller, R. B.; Myburgh, P. A.; Pyper, P. A.; Rossouw, D. H.; Schwarz, H. H.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Widman, A. B.; Wood, N. B.

Tellers: B. W. B. Page and W. M. Sutton.

Noes—104: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, P. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzer, H. S.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Grobler, J. P.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; 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, J. J.; Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Marais, J. S.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Myburgh, G. B.; Niemann, J. J.; Nortje, J. H.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Pretorius, N. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schulte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Tempel, H. J.; Theunissen, L. M.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; 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 Tonder, J. A.; 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.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wessels, L.; Wilkens, B. H.; Worrall, D. J.

Tellers: L. J. Botha, J. P. A. Reyneke, N. F. Treurnicht, A. van Breda, W. L. van der Merwe and V. A. Volker.

Amendment negatived.

Schedules agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, we have now come to the end of three days of debate on the Railways. When one looks back on these three days of debate, one can only say that the performance from the other side of the House, on the part of all the members who have spoken including the hon. the Minister, has been remarkably poor. We have had an unbelievably bad performance in defence of an unbelievably bad budget. If we were not listening to one member after another from the other side of the House getting to his feet and thanking the Minister for this and thanking the Minister for that in one sycophantic speech after another, we witnessed them climbing to their feet and reading extracts from the Sunday Times. If the hon. the Minister and that side of the House had not had the Sunday Times, I shudder to think what their performance would have been like. It would have been absolutely appalling. They were very lucky indeed that one reporter on one newspaper should have said that the hon. the Minister had not done too badly. Member after member on that side read the same paragraph from the Sunday Times. They savoured every word of that paragraph, rejecting, of course, papers like Rapport, Oggendblad, the Financial Gazette, Hoofstad, Die Vaderland, Die Transvaler, The Star and virtually every other newspaper in the country. All these papers described this budget as being very bad indeed. During the Second Reading debate I was unable, for lack of time, to quote extracts from the Press at any length. There is, however, a leader in one newspaper which I would like to read to hon. members on the other side. I refer to a section from the leader of The Citizen, which is no supporter of our party. Usually it supports that hon. Minister’s party. This extract sums up to a great degree the attitude of this side of the House on this occasion. I quote—

Well, it is not often that we agree with the sentiments expressed in this newspaper, but on this occasion we can only say that we agree with it entirely.

Listening to the performance on the other side of the House, one would have thought that after a budget like this, hon. members on the other side would to an extent try to justify what the hon. the Minister has done. Did it happen? No, we just had these sycophantic “thank-the-Minister” speeches. The worst aspect of the budget is that the hon. the Minister seems to have accepted that inflation is inevitable. He said that it was a worldwide problem and that the Administration was a victim of inflation. He accepted that it was inevitable; in other words, he accepted that defeat was inevitable.

The hon. the Minister actually took to task those hon. members on this side who serve on the Select Committee on Railway Accounts because we have agreed with an Auditor-General’s recommendation that it has become necessary for the Administration to go in for a certain amount of inflation accounting. It was recommended to us that because of the increase in replacement costs for goods used by the Railways, it was necessary to set aside another R65 million into the Renewals Fund for replacements. I think it can be said that this side of the House has accepted that there is not very much which the Government can do about inflation. We have no alternative with a recommendation like that—we just have to say “yes”.

And therefore you supported it?

Certainly we supported it; we had absolutely no alternative. The hon. the Minister used this almost as an excuse to castigate this side of the House without any justification at all.

I want to take a look at some of the things which have been raised during the debate. Certainly in reply to the debate during the Committee Stage the hon. the Minister said that on the matter of Brown Book spending we were in agreement; we knew what we were talking about. I think we are probably in agreement. We agree that overspending of that nature is not necessarily irregular, but we would say it is highly undesirable. I think what has happened to the hon. the Minister is that he has decided to put up that defence by saying that nothing but the black figures in the Brown Book have anything to do with this debate. He had in fact omitted to read clause 2 of the Bill.

It was when he realized his mistake that he came back and said: “Now we are in agreement; now we understand one another.”

I never said anything else.

I am glad to hear that from the hon. the Minister and, obviously, I accept what he says.

Let me say that I believe that the hon. the Minister’s reply in the Second Reading on the question of livestock tariffs was very misleading indeed. He selected his words very, very carefully. He said—

If one listens to that, one would have thought that in fact the tariff on the transportation of livestock had gone up by 65% since 1970.

I never said that.

No, in fact he did not say that—he was very clever—but he gave that impression. He said in fact that the producers’ price had gone up by 65%. He must, however, accept that the price for the transportation of livestock has gone up by over 400% in that time. This year the tariff went up by 10%, last year by 20%, the year before by 50%, and so on. It was very misleading.

I also wish to comment on certain aspects of the answer of the hon. the Minister on the position of capital and interest repayments. The hon. the Minister spoke about funds he was going to obtain from the Treasury. He said that this year the amount involved was in fact a good deal less than two years ago in that he was only getting R467 million from the Treasury this year. I think that that is correct. Sir, I find that a little extraordinary, because the position appears to be that, when it comes to interest repayments, he is being asked to repay considerably more than he was being asked to repay two years ago. Obviously, interest rates must have gone up tremendously. In fact, in the coming year he will have to pay R60 million more in interest, and yet he is only getting R78 million more from the Treasury. To me these figures just do not seem to hang together at all.

But the one is added to the other.

Well, if the one is added to the other, he is paying more, but if he is only getting R78 million more in capital, why should he be paying as much as R60 million more in interest?

What about last year’s investments? There was also interest on that.

Last year’s investment is included in that figure. Obviously, the rate of interest must have gone up extraordinarily. We did not get a satisfactory answer from the hon. the Minister either when it came to the question of foreign loans. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister how much of our total loan capital at the moment is made up of foreign loans. He said it was insignificant to an extent, but it is significant. When one is dealing with a situation of marginal profitability, everything like that is important. I did not really like the way in which the hon. the Minister passed it off as though it were absolutely nothing.

Will you explain what you mean by “marginal profitability”?

I was glad to hear from the hon. the Minister the last time the Minister was on his feet, his statement to the effect that claims against the Railways had dropped. I had criticized the Railways for the breakages and damage that do occur. Perhaps it is inevitable that such things happen on the Railways—and I think I said that when I raised the matter—but nevertheless in many instances people use the Railways because they have to, not because they want to, and the inconvenience as a result of damages is considerable. Anyone who uses the Railways to transport fragile articles and articles which are difficult to transport by rail and in many instances unsuitable for transport by rail, finds it most inconvenient when such articles are damaged and is very unhappy at it.

Generally, in summing up, I must say that this is a thoroughly bad budget. It will have a bad effect on the economy. It will inhibit any hope we have of economic recovery. I would say that the hon. the Minister of Finance will be tearing out his hair because—and I am saying this again—what the hon. the Minister has done has started off the inflationary spiral all over again. We are going to see, working its way right through the economy, an increase in prices which will be far in excess of between a ½% and 1%, which is the figure the hon. the Minister has put forward. We know from long and bitter experience that it is not restricted to that, but that right through the economy people use this as an excuse to raise prices further. When one asks why a particular article is higher in price they will say that they are paying more for transport costs, as they are.

Finally, I would suggest to the hon. the Minister that we do not want to see additional tariff rises during the coming year. I hope we can accept from the hon. the Minister that he will not think of it at least for another year. I hope that we are not going to be subjected to the same sort of situation as we were in 1976 when we had an additional increase of nearly 10% halfway through the year.

Mr. Speaker, we are now reaching the final stages of this debate, which has stretched over a period of three days. I listened to most of the speakers on the Opposition benches and I think you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that in the many years of the existence of this House, this debate in a sense is a record as far as the poor performance of not only the Official Opposition but also the other two parties that form the Opposition, is concerned.

During the speech he has just made, the hon. member for Orange Grove said precisely what he said during the Second Reading and nothing new was added. One should bear in mind that one is dealing with a national transportation system involving some R6 000 million of capital and a budget in excess of R4 000 million. This being so one would expect hon. members to stand up and debate the various aspects of the Railways. However, one can come to but one conclusion, and that is that hon. members have done no homework at all. I doubt, Mr. Speaker, whether the hon. member who is the chief spokesman on the benches of the Official Opposition, has even bothered to read the General Manager’s report.

Let us hear your homework.

That hon. member must not get excited because I will deal with him in a moment. When the hon. member for Uitenhage was speaking during the Second Reading debate, the interest displayed by the Official Opposition in this vast national undertaking and its many thousands of employees and their interests, was such that there were only two hon. members sitting in their benches. In fact, Mr. Speaker, to be quite honest and if I may throw a kudu, more interest was displayed during this debate on the part of the NRP than by the Official Opposition. However, what distresses one, Mr. Speaker, is that when one opens the newspaper that the hon. member for Orange Grove now so blithely refers to, one would think that there was a fiery Opposition fighting for the interests of the railwaymen and looking after the interests of South Africa. I wish that the public could have sat here and could have gone through what we on these benches had to go through. Any constructive discussion in the course of this debate, as far as Railway matters per se were concerned, came only from the Government benches. I will give a couple of examples. We ended the Committee Stage with a comic turn on the part of the hon. member for Umhlanga. The best contribution he could make was to say that when he arrives at the airport in Cape Town or when he wants to exit himself from the Durban airport, he finds some difficulty in doing so because his fellow travellers show a little affection towards one another. His solution to the problem is to mark out an area which will probably be known as “lovers’ comer” in our airports. This will enable people to embrace in comfort so that the hon. member for Umhlanga can just walk through merrily. He is asking for a lovers’ comer in our airports.

You are more stupid than you look.

If that is so the only conclusion I can come to is that the hon. member is so lacking in affection himself that he is disturbed by those showing affection when they welcome others who arrive. This is the height of the contribution in discussing a national organization with some R6 000 million of capital involved. That is the best contribution the hon. member for Umhlanga can make.

We had to spend a considerable length of time because of the ignorance, and I say this circumspectly … [Interjections.] That is right, I am glad to see he consults the hon. member for Yeoville. We had to spend a considerable length of time, and the hon. the Minister displayed a great deal of patience, which I greatly admired, to attempt to educate both the hon. member for Amanzimtoti and the hon. member for Orange Grove in the functions of the Brown Book. If they knew their facts and if they did their job in regard to Railways, they would know exactly how the Brown Book is prepared and drawn up and what principles are applied. The best contribution they could make to the debate—I see the hon. member for Orange Grove followed the hon. member for Amanzimtoti on this issue—was to find some issue to object against. The best that could be contributed, in the light of all the functions of our national transportation system, was to display ignorance in regard to the operation of the Brown Book. Another example of this is that the hon. member for Orange Grove spent a great deal of time both during the Second Reading debate and again in the Third Reading on the interest aspects. I can understand that to a certain extent, because I realize that the driving motivation force behind the Official Opposition is the interests of big corporate interests. Surely the hon. member for Yeoville will support me in this regard.

I think you are talking utter nonsense. [Interjections.]

Surely the hon. member for Yeoville recognizes this. The hon. member for Yeoville will be honest enough to say that the interest burden in relation to capital employed in the S.A. Railways is in no way out of proportion to the interest, for example, paid by the big corporate interests that stand behind the PFP on the amount of capital they employ.

There are no corporate interests behind us. Tell us what the rate of interest is on one foreign loan … [Interjections.]

I do not wish to mention company names across the floor of the House, but I will do so if the hon. member insists upon it. [Interjections.] In the whole course of the debate, dealing with the national interest, we have heard accusations about the increased spiral of the cost of living, the inflation rate, etc., and the hon. member for Orange Grove said the evidence could be found in any newspaper. I wonder whether the hon. member for Orange Grove has had a look at the comments made by some of the most outstanding and prominent financial analysts in our country?

Like Badenhorst Durrant? [Interjections.]

No, I am afraid not. [Interjections.] The hon. members had a look at the comments made by those financial analysts and it is no wonder that the hon. member for Orange Grove gests sore every time the Sunday Times is quoted here. The Sunday Times professes to have the best—I think even the hon. member for Yeoville recognizes this—financial comment in the country. Does the hon. member for Yeoville disagree with me?

Can we quote you to the Minister of Finance?

I shall come back to hon. members in a moment. I would like to read a couple of basic comments for the information of hon. members so that we can have a better debate from them next year. One would have thought that, because of their small numbers, they would at least try to justify their existence by the quality of their contributions.

Because South Africa is a large and a widespread country with large under-populated areas, we are dependent on the Railways to carry the largest proportion of our transport services.

It is something more than a mere straightforward economic enterprise run by an Administration with only a profit motive in mind. The Railway Administration has a socio-economic responsibility towards South Africa. They cannot simply lay on one side their uneconomic activities. If the Administration’s only motive was one of profit and if the main objective of the hon. the Minister was to balance the books, then South Africa would unquestionably be filled with ghost towns and large distressed areas. Whilst the profit motive and the intention of the hon. the Minister to balance the books is essential in a public undertaking, the profit objective ensures efficiency in the administration of the national transportation service. That motive is not to declare a dividend as does a company. The dividend collected by the public, who are the shareholders in the S.A. Railways, is better services for their transport needs. It is therefore inevitable that certain of the more profitable operations must subsidize the less profitable operations of the S.A. Railways. Therefore, I think the argument of the hon. member for Orange Grove that because certain activities have shown increased revenue over expenditure there should be no consequential tariff increases in those profitable activities of the Railways, is ridiculous. We have to debate the budget of our national transport system with an Opposition which quite apparently has no conception of the organization. The Railways is a transport system employing some 259 000 workers of all races, with a wage bill in excess of R1 000 million, whose workers handle 635,75 million passenger journeys a year and have to move some 131,5 million tons of revenue-earning traffic a year. In these circumstances we have the profound statement of the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, who said in the course of the debate, talking as he said as “a simple farmer”—I am glad he used the adjective “simple”—that the transportation system is a parasite on the wealth earning sectors of our economy [Interjections.] This is a strange sort of parasite. I think it must be a self-evident fact, even to the Opposition, that we would have no wealth in South Africa without our transport system and the high degree of efficiency in its operation.

I mention these basic concepts of our transport system to highlight how ridiculous the approach of hon. members on the Opposition benches has been in the discussion of the budget. Quite apart from the disinterested attitude of hon. members of the Official Opposition—as I mentioned, on one occasion only two hon. members occupied those benches—not one single word has been uttered by them in the interest of the railwaymen on whose efforts the wheels turn and on whose efforts the passengers and goods are delivered at their destination.

The hon. member for Orange Grove had a lot to say about tariff increases. I would just like to ask him one question: Would he refuse the Railwaymen their recent increases in their salaries and wages?

Not at all.

The hon. member says “not at all”. However, in the same instant he wants to know why the hon. the Minister raised the tariffs. From where have the salary increases to be met? In the last two years the railwaymen have had only R200 million to meet their additional costs and to raise their living standards. That amount has been met out of revenue and increased tariffs. Does the hon. member say that the railwaymen must withdraw their demands, that they are not entitled to the increases and that the hon. the Minister must not increase the tariff rates?

That is not the only alternative. There are plenty of others.

But why does the hon. member not read the General Manager’s report? The General Manager clearly indicates in his report—which the hon. member for Orange Grove, the chief speaker on Railway matters in the PFP benches, ignores—the increased cost of material to keep the Railways running and the necessity to do so.

The hon. member for Wynberg is not in the House, but I understand the reason why he is not here and I want to say in his absence that it ill becomes an hon. member in discussing a Railway budget to draw extracts out of a General Manager’s report to claim that there is a 59% standard of efficiency and then to ignore the important aspects on the same pages of the report which show the efficiency levels which are in fact being maintained in the department. The plain fact of the matter is that the hon. members in the Opposition benches know full well that as far as the support of the railwaymen of South Africa is concerned, their ambitions in this regard can be no more than “’n ronde nul”. The railwaymen of South Africa know who their best friends are, namely the Government.

I want to turn to another aspect which I believe is important, namely the statement made in the General Manager’s report that a decision has been taken that the Railways should become more competitively orientated. The Road Transportation Act of 1930 gave a measure of protection to the Railways, but since the introduction of that Act there has been a systematic erosion of high-rated traffic. In 1957-’58 the Railways’ market share, in competition with road transportation, of high-rated traffic stood at 62% and in 1971-’72 it had dropped to 56%. According to the General Manager’s report it is expected that in the 1980s this figure will drop to 44% of the total revenue earned by the Railways.

The accounts before us indicate that high-rated traffic in the last financial year accounted for approximately 47% of total revenue while it represented only approximately 17% of the total tonnage conveyed by the Railways. I should like to quote the following from page 21 of the General Manager’s report—

That refers to increased competition from the private sector. If this is the policy to be followed, the Railways, with its infrastructure, cannot be loaded with the costs which have to be met from Revenue Account as far as its social services and the socioeconomic aspects are concerned. From Revenue Account the Railways has to meet, for example, all the expenditure for the 30 000 houses under the house-ownership scheme. There has also been an announcement from the hon. the Minister regarding the new housing plans for the Coloured and Indian workers.

Passenger services, also a social aspect, involve the Railways in a loss of something like R200 million per year. It is therefore inevitable that, if the Railways are going to enter the market on a competitive basis and not take shelter behind the protection of the Transportation Act of 1930, in terms of which they would be protected as far as high-rated traffic is concerned, the Railways must be divorced from the responsibility of these socio-economic services, which should become the responsibility of the public sector. By the nature of our national assets and mineral wealth, the major tonnage which will have to be carried by the Railways in the future, as now, will be these metals which, in bulk, form low-rated traffic. If the Railways have to operate on a competitive basis and their infrastructure is so formed, it is inevitable that part of the services performed by the Railways should be loaded onto the public sector. I would be grateful if the hon. the Minister in his reply to this debate would take the opportunity to indicate what Government policy will be followed in that regard.

Finally I should like to make one or two comments regarding the position of suburban traffic, particularly as far as it concerns the railway station of Johannesburg. The General Manager’s report indicates, in Addendum 9, a drop of something like 11,25 million third class passenger journeys in the Johannesburg area compared with an increase of 2,25 million third class journeys undertaken in the Cape Town area and an increase of something like 3,5 million third-class passenger journeys undertaken in the Durban area. The hon. the Minister is aware of the problems in connection with suburban trains to Soweto and of the problems which have arisen in the past. As a result of those problems, consultative committees were appointed to improve the communication between commuters and the Railways Administration itself. All these consultative committees operate under the chairmanship of the various System Managers. I have no doubt whatsoever that these consultative committees have done an excellent job of work in maintaining adequate commuter/passenger relationships with the Administration. I believe they are of great importance. However, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to indicate to us, in his reply to this debate, the overall effect of the consultations between the commuters, as far as Johannesburg is concerned, and the Railways Administration.

Other problems exist in connection with the station at Johannesburg. The hon. the Minister, I think, has had representations made to him and is aware of these problems. I refer to the problems which occur in the vicinity of the station and which have given rise to considerable dissatisfaction on the part of the residents of the area concerned. I hope that the hon. the Minister can also take this aspect into consideration when matters are discussed in the consultative committee.

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Von Brandis rose to speak, he started off by complaining bitterly about the poor show put on by the Opposition and how little we had contributed to this debate. Since he made such a bold statement, and seeing that he has returned to Parliament after an absence of about 12 years and that when he was here previously he spent an awful lot of time in the Railway group of his party, I was expecting to hear a really brilliant speech, a really major contribution to this debate, but it seems that that was just wishful thinking. In his speech he referred to the Motor Carrier Transportation Act of 1930, and it is quite obvious that the hon. member does not know that that Act has been revised and that we now have a new Act.

I am aware of that.

He is living in the past. After listening to him, I think he has followed the pattern which we have heard through most of this debate. In fact, at one stage we thought that hon. members on that side of the House were passing the same speech around, because we got a continual repetition of the same sort of points. If the measure of success in a debate is whether one can get through to the hon. the Minister, then in this particular debate we have scored at least 50%, because we had four legs to our amendment, and during the course of the debate the hon. the Minister has conceded to two of them. The one was with regard to the matter which the hon. member for East London North raised in connection with East London City and the harbour there. The point that we have been trying to put across during the whole debate is that we are dealing here with a capital budget in excess of R1 000 million a year and that this budget can have a considerable effect on the economy and on industrial development, especially in certain areas. We have seen what it has done to Richards Bay. What the hon. member for East London North was trying to point out is that the policy and the development programme of the Railways had led to a situation where the port of East London was drying up because of the rating and tariff structure of containers going to and from that port. My hon. colleague spent most of his time on this particular subject and I am happy to say that within a day the hon. the Minister announced that the tariffs had been cut. We are very pleased about that and with the hon. member for East London North I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for this.

Do you think I only considered it since his speech?

Otherwise you should have announced it beforehand.

The fourth leg of our amendment, which is the second point to which the hon. the Minister conceded, is that this budget did not provide, as can be seen in the report of the hon. the Minister, adequate relief for Railway pensioners. We bear these people very much in mind and here again I am very pleased to see that the hon. the Minister saw fit to increase the amount involved from about 2% to 5%. I am quite sure that the Railway pensioners are going to be extremely pleased with this, although I wonder sometimes whether the increase is going to be sufficient to assist them to overcome their problems. At least it is some relief. In that regard the hon. member for Von Brandis surely has to concede to us that we did make an impact in this debate and that the points we raised in the budget have been conceded to us.

As far as the other two legs of our amendment are concerned, I regret to say that the hon. the Minister and his colleagues have not come up with anything, as far as we can see it, that satisfies our concern in this regard. Our main charge was—and it still remains—that this budget is going to have an inflationary effect on the economy of South Africa. I regret to say that this debate has not achieved what I believe it could have achieved, although I must say that I do believe that the hon. member for Witwatersberg—and I will refer to this again later—did give us some ray of hope. Regrettably, no hon. member on the Government side rose during this debate and really accepted that this budget would have an adverse effect on the economy as a whole and that it would contribute to increasing inflation in this country. They did not accept it and yet the whole country says that this is what is going to happen.

Rather, the main thrust of the arguments of hon. members opposite during this debate has been to whitewash the obvious failures of this budget to become a weapon against the evil of inflation in South Africa. I want to stress this. This budget is so great that, properly utilized, it could become a weapon against the evil of inflation.

We in these benches consider the present economic situation in South Africa to be extremely serious. This is the reason why the main thrust of our argument during this debate has been the effect which this budget is going to have on the inflation rate in South Africa. We feel this way, especially in the light of the threat of sanctions against South Africa.

When sanctions were placed against Rhodesia—international sanctions against Rhodesia—the Government and the people of that country girded their loins to fight this particular threat against them. Through this very difficult period of 10 years they were able to maintain a growth rate in their gross domestic product of 8,6% a year on the average. This was because of the action taken by their government.

We are also most concerned about the effect of this budget in the light of the need in South Africa today for great sums of money for the defence of our country. This is capital which under normal conditions could have been used for stimulating industrial growth and for the welfare of our country. However, today it has to be spent in the defence of our country. Therefore we are most concerned that every rand of capital should be spent wisely and in the best interests of South Africa. Thirdly, we are extremely concerned about the effect of this budget because it is going to contribute to the drop in living standards of the citizens of South Africa. I do not believe anybody can deny that. To argue that the inflation rate is going to be only 1% lower than what it was last year, or that the increases in tariffs have been so much lower than they were previously, as far as I am concerned, is neither here nor there. The important question is whether this budget is going to fight inflation or fuel inflation. This is what we said right at the start. I would have thought that hon. members on that side, who had so much to say about patriotism, who had so much to say about our beloved fatherland, who had so much to say about the need today for all South Africans to stand behind our beloved fatherland, would have been able to feel the same way as we on this side do and would have examined the budget in the light of the real effect it is going to have on South Africa. The problem of inflation is a problem for Parliament. For hon. members to pass the blame to the private sector and other sectors is in my view just begging the issue. The ultimate authority in the land lies with this Parliament. It is here where the power lies to do something about this problem. That is what we have tried to say in this debate. We have said we could start by re-examining our priorities in this country. I know it has nothing to do with this particular debate although it does fall under this particular Minister, but in the Press we read that R80 million is going to be spent on a tunnel. Is this of the highest priority in South Africa at the present time? The same must surely apply to the R1 000 million of capital which is going to be spent by the Railways in the coming year. In the light of the present circumstances, is it necessary that we should spend this amount of money? Our priorities, our goals as businessmen and parliamentarians, our attitude towards the economy at this stage in our history should be reexamined, especially in respect of this budget. I am afraid that not a single member on the Government benches took one minute of his time to do this.

I want to make one thing quite clear and that is that I have the greatest respect for the General Manager of the Railways and for his senior and ordinary staff, but especially for his senior staff.

But you want to take over his job!

I do not want to do his job.

They would not even let that hon. member tap wheels!

Sir, I want to say in all sincerity that I have the greatest respect for what the General Manager is doing. I read of and see major improvements and innovations, both in the fields of engineering and management, which are a benefit to the cause of transport and to South Africa as a whole. I believe it is a credit to the engineering profession that an engineer should reach this very high post in the Railways and that he is now doing what he is doing for South Africa. I also hear that many engineers are appointed to very senior positions in the Railways, and I think that that is also a good thing. I said in the Second Reading that I am an engineer and that I believe that engineers, who have been trained to solve problems, do make good managers.

To say something in a lighter vein for a moment, I should like to say that I read in the Sunday Times of 15 January an article which is headed “Kobus just happened to be the right man in the right place”. Referring to engineers, the writer says—

The writer goes further—

That is profiteering.

In addition to this, I want to say that we in these benches do admire the way the Railway employees are contributing to the fight against inflation at the present time. They are suffering from the severe effects of inflation at the present time and they have been prepared to do their duty in the fight against inflation. They are doing this by being prepared to accept a lower standard of living. As many a member has said here today, we owe a debt of gratitude to them in this regard. However, it is up to the management of the Railways to try to correct the very evil that is causing the Railway employees to accept a lower standard of living. This is the effect of inflation. During the Second Reading debate I said that transport in itself is not a profit centre in the true economic sense, but rather a cost centre. I went on to say that as such it is, in fact, a parasite—I think that was the word I used—on the wealth-producing sector of our economy. Incidently, some of my farmer friends said that they thought that a new type of tick by the name of the S.A. Railways had come to plague them, because this budget will suck them dry, especially the beef farmers. I can see how some hon. members might have misinterpreted what I meant when I used the word parasite. Perhaps they do not understand the economic thoughts that are going through my mind. I believe, however, they cannot deny that transport is an economic drain on the wealth-producing sector of the economy. Therefore we must keep it at the lowest possible cost. I should like to commend to the hon. members to consider what I have said in this connection. They should think about it before shouting that it was not true. I accept that we cannot do without transport. As I said in my Second Reading speech, it is a necessary economic evil. I stress “economic”. I do believe that we cannot do without it, but we must do everything in our power to keep it at a cost as low as possible.

In conclusion I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that in regard to my query of the figures in the Brown Book—I wish the hon. member would not distract the attention of the hon. the Minister for one minute …

You have my attention all the time.

I should like to discuss this matter a bit further but do not have the time to do so now, however I shall possibly do so during the deliberation of the Select Committee on Railways Accounts. I have concern in this regard.

I should like to get back to the hon. member for Witwatersberg. Unfortunately he is not here right now. During the Second Reading debate I pointed out that he had said during his speech that the Railways attitude was, “If we want to, we can.” I then suggested that we should put a challenge to the Railways: If they want to beat inflazion, let us see them do it, to which he replied: “They will accept the challenge.” That is the ray of hope to which I referred earlier. I sincerely hope that by this time next year we shall see they have in fact met this challenge.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti surely does not expect me to reply to his speech. It was merely a repetition of what was said in the Second Reading debate, and what was debated for eight hours in the Committee Stage. The hon. the Minister as well as members on this side of the House replied to these matters in detail. The hon. member’s speech reminded me very much of a bale of wool. I do not want to touch the wool, because wool sets one’s teeth on edge. So much, then, for the hon. member of Amanzimtoti.

We have now reached the end of a debate of almost 20 hours on the Railways and Harbours budget. I think we may differ about the why’s or the wherefore’s, about the causes and the consequences of tariff increases, but one thing is as plain as a pikestaff: There is an average tariff increase of 8,6%in railway tariffs. This puts a special responsibility on the Administration. I think we are ad idem as far as that is concerned. This responsibility lies in the fact that from 1 April this year railway services have to be marketed with the increased tariff in a very competitive market. This responsibility is very closely bound up with the statutory regulations according to which the Railways operates, because those regulations determine the compass of the marketing of railway services. My hon. colleagues on this side have repeatedly referred to the statutory regulations and therefore I shall not deal with them in detail. I only like to point out, however, that according to our Constitution the Railways has to be operated as a business undertaking. The Railways is financially independent and self-supporting. It has to be operated in such a way as best to serve the general economy of the country, due regard being had to agriculture and industry. Now we are getting to the point. Where there is a question of business principles, there is a question of results of working, and where there is a question of results of working, it is generally expected that revenue should be coupled with expenditure. What is the real position? For the next financial year an operating loss of R241 million has been budgeted for. It is the specific responsibility of the Railways Administration to market its services in these circumstances in such a way that this operating loss can be changed into an operating profit. That can be done in three ways. I want to refer to them as the three partners. It can be done by saving; it can be done by planning, and finally it can be done by the marketing of Railway services. Saving is a short-term aspect and planning a longterm aspect, but marketing is a continuous aspect. In present times I feel that as far as the operation of the Railways is concerned, more emphasis must be placed on the marketing of Railway services. And now follows the logical question: Why is it necessary to market Railway services? In the time at my disposal I am briefly going to advance only two reasons for this. The first reason is the obvious, i.e. that there is an enormous gap in the results of working of the Railways. The second reason—and that is the reason the hon. the Minister sketched for us so clearly—is that the Railways is systematically being phased out of the relatively profitable part of the transport market. Let us look briefly at these two reasons to determine why intensive marketing must be kept up. I shall take 1968 as a base year for the operation position. In 1968 the results of working showed an operating profit of R64 million. That can be compared with the operating loss of R241 million for this year, i.e. ten years later. If we further examine these two base years, i.e. 1968 and 1978, it becomes evident that the Railway sector was responsible for 83% of Railways revenue in 1968 while at present it has decreased to 73% of the overall revenue budget of the Railways.

If we look at the question of high-rated traffic, it becomes evident that this type of traffic has decreased over this period of ten years from 64% of the operating revenue to the present figure, which represents about 40%. What do we deduce from this? In the first place, that there is an enormous gap in the results of working, in other words the revenue and the expenditure, of the Railways. The share of the Railways, as main contributor to the revenue, decreased from 83% to approximately 74%, and high-rated traffic diminished.

Now I ask myself the question: If we analyse the position further, and if we look at the share of the Railways in the relative transport market—the hon. member for Tygervallei mentioned the figures here—we find that 20 years ago the share of the Railways in the transport market was about 64%. In 1971 the total share of the Railways in the transport market decreased to approximately 56%. It is projected that the share of the Railways in the transport market will be approximately 44% by 1988-’89. If the Railways, with its present revenue and its present relative share in the transport market, cannot succeed in balancing its revenue and expenditure, what will the position be in ten years’ time? Therefore we have to introduce our three partners in this connection, viz. planning, saving and marketing.

There are also statutory provisions like those in the Railways and Harbours Act. Unfortunately I do not have the time to go into that in detail. If it is found that a specific statutory provision imposes a limitation on the marketing of Railway services, I am of the opinion that we have to re-examine such statutory provisions and that we must provide for a somewhat wider scope within which the Railways can market its services. I do not want to imply thereby that nothing is being done with regard to the marketing of Railway services. We appreciate and recognize the fact that there has been a marketing department in the Railways head office since 1968. We also appreciate the fact that marketing officials have been sent into the field since 1968 to market Railway services and products. If we view the matter as a whole and if the Railways is in earnest in wanting to expand its share in the transport market, this cannot be done by legislation. In my opinion it can only be done by giving effective service and by the marketing of this service. The Railways has a service to market and the marketing officials have instruments with which to work. They work, inter alia, with tariffs with which they negotiate with their clients. There are import and export tariffs, containerization tariffs, industrial rebates and a variety of other tariffs, but I do not intend to go through the whole list.

The marketing department of the Railways does research. New trucks are designed, for instance refrigerated trucks and various other trucks which provide for the needs of the farmers. All this is being done. After I have said all this, however, there remains one matter on which I should like to address the hon. the Minister. I personally am of the opinion that there is a tremendous field lying fallow as far as the marketing of Railway services are concerned. Would it not, be advisable, as far as the marketing of Railway services is concerned, to formulate a dynamic marketing policy as the top priority of the Railway Administration. It should be a marketing policy aimed at commerce in the firm knowledge that the financial vitality of the Railways is dependent on a successful marketing policy. There are various areas of the marketing field that can be investigated, and should it appear that the market research and marketing department of the Railways has to be rationalized, I think it will be worth while to proceed in this regard because the ultimate results will be good. It might become evident that more marketing officials have to be appointed, not only to get into touch with the big clients, with organized agriculture, commerce and industry. It might also be necessary to investigate the market systematically and intensively. Personal contacts with the wholesale and the retail trades is necessary to market the product of the Railways, which is a marketable product. The Railways is an enterprise which has to be operated according to commercial principles and it might become evident that professional advice has to be obtained from outside marketing institutions, because it is a major task to cover this field. Transport trends have to be determined and the preferences of certain clients have to be examined scientifically. The way in which the clients want to ship the products and how the Railways can meet this need, must be determined.

There are various other areas which I could just mention briefly. Tourism as a marketing area can be exploited further. The hon. members might think that this aspect is irrelevant, but the Railways can introduce a service which is aimed at tourism. The Railways can alter the holiday patterns of the South African public around December by running special trains and by negotiating prices with hotels. The services can be synchronized by way of fine, large-scale projects. Such projects need not be figments of the imagination. The Railways is dynamic enough to tackle this.

In conclusion, I want to point out that we have to admit that the Railways has a problem in balancing its revenue and its expenditure. There is, however, a solution to this problem. In my opinion on the solution lies in a combination of the factors I have mentioned, viz. saving, planning and marketing. Much has been said about this. But the most important partner for a solution is marketing.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bellville has spoken a great deal of sense tonight. I must say that we in these benches have waited patiently for three days now to hear something sensible from hon. members on the other side. Well, it is better late than never, I suppose.

I want to mention one or two of the impressions which I got from studying this Appropriation Bill. Firstly, I want to deal with what the Minister said in defence of the heavy increase in tariffs. The hon. the Minister is an experienced operator and what he said was effective politics, but I wonder how valid his defence really is. What he did was to ask us on this side of the House whether we would have liked him to save on certain items. He then mentioned four or five items. When we had indicated that obviously those four or five items should not be pared down—we were in fact quite happy that there should be increases—he sat down as if he had justified his total tariff increase pattern. However, that is not our argument, which is that we must look at the total fiscal arrangements of the Railways Administration. We on this side of the House indicated where we felt priorities had not been followed. The hon. the Minister has not satisfied us that merely because under four or five items there have been improvements, increases in salary and benefits, the other shocking aspects of this budget can be justified.

But I want to raise some other unpleasant aspects as well. I am afraid this debate might have to end on a fairly bitter note. I take exception to the fact that the hon. the Minister saw fit to carry some personal arguments he has had with Mr. George Young of The Cape Times into this Chamber. I want to tell him that I do not hold a brief for Mr. George Young. I have only spoken to him three or four times in my life. I do not know whether he has a vendetta against the Railways Administration. Because I read his column, which happens to be an interesting column, because he has written an interesting autobiography and because he is the doyen of shipping columnists in this country, I happen to know that for some years Mr. George Young has hated the apartheid system in the Cape Town docks. However, he is not alone in that hate, but is in very good company. I happen to know that he believes that the new control tower has defects, and he is into alone in that belief. If the hon. the Minister really thinks that Mr. George Young is the only person in Cape Town who believes that there are defects in that control tower, he is living in an ivory tower.

I know that for a long time Mr. Young has disliked the system under which the Railways Administration operates a kind of mini-ship empire, with one vessel, the Johan Hugo, carrying coal. It is a ridiculous system. It is absolutely ridiculous that there should be people solemnly sitting in an office in Pretoria running one ship. By any standards it is a silly system. Mr. Young is not the only one who believes that it is a silly system. He is not the only one who is incensed with the S.A. Railways Administration, which for years has refused to build a toilet—it is a little thing, but it worries Capetonians—at the Harbour Cafe. Certainly he writes about it, as he has every right to. The hon. the Minister says that this journalist has a vendetta against the Administration. On the contrary Mr. Young is in fact carrying out the best functions of the investigative journalist. Far from being cross with the man, the hon. the Minister should, on the contrary, be the first to thank him. Has he forgotten Faros? Is the hon. the Minister pleased or displeased that for two years Mr. George Young persisted in probing the affairs of the S.A. Railways Administration? What is his answer? It is an interesting question. He cannot possibly be displeased. So, if he is pleased, why does he not say so? He has never said to Mr. George Young that he was acting in the best interests of South African journalism. I think it is a very poor note the hon. the Minister has struck here.

Secondly, I was very surprised at the hon. the Minister’s impression that the control tower in Table Bay Harbour should be regarded as a prestige matter. He has this gumboot syndrome when he talks about it. He says that he does not want people wearing gumboots walking around his control tower. But, Mr. Speaker, have you ever heard such nonsense? Why should we have a prestige control tower? Who are we supposed to be impressing? Who are the foreign visitors, the port managers, port captains, and first lords of the admiralty who are visiting us? Who are we impressing? Are we trying to impress the hon. the Minister of Transport or the General Manager of the Railways? Who on earth are we trying to impress? Furthermore, I want to say that the answer which the hon. the Minister gave me shows an abysmal ignorance of how the operation of ships works in Table Bay Harbour. It is not the gumboots I am talking about; I am talking about the ships’ agents and the ships’ operators. They do not wear gumboots. I am afraid that this is not an answer.

Thirdly, I was absolutely shaken that the hon. the Minister seemed to smile off the fact that, because of the negligence of employees of the Railways Administration, there is R5 million’s worth of maritime hardware lying on the shores of Llandudno and Oudekraal. Is he not disturbed …

That is a disgraceful accusation.

Yes, but it is the finding of a Court of Marine Enquiry.

It is disgraceful on your part.

There is a finding, of which I have a copy here, that a contributory cause …

Why did you not say “contributory cause” in the first place?

Right, it is a contributory cause, but what has the hon. the Minister done about it? When I asked the hon. the Minister whether he was worried about the fact that a complaint could be lodged that two enormous tankers had parted their tows and that there should be a 34 minute delay in advising the most powerful salvage tug in the world, which was lying in Table Bay Harbour for that very purpose, he passed it off as nothing.

Is it our tug?

It is under permanent charter to you.

Of course it is not! It shows how stupid you are.

It is under permanent charter to the Department of Transport. Is the hon. the Minister trying to tell me that the Port Captain could not have advised the tug …

It is Safmarine’s tug.

It is under permanent charter to the Department of Transport. Does the hon. the Minister not know that? This is a very interesting matter. Is it or is it not under charter to the Department of Transport? I would like an answer.

I shall answer you when I feel like answering.

I have a horrible feeling that the hon. the Minister does not know this. I would like to know …

Do not be so stupid.

The crux of the matter is not who operates, owns or charters that vessel, but that the Port Captain for 34 minutes was so busy moving ships in his harbour, or getting ready to go home, something perfectly legitimate, because it is not his job to save vessels at sea, that he did not advise the Wolraad Woltemade, its owners or its operators for 34 minutes. Do I have to be a Cassandra and ask whether we have to have another disaster of a R5 million order before the hon. the Minister comes to his senses? What am I asking him to do? I asked him this question in the Other Place two years ago and he said that he would consider the matter or refer it to somebody. I am asking him to take the initiative, no more, no less. That is a reasonable request. He must not fob me off by saying that it is a matter for the Department of Transport or that he will speak to his alter ego who is apparently the Minister of Transport. Will he as the Railways Administration head take the initiative and at least investigate the feasibility of a South African National Coastguard? When the hon. the Minister says that he supplies services, that he is a business undertaking, he is not right. If that were a true proposition, it would be a strong argument. But the hon. the Minister should know better. There are parts of his undertaking which are not business orientated. Why does he run lighthouses? Why does the S.A. Railways Administration run lighthouses and radio beacons? What on earth for? Where is the profit? I know he gets paid. He is probably paid by the Department of Transport.

Are you in favour of it?

Of course! But you are not supplying a service for a profit in the ordinary sense of the word. Why can you not be paid by the Department of Transport for a proper National Coastguard?

Finally, I want to suggest that the Administration considers itself to be above the law. Two years ago I put a question in the Other Place which asked whether the Administration had taken heed of the finding of a Court of Marine Enquiry that the signal lights in the new basin were bad, in fact nonexistent, and that there had been a collision with a dredger and loss of life? No steps had been taken, two years afterwards. Does anybody in his department or he himself read the findings of courts of enquiry? Has he taken any note of the recommendation of the Romelia and Antipolis inquiry that there should be a set of regulations providing for the reception of tows in Table Bay Harbour?